Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Notices 42667 

otherwise enter upon lands or waters 

owned by others without the owners’ 

express permission. 

The proposed project would consist 

of: (1) 1,720 turbine-generator units 

configured in a series of turbine arrays 

which in turn will be grouped to form 

turbine fields; (2) a combination of 

freestanding pilings, a floating bargelike platform, or existing shore 

infrastructure such as dock pilings onto 

which the turbine arrays will be 

moored; (3) submersible electric cables 

interconnecting the arrays within each 

turbine field and transmit the turbine 

field’s generation to a shore station; (4) 

several shore stations each consisting of 

less than 100 square meters which will 

transition the submersible cabling to the 

overhead transmission; (5) a 7.6 mile, 69 

kV line interconnecting the shore 

stations and delivering power to the 

project substation; and (6) appurtenant 

facilities. The proposed project would 

generate about 150 gigawatt-hours 

annually. 

Applicant contact: Ramya 

Swaminathan, Free Flow Power 

Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, 

Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930, 

phone: (978) 226–1531. 

FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban, 202– 

502–6211. 

Deadline for filing comments, motions 

to intervene, competing applications 

(without notices of intent), or notices of 

intent to file competing applications: 60 

days from the issuance of this notice. 

Comments, motions to intervene, 

notices of intent, and competing 

applications may be filed electronically 

via the Internet. See 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 

on the Commission’s Web site under the 

‘‘e-Filing’’ link. If unable to be filed 

electronically, documents may be paperfiled. To paper-file, an original and eight 

copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. 

Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 

more information on how to submit 

these types of filings please go to the 

Commission’s Web site located at 

http://www.ferc.gov/filingcomments.asp. More information about 

this project, including a copy of the 

application, can be viewed or printed on 

the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link of Commission’s 

Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number 

(P–13541) in the docket number field to 

access the document. For assistance, 

call toll-free 1–866–208–3372. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–20220 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Electrical Interconnection of the 

Golden Hills Wind Project 

AGENCY: Bonneville Power 

Administration (BPA), Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of Record 

of Decision (ROD). 

SUMMARY: The Bonneville Power 

Administration (BPA) has decided to 

offer BP Alternative Energy North 

America, Inc. a Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement for 

interconnection of up to 200 megawatts 

of power into the Federal Columbia 

River Transmission System. The power 

would be generated by the Golden Hills 

Wind Project (Wind Project) in Sherman 

County, Oregon. To interconnect the 

Wind Project, BPA will string a jumper 

line at an existing transmission tower 

outside Klondike Schoolhouse 

Substation and connect to BPA’s Biglow 

Canyon—Klondike Schoolhouse No. 2 

230-kilovolt line. BPA will also 

purchase part of Portland General 

Electric’s Biglow Canyon Substation, as 

well as about 1 acre of land next to 

Biglow Canyon Substation for the 

expansion of the substation to 

accommodate new equipment, 

including a new transmission tower. 

This new tower will then be connected 

to an existing transmission tower 

outside the substation fence. This 

decision to interconnect the Wind 

Project is consistent with and tiered to 

BPA’s Business Plan Environmental 

Impact Statement (DOE/EIS–0183, June 

1995), and the Business Plan Record of 

Decision (BP ROD, August 1995). 

ADDRESSES: Copies of this tiered ROD 

and the Business Plan EIS may be 

obtained by calling BPA’s toll-free 

document request line, 1–800–622– 

4520. The RODs and EIS are also 

available on our Web site, http:// 

www.efw.bpa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Lynard, Bonneville Power 

Administration—KEC–4, P.O. Box 3621, 

Portland, Oregon, 97208–3621; toll-free 

telephone number 1–800–622–4519; fax 

number 503–230–5699; or e-mail 

gplynard@bpa.gov. 

Issued in Portland, Oregon, on August 13, 

2009. 

Stephen J. Wright, 

Administrator and Chief Executive Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–20303 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Western Area Power Administration 

Big Stone II Power Plant and 

Transmission Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/ 

EIS–0377) 

AGENCY: Western Area Power 

Administration, DOE. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The Western Area Power 

Administration (Western) received an 

application to interconnect the Big 

Stone II Power Plant and Transmission 

Project (Project) into Western’s 

transmission system. The Project entails 

the construction of a new 600-megawatt 

(MW) coal-fired electric power 

generating station adjacent to the 

existing Big Stone plant in Grant 

County, South Dakota. The Project also 

includes approximately 140 miles of 

new or upgraded transmission lines. On 

June 26, 2009, Western published a 

notice of the availability of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

on the Project (74 FR 30559). Western 

considered the environmental impacts 

of the Project and has decided to allow 

the request to interconnect at Western’s 

Morris and Granite Falls substations 

located in Minnesota. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, please contact Mr. 

Matt Blevins, NEPA Document Manager, 

Big Stone II EIS, Western Area Power 

Administration, A7400, P.O. Box 

281213, Lakewood, CO 80228, 

telephone (800) 336–7288, fax (720) 

962–7263, or e-mail 

BigStoneEIS@wapa.gov. For general 

information on DOE’s NEPA review 

process, please contact Carol M. 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance, GC–20, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Washington, DC 

20585, telephone (202) 586–4600 or 

(800) 472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western is 

a Federal agency under the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) that 

markets and transmits wholesale 

electrical power through an integrated 

17,000-circuit mile, high-voltage 

transmission system across 15 western 

states. The Project is located within 

Western’s Upper Great Plains Region, 

which operates and maintains nearly 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
42668 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Notices 

1The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission 

(SDPUC) has previously approved the construction 

and operation of the Big Stone II power plant. 

Likewise SDPUC and the Minnesota Public Utilities 

Commission have previously approved the 

transmission line route. 

100 substations and nearly 7,800 miles 

of Federal transmission lines in 

Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, 

Montana, Nebraska, and Iowa. Western’s 

Open Access Transmission Service 

Tariff (Tariff) provides open access to its 

transmission system. Western provides 

these services through an 

interconnection if there is available 

capacity on the transmission system, 

while protecting the transmission 

system reliability, and considering the 

applicant’s objectives. Western’s Federal 

involvement is related to the 

determination of whether to approve the 

interconnection request for the Project. 

Western’s Proposed Action is to 

interconnect the Project to Western’s 

transmission system. 

Applicant’s Objectives and Project 

The Project proposed by Otter Tail 

Corporation (dba Otter Tail Power 

Company), Central Minnesota 

Municipal Power Agency, Heartland 

Consumers Power District, MontanaDakota Utilities Company, and Western 

Minnesota Municipal Power Agency 

(dba Missouri River Energy Services), 

collectively referred to as the Coowners, is a new 600–MW (net) coalfired electric generating station and 

associated transmission lines and 

substation upgrades. 

The Co-owners objectives include a 

combination of the following: 

• Satisfy load growth; 

• Replace current capacity and energy 

contracts that expire; 

• Reduce reliance on energy 

production from existing oil- and gasfired generating capacity and the 

associated higher costs and volatility of 

fuel costs; 

• Reduce reliance on and exposure to 

power market prices; 

• Address the limited deliverability 

of future capacity and energy purchases 

due to transmission constraints. 

The Co-owners’ proposed Project 

includes constructing and operating the 

Big Stone II coal-fired power plant and 

groundwater system, transmission 

additions and modifications, and 

substation additions and modifications. 

The Project would include a pulverized 

coal-fired, super-critical boiler using 

low-sulfur, Powder River Basin coal. 

The boiler would provide steam to a 

single steam turbine generator that 

would convert the mechanical energy of 

the steam turbine to electrical energy. A 

water-cooled steam condenser would 

accept the steam exhausted from the 

turbine and a circulating water system 

would supply cooling water from a wet 

cooling tower to the water-cooled steam 

condenser to dissipate the energy in the 

condensing steam. The wet cooling 

system would use surface water as the 

primary water supply and groundwater 

as the back-up water supply. The Project 

also includes installation of 

groundwater wells and a pipeline 

system to convey groundwater to the 

proposed plant site and other facilities 

associated with the use of groundwater 

for the Project. 

Alternatives Considered 

Western, in its preparation of the EIS, 

evaluated several categories of 

alternatives over which Western has no 

decision-making authority.1 Western’s 

Federal involvement is related to the 

determination of whether to approve the 

Co-Owners’ interconnection request for 

the Project. The Proposed Action was to 

allow the interconnection request and 

the resulting Project. Under the No 

Action alternative, Western would deny 

the interconnection request. Western 

analyzed three likely scenarios under 

the No Action alternative: (1) The Coowners would not proceed with the 

proposed Project, and the Co-owners 

would not secure alternate baseload 

generation and would not seek alternate 

transmission configurations, referred to 

as the No-Build Alternative in the Final 

EIS; (2) the Co-owners would not 

proceed with the proposed Project, and 

the Co-owners would likely fulfill their 

generation and transmission needs 

individually or cooperatively through 

alternative arrangements by seeking 

generation capacity and energy from 

other sources, if available, referred to as 

Sub-Alternative 1 in the Final EIS; and 

(3) the Co-owners would likely proceed 

with the construction and operation of 

the proposed Big Stone II Power Plant 

in order to fulfill their objectives (as 

discussed above), but instead of 

obtaining transmission interconnections 

to the Federal transmission system, the 

Co-owners would be required to seek an 

alternative transmission configuration 

that would provide firm transmission 

service on the Midwest Independent 

System Operator (MISO) system or to 

purchase non-firm transmission rights 

from MISO over the MISO system, 

referred to as Sub-Alternative 2 in the 

Final EIS. 

Although the No Action alternative 

would eliminate Western’s role in the 

Co-owners’ proposed Project, the 

environmental impacts would likely 

still occur, as described under the subalternatives to the No Action alternative 

(described above), since the Co-owners 

would likely proceed with the 

construction and operation of the 

proposed power plant or would obtain 

the necessary generation capacity from 

another facility with similar 

environmental impacts as the proposed 

Project. 

As required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b), 

Western has identified the No-Build 

Alternative as its environmentally 

preferred alternative. Under this 

alternative, Western would deny the 

interconnection request and not modify 

its transmission system to interconnect 

the proposed Project with its 

transmission system. Under this 

alternative, there would be no 

modifications to Western’s transmission 

system, and thus no new environmental 

impacts. The Co-owners purpose and 

need would not be met. 

In addition to analyzing the decision 

contemplated by Western, the Final EIS 

discussed several additional alternatives 

considered by the Co-owners, including 

two transmission alternatives and two 

cooling technology alternatives. 

Several additional alternatives were 

considered but dismissed from detailed 

analysis and include the following: 

power generation technology 

alternatives, cooling technology 

alternatives, power plant location 

alternatives, transmission line 

technology alternatives, and 

transmission line corridor alternatives. 

Mitigation Measures 

Through public participation in the 

NEPA process as well as the concurrent 

permitting processes the Co-owners 

have undergone with other agencies, the 

Co-owners have altered the design of the 

proposed Project to minimize harm to 

the environment. For example, the Coowners modified the original proposed 

Project to include a back-up water 

supply system using groundwater to 

avoid wetlands. Additionally, as part of 

the settlement agreement with the 

Minnesota Department of Commerce, 

the Co-owners are required to offset 100 

percent of the carbon dioxide emissions 

attributable to the proposed Project’s 

Minnesota consumers for a four-year 

period from the start of commercial 

operation. The Co-owners have also 

agreed to install mercury control 

technology that is most likely to remove 

at least 90% of mercury emitted from 

both the existing and proposed plants. 

The Co-owners have committed to the 

mitigation measures as described in 

Tables 2.2–7, 2.2–8 and 2.6–2 of the 

Final EIS. The measures were designed 

to avoid and minimize harm to the 

environment from the proposed Project. 

