CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Application, 72784-72785 [E8-28298]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
72784
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices
publicly-held company’s subsidiaries
with market-based rate authorization,
and, therefore, those market-based rate
subsidiaries will not be required to file
a notification of change in status or to
include generation or inputs to
generation owned or controlled by the
other entities in future market power
analyses.
In light of the issues raised by EPSA,
participants are invited to address some
or all of the following questions:
1. Should the Commission reconsider
its decision in FPA Section 203
Supplemental Policy Statement, 120
FERC ¶ 61,060 (2007) not to rely solely
on a Schedule 13G filing as evidence of
a lack of control and instead to consider
the totality of the facts and
circumstances on a case-by-case basis? If
so, why?
2. How does compliance with the
intent to not exercise control for
purposes Schedule 13G address the
Commission’s concerns under section
203 of the FPA and the Commission’s
market-based rate program?
3. What statutory and policy purposes
is a Schedule 13G filing intended to
fulfill under the SEC’s regulatory
program and how do they compare with
the statutory and policy purposes of
section 203 of the FPA and the
Commission’s market-based rate
program under sections 205 and 206 of
the FPA? Are the SEC and this
Commission seeking to fulfill
fundamentally different goals with
respect to an entity’s possible exercise
of control, such that the Commission’s
reliance on the SEC’s Schedule 13 filing
requirements would be insufficient to
help protect against the potential
exercise of control as relevant to the
Commission’s concerns under sections
203, 205 and 206 of the FPA? If the
answer to the prior question is yes, that
reliance on the Schedule 13 filing
requirements are insufficient, what if
any additional filings or requirements
might supplement the Schedule 13
requirements in this regard?
4. What actions can an investor take
with respect to the management,
operation or policies of a company in
which it holds an investment and still
be considered eligible to file a Schedule
13G? To what extent could taking any
of those actions directly or indirectly in
some way affect some aspect of the dayto-day operation of a public utility in
which the investor holds an interest,
either directly or through a holding
company?
5. Using EPSA’s hypothetical example
shown on page 9 of the Petition, how far
upstream should a seller go when
determining whether an entity is an
affiliate?
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Nov 28, 2008
Jkt 217001
6. Using EPSA’s hypothetical example
shown on page 9 of the Petition, which
of the IPPs should be considered to be
under common control, and therefore
affiliates, under the Commission’s
regulations?
7. Should a finding under FPA section
203 that an entity does not ‘‘control’’
another entity apply equally in the
market-based rate setting? Conversely,
should a finding under section 203 that
an entity does ‘‘control’’ another entity
necessarily apply equally in the marketbased rate setting? If not, under what
conditions or circumstances would the
Commission have a reasonable basis to
conclude that the same finding should
not apply in the market-based rate
setting?
a. For example, if an upstream owner
has been found to not have control for
section 203 purposes over two large
IPPs in the same relevant market,
should the IPPs be required to study one
another’s generation for purposes of
their individual horizontal and vertical
market power analyses? Would the IPPs
remain unaffiliated?
b. If the upstream owner has control
over both IPPs for section 203 purposes,
should the IPPs be required to study one
another’s generation for purposes of
their individual horizontal and vertical
market power analyses?
8. Should the Commission revise its
requirements under FPA section 203
and the market-based rate program, in
light of the concern raised by EPSA that
electric utilities may not know when
their upstream owners acquire
ownership interests in other electric
utilities? If so, what changes can both
address these concerns and still permit
the Commission to carry out its
responsibilities under sections 203 and
205 of the FPA?
All interested persons are invited to
participate in this workshop. Those
interested in participating are asked to
register no later than November 28,
2008. To register or for additional
information, please contact Christina
Hayes at (202) 502–6194 or at
christina.hayes@ferc.gov.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–28401 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. CP08–463–000]
CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission
Company; Notice of Application
November 20, 2008.
Take notice that on August 19, 2008,
CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission
Company (CenterPoint), P.O. Box 21734,
Shreveport, Louisiana 71151, filed in
Docket No. CP08–463–000, an
abbreviated application pursuant to
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, seeking
authorization (1) to transfer a passive
ownership interest in its Line CP–3 and
to leaseback Line CP–3 from the passive
owner, and (2) to grant CenterPoint
certificate authorization to operate a
600-foot non-jurisdictional pipeline and
metering facilities that will be leased
from the same passive owner as part of
its jurisdictional pipeline system.
The application is on file with the
Commission and open for public
inspection. This 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, please contact
FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll
free at (866)208–3676, or for TTY,
contact (202) 502–8659.
Any questions regarding this
abbreviated application may be directed
to Lawrence O. Thomas, Director—Rate
& Regulatory, CenterPoint, at (318) 429–
2804, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport,
Louisiana 71151.
There are two ways to become
involved in the Commission’s review of
CenterPoint’s request. First, any person
wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to this proceeding
should, on or before the comment date
listed below, file with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211)
and the Regulations under the NGA (18
CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party
status will be placed on the service list
maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies of
all documents filed by the applicant and
by all other parties. A party must submit
14 copies of this filing and all
subsequent filings made with the
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices
Commission and must mail a copy of all
filing to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to
the proceeding can ask for court review
of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, other persons do not have
to intervene in order to have comments
considered. The second way to
participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as
possible, an original and two copies of
comments in support of or in opposition
to CenterPoint’s request. The
Commission will consider these
comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the
filing of a comment alone will not serve
to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. The Commission’s rules
require that persons filing comments in
opposition to this project provide copies
of their protests only to the party or
parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only in
support of or in opposition to
CenterPoint’s request should submit an
original and two copies of their
comments to the Secretary of the
Commission. The Commission’s rules
require that persons filing comments in
opposition to the project provide copies
of their protests only to the applicant.
