Justia Department Of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference; Transmission Planning Within the California Independent System Operator Corporation; California Public Utilities Commission, Northern California Power Agency, City and County of San Francisco, State Water Contractors, Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, 16845-16847 [2018-07923]

Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference; Transmission Planning Within the California Independent System Operator Corporation; California Public Utilities Commission, Northern California Power Agency, City and County of San Francisco, State Water Contractors, Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, 16845-16847 [2018-07923]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2018 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD18–12–000; Docket No. EL17–45–000; Docket No. ER18–370–000] Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference; Transmission Planning Within the California Independent System Operator Corporation; California Public Utilities Commission, Northern California Power Agency, City and County of San Francisco, State Water Contractors, Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on March 23, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff will hold a technical conference on May 1, 2018, at the Commission’s headquarters at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The purpose of the technical conference is to explore the processes used by participating transmission owners (PTOs) in the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) to determine which transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/ facilities, including, but not limited to, transmission-related capital additions, are subject to the CAISO Transmission Planning Process (TPP).1 In Order No. 890, the Commission required all public utility transmission providers, including regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs), to revise their open access transmission tariffs (OATTs) to incorporate a transmission planning process that satisfied nine transmission planning principles to limit the opportunities for undue discrimination and anticompetitive conduct in transmission service.2 In Order No. 890–A, the 1 Commission staff is using ‘‘transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities’’ as a term intended to encompass the activities, facilities, and/or projects at issue in the proceedings included in this notice. The Parties in these proceedings do not use a common definition or phrase that is set out in any tariff or business practice manual (BPM). Staff’s intent for the technical conference is to include a broad category of transmission-related activities and facilities. This includes any work on the transmission system, including, but not limited to, transmission-related maintenance, repair, replacement, or compliance activities and associated facilities, as well as transmission-related capital additions. 2 Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 at PP 426, 435; see Order No. 890–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 at P 171. These transmission planning principles are: (1) Coordination; (2) VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Apr 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 Commission noted that each RTO and ISO may fulfill its obligations under Order No. 890 by delegating certain planning activities to, or otherwise relying on, its transmission owning members, provided that the rights and responsibilities of all parties are clearly stated in the RTO’s/ISO’s OATT.3 The Commission also explained that, in many cases, RTO/ISO transmission planning processes may focus principally on regional problems and solutions, while local planning issues may be addressed by individual transmission owners.4 Noting that these local transmission planning issues may be critically important to transmission customers, the Commission stated that transmission owners must, to the extent that they perform transmission planning within an RTO or ISO, comply with Order No. 890 as well.5 In a series of orders issued between 2008 and 2010, the Commission accepted CAISO’s TPP as consistent with the requirements of Order No. 890.6 As is relevant here, in an order issued on May 21, 2009, the Commission found that ‘‘the local planning activities conducted by the participating transmission owners [in CAISO] are reasonable and the process, as set forth in the [CAISO] tariff and business practice manual, is transparent.’’ 7 However, more recently, a number of interested parties have raised concerns regarding the lack of opportunity for stakeholder review of transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities, including, but not limited to, certain transmission-related capital additions, which CAISO PTOs do not submit to CAISO’s TPP.8 openness; (3) transparency; (4) information exchange; (5) comparability; (6) dispute resolution; (7) regional participation; (8) economic planning studies; and (9) cost allocation for new projects. 3 Order No. 890–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 at P 175. 4 Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 at P 440. 5 Id. 6 See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 123 FERC ¶ 61,283 (2008), order denying reh’g and on compliance filing, 127 FERC ¶ 61,172 (2009), order on compliance filing, 130 FERC ¶ 61,048 (2010). 7 Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 127 FERC ¶ 61,172 at P 118. 8 See, e.g., Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, et al. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., Complaint, Docket No. EL17–45–000 (filed Feb. 2, 2017) (asserting that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is in violation of Order No. 890 because it conducts more than 80 percent of its transmission planning on an internal basis without stakeholder review); Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n Dec. 22, 2017 Protest, Docket No. ER18– 370–000 (protesting Southern California Edison Co.’s filing of an amendment to its Transmission Owner Tariff to create an annual Transmission Maintenance and Compliance Review process on the basis that the proposed process does not meet the requirements of Order No. 890). PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16845 In an order issued March 23, 2018 in Docket No. ER18–370–000,9 the Commission found that protesters in that proceeding raised important questions that relate to the processes by which all CAISO PTOs 10 determine which transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities, including, but not limited to, transmission-related capital additions, must be submitted to CAISO’s TPP.11 In that order, the Commission directed Commission staff to convene a technical conference to explore these issues. Given the background provided herein, participants should be prepared to discuss the following: 1. Please define and describe what constitutes transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/ facilities. Please provide specific examples and an explanation regarding how it is determined that such an example falls into the category of transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities. How does each CAISO PTO identify the need for transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities and decide which activities/facilities to undertake? 2. How does each CASIO PTO determine if actions taken to maintain, repair, or replace facilities should be considered and reviewed through CAISO’s TPP? Which transmissionrelated maintenance and compliance activities/facilities are submitted for consideration and review through CAISO’s TPP and which activities or transmission facilities are considered and reviewed solely by PTOs? Please explain. 3. Are there criteria or parameters that each CAISO PTO uses to determine which transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/ facilities to submit to CAISO for consideration and review through CAISO’s TPP? What factors are considered (e.g., cost, voltage level, length, rating)? Please explain. 4. Do CAISO’s tariff or BPMs provide guidance and clarity to CAISO PTOs regarding what transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/ facilities must be considered and reviewed through CAISO’s TPP? If so, please list the relevant sections. 9 S. Cal. Edison, 162 FERC ¶ 61,264 (2018). the concerns protesters raised in Docket No. ER18–370–000 relate specifically to SoCal Edison, the Commission found that the questions raised were also applicable to the processes that other CAISO PTOs use to identify which transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities must be submitted to CAISO’s TPP. Id. P 24. 11 Id. P 23. 10 Although E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM 17APN1 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES 16846 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2018 / Notices 5. For transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/ facilities that may enhance the transmission system (such as additions that increase line ratings or extend the useful life of a transmission asset), how does each CAISO PTO determine whether this maintenance or compliance activity/facility should be considered and reviewed as part of CAISO’s TPP? Where are the criteria or parameters related to this determination documented or otherwise made available? 6. When deciding whether to submit a transmission-related maintenance and compliance activity/facility for consideration and review through CAISO’s TPP, does each CAISO PTO differentiate between transmissionrelated maintenance and compliance activities/facilities that require immediate action (e.g., non-functioning transmission infrastructure) and those that do not require immediate action and may be addressed over a longer timeframe? Please explain how this differentiation is decided. Are there criteria or parameters used by the CAISO PTO to make this differentiation? If so, where are such criteria or parameters documented or otherwise made available? 7. Is there a process through which each CAISO PTO evaluates whether a transmission-related maintenance and compliance activity/facility that was not initially submitted to CAISO’s TPP should be transitioned into the CAISO TPP for consideration and review? If so, please describe that process, including what criteria or parameters are considered in reaching the conclusion to transition to CAISO’s TPP. Also, please explain where such criteria or parameters are documented or otherwise made available. 8. What information does each CAISO PTO submit to CAISO (during Phase I of the TPP) concerning the transmissionrelated maintenance and compliance activities/facilities planned outside of CAISO’s TPP? Please explain what type of information is provided and what level of detail is included. 9. What is the process through which each CAISO PTO performs transmission planning activities outside of CAISO’s TPP? Please describe that process in detail. 10. Are there processes for stakeholders to review and provide input on transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/ facilities, including transmission-related capital additions, not included in CAISO’s TPP? If so, please describe these processes in detail, including whether there is an opportunity for VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Apr 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 stakeholders to review and provide input on cost and other factors. Please also describe the timeframe for providing this input. 11. How does each CAISO PTO decide whether to pursue reliabilityrelated transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/ facilities that are not required by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), or other regulatory entities? What criteria or parameters are used by each CAISO PTO to make this decision? Where are such criteria or parameters documented or otherwise made available? 