PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference, 75147-75149 [2014-29543]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Notices (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 3,241 megawatthours. A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or 75147 deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below. TABLE 1—CRITERIA FOR QUALIFYING CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY Statutory provision Description Satisfies (Y/N) FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA .... The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity. The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit. The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts ...................... On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA. Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing. Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice. Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the ‘‘COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY’’ or ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE,’’ as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission’s regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff’s preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission’s eFiling system at http:// 1 18 www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.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 of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, (866) 208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010. Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http:// www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD15–16–000) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1–866–208–3676 or email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Dated: December 10, 2014. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2014–29540 Filed 12–16–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P CFR 385.2001–2005 (2014). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Dec 16, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Y Y Y DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL14–37–000] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference As announced in a Notice issued on October 31, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a technical conference on Wednesday, January 7, 2015. The technical conference will explore whether: 1) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM) Financial Transmission Rights (FTR) forfeiture rule as it applies to Up-to Congestion (UTC) transactions and virtual (INC/DEC) transactions is just and reasonable; and 2) PJM’s current uplift allocation associated with UTC transactions and INCs/DECs is just and reasonable. The technical conference will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. and be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This technical conference is free of charge and open to the public. Commission members may participate in the technical conference. The agenda and a list of participants for this technical conference are attached. Those who plan to attend the technical conference are encouraged to complete the registration form located at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/ registration/01-07-15-form.asp. There is no registration deadline. The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202– 347–3700 or 1–800–336–6646). Additionally, there will be a free E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM 17DEN1 75148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Notices proceeding that is pending: ER13–1654– 001. Commission technical conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email 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 requested accommodations. For more information about the technical conference, please contact: Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8368, sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov. Carmen Gastilo Machuga (Legal Information), Office of the General Docket No. EL14–37–000 Panel will discuss: (1) the goals of the FTR forfeiture rule; and (2) different ways of structuring the FTR forfeiture rule’s design. During the discussion on goals, Panelists should be prepared to address the following: • The FTR forfeiture rule was intended to address potential market abuse.1 The market abuse in question was trading to create artificial congestion in the day-ahead market that influenced the value of FTRs, conduct which may be a violation of the AntiManipulation Rule after its implementation in 2006. INCs/DECs and UTC transactions may provide value to the system by improving price convergence. Given these two priorities, is it possible to design an effective rule that addresses market abuse yet does not discourage legitimate virtual trading that can contribute to price convergence? January 7, 2015 Agenda The technical conference will explore whether: (1) PJM’s FTR forfeiture rule as it applies to UTC transactions and INCs/ DECs is just and reasonable; and (2) PJM’s current uplift allocation associated with UTC transactions and INCs/DECs is just and reasonable. Presentations will be allowed at the beginning of each Panel. Any presentations should be narrowly confined to the topics discussed in this agenda and should be no longer than five minutes. Presentations should primarily focus on factual background. Presentations and discussions should be confined to proposals for addressing these issues within PJM. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 9:00am–9:15am Welcome and Opening Remarks 9:15am–12:00pm Panel 1: FTR Forfeiture Rule Goals and Designs (with a 15 minute break) Panel 1 will explore PJM’s FTR forfeiture rule as it applies to INCs/DECs and UTC transactions. In the context of applying the rule to these products, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Dec 16, 2014 Jkt 235001 1 December 22, 2000 filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Docket No. ER01–773–000 at 2 (‘‘The purpose of the modifications is to address concerns . . . that an entity can purchase FTRs in the monthly FTR auction and then enter Increment and Decrement Bids in the Day-ahead Market so as to create congestion and artificially (continued . . .) increase the value of its FTRs.’’). PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8657, carmen.gastilo@ferc.gov. William Sauer (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 6639, william.sauer@ferc.gov. Cathleen Colbert (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8997, cathleen.colbert@ferc.gov. Dated: December 10, 2014. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. • Examples of how INCs/DECs and UTC transactions influence the value of FTRs • Behaviors to be discouraged or encouraged through the FTR forfeiture rule During the discussion on different ways of structuring the FTR forfeiture rule design, Panelists should be prepared to address the structural components of an effective rule, including: • In which way, if at all, should transactions be aggregated to determine the effect on congestion? In determining the effect on congestion, should the FTR forfeiture rule consider each market participant’s portfolio of transactions? If so, is this approach technically feasible? • In which way, if at all, should the FTR forfeiture rule assess INCs/DECs and UTC transactions that are intended to relieve congestion to benefit the value of counter-flow FTRs? • At what threshold should the flow impact on a transmission constraint’s limit trigger the forfeiture? What are the possible implications of implementing an overly strict rule versus a rule that may fail to identify all instances of potentially manipulative behavior? • How, if at all, should the rule treat INCs/DECs and UTC transactions E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM 17DEN1 EN17DE14.014</GPH> Webcast of the technical conference. The webcast will allow persons to listen to the technical conference but not participate. Anyone with Internet access who wants to listen to the technical conference can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov, locating the technical conference in the Calendar, and clicking on the webcast link. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the Webcast and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call 703– 993–3100. While this technical conference is not for the purpose of discussing specific cases, the technical conference may address matters at issue in the following, related Commission Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Notices differently under various rule designs? For instance, should different injection/ withdrawal points be utilized? Should different forfeiture thresholds be used? Panelists: • Andrew Hartshorn, Boston Energy Trading and Marketing • Noha Sidhom, Inertia Power, LP • Harry Singh, J. Aron & Company • Joseph Bowring, Monitoring Analytics • Stu Bresler, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 12:00pm–1:00pm Lunch 1:00pm–4:15pm Panel 2: Uplift Causation and Allocation (with a 15 minute break) Panel 2 will explore the circumstances under which INCs/DECs and UTC transactions may cause uplift in PJM and, if so, how INCs/DECs and UTC transactions should be allocated uplift charges. In the context of assessing PJM’s uplift allocation, the Panel will discuss: (1) the extent to which uplift may be caused by INCs/ DECs and UTC transactions; and (2) different ways to potentially allocate uplift to INCs/DECs and UTC transactions. During the discussion on uplift causation, Panelists should be prepared to address the following: • How, if at all, do INCs/DECs and UTC transactions cause uplift? • In which way, if at all, is uplift caused by INCs/DECs and UTC transactions associated with congestion, divergences between day-ahead and real-time physical energy requirements, or other positions held by each market participant? • Are there methods available to accurately and dynamically determine any uplift that may be caused by INCs/ DECs and UTC transactions? During the discussion on uplift allocation, Panelists should be prepared to address the following: • The status of PJM’s Energy Market Uplift Senior Task Force. • What principle(s) should be followed if and when allocating uplift to INCs/DECs and UTC transactions? For instance, one potential solution is that uplift costs should be strictly allocated based on cost causation determinations. Other potential solutions may be guided by simplicity, predictability, or multiple objectives. What new, if any, uplift allocation rules should be implemented based on this principle(s)? • Under which, if any, circumstances should INCs/DECs and UTC VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Dec 16, 2014 Jkt 235001 transactions be offset by other transactions to limit uplift allocation exposure? Panelists: • Abram Klein, Appian Way Energy Partners • William Hogan, Harvard University, speaking on behalf of Financial Marketers Coalition • Joseph Bowring, Monitoring Analytics • Adam Keech, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. • David Patton, Potomac Economics, Ltd. • Wesley Allen, Red Wolf Energy Trading, L.L.C. • Stephanie Staska, Twin Cities Power Holdings, L.L.C. • Michael McNair, Yes Energy 4:15pm–4:30pm Closing [FR Doc. 2014–29543 Filed 12–16–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0014; FRL–9920–12] Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: This notice announces EPA’s order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows an April 11, 2014 Federal Register Notice of Receipt of Requests from the registrants listed in Table 2 of Unit II. to voluntarily cancel these product registrations. In the April 11, 2014 Federal Register notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 180 day comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests. The Agency received comments on the April 11, 2014 Federal Register notice but none merited its further review of the requests. Further, the registrants did not withdraw their requests. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the requested cancellations. Any SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 75149 distribution, sale, or use of the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions. The cancellations are effective December 17, 2014. DATES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janeese Hackley, Pesticide ReEvaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 605–1523; email address: hackley.janeese@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information? The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0014, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. II. What action is the agency taking? This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit. E:\FR\FM\17DEN1.SGM 17DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75147-75149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-37-000]


PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Supplemental Notice of Technical 
Conference

    As announced in a Notice issued on October 31, 2014, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a technical 
conference on Wednesday, January 7, 2015. The technical conference will 
explore whether: 1) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s (PJM) Financial 
Transmission Rights (FTR) forfeiture rule as it applies to Up-to 
Congestion (UTC) transactions and virtual (INC/DEC) transactions is 
just and reasonable; and 2) PJM's current uplift allocation associated 
with UTC transactions and INCs/DECs is just and reasonable. The 
technical conference will commence at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 
p.m. and be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This technical conference is free of 
charge and open to the public. Commission members may participate in 
the technical conference.
    The agenda and a list of participants for this technical conference 
are attached.
    Those who plan to attend the technical conference are encouraged to 
complete the registration form located at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/01-07-15-form.asp. There is no registration deadline.
    The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the 
technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal 
Reporters, Inc. (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646). Additionally, there 
will be a free

[[Page 75148]]

Webcast of the technical conference. The webcast will allow persons to 
listen to the technical conference but not participate. Anyone with 
Internet access who wants to listen to the technical conference can do 
so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov, locating 
the technical conference in the Calendar, and clicking on the webcast 
link. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the Webcast 
and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for 
a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or 
call 703-993-3100.
    While this technical conference is not for the purpose of 
discussing specific cases, the technical conference may address matters 
at issue in the following, related Commission proceeding that is 
pending: ER13-1654-001.
    Commission technical conferences are accessible under section 508 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, 
please send an email 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 requested accommodations.
    For more information about the technical conference, please 
contact:
    Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External 
Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8368, sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov.
    Carmen Gastilo Machuga (Legal Information), Office of the General 
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8657, carmen.gastilo@ferc.gov.
    William Sauer (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and 
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6639, william.sauer@ferc.gov.
    Cathleen Colbert (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-8997, cathleen.colbert@ferc.gov.

    Dated: December 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17DE14.014

Docket No. EL14-37-000

January 7, 2015

Agenda

    The technical conference will explore whether: (1) PJM's FTR 
forfeiture rule as it applies to UTC transactions and INCs/DECs is just 
and reasonable; and (2) PJM's current uplift allocation associated with 
UTC transactions and INCs/DECs is just and reasonable. Presentations 
will be allowed at the beginning of each Panel. Any presentations 
should be narrowly confined to the topics discussed in this agenda and 
should be no longer than five minutes. Presentations should primarily 
focus on factual background. Presentations and discussions should be 
confined to proposals for addressing these issues within PJM.

9:00am-9:15am Welcome and Opening Remarks

9:15am-12:00pm Panel 1: FTR Forfeiture Rule Goals and Designs (with a 
15 minute break)

    Panel 1 will explore PJM's FTR forfeiture rule as it applies to 
INCs/DECs and UTC transactions. In the context of applying the rule to 
these products, the Panel will discuss: (1) the goals of the FTR 
forfeiture rule; and (2) different ways of structuring the FTR 
forfeiture rule's design.
    During the discussion on goals, Panelists should be prepared to 
address the following:
     The FTR forfeiture rule was intended to address potential 
market abuse.\1\ The market abuse in question was trading to create 
artificial congestion in the day-ahead market that influenced the value 
of FTRs, conduct which may be a violation of the Anti-Manipulation Rule 
after its implementation in 2006. INCs/DECs and UTC transactions may 
provide value to the system by improving price convergence. Given these 
two priorities, is it possible to design an effective rule that 
addresses market abuse yet does not discourage legitimate virtual 
trading that can contribute to price convergence?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ December 22, 2000 filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 
Docket No. ER01-773-000 at 2 (``The purpose of the modifications is 
to address concerns . . . that an entity can purchase FTRs in the 
monthly FTR auction and then enter Increment and Decrement Bids in 
the Day-ahead Market so as to create congestion and artificially 
(continued . . .) increase the value of its FTRs.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Examples of how INCs/DECs and UTC transactions influence 
the value of FTRs
     Behaviors to be discouraged or encouraged through the FTR 
forfeiture rule

During the discussion on different ways of structuring the FTR 
forfeiture rule design, Panelists should be prepared to address the 
structural components of an effective rule, including:
     In which way, if at all, should transactions be aggregated 
to determine the effect on congestion? In determining the effect on 
congestion, should the FTR forfeiture rule consider each market 
participant's portfolio of transactions? If so, is this approach 
technically feasible?
     In which way, if at all, should the FTR forfeiture rule 
assess INCs/DECs and UTC transactions that are intended to relieve 
congestion to benefit the value of counter-flow FTRs?
     At what threshold should the flow impact on a transmission 
constraint's limit trigger the forfeiture? What are the possible 
implications of implementing an overly strict rule versus a rule that 
may fail to identify all instances of potentially manipulative 
behavior?
     How, if at all, should the rule treat INCs/DECs and UTC 
transactions

[[Page 75149]]

differently under various rule designs? For instance, should different 
injection/withdrawal points be utilized? Should different forfeiture 
thresholds be used?

Panelists:

     Andrew Hartshorn, Boston Energy Trading and Marketing
     Noha Sidhom, Inertia Power, LP
     Harry Singh, J. Aron & Company
     Joseph Bowring, Monitoring Analytics
     Stu Bresler, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

12:00pm-1:00pm Lunch

1:00pm-4:15pm Panel 2: Uplift Causation and Allocation (with a 15 
minute break)

    Panel 2 will explore the circumstances under which INCs/DECs and 
UTC transactions may cause uplift in PJM and, if so, how INCs/DECs and 
UTC transactions should be allocated uplift charges. In the context of 
assessing PJM's uplift allocation, the Panel will discuss: (1) the 
extent to which uplift may be caused by INCs/DECs and UTC transactions; 
and (2) different ways to potentially allocate uplift to INCs/DECs and 
UTC transactions.
    During the discussion on uplift causation, Panelists should be 
prepared to address the following:
     How, if at all, do INCs/DECs and UTC transactions cause 
uplift?
     In which way, if at all, is uplift caused by INCs/DECs and 
UTC transactions associated with congestion, divergences between day-
ahead and real-time physical energy requirements, or other positions 
held by each market participant?
     Are there methods available to accurately and dynamically 
determine any uplift that may be caused by INCs/DECs and UTC 
transactions?

During the discussion on uplift allocation, Panelists should be 
prepared to address the following:
     The status of PJM's Energy Market Uplift Senior Task 
Force.
     What principle(s) should be followed if and when 
allocating uplift to INCs/DECs and UTC transactions? For instance, one 
potential solution is that uplift costs should be strictly allocated 
based on cost causation determinations. Other potential solutions may 
be guided by simplicity, predictability, or multiple objectives. What 
new, if any, uplift allocation rules should be implemented based on 
this principle(s)?
     Under which, if any, circumstances should INCs/DECs and 
UTC transactions be offset by other transactions to limit uplift 
allocation exposure?

Panelists:
     Abram Klein, Appian Way Energy Partners
     William Hogan, Harvard University, speaking on behalf of 
Financial Marketers Coalition
     Joseph Bowring, Monitoring Analytics
     Adam Keech, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
     David Patton, Potomac Economics, Ltd.
     Wesley Allen, Red Wolf Energy Trading, L.L.C.
     Stephanie Staska, Twin Cities Power Holdings, L.L.C.
     Michael McNair, Yes Energy

4:15pm-4:30pm Closing

[FR Doc. 2014-29543 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P