Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice of Request for Comments, 8866-8867 [2015-03438]

Download as PDF 8866 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Notices Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on March 10, 2015. accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010. Dated: February 12, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015–03444 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] Dated: February 12, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FR Doc. 2015–03441 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Federal Energy Regulatory Commission DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Panola Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES [Docket No. OR15–14–000] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Take notice that on February 10, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Panola Pipeline Company, LLC (Panola or Petitioner), filed a petition for declaratory order seeking approval of priority service and the proposed tariff rate structure and terms of service for a planned expansion of Panola’s pipeline system, as more fully explained in the petition. 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 Petitioner. 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 5 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC [Docket No. EL13–88–000] VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:58 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice of Request for Comments February 12, 2015. On September 11, 2013, Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) filed a complaint against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) and PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). NIPSCO requested that the Commission order MISO and PJM to reform the interregional planning process of the Joint Operating Agreement between MISO and PJM (MISO–PJM JOA).1 On December 18, 2014, the Commission issued an order directing Commission staff to convene a technical conference to explore issues raised in the Complaint related to the MISO–PJM JOA and the MISO–PJM seam. The Commission also directed Commission staff to issue a request for comments on these issues prior to the technical conference to inform the technical conference discussion.2 Shown below is the list of questions for which Commission staff seeks comment. The questions cover the six reforms that NIPSCO recommends to the cross-border transmission planning process that occurs under the MISO– PJM JOA, as well as certain additional issues. Commenters should discuss the potential benefits and/or drawbacks, cost concerns, and technical feasibility of implementing the following reforms and how long the reforms would take to implement if adopted. 1 NIPSCO Complaint, Docket No. EL13–88–000 (filed Sept. 11, 2013). 2 Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, LLC, 149 FERC ¶ 61,248, at P 35 (2014). PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1. Require the MISO–PJM crossborder transmission planning process to run concurrently with the MISO and PJM regional transmission planning cycles, rather than after those regional planning cycles. 2. Require MISO and PJM to develop and use a single model that uses the same assumptions in the cross-border transmission planning process. Until the joint model is developed, require that there is consistency between the PJM and MISO planning analysis and that both entities are consistent in their application of reliability criteria and modeling assumptions. 3. Require MISO and PJM to use a single common set of criteria to evaluate cross-border market efficiency projects. 4. Require MISO and PJM to amend the criteria to evaluate cross-border market efficiency projects to address all known benefits, including avoidance of future market-to-market (M2M) payments made to reallocate short-term transmission capacity in the real-time operation of the system. 5. Require MISO and PJM to have a process for joint planning and cost allocation of lower voltage and lower cost cross-border upgrades. 6. Require MISO and PJM to improve the processes within the MISO–PJM JOA with respect to new generator interconnections and generation retirements. 7. Explain the relationship between the cross-border transmission planning process (and approval of new transmission projects) and persistent M2M payments being made between the RTOs. Are persistent M2M payments a good indicator of the need for new transmission? 8. NIPSCO provides an estimate of M2M payments on pages 23–24 of its Complaint. Please comment on these estimates and provide information on other estimates of M2M payments, including whether PJM, MISO and the market monitors have identified trends in M2M payments. 9. Please provide examples of transmission projects that have been considered under the cross-border transmission planning process for the purpose of mitigating congestion and/or constraints that lead to persistent M2M payments, but that have not been developed. Provide the reason the project was not developed. Interested parties should submit comments on or before March 16, 2015. Reply comments must be filed on or before March 31, 2015. Comments should be provided by question as enumerated above. ADDRESSES: Parties may submit comments, identified by Docket No. E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM 19FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Notices EL13–88–000, by one of the following methods. Agency Web site: https://www.ferc .gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments via the eFiling link found under the ‘‘Documents and Filing’’ tab. Mail: Those unable to file comments electronically may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Strong (Technical Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Market Regulation, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 6124, jason.strong@ferc.gov. Ben Foster (Technical Information) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 6149, ben.foster@ferc.gov. Lina Naik (Legal Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 (202) 502–8882, lina.naik@ ferc.gov. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015–03438 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES Notice of Commission Staff Attendance The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission’s staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of Public Service Company of Colorado, Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., Public Service Company of New Mexico, Arizona Public Service Company, El Paso Electric Company, Black Hills Power, Inc., Black Hills Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, Cheyenne Light, Fuel, & Power Company, Nevada Power Company, and Sierra Pacific Power Company: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:58 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 WestConnect Regional Planning Process Stakeholder Meeting February 19, 2015, 12:30 p.m.–4:00 p.m. (PST) The above-referenced meeting will be held at: NV Energy, 7155 Lindell Road, Las Vegas, NV 89118. The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference. The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders. Further information may be found at https://www.westconnect.com/ filestorage/02-19-15_WestConnect_ Stakeholder_Meeting_Agenda.pdf. The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings: Docket No. ER13–75, Public Service Company of Colorado Docket No. ER13–1469 Docket No. ER15–416 Docket No. ER13–77, Tucson Electric Power Company Docket No. ER13–1461 Docket No. ER15–433 Docket No. ER13–78, UNS Electric, Inc. Docket No. ER13–1462 Docket No. ER15–434 Docket No. ER13–79, Public Service Company of New Mexico Docket No. ER13–1447 Docket No. ER15–413 Docket No. ER13–82, Arizona Public Service Company Docket No. ER13–1450 Docket No. ER15–411 Docket No. ER13–91, El Paso Electric Company Docket No. ER13–1465 Docket No. ER15–426 Docket No. ER13–96, Black Hills Power, Inc. Docket No. ER13–1472 Docket No. ER15–431 Docket No. ER13–97, Black Hills Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP Docket No. ER13–1474 Docket No. ER15–430 Docket No. ER13–120, Cheyenne Light, Fuel, & Power Company Docket No. ER13–1471 Docket No. ER15–432 Docket No. ER15–428, Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company Docket No. ER13–1466 Docket No. ER15–423 Docket No. ER15–424 For more information, contact Gabe Aguilera, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502–8489 or Gabriel.Aguilera@ferc.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 8867 Dated: February 12, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015–03443 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–9923–21–OA] Notification of a Face-to-Face Meeting and a Teleconference of the Science Advisory Board Biogenic Carbon Emissions Panel Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public face-to-face meeting of the SAB Biogenic Carbon Emissions Panel to review EPA’s Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources (November 2014). The SAB Staff Office also announces a public teleconference of the SAB Biogenic Carbon Emissions Panel to review its draft report on EPA’s document. SUMMARY: The public face-to-face meeting will be held on March 25, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) and March 26, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The teleconference will be held on May 29, 2015 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). ADDRESSES: The face-to-face meeting will take place at the George Washington University, Milken Institute School of Public Health, Convening Center A and B, 950 New Hampshire Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20052. The teleconference will be held by telephone only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing further information regarding the public meeting or public teleconference may contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564– 2073 or via email at stallworth.holly@ epa.gov. General information concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board can be found at the EPA SAB Web site at https://www.epa.gov/sab. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDAA) codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to DATES: E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM 19FEN1

Agencies

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


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-88-000]


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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8867]]

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jason Strong (Technical Information), Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Energy Market Regulation, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6124, jason.strong@ferc.gov.
Ben Foster (Technical Information) Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, 888 First Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6149, ben.foster@ferc.gov.
Lina Naik (Legal Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426 (202) 502-8882, lina.naik@ferc.gov.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03438 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.