[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25704-25707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11712]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. EG95-49-000, et al.]


Southern Electric Wholesale Generators, Inc., et al.; Electric 
Rate and Corporate Regulation Filings

May 5, 1995.
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. Southern Electric Wholesale Generators, Inc.

[Docket No. EG95-49-000]

    On April 28, 1995, Southern Electric Wholesale Generators, Inc. 
(``SEWG''), 900 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30338, 
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for 
determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 
of the Commission's Regulations.
    SEWG is a Delaware corporation that is engaged directly, or 
indirectly through one or more affiliates as defined in Section 
2(a)(11)(B) of PUHCA, and exclusively in the business of owning or 
operating, or both owning and operating, all or part of one or more 
eligible facilities and selling electric energy at wholesale. The 
Commission previously has determined that SEWG is an EWG.
    SEWG intends to acquire 100% of the voting securities of Southern 
Energy Marketing, Inc. (``SEMI''). Concurrent with the filing of this 
application, SEMI has filed its own application for EWG status. SEMI 
owns an interest in an eligible facility consisting of a 222 MW coal-
fired cogeneration facility that is presently under construction in 
King George County, Virginia.
    Comment date: May 26, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
[[Page 25705]] at the end of this notice. The Commission will limit its 
consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or 
accuracy of the application.

2. Southern Energy Marketing, Inc.

[Docket No. EG95-50-000]

    On April 28, 1995, Southern Energy Marketing, Inc. (``SEMI''), 900 
Ashwood Parkway, Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30338, filed with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination 
of exempt wholesale generator (``EWG'') status pursuant to Part 365 of 
the Commission's Regulations.
    SEMI is a Delaware corporation that is engaged directly, or 
indirectly through one or more affiliates as defined in Section 
2(a)(11)(B) of PUHCA, and exclusively in the business of owning or 
operating, or both owning and operating, all or part of one or more 
eligible facilities and selling electric energy at wholesale.
    SEMI will own 5% of the voting securities of SEI Birchwood, Inc. 
(``SEI Birchwood''). The Commission previously has determined that SEI 
Birchwood is an EWG. SEI Birchwood owns 50% of Birchwood Power 
Partners, L.P. (``Birchwood Partners''). Birchwood Partners is an EWG 
formed to own and operate an eligible facility consisting of a 222 MW 
coal-fired cogeneration facility that is presently under construction 
in King George County, Virginia.
    Comment date: May 26, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice. The Commission will limit its consideration 
of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the 
application.

3. Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company

[Docket No. EL95-41-000]

    Take notice that on May 2, 1995, Metropolitan Edison Company (Met 
Ed) and Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec), electric operating 
subsidiaries of General Public Utilities Corporation (GPU) filed a 
Petition for Enforcement and for a Declaratory Order requesting that 
the Commission institute an enforcement action to enjoin and declare 
unlawful, the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission's (Pennsylvania 
PUC) rule for determining the existence of a QF developer's legally 
enforceable obligation to deliver capacity and energy to a utility; the 
Pennsylvania PUC's determination of payments to which QFs are entitled 
through reliance on the estimated cost of a single technology; the 
Pennsylvania PUC's application of that rate prescription in alleged 
disregard of competitive procurement programs that provide evidence 
that capacity and energy are available from other sources at 
substantially lower prices; and the Pennsylvania PUC's calculation of 
avoided costs on the basis of allegedly stale data that overstate the 
utility's need for capacity and the cost of alternative sources of 
power. The Petition also requests that the Commission declare, and 
through an enforcement petition seek a determination, that contracts 
and commitments resulting from these procedures are void ab initio.
    Comment date: June 2, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice.

4. Black Hills Corporation v. PacifiCorp

[Docket No. EL95-42-000]

    Take notice that on May 2, 1995, Black Hills Corporation, (Black 
Hills) which conducts its utility business under the name Black Hills 
Power and Light Company, filed a complaint against PacifiCorp and 
motion for summary disposition. Black Hills alleges that PacifiCorp has 
been misapplying a formula rate contained in its Rate Schedule No. 236 
since 1987, and continues to do so. Black Hills seeks an order from the 
Commission by summary disposition directing PacifiCorp to comply with 
the filed rate schedule and ordering refunds and interest.
    Comment date: June 5, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice.

5. Rainbow Energy Marketing Corp.

[Docket No. ER94-1061-004]

    Take notice that on April 17, 1995, Rainbow Energy Marketing 
Corporation tendered for filing its quarterly report for transactions 
entered into for the quarter ending March 31, 1995, pursuant to 
Commission's letter order dated June 10, 1994 in Docket No. ER94-1061-
000.

6. NorAm Energy Services, Inc.

[Docket No. ER94-1247-004]

    Take notice that on April 14, 1995, NorAm Energy Services, Inc. 
(NES) tendered for filing its quarterly report for transactions entered 
into pursuant to NES's Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 for the first quarter 
of 1995. In addition NES filed an amendment to the April 14, 1995 
filing on April 24, 1995.

7. Delmarva Power & Light Co.

[Docket No. ER95-521-000]

    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, Delmarva Power & Light Company 
(Delmarva) of Wilmington, Delaware, filed an amendment to its filing of 
an eight year power supply contract (the Service Agreement) under which 
Delmarva will provide requirements service to the City of Seaford, 
Delaware (Seaford). Delmarva states that the Service Agreement 
supersedes Delmarva's Rate Schedule No. 62 under which Seaford 
currently receives services.
    Delmarva originally filed the Service Agreement on a confidential 
basis. Pursuant to Commission order, Delmarva in its amended filing has 
refiled the Service Agreement on a non-confidential basis.
    Delmarva, with Seaford's concurrence, requests an effective date of 
February 1, 1995.
    The Service Agreement provides for the continuation of the 
requirements service previously furnished Seaford under Rate Schedule 
No. 62, but changes certain terms and conditions. The chief differences 
between the Service Agreement and Rate Schedule No. 62 are that the 
Service Agreement establishes a new rate for Seaford which is below the 
level of the rate currently charged Seaford and provides for future 
adjustments to the Seaford rate based on changes in the level of 
Delmarva's retail rates. The Service Agreement has an eight year term.
    Delmarva states that the filing has been posted and has been served 
upon the affected customer and the Delaware Public Service Commission.
    Comment date: May 19, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice.

8. Delmarva Power & Light Co.

[Docket No. ER95-524-000]

    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, Delmarva Power & Light Company 
(Delmarva) of Wilmington, Delaware, filed an amendment to its filing of 
an eight-year power supply contract (the Service Agreement) under which 
Delmarva will provide requirements service to four Delaware Municipal 
customers, Lewes, Milford, Newark, and New Castle, respectively and a 
Dispatchable Service Agreement between Delmarva and Lewes. Delmarva 
states that the Service Agreement supersedes Delmarva's Rate Schedule 
Nos. 61, 66, 67, and 69 under which each customer previously received 
requirements service from Delmarva.
    Delmarva originally filed the Service Agreements and Dispatchable 
[[Page 25706]] Generation Agreement on a confidential basis. Pursuant 
to Commission order, Delmarva in its amended filing has refiled the 
Service Agreements on a non-confidential basis.
    Delmarva, with Seaford's concurrence, requests an effective date of 
February 1, 1995.
    The Service Agreement provides for the continuation of the 
requirements service previously furnished the customer, but changes 
certain terms and conditions. The chief differences between the Service 
Agreement and the service currently furnished under each customers' 
currently effective rate schedule, are that the Service Agreement 
establishes a new rate for the customer which is below the level of the 
rate currently charged the customer and establish a base rate level for 
production service that is to apply when the Service Agreement becomes 
effective and provides for annual escalations in the base rate. The 
Service Agreement has an eight-year term. The dispatchable Service 
Agreement between Delmarva and Lewes provides the terms and conditions 
under which Lewes will supply a portion of its own energy needs and 
implements Article V of the Service Agreement between Delmarva and 
Lewes.
    Delmarva states that the filing has been posted and has been served 
upon the affected customer and the Delaware Public Service Commission.
    Comment date: May 19, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice.

9. Ocean State Power and Ocean State Power II

[Docket Nos. ER95-533-002, ER95-530-002]

    Take notice that on April 28, 1995, Ocean State Power and Ocean 
State Power II (collectively ``Ocean State'') tendered for filing 
copies of its compliance filing in the above-referenced dockets in 
response to Ordering Paragraph (F) of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's March 30, 1995 Order Accepting For Filing Proposed Return 
on Equity Computations, Establishing and Deferring Hearing Procedures, 
and Consolidating Dockets, Ocean State Power II, 70 FERC 61,370 
(1995). The filing includes the following revised supplements (the 
``Supplements'') to its rate schedule with the Commission:

Supplement No. 1 to Supplement No. 17 to Rate Schedule FERC No. 1
Supplement No. 1 to Supplement No. 14 to Rate Schedule FERC No. 2
Supplement No. 1 to Supplement No. 13 to Rate Schedule FERC No. 3
Supplement No. 1 to Supplement No. 15 to Rate Schedule FERC No. 4
Supplement No. 1 to Supplement No. 16 to Rate Schedule FERC No. 5
Supplement No. 1 to Supplement No. 16 to Rate Schedule FERC No. 6
Supplement No. 1 to Supplement No. 15 to Rate Schedule FERC No. 7
Supplement No. 1 to Supplement No. 16 to Rate Schedule FERC No. 8

    Copies of the Supplements have been served upon all parties on the 
Commission's official service list in the above-referenced proceedings.
    Comment date: May 19, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice.

10. PSI Energy, Inc.

[Docket No. FA92-17-001]

    Take notice that on July 11, 1994, PSI Energy, Inc. tendered for 
filing its refund report in the above-referenced docket.
    Comment date: May 19, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice.

11. Dayton Power & Light Co.

[Docket No. FA93-66-001]

    Take notice that on January 23, 1995, Dayton Power & Light Company 
tendered for filing its refund report in the above-referenced docket.
    Comment date: May 19, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice.

12. Gordonsville Energy, L.P. (Unit I and Unit II)

[Docket Nos. QF92-166-005, QF92-167-005, and EL95-32-000]

    On May 2, 1995, Gordonsville Energy, L.P. (Gordonsville) tendered 
for filing a supplement to its filing in these dockets.
    This supplement pertains to technical and operational aspects of 
the facility and the status of the thermal host. No determination has 
been made that this submittal constitutes a complete filing.
    Comment date: May 26, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice.

13. Southeastern Power Administration v. The Southern Company, Southern 
Company Services, Inc., Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, 
Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, Savannah Electric & 
Power Company

[Docket No. TX95-5-000]

    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, the Southeastern Power 
Administration of the United States Department of Energy, 2 Public 
Square, Elberton, GA 30635 (``Southeastern''), filed with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission an Application requesting that the 
Commission order Southern Company Services, Inc. acting on behalf of 
the Southern Company, Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, 
Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Savannah Electric & 
Power Company (collectively, ``Southern'' or ``Operating Companies''), 
to provide transmission services pursuant to Section 211 of the Federal 
Power Act.
    Southeastern seeks a Commission Order directing Southern to provide 
firm network transmission service on an integrated, single-system basis 
for approximately 330 MW of capacity and energy to be delivered by 
Southern to Southeastern's customers from ten hydro-electric projects 
operated by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers in the States of South 
Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Southeastern requests that Southern 
provide firm network integration transmission service on a single-
system basis that is comparable to the Operating Companies' own native 
load use of their integrated transmission facilities, consistent with 
the Commission's comparability standard. Southeastern also asks the 
Commission to require transmission service over the individual 
Operating Companies' distribution facilities to certain of 
Southeastern's customers which are served at distribution voltages on 
the applicable Operating Company.
    Southeastern further requests that Southern be directed by the 
Commission to provide back-up and non-firm transmission services, and 
certain ancillary and coordination services that are integral and 
necessary to the delivery of the capacity and energy allocations to the 
Southeastern customers from the aforementioned Federal hydro-electric 
projects.
    Southeastern requests that all of the above-described services be 
provided by Southern for an initial term ending no earlier than 
November 30, 2004.
    Comment date: June 2, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E 
at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

    E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. 
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. [[Page 25707]] Any person wishing to become 
a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11712 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P