29198 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices

1The 48-megawatt project consists of a 40-foot

high dam on the Chelan River at the lower end of

Lake Chelan, a 2-mile long steel and concrete

tunnel, and a powerhouse located near the

confluence of the Chelan and Columbia Rivers. 2 81 FERC 61,103 (1997).

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. PR98–13–000]

The Peoples Gas Light and Coke

Company; Notice of Petition for Rate

Approval

May 21, 1998.

Take notice on May 7, 1998, The

Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company

(Peoples Gas) filed a petition for rate

approval, pursuant to Section

284.123(b)(2) of the Commission’s

regulations, requesting that the

Commission approve as fair and

equitable rates for firm and interruptible

storage and parking and loaning services

to be effective June 1, 1998. Peoples Gas

has filed, as Exhibit B to its petition for

rate approval, a revised Operating

Statement that incorporates revisions

needed to offer firm and interruptible

storage services, limited parking and

loaning service and title tracking

service. At this time, Peoples Gas is not

proposing to charge for the title transfer

tracking service.

Peoples Gas states that it is an

intrastate gas distribution company

serving retail customers in the City of

Chicago, Illinois. Peoples Gas states that

it is a public utility under the Public

Utilities Act of Illinois and is subject to

the jurisdiction of the Illinois Commerce

Commission. Peoples Gas states that it

is authorized to provide interstate

services in accordance with Section

284.224 of the Commission’s

regulations.

Peoples Gas proposes for firm storage

service, maximum monthly reservation

rate of $1.6069 per MMBTu of

maximum daily withdrawal quantity; a

maximum monthly capacity charge of

$0.0643 per MMBtu of maximum

storage quantity; and a $0.0485

commodity charge per MMBtu of gas

injected into the shipper’s storage

account. The minimum charge is based

on the variable costs associated with the

service and would be $0.0002 per

MMBtu of gas injected into the shipper’s

storage account. For the interruptible

storage service, Peoples Gas proposes a

maximum commodity charge, based on

a 100% load factor derivation of the

firm storage rate, of $0.0551 per MMBtu

of inventory on any day and a minimum

charge of $0.0002 per MMBtu of daily

inventory. For the parking and loaning

service, which includes embedded

transportation, the maximum rate, based

on storage and transportation costs,

would be $0.1231 per MMBtu of

inventory any day and the minimum

rate would be $0.0002 per MMBtu of

inventory on any day. These proposed

maximum rates would be subject to

discounting.

Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2)(ii),

if the Commission does not act within

150 days of the filing date, the rate will

be deemed to be fair and equitable and

not in excess of an amount which

interstate pipelines would be permitted

to charge for similar transportation

service. The Commission may, prior to

the expiration of the 150-day period,

extend the time for action or institute a

proceeding to afford parties an

opportunity for written comments and

for the oral presentation of views, data,

and arguments.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file motion to

intervene or a protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in

accordance with Sections 385.214 and

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations. All such motions or

protests must be filed on or before June

5, 1998. 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 proceeding. 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 in the

Public Reference Room.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–14067 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Project No. 637]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan

County, Washington; Notice of Public

Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County’s

Request to Use Alternative Procedures

in Filing a License Application

May 21, 1998.

By letter dated May 1, 1998, Public

Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County

(Chelan PUD) asked to use an

alternative procedure in filing an

application for a new major license for

its Lake Chelan Project No. 637.1 Chelan

PUD has demonstrated that they made

a reasonable effort to contact the

resource agencies, Indian tribes, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and

others who may be affected by their

proposal, and have submitted a

communication protocol governing how

participants in the proposed process

may communicate with each other.

Chelan PUD has also submitted several

letters of support for their proposal, and

it appears that a consensus exists that

the use of an alternative procedure is

appropriate in this case.

The purpose of this notice is to invite

any additional comments on Chelan

PUD’s request to use the alternative

procedure, as required under the final

rule for Regulations for the Licensing of

Hydroelectric Projects.2 Additional

notices seeking comments on the

specific project proposal, interventions

and protests, and recommended terms

and conditions will be issued at a later

date.

The alternative procedure being

requested here combines the prefiling

consultation process with the

environmental review process, allowing

the applicant to file an ApplicantPrepared Environmental Assessment

(APEA) in lieu of Exhibit E of the

license application. This differs from

the traditional process, in which the

applicant consults with agencies, Indian

tribes, and NGOs during preparation of

the application for the license and

before filing it, but the Commission staff

performs the environmental review after

the application is filed. The alternative

procedure is intended to simplify and

expedite the licensing process by

combining the prefiling consultation

and environmental review processes

into a single process, to facilitate greater

participation, and to improve

communication and cooperation among

the participants. The alternative

procedure can be tailored to the

particular project under consideration.

APEA Process and the Lake Chelan

Project Schedule

Chelan PUD has begun working

collaboratively with the various

interested entities to identify issues that

will need to be addressed and studies

that will need to be conducted in

relicensing the project. Several meetings

are scheduled for May and June of this

year with initial studies to be conducted

during the 1998 summer season. Public

scoping meetings are tentatively

planned for November 1998. Notice of

the scoping meetings will be published

at least 30 days prior to the meetings.

Additional studies may be conducted

during the summers of 1999 and 2000.

Opportunities for requesting additional
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 102 /Thursday, May 28, 1998 / Notices 29199

studies will be noticed at least 30 days

prior to any study request deadline. A

draft license application with

preliminary APEA would be distributed

for comment in January 2001. The final

license application and APEA must be

filed with the Commission on March 31,

2004, two years before the expiration

date on the existing license. A more

detailed schedule and project

description may be found at Chelan

PUD’s web site, located at hhtp://

www.chelanpud.org/relicense/.

Comments

Interested parties have 30 days from

the date of this notice to file with the

Commission, any comments on Chelan

PUD’s proposal to use the alternative

procedures to file an application for the

Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project.

Filing Requirements

Any comments must be filed by

providing an original and 8 copies as

required by the Commission’s

regulations to: Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Office of the

Secretary, Dockets—Room 1A, 888 First

Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

All comment filings must bear the

heading ‘‘Comments on the Alternative

Procedure,’’ and include the project

name and number (Lake Chelan

Hydroelectric Project, No. 637). For

further information, please contact

Vince Yearick at (202) 219–2844 or email at vince.yearick@ferc.fed.us.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–14064 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP98–540–000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporations; Notice of Application

May 21, 1998.

Take notice that on May 13, 1998

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line

Corporation (Transco), Post Office Box

1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in the

above docket an abbreviated application

pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural

Gas Act and the Regulations of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(Commission) for authorization to

construct and operate certain pipeline

facilities to create additional firm

transportation capacity of 700,000

dekatherms per day (dth/d) to serve

increased market demand in the MidAtlantic and South Atlantic regions of

the United States by a proposed inservice date of no later than November

1, 2000 (MarketLink Project).

Transco states that the MarketLink

Project will provide a link in the

transportation of Canadian and

Midwestern natural gas supplies, from

expansion projects currently under

development and proposed, to markets

in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

and upstream markets along the Atlantic

Seaboard which are accessible through

backhaul arrangements on Transco’s

system. Transco also states that the

MarketLink Project provides shipper

access to diverse gas supplies at the

developing market hub at Leidy,

Pennsylvania, including gas supplies

sources on any of the six interstate

natural gas pipelines that interconnect

with Transco at Leidy (including the

pipeline system proposed by

Independence Pipeline Company) or gas

supplies delivered from storage at the

Leidy hub.

Transco proposes to provide firm

transportation service on an open

access, non-discriminatory basis for the

following shippers:

Shipper

Maximum

daily

quantity

(Dth/d)

Term

(yrs.)

AEC Marketing (USA)

Inc .............................. 15,000 10

Coral Energy Resources, L.P .............. 50,000 10

Eastern Energy Marketing, Inc ....................... 90,000 10

Engage Energy (U.S.),

LP .............................. 210,000 10

Enron Capital & Trade

Resources Corp ........ 30,000 10

LFG Energy, LLC .......... 5,000 15

Natural Gas Clearinghouse ......................... 30,000 5

Renaissance Energy

(U.S.) Inc ................... 23,000 10

Williams Energy Services Company ............ 210,000 10

Total ................... 663,000

Transco states that precedent

agreements have been executed with

shippers for a substantial amount

(approximately 95%) of the firm

transportation capacity to be created by

the MarketLink Project. Transco states

that it is in the process of negotiating

with other potential shippers that have

expressed an interest in the remaining

capacity of the project and will file

copies of precedent agreements with

additional shippers as they are

finalized.

Transco states that the firm

transportation service under the

MarketLink Project will be provided

under Rate Schedule FT of Transco’s

FERC Gas Tariff, Volume No. 1, and

Transco’s blanket certificate under Part

284(G) of the Commission’s regulations.

Transco states that the MarketLink

shippers were provided the option of

paying a cost based recourse rate or an

individually negotiated rate plus fuel

and all appliable surcharges under Rate

Schedule FT. Transco states that the

proposed recourse rate is based on a

straight fixed-variable rate design

methodology and an incremental cost of

service. Transco states that prior to the

commencement MarketLink service it

will file numbered tariff sheets stating

the name of any MarketLink shipper

paying a negotiated rate, the negotiated

rate, the applicable receipt and delivery

points, and the volume to be

transported.

Transco states that in order to create

the additional 7000,000 Mcf/d of firm

capacity, Transco proposes to construct

and operate the following facilities:

1. The Haneyville Loop; 24.19 miles

of 42-inch diameter pipeline loop

between milepost 161.29 in Lycoming

County and milepost 142.74 in

Lycoming County, Pennsylvania and

milepost 185.48 in Clinton County,

Pennsylvania,

2. The Williamsport Loop; 13.23 miles

of 42-inch diameter pipeline loop

between milepost 129.51 in Lycoming

County, Pennsylvania and 1.79 miles of

36-inch diameter pipeline loop between

milepost 142.74 in Lycoming County

and milepost 144.53 in Lycoming

County, Pennsylvania,

3. The Benton Loop; 17.73 miles of

42-inch diameter pipeline loop between

milepost 28.56 in Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania and milepost 115.18 in

Columbia, County Pennsylvania,

4. The Allentown Loop; 6.27 miles of

42-inch diameter pipeline loop between

milepost 30.29 in Northampton County,

Pennsylvania and milepost 36.56 in

Northampton County, Pennsylvania,

5. The Clinton Loop; 29.23 miles of

42-inch diameter pipeline loop between

milepost 0.14 in Somerset County, New

Jersey and milepost 29.37 in Warren

County, New Jersey,

6. The Stirling Loop; 23.88 miles of

42-inch diameter pipeline loop between

milepost 1789.53 in Somerset County,

New Jersey and milepost 1812.36 in

Morris County, New Jersey,

7. The Roseland Loop; 18.81 miles of

36-inch diameter pipeline loop between

milepost 1820.66 in Essex County, New

Jersey and milepost 1839.47 in Bergen

County, New Jersey,

8. The Woodbridge Loop; 5.46 miles

of 42-inch diameter pipeline loop

between milepost 1802.73 in Middlesex