64 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Notices

Transmission Service Delivery Point

Agreement dated November 1, 1995

reflecting a revision to the delivery

point voltage level for Central Alabama

Electric Cooperative’s Redland delivery

point. The delivery point has been and

will be served under the terms and

conditions of the Agreement for

Transmission Service to Distribution

Cooperative Member of Alabama

Electric Cooperative, Inc., dated August

28, 1980 (designed FERC Rate Schedule

No. 147).

Comment date: January 5, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

12. New England Power Company

[Docket No. ER96–579–000]

Take notice that on December 11,

1995, New England Power Company,

tendered for filing Amendments to

FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume

No. 6.

Comment date: January 5, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

13. Southern Company Services, Inc.

[Docket No. ER96–580–000]

Take notice that on December 12,

1995, Southern Company Services, Inc.

(SCS), acting on behalf of Alabama

Power Company, Georgia Power

Company, Gulf Power Company,

Mississippi Power Company, and

Savannah Electric and Power Company

(collectively referred to as Southern

Companies) filed three (3) service

agreements between SCS, as agent of the

Southern Companies, and i) Louisville

Gas & Electric Company, ii) Florida

Power Corporation, and iii) Delhi

Energy Services, Inc. for non-firm

transmission service under the Point-toPoint Transmission Service Tariff of

Southern Companies.

Comment date: January 5, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

14. Portland General Electric Company

[Docket No. ER96–581–000]

Take notice that on December 12,

1995, Portland General Electric

Company (PGE), tendered for filing

under FERC Electric Tariff, 1st Revised

Volume No. 2, executed Service

Agreements between PGE and the

Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas

County and Catex Vitol Electric.

Pursuant to 18 CFR 35.11 and the

Commission’s order issued July 30, 1993

(Docket No. PL93–2–002), PGE

respectfully requests the Commission

grant a waiver of the notice

requirements of 18 CFR 35.3 to allow

the executed Service Agreements to

become effective January 1, 1996.

Copies of this filing were served upon

the entities listed in the body of the

filing letter.

Comment date: January 5, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

15. Saquaro Power Company, a Limited

Partnership

[Docket No. QF90–203–001]

On December 14, 1995, Saquaro

Power Company, a Limited Partnership

(Applicant), 18101 Von Karman

Avenue, Suite 1700, Irvine, California

92715–1007, submitted for filing an

application for recertification of a

facility as a qualifying cogeneration

facility. No determination has been

made that the submittal constitutes a

complete filing.

According to Applicant, the toppingcycle cogeneration facility is located in

Clark County, near the City of

Henderson, Nevada. The Commission

previously certified the facility as a

qualifying cogeneration facility in

Saquaro Power Company, a Limited

Partnership, 53 FERC ¶ 62,209 (1990).

The instant request for recertification is

due to a partnership interest financing

arrangement.

Comment date: February 1, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

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

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

the comment date. 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 proceeding.

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.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31534 Filed 12–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket No. EG96–24–000, et al.]

Hainan Meinan Power Company, et al.;

Electric Rate and Corporate Regulation

Filings

December 26, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Hainan Meinan Power Company

[Docket No. EG96–24–000]

On December 14, 1995, Hainan

Meinan Power Company (‘‘HMPC’’),

with its principal office at Room 807,

Haikou International Commercial

Center, 38 Da Tong Road, Haikou,

Hainon, People’s Republic of China

(‘‘PRC’’), filed with the Commission an

application for determination of exempt

wholesale generator status pursuant to

Part 365 of the Commission’s

Regulations.

HMPC states that it is a joint venture

organized under the laws of the PRC.

HMPC will be engaged directly and

exclusively in owning an approximately

150 MW liquified petroleum gas and

distillate fuel oil-fired electric

generating facility located in Wenchang

County, Hainan Province, PRC. Electric

energy produced by the facility will be

sold at wholesale to Hainan Electric

Power Corporation. In no event will any

electricity be sold to consumers in the

United States.

Comment date: January 12, 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.

2. Kingston Cogen Limited Partnership

[Docket No. EG96–25–000]

Take notice that on December 18,

1995, Kingston Cogen Limited

Partnership (Kingston) (c/o Michael J.

Zimmer, Esq., Reid & Priest LLP, 701

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20004) filed with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

an application on December 18, 1995,

for determination of exempt wholesale

generator status pursuant to Part 365 of

the Commission’s Regulations.

Kingston is an Ontario, Canada

limited partnership formed to own an

electric generating facility located in

Ernestown Township, Ontario, Canada.

Comment date: January 12, 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Notices 65

3. Williams Energy Services Company

[Docket No. ER95–305–004]

Take notice that on December 4, 1995,

Williams Energy Service Company

tendered for filing a Notice of

Succession in the above-referenced

docket.

Comment date: January 9, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

4. Rig Gas Inc., Texas-Ohio Power

Martketing, Inc.

[Docket No. ER95–480–003, Docket No.

ER94–1676–005 (Not Consolidated)]

Take notice that the following

information 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 11, 1995, Rig Gas Inc.

filed certain information as required by

the Commission’s March 16, 1995, order

in Docket No. ER95–480–000.

On December 12, 1995, Texas-Ohio

filed certain information as required by

the Commission’s October 31, 1994,

order in Docket No. ER94–1676–000.

5. PacifiCorp Power Marketing, Inc.

[Docket No. ER95–1096–000]

Take notice that on December 14,

1995, PacifiCorp Power Marketing, Inc.,

tendered for filing an amendment in the

above-referenced docket.

Comment date: January 9, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

6. Northwest Regional Transmission

Association

[Docket No. ER96–384–000]

Take notice that on November 14,

1995, Northwest Regional Transmission

Association tendered for filing a Notice

of Withdrawal in the above-referenced

docket.

Comment date: January 9, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

7. Utility Management and Consulting

Inc.

[Docket No. ER96–525–000]

Take notice that on December 18,

1995, Utility Management and

Consulting Inc. supplemented its earlier

filing in this docket.

Comment date: January 8, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

8. City of College Station, Texas

[Docket No. TX96–2–000]

Take notice that on December 15,

1995, the City of College Station, filed

with the Commission an application

requesting that the Commission order

the City of Bryan, Texas (Bryan) and the

Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA)

to provide transmission services

pursuant to Sections 211 and 212 of the

Federal Power Act, as amended.

The name of the affected parties are

as follows:

Affected State Regulatory Authority:

Public Utility Commission of Texas.

Affected Federal power marketing

agency: None.

Affected Electric Utilities:

City of Bryan, Texas

Texas Municipal Power Agency

Texas Utilities Electric Company

Texas Municipal Power Pool

Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

Public Utilities Board of the City of

Brownsville, Texas

Lower Colorado River Authority

Medina Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

Texas-New Mexico Power Company

South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

West Texas Utilities Company

Central Power & Light Company

City of Austin, Texas

City Public Service Board of San

Antonio, Texas

Houston Lighting & Power Company

College Station currently receives

wholesale electric service at points of

delivery (PODs) on the transmission

systems of Bryan and TMPA, all located

within the load control area of the Texas

Municipal Power Pool (TMPP). College

Station seeks transmission services from

Bryan and TMPA for the delivery of

power and energy from the bulk power

facilities of Texas Utilities Electric

Company (TU Electric) to the PODs

located at the transmission substations

of College Station. In order to

implement such service, College

Station’s load must be transferred from

the TMPP control area and added to TU

electric’s control area by means of

remote control telemetry equipment.

The proposed date for initiating the

requested transmission service is

January 1, 1996. Termination of service

will be coincident with the term of

College Station’s Power Supply

Agreement with TU electric (up to 10

years).

The transmission service being

requested by College Station is firm

transmission service over the Bryan and

TMPA transmission systems at a level

and quantity sufficient for College

Station to meet its loads at the PODs,

estimated to be approximately 128 MW

during 1996.

Comment date: January 22, 1996, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest said 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 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

the comment date. 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 proceeding.

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.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31548 Filed 12–29–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

[Docket Nos. CP95–668–000 and CP95–668–

001]

CNG Transmission Corporation and

Texas Eastern Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Availability of

the Environmental Assessment for the

Proposed South Oakford Project

December 26, 1995.

The staff of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC or

Commission) has prepared an

environmental assessment (EA) on the

natural gas facilities proposed by CNG

Transmission Corporation (CNG) and

Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation

(Texas Eastern) in the above-referenced

dockets.

The EA was prepared to satisfy the

requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act. The staff

concludes that approval of the proposed

project, with appropriate mitigating

measures, would not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment.

The EA assesses the potential

environmental effects of the

construction and operation of the South

Oakford Project. The proposed facilities

include:

• 10,000 hp of electric motor-driven

compression and related facilities at the

South Oakford Compressor Station in

Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania;

• A pig receiver and barrel drip at the

Earhart Gate;

• 3,158 feet of 30-inch-diameter

storage suction pipeline (Line JP–296)

between the South Oakford Compressor

Station and the South Oakford Gate;

• 3,158 feet of 16-inch-diameter

storage discharge pipeline (Line JP–297)

between the South Oakford Compressor

Station and the South Oakford Gate;