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
2146 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 1997 / Notices

system. Questar states that the

Drunkard’s Wash No. 1 station is no

longer utilized as a receipt point,

declaring that instead the natural gas

produced by River Gas is now delivered

at an alternate, larger capacity receipt

point, known as the Drunkard’s Wash

No. 2 station, which is located

approximately one mile south of the

facility proposed to be abandoned.

Questar is not proposing to abandon

any service.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before January

21, 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 permission and

approval for the proposed abandonment

are 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 Questar to appear or be

represented at the hearing.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–911 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP97–180–000]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of

Request Under Blanket Authorization

January 9, 1997.

Take notice that on January 2, 1997,

Questar Pipeline Company (Questar

Pipeline), 79 South State Street, Salt

Lake City, Utah 84111, filed in Docket

No. CP97–180–000 a request pursuant to

Sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205,

157.216) for authorization to abandon

an inactive delivery point historically

used to provided service to Geokinetics

under Questar Pipeline’s blanket

certificate issued in Docket No. CP82–

491–000 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.

Questar Pipeline states that the

delivery point is located in Uintah

County, Utah and that the asconstructed Geokinetics delivery point

consisted of skid-mounted measuring

and regulating facilities, a heater/

separator and associated piping. These

facilities were temporarily moved to

Questar Pipeline’s Vernal, Utah storage

yard for safe keeping when Geokinetics

went out of business. Questar Pipeline

believes that the inactive delivery point

should be formally abandoned since

Geokinetics has been out of business for

more than 10 years. Questar Pipeline

states that Geokinetics was the only

customer served at this location.

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 a application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–912 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP97–175–000]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline

Company; Notice of Request Under

Blanket Authorization

January 9, 1997.

Take notice that on December 30,

1996, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline

Company (Williston Basin), 200 North

Third Street, Bismark, North Dakota

58501 filed in Docket No. CP97–175–

000 a request pursuant to Sections

157.205, and 157.216 of the

Commission’s Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and

157.216) for approval and permission to

abandon a farm tap located in Dawson

County, Montana, under the blanket

certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82–

487–000, et al., pursuant to Section 7(c)

of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as

more fully set forth in the request which

is on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.

Williston Basin asserts that MontanaDakota Utilities Company (MontanaDakota), a local distribution company,

has extended its distribution system to

serve the load previously served

through the tap which Williston now

proposes to abandon. Williston Basin

also asserts that removal of the tap will

eliminate the possibility of ice damage

to the tap’s riser from the flooding of a

nearby river.

Any person or the Commission’s Staff

may, within 45 days after the issuance

of the instant notice by the Commission,

file pursuant to Rule 214 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (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

157.205), a protest to the request. If no

protest is filed within the time allowed

therefor, the proposed activities 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 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. 97–910 Filed 1–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. ER96–2926–000]

Wisconsin Power & Light Company;

Notice of Filing

January 10, 1997.

Take notice that on November 22,

1996, Wisconsin Power & Light