New Brunswick Power Transmission Corp., New Brunswick System Operator, Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc., Complainants v. ISO New England, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint, 23222 [E8-9301]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
23222
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 29, 2008 / Notices
should be filed on or before the
comment date. Comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the
Commission’s Web site under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filings.
Comment Date: May 13, 2008.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–9300 Filed 4–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. EL08–56–000]
New Brunswick Power Transmission
Corp., New Brunswick System
Operator, Northern Maine Independent
System Administrator, Inc.,
Complainants v. ISO New England,
Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
April 21, 2008.
Take notice that on April 18, 2008,
New Brunswick Power Transmission
Corporation, New Brunswick System
Operator, and Northern Maine
Independent System Administrator, Inc.
(collectively, Complainants), pursuant
to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and
Rule 206 of Practice and Procedures of
the Commission’s regulations, 18 CFR
385.206, hereby file this complaint
against ISO New England, Inc. (ISO–
NE). Complainants state that this
complaint is in response to the ISO–NE
unilateral decision to arbitrarily limit
the transfer capabilities at the New
Brunswick/New England external
interface, which, for the reasons set
forth in the complaint, is unjust,
unreasonable and unduly
discriminatory.
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, 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:01 Apr 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 8, 2008.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–9301 Filed 4–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
in the oil pipeline proxy group. These
trends have made the MLP issue one of
particular concern to the Commission
and are the reason that the Commission
issued the Proposed Policy Statement.2
2. After review of an extensive record
developed in this proceeding, the
Commission concludes: (1) MLPs
should be included in the ROE proxy
group for both oil and gas pipelines; (2)
there should be no cap on the level of
distributions included in the
Commission’s current DCF
methodology; (3) the Institutional
Brokers Estimated System (IBES)
forecasts should remain the basis for the
short-term growth forecast used in the
DCF calculation; (4) there should be an
adjustment to the long-term growth rate
used to calculate the equity cost of
capital for an MLP; and (5) there should
be no modification to the current
respective two-thirds and one-third
weightings of the short- and long-term
growth factors. Moreover, the
Commission will not explore other
methods for determining a pipeline’s
equity cost of capital at this time. The
Commission also concludes that this
Policy Statement should govern all gas
and oil rate proceedings involving the
establishment of ROE that are now
pending before the Commission,
whether at hearing or in a decisional
phase at the Commission.
I. Background
[Docket No: PL07–2–000]
A. The DCF Model
Composition of Proxy Groups for
Determining Gas and Oil Pipeline
Return on Equity; Policy Statement
3. The Supreme Court has stated that
‘‘the return to the equity owner should
be commensurate with the return on
investments in other enterprises having
corresponding risks. That return,
moreover, should be sufficient to assure
confidence in the financial integrity of
the enterprise, so as to maintain its
credit and to attract capital.’’ 3 Since the
1980s, the Commission has used the
DCF model to develop a range of returns
earned on investments in companies
with corresponding risks for purposes of
determining the ROE to be awarded
natural gas and oil pipelines.
4. The DCF model was originally
developed as a method for investors to
estimate the value of securities,
including common stocks. It is based on
Issued April 17, 2008.
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher,
Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer,
Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.
1. On July 19, 2007, the Commission
issued a proposed policy statement
concerning the composition of the proxy
groups used to determine gas and oil
pipelines’ return on equity (ROE) under
the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)
model.1 Historically, in determining the
proxy group, the Commission required
that pipeline operations constitute a
high proportion of the business of any
firm included in the proxy group.
However, in recent years, there have
been fewer gas pipeline corporations
that meet that standard, in part because
of the greater trend toward Master
Limited Partnerships (MLPs) in the gas
pipeline industry. Additionally, there
are no oil corporations available for use
1 Composition of Proxy Groups for Determining
Gas and Oil Pipeline Return on Equity, 120 FERC
¶ 61,068 (2007) (Proposed Policy Statement).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2 After an initial round of comments and reply
comments, the Commission concluded that it
required additional comment on the issue of the
growth rates of MLPs. After notice to this effect and
the receipt of a round of initial and reply
comments, staff held a technical conference
involving an eight member panel on January 23,
2008 that was transcribed for the record. Comments
and reply comments were filed thereafter.
3 FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591
(1944). Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co.
v. Public Service Comm’n, 262 U.S. 679 (1923).
E:\FR\FM\29APN1.SGM
29APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 23222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9301]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. EL08-56-000]
New Brunswick Power Transmission Corp., New Brunswick System
Operator, Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc.,
Complainants v. ISO New England, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint
April 21, 2008.
Take notice that on April 18, 2008, New Brunswick Power
Transmission Corporation, New Brunswick System Operator, and Northern
Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc. (collectively,
Complainants), pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power
Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and Rule 206 of Practice and Procedures of
the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 385.206, hereby file this
complaint against ISO New England, Inc. (ISO-NE). Complainants state
that this complaint is in response to the ISO-NE unilateral decision to
arbitrarily limit the transfer capabilities at the New Brunswick/New
England external interface, which, for the reasons set forth in the
complaint, is unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory.
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, 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 May 8, 2008.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-9301 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
