80 FR 26020 - PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 87 (May 6, 2015)

Page Range		26020-26021
FR Document		2015-10559

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26020-26021]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10559]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-37-000]


PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice Inviting Post-Technical 
Conference Comments

    On January 7, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) staff conducted a technical conference to evaluate 
whether: (1) PJM Interconnection, LLC's (PJM) Financial Transmission 
Rights (FTR) forfeiture rules as they apply to virtual transactions, 
including Up-to Congestion (UTC) transactions and INC/DEC transactions, 
are just and reasonable; and (2) PJM's current uplift allocation rules 
associated with UTC transactions and INCs/DECs are just and reasonable.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical 
conference comments on any or all of the questions listed in the 
attachment to this Notice. These comments must be filed with the 
Commission no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 29, 2015.
    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

Carmen Gastilo Machuga (Legal Information), Office of the General 
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8657, [email protected].

Elizabeth Topping (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and 
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426 (202) 502-6731, [email protected].

Cathleen Colbert (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-8997, [email protected].

    Dated: April 29, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment

    In addition to any further responses to the questions posed in the 
Commission Staff's December 10, 2014 Supplemental Notice of Technical 
Conference,\1\ Commission Staff seeks responses to the following 
questions. Parties submitting comments need not respond to each 
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Supplemental Notice of 
Technical Conference, Docket No. EL14-37-000 (December 10, 2014). 
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13707421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) FTR Forfeiture Rule

    (a) When calculating the contribution a virtual transaction (INC, 
DEC, or UTC) has to power flowing across a given constraint, how should 
the injection/withdrawal points for the virtual transaction be 
identified? Should the defined ``worst case'' node be limited to the 
market participant's own transactions? Additionally, should the impact 
threshold(s) used for triggering the forfeiture rule remain at 75 
percent regardless of the injection/withdrawal points identified? Why 
or why not?
    (b) As an alternative to the current approach of assessing one 
virtual transaction at a time, should the FTR forfeiture rule 
collectively assess the net impact of a market participant's entire 
portfolio of INCs, DECs, and UTCs? Should it assess the net impact of 
all virtual transactions that clear the market? In addition to virtual 
transactions, should a market participant's portfolio of physical 
transactions be considered? Why or why not? If a portfolio approach 
were adopted, should the impact threshold(s) continue to be 75 percent, 
as used in the past, or is a different threshold(s) more appropriate? 
How could a portfolio approach be implemented?
    (c) Should counter-flow FTRs and bids that relieve congestion 
remain exempt from FTR forfeiture rule calculations? Should financial 
transactions that improve day-ahead and real-time market price 
convergence be exempt from the forfeiture rule? Why or why not? How, if 
at all, would these exemptions differ when assessing the impact of a 
market participant's portfolio as opposed to one INC, DEC, or UTC at a 
time? Are there any other currently exempt financial transactions that 
should be subject to FTR forfeiture calculations?
    (d) Should the application of the forfeiture rule to INCs, DECs and 
UTCs be revised in ways not addressed by these questions, and if so, 
describe in detail the proposed revision and justification for the 
change.
    (e) If you believe that changes to the current FTR Forfeiture Rule 
provisions of PJM's tariff are necessary, propose appropriate tariff 
language that you believe addresses your concern.

(2) Uplift

    (a) Should UTCs be assessed uplift? Explain why or why not. If so, 
how, if at all, should this allocation differ from the allocation to 
individual INCs and DECs and ``paired'' INCs and DECs? Should INCs and 
DECs continue to be required to pay uplift charges? What effect does 
imposing these charges have on the ability of virtual traders to 
arbitrage day-ahead and real-time price differences?
    (b) Do UTCs impact unit commitment decisions? If so, how? Several 
views were expressed during the conference. For example, one panelist 
cited PJM documentation stating that UTCs are not included in 
commitment decisions.\2\ Other panelists expressed the view that both 
``paired'' INCs and DECs and UTC's impact unit commitment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ January 7, 2015 Presentation of Wesley Allen, ``Incremental 
Offers, Decrement Bids & Up To Congestion.'' at pp 4-5.
    \3\ January 7, 2015 Technical Conference on Financial 
Transactions in PJM, Transcript 240:15-241:4 (Adam Keech); Id. at 
242: 14-16 (Joseph Bowring).

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

[[Page 26021]]

    (c) Should market participants be allowed to net INC and DEC 
transactions for the purpose of uplift allocations? Why or why not? If 
yes, should netting within a market participant's portfolio (intra-
market participant) be allowed or should market-wide (inter-market 
participant) netting be allowed? Should physical assets be included in 
the netting process? Please discuss the advantages and disadvantages to 
both approaches.
    (d) Are there other cost-causation approaches that should be 
considered? What advantages, disadvantages, and operational challenges 
would be associated with implementing such approaches in PJM?
    (e) If virtual transactions are assessed uplift, should the uplift 
be designed as a fixed amount known in advance to permit the traders to 
assess the costs of the trade versus the potential arbitrage 
differences between day-ahead and real-time?
    (f) If you believe that changes to the current Uplift provisions of 
PJM's tariff are necessary, propose appropriate tariff language that 
you believe addresses your concern.

[FR Doc. 2015-10559 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

26020 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Notices

In its prior notice request filed on transactions and INCs/DECs are just and impact of a market participant’s entire
January 20, 2015 (in Docket No. CP15– reasonable. portfolio of INCs, DECs, and UTCs?
61–000) and noticed on January 30, All interested persons are invited to Should it assess the net impact of all
2015,1 Northern Natural Gas Company file post-technical conference comments virtual transactions that clear the
(Northern) proposed to construct and on any or all of the questions listed in market? In addition to virtual
abandon facilities in Clark and the attachment to this Notice. These transactions, should a market
Codington Counties, South Dakota. comments must be filed with the participant’s portfolio of physical
Protestor protested the prior notice Commission no later than 5:00 p.m. transactions be considered? Why or why
because the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of Eastern Time on May 29, 2015. not? If a portfolio approach were
the Lake Traverse Reservation indicated For more information about this adopted, should the impact threshold(s)
that it would be necessary to conduct a Notice, please contact: continue to be 75 percent, as used in the
Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) Carmen Gastilo Machuga (Legal past, or is a different threshold(s) more
survey to ensure that no TCPs would be Information), Office of the General appropriate? How could a portfolio
affected by construction. Northern had Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory approach be implemented?
not provided the results of the TCP Commission, 888 First Street NE., (c) Should counter-flow FTRs and
survey and/or updated communication Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– bids that relieve congestion remain
with the tribe to ensure the project’s 8657, carmen.gastilo@ferc.gov. exempt from FTR forfeiture rule
compliance with the National Historic calculations? Should financial
Elizabeth Topping (Technical transactions that improve day-ahead
Preservation Act, as required under Information), Office of Energy Policy
Appendix II to Subpart F of Part 157 of and real-time market price convergence
and Innovation, Federal Energy be exempt from the forfeiture rule? Why
the Commission’s regulations. Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Subsequent to the filing of the protest, or why not? How, if at all, would these
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 exemptions differ when assessing the
Northern submitted communication (202) 502–6731, elizabeth.topping@
from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of impact of a market participant’s
ferc.gov. portfolio as opposed to one INC, DEC,
the Lake Traverse Reservation that
stated the project would have no effect Cathleen Colbert (Technical or UTC at a time? Are there any other
on historic resources, and revised Information), Office of Enforcement, currently exempt financial transactions
alignment sheets to show the revised Federal Energy Regulatory that should be subject to FTR forfeiture
workspace to avoid the TCP site. Thus, Commission, 888 First Street NE., calculations?
Protestor’s environmental concern has Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– (d) Should the application of the
been satisfied. Accordingly, Protestor 8997, cathleen.colbert@ferc.gov. forfeiture rule to INCs, DECs and UTCs
hereby withdraws its Protest to the Dated: April 29, 2015. be revised in ways not addressed by
Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity Kimberly D. Bose, these questions, and if so, describe in
filed in the instant docket on March 31, Secretary. detail the proposed revision and
2015. justification for the change.
Post-Technical Conference Questions (e) If you believe that changes to the
Dated: April 30, 2015. for Comment current FTR Forfeiture Rule provisions
Kimberly D. Bose, of PJM’s tariff are necessary, propose
In addition to any further responses to
Secretary. appropriate tariff language that you
the questions posed in the Commission
[FR Doc. 2015–10569 Filed 5–5–15; 8:45 am]
Staff’s December 10, 2014 Supplemental believe addresses your concern.
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Notice of Technical Conference,1 (2) Uplift
Commission Staff seeks responses to the (a) Should UTCs be assessed uplift?
following questions. Parties submitting Explain why or why not. If so, how, if
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
comments need not respond to each at all, should this allocation differ from
Federal Energy Regulatory question. the allocation to individual INCs and
Commission (1) FTR Forfeiture Rule DECs and ‘‘paired’’ INCs and DECs?
Should INCs and DECs continue to be
[Docket No. EL14–37–000] (a) When calculating the contribution
required to pay uplift charges? What
a virtual transaction (INC, DEC, or UTC)
effect does imposing these charges have
PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice has to power flowing across a given
on the ability of virtual traders to
Inviting Post-Technical Conference constraint, how should the injection/
arbitrage day-ahead and real-time price
Comments withdrawal points for the virtual
differences?
transaction be identified? Should the (b) Do UTCs impact unit commitment
On January 7, 2015, the Federal defined ‘‘worst case’’ node be limited to
Energy Regulatory Commission decisions? If so, how? Several views
the market participant’s own were expressed during the conference.
(Commission) staff conducted a transactions? Additionally, should the
technical conference to evaluate For example, one panelist cited PJM
impact threshold(s) used for triggering documentation stating that UTCs are not
whether: (1) PJM Interconnection, LLC’s the forfeiture rule remain at 75 percent
(PJM) Financial Transmission Rights included in commitment decisions.2
regardless of the injection/withdrawal
(FTR) forfeiture rules as they apply to Other panelists expressed the view that
points identified? Why or why not?
virtual transactions, including Up-to both ‘‘paired’’ INCs and DECs and
(b) As an alternative to the current
Congestion (UTC) transactions and INC/ UTC’s impact unit commitment.3
approach of assessing one virtual
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

DEC transactions, are just and transaction at a time, should the FTR 2 January 7, 2015 Presentation of Wesley Allen,
reasonable; and (2) PJM’s current uplift forfeiture rule collectively assess the net ‘‘Incremental Offers, Decrement Bids & Up To
allocation rules associated with UTC Congestion.’’ at pp 4–5.
1 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Supplemental 3 January 7, 2015 Technical Conference on
1 Noticeof the request was published in the Notice of Technical Conference, Docket No. EL14– Financial Transactions in PJM, Transcript 240:15–
Federal Register on February 5, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 37–000 (December 10, 2014). http://elibrary.ferc.gov 241:4 (Adam Keech); Id. at 242: 14–16 (Joseph
6,512). /idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13707421. Bowring).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 May 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM 06MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Notices 26021

(c) Should market participants be recommendations is 30 days from the elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
allowed to net INC and DEC issuance date of this notice by the excluding the last three digits in the
transactions for the purpose of uplift Commission. docket number field to access the
allocations? Why or why not? If yes, All documents may be filed document. You may also register online
should netting within a market electronically via the Internet. See, 18 at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
participant’s portfolio (intra-market CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the esubscription.asp to be notified via
participant) be allowed or should instructions on the Commission’s Web email of new filings and issuances
market-wide (inter-market participant) site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ related to this or other pending projects.
netting be allowed? Should physical efiling.asp. If unable to be filed For assistance, call 1–866–208- 3676 or
assets be included in the netting electronically, documents may be paper- email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, for
process? Please discuss the advantages filed. To paper-file, an original and TTY, call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also
and disadvantages to both approaches. seven copies should be mailed to: available for inspection and
(d) Are there other cost-causation Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory reproduction at the address in item (h)
approaches that should be considered? Commission, 888 First Street NE., above.
What advantages, disadvantages, and Washington, DC 20426. Commenters m. Individuals desiring to be included
operational challenges would be can submit brief comments up to 6,000 on the Commission’s mailing list should
associated with implementing such characters, without prior registration, so indicate by writing to the Secretary
approaches in PJM? using the eComment system at http:// of the Commission.
(e) If virtual transactions are assessed www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to
uplift, should the uplift be designed as ecomment.asp. You must include your Intervene: Anyone may submit
a fixed amount known in advance to name and contact information at the end comments, a protest, or a motion to
permit the traders to assess the costs of of your comments. intervene in accordance with the
the trade versus the potential arbitrage Please include the project number (P– requirements of Rules of Practice and
differences between day-ahead and real- 2323–206) on any comments, motions, Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214.
time? or recommendations filed. In determining the appropriate action to
(f) If you believe that changes to the k. Description of Request: The take, the Commission will consider all
current Uplift provisions of PJM’s tariff licensee requests the deletion or protests or other comments filed, but
are necessary, propose appropriate tariff suspension of the requirements of only those who file a motion to
language that you believe addresses license Articles 409, 410, 411, and 413 intervene in accordance with the
your concern. and the associated Atlantic Salmon Commission’s Rules may become a
[FR Doc. 2015–10559 Filed 5–5–15; 8:45 am] Radio-Tagging Plan, as approved by the party to the proceeding. Any comments,
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Commission on March 31, 1998. The protests, or motions to intervene must
requirements pertain to monitoring and be received on or before the specified
