[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5660-5664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1394]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Considerations for Transmission Congestion Study and Designation 
of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (``OE''), 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry requesting comment and providing notice of a 
technical conference.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the ``Department'') seeks comment 
and information from the public concerning its plans for an electricity 
transmission congestion study and possible designation of National 
Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (``NIETCs'') in a report based 
on the study pursuant to section 1221(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005. Through this notice of inquiry, the Department invites comment on 
draft criteria for gauging the suitability of geographic areas as 
NIETCs and announces a public technical conference concerning the 
criteria for evaluation of candidate areas as NIETCs.

DATES: Written comments may be filed electronically in MS Word and PDF 
formats by e-mailing to: [email protected] no later than 5 p.m. EDT 
March 6, 2006. Also, comments can be filed by mail at the address 
listed below. The technical conference will be held in Chicago on March 
29, 2006. For further information, please visit the Department's Web 
site at http://www.electricity.doe.gov/1221.

ADDRESSES: Written comments via mail should be submitted to:
    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-20, 
Attention: EPACT 1221 Comments, U.S. Department of Energy, Forestall 
Building, Room 6H-050, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585.


    Note: U.S. Postal Service mail sent to the Department continues 
to be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. Electronic 
submission is therefore encouraged. Copies of written comments 
received and other relevant documents and information may be 
reviewed at http://www.electricity.doe.gov/1221.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Poonum Agrawal, Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-20, U.S. Department of 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
1411, [email protected], or Lot Cooke, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-76, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 
(202) 586-0503, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Overview

    The Nation's electric system includes over 150,000 miles of 
interconnected high-voltage transmission lines that link generators to 
load centers.\1\ The electric system has been built by electric 
utilities over a period of 100 years, primarily to serve local 
customers and support reliability; the system generally was not 
constructed with a primary emphasis on moving large amounts of power 
across multi-state regions.\2\ Due to a doubling of electricity demand 
and generation over the past three decades and the advent of wholesale 
electricity markets, transfers of large amounts of electricity across 
the grid have increased significantly in recent years. The increase in 
regional electricity transfers saves electricity consumers billions of 
dollars,\3\ but significantly increases transmission facility loading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North American Electric Reliability Council, Electricity 
Supply and Demand Database (2003) available at http://www.nerc.com/esd.
    \2\ Edison Electric Institute, Survey of Transmission Investment 
at 1 (May 2005).
    \3\ Department of Energy, National Transmission Grid Study, at 
19 (May 2002) available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/ntgs/reports.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Investment in new transmission facilities has not kept pace with 
the increasing economic and operational importance of transmission 
service.\4\ Today, congestion in the transmission system impedes 
economically efficient electricity transactions and in some cases 
threatens the system's safe and reliable operation.\5\ The Department 
has estimated that this congestion costs consumers several billion 
dollars per year by forcing wholesale electricity purchasers to buy 
from higher-cost suppliers.\6\ That estimate did not include the 
reliability costs associated with such bottlenecks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. at 7; see also Hirst, U.S. Transmission Capacity Present 
Status and Future Prospects, 7 (June 2004).
    \5\ National Transmission Grid Study, supra note 3, at 10-20.
    \6\ Id. at 16-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Energy Policy (May 2001),\7\ the Department's National 
Transmission Grid Study (May 2002),\8\ and the Secretary of Energy's 
Electricity Advisory Board's Transmission Grid Solutions Report 
(September 2002),\9\ recommended that the Department address regulatory 
obstacles in the planning and construction of electric transmission and 
distribution lines. In response to these recommendations, the 
Department held a ``Workshop on Designation of National Interest 
Electric Transmission Bottlenecks'' on July 14, 2004, in Salt Lake 
City, Utah. The Department also issued a Federal Register notice of 
inquiry on July 22, 2004.\10\ The purpose of the workshop and the 
notice of inquiry was to learn stakeholders' views concerning 
transmission bottlenecks, identify how designation of such bottlenecks 
may benefit the users of the grid and electricity consumers, and 
recognize key bottlenecks. In its plans for implementation of 
subsection 1221(a), the Department notes that it has considered the 
comments received via the notice and the workshop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The National Energy Policy Development Group Report, 
available at http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ADAP.
    \8\ National Transmission Grid Study, supra note 3.
    \9\ Department of Energy Electricity Advisory Board, 
Transmission Grid Solutions, available at http://www.eab.energy.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.publications.
    \10\ Designation of National Interest Electric Transmission 
Bottlenecks, 69 FR 43833 (July 22, 2004) also available at http://www.electricity.doe.gov/bottlenecks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Relevant Provisions From the Statute

    On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, (the ``Act''). Title XII of the Act, 
entitled ``The Electricity Modernization Act of 2005'' includes 
provisions relating to the siting of interstate electric transmission 
facilities and promoting advanced power system technologies. Subsection 
1221(a) of the Act amends the Federal Power Act (``FPA'') by adding a 
new section 216 which requires the Secretary of Energy (the 
``Secretary'') to conduct a nationwide study of electric transmission 
congestion (``congestion study''), and issue a report based on the 
study in which the Secretary may designate ``any geographic area 
experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or 
congestion that adversely affects

[[Page 5661]]

consumers as a national interest electric transmission corridor.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, sec. 1221, Sec.  
216, 119 Stat. 594, 946-953 (2005) (to be codified as amended at 16 
U.S.C. 824p). Note that section 216 of the FPA specifically excludes 
the area covered by the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas. 
Id. at Sec.  216(k). Section 216 of the FPA does not mention Alaska 
and Hawaii; however, their electricity supply systems are not 
interconnected with the grids of the continental U.S., and therefore 
the Department does not plan to include these two states in its 
initial congestion study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (a) of new FPA section 216 requires the Secretary to 
conduct a study of ``electric transmission congestion'' within ``[one] 
year after the date of enactment of [the Act] and every three years 
thereafter.'' \12\ Subsections 216(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the FPA require 
the Secretary to conduct each congestion study in consultation with 
affected states and any appropriate regional entity.\13\ FPA subsection 
216(a)(2) requires the Secretary ``[a]fter considering alternatives and 
recommendations from interested parties,'' to issue a report, based on 
the study, in which the Secretary may designate ``any geographic area 
experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or 
congestion that adversely affects consumers'' as an NIETC.\14\ In 
exercising the Secretary's authority to designate NIETCs, subsection 
216(a)(4) states that the Secretary may consider, among other things, 
whether--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. Sec.  216(a)(1).
    \13\ Id. Sec.  216(a)(1), (3).
    \14\ Id. Sec.  216(a)(2).

    (A) The economic vitality and development of the corridor, or 
the end markets served by the corridor, may be constrained by lack 
of adequate or reasonably priced electricity;
    (B)(i) The economic growth in the corridor, or the end markets 
served by the corridor, may be jeopardized by reliance on limited 
sources of energy; and
    (ii) A diversification of supply is warranted;
    (C) The energy independence of the United States would be served 
by the designation;
    (D) The designation would be in the interest of national energy 
policy; and
    (E) The designation would enhance national defense and homeland 
security.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. Sec.  216(a)(4)(A)-(E).

    If the Secretary designates an area ``experiencing electric energy 
transmission capacity constraints or congestion'' as an NIETC, 
subsection 216(b) of the FPA authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (``FERC'') to issue permits for the ``construction and 
modification of electric transmission'' in the NIETC, provided that 
FERC finds that certain conditions have been met.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. Sec.  216(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Key Terms: Geographic Areas, Needs, and Corridors

    In its initial electric transmission congestion study pursuant to 
FPA section 216, the Department expects to present an inventory of 
geographic areas of the Eastern and Western Interconnects that have 
important existing or projected needs related to the electricity 
transmission infrastructure. Such needs may include relieving existing 
or emerging congestion, addressing existing or emerging reliability 
problems, enabling larger transfers of economically beneficial 
electricity to load centers, or enabling delivery of electricity from 
new generation capacity to distant load centers. The Department 
recognizes that in some cases it may be possible to address such needs 
through functional alternatives such as distributed generation, 
conventional generation sited close to load, and/or enhanced demand 
response capacity.
    The Department expects to identify corridors for potential projects 
as generalized electricity paths between two (or more) locations, as 
opposed to specific routes for transmission facilities. The Department 
believes that defining corridors too narrowly would unduly restrict 
state authorities, FERC, and other relevant parties in determining 
whether and how to authorize the construction and operation of 
transmission facilities to relieve the identified congestion. In their 
comments on the criteria set forth below, the Department invites 
commenters to address how broadly or narrowly the Department should 
consider and define corridors in its study and its NIETC designations.

III. Questions for Public Comment

A. Congestion Study

    In conducting the initial electric transmission congestion study 
required by FPA subsection 216(a)(1), the Department intends to 
identify geographic areas where transmission congestion is significant, 
and where additions to transmission capacity (or suitable alternatives) 
could lessen potential adverse effects borne by consumers. The 
Department will compile an inventory of areas where planners believe 
significant transmission needs exist. This inventory, the work on which 
is already well underway, will be based on a review of existing 
transmission expansion plans and related studies by the regional 
coordination councils, other regional and subregional transmission 
planning groups, regional transmission operators, independent system 
operators and utilities. The inventory will also be informed by 
congestion modeling that the Department will conduct of the Eastern and 
Western Interconnects.
    By August 8, 2006, the Department intends to publish its congestion 
study and to invite interested parties to provide comments and 
recommendations concerning these need assessments for each geographic 
area. Interested parties also will be invited to comment on or identify 
potential transmission corridors they think could be relevant to 
addressing such needs, and corridors suitable for designation as 
NIETCs. The Department will consider well-supported recommendations 
from affected States and interested parties throughout the study 
process regarding areas believed to merit urgent attention from the 
Department.
    In that regard, if interested parties believe that there are 
geographic areas or transmission corridors for which there is a 
particularly acute need for early designation as NIETC, the Department 
invites interested parties to identify those areas in their comments on 
this NOI. If such areas are identified, the Department will consider 
whether it should complete its congestion study for that area in 
advance of the larger national study discussed elsewhere in this NOI, 
and proceed to receive comment and designate that area as an NIETC on 
an expedited basis. If interested parties wish to identify areas for 
early designation, they should supply with their comments all available 
data and information supporting a determination that severe needs 
exist. Parties should identify the area that they believe merits 
designation as an NIETC, and explain why early designation is necessary 
and appropriate. The Department will only consider for early 
designation as NIETCs those corridors for which a particularly 
compelling case is made that early designation is both necessary and 
appropriate, and for which data and information are submitted strongly 
supporting such a designation.
    After publishing the national congestion study by August 8, 2006 
and considering comments received on it, the Department may revise or 
update its study, or the Department may proceed directly to designation 
of some NIETCs, based on the study and the comments, alternatives and 
recommendations offered by the public.
    To assist the Department in conducting and preparing its electric 
transmission congestion study so that the study will be the most useful 
in helping identify areas of need and areas

[[Page 5662]]

potentially suitable for designation as an NIETC, the Department 
requests comments on the following questions:
    (1) Should the Department distinguish between persistent congestion 
and dynamic congestion, and if so, how?
    (2) Should the Department distinguish between physical congestion 
and contractual congestion, and if so, how?
    (3) Appendix A lists those transmission plans and studies the 
Department currently has under review. In addition to those listed in 
Appendix A, what existing, specific transmission studies and other 
plans should the Department review? How far back should the Department 
look when reviewing transmission planning and path flow literature?
    (4) What categories of information would be most useful to include 
in the congestion study to develop geographic areas of interest?

B. Criteria Development

    While it is conducting the congestion study, the Department intends 
to develop criteria based on the considerations listed in subsections 
216(b)(4)(A)-(E) of the FPA,\17\ and any other criteria the Department 
considers relevant, to evaluate geographic areas identified in the 
congestion study as candidates for NIETCs. The Department intends to 
apply these evaluation criteria to the geographic areas identified in 
the congestion study in order to identify areas where NIETC 
designations would be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The five considerations are:
    (A) The economic vitality and development of the corridor, or 
the end markets served by the corridor, may be constrained by lack 
of adequate or reasonably priced electricity;
    (B)(i) The economic growth in the corridor, or the end markets 
served by the corridor, may be jeopardized by reliance on limited 
sources of energy; and (ii) a diversification of supply is 
warranted;
    (C) The energy independence of the United States would be served 
by the designation;
    (D) The designation would be in the interest of national energy 
policy; and
    (E) The designation would enhance national defense and homeland 
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department invites comment on what criteria it should use in 
evaluating the suitability of geographic areas for NIETC status. 
Preliminary criteria that might be used in evaluating these 
considerations for NIETC evaluation are listed below, along with 
associated metrics that could be useful in applying them. Commenters 
are also invited to apply any of the draft criteria to one or more 
specific geographic areas and demonstrate how the criterion helps to 
identify such areas as having national significance for NIETC 
designation.
    Draft Criterion 1: Action is needed to maintain high reliability. 
Maintaining high electric reliability is essential to any area's 
economic health and future development. Accordingly, an area would be 
of interest for possible NIETC designation if there is a clear need to 
remedy existing or emerging reliability problems. Metrics: A definition 
of the affected area in terms of load, population, and demand growth; a 
description of the expected degree of improvement in reliability 
associated with a proposed project; if appropriate, identification 
existing or projected violations of NERC Planning Criteria TPL-001, -
002, -003, or -004.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ North American Electric Reliability Council, planning 
criteria at http://www.nerc.com/ ~filez/standards/Reliability--
Standards.html# Transmission-- Planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Draft Criterion 2: Action is needed to achieve economic benefits 
for consumers. An area may need substantial transmission improvements 
to enable large economic electricity transfers that would result in 
significant economic savings to retail electricity consumers. Metrics: 
Estimates, based on transparent calculations and data, of the aggregate 
economic savings per year to consumers over the relevant geographic 
areas and markets. A demonstration of expected reduction in end-market 
concentration and how economic benefits for consumers would be 
affected.
    Draft Criterion 3: Actions are needed to ease electricity supply 
limitations in end markets served by a corridor, and diversify sources. 
Metrics: Areas that are dependent on ``reliability-must-run'' plants 
would benefit from targeted improvements, in terms of enhanced 
reliability, reduced costs, or both. Similarly, areas that are highly 
dependent on specific generation fuels could economically benefit from 
supply diversification. Estimate the likely magnitude of such benefits, 
showing calculations.
    Draft Criterion 4: Targeted actions in the area would enhance the 
energy independence of the United States. Metrics: Provide calculations 
showing how specific actions aided by designation as an NIETC would 
increase fuel diversity, improve domestic fuel independence, or reduce 
dependence on energy imports. Quantify these impacts, including 
possible impacts on U.S. energy markets.
    Draft Criterion 5: Targeted actions in the area would further 
national energy policy.
    Draft Criterion 6: Targeted actions in the area are needed to 
enhance the reliability of electricity supplies to critical loads and 
facilities and reduce vulnerability of such critical loads or the 
electricity infrastructure to natural disasters or malicious acts. 
Metrics: For this criterion, relevant metrics would be case-specific.
    Draft Criterion 7: The area's projected need (or needs) is not 
unduly contingent on uncertainties associated with analytic 
assumptions, e.g., assumptions about future prices for generation 
fuels, demand growth in load centers, the location of new generation 
facilities, or the cost of new generation technologies. Other things 
being equal, arguably the Department should be more inclined to 
designate NIETCs where there are existing needs instead of projected 
needs, particularly if those future needs rest upon relatively 
uncertain assumptions and contingencies. On the other hand, timely 
construction of transmission facilities often requires lead-times of 
five years or more, and all projections are based on assumptions and 
involve some degree of uncertainty. The challenge here is to determine 
what level of confidence can be reasonably imputed to specific 
projections. Metrics: What metrics would be suitable for gauging such 
uncertainties?
    Draft Criterion 8: The alternative means of mitigating the need in 
question have been addressed sufficiently. Recognizing the value of 
transmission alternatives, the Department wishes to avoid designating 
NIETCs in ways that might unduly affect stakeholders' decisions about 
how to meet specific needs, confer advantage on transmission options as 
opposed to non-wires options or generation options, or favor some 
transmission options over others. At the same time, the Department is 
mindful that even taking these other factors into account transmission 
expansion is clearly needed in many areas, and that transmission 
expansion is itself a protracted process. The Department seeks comments 
on how it should balance these concerns.
    The Department also seeks comment on two additional questions:
    (1) Are there other criteria or considerations that the Department 
should consider in making an NIETC designation? If so, please explain, 
and show how your proposed criterion would be applied, if possible in 
the context of a specific area or areas that you consider suitable for 
NIETC designation. For each new criterion proposed, you should offer 
metrics that measure or quantify the criterion.
    (2) Are certain considerations or criteria more important than 
others? If so, which ones, and why are they especially important?

[[Page 5663]]

IV. Public Meeting Announcement and Comments

    The date of the public technical conference is listed in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this notice of inquiry. The chief purpose 
of this conference will be to allow participants to discuss key issues 
raised by commenters' responses concerning the criteria here proposed 
for the evaluation of geographic areas for designation as NIETCs. For 
more information about the conference and registration information, 
please go to http://www.electricity.doe.gov/1221.
    To the extent possible, the Department wishes to make all 
submissions publicly available on one of its Web sites. However, if any 
person chooses to submit information that he or she considers to be 
privileged or confidential and exempt from public disclosure, that 
person should clearly identify the information that is considered to be 
privileged or confidential and explain why the submitter thinks the 
information should be exempt from disclosure, addressing as appropriate 
the criteria for nondisclosure in the Department's Freedom of 
Information Act regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11(f). The Department also 
requests that in such cases submitters provide one copy of their 
comments from which the information claimed to be exempt from 
disclosure has been redacted, and that protection of the information or 
data from disclosure be consistent with the requirements set forth in 
its Freedom of Information Act regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11.
    Factors of interest to the Department when evaluating requests to 
treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description 
of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

    Issued in Washington, DC on Friday, January 27, 2006.
Kevin Kolevar,
Director, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.

Appendix A

    Appendix A lists those transmission plans and studies the 
Department currently has under review.

I. General Documents or Data

    1. Electricity Advisory Board, Electric Resources Capitalization 
Subcommittee, U.S. Department of Energy, ``Competitive Wholesale 
Electricity Generation: A Report of the Benefits, Regulatory 
Uncertainty, and Remedies to Encourage Full Realization Across All 
Markets,'' September 2002.
    2. Electric Transmission Constraint Study, FERC OMOI, December 
2003.
    3. Electricity Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Energy, 
``Transmission Grid Solutions Report,'' September 2002.
    4. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, ``Testimony of Karl 
Pfirrmann, President, PJM Western Region, PJM Interconnection, 
L.L.C.,'' Promoting Regional Transmission Planning and Expansion to 
Facilitate Fuel Diversity Including Expanded Uses of Coal-Fired 
Resources--Docket No. AD05-3-000.
    5. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, ``Remarks of Audrey 
Zibelman, Executive Vice President, PJM Western Region, PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C.,'' Transmission Independence and 
Investment--Docket No. AD05-5-000 and Pricing Policy for Efficient 
Operation and Expansion of the Transmission Grid--Docket No. PL03-1-
000.
    6. U.S. Department of Energy, ``National Transmission Grid 
Study,'' May 2002.
    7. U.S. Department of Energy, ``Comments to the Designation of 
National Interest Electric Transmission Bottlenecks (NIETB) Notice 
of Inquiry,'' Appended 10/15/04.

II. Documents or Data From the Eastern Interconnection

    1. NERC 2005 Long-Term Reliability Assessment.
    2. NERC 2005 Summer Assessment.
    3. NERC 2005/2006 Winter Assessment.
    4. U.S. Department of Energy, ``National Transmission Grid 
Study,'' May 2002.
    5. FERC Form-715s.
    6. Florida-Southern Interface Study for 2005 Summer & 2005-06 
Winter Bulk Electric Supply Conditions (Oct 2004).
    7. ISO-NE Regional System Plan 2005 (October 2005).
    8. Maryland Public Service Commission, ``Reply Comments of the 
Staff of the Maryland Public Service Commission in the Matter of the 
Inquiry Into Locational Marginal Prices in Central Maryland During 
the Summer of 2005''--Case No. 9047.
    9. MEN 2002 Interregional Transmission System Reliability 
Assessment.
    10. Michigan Public Service Commission, ``Final Staff Report of 
the Capacity Need Forum,'' January 3, 2006.
    11. MISO 2003 Transmission Expansion Plan.
    12. MISO Transmission Expansion Plan 2005 (June 2005).
    13. NERC TLR Data.
    14. NYISO 2004 Intermediate Area Transmission Review of the New 
York State.
    15. NYISO Comprehensive Transmission Plan.
    16. NYISO 2005 Load & Capacity Data.
    17. NYISO Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process (CRPP) 
Reliability Needs Assessment (December 2005).
    18. NYISO Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process Supporting 
Document and Appendices For The Draft Reliability Needs Assessment 
(December 2005).
    19. NYISO Operating Study Winter 2004-05 (November 2004).
    20. NYISO Transmission Performance Report (August 2005).
    21. PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan 2005 (September 
2005).
    22. PJM, MISO, NYISO, and ISO-NE Real-time and Day-ahead 
Constraint Data
    23. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., ``Comments of PJM in Response 
to the MD PSC Notice of Inquiry''--Case Number 9047.
    24. Project Mountaineer, Work Group Meeting, Sheraton Four 
Points Hotel Baltimore, MD, August 3, 2005.
    25. SERC Reliability Review Subcommittee's 2005 Report to the 
SERC Engineering Committee (June 2005).
    26. SPP RTO Expansion Plan 2005-2010 (September 2005).
    27. VACAR 2004-2005 Winter Stability Study Report (Mar 2004).
    28. VACAR 2005 Summer Reliability Study Report (Apr 2004).
    29. VACAR 2007 Summer Reliability Study Report (Feb 2002).
    30. VASTE 2005 Summer Reliability Study Report (May 2005).
    31. VASTE 2005-06 Winter Study Report (Nov 2005).
    32. VEM 2004 Summer Reliability Study Report (May 2004).
    33. VEM 2004-2005 Winter Reliability Study Report (Nov 2004).
    34. VST(E) 2011 Summer Study Report (Nov 2004).
    35. VSTE 2008 Summer Study Report (Nov 2005).
    36. NPCC 2004 Report of the CP-10 Working Group Under the Task 
Force on Coordinated Planning.

III. Documents or Data From the Western Interconnection

    1. Available on the WECC Web site--http://www.wecc.biz, open 
``Congestion Study'' under the Main Menu of the home page.
    1.1. ``Framework for Expansion of the Western Interconnection 
Transmission System, October 2003''.
    1.2. ``Western Interconnection Transmission Path Flow Study''--
February 2003.
    1.3. ``Northwestern Consortia to Study the Regional Wind 
Development Benefits of Upgrades to Nevada Transmission Systems''--
May 10, 2005.
    1.4. ``Conceptual Plan for Electricity Transmission in the 
West''--August 2001.
    1.5. ``Proposed Criteria for Evaluation of Transmission and 
Alternative Resources''--October 2005.
    2. Available on State of Wyoming Web site at http://
www.psc.state.wy.us/htdocs/

[[Page 5664]]

subregional/reports.htm: ``Rocky Mountain Area Transmission 
Study''--September 2004.
    3. Available on California Energy Commission Web site at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications /CEC-100-2005-006/CEC-100-2005-
006-CTF.PDF: ``Committee Final Strategic Transmission Investment 
Plan (Committee Final Strategic Plan), California Energy Commission, 
November 2005.''
    4. Available on the Public Service Company of Colorado Web site 
at http://www.rmao.com/wtpp.psco_studies.html: ``Colorado Long 
Range Transmission Planning Study''--April 27, 2004.
    5. Available from WECC (Phase 3 Accepted Path Rating Study 
Report)--Call (801) 582-0353: ``Southwest Power link and Palo 
Verde--Devers 500kV Series Capacitor Upgrade Project''--dated 
December 2, 2004.
    6. Available from CAISO Web site.
    6.1. CAISO testimony to the CPUC for the Palo Verde--Devers 
2 Project http://www.caiso.com/14cf/14cf82f921c90.pdf.
    6.2. Information on the Southwest Transmission Expansion Plan 
(STEP) http://www.caiso.com/docs/2002/11/04/2002110417450022131.html.
    6.3. Documents on the Palo Verde--Devers 2 project 
http://www.caiso.com/docs/2005/01/19/2005011914572217739.html.
    6.4. Information on the CAISO Transmission Economic Assessment 
Methodology (TEAM) http://www.caiso.com/docs/2003/03/18/2003031815303519270.html.
    7. Available from Northwest Power Pool Web site (Northwest 
Regional Transmission Association reports).
    7.1. ``Puget Sound Area Upgrade Study Report''--November 2004 
http://www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/PSASG%20Final%20Draft.pdf.
    7.2. ``Montana--Pacific Northwest Transmission Upgrade Study'' 
http://www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/MT-NW% 20Study%20Report%202005-Oct.zip.
    7.3. http://www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/ Selected%20Transmission% 
20Siting%20constraints.pdf.
    8. Available from the Southwest Area Transmission Sub-Regional 
Planning Group Web site.
    8.1. ``Report of the Phase I Study of the Central Arizona 
Transmission System'' http://www.azpower.org/cats/default.asp#phase1.
    8.2. ``Report of the Phase II Study of the Central Arizona 
Transmission System'' http://www.azpower.org/cats/default.asp#phase2.
    8.3. ``Report of the Phase III Study of the Central Arizona 
Transmission System'' http://www.azpower.org/cats/default.asp#phase3.

 [FR Doc. E6-1394 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P