Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices 28633 

1Old Dominion Elec. Coop. v. PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C., 162 FERC 61,160 (2018). 

2Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference, 

Docket No. EL17–32–000 and EL17–36–000 (Apr. 

18, 2018). 

Immediately following the conclusion 

of the Commission Meeting, a press 

briefing will be held in the Commission 

Meeting Room. Members of the public 

may view this briefing in the designated 

overflow room. This statement is 

intended to notify the public that the 

press briefings that follow Commission 

meetings may now be viewed remotely 

at Commission headquarters, but will 

not be telecast through the Capitol 

Connection service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13195 Filed 6–15–18; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following exempt 

wholesale generator filings: 

Docket Numbers: EG18–100–000. 

Applicants: Foard City Wind, LLC. 

Description: Notice of SelfCertification of Exempt Wholesale 

Generator Status of Foard City Wind, 

LLC. 

Filed Date: 6/14/18. 

Accession Number: 20180614–5027. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER10–2924–013. 

Applicants: Kleen Energy Systems, 

LLC. 

Description: Notice of Non-Material 

Change in Status of Kleen Energy 

Systems, LLC. 

Filed Date: 6/13/18. 

Accession Number: 20180613–5125. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

Docket Numbers: ER16–1720–006. 

Applicants: Invenergy Energy 

Management LLC. 

Description: Notice of Change in Facts 

Under Market-Based Rate Authority of 

Invenergy Energy Management LLC. 

Filed Date: 6/13/18. 

Accession Number: 20180613–5124. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

Docket Numbers: ER18–1778–000. 

Applicants: CFE International LLC. 

Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: 

Market Based Rates to be effective 7/1/ 

2018. 

Filed Date: 6/13/18. 

Accession Number: 20180613–5103. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

Docket Numbers: ER18–1779–000. 

Applicants: Midcontinent 

Independent System Operator, Inc. 

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 

2018–06–13_SA 2155 Ameren IllinoisBishop Hill 2nd Rev GIA (G545) to be 

effective 5/14/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/13/18. 

Accession Number: 20180613–5121. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

Docket Numbers: ER18–1780–000. 

Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, 

Inc. 

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 

1977R11 Nemaha-Marshall Electric 

Cooperative NITSA NOA to be effective 

9/1/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/14/18. 

Accession Number: 20180614–5034. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

Docket Numbers: ER18–1781–000. 

Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, 

Inc. 

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 

2041R7 Kansas City Board of Public 

Utilities PTP Agreement to be effective 

9/1/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/14/18. 

Accession Number: 20180614–5038. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

Docket Numbers: ER18–1782–000. 

Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, 

LLC. 

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 

Amendment to NCEMC NITSA SA No. 

210 (2018) to be effective 7/1/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/14/18. 

Accession Number: 20180614–5042. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

Docket Numbers: ER18–1783–000. 

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C. 

Description: Tariff Cancellation: 

Notice of Cancellation of ISA SA No. 

4135; Queue No. X1–078 to be effective 

6/18/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/14/18. 

Accession Number: 20180614–5044. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

Docket Numbers: ER18–1784–000. 

Applicants: PacifiCorp. 

Description: Compliance filing: OATT 

Ancillary Erratum to Compliance Filing 

to be effective 7/1/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/14/18. 

Accession Number: 20180614–5049. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

Docket Numbers: ER18–1785–000. 

Applicants: Southern California 

Edison Company. 

Description: Tariff Cancellation: 

Notice of Cancellation LA Hecate 

Energy Johanna 12 kV–P1 & P2 Projects 

to be effective 6/5/2018. 

Filed Date: 6/14/18. 

Accession Number: 20180614–5052. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/18. 

The filings are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the links or querying the 

docket number. 

Any person desiring to intervene or 

protest in any of the above proceedings 

must file in accordance with Rules 211 

and 214 of the Commission’s 

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 

385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

time on the specified comment date. 

Protests may be considered, but 

intervention is necessary to become a 

party to the proceeding. 

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 

information relating to filing 

requirements, interventions, protests, 

service, and qualifying facilities filings 

can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ 

docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For 

other information, call (866) 208–3676 

(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. 

