State Policies and Wholesale Markets Operated by ISO New England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments, 24966-24967 [2017-11199]

Download as PDF 24966 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 31, 2017 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RD16–9–000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC–725v); Comment Request; Revision Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of revised information collection and request for comments. AGENCY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) on December 1, 2016 issued a 60day Notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments on FERC– 725V (Mandatory Reliability Standards: COM Reliability Standards) which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection requirements. The Commission received no comments on the FERC–725V and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB. In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commission is submitting the FERC–725V to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. DATES: Comments on the FERC–725V are due by June 30, 2017. ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902–0277 (FERC–725V), should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at: oira_ submission@omb.gov, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. RD16–9–000, by either of the following methods: • eFiling at Commission’s Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ efiling.asp • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http:// www.ferc.gov/help/submissionguide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or by phone nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:54 May 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 at: (866) 208–3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502–8659 for TTY. Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/docs-filing.asp. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at DataClearance@FERC.gov, telephone at (202) 502–8663, and fax at (202) 273– 0873. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: FERC–725V, Mandatory Reliability Standards: COM Reliability Standards. OMB Control No.: 1902–0277. Type of Request: Extension of the FERC–725V information collection requirements. Abstract: On August 15, 2016, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) filed a petition for Commission approval, pursuant to section 215(d)(1) of the Federal Power Act (‘‘FPA’’) 1 and Section 39.5 2 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s regulations, for approval of proposed Reliability Standard COM– 001–3 (Communications), the associated Implementation Plan, retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standard COM–001–2.1, and Violation Risk Factors (‘‘VRFs’’) and Violation Severity Levels (‘‘VSLs’’) associated with new Requirements R12 and R13 proposed in Reliability Standard COM–001–3. Proposed Reliability Standard COM– 001–3 reflects revisions developed under Project 2015–07 Internal Communications Capabilities, in compliance with the Commission’s directive in Order No. 888 that NERC ‘‘develop modifications to COM–001–2, or develop a new standard, to address [the Commission’s] concerns regarding ensuring the adequacy of internal communications capability whenever internal communications could directly affect the reliability operations of the Bulk-Power System. On October 28, 2016, NERC’s uncontested petition was approved pursuant to the relevant authority delegated to the Director, Office of Electric Reliability under 18 CFR 375.303(2016), effective as of July 1, 2016.3 Type of Respondents: Public utilities. Estimate of Annual Burden 4: With respect to the proposed revisions to 1 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012). 2 18 CFR 39.5 (2011). 3 https://elibrary-backup.ferc.gov/IDMWS/ common/opennat.asp?fileID=14386228 4 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Reliability Standard COM–001–3 and the retirement of the currently-effective Reliability Standard COM–001–2.1, the Commission estimates that there will be no material change in industry information collection obligations because the Requirements R12 and R13 (which are additions to COM–001–3) do not impact the paperwork burden of impacted registered entities. Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Dated: May 24, 2017 . Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–11198 Filed 5–30–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD17–11–000] State Policies and Wholesale Markets Operated by ISO New England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments On May 1 and May 2, 2017, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff convened a technical conference to discuss the interplay between state policy goals and the wholesale markets 1 operated by ISO New England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Eastern RTOs/ISOs). All interested persons are invited to file initial and reply post-technical conference comments on the topics discussed during the technical generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references herein to wholesale markets refer to the capacity, energy, and ancillary services markets. E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1 nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 31, 2017 / Notices conference, including the questions listed in the Supplemental Notice issued in this proceeding on April 28, 2017. In order to provide structure to the technical conference discussion, staff identified the following potential paths forward with respect to the interplay between state policy goals and the wholesale markets: • Path 1—Limited or No Minimum Offer Price Rule: An approach that would either not apply the minimum offer price rule to state-supported resources, or limit application of the minimum offer price rule to only statesupported resources where federal law preempts the state action providing that support. • Path 2—Accommodation of State Actions: An approach that would accommodate state policies that provide out-of-market support with the operation of the wholesale markets by allowing state-supported resources to participate in those markets and, when relevant, obtain capacity supply obligations, subject to adjustments necessary to maintain certain wholesale market prices consistent with the market results that would have been produced had those resources not been state-supported. • Path 3—Status Quo: An approach that would rely on existing tariff provisions applying the minimum offer price rule to some state-supported resources, and continuing case-by-case litigation over the specific line to be drawn between categories of state actions that may, or may not, result in a state-supported resource being subject to the minimum offer price rule. • Path 4—Pricing State Policy Choices: An approach in which state policies, to the extent possible, would value the attributes (e.g., resilience) or externalities (e.g., carbon emissions) that states are targeting in a manner that can be readily integrated into the wholesale markets in a resource-neutral way. For those state policies that cannot be readily valued and integrated into the wholesale markets, Path 4 would also require consideration of what, if anything, the Commission should do to address the market impacts of these state policies. For instance, other approaches for these state policies may include accommodation, application of the minimum offer price rule, or an exemption from the minimum offer price rule. • Path 5—Expanded Minimum Offer Price Rule: An approach that would minimize the impact of state-supported resources on wholesale market prices by expanding the existing scope of the minimum offer price rule to apply to VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:54 May 30, 2017 Jkt 241001 both new and existing capacity resources that participate in the capacity market and receive state support. Commenters are invited to address these paths, to describe alternative potential paths forward in the wholesale markets, or to describe individual solutions. Commenters are encouraged to discuss the following with regard to any approach: (1) Any centralized wholesale market changes (at a conceptual level) that would need to accompany implementation of a particular approach; (2) the feasibility of implementation; (3) the implications for market participants’ ability to make long-term decisions; and (4) the nearterm and long-term sustainability. In addition, Commission staff is interested in comments on the following topics: 1. The principles and objectives that should guide the selection of a path forward, as well as the principles and objectives that should guide rule changes that would be required by their suggested approach. 2. The degree of urgency for reconciling wholesale markets and state policies and if that urgency necessitates both a near-term (e.g., next one to three years) approach and a different longterm approach. To the extent commenters advocate for different nearterm and long-term solutions, please explain what type of transition is needed and why, and how the suggested near-term approach will facilitate achievement of the suggested long-term approach. 3. Long-term expectations regarding the relative roles of wholesale energy and capacity markets and state policies in the Eastern RTOs/ISOs in shaping the quantity and composition of resources needed to cost-effectively meet future reliability and operational needs. 4. What procedural steps the Commission should take, if any, to reconcile the competitive market framework with the increasing interest by states to support particular resources and resource attributes that might facilitate such reconciliation. Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket, including the technical conference transcript, but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material. Initial and reply comments must be submitted on or before 30 days and 45 days, respectively, from the date of this notice. Initial comments should not exceed 15 pages and reply comments should not exceed 10 pages. For further information please contact individuals identified for each topic: Technical Information: Amr Ibrahim, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24967 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6746, amr.ibrahim@ ferc.gov. Legal Information: Gretchen Kershaw, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8213, gretchen.kershaw@ ferc.gov. Dated: May 23, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–11199 Filed 5–30–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES [Public Notice: 2017–6002] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request Export-Import Bank of the United States. ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request. AGENCY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. By neutralizing the effect of export credit support offered by foreign governments and by absorbing credit risks that the private sector will not accept, Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. exporters to compete fairly in foreign markets on the basis of price and product. Under the Working Capital Guarantee Program, Ex-Im Bank provides repayment guarantees to lenders on secured, short-term working capital loans made to qualified exporters. The guarantee may be approved for a single loan or a revolving line of credit. In the event that a borrower defaults on a transaction guaranteed by Ex-Im Bank the guaranteed lender may seek payment by the submission of a claim. This collection of information is necessary to determine if such claim complies with the terms and conditions of the relevant working capital guarantee. The Notice of Claim and Proof of Loss, Working Capital Guarantee is used to determine compliance with the terms of the guarantee and the appropriateness of paying a claim. Export-Import Bank SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM 31MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24966-24967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11199]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD17-11-000]


State Policies and Wholesale Markets Operated by ISO New England 
Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference 
Comments

    On May 1 and May 2, 2017, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) staff convened a technical conference to discuss the 
interplay between state policy goals and the wholesale markets \1\ 
operated by ISO New England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, 
Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Eastern RTOs/ISOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unless otherwise indicated, all references herein to 
wholesale markets refer to the capacity, energy, and ancillary 
services markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All interested persons are invited to file initial and reply post-
technical conference comments on the topics discussed during the 
technical

[[Page 24967]]

conference, including the questions listed in the Supplemental Notice 
issued in this proceeding on April 28, 2017.
    In order to provide structure to the technical conference 
discussion, staff identified the following potential paths forward with 
respect to the interplay between state policy goals and the wholesale 
markets:
     Path 1--Limited or No Minimum Offer Price Rule: An 
approach that would either not apply the minimum offer price rule to 
state-supported resources, or limit application of the minimum offer 
price rule to only state-supported resources where federal law preempts 
the state action providing that support.
     Path 2--Accommodation of State Actions: An approach that 
would accommodate state policies that provide out-of-market support 
with the operation of the wholesale markets by allowing state-supported 
resources to participate in those markets and, when relevant, obtain 
capacity supply obligations, subject to adjustments necessary to 
maintain certain wholesale market prices consistent with the market 
results that would have been produced had those resources not been 
state-supported.
     Path 3--Status Quo: An approach that would rely on 
existing tariff provisions applying the minimum offer price rule to 
some state-supported resources, and continuing case-by-case litigation 
over the specific line to be drawn between categories of state actions 
that may, or may not, result in a state-supported resource being 
subject to the minimum offer price rule.
     Path 4--Pricing State Policy Choices: An approach in which 
state policies, to the extent possible, would value the attributes 
(e.g., resilience) or externalities (e.g., carbon emissions) that 
states are targeting in a manner that can be readily integrated into 
the wholesale markets in a resource-neutral way. For those state 
policies that cannot be readily valued and integrated into the 
wholesale markets, Path 4 would also require consideration of what, if 
anything, the Commission should do to address the market impacts of 
these state policies. For instance, other approaches for these state 
policies may include accommodation, application of the minimum offer 
price rule, or an exemption from the minimum offer price rule.
     Path 5--Expanded Minimum Offer Price Rule: An approach 
that would minimize the impact of state-supported resources on 
wholesale market prices by expanding the existing scope of the minimum 
offer price rule to apply to both new and existing capacity resources 
that participate in the capacity market and receive state support.
    Commenters are invited to address these paths, to describe 
alternative potential paths forward in the wholesale markets, or to 
describe individual solutions. Commenters are encouraged to discuss the 
following with regard to any approach: (1) Any centralized wholesale 
market changes (at a conceptual level) that would need to accompany 
implementation of a particular approach; (2) the feasibility of 
implementation; (3) the implications for market participants' ability 
to make long-term decisions; and (4) the near-term and long-term 
sustainability.
    In addition, Commission staff is interested in comments on the 
following topics:
    1. The principles and objectives that should guide the selection of 
a path forward, as well as the principles and objectives that should 
guide rule changes that would be required by their suggested approach.
    2. The degree of urgency for reconciling wholesale markets and 
state policies and if that urgency necessitates both a near-term (e.g., 
next one to three years) approach and a different long-term approach. 
To the extent commenters advocate for different near-term and long-term 
solutions, please explain what type of transition is needed and why, 
and how the suggested near-term approach will facilitate achievement of 
the suggested long-term approach.
    3. Long-term expectations regarding the relative roles of wholesale 
energy and capacity markets and state policies in the Eastern RTOs/ISOs 
in shaping the quantity and composition of resources needed to cost-
effectively meet future reliability and operational needs.
    4. What procedural steps the Commission should take, if any, to 
reconcile the competitive market framework with the increasing interest 
by states to support particular resources and resource attributes that 
might facilitate such reconciliation.
    Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket, 
including the technical conference transcript, but are encouraged to 
avoid repetition or replication of previous material. Initial and reply 
comments must be submitted on or before 30 days and 45 days, 
respectively, from the date of this notice. Initial comments should not 
exceed 15 pages and reply comments should not exceed 10 pages.
    For further information please contact individuals identified for 
each topic:
    Technical Information: Amr Ibrahim, Office of Energy Policy and 
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6746, amr.ibrahim@ferc.gov.
    Legal Information: Gretchen Kershaw, Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-8213, gretchen.kershaw@ferc.gov.

    Dated: May 23, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11199 Filed 5-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P