I believe anyone who goes out and invests his money as you have, should be given priority to see that the investment is returned, and the investment is protected.

Now tell me this, in conclusion, and I am all through: Could you briefly state what this committee, in your opinion, ought to recommend to the Federal Power Commission, any action that we ought to recommend to take care of the immediate situation that is facing us in Detroit? What would be your recommendation to this committee, Mr. Fournier?

Mr. FOURNIER. That is a very large order, sir. I am wondering whether you would permit me to give it a little more thought than I have. Perhaps I have been confining my attention very closely to what we feel has been back of this problem.

Mr. SADOWSKI. I would like to get your views on it. We have another witness, I understand, to come right away, and then if you get some ideas please present them.

Mr. FOURNIER. I do not know whether I will get an idea. You see, unfortunately, sometimes it is very much more difficult to get out of a problem once it has been allowed to go as far as this one, than it was to get there. I am very much afraid that is where we are right now, Congressman.

Mr. SADOWSKI. The people of Michigan will expect this committee to find some solution.

Of course, our authority is restricted to the Federal Power Commission. There is not much that we can do with the State commission in Michigan. I do not know whether the State commission in Michigan can do much about this situation.

But we do have certain authority and certain responsibilities to make laws regulations and recommendations to the Federal Power Commission, which is an agency of the Congress and was created by this committee.

I have asked this question of the other witnesses who have appeared here. I am asking the same question of you. I would like to see if it is possible to get from these various people concerned some sort of a program that we could work on.

Mr. FOURNIER. I shall give it thought.

May I ask your permission to supplement the testimony I have given with the exhibits that I referred to, particularly these load curves? I would like also to include the decision of the Federal Power Commission, particulary the dissenting decisions, in this pipe line case, which is G-669.

I would like to have you read Commissioner Olds' opinion, giving you his views as to why it was not in the public interest to grant that certificate, Congressman.

Mr. SADOWSKI. I can assure you that I will read all the exhibits that you have submitted here today, and I move

Mr. CROSSER. I move it be allowed to go in to the record.

Mr. HALE. Without objection, the documents will be made part of the record.

(The chart and other documents are to be incorporated in the record at this point.)

IN THE MATTER OF MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY

Appearances

For Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Company: Donald R. Richberg, Esq., Park Chamberlain, Esq.; Wheat, May, Shannon & St. Clair, by Carl I. Wheat, Esq., Robert E. May, Esq., Charles V. Shannon, Esq.

For Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company: Ira Lloyd Letts, General Counsel;

John S. L. Yost, Esq., D. H. Culton, Esq., Edward H. Lange, Esq.

For Michigan Gas Storage Company and Consumers Power Company: Winthrop, Stimpson, Putnam and Roberts, by Arthur E. Palmer, Jr., Esq., Walter D. Kline, Esq., William R. Roberts, Esq.

For Michigan Public Service Commission: William J. McBrearty, Chairman; James W. Williams, Assistant Attorney General; Schuyler L. Marshall, Esq., Carl Wirth, Esq.

For Wisconsin Public Service Commission: Lynn H. Ashley, Chairman; Frederick G. Hemmery, H. J. O'Leary.

For Kansas Corporation Commission: L. E. Clevenger, General Counsel; Kenneth W. Wagner, Esq.

For Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri: John P. Randolph; General Counsel; W. S. Hall, Assistant Counsel.

For Corporation Commission of Oklahoma: James G. Welch, General Counsel; Floyd Green, Esq.

For Illinois Commerce Commission: Warren Henry, Esq., Daniel A. Roberts. For City of Detroit, Michigan: William E. Dowling, Corporation Counsel; James H. Lee, Assistant Corporation Counsel.

For City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Charles W. Babcock, First Assistant City Attorney.

For City of Dearborn, Michigan: Dale H. Fillmore, Corporation Counsel.
For City of West Allis: John C. Doerfer, Esq., Arnold Klentz, Esq.

For Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, and Texoma Natural Gas Company: J. J. Hedrick, General Counsel; D. M. Culton, Esq., W. T. Spies, Esq.

For Northern Natural Gas Company: Lawrence I. Shaw, Esq., Robert C. Foulston, Esq., E. M. Peterson, Esq., John F. Eberhart, Esq.

