PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments, 10610-10611 [2016-04387]

Download as PDF 10610 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2016 / Notices date of the transmittal of the report to OMB and Congress. The matching program will continue for 18 months after the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if the conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(D) have been met. 6. Address for Receipt of Public Comments or Inquiries. Individuals wishing to comment on this matching program, or to obtain additional information about the program, including requesting a copy of the computer matching agreement between ED and SSA, should contact Marya Dennis, Management and Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Education, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20202– 5454. Telephone: (202) 377–3385. If you use a telecommunications device (TDD) for the deaf or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1– 800–877–8339. Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph. Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. Dated: February 16, 2016. James W. Runcie, Chief Operating Officer Federal Student Aid. asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES [FR Doc. 2016–04465 Filed 2–29–16; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Energy, pursuant to Section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as implemented by 10 CFR part 860 published in the Federal Register on August 26, 1963 (28 FR 8400), prohibits the unauthorized entry, as provided in 10 CFR 860.3 and the unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials, as provided in 10 CFR 860.4, into or upon the following described facilities of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility of the United States Department of Energy. The following amendments are made: The U.S. Department of Energy installation known as the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility is located in the Second Civil District of Newport News, Virginia, within the corporate limits of the City of Newport News. The facility is located on a 169 acre federal reservation. North of the DOE-owned land is an eight acre parcel referred to as the Virginia Associated Research Campus (VARC) which is owned and operated by the Commonwealth of Virginia and leased to Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) which, in turn, subleases five acres of this property to DOE for use in support of the Laboratory. The facility is located on the east side of State Route 143 (Jefferson Avenue), between the intersections of City Center Boulevard and Hogan Drive. The 229 Boundary of this facility is indicated by a combination of main entry signage, chain link fence, and guardrails which surround the facility. [Docket Nos. EL16–6–001; ER16–121–000] SUMMARY: Ms. Tracye M. Baber; Real Estate Contracting Officer; DOE Oak Ridge Office; Post Office Box 2001; Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831; Telephone: (865) 241–5627. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This security boundary is designated pursuant to Section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Issued in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on February 22, 2016. Tracye M. Baber, Real Estate Contracting Officer. BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FR Doc. 2016–04432 Filed 2–29–16; 8:45 am] Notice of 229 Boundary for the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Also Known as Jefferson Lab) AGENCY: Notice of 229 Boundary for the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (also known as Jefferson Lab). ACTION: BILLING CODE 6450–01–P Department of Energy (DOE). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Feb 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments On February 4, 2016, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff conducted a technical conference concerning PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM) existing and proposed Auction Revenue Rights (ARR) and Financial Transmission Rights (FTR) tariff provisions. All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments on PJM’s filings and the topics discussed during the technical conference, including those indicated below. Regarding PJM’s filing and proposed changes, specifically: • Whether PJM’s conservative modeling of outages that limited the allocation of Stage 1B ARRs have resulted in an inequitable cost shift, and please explain why. • PJM proposes to eliminate portfolio netting. Comment on the current practice of netting positively valued FTRs against negatively valued FTRs within an FTR holder’s portfolio. Do the current tariff provisions on netting work to protect the markets against the potential exercise of manipulation, and if so, how? If netting is eliminated and causes the potential for the exercise of manipulation, what measures would need to be put into place to prevent potential market manipulation? Would allocating surplus funds to load rather than to FTR holders, or carrying surplus funds forward to fund any future revenue inadequacy be ways of addressing potential manipulation? • The appropriateness of using the 1.5 percent adder for all zones, regardless of the actual zonal load growth rate and negative load growth projections for some areas; and the appropriateness of conducting the 10year study with different growth rates as a sensitivity study, as is done for other RTEP studies. Is the cost of building transmission as a result of the 1.5 percent adder justified by the benefit of being able to accommodate the current allocations in Stage 1A? Regarding PJM’s proposed solutions in the context of its current tariff, please discuss if there are other solutions to consider. Specifically, please comment on: • If infeasible Stage 1A ARRs should continue to be awarded and treated as they are today. E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM 01MRN1 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 2016 / Notices • The options and implications for, and potential benefits or drawbacks of, ARR allocation based on more frequent updates of the Simultaneous Feasibility Test model, which could, for example, allow for seasonal variations of line ratings, as well as more timely recognition and modeling of transmission outages and upgrades placed into service. • The options to update PJM’s Simultaneous Feasibility Test model, including source points and sink points, to reflect current system usage and topology; concerns about updating the model; the potential benefits or drawbacks for updating the model; and processes for allowing more frequent updates. If the Simultaneous Feasibility Test model were to be updated more frequently, would infeasible ARRs continue to exist? • Whether the incentives for Transmission Owners to schedule outages and conduct timely work align with ARR/FTR construct, and whether there are any proposals that can improve this alignment; and the effectiveness of the current reporting requirements for Transmission Owners to share information with PJM. • Whether continuing to include balancing congestion 1 in the definition of FTRs is appropriate (and why), or whether FTRs should be defined and settled only including day-ahead congestion. Are there any aspect(s) of balancing congestion that should be included in the definition of FTRs, and, if so, what are they and why they should be included? Commenters need not address every question and may provide comments on relevant issues other than those listed above. These comments are due no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on March 15, 2016. Reply comments are due on or before 5:00 p.m. EST on March 29, 2016. The written comments will be included in the formal record for the proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will form the basis for further Commission action. For more information about this Notice, please contact: Pamela Quinlan (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 6179, Pamela.Quinlan@ferc.gov 1 Negative balancing congestion occurs when realtime transmission capacity is less than day-ahead transmission capacity. FTRs are allocated negative balancing congestion charges, which in turn can result in FTR underfunding because the revenues allocated for meeting the FTR funding target amount are decreased. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Feb 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 Kent Carter (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8604, Kent.Carter@ferc.gov Daniel Kheloussi (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6391, Daniel.Kheloussi@ ferc.gov Dated: February 23, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr. Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016–04388 Filed 2–29–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC ; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions, Recommendations, and Prescriptions DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission’s staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of Public Service Company of Colorado, Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., Public Service Company of New Mexico, Arizona Public Service Company, El Paso Electric Company, Black Hills Power, Inc., Black Hills Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, Cheyenne Light, Fuel, & Power Company, Arizona Public Service Company, and NV Energy, Inc.: Regional Stakeholder Meeting February 24, 2016, 1 p.m.–4:30 p.m. (MST) Planning Management Committee Meeting April 5, 2016, 9 a.m.–12 p.m. (PST) The above-referenced meetings will be held at: SRP PERA Club, 1 E. Continental Drive, Tempe, Arizona 85281. The above-referenced meetings will be available via web conference and teleconference. The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders. Further information may be found at https://www.westconnect.com/ index.php. The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceeding: ER16–912, Arizona Public Service Company. Fmt 4703 Dated: February 23, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [Project No. 14677–001] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Frm 00047 For more information contact Nicole Cramer, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502–6775 or nicole.cramer@ferc.gov. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FR Doc. 2016–04387 Filed 2–29–16; 8:45 am] PO 00000 10611 Sfmt 4703 Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. Type of Application: Original License for a Major Water Power Project at an Existing Dam, 5 Megawatts or Less. b. Project No.: 14677–001. c. Date filed: November 23, 2015. d. Applicant: Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC. e. Name of Project: Clark Canyon Dam Hydroelectric Project. f. Location: On the River, in the Town of Dillon, Beaverhead County, Montana. The project would occupy 62.1 acres of land owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and 0.2 acres of land owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). h. Applicant Contact: John Gangemi, (406) 249–3972, email at john.gangemi@ erm.com. i. FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott, (202) 502–6480, email at kelly.wolcott@ ferc.gov. j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 45 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions using the Commission’s eFiling system at https://www.ferc.gov/ docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM 01MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10610-10611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04387]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL16-6-001; ER16-121-000]


PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Inviting Post-Technical 
Conference Comments

    On February 4, 2016, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) staff conducted a technical conference concerning PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C.'s (PJM) existing and proposed Auction Revenue 
Rights (ARR) and Financial Transmission Rights (FTR) tariff provisions. 
All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference 
comments on PJM's filings and the topics discussed during the technical 
conference, including those indicated below.
    Regarding PJM's filing and proposed changes, specifically:
     Whether PJM's conservative modeling of outages that 
limited the allocation of Stage 1B ARRs have resulted in an inequitable 
cost shift, and please explain why.
     PJM proposes to eliminate portfolio netting. Comment on 
the current practice of netting positively valued FTRs against 
negatively valued FTRs within an FTR holder's portfolio. Do the current 
tariff provisions on netting work to protect the markets against the 
potential exercise of manipulation, and if so, how? If netting is 
eliminated and causes the potential for the exercise of manipulation, 
what measures would need to be put into place to prevent potential 
market manipulation? Would allocating surplus funds to load rather than 
to FTR holders, or carrying surplus funds forward to fund any future 
revenue inadequacy be ways of addressing potential manipulation?
     The appropriateness of using the 1.5 percent adder for all 
zones, regardless of the actual zonal load growth rate and negative 
load growth projections for some areas; and the appropriateness of 
conducting the 10-year study with different growth rates as a 
sensitivity study, as is done for other RTEP studies. Is the cost of 
building transmission as a result of the 1.5 percent adder justified by 
the benefit of being able to accommodate the current allocations in 
Stage 1A?
    Regarding PJM's proposed solutions in the context of its current 
tariff, please discuss if there are other solutions to consider. 
Specifically, please comment on:
     If infeasible Stage 1A ARRs should continue to be awarded 
and treated as they are today.

[[Page 10611]]

     The options and implications for, and potential benefits 
or drawbacks of, ARR allocation based on more frequent updates of the 
Simultaneous Feasibility Test model, which could, for example, allow 
for seasonal variations of line ratings, as well as more timely 
recognition and modeling of transmission outages and upgrades placed 
into service.
     The options to update PJM's Simultaneous Feasibility Test 
model, including source points and sink points, to reflect current 
system usage and topology; concerns about updating the model; the 
potential benefits or drawbacks for updating the model; and processes 
for allowing more frequent updates. If the Simultaneous Feasibility 
Test model were to be updated more frequently, would infeasible ARRs 
continue to exist?
     Whether the incentives for Transmission Owners to schedule 
outages and conduct timely work align with ARR/FTR construct, and 
whether there are any proposals that can improve this alignment; and 
the effectiveness of the current reporting requirements for 
Transmission Owners to share information with PJM.
     Whether continuing to include balancing congestion \1\ in 
the definition of FTRs is appropriate (and why), or whether FTRs should 
be defined and settled only including day-ahead congestion. Are there 
any aspect(s) of balancing congestion that should be included in the 
definition of FTRs, and, if so, what are they and why they should be 
included?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Negative balancing congestion occurs when real-time 
transmission capacity is less than day-ahead transmission capacity. 
FTRs are allocated negative balancing congestion charges, which in 
turn can result in FTR underfunding because the revenues allocated 
for meeting the FTR funding target amount are decreased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters need not address every question and may provide comments 
on relevant issues other than those listed above. These comments are 
due no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on March 15, 
2016. Reply comments are due on or before 5:00 p.m. EST on March 29, 
2016. The written comments will be included in the formal record for 
the proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will 
form the basis for further Commission action.
    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

Pamela Quinlan (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market 
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6179, Pamela.Quinlan@ferc.gov
Kent Carter (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-8604, Kent.Carter@ferc.gov
Daniel Kheloussi (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and 
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6391, Daniel.Kheloussi@ferc.gov

    Dated: February 23, 2016.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04387 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.