11082 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices

Transactions, Order No. 566, 59 FR 32885 (June 27,

1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,997 (June 17,

1994); Order No. 566–A, order on rehearing, 59 FR

52896 (October 20, 1994), 69 FERC ¶ 61,044

(October 14, 1994); Order No. 566–B, order on

rehearing, 59 FR 65707 (December 21, 1994); 69

FERC ¶ 61,334 (December 14, 1994); appeal

docketed sub nom. Conoco, Inc. v. FERC, D.C. Cir.

No. 94–1745 (December 13, 1994).

3 70 FERC ¶ 61,054 (1995).

1Stanfield is an intermediary point on the PGT

system approximately halfway between Kingsgate

and Malin.

1Order No. 497, 53 FR 22139 (June 14, 1988), III

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶30,820 (1988); Order No. 497–

A, order on rehearing, 54 FR 52781 (December 22,

1989), III FERC Stats. & Regs. 30,868 (1989); Order

No. 497–B, order extending sunset date, 55 FR

53291 (December 28, 1990), III FERC Stats. & Regs.

¶ 30,908 (1990); Order No. 497–C, order extending

sunset date, 57 FR 9 (January 2, 1992), III FERC

Stats. & Regs. ¶30,934 (1991), rehearing denied, 57

FR 5815 (February 18, 1992), 58 FERC ¶ 61,139

(1992); Tenneco Gas v. FERC (affirmed in part and

remanded in part), 969 F. 2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1992);

Order No. 497–D, order on remand and extending

sunset date, III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,958

(December 4, 1992), 57 FR 58978 (December 14,

1992); Order No. 497–E, order on rehearing and

extending sunset date, 59 FR 243 (January 4, 1994),

65 FERC ¶ 61,381 (December 23, 1993); Order No.

497–F, order denying rehearing and granting

clarification, 59 FR 15336 (April 1, 1994), 66 FERC

¶ 61,347 (March 24, 1994); and Order No. 497–G,

order extending sunset date, 59 FR 32884 (June 27,

1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,996 (June 17,

1994).

2Standards of Conduct and Reporting

Requirements for Transportation and Affiliate

Transactions, Order No. 566, 59 FR 32885 (June 27,

1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,997 (June 17,

1994); Order No. 566–A, order on rehearing, 59 FR

52896 (October 20, 1994), 69 FERC ¶ 61,044

(October 14, 1994); Order No. 566–B, order on

rehearing, 59 FR 65707 (December 21, 1994); 69

FERC ¶ 61,334 (December 14, 1994); appeal

docketed sub nom. Conoco, Inc. v. FERC, D.C. Cir.

No. 94–1745 (December 13, 1994).

3 70 FERC ¶ 61,054 (1995).

revising its standards to incorporate the

changes required by the Commission’s

January 20, 1995 Order on Standards of

Conduct.3

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, 825

North Capitol Street, NE., Washington,

DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211

or 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

or 385.214). All such motions to

intervene or protest should be filed on

or before March 10, 1995. 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. 95–4945 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP95–166–000]

Pan-Alberta Gas (U.S.) Inc.

Complainant v. Pacific Gas and

Electric Company and Pacific Gas

Transmission Company Respondents;

Notice of Complaint

February 23, 1995.

Take notice that on February 16, 1995,

Pan-Alberta Gas (U.S.) Inc. (PAG-US),

submits for filing a complaint against

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

(PG&E) and Pacific Gas Transmission

Company (PGT) (jointly, Respondents).

PAG-US complains that the terms on

which PG&E recently offered to

permanently release a ‘‘package’’ of two

assignments of FTS–1 capacity on the

PGT system (PGT Release Package) are

unlawfully discriminatory and anticompetitive.

PAG-US argue that in its PGT Release

Package, PG&E offered to permanently

release (1) An unspecified quantity of

capacity on the PGT System from

Kingsgate, British Columbia to Malin,

Oregon, and (2) a similarly unspecified

quantity of separate, additional capacity

on the system from Stanfield, Oregon 1

to Malin. As a condition of the release,

PG&E required that, for each unit of

Kingsgate to Malin capacity sought by a

bidder, that bidder would have to agree

to take 3.5 units of additional Stanfield

to Malin capacity.

PAG-US argue that PG&E’s mandatory

bundling of this unrelated PGT capacity

(1) Constitutes an unlawful tying

arrangement, (2) amount, in effect, to an

unlawful attempt by PG&E to collect a

rate in excess of the as billed rate for its

Kingsgate to Malin capacity, and (3)

violates the requirements of Order No.

636 and PGT’s tariff that conditions

imposed on capacity releases be

reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

PAG-US states that the Commission

should (1) Set aside any capacity

releases that may actually have been

consummated on the discriminatory and

anti-competitive terms of PG&E’s

January PGT Release Package, (2)

require that, if PG&E still desires to

release Kingsgate to Malin and Stanfield

to Mailin capacity, it must do so on an

unbundled basis, with neither block

being mandatorily tied to the other, and

(3) provide any additional relief which

is deems appropriate in the

circumstances.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said complaint should file a

motion to intervene or a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, in accordance

with Rules 214 and 211 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure 18 CFR 385.214, 385.211. All

such motions or protests should be filed

on or before March 27, 1995. 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. Answers to this complaint

shall be due on or before March 27,

1995.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4946 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. MG88–11–003]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of

Filing

February 23, 1995.

Take notice that on February 14, 1995,

Questar Pipeline Company (Questar)

submitted revised standards of conduct

under Order Nos. 497 et seq.1 and Order

Nos. 566 and 566–A.2 Questar states

that it is revising its standards to

incorporate the changes required by the

Commission’s January 20, 1995 Order

on Standards of Conduct.3

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, 825

North Capitol Street, NE., Washington,

DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211

or 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

or 385.214). All such motions to

intervene or protest should be filed on

or before March 10, 1995. 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. 95–4947 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M