Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments; 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, 23454 [2018-10724]

Download as PDF 23454 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2018 / Notices other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010. q. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described proceeding. If any agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. Dated: May 11, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018–10755 Filed 5–18–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD18–12–000; Docket No. EL17–45–000; Docket No. ER18–370–000] sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments; 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 On May 1, 2018, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff convened a technical conference to discuss 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). All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments on the topics relating to the processes used by PTOs to determine which activities/facilities are subject to the CAISO TPP as discussed during the technical conference, including the questions listed in the Supplemental Notice issued in this proceeding on April 10, 2018. Commission staff is particularly interested in comments on the following topics: 1. Technical conference participants used the terms asset management and VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:20 May 18, 2018 Jkt 244001 asset management program during the technical conference. Please provide a definition for those terms when they are used to address or administer transmission capability. 2. Describe the criteria, standards, or industry best practices that the PTOs use in their asset management programs or activities. 3. Technical conference participants used the terms ‘‘incremental’’ and ‘‘incidental’’ at the technical conference. Provide a definition for those terms when they are used to describe any increases to transmission capability that result from the use of new technology when replacing one-for-one assets. 4. Explain how any incremental or incidental increases to transmission capacity are accounted for by each PTO in relation to ‘‘asset management’’ activities, and how these increases in transmission capacity are communicated to CAISO. 5. Technical conference participants used the terms ‘‘expansion’’ and ‘‘enhancement’’ at the technical conference. Provide the definitions of those terms when they are used to describe certain changes to the configuration of the CAISO transmission system resulting from ‘‘asset management’’ activities that are subject to the CAISO TPP. 6. 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. 7. 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? 8. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 9. What benefits and/or concerns, if any, would arise from introducing greater transparency and more opportunities for stakeholder input into each CAISO PTO’s asset management process in the early stages of the assessment, ranking, and selection of particular ‘‘asset management’’ projects? To the extent that you support additional opportunities for stakeholder input, please describe the ideal format and/or frequency of such opportunities. Commenters need not respond to all topics or questions asked. Commenters may reference materials previously filed in the above-captioned dockets, including the technical conference transcript, but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material. Initial comments must be submitted on or before May 31, 2018, and reply comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2018. Initial comments should not exceed 15 pages and reply comments should not exceed 10 pages. 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 Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 6260, susanna.ehrlich@ferc.gov. Dated: May 15, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018–10724 Filed 5–18–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: Filings Instituting Proceedings Docket Numbers: RP10–1398–006. E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 23454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10724]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

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


Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments; 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

    On May 1, 2018, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 
staff convened a technical conference to discuss 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).
    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical 
conference comments on the topics relating to the processes used by 
PTOs to determine which activities/facilities are subject to the CAISO 
TPP as discussed during the technical conference, including the 
questions listed in the Supplemental Notice issued in this proceeding 
on April 10, 2018. Commission staff is particularly interested in 
comments on the following topics:
    1. Technical conference participants used the terms asset 
management and asset management program during the technical 
conference. Please provide a definition for those terms when they are 
used to address or administer transmission capability.
    2. Describe the criteria, standards, or industry best practices 
that the PTOs use in their asset management programs or activities.
    3. Technical conference participants used the terms ``incremental'' 
and ``incidental'' at the technical conference. Provide a definition 
for those terms when they are used to describe any increases to 
transmission capability that result from the use of new technology when 
replacing one-for-one assets.
    4. Explain how any incremental or incidental increases to 
transmission capacity are accounted for by each PTO in relation to 
``asset management'' activities, and how these increases in 
transmission capacity are communicated to CAISO.
    5. Technical conference participants used the terms ``expansion'' 
and ``enhancement'' at the technical conference. Provide the 
definitions of those terms when they are used to describe certain 
changes to the configuration of the CAISO transmission system resulting 
from ``asset management'' activities that are subject to the CAISO TPP.
    6. 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.
    7. 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?
    8. 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.
    9. What benefits and/or concerns, if any, would arise from 
introducing greater transparency and more opportunities for stakeholder 
input into each CAISO PTO's asset management process in the early 
stages of the assessment, ranking, and selection of particular ``asset 
management'' projects? To the extent that you support additional 
opportunities for stakeholder input, please describe the ideal format 
and/or frequency of such opportunities.
    Commenters need not respond to all topics or questions asked. 
Commenters may reference materials previously filed in the above-
captioned dockets, including the technical conference transcript, but 
are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material. 
Initial comments must be submitted on or before May 31, 2018, and reply 
comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2018. Initial comments 
should not exceed 15 pages and reply comments should not exceed 10 
pages.
    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 
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6260, 
[email protected].

    Dated: May 15, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10724 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.