Rural Electric Cooperative, and Consumers Power Company. See Attachment A for rate schedule designations. 'Public notice of Edison's submittal was issued on December 1, 1978, with protests or petitions to intervene due on or before December 22, 1978.

On January 10, 1979, Munis/Coops filed a response to Edison's answer, together with a motion for leave to file such response. While Munis/Coops acknowledge that "responses to answers are not contemplated by the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure," they contend that this additional pleading is necessary for a full comprehension of the disputed matters. In the interest of limiting comulative and continuous pleadings, we shall decline to separately entertain the discussion presented in that document. However, we note that the arguments therein stated would not warrant conclusions other than those expressed in this order.

'Edison's response to the deficiency letter again requested a January 20, 1979 effective date and sought waiver of the appropriate Regulations. On January 18, 1979, Munis/Coops filed a pleading which opposed Edison's request for waiver and challenged portions of the company's deficiency response as incomplete. As indicated above, we have determined that the data submitted by Edison are sufficiently responsive. The designation of an effective date for the proposed rates is discussed infra.

See, e.g., Pennsylvania Electric Company, Docket No. ER78-494 (order issued September 29, 1978, 4 FERC ¶ 61,367); Public Service Company of Colorado, Docket No. ER78-507 (order issued October 4, 1978, 5 FERC ¶ 61,013); Opinion Nos. 20 and 20-A, issued August 3, 1978, 4 FERC ¶ 61,116 and October 30, 1978, 5 FERC ¶ 61,091 respectively, Minnesota Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. E-9499 and E-9502, and Superior Water, Light and Power Company, Docket No. ER76–20.

1 We note that Edison's deficiency response does include an alternative cost of service study which utilizes labor ratios for functionalizing general plant.

Order issued August 31, 1978, 4 FERC ¶ 61,261, and Order on Rehearing issued November 22, 1978, 5 FERC ¶ 61,140. See also Carolina Power & Light Company Opinion No. 19, Docket No. ER76-495 (Phase

II), issued August 2, 1978, 4 FERC ¶ 61,107, (affirming Initial Decision issued September 7, 1977 4 FERC ¶ 63,015).

Edison's January 8 answer states the company's general disagreement with the contentions enumerated by Munis/Coops. Among the disputed cost of service issues are: an allegedly excessive rate of return; the inclusion of "emergency" facilities in rate base as pollution controlrelated CWIP; the inclusion of a "preliminary survey” in rate base rather than CWIP; purportedly dubious demand and expense projections; the development of demand allocation factors and an allegedly discriminatory capacity credit to industrial customers; and ratemaking treatment of expenses associated with the cancellation of a generating unit as well as losses related to a 1976 ice and wind storm. Attachment A

The Detroit Edison Company
Docket No. ER79-70

Applications for rehearing of the Commission's Order On Lawfulness Of Fuel Adjustment Clause Surcharge issued January 12, 1979, 6 FERC ¶ 61,015, have been filed by Boston Edison Company (Edison) and the Municipal Light Board of Reading, Massachusetts (Reading). In its decision the Commission found that Edison's proposed temporary surcharge was unlawful. In addition, the Commission resolved several subsidiary issues relating to Edison's fuel adjustment clause computations. The Commission has reviewed its decision in light of the arguments advanced by the parties. We find that the applications for rehearing present no facts or principles of law which require any modification of our January 12, 1979 decision.

In addition, the Towns of Concord, Norwood, and Wellesley, Massachusetts (Towns) filed comments to the Commission's order requesting that the Commission make clear that its order of January 12, 1979, required Edison to refund with interest all monies collected under the surcharge. However, as noted in the order,' Edison's filing in the instant docket was rendered moot by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Boston Edison Company v. F.P.C.' Despite that fact, the Commission nevertheless decided that it was in the public interest to determine the lawfulness of the surcharge in this docket.'

The order did not require Edison to make refunds, and Edison is thus not obligated to make such refunds at this time. Rather our determination of the surcharge issue simply has the effect of governing the resolution of the similar surcharge issue contained in Edison's S-4 rate filing in Docket

2 557 F.2d 845 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The Court in that case ordered Edison's S-4 rate filing in Docket No. ER76-90 to become retroactively effective as of February 27, 1976. Since the effective period for the instant docket was locked in from March 1, 1976 through July 23, 1976, the decision eliminated the effective period for this docket, thus rendering it moot.

› After noting that the Court's decision Boston Edison Company v. F.P.C. had rendered the instant docket moot, the order set forth the reasons for resolving the issues presented: (Mimeo at 4).

Although the Commission could, therefore, decide not to resolve the issues in this docket, we note that parallel issues are contained in Edison's ongoing S-4 rate proceeding in Docket No. ER76-90. Whereas such a decision would only postpone the final resolution of these issues, a determination of these issues herein will obviate the need of resolving the similar issues in the later docket and may expedite a final resolution in that docket. Therefore, since the issues are now properly before the Commission and have been fully litigated and briefed, it is our judgment that it would be in the public interest to resolve the issues at this time. (Footnotes omitted.)

On November 30, 1978, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia)' and Consolidated Gas Supply Corporation (Consolidated) filed in Docket No. CP79-92 an application pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the exchange of natural gas between Applicants; for the construction and operation of certain natural gas facilities necessary for the exchange; and for permission and approval to abandon 2.6 miles of pipeline, all as more fully set forth in the application.

Columbia operates a pipeline extending from Upshur County, West Virginia, to a point north of Weston, Lewis County, West Virginia, for the purpose of providing gas for resale to Columbia Gas of West Virginia. Consolidated has pipeline facilities in the area which can be connected to Columbia's facilities. Columbia owns two wells in Lewis County which can be connected to Consolidated's existing pipeline facilities in Lewis County, West Virginia. Also Consolidated operates pipeline facilities in the Twilight and Brandytown areas of Boone County, West Virginia, which are used for distribution service. These facilities can be connected to Columbia's facilities in Boone County, West Virginia.

On February 20, 1979, Consolidated and Columbia entered into an exchange agreement pursuant to which Columbia will deliver to Consolidated at a point of interconnection proposed to be constructed by Consolidated at an intersection of Applicants' facilities in Boone County such gas quantities as are required on an emergency basis in order to ensure continuity of service to Consolidated's customers in Twilight-Brandytown area. The agreement also provides that Consolidated will deliver to Columbia at a point of interconnection proposed to be constructed at an intersection of Applicants' facilities in Lewis County those volumes of gas required to serve Columbia Gas of West Virginia's customers in the North Weston area. The exchange of gas will be made on a gas-for-gas basis, with balancing to be made on a monthly basis.

In order to exchange gas, Columbia proposes to construct one measuring facility and two interconnecting measuring and regulating facilities in Lewis County and one interconnecting mainline tap facility in Boone County. Consolidated proposes to construct interconnecting mainline tap facilities in Lewis County and an interconnecting measuring and regulating facility in Boone County. The cost of the proposed facilities is $31,400 and $3,715 for Columbia and Consolidated, respectively, which cost Applicants will finance from funds generated internally.

As a result of the proposed exchange of gas and the construction and operation of facilities related thereto, Columbia will not need several sections of 8, 10 and 12-inch pipeline installed in 1909 in Lewis County. Thus, Columbia requests authorization to abandon the pipeline. The abandonment of the

proposed pipeline will not result in termination of service to any customers.

Since the facilities proposed to be constructed or abandoned will be or are used in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, said construction and abandonment are subject to the requirements of Subsections (c) and (e) and Subsection (b), respectively, of Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act; and since the proposed exchange involves the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, the exchange is subject to the requirements of Subsections (c) and (e) of Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.

Approval of the instant application does not constitute a major Federal action having a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

After due notice by publication in the Federal Register on December 18, 1978 (43 F.R. 58854), no petition to intervene, notice of intervention, or protest to the granting of the application has been filed.

At a hearing held on March 7, 1979, the Commission on its own motion received and made a part of the record in this proceeding all evidence, including the application and exhibits thereto, submitted in support of the authorization sought herein, and upon consideration of the record, The Commission finds:

(1) The abandonment proposed by Columbia is permitted by pubic convenience and necessity and should be approved as hereinafter ordered.

(2) Applicants are able and willing properly to do the acts and to perform the service proposed and to conform to the provisions of the Natural Gas Act and the requirements, rules and regulations of the Commission thereunder.

(3) The proposed exchange and delivery of natural gas and the construction and operation of facilities are required by the public convenience and necessity and a certificate therefor should be issued as hereinafter ordered and conditioned. The Commission orders:

(A) Upon the terms and conditions of this order, a certificate of public convenience and necessity is issued authorizing the exchange of natural gas between Columbia and Consolidated and authorizing Consolidated and Columbia to construct and operate certain facilities necessary therefor, as hereinbefore described and as more fully described in the application.

(B) Permission for and approval of the abandonment of facilities by Columbia are granted.

(C) The certificate issued in paragraph (A) above and the rights granted thereunder are conditioned upon Applicants' compliance with all applicable Commission Regulations under the Natural

Gas Act, and particularly the general terms and conditions set forth in paragraphs (a), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e) and (f) of Section 157.20 of such Regulations.

(D) The facilities authorized by paragraph (A) above shall be completed and placed in actual operation and the proposed service shall commence, as required by paragraph (b) of Section 157.20 of the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act, within one year from the date of this order.

(E) Redeliveries of natural gas shall be limited to those points specifically set forth in the application.

(F) Imbalances in deliveries shall be corrected on a monthly basis.

-Footnotes

' Columbia, a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Charleston, West Virginia, is a "natural-gas company" within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act as heretofore found by order of March 10, 1971, in Docket No. CP71-132 (45 FPC 398).

2 Consolidated, a West Virginia corporation having its principal place of business in Clarksburg, West Virginia, is a "natural-gas company" within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act as heretofore found by order of April 27, 1943, in Docket No. G-290 (3 FPC 994).

On December 1, 1978, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company and Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Applicants)' filed in Docket No. CP79-97 an application, as supplemented on February 13, 1979, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing an exchange of natural gas with Gulf Oil Corporation (Gulf). By exchange agreement dated October 18, 1975, Applicants will receive up to 15,000 Mcf of gas per day at 14.73 psia from Gulf's reserves at Eugene Island Area, offshore Louisiana, Platform Nos. 331-A, 314-A, and 314-B. Applicants will deliver equivalent volumes of gas at West Cameron Block 245, offshore Louisiana, into a pipeline owned jointly by Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Northern Natural Gas Company, and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation. Gas will then be transported to Texas Eastern's line at East Cameron Block 245, Offshore Louisiana, at which point deliveries will be made to Texas Eastern for Gulf's account. Deliveries to Texas Eastern will be under the warranty obligation pursuant to the certificate issued in Docket No. CI64-26, dated December 19, 1963 (30 FPC 1559). Gulf is authorized to make deliveries at additional points by its existing certificate.

There are no charges involved as the exchange is on a gas-for-gas basis; no facilities need be constructed other than minor facilities to be constructed by Columbia Gulf under its existing budget certificate. Any imbalance in the exchange will be corrected by deliveries at Eugene Island Block Platform 313-A.

Gulf has an obligation to deliver gas to Texas Eastern under the January 6, 1964 Gulf-Texas Eastern warranty contract. Under Ordering Paragraph (A) of FPC Opinion No. 780, issued October 15, 1976, 56 FPC 2293, the Commission stated:

Gulf shall deliver natural gas to Texas Eastern at the delivery points specified in its contract of January 6, 1964, as amended, at a rate of 625 MMcf per day beginning on December 15, 1976, except to the extent that Texas Eastern, on notice to the Commission, and for good cause shown, demands less. Should Gulf fail to make the required gas deliveries, the Commission will apply to a Federal court of appropriate jurisdiction to enforce compliance with our order.

The exchange of natural gas by Applicants and Gulf, as hereinbefore described and as more fully described in the application, will be in interstate commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, and is therefore, subject to the requirements of Subsections (c) and (e) of Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.

After due notice by publication in the Federal Register on December 21, 1978 (43 F.R. 60990), no petitions to intervene, notices of intervention, or protests to the granting of the application have been filed.

At a hearing held on March 7, 1979, the Commission on its own motion received and made a part of the record in this proceeding all evidence, including the application, supplement, and exhibits thereto, submitted in support of the authorization

sought herein, and upon consideration of the record,

The Commission finds:

(1) Applicants are able and willing properly to do the acts and to perform the service proposed and to conform to the provisions of the Natural Gas Act and the requirements, rules and regulations of the Commission thereunder.

(2) The exchange of natural gas by Applicants and Gulf is required by the public convenience and necessity and a certificate therefor should be issued as hereinafter ordered and conditioned.

The Commission orders:

(A) A certificate of public convenience and necessity is issued authorizing Applicants to exchange natural gas as hereinabove described, all as more fully described in the application in this proceeding, upon the terms and conditions of this order.

(B) The certificate issued by paragraph (A) above and rights granted thereunder are conditioned upon Applicant compliance with the applicable Commission Regulations under the Natural Gas

Act and particularly Part 154 and paragraphs (a), (c)(3) and (e) of Section 157.20 of such Regulations.

(C) The exchange of natural gas herein authorized shall commence, as provided by paragraph (b) of Section 157.20 of the Regulations, under the Natural Gas Act, within three months from the date of this order.

(D) The certificate issued by paragraph (A) above is conditioned upon the issuance of certificate authorization to Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Northern Natural Gas Company, and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, joint applicants in Docket No. CP79-122, for transportation of gas to Texas Eastern's pipeline at East Cameron Block 245.

On February 14, 1977, F. W. E. Stapenhorst, Inc. (Stapenhorst) of Syracuse, New York, filed an application for a minor license for the redevelopment of the Colliersville Hydroelectric Project No. 2788. The project is located on the North Branch of the Susquehanna River in the Town of Milford in Otsego County, New York.'

The site of the project has been used for hydroelectric power production in the past, although operations ceased in 1969 and the generating facilities were removed the next year. A concrete buttress-type dam, head gates, power canal, concrete powerhouse, and tailrace remain. The dam impounds a reservoir commonly known as Goodyear Lake, with a surface area of approximately 370 acres and a useable storage capacity of 250 acrefeet.

Stapenhorst proposes to rehabilitate the dam, power canal, and powerhouse and install two new turbines and generators with a total installed capacity of 1,450 kilowatts. Stapenhorst intends to use the project as an automatic low-head hydro demonstration facility.

Navigable Water

The North Branch of the Susquehanna River arises in Otsego Lake, near Cooperstown, New York, about 20 miles above the proposed project. Substantial historical evidence demonstrates that the North Branch served as a commercial waterway since at least the middle of the eighteenth century, from its source at Otsego Lake down its entire length. Accordingly, we find that the entire North Branch of the Susquehanna River is a navigable water of the United States. Thus, the proposed Colliersville Project No. 2788 must be licensed, in accordance with Sections 4(e) and 23(b) of the Act. Safety and Adequacy

The existing dam at the Colliersville Project site is a reinforced concrete slab and buttress type, 35 feet high and about 200 feet long. The Soil Conservation Service had at one time viewed the dam and, based upon a preliminary study, stated that major reconstruction would be needed to make it safe.

Our staff has completed a review of the SCS