For Cities Service Gas Company: Glenn W. Clark, General Counsel.
For Indiana Gas & Water Company, Inc.: Edmond W. Hebel, Esq.

For Central Indiana Gas Company: Van Atta, Batten & Harker, Carl E. Hartley, Esq.

For Wisconsin Public Service Corporation: Frederick Sammond, Esq., R. W. Peterson, Esq.

For United Mine Workers of America: Welly K. Hopkins, Esq., Tom J. McGrath, Esq.

For National Coal Association: George D. Horning, Esq., Tom J. McGrath, Esq., James W. Haley, Esq.

For Lake Michigan Docks Association, Wisconsin-Upper Michigan Fuel Dealers Association, Solid Fuel Institute of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Coal Bureau, Inc.: Philip H. Porter, Esq.

For Western Railroads: Amos M. Matthews, Esq.

For Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and other Eastern Railroads: Roy S. Kern, Esq. For Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Switchmen's Union of North America: Tom J. McGrath, Esq.

For Associated Coke Plant Employees et al.: Padway & Goldberg, by A. G. Goldberg, Esq., James A. Heding, Esq.

For Winding Gulf Operators Association: Charles E. Mahan, Esq., S. C. Higgins, Jr., Esq.

For Central Illinois District Coal Operators Committee, Etc.: A. J. Christiansen, Esq., Charles W. Stadell, Esq.

For District No. 12 United Mine Workers of America: Robert H. Allison, Esq. For Pocahontas Operators Association: Joseph M. Crockett, Esq.

For Federal Power Commission: Charles E. McGee, Assistant General Counsel, W. Russell Gorman, Esq.. William L. Brunner, Esq.

BY THE COMMISSION:

On September 24, 1945, Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Company ("Applicant" or “Michigan-Wisconsin"), filed an application, as amended on March 13,2 and July 22, 1946, pursuant to Section 7 (c) of the Natural Gas Act, as amended, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction, leasing, acquisition, and operation of certain facilities, hereinafter described, for the transportation and sale of natural gas in interstate commerce.

By order of the Commission dated December 5, 1945, the proceeding upon this application was consolidated, for the purpose of hearing, with other certificate proceedings at Docket Nos. G-231, and G-651, (Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, and Texoma Natural Gas Company), and Docket No. G-664 (Chicago District Pipeline Company).

Hearings were held in Washington, D. C., on January 8 and 9, 1946, during the course of which opening statements were made before the Commission by the several applicants with respect to the issues presented. Subsequently, hearings were held in Chicago, Illinois, commencing on January 14, 1946, on the merits of the applications, other than that of Michigan-Wisconsin, at Docket No. G-669, which was thereafter segregated from the consolidated proceedings.

On May 10, 1946, orders were adopted granting certificates to Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America and Texoma Natural Gas Company (Docket No. G-651), and Chicago District Pipeline Company (Docket No. G-664), authoriz

1 American Light & Traction Company, parent of Michigan-Wisconsin, had previously, on February 19, 1945, filed an application (Docket G-624) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and operation of a natural-gas transmission pipe line extending from a point in the Hugoton Gas Field near Guymon, Oklahoma, to points near Toledo, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan, and a pipe line from Detroit to the Austin Storage Fields, near Big Rapids, Michigan.

On April 2, 1945, American Light & Traction Company filed an application (Docket G-631) for a certificate authorizing construction of a project similar to that now proposed by Michigan-Wisconsin for serving communities in Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Subsequent to the filing of the instant application by its subsidiary, Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Company, the American Light & Traction Company, by order of October 17, 1945, was permitted to withdraw the two applications mentioned above.

2 The first amendment, among other things, amended the list of communities proposed to be served by certain eliminations in Iowa and certain additions in Wisconsin. It also changed the route and design of the pipe lines extending northeasterly from Wisconsin Junction to provide capacity necessary to serve the increased number of communities in Wisconsin.

