PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments, 26020-26021 [2015-10559]
Download as PDF
26020
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Notices
In its prior notice request filed on
January 20, 2015 (in Docket No. CP15–
61–000) and noticed on January 30,
2015,1 Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) proposed to construct and
abandon facilities in Clark and
Codington Counties, South Dakota.
Protestor protested the prior notice
because the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of
the Lake Traverse Reservation indicated
that it would be necessary to conduct a
Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP)
survey to ensure that no TCPs would be
affected by construction. Northern had
not provided the results of the TCP
survey and/or updated communication
with the tribe to ensure the project’s
compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act, as required under
Appendix II to Subpart F of Part 157 of
the Commission’s regulations.
Subsequent to the filing of the protest,
Northern submitted communication
from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of
the Lake Traverse Reservation that
stated the project would have no effect
on historic resources, and revised
alignment sheets to show the revised
workspace to avoid the TCP site. Thus,
Protestor’s environmental concern has
been satisfied. Accordingly, Protestor
hereby withdraws its Protest to the
Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity
filed in the instant docket on March 31,
2015.
Dated: April 30, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice
Inviting Post-Technical Conference
Comments
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Post-Technical Conference Questions
for Comment
(1) FTR Forfeiture Rule
[Docket No. EL14–37–000]
On January 7, 2015, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) staff conducted a
technical conference to evaluate
whether: (1) PJM Interconnection, LLC’s
(PJM) Financial Transmission Rights
(FTR) forfeiture rules as they apply to
virtual transactions, including Up-to
Congestion (UTC) transactions and INC/
DEC transactions, are just and
reasonable; and (2) PJM’s current uplift
allocation rules associated with UTC
1 Notice
of the request was published in the
Federal Register on February 5, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg.
6,512).
18:43 May 05, 2015
Dated: April 29, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
In addition to any further responses to
the questions posed in the Commission
Staff’s December 10, 2014 Supplemental
Notice of Technical Conference,1
Commission Staff seeks responses to the
following questions. Parties submitting
comments need not respond to each
question.
[FR Doc. 2015–10569 Filed 5–5–15; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
transactions and INCs/DECs are just and
reasonable.
All interested persons are invited to
file post-technical conference comments
on any or all of the questions listed in
the attachment to this Notice. These
comments must be filed with the
Commission no later than 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time on May 29, 2015.
For more information about this
Notice, please contact:
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.
Elizabeth Topping (Technical
Information), Office of Energy Policy
and Innovation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426
(202) 502–6731, elizabeth.topping@
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.
Jkt 235001
(a) When calculating the contribution
a virtual transaction (INC, DEC, or UTC)
has to power flowing across a given
constraint, how should the injection/
withdrawal points for the virtual
transaction be identified? Should the
defined ‘‘worst case’’ node be limited to
the market participant’s own
transactions? Additionally, should the
impact threshold(s) used for triggering
the forfeiture rule remain at 75 percent
regardless of the injection/withdrawal
points identified? Why or why not?
(b) As an alternative to the current
approach of assessing one virtual
transaction at a time, should the FTR
forfeiture rule collectively assess the net
1 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Supplemental
Notice of Technical Conference, Docket No. EL14–
37–000 (December 10, 2014). https://elibrary.ferc.gov
/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13707421.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
impact of a market participant’s entire
portfolio of INCs, DECs, and UTCs?
Should it assess the net impact of all
virtual transactions that clear the
market? In addition to virtual
transactions, should a market
participant’s portfolio of physical
transactions be considered? Why or why
not? If a portfolio approach were
adopted, should the impact threshold(s)
continue to be 75 percent, as used in the
past, or is a different threshold(s) more
appropriate? How could a portfolio
approach be implemented?
(c) Should counter-flow FTRs and
bids that relieve congestion remain
exempt from FTR forfeiture rule
calculations? Should financial
transactions that improve day-ahead
and real-time market price convergence
be exempt from the forfeiture rule? Why
or why not? How, if at all, would these
exemptions differ when assessing the
impact of a market participant’s
portfolio as opposed to one INC, DEC,
or UTC at a time? Are there any other
currently exempt financial transactions
that should be subject to FTR forfeiture
calculations?
(d) Should the application of the
forfeiture rule to INCs, DECs and UTCs
be revised in ways not addressed by
these questions, and if so, describe in
detail the proposed revision and
justification for the change.
(e) If you believe that changes to the
current FTR Forfeiture Rule provisions
of PJM’s tariff are necessary, propose
appropriate tariff language that you
believe addresses your concern.
(2) Uplift
(a) Should UTCs be assessed uplift?
Explain why or why not. If so, how, if
at all, should this allocation differ from
the allocation to individual INCs and
DECs and ‘‘paired’’ INCs and DECs?
Should INCs and DECs continue to be
required to pay uplift charges? What
effect does imposing these charges have
on the ability of virtual traders to
arbitrage day-ahead and real-time price
differences?
(b) Do UTCs impact unit commitment
decisions? If so, how? Several views
were expressed during the conference.
For example, one panelist cited PJM
documentation stating that UTCs are not
included in commitment decisions.2
Other panelists expressed the view that
both ‘‘paired’’ INCs and DECs and
UTC’s impact unit commitment.3
2 January 7, 2015 Presentation of Wesley Allen,
‘‘Incremental Offers, Decrement Bids & Up To
Congestion.’’ at pp 4–5.
3 January 7, 2015 Technical Conference on
Financial Transactions in PJM, Transcript 240:15–
241:4 (Adam Keech); Id. at 242: 14–16 (Joseph
Bowring).
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Notices
(c) Should market participants be
allowed to net INC and DEC
transactions for the purpose of uplift
allocations? Why or why not? If yes,
should netting within a market
participant’s portfolio (intra-market
participant) be allowed or should
market-wide (inter-market participant)
netting be allowed? Should physical
assets be included in the netting
process? Please discuss the advantages
and disadvantages to both approaches.
(d) Are there other cost-causation
approaches that should be considered?
What advantages, disadvantages, and
operational challenges would be
associated with implementing such
approaches in PJM?
(e) If virtual transactions are assessed
uplift, should the uplift be designed as
a fixed amount known in advance to
permit the traders to assess the costs of
the trade versus the potential arbitrage
differences between day-ahead and realtime?
(f) If you believe that changes to the
current Uplift provisions of PJM’s tariff
are necessary, propose appropriate tariff
language that you believe addresses
your concern.
[FR Doc. 2015–10559 Filed 5–5–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 2323–206]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc.;
Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Protests
Take notice that the following
hydroelectric application has been filed
with the Commission and is available
for public inspection:
a. Type of Application: Request to
Amend License Articles 409, 410, 411,
and 413.
b. Project No.: 2323–206.
c. Date Filed: March 31, 2015.
d. Applicant: TransCanada Hydro
Northeast, Inc. (licensee).
e. Name of Project: Deerfield River
Hydroelectric Project.
f. Location: Windham and Bennington
counties, Vermont and Franklin and
Berkshire counties, Massachusetts.
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power
Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r).
h. Applicant Contact: John Ragonese,
FERC License Manager, (603) 498–2851,
or john_ragonese@transcanada.com.
i. FERC Contact: Alicia Burtner, (202)
502–8038, or alicia.burtner@ferc.gov.
j. Deadline for filing comments,
motions to intervene, protests, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:43 May 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
recommendations is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice by the
Commission.
All documents may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission’s Web
site at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
efiling.asp. If unable to be filed
electronically, documents may be paperfiled. To paper-file, an original and
seven copies should be mailed to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. 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
of your comments.
Please include the project number (P–
2323–206) on any comments, motions,
or recommendations filed.
k. Description of Request: The
licensee requests the deletion or
suspension of the requirements of
license Articles 409, 410, 411, and 413
and the associated Atlantic Salmon
Radio-Tagging Plan, as approved by the
Commission on March 31, 1998. The
requirements pertain to monitoring and
restoring Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
in the Connecticut River and its
tributaries. Article 409 requires the
licensee to construct, operate, and
maintain a permanent upstream fish
passage facility. Article 410 requires a
plan to capture upstream migrating
Atlantic salmon below the dam and
transport them to river reaches above
the dam or to hatchery facilities until
permanent passage facilities, are
completed. Article 411 requires
monitoring of Atlantic salmon smolts
through project fish passage facilities,
and Article 413 requires an Atlantic
Salmon Radio-Tagging Plan. The
licensee indicates that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, which had been
actively stocking Atlantic salmon in the
Connecticut River and its tributaries,
has officially withdrawn support for the
restoration program due to
unsatisfactory results. The licensee
indicates that its efforts under Articles
409, 410, 411, and 413 have no feasible
chance of success without the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife’s stocking component.
l. Locations of the Application: A
copy of the application is available for
inspection and reproduction at the
Commission’s Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street NE., Room
2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling
(202) 502–8371. This filing may also be
viewed on the Commission’s Web site at
https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26021
elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the
document. You may also register online
at https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, call 1–866–208- 3676 or
email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, for
TTY, call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also
available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
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 filing must (1) bear in
all capital letters the title
‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, or
‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’ as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish
the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or
intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR
385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or
protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All
comments, motions to intervene, or
protests should relate to project works
which are the subject of the variance.
Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant.
A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified
in the particular application. If an
intervener files comments or documents
with the Commission relating to the
merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of
the document on that resource agency.
