[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55437-55438]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22778]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65236; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its
Options Fee Schedule for Co-Location Services To Correct Several
Typographical Errors

August 31, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 24, 2011, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its options Fee Schedule for co-
location services to correct several typographical errors. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule for co-location
services to correct several typographical errors.
    The Exchange currently offers space at its data center in cabinets
with tiered fees for the use of this space corresponding to the
aggregated number of kilowatts allocated. However, the Exchange's Fee
Schedule provides an incomplete list of power tier levels. Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to reflect that the
tiered fees are based on the aggregated power allocation of (i) four to
eight kilowatts; (ii) nine to 20 kilowatts; (iii) 21 to 40 kilowatts;
or (iv) 41 kilowatts and greater. A co-location user whose power
allocation has been at a level that is currently not reflected in the
Fee Schedule has been charged according to the tiers set forth herein.
For example, a user with twelve kilowatts allocated has been charged
$1,200 per-kilowatt per-month for the first 8 kilowatts and $1,050 per-
kilowatt per-month for the next 4 kilowatts (between 9 and 12).
    In addition to the space that it offers at its data center, the
Exchange provides co-location users with access to the Exchange's
trading and execution systems and to the Exchange's proprietary market
data products through either the Exchange's Liquidity Center Network
(``LCN''), a local area network available in the data center, or the
Exchange's Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (``SFTI'')
network, to which all co-location users have access. Access is
available in either one or ten gigabit capacities, for which co-
location users incur an initial charge per connection and an ongoing
monthly charge per connection. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee
Schedule to reflect that the initial charge for a one gigabit circuit
for Bundled Network Access, Option 3 is $27,000, not $27,500 as
currently stated in the Fee Schedule. The change in price is due to a
typographical error in the Exchange's previous filing.\3\ Co-location
users have always been charged $27,000 for this fee and have never been
charged the fee of $27,500 that is currently stated in the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63275 (November 8,
2010), 75 FR 70048 (November 16, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to include
the ongoing monthly charge per connection for a ten gigabit circuit for
LCN access, which is $12,000. The reference to the ongoing monthly
charge was erroneously omitted from the Fee Schedule submitted with the
Exchange's previous filing.\4\ Co-location users have always been
charged the $12,000 monthly charge per connection for a ten gigabit
circuit for LCN access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the changes proposed herein would not
alter co-location users' understanding of the fees charged for co-
location and related services. In addition, the changes proposed herein
are intended to clarify the applicable fees for co-location and related
services--not new or altered fees--and are designed to accurately
reflect the fees for co-locating that the Exchange and co-location
users already understand to be in effect.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\5\ in
general, and furthers the

objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \6\ and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers
and other persons using its facilities and is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the proposed change to the Fee Schedule is equitable
because it applies fees for comparable co-location services uniformly
to users of those services and because access to the Exchange and the
services and products it provides are offered on fair and non-
discriminatory terms. The proposed changes would result in
clarification of the Exchange's fees for co-location and related
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \9\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-65 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-65. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2011-65 and should be submitted on or before September 28,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22778 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47487-47488]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-482-000]

Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on August 4, 2021, Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
(Guardian), 100 West Fifth Street, ONEOK Plaza, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103,
filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant
to sections 157.205 and 157.211(a)(2) of the Commission's regulations
under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Guardian's blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP00-36-000, for authorization to construct, own,
and operate the BC Organics Interconnect (Project), in Brown County,
Wisconsin. Specifically, Guardian proposes to complete the construction
of a new delivery point connecting Guardian to BC Organics, LLC. (BC
Organics), which will measure a gas volume of up to 1,500 Mcf/Day, all
as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be
directed to Denise Adams, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Guardian
Pipeline, L.L.C., 100 West 5th Street, ONEOK Plaza, Tulsa, Oklahoma at
(918) 732-1408 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 16, 2021.
How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the

NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest to
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is October 16, 2021. A protest may also
serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also
seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is October 16, 2021. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before October 16, 2021. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP21-482-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below.\7\ Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP21-482-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Hand-delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail at: 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002 or email
(with a link to the document) at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant
and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for
parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService link on
FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: August 17, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18258 Filed 8-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 5431]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02889]

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

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: EC19-56-000.
    Applicants: Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC.
    Description: Application of Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC for
Authorization under Section 203 and request for expedited treatment.
    Filed Date: 2/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190213-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-738-006; ER10-1186 009; ER10-1329 009; ER11-
3097 010.
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company, DTE Energy Trading, Inc., DTE
Energy Supply, Inc., St. Paul Cogeneration, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the DTE MBR
Entities.
    Filed Date: 2/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190213-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-210-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Commission's Jan 15,
2019 Deficiency Letter re: Maintenance Adder to be effective 4/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190214-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1042-000.
    Applicants: Valentine Solar, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Valentine Solar Concurrence
to Shared Transmission Facilities Agreement to be effective 2/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190213-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1043-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Schedule 12 Update Regarding
Real Power Losses for Dynamic Transfers to be effective 4/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190214-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1044-000.
    Applicants: Telocaset Wind Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: New eTariff Baseline Filing to be
effective 12/27/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190214-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1045-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Pioneer
Transmission LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-02-14_SA 3138 Pioneer-
DEI 1st Rev Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/12/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190214-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1046-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-02-14_SA 3247 OTP-
Crowned Ridge II FCA (BSSB Crossing) to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190214-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/19.

    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<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 14, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02889 Filed 2-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22009-22010]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08557]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69332; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Approving, on an Accelerated Basis, Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New
Exchange Rule 1047(f)(iv) Regarding Quoting Obligations

April 5, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On March 5, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)\1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to
adopt new Exchange Rule 1047(f)(iv) regarding quoting obligations. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 13, 2013.\4\ The Commission received no comment letters on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69068 (March 7,
2013), 78 FR 16001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On May 6, 2010, the U.S. equity markets experienced a severe
disruption that, among other things, resulted in the prices of a large
number of individual securities suddenly declining by significant
amounts in a very short time period before suddenly reversing to prices
consistent with their pre-decline levels.\5\ This severe price
volatility led to a large number of trades being executed at
temporarily depressed prices, including many that were more than 60%
away from pre-decline prices. One response to the events of May 6,
2010, was the development of the single-stock circuit breaker pilot
program, which was implemented through a series of rule filings by the
equity exchanges and by FINRA.\6\ The single-stock circuit breaker was
designed to reduce extraordinary market volatility in NMS stocks by
imposing a five-minute trading pause when a trade was executed at a
price outside of a specified percentage threshold.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The events of May 6 are described more fully in a joint
report by the staffs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') and the Commission. See Report of the Staffs of the CFTC
and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory
Issues, ``Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,''
dated September 30, 2010, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2010/marketevents-report.pdf.
    \6\ For further discussion on the development of the single-
stock circuit breaker pilot program, see Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012)
(``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62884 (September
10, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608 (September
16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033) (describing the ``second stage'' of
the single-stock circuit breaker pilot) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64735 (June 23, 2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011)
(describing the ``third stage'' of the single-stock circuit breaker
pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To replace the single-stock circuit breaker pilot program, the
equity exchanges filed a National Market System Plan \8\ pursuant to
Section 11A of the Act,\9\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\10\ which featured
a ``limit up-limit down'' mechanism (as amended, the ``Limit Up-Limit
Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NYSE Euronext filed on behalf of New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), and the parties to the proposed National Market
System Plan, BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, and National Stock Exchange,
Inc. (collectively with NYSE, NYSE MKT, and NYSE Arca, the
``Participants''). On May 14, 2012, NYSE Amex filed a proposed rule
change on an immediately effective basis to change its name to NYSE
MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
67037 (May 21, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-32).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan sets forth requirements that are designed to prevent
trades in individual NMS stocks from occurring outside of the specified
price bands. The price bands consist of a lower price band and an upper
price band for each NMS stock. When one side of the market for an
individual security is outside the applicable price band, i.e., the
National Best Bid is below the Lower Price Band, or the National Best
Offer is above the Upper Price band, the Processors \11\ are required
to disseminate such National Best Bid or National Best Offer \12\ with
a flag identifying that quote as non-executable. When the other side of
the market reaches the applicable price band, i.e., the National Best
Offer reaches the lower price band, or the National Best Bid reaches
the upper price band, the market for an individual security enters a
15-second Limit State, and the Processors are required disseminate such
National Best Offer or National Best Bid with an appropriate flag
identifying it as a Limit State Quotation. Trading in that stock would
exit the Limit State if, within 15 seconds of entering the Limit State,
all Limit State Quotations were executed or canceled in their entirety.
If the market does not exit a Limit State within 15 seconds, then the
Primary Listing Exchange will declare a five-minute trading pause,
which is applicable to all markets trading the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As used in the Plan, the Processor refers to the single
plan processor responsible for the consolidation of information for
an NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
    \12\ ``National Best Bid'' and ``National Best Offer'' has the
meaning provided in Rule 600(b)(42) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Primary Listing Exchange may also declare a trading pause when
the stock is in a Straddle State, i.e., the National Best Bid (Offer)
is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band and the NMS Stock is not
in a Limit State. In order to declare a trading pause in this scenario,
the Primary Listing Exchange must determine that trading in that stock
deviates from normal trading characteristics such that declaring a
trading pause would support the Plan's goal to address extraordinary
market volatility.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As set forth in more detail in the Plan, all trading
centers would be required to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the
display of offers below the Lower Price Band and bids above the
Upper Price Band for an NMS Stock. The Processors would be able to
disseminate an offer below the Lower Price Band or bid above the
Upper Price Band that nevertheless may be inadvertently submitted
despite such reasonable policies and procedures, but with an
appropriate flag identifying it as non-executable; such bid or offer
would not be included in National Best Bid or National Best Offer
calculations. In addition, all trading centers would be required to
develop, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent trades at prices outside the price bands, with
the exception of single-priced opening, reopening, and closing
transactions on the Primary Listing Exchange.

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

    On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan as a one-year
pilot, which shall be implemented in two phases.\14\ The first phase of
the Plan shall be implemented beginning April 8, 2013.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra note 6. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68953 (February 20, 2013), 78 FR
13113 (February 26, 2013) (Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y- Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc., et al.) and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 69062 (March 7, 2013), 78 FR 15757 (March 12, 2013) (Third
Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS
Y- Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., et al.)
    \15\ See ``Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra
note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposal

    In light of and in connection with the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,
the Exchange is adopting Rule 1047(f)(iv) to provide that the Exchange
shall exclude the amount of time an NMS stock underlying a Phlx option
is in a Limit State or Straddle State from the total amount of time in
the trading day when calculating the percentage of the trading day
specialists and Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') are required to
quote.
    Currently, under Rule 1014(b)(ii)(D)(1) and (2), Phlx requires: (i)
that a Streaming Quote Trader (``SQT'') and a Remote Streaming Quote
Trader (``RQST'') to be responsible for quoting two-sided markets in
not less than 60% of the series in which such SQT or RSQT is assigned;
(ii) a Directed SQT (``DSQT'') or a Directed DRSQT (``DRSQT'') to be
responsible for quoting two-sided markets in the lesser of 99% of the
series listed on the Exchange or 100% of the series listed on the
Exchange minus one call-put pair, in each case in at least 60% of the
options in which such DSQT or DRSQT is assigned; and (iii) the
specialist (including the RSQT functioning as a Remote Specialist in
particular options) shall be responsible to quote two-sided markets in
the less of 99% of the series on 100% of the series minus one call-put
pair in each option in which such specialist is assigned. To satisfy
these requirements, specialists and ROTs must quote such series 90% of
the trading day as a percentage of the total number of minutes in such
trading day.
    The Exchange's proposal would suspend specialists' and ROTs'
continuous quoting obligation for the duration that an underlying NMS
stock is in a Limit State or a Straddle State. As a result, when
calculating the duration necessary for a specialist or ROT to meet its
obligations that it post valid quotes at least 90% of the time the
classes are open for trading, that time will not include the duration
that the underlying is in a Limit State or Straddle State.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\16\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which,
among other things, requires a national securities exchange to be so
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with its members with the provisions of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange, and is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulation, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposal to suspend a Market Maker's
obligations when the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down
state is consistent with the Act. During a limit up-limit down state,
there may not be a reliable price for the underlying security to serve
as a benchmark for market makers to price options. In addition, the
absence of an executable bid or offer for the underlying security will
make it more difficult for market makers to hedge the purchase or sale
of an option. Given these significant changes to the normal operating
conditions of market makers, the Commission finds that the Exchange's
decision to suspend a Market Maker's obligations in these limited
circumstances is consistent with the Act.
    The Commission notes, however, that the Plan was approved on a
pilot basis and its Participants will monitor how it is functioning in
the equity markets during the pilot period. To this end, the Commission
expects that, upon implementation of the Plan, the Exchange will
continue monitoring the quoting requirements that are being amended in
this proposed rule change and determine if any necessary adjustments
are required to ensure that they remain consistent with the Act.
    The Commission also notes that the Exchange did not propose to
waive its bid-ask spread requirements for market makers when the
underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State. The Commission believes
that retaining this requirement should help ensure the quality of the
quotes that are entered and preserves one of the obligations of being a
market maker.
    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act \18\ for approving the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis. The proposal is related to the Plan, which will
become operative on April 8, 2013.\19\ Without accelerated approval,
the proposed rule change, and any attendant benefits, would take effect
after the Plan's implementation date. Accordingly, the Commission finds
that good cause exists for approving the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)
    \19\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\20\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2013-21) is approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08557 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 147 (Thursday, July 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45954-45955]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16491]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Availability of Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact
Statement, Gnoss Field Airport, Novato, Marin County, California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability for record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this
notice to advise the public that it has published a Record of Decision
(ROD) signed by the FAA for the Final Supplement to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Runway Extension
Project at Gnoss

Field Airport (DVO), Novato, Marin County, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Pomeroy, Environmental Protection
Specialist, Office of Airports, Federal Aviation Administration, San
Francisco Airports District Office, 1000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 220,
Brisbane, California 94005-1835, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA as lead agency, has completed and is
publishing a Record of Decision (ROD) for proposed improvements
identified at DVO. The ROD was prepared pursuant to Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 1505.2.
    The FAA published its Final EIS on July 3, 2014 and its Final
Supplement to the Final EIS for the proposed Runway Extension Project
on March 6, 2020. The FAA prepared the Final EIS and the Final
Supplement to the Final EIS pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969; the Council of Environmental Quality implementing
regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, FAA Order 1050.1F, and FAA Order
5050.4B. FAA assessed the potential environmental impacts of the Runway
Extension Project, as well as the No Action Alternative where the
County would make no improvements at DVO.
    In the Final EIS, the FAA identified the Alternative E--a 300 foot
runway extension, as the preferred alternative in meeting the purpose
and need for extending the runway at DVO. Alternative E includes:
     Extend Runway 13/31 300 feet to the northwest from 3,300
feet to a total length of 3,600 feet while maintaining the 75-foot
width of the runway;
     Shift Runway 13/31 threshold 106 feet to the northwest to
allow construction of FAA 300-foot B-II standard Runway Safety Area
(RSA) beyond each runway end while staying within existing DVO
property.
     Relocate existing taxiways accessing south end of Runway
13/31 to new runway end;
     Extend the parallel taxiway to the full length of the
runway;
     Extend the existing Runway Safety Area (RSA) along the
sides of Runway 13/31 to provide B-II standard RSA width of 150 feet
centered on the runway centerline;
     Corresponding realignment of drainage channels to drain
the extended runway and taxiway;
     Corresponding levee extension to protect the extended
runway and taxiway from flooding.
     Relocate the Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs), such as the
Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) that pilots use to land at the
Airport to reflect the extended runway.
    Due to the on-going COVID-19 Pandemic, and the ongoing closure of
local libraries, a copy of the ROD is available for public review at
FAA's website: https://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/records_decision/ and the Gnoss Airport EIS website http://gnossfieldeis-eir.com/reports_documents/.
    Questions may be directed to the individual above under the heading
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in El Segundo, California, on July 22, 2020.
Mark A. McClardy,
Director, Office of Airports, Western--Pacific Region, AWP-600.
[FR Doc. 2020-16491 Filed 7-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 28727-28728]
[DOCID:fr17my06-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53781; File No. SR-CHX-2006-12]

Self Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Participant Fees and Credits.

May 10, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 24, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CHX. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The CHX proposes to amend its Participant Fee Schedule (the ``Fee
Schedule'') to reduce the assignment fees charged to specialist firms
seeking the right to trade securities to $500 per assignment, when the
securities are assigned in competition with other firms. The text of
this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm and in the Commission's

Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposed rule change.
The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes

1. Purpose
    Under the Exchange's rules, the Committee on Specialist Assignment
and Evaluation is responsible for appointing participant firms to act
as specialists on the Exchange.\3\ When more than one firm competes for
the right to be the specialist in a particular security, the Exchange
charges assignment fees of $1,000 or $4,000 for the assignment,
depending on the number of firms competing for that right.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\  See Article IV, Rule 6.
    \4\ For ``dual trading system'' securities, a group of
securities which includes securities listed on the New York Stock
Exchange or American Stock Exchange, the Exchange currently charges
a $1,000 assignment fee if the security (or a group of securities)
was assigned in competition with at least one other participant and
up to one-third of all participants that trade these issues. The fee
for the assignment of this type of security is increased to $4,000
if the security (or a group of securities) was assigned in
competition with more than one-third of the participants that trade
these issues. For Nasdaq/NM securities, the Exchange currently
charges a $1,000 assignment fee if the security was assigned in
competition with one other participant firm; the fee is increased to
$4,000 if two or more firms compete for the assignment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate filing, the Exchange has submitted a proposal to
implement a new trading model, which features an automated Matching
System into which orders may be sent for execution, but which does not
involve the use of specialists to handle customer orders.\5\ Instead,
in this new model, off-Exchange market makers may choose to handle
customer orders, by sending those orders to the Exchange or to other
venues for execution. Because the Exchange plans to be able to
implement its new model in the second quarter of 2006, the Exchange
believes that the right to trade securities as an Exchange specialist
has only a short-term benefit. For that reason, the Exchange proposes
to reduce the assignment fees to $500 per security, regardless of the
number of participants competing for the assignments and regardless of
the type of security that is being assigned.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-CHX-2006-05.
    \6\ The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to maintain at
least a $500 assignment fee to help defray the costs of the
assignment process. The Exchange will continue to charge no fee when
securities are assigned without competition. The Exchange is
submitting a separate filing, SR-CHX-2006-13, which proposes to make
this fee reduction effective retroactively to March 1, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with

Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and creates an appropriate (and limited) incentive for a firm to agree
to act as specialist on a temporary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments Regarding the
Proposed Rule Changes Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Changes and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due, fee or
other charge imposed by the Exchange and therefore has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of such rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-CHX-2006-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2006-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CHX. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-CHX-2006-12 and should be submitted on or before June 7,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7470 Filed 5-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20383]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Revisions to FERC Online, eSubscription Service

    Take notice that on March 30, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) will update its eSubscription service that
provides email notification when documents are added to eLibrary in a
subscribed-to docket. eSubscription is one of the Commission's ``FERC
Online'' services available to users that have established an
eRegistration account on www.ferc.gov.
    Currently, when users eSubscribe to a docket or project number they
are provided options to: (1) ``Subscribe to open dockets only''; (2)
``subscribe to the docket only''; or (3) ``subscribe to the root and
all existing and new sub-dockets.'' To ensure that eSubscribers receive
all of the email notifications relating to dockets they are subscribed
to, the new release will only offer subscription to a docket or project
number without the additional options mentioned above (e.g. options (1)
and (2)). With this update, existing eSubscriptions will default to the
root and all sub-dockets in subscribed-to dockets. eSubscribing to
Commission Press Releases will not be affected by this update and will
continue to be available for eSubscription.
    Accordingly, this update will ensure that eSubscribers receive
email notifications when various types of documents are added to a
subscribe-to docket(s) in eLibrary, even if those documents are
assigned new sub-dockets (e.g., requests for rehearing) or are filed in
a ``closed'' docket.
    For questions about eSubscription or assistance, please contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 28, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8022 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9343-9348]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02421]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. PL17-2-000]

Utilization of Electric Storage Resources for Multiple Services
When Receiving Cost-Based Rate Recovery

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Policy statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission issues this policy statement to clarify its
precedent and provide guidance on the ability of electric storage
resources to provide services at and seek to recover their costs
through both cost-based and market-based rates concurrently. We are
mindful that, by providing electric storage resources the opportunity
to receive cost-based rate recovery concurrently with other revenue
from market-based services (e.g., through organized wholesale electric
markets), there can be implementation details that may need to be
addressed, including protections against the potential for double-
recovery of costs from cost-based ratepayers, adverse market impacts,
and regional transmission organization (RTO)/independent system
operator (ISO) independence from market participants. The Commission
provides guidance in this policy statement as to how electric storage
resources seeking to receive cost-based rate recovery for certain
services (such as transmission or grid support services or to address
other needs identified by an RTO/ISO) while also receiving market-based
revenues for providing separate market-based rate services could
address these concerns and also clarifies some past precedent on these
issues.

DATES: Effective Date: This policy statement will become effective
February 6, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rahim Amerkhail (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Heidi Nielsen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Policy Statement

(Issued January 19, 2017)

    1. The Commission issues this policy statement to clarify its
precedent and provide guidance on the ability of electric storage
resources to provide services at and seek to recover their costs
through both cost-based and market-based rates concurrently. We are
mindful that, by providing electric storage resources the opportunity
to receive cost-based rate recovery concurrently with other revenue
from market-based services (e.g., through organized wholesale electric
markets), there can be implementation details that may need to be
addressed, including protections against the potential for double-
recovery of costs from cost-based ratepayers, adverse market impacts,
and regional transmission organization (RTO)/independent system
operator (ISO) independence from market participants. The Commission
provides guidance in this policy statement as to how electric storage
resources seeking to receive cost-based rate recovery for certain
services (such as transmission or grid support services or to address
other needs identified by an RTO/ISO) while also receiving market-based
revenues for providing separate market-based rate services could
address these concerns and also clarifies some past precedent on these
issues.

I. Background

    2. Electric storage resources have the ability both to charge and
discharge electricity and can provide a variety of grid services to
multiple entities (e.g., RTO/ISOs, transmission and distribution
utilities) or in multiple markets. In addition, these resources are
able to provide multiple services almost instantaneously and can switch
from providing one service to another almost instantaneously. As such,
electric storage resources may fit into one or more of the traditional
asset functions of generation, transmission, and distribution. Enabling
electric storage resources to provide multiple services (including both
cost-based and market-based services) ensures that the full
capabilities of these resources can be realized, thereby maximizing
their efficiency and value for the system and to consumers. On November
9, 2016, Commission staff led a technical conference to discuss the
utilization of electric storage resources as transmission assets
compensated through transmission rates, for grid support services that
are compensated in other ways, and for multiple services.\1\ On
November 14, 2016, in that same proceeding, the Commission issued a
notice inviting post-technical conference comments.\2\ The Commission
received more than 30 comments from interested parties in response to
that notice. The discussions at the technical conference and the
comments highlight the different ways in which industry is considering
using electric storage resources and have prompted us to issue this
policy statement to clarify our precedent and provide guidance
regarding electric storage resources seeking to receive cost-based rate
recovery for certain services while also receiving market-based
revenues for providing market-based rate services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Utilization In the Organized Markets of Electric Storage
Resources as Transmission Assets Compensated Through Transmission
Rates, for Grid Support Services Compensated in Other Ways, and for
Multiple Services, Notice of Technical Conference, Docket No. AD16-
25-000 (issued Sept. 30, 2016). The Commission issued supplemental
notices on November 1, 2016, and November 7, 2016.
    \2\ Utilization In the Organized Markets of Electric Storage
Resources as Transmission Assets Compensated Through Transmission
Rates, for Grid Support Services Compensated in Other Ways, and for
Multiple Services, Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference
Comments, Docket No. AD16-25-000 (issued Nov. 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission previously has discussed such concerns in Nevada
Hydro \3\ and Western Grid.\4\ In Nevada Hydro, the Commission found
that it would not be appropriate, as requested by The Nevada Hydro
Company, Inc.'s (Nevada Hydro), to require the California Independent
System Operator Corporation (CAISO) to assume ``any level of
operational control'' over the proposed Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped
Storage project (LEAPS) or functionalize it as transmission for rate
recovery purposes.\5\ Nevada Hydro had proposed that LEAPS be treated
as a transmission facility under CAISO's operational control.\6\
According to Nevada Hydro, CAISO would serve its ancillary services
needs consistently from LEAPS, and Nevada Hydro would consistently bid
LEAPS' stored energy into the market at a price of zero dollars.\7\
Nevada Hydro asserted that it had carefully crafted its proposal to
avoid market distortions. CAISO argued that its independence would be
compromised, as it would have to decide when LEAPS would operate, how
much energy it would produce, and when it would operate the pumps to
store water for future generation.\8\ The Commission stated that the
purpose of CAISO's transmission access charge (TAC) is to recover the
costs of transmission facilities under the control of CAISO, not to
recover the costs of bundled services.\9\ The Commission noted that it
was denying the request that LEAPS be placed under CAISO's operational
control. The Commission stated that, for these reasons, LEAPS' costs
were not properly recovered through the TAC. The Commission added that,
absent information that justified treating LEAPS differently from the
existing pumped hydro facilities in CAISO's footprint, allowing LEAPS
to receive a guaranteed revenue stream through CAISO's TAC would create
an undue preference for LEAPS compared to these other similarly
situated pumped hydro generators. Therefore, the Commission rejected
Nevada Hydro's proposal to include the costs of LEAPS in CAISO's
rolled-in transmission charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Nev. Hydro Co. Inc., 122 FERC ] 61,272 (2008) (Nevada
Hydro).
    \4\ Western Grid Dev., LLC, 130 FERC ] 61,056 (Western Grid),
reh'g denied, 133 FERC ] 61,029 (2010).
    \5\ Nevada Hydro, 122 FERC ] 61,272 at PP 1, 82-83. LEAPS was
intended to be a pumped hydro storage facility with an installed
generating capacity of 500 MW and a pumping capacity of 600 MW. Id.
P 3.
    \6\ Id. P 5.
    \7\ Id. P 74.
    \8\ Id. P 81.
    \9\ Id. P 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In Western Grid, the Commission accepted Western Grid's proposal
to provide cost-based rate recovery for electric storage resources
through transmission rates based on the proposed uses (voltage support
and thermal overload protection for relevant transmission facilities)
and on other conditions Western Grid proposed, including a commitment
to forego any sales into CAISO's organized wholesale electric
markets.\10\ Western Grid asserted that its electric storage resources
would be used to solve transmission reliability problems

identified by CAISO,\11\ at significantly lower cost than traditional
transmission upgrade methods.\12\ As relevant here, in Western Grid,
the Commission found that, based on the specific circumstances and
characteristics of the Western Grid Projects, they would be wholesale
transmission facilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction if
operated as Western Grid described.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Western Grid, 130 FERC ] 61,056 at PP 18-24, 45-46. The
proposed electric storage projects (Western Grid Projects) were to
be composed of sodium sulfur batteries that ranged in size from 10
to 50 MW. Id. P 4.
    \11\ See Western Grid November 20, 2009 Petition, Docket No.
EL10-19-000, at 4.
    \12\ Id. at 6.
    \13\ Western Grid, 130 FERC ] 61,056 at P 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Commission explained that Western Grid proposed to operate
the Western Grid Projects under the direction of CAISO in a manner
similar to the way in which high-voltage wholesale transmission
facilities are operated by participating transmission owners under the
direction of CAISO (e.g., capacitors that address voltage issues or
alternate transmission circuits that address line overloads or
trips).\14\ The Commission noted that Western Grid stated that it would
only operate the Western Grid Projects to address voltage support and
thermal overload protection needs at CAISO's direction and that CAISO's
involvement was consistent with CAISO's operating obligations for
transmission assets. Western Grid also stated that it would be
responsible for all operating functions, including maintenance,
communication, and system emergencies. The Commission noted that, most
importantly, Western Grid would be responsible for energizing (i.e.,
maintaining the state-of-charge on) the Western Grid Projects needed to
address voltage support and thermal overload protection at CAISO's
direction. The Commission found that, because of this, the independence
of CAISO would be maintained because CAISO would not be responsible for
buying power to energize the Western Grid Projects or physically
operating the batteries when they were being charged and discharged.
The Commission added that, importantly, Western Grid would operate the
Western Grid Projects, at CAISO's direction, only as transmission
assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. P 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The Commission noted that, just like other transmission assets,
and unlike traditional generation assets, Western Grid proposed that it
would not retain revenues outside of the TAC and would credit any
revenues it might accrue as a result of charging and discharging the
Western Grid Projects through its participating transmission owner
tariff to transmission customers.\15\ The Commission further noted, in
particular, that Western Grid proposed that it would not arbitrage
wholesale energy market prices. The Commission found that, based on the
facts as presented by Western Grid, the Western Grid Projects would
function as transmission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. P 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Commission also found that the Western Grid Projects would
not undercut bids by other market participants because Western Grid
would not be offering the Western Grid Projects into the CAISO markets
and the Western Grid Projects would only be used to provide voltage
support and to address thermal overload situations at the CAISO's
instruction.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See id. P 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The Commission also found that the facts and circumstances in
Western Grid were sufficiently distinguishable from those in Nevada
Hydro to justify a different result.\17\ The Commission explained that
an important issue that arose in Nevada Hydro--and that protesters
echoed with respect to the Western Grid Projects--involved the question
of whether CAISO's operation of the LEAPS storage facility would render
it an energy market participant.\18\ The Commission found that Western
Grid's proposal eliminated that concern because (1) Western Grid itself
would maintain the state of charge of its electric storage resources
(rather than CAISO), and (2) Western Grid would credit any incidental
net revenues from such transactions to its customers via the TAC.\19\
Therefore, the Commission concluded that there was little likelihood
that CAISO would become a profit-seeking energy market participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. P 48.
    \18\ Id. (citing The Nev. Hydro Co. Inc., 117 FERC ] 61,204, at
PP 28-32; Nevada Hydro, 122 FERC ] 61,272 at PP 82-83).
    \19\ Id. P 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Policy Statement

    9. We believe that it is timely to provide additional guidance
regarding issues that arise for electric storage resources seeking to
recover their costs through both cost-based and market-based rates
concurrently. We also believe that clarification regarding our Nevada
Hydro and Western Grid precedent is warranted due to potential
confusion with respect to that precedent. Accordingly, through this
policy statement, we provide guidance and clarification regarding the
ability of electric storage resources to receive cost-based rate
recovery for certain services (such as transmission or grid support
services or to address other needs identified by an RTO/ISO) while also
receiving market-based revenues for providing separate market-based
services. We clarify that there may be approaches different from
Western Grid's approach under which an electric storage resource may
receive cost-based rate recovery and, if technically capable, provide
market-based services.
    10. In Western Grid, the applicant proposed to operate only as a
transmission resource and to forego any sales into CAISO's organized
wholesale electric markets.\20\ Western Grid also proposed to take
responsibility for charging its electric storage resources. The
Commission found that Western Grid's proposals addressed the concerns
described above. However, that order was limited to the facts that
Western Grid presented to the Commission. Thus, that order should not
be read to require other entities to forgo market sales as Western Grid
proposed. We clarify that there may be approaches different from
Western Grid's approach under which an electric storage resource may
receive cost-based rate recovery and, if technically capable, provide
market-based services that may address these concerns. To that end, we
provide the following guidance on how applicants seeking cost-based
rate recovery for electric storage resources providing certain services
while also providing separate services at market-based rates could
address concerns related to double recovery of costs, adverse market
impacts, and RTO/ISO independence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id. PP 19, 21-23; see also id. PP 48-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple Uses and Revenue Streams

    11. As noted above, electric storage resources can provide a
variety of services to multiple entities. An electric storage resource
receiving cost-based rate recovery for providing one service may also
be technically capable of providing other market-based rate services.
Most participants in the technical conference and commenters generally
support multiple uses and revenue streams, including both cost-based
and market-based revenues, for electric storage resources.\21\
Commenters believe that the key question is not whether to allow
multiple use applications for electric storage resources but how to
allow and

enable such applications.\22\ Commenters also note that it would be
inefficient and wasteful to let electric storage resources that are not
being used to serve a transmission need to sit idle and instead these
resources should be permitted to provide other market services to
capture their full system benefits and maximize economic efficiency and
value to consumers.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Dec. 14, 2016
Comments at 2-3; Xcel Energy Services Inc. Dec. 16, 2016 Comments at
6-7; SolarCity Corp. and Tesla Motors, Inc. Dec. 14, 2016 Comments
at 2-4, 8-10; AES Companies Dec. 14, 2016 Comments at 4; Alevo USA
Inc. Dec. 14, 2016 Comments at 3-4; Renewable Energy Systems
Americas, Inc. Comments at 2-3, 5.
    \22\ See, e.g., California Energy Storage Alliance Dec. 14, 2016
Comments at 5.
    \23\ See, e.g., Technical Conference Transcript, Docket No.
AD16-25-000, at Tr. 34: 11-20 (posted Nov. 9, 2016); Exelon Corp.
Dec. 14, 2016 Comments at 2, 6; Union of Concerned Scientists Dec.
14, 2016 Comments at 9-10; Energy Storage Association Dec. 14, 2016
Comments at 3, 6, 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. To the extent that an electric storage resource seeks cost-
based rates for a particular service, that resource may need to compete
at least in part on cost against other alternatives that could provide
the service. In some cases, an electric storage resource may only be
cost competitive for the cost-based service if expected market revenues
are considered in the evaluation of the electric storage resources.
Such market revenues can be used to offset the electric storage
resource's costs for providing the cost-based rate service.
    13. Additionally, if an electric storage resource seeks to recover
its costs through both cost-based and market-based rates concurrently,
the following issues, as raised in prior proceedings, should be
addressed: (1) The potential for combined cost-based and market-based
rate recovery to result in double recovery of costs by the electric
storage resource owner or operator to the detriment of cost-based
ratepayers; (2) the potential for cost recovery through cost-based
rates to inappropriately suppress competitive prices in the wholesale
electric markets to the detriment of other competitors who do not
receive such cost-based rate recovery; and (3) the level of control in
the operation of an electric storage resource by an RTO/ISO that could
jeopardize its independence from market participants.
    14. We note that these or similar issues were raised by commenters
in Western Grid or Nevada Hydro. This policy statement is not intended
to resolve the detailed implementation issues surrounding how an
electric storage resource may concurrently provide services at cost-
and market-based rates. Rather, it is intended to clarify that
providing services at both cost- and market-based rates is permissible
as a matter of policy, provide guidance on some of the details and
allow entities to address these issues through stakeholder processes
and in filings before the Commission.
1. Avoiding Double Recovery of Costs
    15. One issue associated with an electric storage resource
receiving cost-based rate recovery while concurrently receiving
compensation for market-based rate services involves potential double
recovery of costs borne by the relevant cost-based ratepayers. Most
participants in the technical conference and commenters believe that
double recovery can be addressed by appropriate market revenue
crediting.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Technical Conference Transcript at Tr. 47: 25--
Tr. 48: 1; Tr. 50: 13-15; Tr. 168: 4-9; AES Companies Comments at 4;
Exelon Corp. Comments at 8, 10; NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Dec.
14, 2016 Comments at 7; Transmission Access Policy Study Group Dec.
14, 2016 Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. While we believe there may be additional approaches for
addressing this concern beyond the one proposed in Western Grid, we
clarify that crediting any market revenues back to the cost-based
ratepayers is one possible solution. The Commission has sought to
prevent the subsidization of public utility shareholders at the expense
of their captive customers.\25\ Proposals to allow public utilities
using electric storage resources to recover costs under cost-based
rates from captive customers should address the potential for the
recovery of those same costs through market-based sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., Heartland Energy Servs, Inc., 68 FERC ] 61,223,
at 62,062-63 (1994) (prohibiting transfer of benefits from captive
customers of a franchised public utility to affiliates and
shareholders). See also Golden Spread Elec. Coop. v. Southwestern
Public Serv. Co., 123 FERC ] 61,047, Opinion No. 501, at P 40 (2008)
(citing Minnesota Power & Light Co., 47 FERC ] 61,064, at 61,183
n.2, 61,184 (1989)), order on reh'g, Opinion No. 501-A, 144 FERC ]
61,132 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. We note that the amount of this crediting may vary depending on
how the cost-based rate recovery is structured. For example, if the
electric storage resource indicates that it will seek to recover its
full, unadjusted costs through cost-based rates, it may be reasonable
for the electric storage resource owner or operator to credit all
projected market revenues earned by the electric storage resource over
a reasonable period of time (e.g., the expected useful life of the
asset or the term of the cost-based rate service if it differs from the
useful asset life). We believe that the accounting provisions in Order
No. 784 \26\ (including the supplemental accounting and reporting
guidance issued in Docket No. AI14-1-000) \27\ coupled with the
requirement to submit Electric Quarterly Reports pursuant to Order Nos.
2001 \28\ and 768 \29\ provide sufficient transparency to allow
effective oversight for any needed revenue crediting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Third-Party Provision of Ancillary Services; Accounting
and Financial Reporting for New Electric Storage Technologies, Order
No. 784, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles ] 31,349 (July
30, 2013), order partly granting clarification, Order No. 784-A, 146
FERC ] 61,114 (2014).
    \27\ Accounting and Reporting Guidance for New Electric Storage
Technologies, Docket No. AI14-1-000 (Feb. 20, 2014).
    \28\ See Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No.
2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-A,
100 FERC ] 61,074, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC ]
61,342, order directing filing, Order No. 2001-C, 101 FERC ] 61,314
(2002), order directing filing, Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ] 61,334,
order refining filing requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ]
61,352 (2003), order on clarification, Order No. 2001-F, 106 FERC ]
61,060 (2004), order revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-G,
120 FERC ] 61,270, order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 2001-
H, 121 FERC ] 61,289 (2007), order revising filing requirements,
Order No. 2001-I, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,282 (2008).
    \29\ Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220
of the Federal Power Act, Order No. 768, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,336 (2012), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ] 61,054
(2013), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-B, 150 FERC ] 61,075 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Alternatively, at the electric storage resource owner's or
operator's discretion, this market-revenue offset can be used to reduce
the amount of the revenue requirement to be used in the development of
the cost-based rate. This up-front rate reduction would also help
ensure that the cost-based rate remains just and reasonable and provide
the electric storage resource owner or operator with an incentive to
estimate market revenues as accurately as possible. In this scenario,
the need for crediting of market revenues could be proportionally
reduced as well. In other words, full cost recovery through cost-based
rates may require full crediting of projected market revenues; no cost
recovery through cost-based rates would require no crediting of
projected or actual market revenues; and partial cost recovery through
cost-based rates could require partial crediting of market revenues.
For example, if the cost-based rate is based on 25 percent of the
asset's full cost-of-service, then perhaps only 25 percent of market
revenues would need to be credited to cost-based ratepayers.
    19. We recognize there may be other ways for an electric storage
resource owner or operator seeking to recover costs through cost-based
rates and market-based rates to prevent the double recovery of costs.
Any solution would need to comport with cost-of-service precedent cited
earlier.
2. Minimizing Adverse Impacts on Wholesale Electric Markets
    20. Another issue associated with an electric storage resource
receiving cost-

based rate recovery while concurrently receiving compensation for
market-based rate services that the Commission addressed in Nevada
Hydro and Western Grid is the adverse market impacts that could
occur.\30\ Some commenters believe that any potential adverse impacts
on wholesale electric markets either do not need to be addressed
because numerous resources participating in organized wholesale
electric markets currently receive cost-based rate treatment for other
services as well \31\ or can be addressed by appropriate market revenue
crediting.\32\ Other commenters argue, however, that permitting new
electric storage resources that receive transmission-based rate
recovery to participate in the competitive organized wholesale electric
markets could undermine competition and suppress market prices to sub-
competitive levels.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ We note that the Supplemental Notice of Technical
Conference, setting forth the agenda and questions for the technical
conference, which also formed the basis for post-technical
conference comments, referred to ``cross-subsidization'' when
discussing this issue. See supra nn.1, 2. We consider ``cross-
subsidization'' to refer to concerns over the allocation of costs
between different customer classes for the same services, or between
customers under different services, not concerns that resources or
public utilities receiving both cost-based and market-based revenues
undermine competition in the wholesale electric markets. Therefore,
for more precision, here, we use the term ``adverse market impacts''
instead.
    \31\ See, e.g., Technical Conference Transcript at Tr. 65: 8-18;
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Comments at 9-10; Exelon Corp.
Comments at 6.
    \32\ See, e.g., Transmission Access Policy Study Group Comments
at 6.
    \33\ See, e.g., FirstLight Power Resources, Inc. Dec. 14, 2016
Comments at 2, 6-7; New England Power Generators Association, Inc.
Dec. 14, 2016 Comments at 2-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. As provided above, we clarify that electric storage resources
may concurrently receive cost- and market-based revenues for providing
separate services. We do not share commenters' concerns and are not
convinced that allowing such arrangements will adversely impact other
market competitors.
    22. We agree that many assets that participate in RTO/ISO markets
receive some form of cost-based rate recovery. For example, many
participating generation resources seek and are paid a cost-based rate
for providing reactive supply, even as they make market-based rate
sales into organized wholesale electric markets.\34\ Further, as noted
during the discussions at the technical conference and in comments, a
significant amount of generation in certain RTO/ISO markets is owned by
vertically integrated public utilities that recover some or all of
their costs through cost-based retail rates.\35\ Similarly, some
vertically integrated public utilities make cost-based rate sales to
captive wholesale requirements customers such as transmission dependent
utilities while also making off-system market-based rate sales to
others.\36\ As noted earlier, in these circumstances, the Commission
has required crediting of an appropriate portion of market revenues to
captive wholesale customers in order to prevent the subsidization of
public utility shareholders at the expense of their captive customers.
But the Commission has not required any other measures to address the
potential competitive impact of such market-based rate sales on other
competitors in those markets. One commenter also points to bilateral
contracts as another example of resources receiving both cost-based and
market-based revenues.\37\ It is also true that there are many public
utilities in restructured states that have transmission assets with
cost-based recovery and generation assets that receive market-based
revenues. If we were to deny electric storage resources the possibility
of earning cost-based and market-based revenues on the theory that
having dual revenue streams undermines competition, we would need to
revisit years of precedent allowing such concurrent cost-based and
market-based sales to occur as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See, e.g., SolarCity Corp. and Tesla Motors, Inc. Comments
at 9.
    \35\ See, e.g., Technical Conference Transcript at Tr. 65: 8-18;
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Comments at 9-10.
    \36\ See, e.g., Opinion No. 501, 123 FERC ] 61,047.
    \37\ See NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Moreover, we believe any concerns that electric storage
resources would offer in a manner that suppresses market clearing
prices simply because they receive cost recovery (in whole or in part)
through cost-based rates could be addressed by the manner in which
double recovery is addressed and the costs that go into the cost-based
rates are established.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ We note that cost-based rates are reviewed by the
Commission and can only be accepted if the rates are just and
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. RTO/ISO Independence
    24. Another issue relevant to this policy statement is maintaining
RTO/ISO independence from market participants. The discussions of this
issue at the technical conference and in comments crossed into other
issues such as adverse market impacts (discussed in the previous
section) and largely focused on RTO/ISO discretion and the role of the
RTO/ISO in operating the electric storage resources, especially for
planning and reliability purposes.\39\ Nevertheless, we believe that
clarification is required in this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See, e.g., Technical Conference Transcript at Tr. 50-51;
PG&E Comments at 3; NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Comments at 11-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Coordination between the RTO/ISO and the electric storage
resource owner or operator will be necessary for electric storage
resources that concurrently provide services compensated through cost-
based rates and services compensated through market-based rates. Among
any other operational concerns that individual RTOs or ISOs may need to
address, the electric storage resource should be maintained so that the
necessary state of charge can be achieved when necessary to provide the
service compensated through cost-based rates. But, assuming this
priority need is reasonably predictable as to size and the time it will
arise each day, the electric storage resource should be permitted to
deviate from this state of charge at other times of the day in order to
provide other, market-based rate services. We recognize that this
assignment of responsibility is premised on the need for the service
compensated through cost-based rates being predictable enough to allow
the appropriate charge management structure to be implemented. In
situations where this premise does not hold, and the need for the
service for which cost-based rates are provided is not reasonably
predictable as to size or the time it will arise each day, the cost-
based rate service may be the only service that the electric storage
resource could provide.
    26. We also provide guidance that, when the circumstances leading
to the need for the service compensated through cost-based rates arise,
RTO/ISO dispatch of the electric storage resource to address that need
should receive priority over the electric storage resource's provision
of market-based rate services. Performance penalties could be imposed
on the electric storage resource owner or operator for failure to
perform at these times.
    27. We further provide guidance that the provision of market-based
rate services should be under the control of the electric storage
resource owner or operator, rather than the RTO/ISO, to ensure RTO/ISO
independence. In other words, while the RTO/ISO always performs the
actual optimization of resources participating in the organized
wholesale electric markets, during periods when the electric storage
resource is not needed for the separate service compensated at cost-
based rates,

the RTO/ISO would rely on offer parameters provided by the electric
storage resource owner or operator for such operation, just as the RTO/
ISO does with other market participants.
    28. In this regard, we believe that one statement in Nevada Hydro
requires clarification. Specifically, the Commission's conclusion that
it would not be appropriate to require CAISO to assume ``any level of
operational control'' \40\ over the LEAPS facility should not be taken
out of context because RTOs/ISOs arguably always exercise some level of
operational control over the resources they dispatch through their
markets. The Commission's decision in Nevada Hydro was discussing only
the six proposals for operation of LEAPS as a transmission asset that
were discussed in CAISO's stakeholder process.\41\ Other facts may
warrant a different decision from the Commission. Therefore, we clarify
that there is nothing unreasonable about an RTO/ISO exercising some
level of control over the resources it commits or dispatches where it
can be shown that the RTO/ISO independence is not at issue. When those
resources are dispatched through the organized wholesale electric
market clearing process, the level of RTO/ISO control will be lower
because such dispatch will be based on offer parameters submitted by
resource owners or operators. When resources are operated outside of
the organized wholesale electric market clearing process (e.g., to
address reliability needs), then the RTO's/ISO's control may be
greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Nevada Hydro, 122 FERC ] 61,272 at P 82 (emphasis added).
    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. We are willing to consider other solutions proposed by an
electric storage resource owner or operator seeking to recover costs
through cost-based rates and market-based rates that are shown to be
effective in avoiding these RTO/ISO independence issues.

III. Document Availability

    30. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
    31. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    32. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
IV. Effective Date

    33. This policy statement will become effective February 6, 2017.

    By the Commission. Commissioner LaFleur is dissenting with a
separate statement attached.

    Issued: January 19, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Utilization of Electric Storage Resources for Multiple Services When
Receiving Cost-Based Rate Recovery

Docket No. PL17-2-000
(Issued January 19, 2017)
LaFLEUR, Commissioner dissenting:

    Today's order addresses whether a storage resource can receive
cost-based revenues for providing a transmission service while also
participating in the Commission's wholesale markets. The Commission has
previously considered related issues in individual cases, such as our
Western Grid orders from 2010,\1\ and I agree that the Commission
should be flexible and open to proposals that go beyond the model
contemplated in those orders. I am open to potential structures that
compensate storage providing transmission service at a cost-based rate
while participating in the wholesale markets. However, I am concerned
about the broad rationale for this approach put forth in the Policy
Statement, which I believe is both flawed in its conclusions and
premature in its timing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Western Grid Dev., LLC, 130 FERC ] 61,056, reh'g denied, 133
FERC ] 61,029 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I particularly disagree with the Policy Statement's sweeping
conclusions about the potential impacts of multiple payment streams on
pricing in wholesale electric markets.\2\ The Policy Statement
summarily dismisses concerns regarding the impact of such arrangements
on market competition, and leaves far more than just ``implementation
details'' to be worked out. Indeed, the Policy Statement provides no
guidance on how the Commission could evaluate whether a particular
filing under section 205 of the Federal Power Act successfully avoids
adverse market impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Utilization of Electric Storage Resources for Multiple
Services When Receiving Cost-Based Rate Recovery, 158 FERC ] 61,051
(2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am concerned that the Policy Statement, while nominally limited
to storage resources, could be read to reflect the Commission's views
about the impact of multiple payment streams on market pricing more
generally, thus implicating broader regional discussions on state
policy initiatives and their interaction with competitive markets.
These issues, which are currently being discussed by several RTO/ISOs
and their stakeholders, will require careful and holistic consideration
to ensure that policy advancements can be achieved while the benefits
of competition are preserved for customers.
    Furthermore, I disagree with the Commission's decision to separate
this issue from its pending Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on storage
participation,\3\ which is itself directed to enabling greater
participation of storage technologies in wholesale markets. The
conclusions of this Policy Statement regarding market participation of
storage resources would benefit from being considered and commented on
as part of that broader discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System
Operators, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 157 FERC ] 61,121 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Storage is an important and promising resource that warrants
Commission attention to ensure that our markets are appropriately
adapted to recognize storage's unique characteristics and
contributions. However, efforts to accommodate these resources should
not come at the expense of careful market design after full public
participation.
    For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

Cheryl A. LaFleur,
Commissioner
[FR Doc. 2017-02421 Filed 2-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P