38530 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Notices

1Promoting Wholesale Competition Through

Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission

Services by Public Utilities: Recovery of Standard

Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,

Order No. 888, 61 FR 21,540 (1996), FERC Stats. &

Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), order on reh’g, Order No.

888–A, 62 FR 12,274 (1997), FERC Stats. & Regs.

¶ 31,048 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888–B,

81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No.

888–C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998).

2We also address two related filings of service

agreements that were entered into based on the

parties’ understanding of when the right of first

refusal may be exercised.

its compliance filing made in the abovereferenced dockets on April 20, 2000.

The ISO states that this filing has been

served upon all parties on the restricted

service list compiled by the Secretary in

the above-referenced proceeding.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest such filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426,

in accordance with Rules 211 and 214

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214). All such motions and protests

should be filed on or before June 26,

2000. Protests will be considered by the

Commission to determine the

appropriate action to be taken, but will

not serve to make protestants parties to

the proceedings. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a motion to

intervene. Copies of this filing are on

file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection. This

filing may also be viewed on the

Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/

online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–15567 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP00–380–000]

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Request Under

Blanket Authorization

June 15, 2000.

Take notice that on June 7, 2000,

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

(Columbia), 12801 Fair Lakes Parkway,

Fairfax, Virginia 22030–0146, filed in

Docket No. CP00–380–000, a request

pursuant to sections 157.205 and

157.208 (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.208)

of the Commission’s Regulations under

the Natural Gas Act, and Columbia’s

authorization in Docket No. CP83–76–

000, 22 FERC Paragraph 62,029 (1983)

to increase the maximum allowable

operating pressure (MAOP) of its

existing delivery lateral pipeline

designated as K–212 located in Ohio.

Columbia states the uprate is necessary

in order to provide volumes of natural

gas and the pressure requested by

Southeastern Natural Gas Company,

who will use the gas to serve Shelly

Asphalt Plant located in Licking

County, Ohio. The application may be

viewed on the web at www.ferc.fed.us/

online/rims.htm. Call (202) 208–2222

for assistance.

Any person or the Commission’s Staff

may, within 45 days after the issuance

of the instant notice by 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 regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205), a

protest to the request. If no protest is

filed within the time allowed, the

proposed activity shall be deemed to be

authorized effective the day after the

time allowed for filing a 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 Natural Gas Act.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–15569 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP00–136–002]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice

of Filing

June 15, 2000.

Take notice that on June 12, 2000, El

Paso Gas Company (El Paso), tendered

for filing its report detailing the fuel

adjustments made to affected shippers

on May 11, 2000 for the period February

1, 2000 through April 30, 2000, in

accordance with the provisions of the

Commission’s order issued April 14,

2000 at Docket No. RP00–136–000.

Any person desiring to protest said

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 on or before June 21, 2000. 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 202–208–222 for

assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–15568 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. EL00–46–000; et al.]

Entergy Power Marketing Corporation,

et al., Order Granting Complaint and

Rejecting Related Service Agreements,

Denying Complaint and Accepting

Related Service Agreement, and

Providing Clarification of Order No.

888

Issued June 15, 2000.

Before Commissioners: James J.

Hoecker, Chairman; William L.

Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Curt

He ́bert, Jr.

In this order, we address two

complaints that involve the exercise of

the right of first refusal provisions

established in the Order No. 888 1 pro

forma tariff.2 In one complaint (Docket

No. EL00–46–000), a customer alleges

that the transmission provider violated

its open access transmission tariff by

attempting to require the customer to

exercise its right of first refusal too

early. In the other complaint (Docket

No. EL00–53–000), a potential customer

alleges that the transmission provider

permitted its existing customer to

exercise its right of first refusal too late.

We now recognize that the right of first

refusal provisions of the pro forma tariff

are not sufficiently clear and provide

clarification to the parties to these

proceedings and of Order No. 888, as

discussed below. As a result, we grant

the complaint in Docket No. EL00–46–

000 and reject the related service

agreements and deny the complaint in

Docket No. EL00–53–000 and accept for

filing the related service agreement, as

discussed further below.