Transmission Loading Relief Reliability Standard and Curtailment Priorities, 4375-4379 [2010-1525]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2010 / Notices The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at https://www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 9, 2010. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at https://www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 9, 2010. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2010–1527 Filed 1–26–10; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2010–1529 Filed 1–26–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM10–9–000] [Docket No. ER10–327–000] Transmission Loading Relief Reliability Standard and Curtailment Priorities Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.; Notice of Filing Issued January 21, 2010. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES January 20, 2010. Take notice that, on January 19, 2010, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. filed to supplement its filing in the above captioned docket with information required under the Commission’s regulations. Such filing served to reset the filing date in this proceeding. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 220001 AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. SUMMARY: The Commission requests comment on the interplay between Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 (Reliability Coordination—Transmission Loading Relief) and the curtailment priorities set forth in the Commission’s pro forma open access transmission tariff, particularly sections 13.6 and 14.7. DATES: Comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any of the following methods: • Agency Web Site: https:// www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. • Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments electronically PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4375 must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ˇ Ruta Kalvaitis Skucas, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 6647, ruta.skucas@ferc.gov. Thomas Dautel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Policy & Innovation, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6196, thomas.dautel@ferc.gov. Thanh Loung, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric Reliability, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6080, thanh.luong@ferc,gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and John R. Norris. 1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission requests comments from industry and stakeholders regarding the interplay between Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 (Reliability Coordination— Transmission Loading Relief) and curtailment priorities in Commissionapproved Open Access Transmission Tariffs (OATT). The Commission seeks further information, comments and data on whether Reliability Standard IRO– 006–4 directs a reliability coordinator to curtail a firm interchange transaction crossing over a constrained flowgate prior to curtailing a non-firm native network load transaction across the same flowgate. I. Background 2. On December 21, 2007, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commissioncertified electric reliability organization (ERO), submitted for Commission approval modifications to Reliability Standard IRO–006–3, known as the transmission loading relief (TLR) procedure.1 As discussed in greater detail below, Reliability Standard IRO– 006–4 provides Interconnection-wide 1 Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 modifies Reliability Standard IRO–006–3, which the Commission approved in Order No. 693. Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 4376 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2010 / Notices transmission loading relief procedures that can be used to prevent or manage potential or actual system operating limit or interconnection reliability operating limit violations.2 3. As discussed below, the NRG Companies filed comments on Reliability Standard IRO–006–4, asserting that the proposed modified Reliability Standard is not consistent with the requirements of the Commission-approved pro forma OATT. They asserted that, due to flaws in the Interchange Distribution Calculator,3 firm transactions may be curtailed prior to non-firm transactions, resulting in an OATT violation. They also argued that the Interchange Distribution Calculator is flawed for several reasons, including that it does not take native load transactions into account when determining which transactions should be curtailed to relieve congestion. The Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. filed comments in support of the NRG Companies’ comments, arguing that the use of the Interchange Distribution Calculator has resulted in unjust and discriminatory curtailments, particularly firm transactions before non-firm transactions. 4. On July 21, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 713, which, inter alia, directed NERC to submit a filing explaining one aspect of the TLR procedure before such procedure could be approved.4 Following NERC’s response, on March 19, 2009, the srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES 2 A System Operating Limit or SOL is the value (such as MW, MVar, amperes, frequency or volts) that satisfies the most limiting of the prescribed operating criteria for a specified system configuration to ensure operation within acceptable reliability criteria. NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards at 19, available at https:// www.nerc.com/files/Glossary_12Feb08.pdf (NERC Glossary). An Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit or IROL is a system operating limit that, if violated, could lead to instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that adversely impact the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Id. at 10. 3 The Interchange Distribution Calculator is a mechanism used by the reliability coordinators in the Eastern Interconnection to calculate the distribution of interchange transactions over specific flowgates. It includes a database of all interchange transactions and a matrix of the distribution factors for the Eastern Interconnection. Id. at 9. 4 Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading Relief Reliability Standards; and Electric Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four Reliability Standards, Order No. 713, 124 FERC ¶ 61,071 (2008), order on reh’g, Order No. 713–A, 126 FERC ¶ 61,252 (2009), order on reh’g, Order No. 713–B, 130 FERC ¶ 61,032 (2010). The Commission sought clarification of whether the removal and transfer to NAESB of business-related requirements formerly contained in Reliability Standard IRO–006–3 would impact bulk-power system reliability, an issue unrelated to the current proceeding. Order No. 713, 124 FERC ¶ 61,071 at P 50. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 220001 Commission approved Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 in Order No. 713– A. In addition, the Commission directed NERC to develop modifications to IRO– 006–4, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).5 In response to comments regarding competitive concerns and the application of the Interchange Distribution Calculator, the Commission concluded: The above comments on suggested improvements to the [transmission loading relief] procedure are beyond the scope of this proceeding, which pertains to the separation of business practices from the ERO’s [transmission loading relief] procedure and implementation of the Commission’s directives set forth in Order No. 693. We note, however, that the ERO indicated in its December 21, 2007 filing that it has a threephase plan to improve the [transmission loading relief] procedures, and the third phase will consist of ‘‘a complete redrafting to incorporate enhancement and changes beyond the separation of reliability and business practice issues.’’ Therefore, the phase three proceeding would provide a proper forum for commenters to raise their concerns. The Commission believes that NRG and other commenters raise valid issues and urges the commenters to raise—and expects the ERO to consider—these matters in an appropriate proceeding. We also note that NERC states it is currently updating the [Interchange Distribution Calculator] to more accurately determine the impacts of native load and network service.6 5. In a request for rehearing of Order No. 713–A, the NRG Companies, the Electric Power Supply Association, and Constellation Energy Commodities Group (Rehearing Parties) challenged the Reliability Standard on several grounds.7 First, they assert that Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 violates the curtailment priorities established in Order Nos. 888 8 and 890 9 and the pro 5 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5) (2006). The modifications relate to the use of the term ‘‘alone’’ in Requirement R1.1 and changes to the Violation Risk Factors for Requirements R1 through R4 to ‘‘high,’’ and are not related to the issues discussed in this NOI. Order No. 713–A, 126 FERC ¶ 61,252 at P 36, 59. 6 Order No. 713–A, 126 FERC ¶ 61,252 at P 21 (footnotes omitted). 7 Request for Rehearing and Clarification of the NRG Companies, the Electric Power Supply Association and Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Docket No. RM08–7–002 (Apr. 20, 2009) (Request for Rehearing). 8 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), order on reh’g, Order No. 888–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048, order on reh’g, Order No. 888–B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888–C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), aff’d in relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff’d sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 9 Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890, PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 forma OATT approved by the Commission in those proceedings, because the standard favors native network load transactions over interchange transactions with respect to curtailment priority, and allows the curtailment of firm transactions before non-firm transactions. 6. The Rehearing Parties assert that, under sections 13.6 and 14.7 of the Commission’s pro forma OATT, nonfirm transmission services must be curtailed before firm transmission services, and firm point-to-point and network integration transmission service customers have an equal priority with the transmission provider’s use of the system to deliver Network Resources to its native load. They maintain that, because of its reliance on the flawed Interchange Distribution Calculator, Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 would direct a reliability coordinator 10 to curtail a firm interchange transaction crossing over a constrained flowgate prior to curtailing a non-firm native network load transaction across the same flowgate. The Rehearing Parties also assert that the Commission has recognized such flaws in the Interchange Distribution Calculator and has directed NERC to address them.11 II. Discussion A. OATT Requirements 7. Curtailment priorities are largely set forth in two sections of the Commission’s pro forma OATT. Section 13.6 of the Commission’s pro forma OATT, entitled Curtailment of Firm Transmission Service, provides that: Curtailments will be made on a nondiscriminatory basis to the transaction(s) that effectively relieve the constraint. Transmission Provider may elect to implement such Curtailments pursuant to the Transmission Loading Relief procedures specified in Attachment J. If multiple transactions require Curtailment, to the 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). 10 The NERC Glossary defines a reliability coordinator as: ‘‘The entity that is the highest level of authority who is responsible for the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System, has the Wide Area view of the Bulk Electric System, and has the operating tools, processes and procedures, including the authority to prevent or mitigate emergency operating situations in both next-day analysis and real-time operations. The Reliability Coordinator has the purview that is broad enough to enable the calculation of Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits, which may be based on the operating parameters of transmission systems beyond any Transmission Operator’s vision.’’ NERC Glossary at 16. 11 Request for Rehearing at 8 n.12, citing North American Electric Reliability Council, 85 FERC ¶ 61,353 (1998). E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2010 / Notices extent practicable and consistent with Good Utility Practice, the Transmission Provider will curtail service to Network Customers and Transmission Customers taking Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service on a basis comparable to the curtailment of service to the Transmission Provider’s Native Load Customers. All Curtailments will be made on a non-discriminatory basis, however, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service shall be subordinate to Firm Transmission Service. * * * . [T]he Transmission Provider reserves the right to Curtail, in whole or in part, any Firm Transmission Service provided under the Tariff when, in the Transmission Provider’s sole discretion, an emergency or other unforeseen condition impairs or degrades the reliability of its Transmission System. . . .12 8. Section 14.7 of the Commission’s pro forma OATT, entitled Curtailment or Interruption of Service, provides that: The Transmission Provider reserves the right to Curtail, in whole or in part, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service provided under the Tariff for reliability reasons * * * . Transmission Provider may elect to implement such Curtailments pursuant to the Transmission Loading Relief procedures specified in Attachment J. The Transmission Provider reserves the right to Interrupt, in whole or in part, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service provided under the Tariff for economic reasons in order to accommodate (1) a request for Firm Transmission Service, (2) a request for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service of greater duration, (3) a request for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service of equal duration with a higher price, (4) transmission service for Network Customers from non-designated resources, or (5) transmission service for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service during conditional curtailment periods * * * . Where required, Curtailments or Interruptions will be made on a nondiscriminatory basis to the transaction(s) that effectively relieve the constraint, however, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service shall be subordinate to Firm Transmission Service. * * * . Transmission service for Network Customers from resources other than designated Network Resources will have a higher priority than any Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service under the Tariff.13 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES 9. As indicated by the above-quoted text, the pro forma OATT provides that when curtailments are necessary, nonfirm service shall be subordinate to firm service. B. Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 10. Reliability Standard IRO–006–4, which is applicable to balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators, establishes transmission loading relief procedures: The purpose of this standard is to provide Interconnection-wide transmission loading 12 Order No. 890–B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299, Pro Forma OATT 13.6 (emphasis added). 13 Order No. 890–B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299, Pro Forma OATT 14.7 (emphasis added). VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:51 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 220001 relief procedures that can be used to prevent or manage potential or actual [system operating limit] and [interconnection reliability operating limit] violations to maintain reliability of the Bulk Electric System. 11. The Reliability Standard contains five requirements. Requirement R1 obligates a reliability coordinator experiencing a potential or actual system operating limit or interconnection reliability operating limit violation within its reliability coordinator area to select one or more procedures to mitigate potential or actual transmission overloads. Pursuant to the Commission’s direction in Order No. 693,14 sub-requirement R1.1 specifically notes: The [transmission loading relief] procedure alone is an inappropriate and ineffective tool to mitigate an [interconnection reliability operating limit] violation due to the time required to implement the procedure. Other acceptable and more effective procedures to mitigate actual [interconnection reliability operating limit] violations include: reconfiguration, redispatch, or load shedding. 12. Requirement R2 mandates that the reliability coordinator only use local transmission loading relief or congestion management procedures to which the transmission operator experiencing the potential or actual system operating limit or interconnection reliability operating limit is a party. Requirement R3 establishes that a reliability coordinator with a transmission loading relief obligation from an interconnection-wide procedure follow the curtailments as directed by the interconnection-wide procedure. It also requires that a reliability coordinator desiring to use a local procedure as a substitute for curtailments as directed by the interconnection-wide procedure must obtain prior approval from the ERO. Requirement R4 mandates that each reliability coordinator comply with interconnection-wide procedures, once they are implemented, to curtail transactions that cross interconnection boundaries. Requirement R5 directs balancing authorities and reliability coordinators to comply with applicable interchange-related Reliability Standards during the implementation of transmission loading relief procedures. 13. NERC has established 7 TLR levels.15 At Level 1, the reliability coordinator notifies of a potential system operating limit or interconnection reliability operating limit violation. At Level 2, the reliability 14 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 577. 15 Transmission Loading Relief Procedures, TLR Levels, available at https://www.nerc.com/ page.php?cid=567205. PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4377 coordinator holds interchange transactions at current levels to prevent operating limit violations. At Level 3, the reliability coordinator reallocates transmission by curtailing non-firm interchange transactions to allow higher-priority transactions to continue, and/or curtails non-firm interchange transactions to prevent further operating limit violations. At Level 4, the reliability coordinator reconfigures the transmission system to allow firm transactions to continue. At Level 5, the reliability coordinator curtails firm interchange transactions, either to allow certain other firm transactions to continue or to mitigate any further operating limit violations. At Level 6, the reliability coordinator implements emergency procedures. At Level 0, the TLR has concluded. 14. As previously noted, the Interchange Distribution Calculator is a mechanism used by the reliability coordinators in the Eastern Interconnection to calculate the distribution of interchange transactions over specific flowgates. It includes a database of all interchange transactions and a matrix of the distribution factors for the Eastern Interconnection.16 C. Concerns Regarding Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 15. In Docket No. RM08–7–000, both the NRG Companies and the Rehearing Parties raised concerns regarding Reliability Standard IRO–006–4. In comments filed in response to the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Reliability Standard IRO–006–4, the NRG Companies argued that certain flaws in the Interchange Distribution Calculator result in violations of sections 13.6 and 14.7 of the Commission’s pro forma OATT. First, NRG Companies asserted that there are flaws in the Interchange Distribution Calculator, which allows certain types of transactions to avoid curtailment.17 NRG Companies explained that, for example, the Interchange Distribution Calculator does not take into account internal non-firm transactions, defined as those with a source and sink in the same Balancing Area, and will curtail firm transactions before these internal non-firm transactions. As a result, NRG Companies assert that interchange transactions bear a disproportionate share of the system’s reliability obligations. Further, NRG Companies argue, the Interchange Distribution 16 NERC Glossary at 9. of the NRG Companies at 8, 16–17, Docket No. RM08–7–000 (Oct. 10, 2008) (NRG Comments). 17 Comments E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 4378 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2010 / Notices Calculator does not distinguish between firm and non-firm native load transmission services, assuming that all internal transactions are firm and assigning firm curtailment priorities to them.18 16. Following issuance of Order No. 713–A, the Rehearing Parties sought rehearing, asserting that Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 is not just and reasonable because it results in OATT violations and discriminates in favor of native load transactions made by a load serving entity over similar transactions entered into by an otherwise similarlysituated transmission-dependent utility or merchant generator. The Rehearing Parties cite to NRG’s comments in the underlying proceeding that point to problems with the Interchange Distribution Calculator, upon which the Reliability Standard relies to determine curtailments.19 They assert that sections 13.6 and 14.7 of the Commission’s pro forma OATT require that non-firm transmission services be curtailed before firm transmission services, and state that firm point-to-point and network integration transmission service customers have an equal priority with the transmission provider’s use of the system to deliver network resources to its native load.20 17. According to the Rehearing Parties, because of its reliance on the flawed Interchange Distribution Calculator, which does not take internal native load transactions into account, Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 would direct a reliability coordinator to curtail a firm interchange transaction crossing over a constrained flowgate prior to curtailing a non-firm native network load transaction across the same flowgate. The Rehearing Parties assert that this is a violation of the OATT’s curtailment priorities and constitutes undue discrimination in favor of native load transactions. According to the Rehearing Parties, earlier reforms to the transmission loading relief procedures and the Interchange Distribution Calculator have not remedied these flaws.21 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES D. Commission Questions 18. In an order issued concurrently with this NOI, the Commission denies the Rehearing Parties’ request for rehearing of Order No. 713–A as outside of the scope of the proceeding in Docket 18 NRG Comments at 4. 19 Request for Rehearing at 7, citing NRG Comments at 12–16. 20 Id. 21 Request for Rehearing at 8, citing North Am. Electric Reliability Council, 85 FERC ¶ 61,353 (1998), order on reh’g, 87 FERC ¶ 61,161 (1999). VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 220001 No. RM08–7–002.22 However, the Commission believes that commenters have raised issues regarding Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 that merit further inquiry. Although we have reviewed the comments filed by NRG Companies and the Request for Rehearing in Docket No. RM08–7, we seek broader input from industry before determining how to proceed. 19. Therefore, the Commission seeks public comment on whether the current application of the transmission loading relief procedures and Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 are inconsistent with OATT curtailment priorities and, if so, recommended corrective actions.23 In addition, the Commission seeks public comment on the following questions: (a) Whether Reliability Standard IRO–006– 4, as implemented by various transmission providers, reliability coordinators and balancing authorities, results in firm service being made subordinate to non-firm service? (b) How do Transmission Providers currently implement OATT sections 13.6 and 14.7? Specifically, discuss whether Transmission Providers rely solely on the Interchange Distribution Calculator in determining which transactions to curtail, or whether they also take into account non-firm transactions internal to the Balancing Authority which are currently not reflected in the Interchange Distribution Calculator. (c) If the Interchange Distribution Calculator results in firm service being made subordinate to non-firm service, would including transactions internal to a Balancing Authority help resolve the problem? If so, what parties would be impacted? If there are affected parties, please provide examples of what the impacts on those parties would be. (d) If the Interchange Distribution Calculator results in firm service being made subordinate to non-firm service, would modifing it to calculate the Transfer Distribution Factors (TDF) for transactions within a Balancing Authority solve the identified issue of firm transactions being curtailed before non-firm transactions within a Balancing Authority? (e) What is the role and responsibility of the transmission provider, reliability coordinator and balancing authority, in the TLR procedures and curtailment? (f) As noted above, a Level 5 TLR is called to allow certain firm transactions to continue or to mitigate further operating limit violations and a Level 6 TLR is called to implement emergency procedures. Are commenters aware of Level 5 or Level 6 TLR procedures being called for reasons other 22 Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading Relief Reliability Standards; and Electric Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four Reliability Standards, Order No. 713–B, 130 FERC ¶ 61,032 (2010). 23 This proceeding will not address issues related to the Curtailment Threshold previously approved by the Commission. North Am. Electric Reliability Council, 87 FERC ¶ 61,160 (1999), reh’g denied, 96 FERC ¶ 61,079 (2001). PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 than to allow certain other firm transactions to continue or to mitigate any further operating limit violations? (g) If this is an issue, does it occur in nonRTO/ISO regions, within ISO/RTO footprints, or both? 20. The Commission also seeks an update from the ERO regarding its efforts to make improvements to the Interchange Distribution Calculator.24 III. Comment Procedures 21. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this NOI, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due 60 days from publication in the Federal Register. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM10–9–000, and must include the commenter’s name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. 22. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission’s Web site at https://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. 23. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 24. All comments will be placed in the Commission’s public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. IV. Document Availability 25. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC’s Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) 24 We understand that the ERO previously estimated that resolving problems in the Interchange Distribution Calculator would take approximately 2 to 5 years; however, more than a year has passed since that estimate. Compliance Filing of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation In Response to Paragraph 50 of Order No. 713 at 10, Docket No. RM08–7–001 (Sept. 11, 2008). E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2010 / Notices and in FERC’s Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 26. From FERC’s Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 27. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. By the Commission. Commissioner Norris voting present. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2010–1525 Filed 1–26–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–R01–OW–2009–0304, FRL–9106–3] Maine Marine Sanitation Device Standard—Notice of Determination AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Determination. SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency—New England Region, has determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the coastal waters of Camden, Rockport, Rockland and portions of Owls Head. ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in https://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Rodney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—New England Region, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Coastal and Oceans Protection Unit, Five Post Office Square, Suite 100, OEP06–1, Boston, MA 02109–3912. Telephone: (617) 918– 1538. Fax number: (617) 918–0538. Email address: rodney.ann@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 13, 2009, EPA published a notice that the state of Maine had petitioned the Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to determine that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Camden, Rockland, Rockport and portions of Waterbody/general area From longitude srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES From USCG navigational aid red and white bell ‘‘CH’’ west across the water to Northeast Point in Camden: From Northeast point west following the shore to the head of navigation in Camden Harbor at the mouth of the Megunticook River in Camden: South following the shore to the head of navigation in Rockport Harbor and the mouth of the Goose River in Rockport: South following the shore to the extent of navigation of Rockland Harbor and the mouth of the Unnamed stream in Rockland: East following the shore to Owls Head in the town of Owls Head: East in a straight line across the water to USGC navigational green can ‘‘7’’: North in a straight line across the water to USCG navigational aid red and white bell ‘‘CH’’: The area includes the municipal waters of Camden, Rockport, Rockland, and portions of Owls Head. The information submitted to EPA by the state of Maine certifies that there are six pumpout facilities located within this area. A list of the facilities, with locations, phone numbers, and hours of VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Jan 26, 2010 Jkt 220001 Frm 00044 Owls Head. Six comments were received on this petition. The response to comments can be obtained utilizing the above contact information. The petition was filed pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92–500, as amended by Public Laws 95–217 and 100–4, for the purpose of declaring these waters a No Discharge Area (NDA). Section 312(f)(3) states: After the effective date of the initial standards and regulations promulgated under this section, if any State determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the waters within such State require greater environmental protection, such State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters, except that no such prohibition shall apply until the Administrator determines that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for such water to which such prohibition would apply. This Notice of Determination is for the waters of Camden, Rockport, Rockland and portions of Owls Head. The NDA boundaries are as follows: From latitude To longitude To latitude 69° 2′ 16.1″ W 44° 12′ 40.98″ N 69° 2′ 47.61″ W 44° 12′ 32.84″ N 69° 2′ 47.61″ W 44° 12′ 32.84″ N 69° 3′ 51.14″ W 44° 12′ 37.58″ N 69° 3′ 51.14″ W 44° 12′ 37.58″ N 69° 4′ 23.79″ W 44° 11′ 11.35″ N 69° 4′ 23.79″ W 44° 11′ 11.35″ N 69° 6′ 11.65″ W 44° 4′ 41.42″ N 69° 6′ 11.65″ W 69° 2′ 36.46″ W 44° 4′ 41.42″ N 44° 5′ 30.58″ N 69° 2′ 36.46″ W 69° 2′ 30.06″ W 44° 5′ 30.58″ N 44° 5′ 24.95″ N 69° 2′ 30.06″ W 44° 5′ 24.95″ N 69° 2′ 16.1″ W 44° 12′ 40.98″ N operation is appended at the end of this determination. Based on the examination of the petition and its supporting documentation, and information from site visits conducted by EPA New England staff, EPA has determined that adequate facilities for the safe and PO 00000 4379 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the area covered under this determination. This determination is made pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92– 500, as amended by Public Laws 95–217 and 100–4. E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4375-4379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1525]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM10-9-000]


Transmission Loading Relief Reliability Standard and Curtailment 
Priorities

Issued January 21, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comment on the interplay between 
Reliability Standard IRO-006-4 (Reliability Coordination--Transmission 
Loading Relief) and the curtailment priorities set forth in the 
Commission's pro forma open access transmission tariff, particularly 
sections 13.6 and 14.7.

DATES: Comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal 
Register.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any 
of the following methods:
     Agency Web Site: https://www.ferc.gov. Documents created 
electronically using word processing software should be filed in native 
applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments 
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of 
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the 
Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment 
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ruta Kalvaitis Sku[ccaron]as, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-6647, ruta.skucas@ferc.gov.
Thomas Dautel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy 
Policy & Innovation, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 
502-6196, thomas.dautel@ferc.gov.
Thanh Loung, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Electric 
Reliability, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
6080, thanh.luong@ferc,gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, 
Philip D. Moeller, and John R. Norris.

    1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission requests 
comments from industry and stakeholders regarding the interplay between 
Reliability Standard IRO-006-4 (Reliability Coordination--Transmission 
Loading Relief) and curtailment priorities in Commission-approved Open 
Access Transmission Tariffs (OATT). The Commission seeks further 
information, comments and data on whether Reliability Standard IRO-006-
4 directs a reliability coordinator to curtail a firm interchange 
transaction crossing over a constrained flowgate prior to curtailing a 
non-firm native network load transaction across the same flowgate.

I. Background

    2. On December 21, 2007, the North American Electric Reliability 
Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified electric reliability 
organization (ERO), submitted for Commission approval modifications to 
Reliability Standard IRO-006-3, known as the transmission loading 
relief (TLR) procedure.\1\ As discussed in greater detail below, 
Reliability Standard IRO-006-4 provides Interconnection-wide

[[Page 4376]]

transmission loading relief procedures that can be used to prevent or 
manage potential or actual system operating limit or interconnection 
reliability operating limit violations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reliability Standard IRO-006-4 modifies Reliability Standard 
IRO-006-3, which the Commission approved in Order No. 693. Mandatory 
Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC 
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 
61,053 (2007).
    \2\ A System Operating Limit or SOL is the value (such as MW, 
MVar, amperes, frequency or volts) that satisfies the most limiting 
of the prescribed operating criteria for a specified system 
configuration to ensure operation within acceptable reliability 
criteria. NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards at 
19, available at https://www.nerc.com/files/Glossary_12Feb08.pdf 
(NERC Glossary). An Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit or 
IROL is a system operating limit that, if violated, could lead to 
instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that 
adversely impact the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Id. at 
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. As discussed below, the NRG Companies filed comments on 
Reliability Standard IRO-006-4, asserting that the proposed modified 
Reliability Standard is not consistent with the requirements of the 
Commission-approved pro forma OATT. They asserted that, due to flaws in 
the Interchange Distribution Calculator,\3\ firm transactions may be 
curtailed prior to non-firm transactions, resulting in an OATT 
violation. They also argued that the Interchange Distribution 
Calculator is flawed for several reasons, including that it does not 
take native load transactions into account when determining which 
transactions should be curtailed to relieve congestion. The 
Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. filed comments in support 
of the NRG Companies' comments, arguing that the use of the Interchange 
Distribution Calculator has resulted in unjust and discriminatory 
curtailments, particularly firm transactions before non-firm 
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Interchange Distribution Calculator is a mechanism used 
by the reliability coordinators in the Eastern Interconnection to 
calculate the distribution of interchange transactions over specific 
flowgates. It includes a database of all interchange transactions 
and a matrix of the distribution factors for the Eastern 
Interconnection. Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On July 21, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 713, which, 
inter alia, directed NERC to submit a filing explaining one aspect of 
the TLR procedure before such procedure could be approved.\4\ Following 
NERC's response, on March 19, 2009, the Commission approved Reliability 
Standard IRO-006-4 in Order No. 713-A. In addition, the Commission 
directed NERC to develop modifications to IRO-006-4, pursuant to 
section 215(d)(5) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).\5\ In response to 
comments regarding competitive concerns and the application of the 
Interchange Distribution Calculator, the Commission concluded:

    \4\ Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading Relief 
Reliability Standards; and Electric Reliability Organization 
Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four Reliability 
Standards, Order No. 713, 124 FERC ] 61,071 (2008), order on reh'g, 
Order No. 713-A, 126 FERC ] 61,252 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 
713-B, 130 FERC ] 61,032 (2010). The Commission sought clarification 
of whether the removal and transfer to NAESB of business-related 
requirements formerly contained in Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 
would impact bulk-power system reliability, an issue unrelated to 
the current proceeding. Order No. 713, 124 FERC ] 61,071 at P 50.
    \5\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5) (2006). The modifications relate to the 
use of the term ``alone'' in Requirement R1.1 and changes to the 
Violation Risk Factors for Requirements R1 through R4 to ``high,'' 
and are not related to the issues discussed in this NOI. Order No. 
713-A, 126 FERC ] 61,252 at P 36, 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above comments on suggested improvements to the 
[transmission loading relief] procedure are beyond the scope of this 
proceeding, which pertains to the separation of business practices 
from the ERO's [transmission loading relief] procedure and 
implementation of the Commission's directives set forth in Order No. 
693. We note, however, that the ERO indicated in its December 21, 
2007 filing that it has a three-phase plan to improve the 
[transmission loading relief] procedures, and the third phase will 
consist of ``a complete redrafting to incorporate enhancement and 
changes beyond the separation of reliability and business practice 
issues.'' Therefore, the phase three proceeding would provide a 
proper forum for commenters to raise their concerns. The Commission 
believes that NRG and other commenters raise valid issues and urges 
the commenters to raise--and expects the ERO to consider--these 
matters in an appropriate proceeding. We also note that NERC states 
it is currently updating the [Interchange Distribution Calculator] 
to more accurately determine the impacts of native load and network 
service.\6\

    \6\ Order No. 713-A, 126 FERC ] 61,252 at P 21 (footnotes 
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. In a request for rehearing of Order No. 713-A, the NRG 
Companies, the Electric Power Supply Association, and Constellation 
Energy Commodities Group (Rehearing Parties) challenged the Reliability 
Standard on several grounds.\7\ First, they assert that Reliability 
Standard IRO-006-4 violates the curtailment priorities established in 
Order Nos. 888 \8\ and 890 \9\ and the pro forma OATT approved by the 
Commission in those proceedings, because the standard favors native 
network load transactions over interchange transactions with respect to 
curtailment priority, and allows the curtailment of firm transactions 
before non-firm transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Request for Rehearing and Clarification of the NRG 
Companies, the Electric Power Supply Association and Constellation 
Energy Commodities Group, Docket No. RM08-7-002 (Apr. 20, 2009) 
(Request for Rehearing).
    \8\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery 
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, 
Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036 (1996), order on reh'g, 
Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048, order on reh'g, Order 
No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-C, 
82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. 
Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. 
Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
    \9\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The Rehearing Parties assert that, under sections 13.6 and 14.7 
of the Commission's pro forma OATT, non-firm transmission services must 
be curtailed before firm transmission services, and firm point-to-point 
and network integration transmission service customers have an equal 
priority with the transmission provider's use of the system to deliver 
Network Resources to its native load. They maintain that, because of 
its reliance on the flawed Interchange Distribution Calculator, 
Reliability Standard IRO-006-4 would direct a reliability coordinator 
\10\ to curtail a firm interchange transaction crossing over a 
constrained flowgate prior to curtailing a non-firm native network load 
transaction across the same flowgate. The Rehearing Parties also assert 
that the Commission has recognized such flaws in the Interchange 
Distribution Calculator and has directed NERC to address them.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The NERC Glossary defines a reliability coordinator as: 
``The entity that is the highest level of authority who is 
responsible for the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System, 
has the Wide Area view of the Bulk Electric System, and has the 
operating tools, processes and procedures, including the authority 
to prevent or mitigate emergency operating situations in both next-
day analysis and real-time operations. The Reliability Coordinator 
has the purview that is broad enough to enable the calculation of 
Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits, which may be based on 
the operating parameters of transmission systems beyond any 
Transmission Operator's vision.'' NERC Glossary at 16.
    \11\ Request for Rehearing at 8 n.12, citing North American 
Electric Reliability Council, 85 FERC ] 61,353 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. OATT Requirements

    7. Curtailment priorities are largely set forth in two sections of 
the Commission's pro forma OATT. Section 13.6 of the Commission's pro 
forma OATT, entitled Curtailment of Firm Transmission Service, provides 
that:

    Curtailments will be made on a non-discriminatory basis to the 
transaction(s) that effectively relieve the constraint. Transmission 
Provider may elect to implement such Curtailments pursuant to the 
Transmission Loading Relief procedures specified in Attachment J. If 
multiple transactions require Curtailment, to the

[[Page 4377]]

extent practicable and consistent with Good Utility Practice, the 
Transmission Provider will curtail service to Network Customers and 
Transmission Customers taking Firm Point-To-Point Transmission 
Service on a basis comparable to the curtailment of service to the 
Transmission Provider's Native Load Customers. All Curtailments will 
be made on a non-discriminatory basis, however, Non-Firm Point-To-
Point Transmission Service shall be subordinate to Firm Transmission 
Service. * * * . [T]he Transmission Provider reserves the right to 
Curtail, in whole or in part, any Firm Transmission Service provided 
under the Tariff when, in the Transmission Provider's sole 
discretion, an emergency or other unforeseen condition impairs or 
degrades the reliability of its Transmission System. . . .\12\

    \12\ Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299, Pro Forma OATT 13.6 
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Section 14.7 of the Commission's pro forma OATT, entitled 
Curtailment or Interruption of Service, provides that:

    The Transmission Provider reserves the right to Curtail, in 
whole or in part, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service 
provided under the Tariff for reliability reasons * * * . 
Transmission Provider may elect to implement such Curtailments 
pursuant to the Transmission Loading Relief procedures specified in 
Attachment J. The Transmission Provider reserves the right to 
Interrupt, in whole or in part, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission 
Service provided under the Tariff for economic reasons in order to 
accommodate (1) a request for Firm Transmission Service, (2) a 
request for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service of greater 
duration, (3) a request for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission 
Service of equal duration with a higher price, (4) transmission 
service for Network Customers from non-designated resources, or (5) 
transmission service for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service 
during conditional curtailment periods * * * . Where required, 
Curtailments or Interruptions will be made on a non-discriminatory 
basis to the transaction(s) that effectively relieve the constraint, 
however, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service shall be 
subordinate to Firm Transmission Service. * * * . Transmission 
service for Network Customers from resources other than designated 
Network Resources will have a higher priority than any Non-Firm 
Point-To-Point Transmission Service under the Tariff.\13\

    \13\ Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299, Pro Forma OATT 14.7 
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. As indicated by the above-quoted text, the pro forma OATT 
provides that when curtailments are necessary, non-firm service shall 
be subordinate to firm service.

B. Reliability Standard IRO-006-4

    10. Reliability Standard IRO-006-4, which is applicable to 
balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission 
operators, establishes transmission loading relief procedures:

    The purpose of this standard is to provide Interconnection-wide 
transmission loading relief procedures that can be used to prevent 
or manage potential or actual [system operating limit] and 
[interconnection reliability operating limit] violations to maintain 
reliability of the Bulk Electric System.

    11. The Reliability Standard contains five requirements. 
Requirement R1 obligates a reliability coordinator experiencing a 
potential or actual system operating limit or interconnection 
reliability operating limit violation within its reliability 
coordinator area to select one or more procedures to mitigate potential 
or actual transmission overloads. Pursuant to the Commission's 
direction in Order No. 693,\14\ sub-requirement R1.1 specifically 
notes:

    \14\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 577.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The [transmission loading relief] procedure alone is an 
inappropriate and ineffective tool to mitigate an [interconnection 
reliability operating limit] violation due to the time required to 
implement the procedure. Other acceptable and more effective 
procedures to mitigate actual [interconnection reliability operating 
limit] violations include: reconfiguration, redispatch, or load 
shedding.

    12. Requirement R2 mandates that the reliability coordinator only 
use local transmission loading relief or congestion management 
procedures to which the transmission operator experiencing the 
potential or actual system operating limit or interconnection 
reliability operating limit is a party. Requirement R3 establishes that 
a reliability coordinator with a transmission loading relief obligation 
from an interconnection-wide procedure follow the curtailments as 
directed by the interconnection-wide procedure. It also requires that a 
reliability coordinator desiring to use a local procedure as a 
substitute for curtailments as directed by the interconnection-wide 
procedure must obtain prior approval from the ERO. Requirement R4 
mandates that each reliability coordinator comply with interconnection-
wide procedures, once they are implemented, to curtail transactions 
that cross interconnection boundaries. Requirement R5 directs balancing 
authorities and reliability coordinators to comply with applicable 
interchange-related Reliability Standards during the implementation of 
transmission loading relief procedures.
    13. NERC has established 7 TLR levels.\15\ At Level 1, the 
reliability coordinator notifies of a potential system operating limit 
or interconnection reliability operating limit violation. At Level 2, 
the reliability coordinator holds interchange transactions at current 
levels to prevent operating limit violations. At Level 3, the 
reliability coordinator reallocates transmission by curtailing non-firm 
interchange transactions to allow higher-priority transactions to 
continue, and/or curtails non-firm interchange transactions to prevent 
further operating limit violations. At Level 4, the reliability 
coordinator reconfigures the transmission system to allow firm 
transactions to continue. At Level 5, the reliability coordinator 
curtails firm interchange transactions, either to allow certain other 
firm transactions to continue or to mitigate any further operating 
limit violations. At Level 6, the reliability coordinator implements 
emergency procedures. At Level 0, the TLR has concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Transmission Loading Relief Procedures, TLR Levels, 
available at https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=567205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. As previously noted, the Interchange Distribution Calculator is 
a mechanism used by the reliability coordinators in the Eastern 
Interconnection to calculate the distribution of interchange 
transactions over specific flowgates. It includes a database of all 
interchange transactions and a matrix of the distribution factors for 
the Eastern Interconnection.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NERC Glossary at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Concerns Regarding Reliability Standard IRO-006-4

    15. In Docket No. RM08-7-000, both the NRG Companies and the 
Rehearing Parties raised concerns regarding Reliability Standard IRO-
006-4. In comments filed in response to the Commission's Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking regarding Reliability Standard IRO-006-4, the NRG 
Companies argued that certain flaws in the Interchange Distribution 
Calculator result in violations of sections 13.6 and 14.7 of the 
Commission's pro forma OATT. First, NRG Companies asserted that there 
are flaws in the Interchange Distribution Calculator, which allows 
certain types of transactions to avoid curtailment.\17\ NRG Companies 
explained that, for example, the Interchange Distribution Calculator 
does not take into account internal non-firm transactions, defined as 
those with a source and sink in the same Balancing Area, and will 
curtail firm transactions before these internal non-firm transactions. 
As a result, NRG Companies assert that interchange transactions bear a 
disproportionate share of the system's reliability obligations. 
Further, NRG Companies argue, the Interchange Distribution

[[Page 4378]]

Calculator does not distinguish between firm and non-firm native load 
transmission services, assuming that all internal transactions are firm 
and assigning firm curtailment priorities to them.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Comments of the NRG Companies at 8, 16-17, Docket No. RM08-
7-000 (Oct. 10, 2008) (NRG Comments).
    \18\ NRG Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Following issuance of Order No. 713-A, the Rehearing Parties 
sought rehearing, asserting that Reliability Standard IRO-006-4 is not 
just and reasonable because it results in OATT violations and 
discriminates in favor of native load transactions made by a load 
serving entity over similar transactions entered into by an otherwise 
similarly-situated transmission-dependent utility or merchant 
generator. The Rehearing Parties cite to NRG's comments in the 
underlying proceeding that point to problems with the Interchange 
Distribution Calculator, upon which the Reliability Standard relies to 
determine curtailments.\19\ They assert that sections 13.6 and 14.7 of 
the Commission's pro forma OATT require that non-firm transmission 
services be curtailed before firm transmission services, and state that 
firm point-to-point and network integration transmission service 
customers have an equal priority with the transmission provider's use 
of the system to deliver network resources to its native load.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Request for Rehearing at 7, citing NRG Comments at 12-16.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. According to the Rehearing Parties, because of its reliance on 
the flawed Interchange Distribution Calculator, which does not take 
internal native load transactions into account, Reliability Standard 
IRO-006-4 would direct a reliability coordinator to curtail a firm 
interchange transaction crossing over a constrained flowgate prior to 
curtailing a non-firm native network load transaction across the same 
flowgate. The Rehearing Parties assert that this is a violation of the 
OATT's curtailment priorities and constitutes undue discrimination in 
favor of native load transactions. According to the Rehearing Parties, 
earlier reforms to the transmission loading relief procedures and the 
Interchange Distribution Calculator have not remedied these flaws.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Request for Rehearing at 8, citing North Am. Electric 
Reliability Council, 85 FERC ] 61,353 (1998), order on reh'g, 87 
FERC ] 61,161 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Commission Questions

    18. In an order issued concurrently with this NOI, the Commission 
denies the Rehearing Parties' request for rehearing of Order No. 713-A 
as outside of the scope of the proceeding in Docket No. RM08-7-002.\22\ 
However, the Commission believes that commenters have raised issues 
regarding Reliability Standard IRO-006-4 that merit further inquiry. 
Although we have reviewed the comments filed by NRG Companies and the 
Request for Rehearing in Docket No. RM08-7, we seek broader input from 
industry before determining how to proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading Relief 
Reliability Standards; and Electric Reliability Organization 
Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four Reliability 
Standards, Order No. 713-B, 130 FERC ] 61,032 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Therefore, the Commission seeks public comment on whether the 
current application of the transmission loading relief procedures and 
Reliability Standard IRO-006-4 are inconsistent with OATT curtailment 
priorities and, if so, recommended corrective actions.\23\ In addition, 
the Commission seeks public comment on the following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This proceeding will not address issues related to the 
Curtailment Threshold previously approved by the Commission. North 
Am. Electric Reliability Council, 87 FERC ] 61,160 (1999), reh'g 
denied, 96 FERC ] 61,079 (2001).

    (a) Whether Reliability Standard IRO-006-4, as implemented by 
various transmission providers, reliability coordinators and 
balancing authorities, results in firm service being made 
subordinate to non-firm service?
    (b) How do Transmission Providers currently implement OATT 
sections 13.6 and 14.7? Specifically, discuss whether Transmission 
Providers rely solely on the Interchange Distribution Calculator in 
determining which transactions to curtail, or whether they also take 
into account non-firm transactions internal to the Balancing 
Authority which are currently not reflected in the Interchange 
Distribution Calculator.
    (c) If the Interchange Distribution Calculator results in firm 
service being made subordinate to non-firm service, would including 
transactions internal to a Balancing Authority help resolve the 
problem? If so, what parties would be impacted? If there are 
affected parties, please provide examples of what the impacts on 
those parties would be.
    (d) If the Interchange Distribution Calculator results in firm 
service being made subordinate to non-firm service, would modifing 
it to calculate the Transfer Distribution Factors (TDF) for 
transactions within a Balancing Authority solve the identified issue 
of firm transactions being curtailed before non-firm transactions 
within a Balancing Authority?
    (e) What is the role and responsibility of the transmission 
provider, reliability coordinator and balancing authority, in the 
TLR procedures and curtailment?
    (f) As noted above, a Level 5 TLR is called to allow certain 
firm transactions to continue or to mitigate further operating limit 
violations and a Level 6 TLR is called to implement emergency 
procedures. Are commenters aware of Level 5 or Level 6 TLR 
procedures being called for reasons other than to allow certain 
other firm transactions to continue or to mitigate any further 
operating limit violations?
    (g) If this is an issue, does it occur in non-RTO/ISO regions, 
within ISO/RTO footprints, or both?

    20. The Commission also seeks an update from the ERO regarding its 
efforts to make improvements to the Interchange Distribution 
Calculator.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ We understand that the ERO previously estimated that 
resolving problems in the Interchange Distribution Calculator would 
take approximately 2 to 5 years; however, more than a year has 
passed since that estimate. Compliance Filing of the North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation In Response to Paragraph 50 of 
Order No. 713 at 10, Docket No. RM08-7-001 (Sept. 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Procedures

    21. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on 
the matters and issues proposed in this NOI, including any related 
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. 
Comments are due 60 days from publication in the Federal Register. 
Comments must refer to Docket No. RM10-9-000, and must include the 
commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and 
their address in their comments.
    22. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically 
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at https://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing 
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing 
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format 
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not 
need to make a paper filing.
    23. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically 
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    24. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files 
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the 
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are 
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

    25. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
Internet through FERC's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov)

[[Page 4379]]

and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 
a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    26. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is 
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on 
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or 
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket 
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket 
number field.
    27. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web 
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at 
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Norris voting present.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1525 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.