[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8866-8867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03438]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-88-000]


Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent 
Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice 
of Request for Comments

February 12, 2015.
    On September 11, 2013, Northern Indiana Public Service Company 
(NIPSCO) filed a complaint against Midcontinent Independent System 
Operator, Inc. (MISO) and PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). NIPSCO 
requested that the Commission order MISO and PJM to reform the 
interregional planning process of the Joint Operating Agreement between 
MISO and PJM (MISO-PJM JOA).\1\ On December 18, 2014, the Commission 
issued an order directing Commission staff to convene a technical 
conference to explore issues raised in the Complaint related to the 
MISO-PJM JOA and the MISO-PJM seam. The Commission also directed 
Commission staff to issue a request for comments on these issues prior 
to the technical conference to inform the technical conference 
discussion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NIPSCO Complaint, Docket No. EL13-88-000 (filed Sept. 11, 
2013).
    \2\ Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. 
Sys. Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, LLC, 149 FERC ] 61,248, 
at P 35 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shown below is the list of questions for which Commission staff 
seeks comment. The questions cover the six reforms that NIPSCO 
recommends to the cross-border transmission planning process that 
occurs under the MISO-PJM JOA, as well as certain additional issues. 
Commenters should discuss the potential benefits and/or drawbacks, cost 
concerns, and technical feasibility of implementing the following 
reforms and how long the reforms would take to implement if adopted.
    1. Require the MISO-PJM cross-border transmission planning process 
to run concurrently with the MISO and PJM regional transmission 
planning cycles, rather than after those regional planning cycles.
    2. Require MISO and PJM to develop and use a single model that uses 
the same assumptions in the cross-border transmission planning process. 
Until the joint model is developed, require that there is consistency 
between the PJM and MISO planning analysis and that both entities are 
consistent in their application of reliability criteria and modeling 
assumptions.
    3. Require MISO and PJM to use a single common set of criteria to 
evaluate cross-border market efficiency projects.
    4. Require MISO and PJM to amend the criteria to evaluate cross-
border market efficiency projects to address all known benefits, 
including avoidance of future market-to-market (M2M) payments made to 
reallocate short-term transmission capacity in the real-time operation 
of the system.
    5. Require MISO and PJM to have a process for joint planning and 
cost allocation of lower voltage and lower cost cross-border upgrades.
    6. Require MISO and PJM to improve the processes within the MISO-
PJM JOA with respect to new generator interconnections and generation 
retirements.
    7. Explain the relationship between the cross-border transmission 
planning process (and approval of new transmission projects) and 
persistent M2M payments being made between the RTOs. Are persistent M2M 
payments a good indicator of the need for new transmission?
    8. NIPSCO provides an estimate of M2M payments on pages 23-24 of 
its Complaint. Please comment on these estimates and provide 
information on other estimates of M2M payments, including whether PJM, 
MISO and the market monitors have identified trends in M2M payments.
    9. Please provide examples of transmission projects that have been 
considered under the cross-border transmission planning process for the 
purpose of mitigating congestion and/or constraints that lead to 
persistent M2M payments, but that have not been developed. Provide the 
reason the project was not developed.
    Interested parties should submit comments on or before March 16, 
2015. Reply comments must be filed on or before March 31, 2015. 
Comments should be provided by question as enumerated above.

ADDRESSES:  Parties may submit comments, identified by Docket No.

[[Page 8867]]

EL13-88-000, by one of the following methods.
    Agency Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments via the eFiling link found under the ``Documents 
and Filing'' tab.
    Mail: Those unable to file comments electronically may mail or 
hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jason Strong (Technical Information), Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Energy Market Regulation, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6124, [email protected].
Ben Foster (Technical Information) Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, 888 First Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6149, [email protected].
Lina Naik (Legal Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426 (202) 502-8882, [email protected].

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03438 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P