In addition, Western will implement 

mitigation measures applicable to any 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Notices 42669 

system modifications performed at 

Western facilities for proposed Federal 

action as described in Table 2.2–9 in the 

Final EIS. 

With the above mentioned project 

modifications and agreements and 

implementation of the mitigation 

measures, all practicable means to avoid 

or minimize environmental harm from 

the proposed Project and Western’s 

Federal Proposed Action have been 

adopted. 

Comments on Final EIS 

Western received comments from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) in a letter dated July 27, 2009, 

and from the Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources (MnDNR) in a letter 

dated July 29, 2009. Based on a review 

of these comments, Western has 

determined that it is clear the comments 

do not present any significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns and bearing on 

the proposed Project or its impacts, and 

thus a Supplemental EIS is not required. 

The basis for this determination is 

summarized below. 

EPA’s letter noted several 

improvements to the project including 

the avoidance of wetlands, installation 

of mercury control equipment, and a 

partial offset of carbon dioxide 

emissions. 

EPA’s letter noted an apparent 

discrepancy in the Final EIS regarding 

mercury emissions at the proposed 

plant. The EPA correctly noted that the 

mercury emission limit in the Title V 

Air Quality Permit is 189 pounds (lbs) 

per year for the combined existing and 

proposed plants. The EPA also noted a 

mercury emission goal of 81.5 lbs per 

year for the combined plants. Western 

does not view this as a discrepancy, 

since the 81.5 lbs represents the actual 

estimated annual emission level that 

may be achieved after implementation 

of pollution controls, which is less than 

the annual emission limit of 189 lbs 

allowed by the Title V permit. The 

estimated annual emission of 81.5 lbs is 

based on the voluntary Settlement 

Agreement between the Co-owners and 

the Minnesota Department of 

Commerce, in which the Co-owners 

agreed to install control equipment for 

the existing plant and the proposed 

plant that is expected to remove at least 

90 percent of the mercury emitted from 

the existing plant and proposed Big 

Stone II plant combined. Based upon 

the expected content of mercury for 

Powder River Basin coal (containing 

about 0.0715 parts per million by weight 

mercury, the approximate value 

expected for the coal used by the 

proposed Project), a 90 percent removal 

would result in annual emissions of 

approximately 81.5 lbs of mercury. 

Additionally, the 81.5 lb estimate is less 

than the estimated 189.6 lb of mercury 

emissions reported from the existing Big 

Stone plant in 2004. Therefore, if the 

proposed Big Stone II plant is 

constructed (and after implementation 

of emissions controls), mercury 

emissions from both plants would be 

less than the emissions from the existing 

plant, a reduction of approximately 57 

percent when compared to 2004 values. 

As part of the Settlement Agreement, 

the Co-owners agreed to act in good 

faith to install control equipment as 

expeditiously as possible. However, in 

accordance with the Settlement 

Agreement, the Co-owners have four 

years after the commercial operation 

date of Big Stone II to achieve 

compliance with this requirement. 

EPA’s letter notes that the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP) 

published the June 2009 report, ‘‘Global 

Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States.’’ Drawing from a large body of 

