Reliability Standard Compliance and Enforcement in Regions With Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations; Second Notice of Technical Conference, 44842-44843 [E7-15527]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44842
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 153 / Thursday, August 9, 2007 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 2030–113]
Portland General Electric Company;
Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Reservation of Oregon; Notice
of Application and Soliciting
Comments, Motions to Intervene, and
Protests
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
August 2, 2007.
Take notice that the following
application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public
inspection:
a. Application Type: Shoreline
Management Plan (SMP).
b. Project No: 2030–113.
c. Date Filed: July 11, 2007.
d. Applicant: Portland General
Electric Company and the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation
of Oregon (CTWS).
e. Name of Project: Pelton Round
Butte Hydroelectric Project.
f. Location: The project is located on
the Deschutes River in Jefferson County,
Oregon. The project occupies 3,503.74
acres of federal and tribal lands
administered by the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS), U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), and U.S. Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA).
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power
Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r).
h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Julie A.
Keil, Director of Hydro Licensing,
Portland General Electric Company, 121
SW Salmon, Portland, OR 97204, (503)
464–8864.
i. FERC Contact: Any questions on
this notice should be addressed to
Lesley Kordella at (202) 502–6406, or by
e-mail: lesley.kordella@ferc.gov.
j. Deadline for filing comments and/
or motions: September 4, 2007.
All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, DHAC, PJ–
12.1, 888 First Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20426. Please include the project
number (p–2030–113) on any comments
or motions filed. Comments, protests
and interventions 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.
k. Description of Proposal: The
licensees submitted a revised SMP as
required by article 428 of the project
license. The SMP was developed to
guide development and resource
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Aug 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
protection on Lake Billy Chinook and
Lake Simtustus. It is intended to
provide a tool to manage new shoreline
development within the project
boundary, protect public health and
safety, recognize existing uses of the
shoreline, and achieve a balance of the
interests of the licensees and private
and commercial property owners and
recreational users, while allowing the
licensees to efficiently manage the
project’s power generating facilities and
fulfill the project purposes.
l. This filing 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, contact FERC Online
Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call
toll-free 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY,
call (202) 502–8659.
m. Individuals desiring to be included
on the Commission’s mailing list should
so indicate by writing to the Secretary
of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to
Intervene—Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to
intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214.
In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all
protests or other comments filed, but
only those who file a motion to
intervene in accordance with the
Commission’s Rules may become a
party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must
be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular
application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive
Documents—Any filings must bear in
all capital letters the title ‘‘Comments,’’
‘‘Recommendations for Terms and
Conditions,’’ ‘‘Protest,’’ or ‘‘Motion To
Intervene,’’ as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular
application to which the filing refers. A
copy of any motion to intervene must
also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
p. Agency Comments—Federal, state,
and local agencies are invited to file
comments on the described application.
A copy of the application may be
obtained by agencies directly from the
Applicant. If an agency does not file
comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to
have no comments. One copy of an
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
agency’s comments must also be sent to
the Applicant’s representatives.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–15525 Filed 8–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. AD07–12–000]
Reliability Standard Compliance and
Enforcement in Regions With
Independent System Operators and
Regional Transmission Organizations;
Second Notice of Technical
Conference
August 2, 2007.
As announced on June 15, 2007, the
staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission will hold a technical
conference in the above-referenced
proceeding on September 18, 2007, at
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington DC. It will be held in the
Commission Meeting Room (Room 2C)
from 9:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. (EDT).
All interested parties are invited.
The conference will explore issues
associated with the cost recovery of
penalties for Reliability Standard
violations assessed against independent
system operators (ISOs) and regional
transmission organizations (RTOs) in
the United States, as set forth in
Midwest Independent Transmission
System Operator, Inc., 119 FERC ¶
61,222 (May 31, 2007) in Docket Nos.
ER07–701–000 and AD07–12–000. In
that Order, the following topics were
identified for discussion:
1. How each ISO’s or RTO’s regional
tariffs and other operational agreements
and protocols allocate reliability
responsibilities among the parties;
2. What provisions exist in those
tariffs, agreements, and protocols to
establish responsibility for penalty costs
associated with Reliability Standard
violations, and do those provisions
result in uniform responsibility for such
penalty costs;
3. What provisions exist that may
prevent an entity from being registered
for compliance with relevant Reliability
Standards if, notwithstanding its
registration status, such entity’s failure
to perform under tariffs, agreements,
and protocols could lead to a violation
of Reliability Standards; and
4. What policies for any pass-through
of penalty costs associated with
Reliability Standard violations by ISOs
E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM
09AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 153 / Thursday, August 9, 2007 / Notices
and RTOs would both best provide due
process for entities that may ultimately
be required to pay these penalty costs
and also avoid redundant investigations
and litigation of Reliability Standard
violations.
There will be three panels. The first
panel will consist of RTOs and ISOs.
The second panel will consist of
representative entities potentially
subject to paying penalties incurred by
the RTOs or ISOs, either through the
general allocation of an RTO or ISO
penalty or through the direct assignment
of a penalty by an RTO or ISO on the
grounds such entity did not perform
reliability functions that led to the
penalty. The third panel will consist of
the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation and the Regional Entities.
Topics for discussion in each panel
are as follows:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Panel One
Panelists should be prepared to
address Commission Topics 1, 2, 3 and
4. In addition, panelists are requested to
consider the following:
A. Should penalties associated with
Reliability Standard violations by RTOs
or ISOs be allocated to all of its
members, customers, owners or
participants (collectively, members)? If
so, should this allocation be handled by
tariff or by contract? What allocation
method would fairly apportion the cost
burden amongst an RTO’s or ISO’s
members?
B. If an RTO or ISO is permitted to
pass on to its members the reliability
penalties assessed against it, how
should the Commission ensure that the
RTO/ISO has adequate incentives to
comply with the Reliability Standards?
C. Should an RTO or ISO be permitted
to directly assign to one or more or a
group of specific members, reliability
penalties assessed against it but that
were caused by the members? If so, who
should investigate these entities to
determine the degree of culpability, how
will these entities be given due process
and how can duplicative proceedings
that overlap the ERO or Regional Entity
penalty proceedings be avoided?
D. Should only non-monetary
penalties be applied to RTOs and ISOs
(and other non-profit organizations)?
Panel Two
Panelists should be prepared to
address Commission Topics 1, 2, 3 and
4. In addition, panelists are requested to
consider the following:
A. Should an RTO or ISO be
permitted to allocate to its members
reliability penalties assessed against it
pursuant to section 215 of the FPA? If
so, should this be handled by tariff or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Aug 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
by contract? What allocation method
would fairly apportion the cost burden?
B. If an RTO or ISO is not permitted
to pass on reliability penalty costs
assessed against it, what source of funds
is suggested for payment?
C. Should an RTO or ISO be permitted
to directly assign to specific members
reliability penalties assessed against it,
and if so, how should duplicative
proceedings be avoided and due process
ensured?
Panel Three
Panelists should be prepared to
address Commission Topics 3 and 4. In
addition, panelists are requested to
consider the following:
A. Would the ERO or Regional Entity
investigation of an alleged Reliability
Standard violation by an RTO or ISO
incorporate an investigation of any RTO
or ISO members that have been alleged
to contribute to the violation both in the
instance where these members are
registered in the ERO’s compliance
registry and in the instance where these
members are not registered? If these
members are investigated, would there
be an assessment of the extent each of
the members and the RTO or ISO
contributed to the violation?
B. How would Regional Entities and
the ERO address in enforcement
proceedings assessment of penalties for
matters in which an RTO or ISO and
one or more members violated the same
Reliability Standard, different
Reliability Standards or multiple
Reliability standards?
C. Should the Regional Entity identify
not just the entity that violated a
Reliability Standard, but also any
entities which may have contributed to
the RTO’s or ISO’s Reliability Standard
violation? Should the Regional Entity
also quantify the degree to which each
entity contributed to the violation?
D. If an RTO or ISO asserts that an
entity that is not listed in NERC’s
compliance registry is responsible for
the RTO’s or ISO’s violation of a
Reliability Standard, in an enforcement
hearing pursuant to section 215 of the
FPA, will Regional Entities or NERC
inquire if the root cause of the violation
lies with that entity and provide the
entity an opportunity to participate in
the proceeding?
Participants on the panels will be
announced in a subsequent notice.
There is no registration fee to attend. A
free webcast of this event will be
available through https://www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who
desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to https://www.ferc.gov’s
Calendar of Events and locating this
event in the Calendar. The event will
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44843
contain a link to its webcast. The
Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the webcasts and offers
access to the meeting via a phone bridge
for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
https://www.CapitolConnection.org or
contact Danelle Perkowski or David
Reininger at 703–993–3100.
Transcripts of the meeting will be
available immediately for a fee from Ace
Reporting Company (202–347–3700 or
1–800–336–6646). They will be
available for free on the Commission’s
eLibrary system and on the events
calendar approximately one week after
the meeting.
FERC conferences and meetings are
accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For
accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to accessibility@ferc.gov
or call toll free (866) 208–3372 (voice)
or 202–502–8659 (TTY), or send a fax to
202–208–2106 with the required
accommodations.
Questions about the conference
should be directed to Don LeKang by email at donald.lekang@ferc.gov or by
phone at 202–502–8127.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–15527 Filed 8–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0225; FRL–8452–4]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Populations,
Usage and Emissions of Nonroad
Diesel Equipment in EPA Region 7;
EPA ICR No. 2156.01, OMB Control No.
2060–0553
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document
announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing
approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This
ICR is scheduled to expire on November
30, 2007. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is
soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection
as described below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 9, 2007.
E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM
09AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 153 (Thursday, August 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44842-44843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15527]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AD07-12-000]
Reliability Standard Compliance and Enforcement in Regions With
Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations;
Second Notice of Technical Conference
August 2, 2007.
As announced on June 15, 2007, the staff of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission will hold a technical conference in the above-
referenced proceeding on September 18, 2007, at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC. It will be
held in the Commission Meeting Room (Room 2C) from 9:30 a.m. until 1
p.m. (EDT).
All interested parties are invited.
The conference will explore issues associated with the cost
recovery of penalties for Reliability Standard violations assessed
against independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission
organizations (RTOs) in the United States, as set forth in Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 119 FERC ] 61,222 (May
31, 2007) in Docket Nos. ER07-701-000 and AD07-12-000. In that Order,
the following topics were identified for discussion:
1. How each ISO's or RTO's regional tariffs and other operational
agreements and protocols allocate reliability responsibilities among
the parties;
2. What provisions exist in those tariffs, agreements, and
protocols to establish responsibility for penalty costs associated with
Reliability Standard violations, and do those provisions result in
uniform responsibility for such penalty costs;
3. What provisions exist that may prevent an entity from being
registered for compliance with relevant Reliability Standards if,
notwithstanding its registration status, such entity's failure to
perform under tariffs, agreements, and protocols could lead to a
violation of Reliability Standards; and
4. What policies for any pass-through of penalty costs associated
with Reliability Standard violations by ISOs
[[Page 44843]]
and RTOs would both best provide due process for entities that may
ultimately be required to pay these penalty costs and also avoid
redundant investigations and litigation of Reliability Standard
violations.
There will be three panels. The first panel will consist of RTOs
and ISOs. The second panel will consist of representative entities
potentially subject to paying penalties incurred by the RTOs or ISOs,
either through the general allocation of an RTO or ISO penalty or
through the direct assignment of a penalty by an RTO or ISO on the
grounds such entity did not perform reliability functions that led to
the penalty. The third panel will consist of the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation and the Regional Entities.
Topics for discussion in each panel are as follows:
Panel One
Panelists should be prepared to address Commission Topics 1, 2, 3
and 4. In addition, panelists are requested to consider the following:
A. Should penalties associated with Reliability Standard violations
by RTOs or ISOs be allocated to all of its members, customers, owners
or participants (collectively, members)? If so, should this allocation
be handled by tariff or by contract? What allocation method would
fairly apportion the cost burden amongst an RTO's or ISO's members?
B. If an RTO or ISO is permitted to pass on to its members the
reliability penalties assessed against it, how should the Commission
ensure that the RTO/ISO has adequate incentives to comply with the
Reliability Standards?
C. Should an RTO or ISO be permitted to directly assign to one or
more or a group of specific members, reliability penalties assessed
against it but that were caused by the members? If so, who should
investigate these entities to determine the degree of culpability, how
will these entities be given due process and how can duplicative
proceedings that overlap the ERO or Regional Entity penalty proceedings
be avoided?
D. Should only non-monetary penalties be applied to RTOs and ISOs
(and other non-profit organizations)?
Panel Two
Panelists should be prepared to address Commission Topics 1, 2, 3
and 4. In addition, panelists are requested to consider the following:
A. Should an RTO or ISO be permitted to allocate to its members
reliability penalties assessed against it pursuant to section 215 of
the FPA? If so, should this be handled by tariff or by contract? What
allocation method would fairly apportion the cost burden?
B. If an RTO or ISO is not permitted to pass on reliability penalty
costs assessed against it, what source of funds is suggested for
payment?
C. Should an RTO or ISO be permitted to directly assign to specific
members reliability penalties assessed against it, and if so, how
should duplicative proceedings be avoided and due process ensured?
Panel Three
Panelists should be prepared to address Commission Topics 3 and 4.
In addition, panelists are requested to consider the following:
A. Would the ERO or Regional Entity investigation of an alleged
Reliability Standard violation by an RTO or ISO incorporate an
investigation of any RTO or ISO members that have been alleged to
contribute to the violation both in the instance where these members
are registered in the ERO's compliance registry and in the instance
where these members are not registered? If these members are
investigated, would there be an assessment of the extent each of the
members and the RTO or ISO contributed to the violation?
B. How would Regional Entities and the ERO address in enforcement
proceedings assessment of penalties for matters in which an RTO or ISO
and one or more members violated the same Reliability Standard,
different Reliability Standards or multiple Reliability standards?
C. Should the Regional Entity identify not just the entity that
violated a Reliability Standard, but also any entities which may have
contributed to the RTO's or ISO's Reliability Standard violation?
Should the Regional Entity also quantify the degree to which each
entity contributed to the violation?
D. If an RTO or ISO asserts that an entity that is not listed in
NERC's compliance registry is responsible for the RTO's or ISO's
violation of a Reliability Standard, in an enforcement hearing pursuant
to section 215 of the FPA, will Regional Entities or NERC inquire if
the root cause of the violation lies with that entity and provide the
entity an opportunity to participate in the proceeding?
Participants on the panels will be announced in a subsequent
notice. There is no registration fee to attend. A free webcast of this
event will be available through https://www.ferc.gov. Anyone with
Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating
to https://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in
the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol
Connection provides technical support for the webcasts and offers
access to the meeting via a phone bridge for a fee. If you have any
questions, visit https://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle
Perkowski or David Reininger at 703-993-3100.
Transcripts of the meeting will be available immediately for a fee
from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646). They will
be available for free on the Commission's eLibrary system and on the
events calendar approximately one week after the meeting.
FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to accessibility@ferc.gov or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with
the required accommodations.
Questions about the conference should be directed to Don LeKang by
e-mail at donald.lekang@ferc.gov or by phone at 202-502-8127.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-15527 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
