Notices. Notice of final procedures

8,151 words·~37 min read·/register/2003/12/02/03-29986

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP04-17-000] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization November 24, 2003. Take notice that on November 14, 2003, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company (CEGT), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002-5231, filed in Docket No. CP04-17-000, a request pursuant to §§ 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.216) for authorization to abandon certain facilities and to continue to operate certain other facilities in Webster Parish in the State of Louisiana, under CEGT's blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos.

CP82-384-000 and CP82-384-001 pursuant to section 7(C) of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully described in the request. The request is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. CEGT proposes to abandon, by sale and transfer, certain above-ground facilities that are currently a part of various CEGT delivery point facilities in the State of Louisiana as described more fully in the request. CEGT further proposes to sell and transfer these facilities to CenterPoint Energy Arkla (Arkla), a distribution division of CenterPoint Energy, Incorporated, at the estimated net book value of $123,345.98. CEGT states that no services would be abandoned as a result of the proposed sale and transfer. The request states that Arkla would own and operate these facilities as part of its distribution system. CEGT avers that a review of its certificates, initiated in conjunction with the proposed abandonment, has raised the possibility that certain of CEGT's facilities may require certificate authorization. CEGT, therefore, also seeks Commission authorization for the continued operation of certain existing facilities known as Line FM-47 and the Sibley-Dubberly town border meter station in Webster Parish, Louisiana. Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to § 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act

(NGA)(18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. *See,* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lawrence O. Thomas, Director-Rates & Regulatory, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana 71151, or call

(318)429-2804. *Comment Date:* January 8, 2004. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E3-00417 Filed 12-01-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP04-64-000] Indicated Shippers, Complainant, v. Trunkline Gas Company, Respondent; Notice of Complaint Requesting Fast-Track Processing November 24, 2003. Take notice that on November 21, 2003, pursuant Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2003), the Indicated Shippers filed a Complaint Requesting Fast Track Processing against Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline). The Indicated Shippers allege that Trunkline has failed to comply with Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act as well as the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 154.1(b), 18 CFR 154.204, 18 CFR 284.7(c), by posting quality limitations through a long-term Critical Notice in lieu of proposing changes to its tariff through a filing with the Commission. The Indicated Shippers request that the Commission order Trunkline to cease and desist from its current practice of posting long-term OFOs to impose quality specifications. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. The answer to the complaint and all comments, interventions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The answer to the complaint, comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; *see* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* December 11, 2003. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E3-00418 Filed 12-01-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP04-65-000] Indicated Shippers, Complainant, v. ANR Pipeline Company, Respondent; Notice of Complaint Requesting Fast-Track Processing November 24, 2003. Take notice that on November 21, 2003, pursuant Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2003), the Indicated Shippers filed a Complaint Requesting Fast Track Processing against ANR Pipeline Company (ANR). The Indicated Shippers allege that ANR has failed to comply with Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act as well as the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 154.1(b), 18 CFR 154.204 and 18 CFR 284.7(c), by posting quality limitations through a long-term Operational Flow Order in lieu of proposing changes to its tariff through a filing with the Commission. The Indicated Shippers request that the Commission order ANR to cease and desist from its current practice of posting long-term OFOs to impose quality specifications. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. The answer to the complaint and all comments, interventions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at

(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. The answer to the complaint, comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; *see* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:* December 11, 2003. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E3-00419 Filed 12-01-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AC04-4-000, et al.] Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings November 20, 2003. The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification. 1. Trunkline Gas Company, LLC [Docket No. AC04-4-000] Take notice that on November 18, 2003, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to the accounting and reporting requirements set forth by the Commission in Order 631, journal entries and supporting information for any adjustments made that affect net income as a result of implementing the accounting rules contained in Order 631. *Comment Date:* December 9, 2003. 2. Sea Robin Pipeline Company [Docket No. AC04-5-000] Take notice that on November 18, 2003, Sea Robin Pipeline Company, submitted a compliance filing, pursuant to the accounting and reporting requirements set forth by the Commission in Order 631, journal entries and supporting information for any adjustments made that affect net income as a result of implementing the accounting rules contained in Order 631. *Comment Date:* December 9, 2003. 3. Atlantic City Electric Company and Atlantic Generation, LLC [Docket No. EC04-12-000] Take notice that, on November 14, 2003, Atlantic City Electric Company

