[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68529-68531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28157]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

October 29, 2015.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.............  ER15-1344-001,
                                         ER15-1344-002
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.............  ER15-1387-001
Potomac Electric Power Company.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on 
October 8, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Staff will 
hold a technical conference on November 12, 2015, at the Commission's 
headquarters at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 between 
10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The purpose of the technical 
conference is to understand PJM's application of its Order No. 1000-
compliant \1\ transmission planning process to local transmission 
facilities, including, but not limited to, the process PJM and the PJM 
Transmission Owners use to identify local transmission needs and to 
solicit proposed solutions to identified local transmission needs (such 
as opening proposal windows),\2\ and the process PJM uses to determine 
whether a transmission solution to an identified local transmission 
need should be selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes 
of cost allocation as the more efficient or cost-effective transmission 
solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission 
Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, FERC Stats. & 
Regs. ] 31,323 (2011), order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ] 
61,132, order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-B, 141 FERC ] 61,044 (2012), 
aff'd sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 
2014).
    \2\ As discussed in the order establishing the technical 
conference, Dominion Resources Services' revisions to its individual 
transmission planning criteria will not be discussed at the 
technical conference. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 152 FERC ] 
61,197, at P15 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's orders on PJM's compliance with the local 
transmission planning requirements of both Order No. 890 \3\ and Order 
No. 1000 and the issue of how PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners 
conduct local transmission planning will serve to frame this 
conference. Participants should review and be prepared to discuss the 
issue of local transmission planning in the context of these previous 
orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in 
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241, 
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261 
(2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008), 
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ] 61,228 (2009), order on 
clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ] 61,126 (2009).
    \4\ See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 123 FERC ] 61,163, at PP 
121-143 (2008); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 127 FERC ] 61,166, at 
PP 21-31 (2009); and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 130 FERC ] 61,167, 
at PP 10-16 (2010) (addressing the local transmission planning 
requirements of Order No. 890) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 142 
FERC ] 61,214, at PP 121-123 (2013); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 
147 FERC ] 61,128, at PP 72-83 (2014); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 
150 FERC ] 61,038, at PP 18-46 (2015); and PJM Interconnection, 
L.L.C., 151 FERC ] 61,250, at PP 12-22 (2015) (addressing the local 
transmission planning requirements of Order No. 1000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Order No. 1000 compliance proceedings, PJM stated that 
individual PJM Transmission Owners do not conduct separate local 
transmission planning and that local transmission and regional 
transmission planning are fully integrated in PJM's regional 
transmission planning process.\5\ PJM also stated that, ``through its 
established regional transmission planning process that fully merges 
local and regional planning, PJM evaluates both local and regional 
planning criteria.'' \6\ PJM explained that transmission owners in the 
PJM region bring their current local planning information, including 
all criteria, assumptions, and models used, to the Subregional RTEP 
Committees,\7\ where it is reviewed by the Subregional RTEP Committees 
to develop and finalize Local Plans that are coordinated with the PJM 
regional transmission planning process.\8\ PJM stated that Local Plans 
are a product of the Subregional

[[Page 68530]]

RTEP Committees rather than independently existing local plans 
presented by the transmission owner to the Subregional RTEP Committees 
for review. Also, PJM explained that it is the Subregional RTEP 
Committees, rather than an individual transmission owner, that 
incorporates feedback into the Local Plan.\9\ In addition, PJM stated, 
Local Plans that the Subregional RTEP Committees develop include 
Supplemental Projects \10\ as identified by the PJM Transmission Owners 
within their zones, and Subregional RTEP Projects \11\ developed to 
comply with all applicable reliability criteria, including the local 
transmission owners planning criteria, or based on market efficiency 
analysis and in consideration of Public Policy Requirements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 147 FERC ] 61,128, 
at P 73 (2014) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 150 FERC ] 61,038, 
at P 34 (2015).
    \6\ PJM July 22, 2013 Second Round Order No. 1000 Regional 
Compliance Filing Docket No. ER13-198-002, at 17 (emphasis in 
original). See also Operating Agreement, Schedule 6, Sec.  1.2(e) 
(``The Regional Transmission Expansion Plan planning criteria shall 
include, Office of the Interconnection planning procedures, NERC 
Reliability Standards, Regional Entity reliability principles and 
standards, and the individual Transmission Owner FERC filed planning 
criteria as filed in FERC Form No. 715.'').
    \7\ See PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, Operating Agreement, Schedule 6, 
Sec.  1.3 (e) (Establishment of Committees).
    \8\ PJM July 14, 2014 Third Round Regional Compliance Filing, 
Docket No. ER13-198-004 at 4 and PJM Third Round Regional Compliance 
Order, 150 FERC ] 61,038 at P 20.
    \9\ PJM Third Round Regional Compliance Order, 150 FERC ] 61,038 
at PP 34, 36-37. In addition, PJM stated that the Subregional RTEP 
Committees have served as an open stakeholder forum through which 
transmission owners integrate their local transmission planning 
under PJM's open and coordinated regional transmission planning 
process for all transmission facilities below 230 kV. PJM July 14, 
2014 Third Round Regional Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER13-198-004 
at 4.
    \10\ A Supplemental Project is a transmission expansion or 
enhancement that is not required for compliance with PJM's criteria 
for system reliability, operational performance or economic 
criteria, pursuant to a determination by the Office of the 
Interconnection. PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, Definitions (S-T), Sec.  
1.42A.02 (Supplemental Project). PJM has also stated that the 
Supplemental Project category of transmission projects was created 
to allow PJM to evaluate local transmission owner planning standards 
and criteria to determine if local reinforcements are needed to 
optimally meet the local transmission owner planning criteria and to 
determine whether reinforcements may be categorized as PJM RTEP 
baseline or as Supplemental Projects. PJM Oct. 25, 2012 First Order 
No. 1000 Regional Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER12-198-000, at 
n.129.
    \11\ ``Subregional RTEP Project'' shall mean a transmission 
expansion or enhancement rated below 230 kV which is required for 
compliance with the following PJM criteria: System reliability, 
operational performance or economic criteria, pursuant to a 
determination by the Office of the Interconnection. PJM Operating 
Agreement, Sec.  1.42A.01 (Subregional RTEP Project).
    \12\ PJM Operating Agreement, (Local Plan) Sec.  1.18A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton) and the PJM Transmission 
Owners also addressed the PJM local transmission planning process in 
their rehearing requests submitted in Docket No. ER15-1387-001 
proceeding. Dayton stated that local transmission projects are included 
as part of PJM's annual regional transmission planning process, but not 
because PJM has had any significant role in their design or planning, 
as local transmission projects are designed and developed by the local 
transmission owner.\13\ Dayton stated that transmission local owner 
planning criteria and transmission plans are presented at the 
Subregional RTEP Committees and at the PJM Transmission Expansion 
Advisory Committee, but those presentations are made as informational 
items and are not presented for approval by those committees.\14\ 
Dayton also stated that the only relationship between local 
transmission projects and the PJM regional transmission planning 
process is to inform PJM on what is being built by the local 
transmission owner under the transmission owner local planning criteria 
in order to model flows and assess system reliability. Dayton stated 
therefore, that PJM does not select the local transmission project as 
the most cost-effective way to meet the transmission owner local 
planning criteria for cost allocation purposes, but rather the project 
is proposed to PJM by the local transmission owner. Dayton stated it 
acknowledges that the local transmission project is reviewed by 
committees within PJM and ultimately by the PJM Board, but stated that 
such review is not for purposes of determining whether the project is 
needed regionally or provides some regional reliability benefit.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 5.
    \14\ Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 2-3.
    \15\ Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 4 
(emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PJM Transmission Owners stated that all transmission projects 
proposed and considered in the PJM regional transmission plan are not 
necessarily selected for the purposes of regional cost allocation and 
are included in the RTEP to address various issues and needs, some 
local and some regional.\16\ The PJM Transmission Owners stated that 
local transmission projects are included in the PJM regional 
transmission plan only to ensure they are considered in the overall PJM 
planning process for purposes of determining if the projects modify 
power flows and create reliability concerns, and whether the criteria 
driving a local transmission project are better addressed through a 
project that is more regional in scope.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ PJM Transmission Owners Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-
1387-001, at 11-12.
    \17\ PJM Transmission Owners Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-
1387-001, at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the background provided herein, participants should be 
prepared to discuss the following:
    1. The process through which local transmission planning is 
conducted, from the identification of transmission needs through the 
selection of transmission projects.
    a. How do PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners define the terms 
transmission owner local planning criteria, local transmission need, 
and local transmission project?
    b. How and when are local transmission needs identified? How and 
when can stakeholders comment on the identified local transmission 
needs?
    c. How do the local transmission planning and regional transmission 
planning processes in PJM interact? Are there two distinct, separate 
processes, or are they one in the same? If there are two separate 
processes, at what point are the transmission owner local planning 
criteria and/or transmission project proposals to address those local 
planning criteria incorporated into the regional transmission planning 
process? How does PJM decide which local transmission needs are 
integrated into the PJM regional transmission planning process?
    d. What is the relationship between the transmission needs proposed 
in the Subregional RTEP Committees' Local Plans with the transmission 
needs incorporated into the regional transmission planning process?
    e. What method is used to disclose to stakeholders the criteria, 
assumptions, and data that underlie local transmission planning? How 
and when can stakeholders provide input and offer suggested 
transmission projects to address local transmission needs?
    f. How and when do individual PJM Transmission Owners identify 
transmission projects meant to address local transmission needs?
    g. What analysis does PJM perform on transmission projects proposed 
by PJM Transmission Owners and proposed by stakeholders to address 
local transmission needs?
    h. What is PJM's role in developing, evaluating, and selecting 
transmission project proposals to address transmission owner local 
planning criteria? What are the PJM Transmission Owners' roles in 
developing, evaluating, and selecting these proposals?
    i. Is the process through which PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners 
develop, evaluate, and select transmission project proposals to address 
transmission owner local planning criteria different from the process 
through which they develop, evaluate, and select transmission project 
proposals to address NERC or Regional Entity reliability standards?
    j. What defined categories of transmission facilities are currently 
included in a PJM RTEP? Are there any defined categories of 
transmission projects currently included in the PJM RTEP that PJM does 
not consider to be selected in the regional transmission plan for 
purposes of cost allocation? If

