Act), filed with the Commission proposed rates for power sale and transmission service, including rates for nonfirm sales outside the Pacific Northwest. The power and transmission rates were filed in separate dockets and the Commission granted interim approval by order issued September 29, 1989 (48 FERC ¶ 62,246). On December 26, 1989, and January 2, 1990, the filing was supplemented by Bonneville's reply to staff's deficiency letter dated November 9, 1989. By Commission order, the parties were given until October 29, 1989, to file comments. There were 12 individual petitioners or petitioner groups that filed motions to intervene or notices of intervention.1 No party has opposed final confirmation and approval. Bonneville projects that the filed rates will produce about $2.9 billion in annual revenues with wholesale power and transmission rates accounting for $2.5 and $0.4 billion, respectively. Bonneville requests approval for the period from October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1991, for the following proposed wholesale power rates and their associated General Rate Schedule Provisions: Priority Firm Power Rate PF-89; Industrial Firm Power Rate IP-89; Special Industrial Firm Power Rate SI-89; Firm Capacity Rate CF-89; Emergency Capacity Rate CE-89; New Resource Firm Power Rate NR-89; Nonfirm Energy Rate NF-89; Sharethe-Savings Energy Rate SS-89; and Reserve Power Rate RP-89. Bonneville requests approval of its proposed Short-Term Surplus Firm Power Rate SP-89 for the period from October 1, 1989, through September 30, 1994. Bonneville requests approval for the period from October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1991, for the following transmission rate schedules and their associated General Transmission Rate Schedule Provisions: Formula Power Transmission FPT-89.1; Integration of Resources IR-89; Southern Intertie Transmission IS-89; Northern Intertie Transmission IN-89; Eastern Intertie Transmission IE-89; Energy Transmission ET-89; and Market Transmission MT-89. Approval of the Townsend-Garrison Transmission TGT-1 and Use-of Facilities Transmission UFT-83 are requested for the period from July 1, 1990 through September 30, 1991. Approval of Formula Power Transmission FPT-89.3 is requested for a oneyear period beginning October 1, 1990. Analysis The production and transmission power repayment studies provided in support of the filed rates indicate that the revenue levels generated are sufficient to recover the Administrator's total system costs of producing and transmitting the power and energy, including the recovery of the government's investment cost with interest, over a reasonable period of years. Our analysis of the rates and supporting data confirm this. On this basis, we find that Bonneville's overall rates comply with sections 7(a)(2)(A)&(B) of the Northwest Act. Additionally, based on our review, we find that Bonneville has reasonably allocated its transmission costs between the federal and nonfederal customer classes and that, therefore, the proposed transmission rates comply with section 7(a)(2)(C) of the Northwest Act. The proposed rates are consistent with statutory standards and, therefore, merit final approval. Bonneville states that its rates for non-firm sales outside the Pacific Northwest region meet the requirements of section 7(k) of the Northwest Act because the rates are cost based and are widely available to all potential customers. Our review of the filed rate schedules and the Administrator's Record of Decision supports Bonneville's conclusion and, therefore, the nonfirm rates merit final approval. Authority to act on this matter is delegated to the Director, Division of Applications, under section 375.308 of the Commission's regulations. This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the order pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. It is ordered that: Bonneville's above mentioned rate schedules are confirmed and approved on a final basis for the periods requested. [¶ 62,144] Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority, Project No. 3083-046 - Oklahoma Order Approving and Modifying a Plan to Continue Water Quality Monitoring ! These are the Association of Public Agency Customers, Public Power Council, Direct Service Industrial Customers, Puget Sound Power & Light Company, Portland General Electric Company, PacifiCorp, California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission, Pacific Northwest Generating Company, Atlantic Richfield Company, California Utilities, and the Public Generating Pool. (Issued March 6, 1991) J. Mark Robinson, Dir., Division of Project Compliance and Administration. On February 4, 1991, the Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority (licensee) filed the results of post-operational water quality monitoring and recommendations for additional monitoring as required by Ordering Paragraph (C) of the order dated June 28, 1990 (order) [51 FERC 62,321]. Ordering Paragraph (C) of the order requires the licensee to file, within 1 year from the initiation of project operations, the results of post-operational monitoring to include recommendations on the need for additional monitoring. The licensee proposes to continue the postoperational monitoring program from May 1 through October 31, 1991, in accordance with the Water Quality Management Plan approved by the order. The Oklahoma Water Resources Board, the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers chose not to comment on the licensee's recommendation for continued monitoring. Project operations resulted in violations of the state dissolved oxygen (DO) standard on eight occasions during the monitoring period. However, these violations occurred prior to the installation of the selective withdrawal structure. Another year of monitoring would provide data to determine the effectiveness of the selective withdrawal structure and the bottom sluice gate in maintaining DO levels of project discharges at state standards. The Director orders: (A) The post-operational monitoring results and recommendation for additional monitoring filed on February 4, 1991, as modified by Ordering Paragraph (B), is approved. (B) The licensee shall file the results of the additional post-operational monitoring within 3 months of the completion of the monitoring period. (C) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. [¶ 62,145] Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, Docket No. CP91-1018-000 (Issued March 5, 1991) Kevin P. Madden, Director, Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation. On January 24, 