Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Supplemental Notice Concerning Post-Technical Conference Comments, 31348-31349 [2012-12709]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 31348 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Notices alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before June 18, 2012. For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP12–28–000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or efiling@ferc.gov. (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission’s Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project; (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission’s Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on ‘‘eRegister.’’ You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select ‘‘Comment on a Filing’’; or (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).3 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission’s decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. 3 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 May 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 Additional information about the project is available from the Commission’s Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ‘‘General Search,’’ and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP12–28). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. 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. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/ esubscribenow.htm. Dated: May 18, 2012. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2790–055] Boott Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of Consulting Parties and Agenda for Section 106 Consultation Meeting On May 4, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued notice of a section 106 consultation meeting, to be held in Lowell, Massachusetts on May 24, 2012, to address historic preservation issues for the proposed license amendment application for the Lowell Hydroelectric Project No. 2790. Pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the following are consulting parties for participation in the section 106 consultation meeting: Commission staff, Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, City of Lowell, and Boott Hydropower, Inc. and the Eldred L. Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Dated: May 18, 2012. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–12708 Filed 5–24–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER12–678–000; ER12–679– 000] [FR Doc. 2012–12699 Filed 5–24–12; 8:45 am] PO 00000 Field Hydroelectric Facility Trust (colicensees for the Lowell Hydroelectric Project). A copy of the agenda for the meeting is attached. On September 21, 2011, the Pawtucketville Citizens Council filed a request to be a consulting party for the section 106 consultation process in this proceeding. This request is denied. The Commission involves the public and provides opportunities for public comment on historic preservation matters during its licensing and amendment proceedings, and through its environmental review process pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The Commission also allows interested members of the public to file comments on the section 106 process. Sfmt 4703 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Supplemental Notice Concerning Post-Technical Conference Comments As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on April 4, 2012, and as required in the Commission’s March 30, 2012 order in these dockets,1 Commission staff convened a technical conference in these proceedings on May 15, 2012 at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC, Room 3M–2A&B. In light of the discussion therein, Commission staff posed questions to the conference participants. Staff requests that parties who choose to file posttechnical conference take these questions into account, and respond to them as appropriate, in the course of formulating their written submissions. Post-conference comments need not be limited to the subject matter of these questions, but may address any topic discussed at the conference. Questions Directed to Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. 1. Please explain in depth each step of the commitment process with special 1 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 138 FERC ¶ 61,235 (2012). E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES emphasis on when and how VLR commitments are made as part of the SCUC process. In your response please explain why such VLR commitments are made at that time in the process instead of waiting until after the day-ahead market closes. Explain the difference between modeling VLR for planning and VLR commitments. 2. Please provide a simple example of how to calculate proxies for voltage limits. 3. Please explain the assertion that all low-voltage transmission facilities are presumed to have significant market power and should be designated for Voltage and Local Reliability (VLR) commitments. Please supplement the record with additional materials as appropriate. 4. With regard to your written answer to pre-conference question 3, it appears that some units were not economically dispatched in hours when they had zero unit headroom. Why? Is it possible to have EcoMax equal EcoMin? 5. Please provide a numerical example to illustrate how you perform the calculations detailed in Tab B of your pre-conference comments. 6. Please explain why the word ‘‘or’’ that previously conjoined bullets (a) through (c) in proposed tariff section 64.1.3.a.i has been changed to ‘‘and.’’ Questions Directed to Potomac Economics, Ltd. 7. Your exhibit refers to units with incremental energy offer prices at half their reference level, as MISO proposes to mitigate through proposed Tariff Section 64.1.3.a.i(a). How could a market participant benefit by offering in this way? 8. Please explain your assertions that market power mitigation is necessary for any generation unit on a line rated less than 100 kV, and that constraints on facilities rated less than 100 kV are unlike constraints on facilities rated above 100 kV. Why are all low-voltage transmission facilities presumed to be locations for the exercise of significant market power? Please supplement the record with additional materials as appropriate. 9. With regard to the slide you presented from the 2010 State of the Market Report, please explain why reference levels have been rising. 10. Please explain why the word ‘‘or’’ that previously conjoined bullets (a) through (c) in proposed tariff section 64.1.3.a.i has been changed to ‘‘and.’’ of Voltage and Local Reliability Commitment (proposed tariff section 1.697a) necessary, and if so, what should those changes be? 12. There was discussion at the conference of whether it is possible to build a voltage component into locational marginal prices (LMP), and dispatching units for VLR via the Security-Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCUC). Please discuss the competing concerns of accurately constructing locational marginal prices and accurately allocating costs. For example, if it was possible to dispatch VLR units through the SCUC, could this be done on a purely economic basis? What would be the effect on Revenue Sufficiency Guarantee cost incurrence? 13. Conference participants discussed two competing methodologies to address cost causation for resolving voltage limits. The first methodology was allowing the market to resolve such voltage limits by sending a price signal to behind-the-meter generation. The second method was MISO’s methodology of uplifting the cost of VLR commitments to local loads. a. Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of each methodology and explain how a finding of justness and reasonableness could be made for each methodology. b. Please explain how to take such behind-the-meter generation into account in system models and send price signals. c. Is it possible to provide incentives for behind-the-meter generation to respond to market forces in such a way as to address voltage issues, and if so, what is the best way to achieve this? Parties wishing to file comments on the matters discussed at the technical conference, and wishing to reply to comments filed by others, should do so on the following schedule: Comments: Due on or before June 5, 2012. Reply comments: Due on or before June 19, 2012. Dated: May 18, 2012. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–12709 Filed 5–24–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Questions Directed to All Conference Participants 11. In light of the discussion at the conference, are changes to the definition VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 May 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 31349 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14385–000] Coastal Hydropower, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications On April 12, 2012, Coastal Hydropower, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Menasha-Neenah Water Power Project, which would be located on the Fox River, in Winnebago County, Wisconsin. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any landdisturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners’ express permission. The proposed project would consist of: (1) Installation of 12 Very Low Head (VLH) 500-kilowatt (kW) turbine units; (2) a proposed 700-foot-long, 12-kilovolt transmission line; (3) a proposed 300foot-long, 13-kilovolt transmission line; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Menasha-Neenah Water Power Project would have an estimated average annual generation of 31.5 gigawatthours. Applicant Contact: Neil Anderson, Coastal Hydropower, LLC, Key Centre, 601 108th Avenue NE., Suite 1900, Bellevue, WA 98004; phone: (425) 943– 7690. FERC Contact: Bryan Roden-Reynolds at (202) 502–6618, or via email at bryan.roden-reynolds@ferc.gov. 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. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of CFR 4.36. 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 (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ ferconline.asp). Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http:// www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM 25MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31348-31349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER12-678-000; ER12-679-000]


Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; 
Supplemental Notice Concerning Post-Technical Conference Comments

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on April 
4, 2012, and as required in the Commission's March 30, 2012 order in 
these dockets,\1\ Commission staff convened a technical conference in 
these proceedings on May 15, 2012 at the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC, Room 3M-2A&B. In 
light of the discussion therein, Commission staff posed questions to 
the conference participants. Staff requests that parties who choose to 
file post-technical conference take these questions into account, and 
respond to them as appropriate, in the course of formulating their 
written submissions. Post-conference comments need not be limited to 
the subject matter of these questions, but may address any topic 
discussed at the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 138 
FERC ] 61,235 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions Directed to Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.

    1. Please explain in depth each step of the commitment process with 
special

[[Page 31349]]

emphasis on when and how VLR commitments are made as part of the SCUC 
process. In your response please explain why such VLR commitments are 
made at that time in the process instead of waiting until after the 
day-ahead market closes. Explain the difference between modeling VLR 
for planning and VLR commitments.
    2. Please provide a simple example of how to calculate proxies for 
voltage limits.
    3. Please explain the assertion that all low-voltage transmission 
facilities are presumed to have significant market power and should be 
designated for Voltage and Local Reliability (VLR) commitments. Please 
supplement the record with additional materials as appropriate.
    4. With regard to your written answer to pre-conference question 3, 
it appears that some units were not economically dispatched in hours 
when they had zero unit headroom. Why? Is it possible to have EcoMax 
equal EcoMin?
    5. Please provide a numerical example to illustrate how you perform 
the calculations detailed in Tab B of your pre-conference comments.
    6. Please explain why the word ``or'' that previously conjoined 
bullets (a) through (c) in proposed tariff section 64.1.3.a.i has been 
changed to ``and.''

Questions Directed to Potomac Economics, Ltd.

    7. Your exhibit refers to units with incremental energy offer 
prices at half their reference level, as MISO proposes to mitigate 
through proposed Tariff Section 64.1.3.a.i(a). How could a market 
participant benefit by offering in this way?
    8. Please explain your assertions that market power mitigation is 
necessary for any generation unit on a line rated less than 100 kV, and 
that constraints on facilities rated less than 100 kV are unlike 
constraints on facilities rated above 100 kV. Why are all low-voltage 
transmission facilities presumed to be locations for the exercise of 
significant market power? Please supplement the record with additional 
materials as appropriate.
    9. With regard to the slide you presented from the 2010 State of 
the Market Report, please explain why reference levels have been 
rising.
    10. Please explain why the word ``or'' that previously conjoined 
bullets (a) through (c) in proposed tariff section 64.1.3.a.i has been 
changed to ``and.''

Questions Directed to All Conference Participants

    11. In light of the discussion at the conference, are changes to 
the definition of Voltage and Local Reliability Commitment (proposed 
tariff section 1.697a) necessary, and if so, what should those changes 
be?
    12. There was discussion at the conference of whether it is 
possible to build a voltage component into locational marginal prices 
(LMP), and dispatching units for VLR via the Security-Constrained 
Economic Dispatch (SCUC). Please discuss the competing concerns of 
accurately constructing locational marginal prices and accurately 
allocating costs. For example, if it was possible to dispatch VLR units 
through the SCUC, could this be done on a purely economic basis? What 
would be the effect on Revenue Sufficiency Guarantee cost incurrence?
    13. Conference participants discussed two competing methodologies 
to address cost causation for resolving voltage limits. The first 
methodology was allowing the market to resolve such voltage limits by 
sending a price signal to behind-the-meter generation. The second 
method was MISO's methodology of uplifting the cost of VLR commitments 
to local loads.
    a. Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of each 
methodology and explain how a finding of justness and reasonableness 
could be made for each methodology.
    b. Please explain how to take such behind-the-meter generation into 
account in system models and send price signals.
    c. Is it possible to provide incentives for behind-the-meter 
generation to respond to market forces in such a way as to address 
voltage issues, and if so, what is the best way to achieve this?
    Parties wishing to file comments on the matters discussed at the 
technical conference, and wishing to reply to comments filed by others, 
should do so on the following schedule:
    Comments: Due on or before June 5, 2012.
    Reply comments: Due on or before June 19, 2012.

    Dated: May 18, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12709 Filed 5-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P