Union Electric Company d/b/a AmerenUE; Notice Dismissing Complaint, 76800 [E5-7926]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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 https://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
https://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
