Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System-Primary Frequency Response: Notice of Request for Supplemental Comments, 40081-40085 [2017-17952]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–2017- 0145/Airspace Docket No. 17–AGL–4.’’ The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA’s Web page at https:// www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ airspace_amendments/. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177. Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7.4-mile radius) of Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI. Airspace redesign is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Burbun VOR, cancellation of the VOR approach and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA’s aeronautical database. This action would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for (RNAV) IFR operations at the airport. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order. Regulatory Notices and Analyses The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Environmental Review This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 40081 Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final regulatory action. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: ■ Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. * * * * * AGL WI E5 Burlington, WI [Amended] Burlington Municipal Airport, WI (Lat. 42°41′27″ N., long. 88°18′17″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Burlington Municipal Airport. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on August 16, 2017. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center. [FR Doc. 2017–17755 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 35 [Docket No. RM16–6–000] Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response: Notice of Request for Supplemental Comments Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for supplemental comments. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1 40082 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that, among other things, proposed to revise the Commission’s regulations to require all newly interconnecting large and small generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install and enable primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection. In this document, the Commission seeks supplemental comments related to whether and when electric storage resources should be required to provide primary frequency response, and the costs associated with primary frequency response capabilities for small generating facilities. DATES: Comments are due September 14, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. RM16–6–000, by any of the following methods: • Electronic filing through https:// www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. • Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments electronically may mail or hand deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jomo Richardson (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6281, Jomo.Richardson@ferc.gov. Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8524, Mark.Bennett@ferc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 1 that proposed to modify the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) and the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA), pursuant to its authority under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure that rates, terms and conditions of jurisdictional service mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.2 As modified, the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA would require all new large and small generating facilities, both synchronous and nonsynchronous, to install, maintain, and operate equipment capable of providing primary frequency response as a condition of interconnection. The Commission also proposed certain operating requirements, including minimum requirements for droop and deadband parameters, and requirements to ensure the timely and sustained response to frequency deviations in the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA. In this document, the Commission seeks supplemental comments related to whether and when electric storage resources should be required to provide primary frequency response, and the costs associated with primary frequency response capabilities for small generating facilities. I. Background 2. Following a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that explored a broad range of issues regarding primary frequency response and the evolving Bulk-Power System,3 the Commission issued the NOPR at issue in this proceeding. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that its proposals address concerns that the existing pro forma LGIA contains only limited primary frequency response requirements, and those requirements only apply to large synchronous generating facilities, and do not reflect recent technological advancements enabling new large and small nonsynchronous generating facilities to install the capability to provide primary frequency response.4 Further, the Commission stated that to avoid establishing new requirements that could be unduly discriminatory or preferential, the proposed reforms would impose comparable primary frequency response requirements on both new large and small generating facilities.5 In addition, the Commission did not propose to: (1) Apply these requirements to generating facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; (2) impose a headroom requirement; or (3) mandate that new generating facilities receive compensation for complying with the proposed requirements, noting that a public utility is not prohibited from 2 16 1 Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 81 FR 85176 (November 25, 2016), 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 (2016) (NOPR). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 U.S.C. 824e (2012). Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Response, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 (2016). 4 NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at PP 2, 11, 13. 5 Id. P 2. 3 Essential PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 filing a proposal for primary frequency response compensation under FPA section 205,6 if it so chooses.7 3. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the proposed requirements will help ensure adequate primary frequency response capability as the resource mix continues to evolve, with fair and consistent treatment for all types of generating facilities, and will help balancing authorities meet their frequency response obligations under NERC Reliability Standard BAL–003– 1.1.8 II. Request for Comments A. Electric Storage Resources 4. The NOPR proposals did not propose provisions specific to electric storage resources. Several commenters raise concerns that, by failing to address electric storage resources’ unique technical attributes, the NOPR requirements could pose an unduly discriminatory burden on electric storage resources. The Energy Storage Association (ESA) asserts that the proposed requirements could result in unique, adverse impacts on electric storage resources. Particularly, ESA states that the proposed use of nameplate capacity as the basis for primary frequency response service and the fact that electric storage resources are capable of operating at the full range of their capacity (i.e., they have no minimum set point) will require storage to provide a ‘‘greater magnitude of [primary frequency response] service than traditional generating facilities.’’ 