Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference, 68529-68531 [2015-28157]
Download as PDF
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices
Agreement (G870) to be effective 11/1/
2015.
Filed Date: 10/30/15.
Accession Number: 20151030–5345.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.
Docket Numbers: ER16–207–000.
Applicants: Dynegy Oakland, LLC.
Description: Section 205(d) Rate
Filing: Annual RMR Section 205 Filing
and RMR Schedule F Informational
Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.
Filed Date: 10/30/15.
Accession Number: 20151030–5346.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.
Docket Numbers: ER16–208–000.
Applicants: Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.,
International Transmission Company,
ITC Midwest LLC, Michigan Electric
Transmission Company, LLC.
Description: Section 205(d) Rate
Filing: 2015–10–30_ITC, ITCM, METC
Attachment O Revisions to be effective
1/1/2016.
Filed Date: 10/30/15.
Accession Number: 20151030–5396.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.
Docket Numbers: ER16–209–000.
Applicants: Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.
Description: Section 205(d) Rate
Filing: Central Power Electric
Cooperative Formula Rate to be effective
1/1/2016.
Filed Date: 10/30/15.
Accession Number: 20151030–5424.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.
Docket Numbers: ER16–210–000.
Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
Description: Section 205(d) Rate
Filing: IPC–PAC JOOA Amendment and
Exhibit G to be effective 10/30/2015.
Filed Date: 10/30/15.
Accession Number: 20151030–5425.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/20/15.
The filings are accessible in the
Commission’s eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the
docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or
protest in any of the above proceedings
must file in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission’s
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date.
Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a
party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed
information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,
service, and qualifying facilities filings
can be found at: https://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For
other information, call (866) 208–3676
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Nov 04, 2015
Jkt 238001
Dated: October 30, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–28209 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Supplemental Notice of Technical
Conference
October 29, 2015.
Docket Nos.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C
Potomac Electric Power
Company.
ER15–1344–
001,
ER15–1344–002
ER15–1387–001
As announced in the Notice of
Technical Conference issued on October
8, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Staff will hold a technical
conference on November 12, 2015, at
the Commission’s headquarters at 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426
between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
(Eastern Time). The purpose of the
technical conference is to understand
PJM’s application of its Order No. 1000compliant 1 transmission planning
process to local transmission facilities,
including, but not limited to, the
process PJM and the PJM Transmission
Owners use to identify local
transmission needs and to solicit
proposed solutions to identified local
transmission needs (such as opening
proposal windows),2 and the process
PJM uses to determine whether a
transmission solution to an identified
local transmission need should be
selected in the regional transmission
plan for purposes of cost allocation as
the more efficient or cost-effective
transmission solution.
The Commission’s orders on PJM’s
compliance with the local transmission
planning requirements of both Order
1 Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by
Transmission Owning and Operating Public
Utilities, Order No. 1000, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,323 (2011), order on reh’g, Order No. 1000–A,
139 FERC ¶ 61,132, order on reh’g, Order No. 1000–
B, 141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012), aff’d sub nom. S.C.
Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir.
2014).
2 As discussed in the order establishing the
technical conference, Dominion Resources Services’
revisions to its individual transmission planning
criteria will not be discussed at the technical
conference. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 152 FERC
¶ 61,197, at P15 (2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68529
No. 890 3 and Order No. 1000 and the
issue of how PJM and the PJM
Transmission Owners conduct local
transmission planning will serve to
frame this conference. Participants
should review and be prepared to
discuss the issue of local transmission
planning in the context of these
previous orders.4
In its Order No. 1000 compliance
proceedings, PJM stated that individual
PJM Transmission Owners do not
conduct separate local transmission
planning and that local transmission
and regional transmission planning are
fully integrated in PJM’s regional
transmission planning process.5 PJM
also stated that, ‘‘through its established
regional transmission planning process
that fully merges local and regional
planning, PJM evaluates both local and
regional planning criteria.’’ 6 PJM
explained that transmission owners in
the PJM region bring their current local
planning information, including all
criteria, assumptions, and models used,
to the Subregional RTEP Committees,7
where it is reviewed by the Subregional
RTEP Committees to develop and
finalize Local Plans that are coordinated
with the PJM regional transmission
planning process.8 PJM stated that Local
Plans are a product of the Subregional
3 Preventing Undue Discrimination and
Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241, order on reh’g, Order
No. 890–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 (2007),
order on reh’g, Order No. 890–B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299
(2008), order on reh’g, Order No. 890–C, 126 FERC
¶ 61,228 (2009), order on clarification, Order No.