A copy of all other filings in reference
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26020-26021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10559]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. EL14-37-000]
PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice Inviting Post-Technical
Conference Comments
On January 7, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) staff conducted a technical conference to evaluate
whether: (1) PJM Interconnection, LLC's (PJM) Financial Transmission
Rights (FTR) forfeiture rules as they apply to virtual transactions,
including Up-to Congestion (UTC) transactions and INC/DEC transactions,
are just and reasonable; and (2) PJM's current uplift allocation rules
associated with UTC transactions and INCs/DECs are just and reasonable.
All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments on any or all of the questions listed in the
attachment to this Notice. These comments must be filed with the
Commission no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 29, 2015.
For more information about this Notice, please contact:
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.
Elizabeth Topping (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 (202) 502-6731, elizabeth.topping@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: April 29, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment
In addition to any further responses to the questions posed in the
Commission Staff's December 10, 2014 Supplemental Notice of Technical
Conference,\1\ Commission Staff seeks responses to the following
questions. Parties submitting comments need not respond to each
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference, Docket No. EL14-37-000 (December 10, 2014).
https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13707421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) FTR Forfeiture Rule
(a) When calculating the contribution a virtual transaction (INC,
DEC, or UTC) has to power flowing across a given constraint, how should
the injection/withdrawal points for the virtual transaction be
identified? Should the defined ``worst case'' node be limited to the
market participant's own transactions? Additionally, should the impact
threshold(s) used for triggering the forfeiture rule remain at 75
percent regardless of the injection/withdrawal points identified? Why
or why not?
(b) As an alternative to the current approach of assessing one
virtual transaction at a time, should the FTR forfeiture rule
collectively assess the net impact of a market participant's entire
portfolio of INCs, DECs, and UTCs? Should it assess the net impact of
all virtual transactions that clear the market? In addition to virtual
transactions, should a market participant's portfolio of physical
transactions be considered? Why or why not? If a portfolio approach
were adopted, should the impact threshold(s) continue to be 75 percent,
as used in the past, or is a different threshold(s) more appropriate?
How could a portfolio approach be implemented?
(c) Should counter-flow FTRs and bids that relieve congestion
remain exempt from FTR forfeiture rule calculations? Should financial
transactions that improve day-ahead and real-time market price
convergence be exempt from the forfeiture rule? Why or why not? How, if
at all, would these exemptions differ when assessing the impact of a
market participant's portfolio as opposed to one INC, DEC, or UTC at a
time? Are there any other currently exempt financial transactions that
should be subject to FTR forfeiture calculations?
(d) Should the application of the forfeiture rule to INCs, DECs and
UTCs be revised in ways not addressed by these questions, and if so,
describe in detail the proposed revision and justification for the
change.
(e) If you believe that changes to the current FTR Forfeiture Rule
provisions of PJM's tariff are necessary, propose appropriate tariff
language that you believe addresses your concern.
(2) Uplift
(a) Should UTCs be assessed uplift? Explain why or why not. If so,
how, if at all, should this allocation differ from the allocation to
individual INCs and DECs and ``paired'' INCs and DECs? Should INCs and
DECs continue to be required to pay uplift charges? What effect does
imposing these charges have on the ability of virtual traders to
arbitrage day-ahead and real-time price differences?
(b) Do UTCs impact unit commitment decisions? If so, how? Several
views were expressed during the conference. For example, one panelist
cited PJM documentation stating that UTCs are not included in
commitment decisions.\2\ Other panelists expressed the view that both
``paired'' INCs and DECs and UTC's impact unit commitment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ January 7, 2015 Presentation of Wesley Allen, ``Incremental
Offers, Decrement Bids & Up To Congestion.'' at pp 4-5.
\3\ January 7, 2015 Technical Conference on Financial
Transactions in PJM, Transcript 240:15-241:4 (Adam Keech); Id. at
242: 14-16 (Joseph Bowring).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26021]]
(c) Should market participants be allowed to net INC and DEC
transactions for the purpose of uplift allocations? Why or why not? If
yes, should netting within a market participant's portfolio (intra-
market participant) be allowed or should market-wide (inter-market
participant) netting be allowed? Should physical assets be included in
the netting process? Please discuss the advantages and disadvantages to
both approaches.
(d) Are there other cost-causation approaches that should be
considered? What advantages, disadvantages, and operational challenges
would be associated with implementing such approaches in PJM?
(e) If virtual transactions are assessed uplift, should the uplift
be designed as a fixed amount known in advance to permit the traders to
assess the costs of the trade versus the potential arbitrage
differences between day-ahead and real-time?
(f) If you believe that changes to the current Uplift provisions of
PJM's tariff are necessary, propose appropriate tariff language that
you believe addresses your concern.
[FR Doc. 2015-10559 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P