Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 / Notices 40521

1City of Palm Springs, California, 76 FERC

¶61,127 (1996).

2 16 U.S.C. 824j–k (1994).

3We found, among other things, that Palm

Springs’ plan to install only meters and related

equipment would not meet the statutory

requirement in section 212(h)(2)(B) that it ‘‘utilize

transmission or distribution facilities that it owns

or controls to deliver all such electric energy to

such electric consumer.’’ 76 FERC at 61,701–3.

4This was because granting the application

would allow Palm Springs to evade the then-current

plans of the California Public Utilities Commission

(California Commission) to phase-in retail

competition over several years and to impose a

competition transition charge, and because it might

encourage forum shopping. id. at 61,703–4.

5This legislation (Assembly Bill No. 1890 or AB

1890) was approved by the California Assembly on

August 30, 1996 and the California Senate on

August 31, 1996, and was signed into law by the

Governor of the State of California on September 23,

1996.

6See Order Instituting Rulemaking on the

Commission’s Proposed Policies Governing

Restructuring California’s Electric Services Industry

and Reforming Regulation; Order Instituting

Investigation on the Commission Proposed Policies

Governing Restructuring California’s Electric

Services Industry and Reforming Regulation,

Decision 97–05–040 (May 6, 1997), 177 PUR4th 1

at 12–29 (1997), modified, Decision 97–12–131

(December 30, 1997), llll PUR4th llll

(1997), 1997 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1227 (orders providing

for direct access for all consumers once the ISO and

PX are operational, as there are no operational or

other technological considerations requiring the

phase-in of direct access).

7See Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San

Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern

California Edison Company, 81 FERC ¶ 61,122

(1997), order denying clarification, 83 FERC ¶

61,033 (1998).

8We note that Palm Springs is free, under

California law, to seek to aggregate the loads of

electricity consumers in Palm Springs in order to

facilitate the sale and purchase of electricity

services. See, e.g., Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 331(a) &

366 (West Supp. 1998) (as added by section 10 of

AB 1890) (provisions allowing, among other things,

for cities to become aggregators of load); 177

PUR4th at 24–25.

Northwest states that the June 29

filing indicated that refunds totaling

$29,030,148 were made to Northwest’s

customers on June 26, 1998. Northwest

states that the corrected total amount is

$29,138,955 (which includes the

$108,278) correction plus $529 in

additional interest on the $108,278).

Northwest states that it is distributing

the $108,807 to its customers.

Any person desiring to protest this

filing should file a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Section

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations. All such protests must be

filed on or before July 29, 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 proceedings.

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. 98–20203 Filed 7–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Before Commissioners: James J. Hoecker,

Chairman; Vicky A. Bailey, William L.

Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Curt He ́bert, Jr.

[Docket No. TX96–7–001]

City of Palm Springs, California; Show

Cause Order

Issued July 16, 1998.

The City of Palm Springs, California

(Palm Springs), Enron Power Marketing,

Inc. (Enron), and the Electricity

Consumers Resource Council and the

American Iron and Steel Institute

(jointly ELCON) have requested

rehearing of our order (July 31 order) 1

finding that Southern California Edison

Company (SoCal Edison) was not

obligated to provide certain

transmission service to Palm Springs. In

this order, we ask the parties to show

cause why subsequent events in

California have not rendered the

requests for rehearing moot and subject

to dismissal.

Discussion

On March 1, 1996, Palm Springs filed

an application requesting that the

Commission order SoCal Edison to

provide Palm Springs with firm network

transmission service under sections 211

and 212 of the Federal Power Act.2 In

short, Palm Springs stated that it wished

to provide service to retail electricity

consumers within the city limits of

Palm Springs by installing only the

meters and related equipment necessary

to measure and deliver its electric

power and energy. In our July 31 order,

we denied Palm Springs’ application

because Palm Springs did not meet the

requirements of section 212(h),3 and

because ordering SoCal Edison to

provide the requested service would be

contrary to the public interest in

violation of section 211(a).4 As noted

above, Palm Springs, Enron, and ELCON

have sought rehearing of our findings in

the July 31 order. In an order issued on

September 19, 1996, the Commission

granted rehearing for the limited

purpose of further consideration to give

itself additional time for consideration

of the matters raised.

We believe that these requests for

rehearing may now be moot given the

enactment of comprehensive electricity

restructuring legislation in California,5

its implementation by the California

Commission, and the actual operation of

the California Independent System

Operator (ISO) and the California Power

Exchange (PX) as of March 31, 1998.

Specifically, in implementing AB 1890,

the California Commission rejected a

phase-in of retail competition in favor of

an approach that generally allows all

California electricity consumers

(regardless of customer class or size of

load) direct access to alternate suppliers

at the same time.6 Additionally, this

Commission gave necessary approvals

for the start-up of the ISO and PX,7

which, as noted above, began operation

on March 31, 1998. In light of these

fundamental changes since the time the

requests for rehearing were filed, the

service requested by Palm Springs in its

application under sections 211 and 212

appears to be unnecessary. Under the

restructured California market, access to

alternate suppliers is now permitted for

each and every electricity consumer in

the state, including all consumers

residing in Palm Springs. Accordingly,

there appears to be no reason for Palm

Springs to continue to pursue its plan to

install its own meters and seek a section

211 transmission order to gain access to

alternate suppliers on behalf of

electricity consumers in Palm Springs,

as these electricity consumers already

enjoy access to alternate suppliers

through another process.8 Thus, we are

considering dismissing the requests for

rehearing in Docket No. TX96–7–001 as

moot.

Before taking this action, we will

afford the parties who filed requests for

rehearing in Docket No. TX96–7–001 an

opportunity to show cause why the

Commission should not dismiss their

rehearing requests and why there is still

a need for the Commission to address

the merits of the pending rehearing

requests. Accordingly, these parties may

file written responses within 30 days of

issuance of this order addressing this

issue. An original and 14 copies of any

such responses should be sent to the

Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

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

and should reference Docket No. TX96–

7–001.

The Commission Orders

Within 30 days of the date of issuance

of this order, the parties to the requests

for rehearing in Docket No. TX96–7–001

may file responses explaining why the

Commission should or should not
40522 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 / Notices

dismiss these requests for rehearing, as

discussed in the body of this order.

By the Commission.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–20244 Filed 7–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. GT98–86–000]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline

Company; Notice of Proposed

Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

July 23, 1998.

Take notice that on July 20, 1998,

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline

Company (Williston Basin), tendered for

filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,

Second Revised Volume No. 1, the

following revised tariff sheets to become

effective July 20, 1998:

Second Revised Volume No. 1

Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 777

Twenty-fifth Revised Sheet No. 831

Twenty-fourth Revised Sheet No. 832

Williston Basin states that the revised

tariff sheets are being filed simply to

update its Master Receipt/Delivery Point

List.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest this filing should file a motion

to intervene or a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

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 as provided in Section 154.210 of

the Commission’s Regulations. 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 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 in the Public Reference

Room.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–20201 Filed 7–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. ER98–3749–000, et al.]

Kansas City Power & Light Company,

et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate

Regulation Filings

July 21, 1998.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Kansas City Power & Light Company

[Docket No. ER98–3749–000]

Take notice that on July 16, 1998,

Kansas City Power & Light Company

(KCPL), tendered for filing a Short-Term

Firm Point-To-Point Transmission

Service Agreement dated June 24, 1998,

between KCPL and Tractebel Energy

Marketing, Inc.

KCPL proposes an effective date of

July 6, 1998 and requests a waiver of the

Commission’s notice requirement to

allow the requested effective date. This

Agreement provides for the rates and

charges for Short-term Firm

Transmission Service.

In its filing, KCPL states that the rates

included in the above-mentioned

Service Agreement are KCPL’s rates and

charges in the compliance filing to

FERC Order No. 888–A in Docket No.

OA97–636–000.

Comment date: August 5, 1998, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

2. Kansas City Power & Light Company

[Docket No. ER98–3750–000]

Take notice that on July 16, 1998,

Kansas City Power & Light Company

(KCPL), tendered for filing a Non-Firm

Point-To-Point Transmission Service

Agreement dated June 24, 1998,

between KCPL and Tractebel Energy

Marketing, Inc.

KCPL proposes an effective date of

July 6, 1998, and requests waiver of the

Commission’s notice requirement. This

Agreement provides for the rates and

charges for Non-Firm Transmission

Service. In its filing, KCPL states that

the rates included in the abovementioned Service Agreement are

KCPL’s rates and charges in the

compliance filing to FERC Order No.

888–A in Docket No. OA97–636.

Comment date: August 5, 1998, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

3. Duquesne Light Company

[Docket No. ER98–3751–000]

Take notice that on July 16, 1998,

Duquesne Light Company (DLC), filed a

Firm Point-To-Point Transmission

Service Agreement dated June 23, 1998

with PECO, under DLC’s Open Access

Transmission Tariff (Tariff). The Service

Agreement adds PECO as a customer

under the Tariff.

DLC requests waiver of the

Commission’s sixty-day notice

requirement and an effective date of

June 23, 1998, for the Service

Agreement.

Comment date: August 5, 1998, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

4. Arizona Public Service Company

[Docket No. ER98–3752–000]

Take notice that on July 16, 1998,

Arizona Public Service Company (APS),

tendered for filing an Umbrella Service

Agreement to provide Firm Point-toPoint Transmission Service under APS’

Open Access Transmission Tariff with

Citizens Power Sales.

A copy of this filing has been served

on Citizens Power Sales and the Arizona

Corporation Commission.

Comment date: August 5, 1998, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

5. MidAmerican Energy Company

[Docket No. ER98–3754–000]

Take notice that on July 16, 1998,

MidAmerican Energy Company

(MidAmerican), 666 Grand Avenue, Des

Moines, Iowa 50309 tendered for filing

proposed changes in its Rate Schedule

FERC No. 21. Such change is comprised

of a First Amendment dated June 22,

1998 to Interchange Agreement dated

July 26, 1984 and entered into by

MidAmerican’s predecessor, IowaIllinois Gas and Electric Company, with

the Eldridge Electric and Water Utility

Board of the City of Eldridge, Iowa

(Eldridge).

MidAmerican states that the First

Amendment reflects an increase in the

transmission capacity available to

Eldridge under Service Schedule G of

the Interchange Agreement as a result of

the increase in Eldridge’s share of

generation from Louisa Generating

Station from 3.25 MW to 3.5 MW.

MidAmerican proposes an effective

date of September 14, 1998, for the rate

schedule change.

Copies of the filing were served upon

representatives of Eldridge, the Iowa

Utilities Board, the Illinois Commerce

Commission and the South Dakota

Public Utilities Commission.

Comment date: August 5, 1998, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.