scientific information and produced by 

a consortium of experts from 

government science agencies, 

universities, and research institutes, the 

report summarizes the science of 

climate change and the impacts of 

climate change on the United States, 

now and in the future. Concluding that 

global warming is unequivocal, the 

report states that the ‘‘global warming 

observed over the past 50 years is due 

primarily to human-induced emissions 

of heat-trapping gases,’’ primarily from 

the burning of fossil fuels. The report 

reviews the well-known global climate 

change topics and relates those same 

issues to the impacts forecasted to affect 

the U.S., particularly relating to 

predicted temperature and precipitation 

changes, extreme weather events, and 

sea level changes. Considerable 

discussion is devoted to impacts on 

water resources, agriculture, and 

ecosystems, as well as changes in the 

way the U.S. will generate and use 

energy (including future development of 

renewable energy resources), and 

potential impacts to air, rail, shipping, 

and road transportation. The report also 

discusses climate-related health impacts 

and the ways that climate change will 

affect society through impacts on the 

necessities and comforts of life. Many of 

these issues are discussed in greater 

detail in a consideration of climate 

change impacts to each of the regional 

geographic areas of the U.S. Predictions 

of climate change and future conditions 

come from analyses of computer models 

that simulate climate scenarios to which 

USGCRP relates, ‘‘there is always some 

level of uncertainty.’’ Nevertheless, 

USGCRP cites, ‘‘the science of making 

skillful projections at these scales has 

progressed considerably, allowing 

useful information to be drawn from 

regional climate studies.’’ Climate 

modeling in the report indicates there 

will be adverse impacts due to climate 

change affecting the three-state region 

(i.e., South Dakota, North Dakota, and 

Minnesota) around the proposed Big 

Stone II plant. Examples of these effects, 

some positive and some negative, 

include increases in precipitation, 

including more frequent heavy 

downpours resulting in more flooding, 

rising temperatures and more frequent 

heat waves, longer growing seasons, and 

shifts in vegetation hardiness zones. 

Ecosystem disruptions causing changes 

in habitat, water, and food supply 

would cause some species to decline, 

cause shifts in the range of native 

species, or encourage invasions of nonnative species. Some species would be 

better adapted to a warmer climate. A 

warmer climate would affect air quality, 

and would generally mean more 

ground-level ozone, causing more 

respiratory problems. Western notes the 

potential regional effects identified in 

the report are similar to the global 

effects discussed in the Final EIS, which 

EPA concluded ‘‘the analysis provided 

in the Final EIS regarding green house 

gas emissions from the proposed plant 

is robust and accurate.’’ 

MnDNR’s letter expressed concerns 

that the Final EIS does not appear to 

address its concerns, but ‘‘just reiterates 

claims made in the Draft EIS’’ and that 

use of water from Big Stone Lake by the 

proposed plant would have serious 

impacts to water levels in the lake and 

base flow in the Upper Minnesota River 

during extended periods of drought and 

low runoff. In their letter, the MnDNR 

also asserted that the operating plan for 

the Big Stone Lake Dam is outdated and 

does not adequately address the public’s 

interest when considering the proposed 

plant’s water appropriation. Western 

notes that the Project’s Co-owners made 

significant changes in the proposed 

Project after the May 2006 Draft EIS, and 

these changes were fully disclosed in a 

Supplemental Draft EIS issued in 

October 2007. MnDNR provided 

comments on the Supplement Draft EIS 

and as a result additional information 

was added to the Final EIS, including 

detailed responses to groundwater and 

surface water comments as noted in 

Volume II of the Final EIS. In summary, 

the South Dakota Water Management 

Board (SDWMB) issued Water Permit 

No. 6678–3 on November 1, 2006, 

which authorizes an additional 10,000 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
42670 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Notices 

2Western’s authority to issue a record of decision 

is pursuant to authority delegated on October 4, 

1999, from the Assistant Secretary for Environment, 

Safety and Health to Western’s Administrator. 

acre-feet of water annually from Big 

Stone Lake. The permit specifies the 

diversion rates allowed by the proposed 

plant, authorizes the construction of the 

water use system, and the placing of 

water to beneficial use subject to certain 

conditions. The permit includes the 

same withdrawal restrictions based on 

Big Stone Lake water levels and time of 

year as in the permit for the existing 

plant. The water appropriation permit 

was issued by the SDWMB in the 

interest of public policy, and thus water 

appropriations by the proposed Project 

are in conformance with South Dakota 

laws. The SDWMB, in issuing the 

permits for water withdrawal, have 

determined that the proposed water use 

would not be damaging for the intended 

purpose. Additionally, in accordance 

with the Settlement Agreement 

approved by the Minnesota Public 

Utilities Commission, the Project’s Coowners have agreed to provide all data 

used to evaluate the effects of water 

withdrawals from Big Stone Lake to the 

South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources and 

MnDNR and to participate in meetings 

with State agencies to address the 

management of the Big Stone Lake water 

flow and level issues. Western notes 

MnDNR’s desire to have the Minnesota/ 

South Dakota Boundary Commission 

reconvened, however, that decision 

rests with the respective State 

governors. 

Decision 

Western’s environmental record of 

decision (ROD) is to allow the CoOwners’ request for interconnection to 

Western’s transmission system at Morris 

and Granite Falls substations in 

Minnesota and to complete 

modifications to these substations to 

support the interconnection.2 Western’s 

environmental decision to grant this 

interconnection request satisfies the 

agency’s statutory mission and the Coowners’ objectives while minimizing 

harm to the environment. Additionally, 

an interconnection agreement must be 

completed in accordance with Western’s 

Tariff. 

The Co-owners have committed to 

minimize the propose Project’s impact 

on the environment through the 

Project’s design, the use of pollution 

control technology, the offset of carbon 

dioxide emissions, and the 

implementation of mitigation measures 

as summarized in Tables 2.2–7, 2.2–8, 

and 2.6–2 of the Final EIS. For its part, 

Western will adhere to mitigation 

measures for all modifications at its 

Morris and Granite Falls substations as 

noted in Table 2.2–9 of the Final EIS. 

Western conditions its environmental 

approval of the Co-owner’s request to 

interconnect to Western’s transmission 

system upon the adoption and 

implementation of the mitigation 

measures as described in the Final EIS. 

This decision is based on the 

information contained in the Big Stone 

II Power Plant and Transmission Project 

Final EIS (DOE/EIS–0377). This ROD 

was prepared pursuant to the 

requirements of the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations for 

Implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508) and DOE’s Procedures for 

Implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 1021). 

Dated: August 14, 2009. 

Timothy J. Meeks, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–20300 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 1494–348–OK] 

Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of 

Availability of Environmental 

Assessment 

August 14, 2009. 

In accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission’s regulations, 18 CFR part 

380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the 

Office of Energy Projects has reviewed 

Grand River Dam Authority’s proposed 

shoreline management plan (SMP) for 

the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project, 

located on the Grand River in Craig, 

Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, 

Oklahoma, and has prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) on the 

SMP. 

A copy of the EA is on file with the 

Commission and is available for public 

inspection. The EA may also be viewed 

on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket 

number (P–1494) excluding the last 

three digits in the docket number field 

to access the document. For assistance, 

contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. 

Any comments on the EA should be 

filed by September 14, 2009, and should 

be addressed to the Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Room 1–A, 

Washington, DC 20426. Please reference 

the project name and project number 

(P–1494–348) on all comments. 

Comments may be filed electronically 

via the Internet in lieu of paper. The 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings. See 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 

on the Commission’s Web site under the 

‘‘eFiling’’ link. For further information, 

contact Brian Romanek at (202) 502– 

6175. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–20235 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket Nos. ER08–1113–004; ER08–1113– 

005] 

California Independent System 

Operator Corporation; Supplemental 

Notice of Technical Conference 

August 14, 2009. 

On July 29, 2009, the Commission 

issued an order establishing technical 

conference in the above-captioned 

proceedings to explore issues 

concerning Market Efficiency 

Enhancement Agreements (MEEA) 

between the California Independent 

System Operator Corporation (CAISO) 

and eligible market participants. The 

technical conference will be held on 

Thursday, August 20, 2009, at 10 a.m. 

(EDT), in Hearing Room 7 at the offices 

of the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426 and ending at 

approximately 4 p.m. (EDT). The 

following additional information and 

instruction is provided regarding the 

conference. 

The technical conference will afford 

Commission staff and interested parties 

an opportunity to discuss the issues 

related to the MEEAs. The conference is 

intended to be a working session 

focused on discussing the information 

necessary to execute a MEEA and the 

transactions under a MEEA that should 

receive MEEA pricing. The July 29, 2009 

order outlined the issues to be 

discussed. 

The technical conference will be open 

to the public. Although staff encourages 

all interested parties to attend in person, 

the conference will be accessible via 

telephone on a listen-only basis. For 

information regarding telephone access 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES