Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2024 / Notices 73409 

1 Improvements to Generator Interconnection 

Procs. & Agreements, Order No. 2023, 184 FERC 

¶ 61,054, order on reh’g, 185 FERC ¶ 61,063 (2023), 

order on reh’g, Order No. 2023–A, 186 FERC 

¶ 61,199 (2024). 

2https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events/ 

innovations-and-efficiencies-generatorinterconnection-workshop-docket-no-ad24-9. 

Docket Numbers: ER24–2972–000. 

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C. 

Description: Tariff Amendment: 

Notice of Cancellation—WMPA Service 

Agreement No. 5244; Queue No. AD1– 

085 to be effective 11/4/2024. 

Filed Date: 9/4/24. 

Accession Number: 20240904–5155. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/24. 

The filings are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system (https://

elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgen

search.asp) by querying the docket 

number. 

Any person desiring to intervene, to 

protest, or to answer a complaint in any 

of the above proceedings must file in 

accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 

of the Commission’s Regulations (18 

CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) 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. 

The Commission’s Office of Public 

Participation (OPP) supports meaningful 

public engagement and participation in 

Commission proceedings. OPP can help 

members of the public, including 

landowners, environmental justice 

communities, Tribal members and 

others, access publicly available 

information and navigate Commission 

processes. For public inquiries and 

assistance with making filings such as 

interventions, comments, or requests for 

rehearing, the public is encouraged to 

contact OPP at (202) 502–6595 or OPP@

ferc.gov. 

Dated: September 4, 2024. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20404 Filed 9–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Third Supplemental Notice for StaffLed Workshop 

Innovations and Efficiencies in Generator Interconnection .................................................. Docket No. AD24–9–000. 

California Independent System Operator Corporation .......................................................... Docket No. ER24–2671–000. 

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc ................................................................. Docket Nos. ER24–2797–000, ER24–2871–000. 

Southwest Power Pool, Inc ................................................................................................... Docket Nos. ER24–2798–000, ER24–2825–000, 

ER24–2184–000, ER24–2185–000. 

As first announced in the Notice of 

Staff-Led Workshop issued in this 

proceeding on May 13, 2024, as 

supplemented on June 27, 2024, and 

August 14, 2024, pursuant to 18 CFR 

2.1(a), the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) will convene 

a staff-led workshop in Docket No. 

AD24–9–000 at Commission 

headquarters, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426 on Tuesday, 

September 10, 2024 and Wednesday, 

September 11, 2024 from approximately 

9:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. Eastern time. 

Attached to this Third Supplemental 

Notice is a revised agenda for the 

workshop, which includes a final 

workshop program and expected 

speakers. The Commissioners may 

attend and participate in the workshop. 

The workshop agenda identifies a list 

of issues to be discussed during the 

workshop. Some of the issues to be 

discussed during the workshop overlap 

substantively with issues in proceedings 

currently pending before the 

Commission. While the intent of the 

workshop is not to focus on any specific 

matters before the Commission, because 

of the likelihood of discussion of these 

issues, those proceedings are included 

in the caption of this notice to ensure 

proper notice to all parties to those 

proceedings. This notice will be 

included in the docket of those 

proceedings. 

Additionally, some workshop 

discussions may involve issues raised in 

other proceedings that are currently 

pending before the Commission. These 

proceedings include, but are not limited 

to: 

Grain Belt Express LLC v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc ...................... Docket Nos. EL24–35–00 and EL24–53–000. 

Salsa Solar Energy, LLC and Towner Wind Energy III LLC v. Public Service Company of 

Colorado.

Docket No. EL24–50–000. 

Southwest Power Pool, Inc ................................................................................................... Docket Nos. ER24–2860–000 and ER24–2863–000. 

Discussions at the workshop will not 

address compliance with Commission 

Order No. 2023 1 or any pending Order 

No. 2023 compliance filings. 

The workshop will be open to the 

public to attend virtually or in person 

and there is no fee for attendance. 

Information will also be posted on the 

Calendar of Events on the Commission’s 

website,2 prior to the event. The 

previous notice requested that attendees 

register through the Commission’s 

website on or before August 26, 2024. 

That date has passed and, due to space 

limitations at Commission headquarters, 

we are no longer accepting registrations 

for in-person attendees, but registrations 

for virtual attendees are still being 

accepted. Registration will help ensure 

that Commission staff can provide 

sufficient virtual facilities and enable 

Commission staff to communicate with 

attendees in the case of unanticipated 

emergencies or other changes to the 

workshop schedule. 

The workshop will be transcribed, 

and transcripts will be available for a fee 

from Ace Reporting (202–347–3700). A 

link to the webcast of this event and its 

recording will be available in the 

Commission Calendar of Events at 

www.ferc.gov. The Commission 

provides technical support for the free 

webcasts. Please call 202–502–8680 or 

email customer@ferc.gov if you have 

any questions. 

Commission conferences are 

accessible under section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For 

accessibility accommodations please 

send an email to accessibility@ferc.gov 

or call toll free (866) 208–3372 (voice) 

or (202) 502–8659 (TTY), or send a fax 

to (202) 208–2106 with the required 

accommodations. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
73410 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2024 / Notices 

3Building for the Future Through Electric 

Regional Transmission Planning and Cost 

Allocation, Order No. 1920, 187 FERC ¶ 61,068 

(2024). 

For further information about this 

workshop, please contact: 

Sarah McKinley (Logistical 

Information), Office of External 

Affairs, 202–502–8368, 

Sarah.McKinley@ferc.gov 

Michael G. Henry (Technical 

Information), Office of Energy Policy 

and Innovation, 202–502–8583, 

Michael.Henry@ferc.gov 

Lewis Taylor (Legal Information), Office 

of General Counsel, 202–502–8624, 

Lewis.Taylor@ferc.gov 

Dated: September 3, 2024. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Acting Secretary. 

Staff-Led Workshop on Innovations and 

Efficiencies in Generator 

Interconnection 

Docket No. AD24–9–000 

September 10 and 11, 2024 

Revised Agenda Sept. 3, 2024 

September 10 Agenda: Innovations 

9:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m.: Welcome and 

Opening Remarks 

9:15 a.m.–11:45 a.m.: Innovations Panel 

1: Integrated Transmission Planning 

and Generator Interconnection 

This panel will discuss the extent to 

which transmission planning and 

generator interconnection processes 

may be further integrated beyond the 

reforms adopted in Order No. 1920.3

This panel will explore ideas to more 

efficiently and proactively plan for and 

interconnect new generation with 

increased cost certainty. 

Questions 

1. Can efficiencies be gained through 

closer integration of generator 

interconnection processes with 

transmission planning processes? If so, 

how? What considerations need to be 

taken into account? What are the 

advantages/disadvantages, including 

impacts on consumers, to closer 

integration of these processes? 

2. How might transmission providers 

more proactively, rather than reactively, 

identify zones where new transmission 

capacity could most efficiently 

accommodate proposed generating 

facilities? 

3. What mechanisms may be 

appropriate for transmission providers 

to use to determine the cost 

responsibility for such proactively 

planned network upgrades? Is it 

appropriate for any such costs to be 

allocated to load and if so, why? If it is 

appropriate, how should such costs be 

allocated between load and 

interconnection customers both: (a) in 

regions that use participant funding, i.e., 

where interconnection customers are 

directly assigned network upgrade costs 

and (b) in regions that do not use 

participant funding, i.e., where load is 

assigned network upgrade costs? What 

are the advantages/disadvantages, 

including impacts on consumers, of 

varying approaches to cost 

responsibility? 

4. Where the costs exceed estimates 

for such proactively planned network 

upgrades, what are some approaches 

transmission providers could use to 

address concerns regarding ensuring 

adequate funding? For any given 

approaches proposed to ensure adequate 

funding, would these mechanisms 

increase or decrease the time and/or 

costs required to interconnect new 

resources, and how would this impact 

interconnection customers? 

