20978 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Notices

1Sierra Pacific Power Company; Southwest Gas

Corporation; Duke Energy North America, L.L.C.

(DENA); and, Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc.

2The volumes per day (Dth/d) for Sierra Pacific

Power Company is 11,412 (reflects a total

contracted capacity of 17,073 Dth/d and includes

three increments of capacity) with an in-service

date of 11/1/02; for Southwest Gas Corporation is

24,500 with an in-service date of 11/1/02; for Duke

Energy North America, L.L.C. is 40,000 with an inservice date of 2/1/03; and for Morgan Stanley

Capital Group Inc. is 20,000 with an in-service date

of 12/1/02.

3Partners refers to Tuscarora Gas Pipeline

Company, TC Tuscarora Intermediate Limited

Partnership, and TCPL Tuscarora Limited.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP01–153–000]

Tuscarora Gas Transmission

Company; Notice of Application

April 20, 2001.

Take notice that on April 12, 2001,

Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company

(Tuscarora), 1575 Delucchi Lane, Suite

225, Reno, Nevada 89520–3057, filed in

Docket No. CP01–153–000 an

abbreviated application pursuant to

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),

as amended, and the Commission’s

Rules and Regulations, for a certificate

of public convenience and necessity

authorizing Tuscarora to construct,

install, own, operate and maintain

facilities in order to provide up to

95,912 decatherms per day (Dth/d) of

firm transportation service to four

expansion shippers, all as more fully set

forth in the application which is on file

with the Commission and open to

public inspection. The filing may be

viewed at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/

rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance).

Tuscarora states that, in January 2000

and September 2000, it held open

seasons to determine the market need

for additional capacity on its system. It

is indicated that the open seasons

established that 95,912 dt of new

capacity will be required to meet the

needs of existing and new shippers by

the 2002–2003 winter heating seasons.

To meet those requirements, Tuscarora

states that it proposes to construct and

operate a 14.2 mile pipeline (1,000 psig

maximum allowable operating pressure)

commencing at a new interconnect at

Tuscarora’s existing mainline at

approximately milepost (MP) 226.5, and

terminating at the Paiute Interconnect

Meter Station, with an additional

pipeline extension leading to the

Washoe Energy Facility, a proposed

merchant power generation facility to be

constructed by Duke Energy North

America, L.L.C. approximately 3.5 miles

northwest of Wadsworth, Nevada, in

Washoe County, Nevada.

In addition, Tuscarora states that it

has also proposed to construct and

operate: (1) One new mainline/isolation

valve at MP 0 on the Wadsworth lateral

(near MP 226.5 on the Tuscarora

mainline) (Wadsworth Tap); (2) two

new meter stations and associated

valves located near: (i) MP 10.5 on the

Wadsworth Lateral (Paiute

Interconnect), and (ii) the terminus (MP

14.2) of the Wadsworth Lateral (Washoe

Meter Station); (3) three new gas-fired

compressor stations located in Modoc

and Lassen Counties, California; and (4)

appurtenant facilities that are

reasonably necessary to construct,

maintain and operate the 2002

Expansion Project as more fully

described in the application.

Tuscarora states that the proposed

facilities will be designed to transport

additional firm transportation service

for the account of the four Expansion

Shippers,1 which include two Local

Distribution Companies (LDCs) and two

electric generating facilities. Tuscarora

indicates that the Expansion Shippers

have executed binding agreements with

Tuscarora for long-term firm

transportation service rendered

pursuant to Tuscarora’s existing Rate

Schedule FT rates in effect from time to

time.2

Tuscarora states that it will

commence installation of the facilities

in or about April 2002 to meet the first

of its expansion shippers’ in-service

dates of November 1, 2002. Tuscarora

states that the urgent need for the 2002

Expansion Project is driven by the

tremendous growth in gas demand in

Northern Nevada and California.

Tuscarora states that the two local

distribution companies that are

participating in this project are

experiencing significant increases in

their residential customer bases,

resulting from extremely rapid growth

in the communities they serve.

Tuscarora also states that this project is

further supported by two power

generators that are constructing new

electric generating facilities to meet the

significant growth in electric power

demand in the region.

Tuscarora states that the proposed

facilities will cost approximately $57.8

million and that approximately 30

percent of the required capital for the

expansion will be furnished by the

Partners 3 as equity, and that 70 percent

will be financed with debt, which will

consist of bank debt during the

construction period.

Any questions regarding this

application should be directed to Terry

Wolverton, Tuscarora Gas Transmission

Company, 1575 Delucchi Lane, Suite

225, P.O. Box 30057, Reno, Nevada

89520–3057, call (775) 834–4292, or fax

(775) 834–3886.

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 should on or before

May 11, 2001, file with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 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 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 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, however, 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 the 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

with the protest.

Environmental commenters will be

placed on the Commission’s

environmental mailing list, will receive

copies of the environmental documents

and will be able to participate in

meetings associated with the

Commission’s environmental review

process. Commenters will not be

required to serve copies of filed

documents on all other parties.

However, commenters will not receive

copies of all documents filed by other

parties, or issued by the Commission

and will not have the right to seek

rehearing or appeal the Commission’s

final order to a federal court.

The Commission may issue a

preliminary determination on nonenvironmental issues prior to the

completion of its review of the

environmental aspects of the project.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Notices 20979

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 the

proposal, it is important either to file

comments or to intervene as early in the

process as possible.

Also, comments, protests, and

interventions 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

website 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 order approving or denying a

certificate will be issued.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–10327 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. ER00–3591–006, et al.]

New York Independent System

Operator, Inc., et al.; Electric Rate and

Corporate Regulation Filings

April 19, 2001.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. New York Independent System

Operator, Inc.

[Docket Nos. ER00–3591–006, ER00–1969–

007]

Take notice that on April 13, 2001,

the New York Independent System

Operator, Inc. (NYISO) tendered for

filing revisions to its Market

Administration and Control Area

Services Tariff (Services Tariff) in order

to implement locational reserve pricing,

pursuant to the Commission’s order

issued on March 29, 2001 in the abovecaptioned dockets. The NYISO has

requested an effective date of May 1,

2001 for the filing.

The NYISO has served a copy of this

filing upon parties on the official service

lists maintained by the Commission for

the above-captioned dockets.

Comment date: May 4, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

2. Consolidated Edison Company of

New York, Inc.

[Docket No. ER01–160–003]

Take notice that on April 16, 2001,

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc. (Con Edison) tendered for

filing a conformed rate schedule in the

above-listed docket.

Con Edison states that a copy of this

filing has been served upon O&R.

Comment date: May 7, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

3. Consolidated Edison Company of

New York, Inc.

[Docket No. ER01–161–003]

Take notice that on April 16, 2001,

Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc. (Con Edison) tendered for

filing a conformed rate schedule in the

above-listed docket.

Con Edison states that a copy of this

filing has been served by mail upon

Central Hudson

Comment date: May 7, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

4. Magnolia Energy LP

[Docket No. ER01–1335–001]

Take notice that on April 16, 2001,

Magnolia Energy LP tendered for filing

its FERC Electric Tariff, Original

Volume No. 1 in compliance with the

Commission’s April 5, 2001, Order in

the above-referenced docket.

Comment date: May 7, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

5. Idaho Power Company

[Docket No. ER01–1802–000]

Take notice that on April 13, 2001,

Idaho Power Company (IPC) tendered

for filing a supplemental filing of their

April 3, 2001 filing to conform with the

Commission’s Order No. 614, a Service

Agreement under Idaho Power

Company FERC Electric Tariff No. 6,

Market Rate Power Sales Tariff, between

Idaho Power Company and Public

Utility District No. 1 of Cowlitz County,

Washington.

Comment date: May 4, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

6. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

[Docket No. ER01–1803–000]

Take notice that on April 13, 2001,

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP)

tendered for filing executed service

agreements for Firm Point-to-Point

Transmission Service, Non-Firm Pointto-Point Transmission Service, and Loss

Compensation Service with Ameren

Energy, Inc. and Ameren Energy

Marketing Company. SPP seeks an

effective date of April 2, 2001 for these

agreements.

Copies of this filing have been served

on the Transmission Customers.

Comment date: May 4, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

7. Warren Power, LLC

[Docket No. ER01–1804–000]

Take notice that on April 13, 2001,

Warren Power, LLC tendered for filing

an application for authorization to sell

power at market-based rates. Copies of

this filing have been served on the

Arkansas Public Service Commission,

Mississippi Public Service Commission,

Louisiana Public Service Commission,

Texas Public Utility Commission, and

the Council of the City of New Orleans.

Comment date: May 4, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

8. Southern Company Services, Inc.

[Docket No. ER01–1805–000]

Take notice that on April 16, 2001,

Southern Company Services, Inc., acting

on behalf of Alabama Power Company

(APC), tendered for filing Amendment

No. 1 to the interconnection agreement

between Tenaska Alabama II Partners,

L.P. (Tenaska) and APC. The

amendment concerns transmission

facility upgrades for a generator that

Tenaska will interconnect to APC’s

electric system. An effective date of

March 26, 2001 has been requested.

Comment date: May 7, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

9. UtiliCorp United Inc.

[Docket No. ER01–1806–000]

Take notice that on April 16, 2001,

UtiliCorp United Inc. (UtiliCorp),

tendered for filing pursuant to Section

205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C.

§ 824d, and Part 35 of the Commission’s

regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 35, a revised rate

schedule providing for Purchases of

Electricity from Non-QF Small

Independent Power Producers.

Comment date: May 7, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.