[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31348-31349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12709]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER12-678-000; ER12-679-000]


Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; 
Supplemental Notice Concerning Post-Technical Conference Comments

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on April 
4, 2012, and as required in the Commission's March 30, 2012 order in 
these dockets,\1\ Commission staff convened a technical conference in 
these proceedings on May 15, 2012 at the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC, Room 3M-2A&B. In 
light of the discussion therein, Commission staff posed questions to 
the conference participants. Staff requests that parties who choose to 
file post-technical conference take these questions into account, and 
respond to them as appropriate, in the course of formulating their 
written submissions. Post-conference comments need not be limited to 
the subject matter of these questions, but may address any topic 
discussed at the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 138 
FERC ] 61,235 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions Directed to Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.

    1. Please explain in depth each step of the commitment process with 
special

[[Page 31349]]

emphasis on when and how VLR commitments are made as part of the SCUC 
process. In your response please explain why such VLR commitments are 
made at that time in the process instead of waiting until after the 
day-ahead market closes. Explain the difference between modeling VLR 
for planning and VLR commitments.
    2. Please provide a simple example of how to calculate proxies for 
voltage limits.
    3. Please explain the assertion that all low-voltage transmission 
facilities are presumed to have significant market power and should be 
designated for Voltage and Local Reliability (VLR) commitments. Please 
supplement the record with additional materials as appropriate.
    4. With regard to your written answer to pre-conference question 3, 
it appears that some units were not economically dispatched in hours 
when they had zero unit headroom. Why? Is it possible to have EcoMax 
equal EcoMin?
    5. Please provide a numerical example to illustrate how you perform 
the calculations detailed in Tab B of your pre-conference comments.
    6. Please explain why the word ``or'' that previously conjoined 
bullets (a) through (c) in proposed tariff section 64.1.3.a.i has been 
changed to ``and.''

Questions Directed to Potomac Economics, Ltd.

    7. Your exhibit refers to units with incremental energy offer 
prices at half their reference level, as MISO proposes to mitigate 
through proposed Tariff Section 64.1.3.a.i(a). How could a market 
participant benefit by offering in this way?
    8. Please explain your assertions that market power mitigation is 
necessary for any generation unit on a line rated less than 100 kV, and 
that constraints on facilities rated less than 100 kV are unlike 
constraints on facilities rated above 100 kV. Why are all low-voltage 
transmission facilities presumed to be locations for the exercise of 
significant market power? Please supplement the record with additional 
materials as appropriate.
    9. With regard to the slide you presented from the 2010 State of 
the Market Report, please explain why reference levels have been 
rising.
    10. Please explain why the word ``or'' that previously conjoined 
bullets (a) through (c) in proposed tariff section 64.1.3.a.i has been 
changed to ``and.''

Questions Directed to All Conference Participants

    11. In light of the discussion at the conference, are changes to 
the definition of Voltage and Local Reliability Commitment (proposed 
tariff section 1.697a) necessary, and if so, what should those changes 
be?
    12. There was discussion at the conference of whether it is 
possible to build a voltage component into locational marginal prices 
(LMP), and dispatching units for VLR via the Security-Constrained 
Economic Dispatch (SCUC). Please discuss the competing concerns of 
accurately constructing locational marginal prices and accurately 
allocating costs. For example, if it was possible to dispatch VLR units 
through the SCUC, could this be done on a purely economic basis? What 
would be the effect on Revenue Sufficiency Guarantee cost incurrence?
    13. Conference participants discussed two competing methodologies 
to address cost causation for resolving voltage limits. The first 
methodology was allowing the market to resolve such voltage limits by 
sending a price signal to behind-the-meter generation. The second 
method was MISO's methodology of uplifting the cost of VLR commitments 
to local loads.
    a. Please explain the advantages and disadvantages of each 
methodology and explain how a finding of justness and reasonableness 
could be made for each methodology.
    b. Please explain how to take such behind-the-meter generation into 
account in system models and send price signals.
    c. Is it possible to provide incentives for behind-the-meter 
generation to respond to market forces in such a way as to address 
voltage issues, and if so, what is the best way to achieve this?
    Parties wishing to file comments on the matters discussed at the 
technical conference, and wishing to reply to comments filed by others, 
should do so on the following schedule:
    Comments: Due on or before June 5, 2012.
    Reply comments: Due on or before June 19, 2012.

    Dated: May 18, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12709 Filed 5-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P