Reform of Affected System Coordination in the Generator Interconnection Process, EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments, 18285-18288 [2018-08722]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Notices viewing on the internet at http:// www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari. Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dddod-information-collections@mail.mil. Dated: April 18, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 2018–08744 Filed 4–25–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED–2018–ICCD–0047] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; 21st Century Community Learning Centers Annual Performance Report Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 25, 2018. ADDRESSES: To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED– 2018–ICCD–0047. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 216–44, Washington, DC 20202–4537. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Daryn Hedlund, 202–401–3008. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:58 Apr 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public’s reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department’s information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records. Title of Collection: 21st Century Community Learning Centers Annual Performance Report. OMB Control Number: 1810–0668. Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection. Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector. Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 54. Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,488. Abstract: The purpose of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, as authorized under Title IV, Part B, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (20 U.S.C. 7171–7176) is to create community learning centers that provide academic enrichment opportunities for children, particularly students who attend high poverty and low-performing schools, to meet State and local student standards in core academic subjects, to offer students a broad array of enrichment activities that can complement their regular academic programs, and to offer literacy and other educational services to the families of participating children. Present in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Education, academic enrichment and youth development programs are designed to enhance participants’ well-being and academic PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18285 success. In support of this program, Congress appropriated nearly $1.2 billion for 21st CCLC programs for fiscal year 2016. Consisting of public and nonprofit agencies, community- and faith-based organizations, postsecondary institutions, and other community entities, 3,695 sub-grantees—operating 9,252 centers—provided academic and enrichment services and activities to over 1.8 million participants. Dated: April 20, 2018. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management. [FR Doc. 2018–08735 Filed 4–25–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD18–8–000; Docket No. EL18– 26–000] Reform of Affected System Coordination in the Generator Interconnection Process, EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments On April 3 and April 4, 2018, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff conducted a technical conference to discuss issues related to affected systems that have been raised in the complaint filed by EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. in Docket No. EL18–26–000 and in the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Generator Interconnection NOPR) on the interconnection process in Docket No. RM17–8–000. All interested persons are invited to file initial and reply post-technical conference comments on the questions listed in the Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference issued in this proceeding on March 26, 2018 and the questions listed in the attachment to this notice. Commenters need not respond to all topics or questions asked. Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket but are encouraged to submit new or additional information rather than reiterate information that is already in the record. E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1 18286 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Notices In particular, commenters are encouraged, when possible, to provide examples in support of their answers. Initial and reply comments are due within 30 days and 45 days, respectively, from the date of this notice. For more information about this notice, please contact: Myra Sinnott (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, (202) 502–6033, Myra.Sinnott@ferc.gov. Kathleen Ratcliff (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market Regulation, (202) 502–8018, Kathleen.Ratcliff@ferc.gov. Lina Naik (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, (202) 502–8882, Lina.Naik@ferc.gov. Dated: April 19, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment For any of the following questions, please also describe any issues presented when an affected system is a non-public utility transmission provider. amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES General Affected Systems Coordination Processes 1. Please describe any affected system coordination processes and guidance available for your market or balancing authority area, including, but not limited to, tariff provisions, joint operating agreements (JOA), and business practice manuals (BPM). 2. Please explain the role of the host transmission provider in managing the coordination and communication between an interconnection customer and an affected system during the course of an interconnection request process. If the interconnection customer has primary responsibility to coordinate and communicate with the affected system, please explain how the host transmission provider ensures that affected system matters are addressed before proceeding with an interconnection for which affected system impacts have been raised. 3. With respect to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) specifically, once the need for an affected system study is determined, please describe how each RTO then coordinates with the other RTO to consider the affected system impacts due to an interconnection request on the host system. Please include the steps in the process and any timelines and other VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:58 Apr 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 procedural matters, and reference any tariff, JOA, BPM, and/or other provisions that describe the process for such coordination. 4. Should there be a pro forma affected system study agreement that provides for firm timelines for the affected system to provide the relevant studies? If so, what terms and conditions should it contain, and what entities should be parties to the affected system study agreement (e.g., host transmission provider, host transmission owner, affected system, interconnection customer)? What modifications would need to be made to such a study agreement to accommodate a non-public utility affected system? 5. Regardless of whether the Commission proceeds with development of a pro forma affected systems study agreement, should MISO, SPP, and PJM develop a common affected systems study agreement? If so, what terms and conditions should this agreement contain, and what entities should be parties to the agreement (e.g., host transmission provider, host transmission owner, affected system, interconnection customer)? If possible, please provide a sample of a commonly used affected systems study agreement. 6. As part of the affected systems study agreement, if affected systems were allowed to charge interconnection customers an administrative fee for conducting affected system studies, in addition to receiving reimbursement for the actual costs of conducting affected system studies, would such a fee motivate affected systems that lack resources, such as full-time employees, to conduct affected system studies in a more timely manner? If so, how should the fee be determined and what milestones of the affected system should be tied to the fee? Should such an administrative fee be tied to the affected system providing its study results by a certain date? 7. Describe any planned or in-process affected system coordination improvement efforts taking place in your market or balancing authority area (through a stakeholder process, etc.). Please provide links or directions to any publicly available materials related to these improvement efforts. Modeling and Study Procedures Used for Affected Systems Information 1. Please explain how Network Resource Interconnection Service (NRIS) and Energy Resource Interconnection Service (ERIS) are modeled both when conducting studies on your system and when conducting studies as an affected system, and provide a reference to where that PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 information is located in your tariff. Are the standards (e.g. shift factors, contingency lists) for modeling NRIS and ERIS available to customers, and if so, where is this information located? 2. Explain the reasons an affected system would study an interconnection request made in a host system using NRIS criteria when the interconnection customer is only requesting NRIS in the host system. What are the benefits and drawbacks to studying and also requiring an interconnection customer seeking NRIS in the host system to be responsible for network upgrade costs in an affected system in the same manner as an interconnection customer who requests NRIS in the affected system? 3. Explain the reasons an affected system could or should study an interconnection request using ERIS criteria when the interconnection customer is requesting NRIS in the host system. If you believe affected system transmission providers should study NRIS requests as ERIS, please include an explanation of how ERIS criteria address reliability concerns associated with an NRIS interconnection request in both the host and affected systems. 4. Should there be a standard approach to determine if an interconnection customer requesting NRIS in the host system is studied as NRIS or ERIS on an affected system? If so, what should the standard be and why? 5. If there is no generic reform that dictates how affected systems study interconnection customers who request NRIS on the host system, should MISO, SPP, and PJM develop a standard approach to determining whether such an interconnection customer should be studied as NRIS or ERIS on the affected system(s) during the modeling process? If so, what should the standard be and why? 6. Please explain the process used to calculate generation shift factors, including how and where the reference bus is selected, when conducting an affected system study for interconnection requests made in a host system. 7. What are the dispatch assumptions used in affected systems studies? Are the dispatch assumptions the same for already interconnected resources on the host system that affect flows on the affected system and resources already interconnected in the affected system? Are these dispatch assumptions consistent with the assumptions an affected system uses when it performs an interconnection request within its footprint? Are the dispatch assumptions an affected system uses in affected system studies provided to E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1 amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Notices interconnection customers? To the extent already interconnected resources on the host system are assumed to be dispatched at full output, what is the rationale for that assumption? 8. What criteria do transmission providers use to determine whether an interconnection request on the host system requires an affected system study on an affected system? Please provide references to tariff, JOA, BPM, and any other provisions that include this criteria. If the determination is based on ‘‘engineering judgment,’’ is this judgment adequately explained to the interconnection customer? If so, in what form does the interconnection customer receive that information? If there is a disagreement regarding this determination, is there a process for the customer to challenge it? If so, please provide a detailed description of that process. 9. Should MISO, SPP, and PJM be required to use the same criteria to determine whether an interconnection request on the host system requires an affected system study on an affected system? 10. Please comment on the possibility of implementing jointly developed interconnection-wide transmission models between transmission providers in affected system studies to detect topology changes to a transmission provider’s region that might not be visible by the affected systems until the next interconnection-wide model update. 11. When an affected system studies an interconnection request, should it model its entire footprint or a subregion(s) of its system? If a sub-region(s) would be sufficient, please explain what criteria would be used to determine the sub-region(s) in an affected system that are impacted by an interconnection request in a host system. 12. What are the benefits and drawbacks for the interconnection customer, the host transmission provider and the affected system to an affected system studying all interconnection requests in a host system study cluster or queue to determine affected system impacts? Is there a way the host system could employ some type of pre-screening process to limit affected systems analysis to only those requests that may impact an affected system? What criteria should be used in such a pre-screening process? 13. At what point in the interconnection process should interconnection customers be required to provide relevant modeling data to best avoid delays in both the host VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:58 Apr 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 interconnection and affected system study processes? Timing of Affected System Coordination 1. Does the host system’s interconnection process include an opportunity for the host system and interconnection customer to review an affected system study and discuss the results with the host system or affected system, as necessary, before the interconnection process either requires a financial milestone payment or execution of an interconnection agreement? If so, please provide references to the relevant tariff or manual descriptions of this opportunity. Is this opportunity to review included in the host system’s interconnection queue timeline? If so, how much time is allowed? 2. Should all host system transmission providers be required to align their interconnection study process schedules with any relevant affected systems in order to allow for both host system and affected system studies to occur on the same timeline? Would such alignment improve the timing at which an interconnection customer receives affected system study results? What actions could the host system, affected system, and interconnection customer take to better align the completion of affected system study results? Should the Commission require that an interconnection customer receive affected system study results at the same time it receives a host system’s system impact study results? If so, would there be any concerns with that approach? 3. Should MISO, SPP, and PJM be required to adopt a common timeline for conducting affected systems studies and providing results to interconnection customers and/or the host transmission provider? If not, why not? If so, please explain how this common timeline could be implemented. For example, would each RTO begin affected system studies at certain set dates throughout the year and commit to providing results by certain set dates, or are there other ways of implementing a common timeline? Please also provide an example of how this common timeline could be developed—that is, by providing sample tariff, JOA, BPM, or other language. 4. Should affected systems be required to adhere to a time limit or point in the host system’s interconnection process (such as when a generator interconnection agreement (GIA) is tendered or system impact study data is provided by the host system to the interconnection customer) PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18287 by which the affected system should notify the interconnection customer and/or host transmission provider of network upgrade costs? 5. Should affected system study results be aligned with the host system’s system impact study results to allow interconnection customers to have an estimate of all of their potential network upgrade costs prior to proceeding in the queue with an at-risk financial payment? Alternatively, if an interconnection customer is required to proceed with an at-risk financial payment or move forward with an interconnection agreement without having the affected system study results, should the affected system or host system be required to provide the interconnection customer with an option for a refund of its payment if it withdraws due to late-received affected system study results? 6. Please comment on the potential for an alternative affected system study process in which the host system obtains the model from the affected system and performs the impact analysis on the affected system for interconnection customers itself, with the host system following up with the affected system to verify results. Would such an approach be beneficial or practicable? Would the additional analysis and verification add time to the interconnection process? Should the host system be compensated for performing the impact analysis? 7. Should the Commission require that time be allowed to potentially identify and consider either alternatives to the dispatch assumptions or adjustments to the interconnection request that could mitigate the cost of a network upgrade on an affected system? If so, what duration of time would be sufficient? 8. With respect to MISO, SPP, and PJM specifically, should the Commission require that time be allowed to potentially identify and consider either alternatives to the dispatch assumptions or adjustments to the interconnection request that could mitigate the cost of a network upgrade on an affected system? If so, what duration of time would be sufficient? Even if a common timeline is not required by the Commission, should MISO, SPP, and PJM nevertheless be required to build time into their own interconnection processes to allow for further consideration of affected system study results and potential mitigation measures as an alternative to the network upgrades included in an affected system study? For example, should interconnection customers in MISO be allowed more than 15 days E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1 18288 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Notices amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES after receipt of affected system study results to decide to proceed to the next phase of the definitive planning phase (DPP)? 9. Should MISO perform fewer affected systems studies than the three studies currently required as part of the three-phase DPP process? If so, which phase(s) in the DPP is most important to the analysis of potential impacts on affected systems? Should an interconnection customer in MISO be permitted to proceed to the next DPP phase even if an affected system study is not ready and therefore not included in the system impact study of the prior phase? Allocation of Affected System Costs 1. Are there improvements that could be made to transmission planning processes to better identify transmission projects that benefit host systems and/ or affected systems but that are currently identified only in interconnection studies and affected system studies? If so, please explain how such improvements should be made? What are the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach? 2. If study results from affected systems are significantly delayed, and the interconnection customer is required to proceed in the process without affected system study results, should the customer still be responsible for the full cost of an affected system upgrade? Should there be a time after which the affected system has ‘‘lost its chance’’ to have the interconnection customer be responsible for the network upgrade? If so, how would the affected system then address the need for the network upgrade? 3. How should costs be allocated among affected system and host system interconnection customers in instances where a major network upgrade on a transmission provider’s system is only identified through an affected system study and not identified in the host system studies? Should host system interconnection customers be responsible for any portion of those network upgrade costs? Should an interconnection customer needing such an affected system upgrade have the ability to challenge the assignment of network upgrade costs? Please also discuss this issue specifically in the context of the Cooper South constraint in SPP. 4. Should the host system and affected system be required to conduct a ‘‘least-cost alternative’’ analysis for identified affected system upgrades? If so, please explain how that will improve the issues with affected systems. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:58 Apr 25, 2018 Jkt 244001 5. If the same network upgrade is required by interconnection requests on both a host system and an affected system, is there cost sharing among the interconnection customers? Does this cost sharing extend to lower-queued customers, whether they are host system customers or affected system customers? 6. How are interconnection requests made on an affected system aligned with host system interconnection requests for the purpose of determining queue order and cost responsibility? For instance, where the affected system uses a cluster study approach, are interconnection requests external to the affected system integrated into the affected system’s current cluster study with queue priority and cost responsibility equivalent to the other interconnection requests in the cluster? 7. Should MISO, SPP, and PJM be required to develop a network upgrade construct that avoids a ‘‘higher-queued’’ penalty, whereby network upgrade costs are assigned to higher-queued projects (earlier in time) rather than to lowerqueued projects (later in time)? How do MISO, SPP, and PJM determine whether affected system interconnection customers or host system interconnection customers are responsible for the cost of a specific network upgrade? Please list the tariff, JOA, or BPM provisions that may govern this process. 8. With respect to MISO, SPP, and PJM specifically, should they be required to develop a unified approach to determine queue priority in affected systems analysis to determine cost responsibility for network upgrade costs? 9. Please describe whether interconnection customers that fund network upgrades on an affected system and pursuant to an affected system study receive transmission credits, transmission rights, or any other consideration for funding those network upgrades on the affected system. Please provide any tariff or other provisions that govern this issue. 10. Please describe whether interconnection customers that fund network upgrades on an affected system and pursuant to an affected system study in MISO, SPP, or PJM receive transmission credits, transmission rights, or any other consideration for funding those network upgrades on the affected system. Please provide any tariff, JOA, BPM or other provisions that govern this issue. Does any disparity in approaches between MISO, SPP, and PJM impact the interconnection PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 customers and/or affected system study process? If so, how? [FR Doc. 2018–08722 Filed 4–25–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [AU Docket No. 17–143; DA 18–260] Auction of Cross-Service FM Translator Construction Permits Scheduled for May 15, 2018; Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 99 Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final action; requirements and procedures. AGENCY: This document summarizes the procedures and announces upfront payment amounts and minimum opening bids for the auction of crossservice FM translator construction permits (Auction 99). The Public Notice summarized here is intended to familiarize applicants with the procedures and other requirements for participation in the auction. DATES: A sufficient upfront payment and a complete and accurate FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159) must be submitted before 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on April 19, 2018. Bidding in Auction 99 is scheduled to start on May 15, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For auction legal questions, Lynne Milne in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s Auctions and Spectrum Access Division at (202) 418–0660. For auction process and procedures, the FCC Auction Hotline at (717) 338–2868. For FM translator service questions, James Bradshaw, Lisa Scanlan or Tom Nessinger in the Media Bureau’s Audio Division at (202) 418–2700. To request materials in accessible formats (Braille, large print, electronic files, or audio format) for people with disabilities, send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 or (202) 418– 0432 (TTY). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of Auction of Cross-Service FM Translator Construction Permits Scheduled for May 15, 2018; Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 99, (Auction 99 Procedures Public Notice) released on March 23, 2018. The complete text of the Auction 99 Procedures Public Notice, including attachments and any SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM 26APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18285-18288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08722]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD18-8-000; Docket No. EL18-26-000]


Reform of Affected System Coordination in the Generator 
Interconnection Process, EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Midcontinent 
Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference 
Comments

    On April 3 and April 4, 2018, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) staff conducted a technical conference to discuss issues 
related to affected systems that have been raised in the complaint 
filed by EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. against Midcontinent Independent 
System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C. in Docket No. EL18-26-000 and in the 
Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Generator Interconnection 
NOPR) on the interconnection process in Docket No. RM17-8-000.
    All interested persons are invited to file initial and reply post-
technical conference comments on the questions listed in the 
Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference issued in this proceeding 
on March 26, 2018 and the questions listed in the attachment to this 
notice. Commenters need not respond to all topics or questions asked. 
Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket but 
are encouraged to submit new or additional information rather than 
reiterate information that is already in the record.

[[Page 18286]]

In particular, commenters are encouraged, when possible, to provide 
examples in support of their answers. Initial and reply comments are 
due within 30 days and 45 days, respectively, from the date of this 
notice.
    For more information about this notice, please contact:

Myra Sinnott (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and 
Innovation, (202) 502-6033, [email protected].
Kathleen Ratcliff (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market 
Regulation, (202) 502-8018, [email protected].
Lina Naik (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, (202) 
502-8882, [email protected].

    Dated: April 19, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.

Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment

    For any of the following questions, please also describe any issues 
presented when an affected system is a non-public utility transmission 
provider.

General Affected Systems Coordination Processes

    1. Please describe any affected system coordination processes and 
guidance available for your market or balancing authority area, 
including, but not limited to, tariff provisions, joint operating 
agreements (JOA), and business practice manuals (BPM).
    2. Please explain the role of the host transmission provider in 
managing the coordination and communication between an interconnection 
customer and an affected system during the course of an interconnection 
request process. If the interconnection customer has primary 
responsibility to coordinate and communicate with the affected system, 
please explain how the host transmission provider ensures that affected 
system matters are addressed before proceeding with an interconnection 
for which affected system impacts have been raised.
    3. With respect to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. 
(MISO), Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), and PJM Interconnection, 
L.L.C. (PJM) specifically, once the need for an affected system study 
is determined, please describe how each RTO then coordinates with the 
other RTO to consider the affected system impacts due to an 
interconnection request on the host system. Please include the steps in 
the process and any timelines and other procedural matters, and 
reference any tariff, JOA, BPM, and/or other provisions that describe 
the process for such coordination.
    4. Should there be a pro forma affected system study agreement that 
provides for firm timelines for the affected system to provide the 
relevant studies? If so, what terms and conditions should it contain, 
and what entities should be parties to the affected system study 
agreement (e.g., host transmission provider, host transmission owner, 
affected system, interconnection customer)? What modifications would 
need to be made to such a study agreement to accommodate a non-public 
utility affected system?
    5. Regardless of whether the Commission proceeds with development 
of a pro forma affected systems study agreement, should MISO, SPP, and 
PJM develop a common affected systems study agreement? If so, what 
terms and conditions should this agreement contain, and what entities 
should be parties to the agreement (e.g., host transmission provider, 
host transmission owner, affected system, interconnection customer)? If 
possible, please provide a sample of a commonly used affected systems 
study agreement.
    6. As part of the affected systems study agreement, if affected 
systems were allowed to charge interconnection customers an 
administrative fee for conducting affected system studies, in addition 
to receiving reimbursement for the actual costs of conducting affected 
system studies, would such a fee motivate affected systems that lack 
resources, such as full-time employees, to conduct affected system 
studies in a more timely manner? If so, how should the fee be 
determined and what milestones of the affected system should be tied to 
the fee? Should such an administrative fee be tied to the affected 
system providing its study results by a certain date?
    7. Describe any planned or in-process affected system coordination 
improvement efforts taking place in your market or balancing authority 
area (through a stakeholder process, etc.). Please provide links or 
directions to any publicly available materials related to these 
improvement efforts.

Modeling and Study Procedures Used for Affected Systems Information

    1. Please explain how Network Resource Interconnection Service 
(NRIS) and Energy Resource Interconnection Service (ERIS) are modeled 
both when conducting studies on your system and when conducting studies 
as an affected system, and provide a reference to where that 
information is located in your tariff. Are the standards (e.g. shift 
factors, contingency lists) for modeling NRIS and ERIS available to 
customers, and if so, where is this information located?
    2. Explain the reasons an affected system would study an 
interconnection request made in a host system using NRIS criteria when 
the interconnection customer is only requesting NRIS in the host 
system. What are the benefits and drawbacks to studying and also 
requiring an interconnection customer seeking NRIS in the host system 
to be responsible for network upgrade costs in an affected system in 
the same manner as an interconnection customer who requests NRIS in the 
affected system?
    3. Explain the reasons an affected system could or should study an 
interconnection request using ERIS criteria when the interconnection 
customer is requesting NRIS in the host system. If you believe affected 
system transmission providers should study NRIS requests as ERIS, 
please include an explanation of how ERIS criteria address reliability 
concerns associated with an NRIS interconnection request in both the 
host and affected systems.
    4. Should there be a standard approach to determine if an 
interconnection customer requesting NRIS in the host system is studied 
as NRIS or ERIS on an affected system? If so, what should the standard 
be and why?
    5. If there is no generic reform that dictates how affected systems 
study interconnection customers who request NRIS on the host system, 
should MISO, SPP, and PJM develop a standard approach to determining 
whether such an interconnection customer should be studied as NRIS or 
ERIS on the affected system(s) during the modeling process? If so, what 
should the standard be and why?
    6. Please explain the process used to calculate generation shift 
factors, including how and where the reference bus is selected, when 
conducting an affected system study for interconnection requests made 
in a host system.
    7. What are the dispatch assumptions used in affected systems 
studies? Are the dispatch assumptions the same for already 
interconnected resources on the host system that affect flows on the 
affected system and resources already interconnected in the affected 
system? Are these dispatch assumptions consistent with the assumptions 
an affected system uses when it performs an interconnection request 
within its footprint? Are the dispatch assumptions an affected system 
uses in affected system studies provided to

[[Page 18287]]

interconnection customers? To the extent already interconnected 
resources on the host system are assumed to be dispatched at full 
output, what is the rationale for that assumption?
    8. What criteria do transmission providers use to determine whether 
an interconnection request on the host system requires an affected 
system study on an affected system? Please provide references to 
tariff, JOA, BPM, and any other provisions that include this criteria. 
If the determination is based on ``engineering judgment,'' is this 
judgment adequately explained to the interconnection customer? If so, 
in what form does the interconnection customer receive that 
information? If there is a disagreement regarding this determination, 
is there a process for the customer to challenge it? If so, please 
provide a detailed description of that process.
    9. Should MISO, SPP, and PJM be required to use the same criteria 
to determine whether an interconnection request on the host system 
requires an affected system study on an affected system?
    10. Please comment on the possibility of implementing jointly 
developed interconnection-wide transmission models between transmission 
providers in affected system studies to detect topology changes to a 
transmission provider's region that might not be visible by the 
affected systems until the next interconnection-wide model update.
    11. When an affected system studies an interconnection request, 
should it model its entire footprint or a sub-region(s) of its system? 
If a sub-region(s) would be sufficient, please explain what criteria 
would be used to determine the sub-region(s) in an affected system that 
are impacted by an interconnection request in a host system.
    12. What are the benefits and drawbacks for the interconnection 
customer, the host transmission provider and the affected system to an 
affected system studying all interconnection requests in a host system 
study cluster or queue to determine affected system impacts? Is there a 
way the host system could employ some type of pre-screening process to 
limit affected systems analysis to only those requests that may impact 
an affected system? What criteria should be used in such a pre-
screening process?
    13. At what point in the interconnection process should 
interconnection customers be required to provide relevant modeling data 
to best avoid delays in both the host interconnection and affected 
system study processes?

Timing of Affected System Coordination

    1. Does the host system's interconnection process include an 
opportunity for the host system and interconnection customer to review 
an affected system study and discuss the results with the host system 
or affected system, as necessary, before the interconnection process 
either requires a financial milestone payment or execution of an 
interconnection agreement? If so, please provide references to the 
relevant tariff or manual descriptions of this opportunity. Is this 
opportunity to review included in the host system's interconnection 
queue timeline? If so, how much time is allowed?
    2. Should all host system transmission providers be required to 
align their interconnection study process schedules with any relevant 
affected systems in order to allow for both host system and affected 
system studies to occur on the same timeline? Would such alignment 
improve the timing at which an interconnection customer receives 
affected system study results? What actions could the host system, 
affected system, and interconnection customer take to better align the 
completion of affected system study results? Should the Commission 
require that an interconnection customer receive affected system study 
results at the same time it receives a host system's system impact 
study results? If so, would there be any concerns with that approach?
    3. Should MISO, SPP, and PJM be required to adopt a common timeline 
for conducting affected systems studies and providing results to 
interconnection customers and/or the host transmission provider? If 
not, why not? If so, please explain how this common timeline could be 
implemented. For example, would each RTO begin affected system studies 
at certain set dates throughout the year and commit to providing 
results by certain set dates, or are there other ways of implementing a 
common timeline? Please also provide an example of how this common 
timeline could be developed--that is, by providing sample tariff, JOA, 
BPM, or other language.
    4. Should affected systems be required to adhere to a time limit or 
point in the host system's interconnection process (such as when a 
generator interconnection agreement (GIA) is tendered or system impact 
study data is provided by the host system to the interconnection 
customer) by which the affected system should notify the 
interconnection customer and/or host transmission provider of network 
upgrade costs?
    5. Should affected system study results be aligned with the host 
system's system impact study results to allow interconnection customers 
to have an estimate of all of their potential network upgrade costs 
prior to proceeding in the queue with an at-risk financial payment? 
Alternatively, if an interconnection customer is required to proceed 
with an at-risk financial payment or move forward with an 
interconnection agreement without having the affected system study 
results, should the affected system or host system be required to 
provide the interconnection customer with an option for a refund of its 
payment if it withdraws due to late-received affected system study 
results?
    6. Please comment on the potential for an alternative affected 
system study process in which the host system obtains the model from 
the affected system and performs the impact analysis on the affected 
system for interconnection customers itself, with the host system 
following up with the affected system to verify results. Would such an 
approach be beneficial or practicable? Would the additional analysis 
and verification add time to the interconnection process? Should the 
host system be compensated for performing the impact analysis?
    7. Should the Commission require that time be allowed to 
potentially identify and consider either alternatives to the dispatch 
assumptions or adjustments to the interconnection request that could 
mitigate the cost of a network upgrade on an affected system? If so, 
what duration of time would be sufficient?
    8. With respect to MISO, SPP, and PJM specifically, should the 
Commission require that time be allowed to potentially identify and 
consider either alternatives to the dispatch assumptions or adjustments 
to the interconnection request that could mitigate the cost of a 
network upgrade on an affected system? If so, what duration of time 
would be sufficient? Even if a common timeline is not required by the 
Commission, should MISO, SPP, and PJM nevertheless be required to build 
time into their own interconnection processes to allow for further 
consideration of affected system study results and potential mitigation 
measures as an alternative to the network upgrades included in an 
affected system study? For example, should interconnection customers in 
MISO be allowed more than 15 days

[[Page 18288]]

after receipt of affected system study results to decide to proceed to 
the next phase of the definitive planning phase (DPP)?
    9. Should MISO perform fewer affected systems studies than the 
three studies currently required as part of the three-phase DPP 
process? If so, which phase(s) in the DPP is most important to the 
analysis of potential impacts on affected systems? Should an 
interconnection customer in MISO be permitted to proceed to the next 
DPP phase even if an affected system study is not ready and therefore 
not included in the system impact study of the prior phase?

Allocation of Affected System Costs

    1. Are there improvements that could be made to transmission 
planning processes to better identify transmission projects that 
benefit host systems and/or affected systems but that are currently 
identified only in interconnection studies and affected system studies? 
If so, please explain how such improvements should be made? What are 
the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach?
    2. If study results from affected systems are significantly 
delayed, and the interconnection customer is required to proceed in the 
process without affected system study results, should the customer 
still be responsible for the full cost of an affected system upgrade? 
Should there be a time after which the affected system has ``lost its 
chance'' to have the interconnection customer be responsible for the 
network upgrade? If so, how would the affected system then address the 
need for the network upgrade?
    3. How should costs be allocated among affected system and host 
system interconnection customers in instances where a major network 
upgrade on a transmission provider's system is only identified through 
an affected system study and not identified in the host system studies? 
Should host system interconnection customers be responsible for any 
portion of those network upgrade costs? Should an interconnection 
customer needing such an affected system upgrade have the ability to 
challenge the assignment of network upgrade costs? Please also discuss 
this issue specifically in the context of the Cooper South constraint 
in SPP.
    4. Should the host system and affected system be required to 
conduct a ``least-cost alternative'' analysis for identified affected 
system upgrades? If so, please explain how that will improve the issues 
with affected systems.
    5. If the same network upgrade is required by interconnection 
requests on both a host system and an affected system, is there cost 
sharing among the interconnection customers? Does this cost sharing 
extend to lower-queued customers, whether they are host system 
customers or affected system customers?
    6. How are interconnection requests made on an affected system 
aligned with host system interconnection requests for the purpose of 
determining queue order and cost responsibility? For instance, where 
the affected system uses a cluster study approach, are interconnection 
requests external to the affected system integrated into the affected 
system's current cluster study with queue priority and cost 
responsibility equivalent to the other interconnection requests in the 
cluster?
    7. Should MISO, SPP, and PJM be required to develop a network 
upgrade construct that avoids a ``higher-queued'' penalty, whereby 
network upgrade costs are assigned to higher-queued projects (earlier 
in time) rather than to lower-queued projects (later in time)? How do 
MISO, SPP, and PJM determine whether affected system interconnection 
customers or host system interconnection customers are responsible for 
the cost of a specific network upgrade? Please list the tariff, JOA, or 
BPM provisions that may govern this process.
    8. With respect to MISO, SPP, and PJM specifically, should they be 
required to develop a unified approach to determine queue priority in 
affected systems analysis to determine cost responsibility for network 
upgrade costs?
    9. Please describe whether interconnection customers that fund 
network upgrades on an affected system and pursuant to an affected 
system study receive transmission credits, transmission rights, or any 
other consideration for funding those network upgrades on the affected 
system. Please provide any tariff or other provisions that govern this 
issue.
    10. Please describe whether interconnection customers that fund 
network upgrades on an affected system and pursuant to an affected 
system study in MISO, SPP, or PJM receive transmission credits, 
transmission rights, or any other consideration for funding those 
network upgrades on the affected system. Please provide any tariff, 
JOA, BPM or other provisions that govern this issue. Does any disparity 
in approaches between MISO, SPP, and PJM impact the interconnection 
customers and/or affected system study process? If so, how?

[FR Doc. 2018-08722 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P