Herbert Butler, et al., Complainants v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, Respondent; Notice Dismissing Complaint, 27486-27487 [E6-7188]

Download as PDF 27486 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 2006 / Notices and are available for public inspection in Room 2A and may also be viewed on the Web at https://www.ferc.gov/ onlinerims.htm. For assistance, call (202) 502–8222 or for TTY, (202) 208– 1659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–7168 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06–344–000] Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 4, 2006. Take notice that on May 1, 2006, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective June 2, 2006: cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Fourth Revised Sheet No. 179B Second Revised Sheet No. 181 First Revised Sheet No. 181A Third Revised Sheet No. 182 First Revised Sheet No. 182A First Revised Sheet No. 184 First Revised Sheet No. 185 Second Revised Sheet No. 186 Seventh Revised Sheet No. 225 Eighth Revised Sheet No. 226 Third Revised Sheet No. 226A Third Revised Sheet No. 226B Third Revised Sheet No. 233 Fourth Revised Sheet No. 368 Third Revised Sheet No. 369 Second Revised Sheet No. 730 Second Revised Sheet No. 731 Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–7166 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 199–212] Williston Basin states that it is proposing to make certain tariff modifications which it believes are necessary to correct and/or clarify terms used in its tariff. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in 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. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:29 May 10, 2006 or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. 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 online 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. Jkt 208001 Herbert Butler, et al., Complainants v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, Respondent; Notice Dismissing Complaint May 3, 2006. On February 21, 2006, Herbert Butler, et al. (Complainants) filed a complaint against South Carolina Public Service Authority (Public Service), licensee for the Santee-Cooper Project No. 199, located on the Santee and Cooper Rivers, in Berkeley, Calhoun, Clarendon, Orangeburg, and Sumter Counties, South Carolina.1 On March 1 The existing 118-megawatt (MW) Santee Cooper Project consists of: The 2.2 mile-long Santee Dam on the Santee River; the 1.2 mile-long Pinopolis Dam on the Cooper River; the 5-mile-long Diversion Canal which connects Lake Marion and Lake Moultrie; the Santee Spillway Hydroelectric Station with one 2.0–MW turbine; the Pinopolis Hydroelectric Station with one 8.0-MW turbine and four 27.0-MW turbines; the 43-mile-long Lake Marion Reservoir, located on the Santee River; and the 12-mile-long Lake Moultrie Reservoir, located on the Cooper River. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 31, 2006, Public Service filed an answer to the complaint. On March 30, 2006, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) filed comments. The Complainants contend that Public Service has and continues to operate the project in violation of its license so as to cause unnecessary floods on the Complainants land. They have asked the Commission to investigate and to stop Public Service from its continuing violations of its license. The Complainants specifically allege that it is Public Service’s operation of the Corps’ St. Stephen Hydroplant 2 that is causing flooding on their land.3 The Commission’s regulations provide that a complaint may be filed seeking Commission action against any person alleged to be ‘‘in contravention or violation of any statute, rule, order, or other law administered by the Commission or for any other alleged wrong over which the Commission may have jurisdiction.’’ 4 The regulations further provide that the complaint must [c]learly identify the action or inaction which is alleged to violate applicable statutory standards or regulatory requirements.’’ 5 The crux of Complainants’ allegations is that flooding has been caused by the operation of the Corps’ St. Stephen’s project. Because the Corps’ project is a Federal project, which is outside the Commission’s jurisdiction, and since the Complainants do not allege that Public Service is in violation of its license, the Federal Power Act, or the 2 The St. Stephen Hydroplant is a Corps-owned power project that is operated by Public Service. Congress authorized the construction of a rediversion project which included a rediversion canal to connect Lake Moultrie to the Santee River, reducing the flow of fresh water into Charleston Harbor through the Cooper River. The St. Stephen powerhouse was built as part of this project. Public Service operates the St. Stephen’s project pursuant to a 1977 contract between it and the Corps. 3 Complainants also allege, without elaboration, that Public Service violated Articles 38, 40 and 53 of its license. Article 38 requires Public Service to implement and modify when appropriate the emergency action plan on file with the Commission. The plan is designed to provide an early warning to upstream and downstream inhabitants and property owners if there should be an impending or actual sudden release of water caused by an accident to, or failure of, the Santee Cooper Project works. It also requires Public Service to monitor upstream or downstream conditions for the purpose of making appropriate changes to the emergency action plan. Article 40 requires the installation and operation of notification and warning devices that may be needed to warn the public of fluctuations in flow from the Santee Cooper Project. Article 53 requires Public Service to obtain flowage easements over land inundated by project waters within the Santee Cooper Project boundary. Complainants have not demonstrated any violation of these articles, nor of any other requirement of its license. 4 See 18 CFR 385.206(a)(2005). 5 Id. E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM 11MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 2006 / Notices Commission’s regulations, the complaint must be dismissed. the pleading will be considered in the exemption proceeding.3 Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–7188 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am] Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–7186 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL06–68–000] [Project No. 12053–002] Nicholas Josten; Notice Dismissing Complaint May 3, 2006. cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES On April 10, 2006, Stephen J. Bruzzone and Linda L. Bruzzone filed a complaint against Nicholas Josten, applicant for an exemption for the West Valley A&B Hydroelectric Project No. 12053.1 The project is proposed to be located on the South Fork of the Pit River in Modoc County, California. The project would be located on approximately 31 acres of federal lands, managed by Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The pleading generally alleges that Nicholas Josten has made misrepresentations in information he filed in support of his application for exemption.2 The issues raised in the pleading relate to consideration of the application for exemption. As such, they are not properly the subject of a formal complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed and the comments raised in 1 The proposed project would consist of two developments, West Valley A and West Valley Alternative B–1. West Valley A would be a run-ofriver development with a capacity of 1.0 MW and would consist of: An existing concrete diversion structure; an existing intake structure; 11,600 feet of an existing open canal; a proposed concrete overflow structure; proposed 2,800 feet of new canal; a proposed 400-foot-long penstock; a proposed powerhouse; a proposed tailrace pipe; a proposed 3,000-foot-long, 12.3-kilovolt (kV) transmission line; and appurtenant facilities. West Valley Alternative B–1 would be a run-ofriver development with a capacity of 1.36 MW and would consist of: The existing West Valley Dam and outlet works; a new bypass valve attached to the existing dam outlet pipe; a proposed 2,850-foot-long penstock; a proposed powerhouse; a proposed tailrace canal; a proposed 4.5-mile-long, 12.3-kV transmission line; and appurtenant facilities. 2 In particular, they assert that Mr. Josten provided the Commission with misleading information regarding water flow tables submitted on March 23, 2006. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:29 May 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 North Star Steel Company; Complainant v. Arizona Public Service Company; California Independent System Operator Corporation; Enron Power Marketing, Inc.; Nevada Power Company; PacifiCorp; Powerex Corp.; Public Service Company of New Mexico; Tucson Electric Power Company; Respondents; Notice of Complaint May 3, 2006. Take notice that on May 2, 2006, North Star Steel (North Star) filed a formal complaint against the Arizona Public Service Company, California Independent System Operator, Enron Power Marketing, Nevada Power Company, PacifiCorp, Powerex Corp., Public Service Company of New Mexico, and Tucson Electric Power Company (Respondents), pursuant sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act and Rule 206 of the Commission’s Rule of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206. North Star petitions the Commission for an order directing the Respondents to return to North Star amounts paid to them for electric energy in excess of market clearing price between January 1, 2000 and June 20, 2001. North Star states that copies of the complaint were served on Respondents. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in 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. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 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 May 23, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–7181 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER06–826–000, et al.] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings May 4, 2005. The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification. 3 On April 20, 2006, Commission staff issued a notice that the application was ready for environmental analysis and soliciting comments, terms and conditions and recommendations. Comments are due by June 19, 2006. PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27487 E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM 11MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27486-27487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7188]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 199-212]


Herbert Butler, et al., Complainants v. South Carolina Public 
Service Authority, Respondent; Notice Dismissing Complaint

May 3, 2006.