(ACE)and Conectiv Atlantic Generation, LLC

(CAG)(collectively, the Applicants), tendered for filing a change to their October 31, 2003 filing in the above-captioned proceeding stating that, depending upon the outcome of analysis being conducted by their tax consultants, the price of the transfer will be at either book or appraised value. Applicants state that copies of the filing were served on the Delaware Public Service Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the District of Columbia Public Service Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. *Comment Date:* November 28, 2003. 4. KeySpan Corporation, KeySpan Generation, LLC, KeySpan-Port Jefferson Energy Center, LLC, KeySpan-Glenwood Energy Center, LLC, and KeySpan Energy Development Corporation [Docket No. EC04-24-000] Take notice that on November 17, 2003, pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, KeySpan Corporation, KeySpan Generation, LLC, KeySpan-Glenwood Energy Center, LLC, KeySpan-Port Jefferson Energy Center, LLC, and KeySpan Energy Development Corporation (collectively, Applicants) filed a joint application for approval of a corporate reorganization. Applicants state that the proposed reorganization will not change the ultimate ownership of the facilities. A copy of the application has been served on the New York Public Service Commission. The Applicants have requested waivers of the Commission's regulations so that the filing may become effective at the earliest possible date, but no later than as of the date the New York Public Service Commission approves the corporate reorganization. *Comment Date:* December 8, 2003. 5. Pacific Gas and Electric Company [Docket No. EL04-19-000] Take notice that on November 10, 2003, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted for filing a Petition for Declaratory Order requesting that the Commission extend the terms of its Order Granting in Part Petition For Declaratory Order issued March 29, 2000. *Comment Date:* December 1, 2003. 6. New York State Electric & Gas Corporation [Docket No. ER03-587-005] Take notice that on November 14, 2003, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) submitted for filing First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 32 a Borderline Agreement between NYSEG and Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation in compliance with the Commission's April 28, 2003 Order in Docket No. ER03-587-000. *Comment Date:* December 5, 2003. 7. California Independent System Operator Corporation [Docket Nos. ER03-1221-002] Take notice that on November 17, 2003, the California Independent System Operator Corporation

(ISO)submitted a filing to comply with the Order issued in Docket No. ER03-1221-000 on October 17, 2003, 105 FERC ¶ 61,074. The ISO states that the compliance filing has been served all on parties to this proceeding. *Comment Date:* December 8, 2003. 8. Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. [ Docket No. ER03-1373-001] Take notice that on November 14, 2003, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (Orange and Rockland), amended its September 23, 2003 filing in Docket No. ER03-1373-000 in order to file a Notice of Cancellation form that due to inadvertent administrative error had been omitted from Orange and Rockland's initial filing. Orange and Rockland states that a copy of this filing has been served by mail upon the New York Power Authority and the Public Power Association of New Jersey. *Comment Date:* December 5, 2003. 9. Worthington Generation L.L.C. [Docket No. ER04-45-001] Take notice that on November 14, 2003, Worthington Generation L.L.C. submitted for filing an amendment to their Notice of Cancellation filed on October 15, 2003. *Comment Date:* December 5, 2003. 10. Southern California Edison Company [Docket No. ER04-184-000] Take notice that on November 14, 2003, Southern California Edison Company

(SCE)tendered for filing an amended Interconnection Facilities Agreement (Amended IFA) between Pastoria Energy Facility, LLC (Pastoria) and SCE. SCE states that the Amended IFA specifies the terms and conditions pursuant to which SCE will interconnect Pastoria's 750 MW of generation to the California Independent System Operator Controlled Grid pursuant to SCE's Transmission Owner Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Original Volume No. 6. SCE further states that the Amended IFA will replace, in its entirety, the Interconnection Facilities Agreement between SCE and Pastoria accepted as Service Agreement No. 12 under SCE's Transmission Owner Tariff in Docket No. ER01-3114-000, as amended in Docket No. ER02-2554-000. SCE requests that the Amended IFA become effective one day after filing. SCE states that copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and Pastoria. *Comment Date:* December 5, 2003. 11. American Transmission Company LLC [Docket No. ER04-192-000] Take notice that on November 14, 2003, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a Generation-Transmission Interconnection Agreement between ATCLLC and Power Ventures Group, LLC. ATCLLC requests an effective date of October 15, 2002. *Comment Date:* December 5, 2003. 12. Commonwealth Edison Company [Docket No. ER04-193-000] Take notice that on November 14, 2003, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) amendments to Interconnection Agreements entered into between ComEd and Midwest Generation, LLC (Midwest). ComEd requests an effective date of August 12, 2003 and accordingly seeks waiver of the Commission's notice requirements. ComEd states that copies of the filing were served on Midwest and the Illinois Commerce Commission. *Comment Date:* December 5, 2003. 13. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. [Docket No. ER04-194-000] Take notice that on November 14, 2003, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act and § 35.13 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 35.13 (2002), submitted for filing revisions to Exhibit B (Interconnection Points) of the Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement under the Midwest ISO's Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No.1, between the City of Hart and the Midwest ISO. Midwest ISO states that a copy of this filing has been served on all parties. *Comment Date:* December 5, 2003. 14. Mirant Las Vegas, LLC, Duke Energy Moapa, LLC, Gen West, LLC, Las Vegas Cogeneration II, LLC, Reliant Energy Bighorn, LLC, and Nevada Power Company [Docket Nos. TX03-1-003, ER02-1741-003, and ER02-1742-003] Take notice that on November 10, 2003, Nevada Power Company and on November 12, 2003, Mirant Las Vegas, LLC; Reliant Energy Bighorn, LLC; Duke Energy Moapa, LLC; GenWest; Diamond Generating Corp.; and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, in its capacity as operating agent for the McCullough Substation filed informational responses to the Commission's September 12, 2003 Order in this proceeding. *Mirant Las Vegas, et al.* , 104 FERC ¶ 61,275 (2003). *Comment Date:* December 8, 2003. Standard Paragraph Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For assistance, call

(202)502-8222 or TTY,

(202)502-8659. Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; *see* 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Linda L. Mitry, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E3-00415 Filed 12-01-03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL94-16-003, et al.] Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings November 21, 2003. The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification. 1. Wisconsin Electric Power Company [Docket No. EL94-16-003] Take notice that on November 12, 2003 as amended on November 13, 2003, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's Order issued October 1, 2003, (105 FERC ¶ 61,002). WEPCO states that the purpose of the amended filing was to correct a minor error in the calculation of the refund to Oconto Power & Light Cooperative reflected in an earlier compliance filing dated November 12, 2003. The amended filing constitutes a complete and corrected filing in compliance with the October 1, 2003 Order. *Comment Date:* December 3, 2003. 2. California Independent System Operator Corporation [Docket No. EL04-24-000] Take notice that on November 14, 2003, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (California ISO) filed a Petition for Review of Arbitrator's Award, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207. The petition states that the California ISO is requesting review of the Final Order and Award issued on October 23, 2003, in American Arbitration Association Case No. 71 198 00711 00. The California ISO states that this filing has been served upon all parties to the arbitration, the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and the California Electricity Oversight Board. The petition is being served via email to the arbitrator. *Comment Date:* December 5, 2003. 3. Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, Central Maine Power Company, NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation, on Behalf of Its Affiliates: Boston Edison Company, Commonwealth Electric Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, Canal Electric Company, New England Power Company, Northeast Utilities Service Company, on Behalf of Its Operating Company Affiliates: The Connecticut Light and Power Company, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Holyoke Power and Electric Company, Holyoke Water Power Company, The United Illuminating Company, Vermont Electric Power Company, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation, and Green Mountain Power Corporation [Docket No. ER04-157-001] Take notice that on November 18, 2003, Bangor-Hydro Electric Company, Central Maine Power Company, Boston Edison Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, Canal Electric Company, Commonwealth Electric Company, New England Power Company, The Connecticut Light and Power Company, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Holyoke Power and Electric Company, Holyoke Water Power Company, The United Illuminating Company, Vermont Electric Power Company, Green Mountain Power Corporation, and Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (collectively, the “New England Transmission Owners”) filed an amendment to their November 4, 2003 filing in this proceeding. New England Transmission Owners state that the November 4, 2003 filing concerns a request by them for approval of a return on common equity component of the regional and local transmission rates under the Regional Transmission Organization for New England (RTO-NE) open access transmission tariff. The New England Transmission Owners state that they are serving a copy of the filing on the Governors and utility regulatory commissions of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. A copy of the filing is being served electronically on Participants in New England Power Pool (NEPOOL), and in addition, the filing has been electronically posted on the RTO-NE website ( *http://www.rto-ne.com/* ) under the heading “Legal Filings,” and those New England transmission customers (including customers under the local tariffs of the New England Transmission Owners) that are not Participants in NEPOOL have been provided notice of such posting. The New England Transmission Owners state that they will provide a hard copy of the amendment filing to any interested party upon request. *Comment Date:* December 9, 2003. 4. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. [Docket Nos. ER04-191-000 and ER02-1820-000] Take notice that on November 12, 2003, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) tendered for filing an amendment to it Open Access Transmission Tariff

(OATT)which is a retail transmission service agreement entitled “Economic Development Operating Agreement and Retail Transmission Service Agreement” designated as Attachment N to the OATT. Con Edison states that the proposed amendment would allow the County of Westchester Public Service Agency (COWPUSA) to receive retail delivery service of up to 10 mw of power through Con Edison's transmission and distribution facilities. COWPUSA will purchase the power from the New York Power Authority

(NYPA)for resale to its customers. Con Edison advises that the proposed service agreement with COWPUSA is intended to supersede an amendment to the 1987 Agreement submitted in a May 14, 2002 filing in Docket No. ER02-1820-000. Accordingly, Con Edison requests that it be permitted, pursuant to the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 35.15, to cancel the May 14, 2002 filing in Docket No. ER02-1820. Con Edison states that a copy of this filing has been served on COWPUSA, NYPA, and the New York Public Service Commission. *Comment Date:* December 3, 2003. 5. New England Power Pool [Docket Nos. ER04-195-000] Take notice that on November 17, 2003, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee submitted an informational filing to notify the Commission that as of November 15, 2003, NEPOOL, ISO New England Inc. and NRG Power Marketing Inc. (NRG Power), acting on behalf of itself and several affiliates, entered into a Restated Weekly Billing Agreement. The NEPOOL Participants Committee states that copies of these materials were served on the governors and electric utility regulatory agencies for the six New England states. In addition, all NEPOOL Participants Committee members have been furnished with an electronic copy of this filing. *Comment Date:* December 8, 2003. 6. Avista Corporation [Docket No. ER04-196-000] Take notice that on November 17, 2003, Avista Corporation (Avista), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an executed Long Term Service Agreement, Rate Schedule No. 304, under Avista(s FERC Electric Tariff First Revised Volume No. 9, with NorthWestern Energy, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Portland General Electric Company, PacifiCorp, and PPL Montana, LLC, whereby Avista will provide the energy to operate pumps at the Nichols Pumping Station for the Colstrip Project. Avista states that included with this filing are Certificates of Concurrence for each party to the Agreement in the event a Party elects to make exchanges. Avista requests waiver of the prior notice requirement and requests that Rate Schedule No. 304 be accepted for filing effective November 1, 2003. *Comment Date:* December 8, 2003. 7. Avista Corporation [Docket No. ER04-196-000] Take notice that on November 17, 2003, Avista Corporation (Avista), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an executed Long Term Service Agreement, Rate Schedule No. 304, under Avista(s FERC Electric Tariff First Revised Volume No. 9, with NorthWestern Energy, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Portland General Electric Company, PacifiCorp, and PPL Montana, LLC, whereby Avista will provide the energy to operate pumps at the Nichols Pumping Station for the Colstrip Project. Avista states that included with this filing are Certificates of Concurrence for each party to the Agreement in the event a Party elects to make exchanges. Avista requests waiver of the prior notice requirement and requests that Rate Schedule No. 304 be accepted for filing effective November 1, 2003. *Comment Date:* December 8, 2003. 8. Forest Energy Partners, LLC [Docket No. ER04-197-000] Take notice that on November 17, 2003, Forest Energy Partners, LLC (Forest) petitioned the Commission for an order:

(1)Accepting Forest's proposed FERC rate schedule for market-based rates;

(2)granting waiver of certain requirements under Subparts B and C of Part 35 of the regulations;

(3)granting the blanket approvals normally accorded sellers permitted to sell at market-based rates; and

(4)granting waiver of the 60-day notice period. *Comment Date:* December 8, 2003. 9. Ameren Services Company [Docket No. ER04-198-000] Take notice that on November 18, 2003, Ameren Services Company

(ASC)tendered for filing a Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service and a Network Operating Agreement between ASC and Central Illinois Light Company, d/b/a AmerenCILCO (Customer). ASC asserts that the purpose of the Agreement is to permit ASC to provide transmission service to the Customer pursuant to Ameren's Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Comment Date:* December 9, 2003. 10. Portland General Electric Company [Docket No. ER04-199-000] Take notice that on November 17, 2003, Portland General Electric Company (Portland) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a proposed revision to Portland's market-based rate tariff, imposing a cost-based cap that will apply to new sales transactions entered into and delivered by Portland during the specified twelve-month period. Portland requests that the Commission make the amended tariff sheets effective as of the day following the date the Offer of Settlement and the Agreement and Stipulation (collectively, the “Settlement”), filed by Portland and the other signing parties in Docket No. EL02-114, are approved by the Commission. Portland states that in the event that the Commission does not approve the Settlement or that it does not become effective pursuant to its terms, this amendment will also not become effective and will be null and void. *Comment Date:* December 8, 2003. 11. American Electric Power Service Corporation [Docket No. ER04-200-000] Take notice that on November 18, 2003, the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC) tendered for filing pursuant to § 35.15 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Section 35.15, a Notice of Termination of an executed Interconnection and Operation Agreement between Kentucky Power Company and Kentucky Mountain Power, LLC. designated as Service Agreement No. 312 under American Electric Power Operating Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff. AEP requests an effective date of January 16, 2004. AEPSC states that a copy of the filing was served upon Kentucky Mountain Power, L.L.C. and the Kentucky Public Service Commission. *Comment Date:* December 9, 2003. 12. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. [Docket Nos. ER04-202-000] Take notice that on November 18, 2003, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

(SPP)tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement No. 890 between SPP and Kansas Municipal Energy Agency. SPP states that it has served a copy of this filing to Kansas Municipal Energy Agency. *Comment Date:* December 9, 2003. 13. Kentucky Utilities Company [Docket No. ER04-203-000] Take notice that on November 18, 2003, Kentucky Utilities Company

(KU)pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 24

(2000)and § 35.11 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 35.11 (2003), filed an Amendment to the Contract for Electric Service by and between Kentucky Utilities Company and the City of Providence; KU requested waiver of the Commission's regulations to permit it to establish an effective date of November 18, 2003 for the Amendment. *Comment Date:* December 9, 2003. 14. Xcel Energy Inc. and NRG Energy, Inc. and Its Public Utility Subsidiaries [Docket No. ES03-59-002] Take notice that on November 18, 2003, NRG Energy, Inc.

(NRG)filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an amendment to the Section 204 authority granted to NRG in this proceeding. The filing requests that the Commission authorize NRG to issue up to $2.715 billion in debt as part of its proposed refinancing package, which would represent an increase of $500 million over the $2.215 billion the Commission approved in its October 22, 2003 Letter Order. *See* NRG Energy, Inc., 105 FERC ¶ 62,037 (2003). *Comment Date:* December 9, 2003. 15. Inland Power & Light Company [Docket No. ES04-5-000] Take notice that on November 14, 2003, the Inland Power & Light Company (Inland) submitted an application pursuant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act seeking authorization to:

(1)Issue long-term debt in an amount not to exceed $20 million; and

(2)enter into a $10 million unsecured line-of-credit. Inland states that borrowings would be pursuant to agreements with the National Rural Cooperative Financing Corporation. Inland also requests a waiver from the Commission's competitive bidding and negotiated placement requirements at 18 CFR 34.2. *Comment Date:* December 11, 2003. 16. Kandiyohi Power Cooperative [Docket No. ES04-6-000] Take notice that on November 14, 2003, the Kandiyohi Power Cooperative (Kandiyohi) submitted an application pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act seeking authorization to make long-term borrowings in an amount up to $2.5 million with the National Rural Cooperative Finance Corporation. Kandiyohi also requests a waiver from the Commission's competitive bidding and negotiated placement requirements at 18 CFR 34.2. *Comment Date:* December 5, 2003. Standard Paragraph Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “FERRIS” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For assistance, call

(202)502-8222 or TTY,

(b)provides: At two 5-year intervals after the effective date of the extension to existing customers, Western shall create a project-specific resource pool increment of up to * * * 1 percent of the long-term marketable resource under contract at the time. The size of the additional resource pool increment shall be determined by Western based on consideration of the actual fair-share needs of eligible new customers and other appropriate purposes. Western held public information and comment forums on April 8-10, 2003, to accept oral and written comments on the proposed procedures and call for applications. The formal comment period ended June 2, 2003. The Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures in this **Federal Register** notice explain in detail how Western intends to implement Subpart C-Power Marketing Initiative of the Energy Planning and Management Program Final Rule in the P-SMBP—ED. Response to Comments Regarding Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures I. Comments and Responses *Comment:* Western received many comments supporting the general eligibility and allocation criteria, indicating that Western properly scoped the best use of the resource pool, and that allocations should be made to new preference entities and new Native American tribes. *Response:* Western appreciates the response with respect to the proposed general eligibility and allocation criteria, proposed use of the resource pool, and intent to make allocations available to new preference entities and new Native American tribes. *Comment:* Western received many comments that it should not allocate power for other appropriate purposes. Western also received a comment that any renewable resource program should be supported by Western's customers and that Western should not mandate a specific program for other appropriate purposes. One comment was specifically against allocating power to support renewable energy resources. Western received a comment that the preference entities purchasing Pick-Sloan power are in the best position to determine the best use of Pick-Sloan power in combination with their supplemental power supplier. Western received one comment that the consumer-owned electric utilities are best able to determine the needs and economics of developing renewable energy resources. *Response:* Western believes renewable resources can best be supported by allowing existing customers to retain the power that may be available after allocating to new customers. This will allow all preference entities across the marketing area to leverage this power and use existing allocations to support renewable resources. Several customers are already demonstrating support of renewable resources through their investments in various wind projects across the P-SMBP—ED. *Comment:* Western received many comments that all new customers should be subject to the same contractual provisions as existing Western customers. Specifically, all contracts should contain the provision which prohibits the resale of Federal power. Western also received comments that all new customers should be subject to future withdrawal provisions in the same manner as existing customers. *Response:* Western agrees with this comment. All contracts with new customers will contain Western's existing general contract principles and will be subject to future resource pool withdrawals. *Comment:* Western received many comments suggesting that power allocations should not be used for developing “cash registers” to generate profits, which may or may not flow back to retail customers in the region. *Response:* Western agrees with this comment. It is contrary to Western's policy and undermines Reclamation Law to allow a customer to resell power at a profit to third parties. *Comment:* Western received many comments that the same procedures should be followed that were used in the Post-2000 Resource Pool for new Native American tribes. *Response:* Western agrees with this comment. Western intends to follow the framework of Post-2000 Resource Pool procedures for new Native American tribes as further clarified in this **Federal Register** notice. *Comment:* Western received many comments that the resource pool should not be used for existing beneficiaries, directly or indirectly. Western also received many comments that all Federal power benefits should be considered when determining new allocations. *Response:* The Proposed Post-2005 Allocation Procedures published in the **Federal Register** at 68 FR 10233 provide, in part, that “Qualified applicants must not be currently receiving benefits, directly or indirectly, from a current P-SMBP—ED firm power allocation.” Western agrees with this comment that all Federal benefits received by an entity in the Upper Great Plains Region

(UGPR)should be considered when making new allocations. The intent of the new resource pool was to allocate to new customers who are not currently receiving the benefit of Federal power unless otherwise provided for in the general eligibility criteria listed below. In the past, other regions of Western have allowed preference entities to receive power from more than one project when marketing areas overlap. Given the new customer load that exists in portions of the UGPR service territory, and consistent with the intent of the Program, the UGPR is not willing to establish this practice. An existing customer will not be eligible to receive power from a resource pool unless Western provides otherwise on a project-specific basis. In these final procedures, Western will change the general eligibility criteria to state: “Qualified applicants must not be currently receiving benefits, directly or indirectly, from a current P-SMBP—ED allocation or other firm Federal power commitment. Qualified Native American applicants, who did not receive an allocation from the Post-2000 Resource Pool, are not subject to this requirement.” *Comment:* Western received comment that allocations should be used for end users. Western also received one comment suggesting that full requirements should be offered to new preference entities, if available. *Response:* Western plans to make allocations from the up to 1 percent resource pool to qualified applicants based upon the Post-1985 Marketing Plan Criteria and the Program Criteria, which do not allow for Western to allocate to customers for full requirements. *Comment:* Western received comments that anything unallocated should go back to the existing customers following the contract provisions on a pro rata share. *Response:* Western agrees with this comment. If power is reserved for new customers but not allocated, or resources are offered but not placed under contract, this power will be offered on a pro rata basis to customers that contributed to the resource pool by applying the extension formula in the contract. In these final procedures, Western will clarify the general allocation criteria to state: “The resource pool will be dissolved subsequent to the closing date of the last qualified applicant to execute their respective firm power contract. Firm power not under contract will be used in accordance with the Program.” *Comment:* Western received a comment that did not support the up to 1 percent withdrawal. *Response:* Western will withdraw up to 1 percent as determined in Subpart C, Power Marketing Initiative, 10 CFR 905.32(e)(1). *Comment:* Western received a comment supporting increasing allocations awarded to the Lower Brule Sioux and Flandreau Santee Sioux tribes in the Post-2000 Resource Pool Allocation Process due to omissions in applications for power. *Response:* If Western were to entertain requests for increases or adjustments to allocations, all customers would need to be afforded the opportunity to submit new applications. It is likely Western would receive significant modification requests. These would be extremely difficult to substantiate and likely not be supportable with the limited amount of power available from this resource pool. Therefore, Western will not support additional allocations for the Lower Brule Sioux and Flandreau Santee Sioux tribes. *Comment:* Western received one comment that existing statutory obligations were not followed and that Western violated its trust responsibilities and refused to consider securing additional power for the Lower Brule Sioux and Flandreau Santee Sioux tribes. *Response:* Under its statutory obligations, Western will allocate power to new customers that meet preference status. Western has discretion as defined by Reclamation Law to determine the eligibility of Indian tribes and other entities entitled to preference in allocating Federal power. *Comment:* Western received one comment that suggests Western has no intention to follow criteria established in the sale of Federal hydropower. *Response:* Within its statutory guidelines, Western has wide discretion as to whom and on what terms it will contract for the sale of Federal power. Power must be sold to preference entities in such a manner as to encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. Western will market this resource pool consistent with Reclamation Law and the procedures outlined in this **Federal Register** notice. *Comment:* Western received one comment that suggested it is unlawful to adjust allocation guidelines for discrimination purposes. The statement “Native American tribes are not subject to this requirement” is discriminatory. *Response:* Western will make Federal power available to preference entities that are public bodies and nonprofit entities entitled to priority in the purchase of Federal power under Reclamation Law. The Program changed Western's policy such that the Program allowed Western to allocate to Native American tribes. Western's change in policy is in keeping with the spirit of DOE's Indian policy and recognizes the special and unique relationship between the United States and the tribal governments. *Comment:* Western received a comment that to maximize the political benefits they would like to see as many new retail customers as possible. *Response:* It is not Western's intent to try to gain political benefits with this resource pool. It is Western's policy to promote widespread use of its hydropower resources. Western will market hydroelectric power on a wholesale basis to preference entities who qualify under the Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Process. Final Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures I. Amount of Pool Resources Western will allocate up to 1 percent (approximately 20 megawatts) of the P-SMBP—ED long-term firm hydroelectric resource available as of January 1, 2006, as firm power to eligible new preference customers. Firm power means capacity and associated energy allocated by Western and subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Western electric service contract. II. General Eligibility Criteria Western will apply the following general eligibility criteria to applicants seeking an allocation of firm power under the Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures. A. All qualified applicants must be preference entities as defined by section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 43 U.S.C. 485h(c), as amended and supplemented. B. All qualified applicants must be located within the currently established P-SMBP—ED marketing area. C. All qualified applicants must not be currently receiving benefits, directly or indirectly, from a current P-SMBP—ED allocation or other firm Federal power commitment. Qualified Native American applicants, who did not receive an allocation from the Post-2000 Resource Pool, are not subject to this requirement. D. Qualified utility and non-utility applicants must be able to use the firm power directly or be able to sell it directly to retail customers. E. Qualified utility applicants that desire to purchase power from Western for resale to consumers, including cooperatives, municipalities, public utility districts, and public power districts must have met utility status by January 1, 2003. Utility status means the entity has responsibility to meet load growth, has a distribution system, and is ready, willing, and able to purchase Federal power from Western on a wholesale basis. F. Qualified Native American applicants must be a Native American tribe as defined in the Indian Self Determination Act of 1975, 25 U.S.C. 450b, as amended. III. General Allocation Criteria Western will apply the following general allocation criteria to applicants seeking an allocation of firm power under the Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures. A. Allocations of firm power will be made in amounts as determined solely by Western in exercising its discretion under Reclamation Law. B. An allottee will have the right to purchase such firm power only upon executing an electric service contract between Western and the allottee, and satisfying all conditions in that contract. C. Firm power allocated under these procedures will be available only to new preference customers in the existing P-SMBP—ED marketing area. The marketing area of the P-SMBP—ED is Montana east of the Continental Divide, all of North Dakota and South Dakota, Nebraska east of the 101 ° meridian, Iowa west of the 94 1/2 ° meridian, and Minnesota west of a line on the 94 1/2 ° meridian from the southern boundary of the state to the 46° parallel and then northwesterly to the northern boundary of the state at the 96 1/2 ° meridian. D. Allocations made to Native American tribes will be based on the actual load experienced in calendar year 2002. Western has the right to use estimated load values for calendar year 2002 should actual load data not be available. Western will adjust inconsistent estimates during the allocation process. E. Allocations made to qualified utility and non-utility applicants will be based on actual loads in calendar year 2002. Western will apply the Post-1985 Marketing Plan and the Program criteria to these loads. Western will carry forward key principles and criteria established in the Post-2000 Resource Pool, except as modified here. F. Energy provided with firm power will be based upon the customer's monthly system load pattern. G. Any electric service contract offered to a new customer will be executed by the customer within 6 months of a contract offer by Western, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Western. H. The resource pool will be dissolved subsequent to the closing date of the last qualified applicant to execute their respective firm power contract. Firm power not under contract will be used in accordance with the Program. I. The minimum allocation will be 100 kilowatts (kW). J. The maximum allocation for qualified utility and non-utility applicants will be 5,000 kW. K. Contract rates of delivery will be subject to adjustment in the future as provided for in the Program. L. If unanticipated obstacles arise to delivering hydropower benefits to Native American tribes, Western retains the right to provide the economic benefits of its resources directly to these tribes. IV. General Contract Principles Western will apply the following general contract principles to all applicants receiving an allocation of firm power under the Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures. A. Western will reserve the right to reduce a customer's summer season contract rate of delivery by up to 5 percent for new project pumping requirements, by giving a minimum of 5 years' written notice in advance of such action. B. Western, at its discretion and sole determination, reserves the right to adjust the contract rate of delivery on 5 years' written notice in response to changes in hydrology and river operations. Any such adjustments will only take place after a public process by Western. C. Each allottee is ultimately responsible for obtaining its own third-party delivery arrangements, if necessary. Western may assist allottees in obtaining third-party transmission arrangements for delivering firm power allocated under these procedures to new customers. D. Contracts entered into under the Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures provide for Western to furnish firm electric service effective from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2020. E. Contracts entered into as a result of these procedures will incorporate Western's standard provisions for power sales contracts, integrated resource planning and the general power contract provisions. F. Contracts entered into will include provisions for a reduction of up to 1 percent of the current contracted rate of delivery effective January 1, 2011, in accordance with the Program. V. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking about rates or services for public property. VI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Western determined this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure. VII. Determination Under Executive Order 12866 DOE has determined this is not a significant regulatory action because it does not meet the criteria of Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; so, this notice requires no clearance by the Office of Management and Budget. Dated: November 17, 2003. Michael S. Hacskaylo, Administrator. [FR Doc. 03-29986 Filed 12-1-03; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 20

Traces to 20 documents

CFR