890–D, 129 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2009).
4 See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 123 FERC
¶ 61,163, at PP 121–143 (2008); PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., 127 FERC ¶ 61,166, at PP
21–31 (2009); and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 130
FERC ¶ 61,167, at PP 10–16 (2010) (addressing the
local transmission planning requirements of Order
No. 890) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 142 FERC
¶ 61,214, at PP 121–123 (2013); PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., 147 FERC ¶ 61,128, at PP
72–83 (2014); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 150
FERC ¶ 61,038, at PP 18–46 (2015); and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,250, at PP
12–22 (2015) (addressing the local transmission
planning requirements of Order No. 1000).
5 See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 147 FERC
¶ 61,128, at P 73 (2014) and PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C., 150 FERC ¶ 61,038, at P 34 (2015).
6 PJM July 22, 2013 Second Round Order No.
1000 Regional Compliance Filing Docket No. ER13–
198–002, at 17 (emphasis in original). See also
Operating Agreement, Schedule 6, § 1.2(e) (‘‘The
Regional Transmission Expansion Plan planning
criteria shall include, Office of the Interconnection
planning procedures, NERC Reliability Standards,
Regional Entity reliability principles and standards,
and the individual Transmission Owner FERC filed
planning criteria as filed in FERC Form No. 715.’’).
7 See PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, Operating
Agreement, Schedule 6, § 1.3 (e) (Establishment of
Committees).
8 PJM July 14, 2014 Third Round Regional
Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER13–198–004 at 4
and PJM Third Round Regional Compliance Order,
150 FERC ¶ 61,038 at P 20.
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
68530
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
RTEP Committees rather than
independently existing local plans
presented by the transmission owner to
the Subregional RTEP Committees for
review. Also, PJM explained that it is
the Subregional RTEP Committees,
rather than an individual transmission
owner, that incorporates feedback into
the Local Plan.9 In addition, PJM stated,
Local Plans that the Subregional RTEP
Committees develop include
Supplemental Projects 10 as identified
by the PJM Transmission Owners within
their zones, and Subregional RTEP
Projects 11 developed to comply with all
applicable reliability criteria, including
the local transmission owners planning
criteria, or based on market efficiency
analysis and in consideration of Public
Policy Requirements.12
Dayton Power and Light Company
(Dayton) and the PJM Transmission
Owners also addressed the PJM local
transmission planning process in their
rehearing requests submitted in Docket
No. ER15–1387–001 proceeding. Dayton
stated that local transmission projects
are included as part of PJM’s annual
regional transmission planning process,
but not because PJM has had any
significant role in their design or
planning, as local transmission projects
are designed and developed by the local
transmission owner.13 Dayton stated
that transmission local owner planning
9 PJM Third Round Regional Compliance Order,
150 FERC ¶ 61,038 at PP 34, 36–37. In addition,
PJM stated that the Subregional RTEP Committees
have served as an open stakeholder forum through
which transmission owners integrate their local
transmission planning under PJM’s open and
coordinated regional transmission planning process
for all transmission facilities below 230 kV. PJM
July 14, 2014 Third Round Regional Compliance
Filing, Docket No. ER13–198–004 at 4.
10 A Supplemental Project is a transmission
expansion or enhancement that is not required for
compliance with PJM’s criteria for system
reliability, operational performance or economic
criteria, pursuant to a determination by the Office
of the Interconnection. PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs,
Definitions (S–T), § 1.42A.02 (Supplemental
Project). PJM has also stated that the Supplemental
Project category of transmission projects was
created to allow PJM to evaluate local transmission
owner planning standards and criteria to determine
if local reinforcements are needed to optimally meet
the local transmission owner planning criteria and
to determine whether reinforcements may be
categorized as PJM RTEP baseline or as
Supplemental Projects. PJM Oct. 25, 2012 First
Order No. 1000 Regional Compliance Filing, Docket
No. ER12–198–000, at n.129.
