71306 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Notices

[FR Doc. 00–30479 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–C

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. ER00–3783–000]

AES Mohave, LLC; Notice of Issuance

of Order

November 24, 2000.

AES Mohave, LLC (AES Mohave)

submitted for filing a rate schedule

under which AES Mohave will engage

in wholesale electric power and energy

transactions at market-based rates. AES

Mohave also requested waiver of

various Commission regulations. In

particular, AES Mohave requested that

the Commission grant blanket approval

under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future

issuances of securities and assumptions

of liability by AES Mohave.

On November 15, 2000, pursuant to

delegated authority, the Director,

Division of Corporate Applications,

Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates,

granted requests for blanket approval

under Part 34, subject to the following:

Within thirty days of the date of the

order, any person desiring to be heard

or to protest the blanket approval of

issuances of securities or assumptions of

liability by AES Mohave 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).

Absent a request for hearing within

this period, AES Mohave is authorized

to issue securities and assume

obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,

endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect

of any security of another person;

provided that such issuance or

assumption is for some lawful object

within the corporate purposes of the

applicant, and 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 AES Mohave’s issuances of

securities or assumptions of liability.

Notice is hereby given that the

deadline for filing motions to intervene

or protests, as set forth above, is

December 15, 2000.

Copies of the full text of the Order are

available from the Commission’s Public

Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE,

Washington, DC 20426. The Order 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. 00–30484 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. EC01–28–000]

Georgia Power Company; Notice of

Filing

November 24, 2000.

Take notice that on November 17,

2000, Georgia Power Company (Georgia

Power) tendered for filing with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

(Commission) an Application Pursuant

to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act

for Authorization to Exchange

Transmission Facilities.

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, N.E., Washington, D.C.

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

December 8, 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).

Comments and protests 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.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30488 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP01–31–000]

Kern River Gas Transmission

Company; Notice of Application

November 24, 2000.

On November 15, 2000, Kern River

Gas Transmission Company, (Kern

River), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City,

Utah 84158, filed in Docket No. CP01–

31–000 an application pursuant to

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)

and the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations for a certificate of public

convenience and necessity authorizing

Kern River to construct and operate

facilities required to expand its

transportation capacity from Wyoming

to California to serve 124,500 Mcf of

new firm, long-term capacity,

commencing May 1, 2002. Kern River

requests an up-front determination that

the project qualifies for rolled-in rate

treatment, and for approval of a pro

forma tariff provision establishing an

electric compressor fuel surcharge and

approval of its proposed accounting

treatment for certain expansion costs, all

as more fully set forth in the application

which is on file with the Commission

and open to public inspection. The

filing may be viewed at http://

www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call

202–208–2222 for assistance).

Kern River proposes to install the

following facilities: (1) Three new

compressor stations, the Elberta

Compressor Station, in Utah County,

Utah, the Veyo Compressor Station in

Washington County, Utah and the

Daggett Compressor Station in San

Bernardino County, California; (2) an

additional compressor unit at the

existing Muddy Creek Compressor

Station in Lincoln County, Wyoming;

(3) restaging of the compressor at the

existing Fillmore Compressor in Millard

County, Utah; and (4) upgrades of the

existing Opal Meter Station in Lincoln

County, Wyoming and the Wheeler

Ridge Meter Station in Kern County,

California. It is indicated that the

proposed compression facilities will

add a total of 49,500 horsepower to the

Kern River system at a cost of

approximately $80 million.

Kern River states that the proposed

expansion facilities are designed to

accommodate the 124,500 dt per day of

commitments for new firm service from

Wyoming to California under four longterm (10 and 15-year) agreements

resulting from a recent open season. It

is stated that Kern River in the open

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 231 / Thursday, November 30, 2000 / Notices 71307

season solicited requests for capacity

turnback, but received no offers to

release capacity. Kern River also states

that the expansion transportation

agreements are subject to the applicable

extended term (ET) rates under the ET

rate program recently approved for

future implementation on the Kern

River system. Kern River estimates that

the rolled-in effect of the proposed

expansion will be an approximately 4 to

6 percent reduction in otherwise

applicable rates for existing shippers,

partially offset by an increase in fuel

reimbursement obligations as a result of

the added compression. It is indicated

that, pursuant to a rate settlement

obligation, Kern River will submit a

timely compliance filing to adjust its

rates effective with the in-service date of

the expansion to reflect the beneficial

impact of the expansion project.

It is also stated that the proposed

California compressor station will have

an electric motor-driven compression

unit. To ensure recovery of the

associated actual electric fuel costs from

its shippers flowing gas through that

point, Kern River proposes an electric

compressor fuel surcharge under its

tariff. It is indicated that, based on the

stated assumptions for electricity costs,

the initial surcharge is $0.0051 per dt of

service flowing through that station.

Kern River also states that the

$800,000 estimated cost to restage the

existing compressor unit at the Fillmore

Compressor Station will be expensed

consistent with the FERC’s Gas Plant

Instructions in Part 201 of the

Commission’s Regulations. Kern River

requests approval to amortize the

restaging expense over 15 years,

consistent with the contract terms

applicable to most of the expansion

capacity. It is also indicated that use of

the approved ET rate levelization

methodology for the proposed roll-in

results in the new regulatory

depreciation rates shown in Exhibit O of

the application. Kern River requests

that, since the total debt-related

depreciation expenses still will be

recovered over the primary terms of the

service agreements, it should be

permitted to continue accounting for the

differences between its book

depreciation and its regulatory

depreciation as a regulatory asset or

liability, with amortization over the

primary terms of the underlying service

agreements.

Kern River avers that the expansion

shippers require service by May 1, 2002,

in order to serve the fuel requirements

of new and existing electric power

generation facilities in California, and

that the new facilities will require seven

months to construct.

Questions regarding the details of this

proposed project should be directed to

Gary Kotter, Manager, Certificates, at

(801)–584–7117, or in writing to his

attention at Kern River Gas

Transmission Company, P.O. Box

58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158.

There are two ways to become

involved in the Commission’s review of

this project. First, any person wishing to

obtain legal status by becoming a party

to the proceedings for this project

should, on or before December 13, 2000,

file with the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE,

Washington, DC 20426, a motion to

intervene in accordance with the

requirements of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations

under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A

person obtaining party status will be

placed on the service list maintained by

the Secretary of the Commission and

will receive copies of all documents

filed by the applicant and by all other

parties. A party must submit 14 copies

of filings made with the Commission

and must mail a copy to the applicant

and to every other party in the

proceeding. Only parties to the

proceeding can ask for court review of

Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to

intervene in order to have comments

considered. The second way to

participate is by filing with the

Secretary of the Commission, as soon as

possible, an original and two copies of

comments in support of or in opposition

to this project. The Commission will

consider these comments in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but the filing of a comment alone

will not serve to make the filer a party

to the proceeding. The Commission’s

rules require that persons filing

comments in opposition to the project

provide copies of their protests only to

the party or parties directly involved in

the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only

on the environmental review of this

project should submit an original and

two copies of their comments to the

Secretary of the Commission.

Environmental commenters will be

placed on the Commission’s

environmental mailing list, will

received copies of the environmental

documents, and will be notified of

meetings associated with the

Commission’s environmental review

process. Environmental commenters

will not be required to serve copies of

filed documents on all other parties.

However, the non-party commenters

will not receive copies of all documents

filed by other parties or issued by the

Commission (except for the mailing of

environmental documents issued by the

Commission) and will not have the right

to seek court review of the

Commission’s final order.

The Commission may issue a

preliminary determination on nonenvironmental issues prior to the

completion of its review of the

environmental aspects of the project.

This preliminary determination

typically considers such issues as the

need for the project and its economic

effect on existing customers of the

applicant, on other pipelines in the area,

and on landowners and communities.

For example, the Commission considers

the extent to which the applicant may

need to exercise eminent domain to

obtain rights-of-way for the proposed

project and balances that against the

non-environmental benefits to be

provided by the project. Therefore, if a

person has comments on community

and landowner impacts from this

proposal, it is important either to file

comments or to intervene as early in the

process as possible.

Comments and protests 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.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

If the Commission decides to set the

application for a formal hearing before

an Administrative Law Judge, the

Commission will issue another notice

describing that process. At the end of

the Commission’s review process, a

final Commission order approving or

denying a certificate will be issued.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30485 Filed 11–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket Nos. RP98–39–000 et al.]

Northern Natural Gas Company et al.;

Notice of Summary Settlement on

Kansas Ad Valorem Tax Refund

Matters on Northern Natural Gas

Company’s System

November 24, 2000

In the matter of: GP98–5–000, GP98–8–000,

GP98–12–000, GP98–14–000, GP98–20–000,

GP98–22–000, GP98–24–000, GP98–26–000,

GP98–30–000, GP99–15–000, GP99–16–000,

GP99–17–000, GP99–18–000, SA98–8–000,

SA98–10–000, SA98–16–000, SA98–18–000,

SA98–20–000, SA98–22–000, SA98–32–000,