1991, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle) filed in Docket No. CP91-1018-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for permission and approval to abandon the interruptible transportation of natural gas for direct sale to General Motors Corporation (GM), all as more fully set forth in the application. Panhandle is authorized to transport and deliver 15,000 Mcf of natural gas per day to GM at a Defiance, Ohio, delivery point, inter alia.1 Panhandle and GM deleted the Defiance delivery point in their January 1, 1990 direct industrial contract, because GM has made other arrangements for natural gas deliveries at the Defiance plant. Accordingly, Panhandle requests permission and approval to abandon its interruptible transportation of 15,000 Mcf per day of natural gas for direct sale to GM at the Defiance, Ohio, delivery point. Panhandle 1 The Commission order issued June 12, 1952, in Docket No. G-1714 (11 FPC 641), authorized Panhandle's transportation of 3,500 Mcf of gas. Subsequently, the Commission order issued August 27, 1969, in Docket No. CP69-328 (42 FPC 590), authorized Panhandle's transportation of 15,000 Mcf of gas. does not request permission for and approval to abandon any facilities herein. Granting permission for and approval of Panhandle's abandonment of service would not be a major federal action having a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Since the transportation of natural gas is in interstate commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, the abandonment thereof is subject to the requirements of subsection (b) of section 7 of the NGA. After due notice by publication in the Federal Register on February 8, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 5206), The East Ohio Gas Company filed a timely motion to intervene.2 No other motions to intervene, notices of intervention or protests to the granting of the application were filed. At a hearing held on February 28, 1991, there was received and made a part of the record of this proceeding all evidence, including 2 Timely unopposed motions to intervene are granted by the operation of Rule 214. the application and exhibits thereto, submitted in support of the authorization sought herein. Pursuant to the authority delegated by 18 C.F.R. § 375.307, it is ordered: (A) Permission for and approval of Panhandle's abandonment of transportation of 15,000 Mcf per day of natural gas for direct sale to GM are granted. (B) Panhandle shall comply with Part 154 of the regulations. (C) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. [¶ 62,146] Potter Township, Pennsylvania, Project No. 7041-016 - Pennsylvania (Issued March 7, 1991) Fred E. Springer, Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing. The licensee for the Emsworth Hydro Project No. 7041 has requested a 15-month extension of the September 27, 1990 deadline to file a dissolved oxygen monitoring plan as required by article 403 of the license.' The licensee has also requested a nine-month extension of the March 27, 1991, deadline to jointly file, with other Ohio River Basin licensees, a plan for the operation and maintenance of a bioengineering test facility (BETF), as required by article 406 of the license. Article 403 requires the licensee to conduct pre-project water quality monitoring. Project operation may reduce dissolved oxygen (DO) levels during the summer period when DO levels are lowest in the Upper Ohio River. An extension until December 31, 1991, as requested, would preclude monitoring and collection of data during the summer months of this year. These data are necessary to accurately analyze the impacts of project construction and operation. The licensee should file a plan by May 15, 1991, to collect the required water quality data. Article 406 is a joint requirement. The licensee, in cooperation with other Ohio River Basin licensees, formed the Upper Ohio River Basin Hydro Association to jointly develop and implement the BETF. In partially staying this and other Ohio River Basin licenses recently,2 the Commission noted the scope and importance of the BETF research and development program, as well as the collective nature of the effort, in excluding this requirement from the stays of license.3 For the same reasons, it is not appropriate to grant an extension of the requirement here. The request will therefore be denied. The Director orders: (A) The deadline to file a dissolved oxygen monitoring plan, as required by article 403 of the license, is extended to May 15, 1991. (B) The request for extension of time to file a plan for the operation and maintenance of a bioengineering test facility, as required by article 406 of the license, is denied. (C) This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713. [¶ 62,147] Nissequogue Cogen Partners, Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities - Qualifying Status, Docket No. QF91-38-000 Order Granting Application for Certification as a Qualifying Cogeneration Facility 1 Potter Township, Pennsylvania, Order Issuing License, 48 FERC ¶ 61,358 (September 27, 1989). 2 City of Orrville, Ohio et al., Order Granting Partial Stays, Rejecting Request for Studies, Holding License Application in Abeyance, and Requiring Periodic Status Reports, 53 FERC ¶ 61,387 (1990). 3 Ibid, pp. 5-6. (Issued March 6, 1991) Donald J. Gelinas, Director, Division of Applications. On December 6, 1990, Nissequogue Cogen Partners (Nissequogue) of Ridgewood, New Jersey, filed an application with the Commission for certification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility pursuant to section 292.207 of the Commission's regulations. Nissequogue completed its application by filing supplemental information on December 21, 1990, and March 5, 1991. Notice of the application was published in the Federal Register with comments, protests, or motions to intervene due on or before January 22, 1991.1 No comments, protests or motions to intervene have been filed. The facility will be located in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York, and will consist of a combustion turbine generator and a supplementary fired heat recovery boiler (HRB). Steam recovered from the HRB will be used for space conditioning (i.e., heating and cooling), sterilization, cooking and hot water requirements of the Academic Campus and the Health and Science Campus of the State University of New York at Stony Brook. The net electric power production capacity will be 41.2 MW, and the primary energy source will be natural gas. The facility is scheduled to commence operation by December of 1993. Based on these facts, the facility is a topping-cycle cogeneration facility within the