83 FR 22660 - Order Establishing Briefing Schedule: Duke Energy Corporation Progress Energy, Inc.; Carolina Power & Light Company

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 95 (May 16, 2018)

Page Range		22660-22661
FR Document		2018-10402
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22660-22661]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER12-1338-003; ER12-1347-004]


Order Establishing Briefing Schedule: Duke Energy Corporation 
Progress Energy, Inc.; Carolina Power & Light Company

Before Commissioners: Kevin J. McIntyre, Chairman; Cheryl A. 
LaFleur, Neil Chatterjee, Robert F. Powelson, and Richard Glick.

    1. On July 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) issued a decision,\1\ vacating in 
part the Commission's acceptance of a Joint Dispatch Agreement (JDA) 
between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas) and Carolina 
Power & Light Company (CP&L) \2\ and remanding the matter to the 
Commission for further consideration. The court found that certain 
provisions in the JDA result in disparate rate treatment between 
native-load and non-native-load wholesale customers and that the 
Commission had not offered a valid reason for such a disparity.\3\ 
Also, the court found that the Commission failed to sufficiently 
respond to several arguments raised by the City of Orangeburg, South 
Carolina (Orangeburg) regarding certain regulatory conditions in the 
JDA that Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L agreed to include pursuant to 
proceedings before the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission 
(North Carolina Commission). As discussed below, we establish a 
briefing schedule to develop a better record on which to make a 
determination on these two issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Orangeburg, South Carolina v. FERC, 862 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 
2017) (Orangeburg v. FERC).
    \2\ Duke Energy Corp., 139 FERC 61,193 (2012) (JDA Order), order 
denying reh'g, 151 FERC 61,242 (2015) (JDA Rehearing Order) 
(together, JDA Orders).
    \3\ Orangeburg v. FERC, 862 F.3d at 1084 (citing Black Oak 
Energy, LLC v.  FERC, 725 F.3d 230, 239 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Black 
Oak)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Case History

    2. The history of this case is recounted at length in earlier 
Commission orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ City of Orangeburg, South Carolina, 151 FERC 61,241, PP 3-10 
(2015) (dismissing Orangeburg's petition for declaratory order); JDA 
Order, 139 FERC 61,193 at PP 2-4; JDA Rehearing Order, 151 FERC 
61,242 at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. As relevant here, in 2012, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) and 
Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress) filed on behalf of Duke Energy 
Carolinas and CP&L a JDA that provided for the joint dispatch of Duke 
Energy Carolinas' and CP&L's respective generation facilities to serve 
their loads.\5\ In accepting the JDA, the Commission found that the 
allocation of the lowest energy cost under the JDA to the native-load 
customers of Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L is not unduly 
discriminatory.\6\ The Commission stated that this finding was 
consistent with Order No. 2000, wherein it acknowledged that ``in areas 
without retail choice, state commissions have the authority to `require 
a utility to sell its lowest cost power to native load, as [they] 
always [have].' '' \7\ Also, the Commission found that sections 3.2 
(c)(ii)-(iv) of the JDA,\8\ which listed certain regulatory conditions 
that the parties agreed to include in the JDA pursuant to proceedings 
before North Carolina Commission, pertain to retail ratemaking and, 
therefore, should be removed from the agreement.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The JDA provides that the savings from the joint dispatch--
in fuel, purchased power, and related savings--will go directly to 
retail and wholesale customers in North Carolina and South Carolina. 
JDA Order, 139 FERC 61,193 at P 6.
    \6\ Id. P 45.
    \7\ Id. P 45 (quoting from Regional Transmission Organizations, 
Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,089 (1999) (Order No. 2000), 
order on reh'g, Order No. 2000-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,092 (2000), 
aff'd sub nom. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County, 
Washington v. FERC, 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2001)).
    \8\ Section 3.2 (c)(ii)-(iv) of the JDA states:
    (ii) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] may make or 
incur a charge under this Agreement except in accordance with North 
Carolina law and the rules, regulations and orders of the [North 
Carolina Commission] promulgated thereunder;
    (iii) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] may seek to 
reflect in its North Carolina retail rates (i) any costs incurred 
under this Agreement exceeding the amount allowed by the [North 
Carolina Commission] or (ii) any revenue level earned under the 
Agreement other than the amount imputed by the [North Carolina 
Commission]; and
    (iv) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] will assert in 
any forum that the [North Carolina Commission's] authority to 
assign, allocate, make pro forma adjustments to or disallow revenues 
or costs for retail ratemaking and regulatory accounting and 
reporting purposes is preempted and [Duke Energy Carolinas] and 
[CP&L] will bear the full risk of any preemptive effects of federal 
law with respect to this Agreement.
    JDA Order, 139 FERC 61,193 at P 23.
    \9\ Id. P 37. Also, the Commission noted that ``beyond requiring 
the removal of these provisions from the JDA, we offer no view on 
the North Carolina Commission's authority to impose or apply such 
requirements in its proceeding.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Orangeburg requested rehearing, which the Commission denied in 
the JDA Rehearing Order.\10\ In that order, the Commission affirmed its 
finding that the JDA's pricing methodology (i.e., allocating the lowest 
cost resources to serve the parties' native loads, while allocating the 
higher cost resources to off-system sales (non-native load customers)) 
is just and reasonable.\11\ In addition, the Commission held that this 
methodology does not unduly discriminate against Orangeburg, which is 
neither a native-load customer of Duke Energy Carolinas nor CP&L.\12\ 
With that determination, the Commission declined to make a finding with 
respect to Orangeburg's other arguments, such as the lawfulness of the 
North Carolina Commission's regulatory conditions.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ JDA Rehearing Order, 151 FERC 61,242 at P 1.
    \11\ Id. PP 12-13.
    \12\ Id. at P 13.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. D.C. Circuit Remand

