2144 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices

Obligation (MDDOs) from an existing

point of delivery to COH to the

proposed point of delivery under

Columbia’s blanket certificate issued in

Docket No. CP83–76–000 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.

Columbia proposes to construct and

operate a new point of delivery for firm

transportation service of 120 Dth/day for

COH under Columbia’s Rate Schedule

SST. Columbia states that the quantities

of natural gas to be provided through

the new delivery point will be within

Columbia’s authorized level of services.

Columbia estimates the cost to

construct the new point of delivery as

$7,500 and states that COH will

reimburse it 100% of the total actual

cost of the proposed construction.

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

§ 157.205 of the Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 15.205) 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protest is filed and not withdrawn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. 97–913 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP97–176–000]

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Application

January 10, 1997.

Take notice that on December 31,

1996, Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation (Columbia), 1700

MacCorkle Avenue, S.E., Charleston,

West Virginia 25314–1599, filed in

Docket No. CP97–176–000 an

application pursuant to Sections 7(b)

and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for

permission and approval to abandon

pipeline facilities in the Terra Alta

Storage Field located in Preston County,

West Virginia, and to construct and

operate replacement facilities, all as

more fully set forth in the application

on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.

Columbia proposes to abandon 2.9

miles of various diameter segments of

storage pipeline and appurtenances and

to replace them with 2.6 miles of

various diameter segments of pipeline

and appurtenances. Columbia estimates

the cost of the replacement at

$2,394,700, with a net debit to

accumulated provisions for depreciation

for the abandoned facilities of $462,816.

It is stated that the proposal is part of

Columbia’s ongoing program of

upgrading its storage fields to ensure

reliable operation of its pipeline system.

It is asserted that the proposal will not

affect the reservoir performance of the

storage field or deliveries and that

Columbia is not requesting

authorization for any new or additional

service.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before January

31, 1997, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a

protest 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 Natural Gas Act (18 CFR

157.10). All protests filed with the

Commission will be considered by it in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken but will not serve to make the

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

to a proceeding or to participate as a

party in any hearing therein must file a

motion to intervene in accordance with

the Commission’s Rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to

the authority contained in and subject to

the jurisdiction conferred upon the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas

Act and the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure, a hearing will

be held without further notice before the

Commission or its designee on this

application if no motion to intervene is

filed within the time required herein, if

the Commission on its own review of

the matter finds that a grant of the

certificate is required by the public

convenience and necessity. If a motion

for leave to intervene is timely filed, or

if the Commission on its own motion

believes that a formal hearing is

required, further notice of such hearing

will be duly given.

Under the procedure herein provided

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be

unnecessary for Columbia to appear or

be represented at the hearing.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–930 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. ER96–1663–000]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San

Diego Gas & Electric Company and

Southern California Edison Company

Notice of Technical Conference and

Potential Broadcast of Technical

Conference

Issued January 8, 1997.

As previously announced in the

Commission’s order issued on December

18, 1996, Pacific Gas and Electric

Company, et al., 77 FERC ¶61,265

(1996), the Commission will convene a

technical conference in the above

captioned proceeding to be held on

Friday, January 17, 1997, at the offices

of the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426. The technical

conference will commence at 9:30 a.m.

and will be open to all interested

persons. The Commissioners and Staff

will participate in the technical

conference, which will address options

for mitigating the market power of

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San

Diego Gas & Electric Company and

Southern California Edison Company,

who have jointly filed an application for

authorization to sell power at marketbased rates through a power exchange.

The Conference will consist of three

panels, as outlined on the Attachment to

this notice. In addition, all interested

persons are invited to submit written

comments addressing topics discussed

at the technical conference. (There is no

need to reiterate comments that already

have been made in pleadings filed in

these dockets.) Comments must be

received on or before January 27, 1997.

The comments should not be longer

than 25 pages in length, double-spaced,

on 81⁄2′′ x 11′′ paper, with standard

margins. Parties submitting comments

must submit fourteen (14) written

copies of their comments and also must

submit two copies of the file on a

computer diskette, one in Wordperfect

5.1 format, and one in a DOS file in the

ASCII format (with 1′′ margins and 10

characters per inch.). The two computer

files should be labeled (—.WP and

—.ASC) to avoid confusion. Comments

must include a one-page executive

summary and must be filed with the

Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices 2145

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426

and reference Docket No. ER96–1663–

000. All written comments will be

placed in the Commission’s Public files

and will be available for inspection or

copying in the Commission’s Public

Reference Room during normal business

hours. The Commission also will make

all comments available to the public on

its electronic bulletin board (EBB).

Broadcast of Technical Conference

If there is sufficient interest, the

Capitol Connection will broadcast the

technical conference on January 17,

1997, to interested persons. Persons

interested in receiving the broadcast for

a fee should contact Julia Morelli at the

Capitol Connection (703–993–3100) no

later than January 14, 1997.

In addition, National Narrowcast

Network’s Hearings-On-the Line service

covers all Commission meetings live by

telephone so that anyone can listen

without special equipment. Call 202–

966–2211 for details. Billing is based on

time on-line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David E. Mead, Office of Economic

Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–1024.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

Attachment—Panels, WEPEX Market

Power Conference, January 17, 1997

Panel 1: Structural Mitigation Options

A number of options have been

proposed which alter the market

structure or create incentives to reduce

market power. Issues associated with

these options include:

• Divestiture: are the current

divestiture proposals adequate to

mitigate market power so that the

Commission can approve market-based

rates?

• Consumer access: how much do

retail competition and real-time pricing

mitigate horizontal market power?

• Existing entry barriers (generation

and transmission): what are they and

how can they be remedied? Who has the

authority to remove any such barriers?

• Call contracts: how do call contracts

mitigate market power for energy,

capacity and ancillary services? What

are the details that should be included

in the contracts? How should the call

contract prices be determined? Which

units should be subject to call contracts?

• Transmission constraints: how do

transmission constraints affect market

power? How do transmission rights

mitigate market power?

• Bidding trusts: what is needed to

mitigate market power? Should bidding

trusts be made a permanent mitigation

measure?

Panelists

Paul Joskow, Elizabeth and James

Killian Professor of Economics and

Management; Head, Department of

Economics, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

Representative, Sacramento Municipal

Utility District

Jan Smutney-Jones, Executive Director,

Independent Energy Producers

Association

Jim Macias, Vice President and General

Manager, Transmission Business

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Representative, California Public

Utilities Commission

Jeffrey D. Watkiss, Coalition for a

Competitive Electric Market

Panel 2: Mitigation—Institutional

When structural options are

unavailable or inappropriate, a number

of other options are available which

remove the incentive or ability of

entities to exercise market power. These

options could be applied to all market

participants and serve to ensure that

market power is mitigated or applied to

individual entities if the exercise of

market power is detected.

• Bidding rules: what are appropriate

bidding rules? In competitive markets,

generators would be expected to bid

their running costs.

• Bidding incentives: what is the

effect of the CTC (e.g., as a revenue cap

for the California IOUs)?

• Ancillary services: how may

ancillary services interact with other

services to encourage market power?

How should ancillary services be

procured to create competition and

mitigate market power?

Panelists

William Hieronymous, Putnam Hayes

and Bartlett, on behalf of San Diego

Gas and Electric Company

W. Kent Palmerton, Manager of Industry

Restructuring Programs, Northern

California Power Agency

John Jurewitz, Manager of Regulatory

Policy, Southern California Edison

Company

Barbara Barkovitch, California Large

Energy Consumers Association, or

Keith McRae, Attorney for California

Manufacturers Association

Eric Woychik, Utility Consumers Action

Network and Toward Utility Rate

Normalization

Panel 3: Monitoring for Market Power

• Information: what is the effect of

widely available information on the

ability to detect market power? What

information should be collected and

how will market power be identified?

• How do the physical properties of

the network change market power

analysis?

• How should capacity availability

and withholding be identified and

examined?

• Who should be responsible for

monitoring? What are the appropriate

roles for the ISO and the PX? What

should the Commission do to monitor

market power?

Panelists

Larry Ruff, Managing Director, Putnam,

Hayes and Bartlett (invited)

Michael Florio, Toward Utility Rate

Normalization

Representative, California Energy

Commission

Joe D. Pace, Pacific Gas & Electric

Company

Representative, Electricity Consumers

Resource Counsel

[FR Doc. 97–914 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP97–179–000]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of

Application

January 9, 1997.

Take notice that on January 2, 1997

Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) 79

South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah

84111, filed in Docket No. CP97–179–

000 an application pursuant to Section

7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, for

permission and approval to abandon, by

removal, the above ground Drunkard’s

Wash No. 1 Measuring and Regulating

Station located in Carbon County, Utah

that serves as a jurisdictional receipt

point on Questar’s interstate

transmission system, all as more fully

set forth in the application on file with

the Commission and open to public

inspection.

It is stated that the Drunkard’s Wash

No. 1 measuring and regulating station

consist of a 4-inch Daniel senior meter

run, a 3-inch Rockwell valve, telemetry

and appurtenances housed in a 4-foot by

6-foot skid mounted meter building.

Questar explains that the Drunkard’s

Wash No. 1 station was established as

a temporary facility to receive natural

gas volumes produced solely by River

Gas Corporation (River Gas) into

Questar’s interstate transmission