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 (https://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 https://
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