12. Is there a difference between (a) the process through which each CAISO PTO pursues solutions to transmissionrelated maintenance and compliance activities/facilities that arise from NERC and WECC reliability standards or reliability standards established by other regulatory entities, and (b) the process through which each CAISO PTO pursues solutions to other transmissionrelated maintenance and compliance activities/facilities? If so, please explain (1) the difference between the two processes and (2) elaborate on the reasons for the differences. 13. Please explain how costs associated with transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/ facilities developed outside of the CAISO TPP are reflected in wholesale and retail transmission rates. 14. How does each CAISO PTO determine whether transmission-related maintenance, repair, or replacement activities/facilities should be capitalized or expensed as operations and maintenance costs? Please explain. 15. What recommendations do you have for each CAISO PTO to increase the transparency of the process for stakeholders and others with respect to the CAISO PTOs’ planning for transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities? How would these recommendations affect the CAISO PTOs? Would such effects be manageable? If not, why not? If changes to increase transparency could be made, should they be the same for each CAISO PTO? The technical conference will be led by Commission staff, and is open to the public. All interested persons may attend the conference, and registration is not required. However, in-person attendees are encouraged to register online by April 20, 2018 at https:// www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/ 05-01-18-form.asp. This event will NOT be webcast. However, for those who cannot attend in person, we will provide a listen-only telephone line, if PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 requested. Those wishing this service should register at the link provided and specify the telephone line option. The conference will consist of questions posed by Commission staff and responses provided by CAISO, the CAISO PTOs, and complainants. There may also be an opportunity for followup questions and comments from attendees during those discussions. 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 be transcribed, and the transcript will be available immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting Company ((202) 347–3700). 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 (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, all interested persons are invited to file initial and reply post-technical conference comments on the topics discussed during the technical conference, including the questions listed above. Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket, including the technical conference transcript, but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material. Initial comments are due on or before May 31, 2018; reply comments are due on or before June 15, 2018. Initial comments should not exceed 15 pages, and reply comments should not exceed 10 pages. 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 Further Information, Please Contact Individuals Identified for Each Topic: Technical Information: Laura Switzer, Office of Energy Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 6231, laura.switzer@ferc.gov Legal Information for Docket Nos. AD18–12–000 and EL17–45–000: Linda Kizuka, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 8773, linda.kizuka@ferc.gov Legal Information for Docket Nos. AD18–12–000 and ER18–370–000: Susanna Ehrlich, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM 17APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2018 / Notices Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 6260, susanna.ehrlich@ferc.gov Logistical Information: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8368, sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov. Dated: April 10, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018–07923 Filed 4–16–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Dated: April 11, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. Combined Notice of Filings [FR Doc. 2018–07998 Filed 4–16–18; 8:45 am] Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Filings Instituting Proceedings Docket Numbers: RP18–228–001. Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC Description: Compliance filing Compliance to RP18–228 Monthly FL&U Postings to be effective 4/19/2018. Filed Date: 4/10/18. Accession Number: 20180410–5148. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18. Docket Numbers: RP18–694–000. Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.. Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Errata to RP18–228, Seneca Lateral to be effective 4/19/2018. Filed Date: 4/10/18. Accession Number: 20180410–5151. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/16/18. Docket Numbers: RP18–695–000. Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company. Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: NonConforming—Dalton (Cartersville, GA) to be effective 6/1/2018. Filed Date: 4/10/18. Accession Number: 20180410–5199. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18. Docket Numbers: RP18–696–000. Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Update Filing (TGS Apr 18) to be effective 4/11/2018. Filed Date: 4/10/18. Accession Number: 20180410–5221. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18. The filings are accessible in the Commission’s eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Apr 16, 2018 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. Jkt 244001 BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 16847 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 website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 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 May 7, 2018. Dated: April 10, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018–07927 Filed 4–16–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR18–20–000] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; Marathon Pipe Line LLC, MPLX Ozark Pipe Line LLC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Take notice that on April 6, 2018, 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) (2017), Marathon Pipe Line LLC and MPLX Ozark Pipe Line LLC filed a joint petition for a declaratory order seeking approval of certain terms and conditions in the transportation services agreement, related to a joint expansion project, all 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. Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Empire Pipeline, Inc. Empire North Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 [Docket No. CP18–89–000] The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Empire North Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Empire Pipeline, Inc. (Empire) in Tioga County, Pennsylvania and in Ontario, Yates, Schuyler, Chemung, and Steuben Counties, New York. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM 17APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16845-16847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07923]



[[Page 16845]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD18-12-000; Docket No. EL17-45-000; Docket No. ER18-370-
000]


Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference; Transmission 
Planning Within the California Independent System Operator Corporation; 
California Public Utilities Commission, Northern California Power 
Agency, City and County of San Francisco, State Water Contractors, 
Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company, Southern California Edison Company

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on March 
23, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff will hold a 
technical conference on May 1, 2018, at the Commission's headquarters 
at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, between 9:00 a.m. and 
4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). The purpose of the technical conference is to 
explore the processes used by participating transmission owners (PTOs) 
in the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) to 
determine which transmission-related maintenance and compliance 
activities/facilities, including, but not limited to, transmission-
related capital additions, are subject to the CAISO Transmission 
Planning Process (TPP).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commission staff is using ``transmission-related maintenance 
and compliance activities/facilities'' as a term intended to 
encompass the activities, facilities, and/or projects at issue in 
the proceedings included in this notice. The Parties in these 
proceedings do not use a common definition or phrase that is set out 
in any tariff or business practice manual (BPM). Staff's intent for 
the technical conference is to include a broad category of 
transmission-related activities and facilities. This includes any 
work on the transmission system, including, but not limited to, 
transmission-related maintenance, repair, replacement, or compliance 
activities and associated facilities, as well as transmission-
related capital additions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Order No. 890, the Commission required all public utility 
transmission providers, including regional transmission organizations 
(RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs), to revise their open 
access transmission tariffs (OATTs) to incorporate a transmission 
planning process that satisfied nine transmission planning principles 
to limit the opportunities for undue discrimination and anticompetitive 
conduct in transmission service.\2\ In Order No. 890-A, the Commission 
noted that each RTO and ISO may fulfill its obligations under Order No. 
890 by delegating certain planning activities to, or otherwise relying 
on, its transmission owning members, provided that the rights and 
responsibilities of all parties are clearly stated in the RTO's/ISO's 
OATT.\3\ The Commission also explained that, in many cases, RTO/ISO 
transmission planning processes may focus principally on regional 
problems and solutions, while local planning issues may be addressed by 
individual transmission owners.\4\ Noting that these local transmission 
planning issues may be critically important to transmission customers, 
the Commission stated that transmission owners must, to the extent that 
they perform transmission planning within an RTO or ISO, comply with 
Order No. 890 as well.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241 at PP 426, 435; 
see Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261 at P 171. These 
transmission planning principles are: (1) Coordination; (2) 
openness; (3) transparency; (4) information exchange; (5) 
comparability; (6) dispute resolution; (7) regional participation; 
(8) economic planning studies; and (9) cost allocation for new 
projects.
    \3\ Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261 at P 175.
    \4\ Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241 at P 440.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a series of orders issued between 2008 and 2010, the Commission 
accepted CAISO's TPP as consistent with the requirements of Order No. 
890.\6\ As is relevant here, in an order issued on May 21, 2009, the 
Commission found that ``the local planning activities conducted by the 
participating transmission owners [in CAISO] are reasonable and the 
process, as set forth in the [CAISO] tariff and business practice 
manual, is transparent.'' \7\ However, more recently, a number of 
interested parties have raised concerns regarding the lack of 
opportunity for stakeholder review of transmission-related maintenance 
and compliance activities, including, but not limited to, certain 
transmission-related capital additions, which CAISO PTOs do not submit 
to CAISO's TPP.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 123 FERC ] 61,283 
(2008), order denying reh'g and on compliance filing, 127 FERC ] 
61,172 (2009), order on compliance filing, 130 FERC ] 61,048 (2010).
    \7\ Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 127 FERC ] 61,172 at P 118.
    \8\ See, e.g., Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, et al. v. Pacific Gas & 
Elec. Co., Complaint, Docket No. EL17-45-000 (filed Feb. 2, 2017) 
(asserting that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is in violation of Order 
No. 890 because it conducts more than 80 percent of its transmission 
planning on an internal basis without stakeholder review); Cal. Pub. 
Utils. Comm'n Dec. 22, 2017 Protest, Docket No. ER18-370-000 
(protesting Southern California Edison Co.'s filing of an amendment 
to its Transmission Owner Tariff to create an annual Transmission 
Maintenance and Compliance Review process on the basis that the 
proposed process does not meet the requirements of Order No. 890).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an order issued March 23, 2018 in Docket No. ER18-370-000,\9\ 
the Commission found that protesters in that proceeding raised 
important questions that relate to the processes by which all CAISO 
PTOs \10\ determine which transmission-related maintenance and 
compliance activities, including, but not limited to, transmission-
related capital additions, must be submitted to CAISO's TPP.\11\ In 
that order, the Commission directed Commission staff to convene a 
technical conference to explore these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ S. Cal. Edison, 162 FERC ] 61,264 (2018).
    \10\ Although the concerns protesters raised in Docket No. ER18-
370-000 relate specifically to SoCal Edison, the Commission found 
that the questions raised were also applicable to the processes that 
other CAISO PTOs use to identify which transmission-related 
maintenance and compliance activities/facilities must be submitted 
to CAISO's TPP. Id. P 24.
    \11\ Id. P 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the background provided herein, participants should be 
prepared to discuss the following:
    1. Please define and describe what constitutes transmission-related 
maintenance and compliance activities/facilities. Please provide 
specific examples and an explanation regarding how it is determined 
that such an example falls into the category of transmission-related 
maintenance and compliance activities/facilities. How does each CAISO 
PTO identify the need for transmission-related maintenance and 
compliance activities/facilities and decide which activities/facilities 
to undertake?
    2. How does each CASIO PTO determine if actions taken to maintain, 
repair, or replace facilities should be considered and reviewed through 
CAISO's TPP? Which transmission-related maintenance and compliance 
activities/facilities are submitted for consideration and review 
through CAISO's TPP and which activities or transmission facilities are 
considered and reviewed solely by PTOs? Please explain.
    3. Are there criteria or parameters that each CAISO PTO uses to 
determine which transmission-related maintenance and compliance 
activities/facilities to submit to CAISO for consideration and review 
through CAISO's TPP? What factors are considered (e.g., cost, voltage 
level, length, rating)? Please explain.
    4. Do CAISO's tariff or BPMs provide guidance and clarity to CAISO 
PTOs regarding what transmission-related maintenance and compliance 
activities/facilities must be considered and reviewed through CAISO's 
TPP? If so, please list the relevant sections.

[[Page 16846]]

    5. For transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/
facilities that may enhance the transmission system (such as additions 
that increase line ratings or extend the useful life of a transmission 
asset), how does each CAISO PTO determine whether this maintenance or 
compliance activity/facility should be considered and reviewed as part 
of CAISO's TPP? Where are the criteria or parameters related to this 
determination documented or otherwise made available?
    6. When deciding whether to submit a transmission-related 
maintenance and compliance activity/facility for consideration and 
review through CAISO's TPP, does each CAISO PTO differentiate between 
transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities 
that require immediate action (e.g., non-functioning transmission 
infrastructure) and those that do not require immediate action and may 
be addressed over a longer timeframe? Please explain how this 
differentiation is decided. Are there criteria or parameters used by 
the CAISO PTO to make this differentiation? If so, where are such 
criteria or parameters documented or otherwise made available?
    7. Is there a process through which each CAISO PTO evaluates 
whether a transmission-related maintenance and compliance activity/
facility that was not initially submitted to CAISO's TPP should be 
transitioned into the CAISO TPP for consideration and review? If so, 
please describe that process, including what criteria or parameters are 
considered in reaching the conclusion to transition to CAISO's TPP. 
Also, please explain where such criteria or parameters are documented 
or otherwise made available.
    8. What information does each CAISO PTO submit to CAISO (during 
Phase I of the TPP) concerning the transmission-related maintenance and 
compliance activities/facilities planned outside of CAISO's TPP? Please 
explain what type of information is provided and what level of detail 
is included.
    9. What is the process through which each CAISO PTO performs 
transmission planning activities outside of CAISO's TPP? Please 
describe that process in detail.
    10. Are there processes for stakeholders to review and provide 
input on transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/
facilities, including transmission-related capital additions, not 
included in CAISO's TPP? If so, please describe these processes in 
detail, including whether there is an opportunity for stakeholders to 
review and provide input on cost and other factors. Please also 
describe the timeframe for providing this input.
    11. How does each CAISO PTO decide whether to pursue reliability-
related transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/
facilities that are not required by the North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC), Western Electricity Coordinating 
Council (WECC), or other regulatory entities? What criteria or 
parameters are used by each CAISO PTO to make this decision? Where are 
such criteria or parameters documented or otherwise made available?
    12. Is there a difference between (a) the process through which 
each CAISO PTO pursues solutions to transmission-related maintenance 
and compliance activities/facilities that arise from NERC and WECC 
reliability standards or reliability standards established by other 
regulatory entities, and (b) the process through which each CAISO PTO 
pursues solutions to other transmission-related maintenance and 
compliance activities/facilities? If so, please explain (1) the 
difference between the two processes and (2) elaborate on the reasons 
for the differences.
    13. Please explain how costs associated with transmission-related 
maintenance and compliance activities/facilities developed outside of 
the CAISO TPP are reflected in wholesale and retail transmission rates.
    14. How does each CAISO PTO determine whether transmission-related 
maintenance, repair, or replacement activities/facilities should be 
capitalized or expensed as operations and maintenance costs? Please 
explain.
    15. What recommendations do you have for each CAISO PTO to increase 
the transparency of the process for stakeholders and others with 
respect to the CAISO PTOs' planning for transmission-related 
maintenance and compliance activities/facilities? How would these 
recommendations affect the CAISO PTOs? Would such effects be 
manageable? If not, why not? If changes to increase transparency could 
be made, should they be the same for each CAISO PTO?
    The technical conference will be led by Commission staff, and is 
open to the public. All interested persons may attend the conference, 
and registration is not required. However, in-person attendees are 
encouraged to register on-line by April 20, 2018 at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/05-01-18-form.asp. This event will 
NOT be webcast. However, for those who cannot attend in person, we will 
provide a listen-only telephone line, if requested. Those wishing this 
service should register at the link provided and specify the telephone 
line option.
    The conference will consist of questions posed by Commission staff 
and responses provided by CAISO, the CAISO PTOs, and complainants. 
There may also be an opportunity for follow-up questions and comments 
from attendees during those discussions. 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 be transcribed, and the transcript 
will be available immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting Company 
((202) 347-3700).
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please 
send an email to [email protected] or call toll free (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, all interested persons are 
invited to file initial and reply post-technical conference comments on 
the topics discussed during the technical conference, including the 
questions listed above. Commenters may reference material previously 
filed in this docket, including the technical conference transcript, 
but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous 
material. Initial comments are due on or before May 31, 2018; reply 
comments are due on or before June 15, 2018. Initial comments should 
not exceed 15 pages, and reply comments should not exceed 10 pages. 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 Further Information, Please Contact Individuals Identified for 
Each Topic:

Technical Information: Laura Switzer, Office of Energy Markets 
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6231, [email protected]
Legal Information for Docket Nos. AD18-12-000 and EL17-45-000: Linda 
Kizuka, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8773, 
[email protected]
Legal Information for Docket Nos. AD18-12-000 and ER18-370-000: Susanna 
Ehrlich, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory

[[Page 16847]]

Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6260, 
[email protected]
Logistical Information: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-8368, [email protected].

    Dated: April 10, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07923 Filed 4-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.