3 The second amendment, among other things, further revised the list of communities proposed to be served. It also provided for changes in the route and design of the main transmission pipe line, and proposed changes in the rates and charges at which gas would be sold to Michigan Consolidated Gas Company during the interim period of operation prior to January 1, 1952, and proposes to increase the rate at which gas would be offered for sale on an interruptible basis from 12 to 14 cents per Mcf.

ing them to increase the capacity of their facilities to supply additional gas to communities then served in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, and to serve additional communities in Iowa and Illinois. On April 15, 1946, pursuant to the requests of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America and Texoma Natural Gas Company, the Commission dismissed the joint application of said companies for a certificate of public convenience and necessity with respect to authorizing the rendition of service to communities in Wisconsin.

Prior to the commencement of hearings upon the merits of the application of Michigan-Wisconsin (Docket No. G-669), but subsequent to its intervention therein, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company ("Panhandle") advanced the contention that the Commission was without authority to grant the application of Michigan-Wisconsin and together with other interveners formally moved to dismiss such application without a hearing on the merits.

Argument on the several motions was heard by the Commission in Detroit, Michigan, on April 15, 1946. On the following day, the Commission announced its decision to take the motions under advisement and directed that the taking of evidence on the application of Michigan-Wisconsin should proceed. These hearings upon the merits commenced on April 16, 1946, and concluded on May 3, 1946, when an adjournment was taken.

On March 21, 1946, Panhandle filed with the Commission an application at Docket No. G-706 for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and operation of certain proposed natural-gas pipe-line facilities, designated in the application as Groups "A" and "B", designed to increase the delivery capacity of Panhandle's system to serve existing customers by 10,000 Mcf. per day and 80,000 Mcf. per day, respectively.

Hearings were held at Docket No. G-706 insofar as Group "A" facilities were concerned and a certificate therefor was issued on June 4, 1946. However, upon consideration of the application filed March 21, 1946, and the request of Panhandle for consolidation, the Commission found it appropriate to consolidate Panhandle's application relating to its Group "B" facilities with the proceeding in relation to the application of Michigan-Wisconsin and by its order of April 30, 1946, directed that the proceedings be consolidated for the purpose of hearing. Affirmative evidence of Panhandle was received on May 27-29, 1946.

On July 1, 1946, Michigan Gas Storage Company filed its application at Docket No. G-731, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, authorizing the construction, acquisition, and operation of certain natural-gas transmission pipe-line and gas-storage facilities. Upon the intervention and request of Michigan-Wisconsin the Commission, by order of July 19, 1946, directed the consolidation of such matter with the proceedings at Docket Nos. G-669 and G-706, for the purpose of hearing.

Public hearings in the consolidated proceedings were resumed at Washington, D. C., on August 6, 1946, and were continued through November 13, 1946, when the taking of evidence was concluded. Thereafter, oral argument upon the aplication in Docket No. G-669 was heard by the Commission, commencing on November 20, and concluding on November 23, 1946. Michigan-Wisconsin, Panhandle, and various other interveners filed written statements or briefs in support of their oral argument. In addition, Panhandle filed a memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss the application of Michigan-Wisconsin.

Among the participants and interveners actively represented in the proceedings were the Public Service Commissions of Michigan and Wisconsin, the State Corporation Commission of Kansas, the City of Detroit, and Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company. Other state and city interveners were the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, Public Service Commission of Missouri, Illinois Commerce Commission, and the City of Dearborn, Michigan; in addition, there were also other participants and interveners, including several natural-gas companies, local distribution companies, and numerous associations representing coal, railroad and labor interests, as shown below.

This filing was approximately a year subsequent to the filing by American Light & Traction Company of its original application in Docket No. G-624.

Public Service Commission of Indiana; City of Milwaukee; Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Northern Natural Gas Company; Cities Service Gas Company; Consumers Power Corporation; Wisconsin Public Service Corporation: Central Indiana Gas Company; Indiana Gas & Water Company, Inc.; Battle Creek Gas Company; Natural Utilities Company of Michigan; National Coal Association; Wisconsin-Upper Michigan Fuel Dealers Association; Solid Fuel Institute of Milwaukee County: Central Illinois Coal Operators Committee; Illinois Coal Traffic Bureau; Middle States Fuels, Incorporated; Northern Illinois Coal Trade Association; Coal Trade Association of Indiana (intervention subsequently withdrawn); Pocahontas Operators Association; Winding Gulf Operators' Association; Western Railroads; thirty-three individual railroad companies; Lake Michigan Docks Association; United Mine Workers of America; Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; Switchmen's Union of North America; Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Associated Coke Plant Employ

JURISDICTION

Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Company will be a natural-gas company within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act, as amended, upon completion of the construction of the proposed facilities and the operation of such facilities for the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce and the sale of gas in interstate commerce for resale.

The construction and operation of the facilities proposed to be constructed by the Applicant, and the operation of facilities of others to be leased by Applicant, all for the purposes of such transportation and sale for ultimate public consumption, are subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission and the requirements of subsections (c) and (e) of Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, as amended.

PROPOSED PROJECT

Michigan-Wisconsin proposes the construction of a 26-inch pipeline from a point in Hansford County, Texas, and extending for 810 miles through the States of Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa and Illinois, to a point near Millbrook, Illinois, referred to as Wisconsin Junction. From this point a 22-inch pipeline will extend for 259 miles in an easterly and northeasterly direction through the States of Indiana and Michigan to the terminus of the main transmission line at the Austin Storage Field, near Big Rapids, Michigan.

From Wisconsin Junction a 22-inch pipeline will be constructed in a northerly direction for 101 miles to a point near Milwaukee, Wisconsin, referred to as Milwaukee Junction. From the latter point an 18-inch pipeline will extend for 11 miles to the Milwaukee area, and a 14-inch pipeline will extend for 59 miles to a point near Appleton. Branches from the 14-inch line will extend to Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Oshkosh, Manitowoc, Two Rivers, Appleton, and Green Bay. A 12-inch branch line will extend from the 22-inch line to Racine, and a 10-inch line to Madison. The latter will have laterals extending to Janesville, Beloit and Stoughton, Wisconsin. The branch lines serving Wisconsin will total 422 miles of pipe, ranging in diameter from 22-inch to 41⁄2-inch.

Lateral lines will extend from the main 26-inch line to Maryville, Missouri, and to Mt. Pleasant, Burlington, Fort Madison, and Keokuk, Iowa. These branch lines will total 93 miles of pipe ranging in diameter from 6%-inch to 2%-inch. Initially Applicant will construct a compressor station of 7,800 horsepower in Hansford County, Texas, to be located at the point of commencement of the main transmission pipe line, and main line compressor station No. 8 of 7,800 powerhorse to be located near Mt. Pleasant, Iowa.

The facilities to which reference has been made comprise the "initial construction" necessary to the beginning of transmission and sales operation.

During the first four years of operation Michigan-Wisconsin proposes to con struct additional facilities, primarily compressor stations, to increase the delivery and sales capacity of the line. It is intended that the main pipeline to the Austin Storage Field, when fully powered, will have a total of 13 compressor stations aggregating 130,500 installed horsepower.

In addition to the facilities it proposes to construct, Applicant proposes also to operate under lease facilities, both presently constructed and to be constructed, owned by others. Michigan Consolidated Gas Company ("Michigan Consolidated"), an affiliate of Michigan-Wisconsin, now owns facilities and rights in the Austin and Reed City Storage Fields in Michigan which are to be used for the storage of natural gas. Pursuant to a contract of December 4, 1945, between these parties, Applicant proposes as a part of its project to lease and operate these fields for gas storage purposes, together with certain transmission pipelines and metering stations now owned by Michigan Consolidated. Michigan-Wisconsin seeks approval of such lease arrangement and requests a certificate authorizing the operation of these facilities. Approval is also sought for the acquisition of such facilities on or about December 31, 1951.

In addition to the facilities now in service in the proposed storage fields, Michigan Consolidated proposes to construct other facilities, including additional wells and field lines in the Austin and Reed City Fields necessary to the contemplated storage operations. These facilities are also to be leased and operated by Apees; International Chemical Workers Union Local No. 152; Coal Yard Employees Union Local No. 239; Coal & Ice Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 257, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Wisconsin Driver's Conference; International Association of Machinists Lodge No. 66: Firemen and Oilers Local No. 125; Electrical Workers' Union Local No. 494; Operating Engineers' Union Local No. 311: Painters' Consolidated Local Union No. 781; Boilermakers' and Helpers Union Local No. 107; United Mine Workers of America, District No. 12.