72188 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2004 / Notices 

1BP West Coast Producers, LLC v. FERC, 374 F.3d 

1263 (BP West Coast), reh’g denied, 2004 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 20976–98 (2004).

2Opinion No. 435 (86 FERC ¶ 61,022 (1999)), 

Opinion No. 435–A (91 FERC ¶ 61,135 (2000)), 

Opinion No. 435–B (96 FERC ¶ 61,281 (2000)), and 

an Order on Clarification and Rehearing (97 FERC 

¶ 61,138 (2001)) (collectively the Opinion No. 435 

orders.)

3 Lakehead Pipe Line Company, L.P., 71 FERC 

¶ 61,388 (1995), reh’g denied, 75 FERC ¶ 61,181 

(1998) (Lakehead).

4These were the stock of the corporate partner 

(which involves two layers of taxation of SFPP, L.P. 

earnings) and the limited partnership interests 

(which involve only one).

5Now pending before the Commission on remand 

and rehearing in Docket Nos. OR92–8–000, et al., 

and OR96–2–000, et al., respectively.

in respect of any security of another 

person; provided that such issuance or 

assumption is for some lawful object 

within the corporate purposes of QLT, 

compatible with the public interest, and 

is reasonably necessary or appropriate 

for such purposes. 

The Commission reserves the right to 

require a further showing that neither 

public nor private interests will be 

adversely affected by continued 

approval of QLT’s issuances of 

securities or assumptions of liability. 

Copies of the full text of the 

Commission’s Order are available from 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. The Order 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 filed to access the 

document. Comments, protests, and 

interventions may be filed electronically 

via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E4–3599 Filed 12–10–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. PL05–5–000] 

Inquiry Regarding Income Tax 

Allowances; Request for Comments 

December 2, 2004. 

1. On July 20, 2004, the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit issued an opinion in BP West 

Coast Producers, LLC v. FERC.1 In 

reviewing a series of orders involving 

SFPP, L.P.,2 the court held, among other 

things, that the Commission had not 

adequately justified its policy of 

providing an oil pipeline limited 

partnership with an income tax 

allowance equal to the proportion of its 

limited partnership interests owned by 

corporate partners. In that case, SFPP, 

Inc., the corporate partner owned some 

42.7 percent of SFPP, L.P.’s limited 

partnership interests. Thus, under the 

Commission’s ruling in the Opinion No. 

435 orders, SFPP, L.P. was permitted an 

income tax allowance for 42.7 percent of 

the net operating (pre-tax) income 

expected from operations. Pursuant to 

the so-called Lakehead income tax 

allowance doctrine,3 SFPP, L.P. was 

denied an income tax allowance equal 

to the 57.3 percent of its limited 

partnership interests that were held by 

non-corporate partners. The rationales 

for this doctrine the court rejected 

include: (1) The double taxation of 

corporate earnings, (2) the equalization 

of returns between different types of 

publicly held interests,4 and (3) 

encouraging capital formation and 

investment.

2. The Commission is seeking 

comments on whether the court’s ruling 

applies only to the specific facts of the 

SFPP, L.P. proceeding,5 or also extends 

to other capital structures involving 

partnership and other forms of 

ownerships. For example, should the 

court’s reasoning apply to partnerships 

in which: (1) All the partnership 

interests are owned by investors without 

intermediary levels of ownership; (2) 

the only intermediary ownership is a 

general partnership; (3) all the 

partnership interests are owned by 

corporations; and (4) the corporate 

ownership of the partnership interests is 

minimal, such as a 1 percent general 

partnership interest of a master limited 

partnership? If the court’s decision 

precludes an income tax allowance for 

a partnership or other ownership 

interests under any of these situations, 

will this result in insufficient incentives 

for investment in energy infrastructure? 

Or will generally the same amount of 

investment occur through other 

ownership arrangements? Are there 

other methods of providing an 

opportunity to earn an adequate return 

that are not dependent on the tax 

implications of a particular capital 

structure?

3. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit comments on the 

issues and specific questions identified 

in this notice. Comments are due by 

December 22, 2004. Comments must 

refer to Docket No. PL05–5–000.

By direction of the Commission. 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–27375 Filed 12–10–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EG05–19–000, et al.] 

Texas Genco, L.P., et al.; Electric Rate 

and Corporate Filings 

November 3, 2004. 

The following filings have been made 

with the Commission. The filings are 

listed in ascending order within each 

docket classification. 

1. Texas Genco, LP 

[Docket No. EG05–19–000] 

Take notice that on October 28, 2004, 

Texas Genco, LP (Genco) tendered for 

filing an application for a determination 

of exempt wholesale generator status, 

pursuant to section 32(a)(1) of the 

Public Utility Holding Company Act of 

1935, as amended (PUHCA), 15 U.S.C. 

79z–5a(a)(1) (2000), and subchapter T, 

part 365 of the regulations of the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR 

part 365 (2004). 

Genco states that it is a limited 

partnership organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of Texas that 

will continue to own an interest in an 

electric generating facility with an 

aggregate maximum capacity of 

approximately 2,500 megawatts located 

in Texas. Genco states that it is and will 

continue to be engaged directly, or 

indirectly through one or more affiliates 

as defined in section 2(a)(11)(B) of 

PUHCA, and exclusively in the business 

of owning eligible facilities, and selling 

electric energy at wholesale. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on 

November 18, 2004. 

2. TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc. 

[Docket No. EG05–20–000] 

On October 29, 2004, TransCanada 

Hydro Northeast Inc. (TC Hydro NE), a 

Delaware corporation with its principal 

place of business in Westborough, 

Massachusetts, filed with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission an 

application for determination of exempt 

wholesale generator status pursuant to 

part 365 of the Commission’s 

regulations. 

TC Hydro NE states it will operate 

hydroelectric assets with a total 

generating capacity of approximately 

560 MW located in Massachusetts, New