Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Notices 33529

1Sections 7(a)(2) and 7(i)(6) of the Northwest

Power Act, 16 USC §§ 839e(a)(2) and 839e(i)(6)

(1994).

2 18 C.F.R. Part 300 (1999).

3See United States Department of Energy—

Bonneville Power Administration, 80 FERC

¶ 61,118 (1997).

4Sections 7(a)(2) and 7 (i)(6), 16 U.S.C.

§§ 839e(a)(2) and 839e(i)(6) (1994).

5SoCal Edison cites to the Cross-Examination

Testimony of Gary Bolden, Tr. at 146, lines 6–11.

Dated: May 12, 2000.

J. L. Roth,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register

Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–12998 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP99–355–002]

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company;

Notice of Filing

May 18, 2000.

Take notice that on May 1, 2000,

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

(BGE), and Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation (Columbia) separately filed

reports to comply with a Commission

order issued July 29, 1999, in Docket

No. RP99–355–000. The filings report

on the parties’ efforts to develop an

unbundling program with BGE that does

not require waiver of the Commission’s

shipper must have title policy.

Any person desiring to protest this

filing should file a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Section

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations. All such protests must be

filed as provided in Section 154.210 of

the Commission’s Regulations. 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 proceedings.

Copies of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection in the Public Reference

Room. This filing may be viewed on the

web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/

rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–13011 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. EF00–2011–000]

United States Department of Energy—

Bonneville Power Administration;

Order Approving Rates on an Interim

Basis and Providing Opportunity for

Additional Comments

Issued May 19, 2000.

In this order, we approve the

Bonneville Power Administration’s

(Bonneville) proposed rates on an

interim basis, pending our full review

for final approval. We also provide for

an additional period of time for the

parties to file comments.

Background

On March 21, 2000, the Bonneville

Power Administration (Bonneville) filed

a request for interim and final approval

of an adjustment of its Firm Power

Products and Services rate schedule

(FPS–96R) in accordance with the

Pacific Northwest Electric Power

Planning and Conservation Act

(Northwest Power Act) 1 and Subpart B

of Part 300 of the Commission’s

regulations.2 FPS–96R was previously

approved by the Commission for a tenyear period through September 30,

2006.3 The filing incorporates into FPS–

96R seasonally and diurnally adjusted

rates for the capacity without energy

product; the rates were inadvertently

omitted when the rate schedule was

originally adopted. Bonneville contends

that the purpose of this filing is to allow

Bonneville to recover the costs that are

incurred by Bonneville offering this

product, as the inadvertent omission

could distort the revenue requirements

already adopted by the Commission.

Bonneville states that no other aspect of

FPS–96R is being adjusted, and it

otherwise continues in full force and

effect through September 30, 2006.

In accordance with the statutory

procedure, 4 Bonneville seeks interim

approval of its rates, effective May 1,

2000, pending Commission

consideration of whether to approve the

rates on a final basis. Bonneville

requests approval of the modification of

the FPS–96R rate for the period

beginning May 1, 2000, through

September 30, 2006.

Notice of Filing and Interventions

Notice of Bonneville’s filing was

published in the Federal Register, 65

Fed. Reg. 19,370 (2000), with comments,

protests, or motions to intervene due on

or before April 20, 2000.

Goldendale Aluminum Company,

Northwest Aluminum Company,

Reynolds Metals Company, Kaiser

Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, and

Elf Atochem, North America (the

Aluminum Companies) jointly filed a

timely motion to intervene, raising no

substantive issues.

Southern California Edison Company

(SoCal Edison) filed a timely motion to

intervene and protest. SoCal Edison

requests that Bonneville’s filing be

rejected and that interim approval of the

rate be denied. SoCal Edison argues that

there is no evidence supporting the

filing and that Bonneville has failed to

comply with the applicable provisions

of the Northwest Power Act. SoCal

Edison further opposes Bonneville’s

request for waiver of the filing

requirements and the 60-day prior

notice requirement of the Commission’s

regulations. In the alternative, SoCal

Edison requests that the Commission

deny Bonneville interim approval of the

proposed rate, suspend the proposed

rate and set this matter for an

evidentiary hearing.

SoCal Edison disputes both the

procedure by which Bonneville

developed the rate and the procedures

it has followed in this processing. SoCal

Edison states that the methodology used

by Bonneville in developing the

proposed rate is inconsistent with

Bonneville’s general obligations to set

rates having regard to the recovery of

the cost of generation and transmission,

to encourage the most widespread use of

Bonneville power, and to set rates at the

lowest possible rates to consumers.

SoCal Edison asserts that the proposed

rate is not based upon the actual costs

of generation and transmission incurred

by Bonneville. Instead, SoCal Edison

asserts, Bonneville has proposed a rate

supposedly based upon the market even

though, by the testimony of its own

witness, no market exists.5 SoCal Edison

argues that Bonneville’s methodology

used in developing this market rate is

not supported by credible data or

analyses and is inconsistent with the

methodology used in developing either

market-based rates or cost-based rates in

both the 1996 general rate proceeding

and the general rate proceeding that