Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Technical Conference, 21223-21226 [2020-08021]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
21223
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 74 / Thursday, April 16, 2020 / Notices
Act of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle
A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct 2005).2 EPAct 2005 added a new
section 215 to the FPA, which required
a Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) to
develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards, which are subject
to Commission review and approval.
Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO
subject to Commission oversight, or the
Commission can independently enforce
Reliability Standards.3
On February 3, 2006, the Commission
issued Order No. 672, implementing
section 215 of the FPA.4 Pursuant to
Order No. 672, the Commission certified
one organization, North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
as the ERO.5 The Reliability Standards
developed by the ERO and approved by
the Commission apply to users, owners
and operators of the Bulk-Power System
as set forth in each Reliability Standard.
On February 7, 2020, the North
American Electric Reliability
Corporation filed a petition seeking
approval of proposed Reliability
Standard TPL–007–4 (Transmission
System Planned Performance for
Geomagnetic Disturbance Events).
NERC’s filed petition was noticed on
February 11, 2020, with interventions,
comments and protests due on or before
March 9, 2020. No interventions or
comments were received.
The DLO was issued on March 19,
2020. The standard goes in effect at
NERC on October 1,2020.
Type of Respondents: Generator
Owner, Planning Coordinator,
Distribution Provider and Transmission
Owners.
Estimate of Annual Burden: 6 Our
estimates are based on the NERC
Compliance Registry Summary of
Entities as of January 31, 2020.
The individual burden estimates
include the time needed to gather data,
run studies, and analyze study results.
These are consistent with estimates for
similar tasks in other Commissionapproved standards. Estimates for the
additional average annual burden and
cost 7 as proposed in Docket No. RD20–
3–000 follow:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
FERC–725N(1), IN DOCKET NO. RD20–3–000
Annual
number 1 of
respondents
Annual
number of
responses per
respondent
Total number
of responses
Average burden hrs. &
cost) ($) per response
Total annual burden
hours & cost ($)
(rounded)
Cost per
respondent
($)
(1)
(2)
(1) * (2) = (3)
(4)
(3) * (4) = (5)
(5) ÷ (1)
38,760 hours;
$3,100,800.
2,840 hours; $ 227,200
12,720 hours;
$1,017,600.
12,840 hours;
$1,027,200.
$3,200
67,160 hours; ..............
$5,372,800 ..................
........................
GO 8 ..............................
969
1
969
40 hours; $3,200 .........
PC 9 ..............................
DP 10 .............................
71
318
1
1
71
318
40 hours; $3,200 .........
40 hours & $3,200 ......
TO 11 .............................
321
1
321
40 hours & $3,200 ......
TOTAL ...................
........................
........................
1,679
.....................................
Comments: Comments are invited on:
(1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden and cost of the collection
of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information collection;
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Dated: April 10, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
2 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–58, Title
XII, Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (codified at 16
U.S.C. 824o).
3 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
4 Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric
Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the
Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of
Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, order on reh’g, Order No.
672–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).
5 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g and compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), order on compliance, 118
FERC ¶ 61,190, order on reh’g, 119 FERC ¶ 61,046
(2007), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d
1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
6 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a federal agency. See 5 CFR
1320 for additional information on the definition of
information collection burden.
7 Commission staff estimates that the industry’s
skill set and cost (for wages and benefits) for FERC–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Apr 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
$3,200
$3,200
$3,200
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[FR Doc. 2020–08033 Filed 4–15–20; 8:45 am]
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. ER20–588–000]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc.; Notice of Technical
Conference
By order dated March 10, 2020,1 the
Commission directed staff to convene a
technical conference regarding
Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc.’s (MISO) filing of
proposed revisions to its Open Access
Transmission, Energy and Operating
Reserve Markets Tariff to allow for the
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
725N(1) are approximately the same as the
Commission’s average cost. The FERC 2019 average
salary plus benefits for one FERC full-time
equivalent (FTE) is $167,091/year (or $80.00/hour).
8 Generator Owner.
9 Planning Coordinator.
10 Distribution Provider.
11 Transmission Owner.
1 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 170
FERC ¶ 61,186 (2020).
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
16APN1
21224
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 74 / Thursday, April 16, 2020 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
selection of a storage facility as a
transmission-only asset (SATOA) in the
MISO Transmission Expansion Plan
(MTEP). The technical conference will
explore issues including, but not limited
to, MISO’s proposed evaluation and
selection criteria for SATOAs, the
SATOA’s market activities and any
potential wholesale market impacts of
those activities, how MISO’s current
formula rate structure accommodates
cost recovery for SATOAs, a SATOA’s
potential effects on the generator
interconnection queue, and operating
guides that will apply to a SATOA.2
Take notice that the Commission will
hold this staff-led technical conference
on Monday, May 4, 2020, between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). This
conference will be held remotely, as
further described below.
Participants should be prepared to
discuss, at minimum, the following:
A. Evaluation and Selection Criteria for
SATOAs
MISO proposes Tariff language stating
that, to be selected for inclusion in
Appendix A of the MTEP as a
transmission asset, a proposed SATOA
must demonstrate:
a. Unique characteristics or
circumstances of the proposed SATOA
necessary to meet the identified
Transmission System performance
requirements and not otherwise
available at comparable costs from other
proposed solutions, including speed of
operation, lead-time to implement,
right-of-way, or other property
considerations.
b. A need to resolve the Transmission
Issue(s) through the storage facility’s
functioning as a SATOA instead of as a
Resource that participates in [MISO’s]
markets.3
MISO states that an example of a
unique characteristic is the storage
asset’s ability to rapidly inject and
withdraw real or reactive power in
solving transmission issues that could
not otherwise be resolved if the storage
asset was participating in markets.4
1. What is an ‘‘identified
Transmission System performance
requirement?’’ How and where are they
identified? What is the difference
between an identified Transmission
System performance requirement and a
Transmission Issue? What are examples
of Transmission System performance
requirements that can be addressed by
a proposed SATOA?
2. What criteria will MISO consider
when determining whether a proposed
2 Id.
P 56.
Dec. 12 Filing, Tab A, proposed MISO
Tariff Att. FF, § II.G.1.c.i (71.0.0).
4 MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 2 n.5.
3 MISO
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Apr 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
SATOA has unique characteristics or
circumstances necessary to meet the
identified transmission system
performance requirements? How does
MISO intend to communicate these
criteria to stakeholders and participants
in the MTEP? What does MISO mean by
‘‘other property considerations’’?
3. What criteria will MISO consider
when determining whether there is a
need for the storage facility to solve the
transmission issue through the storage
facility’s functioning as a SATOA
instead of as a resource that participates
in MISO’s markets? How does MISO
intend to communicate these criteria to
stakeholders and participants in the
MTEP?
4. With regard to MISO’s example of
a unique characteristic–i.e., a storage
asset’s ability to rapidly inject and
withdraw real or reactive power in
solving transmission issues–how can
storage as transmission be distinguished
from storage resources participating in
markets that could have their dispatch
schedules adjusted to rapidly inject or
withdraw real or reactive power to solve
transmission issues if needed as part of
the normal security constrained
dispatch of market resources?
5. If a traditional transmission project
and a SATOA can both meet a
transmission system performance
requirement equally well, how will
MISO determine which solution to
select in the regional transmission
planning process? If multiple SATOA
proposals have unique characteristics or
circumstances necessary to meet the
identified transmission system
performance requirements, how will
MISO determine which solution to
select in the regional transmission
planning process?
6. If the entity that proposes a SATOA
does not provide sufficient information
for MISO to determine whether the
SATOA meets the criteria outlined in
the Tariff excerpted above, how will
MISO proceed? For instance, will MISO
attempt to determine if the SATOA
meets the criteria using MISO’s own
independent analysis? Will that analysis
be available to other participants in the
regional transmission planning process?