11 ‘‘Subregional RTEP Project’’ shall mean a
transmission expansion or enhancement rated
below 230 kV which is required for compliance
with the following PJM criteria: System reliability,
operational performance or economic criteria,
pursuant to a determination by the Office of the
Interconnection. PJM Operating Agreement,
§ 1.42A.01 (Subregional RTEP Project).
12 PJM Operating Agreement, (Local Plan)
§ 1.18A.
13 Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15–
1387–001, at 5.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Nov 04, 2015
Jkt 238001
criteria and transmission plans are
presented at the Subregional RTEP
Committees and at the PJM
Transmission Expansion Advisory
Committee, but those presentations are
made as informational items and are not
presented for approval by those
committees.14 Dayton also stated that
the only relationship between local
transmission projects and the PJM
regional transmission planning process
is to inform PJM on what is being built
by the local transmission owner under
the transmission owner local planning
criteria in order to model flows and
assess system reliability. Dayton stated
therefore, that PJM does not select the
local transmission project as the most
cost-effective way to meet the
transmission owner local planning
criteria for cost allocation purposes, but
rather the project is proposed to PJM by
the local transmission owner. Dayton
stated it acknowledges that the local
transmission project is reviewed by
committees within PJM and ultimately
by the PJM Board, but stated that such
review is not for purposes of
determining whether the project is
needed regionally or provides some
regional reliability benefit.15
PJM Transmission Owners stated that
all transmission projects proposed and
considered in the PJM regional
transmission plan are not necessarily
selected for the purposes of regional
cost allocation and are included in the
RTEP to address various issues and
needs, some local and some regional.16
The PJM Transmission Owners stated
that local transmission projects are
included in the PJM regional
transmission plan only to ensure they
are considered in the overall PJM
planning process for purposes of
determining if the projects modify
power flows and create reliability
concerns, and whether the criteria
driving a local transmission project are
better addressed through a project that
is more regional in scope.17
Given the background provided
herein, participants should be prepared
to discuss the following:
1. The process through which local
transmission planning is conducted,
from the identification of transmission
needs through the selection of
transmission projects.
a. How do PJM and the PJM
Transmission Owners define the terms
14 Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15–
1387–001, at 2–3.
15 Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15–
1387–001, at 4 (emphasis in original).
16 PJM Transmission Owners Rehearing Request,
Docket No. ER15–1387–001, at 11–12.
17 PJM Transmission Owners Rehearing Request,
Docket No. ER15–1387–001, at 10.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
transmission owner local planning
criteria, local transmission need, and
local transmission project?
b. How and when are local
transmission needs identified? How and
when can stakeholders comment on the
identified local transmission needs?
c. How do the local transmission
planning and regional transmission
planning processes in PJM interact? Are
there two distinct, separate processes, or
are they one in the same? If there are
two separate processes, at what point
are the transmission owner local
planning criteria and/or transmission
project proposals to address those local
planning criteria incorporated into the
regional transmission planning process?
How does PJM decide which local
transmission needs are integrated into
the PJM regional transmission planning
process?
d. What is the relationship between
the transmission needs proposed in the
Subregional RTEP Committees’ Local
Plans with the transmission needs
incorporated into the regional
transmission planning process?
e. What method is used to disclose to
stakeholders the criteria, assumptions,
and data that underlie local
transmission planning? How and when
can stakeholders provide input and offer
suggested transmission projects to
address local transmission needs?
f. How and when do individual PJM
Transmission Owners identify
transmission projects meant to address
local transmission needs?
g. What analysis does PJM perform on
transmission projects proposed by PJM
Transmission Owners and proposed by
stakeholders to address local
transmission needs?
h. What is PJM’s role in developing,
evaluating, and selecting transmission
project proposals to address
transmission owner local planning
criteria? What are the PJM Transmission
Owners’ roles in developing, evaluating,
and selecting these proposals?
i. Is the process through which PJM
and the PJM Transmission Owners
develop, evaluate, and select
transmission project proposals to
address transmission owner local
planning criteria different from the
process through which they develop,
evaluate, and select transmission project
proposals to address NERC or Regional
Entity reliability standards?
j. What defined categories of
transmission facilities are currently
included in a PJM RTEP? Are there any
defined categories of transmission
projects currently included in the PJM
RTEP that PJM does not consider to be
selected in the regional transmission
plan for purposes of cost allocation? If
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices
so, are these transmission projects
eligible to use PJM’s regional cost
allocation method?
2. The process through which
Supplemental Projects become
transmission projects eligible for
selection in the regional transmission
plan for purposes of cost allocation.
a. If a Supplemental Project is
transitioned into a Required
Transmission Enhancement that is
eligible for regional cost allocation in
PJM’s RTEP, does it undergo the same
analysis as a transmission project first
proposed as a Subregional RTEP
Project?
b. How are Supplemental Projects
distinguished from transmission
projects that address transmission
owner local planning criteria?
3. The proposal window process for
transmission project proposals intended
to address transmission owner local
planning criteria.
a. Except for Immediate-need
Reliability Projects, does PJM currently
open proposal windows for all
transmission needs identified in its
regional transmission planning process,
including those needs that arise as a
result of local transmission needs and
transmission owner local planning
criteria?
b. If PJM does not currently open
proposal windows for all transmission
needs identified in PJM’s regional
transmission planning process, how
does PJM determine whether to open a
proposal window for a given
transmission need?
c. If a PJM Transmission Owner
proposes an upgrade to its existing
transmission facilities to address a local
transmission need, does PJM open a
proposal window to solicit other
possible solutions to address the local
transmission need that would be
addressed by the upgrade?
d. If a PJM Transmission Owner
proposes a new 500 kV transmission
facility to address a local transmission
need, does PJM currently open a
proposal window to solicit other
possible solutions to address the local
transmission need that would be
addressed by PJM Transmission
Owner’s proposed new 500 kV
transmission facility?
The technical conference will be led
by Commission staff, and is open to the
public. Pre-registration through the
Commission’s Web site (https://
www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/
11-10-15-form.asp) is encouraged but
not required. The conference will
include discussions responding to
Commission staff’s questions led by PJM
and the PJM Transmission Owners, with
opportunity for questions and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Nov 04, 2015
Jkt 238001
comments during those discussions for
participating parties. The specific
agenda and procedures to be followed at
the conference will be announced by
staff at the opening of the conference.
The technical conference will not be
transcribed. However, there will be a
free audio cast of the conference.
Anyone wishing to listen to the meeting
should send an email to Sarah McKinley
at sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov by
November 3, 2015, to request call-in
information. Please reference ‘‘call
information for ER15–1344/1387
technical conference’’ in the subject line
of the email. The call-in information
will be provided prior to the meeting.
Persons listening to the technical
conference may participate by
submitting questions, either prior to or
during the technical conference, by
emailing RTEPconference@ferc.gov.
Commission conferences are
accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For
accessibility accommodations please
send an email to accessibility@ferc.gov
or call toll free 1–866–208–3372 (voice)
or 202–502–8659 (TTY); or send a fax to
202–208–2106 with the required
accommodations.
Following the technical conference,
the Commission will consider posttechnical conference comments
submitted on or before December 10,
2015. Reply comments will be due on or
before January 7, 2016. The written
comments will be included in the
formal record of the proceeding, which,
together with the record developed to
date, will form the basis for further
Commission action.
For more information about this
technical conference, please contact
Katherine Scott, 202–502–6495,
katherine.scott@ferc.gov, regarding
Docket Nos. ER15–1344–001 and ER15–
1344–002; Nicole Buell, 202–502–6846,
nicole.buell@ferc.gov, regarding Docket
No. ER15–1387–001; or Sarah
McKinley, 202–502–8368,
sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov, regarding
logistical issues.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–28157 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Combined Notice of Filings #1
Take notice that the Commission
received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68531
Docket Numbers: EG16–14–000.