9 ESA also explains that while traditional generating facilities would have no primary frequency response obligations while offline, electric storage resources are always online, even when not charging or discharging, and under the requirements proposed in the NOPR, they would therefore be required to provide primary frequency response on a more frequent basis than generating facilities that can go offline.10 Further, ESA explains that the optimal depth of discharge differs among various electric storage technologies, and exceeding the optimal depth of discharge accelerates the degradation of the facility and 6 16 U.S.C. 824d (2012). PP 1, 55. 8 Id. P 43. In January 2014, the Commission approved Reliability Standard BAL–003–1 requiring balancing authorities to meet a minimum required Frequency Response Obligation. While Reliability Standard BAL–003–1 establishes requirements for balancing authorities, it does not impose requirements on individual generating facilities. Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting Reliability Standard, Order No. 794, 146 FERC ¶ 61,024 (2014). 9 ESA Comments at 4. 10 Id. at 3–4. 7 Id. E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules increases operations and maintenance costs.11 5. To address its concerns, ESA requests that the Final Rule: (1) Allow electric storage resources to specify a minimum set point for the purposes of primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection; and (2) include inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint that would relieve electric storage resources from the sustained response requirement.12 In the absence of these changes, ESA requests an exemption from the proposed primary frequency response requirements.13 In its comments, AES Companies (AES) seeks a complete exemption from the proposed NOPR requirements for electric storage resources.14 AES also asserts that a droop requirement of five percent would needlessly limit the contribution that electric storage resources that are specifically designed for primary frequency response can make to grid stability.15 6. In light of these concerns, the Commission seeks additional information to better understand the performance characteristics and limitations of electric storage resources, possible ramifications of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources, and what changes, if any, are needed to address the issues raised by ESA and others. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions: 1. Some commenters state that certain proposed requirements are not appropriate for electric storage resources, in particular, certain of the proposed settings related to droop (e.g., basing the droop parameter on nameplate capacity) and the requirement for timely and sustained response to frequency deviations. a. Are there challenges or operational implications (e.g., unusual or excessive wear and tear) of requiring electric storage resources to implement the proposed operating settings for droop (including basing the droop parameter on nameplate capacity), deadband, and timely and sustained response? If so, please provide an explanation, and explain how these challenges are different than those faced by other synchronous and non-synchronous generating facilities. b. Also, please explain whether and how possible impacts of the proposed 11 Id. 12 Id. at 4–5. at 5. 14 AES Comments at 17 and 19 (specifying changes to the proposed pro forma language). 15 Id. at 6–7. 13 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 requirements on electric storage resources vary by their state of charge, and whether those possible impacts are the same or different for all electric storage technologies. If these impacts vary by the type of electric storage technology, please elaborate. c. If the proposed operating settings for droop, deadband, and sustained response would cause any operational or other concerns unique to electric storage resources that would justify different operating settings than those proposed in the NOPR, what minimum requirements for droop, deadband, and timely and sustained response might be more appropriate for the effective provision of primary frequency response from electric storage resources? Or are there parameters other than those discussed in the NOPR (e.g., droop, deadband) that are more applicable to electric storage resources that could be used to accomplish effective timely and sustained primary frequency response? If so, what would those parameters be? 2. Are there risks associated with requiring electric storage resources, which are energy-limited, to provide timely and sustained primary frequency response, such as possible adverse effects on an electric storage resource’s ability to fulfill other obligations (e.g., providing energy or other ancillary services)? 3. Please describe the relationship between electric storage resources being online and the provision of primary frequency response. a. Are electric storage resources that are always online available on a more frequent basis to provide primary frequency response than generating facilities that start-up and shut-down (i.e., go offline)? If so, please elaborate on possible operational or other impacts, if any, that the proposed requirements may have on generating facilities that are always online, as compared to generating facilities that go offline. b. Please discuss whether it is possible to ‘‘turn off’’ an electric storage resource’s primary frequency response capability (i.e., disable the ability to respond to frequency deviations without physically disconnecting from the grid) when the electric storage resource is neither charging nor discharging and not providing other services (e.g., energy or other ancillary services) to the power system. To the extent possible, please explain if this ability would vary by the type of electric storage technology. 4. Please explain what is meant by ‘‘minimum set point’’ and elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 40083 a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or eliminated, if owners/operators of such resources or another entity were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the provision of primary frequency response service? If so, please elaborate. b. Would the primary frequency response requirements proposed in the NOPR result in electric storage resources that have no such minimum set point providing a greater magnitude of primary frequency response for a given frequency deviation than other generating facilities of equal nameplate capacity that have a minimum set point? Please provide an explanation as to why this is or is not the case. c. How and in what ways would the implementation of such a minimum set point change an electric storage resource’s response to frequency deviations, as compared to other generating facilities that do not implement a minimum set point? As part of this explanation, please explain whether the implementation of a minimum set point would: (1) Limit the provision of primary frequency response for electric storage resources to a megawatt (MW) range (i.e., between a minimum value and the nameplate capacity of the electric storage resource); (2) be used in lieu of nameplate capacity as the basis of the droop curve (i.e., reduce the expected proportional MW response to frequency deviations below that of other generating facilities of equivalent nameplate capacity for a given percentage droop (e.g., a 5 percent droop)); or (3) be used in some other way. d. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another entity were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the purposes of primary frequency response: i. How would they determine the appropriate value of the minimum set point for a given electric storage resource? What technical characteristics or economic factors should be considered in establishing a minimum set point for the various types of electric storage resources? ii. Should the minimum set point be static, or dynamic and subject to change based on technical or other factors? If it is subject to change, please explain the factors that would warrant such changes. iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be required to specify in their interconnection agreements the value of the minimum set point and indicate whether it is E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS 40084 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules static or dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided to the relevant balancing authority? 5. Please explain what is meant by ‘‘inadequate state of charge’’ and elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined. a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or eliminated if owners/operators of such resources or another entity were allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an explicit operational constraint relieving electric storage resources from providing sustained response when in that ‘‘inadequate’’ state? If so, please elaborate. b. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another entity were allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint for electric storage resources: i. How would they determine what level of charge is ‘‘inadequate’’ thus preventing electric storage resources from providing sustained primary frequency response output? ii. Should the inadequate state of charge parameter be static, or dynamic and subject to change based on technical or other factors? If it is subject to change, please explain the factors that would warrant such changes. iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be required to specify in their interconnection agreements a parameter for ‘‘inadequate state of charge’’ and indicate whether it is static or dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided to the relevant balancing authority? 6. What impacts, if any, would owners/operators of electric storage resources experience if their resources are not allowed to maintain a specified range of state of charge? a. Is there a certain range of state of charge (expressed as a percentage of total charge) that would enable an electric storage resource to provide primary frequency response without possible adverse impacts? b. Would this range be the same for all electric storage resources, or would it depend on the particular technology of a given electric storage resource and/ or the duration that the resource could sustain its output? c. Are there differences in terms of adverse impacts on an electric storage resource depending on whether its state of charge is low (e.g., five percent remaining charge) or high (e.g., 98 percent remaining charge)? If so, please elaborate. d. To the extent there are adverse impacts, would they differ for different VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 electric storage technologies? If so, please elaborate. 7. In lieu of (1) establishing a minimum set point for electric storage resources and (2) including an inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint, could owners/ operators of all or certain types of electric storage resources or another entity specify an operating range 16 outside of which electric storage resources would not be required to provide and/or sustain primary frequency response to prevent adverse impacts on the electric storage resources? a. Would it be possible to base such an operating range on manufacturer specifications and, if so, would establishing such an operating range potentially address concerns about the harm to the resource, degradation of its useful life, or other potential adverse impacts? b. Would it be possible to specify such an operating range at the time of interconnection and include the operating range in the interconnection agreement? By what means should the operating range be communicated to the relevant balancing authority? 8. Are there other mechanisms or ways to address the concerns raised by ESA and others on the proposed primary frequency response requirements instead of: (1) Establishing a minimum set point and including an inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint; or (2) establishing an operating range as described above. B. Small Generating Facilities 7. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that small generating facilities be subject to new primary frequency response requirements in the pro forma SGIA. The Commission stated that the record indicates that small generating facilities are capable of installing and enabling governors at low cost in a manner comparable to large generating facilities.17 8. Some commenters raise concerns that small generating facilities could face disproportionate costs to install primary frequency response capability.18 For example, the Public Interest Organizations state that the Commission’s discussion of the economic impact on small generating 16 For the purposes of this document, ‘‘operating range’’ is defined as minimum state of charge, maximum state of charge, maximum rate of charge, and maximum rate of discharge. 17 NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 41 (citing IEEE– P1547 Working Group Comments at 1, 5, and 7). 18 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3; NRECA Comments at 8. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 facilities of installing primary frequency response capability is limited, and claims the information in the NOPR does not directly support the Commission’s conclusion that ‘‘small generating facilities are capable of installing and enabling governors at low cost in a manner comparable to large generating facilities.’’ 19 Public Interest Organizations encourage the Commission to further investigate the cost for small renewable energy generating facilities to install frequency response capability before making the proposed revisions to the pro forma SGIA.20 National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) asserts that the record is insufficient to conclude that the proposed primary frequency response capability requirement will not pose an undue burden on smaller generating facilities.21 9. Other commenters request that the Commission consider a size limitation. In particular, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power), NRECA, and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) request the Commission adopt a size limitation for applying the NOPR requirements.22 10. To augment the record regarding the ability of small generating facilities to comply with the proposed primary frequency response requirements, and their potential economic impact, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions: 1. Are the costs for small generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls proportionally comparable to the costs for large generating facilities? If costs are proportionally higher for small generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls, what accounts for these higher costs? Quantify, to the extent possible, any general differences in these costs between small and large generating facilities. 2. If small generating facilities were required to comply with the proposed primary frequency response requirements, do recent technological advances in primary frequency response capability minimize or eliminate possible barriers to entry of small generating facilities? If not, in what specific ways could the proposed requirements be a barrier to entry? Should such negative impacts occur, please discuss means by which the 19 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3 (citing NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 42). 20 Id. at 3–4. 21 NRECA Comments at 8. 22 Idaho Power Comments at 2; NRECA Comments at 8; TVA Comments at 3–4. E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Proposed Rules Commission could potentially mitigate or eliminate them? 3. Is an exemption appropriate for all or a subset of small generating facilities based on possible disproportionate cost impacts of installing the capability to provide primary frequency response? If so, please provide specific cost data demonstrating that is the case. 4. Given their increasing market penetration and operational role in the Bulk-Power System, please discuss the extent to which small generating facilities are necessary to ensure adequate primary frequency response. 5. Please discuss whether PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM’s) recent changes to its interconnection agreements, which require new large and small non-synchronous generating facilities to install enhanced inverters that include primary frequency response capability,23 address concerns regarding possible disproportionate costs or barriers resulting from applying the NOPR proposals to the entire set of small generating facilities. If yes, please discuss the viability of applying PJM’s approach in other regions. mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS III. Comment Procedures 11. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this document to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due September 14, 2017. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16–6–000, and must include the commenter’s name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. 12. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission’s Web site at https://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. 13. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 14. All comments will be placed in the Commission’s public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document 23 See NOPR, 157 FERC ¶ 61,122 at P 42 (citing PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,097, at P 28 (2015)). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. IV. Document Availability 15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC’s Home Page (https:// www.ferc.gov) and in FERC’s Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 16. From FERC’s Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. By direction of the Commission. Issued: August 18, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–17952 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P 40085 proposed rulemaking that appeared in the Federal Register of December 16, 2016. The comment period for the proposed rule published December 16, 2016 at 81 FR 91556 and extended to August 18, 2017 at 82 FR 22452 is reopened until November 16, 2017. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Email: WSRULE2016@ usace.army.mil. Include the docket number, COE–2016–0016, in the subject line of the message. Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECC–L, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G St NW., Washington, DC 20314. Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier. DATES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical information: Jim Fredericks, 503–808–3856. Legal information: Daniel Inkelas, 202–761–0345. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to requests from multiple parties, USACE is extending the time for public comments to November 16, 2017. The date listed in the DATES section by which comments must be received is changed from August 18, 2017 to November 16, 2017. Dated: August 17, 2017. David R. Cooper, Chief Counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. [FR Doc. 2017–17779 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720–58–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 33 CFR Part 209 40 CFR Part 52 [COE–2016–0016] [EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0371; FRL–9966–46– Region 4] RIN 0710–AA72 Use of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Projects for Domestic, Municipal & Industrial Water Supply Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period. AGENCY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is reopening the public comment period for the notice of SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD Replacement Units Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of Alabama’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40081-40085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17952]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM16-6-000]


Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power 
System--Primary Frequency Response: Notice of Request for Supplemental 
Comments

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Request for supplemental comments.

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

[[Page 40082]]

SUMMARY: On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that, among 
other things, proposed to revise the Commission's regulations to 
require all newly interconnecting large and small generating 
facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install and enable 
primary frequency response capability as a condition of 
interconnection. In this document, the Commission seeks supplemental 
comments related to whether and when electric storage resources should 
be required to provide primary frequency response, and the costs 
associated with primary frequency response capabilities for small 
generating facilities.

DATES: Comments are due September 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. RM16-6-
000, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov. Documents 
created electronically using word processing software should be filed 
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned 
format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper 
filing.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments 
electronically may mail or hand deliver comments to: Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Jomo Richardson (Technical Information), Office of Electric 
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6281, Jomo.Richardson@ferc.gov.

    Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-8524, Mark.Bennett@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    1. On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) \1\ that 
proposed to modify the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection 
Agreement (LGIA) and the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection 
Agreement (SGIA), pursuant to its authority under section 206 of the 
Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure that rates, terms and conditions of 
jurisdictional service remain just and reasonable and not unduly 
discriminatory or preferential.\2\ As modified, the pro forma LGIA and 
pro forma SGIA would require all new large and small generating 
facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install, maintain, 
and operate equipment capable of providing primary frequency response 
as a condition of interconnection. The Commission also proposed certain 
operating requirements, including minimum requirements for droop and 
deadband parameters, and requirements to ensure the timely and 
sustained response to frequency deviations in the pro forma LGIA and 
pro forma SGIA. In this document, the Commission seeks supplemental 
comments related to whether and when electric storage resources should 
be required to provide primary frequency response, and the costs 
associated with primary frequency response capabilities for small 
generating facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power 
System--Primary Frequency Response, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
81 FR 85176 (November 25, 2016), 157 FERC ] 61,122 (2016) (NOPR).
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Following a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that explored a broad range 
of issues regarding primary frequency response and the evolving Bulk-
Power System,\3\ the Commission issued the NOPR at issue in this 
proceeding. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that its proposals 
address concerns that the existing pro forma LGIA contains only limited 
primary frequency response requirements, and those requirements only 
apply to large synchronous generating facilities, and do not reflect 
recent technological advancements enabling new large and small non-
synchronous generating facilities to install the capability to provide 
primary frequency response.\4\ Further, the Commission stated that to 
avoid establishing new requirements that could be unduly discriminatory 
or preferential, the proposed reforms would impose comparable primary 
frequency response requirements on both new large and small generating 
facilities.\5\ In addition, the Commission did not propose to: (1) 
Apply these requirements to generating facilities regulated by the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; (2) impose a headroom requirement; or 
(3) mandate that new generating facilities receive compensation for 
complying with the proposed requirements, noting that a public utility 
is not prohibited from filing a proposal for primary frequency response 
compensation under FPA section 205,\6\ if it so chooses.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power 
System--Primary Frequency Response, 154 FERC ] 61,117 (2016).
    \4\ NOPR, 157 FERC ] 61,122 at PP 2, 11, 13.
    \5\ Id. P 2.
    \6\ 16 U.S.C. 824d (2012).
    \7\ Id. PP 1, 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the proposed 
requirements will help ensure adequate primary frequency response 
capability as the resource mix continues to evolve, with fair and 
consistent treatment for all types of generating facilities, and will 
help balancing authorities meet their frequency response obligations 
under NERC Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. P 43. In January 2014, the Commission approved 
Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 requiring balancing authorities to 
meet a minimum required Frequency Response Obligation. While 
Reliability Standard BAL-003-1 establishes requirements for 
balancing authorities, it does not impose requirements on individual 
generating facilities. Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting 
Reliability Standard, Order No. 794, 146 FERC ] 61,024 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Request for Comments

A. Electric Storage Resources

    4. The NOPR proposals did not propose provisions specific to 
electric storage resources. Several commenters raise concerns that, by 
failing to address electric storage resources' unique technical 
attributes, the NOPR requirements could pose an unduly discriminatory 
burden on electric storage resources. The Energy Storage Association 
(ESA) asserts that the proposed requirements could result in unique, 
adverse impacts on electric storage resources. Particularly, ESA states 
that the proposed use of nameplate capacity as the basis for primary 
frequency response service and the fact that electric storage resources 
are capable of operating at the full range of their capacity (i.e., 
they have no minimum set point) will require storage to provide a 
``greater magnitude of [primary frequency response] service than 
traditional generating facilities.'' \9\ ESA also explains that while 
traditional generating facilities would have no primary frequency 
response obligations while offline, electric storage resources are 
always online, even when not charging or discharging, and under the 
requirements proposed in the NOPR, they would therefore be required to 
provide primary frequency response on a more frequent basis than 
generating facilities that can go offline.\10\ Further, ESA explains 
that the optimal depth of discharge differs among various electric 
storage technologies, and exceeding the optimal depth of discharge 
accelerates the degradation of the facility and

[[Page 40083]]

increases operations and maintenance costs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ESA Comments at 4.
    \10\ Id. at 3-4.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. To address its concerns, ESA requests that the Final Rule: (1) 
Allow electric storage resources to specify a minimum set point for the 
purposes of primary frequency response capability as a condition of 
interconnection; and (2) include inadequate state of charge as an 
operational constraint that would relieve electric storage resources 
from the sustained response requirement.\12\ In the absence of these 
changes, ESA requests an exemption from the proposed primary frequency 
response requirements.\13\ In its comments, AES Companies (AES) seeks a 
complete exemption from the proposed NOPR requirements for electric 
storage resources.\14\ AES also asserts that a droop requirement of 
five percent would needlessly limit the contribution that electric 
storage resources that are specifically designed for primary frequency 
response can make to grid stability.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 4-5.
    \13\ Id. at 5.
    \14\ AES Comments at 17 and 19 (specifying changes to the 
proposed pro forma language).
    \15\ Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In light of these concerns, the Commission seeks additional 
information to better understand the performance characteristics and 
limitations of electric storage resources, possible ramifications of 
the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric 
storage resources, and what changes, if any, are needed to address the 
issues raised by ESA and others. Accordingly, the Commission seeks 
comment on the following questions:
    1. Some commenters state that certain proposed requirements are not 
appropriate for electric storage resources, in particular, certain of 
the proposed settings related to droop (e.g., basing the droop 
parameter on nameplate capacity) and the requirement for timely and 
sustained response to frequency deviations.
    a. Are there challenges or operational implications (e.g., unusual 
or excessive wear and tear) of requiring electric storage resources to 
implement the proposed operating settings for droop (including basing 
the droop parameter on nameplate capacity), deadband, and timely and 
sustained response? If so, please provide an explanation, and explain 
how these challenges are different than those faced by other 
synchronous and non-synchronous generating facilities.
    b. Also, please explain whether and how possible impacts of the 
proposed requirements on electric storage resources vary by their state 
of charge, and whether those possible impacts are the same or different 
for all electric storage technologies. If these impacts vary by the 
type of electric storage technology, please elaborate.
    c. If the proposed operating settings for droop, deadband, and 
sustained response would cause any operational or other concerns unique 
to electric storage resources that would justify different operating 
settings than those proposed in the NOPR, what minimum requirements for 
droop, deadband, and timely and sustained response might be more 
appropriate for the effective provision of primary frequency response 
from electric storage resources? Or are there parameters other than 
those discussed in the NOPR (e.g., droop, deadband) that are more 
applicable to electric storage resources that could be used to 
accomplish effective timely and sustained primary frequency response? 
If so, what would those parameters be?
    2. Are there risks associated with requiring electric storage 
resources, which are energy-limited, to provide timely and sustained 
primary frequency response, such as possible adverse effects on an 
electric storage resource's ability to fulfill other obligations (e.g., 
providing energy or other ancillary services)?
    3. Please describe the relationship between electric storage 
resources being online and the provision of primary frequency response.
    a. Are electric storage resources that are always online available 
on a more frequent basis to provide primary frequency response than 
generating facilities that start-up and shut-down (i.e., go offline)? 
If so, please elaborate on possible operational or other impacts, if 
any, that the proposed requirements may have on generating facilities 
that are always online, as compared to generating facilities that go 
offline.
    b. Please discuss whether it is possible to ``turn off'' an 
electric storage resource's primary frequency response capability 
(i.e., disable the ability to respond to frequency deviations without 
physically disconnecting from the grid) when the electric storage 
resource is neither charging nor discharging and not providing other 
services (e.g., energy or other ancillary services) to the power 
system. To the extent possible, please explain if this ability would 
vary by the type of electric storage technology.
    4. Please explain what is meant by ``minimum set point'' and 
elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined.
    a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency 
response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or 
eliminated, if owners/operators of such resources or another entity 
were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the provision of 
primary frequency response service? If so, please elaborate.
    b. Would the primary frequency response requirements proposed in 
the NOPR result in electric storage resources that have no such minimum 
set point providing a greater magnitude of primary frequency response 
for a given frequency deviation than other generating facilities of 
equal nameplate capacity that have a minimum set point? Please provide 
an explanation as to why this is or is not the case.
    c. How and in what ways would the implementation of such a minimum 
set point change an electric storage resource's response to frequency 
deviations, as compared to other generating facilities that do not 
implement a minimum set point? As part of this explanation, please 
explain whether the implementation of a minimum set point would: (1) 
Limit the provision of primary frequency response for electric storage 
resources to a megawatt (MW) range (i.e., between a minimum value and 
the nameplate capacity of the electric storage resource); (2) be used 
in lieu of nameplate capacity as the basis of the droop curve (i.e., 
reduce the expected proportional MW response to frequency deviations 
below that of other generating facilities of equivalent nameplate 
capacity for a given percentage droop (e.g., a 5 percent droop)); or 
(3) be used in some other way.
    d. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another 
entity were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the purposes 
of primary frequency response:
    i. How would they determine the appropriate value of the minimum 
set point for a given electric storage resource? What technical 
characteristics or economic factors should be considered in 
establishing a minimum set point for the various types of electric 
storage resources?
    ii. Should the minimum set point be static, or dynamic and subject 
to change based on technical or other factors? If it is subject to 
change, please explain the factors that would warrant such changes.
    iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be 
required to specify in their interconnection agreements the value of 
the minimum set point and indicate whether it is

[[Page 40084]]

static or dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided 
to the relevant balancing authority?
    5. Please explain what is meant by ``inadequate state of charge'' 
and elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined.
    a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency 
response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or 
eliminated if owners/operators of such resources or another entity were 
allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an explicit operational 
constraint relieving electric storage resources from providing 
sustained response when in that ``inadequate'' state? If so, please 
elaborate.
    b. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another 
entity were allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an 
operational constraint for electric storage resources:
    i. How would they determine what level of charge is ``inadequate'' 
thus preventing electric storage resources from providing sustained 
primary frequency response output?
    ii. Should the inadequate state of charge parameter be static, or 
dynamic and subject to change based on technical or other factors? If 
it is subject to change, please explain the factors that would warrant 
such changes.
    iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be 
required to specify in their interconnection agreements a parameter for 
``inadequate state of charge'' and indicate whether it is static or 
dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided to the 
relevant balancing authority?
    6. What impacts, if any, would owners/operators of electric storage 
resources experience if their resources are not allowed to maintain a 
specified range of state of charge?
    a. Is there a certain range of state of charge (expressed as a 
percentage of total charge) that would enable an electric storage 
resource to provide primary frequency response without possible adverse 
impacts?
    b. Would this range be the same for all electric storage resources, 
or would it depend on the particular technology of a given electric 
storage resource and/or the duration that the resource could sustain 
its output?
    c. Are there differences in terms of adverse impacts on an electric 
storage resource depending on whether its state of charge is low (e.g., 
five percent remaining charge) or high (e.g., 98 percent remaining 
charge)? If so, please elaborate.
    d. To the extent there are adverse impacts, would they differ for 
different electric storage technologies? If so, please elaborate.
    7. In lieu of (1) establishing a minimum set point for electric 
storage resources and (2) including an inadequate state of charge as an 
operational constraint, could owners/operators of all or certain types 
of electric storage resources or another entity specify an operating 
range \16\ outside of which electric storage resources would not be 
required to provide and/or sustain primary frequency response to 
prevent adverse impacts on the electric storage resources?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For the purposes of this document, ``operating range'' is 
defined as minimum state of charge, maximum state of charge, maximum 
rate of charge, and maximum rate of discharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Would it be possible to base such an operating range on 
manufacturer specifications and, if so, would establishing such an 
operating range potentially address concerns about the harm to the 
resource, degradation of its useful life, or other potential adverse 
impacts?
    b. Would it be possible to specify such an operating range at the 
time of interconnection and include the operating range in the 
interconnection agreement? By what means should the operating range be 
communicated to the relevant balancing authority?
    8. Are there other mechanisms or ways to address the concerns 
raised by ESA and others on the proposed primary frequency response 
requirements instead of: (1) Establishing a minimum set point and 
including an inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint; 
or (2) establishing an operating range as described above.

B. Small Generating Facilities

    7. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that small generating 
facilities be subject to new primary frequency response requirements in 
the pro forma SGIA. The Commission stated that the record indicates 
that small generating facilities are capable of installing and enabling 
governors at low cost in a manner comparable to large generating 
facilities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NOPR, 157 FERC ] 61,122 at P 41 (citing IEEE-P1547 Working 
Group Comments at 1, 5, and 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Some commenters raise concerns that small generating facilities 
could face disproportionate costs to install primary frequency response 
capability.\18\ For example, the Public Interest Organizations state 
that the Commission's discussion of the economic impact on small 
generating facilities of installing primary frequency response 
capability is limited, and claims the information in the NOPR does not 
directly support the Commission's conclusion that ``small generating 
facilities are capable of installing and enabling governors at low cost 
in a manner comparable to large generating facilities.'' \19\ Public 
Interest Organizations encourage the Commission to further investigate 
the cost for small renewable energy generating facilities to install 
frequency response capability before making the proposed revisions to 
the pro forma SGIA.\20\ National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 
(NRECA) asserts that the record is insufficient to conclude that the 
proposed primary frequency response capability requirement will not 
pose an undue burden on smaller generating facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3; NRECA Comments 
at 8.
    \19\ Public Interest Organizations Comments at 3 (citing NOPR, 
157 FERC ] 61,122 at P 42).
    \20\ Id. at 3-4.
    \21\ NRECA Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Other commenters request that the Commission consider a size 
limitation. In particular, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power), NRECA, 
and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) request the Commission adopt a 
size limitation for applying the NOPR requirements.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Idaho Power Comments at 2; NRECA Comments at 8; TVA 
Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. To augment the record regarding the ability of small generating 
facilities to comply with the proposed primary frequency response 
requirements, and their potential economic impact, the Commission seeks 
comment on the following questions:
    1. Are the costs for small generating facilities to install, 
maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls proportionally 
comparable to the costs for large generating facilities? If costs are 
proportionally higher for small generating facilities to install, 
maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls, what accounts 
for these higher costs? Quantify, to the extent possible, any general 
differences in these costs between small and large generating 
facilities.
    2. If small generating facilities were required to comply with the 
proposed primary frequency response requirements, do recent 
technological advances in primary frequency response capability 
minimize or eliminate possible barriers to entry of small generating 
facilities? If not, in what specific ways could the proposed 
requirements be a barrier to entry? Should such negative impacts occur, 
please discuss means by which the

[[Page 40085]]

Commission could potentially mitigate or eliminate them?
    3. Is an exemption appropriate for all or a subset of small 
generating facilities based on possible disproportionate cost impacts 
of installing the capability to provide primary frequency response? If 
so, please provide specific cost data demonstrating that is the case.
    4. Given their increasing market penetration and operational role 
in the Bulk-Power System, please discuss the extent to which small 
generating facilities are necessary to ensure adequate primary 
frequency response.
    5. Please discuss whether PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s (PJM's) 
recent changes to its interconnection agreements, which require new 
large and small non-synchronous generating facilities to install 
enhanced inverters that include primary frequency response 
capability,\23\ address concerns regarding possible disproportionate 
costs or barriers resulting from applying the NOPR proposals to the 
entire set of small generating facilities. If yes, please discuss the 
viability of applying PJM's approach in other regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NOPR, 157 FERC ] 61,122 at P 42 (citing PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ] 61,097, at P 28 (2015)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Procedures

    11. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on 
the matters and issues proposed in this document to be adopted, 
including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters 
may wish to discuss. Comments are due September 14, 2017. Comments must 
refer to Docket No. RM16-6-000, and must include the commenter's name, 
the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in 
their comments.
    12. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically 
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at https://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing 
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing 
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format 
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not 
need to make a paper filing.
    13. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically 
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    14. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files 
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the 
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are 
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

    15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
Internet through FERC's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's 
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 
20426.
    16. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is 
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on 
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or 
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket 
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket 
number field.
    17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web 
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at 
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at 
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: August 18, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17952 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.