However, the non-party commenters
will not receive copies of all documents
filed by other parties or issued by the
Commission and will not have the right
to seek court review of the
Commission’s final order.
The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings of comments, protests,
and interventions via the Internet in lieu
of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii)
and the instructions on the
Commission’s Web site (https://
www.ferc.gov) under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link.
Comment Date: November 26, 2008.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–28298 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
[Project No. 13203–000]
FFP Missouri 22, LLC; Notice of
Preliminary Permit Applications
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comment, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications
proposing to study the feasibility of the
Missouri River 22 Project, to be located
on the Missouri River in Saline,
Chariton, and Carroll Counties,
Missouri.
The proposed Missouri River 22
Project consists of: (1) 7,560 proposed
20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units
having a total installed capacity of 151.2
megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission
line, and (3) appurtenant facilities. The
FFP Missouri 22, LLC, project would
have an average annual generation of
662.26 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a
local utility.
Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP
Missouri 22, LLC, 69 Bridge Street,
Manchester, MA 01944, phone (978)
232–3536.
FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) 502–
6062.
Deadline for filing comments, motions
to intervene, competing applications
(without notices of intent), or notices of
intent to file competing applications: 60
days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene,
notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically
via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission’s Web site under the
‘‘e-Filing’’ link. If unable to be filed
electronically, documents may be paperfiled. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit
these types of filings please go to the
Commission’s Web site located at
https://www.ferc.gov/filingcomments.asp. More information about
this project can be viewed or printed on
the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link of Commission’s
Web site at https://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket
number (P–13203) in the docket number
field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1–866–208–
3372.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–28303 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
November 20, 2008..
On April 22, 2008, FFP Missouri 22,
LLC each filed an application, pursuant
to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Nov 28, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
72785
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 13129–000; Project No. 13143–
000; Project No. 13284–000]
NM Hydroelectric Power, LLC,
Peterson Machinery Sales, Grand
Traverse County and the City of
Traverse City, MI; Notice of Competing
Preliminary Permit Applications
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comment, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications
November 20, 2008.
NM Hydroelectric Power, LLC
(NMHP), Peterson Machinery Sales
(PMS) and jointly by Grand Traverse
County and the City of Traverse City,
Michigan filed applications, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the
Sabin Dam and Boardman River Projects
Project, to be located on the Boardman
River, in Grand Traverse County,
Michigan. The proposed project
facilities are owned by Traverse City
Light and Power Company.
The proposed Sabin Dam and
Boardman River Projects:
The proposed Sabin Dam Project by
NM Hydroelectric Power, LLC for
Project No. 13129 filed on February 27,
2008 would consist of: (1) The existing
200-foot-long, 20-foot-high earthen
Sabin Dam; (2) an existing reservoir
having a surface area of 40 acres and a
storage capacity of 340 acre-feet and
normal water surface elevation of 611.9
feet National Geographic Vertical Datum
(NGVD); (3) an existing powerhouse
containing one new generating unit
having an installed capacity of 500
kilowatts; (4) an existing 7-mile-long,
12.5 kilovolt transmission line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed
Sabin Dam Project would have an
average annual generation of 2.58
gigawatt-hours..
The proposed Boardman River Project
by Peterson Machinery Sales would
consist of the following three
developments:
Sabin Dam Development
(1) The existing 200-foot-long, 20-foothigh earthen Sabin Dam; (2) an existing
reservoir having a surface area of 40
acres and a storage capacity of 340 acrefeet and normal water surface elevation
of 613.5 feet National Geographic
Vertical Datum (NGVD); (3) an existing
powerhouse containing one new
generating unit having an installed
capacity of 500 kilowatts; (4) an existing
1,000-foot-long, 13.8 kilovolt
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 231 (Monday, December 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72784-72785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28298]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP08-463-000]
CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of
Application
November 20, 2008.
Take notice that on August 19, 2008, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company (CenterPoint), P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport,
Louisiana 71151, filed in Docket No. CP08-463-000, an abbreviated
application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, seeking
authorization (1) to transfer a passive ownership interest in its Line
CP-3 and to leaseback Line CP-3 from the passive owner, and (2) to
grant CenterPoint certificate authorization to operate a 600-foot non-
jurisdictional pipeline and metering facilities that will be leased
from the same passive owner as part of its jurisdictional pipeline
system.
The application is on file with the Commission and open for public
inspection. This 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, please contact FERC
Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at (866)208-
3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.
Any questions regarding this abbreviated application may be
directed to Lawrence O. Thomas, Director--Rate & Regulatory,
CenterPoint, at (318) 429-2804, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana
71151.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
CenterPoint's request. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status
by becoming a party to this proceeding should, on or before the comment
date listed below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on
the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of this filing and all
subsequent filings made with the
[[Page 72785]]
Commission and must mail a copy of all filing to the applicant and to
every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can
ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, other persons do not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to CenterPoint's
request. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to this
project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties
directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only in support of or in opposition to
CenterPoint's request should submit an original and two copies of their
comments to the Secretary of the Commission. The Commission's rules
require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the applicant. However, the
non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by
other parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right
to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (https://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
Comment Date: November 26, 2008.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28298 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