Applicants: Utah Red Hills Renewable
Park, LLC.
Description: Notice of SelfCertification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Utah Red Hills
Renewable Park, LLC.
Filed Date: 10/29/15.
Accession Number: 20151029–5259.
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/19/15.
Take notice that the Commission
received the following electric rate
filings:
Docket Numbers: ER15–1883–001;
ER15–1418–001; ER10–1836–008;
ER10–2005–008; ER11–26–008; ER10–
1838–008; ER10–2551–007; ER10–1915–
007; ER12–569–009; ER15–1925–001;
ER10–1841–008; ER13–712–009; ER10–
1843–008; ER10–1844–008; ER10–1845–
008; ER10–1846–007; ER13–1991–005;
ER13–1992–005; ER10–1847–007;
ER10–1849–008; ER11–2037–008;
ER13–752–007; ER12–2227–008; ER10–
1851–006; ER10–1852–012; ER10–1855–
007; ER10–1856–007; ER10–1857–007;
ER10–1887–008; ER10–1890–007;
ER10–1897–008; ER10–1899–008;
ER10–1902–008; ER10–1903–008;
ER11–2160–007; ER10–1905–008;
ER10–1906–006; ER10–1907–008;
ER10–1918–008; ER10–1920–010;
ER10–1925–008; ER10–1927–008;
ER10–1928–010; ER11–2642–008;
ER10–1930–006; ER10–1931–007;
ER10–1932–007; ER10–1935–007;
ER10–1950–008; ER13–2112–003;
ER15–2101–002; ER10–1952–008;
ER15–2601–001; ER11–3635–007;
ER10–2006–009; ER10–1961–008;
ER12–1228–010; ER10–1962–007;
ER10–1963–007; ER10–1964–008;
ER10–1965–008; ER12–2226–006;
ER12–2225–006; ER14–2138–003;
ER10–1966–007; ER14–2707–005.
Applicants: Adelanto Solar, LLC,
Adelanto Solar II, LLC, Ashtabula Wind,
LLC, Ashtabula Wind II, LLC, Ashtabula
Wind III, LLC, Backbone Mountain
Windpower LLC, Baldwin Wind, LLC,
Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC,
Blackwell Wind, LLC, Breckinridge
Wind Project, LLC, Butler Ridge Wind
Energy Center, LLC, Cimarron Wind
Energy, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind, LLC,
Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC, Crystal Lake
Wind III, LLC, Day County Wind, LLC,
Desert Sunlight 250, LLC, Desert
Sunlight 300, LLC, Diablo Winds, LLC,
Elk City Wind, LLC, Elk City II Wind,
LLC, Energy Storage Holdings, LLC,
Ensign Wind, LLC, ESI Vansycle
Partners, L.P., Florida Power & Light
Company, FPL Energy Burleigh County
Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Cabazon Wind,
LLC, FPL Energy Cape, LLC, FPL Energy
Cowboy Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Green
Power Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Hancock
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68529-68531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28157]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference
October 29, 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............. ER15-1344-001,
ER15-1344-002
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............. ER15-1387-001
Potomac Electric Power Company.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on
October 8, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Staff will
hold a technical conference on November 12, 2015, at the Commission's
headquarters at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 between
10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The purpose of the technical
conference is to understand PJM's application of its Order No. 1000-
compliant \1\ transmission planning process to local transmission
facilities, including, but not limited to, the process PJM and the PJM
Transmission Owners use to identify local transmission needs and to
solicit proposed solutions to identified local transmission needs (such
as opening proposal windows),\2\ and the process PJM uses to determine
whether a transmission solution to an identified local transmission
need should be selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes
of cost allocation as the more efficient or cost-effective transmission
solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission
Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,323 (2011), order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ]
61,132, order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-B, 141 FERC ] 61,044 (2012),
aff'd sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir.
2014).
\2\ As discussed in the order establishing the technical
conference, Dominion Resources Services' revisions to its individual
transmission planning criteria will not be discussed at the
technical conference. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 152 FERC ]
61,197, at P15 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's orders on PJM's compliance with the local
transmission planning requirements of both Order No. 890 \3\ and Order
No. 1000 and the issue of how PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners
conduct local transmission planning will serve to frame this
conference. Participants should review and be prepared to discuss the
issue of local transmission planning in the context of these previous
orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241,
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261
(2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008),
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ] 61,228 (2009), order on
clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ] 61,126 (2009).
\4\ See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 123 FERC ] 61,163, at PP
121-143 (2008); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 127 FERC ] 61,166, at
PP 21-31 (2009); and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 130 FERC ] 61,167,
at PP 10-16 (2010) (addressing the local transmission planning
requirements of Order No. 890) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 142
FERC ] 61,214, at PP 121-123 (2013); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,
147 FERC ] 61,128, at PP 72-83 (2014); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,
150 FERC ] 61,038, at PP 18-46 (2015); and PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C., 151 FERC ] 61,250, at PP 12-22 (2015) (addressing the local
transmission planning requirements of Order No. 1000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Order No. 1000 compliance proceedings, PJM stated that
individual PJM Transmission Owners do not conduct separate local
transmission planning and that local transmission and regional
transmission planning are fully integrated in PJM's regional
transmission planning process.\5\ PJM also stated that, ``through its
established regional transmission planning process that fully merges
local and regional planning, PJM evaluates both local and regional
planning criteria.'' \6\ PJM explained that transmission owners in the
PJM region bring their current local planning information, including
all criteria, assumptions, and models used, to the Subregional RTEP
Committees,\7\ where it is reviewed by the Subregional RTEP Committees
to develop and finalize Local Plans that are coordinated with the PJM
regional transmission planning process.\8\ PJM stated that Local Plans
are a product of the Subregional
[[Page 68530]]
RTEP Committees rather than independently existing local plans
presented by the transmission owner to the Subregional RTEP Committees
for review. Also, PJM explained that it is the Subregional RTEP
Committees, rather than an individual transmission owner, that
incorporates feedback into the Local Plan.\9\ In addition, PJM stated,
Local Plans that the Subregional RTEP Committees develop include
Supplemental Projects \10\ as identified by the PJM Transmission Owners
within their zones, and Subregional RTEP Projects \11\ developed to
comply with all applicable reliability criteria, including the local
transmission owners planning criteria, or based on market efficiency
analysis and in consideration of Public Policy Requirements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 147 FERC ] 61,128,
at P 73 (2014) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 150 FERC ] 61,038,
at P 34 (2015).
\6\ PJM July 22, 2013 Second Round Order No. 1000 Regional
Compliance Filing Docket No. ER13-198-002, at 17 (emphasis in
original). See also Operating Agreement, Schedule 6, Sec. 1.2(e)
(``The Regional Transmission Expansion Plan planning criteria shall
include, Office of the Interconnection planning procedures, NERC
Reliability Standards, Regional Entity reliability principles and
standards, and the individual Transmission Owner FERC filed planning
criteria as filed in FERC Form No. 715.'').
\7\ See PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, Operating Agreement, Schedule 6,
Sec. 1.3 (e) (Establishment of Committees).
\8\ PJM July 14, 2014 Third Round Regional Compliance Filing,
Docket No. ER13-198-004 at 4 and PJM Third Round Regional Compliance
Order, 150 FERC ] 61,038 at P 20.
\9\ PJM Third Round Regional Compliance Order, 150 FERC ] 61,038
at PP 34, 36-37. In addition, PJM stated that the Subregional RTEP
Committees have served as an open stakeholder forum through which
transmission owners integrate their local transmission planning
under PJM's open and coordinated regional transmission planning
process for all transmission facilities below 230 kV. PJM July 14,
2014 Third Round Regional Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER13-198-004
at 4.
\10\ A Supplemental Project is a transmission expansion or
enhancement that is not required for compliance with PJM's criteria
for system reliability, operational performance or economic
criteria, pursuant to a determination by the Office of the
Interconnection. PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, Definitions (S-T), Sec.
1.42A.02 (Supplemental Project). PJM has also stated that the
Supplemental Project category of transmission projects was created
to allow PJM to evaluate local transmission owner planning standards
and criteria to determine if local reinforcements are needed to
optimally meet the local transmission owner planning criteria and to
determine whether reinforcements may be categorized as PJM RTEP
baseline or as Supplemental Projects. PJM Oct. 25, 2012 First Order
No. 1000 Regional Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER12-198-000, at
n.129.
\11\ ``Subregional RTEP Project'' shall mean a transmission
expansion or enhancement rated below 230 kV which is required for
compliance with the following PJM criteria: System reliability,
operational performance or economic criteria, pursuant to a
determination by the Office of the Interconnection. PJM Operating
Agreement, Sec. 1.42A.01 (Subregional RTEP Project).
\12\ PJM Operating Agreement, (Local Plan) Sec. 1.18A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton) and the PJM Transmission
Owners also addressed the PJM local transmission planning process in
their rehearing requests submitted in Docket No. ER15-1387-001
proceeding. Dayton stated that local transmission projects are included
as part of PJM's annual regional transmission planning process, but not
because PJM has had any significant role in their design or planning,
as local transmission projects are designed and developed by the local
transmission owner.\13\ Dayton stated that transmission local owner
planning criteria and transmission plans are presented at the
Subregional RTEP Committees and at the PJM Transmission Expansion
Advisory Committee, but those presentations are made as informational
items and are not presented for approval by those committees.\14\
Dayton also stated that the only relationship between local
transmission projects and the PJM regional transmission planning
process is to inform PJM on what is being built by the local
transmission owner under the transmission owner local planning criteria
in order to model flows and assess system reliability. Dayton stated
therefore, that PJM does not select the local transmission project as
the most cost-effective way to meet the transmission owner local
planning criteria for cost allocation purposes, but rather the project
is proposed to PJM by the local transmission owner. Dayton stated it
acknowledges that the local transmission project is reviewed by
committees within PJM and ultimately by the PJM Board, but stated that
such review is not for purposes of determining whether the project is
needed regionally or provides some regional reliability benefit.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 5.
\14\ Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 2-3.
\15\ Dayton Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-1387-001, at 4
(emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJM Transmission Owners stated that all transmission projects
proposed and considered in the PJM regional transmission plan are not
necessarily selected for the purposes of regional cost allocation and
are included in the RTEP to address various issues and needs, some
local and some regional.\16\ The PJM Transmission Owners stated that
local transmission projects are included in the PJM regional
transmission plan only to ensure they are considered in the overall PJM
planning process for purposes of determining if the projects modify
power flows and create reliability concerns, and whether the criteria
driving a local transmission project are better addressed through a
project that is more regional in scope.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ PJM Transmission Owners Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-
1387-001, at 11-12.
\17\ PJM Transmission Owners Rehearing Request, Docket No. ER15-
1387-001, at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the background provided herein, participants should be
prepared to discuss the following:
1. The process through which local transmission planning is
conducted, from the identification of transmission needs through the
selection of transmission projects.
a. How do PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners define the terms
transmission owner local planning criteria, local transmission need,
and local transmission project?
b. How and when are local transmission needs identified? How and
when can stakeholders comment on the identified local transmission
needs?
c. How do the local transmission planning and regional transmission
planning processes in PJM interact? Are there two distinct, separate
processes, or are they one in the same? If there are two separate
processes, at what point are the transmission owner local planning
criteria and/or transmission project proposals to address those local
planning criteria incorporated into the regional transmission planning
process? How does PJM decide which local transmission needs are
integrated into the PJM regional transmission planning process?
d. What is the relationship between the transmission needs proposed
in the Subregional RTEP Committees' Local Plans with the transmission
needs incorporated into the regional transmission planning process?
e. What method is used to disclose to stakeholders the criteria,
assumptions, and data that underlie local transmission planning? How
and when can stakeholders provide input and offer suggested
transmission projects to address local transmission needs?
f. How and when do individual PJM Transmission Owners identify
transmission projects meant to address local transmission needs?
g. What analysis does PJM perform on transmission projects proposed
by PJM Transmission Owners and proposed by stakeholders to address
local transmission needs?
h. What is PJM's role in developing, evaluating, and selecting
transmission project proposals to address transmission owner local
planning criteria? What are the PJM Transmission Owners' roles in
developing, evaluating, and selecting these proposals?
i. Is the process through which PJM and the PJM Transmission Owners
develop, evaluate, and select transmission project proposals to address
transmission owner local planning criteria different from the process
through which they develop, evaluate, and select transmission project
proposals to address NERC or Regional Entity reliability standards?
j. What defined categories of transmission facilities are currently
included in a PJM RTEP? Are there any defined categories of
transmission projects currently included in the PJM RTEP that PJM does
not consider to be selected in the regional transmission plan for
purposes of cost allocation? If
[[Page 68531]]
so, are these transmission projects eligible to use PJM's regional cost
allocation method?
2. The process through which Supplemental Projects become
transmission projects eligible for selection in the regional
transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation.
a. If a Supplemental Project is transitioned into a Required
Transmission Enhancement that is eligible for regional cost allocation
in PJM's RTEP, does it undergo the same analysis as a transmission
project first proposed as a Subregional RTEP Project?
b. How are Supplemental Projects distinguished from transmission
projects that address transmission owner local planning criteria?
3. The proposal window process for transmission project proposals
intended to address transmission owner local planning criteria.
a. Except for Immediate-need Reliability Projects, does PJM
currently open proposal windows for all transmission needs identified
in its regional transmission planning process, including those needs
that arise as a result of local transmission needs and transmission
owner local planning criteria?
b. If PJM does not currently open proposal windows for all
transmission needs identified in PJM's regional transmission planning
process, how does PJM determine whether to open a proposal window for a
given transmission need?
c. If a PJM Transmission Owner proposes an upgrade to its existing
transmission facilities to address a local transmission need, does PJM
open a proposal window to solicit other possible solutions to address
the local transmission need that would be addressed by the upgrade?
d. If a PJM Transmission Owner proposes a new 500 kV transmission
facility to address a local transmission need, does PJM currently open
a proposal window to solicit other possible solutions to address the
local transmission need that would be addressed by PJM Transmission
Owner's proposed new 500 kV transmission facility?
The technical conference will be led by Commission staff, and is
open to the public. Pre-registration through the Commission's Web site
(https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/11-10-15-form.asp) is
encouraged but not required. The conference will include discussions
responding to Commission staff's questions led by PJM and the PJM
Transmission Owners, with opportunity for questions and comments during
those discussions for participating parties. The specific agenda and
procedures to be followed at the conference will be announced by staff
at the opening of the conference.
The technical conference will not be transcribed. However, there
will be a free audio cast of the conference. Anyone wishing to listen
to the meeting should send an email to Sarah McKinley at
sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov by November 3, 2015, to request call-in
information. Please reference ``call information for ER15-1344/1387
technical conference'' in the subject line of the email. The call-in
information will be provided prior to the meeting. Persons listening to
the technical conference may participate by submitting questions,
either prior to or during the technical conference, by emailing
RTEPconference@ferc.gov.
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to accessibility@ferc.gov or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY); or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with
the required accommodations.
Following the technical conference, the Commission will consider
post-technical conference comments submitted on or before December 10,
2015. Reply comments will be due on or before January 7, 2016. The
written comments will be included in the formal record of the
proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will
form the basis for further Commission action.
For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Katherine Scott, 202-502-6495, katherine.scott@ferc.gov,
regarding Docket Nos. ER15-1344-001 and ER15-1344-002; Nicole Buell,
202-502-6846, nicole.buell@ferc.gov, regarding Docket No. ER15-1387-
001; or Sarah McKinley, 202-502-8368, sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov,
regarding logistical issues.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28157 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P