[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 43080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17811]
[[Page 43080]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, L.L.C.;
Notice of Request for Comments
On September 11, 2013, Northern Indiana Public Service Company
(NIPSCO) filed a complaint against Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. (MISO) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM).\1\ NIPSCO
requested that the Commission order MISO and PJM (the RTOs) to reform
the interregional planning process of the Joint Operating Agreement
between MISO and PJM (MISO-PJM JOA). On June 15, 2015, the Commission
held a technical conference to explore issues raised in the Complaint
related to the MISO-PJM JOA and the MISO-PJM seam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NIPSCO Complaint, Docket No. EL13-88-000 (filed Sept. 11,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shown below are post-technical conference questions for which the
Commission seeks further comment. To the extent that any response calls
for specific revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA, the Commission requests
that parties also provide redline revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA where
possible.
1. According to comments made at the technical conference, it
appears that several MISO and/or PJM stakeholder groups are currently
working on potential revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA, MISO tariff and/or
PJM tariff (e.g., models and assumptions, Market Efficiency Project and
Cross Border Market Efficiency Project criteria, etc.). Please comment
on the status of that effort, the potential revisions being considered,
and the timing of any proposed revisions to be filed with the
Commission for consideration.
2. Provide specific examples of types of facilities that could have
a significant benefit (e.g., relieving congestion across the seam) but
may not pass MISO's regional Market Efficiency Project and/or Cross-
Border Market Efficiency Project criteria. To the extent such
facilities would have significant benefit, what steps do the RTOs need
to take to address the matter?
3. What specific revisions would need to be made to the MISO-PJM
JOA in order to better align the existing regional transmission
planning cycles with the interregional transmission planning process?
4. Would revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA to require the RTOs to,
annually, or at some other regular interval, conduct a joint
interregional transmission planning study help to address the issues
created by the configuration of the PJM and MISO planning regions? If
so, what specific revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA would be required?
5. Based on comments at the technical conference, it appears that
projects that successfully navigate the Interregional Planning
Stakeholder Advisory Committee process must be studied and approved two
more times--once through the MISO regional planning process and once
through the PJM regional planning process. Please give specific
examples of reforms that could be made to address this ``triple
hurdle'' \2\ (e.g., creation of a new project category for
interregional transmission projects to be eligible for selection in the
two RTOs' respective regional transmission plans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Various panelists referred to this process as the ``triple
hurdle'' problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Please explain whether the avoidance of market-to-market
payments should be included in the assessment of the benefits of Cross-
Border Market Efficiency Projects.
7. Should the MISO-PJM JOA be revised to include the process and
study scope of the ``Quick Hit'' \3\ study process? Please explain why
or why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ MISO and PJM state that under the newly initiated PJM and
MISO ``Quick Hit'' study, the RTOs are considering near-term
upgrades to remedy recent historical interregional congestion
issues. MISO and PJM explain that this study allows projects to be
identified more quickly and alleviate the underlying issues
promptly. MISO and PJM Joint Comments at 3, n.10 (filed Mar. 31,
2015). See also PJM/MISO Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory
Committee Meeting Presentation at 4 (The ``Quick Hit'' study goal is
to identify valuable projects on the MISO-PJM seam. Valuable
projects are those that will relieve known Market-to-Market issues,
are completed in a relatively short time frame, have a quick payback
on investment, and are not greenfield projects.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Explain ways in which the RTOs can better coordinate planning of
new generator interconnection and generator retirement. Would using
models with the same assumptions and criteria be one way to better
coordinate? What specific revisions would need to be made to the MISO-
PJM JOA?
Interested parties should submit comments in response to the
questions above on or before August 14, 2015. Reply comments must be
filed on or before August 31, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Parties may submit comments 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.
All comments submitted should be identified by Docket No. EL13-88-
000.
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]
Dated: July 15, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17811 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P