Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45835 

1The Southern Intertie is a system of 

transmission lines and substations that transmit 

power between the Pacific Northwest and 

California, and is primarily used to export power 

from the Pacific Northwest and Canada to 

California. Bonneville Administrator’s Final Record 

of Decision 5.2.2. 

2Today, we also approve on an interim basis 

Bonneville’s other transmission rates filed in 

Docket No. EF17–3–000. See Bonneville Power 

Admin., 160 FERC ¶61,112 (2017). 

3Bonneville submitted errata filings on August 7, 

2017, and August 10, 2017 to correct various 

attachments to the July 31, 2017 Transmittal Letter 

and to add inadvertently omitted documents to the 

record. 

4 16 U.S.C. 839e (2012). 

5 18 CFR pt. 300 (2017). 

6Bonneville July 31, 2017 Transmittal Letter at 2. 

See also Bonneville Administrator’s Final Record of 

Decision § 5.2.2 (explaining the justification for the 

rate increase in greater detail). 

7These values are the totals of all of Bonneville’s 

transmission revenues, inclusive of the 

transmission rates at issue in Docket No. EF17–3– 

000. See Bonneville August 7, 2017 Transmittal 

Letter at 2; Bonneville Power Admin., 160 FERC 

¶61,112 (2017) (approving on an interim basis those 

transmission rates not associated with the Southern 

Intertie). 

8Bonneville July 31, 2017 Transmittal Letter at 4, 

7. 

9Notices of Bonneville’s errata filings were 

published in the Federal Register, 82 FR 41,014 

(2017) and 82 FR 40,151 (2017). The notices of the 

errata filings retained the August 30, 2017 date by 

which protests or interventions were due. 

(4a) Changes to Information Collection 

(1) Change the title from ‘‘Monthly 

Crude Oil, Lease Condensate, and 

Natural Gas Production Report,’’ to 

‘‘Monthly Crude Oil and Lease 

Condensate, and Natural Gas Production 

Report.’’ 

(2) For Sections 2 and 3, instead of 

selecting only one pre-existing comment 

in the comments box, the box will allow 

for the selection of multiple frequentlyused pre-existing comments, as well as 

the ability to write-in producer specific 

comments. 

(3) EIA will publish separate 

estimates for Alabama, Federal Offshore 

Pacific, Michigan, Mississippi, and 

Virginia and will no longer include data 

for these states in the ‘‘Other States’’ 

category. To separately publish these 

five new states/areas, EIA will collect 

crude oil and lease condensate 

production, crude oil and lease 

condensate sales (run ticket) volumes by 

API gravity, natural gas gross 

withdrawals, and natural gas lease 

production volumes. As a result, EIA 

will publish data for a total of 21 states/ 

areas and one category designated 

‘‘Other States.’’ The ‘‘Other States,’’ 

category will include the remaining 

states of Arizona, Florida, Idaho, 

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, 

Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, 

Oregon, Tennessee, and South Dakota. 

(5) Annual Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 500; (6) Annual Estimated 

Number of Total Responses: 6,000; (7) 

Annual Estimated Number of Burden 

Hours: 24,000; (8) Annual Estimated 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost 

Burden: EIA estimates that there are no 

capital and start-up costs associated 

with this data collection. The 

information is maintained during the 

normal course of business. The cost of 

burden hours to the respondents is 

estimated to be $1,767,840 (24,000 

burden hours times $73.66). Other than 

the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates 

that there are no additional costs for 

generating, maintaining, and providing 

this information. 

Statutory authority: Section 13(b) of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, 

Pub. L. 93–275, codified as 15 U.S.C. 772(b) 

and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, P.L. 

95–91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

27, 2017. 

Tom Leckey, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Energy 

Statistics, U.S. Energy Information 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21076 Filed 9–28–17; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket EF17–4–000] 

Before Commissioners: Neil 

Chatterjee, Chairman; Cheryl A. 

LaFleur, and Robert F. Powelson; 

Bonneville Power Administration; 

Order Approving Rates on an Interim 

Basis and Providing Opportunity for 

Additional Comments 

1. In this order, we approve on an 

interim basis Bonneville Power 

Administration’s (Bonneville) proposed 

2018–2019 transmission rates for 

transmission service on the Southern 

Intertie (IS Rates),1 pending our further 

review.2 We also provide an additional 

period of time for parties to file 

comments. 

I. Background 

2. On July 31, 2017,3 Bonneville filed 

a request for interim and final approval 

of its IS Rates (IS–18) in accordance 

with section 7 of the Pacific Northwest 

Electric Power Planning and 

Conservation Act (Northwest Power 

Act) 4 and Part 300 of the Commission’s 

regulations.5 Bonneville states that, 

although its rate design is not subject to 

Commission review, it provides a 

summary of the hourly rate design 

change on the Southern Intertie for 

informational purposes. Bonneville 

explains that the change is significant, 

increasing the hourly rates 

approximately 170 percent, but asserts 

that the adopted revisions are necessary 

to address the impact of increased 

renewable generation in California in 

combination with seams issues between 

the transmission system connecting the 

Pacific Northwest and California.6

3. Bonneville projects that the filed 

rates will produce average annual 

transmission revenues of $1.044 billion 

and annual net revenues of $4.65 

million.7 Bonneville asserts that this 

level of annual revenues is sufficient to 

recover its costs for the 2018–2019 rate 

approval period, while providing cash 

flow to ensure at least a 95 percent 

probability of making all payments to 

the United States Treasury in full and 

on time for each year of the rate period.8

II. Notice of Filing 

4. Notice of Bonneville’s July 31, 2017 

filing was published in the Federal 

Register, 82 FR 37,445 (2017),9 with 

protests and interventions due on or 

before August 30, 2017. Timely motions 

to intervene were filed by Pacific 

Northwest Generating Cooperative, 

Powerex Corporation, Sierra Club and 

Montana Environmental Information 

Center, Avista Corporation, Northwest 

Requirements Utilities, Industrial 

Customers of Northwest Utilities, 

NorthWestern Corporation, Western 

Public Agencies Group, M–S–R Public 

Power Agency, Snohomish County 

Public Utility District No. 1, Public 

Power Council, Puget Sound Energy 

Inc., Idaho Power Company, and 

Avangrid Renewables LLC. Renewable 

Northwest filed a timely motion to 

intervene and comments. Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District, Transmission 

Agency of Northern California, and 

Turlock Irrigation District (collectively, 

Northern California Utilities) filed a 

timely motion to intervene, protest, 

objection to the motion for interim rate 

approval, request for an evidentiary 

hearing, and alternative request for stay 

of implementation of hourly 

transmission rates. On September 15, 

2017, Bonneville filed a request for 

leave to answer and an answer to 

Northern California Utilities’ protest, 

and on September 19, 2017, Northern 

California Utilities filed an answer to 

Bonneville’s answer. On September 22, 

2017, Bonneville filed an answer to 

Northern California Utilities’ September 

19 answer. 

5. Northern California Utilities 

generally object to Bonneville’s 

proposed rate increase for southbound 

hourly transmission service on the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
45836 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 

10Northern California Utilities Protest at 5–6, 80. 

11 Id. at 12–15, 23–25. 

12 Id. at 16–23. 

13 Id. at 25–27. Northern California Utilities state 

that they do not directly purchase transmission 

service from Bonneville, but that they will be 

harmed nonetheless by the trickle-down effects of 

the hourly rate increase because they purchase 

services from resellers that use or base prices on the 

Southern Intertie, including but not limited to 

hourly transmission service. Id. 

14 Id. at 27–51. 

15 Id. at 52–59. 

16 Id. at 59–79. 

17Renewable Northwest Comments at 7 (quoting 

16 U.S.C. 838g (2012)). We note that the Montana 

Intertie Rate is not at issue in this docket, but rather 

is before the Commission in Docket No. EF17–3– 

000. See Bonneville Power Admin., 160 FERC 

¶61,112. 

18 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2) (2012). Bonneville also 

must comply with the financial, accounting, and 

ratemaking requirements in Department of Energy 

Order No. RA 6120.2. 

19See, e.g., Bonneville Power Admin., 152 FERC 

¶ 61,201, at P 10 (2015) (citing U.S. Dep’t of 

Energy—Bonneville Power Admin., 67 FERC 

¶ 61,351, at 62,216–17 (1994); see also Aluminum 

Co. of Am. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 903 F.2d 

585, 592–93 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

20See 18 CFR 300.10(a)(3)(ii) (2017). 

21See, e.g., Bonneville Power Admin., 152 FERC 

¶ 61,201 at P 11 (citing U.S. Dep’t of Energy— 

Bonneville Power Admin., 64 FERC ¶ 61,375, at 

63,606 (1993); U.S. Dep’t of Energy—Bonneville 

Power Admin., 40 FERC ¶ 61,351, at 62,059–60 

(1987)). 

22See, e.g., id. P 12 (citing U.S. Dep’t of Energy— 

Bonneville Power Admin., 105 FERC ¶ 61,006, at PP 

13–14 (2003); U.S. Dep’t of Energy—Bonneville 

Power Admin., 96 FERC ¶ 61,360, at 62,358 (2001)). 

23See 16 U.S.C. 839e(k) (2012) (stating 

‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

chapter, all rates or rate schedules for the sale of 

nonfirm electric power. . . .’’ (emphasis added)); 

16 U.S.C. 839a(9) (2012) (defining ‘‘[e]lectric 

power’’ within the Northwest Power Act as 

‘‘electric peaking capacity, or electric energy, or 

both.’’); Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Bonneville Power 

Admin., 903 F.2d 585, 587–89 (discussing the first 

nonfirm power rates that Bonneville established 

under section 7(k) and defining nonfirm power as 

‘‘energy in excess of firm power, and is provided 

only when such excess exists.’’); U.S. Dep’t of 

Energy—Bonneville Power Admin., 53 FERC 

¶ 61,193, 61,667 (1990) (stating that ‘‘nonfirm 

energy is energy in excess of that which Bonneville 

Southern Intertie.10 Northern California 

Utilities first argue that interim approval 

is inappropriate because Bonneville’s 

filing is deficient. Specifically, Northern 

California Utilities argue that the instant 

filing is governed by section 7(k) of the 

Northwest Power Act, which according 

to the protestors is broader than section 

7(a), and Bonneville fails to comply 

with the applicable statutes.11 They 

further assert that Bonneville’s filing is 

deficient under the Commission’s 

regulations because its rates fail to 

adhere to cost-based ratemaking, or 

alternatively, Bonneville’s filing fails to 

explain why it has departed from costbased ratemaking standards.12 In 

addition, Northern California Utilities 

argue that any refund condition that the 

Commission attaches to its order will 

not protect them because they do not 

purchase transmission service from 

Bonneville on the Southern Intertie.13

Alternatively, the Northern California 

Utilities argue that, if the Commission 

will not summarily reject Bonneville’s 

IS Rate, the Commission should 

nevertheless stay implementation of the 

rate.14

6. Northern California Utilities further 

argue that the Commission should 

summarily dispose of Bonneville’s 

request for approval because it has 

failed to carry its burden and provide 

substantial evidence of its rates being 

the lowest reasonable rates consistent 

with sound business principles. Here, 

Northern California Utilities again assert 

that section 7(k) of the Northwest Power 

Act sets the applicable standard and 

that charging intentionally unaffordable 

rates is facially in conflict with the 

statutory provision.15 Alternatively, 

Northern California Utilities argue that, 

if the Commission does not reject the IS 

Rate filing as deficient or on the merits, 

it should set those issues for evidentiary 

hearings under section 7(k) of the 

Northwest Power Act.16

7. Renewable Northwest filed 

comments in both this docket and 

Docket No. EF17–3–000 requesting that 

the Commission disapprove 

Bonneville’s proposed Montana Intertie 

Rate on the basis that it does not 

‘‘encourage[e] the widest possible 

diversified use of electric power at the 

lowest possible rates to consumers 

consistent with sound business 

principles.’’ 17

III. Discussion 

A. Procedural Matters 

8. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2017), the 

timely, unopposed motions to intervene 

serve to make the entities that filed 

them parties to this proceeding. 

9. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 

385.213(a)(2) (2017), prohibits an 

answer to a protest or an answer unless 

otherwise ordered by the decisional 

authority. We are not persuaded to 

accept Bonneville’s answer to Northern 

California Utilities’ protest, Northern 

California Utilities’ answer to 

Bonneville’s answer, or Bonneville’s 

answer to Northern California Utilities’ 

answer, and therefore, we reject all 

answers. 

B. Standard of Review 

10. Under the Northwest Power Act, 

the Commission’s review of 

Bonneville’s transmission rates is 

limited to determining whether 

Bonneville’s proposed rates satisfy the 

specific requirements of section 7(a)(2) 

of the Northwest Power Act, including 

that such rates: 

(A) Are sufficient to assure repayment 

of the Federal investment in the Federal 

Columbia River Power System over a 

reasonable number of years after first 

meeting [Bonneville’s] other costs; 

(B) are based upon [Bonneville’s] total 

system costs; and 

(C) insofar as transmission rates are 

concerned, equitably allocate the costs 

of the Federal transmission system 

between Federal and non-Federal power 

utilizing such system.18

11. Unlike the Commission’s statutory 

authority under the Federal Power Act, 

the Commission’s authority under 

section 7(a) of the Northwest Power Act 

does not include the power to modify 

the rates. The responsibility for 

developing rates in the first instance is 

vested with Bonneville’s Administrator. 

The rates are then submitted to the 

Commission for approval or 

disapproval. In this regard, the 

Commission’s role can be viewed as an 

appellate one: To affirm or remand the 

rates submitted to it for review.19

12. Moreover, review at this interim 

stage is further limited. In view of the 

volume and complexity of a Bonneville 

rate application, such as the one now 

before us in this filing, and the limited 

period in advance of the requested 

effective date in which to review the 

application,20 the Commission generally 

defers resolution of issues on the merits 

of Bonneville’s application until the 

order on final confirmation. Thus, the 

Commission generally approves the 

proposed rates on an interim basis, 

unless the filing is patently deficient, 

and provides the parties with an 

additional opportunity to raise issues 

with regard to Bonneville’s filing.21

13. We decline at this time to grant 

Bonneville’s request for final 

confirmation and approval of 

Bonneville’s proposed transmission 

rates. However, we will grant 

Bonneville’s request for interim 

approval. Our preliminary review 

indicates that Bonneville’s IS Rates 

filing appears to meet the statutory 

standards and the minimum threshold 

filing requirements of Part 300 of the 

Commission’s regulations.22 Moreover, 

our preliminary review of Bonneville’s 

submittal indicates that the filing is not 

patently deficient. Contrary to the 

Northern California Utilities’ arguments, 

we find that section 7(a) of the 

Northwest Power Act, and not section 

7(k), governs the transmission rates at 

issue here and thus governs our 

review.23 The language of section 7(k) of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Notices 45837 

can reliably plan on producing, based on estimates 

that water levels used for power generation will at 

times be low or critical. That is, nonfirm energy is 

energy that is available to Bonneville as the result 

of it[ ] having water available for power 

generation. . . .’’). 

24See 16 U.S.C. 839e(k) (2012) (‘‘Notwithstanding 

any other provision of this chapter, all rates or rate 

schedules for the sale of nonfirm electric 

power. . . .’’ (emphasis added)). 

25Because section 7(k) of the Northwest Power 

Act does not govern our review of the rates at issue 

in this proceeding, section 7(k)’s allowance for a 

further trial-type evidentiary hearing does not 

provide a basis for such a trial-type evidentiary 

hearing here. 

26See 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2017). We further find 

that Northern California Utilities’ arguments that 

our refund condition will not protect them to be 

speculative, and their request for the Commission 

to stay implementation of the rates to be 

unsupported. 

the Northwest Power Act addresses 

power rates, not transmission rates.24

Thus, Northern California Utilities’ 

arguments that Bonneville’s filing is 

deficient for failing to meet the statutory 

standards of section 7(k) of the 

Northwest Power Act and the 

Commission’s regulations promulgated 

pursuant to section 7(k), specifically 18 

CFR 300.14 (2017) and by incorporation 

18 CFR 35.13(a)(2) (2017), are irrelevant 

to our approval on an interim basis of 

Bonneville’s transmission rates for the 

Southern Intertie.25 The proposed rates 

therefore will be approved on an interim 

basis pending our further review. In 

addition, we note that interim approval 

allows Bonneville’s rates to go into 

effect subject to refund with interest; the 

Commission may order refunds with 

interest if the Commission later 

determines in its final decision not to 

approve the rates.26

14. In addition, we will provide an 

additional period of time for parties to 

file comments and reply comments on 

issues related to final confirmation and 

approval of Bonneville’s proposed rates. 

This will ensure that the record in this 

proceeding is complete and fully 

developed. Specifically, if parties wish 

to file additional comments, they will be 

due within 30 days of the date of this 

order. Reply comments are due 20 days 

thereafter. 

The Commission Orders 

(A) Interim approval of Bonneville’s 

proposed IS Rates is hereby granted, to 

become effective on October 1, 2017, 

through September 30, 2019, subject to 

refund with interest as set forth in 

section 300.20(c) of the Commission’s 

regulations, 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2017), 

pending final action and either their 

approval or their disapproval. 

(B) Within 30 days of the date of this 

order, parties who wish to do so may 

file additional comments regarding final 

confirmation and approval of 

Bonneville’s proposed rates. Parties who 

wish to do so may file reply comments 

within 20 days thereafter. 

(C) The Secretary shall promptly 

publish this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Issued: September 25, 2017. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21061 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 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 electric corporate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: EC17–187–000. 

Applicants: Westwood Generation, 

LLC. 

Description: Application for 

Authorization Under Section 203 of the 

Federal Power Act of Westwood 

Generation, LLC. 

Filed Date: 9/22/17. 

Accession Number: 20170922–5033. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER17–1721–003. 

Applicants: Dynegy Stuart, LLC. 

Description: Tariff Amendment: 

Superseded Revised Rate Schedule to be 

effective 8/1/2017. 

Filed Date: 9/20/17. 

Accession Number: 20170920–5180. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/17. 

Docket Numbers: ER17–2536–000. 

Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company. 

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Port 

of Oakland Unexecuted IA (SA 347) to 

be effective 11/22/2017. 

Filed Date: 9/22/17. 

Accession Number: 20170922–5001. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17. 

Docket Numbers: ER17–2537–000. 

Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, 

Inc. 

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 

1876R5 KEPCO NITSA to be effective 

9/1/2017. 

Filed Date: 9/22/17. 

Accession Number: 20170922–5031. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17. 

Docket Numbers: ER17–2538–000. 

Applicants: AEP Generation 

Resources Inc. 

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP 

GR Stuart Station Unit 1 Reactive Filing 

RS3 to be effective 10/1/2017. 

Filed Date: 9/22/17. 

Accession Number: 20170922–5047. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17. 

Docket Numbers: ER17–2539–000. 

Applicants: NSTAR Electric 

Company. 

Description: Tariff Cancellation: 

Notice of Cancellation of Belmont 

Transmission Service Agreement to be 

effective 9/30/2017. 

Filed Date: 9/22/17. 

Accession Number: 20170922–5056. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17. 

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: September 22, 2017. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20995 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 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 electric corporate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: EC17–191–000. 

Applicants: Brady Wind, LLC, Brady 

Wind II, LLC, Brady Interconnection, 

LLC, Desert Sunlight 250, LLC, Desert 

Sunlight 300, LLC, NEP US SellCo, LLC, 

NextEra Energy Partners Acquisitions, 

LLC. 

Description: Application for 

Authorization Under Section 204 of the 

Federal Power Act and Request for 

Expedited Action of Brady Wind, LLC, 

et al. 

Filed Date: 9/25/17. 

Accession Number: 20170925–5146. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES