Considerations for Transmission Congestion Study and Designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, 5660-5664 [E6-1394]
Download as PDF
5660
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
DOH Publication 320–031, 2004, Final
Environmental Impact Statement—
Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Site, Richland, Washington,
Washington State Department of Health,
Olympia, Washington, and Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2006, Report of
the Review of the Hanford Solid Waste
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Data
Quality, Control and Management Issues,
Washington, DC.
[FR Doc. E6–1404 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Considerations for Transmission
Congestion Study and Designation of
National Interest Electric Transmission
Corridors
Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability (‘‘OE’’),
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry requesting
comment and providing notice of a
technical conference.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
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:
EPACT1221@hq.doe.gov 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
https://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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
Electronic submission is therefore
encouraged. Copies of written comments
received and other relevant documents and
information may be reviewed at https://
www.electricity.doe.gov/1221.
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,
poonum.agrawal@hq.doe.gov, or Lot
Cooke, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–76, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–
0503, lot.cooke@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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.
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
1 North American Electric Reliability Council,
Electricity Supply and Demand Database (2003)
available at https://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 https://
www.eh.doe.gov/ntgs/reports.html.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
include the reliability costs associated
with such bottlenecks.
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.
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
7 The National Energy Policy Development Group
Report, available at https://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
https://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 https://
www.electricity.doe.gov/bottlenecks.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
consumers as a national interest electric
transmission corridor.’’ 11
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—
(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
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
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
11 The Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, sec.
1221, § 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 § 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.
12 Id. § 216(a)(1).
13 Id. § 216(a)(1), (3).
14 Id. § 216(a)(2).
15 Id. § 216(a)(4)(A)–(E).
16 Id. § 216(b).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5661
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
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
5662
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
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?
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
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.
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
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
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
18 North American Electric Reliability Council,
planning criteria at https://www.nerc.com/∼filez/
standards/Reliability_Standards.html#
Transmission_Planning.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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?
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
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 https://
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 CoalFired 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5663
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 Realtime 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—
https://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 https://www.psc.state.wy.us/htdocs/
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
5664
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
subregional/reports.htm: ‘‘Rocky Mountain
Area Transmission Study’’—September 2004.
3. Available on California Energy
Commission Web site at https://
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 https://
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 https://
www.caiso.com/14cf/14cf82f921c90.pdf.
6.2. Information on the Southwest
Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP) https://
www.caiso.com/docs/2002/11/04/
2002110417450022131.html.
6.3. Documents on the Palo Verde—Devers
#2 project https://www.caiso.com/docs/2005/
01/19/2005011914572217739.html.
6.4. Information on the CAISO
Transmission Economic Assessment
Methodology (TEAM) https://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 https://
www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/
PSASG%20Final%20Draft.pdf.
7.2. ‘‘Montana—Pacific Northwest
Transmission Upgrade Study’’ https://
www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/MT–NW%
20Study%20Report%202005–Oct.zip.
7.3. https://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’’
https://www.azpower.org/cats/
default.asp#phase1.
8.2. ‘‘Report of the Phase II Study of the
Central Arizona Transmission System’’
https://www.azpower.org/cats/
default.asp#phase2.
8.3. ‘‘Report of the Phase III Study of the
Central Arizona Transmission System’’
https://www.azpower.org/cats/
default.asp#phase3.
[FR Doc. E6–1394 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–8027–8]
Environmental Laboratory Advisory
Board (ELAB) Meeting Dates and
Agenda
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of teleconference
meetings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency’s Environmental Laboratory
Advisory Board (ELAB), as previously
announced, will have teleconference
meetings on January 18, 2006 at 1 p.m.
E.T.; February 15, 2006 at 1 p.m. E.T.;
March 15, 2006 at 1 p.m. E.T.; April 19,
2006 at 1 p.m. E.T.; and May 17, 2006
at 1 p.m. E.T. to discuss the ideas and
views presented at the previous ELAB
meetings, as well as new business. Items
to be discussed by ELAB over these
coming meetings include: (1) Expanding
the number of laboratories seeking
National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Conference (NELAC)
accreditation; (2) homeland security
issues affecting the laboratory
community; (3) ELAB support to the
Agency’s Forum on Environmental
Measurements (FEM); (4) implementing
the performance approach; (5)
increasing state participation in NELAC;
and (6) follow-up on some of ELAB’s
past recommendations and issues. In
addition to these teleconferences, ELAB
will be hosting their next face-to-face
meeting on January 30, 2006 at the
Westin Chicago River North in Chicago,
Illinois from 9:30–12 C.T. and an open
forum session on January 31, 2006 also
at the Westin Chicago River North in
Chicago, Illinois at 5:30 p.m. C.T.
Written comments on laboratory
accreditation issues and/or
environmental monitoring issues are
encouraged and should be sent to Ms.
Lara P. Autry, DFO, U.S. EPA (E243–
05), 109 T. W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, faxed
to (919) 541–4261, or e-mailed to
autry.lara@epa.gov. Members of the
public are invited to listen to the
teleconference calls, and time
permitting, will be allowed to comment
on issues discussed during this and
previous ELAB meetings. Those persons
interested in attending should call Lara
P. Autry at (919) 541–5544 to obtain
teleconference information. The number
of lines for the teleconferences,
however, are limited and will be
distributed on a first come, first serve
basis. Preference will be given to a
group wishing to attend over a request
from an individual. For information on
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Lara P. Autry
at the number above. To request
accommodation of a disability, please
contact Lara P. Autry, preferably at least
10 days prior to the meeting, to give
EPA as much time as possible to process
your request.
George M. Gray,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Research
and Development.
[FR Doc. E6–1422 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–8026–5]
Position Statement on Environmental
Management Systems (EMSs)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice is to inform the
public that EPA has updated its Position
Statement on Environmental
Management Systems (EMSs). This
updated statement replaces the 2002
Position Statement on EMS signed by
Administrator Whitman and reflects
EPA’s experiences to date with the
promotion of voluntary EMSs as well as
our continued commitment to be a
leader in this area. The Position
Statement explains EPA’s policy on
EMSs and the Agency’s intent to
continue to promote the voluntary widespread use of EMSs across a range of
organizations and settings. EPA
encourages organizations to implement
EMSs that result in improved
environmental performance and
compliance, cost-savings, pollution
prevention through source reduction,
and continual improvement.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shana Harbour 202–566–2959.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
During the past decade, public and
private organizations have increasingly
adopted formal Environmental
Management Systems (EMSs) to address
their environmental responsibilities.
The most common framework an EMS
uses is the plan-do-check-act process,
with the goal of continual improvement.
EMSs provide organizations of all types
with a structured system and approach
for managing environmental and
regulatory responsibilities to improve
overall environmental performance and
stewardship, including areas not subject
to regulation such as product design,
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5660-5664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: EPACT1221@hq.doe.gov 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 https://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 https://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, poonum.agrawal@hq.doe.gov, or Lot Cooke, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-76, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,
(202) 586-0503, lot.cooke@hq.doe.gov.
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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://
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 https://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 https://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--https://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 https://
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 https://
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 https://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 https://www.caiso.com/14cf/14cf82f921c90.pdf.
6.2. Information on the Southwest Transmission Expansion Plan
(STEP) https://www.caiso.com/docs/2002/11/04/
2002110417450022131.html.
6.3. Documents on the Palo Verde--Devers 2 project
https://www.caiso.com/docs/2005/01/19/2005011914572217739.html.
6.4. Information on the CAISO Transmission Economic Assessment
Methodology (TEAM) https://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
https://www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/PSASG%20Final%20Draft.pdf.
7.2. ``Montana--Pacific Northwest Transmission Upgrade Study''
https://www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/MT-NW% 20Study%20Report%202005-Oct.zip.
7.3. https://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'' https://www.azpower.org/cats/
default.asp#phase1.
8.2. ``Report of the Phase II Study of the Central Arizona
Transmission System'' https://www.azpower.org/cats/
default.asp#phase2.
8.3. ``Report of the Phase III Study of the Central Arizona
Transmission System'' https://www.azpower.org/cats/
default.asp#phase3.
[FR Doc. E6-1394 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P