[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 5540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-216]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER03-1345-000]


Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; 
Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

January 30, 2004.
    The January 22, 2004, Notice of Technical Conference in this 
proceeding indicated that a technical conference regarding the Midwest 
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.'s (Midwest ISO) proposed 
revision to Attachment C of its Open Access Transmission Tariff, 
relating to the calculation of Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC), will 
be held on Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 9 a.m. This conference will 
be held in Room 3M-1 at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All interested 
persons may attend the conference, and registration is not required. 
However, attendees are asked to contact Nat Davis at (202) 502-6171 or 
[email protected] so that name tags for attendees can be 
created.
    The agenda for the technical conference is attached. The topics 
will commence with a presentation by the Midwest ISO followed by a 
discussion. The conference will focus on the questions identified in 
the agenda. After the conference, Commission Staff will set a schedule 
for Comments and Reply Comments to be filed.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.

Technical Conference Agenda

    9-9:30 a.m.: Introductions--Commission Staff and Midwest ISO.
    9:30-12 p.m.: Questions and responses to Midwest ISO proposed 
AFC calculation for transmission requests that source and/or sink 
within the AmericanTransmission Company, LLC (ATCo) footprint 
(Staff's questions are set forth below).
     Is the technology available to the Midwest 
ISO system operator to evaluate all affected flowgates for firm and 
non-firm transmission requests (a) for the individual ATCo control 
areas and (b) for the combined ATCo control areas?
     The proposed interim treatment of non-firm 
transactions sourcing and sinking within the ATCo footprint would 
reduce granularity, as compared with the ongoing work of Midwest ISO 
in increasing the level of specificity and detail (granularity) 
employed in its flow-based analysis of transmission service requests 
for all other Midwest ISO transactions, both firm and non-firm. How 
does Midwest ISO plan to (a) ensure that non-firm transactions are 
approved on a first-come, first-served basis and (b) ensure that 
transactions that cause congestion are not approved and not 
scheduled?
     Midwest ISO refers to the combining of the 
ATCo control areas into one as a ``Virtual ATC area.'' What is a 
``Virtual ATC area''? Are there any other examples within Midwest 
ISO or in other system of a ``Virtual ATC area''?
     Does Midwest ISO have a procedure to identify 
and provide transparency of non-firm transactions that take place 
within the ``Virtual ATC area''?
     If congestion occurs within the ``Virtual ATC 
area,'' how does Midwest ISO plan to relieve such congestion; (a) by 
curtailing specific non-firm transactions within ATCo, (b) 
curtailing all non-firm transactions within ATCo, (c) curtailing 
non-firm transactions sourcing and sinking outside ATCo, but with 
flowgate impacts within ATCo, or (d) other?
     Are all non-firm transactions within the ATCo 
footprint required to be ``tagged'' in the E-tag system, and input 
into the NERC Interchange Distribution Calculator (IDC)? By what 
process is Midwest ISO informed that such transactions have received 
the proper tag?
     Given that Midwest ISO has the capability of 
analyzing the flowgate impact of all firm and non-firm transactions 
within the Midwest ISO footprint, under what circumstances would 
transactions be approved without such analysis, and what would be 
the justification?
     Are all non-firm transactions sourcing and 
sinking in ATCo assumed to have the same impact on congestion, 
regardless of what a flowgate analysis, if actually performed, would 
indicate?
     How is congestion to be relieved for non-firm 
transactions that source and sink within ATCo, but impact flowgates 
outside ATCo?
     How is congestion to be relieved for non-firm 
transactions that source and sink outside ATCo, but impact flowgates 
within ATCo?
     What has been the recent experience of 
congestion within ATCo? Have there been instances when Transmission 
Load Relief (TLR) has been initiated? To what extent has the 
congestion been relieved by curtailing transactions sourcing and 
sinking within ATCo? outside ATCo?
     Does Midwest ISO anticipate that ``Virtual 
ATC area'' procedures will increase or decrease ATCo system 
congestion?

 [FR Doc. E4-216 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P