Union Electric Company d/b/a AmerenUE; Notice Dismissing Complaint, 76800 [E5-7926]

Download as PDF 76800 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 28, 2005 / Notices (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on January 3, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5–7919 Filed 12–27–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 459–144] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. OR06–2–000; IS06–70–000; IS06–63–000; IS06–71–000; IS06–66–000; IS06–47–000] Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Tesoro Corporation, and Tesoro Alaska Company v. TAPS Carriers, BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips, Transportation Alaska, Inc., ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Koch Alaska Pipeline Company LLC, Unocal Pipeline Company; Notice of Complaint December 19, 2005. Union Electric Company d/b/a AmerenUE; Notice Dismissing Complaint December 20, 2005. On December 5, 2005, Osage River Flood Control Association, Inc. filed a formal complaint against Union Electric Company, doing business as AmerenUE, licensee of the Osage Hydroelectric Project No. 459. The project is located on the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri. The pleading generally alleges that Osage River Flood Control Association’s concerns raised during the Alternative Licensing Process were ignored by AmerenUE, and requests consideration of certain issues in the relicense proceeding for the Osage Project.1 The issues raised in the pleading relate to conditions to be considered in the ongoing relicense proceeding. As such, they are not properly the subject of a formal complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed and the comments raised in the pleading will be considered in the relicense proceeding. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5–7926 Filed 12–27–05; 8:45 am] wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 1 They request consideration of the following: a 30-year license term rather than the 40-year term requested by AmerenUS; earlier release of water in anticipation of rain than proposed by AmerenUE; continuation in the new license of current maximum flow levels while the project generates power rather than unlimited flow levels which may increase erosion; creation of a new flood management process; the effect of project on lower river recreation; and assistance by the licensee to downstream farmers in raising the height of the access to their islands of farm land in the lower river. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Dec 27, 2005 Jkt 208001 Take notice that on December 14, 2005, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Tesoro Corporation, and Tesoro Alaska Company (collectively, Anadarko/ Tesoro) filed a protest, complaint, motion to intervene, motion to consolidate, and request for hearing and other relief, against BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Koch Alaska Pipeline Company LLC, and Unocal Pipeline Company (collectively, TAPS Carriers), pursuant to Rules 206, 211, 212, and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedures and sections 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act , and the Commission’s oil pipeline regulations at 18 CFR 343. Anadarko/Tesoro allege that the rates filed by TAPS Carriers for oil transportation on the TAPS are unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory under the ICA, and the Commission should suspend those rates, declare those rates subject to refund, initiate hearing procedures, establish just and reasonable rates as required by the ICA, and grant Anadarko/Tesoro refunds, reparations, damages (with interest), and other appropriate relief. Anadarko/Tesoro request that the Commission consolidate this protest and complaint with the ongoing proceedings concerning the TAPS Carriers’ rates in Docket Nos. IS05–82 et al. Anadaro/Tesoro states that copies of the complaint were served on the designated contacts for BP Pipelines (Alaska), Inc. ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., ExxonMobile Pipeline Compnay, Koch Alaska Pipeline Company LLC., and Unocal Pipeline Company as listed in the individual company tariff filings, as well as on all persons on the official Commission service list. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent’s answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent’s answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on January 3, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5–7920 Filed 12–27–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL06–28–000] City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Heartland Consumers Power District, Complainant, v. Xcel Energy Services, Inc., Northern States Power Company (Minnesota), and Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., Respondents; Notice of Complaint December 20, 2005. Take notice that on December 19, 2005, the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Hearland Consumers Power District (City/Heartland) filed a Complaint against Northern States E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM 28DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 76800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7926]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 459-144]


Union Electric Company d/b/a AmerenUE; Notice Dismissing 
Complaint

December 20, 2005.
    On December 5, 2005, Osage River Flood Control Association, Inc. 
filed a formal complaint against Union Electric Company, doing business 
as AmerenUE, licensee of the Osage Hydroelectric Project No. 459. The 
project is located on the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri. The pleading 
generally alleges that Osage River Flood Control Association's concerns 
raised during the Alternative Licensing Process were ignored by 
AmerenUE, and requests consideration of certain issues in the relicense 
proceeding for the Osage Project.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ They request consideration of the following: a 30-year 
license term rather than the 40-year term requested by AmerenUS; 
earlier release of water in anticipation of rain than proposed by 
AmerenUE; continuation in the new license of current maximum flow 
levels while the project generates power rather than unlimited flow 
levels which may increase erosion; creation of a new flood 
management process; the effect of project on lower river recreation; 
and assistance by the licensee to downstream farmers in raising the 
height of the access to their islands of farm land in the lower 
river.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issues raised in the pleading relate to conditions to be 
considered in the ongoing relicense proceeding. As such, they are not 
properly the subject of a formal complaint. Accordingly, the complaint 
is dismissed and the comments raised in the pleading will be considered 
in the relicense proceeding.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7926 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P