    5. In Orangeburg v. FERC, the court stated that, in accepting the 
JDA, the Commission approved certain provisions that established 
disparate treatment between native-load and non-native-load wholesale 
customers.\14\ The court stated that, ``according to Orangeburg, these 
JDA provisions operate against the backdrop of [the North Carolina 
Commission's] functional veto over which wholesale customers fit into 
the former category. The court stated that, for the orders to survive 
review, the Commission must have offer[ed] a valid reason for the 
disparity between native load and non-native load wholesale customers 
``under these circumstances.\15\ The court found that the Commission's 
exclusive

[[Page 22661]]

reliance on Order No. 2000 for approving the JDA's disparate treatment 
and responding to Orangeburg's overlapping Federal Power Act, 
preemption, and Commerce Clause arguments was untenable for a number of 
reasons.\16\ The court concluded that because the Commission [has not] 
offer[ed] a valid reason for the disparity, the court could not affirm 
[the Commission's] approval of the JDA provisions that establish 
disparate treatment of native-load and non-native-load wholesale 
customers, and incorporates [the North Carolina Commission's] 
potentially unlawful regulatory regime.\17\ Accordingly, the court 
vacated in part the JDA Orders and remanded the matter to the 
Commission for further explanation regarding its approval of the 
JDA.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Orangeburg v. FERC, 862 F.3d at 1074, 1081 (wholesale 
customers are treated differently based on their native-load status. 
. . . The JDA divides the world into two categories of customers: 
Native load and non-native load. Only native-load customers--
including wholesale customers--enjoy access to the most reliable and 
lowest cost power.'').
    \15\ Id. at 1084 (citing Black Oak Energy, 725 F.3d at 239) 
(internal quotation marks omitted).
    \16\ Id. at 1085-1087.
    \17\ Id. at 1087.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    6. We establish a briefing schedule to allow the parties and other 
interested persons to address the two issues noted below that the D.C. 
Circuit raised in its decision. Further briefing on these issues will 
help develop a better record for the Commission to respond to the 
court's directive to reconsider these issues.
    7. We request briefing on the following issues, in particular:
    (a) Is the JDA's disparate treatment of native and non-native load 
wholesale customers unduly discriminatory or preferential? In answering 
this question, please address the following:
    (i) Explain why the JDA treats native and non-native load wholesale 
customers disparately and whether the differences between these 
customers justify the disparate treatment.
    (ii) Specify in detail the contractual provisions in current or 
future wholesale contracts that would qualify a wholesale customer for 
native load treatment under the JDA,\19\ as well as any contractual 
provisions that would disqualify a wholesale customer for native load 
treatment under the JDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The JDA provides that Native Load Customers include 
wholesale customers that have native load served by Duke Energy 
Carolinas or CP&L, for which Duke Energy Carolinas or CP&L has an 
obligation pursuant to current or future wholesale contracts, for 
the length of such contracts, to engage in planning and to sell and 
deliver electric capacity and energy in a manner comparable to the 
[utilities'] service to its Retail Native Load Customers. Duke 
Energy Carolinas, FERC Electric Tariff, Rate Schedule No. 341 at 
Article I, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Explain why wholesale sales between Duke Energy Carolinas and 
CP&L are excluded from the definition of non-native load sales and how 
the JDA would treat such a sale between the utilities.
    (b) Do the North Carolina Commission's regulatory conditions \20\ 
impermissibly interfere with this Commission's jurisdiction over 
wholesale ratemaking, in violation of the Federal Power Act \21\ or the 
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution? \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Here, we are referring to the regulatory conditions that 
were in section 3.2 (c)(ii)-(iv) of the JDA, which the JDA Order 
required be removed.
    \21\ 16 U.S.C. 824e(a) (2012); see, e.g., Nantahala Power and 
Light Company v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986); Mississippi Power & 
Light Company v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 US 354 (1988).
    \22\ U.S. Const. art. 1, 8, cl. 3; see, e.g., New England Power 
Company, 455 U.S. 331 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We require Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L to submit--and others 
may submit--initial briefs on or before 45 days from the date of this 
order. Reply briefs must be submitted on or before 30 days following 
the due date of the initial briefs. Any person who is not currently a 
party to the proceeding and who wishes to submit a brief must file a 
notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate.
The Commission Orders
    (A) Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L are required to submit, and 
other parties are hereby permitted to submit initial briefs on or 
before forty-five (45) days of the date of this order, as discussed in 
the body of this order.
    (B) Parties are hereby permitted to file reply briefs on or before 
thirty (30) days of the date of filing of initial briefs.
    (C) All interested persons who wish to submit briefs but that are 
not currently parties to Docket Nos. ER12-1338-003 or ER12-1347-004 may 
submit notices of intervention or motions to intervene, as appropriate, 
within 21 days of the date of this order. The briefing schedule 
described in Ordering Paragraphs (A) and (B) will apply to such 
persons.
    (D) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish this order in the 
Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: May 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10402 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
22660 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices

A copy of any motion to intervene or (Orangeburg) regarding certain certain regulatory conditions that the
protest must be served upon each regulatory conditions in the JDA that parties agreed to include in the JDA
representative of the applicant specified Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L agreed pursuant to proceedings before North
in the particular application. If an to include pursuant to proceedings Carolina Commission, pertain to retail
intervener files comments or documents before the North Carolina Public ratemaking and, therefore, should be
with the Commission relating to the Utilities Commission (North Carolina removed from the agreement.9
merits of an issue that may affect the Commission). As discussed below, we 4. Orangeburg requested rehearing,
responsibilities of a particular resource establish a briefing schedule to develop which the Commission denied in the
agency, they must also serve a copy of a better record on which to make a JDA Rehearing Order.10 In that order,
the document on that resource agency. determination on these two issues. the Commission affirmed its finding that
A copy of all other filings in reference the JDA’s pricing methodology (i.e.,
to this application must be accompanied I. Background allocating the lowest cost resources to
by proof of service on all persons listed A. Case History serve the parties’ native loads, while
in the service list prepared by the allocating the higher cost resources to
2. The history of this case is off-system sales (non-native load
Commission in this proceeding, in
recounted at length in earlier customers)) is just and reasonable.11 In
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010. Commission orders.4 addition, the Commission held that this
3. As relevant here, in 2012, Duke methodology does not unduly
Dated: May 9, 2018. Energy Corporation (Duke) and Progress discriminate against Orangeburg, which
Kimberly D. Bose, Energy, Inc. (Progress) filed on behalf of is neither a native-load customer of
Secretary. Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L a JDA Duke Energy Carolinas nor CP&L.12
[FR Doc. 2018–10442 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am] that provided for the joint dispatch of With that determination, the
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Duke Energy Carolinas’ and CP&L’s Commission declined to make a finding
respective generation facilities to serve with respect to Orangeburg’s other
their loads.5 In accepting the JDA, the arguments, such as the lawfulness of the
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Commission found that the allocation of North Carolina Commission’s regulatory
the lowest energy cost under the JDA to conditions.13
Federal Energy Regulatory the native-load customers of Duke
Commission Energy Carolinas and CP&L is not B. D.C. Circuit Remand
[Docket Nos. ER12–1338–003; ER12–1347– unduly discriminatory.6 The 5. In Orangeburg v. FERC, the court
004] Commission stated that this finding was stated that, in accepting the JDA, the
consistent with Order No. 2000, Commission approved certain
Order Establishing Briefing Schedule: wherein it acknowledged that ‘‘in areas provisions that established disparate
Duke Energy Corporation Progress without retail choice, state commissions treatment between native-load and non-
Energy, Inc.; Carolina Power & Light have the authority to ‘require a utility to native-load wholesale customers.14 The
Company sell its lowest cost power to native load, court stated that, ‘‘according to
Before Commissioners: Kevin J. McIntyre, as [they] always [have].’ ’’ 7 Also, the Orangeburg, these JDA provisions
Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, Neil Commission found that sections 3.2 operate against the backdrop of [the
Chatterjee, Robert F. Powelson, and (c)(ii)–(iv) of the JDA,8 which listed North Carolina Commission’s]
Richard Glick. functional veto over which wholesale
1. On July 14, 2017, the United States
4 City of Orangeburg, South Carolina, 151 FERC
customers fit into the former category.
61,241, PP 3–10 (2015) (dismissing Orangeburg’s The court stated that, for the orders to
Court of Appeals for the District of petition for declaratory order); JDA Order, 139
Columbia (D.C. Circuit) issued a FERC 61,193 at PP 2–4; JDA Rehearing Order, 151
survive review, the Commission must
decision,1 vacating in part the FERC 61,242 at 2–4. have offer[ed] a valid reason for the
Commission’s acceptance of a Joint 5 The JDA provides that the savings from the joint disparity between native load and non-
Dispatch Agreement (JDA) between
dispatch—in fuel, purchased power, and related native load wholesale customers ‘‘under
savings—will go directly to retail and wholesale these circumstances.15 The court found
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke customers in North Carolina and South Carolina.
Energy Carolinas) and Carolina Power & JDA Order, 139 FERC 61,193 at P 6. that the Commission’s exclusive
6 Id. P 45.
Light Company (CP&L) 2 and remanding
7 Id. P 45 (quoting from Regional Transmission costs for retail ratemaking and regulatory
the matter to the Commission for further accounting and reporting purposes is preempted
Organizations, Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs.
consideration. The court found that 31,089 (1999) (Order No. 2000), order on reh’g, and [Duke Energy Carolinas] and [CP&L] will bear
certain provisions in the JDA result in Order No. 2000–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,092 the full risk of any preemptive effects of federal law
disparate rate treatment between native- (2000), aff’d sub nom. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of with respect to this Agreement.
Snohomish County, Washington v. FERC, 272 F.3d JDA Order, 139 FERC 61,193 at P 23.
load and non-native-load wholesale 9 Id. P 37. Also, the Commission noted that
607 (D.C. Cir. 2001)).
customers and that the Commission had 8 Section 3.2 (c)(ii)–(iv) of the JDA states: ‘‘beyond requiring the removal of these provisions
not offered a valid reason for such a (ii) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] from the JDA, we offer no view on the North
disparity.3 Also, the court found that the may make or incur a charge under this Agreement Carolina Commission’s authority to impose or apply
Commission failed to sufficiently except in accordance with North Carolina law and such requirements in its proceeding.’’ Id.
10 JDA Rehearing Order, 151 FERC 61,242 at P 1.
respond to several arguments raised by the rules, regulations and orders of the [North
11 Id. PP 12–13.
Carolina Commission] promulgated thereunder;
the City of Orangeburg, South Carolina (iii) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] 12 Id. at P 13.

may seek to reflect in its North Carolina retail rates 13 Id.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

1 Orangeburg, South Carolina v. FERC, 862 F.3d
(i) any costs incurred under this Agreement 14 Orangeburg v. FERC, 862 F.3d at 1074, 1081
1071 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Orangeburg v. FERC). exceeding the amount allowed by the [North (wholesale customers are treated differently based
2 Duke Energy Corp., 139 FERC 61,193 (2012) Carolina Commission] or (ii) any revenue level on their native-load status. . . . The JDA divides
(JDA Order), order denying reh’g, 151 FERC 61,242 earned under the Agreement other than the amount the world into two categories of customers: Native
(2015) (JDA Rehearing Order) (together, JDA imputed by the [North Carolina Commission]; and load and non-native load. Only native-load
Orders). (iv) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] customers—including wholesale customers—enjoy
3 Orangeburg v. FERC, 862 F.3d at 1084 (citing will assert in any forum that the [North Carolina access to the most reliable and lowest cost power.’’).
Black Oak Energy, LLC v. FERC, 725 F.3d 230, 239 Commission’s] authority to assign, allocate, make 15 Id. at 1084 (citing Black Oak Energy, 725 F.3d

(D.C. Cir. 2013) (Black Oak)). pro forma adjustments to or disallow revenues or at 239) (internal quotation marks omitted).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Notices 22661

reliance on Order No. 2000 for of non-native load sales and how the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
approving the JDA’s disparate treatment JDA would treat such a sale between the
and responding to Orangeburg’s utilities. Federal Energy Regulatory
overlapping Federal Power Act, Commission
(b) Do the North Carolina
preemption, and Commerce Clause Commission’s regulatory conditions 20 [Docket No. RD18–4–000]
arguments was untenable for a number
impermissibly interfere with this
of reasons.16 The court concluded that Commission Information Collection
Commission’s jurisdiction over
because the Commission [has not] Activities (FERC–725G); Comment
offer[ed] a valid reason for the disparity, wholesale ratemaking, in violation of
Request; Revision
the court could not affirm [the the Federal Power Act 21 or the
Commission’s] approval of the JDA Commerce Clause of the United States AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory
provisions that establish disparate Constitution? 22 Commission, Department of Energy.
treatment of native-load and non-native- 8. We require Duke Energy Carolinas ACTION: Notice of revised information
load wholesale customers, and and CP&L to submit—and others may collection and request for comments.
incorporates [the North Carolina submit—initial briefs on or before 45 SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Commission’s] potentially unlawful days from the date of this order. Reply requirements of the Paperwork
regulatory regime.17 Accordingly, the briefs must be submitted on or before 30 Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal
court vacated in part the JDA Orders days following the due date of the initial Energy Regulatory Commission
and remanded the matter to the briefs. Any person who is not currently (Commission or FERC) is soliciting
Commission for further explanation a party to the proceeding and who public comments on revisions to the
regarding its approval of the JDA.18 wishes to submit a brief must file a information collection, FERC–725G
II. Discussion notice of intervention or motion to (Reliability Standards for the Bulk
intervene, as appropriate. Power System: PRC Reliability
6. We establish a briefing schedule to Standards) in Docket No. RD18–4–000
allow the parties and other interested The Commission Orders and will be submitting FERC–725G to
persons to address the two issues noted the Office of Management and Budget
below that the D.C. Circuit raised in its (A) Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L
(OMB) for review of the information
decision. Further briefing on these are required to submit, and other parties
collection requirements.
issues will help develop a better record are hereby permitted to submit initial
DATES: Comments on the collection of
for the Commission to respond to the briefs on or before forty-five (45) days of
information are due July 16, 2018.
court’s directive to reconsider these the date of this order, as discussed in
issues. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
the body of this order.
7. We request briefing on the identified by Docket No. RD18–4–000
(B) Parties are hereby permitted to file by either of the following methods:
following issues, in particular:
(a) Is the JDA’s disparate treatment of
reply briefs on or before thirty (30) days • eFiling at Commission’s Website:
of the date of filing of initial briefs. http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
native and non-native load wholesale
customers unduly discriminatory or (C) All interested persons who wish to efiling.asp.
submit briefs but that are not currently • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:
preferential? In answering this question,
parties to Docket Nos. ER12–1338–003 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
please address the following:
(i) Explain why the JDA treats native or ER12–1347–004 may submit notices Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
and non-native load wholesale of intervention or motions to intervene, Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Instructions: All submissions must be
customers disparately and whether the as appropriate, within 21 days of the formatted and filed in accordance with
differences between these customers date of this order. The briefing schedule submission guidelines at: http://
justify the disparate treatment. described in Ordering Paragraphs (A) www.ferc.gov/help/submission-
(ii) Specify in detail the contractual and (B) will apply to such persons. guide.asp. For user assistance, contact
provisions in current or future
(D) The Secretary is hereby directed to FERC Online Support by email at
wholesale contracts that would qualify
publish this order in the Federal ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or by phone
a wholesale customer for native load
Register. at: (866) 208–3676 (toll-free), or (202)
treatment under the JDA,19 as well as
502–8659 for TTY.
any contractual provisions that would By the Commission.
Docket: Users interested in receiving
disqualify a wholesale customer for Issued: May 10, 2018. automatic notification of activity in this
native load treatment under the JDA. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., docket or in viewing/downloading
(iii) Explain why wholesale sales comments and issuances in this docket
Deputy Secretary.
between Duke Energy Carolinas and may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
[FR Doc. 2018–10402 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am]
CP&L are excluded from the definition filing/docs-filing.asp.
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
16 Id. at 1085–1087.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
17 Id. at 1087. Ellen Brown may be reached by email
18 Id. at DataClearance@FERC.gov, telephone
19 The JDA provides that Native Load Customers at (202) 502–8663, and fax at (202) 273–
include wholesale customers that have native load
20 Here, we are referring to the regulatory
0873.
served by Duke Energy Carolinas or CP&L, for
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

which Duke Energy Carolinas or CP&L has an
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
conditions that were in section 3.2 (c)(ii)–(iv) of the
obligation pursuant to current or future wholesale JDA, which the JDA Order required be removed.
Title: FERC–725G, Reliability
contracts, for the length of such contracts, to engage 21 16 U.S.C. 824e(a) (2012); see, e.g., Nantahala Standards for the Bulk Power System:
in planning and to sell and deliver electric capacity PRC Reliability Standards.
Power and Light Company v. Thornburg, 476 U.S.
and energy in a manner comparable to the OMB Control No.: 1902–0252.
[utilities’] service to its Retail Native Load 953 (1986); Mississippi Power & Light Company v.
Customers. Duke Energy Carolinas, FERC Electric Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 US 354 (1988). Type of Request: Revision of FERC–
Tariff, Rate Schedule No. 341 at Article I, 22 U.S. Const. art. 1, 8, cl. 3; see, e.g., New 725G information collection
Definitions. England Power Company, 455 U.S. 331 (1982). requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 May 15, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM 16MYN1
Document Created: 2018-11-02 09:13:56
Document Modified: 2018-11-02 09:13:56
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		83 FR 22660
83 FR 22660 - Order Establishing Briefing Schedule: Duke Energy Corporation Progress Energy, Inc.; Carolina Power & Light Company

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYFederal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 95 (May 16, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
