81 FR 52674 - Combined Notice of Filings

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 153 (August 9, 2016)

Page Range		52674-52675
FR Document		2016-18804

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52674-52675]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1109-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Non 
Conforming

[[Page 52675]]

Agreement Filing to be effective 8/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160727-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1110-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Assignment of Mercuria 
Energy Gas Trading Agreements to Mercuria Energy America to be 
effective 8/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160727-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1111-000.
    Applicants: Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Pine Prairie Energy Center, 
LLC--Proposed Revisions to FERC Gas Tariff to be effective 8/27/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160727-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1112-000.
    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, L.
    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2016/7/28 Ethanols 
to be effective 8/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/28/16.
    Accession Number: 20160728-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1097-001.
    Applicants: KO Transmission Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: KO Transmission Amendment Filing 
Docket No. RP16-1097 to be effective 9/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/27/16.
    Accession Number: 20160727-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 28, 2016.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18804 Filed 8-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

52674 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2016 / Notices

transmission projects that are not transmission facilities (i.e., a 3. Are there other competitive
subject to a competitive transmission transmission facility that is located in approaches compared to the existing
development process? If so, what risk two or more transmission planning competitive transmission development
mitigation measures should the regions)? Are there actions the processes that could potentially reduce
Commission encourage through Commission could take to facilitate such the time and cost to conduct the
application of the incentive policy? development? process, or the risk of litigation over
3. In light of the emphasis that Order 2. What would be the advantages and proposal selection, but still benefit
No. 1000 places on regional disadvantages to the use of common consumers? If so, what are the strengths
transmission planning, do the risks and models and assumptions by public and weaknesses of such approaches and
challenges of a particular transmission utility transmission providers in regions could they be used in transmission
project remain an appropriate focal in their interregional coordination planning regions in specified
point for incentives requested pursuant processes? Are there problems that such circumstances, for example, for
to Federal Power Act section 219? If not, an approach would solve or create? If transmission projects needed in the
what are the attributes that warrant such common models and assumptions near-term to address reliability needs, in
incentives? could be developed, how should they be conjunction with existing competitive
4. What, if any, changes are needed to developed and by which entity or transmission development processes?
the framework the Commission uses to entities? 4. What types of information (please
evaluate return on equity adders and 3. Should the Commission revisit be specific) could be used to measure
other transmission incentives for Order No. 1000’s requirement that an the impact of the Order No. 1000
transmission projects that use cost interregional transmission facility be reforms on transmission development?
containment provisions? selected in the regional transmission For example, what information could be
5. Order No. 1000 requires public plan of all transmission planning used to evaluate whether the more
utility transmission providers in regions regions where the facility will be efficient or cost-effective transmission
to have an ex ante cost allocation located before it is eligible for facilities are being selected within and
method for transmission facilities interregional cost allocation? Why or between transmission planning regions?
selected in the regional transmission why not? How should that information be tracked
plan for purposes of cost allocation. To 4. What reforms, if any, could the and reported or posted? Should
what extent does the ex ante cost Commission adopt to facilitate the common metrics be developed for
allocation method reduce risks to identification of shared interregional evaluation of the information?
transmission developers? transmission needs?
6. Transmission developers face at 5. How do the sponsorship model and
5. Do interregional cost allocation competitive bidding model,
least two types of risks: risk associated
methods accepted by the Commission, respectively, and variations on these
with participation in the transmission
such as the ‘‘avoided cost only’’ method, models, capture the benefits of
planning processes and risk associated
impede interregional transmission competition, such as increased
with developing a transmission project.
coordination? 3 If so, are there innovation and selection of the more
The Commission’s current incentive
alternative cost allocation methods that efficient or cost-effective transmission
policies focus on the latter. Please
could better facilitate interregional facilities? What are the positive features
comment on risks associated with
transmission development? Would and drawbacks of each model? How can
participation in the transmission
those methods be consistent with their drawbacks be addressed?
planning processes and indicate what, if
interregional transmission coordination 6. Are changes to the Commission’s
any, changes to the planning processes
processes or would the interregional current application of the Discounted
could mitigate the risk.
7. Do public utility transmission transmission coordination processes Cash Flow (DCF) analysis needed to
providers in regions consider that a need to change to accommodate such better accommodate nonincumbent
transmission developer may request and alternative cost allocation methods? transmission developers, in particular
be awarded transmission incentives Panel Five: Regional Transmission with respect to the identification of
when evaluating transmission proposals Planning and Other Transmission appropriate proxy groups? If so, what
and, if so, how? For example, how Development Issues changes are necessary?
would public utility transmission [FR Doc. 2016–18826 Filed 8–8–16; 8:45 am]
1. To maximize the benefits of
providers in regions consider a proposal BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
competition, should the Commission
with a potential transmission incentive
broaden or narrow the type of
given that the incentive might or might
transmission facilities that must be
not be granted? Should a competitive DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
selected through competitive
transmission development process
transmission development processes? If Federal Energy Regulatory
clearly state whether, and, if so, how
so, how? Commission
incentives should be part of a
2. Has the introduction of competition
developer’s proposal and how requests
into the regional transmission planning Combined Notice of Filings
and grants of such incentives will be
processes led public utility transmission
evaluated by the public utility
providers to focus more on developing Take notice that the Commission has
transmission providers in the region? Is
local transmission facilities or other received the following Natural Gas
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

there an optimal time for submission of
transmission facilities not subject to Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
incentive requests to the Commission
competitive transmission development
and for Commission decisions upon Filings Instituting Proceedings
processes?
them?
Docket Numbers: RP16–1109–000.
Panel Four: Interregional Transmission 3 See, e.g. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Applicants: Wyoming Interstate
Coordination Issues Inc., 150 FERC ¶ 61,045, at PP 176–180 (2015) Company, L.L.C.
(describing an ‘‘avoided-cost only method’’ and
1. What factors have contributed to finding such an approach can comply with Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing:
the lack of development of interregional Interregional Cost Allocation Principle 1). Negotiated Rate Non Conforming

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09AUN1.SGM 09AUN1

Document Created: 2016-08-09 01:10:15
Document Modified: 2016-08-09 01:10:15

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
Dates		7/27/16.
FR Citation		81 FR 52674

81 FR 52674 - Combined Notice of Filings

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYFederal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 153 (August 9, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission