Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Notices 10501 

115Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 

at P 65. 

116 Id. P 70; see also Westar Energy, Inc., 123 

FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 22 (2008). 

117Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 

at P 82, 93 (rejecting the argument that a threshold 

of 20 percent was inappropriate due to the fact it 

is difficult for investor-owned utilities outside of 

RTOs/ISOs to fall below the threshold because the 

Commission already allowed applicants to deduct 

native load and had decided elsewhere in the order 

to increase the permissible deduction). 

118See, e.g., id. P 66–67. 

119See, e.g., Dogwood Energy, LLC, 135 FERC 

¶ 61,089 (2011); Shell Energy North America (US), 

L.P., 135 FERC ¶ 61,090 (2011). 

120Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252 

at P 70; see, e.g., AEP Power Marketing, Inc., 124 

FERC ¶ 61,274, at P 34–36 (2008). 

filing did not warrant further scrutiny 

and the consideration of additional 

evidence. 

57. The Commission disagrees with 

AAI’s assertion that the indicative 

screens are flawed because they focus 

only on unilateral effects. While the 

pivotal supplier screen focuses on the 

ability of a seller to exercise market 

power unilaterally, as the Commission 

observed in Order No. 697, the market 

share screen focuses on both ‘‘unilateral 

market power and the ability of a seller 

to effect coordinated interaction with 

other sellers.’’ 115 Additionally, while 

AAI criticizes the screens on the basis 

that they do not focus on the ability and 

incentive to exercise market power, the 

Commission has previously found and 

reiterates here that requiring sellers to 

submit screens that focus on the sellers’ 

potential (i.e., ability) to exercise market 

power is consistent with the 

Commission’s obligation to set policies 

that ensure that rates remain just and 

reasonable.116

58. Further, with respect to Dr. 

Morris’s argument that the Commission 

should modify the market share screen 

because traditional vertically-integrated 

utilities outside of an RTO typically fail 

the screen, we note that Dr. Morris does 

not provide evidentiary support for this 

claim. Moreover, the Commission 

addressed and rejected a similar claim 

in the Order No. 697 proceeding.117

Additionally, even assuming that Dr. 

Morris’s assertion is accurate, the fact 

that a particular class of market 

participant often fails the market share 

screen does not mean that the screen is 

flawed. The screen is intended to be a 

conservative measure to identify those 

sellers that may raise market power 

concerns and merit additional scrutiny; 

it is not intended to ensure that a 

particular class of market participant 

routinely passes the Commission’s 

analysis. Moreover, the alternative 

analysis that Dr. Morris proposes is a 

contestable load analysis, which the 

Commission has previously rejected.118

There is no evidence that market 

conditions have changed such that the 

Commission should now accept this 

analysis. 

59. As far as the suggestion that the 

Commission should consider factspecific evidence of competitive harm 

or that the Commission should consider 

additional evidence when determining 

the relevant geographic market, we 

believe that the Commission’s current 

analysis provides adequate flexibility to 

consider such arguments when raised 

by an applicant or an intervenor. The 

Commission has stated that an applicant 

that fails one of the indicative screens 

may submit alternative evidence, 

including a DPT or actual historical 

sales data, to rebut the presumption of 

market power. Thus, to the extent that 

an applicant has additional evidence 

regarding the competitive situation in a 

market, it is free to present that to the 

Commission and the Commission will 

consider that evidence on a case-by-case 

basis.119 The Commission has further 

stated that intervenors may present 

alternative evidence, such as historical 

sales or transmission data, to support or 

rebut the results of the indicative 

screens.120 In addition, in Order No. 

697, the Commission stated that it 

would continue to allow sellers and 

intervenors on a case-by-case basis to 

show that some other geographic market 

should be considered as the relevant 

market in a particular case. 

The Commission orders: 

The proceeding in Docket No. RM11– 

14–000 is hereby terminated. 

Dated: February 16, 2012. 

By the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

Appendix A: List of Commenters 

Short name 

or acronym Commenter 

AAI ............ American Antitrust Institute. 

APPA ........ American Public Power Association. 

Berkeley .... Carl Danner, Henry Kahwaty, 

Keith Reutter, and Cleve 

Tyler of the Berkeley Research Group. 

Brattle 

Group.

Romkaew Broehm, Peter FoxPenner, Oliver Grawe, and 

James Reitzes of The Brattle 

Group. 

Cavicchi .... A. Joseph Cavicchi. 

EEI ............ Edison Electric Institute. 

ELCON ..... Electricity Consumers Resource 

Council. 

EPSA ........ Electric Power Supply Association. 

Entergy ..... Entergy Services, Inc. 

Short name 

or acronym Commenter 

FTC Staff .. Staff of the Federal Trade Commission. 

Modesto .... Modesto Irrigation District. 

Monitoring 

Analytics.

Monitoring Analytics, LLC. 

Morris ........ Dr. John Morris. 

NASUCA ... National Association of State 

Utility Consumer Advocates. 

NARECA ... National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. 

New York 

Commission.

New York State Public Service 

Commission. 

PPL Companies.PPL Electric Utilities Corporation; Louisville Gas & Electric 

Company; Kentucky Utilities 

Company; LG&E Energy Marketing, Inc.; PPL EnergyPlus, 

LLC; PPL Brunner Island, 

LLC; PPL Holtwood, LLC; 

PPL Martins Creek, LLC; PPL 

Montour, LLC; PPL Susquehanna, LLC; Lower Mount 

Bethel Energy, LLC; PPL 

New Jersey Solar, LLC; PPL 

New Jersey Biogas, LLC; 

PPL Renewable Energy, LLC; 

PPL Montana, LLC; PPL 

Colstrip I, LLC; and PPL 

Colstrip II, LLC. 

Reutter ...... Keith Reutter. 

TAPS ........ Transmission Access Policy 

Study Group. 

TDU Systems.Transmission Dependent Utility 

Systems. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4050 Filed 2–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EL12–25–000] 

Northeast Utilities Service Company; 

Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order 

Take notice that on February 8, 2012, 

Northeast Utilities Service Company 

(NUSCO), on behalf of the Connecticut 

Light and Power Company, Public 

Service Company of New Hampshire, 

and Western Massachusetts Electric 

Company (collectively, NU Companies), 

filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, 

requesting that the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

confirm that the use of at-cost pricing 

for the provision of certain non-power 

goods and services among the NU 

Companies through NUSCO as an 

accounting intermediary is appropriate, 

or in the alternative, waiver of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10502 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Notices 

1Cross-Subsidization Restrictions on Affiliate 

Transactions, Order No. 707, 122 FERC ¶ 61,155 

(2008). 

1Supplement Notice, Supplemental Notice For 

Staff Technical Conference, issued February 2, 

2012. 

Commission ‘‘higher of cost or market’’ 

rule under Order No. 707.1

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing must file in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceeding. Any person wishing to 

become a party must file a notice of 

intervention or motion to intervene, as 

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or 

protests must be filed on or before the 

comment date. On or before the 

comment date, it is not necessary to 

serve motions to intervene or protests 

on persons other than the Applicant. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper using the 

‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 14 copies 

of the protest or intervention to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

This filing is accessible on-line at 

http://www.ferc.gov, using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive email notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please email 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on March 9, 2012. 

Dated: February 14, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4014 Filed 2–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. EL12–26–000] 

MATL LLP; Montana Alberta Tie, Ltd; 

Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order 

Take notice that on February 13, 2012, 

MATL LLP (MATL) and Montana 

Alberta Tie Ltd (Montana Alberta Tie) 

(collectively, Applicants), filed a 

Petition for Declaratory Order, 

requesting that the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

confirm that MATL will continue to 

have negotiated rate authority following 

the completion of a transaction under 

which Enbridge Inc. (Enbridge) has 

become the new ultimate owner of 

Applicants. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest this filing must file in 

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 

Protests will be considered by the 

Commission in determining the 

appropriate action to be taken, but will 

not serve to make protestants parties to 

the proceeding. Any person wishing to 

become a party must file a notice of 

intervention or motion to intervene, as 

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or 

protests must be filed on or before the 

comment date. On or before the 

comment date, it is not necessary to 

serve motions to intervene or protests 

on persons other than the Applicant. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper using the 

‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 14 copies 

of the protest or intervention to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

This filing is accessible on-line at 

http://www.ferc.gov, using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive email notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please email 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on March 14, 2012. 

Dated: February 14, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4015 Filed 2–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ER11–4628–000] 

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice 

Establishing Post-Staff Technical 

Conference Comment Period 

As indicated in the February 2, 2012 

Supplement Notice, Supplemental 

Notice For Staff Technical Conference, 

in the above-captioned proceeding,1 this 

notice establishes the due date for 

comments on the staff technical 

conference held on February 14, 2012 as 

15 days from the date of the conference, 

or Wednesday, February 29, 2012. Reply 

comments are due seven days later on 

Wednesday, March 7, 2012. 

Dated: February 14, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4011 Filed 2–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 14329–000] 

Notice of Preliminary Permit 

Application Accepted for Filing and 

Soliciting Comments, Motions To 

Intervene, and Competing 

Applications; Grand Coulee Project 

Hydroelectric Authority 

On December 1, 2011, the Grand 

Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority 

filed an application for a preliminary 

permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the 

Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to 

study the feasibility of the Banks Lake 

Pumped Storage Project (Banks Lake 

Project or project) to be located on 

Banks Lake and Franklin D. Roosevelt 

Lake (Roosevelt Lake), near the town of 

Grand Coulee, Douglas and Grant 

Counties, Washington. The project 

would be located on federal lands 

administered by the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

The sole purpose of a preliminary 

permit, if issued, is to grant the permit 

holder priority to file a license 

application during the permit term. A 

preliminary permit does not authorize 

the permit holder to perform any landdisturbing activities or otherwise enter 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES