43718 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Notices

25 54 FERC ¶61,229 at 61,672 n.5 (1991).

26 Id. at 61,676. In response, Transok filed an

amended operating statement that deleted a

provision that the Commission determined might

discriminate against interstate shippers. 56 FERC

¶61,275 at 62,083 n.12 (1991).

27 55 FERC ¶61,189 at 61,627 (1991).

AOG also contends that its

interruptible transportation service is a

gathering service that has been regulated

by the Commission as a matter of

convenience. Statement at 15. This

argument proves too much, for if AOG’s

facilities are exempt gathering facilities,

it should not have a blanket certificate.

Indeed, AOG specifies that it does not

want the Commission to declare that

AOG’s facilities are ‘‘gathering.’’

Statement at 17 n.25.

AOG next argues that the Commission

cannot require it to amend its operating

statement by including the sales

provision, and adds that it is not aware

that the Commission has ever required

an intrastate pipeline or an Order No. 63

transporter to amend its operating

statement. Statement at 18–19. AOG

quotes from Transok, Inc.25 for the

proposition that, while the Commission

can reject or suspend proposed changes

in tariff provisions that interstate

pipelines file under NGA section 4, it

cannot reject or suspend an Order No.

63 transporter’s operating statement

filed under NGPA section 311. Here, the

Commission is not considering whether

to reject or suspend AOG’s operating

statement. Instead, the Commission is

exercising its authority to determine

whether AOG’s sales provision is lawful

and whether it should be included in

AOG’s operating statement. That is

consistent with our actions in Transok.

There, the Commission determined,

inter alia, that an intrastate pipeline that

provides section 311 service must

curtail firm shippers on a

nondiscriminatory basis. In that

proceeding, the Commission directed

Transok to amend its operating

statement to meet this requirement.26

AOG next cites CNG Transmission

Corporation 27 for the proposition that

the Commission can only recommend

(not require) the terms and conditions

under which an LDC transacts business

on its system. In that order, the

Commission declined to specify how an

LDC should broker transportation

capacity to end users receiving the

LDC’s non-jurisdictional distribution

service. Here, the Commission is

exercising its authority over the terms of

AOG’s jurisdictional transportation.

Finally, AOG suggests that because

the Commission approved its rates three

times since it filed its operating

statement, the sales provision is

insulated from further review.

Statement at 19. But the Commission

never addressed the sales provision

when it approved AOG’s rates, and

there is no indication that the

Commission was aware of it.

The Commission will require AOG to

show why, by including the sales

provision in its interstate IT agreements,

and by not disclosing this provision in

its operating statement, it has not

violated and is not violating NGA

sections 4(a) and 4(b), NGPA section

311(a)(2) and sections 284.9(b)(1),

284.123(a) and 284.123(e) of the

Commission’s regulations.

The Commission orders:

(A) Within 30 days of the issuance of

this order, AOG shall:

(1) File an answer to the allegations of

violations that conforms to the

requirements of Rule 213 of the

Commission’s Rules, 18 C.F.R. § 385.213

(1996). In its answer, AOG shall admit

or deny, specifically and in detail, each

allegation set forth in Part II of this

order, and shall set forth every defense

relied on. If an allegation is only

partially accurate, AOG shall specify

that part of the allegation it admits and

that part of the allegation it denies.

(2) Show why, by including the sales

provision in its interstate IT agreements,

it has not violated and is not violating

NGA sections 4(a) and 4(b), NGPA

section 311(a)(2) and section 284.9(b)(1)

of the Commission’s regulations.

(3) Show why, by not disclosing the

sales provision in its operating

statement, it has not violated and is not

violating sections 284.9(b)(1) and

284.123(e) of the Commission’s

regulations.

(4) AOG shall separately state the

facts and the arguments that it advances.

AOG must support with exhibits,

affidavits and/or prepared testimony

any facts that it alleges. AOG’s

statement of material facts must include

citation to supporting data. In addition

to its answer, AOG must respond to the

following requests for information and

documents. All materials must be

subscribed and verified as set forth in

sections 385.2005 (a) and (b)(2) of the

Commission’s regulations, 18 C.F.R.

§§ 385.2005 (a) and (b)(2) (1996).

(a) State the full legal name and

business address of each entity with

which AOG has executed a currently

effective Order No. 63 transportation

agreement. For each entity identified,

provide a copy of the transportation

agreement, as amended. For each

transportation agreement provided, state

the expiration date of the agreement if

it is not clearly set forth in the copy of

the agreement.

(b) State whether AOG has ever

invoked the sales provision (or a similar

provision) for any transportation

agreement provided in response to (a).

(c) For each transportation agreement

for which AOG has invoked the sales

provision (or a similar provision),

provide the following information and

documents:

(i) The date on which AOG invoked

the provision;

(ii) The period during which the

shipper sold gas to AOG pursuant to the

provision;

(iii) The quantity and sales price of

the gas the shipper sold to AOG, and the

amount of the transportation charges

AOG refunded to the shipper; and

(iv) All documents relating to AOG’s

purchase of gas under the provision or

notification to the shipper that sales

would no longer be required under the

provision.

(B) AOG’s request for confidential

treatment for its June 23, 1997 statement

is granted with respect to the offer of

settlement contained therein and denied

with respect to the remainder of the

statement.

(C) Notice of this proceeding will be

published in the Federal Register.

Interested parties will have 20 days

from the date of publication of the

notice to intervene.

By the Commission.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–21613 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP97–663–000]

CNG Transmission Corporation; Notice

of Request Under Blanket Authority

August 11, 1997.

Take notice that on July 23, 1997,

CNG Transmission Corporation (CNG),

445 West Main Street, Clarksburg, West

Virginia 26301, filed in Docket No.

CP97–663–000 a request pursuant to

Sections 157.205, 157.211 and 157.216

of the Commission’s Regulations under

the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205,

157.211 and 157.216) for authorization

to expand the facilities at the existing

Jefferson Measuring and Regulation

Station (Jefferson Station) near Jefferson,

Frederick County, Maryland, under

CNG’s blanket certificate issued in

Docket No. CP82–537–000 pursuant to

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as

more fully set forth in the request that

is on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Notices 43719

CNG states that the existing Jefferson

Station must be expanded to provide

additional natural gas service to

Washington Gas Light Company

(Washington Gas Light). CNG states that

Washington Gas Light has requested an

increase from 2,000 Dth/day to 24,000

Dth/day in the natural gas service CNG

provides them through the Jefferson

Station. CNG states that the maximum

daily design delivery capacity of the

modified Jefferson Station equipment is

24,000 Dth/day.

CNG states that under Letter

Agreement dated May 29, 1997,

Washington Gas Light has consented to

execute a new service agreement with

CNG for additional deliveries of gas.

CNG also states that the total estimated

cost of the construction is $1,200,000,

and that Washington Gas Light will

reimburse CNG for one half of the costs

of such expansion upon completion of

the station.

Any person or the Commission’s staff

may, within 45 days after 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 Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a

protest to the request. If no protest is

filed within the time allowed therefor,

the proposed activity shall be deemed to

be authorized effective the day after the

time allowed for 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. 97–21610 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP97–681–000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company;

Notice of Request Under Blanket

Authorization

August 11, 1997.

Take notice that on August 4, 1997,

Florida Gas Transmission Company

(FGT), 1400 Smith Street, Houston,

Florida 77002, filed in Docket No.

CP97–681–000 a request pursuant to

Sections 157.205 and 157.212 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and

157.212) for authorization to construct

and operate a delivery point in Levy

County, Florida under FGT’s blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP82–

553–000 pursuant to Section 7 of the

Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set

forth in the request that is on file with

the Commission and open to public

inspection.

FGT proposes to construct, operate,

and own an additional delivery point

for West Florida Natural Gas Company

(West Florida) at or near mile post 53.2

on its existing Inglis Lateral in Levy

County, Florida. FGT states that the

subject delivery point will include a tap,

a valve, minor connecting pipe,

electronic flow measurement

equipment, and other related

appurtenant facilities necessary for FGT

to deliver up to a maximum of 200

MMBtu per day and 73,000 per year.

FGT will be reimbursed for the

construction costs which is estimated at

$57,000. FGT further states that West

Florida will construct, own, and operate

the meter and regulation station.

FGT states that the delivery point is

not prohibited by its existing tariff and

that it has sufficient capacity to

accomplish deliveries without

detriment or disadvantage to other

customers. The proposed delivery point

will not have an effect on FGT’s peak

day and annual deliveries and the total

volumes delivered will not exceed total

volumes authorized prior to this

request.

Any person or the Commission’s staff

may, within 45 days after 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 Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a

protest to the request. If no protest is

filed within the time allowed therefor,

the proposed activity shall be deemed to

be authorized effective the day after the

time allowed for 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. 97–21611 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Project No. 1218]

Georgia Power Company; Notice of

Availability of Study Results and

Request for Additional Studies

August 11, 1997.

Georgia Power Company is currently

engaged in the process of obtaining from

the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (Commission) a new

license for the Flint River Hydroelectric

Project (FERC No. 1218). The current

license for the project is due to expire

on September 30, 2001. The project is

located on the Flint River, near the City

of Albany, in Dougherty and Lee

Counties, Georgia. Under the

Commission’s Regulations, an

application for license for the project

must by filed by September 30, 1999.

Georgia Power Company is managing

relicensing activities in cooperation

with a team of federal and state resource

agencies, conservation groups, and local

governments (the Consultation Team).

Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of

1992, and the Commission’s

Regulations, Georgia Power Company

intends to prepare a Draft

Environmental Assessment (DEA) as

part of the license application, to be

filed with the Commission, for the

project. A public scoping meeting was

held on September 12, 1995 to identify

the scope of environmental issues that

should be analyzed in the DEA.

Based on information contained in

Scoping Document I, and following

receipt of additional informational from

resource agencies and other interested

parties, Georgia Power Company

prepared and circulated Scoping

Document II. Study plans, designed to

address the environmental concerns

raised during the scoping process, were

subsequently prepared by Georgia

Power Company and their

environmental consultant. The study

plans were then finalized, and studies

were undertaken from late Spring 1996

through late Spring 1997. During the

field studies, Georgia Power Company

and their environmental consultant

worked closely with the participating

agencies to coordinate and refine the

studies. During the period from August

15, 1997 until October 14, 1997, these

study reports will be available for public

review in Georgia Power Company’s

public library at its offices at 333

Piedmont Avenue in Atlanta, Georgia.

The study reports will also be available

in the Commission’s Public Reference

Room at 888 1st Street, NE in