Dated: June 14, 2018. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13196 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket Nos. EL17–32–000; EL17–36–000] 

Notice Inviting Post-Technical 

Conference Comments; Old Dominion 

Electric Cooperative v. PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C., Advanced 

Energy Management Alliance v. PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C 

On April 24, 2018, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

staff convened a technical conference to 

obtain further information concerning 

the above referenced proceedings 

pursuant to a February 23, 2018 

Commission order.1

All interested persons are invited to 

file post-technical conference comments 

on issues raised during the conference 

that they believe would benefit from 

further discussion. In addition, parties 

are invited to provide comments on the 

questions listed below, as well as the 

questions featured on the Supplement 

Notice of Technical Conference and 

Technical Conference Agenda issued on 

April 18, 2018.2 Commenters need not 

respond to all topics or questions asked. 

Commenters may reference material 

previously filed in this docket, 

including the technical conference 

transcript, but are encouraged to avoid 

repetition or replication of previous 

material. In addition, commenters are 

encouraged, when possible, to provide 

examples in support of their answers. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
28634 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices 

3Preliminary Technical Conference Comments of 

Complainants Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, 

Direct Energy Business, LLC, and American 

Municipal Power, Inc. at 11–14. 

4Pre-Technical Conference Comments of NRDC & 

Sustainable FERC Project at 10. 

5Pre-Technical Conference Comments of 

Advanced Energy Management Alliance at 5–6. 

6Pre-Technical Conference Comments of James F. 

Wilson at 11. 

7PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 2021/2022 RPM 

Base Residual Auction Results (May 2018), 

available at: http://www.pjm.com/-/media/marketsops/rpm/rpm-auction-info/2021-2022/2021-2022- 

base-residual-auction-report.ashx. 

8Tr. 83:5–13 (Falin). 

Comments must be submitted on or 

before 30 days from the date of this 

notice and should not exceed 30 pages. 

For more information about this 

technical conference, please contact: 

John Riehl (Technical Issues), Office of 

Energy Market Regulation, 202–502– 

6026, john.riehl@ferc.gov, Noah Monick 

(Legal Issues), Office of General 

Counsel, 202–502–8299, noah.monick@

ferc.gov. 

Dated: June 13, 2018. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

Post-Technical Conference Questions 

for Comment 

Seasonal Load Variation & Alternate 

Market Designs 

In these proceedings, parties argue 

that the move to a single, annual 

capacity product has pushed valuable 

summer-only resources out of the 

capacity market and thereby increased 

capacity costs with little to no reliability 

benefit, given that PJM is a summerpeaking system. These parties assert that 

procuring a portion of capacity as 

summer-only allows PJM to procure 

significantly less capacity during nonsummer periods and provides 

equivalent reliability at lower total 

capacity costs. In addition, intervenors 

have proposed alternate market designs 

in PJM to better facilitate seasonal 

resource participation and account for 

seasonal load variation. These proposed 

alternative market designs include, but 

are not limited to: A re-introduction of 

a seasonal product,3 a two-season 

market construct,4 a three-season market 

construct,5 and a supplemental seasonal 

ticket scheme approach for summerperiod resources.6 Based on these 

proposed alternate market designs, 

please answer the following questions. 

1. Some panelists indicated that the 

current annual construct and existing 

aggregation rules result in a barrier to 

entry. Please comment on whether or 

not there are barriers to entry and 

provide any supporting information, 

such as unmatched MWs of capacity. 

Could this be fully addressed by 

improving or modifying aggregation 

rules? If not, what other changes would 

be required? What would be the 

downside of modifying such rules? 

2. According to the 2021/2022 

Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) Base 

Residual Auction (BRA) report,7 cleared 

megawatt quantities of wind, solar, 

demand response, and energy efficiency 

resources all increased compared to the 

2020/2021 RPM BRA and at higher 

clearing prices throughout the PJM 

footprint. Please comment on how these 

results reflect on the efficacy of PJM’s 

seasonal aggregation mechanism and the 

ability of these resource types to 

participate in RPM as either annual 

resources or aggregated resources under 

existing RPM rules. To the extent you 

view one or more of the alternative 

market designs mentioned above as 

better than the existing RPM rules, 

please explain how those alternative 

designs would yield preferable auction 

outcomes relative to those seen in the 

2021/2022 BRA. Please provide 

evidence and quantitative support 

where possible. 

3. Under either a two-season or threeseason market construct, how would 

PJM optimize capacity procurement 

within and across seasons? Would each 

season have a distinct demand curve 

and auction that clears independently of 

other seasons, or would all seasonal 

auctions be cleared simultaneously to 

optimize procurement for a delivery 

year? 

4. During the technical conference, 

Mr. Falin of PJM noted that PJM 

performs a winter-period peak load test 

known as a Capacity Emergency 

Transfer Objective and Capacity 

Emergency Transfer Limit (CETO CETL 

analysis). Mr. Falin explained that 

during the winter-period CETO CETL 

analysis, PJM divides its region into 

sub-regions and tests how many MWs of 

emergency imports are needed to satisfy 

reliability criteria given that specific 

sub-region’s quantity of installed 

reserves.8 Please describe the 

assumptions that PJM makes when it 

performs a CETO/CETL analysis for 

winter-period peak loads. What 

assumptions are markedly different 

from summer-period peak load CETO/ 

CETL analyses? Does PJM perform 

winter- and summer-period CETO/CETL 

analyses for all sub-areas or LDAs? 

5. What other implementation 

challenges would be involved in 

transitioning to a two-season or threeseason market construct (aside from a 

lengthy stakeholder process)? 

Peak Shaving 

In these proceedings, intervenors 

argue that the practice of peak shaving 

produces far fewer benefits than 

previously understood and, thus, peak 

shaving practices are not a viable 

pathway for demand response resources 

in lieu of participation on the supply 

side of PJM’s capacity market. Based on 

this characterization of peak shaving’s 

limited impacts, please address the 

following questions. 

1. During the technical conference, 

Mr. Falin of PJM indicated that PJM has 

put on hold possible changes to the PRD 

program to align the program with PJM’s 

annual capacity construct. Is PRD a 

feasible path forward for incorporating 

seasonal DR resources in the capacity 

market? Please explain why or why not. 

2. During the technical conference, 

Mr. Falin stated that, in order for peak 

shaving activity to be reflected in load 

forecasts, peak shaving actions will 

need to be based on specific triggers, 

and commit to be interrupted a certain 

number of times per summer with a 

certain hourly duration. Direct load 

control programs operated by electric 

distribution companies that cycle air 

conditioners or other appliances 

typically have these attributes specified 

in their tariffs. What is the status of the 

recognition of these programs in PJM’s 

load forecasts? Please describe the 

mechanisms, calculations, and 

adjustments that PJM uses to account for 

load serving entity (LSE) or electric 

distribution company (EDC) direct load 

control and load management programs 

in PJM load forecasting. Are these load 

forecast adjustments performed at the 

request of the EDC, or are there clear 

and specific procedures or rules that are 

applied non-discriminatorily to all LSE 

and electric distribution company direct 

load control and load management 

programs? 

3. During the technical conference, 

Mr. Falin stated that PJM conducts its 

load forecast modeling, and calculates 

model forecast accuracy, at the PJM 

system level. Mr. Falin also stated that 

PJM compared forecasted zonal load to 

average historical contribution of each 

zone to the PJM’s overall peak and that 

number is within a tenth or two-tenths 

of a percent of PJM’s zonal forecast. Did 

PJM observe any differences in the 

model errors by zone, especially for the 

zones that have operated summerfocused load management programs for 

years? How does the frequency of 

summer-focused load management 

programs’ deployment, especially their 

infrequent deployment during system 

peaks, impact PJM load forecasts and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Notices 28635 

9PJM Interconnection, Demand Response 

Strategy at 30–31, (Jun. 2017), available at http:// 

www.pjm.com/∼/media/library/reports-notices/ 

demand-response/20170628-pjm-demand-responsestrategy.ashx. 

the calculated model errors at the zonal 

level? 

4. According to information provided 

in the AEMA complaint in Docket No. 

EL17–36–000, Baltimore Gas & Electric 

(BG&E) worked with PJM in Maryland 

Public Service Commission Rate Case 

No. 9406 to reflect its air-conditioner 

direct control program into an alternate 

load forecast for its zone, but not at the 

full load reduction that the program can 

produce. Please describe the processes 

involved in creating that alternative 

load forecast and the assumptions 

underlying BG&E’s partial adjustment. 

5. In PJM’s June 2017 white paper 

‘‘Demand Response Strategy’’, PJM 

stated ‘‘Ideally, PJM would have a truly 

unrestricted peak-load forecast with a 

complete understanding of explicit 

(dispatch and/or managed by PJM) 

versus implicit (managed by LSE, EDC 

or end-use customer) DR, allowing more 

visibility to quantify forecast risk.’’ 9

Please describe the steps PJM is taking 

to accomplish this goal. Are these steps 

sufficient to accomplish this goal? Why 

or why not? How is PJM working to 

change its load forecasting methodology 

to achieve this goal? 

[FR Doc. 2018–13194 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 2331–083] 

Notice of Application Accepted for 

Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions 

To Intervene, and Protests: Duke 

Energy Carolinas, LLC 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission and is available for public 

inspection: 

a. Type of Application: Non-Project 

Use Application. 

b. Project No: 2331–083. 

c. Date Filed: May 25, 2018. 

d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, 

LLC (licensee). 

e. Name of Project: Ninety-Nine 

Islands Hydroelectric Project. 

f. Location: The project is located on 

the Broad River in Cherokee County 

South Carolina. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r. 

h. Applicant Contact: Jeff Lineberger, 

Director, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 

526 S. Church Street—Mail Stop EC12Y, 

Charlotte, NC 28202, Jeff.Lineberger@

duke-energy.com. 

i. FERC Contact: Michael Calloway at 

202–502–8041, or michael.calloway@

ferc.gov. 

j. Deadline for filing comments, 

motions to intervene, and protests is 30 

days from the issuance of this notice by 

the Commission. The Commission 

strongly encourages electronic filing. 

Please file motions to intervene, 

protests, and comments using the 

Commission’s eFiling system at http://

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 

Commenters can submit brief comments 

up to 6,000 characters, without prior 

registration, using the eComment system 

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

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, (866) 

208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 

(TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please 

send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. 

The first page of any filing should 

include docket number P–2331–083. 

k. Description of Request: The 

licensee requests Commission approval 

to allow Thomas Sand Company, Inc. to 

utilize 33.51 acres of project lands and 

waters in the upper part of the project 

reservoir for mining and processing 

sand. The mining facility has the 

capacity to withdraw 2.88 million 

gallons of water per day for processing 

sand even though it does not achieve 

this amount daily in practice. The water 

is returned to the river after processing. 

The mine has extracted 42,000 tons of 

sand per year on average since 

operations began. The licensee proposes 

that the Thomas Sand Mine will operate 

under the conditions of South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (South Carolina 

DHEC) Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification P/N SAC 2017–01073, 

South Carolina DHEC Mining Permit 

No. 0869, and National Pollutant 

Discharge Permit for Discharges 

Associated with Nonmetal Mineral 

Mining Facilities Permit No. 

SCG730627. 

l. Locations of the Application: A 

copy of the application is available for 

inspection and reproduction at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, 

Washington, DC 20426, or by calling 

202–502–8371. This filing may also be 

viewed on the Commission’s website at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket 

number excluding the last three digits in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. You may also register online 

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

esubscription.asp to be notified via 

email of new filings and issuances 

related to this or other pending projects. 

For assistance, call 866–208–3676 or 

email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, for 

TTY, call 202–502–8659. A copy is also 

available for inspection and 

reproduction at the address in item (h) 

above. 

m. Individuals desiring to be included 

on the Commission’s mailing list should 

so indicate by writing to the Secretary 

of the Commission. 

n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to 

Intervene: Anyone may submit 

comments, a protest, or a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

requirements of Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. 

In determining the appropriate action to 

take, the Commission will consider all 

protests or other comments filed, but 

only those who file a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

Commission’s Rules may become a 

party to the proceeding. Any comments, 

protests, or motions to intervene must 

be received on or before the specified 

comment date for the particular 

application. 

o. Filing and Service of Responsive 

Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in 

all capital letters the title COMMENTS; 

PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE 

as applicable; (2) set forth in the 

heading the name of the applicant and 

the project number of the application to 

which the filing responds; (3) furnish 

the name, address, and telephone 

number of the person protesting or 

intervening; and (4) otherwise comply 

with the requirements of 18 CFR 

385.2001 through 385.2005. All 

comments, motions to intervene, or 

protests must set forth their evidentiary 

basis and otherwise comply with the 

requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All 

comments, motions to intervene, or 

protests should relate to the non-project 

use application. Agencies may obtain 

copies of the application directly from 

the applicant. A copy of any protest or 

motion to intervene must be served 

upon each representative of the 

applicant specified in the particular 

application. If an intervener files 

comments or documents with the 

Commission relating to the merits of an 

issue that may affect the responsibilities 

of a particular resource agency, they 

must also serve a copy of the document 

on that resource agency. A copy of all 

other filings in reference to this 

application must be accompanied by 

proof of service on all persons listed in 

the service list prepared by the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES