2896 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices

its first compressor station, the Hallock

Compressor Station. Viking is proposing

this project to enable it to maintain gas

flow into its system from TCPL without

interruption to customers when this

area of the existing pipe will be taken

out of service temporarily for necessary

integrity testing and maintenance work.

The construction and operation of the

proposed facilities also will provide

Viking with the opportunity to reduce

its fuel consumption at the Hallock

Compressor Station by an estimated

81,000 Dth annually.

Specifically, Viking proposes to

construct and operate the following

facilities:

—5.6 miles of 24-inch mainline loop

segment adjacent to Viking’s existing

line in Kittson County, Minnesota;

—Two pig launchers, a relief valve for

overpressure pressure protection, two

mainline block valves, blowdown

valves, and tie-in piping and fittings to

be installed on approximately one acre

of property to be purchased in Kittson

County, Minnesota; and

—Tie-in piping with one mainline

suction valve within the fenced

boundaries of Viking’s Hallock

Compressor Station.

The proposed facilities will not create

incremental capacity beyond the

Hallock Compressor Station which is

limited to 877 psig. An incremental

capacity will be created in the proposed

5.6-miles line. This capacity is not

marketable since Viking currently serves

no markets in this area and none are

anticipated. The proposed Hallock

Project facilities are anticipated to go

into service on or about November 1,

2001.

The estimated cost of Viking’s

proposed construction is approximately

$3.9 million. Viking anticipates that it

will make a general rate case filing for

the demand rates during December

2001, at which time Viking will seek to

roll in the Hallock Project costs. Viking

estimates the cost impact of the project

to be $0.0036 per Dth per day on a

100% load factor basis. Also, Viking

anticipates that the reduction in system

fuel requirements will result in fuel

savings of approximately $324,000

annually. This reduction will accrue

back to Viking’s current and future

customers through the fuel tracker and

true-up provisions in Article XXVI of its

tariff.

Questions regarding the details of this

proposed project should be directed to

Michael L. Jablonske, Vice President,

Viking Gas Transmission Company, 825

Rice Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55117,

at 651–229–2254, or by fax at 651–229–

2434.

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 January 22, 2001,

file with the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, D.C. 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 receive

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.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–1014 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. ER01–566–000]

Duke Energy McClain, LLC; Notice of

Issuance of Order

January 8, 2001.

Duke Energy McClain, LLC (Duke

McClain) submitted for filing a rate

schedule under which Duke McClain

will engage in wholesale electric power

and energy transactions at market-based

rates. Duke McClain also requested

waiver of various Commission

regulations. In particular, Duke McClain

requested that the Commission grant

blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34

of all future issuances of securities and

assumptions of liability by Duke

McClain.

On January 3, 2001, pursuant to

delegated authority, the Director,

Division of Corporate Applications,

Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices 2897

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 Duke McClain 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, Duke McClain is authorized

to issue securities and assume

obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,

indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect

of any security or 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 Duke McClain’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

February 2, 2001.

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).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–1042 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. EL00–95–007, et al.]

San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et

al.; Electric Rate and Corporate

Regulation Filings

January 5, 2001.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Complainant, v. Sellers of Energy and

Ancillary Services Into Markets

Operated by the California Independent

System Operator and the California

Power Exchange, Respondents

[Docket No. EL00–95–007]

Take notice that on December 29,

2000, San Diego Gas & Electric

Company (SDG&E) tendered for filing

pursuant to Ordering Paragraph (A) of

the Commission’s December 15, 2000

Order Directing Remedies for California

Wholesale Electric Markets (the Order),

93 FERC ¶ 61,294, its compliance filing.

The tendered compliance filing made

by SDG&E describes how it is effecting

within 15 days the Commission’s

termination of SDG&E’s authority to sell

its resources into the California Power

Exchange Corporation (‘‘PX’’) markets.

Copies of this filing were served upon

the Public Utilities Commission of the

State of California and other interested

parties.

Comment date: January 23, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

2. FirstEnergy Corp. on behalf of:

American Transmission Systems, Inc.,

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating

Company, Mid-Atlantic Energy

Development Company, Ohio Edison

Company, Pennsylvania Power

Company, The Toledo Edison

Company, FirstEnergy Services Corp.,

FirstEnergy Generation Corp. and

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating

Company

[Docket Nos.EC01–52–000 and ER01–842–

000]

Take note that on December 29, 2000,

FirstEnergy Corp. filed an application

pursuant to section 203 of the Federal

Power Act for approval of the transfer of

jurisdictional facilities to an affiliated

competitive services unit, and for

approval pursuant to Section 205 of the

Federal Power Act of related

intracompany agreements, in

furtherance of its corporate separation

plan as approved by the Public Utilities

Commission of Ohio.

Copies of this filing have been served

on the utility commissions in Ohio and

Pennsylvania.

Comment date: January 19, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

3. San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Complainant, v. Sellers of Energy and

Ancillary Services, Into Markets

Operated by the California,

Independent System Operator and the

California Power Exchange,

Respondents

[Docket No. EL00–95–008]

Take notice that on January 2, 2001,

the California Independent System

Operator Corporation (ISO) tendered a

filing in compliance with the

Commission’s December 15, 2000 Order

in EL00–95–000, et al.

The ISO states that this filing has been

served on the California Public Utilities

Commission and on all parties on the

official service.

Comment date: January 23, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

4. San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Complainant, v. Sellers of Energy and

Ancillary Services, Into Markets

Operated by the California,

Independent System Operator and the

California Power Exchange,

Respondents.

[Docket No. EL00–95–009]

Take notice that on January 2, 2001,

the California Power Exchange

Corporation (CalPX) tendered for filing

in compliance with the Commission’s

December 15, 2000 Order in Docket No.

EL00–95–000, et al.

Comment date: January 23, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

5. San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Complainant, v. Sellers of Energy and

Ancillary Services, Into Markets

Operated by the California,

Independent System Operator and the

California Power Exchange,

Respondents

[Docket No. EL00–95–010]

Take notice that on January 2, 2001,

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

tendered for filing with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission

(Commission) a filing in compliance

with the Commission’s December 15,

2000 Order in Docket No. EL00–95–000,

et al.

Comment date: January 23, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

6. Illinois Power Company

[Docket Nos. ER99–4415–004, ER99–4530–

004 and EL00–7–004]

Take notice that on December 20,

2000, Illinois Power Company filed an

amendment to its Compliance Filing

and Revised Open Access Transmission

Tariff filed with the Federal Energy