[[Page 68531]]

so, are these transmission projects eligible to use PJM's regional cost 
allocation method?
    2. The process through which Supplemental Projects become 
transmission projects eligible for selection in the regional 
transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation.
    a. If a Supplemental Project is transitioned into a Required 
Transmission Enhancement that is eligible for regional cost allocation 
in PJM's RTEP, does it undergo the same analysis as a transmission 
project first proposed as a Subregional RTEP Project?
    b. How are Supplemental Projects distinguished from transmission 
projects that address transmission owner local planning criteria?
    3. The proposal window process for transmission project proposals 
intended to address transmission owner local planning criteria.
    a. Except for Immediate-need Reliability Projects, does PJM 
currently open proposal windows for all transmission needs identified 
in its regional transmission planning process, including those needs 
that arise as a result of local transmission needs and transmission 
owner local planning criteria?
    b. If PJM does not currently open proposal windows for all 
transmission needs identified in PJM's regional transmission planning 
process, how does PJM determine whether to open a proposal window for a 
given transmission need?
    c. If a PJM Transmission Owner proposes an upgrade to its existing 
transmission facilities to address a local transmission need, does PJM 
open a proposal window to solicit other possible solutions to address 
the local transmission need that would be addressed by the upgrade?
    d. If a PJM Transmission Owner proposes a new 500 kV transmission 
facility to address a local transmission need, does PJM currently open 
a proposal window to solicit other possible solutions to address the 
local transmission need that would be addressed by PJM Transmission 
Owner's proposed new 500 kV transmission facility?
    The technical conference will be led by Commission staff, and is 
open to the public. Pre-registration through the Commission's Web site 
(https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/11-10-15-form.asp) is 
encouraged but not required. The conference will include discussions 
responding to Commission staff's questions led by PJM and the PJM 
Transmission Owners, with opportunity for questions and comments during 
those discussions for participating parties. The specific agenda and 
procedures to be followed at the conference will be announced by staff 
at the opening of the conference.
    The technical conference will not be transcribed. However, there 
will be a free audio cast of the conference. Anyone wishing to listen 
to the meeting should send an email to Sarah McKinley at 
[email protected] by November 3, 2015, to request call-in 
information. Please reference ``call information for ER15-1344/1387 
technical conference'' in the subject line of the email. The call-in 
information will be provided prior to the meeting. Persons listening to 
the technical conference may participate by submitting questions, 
either prior to or during the technical conference, by emailing 
[email protected].
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY); or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    Following the technical conference, the Commission will consider 
post-technical conference comments submitted on or before December 10, 
2015. Reply comments will be due on or before January 7, 2016. The 
written comments will be included in the formal record of the 
proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will 
form the basis for further Commission action.
    For more information about this technical conference, please 
contact Katherine Scott, 202-502-6495, [email protected], 
regarding Docket Nos. ER15-1344-001 and ER15-1344-002; Nicole Buell, 
202-502-6846, [email protected], regarding Docket No. ER15-1387-
001; or Sarah McKinley, 202-502-8368, [email protected], 
regarding logistical issues.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28157 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P