Parker-Davis Project, Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project, and the Central Arizona Project-Rate Order No. WAPA-114, 10398-10401 [05-4118]
Download as PDF
10398
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 41 / Thursday, March 3, 2005 / Notices
or documents with the Commission
relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must
also serve a copy of the document on
that resource agency.
Motions to intervene and protests may
be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission’s Web
site (https://www.ferc.gov) under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link.
k. This application has been accepted
for filing, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
l. The Hebgen Dam Project will
consist of a powerhouse with a single
turbine generator unit of approximately
6.7 megawatt capacity at the area
downstream of the dam and
immediately north of the present outlet
discharge. The Applicant also proposes
to install a new 9.4-mile, 25-kilovolt
underground power transmission line to
connect the powerhouse with the
existing Fall River Rural Electric
Cooperative’s Hebgen substation located
near Grayline, Montana. The Applicant
proposes to utilize the existing Hebgen
Dam, Hebgen Reservoir, outlet works,
and spillway, currently owned and
operated by Pennsylvania Power and
Light Montana, LLC (PPL Montana) as a
regulating reservoir under the MissouriMadison Hydroelectric Project, FERC
No. 2188.
m. A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission
in the Public Reference Room or may be
viewed on the Commission’s Web site at
https://www.ferc.gov using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502–8659. A copy is also available
for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item h above.
n. Anyone may submit a protest, or a
motion to intervene in accordance with
the requirements of Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will
consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion
to intervene in accordance with the
Commission’s Rules may become a
party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must
be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular
application.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:38 Mar 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
All filings must (1) bear in all capital
letters the title ‘‘PROTEST’’ or
‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE;’’ (2) set
forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address,
and telephone number of the person
protesting or intervening; and (4)
otherwise comply with the requirements
of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant.
A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified
in the particular application. A copy of
all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in
the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
You may also register online at
https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5–891 Filed 3–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Parker-Davis Project, Pacific
Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie
Project, and the Central Arizona
Project—Rate Order No. WAPA–114
Western Area Power
Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of extension of multisystem transmission rate process.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power
Administration (Western) initiated a
rate adjustment process for a multisystem transmission rate (MSTR) which
would have applied to the Parker-Davis
Project (P-DP), the Pacific NorthwestPacific Southwest Intertie Project
(Intertie), and the Central Arizona
Project (CAP). Western is extending the
rate process to allow sufficient time to
propose a methodology for the MSTR
allowing customers to choose between a
single system transmission service and
a multi-system transmission service
(customer choice model). Western will
hold an additional Public Information
Forum and Public Comment Forum.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The consultation and comment
period begins today and will end June
1, 2005. A Public Information Forum
will be held on March 29, 2005
beginning at 10 a.m. MST, in Phoenix,
AZ. A Public Comment Forum will be
held April 6, 2005 beginning at 1 p.m.
MST in Phoenix, AZ. Western will
accept written comments any time
during the consultation and comment
period.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to J.
Tyler Carlson, Regional Manager, Desert
Southwest Customer Service Region,
Western Area Power Administration,
P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005–
6457, e-mail carlson@wapa.gov.
Western will post information about the
rate process on its Web site at https://
www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/MSTRP/
MSTRP.htm. Western must receive
written comments by the end of the
consultation and comment period to
ensure they are considered in Western’s
decision process. The Public
Information Forum and Public
Comment Forum will be held at: Desert
Southwest Customer Service Regional
Office, located at 615 South 43rd
Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
J. Tyler Carlson, Regional Manager,
Desert Southwest Customer Service
Region, Western Area Power
Administration, P.O. Box 6457,
Phoenix, AZ 85005–6457, telephone
(602) 605–2453, e-mail address
carlson@wapa.gov, or Mr. Jack Murray,
Rates Team Lead, Desert Southwest
Customer Service Region, Western Area
Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457,
Phoenix, AZ 85005–6457, telephone
(602) 605–2442, e-mail
jmurray@wapa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the
consultation and comment period
which this notice extends, Western
received comments voicing strong
opposition to the proposed methodology
and also comments voicing support for
the proposed methodology. Western
also received requests to change the
proposed methodology. The alternative
proposal, instead of a mandatory phasein model for all customers, will be a
customer choice model which will
allow existing customers to choose
either a single system transmission
service or a multi-system transmission
service.
The initial consultation and comment
period ended September 20, 2004. All
formally submitted comments, both
written and oral, were considered in
preparing this notice.
Comments:
Written comments were received from
the following organizations: Arizona
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 41 / Thursday, March 3, 2005 / Notices
Electric Power Cooperative, Arizona
Power Authority, Arizona Public
Service, Calpine Power Company,
Cortaro Water Users’ Association, K. R.
Saline & Associates, Mohave Electric
Cooperative, Navopache Electric
Cooperative, Robert S. Lynch and
Associates, Salt River Project,
Southwest Transmission Cooperative,
Welton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage
District.
Representatives of the following
organizations made oral comments:
Calpine Power Company, Irrigation &
Electrical Districts Association of
Arizona, R.W. Beck, Salt River Project.
Western responded to oral comments
received during the Public Information
and Comment Forums in a letter dated
September 2, 2004. Responses in this
notice focus primarily on written
comments pertinent to a revised
customer choice model and Western’s
authority to develop a MSTR.
Comment: Several comments
indicated a preference for the ability to
choose whether to remain on a single
system rate or elect to have broader
system access and pay the MSTR.
Response: Western is extending the
public process to allow for
consideration and development of a
customer choice model for the MSTR.
Comment: Several comments
indicated that under the mandatory
convergence model Western proposed,
they would experience increased costs
and would not receive any benefit,
while others submitted comments in
favor of the proposal because it would
have decreased their costs due the
elimination of pancaked rates.
Response: Western acknowledges all
comments and is extending the public
process to develop a customer choice
model for firm and non-firm
transmission service. A customer choice
model will allow those customers who
recognize no benefit to remain on a
single system rate while those wanting
broader transmission system access
without pancaked rates can opt for the
MSTR.
Comment: Several comments stated
that the proposed MSTR constituted a
cross-subsidization of one power system
to another, and that Western did not
have the authority to require that one
project be subsidized by another.
Response: The MSTR model referred
to in this comment is the Convergence
Model which would have applied the
MSTR in the fifth year (Fifth Year
Convergence). Under this model, each
power system would have remained
financially independent for accounting
and repayment purposes. Each power
system would have maintained a
separate Power Repayment Study (PRS)
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:38 Mar 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
and financial reports. The Fifth Year
Convergence model would have
combined the revenue requirements of
three power systems to calculate a firm
transmission rate. The total MSTR
revenue collected would have been
allocated to each power system based on
the individual power system’s
percentage of the total MSTR revenue
requirement. It is true that an increase
(or decrease) in revenues or expenses on
one power system would have an
impact on the overall MSTR revenue
requirement and therefore a transfer of
repayment responsibility under the
MSTR would exist.
While Western is revising the MSTR
to a customer choice model, it is not
prohibited from implementing such a
blended rate by either DOE Order RA
6120.2 or project-specific legislation.
Western has combined the revenue
requirements of multiple projects for
rate-setting purposes in its other
regional offices.
Comment: Some comments
specifically alleged there is a subsidy
from the Intertie 230/345-kilovolt
system to the Intertie 500-kV system.
Response: From a legislative, power
system repayment, and accounting
standpoint, both the 230/345-kV and
500-kV components of Intertie are
considered one power system. There is
one PRS that includes the investments,
revenues, and expenses of both
components. Western’s financial
accounting system does not break costs
down by a 230/345-kV or 500-kV
component class of service and Western
does not record costs to one component
over the other. However, Western
established two rates for the two
components in the 1995 Rate
Adjustment in response to customer
comments.
Comment: A commenter indicated
that granting single system credits to the
Firm Electric Service (FES) customers
discriminated against the other
customers because the credits are part of
the revenue requirement for the MSTR.
Response: FES customers receive a
bundled firm electric service product.
This product is firm energy delivered to
the customer’s point of delivery on the
Parker-Davis System including all
necessary ancillary services. Although
transmission is bundled in the FES
contracts, in Rate Order No. WAPA–75,
Western defined a generation
component and a transmission
component equal to the P–DP Firm
Transmission rate. This was done in an
effort to voluntarily comply with the
intent of Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) Order No.
888, by giving comparable access to
other generation. However, the nature of
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10399
the P–DP FES product was unchanged
and Western’s customers agreed that
FES remains a bundled product,
including both the generation and
transmission components. Therefore the
FES customers that chose to continue to
take limited service delivery solely on
the P–DP system would receive a credit
for the difference between the MSTR
and the transmission component of the
P–DP bundled Power rate.
The P–DP PRS does not separate the
generation and transmission to calculate
a P–DP revenue requirement. A second
study, the Cost Apportionment Study,
was developed in 1995 to calculate this
separation with an allocation of costs
between the power and transmission
customers. The Commission recognizes
the existence of bundled power
contracts and the special nature of
Western’s power marketing mission.
The MSTR, as proposed in the June
2004 Public Information Forum, would
have been put in place strictly for firm
transmission service, which represents
an entirely different class of service than
firm electric service. Western is
following generally accepted industry
practices to use different pricing
methodologies for different classes of
service.
Comment: A commenter indicated
that granting credits to UNS Electric
(UNS) and Central Arizona Water
Conservation District (CAWCD)
discriminated against the other
customers because the credits are part of
the revenue requirement for the MSTR.
Response: Western was not proposing
to provide credits to either entity. UNS
has a contract which identifies a
specific rate through 2008. This contract
was executed prior to Western
establishing a rate for the CAP. The UNS
contract does, however, allow for
modification to the rate. All other
transmission contracts specify that the
contractor will pay the rates and charges
set forth in the applicable rate schedule.
Since UNS does not pay the firm
transmission rate as published in the
CAP rate schedule, the revenue
collected from that contract is classified
as ‘‘other revenue’’ when calculating the
CAP revenue requirement. Other
revenue is subtracted from or ‘‘credited’’
against the gross revenue requirement to
determine the revenue requirement that
must be collected from other firm
transmission customers.
CAWCD does not receive credit for
any part of its transmission use on the
CAP system. The CAP transmission
system was built to supply power to
CAP pumping loads. CAWCD is the
project use beneficiary of the CAP and
has the financial obligation to repay the
entire CAP system. The Desert
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
10400
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 41 / Thursday, March 3, 2005 / Notices
Southwest Region (DSW) does not bill
CAWCD for transmission service for
project use loads on the CAP. In order
to include the CAP transmission service
revenue paid by others in the MSTR,
Western determined a revenue
requirement based on the percentage of
use on the CAP by CAWCD and
subtracted that from the total CAP
revenue requirement.
Comment: A commenter indicated
there was a discrepancy caused by
granting credits to the P–DP FES
customers and not to the Salt Lake City
Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP) FES
customers.
Response: DSW approached Western’s
Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
Management Center and Rocky
Mountain Region (RMR) with several
plans to incorporate the SLCA/IP FES
into the MSTR. SLCA/IP FES is a
bundled product and no acceptable
method for breaking out the
transmission component could be
determined. SLCA/IP FES contracts
include Western’s obligation to deliver
to points on the CRSP system. Deliveries
off the CRSP system to the P–DP system
require payment at the applicable rate
for P–DP Transmission Service. Any
methods devised by DSW to include
SLCA/IP FES customers resulted in
inequities between the SLCA/IP
Customers on P–DP and the other
SLCA/IP Southern and Northern
Division Customers. The CRSP, RMR,
and DSW offices agreed that it is not
feasible to consider eliminating
pancaking among the Regions unless we
could combine the transmission service
rates of all three Regions.
Comment: A commenter stated that
the MSTR does not follow RA 6120.2
and cites paragraphs 7.g., 10.a., and
10.h.
Response: Paragraph 1 of RA 6120.2,
which sets forth the purpose of
establishing financial and reporting
policies, procedures and methodologies
for all DOE Power Marketing
Administrations, specifically allows for
deviations when ‘‘approved by the
Secretary, authorized by statute, or
identified and explained in a transmittal
memorandum or in the footnotes to the
reports’’.
Paragraph 7.g. defines a power system
as ‘‘a system comprised of one project
or more than one project hydraulically
and/or electrically integrated and
therefore treated as one unit for the
purpose of establishing rates.’’ While a
transmission system is not a defined
term in RA 6120.2, the key feature of the
DSW system is that it is electrically
connected and thus fits the requirement
for being treated as one system for
establishing rates.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:38 Mar 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
Neither paragraph 10.a. nor paragraph
10.h. addresses combining the
transmission portions of the revenue
requirement of multiple power systems.
Paragraph 10 sets forth the general
requirements for PRSs. The revenue
requirement for the MSTR is a
combination of transmission revenue
requirements for each power system that
has been determined using practices
consistent with RA 6120.2. Western has
previously combined revenue
requirements of separate power systems
for rate-making purposes. Western’s
RMR and Sierra Nevada Region (SNR),
as well as the CRSP Management
Center, have combined revenue
requirements from multiple power
systems to calculate one combined rate.
They also have a firm transmission rate
which is calculated separately from the
PRS. Revenue from this service is
applied to the appropriate PRS as
‘‘Other Revenue’’ similar to what was
envisioned for revenue from the MSTR
in DSW.
Comment: A commenter questioned
the information on the number of
customers who benefited from the
implementation of the MSTR and those
who were disadvantaged and requested
additional data.
Response: In a letter dated September
2, 2004, Western provided an impact
analysis that listed rates for each year
and the total impact by customer. Also
included in this data was a listing of
reservations by customer for the FY
2005–2009 rate evaluation period. The
data is also available on Western’s Web
site at https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/
pwrmkt/MSTRP/MSTRP.htm.
Since Western is revising the MSTR
proposal to a customer choice model,
each customer will be able to make the
choice whether it is most beneficial to
them to remain on a single system rate
or elect the MSTR.
Legal Authority
Western will hold both a public
information forum and a public
comment forum on a revised customer
choice methodology for the proposed
MSTR. After review of public
comments, and possible amendments or
adjustments, Western will either
recommend the Deputy Secretary of
Energy approve the revised MSTR
proposal on an interim basis, continue
the public process, or withdraw the
proposal.
Western is establishing the proposed
MSTR under the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152); the
Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32
Stat. 388), as amended and
supplemented by subsequent laws,
particularly section 9(c) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43
U.S.C. 485h(c)); and other acts that
specifically apply to the projects
involved.
By Delegation Order No. 00–037.00,
effective December 6, 2001, the
Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The
authority to develop power and
transmission rates to Western’s
Administrator; (2) the authority to
confirm, approve, and place such rates
into effect on an interim basis to the
Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the
authority to confirm, approve, and place
into effect on a final basis, to remand,
or to disapprove such rates to the
Commission. Existing Department of
Energy (DOE) procedures for public
participation in power rate adjustments
(10 CFR part 903) were published on
September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835).
Availability of Information
All brochures, studies, comments,
letters, memorandums, or other
documents that Western initiates or uses
to develop the proposed rates are
available for inspection and copying at
the Desert Southwest Customer Service
Regional Office, Western Area Power
Administration, located at 615 South
43rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. Many
of these documents and supporting
information are also available on
Western’s Web site at https://
www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/MSTRP/
MSTRP.htm.
Regulatory Procedure Requirements
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires Federal
agencies to perform a regulatory
flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely
to have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
and there is a legal requirement to issue
a general notice of proposed
rulemaking. This action does not require
a regulatory flexibility analysis since it
is a rulemaking of particular
applicability involving rates or services
applicable to public property.
Environmental Compliance
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.);
Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508);
and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR
part 1021), Western has determined this
action is categorically excluded from
preparing an environmental assessment
or an environmental impact statement.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 41 / Thursday, March 3, 2005 / Notices
Determination Under Executive Order
12866
Western has an exemption from
centralized regulatory review under
Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no
clearance of this notice by the Office of
Management and Budget is required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
Western has determined that this rule
is exempt from congressional
notification requirements under 5 U.S.C.
801 because the action is a rulemaking
of particular applicability relating to
rates or services and involves matters of
procedure.
Dated: Feburary 14, 2005.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–4118 Filed 3–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[DA–05–492]
Fifth Meeting of the Advisory
Committee for the 2007 World
Radiocommunication Conference
(WRC–07 Advisory Committee)
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, this
notice advises interested persons that
the fifth meeting of the WRC–07
Advisory Committee will be held on
April 4, 2005, at the Federal
Communications Commission. The
purpose of the meeting is to continue
preparations for the 2007 World
Radiocommunication Conference. The
Advisory Committee will consider any
preliminary views and draft proposals
introduced by the Advisory Committee’s
Informal Working Groups.
DATES: April 4, 2005; 11 a.m.–12 noon.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room TW–C305, Washington, DC
20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Roytblat, FCC International
Bureau, Strategic Analysis and
Negotiations Division, at (202) 418–
7501.
The
Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) established the WRC–07 Advisory
Committee to provide advice, technical
support and recommendations relating
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:38 Mar 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
to the preparation of United States
proposals and positions for the 2007
World Radiocommunication Conference
(WRC–07).
In accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, Public Law
92–463, as amended, this notice advises
interested persons of the fifth meeting of
the WRC–07 Advisory Committee. The
WRC–07 Advisory Committee has an
open membership. All interested parties
are invited to participate in the
Advisory Committee and to attend its
meetings. The proposed agenda for the
fifth meeting is as follows:
Agenda
Fifth Meeting of the WRC–07
Advisory Committee, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room TW–C305,
Washington, DC 20554. April 4, 2005;
11 a.m.–12 noon.
1. Opening Remarks.
2. Approval of Agenda.
3. Approval of the Minutes of the Fourth
Meeting.
4. Reports on Recent WRC–07
Preparatory Meetings.
5. NTIA Draft Preliminary Views and
Proposals.
6. Informal Working Group Reports and
Documents relating to:
a. Consensus Views and Issues
Papers;
b. Draft Proposals.
7. Future Meetings.
8. Other Business.
Federal Communications Commission.
Don Abelson,
Chief, International Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05–4112 Filed 3–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Formations of, Acquisitions by, and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice
have applied to the Board for approval,
pursuant to the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)
(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part
225), and all other applicable statutes
and regulations to become a bank
holding company and/or to acquire the
assets or the ownership of, control of, or
the power to vote shares of a bank or
bank holding company and all of the
banks and nonbanking companies
owned by the bank holding company,
including the companies listed below.
The applications listed below, as well
as other related filings required by the
Board, are available for immediate
inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10401
indicated. The application also will be
available for inspection at the offices of
the Board of Governors. Interested
persons may express their views in
writing on the standards enumerated in
the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the
proposal also involves the acquisition of
a nonbanking company, the review also
includes whether the acquisition of the
nonbanking company complies with the
standards in section 4 of the BHC Act
(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise
noted, nonbanking activities will be
conducted throughout the United States.
Additional information on all bank
holding companies may be obtained
from the National Information Center
website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated or the offices of the Board of
Governors not later than March 28,
2005.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
(Nadine M. Wallman, Assistant Vice
President) 1455 East Sixth Street,
Cleveland, Ohio 44101–2566:
1. Sky Financial Group, Inc., Bowling
Green, Ohio: to acquire 100 percent of
the voting shares of, and thereby merge
with Belmont Bancorp, Inc., Bridgeport,
Ohio, and thereby indirectly acquire
Belmont National Bank, Wheeling, West
Virginia.
2. S&T Bancorp, Indiana,
Pennsylvania; to acquire up to 9.9
percent of the voting shares of CBT
Financial Corporation, and thereby
indirectly acquire Clearfield Bank &
Trust Company, both of Clearfield,
Pennsylvania.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
(Patrick Wilder, Managing Examiner)
230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60690–1414:
1. Community State Bank Employee
Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Union
Grove, Wisconsin; to acquire up to 33.24
percent of the voting shares of Union
Bancorporation, Union Grove,
Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly
acquire Community State Bank, Union
Grove, Wisconsin.
2. Great River Financial Group, Inc.,
Burlington, Iowa; to acquire 100 percent
of the voting shares of Two Rivers Bank
and Trust (in organization), Johnston,
Iowa.
3. Prairieland Bancorp Employee
Stock Ownership Plan and Trust,
Bushnell, Illinois; to acquire an
additional 4.66 percent for a total of
49.69 percent of the voting shares of
Prairieland Bancorp, Inc., and thereby
indirectly acquire Farmers and
Merchants State Bank of Bushnell, both
of Bushnell, Illinois.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 41 (Thursday, March 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10398-10401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4118]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Parker-Davis Project, Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest
Intertie Project, and the Central Arizona Project--Rate Order No. WAPA-
114
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of extension of multi-system transmission rate process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) initiated a
rate adjustment process for a multi-system transmission rate (MSTR)
which would have applied to the Parker-Davis Project (P-DP), the
Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project (Intertie), and
the Central Arizona Project (CAP). Western is extending the rate
process to allow sufficient time to propose a methodology for the MSTR
allowing customers to choose between a single system transmission
service and a multi-system transmission service (customer choice
model). Western will hold an additional Public Information Forum and
Public Comment Forum.
DATES: The consultation and comment period begins today and will end
June 1, 2005. A Public Information Forum will be held on March 29, 2005
beginning at 10 a.m. MST, in Phoenix, AZ. A Public Comment Forum will
be held April 6, 2005 beginning at 1 p.m. MST in Phoenix, AZ. Western
will accept written comments any time during the consultation and
comment period.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to J. Tyler Carlson, Regional Manager,
Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power
Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, e-mail
carlson@wapa.gov. Western will post information about the rate process
on its Web site at https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/MSTRP/MSTRP.htm.
Western must receive written comments by the end of the consultation
and comment period to ensure they are considered in Western's decision
process. The Public Information Forum and Public Comment Forum will be
held at: Desert Southwest Customer Service Regional Office, located at
615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. Tyler Carlson, Regional
Manager, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power
Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, telephone (602)
605-2453, e-mail address carlson@wapa.gov, or Mr. Jack Murray, Rates
Team Lead, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power
Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, telephone (602)
605-2442, e-mail jmurray@wapa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the consultation and comment period
which this notice extends, Western received comments voicing strong
opposition to the proposed methodology and also comments voicing
support for the proposed methodology. Western also received requests to
change the proposed methodology. The alternative proposal, instead of a
mandatory phase-in model for all customers, will be a customer choice
model which will allow existing customers to choose either a single
system transmission service or a multi-system transmission service.
The initial consultation and comment period ended September 20,
2004. All formally submitted comments, both written and oral, were
considered in preparing this notice.
Comments:
Written comments were received from the following organizations:
Arizona
[[Page 10399]]
Electric Power Cooperative, Arizona Power Authority, Arizona Public
Service, Calpine Power Company, Cortaro Water Users' Association, K. R.
Saline & Associates, Mohave Electric Cooperative, Navopache Electric
Cooperative, Robert S. Lynch and Associates, Salt River Project,
Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Welton-Mohawk Irrigation and
Drainage District.
Representatives of the following organizations made oral comments:
Calpine Power Company, Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of
Arizona, R.W. Beck, Salt River Project.
Western responded to oral comments received during the Public
Information and Comment Forums in a letter dated September 2, 2004.
Responses in this notice focus primarily on written comments pertinent
to a revised customer choice model and Western's authority to develop a
MSTR.
Comment: Several comments indicated a preference for the ability to
choose whether to remain on a single system rate or elect to have
broader system access and pay the MSTR.
Response: Western is extending the public process to allow for
consideration and development of a customer choice model for the MSTR.
Comment: Several comments indicated that under the mandatory
convergence model Western proposed, they would experience increased
costs and would not receive any benefit, while others submitted
comments in favor of the proposal because it would have decreased their
costs due the elimination of pancaked rates.
Response: Western acknowledges all comments and is extending the
public process to develop a customer choice model for firm and non-firm
transmission service. A customer choice model will allow those
customers who recognize no benefit to remain on a single system rate
while those wanting broader transmission system access without pancaked
rates can opt for the MSTR.
Comment: Several comments stated that the proposed MSTR constituted
a cross-subsidization of one power system to another, and that Western
did not have the authority to require that one project be subsidized by
another.
Response: The MSTR model referred to in this comment is the
Convergence Model which would have applied the MSTR in the fifth year
(Fifth Year Convergence). Under this model, each power system would
have remained financially independent for accounting and repayment
purposes. Each power system would have maintained a separate Power
Repayment Study (PRS) and financial reports. The Fifth Year Convergence
model would have combined the revenue requirements of three power
systems to calculate a firm transmission rate. The total MSTR revenue
collected would have been allocated to each power system based on the
individual power system's percentage of the total MSTR revenue
requirement. It is true that an increase (or decrease) in revenues or
expenses on one power system would have an impact on the overall MSTR
revenue requirement and therefore a transfer of repayment
responsibility under the MSTR would exist.
While Western is revising the MSTR to a customer choice model, it
is not prohibited from implementing such a blended rate by either DOE
Order RA 6120.2 or project-specific legislation. Western has combined
the revenue requirements of multiple projects for rate-setting purposes
in its other regional offices.
Comment: Some comments specifically alleged there is a subsidy from
the Intertie 230/345-kilovolt system to the Intertie 500-kV system.
Response: From a legislative, power system repayment, and
accounting standpoint, both the 230/345-kV and 500-kV components of
Intertie are considered one power system. There is one PRS that
includes the investments, revenues, and expenses of both components.
Western's financial accounting system does not break costs down by a
230/345-kV or 500-kV component class of service and Western does not
record costs to one component over the other. However, Western
established two rates for the two components in the 1995 Rate
Adjustment in response to customer comments.
Comment: A commenter indicated that granting single system credits
to the Firm Electric Service (FES) customers discriminated against the
other customers because the credits are part of the revenue requirement
for the MSTR.
Response: FES customers receive a bundled firm electric service
product. This product is firm energy delivered to the customer's point
of delivery on the Parker-Davis System including all necessary
ancillary services. Although transmission is bundled in the FES
contracts, in Rate Order No. WAPA-75, Western defined a generation
component and a transmission component equal to the P-DP Firm
Transmission rate. This was done in an effort to voluntarily comply
with the intent of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
Order No. 888, by giving comparable access to other generation.
However, the nature of the P-DP FES product was unchanged and Western's
customers agreed that FES remains a bundled product, including both the
generation and transmission components. Therefore the FES customers
that chose to continue to take limited service delivery solely on the
P-DP system would receive a credit for the difference between the MSTR
and the transmission component of the P-DP bundled Power rate.
The P-DP PRS does not separate the generation and transmission to
calculate a P-DP revenue requirement. A second study, the Cost
Apportionment Study, was developed in 1995 to calculate this separation
with an allocation of costs between the power and transmission
customers. The Commission recognizes the existence of bundled power
contracts and the special nature of Western's power marketing mission.
The MSTR, as proposed in the June 2004 Public Information Forum, would
have been put in place strictly for firm transmission service, which
represents an entirely different class of service than firm electric
service. Western is following generally accepted industry practices to
use different pricing methodologies for different classes of service.
Comment: A commenter indicated that granting credits to UNS
Electric (UNS) and Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD)
discriminated against the other customers because the credits are part
of the revenue requirement for the MSTR.
Response: Western was not proposing to provide credits to either
entity. UNS has a contract which identifies a specific rate through
2008. This contract was executed prior to Western establishing a rate
for the CAP. The UNS contract does, however, allow for modification to
the rate. All other transmission contracts specify that the contractor
will pay the rates and charges set forth in the applicable rate
schedule. Since UNS does not pay the firm transmission rate as
published in the CAP rate schedule, the revenue collected from that
contract is classified as ``other revenue'' when calculating the CAP
revenue requirement. Other revenue is subtracted from or ``credited''
against the gross revenue requirement to determine the revenue
requirement that must be collected from other firm transmission
customers.
CAWCD does not receive credit for any part of its transmission use
on the CAP system. The CAP transmission system was built to supply
power to CAP pumping loads. CAWCD is the project use beneficiary of the
CAP and has the financial obligation to repay the entire CAP system.
The Desert
[[Page 10400]]
Southwest Region (DSW) does not bill CAWCD for transmission service for
project use loads on the CAP. In order to include the CAP transmission
service revenue paid by others in the MSTR, Western determined a
revenue requirement based on the percentage of use on the CAP by CAWCD
and subtracted that from the total CAP revenue requirement.
Comment: A commenter indicated there was a discrepancy caused by
granting credits to the P-DP FES customers and not to the Salt Lake
City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP) FES customers.
Response: DSW approached Western's Colorado River Storage Project
(CRSP) Management Center and Rocky Mountain Region (RMR) with several
plans to incorporate the SLCA/IP FES into the MSTR. SLCA/IP FES is a
bundled product and no acceptable method for breaking out the
transmission component could be determined. SLCA/IP FES contracts
include Western's obligation to deliver to points on the CRSP system.
Deliveries off the CRSP system to the P-DP system require payment at
the applicable rate for P-DP Transmission Service. Any methods devised
by DSW to include SLCA/IP FES customers resulted in inequities between
the SLCA/IP Customers on P-DP and the other SLCA/IP Southern and
Northern Division Customers. The CRSP, RMR, and DSW offices agreed that
it is not feasible to consider eliminating pancaking among the Regions
unless we could combine the transmission service rates of all three
Regions.
Comment: A commenter stated that the MSTR does not follow RA 6120.2
and cites paragraphs 7.g., 10.a., and 10.h.
Response: Paragraph 1 of RA 6120.2, which sets forth the purpose of
establishing financial and reporting policies, procedures and
methodologies for all DOE Power Marketing Administrations, specifically
allows for deviations when ``approved by the Secretary, authorized by
statute, or identified and explained in a transmittal memorandum or in
the footnotes to the reports''.
Paragraph 7.g. defines a power system as ``a system comprised of
one project or more than one project hydraulically and/or electrically
integrated and therefore treated as one unit for the purpose of
establishing rates.'' While a transmission system is not a defined term
in RA 6120.2, the key feature of the DSW system is that it is
electrically connected and thus fits the requirement for being treated
as one system for establishing rates.
Neither paragraph 10.a. nor paragraph 10.h. addresses combining the
transmission portions of the revenue requirement of multiple power
systems. Paragraph 10 sets forth the general requirements for PRSs. The
revenue requirement for the MSTR is a combination of transmission
revenue requirements for each power system that has been determined
using practices consistent with RA 6120.2. Western has previously
combined revenue requirements of separate power systems for rate-making
purposes. Western's RMR and Sierra Nevada Region (SNR), as well as the
CRSP Management Center, have combined revenue requirements from
multiple power systems to calculate one combined rate. They also have a
firm transmission rate which is calculated separately from the PRS.
Revenue from this service is applied to the appropriate PRS as ``Other
Revenue'' similar to what was envisioned for revenue from the MSTR in
DSW.
Comment: A commenter questioned the information on the number of
customers who benefited from the implementation of the MSTR and those
who were disadvantaged and requested additional data.
Response: In a letter dated September 2, 2004, Western provided an
impact analysis that listed rates for each year and the total impact by
customer. Also included in this data was a listing of reservations by
customer for the FY 2005-2009 rate evaluation period. The data is also
available on Western's Web site at https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/
MSTRP/MSTRP.htm.
Since Western is revising the MSTR proposal to a customer choice
model, each customer will be able to make the choice whether it is most
beneficial to them to remain on a single system rate or elect the MSTR.
Legal Authority
Western will hold both a public information forum and a public
comment forum on a revised customer choice methodology for the proposed
MSTR. After review of public comments, and possible amendments or
adjustments, Western will either recommend the Deputy Secretary of
Energy approve the revised MSTR proposal on an interim basis, continue
the public process, or withdraw the proposal.
Western is establishing the proposed MSTR under the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152); the Reclamation Act of 1902
(ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent
laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939
(43 U.S.C. 485h(c)); and other acts that specifically apply to the
projects involved.
By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the
Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and
transmission rates to Western's Administrator; (2) the authority to
confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis
to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm,
approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to
disapprove such rates to the Commission. Existing Department of Energy
(DOE) procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10
CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835).
Availability of Information
All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other
documents that Western initiates or uses to develop the proposed rates
are available for inspection and copying at the Desert Southwest
Customer Service Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration,
located at 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. Many of these
documents and supporting information are also available on Western's
Web site at https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/MSTRP/MSTRP.htm.
Regulatory Procedure Requirements
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis
if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement
to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. This action does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of
particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to
public property.
Environmental Compliance
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR
part 1021), Western has determined this action is categorically
excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental
impact statement.
[[Page 10401]]
Determination Under Executive Order 12866
Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under
Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the
Office of Management and Budget is required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional
notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a
rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services
and involves matters of procedure.
Dated: Feburary 14, 2005.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-4118 Filed 3-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P