    On February 21, 2006, Herbert Butler, et al. (Complainants) filed a 
complaint against South Carolina Public Service Authority (Public 
Service), licensee for the Santee-Cooper Project No. 199, located on 
the Santee and Cooper Rivers, in Berkeley, Calhoun, Clarendon, 
Orangeburg, and Sumter Counties, South Carolina.\1\ On March 31, 2006, 
Public Service filed an answer to the complaint. On March 30, 2006, the 
United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) filed comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The existing 118-megawatt (MW) Santee Cooper Project 
consists of: The 2.2 mile-long Santee Dam on the Santee River; the 
1.2 mile-long Pinopolis Dam on the Cooper River; the 5-mile-long 
Diversion Canal which connects Lake Marion and Lake Moultrie; the 
Santee Spillway Hydroelectric Station with one 2.0-MW turbine; the 
Pinopolis Hydroelectric Station with one 8.0-MW turbine and four 
27.0-MW turbines; the 43-mile-long Lake Marion Reservoir, located on 
the Santee River; and the 12-mile-long Lake Moultrie Reservoir, 
located on the Cooper River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Complainants contend that Public Service has and continues to 
operate the project in violation of its license so as to cause 
unnecessary floods on the Complainants land. They have asked the 
Commission to investigate and to stop Public Service from its 
continuing violations of its license. The Complainants specifically 
allege that it is Public Service's operation of the Corps' St. Stephen 
Hydroplant \2\ that is causing flooding on their land.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The St. Stephen Hydroplant is a Corps-owned power project 
that is operated by Public Service. Congress authorized the 
construction of a rediversion project which included a rediversion 
canal to connect Lake Moultrie to the Santee River, reducing the 
flow of fresh water into Charleston Harbor through the Cooper River. 
The St. Stephen powerhouse was built as part of this project. Public 
Service operates the St. Stephen's project pursuant to a 1977 
contract between it and the Corps.
    \3\ Complainants also allege, without elaboration, that Public 
Service violated Articles 38, 40 and 53 of its license. Article 38 
requires Public Service to implement and modify when appropriate the 
emergency action plan on file with the Commission. The plan is 
designed to provide an early warning to upstream and downstream 
inhabitants and property owners if there should be an impending or 
actual sudden release of water caused by an accident to, or failure 
of, the Santee Cooper Project works. It also requires Public Service 
to monitor upstream or downstream conditions for the purpose of 
making appropriate changes to the emergency action plan. Article 40 
requires the installation and operation of notification and warning 
devices that may be needed to warn the public of fluctuations in 
flow from the Santee Cooper Project. Article 53 requires Public 
Service to obtain flowage easements over land inundated by project 
waters within the Santee Cooper Project boundary. Complainants have 
not demonstrated any violation of these articles, nor of any other 
requirement of its license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's regulations provide that a complaint may be filed 
seeking Commission action against any person alleged to be ``in 
contravention or violation of any statute, rule, order, or other law 
administered by the Commission or for any other alleged wrong over 
which the Commission may have jurisdiction.'' \4\ The regulations 
further provide that the complaint must [c]learly identify the action 
or inaction which is alleged to violate applicable statutory standards 
or regulatory requirements.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 18 CFR 385.206(a)(2005).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The crux of Complainants' allegations is that flooding has been 
caused by the operation of the Corps' St. Stephen's project. Because 
the Corps' project is a Federal project, which is outside the 
Commission's jurisdiction, and since the Complainants do not allege 
that Public Service is in violation of its license, the Federal Power 
Act, or the

[[Page 27487]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission's regulations, the complaint must be dismissed.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7188 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.