Panelists 

• Beth Garza—Senior Fellow, R Street 

Institute 

• Arash Ghodsian—Vice President, 

Transmission & Policy, Invenergy 

• John Michael Hagerty—Principal, The 

Brattle Group 

• Natasha Henderson—Senior Director 

of Grid Asset Utilization, Southwest 

Power Pool 

• Aubrey Johnson—Vice President, 

System & Resource Planning, 

Midcontinent Independent System 

Operator, Inc. 

• David Mindham—Director of 

Regulatory and Market Affairs, EDP 

Renewables North America 

• Zach Smith—Senior Vice President, 

System & Resource Planning, New 

York Independent System Operator 

11:45 a.m.–12:45 p.m.: Lunch 

12:45 p.m.–2:30 p.m.: Innovations Panel 

2: Exploring Different Approaches to 

Processing and Studying Generator 

Interconnection Requests 

This panel will focus on the viability 

and utility of different approaches to 

organizing, processing, and studying 

generator interconnection requests. 

Examples include a ‘‘connect and 

manage’’ process where interconnection 

requests for Energy Resource 

Interconnection Service (ERIS) may be 

interconnected more quickly and at 

lower cost than interconnection requests 

for Network Resource Interconnection 

Service (NRIS), the use of competitive 

mechanisms (such as an auction 

process) to allocate scarce capacity or to 

resolve competition for the same point 

of interconnection, as well as other 

potential approaches. 

Questions 

1. Please discuss the advantages and 

disadvantages of making ERIS, which 

requires the proposed generating facility 

to mitigate overloads through network 

upgrades to allow the generating facility 

to operate at full output (albeit without 

the deliverability analysis that NRIS 

entails), more like the approach used in 

the region managed by the Electricity 

Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), 

sometimes referred to as a ‘‘connect and 

manage’’ approach, which curtails the 

generating facility in the study model 

when needed to minimize network 

upgrades at the cost of risking real-time 

curtailments and subsequently 

identifies necessary network upgrades 

through the transmission planning 

process. 

2. How could elements of the ERCOT 

‘‘connect and manage’’ approach be 

incorporated into the current structure 

of Commission-jurisdictional markets 

and pro forma generator interconnection 

procedures and agreements? 

a. Could customers interconnecting 

under this type of approach eventually 

increase their deliverability or reduce 

curtailments, such as by later converting 

to NRIS? How would this conversion be 

accomplished? 

b. In the context of RTO/ISO markets, 

how would an RTO/ISO account for 

resources’ differing levels of 

interconnection service (e.g., ‘‘connect 

and manage’’ versus NRIS or its 

equivalent) and any associated capacity 

rights when dispatching resources 

pursuant to security-constrained 

economic dispatch? 

3. What other approaches could build 

on the pro forma generator 

interconnection procedures and 

agreements adopted in Order No. 2023 

to more efficiently organize 

interconnection queues and process 

interconnection requests? 

a. Should transmission providers 

proactively identify zones where there 

is currently available transmission 

capacity or new transmission capacity 

due to planned transmission facilities 

and provide information on these zones 

to interconnection customers? If so, how 

should transmission providers identify 

these zones and how should they 

communicate that information to 

interconnection customers? 

b. If transmission providers identify 

zones, as described in (a) above, should 

auctions be used to assign queue 

positions or allocate excess transmission 

capacity in those zones? What other 

approaches could be considered? 

c. How could such procedures ensure 

that generator interconnection service is 

consistent with open access principles 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2024 / Notices 73411 

4 Improvements to Generator Interconnection 

Procs. & Agreements, Order No. 2023, 184 FERC 

¶ 61,054, order on reh’g, 185 FERC ¶ 61,063 (2023), 

order on reh’g, Order No. 2023–A, 186 FERC 

¶ 61,199 (2024). 

and is provided in a manner that is not 

unduly discriminatory or preferential? 

Panelists 

• Liz Delaney—Vice President of 

Utility-Scale Policy and Business 

Development, New Leaf Energy, Inc. 

• Jennifer Galaway—Senior Manager of 

Regional Transmission Development 

& Interconnection Services, Portland 

General Electric 

• Warren Lasher—President, Lasher 

Energy Consulting LLC 

• Tyler H. Norris—James B. Duke 

Fellow & Ph.D. Student, Duke 

University 

• Matt Picardi—Vice President of 

Regulatory Affairs, Shell Energy North 

America 

• Aaron Vander Vorst—Head of Growth 

Strategy and Transmission, Enel 

North America 

• Andy Witmeier—Director of Resource 

Utilization, Midcontinent 

Independent System Operator, Inc. 

2:30 p.m.–2:45 p.m.: Break 

2:45 p.m.–4:30 p.m.: Innovations Panel 

3: Prioritizing Certain Generator 

Interconnection Requests 

This panel will examine whether 

certain proposed generator 

interconnection requests may be 

prioritized in the interconnection queue 

without undue discrimination, building 

on the use of first-ready, first-served 

cluster window deadlines and readiness 

milestones as adopted by Order No. 

2023. 

Questions 

1. Are there any viable, not unduly 

discriminatory methods for further 

prioritization of interconnection 

requests to increase queue efficiency 

and ensure just and reasonable rates? 

2. Would prioritization of 

interconnection requests selected in 

open competitive resource solicitations 

over other interconnection requests that 

are not similarly selected add efficiency 

to the generator interconnection 

process? How would this type of 

prioritization affect the alignment of 

transmission planning, resource 

solicitation, and generator 

interconnection processes? Under such 

a prioritization, must an open 

competitive solicitation process meet 

certain requirements to avoid infringing 

on the Commission’s open access 

transmission requirements? 

3. Should interconnection requests for 

new generating facilities submitted to 

replace existing generating facilities at 

existing points of interconnection 

(replacement generation) have priority 

in the transmission provider’s 

processing of its interconnection queue 

over the interconnection of new 

generating facilities at new points of 

interconnection? If so, are there 

conditions that should be required for 

such prioritization of replacement 

generation, for example, a finding by the 

transmission provider that the 

replacement generation allows for a 

faster or lower-cost interconnection as 

compared to the interconnection of new 

generating facilities at new points of 

interconnection? 

4. Should interconnection requests 

from proposed new generating facilities 

that meet certain resource adequacy or 

reliability needs have priority over other 

interconnection requests for new 

generating facilities? 

Panelists 

• Ian Black—Chief Development 

Officer, ENGIE North America, Inc. 

• Eric Blank—Chairman, Colorado 

Public Utilities Commission 

• Joshua Burkholder—Managing 

Director of Integrated Resource 

Planning, American Electric Power 

Company, Inc. 

• Jason Burwen—Vice President of 

Policy and Strategy, GridStor 

• Mike Calviou—Senior Vice President 

of US Policy & Regulation, National 

Grid 

• Adrien Ford—Wholesale Market 

Development Director, Constellation 

Energy Generation, LLC 

• Danielle Osborn Mills—Principal of 

Infrastructure Policy Development, 

California ISO 

4:30 p.m.–4:45 p.m.: Closing Remarks 

September 11 Agenda 

9:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m.: Welcome and 

Opening Remarks 

9:15 a.m.–11:45 a.m.: Efficiencies Panel 

1: Further Efficiencies in the 

Generator Interconnection Process 

This panel will evaluate the potential 

for increased efficiency throughout the 

generator interconnection process as 

revised in the Commission’s Order No. 

2023 4 (excluding topics covered in 

Efficiencies Panels 2 and 3), such as 

providing additional pre-application 

data to interconnection customers to 

allow for more efficient decision-making 

or establishing fast-track processes for 

interconnection requests at points of 

interconnection with fewer transmission 

system constraints. 

Questions 

1. What specific types of additional 

pre-application data provided to 

interconnection customers would 

facilitate greater efficiencies in the 

application phase and the rest of the 

generator interconnection process? 

a. How would these types of data be 

helpful to interconnection customers? 

b. Are there inefficiencies or 

complications associated with providing 

these types of additional pre-application 

data? 

2. Regarding potential fast-track 

processes: 

a. Of the existing fast-track processes, 

such as California ISO’s independent 

study process, which work well? What 

about them could be improved or 

emulated to achieve greater efficiencies? 

b. For interconnection requests that 

have little or minimal impact on 

existing transmission capacity, should 

there be a fast-track process or other 

prioritization method? 

3. What types of remedial or 

mitigation mechanisms could address 

instances where inadvertent oversights 

or technical difficulties result in 

milestone failures, and interconnection 

customers do not learn of these issues 

in time to file a waiver request? In such 

instances, where good faith and a 

significant consequence to not meeting 

the particular milestone are also 

present, how may transmission 

providers modify their tariffs to reach a 

balanced resolution that enhances the 

stability of the interconnection process 

while also ensuring that only viable 

generating facilities remain in the 

queue? 

4. What other opportunities exist to 

increase the efficiency of the existing 

generator interconnection procedures 

and agreements? 

Panelists 

• Chris Barker—Managing Director, 

Transmission & Grid Integration, 

Clearway Energy Group 

• Donnie Bielak—Director, 

Interconnection Planning, PJM 

Interconnection, LLC 

• Jonathan E. Canis—General Counsel, 

Oceti Sakowin Power Authority 

• Brian Fitzsimons—CEO, GridUnity, 

Inc. 

• Caitlin Marquis—Managing Director, 

Advanced Energy United 

• Joe Rand—Energy Policy Researcher, 

Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory 

• Martin Wyspianski—Vice President of 

Electric Engineering, Electric Asset 

Management, Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company 

11:45 a.m.–12:45 p.m.: Lunch 

12:45 p.m.–2:30 p.m.: Efficiencies Panel 

2: Automation and Advanced 

Computing Technologies 

This panel will assess opportunities 

for greater efficiency in the processing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
73412 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2024 / Notices 

5Artificial intelligence (AI) is a broad term for a 

spectrum of tools ranging from simple data 

validation to more sophisticated machine learning 

and statistical modeling, to advanced deep learning 

and generative AI. 

1Ketchup Caddy, LLC & Philip Mango, 188 FERC 

¶ 61,081 (2024). 

2Ketchup Caddy, LLC & Philip Mango, 186 FERC 

¶ 61,132 (2024) (Order to Show Cause). 

and study of interconnection requests 

by automating different steps in the 

process and using advanced computing 

technologies, such as artificial 

intelligence, to shorten the timeline 

from interconnection request to 

generator interconnection agreement.5

Questions 

1. Please describe the different steps 

in the generator interconnection process 

that may be automated and your 

experience automating these steps, 

including data entry, base case model 

building, running power flow studies, 

and identifying solutions. How can 

automation reduce errors, improve 

study repeatability and transparency, or 

address workforce needs? 

2. Are you using AI tools in your 

generator interconnection processes? 

Are these AI tools part of or separate 

from your work on automation? What 

have been the advantages and 

disadvantages of adopting these AI 

tools? Looking across the electric power 

industry, how common is the use of AI 

tools? 

3. Looking across the electric power 

industry, how common is automation in 

the different steps of the generator 

interconnection process (e.g., model 

building) today? What do you think are 

the main challenges to broader adoption 

of automation? Do the Commission’s 

existing regulatory frameworks and/or 

utility processes present any 

impediments in these areas? If so, what 

are the impediments? What role can the 

Commission play in supporting the 

adoption of automation in the generator 

interconnection process? What reforms, 

if any, would you recommend that the 

Commission consider pursuing to 

facilitate greater automation in the 

processing and study of interconnection 

requests? 

4. Recognizing that a lack of 

standardized data inputs and outputs 

can create challenges, how can 

automation reduce variability between 

studies done by a given transmission 

provider or reduce variability of studies 

between transmission providers? 

5. In developing the base case model, 

what role can automation play to 

address rapidly changing load forecasts 

or to improve the coordination of 

generator interconnection and 

transmission planning? 

Panelists 

• Clayton Barrows—Senior Researcher 

and Manager of the Grid Operations 

Planning Group, National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory 

• David Bromberg—Co-Founder and 

CEO, Pearl Street Technologies 

• Cody Doll—Sr. Manager of 

Transmission Business Management, 

at NextEra Energy Resources 

• Andrew Martin—Co-Founder and 

Transmission Lead, Nira Energy 

• Anton Ptak—Director of Transmission 

and Interconnection, EDF Renewables 

• Jennifer Swierczek—Manager 

Generator Interconnection, Southwest 

Power Pool 

2:30 p.m.–2:45 p.m.: Break 

2:45 p.m.–4:30 p.m.: Efficiencies Panel 

3: Post-Generator Interconnection 

Agreement Construction Phase 

This panel will focus on the time 

period after execution of a generator 

interconnection agreement (GIA), or its 

filing unexecuted, through the 

commercial operation date (COD). 

Topics include opportunities for greater 

efficiency, transparency, and 

accountability in cost and time 

estimates for interconnection facilities 

and network upgrades, as well as 

identifying other problems that 

contribute to delays, such as supply 

chain issues, which may benefit from 

organized cooperation among 

stakeholders. 

Questions 

1. What are the primary cost and 

timing concerns arising during the 

period between execution, or 

unexecuted filing, of a GIA and the 

COD? To the extent that cost increases 

and delays for interconnection facilities 

and network upgrades are becoming 

more frequent, what are the primary 

drivers of those issues? 

2. Are there productive ways to 

increase transparency around 

construction plans and progress of 

interconnection facilities and network 

upgrades, such as CAISO’s quarterly 

forum to track the status of network 

upgrades, SPP’s quarterly transmission 

project tracking report, or California’s 

newly instated metrics for tracking 

distribution-level interconnection 

timeframes? What construction metrics 

for interconnection facilities and 

network upgrades would be most 

informative? How much documentation 

is reasonable and not unduly 

burdensome? 

3. Are there new approaches to 

sourcing equipment for interconnection 

facilities and network upgrades that 

could be more efficient? What 

safeguards would need to be in place for 

engineering, procurement, and 

construction work for such facilities to 

begin earlier? Is there a way to pool 

equipment purchasing or risk? Are there 

efficiencies that may be achieved by 

standardizing engineering, procurement, 

or construction of interconnection 

facilities and network upgrades? Would 

pooling procurement of equipment 

provide manufacturers with the 

certainty needed to increase their 

manufacturing capacity thereby 

reducing lead times? 

4. Are there efficiencies that may be 

gained by enhancing internal 

transmission owner or RTO/ISO 

procedure, increasing staffing, or by 

opening up interconnection facility 

studies and/or interconnection facility 

construction work to contractors? How 

can the interconnection study process 

be better aligned with interconnection 

customer-initiated processes, such as 

permitting for the generating facility and 

generator equipment procurement? 

Panelists 

• Lionel Chailleux—Senior VP, Market 

Development North America, Hitachi 

Energy 

• Matthew Crosby—Senior Director, 

Grid Integration, Cypress Creek 

Renewables 

• Neil Millar—Vice President of 

Infrastructure and Operations 

Planning, California ISO 

• Jing Shi—Managing Director of 

Renewable Integration, Duke Energy 

• Carrie Zalewski—Vice President of 

Transmission and Electricity Markets, 

American Clean Power Association 

4:30 p.m.–4:45 p.m.: Closing Remarks 

[FR Doc. 2024–20306 Filed 9–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. IN23–14–000] 

Ketchup Caddy, LLC, Philip Mango; 

Notice of Service of Order To Show 

Cause 

On July 26, 2024, the Commission 

issued an Order Amending Answer 

Deadline 1 directing the Secretary of the 

Commission (Secretary) to serve on 

Ketchup Caddy, LLC (Ketchup Caddy) 

and Philip Mango (Mango) (collectively, 

Respondents) the Order to Show and 

Notice of Proposed Penalty previously 

issued in the above-referenced 

proceeding.2

Notice is hereby given that on July 26, 

2024, the Secretary served the Order to 

Show Cause on Respondents. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES