Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-02-07 · Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), DOE · Notices

Notices. Notice; request for comments (BPA File No

21,434 words·~97 min read·/register/2008/02/07/08-529

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

BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration Proposed Methodology for Determining the Average System Cost of Resources for Electric Utilities Participating in the Residential Exchange Program Established by Section 5(c) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), DOE. ACTION: Notice; request for comments (BPA File No.: ASCM-08). SUMMARY: Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA)proposes a revised methodology for determining the average system cost
(ASC)of resources for regional electric utilities that participate in the Residential Exchange Program
(REP)authorized by section 5(c) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act). The ASC methodology is used in the determination of monetary benefits paid by BPA to utilities participating in the REP. The Northwest Power Act authorizes the BPA Administrator to determine utilities' ASCs based on a methodology developed by BPA in consultation with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, BPA customers and state regulatory agencies in the Pacific Northwest. The existing methodology was adopted by BPA and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) in 1984 (1984 ASC Methodology). On August 1, 2007, the Administrator initiated a series of public meetings in which informal comment was taken on 17 specific issues pertaining to the 1984 ASC Methodology. Based in part on public comment, the methodology proposed by BPA in this notice redefines the types of capital and expense items includable in ASC, establishes new data sources from which ASCs are to be derived, and changes the nature and timing of BPA's procedures for review of ASC filings by utilities participating in the REP. This notice also contains detailed procedures for public participation in the consultation proceeding. This consultation proceeding is intended to facilitate the compilation of a full record upon which the Administrator will base his decision for a final ASC Methodology. Although preliminary informal comments have already been made by some groups and members of the public, this notice formally solicits public comment. With the issuance of this proposal, BPA welcomes different approaches, new ideas and other types of feedback from interested parties. This proposal was developed with guidance from public workshops and is meant to provide a foundation that will facilitate further ideas and approaches. In order to participate in the REP during FY 2009, a Pacific Northwest utility must notify BPA of its intent to participate by February 22, 2008. A utility also must submit an ASC filing (an Appendix 1) to BPA by March 3, 2008, or BPA will use the corresponding Appendix 1 from its WP-07 Supplemental Power Rate Adjustment Proceeding as the base filing to determine the utility's ASCs for FY 2009. During the comment period on the proposed ASC Methodology, interested parties will have the opportunity to participate in an expedited process for determining exchanging utilities' ASCs for FY 2009 based on the proposed methodology. In addition to the comments submitted, BPA expects to learn through this expedited process where improvements or changes to the proposed methodology can be made. Workshops will be held during the comment period to help facilitate feedback and explore different ideas. BPA strives to develop, in concert with the region, an ASC Methodology that will be legally sustainable, efficient, and durable over time. ADDRESSES: Interested members of the public may make written comments between February 8, 2008, and May 2, 2008. Comments must be received by 5 p.m., Pacific Prevailing Time, on the specified date in order to be considered in the Record of Decision for the ASC Methodology, which will be submitted to FERC for interim and final approval. BPA will also post written comments online. Written comments may be made as follows: online at BPA's Web site: *http://www.bpa.gov/comment,* by mail to: BPA Public Affairs, DKE-7, P.O. Box 14428, Portland, OR 97293-4428, or by facsimile to 503-230-3285. Please identify written or electronic comments as “2008 ASC Methodology.” Information and comments received by BPA concerning the proposed ASC Methodology will be posted at *http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/Finance/ascm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Michelle Manary, Manager, Residential Exchange Program—FE-2, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208. Ms. Leslie M. Dimitman, Paralegal Specialist, Office of General Counsel, LP-7, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208. Interested persons may also call Ms. Dimitman at 503-230-5515, or the general BPA toll-free numbers 800-282-3713 (answered Monday through Friday 6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.) or 866-879-2303 (answered by voice-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. The Proposed Average System Cost Methodology I. Background A. Relevant Statutory Provisions Section 5(c)(1) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(1), provides that BPA shall acquire certain amounts of power offered for sale to BPA by a Pacific Northwest electric utility at the average system cost of the utility's resources in each year. In exchange, BPA shall offer to sell “an equivalent amount of electric power to such utility for resale to that utility's residential users within the region.” 1 *Id.* Sales to the utility may not be restricted below the amount of power acquired from the utility. 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(6). Under this “residential exchange,” there is generally no power transferred either to or from BPA. 2 The “equivalent amount of electric power” exchanged by BPA with the participating utility is priced at the same rate as that for general requirements sales to BPA's preference customers (the “Priority Firm or PF rate”), subject to adjustment pursuant to section 7(b)(2) of the Northwest Power Act (the “PF Exchange rate”). *See* 16 U.S.C. 839e(b)(1)-(3). By establishing the REP, Congress intended to address the issue of wholesale rate disparity that can exist between BPA's preference customers and investor-owned customers. Because power sold by BPA to exchanging utilities must be treated as resold to the participating utility's residential consumers within the region, “wholesale rate parity” is achieved. This wholesale rate parity is the first attribute of the REP. 1 The exchange was set equal to 50 percent of a participating utility's qualifying residential and small farm load as of July 1, 1980, and increased in equal annual increments to 100 percent of such load over 5 years. *See* 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(2). 2 Section 5(c)(5) allows BPA to acquire an “equivalent amount of electric power from other sources to replace power sold to [a participating] utility,” if the cost of such replacement acquisition is less than the applicable ASC. Implementation of this provision may result in actual power sales to the exchanging utility. In contrast, the amount paid by BPA to the participating utility is not a conventional wholesale power rate. Section 5(c)(1) of the Northwest Power Act states that BPA is to pay “the average system cost of that [exchanging] utility's resources.” 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(1). Section 5(c)(7) of the Northwest Power Act gives BPA's Administrator the discretionary authority to determine ASC on the basis of a methodology to be established in consultation proceedings. 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(7). The only express statutory limits on the Administrator's authority are found in sections 5(c)(7)(A),
(B)and
(C)of the Act. 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(7)(A),
(B)and (C). Generally, the BPA PF rate has been lower than participating utilities' ASCs under the 1984 ASC Methodology. The resulting monetary benefits BPA paid to participating utilities, or “net cost of the exchange,” is the second attribute of the REP. As noted above, the REP is not a conventional power transaction. System schedulers do not dispatch the exchange; line losses are not incurred. The power purchase and sale concept was created by Congress for BPA ratemaking purposes. *See* 16 U.S.C. 839e(b)(1). 3 Practically speaking, the purpose of the REP is to exchange costs for the benefit of the residential and small farm ratepayers of participating utilities. When the BPA PF Exchange rate is lower than a participating utility's ASC, BPA pays the net cost to that utility. However, when the PF Exchange rate is higher than the ASC, *i.e.* , when the net cost of the exchange is negative, BPA has previously provided the utility a unilateral right to “deem” its ASC equal to the PF rate, so that no payment flows from the utility to BPA. 4 3 The outcome of this consultation proceeding will not change the way in which BPA establishes rates under section 7 of the Northwest Power Act. The resource concept was devised by Congress to allocate the benefits and costs of the Federal Base System among competing classes of BPA customers. However, the resource concept should not obfuscate the nature of the REP as a transfer payment from BPA to the participating utilities. 4 However, BPA has historically kept an account of such unpaid “deemer” amounts, which must be paid before the utility can receive positive REP benefits. Furthermore, Northwest Power Act section 5(c)(4), 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(4), recognizes that BPA's PF rate, insofar as it applies to the REP, may carry one or more “supplemental rate charges” after July 1, 1985, due to implementation of section 7(b)(3) of the Northwest Power Act. 16 U.S.C. 39e(b)(3). Were this to occur and cause the PF Exchange rate to exceed a participating utility's ASC, that utility has the statutory right to terminate its participation in the REP. 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(4). The monetary benefits of the REP must be passed through directly to the participating utilities' residential and small farm consumers in accordance with section 5(c)(3) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(3), guarding against the possibility that the utility might set retail residential rates that counteracted the benefits of the REP. In addition, it is incumbent upon BPA to establish an ASC methodology that ensures that the net cost of the exchange does not exceed the limits established by Congress in the Northwest Power Act. *See* 16 U.S.C. 839c(c)(7)(A),
(B)and (C). The ASC methodology must also be designed so that BPA does not become the “deep pocket” to which participating utilities may shift excessive or improper resource costs. The ASC methodology should give participating utilities an incentive to minimize their costs. Otherwise, BPA may not be able to satisfy the requirement of section 7(a) of the Northwest Power Act that its rates recover its total revenue requirement. BPA is a self-financing government agency, which must recover its costs through rates for sales of electric power and energy. B. Average System Cost Methodology Background The first ASC Methodology was developed in consultation with the region in 1981. *See* 48 FR 46,970 (Oct. 17, 1983). It was later revised in 1984. *See* 49 FR 39,293 (Oct. 5, 1984); *see also PacifiCorp* v. *F.E.R.C.,* 795 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1986). The 1984 ASC Methodology has been in effect since that time. In the mid-1990s, BPA and its participating “Utilities” 5 agreed to a number of settlements that provided for payments to each Utility through the remaining years of the Residential Purchase and Sale Agreements
(RPSA)that implement the REP. Because these settlements did not require the participating utilities to submit ASC filings, BPA temporarily suspended its ASC review process. 5 “Utility” is used here as a defined term: the investor-owned utility or consumer-owned utility that is a Regional Power Sales Customer that has executed a Residential Purchase and Sale Agreement. Prior to BPA's WP-02 power rate proceeding, BPA sought to resolve REP disputes by offering REP Settlement Agreements (Settlement Agreements) to regional investor-owned utilities. Under these Agreements, BPA would provide the participating utilities 1,000 aMW of actual power and 900 aMW of financial benefits for the FY 2002-2006 period, and 2,200 aMW of benefits for FY 2007-2011. Power sales were made at the Residential Load
(RL)Firm Power Rate. Financial benefits were calculated based on the difference between BPA's RL rate and a forecast of market prices. The Settlement Agreements were challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On May 3, 2007, the Court held that the Settlement Agreements executed by BPA and the investor-owned utilities were inconsistent with the Northwest Power Act. *See Portland General Elec. Co.* v. *Bonneville Power Admin.,* 501 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2007). As a result of the Court's decision, BPA must be prepared to resume the REP by offering RPSAs to its Utility customers. In addition to the RPSAs, BPA is conducting this consultation proceeding to revise the ASC Methodology concurrent with a section 7(i) rate proceeding to consider revisions to the Section 7(b)(2) Legal Interpretation and Section 7(b)(2) Implementation Methodology, implement the section 7(b)(2) rate test, and develop rates consistent with the Court's remand in a related case. *See Golden NW Aluminum, Inc.* v. *Bonneville Power Admin.,* 501 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2007). C. The Current Average System Cost Methodology Under the 1984 ASC Methodology, utilities file with BPA “Appendix 1” forms containing cost information based on rate orders from state utility commissions or consumer-owned utility governing bodies. BPA reviews each Appendix 1 for conformance with criteria specified in the Methodology. *See* 18 CFR 301.1. Appendix 1 filings are subject to review for 210 days from the start of the relevant exchange period, which is triggered by a change in retail rates. Not later than 80 days after a Utility files a new Appendix 1, Regional Power Sales Customers or their designee may submit written challenges to costs included in the Utility's Contract System Costs. Not later than 90 days following the date the Utility files its revised Appendix 1, BPA mails to the Utility and all parties a list of issues or challenged costs concerning the Utility's revised Appendix 1 and requesting comments from all parties. Written comments on the issues list from all parties are due 30 days after the issue list is filed. Parties may submit cross-comments in response to comments on the issues list up to 15 days after the written comments are submitted. Parties may request oral argument before the Administrator or the Administrator's designee up to 150 days after a Utility files a new Appendix 1. BPA also has the right under the 1984 ASC Methodology to issue a notice to parties requesting comments on costs that had not been challenged previously, on Contract System Loads, and other issues not raised previously. Comments from parties on such notice are due 150 days after a Utility files a new Appendix 1. Written cross-comments in response to comments on the BPA notice are due 165 days after a Utility files a new Appendix 1. If BPA grants a request for oral argument, it is presented up to 180 days after a Utility files a new Appendix 1. BPA must issue a final determination on the revised Appendix 1 no later than 210 days after a Utility files a new Appendix 1. Discovery is another component of the 1984 ASC Methodology. BPA can request data from a Utility any time during the 210-day review period. The Utility is required to respond within 30 days of receiving the data request. In addition, parties to the ASC review can submit data requests up to 40 days after the Utility files its revised Appendix 1. The Utility must respond within 65 days after the Utility files its revised Appendix 1. Consumer-owned utilities may execute RPSAs for participation in the REP. Because consumer-owned utilities are not regulated by the state commissions in the Pacific Northwest, and because they are not required to make FERC Form 1 filings, preparation and review of ASC filings is more burdensome for all parties concerned. The difficulty in the preparation and review of ASC filings has been a major cause of disputes between BPA and participating consumer-owned utilities and became one of the issues leading BPA and the consumer-owned utilities to settle out their REP participation in the late 1980s. D. BPA and Customer Concerns With the 1984 ASC Methodology The reliance on state regulatory agencies to determine the level of costs included in the ASC of a participating Utility under the 1984 ASC Methodology, known as the “jurisdictional costing approach,” has resulted in a long, burdensome, expensive and often contentious review process that many BPA customers said could be improved and streamlined. The 210-day review period for each ASC filing under the current methodology means that BPA and its customers are almost always reviewing an ASC filing. Given the tremendous advancement in information and communication technology
(ICT)since the early 1990s, the review process and implementation costs can be reduced substantially through use of electronic filings, e-mail and other aspects of ICT without changing the existing ASC Methodology. However, BPA believes that further efficiencies in the ASC filing and review process could be obtained if BPA were to adopt a new framework for obtaining the data required for an ASC filing. One issue related to the “jurisdictional costing approach” that has not changed since REP disputes were addressed through settlements is the volume of utility rate orders. Because any commission-ordered change in retail rates triggers a new ASC filing under the 1984 ASC Methodology, BPA and its customers could be faced with requirements to review several ASC filings a year for each investor-owned utility participating in the REP because of adjustment clauses and tracker filings in each state where the Utility provides retail electric service to customers. BPA is mindful of the difficulty in preparing ASC filings for consumer-owned utilities that may want to participate in the REP and hopes that the proposed methodology will ease the burden of preparing and reviewing Appendix 1 filings. E. Public Participation in the Consultation Proceeding This consultation proceeding is intended to facilitate the compilation of a full record upon which the Administrator will base the decision to establish the ASC Methodology. Preliminary informal comments have already been submitted by groups, including investor-owned utilities, state regulatory agencies and consumer-owned utility customers. This notice solicits a new round of formal comments from interested members of the public. Interested members of the public may make written comments between February 8, 2008 and May 2, 2008. Comments must be received by 5 p.m., Pacific Prevailing Time, on the specified date in order to be considered in the Record of Decision for the ASC Methodology. BPA will also post written comments online. Written comments may be made as follows: Online at BPA's Web site: *www.bpa.gov/comment* , by mail to: BPA Public Affairs, DKE-7, P.O. Box 14428, Portland, OR 97293-4428, or by facsimile to 503-230-3285. Please identify written or electronic comments as “2008 ASC Methodology.” Information and comments received by BPA concerning the proposed ASC Methodology will be posted at *http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/Finance/ascm* . After the written comment stage, an opportunity will be provided for oral presentations before the Administrator, which will be transcribed for inclusion in the record. The date, time, and location of oral presentations will be specified in a future communication. Only those persons who participate in the written comment stage of the consultation will have the option of making an oral presentation before the Administrator. During any stage of the proceeding, negotiated resolutions of issues raised by BPA or by commenters may be incorporated into the record by means of written stipulations. After completion of the foregoing proceedings, the Administrator will issue a Record of Decision on the revised ASC Methodology. The revised ASC Methodology will then be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for review and approval. II. The Proposed Average System Cost Methodology A. Introduction The revised methodology proposed by BPA in this notice is intended to implement the Northwest Power Act, help alleviate the administrative burden and expense associated with the jurisdictional approach to ASC determinations, and to reflect changes in the organization and operation of the electric utility industry since the 1984 ASC Methodology was approved. In preparing this proposal, BPA took into account the issues and concerns raised by parties during workshops held in August through November of 2007. Although BPA is proposing a number of broad changes to the 1984 ASC Methodology, the proposal is not a complete reconstruction of the previous 1984 ASC Methodology. Several portions of the proposal reflect features from the 1984 ASC Methodology that remain viable in today's environment. BPA anticipates that there will be a wide variety of comments on the proposed ASC Methodology, and also expects that comments will raise issues that may not have been apparent to BPA. BPA stresses the importance of written comments that precisely state each commenter's position on issues of concern, whether the comments be positive or negative, so that a complete record can be compiled. Numerical analyses and examples will be of particular assistance to BPA in developing a revised ASC Methodology. BPA also welcomes negotiations and possible settlements of issues. B. The Uniform Cost Approach to Determining Average System Cost Under the Proposed Methodology Both the 1981 and 1984 ASC Methodologies used the jurisdictional costing approach for ASC determinations. As noted above, using the jurisdictional cost approach as the data source for the ASC calculations has proven to be inefficient, cumbersome, and extremely contentious. BPA therefore is proposing to not use a jurisdictional costing approach for the revised ASC Methodology. In its place, BPA is proposing to use a data source that is uniform and that facilitates ease of administration for all parties. Such data can be found for investor-owned utilities in the FERC Form No. 1 (Form 1), a compilation of financial and operating information prepared annually in accordance with the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts for Public Utilities and Licensees. *See* 18 CFR 101 (2007). As explained more fully below, consumer-owned utilities that wish to exchange with BPA will be required to submit equivalent information to establish their ASCs. Under the proposed ASC Methodology, the Utility may include in its ASC only actual costs documented in its Form 1 or equivalent, with limited exceptions. These exceptions include the following: First, equity return for investor-owned utilities will be determined in accordance with procedures described later in this notice; second, Federal income taxes will be included at the marginal Federal income tax rate; third, the Form 1 does not always contain enough information or level of detail to allow BPA to determine whether costs are includable in ASC, thus requiring supplemental information; and fourth, BPA will require utilities that do not file a Form 1 with FERC to submit audited financial data in a format comparable to the Form 1 and a detailed cost of service analysis prepared by an independent accounting or consulting firm, approved by the Utility's Regulatory Body 6 and used as the basis for setting retail rates currently in effect. 6 “Regulatory Body” is used here as a defined term: A state regulatory body, consumer-owned utility governing body, or other entity authorized to establish retail electric rates in a jurisdiction. BPA is proposing an approach for determining a utility's ASC that is aimed at simplicity, transparency and minimal administrative burden for all parties. BPA recognizes this may make it difficult to reflect unique circumstances of individual utilities, which may have an impact on their ASCs. BPA is open to different types of approaches and welcomes such suggestions during the comment period. C. Procedural Format for ASC Determinations Under Revised ASC Methodology 1. ASC Determination Process Guidelines BPA proposes to review each Utility's filed ASC in a simplified administrative process. This process will commence during the period prior to BPA filing an initial proposal for a change in wholesale power rates, referred to as the Review Period. An investor-owned utility would submit a “base period ASC” to BPA using data from the prior year's Form 1 on or before May 1 of each year. For Utilities not required to submit a Form 1 to FERC, the base period ASC would be determined from a filing similar in format to a Form 1. The Utility's base period ASC will be projected by BPA to determine the ASC for the BPA rate period. 7 Escalating the cost data used to determine the base period ASC to be consistent with the test year(s) of the BPA rate proposal addresses many issues of temporal consistency between ASCs and BPA's PF Exchange rate. As a general matter, once the Administrator determines the ASC for each Utility, the ASC will remain at that level for the term of the BPA rate period. 7 BPA will forecast the utility's ASC for an additional four years as required for the section 7(b)(2) rate test in BPA's wholesale power rate adjustment proceedings. Proposed changes to established ASCs would only be allowed under two specific conditions. First, the ASC may be adjusted in the event a Utility acquires a new service territory or relinquishes all or a portion of its service territory. A second adjustment may be made to account for major new resource additions, purchases, retirements or sales. In the event that a Utility has a resource that is projected to come on-line or be purchased and used to meet that Utility's retail regional load during the BPA rate period, the Utility will submit two ASC filings:
(1)One conforming to the Form 1 described above, and
(2)a second filing that incorporates the costs associated with the new resource based on the expected commercial operation date of the new resource or, for resource purchases, the date the sale is completed and the costs associated with the purchased resource used to meet that utility's regional retail load. In addition to including the estimated capital and operating costs of the new resource, the Utility must also estimate the changes in purchased power expense, sales for resale credit and other costs based on the additional generation provided by the new resource. Because the commercial on-line dates of power plants often change during the construction process, BPA will not adjust the Utility's ASC until the new generating resource begins commercial operation. For a major resource used to meet the Utility's regional retail load that is projected to be unable to serve load, retired or sold during the BPA rate period, BPA proposes that the Utility make two ASC filings:
(1)One conforming to the Form 1 described above, and
(2)a second filing that excludes the costs associated with the retired or sold resource based on the expected retirement or closing date of the resource. In addition to including the reduction in estimated capital and operating costs of the retired or sold resource, the Utility must also estimate the changes in purchased power expense, sales for resale credit and other costs based on the generation formerly provided by the retired or sold resource. BPA proposes not to adjust the Utility's ASC until the official retirement or transfer date of the generating resource. BPA proposes that all Utilities be required to submit ASC filings using BPA's electronic template (Appendix 1) 8 on or before May 1 of every year. Several areas of the ASC filing template require additional data and/or analyses. The additional data/analyses must also be in electronic format and submitted at the same time as the Appendix 1 template. The filing, along with the additional data and support, will be made available to BPA customers and other parties for review through BPA's external Web site. Each filing may be reviewed by BPA or its designee to determine whether the costs are consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for electric utilities and consistent with the ASC Methodology. 8 Appendix 1 refers to the appendix to both the current and proposed ASC methodology containing the form on which the exchanging utility reports its Contract System Costs and other information required for the calculation of ASC. BPA envisions that this approach will reduce the time, administrative burden and cost to BPA, the Utility, other BPA customers and other interested parties without significantly affecting the accuracy of the ASC determination when compared to the more cumbersome process required under the 1984 ASC Methodology. BPA proposes that ASC determinations prior to BPA's rate cases will replace the multiple determinations in each year required under the 1984 ASC Methodology for each jurisdiction in which a Utility provides retail residential service upon each change in retail rates. The revised ASC Methodology has characteristics similar to ratemaking based on an historical test year incorporating end-of-year data. Each Utility would be permitted to include the same types of costs in ASC based on actual data from the same calendar-year period. It is uniform in contrast to the 1984 ASC Methodology, which relied on data from retail rate proceedings throughout the Northwest, each using different ratemaking methodologies and test years. Although the numbers included in Form 1 accounts by Utilities will help expedite ASC reviews, Utilities' ASC filings will continue to be scrutinized by BPA, its customers and other participants in the ASC review process. BPA has a statutory responsibility to ensure that all improper costs are excluded from ASCs. Each ASC filing must contain a statement, signed by a senior officer of the Utility, stating that all data submitted by the Utility were compiled in strict compliance with the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts, the ASC Methodology, and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and are consistent with applicable orders and policies of their Regulatory Body. For Utilities not required to submit a Form 1, the attestation will state that the data were compiled in strict compliance with the Utility's financial statements, the ASC Methodology, and policies and orders from the Utility's Regulatory Body. BPA proposes that any filing that does not contain this attestation will not be accepted by BPA for determination of an ASC. BPA invites and welcomes comments on alternative sources of verifiable data for use in determining ASC. Such comments should contain detailed explanations of the verification safeguards inherent in any proposed alternative as well as procedural alternatives. 2. Transition Implementation of the REP BPA hopes to begin the implementation of the REP for eligible utilities on October 1, 2008. To do so, BPA must negotiate and execute new RPSAs with Utilities, establish a revised ASC Methodology, and establish ASCs under the revised Methodology. As noted below, BPA also intends to implement the proposed ASC Methodology in an expedited ASC review during the spring of 2008 in order to identify any problems that might arise in implementing the Methodology. The results of the expedited ASC review will be used as a starting point for the determination of final ASCs for FY 2009. The expedited ASC review will be implemented as follows. After publication of the proposed ASC Methodology, a Utility intending to participate in the REP beginning October 1, 2008, must notify BPA of its intent by February 22, 2008. If a Utility fails to notify BPA of its intent to participate in the REP in FY 2009 by February 29, 2008, the Utility will be ineligible to receive any REP benefits during the FY 2009 rate period. A Utility must file its Appendix 1 based on the proposed ASC Methodology with BPA by March 3, 2008. If it fails to do so, BPA will rely on the Appendix 1 for the Utility included by BPA in its WP-07 Supplemental Rate Proposal to determine ASCs for FY 2009. BPA will provide electronic access to the Appendix 1 filings on March 4, 2008, to all Regional Power Sales Customers and other interested parties. BPA will review all Appendix 1 filings concurrently in an expedited public process. Interested parties will have the opportunity to intervene in BPA's review. Petitions to intervene must be filed with BPA by March 11, 2008. Data requests must be submitted by March 14, 2008. BPA will commence discovery workshops on all Appendix 1 filings on March 26, 2008. BPA and parties will address and resolve all discovery issues in the workshops. BPA and parties may electronically file an issue list identifying and providing full arguments regarding the contested elements of a Utility's Appendix 1 filing by April 10, 2008. The Utility will electronically file, and other parties may file, a response to the issue lists on April 24, 2008. A second workshop will be held on April 29, 2008, to discuss and resolve, to the extent possible, the identified issues. BPA will then review the parties' arguments, rule on such issues, and publish and electronically serve all parties with a Draft ASC Reports on May 9, 2008. The Utility and parties may file comments on the Draft ASC Reports by May 23, 2008. After reviewing the comments, the BPA Administrator will issue Final ASC Reports on June 6, 2008. After BPA develops the final proposed ASC Methodology, BPA will file the Methodology with FERC for confirmation and approval. BPA hopes to receive interim approval of the Methodology on or around September 1, 2008. After FERC approval, BPA proposes to review the ASC determinations resulting from the expedited ASC review. BPA will compare the proposed ASC Methodology provisions with the FERC-approved Methodology. If there are no differences between the data included in the Utilities' initial Appendix 1s (or the Appendix 1 filings developed by BPA for the WP-07 Supplemental Rate Proposal) and the Appendix 1s to be filed under the final Methodology, the Utilities' initial Appendix 1s (or the default WP-07 Supplemental Appendix 1s) can be used for the Utilities' final ASC determinations. If the Appendix 1s are the same but the substantive criteria of the Methodology have changed from the initial proposed Methodology, BPA will recalculate each Utility's ASC by reviewing the initial Appendix 1 and applying the final Methodology criteria. Because the Utility's initial Appendix 1 will have been reviewed in the expedited review, BPA will conduct an abbreviated review with all interested parties to ensure that the Utilities' ASCs comply with the FERC-approved Methodology. If BPA determines that the ASCs comply, BPA will establish the ASCs as the Utilities' final ASCs for FY 2009. BPA also must plan for the establishment of each Utility's ASC for FY 2010-2011. Under the proposed ASC Methodology, except for the initial one-year Exchange Period under the revised Methodology, and the second Exchange Period for FY 2010-2011, a Utility must file an Appendix 1 by May 1 of each year. If a Utility wishes to participate in the REP in the second Exchange Period for FY 2010-2011, it must file an Appendix 1 using 2007 data by July 1, 2008. If a Utility fails to file an Appendix 1 by July 1, 2008, the Utility will receive no REP benefits for the FY 2010-2011 period. After receiving all exchanging Utilities' Appendix 1s by July 1, 2008, BPA will promptly publish a schedule for review of the filings. Although BPA hopes to complete this review using the ASC review schedule contained in the ASC Methodology, BPA may issue a schedule different from the prescribed schedule in order to ensure that ASCs for FY 2010-2011 are established in time to be incorporated in BPA's FY 2010-2011 wholesale power rate initial proposal. After completing its ASC review process, BPA will establish ASCs for FY 2010-2011. If FERC approval of the ASC Methodology is subsequent to this ASC review, BPA will compare the Methodology used to calculate the ASCs with the FERC-approved Methodology. BPA will conduct an abbreviated ASC review will all interested parties to ensure that Utilities' ASCs comply with the final Methodology. If BPA determines that the ASCs comply, BPA will establish the ASCs as the Utilities' final ASCs for FY 2010-2011. D. Invoicing and Payment Using Actual Residential Load Although not a part of the ASC Methodology, BPA proposes to continue the contractual requirement that Utilities invoice BPA monthly based on actual eligible residential and small farm loads. A Utility's monthly REP payment is determined by subtracting the Utility's BPA PF Exchange Rate 9 from the Utility's ASC, and then multiplying the result by the Utility's actual eligible monthly residential and small farm load. 9 BPA is proposing in the WP-07 Supplemental Rate Proceeding to develop either Utility-specific PF Exchange rates or a PF Exchange rate with Utility-specific supplemental rate charges. In either case, the applicable BPA rate will be determined specifically for each Utility. This rate determination methodology requires that BPA know during the rate proceeding which Utilities intend to participate in the REP. E. Treatment of Certain Resource Costs Under the Proposed Average System Cost Methodology 1. Transmission Investments and Related Expenses Included in Contract System Costs Transmission investments and expenses were included in ASCs under BPA's 1981 ASC Methodology. The 1981 ASC Methodology was established pursuant to a negotiated settlement, agreed to by all parties. The Administrator's 1981 ASC Methodology Decision, at 1-2, explains the process by which most issues, including the propriety of adding transmission costs to ASC, were resolved through a negotiated settlement in the first consultation proceeding. The Commission granted final approval to the 1981 ASC Methodology on October 17, 1983. *See Sales of Electric Power to Bonneville Power Admin., Methodology and Filing Requirements,* 48 FR 46,970 (Oct. 17, 1983). In the 1984 ASC Methodology, BPA included “all existing transmission, as defined in the Commission Uniform System of Accounts, in service as of July 1, 1984 * * *” and “[f]or transmission plant commencing service after July 1, 1984, transmission plant costs that can be exchanged are limited to transmission facilities that are directly required to integrate resources to the transmission grid.” 10 The Commission granted final approval to the 1984 ASC Methodology on October 5, 1984, which continued to allow certain transmission costs in ASC. *See Methodology for Sales of Electric Power to Bonneville Power Administration,* 49 FR 39,293 (October 5, 1984), FERC Statutes and Regulations ¶ 30,601. 10 1984 Administrator's Record of Decision, Average System Cost Methodology at 42. Even though the 1984 ASC Methodology allowed all transmission prior to 1984 but only a portion of it after 1984, upon further consideration BPA believes transmission should be included in the calculation of utilities' ASCs. One of the main reasons for this conclusion is that the exclusion of the transmission component of electricity production and delivery may introduce an inequity between Utilities that develop resources close to their service territory and those that develop geographically distant resources. Therefore, BPA proposes that the cost of resources should include all costs associated with the delivery of power to the Utility's load centers. Furthermore, since implementation of the 1984 ASC Methodology and its approval by the Commission, the electric utility industry has undergone significant changes in structure, specifically, the development of wholesale power markets, creation of regional transmission organizations
(RTOs)and the separation of generation and transmission functions of vertically integrated electric utilities mandated by Commission Order 888, which was issued in 1996. In 1999, BPA administratively separated its power and transmission functions to voluntarily comply with the Commission's order for investor-owned utilities to separate generation and transmission. Consequently, BPA now develops separate rates for power and transmission. As a result of this change in industry structure, electric utilities have a variety of ways to acquire generation to serve their retail load. For example, utilities can:
(1)Rely on wholesale power markets;
(2)build centralized generation units close to the fuel source; or
(3)build the generation close to the load center and transport the fuel source (e.g. coal by rail). In addition, many large power plants are owned by more than one utility. This diversity in the method of acquiring electric generating capacity to serve retail load means that excluding transmission costs from the ASC calculation would have adverse effects on Utilities. Exclusion of the transmission component of electricity production and delivery would introduce an inequity between Utilities that develop resources close to their service territory and those that develop geographically distant resources. In summary, BPA proposes that the cost of resources should include the cost of transmission used to deliver resources to retail load. 2. Treatment of Conservation Costs In the 1984 ASC Methodology, the Administrator determined which conservation costs could be included in ASCs. The determinations “were case specific, based on the information provided by exchanging utilities.” 11 Generally, the 1984 ASC Methodology allows Utilities to include only the costs of “measures for which power is saved by physical improvements or devices. Advertising, promotion and audit expenses are not resource costs and therefore are not includable in the ASC.” 12 11 1984 ASC Methodology Record of Decision at 73. 12 Id. at 74 BPA proposes to continue with the 1984 ASC Methodology's exclusion of advertising and promotion costs, except that the revised Methodology will allow Utilities to include the cost of energy audits. BPA proposes to allow energy audits because the only way to determine if a conservation program or measure will be cost effective is through an analysis or “audit” of the facility where the conservation measure will be installed. Some items such as energy efficient light bulbs are cost effective in almost any location. Others, like insulation, energy efficient windows or HVAC upgrade/replacements must be analyzed in advance to see if the measure is cost effective. In many ways, the audit is a form of or extension to the Utility's least-cost plan. If the audit is not done before the measure is installed, the funds could be used on a measure that is not cost effective. For this reason, BPA believes it is reasonable to allow the costs of audits in the ASC calculation. 3. Treatment of Oregon's Public Purpose Charge Related to the Acquisition of Conservation and Renewable Resources Oregon's Public Purpose Charge
(OPPC)was established in 1999 with passage of Oregon's electricity restructuring law, Senate Bill 1149. *See generally,* Or. Rev. Stat. § 757.612 (2005). The OPPC was established to “fund new cost effective local energy conservation, new market transformation efforts, the above-market costs of renewable energy resources and new low income weatherization.” *Id.* at § 757.612(2)(a). The OPPC is set at 3 percent of total retail sales of electricity for PacifiCorp-Oregon, Portland General Electric
(PGE)and Idaho Power-Oregon. *Id.* The OPPC applies to consumer-owned utilities only if they allow direct access to any class of their customers. *Id.* At this time, BPA is not aware of any consumer-owned utilities that are participating in OPPC program. The OPPC replaces the conservation/DSM programs PGE, PacifiCorp-Oregon and Idaho Power-Oregon operated before Oregon SB 1149. When the OPPC was implemented by the utilities, the OPUC was directed to remove the costs of OPPC-like programs from retail rates. *Id.* at § 757.612(3)(g). The OPPC was implemented on March 1, 2002, for PGE and PacifiCorp-Oregon, and in 2006 for Idaho Power-Oregon. Distribution of the OPPC funds are made monthly by the utilities to the following organizations in the following percentages: Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO)—73.8% Education Service Districts (ESD)—10.0% Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS)—16.2% PGE, PacifiCorp and Idaho Power do not show the OPPC on their financial statements or Form 1s. The utilities treat the revenue and expense as a direct pass-through. Accounting records are available from the utilities showing the revenue received and the payments made to the three recipient organizations. SB 1149 states that the OPPC funds be allocated in the following manner: New cost-effective conservation and market transformation—63% Above market cost of renewable energy resources—19% Low-income weatherization—13% Low-income bill payment assistance—5% The 1981 and the 1984 ASC Methodologies did not address the cost treatment of charges like the OPPC. A key attribute of the OPPC has been that it effectively replaces the Utility's conservation program, which is typically included as part of a Utility's base rates. Because of this unique feature, BPA proposes that the OPPC is an alternative form of acquiring conservation and renewable resources, and therefore should be considered in determining ASC. In the same way that some utilities build thermal resources and others purchase power from the market, BPA proposes that the OPPC is a similar method of acquiring conservation and renewable resources. Another way of looking at the OPPC is as an outsourcing arrangement. While some utilities have their own conservation departments and programs, Oregon investor-owned utilities are effectively required to “outsource” their conservation activities to the ETO, OHCS and ESDs. BPA needs to have the right to review and audit the costs and programs of the organizations that receive OPPC funds in order to determine the portion of the Utility's costs that are excludable from their ASC. If an OPPC-recipient organization denies BPA the right to review and audit its costs and programs, then BPA will not include such costs in the Utility's ASC calculation. BPA will review the OPPC costs and functionalize the costs using the same procedure as used in reviewing Utility conservation costs. 4. Treatment of Return on Equity and Federal Income Taxes In the **Federal Register** Notice for the 1984 ASC Methodology proposal, BPA stated that “[i]n developing an ASC methodology the BPA Administrator has considerable discretion in deciding whether to permit inclusion of an equity return allowance and, if so, how that component is to be determined.” 13 The Administrator's discretion was affirmed by the Commission in its order approving the 1984 ASC Methodology. 14 In the 1984 ASC Methodology, BPA excluded the cost of equity in the ASC determination in part because of concern that Regulatory Bodies may increase the allowed return on equity
(ROE)to compensate Utilities for the cost of terminated plants and because ROE is primarily associated with the default risk of investor-owned utilities. On review, the Ninth Circuit affirmed BPA's view that ROE be excluded from the ASC calculation in light of BPA's experience with implementing the program and its need to avoid abuses. *PacifiCorp* v. *F.E.R.C.* , 795 F.2d 816, 823 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this finding, though, the Court held that “[t]he statute itself, however, neither commands nor proscribes these adjustments in ASC methodology.” *Id.* Consequently, the Court noted that it did not “sanction any permanent implementation of these exclusions.” *Id.* at 823. 13 49 FR 4230, 4235 (Feb. 3, 1984). 14 49 FR 39,293, 39,296 (Oct. 5, 1984): Congress chose the Administrator to determine cost of utility resources. Had the Congress intended that the Administrator must follow State commission determinations of a utility's resource costs, it could have easily included this requirement in the statute or simply left the Administrator out altogether and let the State commissions develop the ASC methodology. This was not done. The Administrator was chosen to develop a methodology to determine ASC, subject to the Commission's review. The 1984 ASC Methodology did not allow ROE in ASCs, but instead permitted the inclusion of the Utility's long-term cost of debt. BPA now proposes that ROE should be allowable in ASC. The cost of debt is a cost of resources and, in the case of investor-owned utilities, the cost of debt is lowered by the contribution of equity by the company. Without the spreading of risk to shareholders there would be a significant increase in the cost of debt. State commissions and rating agencies require investor-owned utilities to maintain specific capital structures that affect the company's debt ratings. Therefore, debt alone is not an adequate reflection of the capital cost of a Utility's resources. Without an equity component in the cost of capital, a higher cost of debt is needed to reflect the true cost of financing resources. BPA finds that enough changes have occurred in the PNW regulatory environment to reasonably ensure that terminated plant costs will not be included with allowable costs under the ASC Methodology. First, the costs of the Pebble Springs nuclear plant that were the basis of the terminated plant controversy in the mid-1980s have been completely written off by the utilities involved. Second, Oregon's establishment of a three-person appointed public utility commission greatly reduces the chance of improper communications between the Oregon PUC and utilities. Third, since 1984, Oregon has had a Citizens' Utility Board (CUB), which monitors the retail rate development of utilities conducting business in Oregon. CUB reviews retail rates in order to ensure, among other things, that terminated plant costs are excluded from such rates. Additionally, increased disclosure and filing requirements at the commission level make identifying inappropriate costs much easier. All four state commissions now have requirements that utilities under their review prepare Integrated Resource Plans. From these filings, BPA and its customers can likely determine if a Utility included the costs of terminated plant in its equity calculation. Thus, the risk that Regulatory Bodies will include inappropriate costs in the ROE has diminished significantly since 1984. Because of these changes, and based on BPA's experience in implementing the ASC, BPA now proposes that Utilities should be allowed to exchange ROE. In the revised ASC Methodology, BPA is proposing to allow return on equity as determined by the Regulatory Bodies at a Utility's most recent commission-approved level. For purposes of determining return on rate base, the Utility will include the weighted cost of capital from its most recent rate order. For Utilities with service territories in more than one state, the Utility shall submit a weighted cost of capital based on the most recent Regulatory Body rate orders weighted by rate base in states within the PNW region. In the 1984 ASC Methodology, BPA did not allow the inclusion of Federal income taxes in ASC. BPA's rationale stated that “nothing in the [Northwest Power] Act or its legislative history requires the inclusion or exclusion of income taxes in computing the average system cost of a Utility's resources.” 15 The Commission approved BPA's interpretation, albeit with some reservation because of an apparent “contradiction” in the allowance of a proxy for equity returns elsewhere in the methodology. 16 On review, the Ninth Circuit was equally reserved when reviewing the 1984 ASC Methodology. *PacifiCorp,* 795 F.2d at 823. As with ROE, which was decided in the same opinion, the Court affirmed BPA's interpretation with the notation that it did not “sanction any permanent implementation of these exclusions.” *Id* . 15 1984 Administrator's Record of Decision, Average System Cost Methodology at 59. 16 49 FR 39,293, 39,297 (Oct. 4, 1984). Under the revised ASC Methodology, BPA is proposing to allow Utilities to exchange the costs of certain taxes through their ASCs. BPA is proposing this change because it is necessary to have symmetry between its treatment of ROE and taxes. As noted above, BPA is proposing to allow the costs associated with equity return as a resource cost in calculation of ASC. If the cost of Federal income taxes at the marginal tax rate is not also included, then an investor-owned utility's cost of resources would be understated. When calculating the revenue requirement for an investor-owned utility, Regulatory Bodies typically gross up the cost of equity by the marginal Federal income tax rate to arrive at the “after tax” return. In the same manner, because BPA is proposing to include ROE as a resource cost in the ASC Methodology, BPA is also proposing to gross up the equity component by the Federal income tax rate when determining an investor-owned utility's weighted cost of capital in ASC. 5. Functionalization of Regulatory Assets and Liabilities in ASC Regulatory assets and liabilities are expenses, revenues, gains or losses that would normally be recognized in net income in one period, but for an order of a Regulatory Body specifying a different recovery period in retail rates. Regulatory Assets and Liabilities, Accounts 182.3 and 254 in the Commission Uniform System of Accounts, were established in March 1993 in Commission Order No. 552, which established uniform accounting treatment for allowances associated with the 1990 Clean Air Act. Order No. 552 also dealt more broadly with accounting for regulatory assets and liabilities for electric and gas utilities. 17 Regulatory assets and liabilities were not addressed in the 1984 ASC Methodology. 17 G. Hahne and G. Aliff, Public Utility Accounting 11-5 (Mathew Binder 2005). For investor-owned utilities located in the Pacific Northwest, regulatory assets and liabilities are a significant portion of the balance sheet. Examples of costs and revenues that can be deferred and included as a regulatory asset or liability with Regulatory Body approval include: fuel costs subject to a power cost adjustment, storm damage, gains on reacquired debt, deferred compensation plans, stranded costs, phase-in plans, deferred income taxes, asset retirement obligations, asset impairment or disposal under Financial Accounting Standards Board 144, rate case expenses and intervenor funding, buyout costs for non-utility generation, deferred purchase capacity costs, deferred demand-side management costs, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) nuclear fuel enrichment clean-up fees, deferred revenue related to income taxes associated with allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC), unamortized loss on reacquired debt, and deferred return on sales of emission allowances. The above list is only representative of the deferred costs and revenues that would be found in a typical Form No.1 or a Regulatory Body rate or accounting order. There are three major issues for the revised ASC Methodology relating to treatment of regulatory assets and liabilities. First, how should regulatory assets and regulatory liabilities be functionalized between production, transmission, and distribution? Second, for the production-related assets and liabilities, what rate of return, if any, should the Utility earn on these items for purposes of determining a Utility's ASC? And finally, how should the amortization of regulatory assets and liabilities be handled in the ASC review process? Functionalization of regulatory assets and liabilities raises several problems because of the lack of information contained in the Form 1 concerning the nature of these items. Descriptions of regulatory assets and liabilities are cryptic at best. Some of the deferred costs are of a short-term nature, such as power costs, which may be carried as a deferral for a matter of months. Other costs may be deferred and amortized 5 years or more, such as costs associated with storm damage and conservation. The Form 1 provides little or no detail on the length of the deferral period for each item. Nor does it provide information on whether the deferred assets and liabilities are included in rate base by the Utility's Regulatory Body. A brief review of several regional Regulatory Body rate orders revealed few references to regulatory assets in the list of items included in rate base. Finally, the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts does not provide specific rules for amortization of regulatory assets. Review of the Utilities' Form 1 filings reveal that some utilities amortize regulatory assets and liabilities to Accounts 407.3, Regulatory Debits and 407.4, Regulatory Credits, while others amortize regulatory assets and liabilities to specific income or expense accounts. For these reasons, BPA proposes that Utilities must perform a direct analysis and functionalize all regulatory assets and liabilities to Production, Transmission, or Distribution/Other. The Utility must provide documentation supporting its rationale for functionalization of the regulatory asset or liability. This documentation must consist of general ledger entries, a description of the item in sufficient detail to permit BPA to determine the functional nature of the cost, and all communications on the asset or liability between the Utility, its Regulatory Body and its external auditor. The documentation must also show that the asset or liability is included in the Utility's calculation of rate base approved by its Regulatory Body and the allowed return or carrying cost. In no case will the amount of regulatory assets and liabilities allowed in ASC exceed the amount included in retail rates for the same period by the regional Regulatory Bodies. 6. Treatment of Cash Working Capital in ASC Cash Working Capital
(CWC)is a component in almost all Regulatory Body determinations of rate base. Inclusion of CWC as an element of rate base is consistent with the principle that investors receive a fair return on investment that is used, useful and devoted to public service. One definition of CWC as used in regulatory proceedings is: The average amount of capital provided by investors, over and above the investment in plant and other specifically measured rate base items, to bridge the gap between the time expenditures are required to provide services and the time collections are received for such services. 18 18 *Id.* at 5-4. Because the 1981 and 1984 Methodologies relied on the jurisdictional approach, CWC was a part of the Utilities' rate base calculation in Regulatory Body rate orders. The 1981 and 1984 Methodologies simply set an upper limit on the amount of CWC included in rate base for the ASC calculation. 19 19 *See* 18 CFR 301.1 FN. h. Because the revised ASC Methodology proposes to use the Form 1 (which does not include a CWC value) as the basis for data for ASC filings, BPA believes it is important to include a separate determined value for CWC in the Utility's rate base calculation for ASC purposes. While determination of the proper amount of CWC in rate base is often very controversial, a standard and widely accepted measure is one-eighth of total O&M costs, less fuel and purchase power costs. 20 This one-eighth formula was the cap or maximum amount that BPA allowed for CWC in the 1984 ASC Methodology. 20 G. Hahne and G. Aliff, Public Utility Accounting 5-5 (Mathew Binder 2005). BPA is proposing to use this formula—one-eighth of total exchangeable O&M costs, less fuel and purchase power costs—for the CWC value included in the Appendix 1 filing. The details are shown in Schedule 1A of the revised ASC Methodology template. 7. Single ASC for Multi-Jurisdictional Utilities Under the 1981 and 1984 ASC Methodologies, BPA used a jurisdictional approach to determining a Utility's ASC. For Avista, Idaho and PacifiCorp, Utilities that serve retail customers in more than one state, reliance on Regulatory Body rate orders for ASC determinations resulted in separate ASC filings for each state. Developing ASCs by state for multi-jurisdictional Utilities presents problems for those utilities because Form 1 filings are prepared on a total utility basis, and trying to separate and allocate the costs from the total system to individual states would be burdensome and expensive for both the Utility and BPA. For this proposal, BPA proposes to develop a single ASC for each Utility. Because PacifiCorp has service territories that are outside the Pacific Northwest region, it will be required to submit an ASC filing based on an allocation of its in-region resources and costs, based on the individual state results of operations filings PacifiCorp files with each Regulatory Body. 8. Treatment of Purchased Power and Sales for Resale Credit Purchased power and sales for resale are subject to significant variability for a number of reasons including: *Temperature* —colder than normal winters increase the demand for electricity, resulting in increased purchases of electricity for utilities that rely on market purchases for meeting a portion of retail load. *Precipitation* —heavier than normal precipitation in the Columbia River Basin increases the amount of electricity available at the regional hydroelectric facilities and could lower the need for additional electricity. *Prices* —the price of electricity purchased by utilities varies with temperature and precipitation, but also the price of natural gas, which is the fuel on the margin for most hours of the year, and therefore affects the price of electricity in power markets. Regulatory Bodies use a process called normalization to adjust quantity and price for purchased power and sales for resale in regulatory proceedings. Normalization of purchased power and sales for resale credits is a process used by utilities and Regulatory Bodies to adjust actual data to reflect what would likely occur under conditions (water, weather, market prices) that are closer to long-term averages. For this reason, BPA proposes to generally use a rolling 5-year average of short-term (less than 1 year) energy sales and energy purchases in the Appendix 1. For pricing, BPA proposes to use the same models and methodologies used to develop market price forecasts in BPA's wholesale power rate filings. BPA understands this area is not simple, and its treatment can have a big impact on hydro-intensive utilities. BPA welcomes different approaches and ideas on how to account for the significant variability in this area. 9. Future Revision of Average System Cost Methodology To Address Tiered Rate Issues BPA and its customers are currently discussing the design of a Tiered Rates Methodology
(TRM)for BPA's future wholesale power rates. BPA expects to conduct a hearing under section 7(i) of the Northwest Power Act in 2008 in order to establish a TRM, which would be implemented in the rate period beginning FY 2012. The establishment of the TRM may affect the implementation of the REP for consumer-owned utilities. For example, BPA may propose as part of the TRM that a consumer-owned utility that elects to receive an individual Contract High Water Mark will have an ASC that excludes costs of any resources added by the utility after September 30, 2006. Other REP-related proposals and issues will undoubtedly be raised in connection with the TRM. Consequently, BPA has included placeholder language in the Proposed Revised Average System Cost Methodology that the Methodology will be revised if necessary or appropriate to accommodate establishment and implementation of tiered rates. The Proposed Revised Average System Cost Methodology, Functionalization for Average System Cost Methodology, Endnotes and the Proposed Average System Cost template are incorporated herein by reference and are available at the following link: *http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/Finance/ascm* . In consideration of the foregoing discussion, BPA proposes to revise the Average System Cost Methodology as set forth below. Issued in Portland, Oregon, January 31, 2008. Stephen J. Wright, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer. [FR Doc. E8-2258 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration [BPA Docket No. WI-09] Proposed Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service Rate for Public Hearing, and Opportunity for Public Review and Comment AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Notice of Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service Rate (Notice), BPA Docket No. WI-09. SUMMARY: The purpose of the hearing is to adopt a rate for Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service. As increasing amounts of wind generation have integrated into BPA's Balancing Authority, the variability and uncertainty of wind generation have led to increased costs through the need for additional reserve capacity, the shift of energy generation from heavy load hours to light load hours, and reduced system efficiency. The Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service rate will ensure that these costs are borne by the parties causing the costs. DATES: Persons wishing to intervene and become parties in the rate case must file a petition to intervene by 5 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on February 13, 2008. The petition must state the name and address of the intervenor and the intervenor's interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Written comments by non-party participants must be received by BPA no later than April 15, 2008, to be considered in the Record of Decision (“ROD”). The Administrator will issue a Final Record of Decision in these proceedings by July 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: Petitions to intervene should be directed to Brandon Hignite, Hearing Clerk—2009 Wind Integration Rate Case, L-7, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 or by e-mail to: *wi09rate@bpa.gov* , and must be received no later than 5 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on February 13, 2008. In addition, a copy of the petition must be served concurrently on BPA's General Counsel and directed to Barry Bennett, LC-7, Office of General Counsel, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 or by e-mail to: *bbennett@bpa.gov* . Written comments may be made online at BPA's website: *www.bpa.gov/comment* , or by mail to: BPA Public Affairs, DKE-7, P.O. Box 14428, Portland, OR, 97293-4428. Please label your submission “2009 Wind Integration Rate Case.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Elliot E. Mainzer, Transmission Policy and Strategy Manager, at
(360)619-6252. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part I—Introduction and Procedural Background A. Statutory Provisions Governing This Rate Proceeding Section 7 of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e, sets forth a number of general directives that the BPA Administrator must consider in establishing rates for the sale of electric energy and capacity and transmission services. In particular, section 7(a)(1), 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(1), provides in part that “[s]uch rates shall be established and, as appropriate, revised to recover, in accordance with sound business principles, the costs associated with the acquisition, conservation, and transmission of electric power, including the amortization of the Federal investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) (including irrigation costs required to be repaid out of power revenues) over a reasonable period of years and the other costs and expenses incurred by the Administrator pursuant to this Act and other provisions of law.” Rates established by BPA are effective on an interim or final basis as approved by FERC. 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2). In addition to the Northwest Power Act, BPA ratemaking is governed by the Bonneville Project Act, 16 U.S.C. 832, *et seq.* , the Federal Columbia River Transmission System (FCRTS) Act, 16 U.S.C. 838, *et seq.* , and the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825, *et seq.* Section 7(i) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C., 839e(i), requires that BPA's rates be set according to certain procedures, including issuance of a **Federal Register** notice announcing the proposed rates; one or more hearings conducted as expeditiously as practicable by a hearing officer; public opportunity to provide oral and written views related to the proposed rates; opportunity to offer refutation or rebuttal of submitted material; and a decision by the Administrator based on the record. This proceeding will be governed by the Procedures Governing Bonneville Power Administration Rate Hearings, 51 FR 7611 (March 5, 1986), which implement and, in most instances, expand these statutory requirements. B. Proposed Schedule Concerning This Rate Proceeding The hearing will be conducted under the rule for general rate proceedings, section 1010.9 of the Procedures Governing Bonneville Power Administration Rate Hearings. The following proposed schedule is provided for informational purposes. A final schedule will be established by the Hearing Officer at the prehearing conference. 14 February 2008—Prehearing/BPA Direct Case 20-21 February 2008—Clarification of BPA Direct Case 22 February 2008—Motions to Strike 22 February 2008—Data Request Deadline 29 February 2008—Answers to Motions to Strike 29 February 2008—Data Response Deadline 4 March 2008—Public Hearing (Portland) 14 March 2008—Parties file Direct Case 17-18 March 2008—Clarification of Parties' Direct Cases 20 March 2008—Motions to Strike 20 March 2008—Data Request Deadline 27 March 2008—Answers to Motions to Strike 27 March 2008—Data Response Deadline 15 April 2008—Parties file Rebuttal 15 April 2008—Close of Participant Comment Period 16-17 April 2008—Clarification of Rebuttal 18 April 2008—Motions to Strike 18 April 2008—Data Request Deadline 25 April 2008—Answers to Motions to Strike 25 April 2008—Data Response Deadline 1-2 May 2008—Cross Examination 9 May 2008—Initial Briefs Filed 19May 2008—Oral Argument 30 May 2008—Draft ROD issued 16 June 2008—Briefs on Exceptions By 28 July 2008—Final ROD—Final Proposal C. Ex Parte Communications Prohibited Section 1010.7 of the BPA Hearing Procedures prohibits *ex parte* communications. The *ex parte* rule applies to all BPA and DOE employees and contractors. Except as provided below, any outside communications with BPA and/or DOE personnel regarding BPA's rate case by other Executive Branch agencies, Congress, existing or potential BPA customers (including tribes), and nonprofit or public interest groups are considered outside communications and are subject to the *ex parte* rule. The general rule does not apply to communications relating to:
(1)Matters of procedure only (the status of the rate case, for example);
(2)exchanges of data in the course of business or under the Freedom of Information Act;
(3)requests for factual information;
(4)matters for which BPA is responsible under statutes other than the ratemaking provisions; or
(5)matters which all parties agree may be made on an *ex parte* basis. The *ex parte* rule remains in effect until the Administrator's Final ROD is issued, which is scheduled to occur by July 28, 2008. Part II—Purpose and Scope of Hearing A. Purpose of the Hearing The purpose of the hearing is to adopt a rate for Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service. As increasing amounts of wind generation have integrated into BPA's transmission system, the variability and uncertainty of wind generation have led to increased costs through the need for additional reserve capacity, the shift of energy generation from heavy load hours to light load hours, and reduced system efficiency. The Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service Rate is intended to ensure that these costs are borne by the parties causing the costs. B. Scope Pursuant to Rule 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator limits the scope of this hearing to issues concerning the rate for Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service described in Part IV hereof. In particular, the following issues are not part of the scope of the case, and the Hearing Officer is directed to strike all testimony contesting these issues: how BPA operates the FCRPS to provide control area services and ancillary services; how or from which entities BPA's transmission business obtains capacity to provide any such services; program levels and program level forecasts for any BPA program; and rates previously established or to be established in any other rate case, including BPA's WP-07 Supplemental Wholesale Power Rate Case. C. National Environmental Policy Act Evaluation BPA is in the process of assessing the potential environmental effects of the Wind Integration Within-Hour Balancing Service rate, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The NEPA process is conducted separately from BPA's formal rate proceedings. Therefore, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all evidence and argument that seek in any way to address the potential environmental impacts of the rates being developed in the 2009 Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service Rate Case. BPA's Business Plan Environmental Impact Statement (“Business Plan EIS”), completed in June 1995, evaluated the environmental impacts of a range of business plan alternatives that could be varied by applying various policy modules, including one for rates. Any combination of alternative policy modules should allow BPA to balance its costs and revenues. The Business Plan EIS also addressed response strategies, including adjusting rates that BPA could pursue if BPA's costs exceeded its revenues. In August 1995, the BPA Administrator issued a Record of Decision (“Business Plan ROD”) that adopted the Market-Driven Alternative from the Business Plan EIS. This alternative was selected because, among other reasons, it allows BPA to:
(1)Recover costs through rates;
(2)competitively market BPA's products and services;
(3)develop rates that meet customer needs for clarity and simplicity;
(4)continue to meet BPA's legal mandates; and
(5)avoid adverse environmental impacts. BPA also committed to apply as many response strategies as necessary when BPA's costs and revenues do not balance. In April 2007, BPA completed and issued a Supplement Analysis to the Business Plan EIS. The Supplement Analysis found that the Business Plan EIS's relationship-based and policy-level analysis of potential environmental impacts from BPA's business practices remains valid, and that BPA's current business practices remain consistent with BPA's Market-Driven approach. The Business Plan EIS and ROD thus continue to provide a sound basis for making determinations under NEPA concerning BPA's policy-level decisions, including rates. Because the Wind Integration rate proposal likely would assist BPA in accomplishing the goals identified in the Business Plan ROD, the proposal appears consistent with these aspects of the Market-Driven Alternative. In addition, this rate proposal is similar to the type of rate designs and resulting rate levels evaluated in the Business Plan EIS; thus implementation of this rate proposal would not be expected to result in significantly different environmental impacts from those examined in the Business Plan EIS. Therefore, BPA expects that this rate proposal will fall within the scope of the Market-Driven Alternative that was evaluated in the Business Plan EIS and adopted in the Business Plan ROD. As part of the Administrator's Record of Decision that will be prepared regarding the Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service rate, BPA may tier its decision under NEPA to the Business Plan ROD. However, depending upon the ongoing environmental review, BPA may, instead, issue another appropriate NEPA document. Persons may submit comments regarding the potential environmental effects of the proposal to Katherine Pierce, NEPA Compliance Officer, KEC-4, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232. Any such comments received by the comment deadline in Part III.A above will be considered by BPA's NEPA compliance staff in the NEPA process that will be conducted for this proposal. Part III—Public Participation A. Distinguishing Between Participants and Parties BPA distinguishes between participants in and parties to the hearings. Apart from the formal hearing process, BPA will accept comments, views, opinions, and information from participants, who are defined in the BPA Procedures as persons who may submit comments without being subject to the duties of, or having the privileges of, parties. Participants are not entitled to participate in the prehearing conference; may not cross examine parties' witnesses, seek discovery, or serve or be served with documents; and are not subject to the same procedural requirements as parties. Participants' written and oral comments will be made part of the official record and considered by the Administrator, if they are submitted on or before April 15, 2008. Participants' written views, supporting information, questions, and arguments should be submitted to the address noted in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice or at the public hearing. The second category of interest is that of a party as defined in Rules 1010.2 and 1010.4 of the BPA Procedures. 51 Fed. Reg. 7611 (1986). Parties may participate in any aspect of the hearing process. B. Petitions To Intervene Persons wishing to become parties to BPA's rate proceeding must notify BPA in writing of their interest by submitting a petition to intervene. Petitions to intervene are due to the Hearing Officer by February 13, 2008, and should be directed to Brandon Hignite, Hearing Clerk, L-7, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 or by e-mail to: *wi09rate@bpa.gov,* and must be received no later than 5 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on February 13, 2008. In addition, a copy of the petition must be served concurrently on BPA's General Counsel and directed to Barry Bennett, LC-7, Office of General Counsel, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 or by e-mail to: *bbennett@bpa.gov.* Petitions shall state the name and address of the person requesting party status and the person's interest in the hearing. Petitioners must explain their interests in sufficient detail to permit the Hearing Officer to determine whether they have a relevant interest in the hearing. Pursuant to Rule 1010.1(d) of BPA's Procedures, BPA waives the requirement in Rule 1010.4(d) that an opposition to an intervention petition be filed and served 24 hours before the prehearing conference. Any opposition to an intervention petition may instead be made at the prehearing conference. Any party, including BPA, may oppose a petition for intervention. All timely applications will be ruled on by the Hearing Officer. Late interventions are strongly disfavored. Opposition to an untimely petition to intervene shall be filed and received by BPA within two days after service of the petition. C. Developing the Record The record will include, among other things, the testimony and evidence submitted by the parties, the transcripts of any hearings and cross-examination, written material submitted by the participants, and evidence accepted into the record by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer will review the record and certify the record to the Administrator for decision. Parties will have the opportunity to file initial briefs at the close of cross-examination. After the close of the hearings, and following submission of initial briefs, BPA will issue a draft ROD that states the Administrator's preliminary decision(s). Parties may file briefs on exceptions, after that the Administrator will issue the final ROD establishing the rate. The Administrator will develop the final rate for Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service based on the entire record. The Administrator will serve copies of the final Record of Decision on all parties and will file the final proposed rate, together with the record, with FERC for confirmation and approval. Part IV—Summary of the Proposal In 2006 BPA and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council convened a regional forum to discuss the operational and economic issues raised by the expected integration of significant amounts of wind generation into the Pacific Northwest power system. In March 2007 the group, which included investor-owned utilities, public power organizations, environmental groups, and others, produced the Northwest Wind Integration Action Plan. The Action Plan recognized that the emergence of wind energy as a significant resource on the Northwest transmission grid—which has 17 separate Balancing Authorities—raised new cost recovery and cost allocation issues. Historically, most of the variability and uncertainty in a Balancing Authority's operations has been caused by loads. As a result, most Northwest transmission providers do not have rate schedules that charge generators for the variability they add to the system. However, the output of wind generators is significantly more variable and uncertain than the output of traditional generation sources. The variability and uncertainty associated with wind generation increases the demand for reserves required to maintain Balancing Authority reliability. Under current rate schedules, BPA power customers pay most of the costs of these additional reserves. For BPA, wind integration cost recovery is a particularly important issue because the majority of the 1,425 MW of wind generation in the BPA Balancing Authority is exported to other Balancing Authorities to serve the loads of other regional utilities. Therefore, BPA power customers are paying the costs of providing balancing services for wind generation used to serve other loads. This pattern of large-scale exports of wind generation is expected to continue through the end of 2009, at which point BPA expects that 2,880 MW of wind will be interconnected to the BPA system. To better align cost causation and cost allocation, BPA is proposing a Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service rate under which wind generators will be charged for the costs of the additional reserve capacity that is needed to support their operations, as well as other incremental costs caused by the variability of wind generation. Additional costs are caused by the need to shift energy generation from heavy load hours to light load hours to preserve the ability to change generation levels to compensate as wind output changes and by reduced efficiency because demands on the system become less predictable as wind generation increases. The new rate is intended to ensure that BPA recovers the costs that wind generation places on the system, and that the costs are allocated to the parties that cause the costs. BPA currently estimates that, during FY 2009, it will need an average of 203 MW of capacity to provide these balancing services for wind generation. Therefore, BPA is proposing a wind integration rate to recover the embedded costs of 203 MW of Federal system resources plus the other costs, noted above, that wind generation places on the system. BPA projects the cost of providing this service is $22.9 million. To recover this cost, BPA is proposing a rate not to exceed $0.81 per installed kW of wind capacity per month. The proposed rate schedule is attached at the end of this Notice. Issued this 30th day of January, 2008. Stephen J. Wright, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer. ACS-09 ANCILLARY SERVICES AND CONTROL AREA SERVICES RATE SECTION I. AVAILABILITY * * * Control Area Service rates available under this rate schedule are: * * * 5. Wind Integration—-Within-Hour Balancing Service * * * SECTION III. CONTROL AREA SERVICE RATES E. WIND INTEGRATION—WITHIN-HOUR BALANCING SERVICE The rate below applies to all wind plants in the BPA Control Area. Within-Hour Balancing Service provides the generation capability to follow within-hour variations of wind resources in the BPA Control Area and to maintain the power system frequency at 60 Hz in conformance with NERC and WECC reliability standards. 1. RATE The rate shall not exceed $0.81 per kilowatt per month. 2. BILLING FACTOR The Billing Factor is as follows: i. For each wind plant, or phase of a wind plant, that has completed installation of all units no later than the 15th day of the month prior to the billing month, the billing factor will be the nameplate of the plant in kW. A unit has completed installation when it has generated and delivered power to the BPA system. ii. For each wind plant, or phase of a wind plant, for which some but not all units have been installed by the 15th day of the month prior to the billing month, the billing factor will be the maximum measured hourly output of the plant through the 15th day of the prior month in kW. [FR Doc. E8-2253 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2146-117] Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection: a. *Application Type:* Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters. b. *Project No:* 2146-117. c. *Date Filed:* January 18, 2008. d. *Applicant:* Alabama Power Company. e. *Name of Project:* Coosa River Project. f. *Location:* On the Coosa River, in Elmore County, Alabama, and Floyd County, Georgia. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. h. *Applicant Contact:* Keith Bryant, 600 18th Street North, Birmingham, AL 35203;
(205)257-1403. i. *FERC Contact:* Gina Krump, Telephone
(202)502-6704, and e-mail: *Gina.Krump@ferc.gov* . j. *Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protest:* March 3, 2008. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. k. *Description of Request:* Alabama Power Company is seeking Commission approval to issue a permit to RHEMA, LLC for the construction of a boat ramp, four boat docks, totaling 60 slips, walking trails, and two storm water drains. The proposed facilities would serve the residents of Sunset Shores Condominiums. APC is also seeking authorization to allow RHEMA, LLC to withdrawal of up to 2,400 gallons per day of water from the project reservoir for landscape watering, as needed. The proposal would not require dredging or excavation. l. *Locations of the Application:* A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202)502-8371. This filing may also 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. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* ; for TTY, call
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. *Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene:* Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. p. *Agency Comments:* Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. q. 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 at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2202 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings # 1 January 30, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER99-2984-009. *Applicants:* Green Country Energy, LLC. *Description:* Green Country Energy, LLC submits notification of a non-material change in status with respect to their eligibility for market-based rate wholesale power sales authority. *Filed Date:* 01/24/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080129-0054. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 8, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER00-2173-006. *Applicants:* Northern Indiana Public Service Company. *Description:* Northern Indiana Public Service Company submits a revised market-based rates tariff. *Filed Date:* 01/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080129-0055. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER00-2268-024; ER99-4124-021; ER99-4122-025; ER07-428-003. *Applicants:* Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; Arizona Public Service Company; APS Energy Services Co Inc; Pinnacle West Marketing & Trading Co, LLC. *Description:* Arizona Public Service Company et al. submit their recent notice of change in status. *Filed Date:* 01/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080129-0090. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-157-025; ER04-714-015; EL05-89-005. *Applicants:* Bangor Hydro-Electric Company; Florida Power & Light Co New England; *Description:* Revised Regional Refund Report of New England Transmission Owners. *Filed Date:* 01/29/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080129-5055. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-287-003. *Applicants:* Granite Ridge Energy, LLC. *Description:* Granite Ridge Energy LLC submits Notice of Non-material Change in Status and revised tariff sheets in compliance with Order 697. *Filed Date:* 01/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080129-0088. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-546-011. *Applicants:* ISO New England Inc. *Description:* Request for Expedited Consideration and Limited Waiver Relating to Demonstration of Site Control Under Market Rule 1. *Filed Date:* 01/23/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080123-5055. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 8, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1036-002. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection LLC submits this filing in compliance with FERC's Order on 10/26/07. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0079. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-75-002. *Applicants:* DEL LIGHT INC. *Description:* DEL LIGHT INC submits a Petition of Acceptance of FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 to engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions etc. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0080. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-192-001. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy Inc submits 1st Rev First Revised Sheet 174 and 178 to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 5, to become effective 6/1/07. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0078. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-475-000. *Applicants:* Florida Power & Light Company. *Description:* Florida Power & Light Company submits an executed addendum to Exhibit A. to the Service Agreement for Network Integration Service with Seminole Electric Cooperative Inc. *Filed Date:* 01/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080129-0086. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-476-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* American Electric Power Corp submits an executed generation interconnection agreement between AEP Texas North Co and McAdoo Wind Energy LLC. *Filed Date:* 01/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080129-0087. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-477-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff of its executed external market monitor services agreement. *Filed Date:* 01/25/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080129-0089. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 15, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-478-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities submits an amendment to a contract with the City of Corbin, KY designated as First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 309. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080129-0092. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-479-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Company submits amendment to a contract between the City of Falmouth, Kentucky and KU under FERC Rate Schedule 310. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080129-0091. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-480-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits an amendment to a contract with the City Utility Commission of the City of Owensboro, Kentucky re First Revised Rate Schedule 300. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0087. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-481-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits an amendment to a contract with the City of Paris, Kentucky re First Revised Rate Schedule 301. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0088. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-482-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits an amendment to a contract with the City of Bardstown, Kentucky re First Revised Rate Schedule 302. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0089. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-483-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits an amendment to a contract with the City of Nicholasville, Kentucky re First Revised Rate Schedule 303. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0090. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-484-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits an amendment to a contract with the City of Barbourville, Kentucky re First Revised Rate Schedule 304. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0091. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-485-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits an amendment to a contract with the City of Providence, Kentucky re First Revised Rate Schedule 305. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0092. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-486-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits an amendment to a contract with the City of Madisonville, Kentucky re First Revised Rate Schedule 306. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0093. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-487-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits an amendment to a contract with the City of Bardwell, Kentucky re First Revised Rate Schedule 307. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0094. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-488-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits an amendment to a contract with the City of Benham, Kentucky re First Revised Rate Schedule 308. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0095. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ER08-489-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Co submits an amendment to a contract with the Frankfort Electric and Water Plant Board of the City of Frankfort, Kentucky re First Revised Rate Schedule 311. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080130-0096. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings: *Docket Numbers:* ES08-17-000. *Applicants:* South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Generating Company, Inc. *Description:* South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Generating Company, Inc. clarify and supplement their application. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080128-5012. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 5, 2008. *Docket Numbers:* ES08-26-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, LLC. *Description:* Request for authorization and approval to issue securities to finance PJM Interconnection LLC's capital requirements for the years 2008 to 2010. *Filed Date:* 01/28/2008. *Accession Number:* 20080128-5111. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 19, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protest. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2249 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PL07-2-000] Composition of Proxy Groups for Determining Gas and Oil Pipeline Return on Equity; Notice of Opportunity for Filing Reply Comments January 31, 2008. On January 23, 2008, a technical conference was held in this proceeding on the issue of master limited partnership growth rates. 1 As required by the Commission's December 13, 2007 notice, initial post-conference comments must be filed on or before February 11, 2008. In addition, notice is hereby given that reply comments may be filed on or before February 20, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. 1 The technical conference was established by Commission order issued November 15, 2007. See Composition of Proxy Groups for Determining Gas and Oil Pipeline Return on Equity, 121 FERC ¶ 61,165 (2007). [FR Doc. E8-2201 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP08-61-000] Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization January 31, 2008. Take notice that on January 23, 2008, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC (Trunkline), P. O. Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210-4967, filed in Docket No. CP08-61-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.210, and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to relocate an existing interconnect with Enbridge Pipeline (East Texas) L.P. (Enbridge), located in Hardin County, Texas, and increase the certificated capacity of Trunkline's North Texas transmission system by 40 MMcf/d, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web 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, contact FERC at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call toll-free,
(886)208-3676 or TYY,
(202)502-8659. Specifically, Trunkline proposes to relocate the Enbridge Pipeline (East Texas) L.P. Meter Station from its current location at Trunkline's existing Kountze Compressor Station, located in Kountze, Hardin County, Texas, to a new location near Silsbee, Hardin County, Texas. Trunkline states that the relocation will increase the certificated capacity of Trunkline's North Texas transmission system expansion facilities by 40 MMcf/d. Trunkline asserts that the increase in capacity will benefit Trunkline's shippers. Trunkline declares that it will be able to receive, and, at the same time, Enbridge will be able to increase the volumes of natural gas being delivered to Trunkline for further transportation to natural gas markets. Trunkline proposes to relocate the Enbridge facilities located at the Kountze Compressor Station approximately 15 miles east and install and own two 12-inch hot tap assemblies on existing 24-inch Lines 100-1 and 100-2, and install a 16-inch above-grade valve that will function as the overpressure protection device and RTU. Trunkline estimates the cost to relocate the meter station to be $983,040. Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Stephen T. Veatch, Regulatory Affairs, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC, 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston Texas 77056, call
(713)989-2024, fax
(713)989-1158, or by e-mail *Stephen.Veatch@SUG.com* . Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 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 section 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 therefore, 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. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2203 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8526-6] Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement; Request for Public Comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement, to address a lawsuit filed by the Battery Council International (“BCI”) in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: *Battery Council International* v. *EPA,* No. 07-1364 (D.C. Cir.). On September 13, 2007, BCI filed a petition for review challenging regulations promulgated by EPA in a final rule entitled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving” published at 72 FR 38864 (July 16, 2007) (the “Battery NESHAP”). Specifically, BCI is challenging the Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing NESHAP regarding the scope of the performance test requirement in Subpart PPPPPP, 40 CFR 63.11423(c)(1). Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, EPA shall sign a notice of proposed rulemaking and/or direct final rulemaking that contains a technical amendment to the Battery NESHAP that is substantially the same in substance as set forth in Attachment A of the proposed settlement agreement. DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be received by March 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2008-0076, online at *www.regulations.gov* (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to *oei.docket@epa.gov;* mailed to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Versace, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:
(202)564-0219; fax number
(202)564-5603; e-mail address: *versace.paul@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Battery Council International
(BCI)filed a petition for review of the rules applicable to Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing on September 13, 2007. BCI raised issues regarding the scope of the performance test requirement in Subpart PPPPPP, 40 CFR 63.11423(c)(1) of the Battery NESHAP. The settlement agreement provides that within three days after the agreement is executed BCI and EPA will jointly notify the Court of this settlement agreement and request that the case continue to be held in abeyance. The settlement agreement states that EPA shall sign a notice of proposed rulemaking and/or direct final rulemaking that contains a technical amendment to the Battery NESHAP that is substantially the same in substance as set forth in Attachment A. If EPA signs and thereafter publishes in the **Federal Register** a final rule that contains a technical amendment to the Battery NESHAP that is substantially the same in substance as set forth in Attachment A to the settlement agreement, BCI and EPA will file the appropriate pleading for the dismissal of the petition for review with prejudice in accordance with Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. For a period of thirty
(30)days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent to the settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed. II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement Agreement A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Settlement Agreement? Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2008-0076, which contains a copy of the settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information
(OEI)Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is
(202)566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through *www.regulations.gov* . You may use the *www.regulations.gov* Web site to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number. It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at *www.regulations.gov* without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center. B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Use of the *www.regulations.gov* Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. Dated: January 30, 2008. Richard B. Ossias, Associate General Counsel. [FR Doc. E8-2252 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission, Comments Requested January 30, 2008. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on
(PRA)of 1995 (PRA), Public Law No. 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Subject to the PRA, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning
(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 7, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: You may submit all PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. post mail. To submit your comments by e-mail, send them to *PRA@fcc.gov.* To submit your comments by U.S. mail, mark them to the attention of Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918 or send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0407. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Application for Extension of Time to Construct a Digital Television Broadcast Station, FCC Form 337; Section 73.3598, Period of Construction. *Form Number:* FCC Form 337. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 160. *Estimated Time per Response:* 0.25 to 3 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement. *Total Annual Burden:* 263 hours. *Total Annual Cost:* $37,000. *Needs and Uses:* Congress has mandated that after February 17, 2009, full-power television broadcast stations must transmit only in digital signals, and may no longer transmit analog signals. On December 22, 2007, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in the matter of the Third Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, MB Docket No. 07-91, FCC 07-228, to establish the rules, policies and procedures necessary to complete the nation's transition to Digital TV (DTV). With the DTV transition deadline less than 14 months away, the Commission must ensure that broadcasters meet their statutory responsibilities and complete construction of, and begin operations on, the facility on their final, post-transition (digital) channel that will reach viewers in their authorized service areas by the statutory transition deadline, when they must cease broadcasting in analog. The Commission wants to ensure that no consumers are left behind in the DTV transition. Specifically, the Report and Order requires the following: • *Extension Requests.* Stations with a construction deadline on or before February 17, 2009 may file a request for an extension of time to construct their final, post-transition
(DTV)facility using FCC Form 337. • *Revisions to FCC Form 337.* FCC Form 337 was revised to reflect the stricter standard of review. • *Tolling Requests.* Stations with a construction deadline occurring February 18, 2009 or later may file a notification of an event that would toll their deadline to construct their final, post-transition
(DTV)facility using FCC Informal Application Form. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2100 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 011654-019. *Title:* The Middle East Indian Subcontinent Discussion Agreement. *Parties:* A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; CMA CGM S.A.; Hapag-Lloyd AG; National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia; Swire Shipping Limited; and United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G.). *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment deletes Emirates Shipping Line FZE; Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd. as parties to the agreement. *Agreement No.:* 011794-008. *Title:* COSCON/KL/YMUK/Hanjin/Senator Worldwide Slot Allocation & Sailing Agreement. *Parties:* COSCO Container Lines Company, Limited; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Yangming
(UK)Ltd.; Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.; and Senator Lines GmbH. *Filing Party:* Robert B. Yoshitomi, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; 555 West Fifth Street, 46th Floor; Los Angeles, CA 90013. *Synopsis:* The amendment revises the vessel contributions and fleet capacities of the parties. *Agreement No.:* 012024. *Title:* K-Line/NYK Atlantic Space Charter Agreement. *Parties:* Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha and Nippon Yusen Kaisha. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes K-Line to charter space to NYK in the trade between the U.S. East Coast and North Europe. *Agreement No.:* 012025. *Title:* PSW/NC Space Charter Agreement. *Parties:* Swordfish Shipping Inc. and NYKCool AB. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes the parties to charter space to each other in the trade between the U.S. East and West Coasts and Chile. *Agreement No.:* 012026. *Title:* Grand Alliance/Zim Atlantic Vessel Sharing Agreement. *Parties:* Hapag-Lloyd AG; Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Orient Overseas Container Line (Europe) Limited; Orient Overseas Container Line Limited; Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc.; ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Limited. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* Agreement would authorize the parties to share vessel space between the U.S. Atlantic Coast and North Europe. The parties request expedited review. Dated: February 1, 2008. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2220 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR part 515). Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants Phuong Cong La dba United Harbour Logistics, 2023 Johnston Street, Los Angeles, CA 90031, Officer: Phuong Cong La, Owner, (Qualifying Individual). Profes NWFS, Inc. dba New World Freight, System; Cargo Alliance Service, 1071 Sneath Lane, San Bruno, CA 94066, Officers: Young S. Sue, CFO, (Qualifying Individual), Yeau M. Yoon, President. Cargo World LLC, 111-115 Frank E. Rodgers Blvd. C., Ste. 303, Harrison, NJ 07029, Officers: Nelson Liu, Member/Manager, (Qualifying Individual). FedEx Trade Networks Transport & Brokerage, 223 Hing Fong Road, Kwai Fong Tower 1, Metroplaza, Units 801-10 & 23-25 Level 8, New Territories, China, Officer: George E. Clark, President, (Qualifying Individual). Taurus International Logistics, Inc., dba Taurus International Consolidators, 1560 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Ste. 420, Sunrise, FL 33323, Officers: Carlos Gutierrez, Vice President, (Qualifying Individual), Victoria P. Buitano, Director. Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicants Titan International Logistics, LLC, 16905 Keegan Ave., Carson, CA 90746, Officers: Howard Smith, Member/Manager, (Qualifying Individual), Christopher Lemire, Member/Manager. JAEMAR International Inc., 5810 Star Lane, Houston, TX 77057, Officer: Janette M. Marlowe, President, (Qualifying Individual). LQ Logistic Inc., 820 S. Garfield Ave., Ste. 202, Alhambra, CA 91801, Officers: Eric G. Qian, CEO, (Qualifying Individual), Christin Y. Liu, President. Unitor Ships Service, Inc., 9400 New Century Drive, Pasadena, TX 77507, Officers: Craig Toomey, Vice President, (Qualifying Individual), Colin P. Hatton, President. Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicant Bosmak, Inc. dba Ocean Breeze Shipping, 2501 Harford Road, Ste. 201, Baltimore, MD 21213, Officers: Steve O. Onyilokwu, President, (Qualifying Individual), Beatrice O. Onyilokwu, Secretary. Dated: February 1, 2008. Karen V. Gregory, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2218 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 2008 Travel and Relocation Innovation Award AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The General Services Administration
(GSA)is announcing the 2008 Travel and Relocation Innovation Award. This award will recognize masters of travel and/or relocation management. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Go to GSA's 2008 Travel and Relocation Innovation Award at *http://www.gsa.gov/travelrelocationaward* or contact Jane Groat, Travel Management Policy, Office of Travel, Transportation, and Asset Management (MT), General Services Administration, Washington, DC 20405,
(202)501-4318, *jane.groat@gsa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Travel Regulation is contained in Title, 41 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Chapters 300 through 304), and implements statutory requirements and executive branch policies for travel and relocation by Federal civilian employees and others authorized to travel and relocate at Government expense. GSA announces an award to recognize and honor excellence in Federal travel and relocation. This award, available to all Federal employees, will honor individuals and/or teams. In addition to cash awards, one or more entries may receive honorable mention. Entries must be received no later than March 31, 2008. Announcement and presentation of winners will be at the National Travel Forum 2008 (June 3-6, 2008; Atlanta, GA; *http://www.nationaltravelforum.org* ). Dated: January 29, 2008. Patrick McConnell, Acting Director, Travel Management Policy. [FR Doc. E8-2217 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [FMR B-17] Stewardship of Federal Property; Notice of GSA Bulletin AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Notice of a bulletin. SUMMARY: This notice announces GSA Federal Management Regulation
(FMR)Bulletin B-17 which provides guidance to Federal agencies to maximize the use and benefits of property throughout the asset management lifecycle and to explain how those benefits are extended to the public. GSA Bulletin FMR B-17 may be found at *http://www.gsa.gov/fmrbulletin* . DATES: The bulletin announced in this notice is effective January 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Travel, Transportation and Asset Management, at
(202)501-1777. Please cite Bulletin FMR B-17. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Section 521 of Title 40 of the United States Code ( 40 U.S.C. 521) and General Services Administration
(GSA)policies require the maximum use of excess property by executive agencies, and provide for the transfer of excess property to other Federal agencies and eligible recipients. In addition, section 524 of Title 40 United States Code (40 U.S.C. 524) and Federal Management Regulation
(FMR)section 102-36.45 (41 CFR 102-36.45) require that the agencies perform care and handling of excess property. Maintaining the utility of property protects the Government's investment in that property and saves Federal agencies and taxpayers valuable resources by avoiding the need to acquire new property. This notice announces GSA Bulletin FMR B-17 which provides guidance to Federal agencies to maximize the use and benefits of property throughout the asset management lifecycle and to explain how those benefits are extended to the public. B. Procedures Bulletins regarding asset management are located on the Internet at *http://www.gsa.gov/fmrbulletin* as Federal Management Regulation
(FMR)bulletins. Dated: January 30, 2008. Robert Holcombe, Director, Personal Property Management Policy. [FR Doc. E8-2219 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-08-07AP] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at
(404)639-5960 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov* . Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC or by fax to
(202)395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice. Proposed Project Preventive Medicine Residency and Fellowship Program Evaluation—New—Office of Workforce and Career Development (OWCD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description Preventive medicine is a specialized field of medical practice that works with large populations to promote good health; to prevent disease, injury and disability; and to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment of illness. It is unique because its central focus is population health. Despite the nation's growing need for preventive-medicine skills, numerous studies have demonstrated an increasing shortage of preventive medicine-trained professionals, and that shortage is projected to continue (American College of Preventive Medicine; Council on Graduate Medical Education). The specialty will benefit from attracting new residents, rewarding programs that fill positions with highly qualified candidates, and expanding the specialty into new medical leadership roles (Ducatman, et al., 2005). The mission of CDC's Preventive Medicine Residency and Fellowship (PMR/F) is to
(1)train public health and preventive medicine leaders, and
(2)maintain leadership in the field of preventive medicine training. CDC's PMR/F has been training physicians in the residency since 1972 and veterinarians in the fellowship since 1983. PMR/F consists of a competency-based curriculum, a one-year practicum, and sponsorship for a Master of Public Health degree for qualified applicants before the practicum year. PMR/F provides its residents and fellows with training and experience in leadership, management, program development and evaluation, and the translation of epidemiology to public health practice. During the past 15 years, the CDC PMR/F has adapted its educational plan and design in response to changing public health needs, feedback from trainees and stakeholders, internal reviews of the residency, changes in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements, and a formal national survey of Preventive Medicine Residency graduates conducted by CDC in 1991. The last formal evaluation of the program occurred as part of the 1991 survey. CDC proposes a new project to evaluate the PMR/F. The goals of the evaluation are to determine:
(1)How well PMR/F is fulfilling its mission to train competent public health practitioners and leaders,
(2)the effectiveness of the PMR/F educational program, and
(3)PMR/F's contribution to its residents and fellows, the CDC, and the larger public health community. As part of this project, PMR/F practicum alumni and a matched group of physicians and veterinarians who were eligible to apply to PMR/F will be asked to complete a questionnaire to provide information that addresses the evaluation's goals. Below is a description of the questionnaire's response burden. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours are 16. Estimate of Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response Study Group Physicians 8 1 30/60 Reference Group Physicians 17 1 30/60 Study Group Veterinarians 2 1 30/60 Reference Group Veterinarians 3 1 30/60 Dated: January 30, 2008. Maryam Daneshvar, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-2213 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-08-0026] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at
(404)639-5960 or send an email to *omb@cdc.gov* . Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC or by fax to
(202)395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice. Proposed Project Report of Verified Case of Tuberculosis (RVCT), (OMB No. 0920-0026)—Revision—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description In the United States, an estimated 10 to 15 million people are infected with *Mycobacterium tuberculosis* and about 10% of these persons will develop tuberculosis
(TB)disease at some point in their lives. TB is a reportable disease in every state. National TB surveillance has been conducted and maintained by the U.S. Public Health Service and CDC through the cooperation of the states since 1953. Data are collected by 60 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and 7 jurisdictions in the Pacific and Caribbean). CDC's Division of Tuberculosis Elimination
(DTBE)has revised the Report of Verified Case of Tuberculosis
(RVCT)data collection instrument, which has been in use since 1993. The increase in burden hours is due to the addition of information on new clinical diagnostic tests and factors to identify high-risk patients. The revision captures changes in the diagnosis and treatment of TB, and improves the monitoring of trends in TB epidemiology and outbreaks and support CDC in developing strategies to meet the national goal of TB elimination. In 2001, DTBE initiated a comprehensive review of the RVCT with stakeholders and partner organizations. This review resulted in the revision of the data collection form in 2007. The reporting areas use and analyze their RVCT data to monitor local TB trends, evaluate program success, and focus resources to eliminate TB. CDC uses the RVCT data to monitor national trends by demographics, risk, and region. These summaries are published annually in CDC-sponsored publications, journals, and are submitted as Agency reports to the Congress. CDC is requesting approval for approximately 8050 burden hours, an estimated increase of 490 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 8050. Estimate of Annualized Burden Hours Types of respondents Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) Local, state, and territorial health departments 60 230 35/60 Dated: January 30, 2008. Maryam I. Daneshvar, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-2214 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request *Title:* Descriptive Study of Early Head Start (DSEHS). *OMB No.:* New Collection. *Description:* The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), requests clearance to recruit Early Head Start
(EHS)programs for participation in the Descriptive Study of Early Head Start (DSEHS) and to conduct a pilot test of potential measures. DSEHS is a longitudinal study of a representative sample of programs and children in three age cohorts, which will collect information about programs, families, and services. When completed, data will be collected on a sample of approximately 2,100 children and families from 60 EHS programs. Data will be collected in four waves: Fall 2008, Fall 2009, Fall 2010, and Fall 2011. Children and families will be followed until children are three years old and exit EHS programs. Data collected under DSEHS will complement information gathered under the Survey of Early Head Start Programs (SEHSP), OMB Control No. 0992-0008. SEHSP gathered information on the management systems, services, and characteristics of children and families served by EHS programs. To complement this information, DSEHS will gather information on the needs and characteristics of children and families enrolled in EHS programs, including an assessment of children's and families' needs, how programs meet the needs of children and families in EHS programs, and how children and families in EHS programs progress over time. The activity proposed under this notice includes only the data collected during the selection and recruitment of programs to participate in DSEHS and a pilot study on the feasibility of proposed measures. To select and recruit programs, ACF intends to send letters to program directors of selected EHS programs. Directors will receive a summary of the study goals that will include an overview of the design and data collection, a brochure describing the study, and examples of the consent materials for enrolling study participants. Programs will not be asked to enroll participants during the initial selection and recruitment phase. Selected programs may also receive a follow-up phone call to answer questions from EHS directors or staff. Program directors will be asked to provide information on the numbers of families enrolled with children who will be within two months of the target ages at the time of each of the four fall data collections. ACF intends to conduct a feasibility pilot study at two EHS programs in June 2008. In the pilot study, ACF will test the feasibility of administering various direct child assessment measures and parent interviews. *Respondents:* EHS Program Directors, parents, and Children. Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Annual number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden hours per response Estimated annual burden hours Recruitment materials sent to program sites 60 1 .25 15 Program roster of children in target ages 60 1 .50 30 Pilot Test—Child Assessment 40 1 1.0 40 Pilot Test—Parent Interview 40 1 1.0 40 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 125. Additional Information Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* OMB Comment OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register.** Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, FAX: 202-395-6974, Attn: Desk Officer for ACF. January 29, 2008. Brendan Kelly, Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 08-529 Filed 2-6-08: 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 14
11 references not yet in our index
  • 16 USC 39e(b)(3)
  • 795 F.2d 816
  • 501 F.3d 1009
  • 501 F.3d 1037
  • 18 CFR 101
  • 51 FR 7611
  • 16 USC 791a-825r
  • 40 CFR 63.11423(c)(1)
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 46 CFR 515
  • 41 CFR 102
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice; request for comments (BPA File No
U.S.C.§ 839c
U.S.C.§ 839e
C.F.R.§ 301.1
U.S.C.§ 832
U.S.C.§ 838
U.S.C.§ 825
C.F.R.§ 385.210
C.F.R.§ 385.2001
C.F.R.§ 385.211
F. App'x795 F.2d 816
F. App'x501 F.3d 1009
F. App'x501 F.3d 1037
Cites 25 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.