Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Staff Protest to Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity, 26019-26020 [2015-10569]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Notices
operations/committees/meeting_
materials/index.jsp?com=bic.
The New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. Operating Committee
Meeting
The New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. Management Committee
Meeting
August 26, 2015, 10 a.m.–4 p.m. (EST)
May 14, 2015, 10 a.m.–4 p.m. (EST)
The above-referenced meeting will be
via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open
to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
https://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_
operations/committees/meeting_
materials/index.jsp?com=oc.
The New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning
Working Group Meeting
July 7, 2015, 10 a.m.–4 p.m. (EST)
The above-referenced meeting will be
via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open
to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
https://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_
operations/services/planning/index.jsp.
The New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning
Working Group Meeting
July 30, 2015, 10 a.m.–4 p.m. (EST)
The above-referenced meeting will be
via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open
to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
https://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_
operations/services/planning/index.jsp.
The above-referenced meeting will be
via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open
to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
https://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_
operations/committees/meeting_
materials/index.jsp?com=bic.
The New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. Operating Committee
Meeting
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
August 13, 2015, 10 a.m.–4 p.m. (EST)
The above-referenced meeting will be
via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open
to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
https://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_
operations/committees/meeting_
materials/index.jsp?com=oc.
Jkt 235001
[FR Doc. 2015–10577 Filed 5–5–15; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
August 12, 2015, 10 a.m.–4 p.m. (EST)
18:43 May 05, 2015
Dated: April 30, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
The New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. Business Issues
Committee Meeting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
The above-referenced meeting will be
via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open
to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
https://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_
operations/committees/meeting_
materials/index.jsp?com=mc.
The discussions at the meeting
described above may address matters at
issue in the following proceedings:
Docket Nos. ER13–102, ER13–1942,
ER13–1946, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. and New York
Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13–1926, PJM
Transmission Owners
Docket Nos. ER13–1947, ER13–198, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER13–1957, ER13–193,
ER13–196, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER13–1960, ISO New
England Inc., Participating
Transmission Owners Administrative
Committee, and New England Power
Pool Participants Committee
For more information, contact James
Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at (202) 502–8622 or
James.Eason@ferc.gov.
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
67RK 8me LLC; Supplemental Notice
that Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization
This is a supplemental notice in the
above-referenced proceeding, of 67RK
8me LLC’s application for market-based
rate authority, with an accompanying
rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for
blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities
and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to
protest should file with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy
of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the
deadline for filing protests with regard
to the applicant’s request for blanket
authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability is May 19, 2015.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the
FERC Online links at https://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic
service, persons with Internet access
who will eFile a document and/or be
listed as a contact for an intervenor
must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
Persons unable to file electronically
should submit an original and 5 copies
of the intervention or protest to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
The filings in the above-referenced
proceeding(s) are accessible in the
Commission’s eLibrary system by
clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for
review in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please email
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. or call
(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202) 502–8659.
Dated: April 29, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[Docket No. ER15–1579–000]
PO 00000
26019
[FR Doc. 2015–10560 Filed 5–5–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. CP15–61–000]
Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice
of Withdrawal of Staff Protest to
Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity
Commission staff (Protestor) hereby
withdraws its Protest to the Proposed
Blanket Certificate Activity filed in the
above-referenced proceeding on March
31, 2015.
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
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
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26019-26020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10569]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP15-61-000]
Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Staff
Protest to Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity
Commission staff (Protestor) hereby withdraws its Protest to the
Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity filed in the above-referenced
proceeding on March 31, 2015.
[[Page 26020]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notice of the request was published in the Federal Register
on February 5, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 6,512).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[FR Doc. 2015-10569 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
