Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Notices 66961

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires

that the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) provide interested

Federal agencies and the public an early

opportunity to comment on information

collection requests. OMB may amend or

waive the requirement for public

consultation to the extent that public

participation in the approval process

would defeat the purpose of the

information collection, violate State or

Federal law, or substantially interfere

with any agency’s ability to perform its

statutory obligations. The Director of the

Information Resources Group publishes

this notice containing proposed

information collection requests prior to

submission of these requests to OMB.

Each proposed information collection,

grouped by office, contains the

following: (1) Type of review requested,

e.g., new, revision, extension, existing

or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary

of the collection; (4) Description of the

need for, and proposed use of, the

information; (5) Respondents and

frequency of collection; and (6)

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping

burden. OMB invites public comment at

the address specified above. Copies of

the requests are available from Patrick J.

Sherrill at the address specified above.

Dated:

Gloria Parker,

Director, Information Resources Group.

Office of Postsecondary Education

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Federal Direct Consolidation

Loan Program Application Document.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households; Business or other for-profit.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

Responses: 3,428,000.

Burden Hours: 1,484,200.

Abstract: These forms are the means

by which a borrower applies for/

promise to repay a Federal Direct

Consolidation Loan and a lender verifies

an eligible loan to be consolidated.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Repayment Plan Selection.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Affected Public: Individual or

households.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping

Hour Burden:

Responses: 525,000.

Burden Hours: 173, 250.

Abstract: Borrowers in the William D.

Ford Federal Direct Program will use

this form to choose a repayment plan for

their loan(s).

[FR Doc. 95–31092 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

Federal Energy Management and

Planning Programs; Energy Savings

Performance Contract Model

Solicitations

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

gives notice of changes proposed for its

energy savings performance contract

model solicitations. The proposed

approach will make it substantially

simpler and easier for the Federal

Government to procure and administer

energy savings performance contracts.

These changes provide the flexibility to

purchase energy savings through

guaranteed equipment performance or

energy savings calculated through

measured consumption data.

DATES: Comments should be received no

later than January 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: All written comments are to

be submitted to: U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Federal Energy

Management Programs, EE–92, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20595–0121. Fax and email comments will be accepted at (202)

586–3000 and tanya.sadler@hq.doe.gov,

respectively.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tanya Sadler, EE–92, U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of Federal Energy

Management Programs, EE–92, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–

7755.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

10, 1995 (60 FR 18326), the Department

of Energy (Department or DOE)

published its notice of final rulemaking

for energy savings performance

contracts required by section 801 of the

National Energy Conservation Policy

Act (42 U.S.C. 8287). The preamble to

the rule referenced model solicitations

which provide uniform formats and

standardized contract provisions

recommended for Federal agency use in

energy savings performance contracts.

DOE uses these model solicitations in

training workshops for agency technical

and procurement professionals.

The Department’s objective is to

simplify the model solicitations. The

overall goal is to streamline the energy

savings performance contracting process

and implement more projects. In order

to accomplish these objectives, DOE

recommends that the Government buy

energy savings through guaranteed

equipment performance. The contractor

will guarantee the performance of the

installed equipment; however, Federal

agencies will also have the option to

verify actual energy savings in order to

determine contractor performance as

provided by Federal Measurement and

Verification Protocols. DOE has been

leading an effort in close cooperation

with industry to develop a national

consensus industry protocol to improve

consistency, reliability, and

performance of energy efficiency

installations. These Protocols will be

available through the Department’s

Federal Energy Management Program

Help Desk at 1–800–566–2877 in

January 1996.

The model solicitations will place a

new emphasis on measuring equipment

performance or actual energy savings.

The proposed changes include:

Baselines. The initial baseline

condition is the reference from which

the contractor’s performance will be

verified throughout the life of the

project. Adjustments for changes in

usage (e.g., occupancy, weather, etc.)

generally will not be made during the

payback term, when equipment

performance is guaranteed.

Guaranteed Savings. Guaranteed

savings is redefined to mean: (1) Cost

savings based on guaranteed

performance of energy conservation

equipment and stipulated factors (e.g.,

hours of operation); or (2) actual cost

savings which equal the measured cost

of operation (pre-energy conservation

measure installation) minus the

measured cost of operation (post-energy

conservation measure installation with

baseline adjustments as required).

Payments. Payments to the contractor

will be based on the Government’s

acceptance of equipment installation

and continuation of the guaranteed

equipment performance as specified in

the contract (e.g., contractor continued

compliance with measurement and

verification and operations and

maintenance plans).

Technical/Price Proposal Evaluation

Criteria. The technical proposal may be

weighted substantially more than the

price proposal. Five technical factors

should generally be considered in

evaluating technical proposals:

Past Performance

Energy Conservation Measure

Description and Savings

Management Approach
66962 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Notices

Measurement and Verification Plan

Operations and Maintenance

The proposed price will generally be

evaluated for completeness,

reasonableness, and realism.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments on the

Department’s proposed changes to the

energy savings performance contracting

model solicitations. Written comments

should be submitted to the address

indicated in the ADDRESSES section of

this notice.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on this 20th

day of December 1995.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 95–31317 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. EF96–5091–000, et al.]

Western Area Power Administration, et

al.; Electric Rate and Corporate

Regulation Filings

December 15, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Western Area Power Administration

[Docket No. EF96–5091–000]

Take notice that on November 2,

1995, the Deputy Secretary of the

Department of Energy, by Rate Order

No. WAPA–70, did confirm and

approve on an interim basis, to be

effective on November 1, 1995, the

Western Area Power Administration’s

(Western) Rate Schedule BCP–F5 for

firm power service from the Boulder

Canyon Project.

The rate methodology in Rate

Schedule BCP–F5 will be in effect

pending the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission’s (FERC) approval on a

final basis, ending September 30, 2000,

or until superseded.

The Power Repayment Spreadsheet

Study indicated that the existing rate

methodology results in collecting

revenues in excess of that allowed by

law through the Rate Year. The

proposed rate schedule will yield

appropriate revenues.

Upon completion of the Uprating

Credit Procedures and receipt of revised

Uprating Credit Schedules, the FY 1996

Energy Dollar and Capacity Dollar will

be adjusted by the difference between

the originally projected Annual

Uprating Credit Payments and the

revised Annual Uprating Credit

Payments and spread over the

remaining months of FY 1996 so the

BCP Contractors will not pay more than

the FY 1996 Annual Revenue

Requirement.

The Administrator of Western

certifies that the rate methodology is

consistent with applicable law and

provide the lowest possible rate

consistent with sound business

principles. The Deputy Secretary of the

Department of Energy states that the rate

schedule is submitted for confirmation

and approval on a final basis for a

period of November 1, 1995, and ending

September 30, 2000, pursuant to

authority vested in FERC by Delegation

Order No. 0204–108, as amended.

Comment date: January 2, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

2. NRGenerating Holdings (No. 4) B.V.

[Docket No. EG96–23–000]

On December 8, 1995, NRGenerating

Holdings (No. 4) B.V. (‘‘Applicant’’),

with its principal office at c/o NRG

Energy, Inc., Level 50, Rialto South

Tower, 525 Collins Street, Melbourne,

Victoria, 3000, Australia, filed with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

an application for determination of

exempt wholesale generator status

pursuant to Part 365 of the

Commission’s Regulations.

Applicant states that it holds an

interest in a joint venture partnership

organized under the laws of Australia,

formed to acquire, own and operate an

1,450 megawatt brown coal-fired

electric generating facility and adjacent

brown coal open cut mine located in

Victoria, Australia (the ‘‘Facility’’).

Electric energy produced by the Facility

will be sold at wholesale to the Victoria

Power Exchange. In no event will any

electric energy be sold to consumers in

the United States.

Comment date: January 2, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice. The

Commission will limit its consideration

of comments to those that concern the

adequacy or accuracy of the application.

3. The Salt River Project Agricultural

Improvement and Power District v.

Tucson Electric Power Company

[Docket No. EL96–22–000]

Take notice that on December 1, 1995,

the Salt River Project Agricultural

Improvement and Power District (Salt

River) filed a complaint under Sections

205, 206 and 306 of the Federal Power

Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 824d & 824e, against

Tucson Electric Power Company

(Tucson Electric). The complaint alleges

that Tucson Electric overcharged Salt

River for wholesale power.

Specifically, the complaint alleges

that Tucson Electric improperly

included fixed, capital lease costs for

coal handling facilities, which were

incurred by its corporate affiliate, in

Tucson Electric’s fuel account. The

complaint also alleges that Tucson

Electric improperly included financing

costs, property taxes, management fees

and costs identified only as ‘‘other’’ in

its fuel account. According to the

complaint, Tucson Electric unlawfully

passed these affiliate costs through to

Salt River in a formula energy rate

designed to track fluctuations in the

price of fuel and purchased power. To

remedy the alleged overcharges, the

complaint seeks approximately $3.9

million in refunds, plus interest.

Comment date: January 16, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice. Answers to the

complaint shall be due on or before

January 16, 1996.

4. Western Systems Power Pool

[Docket No. ER91–195–022]

Take notice that on November 9,

1995, Western Systems Power Pool filed

an amendment to their informational

filing of October 30, 1995 in Docket No.

ER91–195–000. Copies of Western

Systems Power Pool’s amendment are

on file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection.

5. NorAm Energy Services, Inc.

[Docket No. ER94–1247–006]

Take notice that on November 20,

1995, NorAm Energy Services, Inc. filed

an amendment to their informational

filing of October 20, 1995 in Docket No.

ER94–1247–000. Copies of NorAm

Energy Service’s amendment are on file

with the Commission and are available

for public inspection.

6. Calpine Power Marketing, Inc.,

Proven Alternatives, Inc., Gateway

Energy, Inc.

[Docket Nos. ER94–1545–003], ER95–473–

002, ER95–1049–001 (not consolidated)]

Take notice that the following

informational filings have been made

with the Commission and are on file

and available for inspection and

copying in the Commission’s Public

Reference Room:

On December 5, 1995, Calpine Power

Marketing, Inc. filed certain information

as required by the Commission’s March

9, 1995, order in Docket No. ER94–

1545–000.

On December 4, 1995, Proven

Alternatives, Inc. filed certain

information as required by the

Commission’s March 29, 1995, order in

Docket No. ER95–473–000.