meaning of section 292.202(d) of the Commission's regulations. Based on information provided by Nissequogue, the facility satisfies the operating and efficiency standards of section 292.205 of the Commission's regulations. Nissequogue will own and operate the facility and is a general partnership consisting of CEA Stony Brook, Inc. (CEAS) and Stony Brook Cogeneration, Inc. (Stony Brook). CEAS is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Community Energy Alternatives Inc., which is, in turn, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (Enterprise). Enterprise is a holding company which owns Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSEG), an electric utility. Therefore, pursuant to section 292.206(b) of the Commission's regulations, CEAS's ownership interest is attributed to Enterprise. Stony Brook is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of The CEAS and Stony Brook each hold a 50 per- It is found that: Based on the information provided, the facility meets the requirements established in section 292.203(b) of the Commission's regulations regarding qualification as a cogeneration facility. It is ordered: The application for certification of qualifying status filed on December 6, 1990, and completed on December 21, 1990, by Nissequogue, pursuant to section 292.207 of the Commission's regulations and section 3(18) (B) of the Federal Power Act, as amended by section 201 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, is hereby granted provided that the facility is owned and operated in the manner described in the application.2 Authority to act on this matter is delegated to the Director, Division of Applications pursuant to section 375.308 of the Commission's regulations. This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. section 385.713. [¶ 62,148] Chace Mill Hydro Watt Associates, Project No. 11033-000 - Vermont (Issued March 8, 1991) Dean L. Shumway, Director, Division of Project Review. A preliminary permit for this project is issued to Chace Mill Hydro Watt Associates for a period effective the first day of the month in which this permit is issued, and ending either 36 months from the effective date or on the date that a development application which is accepted for filing is submitted by the permittee, whichever occurs first. [See 54 FERC ¶ 62,003 for standard language.] The Winooski Valley Park District filed a timely motion to intervene in order to become a party to the proceeding. The City of Winooski and the Winooski One Partnership each filed a timely motion to intervene in order to be able to protect its interests. Winooski One Partnership, a co-licensee for the downstream Project No. 2756, stated that development of Project No. 11033 could affect Project No. 2756. Therefore, to protect the interests of the licensee for Project No. 2756, article 10 is included. Comments and protests filed by interested agencies and individuals have been fully considered in determining whether to issue this permit. Comments and objections related to the potential effects of actually constructing and operating the proposed project are premature at the preliminary permit stage and have therefore not been addressed in this proceeding. This preliminary permit is subject to the terms and conditions of the FPA and related regulations and also articles 1 - 6 in Form P-1 [See 54 FPC 1797 (1975)], and to the following special articles: Article 7. A liaison officer must be designated to act for the permittee in keeping appropriate federal, state, and local agencies specified in this permit informed about the progress of investigations throughout the term of the permit. In the interest of protecting and developing the natural resources and other environmental values of the project area, the permittee shall consult with the appropriate federal, regional, state, and local agencies in their fields of responsibility and expertise, shall conduct its project investigations in a manner that protects the environmental integrity of the area, and shall fully explore all reasonable alternatives to the project and alternative project designs, taking into account impacts on natural resources and other environmental values. These resources and values include, but are not limited to: forests, land management and treatment, fish, wildlife, recreational and public use, flood regulation, water and air quality (including water supply, groundwater studies, waste treatment and disposal), public health and safety, archeological, historic, Indian religious and cultural sites, threatened or endangered species of flora and fauna, and scenic and aesthetic values. The permittee shall initiate and conduct any studies necessary to determine the impact of the construction and operation of the proposed project on these natural resources and values and measures needed to protect and develop them or to provide for their mitigation or replacement, including alternative designs and operational measures. The permittee also shall utilize the results of these studies in the preparation of the relevant exhibits or reports required to accompany any application for a license to construct and operate the project. In connection with studies pertaining to archeological, historic, and Indian religious and cultural sites, the permittee shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer for each state in which any part of the project would be located, and the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior. Article 8. The permittee shall file four copies of a report at the close of each 6-month period from the effective date of this permit, with the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, or to any other officer the Commission may designate, and a copy to any entity specified in this order to be consulted during the permit term. Proof of service on these entities must accompany each copy of the report filed with officers of the Commission. Specifically, the report must describe the purposes and scope of all conferences and investigations, identify participants, summarize decisions and conclusions, provide a schedule for completing remaining work, and contain copies of important correspondence and studies or summaries thereof. Each report must include a statement summarizing the permittee's anticipated date for submitting a license or exemption application, as appropriate. The first report should include a specific schedule showing when study tasks will start and when they will be completed. In particular, the report should address the following items: (1) the studies conducted during the past 6-month period (copies of studies or sum |