restoring Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) comment date for the particular
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY in the Connecticut River and its application.
tributaries. Article 409 requires the o. Filing and Service of Responsive
Federal Energy Regulatory licensee to construct, operate, and Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in
Commission maintain a permanent upstream fish all capital letters the title
[Project No. 2323–206] passage facility. Article 410 requires a ‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, or
plan to capture upstream migrating ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’ as
TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc.; Atlantic salmon below the dam and applicable; (2) set forth in the heading
Notice of Application Accepted for transport them to river reaches above the name of the applicant and the
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions the dam or to hatchery facilities until project number of the application to
To Intervene, and Protests permanent passage facilities, are which the filing responds; (3) furnish
completed. Article 411 requires the name, address, and telephone
Take notice that the following monitoring of Atlantic salmon smolts number of the person protesting or
hydroelectric application has been filed through project fish passage facilities, intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the Commission and is available and Article 413 requires an Atlantic with the requirements of 18 CFR
for public inspection: Salmon Radio-Tagging Plan. The 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
a. Type of Application: Request to licensee indicates that the U.S. Fish and comments, motions to intervene, or
Amend License Articles 409, 410, 411, Wildlife Service, which had been protests must set forth their evidentiary
and 413. actively stocking Atlantic salmon in the basis and otherwise comply with the
b. Project No.: 2323–206. Connecticut River and its tributaries, requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All
c. Date Filed: March 31, 2015.
d. Applicant: TransCanada Hydro has officially withdrawn support for the comments, motions to intervene, or
Northeast, Inc. (licensee). restoration program due to protests should relate to project works
e. Name of Project: Deerfield River unsatisfactory results. The licensee which are the subject of the variance.
Hydroelectric Project. indicates that its efforts under Articles Agencies may obtain copies of the
f. Location: Windham and Bennington 409, 410, 411, and 413 have no feasible application directly from the applicant.
counties, Vermont and Franklin and chance of success without the U.S. Fish A copy of any protest or motion to
Berkshire counties, Massachusetts. and Wildlife’s stocking component. intervene must be served upon each
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power l. Locations of the Application: A representative of the applicant specified
Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). copy of the application is available for in the particular application. If an
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

h. Applicant Contact: John Ragonese, inspection and reproduction at the intervener files comments or documents
FERC License Manager, (603) 498–2851, Commission’s Public Reference Room, with the Commission relating to the
or john_ragonese@transcanada.com. located at 888 First Street NE., Room merits of an issue that may affect the
i. FERC Contact: Alicia Burtner, (202) 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling responsibilities of a particular resource
502–8038, or alicia.burtner@ferc.gov. (202) 502–8371. This filing may also be agency, they must also serve a copy of
j. Deadline for filing comments, viewed on the Commission’s Web site at the document on that resource agency.
motions to intervene, protests, and http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ A copy of all other filings in reference

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:43 May 05, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM 06MYN1

Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:41:24
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:41:24

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
FR Citation		80 FR 26020

80 FR 26020 - PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYFederal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 87 (May 6, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission