82 FR 45835 - Before Commissioners: Neil Chatterjee, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Robert F. Powelson; Bonneville Power Administration; Order Approving Rates on an Interim Basis and Providing Opportunity for Additional Comments
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 189 (October 2, 2017)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 189 (October 2, 2017)
| Page Range | 45835-45837 | |
| FR Document | 2017-21061 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 45835-45837] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-21061] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket EF17-4-000] Before Commissioners: Neil Chatterjee, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Robert F. Powelson; Bonneville Power Administration; Order Approving Rates on an Interim Basis and Providing Opportunity for Additional Comments 1. In this order, we approve on an interim basis Bonneville Power Administration's (Bonneville) proposed 2018-2019 transmission rates for transmission service on the Southern Intertie (IS Rates),\1\ pending our further review.\2\ We also provide an additional period of time for parties to file comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The Southern Intertie is a system of transmission lines and substations that transmit power between the Pacific Northwest and California, and is primarily used to export power from the Pacific Northwest and Canada to California. Bonneville Administrator's Final Record of Decision 5.2.2. \2\ Today, we also approve on an interim basis Bonneville's other transmission rates filed in Docket No. EF17-3-000. See Bonneville Power Admin., 160 FERC ]61,112 (2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Background 2. On July 31, 2017,\3\ Bonneville filed a request for interim and final approval of its IS Rates (IS-18) in accordance with section 7 of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act) \4\ and Part 300 of the Commission's regulations.\5\ Bonneville states that, although its rate design is not subject to Commission review, it provides a summary of the hourly rate design change on the Southern Intertie for informational purposes. Bonneville explains that the change is significant, increasing the hourly rates approximately 170 percent, but asserts that the adopted revisions are necessary to address the impact of increased renewable generation in California in combination with seams issues between the transmission system connecting the Pacific Northwest and California.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Bonneville submitted errata filings on August 7, 2017, and August 10, 2017 to correct various attachments to the July 31, 2017 Transmittal Letter and to add inadvertently omitted documents to the record. \4\ 16 U.S.C. 839e (2012). \5\ 18 CFR pt. 300 (2017). \6\ Bonneville July 31, 2017 Transmittal Letter at 2. See also Bonneville Administrator's Final Record of Decision Sec. 5.2.2 (explaining the justification for the rate increase in greater detail). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Bonneville projects that the filed rates will produce average annual transmission revenues of $1.044 billion and annual net revenues of $4.65 million.\7\ Bonneville asserts that this level of annual revenues is sufficient to recover its costs for the 2018-2019 rate approval period, while providing cash flow to ensure at least a 95 percent probability of making all payments to the United States Treasury in full and on time for each year of the rate period.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ These values are the totals of all of Bonneville's transmission revenues, inclusive of the transmission rates at issue in Docket No. EF17-3-000. See Bonneville August 7, 2017 Transmittal Letter at 2; Bonneville Power Admin., 160 FERC ]61,112 (2017) (approving on an interim basis those transmission rates not associated with the Southern Intertie). \8\ Bonneville July 31, 2017 Transmittal Letter at 4, 7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Notice of Filing 4. Notice of Bonneville's July 31, 2017 filing was published in the Federal Register, 82 FR 37,445 (2017),\9\ with protests and interventions due on or before August 30, 2017. Timely motions to intervene were filed by Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative, Powerex Corporation, Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information Center, Avista Corporation, Northwest Requirements Utilities, Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, NorthWestern Corporation, Western Public Agencies Group, M-S-R Public Power Agency, Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1, Public Power Council, Puget Sound Energy Inc., Idaho Power Company, and Avangrid Renewables LLC. Renewable Northwest filed a timely motion to intervene and comments. Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Transmission Agency of Northern California, and Turlock Irrigation District (collectively, Northern California Utilities) filed a timely motion to intervene, protest, objection to the motion for interim rate approval, request for an evidentiary hearing, and alternative request for stay of implementation of hourly transmission rates. On September 15, 2017, Bonneville filed a request for leave to answer and an answer to Northern California Utilities' protest, and on September 19, 2017, Northern California Utilities filed an answer to Bonneville's answer. On September 22, 2017, Bonneville filed an answer to Northern California Utilities' September 19 answer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Notices of Bonneville's errata filings were published in the Federal Register, 82 FR 41,014 (2017) and 82 FR 40,151 (2017). The notices of the errata filings retained the August 30, 2017 date by which protests or interventions were due. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Northern California Utilities generally object to Bonneville's proposed rate increase for southbound hourly transmission service on the [[Page 45836]] Southern Intertie.\10\ Northern California Utilities first argue that interim approval is inappropriate because Bonneville's filing is deficient. Specifically, Northern California Utilities argue that the instant filing is governed by section 7(k) of the Northwest Power Act, which according to the protestors is broader than section 7(a), and Bonneville fails to comply with the applicable statutes.\11\ They further assert that Bonneville's filing is deficient under the Commission's regulations because its rates fail to adhere to cost-based ratemaking, or alternatively, Bonneville's filing fails to explain why it has departed from cost-based ratemaking standards.\12\ In addition, Northern California Utilities argue that any refund condition that the Commission attaches to its order will not protect them because they do not purchase transmission service from Bonneville on the Southern Intertie.\13\ Alternatively, the Northern California Utilities argue that, if the Commission will not summarily reject Bonneville's IS Rate, the Commission should nevertheless stay implementation of the rate.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Northern California Utilities Protest at 5-6, 80. \11\ Id. at 12-15, 23-25. \12\ Id. at 16-23. \13\ Id. at 25-27. Northern California Utilities state that they do not directly purchase transmission service from Bonneville, but that they will be harmed nonetheless by the trickle-down effects of the hourly rate increase because they purchase services from resellers that use or base prices on the Southern Intertie, including but not limited to hourly transmission service. Id. \14\ Id. at 27-51. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Northern California Utilities further argue that the Commission should summarily dispose of Bonneville's request for approval because it has failed to carry its burden and provide substantial evidence of its rates being the lowest reasonable rates consistent with sound business principles. Here, Northern California Utilities again assert that section 7(k) of the Northwest Power Act sets the applicable standard and that charging intentionally unaffordable rates is facially in conflict with the statutory provision.\15\ Alternatively, Northern California Utilities argue that, if the Commission does not reject the IS Rate filing as deficient or on the merits, it should set those issues for evidentiary hearings under section 7(k) of the Northwest Power Act.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ Id. at 52-59. \16\ Id. at 59-79. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Renewable Northwest filed comments in both this docket and Docket No. EF17-3-000 requesting that the Commission disapprove Bonneville's proposed Montana Intertie Rate on the basis that it does not ``encourage[e] the widest possible diversified use of electric power at the lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles.'' \17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ Renewable Northwest Comments at 7 (quoting 16 U.S.C. 838g (2012)). We note that the Montana Intertie Rate is not at issue in this docket, but rather is before the Commission in Docket No. EF17- 3-000. See Bonneville Power Admin., 160 FERC ]61,112. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Discussion A. Procedural Matters 8. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2017), the timely, unopposed motions to intervene serve to make the entities that filed them parties to this proceeding. 9. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.213(a)(2) (2017), prohibits an answer to a protest or an answer unless otherwise ordered by the decisional authority. We are not persuaded to accept Bonneville's answer to Northern California Utilities' protest, Northern California Utilities' answer to Bonneville's answer, or Bonneville's answer to Northern California Utilities' answer, and therefore, we reject all answers. B. Standard of Review 10. Under the Northwest Power Act, the Commission's review of Bonneville's transmission rates is limited to determining whether Bonneville's proposed rates satisfy the specific requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Northwest Power Act, including that such rates: (A) Are sufficient to assure repayment of the Federal investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System over a reasonable number of years after first meeting [Bonneville's] other costs; (B) are based upon [Bonneville's] total system costs; and (C) insofar as transmission rates are concerned, equitably allocate the costs of the Federal transmission system between Federal and non- Federal power utilizing such system.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2) (2012). Bonneville also must comply with the financial, accounting, and ratemaking requirements in Department of Energy Order No. RA 6120.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Unlike the Commission's statutory authority under the Federal Power Act, the Commission's authority under section 7(a) of the Northwest Power Act does not include the power to modify the rates. The responsibility for developing rates in the first instance is vested with Bonneville's Administrator. The rates are then submitted to the Commission for approval or disapproval. In this regard, the Commission's role can be viewed as an appellate one: To affirm or remand the rates submitted to it for review.\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See, e.g., Bonneville Power Admin., 152 FERC ] 61,201, at P 10 (2015) (citing U.S. Dep't of Energy--Bonneville Power Admin., 67 FERC ] 61,351, at 62,216-17 (1994); see also Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 903 F.2d 585, 592-93 (9th Cir. 1989)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Moreover, review at this interim stage is further limited. In view of the volume and complexity of a Bonneville rate application, such as the one now before us in this filing, and the limited period in advance of the requested effective date in which to review the application,\20\ the Commission generally defers resolution of issues on the merits of Bonneville's application until the order on final confirmation. Thus, the Commission generally approves the proposed rates on an interim basis, unless the filing is patently deficient, and provides the parties with an additional opportunity to raise issues with regard to Bonneville's filing.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See 18 CFR 300.10(a)(3)(ii) (2017). \21\ See, e.g., Bonneville Power Admin., 152 FERC ] 61,201 at P 11 (citing U.S. Dep't of Energy--Bonneville Power Admin., 64 FERC ] 61,375, at 63,606 (1993); U.S. Dep't of Energy--Bonneville Power Admin., 40 FERC ] 61,351, at 62,059-60 (1987)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. We decline at this time to grant Bonneville's request for final confirmation and approval of Bonneville's proposed transmission rates. However, we will grant Bonneville's request for interim approval. Our preliminary review indicates that Bonneville's IS Rates filing appears to meet the statutory standards and the minimum threshold filing requirements of Part 300 of the Commission's regulations.\22\ Moreover, our preliminary review of Bonneville's submittal indicates that the filing is not patently deficient. Contrary to the Northern California Utilities' arguments, we find that section 7(a) of the Northwest Power Act, and not section 7(k), governs the transmission rates at issue here and thus governs our review.\23\ The language of section 7(k) of [[Page 45837]] the Northwest Power Act addresses power rates, not transmission rates.\24\ Thus, Northern California Utilities' arguments that Bonneville's filing is deficient for failing to meet the statutory standards of section 7(k) of the Northwest Power Act and the Commission's regulations promulgated pursuant to section 7(k), specifically 18 CFR 300.14 (2017) and by incorporation 18 CFR 35.13(a)(2) (2017), are irrelevant to our approval on an interim basis of Bonneville's transmission rates for the Southern Intertie.\25\ The proposed rates therefore will be approved on an interim basis pending our further review. In addition, we note that interim approval allows Bonneville's rates to go into effect subject to refund with interest; the Commission may order refunds with interest if the Commission later determines in its final decision not to approve the rates.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See, e.g., id. P 12 (citing U.S. Dep't of Energy-- Bonneville Power Admin., 105 FERC ] 61,006, at PP 13-14 (2003); U.S. Dep't of Energy--Bonneville Power Admin., 96 FERC ] 61,360, at 62,358 (2001)). \23\ See 16 U.S.C. 839e(k) (2012) (stating ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, all rates or rate schedules for the sale of nonfirm electric power. . . .'' (emphasis added)); 16 U.S.C. 839a(9) (2012) (defining ``[e]lectric power'' within the Northwest Power Act as ``electric peaking capacity, or electric energy, or both.''); Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 903 F.2d 585, 587-89 (discussing the first nonfirm power rates that Bonneville established under section 7(k) and defining nonfirm power as ``energy in excess of firm power, and is provided only when such excess exists.''); U.S. Dep't of Energy--Bonneville Power Admin., 53 FERC ] 61,193, 61,667 (1990) (stating that ``nonfirm energy is energy in excess of that which Bonneville can reliably plan on producing, based on estimates that water levels used for power generation will at times be low or critical. That is, nonfirm energy is energy that is available to Bonneville as the result of it[ ] having water available for power generation. . . .''). \24\ See 16 U.S.C. 839e(k) (2012) (``Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, all rates or rate schedules for the sale of nonfirm electric power. . . .'' (emphasis added)). \25\ Because section 7(k) of the Northwest Power Act does not govern our review of the rates at issue in this proceeding, section 7(k)'s allowance for a further trial-type evidentiary hearing does not provide a basis for such a trial-type evidentiary hearing here. \26\ See 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2017). We further find that Northern California Utilities' arguments that our refund condition will not protect them to be speculative, and their request for the Commission to stay implementation of the rates to be unsupported. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. In addition, we will provide an additional period of time for parties to file comments and reply comments on issues related to final confirmation and approval of Bonneville's proposed rates. This will ensure that the record in this proceeding is complete and fully developed. Specifically, if parties wish to file additional comments, they will be due within 30 days of the date of this order. Reply comments are due 20 days thereafter. The Commission Orders (A) Interim approval of Bonneville's proposed IS Rates is hereby granted, to become effective on October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2019, subject to refund with interest as set forth in section 300.20(c) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2017), pending final action and either their approval or their disapproval. (B) Within 30 days of the date of this order, parties who wish to do so may file additional comments regarding final confirmation and approval of Bonneville's proposed rates. Parties who wish to do so may file reply comments within 20 days thereafter. (C) The Secretary shall promptly publish this order in the Federal Register. By the Commission. Issued: September 25, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017-21061 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45835
(4a) Changes to Information Collection DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and annual net revenues of $4.65
million.7 Bonneville asserts that this
(1) Change the title from ‘‘Monthly Federal Energy Regulatory level of annual revenues is sufficient to
Crude Oil, Lease Condensate, and Commission recover its costs for the 2018–2019 rate
Natural Gas Production Report,’’ to approval period, while providing cash
[Docket EF17–4–000]
‘‘Monthly Crude Oil and Lease flow to ensure at least a 95 percent
Condensate, and Natural Gas Production Before Commissioners: Neil probability of making all payments to
Report.’’ Chatterjee, Chairman; Cheryl A. the United States Treasury in full and
(2) For Sections 2 and 3, instead of LaFleur, and Robert F. Powelson; on time for each year of the rate period.8
selecting only one pre-existing comment Bonneville Power Administration; II. Notice of Filing
in the comments box, the box will allow Order Approving Rates on an Interim
for the selection of multiple frequently- Basis and Providing Opportunity for 4. Notice of Bonneville’s July 31, 2017
used pre-existing comments, as well as Additional Comments filing was published in the Federal
the ability to write-in producer specific Register, 82 FR 37,445 (2017),9 with
1. In this order, we approve on an protests and interventions due on or
comments.
interim basis Bonneville Power before August 30, 2017. Timely motions
(3) EIA will publish separate Administration’s (Bonneville) proposed to intervene were filed by Pacific
estimates for Alabama, Federal Offshore 2018–2019 transmission rates for Northwest Generating Cooperative,
Pacific, Michigan, Mississippi, and transmission service on the Southern Powerex Corporation, Sierra Club and
Virginia and will no longer include data Intertie (IS Rates),1 pending our further Montana Environmental Information
for these states in the ‘‘Other States’’ review.2 We also provide an additional Center, Avista Corporation, Northwest
category. To separately publish these period of time for parties to file Requirements Utilities, Industrial
five new states/areas, EIA will collect comments. Customers of Northwest Utilities,
crude oil and lease condensate
I. Background NorthWestern Corporation, Western
production, crude oil and lease
2. On July 31, 2017,3 Bonneville filed Public Agencies Group, M–S–R Public
condensate sales (run ticket) volumes by
a request for interim and final approval Power Agency, Snohomish County
API gravity, natural gas gross
of its IS Rates (IS–18) in accordance Public Utility District No. 1, Public
withdrawals, and natural gas lease
with section 7 of the Pacific Northwest Power Council, Puget Sound Energy
production volumes. As a result, EIA
Electric Power Planning and Inc., Idaho Power Company, and
will publish data for a total of 21 states/
Conservation Act (Northwest Power Avangrid Renewables LLC. Renewable
areas and one category designated
Act) 4 and Part 300 of the Commission’s Northwest filed a timely motion to
‘‘Other States.’’ The ‘‘Other States,’’
regulations.5 Bonneville states that, intervene and comments. Sacramento
category will include the remaining
although its rate design is not subject to Municipal Utility District, Transmission
states of Arizona, Florida, Idaho,
Commission review, it provides a Agency of Northern California, and
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
summary of the hourly rate design Turlock Irrigation District (collectively,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York,
change on the Southern Intertie for Northern California Utilities) filed a
Oregon, Tennessee, and South Dakota.
informational purposes. Bonneville timely motion to intervene, protest,
(5) Annual Estimated Number of objection to the motion for interim rate
explains that the change is significant,
Respondents: 500; (6) Annual Estimated approval, request for an evidentiary
increasing the hourly rates
Number of Total Responses: 6,000; (7) approximately 170 percent, but asserts hearing, and alternative request for stay
Annual Estimated Number of Burden that the adopted revisions are necessary of implementation of hourly
Hours: 24,000; (8) Annual Estimated to address the impact of increased transmission rates. On September 15,
Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost renewable generation in California in 2017, Bonneville filed a request for
Burden: EIA estimates that there are no combination with seams issues between leave to answer and an answer to
capital and start-up costs associated the transmission system connecting the Northern California Utilities’ protest,
with this data collection. The Pacific Northwest and California.6 and on September 19, 2017, Northern
information is maintained during the 3. Bonneville projects that the filed California Utilities filed an answer to
normal course of business. The cost of rates will produce average annual Bonneville’s answer. On September 22,
burden hours to the respondents is transmission revenues of $1.044 billion 2017, Bonneville filed an answer to
estimated to be $1,767,840 (24,000 Northern California Utilities’ September
burden hours times $73.66). Other than 1 The Southern Intertie is a system of 19 answer.
the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates transmission lines and substations that transmit 5. Northern California Utilities
that there are no additional costs for power between the Pacific Northwest and
California, and is primarily used to export power
generally object to Bonneville’s
generating, maintaining, and providing from the Pacific Northwest and Canada to proposed rate increase for southbound
this information. California. Bonneville Administrator’s Final Record hourly transmission service on the
Statutory authority: Section 13(b) of the of Decision 5.2.2.
2 Today, we also approve on an interim basis 7 These values are the totals of all of Bonneville’s
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974,
Bonneville’s other transmission rates filed in transmission revenues, inclusive of the
Pub. L. 93–275, codified as 15 U.S.C. 772(b) Docket No. EF17–3–000. See Bonneville Power transmission rates at issue in Docket No. EF17–3–
and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, P.L. Admin., 160 FERC ¶61,112 (2017). 000. See Bonneville August 7, 2017 Transmittal
95–91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. 3 Bonneville submitted errata filings on August 7,
Letter at 2; Bonneville Power Admin., 160 FERC
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 2017, and August 10, 2017 to correct various ¶61,112 (2017) (approving on an interim basis those
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
attachments to the July 31, 2017 Transmittal Letter transmission rates not associated with the Southern
27, 2017. and to add inadvertently omitted documents to the Intertie).
Tom Leckey, record. 8 Bonneville July 31, 2017 Transmittal Letter at 4,
4 16 U.S.C. 839e (2012).
Assistant Administrator, Office of Energy 7.
5 18 CFR pt. 300 (2017). 9 Notices of Bonneville’s errata filings were
Statistics, U.S. Energy Information
6 Bonneville July 31, 2017 Transmittal Letter at 2. published in the Federal Register, 82 FR 41,014
Administration.
See also Bonneville Administrator’s Final Record of (2017) and 82 FR 40,151 (2017). The notices of the
[FR Doc. 2017–21076 Filed 9–28–17; 11:15 am] Decision § 5.2.2 (explaining the justification for the errata filings retained the August 30, 2017 date by
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P rate increase in greater detail). which protests or interventions were due.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM 02OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_46024/page/1.svg)
![45836 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices
Southern Intertie.10 Northern California diversified use of electric power at the Commission’s role can be viewed as an
Utilities first argue that interim approval lowest possible rates to consumers appellate one: To affirm or remand the
is inappropriate because Bonneville’s consistent with sound business rates submitted to it for review.19
filing is deficient. Specifically, Northern principles.’’ 17 12. Moreover, review at this interim
California Utilities argue that the instant stage is further limited. In view of the
filing is governed by section 7(k) of the III. Discussion volume and complexity of a Bonneville
Northwest Power Act, which according A. Procedural Matters rate application, such as the one now
to the protestors is broader than section before us in this filing, and the limited
8. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the
7(a), and Bonneville fails to comply period in advance of the requested
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
with the applicable statutes.11 They effective date in which to review the
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2017), the
further assert that Bonneville’s filing is application,20 the Commission generally
timely, unopposed motions to intervene
deficient under the Commission’s defers resolution of issues on the merits
serve to make the entities that filed
regulations because its rates fail to of Bonneville’s application until the
them parties to this proceeding. order on final confirmation. Thus, the
adhere to cost-based ratemaking, or 9. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission’s
alternatively, Bonneville’s filing fails to Commission generally approves the
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
explain why it has departed from cost- proposed rates on an interim basis,
385.213(a)(2) (2017), prohibits an
based ratemaking standards.12 In unless the filing is patently deficient,
answer to a protest or an answer unless
addition, Northern California Utilities and provides the parties with an
otherwise ordered by the decisional additional opportunity to raise issues
argue that any refund condition that the
authority. We are not persuaded to with regard to Bonneville’s filing.21
Commission attaches to its order will
accept Bonneville’s answer to Northern 13. We decline at this time to grant
not protect them because they do not
California Utilities’ protest, Northern Bonneville’s request for final
purchase transmission service from
California Utilities’ answer to confirmation and approval of
Bonneville on the Southern Intertie.13
Bonneville’s answer, or Bonneville’s Bonneville’s proposed transmission
Alternatively, the Northern California
answer to Northern California Utilities’ rates. However, we will grant
Utilities argue that, if the Commission
answer, and therefore, we reject all Bonneville’s request for interim
will not summarily reject Bonneville’s
IS Rate, the Commission should answers. approval. Our preliminary review
nevertheless stay implementation of the B. Standard of Review indicates that Bonneville’s IS Rates
rate.14 filing appears to meet the statutory
10. Under the Northwest Power Act, standards and the minimum threshold
6. Northern California Utilities further
the Commission’s review of filing requirements of Part 300 of the
argue that the Commission should
Bonneville’s transmission rates is Commission’s regulations.22 Moreover,
summarily dispose of Bonneville’s
limited to determining whether our preliminary review of Bonneville’s
request for approval because it has
Bonneville’s proposed rates satisfy the submittal indicates that the filing is not
failed to carry its burden and provide
substantial evidence of its rates being specific requirements of section 7(a)(2) patently deficient. Contrary to the
the lowest reasonable rates consistent of the Northwest Power Act, including Northern California Utilities’ arguments,
with sound business principles. Here, that such rates: we find that section 7(a) of the
(A) Are sufficient to assure repayment Northwest Power Act, and not section
Northern California Utilities again assert
of the Federal investment in the Federal 7(k), governs the transmission rates at
that section 7(k) of the Northwest Power
Act sets the applicable standard and Columbia River Power System over a issue here and thus governs our
that charging intentionally unaffordable reasonable number of years after first review.23 The language of section 7(k) of
rates is facially in conflict with the meeting [Bonneville’s] other costs;
(B) are based upon [Bonneville’s] total
statutory provision.15 Alternatively, 19 See, e.g., Bonneville Power Admin., 152 FERC
system costs; and ¶ 61,201, at P 10 (2015) (citing U.S. Dep’t of
Northern California Utilities argue that,
(C) insofar as transmission rates are Energy—Bonneville Power Admin., 67 FERC
if the Commission does not reject the IS ¶ 61,351, at 62,216–17 (1994); see also Aluminum
concerned, equitably allocate the costs
Rate filing as deficient or on the merits, Co. of Am. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 903 F.2d
of the Federal transmission system
it should set those issues for evidentiary 585, 592–93 (9th Cir. 1989)).
between Federal and non-Federal power 20 See 18 CFR 300.10(a)(3)(ii) (2017).
hearings under section 7(k) of the
utilizing such system.18 21 See, e.g., Bonneville Power Admin., 152 FERC
Northwest Power Act.16
7. Renewable Northwest filed 11. Unlike the Commission’s statutory ¶ 61,201 at P 11 (citing U.S. Dep’t of Energy—
authority under the Federal Power Act, Bonneville Power Admin., 64 FERC ¶ 61,375, at
comments in both this docket and 63,606 (1993); U.S. Dep’t of Energy—Bonneville
Docket No. EF17–3–000 requesting that the Commission’s authority under Power Admin., 40 FERC ¶ 61,351, at 62,059–60
the Commission disapprove section 7(a) of the Northwest Power Act (1987)).
Bonneville’s proposed Montana Intertie does not include the power to modify 22 See, e.g., id. P 12 (citing U.S. Dep’t of Energy—
the rates. The responsibility for Bonneville Power Admin., 105 FERC ¶ 61,006, at PP
Rate on the basis that it does not 13–14 (2003); U.S. Dep’t of Energy—Bonneville
‘‘encourage[e] the widest possible developing rates in the first instance is Power Admin., 96 FERC ¶ 61,360, at 62,358 (2001)).
vested with Bonneville’s Administrator. 23 See 16 U.S.C. 839e(k) (2012) (stating
10 Northern California Utilities Protest at 5–6, 80. The rates are then submitted to the ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this
11 Id. at 12–15, 23–25. Commission for approval or chapter, all rates or rate schedules for the sale of
12 Id. at 16–23. disapproval. In this regard, the nonfirm electric power. . . .’’ (emphasis added));
13 Id. at 25–27. Northern California Utilities state
16 U.S.C. 839a(9) (2012) (defining ‘‘[e]lectric
power’’ within the Northwest Power Act as
that they do not directly purchase transmission 17 Renewable Northwest Comments at 7 (quoting
‘‘electric peaking capacity, or electric energy, or
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
service from Bonneville, but that they will be 16 U.S.C. 838g (2012)). We note that the Montana both.’’); Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Bonneville Power
harmed nonetheless by the trickle-down effects of Intertie Rate is not at issue in this docket, but rather Admin., 903 F.2d 585, 587–89 (discussing the first
the hourly rate increase because they purchase is before the Commission in Docket No. EF17–3– nonfirm power rates that Bonneville established
services from resellers that use or base prices on the 000. See Bonneville Power Admin., 160 FERC under section 7(k) and defining nonfirm power as
Southern Intertie, including but not limited to ¶61,112. ‘‘energy in excess of firm power, and is provided
hourly transmission service. Id. 18 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2) (2012). Bonneville also only when such excess exists.’’); U.S. Dep’t of
14 Id. at 27–51.
must comply with the financial, accounting, and Energy—Bonneville Power Admin., 53 FERC
15 Id. at 52–59.
ratemaking requirements in Department of Energy ¶ 61,193, 61,667 (1990) (stating that ‘‘nonfirm
16 Id. at 59–79. Order No. RA 6120.2. energy is energy in excess of that which Bonneville
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM 02OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_46024/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45837
the Northwest Power Act addresses Bonneville’s proposed rates. Parties who Filed Date: 9/22/17.
power rates, not transmission rates.24 wish to do so may file reply comments Accession Number: 20170922–5047.
Thus, Northern California Utilities’ within 20 days thereafter. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17.
arguments that Bonneville’s filing is (C) The Secretary shall promptly Docket Numbers: ER17–2539–000.
deficient for failing to meet the statutory publish this order in the Federal
Applicants: NSTAR Electric
standards of section 7(k) of the Register.
Company.
Northwest Power Act and the By the Commission. Description: Tariff Cancellation:
Commission’s regulations promulgated Issued: September 25, 2017. Notice of Cancellation of Belmont
pursuant to section 7(k), specifically 18
Kimberly D. Bose, Transmission Service Agreement to be
CFR 300.14 (2017) and by incorporation
Secretary. effective 9/30/2017.
18 CFR 35.13(a)(2) (2017), are irrelevant
to our approval on an interim basis of [FR Doc. 2017–21061 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] Filed Date: 9/22/17.
Bonneville’s transmission rates for the BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Accession Number: 20170922–5056.
Southern Intertie.25 The proposed rates Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17.
therefore will be approved on an interim The filings are accessible in the
basis pending our further review. In DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Commission’s eLibrary system by
addition, we note that interim approval clicking on the links or querying the
Federal Energy Regulatory
allows Bonneville’s rates to go into docket number.
Commission
effect subject to refund with interest; the Any person desiring to intervene or
Commission may order refunds with Combined Notice of Filings #1 protest in any of the above proceedings
interest if the Commission later must file in accordance with Rules 211
determines in its final decision not to Take notice that the Commission and 214 of the Commission’s
approve the rates.26 received the following electric corporate Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and
14. In addition, we will provide an filings: 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
additional period of time for parties to Docket Numbers: EC17–187–000. time on the specified comment date.
file comments and reply comments on Applicants: Westwood Generation, Protests may be considered, but
issues related to final confirmation and LLC. intervention is necessary to become a
approval of Bonneville’s proposed rates. Description: Application for party to the proceeding.
This will ensure that the record in this Authorization Under Section 203 of the eFiling is encouraged. More detailed
proceeding is complete and fully Federal Power Act of Westwood information relating to filing
developed. Specifically, if parties wish Generation, LLC. requirements, interventions, protests,
to file additional comments, they will be Filed Date: 9/22/17. service, and qualifying facilities filings
due within 30 days of the date of this Accession Number: 20170922–5033. can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/
order. Reply comments are due 20 days Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17. docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For
thereafter. Take notice that the Commission other information, call (866) 208–3676
The Commission Orders received the following electric rate (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.
filings:
(A) Interim approval of Bonneville’s Dated: September 22, 2017.
Docket Numbers: ER17–1721–003.
proposed IS Rates is hereby granted, to Applicants: Dynegy Stuart, LLC. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
become effective on October 1, 2017, Description: Tariff Amendment: Deputy Secretary.
through September 30, 2019, subject to Superseded Revised Rate Schedule to be [FR Doc. 2017–20995 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am]
refund with interest as set forth in effective 8/1/2017. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
section 300.20(c) of the Commission’s Filed Date: 9/20/17.
regulations, 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2017), Accession Number: 20170920–5180.
pending final action and either their Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
approval or their disapproval. Docket Numbers: ER17–2536–000.
(B) Within 30 days of the date of this Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Federal Energy Regulatory
order, parties who wish to do so may Company. Commission
file additional comments regarding final Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Port
confirmation and approval of of Oakland Unexecuted IA (SA 347) to Combined Notice of Filings #1
be effective 11/22/2017. Take notice that the Commission
can reliably plan on producing, based on estimates Filed Date: 9/22/17.
that water levels used for power generation will at received the following electric corporate
times be low or critical. That is, nonfirm energy is Accession Number: 20170922–5001. filings:
energy that is available to Bonneville as the result Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17.
of it[ ] having water available for power Docket Numbers: EC17–191–000.
Docket Numbers: ER17–2537–000.
generation. . . .’’). Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Applicants: Brady Wind, LLC, Brady
24 See 16 U.S.C. 839e(k) (2012) (‘‘Notwithstanding
Inc. Wind II, LLC, Brady Interconnection,
any other provision of this chapter, all rates or rate LLC, Desert Sunlight 250, LLC, Desert
schedules for the sale of nonfirm electric Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing:
power. . . .’’ (emphasis added)). 1876R5 KEPCO NITSA to be effective Sunlight 300, LLC, NEP US SellCo, LLC,
25 Because section 7(k) of the Northwest Power
9/1/2017. NextEra Energy Partners Acquisitions,
Act does not govern our review of the rates at issue Filed Date: 9/22/17. LLC.
in this proceeding, section 7(k)’s allowance for a Description: Application for
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Accession Number: 20170922–5031.
further trial-type evidentiary hearing does not
provide a basis for such a trial-type evidentiary Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17. Authorization Under Section 204 of the
hearing here. Docket Numbers: ER17–2538–000. Federal Power Act and Request for
26 See 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2017). We further find
Applicants: AEP Generation Expedited Action of Brady Wind, LLC,
that Northern California Utilities’ arguments that Resources Inc. et al.
our refund condition will not protect them to be Filed Date: 9/25/17.
speculative, and their request for the Commission
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP
to stay implementation of the rates to be GR Stuart Station Unit 1 Reactive Filing Accession Number: 20170925–5146.
unsupported. RS3 to be effective 10/1/2017. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:01 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM 02OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_46024/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-09-30 04:41:54
Document Modified: 2017-09-30 04:41:54
| 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 | 82 FR 45835 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR