34436 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

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, 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 web

site at http://www.ferc.gov/documents/

makeanelectronicfiling/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. 01–16224 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. ER01–2111–001]

Allegheny Energy Service Corporation,

on Behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply

Company, LLC (AE Supply); Notice of

Filing

June 22, 2001.

Take notice that on June 22, 2001,

Allegheny Energy Service Corporation

on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply

Company, LLC (AE Supply), filed an

amendment to First Revised Rate

Schedule FERC No. 4 (First Revised

Schedule) filed at Docket No. ER01–

2111–000. The amendment is filed at

the request of Commission Staff.

Copies of the filing have been

provided to all parties on the service list

in this proceeding.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest such filing 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). All such motions and

protests should be filed on or before July

2, 2001. Protests will be considered by

the Commission to determine 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. This

filing may also be viewed on the

Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/

online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance). 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 web

site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/

doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–16252 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket Nos. CP01–384–000, CP01–385–000

and CP01–386–000]

Islander East Pipeline Company,

L.L.C.; Notice of Applications

June 22, 2001.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001,

Islander East Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

(Islander East), P.O. Box 1642, Houston,

Texas 77251–1642, filed applications

pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural

Gas Act. In Docket No. CP01–384–000,

Islander East seeks a certificate of public

convenience and necessity authorizing

it to construct, install and operate

pipeline, compression, and metering

facilities, as well as lease pipeline

capacity on Algonquin Gas

Transmission Company’s (Algonquin)

system. In Docket No. CP01–385–000,

Islander East seeks a blanket certificate

authorizing certain routine activities

under Part 157, Subpart F of the

Commission’s Regulations. In Docket

No. CP01–386–000, Islander East seeks

a blanket certificate pursuant to 18 CFR

part 284, Subpart G of the Commission’s

Regulations for self-implementing

transportation authority. Islander East’s

proposals are more fully set forth in the

application which is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection. This filing may be viewed

on the web at http://

www.rimsweb1.ferc.fed.us/

rims.q?rp∼intro (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance).

Islander East proposes in Docket No.

CP01–384–000 to construct and operate

approximately 44.8 miles of 24-inch

pipeline from an interconnection with

the facilities of Algonquin near North

Haven, Connecticut to the town of

Brookhaven, New York. At Brookhaven,

Islander East will deliver gas to

KeySpan Energy Delivery Long Island, a

local distribution company, and to

Brookhaven Energy Limited

Partnership, an affiliate of American

National Power, which is developing a

power plant in Brookhaven. In addition,

Islander East proposes to construct and

operate approximately 5.6 miles of 24-

inch pipeline from the Islander East

mainline near Wading River, New York

to a proposed power plant near

Calverton, New York that is being

developed by AES Endeavor, a division

of AES Corporation. Further, Islander

East seeks authority to construct and

operate three metering stations and

other appurtenant facilities. Islander

East states that the capacity of the

proposed pipeline is 285,000 Dth per

day. The estimated cost of the facilities

is approximately $149.6 million.

Islander East also seeks authorization

to lease 285,000 Dth per day of capacity

on Algonquin’s C–1 and C–1 L systems

for an initial term of 20 years. The fixed

monthly lease payment under the lease

agreement is $334,135. In addition,

Islander East will pay a monthly

operating and maintenance charge of

$32,307. Islander East states that the

monthly lease payment is less than what

it would pay Algonquin for firm

transportation service and thus meets

Commission standards for lease

payments.

Islander East proposes to provide

open access firm and interruptible

service under Rate Schedules FTS and

ITS, respectively. Islander East will offer

both negotiated and recourse rates.

Islander East designed its recourse rate

using he straight fixed-variable method.

Islander East has also included a pro

forma FERC Gas Tariff under which it

will provide transportation service.

Islander East asserts that its project

will provide the Connecticut, Long

Island, and New York City markets with

access to gas for: local distribution

company growth, new gas-fired electric

generating plants, and gas conversions.

Further, Islander East states that its

proposal is consistent with the

Commission’s statement of policy on

certification of new interstate natural

gas pipeline facilities. Islander East

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34437

requests a preliminary determination on

non-environmental issues by December

31, 2001, and final certificate

authorization by July 15, 2002. Islander

East states that this will allow

construction to be completed by its

proposed in-service date of November 1,

2003.

Any questions regarding the

application should be directed to Steven

E. Tillman, Director of Regulatory

Affairs, Islander East Pipeline Company,

L.L.C., P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas

77251–1642 at 713–627–5113 or by

facsimile at 713–627–5947.

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 July 13, 2001, file

with the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 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

place don 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, 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 web

site at http://www.ferc.gov/documents/

makeanelectronicfiling/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. 01–16225 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP01–458–000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company;

Notice of Proposed Change in FERC

Gas Tariff

June 22, 2001.

Take notice that on June 15, 2001,

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

(Tennessee), tendered for filing as part

of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised

Volume No. 1, Second Revised Tariff

Sheet No. 175. Tennessee requests that

the tariff sheet be made effective August

1, 2001.

Tennessee states that the purpose of

Tennessee’s tariff filing is to provide

formal notice to Rate Schedule FT–G

customers and the Commission that

Tennessee intends to charge FT–G

customers for both the transportation of

‘‘swing’’ volumes into and out of storage

commenting August 1, 2001. Tennessee

states that its Order No. 636 compliance

filing in Docket No. RS92–23

contemplated that Tennessee would

charge FT–G customers the applicable

commodity rate and fuel for the

transportation of ‘‘swing’’ volumes both

into and out of storage. However, in

setting up its billing system to

implement the extensive changes

required by Order No. 636, Tennessee

inadvertently treated Rate Schedule FT–

G customers the same as Rate Schedule

FT–GS customers with respect to the

transportation of storage ‘‘swing’’

volumes. In that regard, in Docket No.

RS92–23, the Commission ruled that

Tennessee could charge FT–GS

customers only for transportation from

customers’ receipt points to their

citygates. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.,

62 FERC ¶ 61,250, at 62,658 (1993).

As a result of administrative

oversight, Tennessee set up its billing

system so that FT–G customers would

be billed for the transportation of

storage ‘‘swing’’ volumes in the same

manner as FT–GS customers.

Specifically, when a customer

scheduling deliveries to its citygate

takes less than the scheduled quantity,

the variance would be treated as a

storage injection and the customer

would pay the applicable commodity

rate and fuel for transportation from the

receipt point to the citygate; when the

customer takes more than its scheduled

quantity at the citygate, the variance

would be treated as a storage

withdrawal, but the customer would not

be charged for the transportation of such

storage withdrawal quantity from the

storage field to the citygate. By the