7. How will MISO’s evaluation
criteria ensure that SATOAs are limited
to only those electric storage resources
that are performing a transmissionspecific function?
8. Please explain how MISO will
communicate its decision in approving
a SATOA. For instance, MISO stated in
its filing that there is currently a storage
resource pending as a recommended
project in MTEP19. Is the explanation
provided in the MTEP19 executive
summary regarding this recommended
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
project representative of the type of
explanation that MISO intends to
provide in the future? What steps will
MISO take if additional information is
requested from participants in the
regional transmission planning process?
MISO states that comparative
evaluations of a proposed SATOA will
include the minimum and maximum
capacity required to address the
transmission issue to ensure that excess
storage capacity is not treated as a
transmission asset. MISO further states
that cost recovery under transmission
rates is limited to the cost of the
maximum capacity to be determined
needed to address the transmission
issue.5
9. How will MISO determine the
maximum capacity needed to address
the transmission issue? Please explain.
B. SATOA Market Activities and
Market Impacts
MISO states that the SATOA owner is
responsible for maintaining the
necessary state of charge to be ready to
serve the transmission function for
which it was approved in the MTEP,
and MISO will exercise functional
control of the SATOA for transmission
purposes only, i.e., charging and
discharging to meet the transmission
need will be done at the direction of
MISO.6
10. What does it mean for a SATOA
to be under MISO’s ‘‘functional
control,’’ while making the SATOA
owner responsible for maintaining state
of charge? Will MISO tell the SATOA
when to charge and discharge while the
SATOA is performing to meet the
transmission need? What is the practical
difference, if any, between charging/
discharging to ‘‘meet’’ the transmission
need and charging/discharging to be
‘‘ready to serve’’ the transmission need?
11. How will MISO ensure that a
SATOA under its ‘‘functional control’’
is available (e.g., not fully charged when
needed to withdraw power and not fully
discharged when needed to inject
power) to solve a transmission issue?
12. Please explain your view on
whether and, if so, how the charging/
discharging activities of the SATOA
directed under MISO’s functional
control or, in connection with the
SATOA owner’s responsibility to
maintain state of charge, impact the
wholesale energy and capacity markets.
For example, would these activities
impact transmission capacity,
congestion, and/or other resources’
5 MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Tab A, proposed MISO
Tariff Att. FF, § II.G.1.a.ii (71.0.0).
6 MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 6–7;
MISO Answer at 15.
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
16APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 74 / Thursday, April 16, 2020 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
ability to meet energy and ancillary
services needs, etc.? Please explain.
MISO proposes that the SATOA
owner will need a registered market
participant to receive energy net costs
when charging and discharging under
MISO’s functional control. MISO states
that the market participant for a SATOA
will be credited the applicable RealTime Ex Post LMP for Non-Excessive
Energy and will be charged for NonExcessive Energy withdrawals. MISO
explains that the SATOA market
participant then must provide the net
revenues back to the transmission
owner, and those net revenues will
offset the transmission revenue
requirement associated with the
resource.7 MISO states that the SATOA
will be a price taker.
13. Does a SATOA’s direct
participation in the wholesale energy
markets as a price-taker create potential
impacts on the wholesale energy and
capacity markets by, for instance,
displacing otherwise marginal or inframarginal resources and possibly
changing the energy market price? Why
or why not? If energy market impacts
occur, will they be minimal or might
they be mitigated, and if so how?
14. Please provide further information
on: (1) What types of entity could serve
as the SATOA’s market participant; (2)
whether such market participant and/or
the SATOA owner would have marketbased rate authority; and (3) if the
market participant were affiliated
merchant function staff, how the
standards of conduct would be met.
C. Cost Recovery for SATOAs
MISO proposes that costs resulting
from a SATOA’s market activities
directed under MISO’s functional
control be collected through
transmission rates in a manner
consistent with the treatment of costs
associated with the transmission project
type in which the SATOA is included
in Appendix A to the MTEP. Any
revenues collected from the SATOA’s
market activities directed under MISO’s
functional control would be credited
through transmission rates in a manner
consistent with the treatment of costs
associated with the transmission project
category in transmission rates.8
15. How does MISO’s current formula
rate structure in Attachments O, GG, or
MM accommodate cost recovery for
SATOAs? Are any of those provisions
sufficient to allow net market revenue to
7 MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 23,
Tab A, proposed MISO Tariff, Module C,
§ 40.3.3.3.a.i (44.0.0).
8 MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 22,
Tab A, proposed MISO Tariff, Att. FF § II.G.6
(71.0.0).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Apr 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
be credited through the transmission
revenue requirement? Will the net
energy revenue be credited outside the
existing formulas, e.g., through a
separate rider?
16. If the existing formulas will need
to be modified to accommodate
SATOAs, what types of modifications
are needed and when will such
modifications be filed to ensure that
they are effective before a SATOA
becomes operational?
D. Impact on the Generator
Interconnection Queue
MISO proposes that, if it or a
stakeholder identifies a potential impact
to newly-interconnecting generation
resources in the interconnection study
process, MISO will assess whether the
proposed SATOA will have an impact.
If the assessment demonstrates that the
necessary operating mode of the
proposed SATOA will cause the need
for additional system mitigation, the
cost of such mitigation will be included
in the evaluation of the proposed
SATOA as compared with other
potential transmission solutions. MISO
proposes that its impact assessment may
include targeted contingency analyses
applying NERC TPL and applicable
regional and local planning criteria to
evaluate the incremental impact.9
17. Please provide further details on
how MISO would assess the impact of
a proposed SATOA on newlyinterconnecting generation resources
and compute costs if system mitigation
is needed. Would MISO account for
changes due to restudies in the
interconnection study process and, if so,
how? Could a SATOA be considered a
contingent facility? Will MISO’s
interconnection procedures be modified
to include any of these details? Does
MISO intend to include any of these
details in its Business Practice Manuals?
Will the analysis of the impact of the
proposed SATOA on the newlyinterconnecting generation resources be
available to market participants in the
regional transmission planning process
and/or interconnection customers in the
interconnection queue?
18. Will MISO’s assessment of
impacts include assessment of delays in
the interconnection queue, and if so,
how would MISO mitigate those delays?
If not, why is it not necessary to assess
potential delays to the interconnection
queue as a result of a proposed SATOA?
19. MISO states that the cost of
additional mitigation if the SATOA
affecting newly-interconnecting
9 MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 20–
21, Tab A, proposed MISO Tariff Att. FF, § II.G.1.d
(71.0.0).
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21225
generation resource is selected as the
preferred transmission solution in the
MTEP will be included in the
evaluation of the proposed SATOA.
Will such costs also be included in the
total SATOA cost recovered through
transmission rates and, if so, how?
E. Operating Guides
MISO states that it will coordinate
with the SATOA owner, MISO
Operations, and the transmission
operator to develop an operating guide
that will establish (1) conditions for
which the SATOA should be discharged
and charged to meet the anticipated
planning objective and (2) boundaries
for operation that will be consistent
with this objective and will reflect the
unique operating parameters of the
individual SATOA.10
20. Please provide a summary and
explanation of the information that may
be contained in the operating guides.
Please provide specific examples of the
information to be contained in the
operating guides.
F. Miscellaneous
21. Are there any scenarios where a
SATOA might be called upon under
emergency conditions to relieve an issue
outside of the specific transmission
issue for which the SATOA was
selected? If so, how will MISO handle
any out-of-market payments that the
SATOA receives?
22. Are SATOAs studied for
reliability impacts in the same way as
storage as non-transmission alternatives,
particularly regarding dynamic
stability? If not, why not? Please explain
in detail how SATOAs will be studied
for reliability impact.
The technical conference will be led
by Commission staff, and is open to the
public. All people interested in
participating in the conference must
register at the following link: https://
www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/
05-04-20-form.asp by no later than noon
on May 1, 2020. There is no registration
fee. Information on joining the technical
conference will be posted on the Events
Calendar available at https://
www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx?View=listview.
The conference will include
discussions between Commission staff
and MISO. If time permits, there may be
an opportunity for parties that are
participating in the conference to ask
questions or provide comments. The
proposed agenda for the technical
conference is described below.
Procedures to be followed at the
10 MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 21,
proposed MISO Tariff, Att. FF, § II.G.2 (71.0.0).
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
16APN1
21226
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 74 / Thursday, April 16, 2020 / Notices
conference and any changes to the
proposed agenda will be announced by
staff at the opening of the conference.
The technical conference will not be
transcribed.
Commission conferences are
accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For
accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to accessibility@ferc.gov
or call toll free 1–866–208–3372 (voice)
or 202–502 -8659 (TTY); or send a fax
to 202–208–2106 with the required
accommodations.
Following the technical conference,
the Commission will consider posttechnical conference comments
submitted on or before May 25, 2020.
The written comments will be included
in the formal record of the proceeding,
which, together with the record
developed to date, will form the basis
for further Commission action.
For more information about this
technical conference, please contact
Mark Byrd, 202–502–8071, mark.byrd@
ferc.gov. For information related to
logistics, please contact Sarah
McKinley, 202–502–8368,
sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov.
Dated: April 10, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Storage as a Transmission-Only Asset
(SATOA) in MISO Technical
Conference—Webex Teleconference
Monday, May 4, 2020, 9:00 a.m.–5:00
p.m.
9:00 a.m.–10:30 a.m. Evaluation and
Selection Criteria for SATOA
• Identified Transmission System
performance requirement
• Unique Characteristics or
Circumstances
• Functioning as SATOA Compared
to Market Participant
10:30 a.m.–10:45 a.m. Break
10:45 a.m.–11:30 a.m. Evaluation and
Selection Criteria for SATOA
(continued)
• Traditional Transmission Project
compared to SATOA
• SATOA Evaluation Criteria
• Communication of Decision
Approving a SATOA
11:30 a.m.–12:45 p.m. SATOA Market
Activities and Market Impacts
• Meaning of ‘‘Functional Control’’
• Impact of SATOA Activity on
Wholesale Market
• Information Regarding Market
Participant
12:45 p.m.–1:30 p.m. Lunch
1:30 p.m.–2:15 p.m. Cost Recovery for
SATOAs
• Formula Rate Structure
2:15 p.m.–3:30 p.m. Impact on the
Generator Interconnection Queue
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Apr 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
• Assessing the Impact of a SATOA
on Newly Interconnecting
Generating Resources
• Assessment of Delays and
Mitigation
3:30 p.m.–3:45 p.m. Break
3:45 p.m.–4:15 p.m. Operating Guides
• Information in Operating Guides
4:15 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Miscellaneous
• Emergency Conditions
• Reliability Impacts
[FR Doc. 2020–08021 Filed 4–15–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. EL20–41–000]
XO Energy LLC, XO Energy MA, LP, XO
Energy MA2, LP v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of
Complaint
Take notice that on April 8, 2020,
pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e
and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission’s (Commission)
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.206, XO Energy LLC, XO Energy
MA, LP and XO Energy MA2, LP
(Complainants) filed a formal complaint
against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,
(PJM or Respondent), alleging that the
PJM Financial Transmission Right
forfeiture rule, including its current
implementation, is unjust and
unreasonable, all as more fully
explained in the complaint.
The Complainants certifies that copies
of the complaint were served on the
contacts listed for Respondent in the
Commission’s list of Corporate Officials.
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. The Respondent’s answer
and all interventions, or protests must
be filed on or before the comment date.
The Respondent’s answer, motions to
intervene, and protests must be served
on the Complainants.
The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings of comments, protests
and interventions in lieu of paper using
the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
electronically may mail similar
pleadings to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand
delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to
Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
In addition to publishing the full text
of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
ferc.gov) using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link.
Enter the docket number excluding the
last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. At this
time, the Commission has suspended
access to the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued
by the President on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call
toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202)
502–8659.
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time on May 1, 2020.
Dated: April 10, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–08020 Filed 4–15–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 2934–029]
New York State Electric & Gas
Corporation; Notice of Settlement
Agreement
Take notice that the following
settlement agreement has been filed
with the Commission and is available
for public inspection.
a. Type of Application: Settlement
Agreement.
b. Project No.: 2934–029.
c. Date Filed: April 8, 2020.
d. Applicant: New York State Electric
& Gas Corporation (NYSEG).
e. Name of Project: Upper
Mechanicville Hydroelectric Project
(Project).
f. Location: On the Hudson River, in
Saratoga and Rensselaer Counties, New
York. The project does not occupy any
federal land.
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
16APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 74 (Thursday, April 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21223-21226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08021]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER20-588-000]
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of
Technical Conference
By order dated March 10, 2020,\1\ the Commission directed staff to
convene a technical conference regarding Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc.'s (MISO) filing of proposed revisions to its Open
Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff to
allow for the
[[Page 21224]]
selection of a storage facility as a transmission-only asset (SATOA) in
the MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP). The technical conference
will explore issues including, but not limited to, MISO's proposed
evaluation and selection criteria for SATOAs, the SATOA's market
activities and any potential wholesale market impacts of those
activities, how MISO's current formula rate structure accommodates cost
recovery for SATOAs, a SATOA's potential effects on the generator
interconnection queue, and operating guides that will apply to a
SATOA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 170 FERC ] 61,186
(2020).
\2\ Id. P 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take notice that the Commission will hold this staff-led technical
conference on Monday, May 4, 2020, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
(Eastern Time). This conference will be held remotely, as further
described below.
Participants should be prepared to discuss, at minimum, the
following:
A. Evaluation and Selection Criteria for SATOAs
MISO proposes Tariff language stating that, to be selected for
inclusion in Appendix A of the MTEP as a transmission asset, a proposed
SATOA must demonstrate:
a. Unique characteristics or circumstances of the proposed SATOA
necessary to meet the identified Transmission System performance
requirements and not otherwise available at comparable costs from other
proposed solutions, including speed of operation, lead-time to
implement, right-of-way, or other property considerations.
b. A need to resolve the Transmission Issue(s) through the storage
facility's functioning as a SATOA instead of as a Resource that
participates in [MISO's] markets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Tab A, proposed MISO Tariff Att. FF,
Sec. II.G.1.c.i (71.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISO states that an example of a unique characteristic is the
storage asset's ability to rapidly inject and withdraw real or reactive
power in solving transmission issues that could not otherwise be
resolved if the storage asset was participating in markets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 2 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What is an ``identified Transmission System performance
requirement?'' How and where are they identified? What is the
difference between an identified Transmission System performance
requirement and a Transmission Issue? What are examples of Transmission
System performance requirements that can be addressed by a proposed
SATOA?
2. What criteria will MISO consider when determining whether a
proposed SATOA has unique characteristics or circumstances necessary to
meet the identified transmission system performance requirements? How
does MISO intend to communicate these criteria to stakeholders and
participants in the MTEP? What does MISO mean by ``other property
considerations''?
3. What criteria will MISO consider when determining whether there
is a need for the storage facility to solve the transmission issue
through the storage facility's functioning as a SATOA instead of as a
resource that participates in MISO's markets? How does MISO intend to
communicate these criteria to stakeholders and participants in the
MTEP?
4. With regard to MISO's example of a unique characteristic-i.e., a
storage asset's ability to rapidly inject and withdraw real or reactive
power in solving transmission issues-how can storage as transmission be
distinguished from storage resources participating in markets that
could have their dispatch schedules adjusted to rapidly inject or
withdraw real or reactive power to solve transmission issues if needed
as part of the normal security constrained dispatch of market
resources?
5. If a traditional transmission project and a SATOA can both meet
a transmission system performance requirement equally well, how will
MISO determine which solution to select in the regional transmission
planning process? If multiple SATOA proposals have unique
characteristics or circumstances necessary to meet the identified
transmission system performance requirements, how will MISO determine
which solution to select in the regional transmission planning process?
6. If the entity that proposes a SATOA does not provide sufficient
information for MISO to determine whether the SATOA meets the criteria
outlined in the Tariff excerpted above, how will MISO proceed? For
instance, will MISO attempt to determine if the SATOA meets the
criteria using MISO's own independent analysis? Will that analysis be
available to other participants in the regional transmission planning
process?
7. How will MISO's evaluation criteria ensure that SATOAs are
limited to only those electric storage resources that are performing a
transmission-specific function?
8. Please explain how MISO will communicate its decision in
approving a SATOA. For instance, MISO stated in its filing that there
is currently a storage resource pending as a recommended project in
MTEP19. Is the explanation provided in the MTEP19 executive summary
regarding this recommended project representative of the type of
explanation that MISO intends to provide in the future? What steps will
MISO take if additional information is requested from participants in
the regional transmission planning process?
MISO states that comparative evaluations of a proposed SATOA will
include the minimum and maximum capacity required to address the
transmission issue to ensure that excess storage capacity is not
treated as a transmission asset. MISO further states that cost recovery
under transmission rates is limited to the cost of the maximum capacity
to be determined needed to address the transmission issue.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Tab A, proposed MISO Tariff Att. FF,
Sec. II.G.1.a.ii (71.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. How will MISO determine the maximum capacity needed to address
the transmission issue? Please explain.
B. SATOA Market Activities and Market Impacts
MISO states that the SATOA owner is responsible for maintaining the
necessary state of charge to be ready to serve the transmission
function for which it was approved in the MTEP, and MISO will exercise
functional control of the SATOA for transmission purposes only, i.e.,
charging and discharging to meet the transmission need will be done at
the direction of MISO.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 6-7; MISO Answer
at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. What does it mean for a SATOA to be under MISO's ``functional
control,'' while making the SATOA owner responsible for maintaining
state of charge? Will MISO tell the SATOA when to charge and discharge
while the SATOA is performing to meet the transmission need? What is
the practical difference, if any, between charging/discharging to
``meet'' the transmission need and charging/discharging to be ``ready
to serve'' the transmission need?
11. How will MISO ensure that a SATOA under its ``functional
control'' is available (e.g., not fully charged when needed to withdraw
power and not fully discharged when needed to inject power) to solve a
transmission issue?
12. Please explain your view on whether and, if so, how the
charging/discharging activities of the SATOA directed under MISO's
functional control or, in connection with the SATOA owner's
responsibility to maintain state of charge, impact the wholesale energy
and capacity markets. For example, would these activities impact
transmission capacity, congestion, and/or other resources'
[[Page 21225]]
ability to meet energy and ancillary services needs, etc.? Please
explain.
MISO proposes that the SATOA owner will need a registered market
participant to receive energy net costs when charging and discharging
under MISO's functional control. MISO states that the market
participant for a SATOA will be credited the applicable Real-Time Ex
Post LMP for Non-Excessive Energy and will be charged for Non-Excessive
Energy withdrawals. MISO explains that the SATOA market participant
then must provide the net revenues back to the transmission owner, and
those net revenues will offset the transmission revenue requirement
associated with the resource.\7\ MISO states that the SATOA will be a
price taker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 23, Tab A,
proposed MISO Tariff, Module C, Sec. 40.3.3.3.a.i (44.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Does a SATOA's direct participation in the wholesale energy
markets as a price-taker create potential impacts on the wholesale
energy and capacity markets by, for instance, displacing otherwise
marginal or infra-marginal resources and possibly changing the energy
market price? Why or why not? If energy market impacts occur, will they
be minimal or might they be mitigated, and if so how?
14. Please provide further information on: (1) What types of entity
could serve as the SATOA's market participant; (2) whether such market
participant and/or the SATOA owner would have market-based rate
authority; and (3) if the market participant were affiliated merchant
function staff, how the standards of conduct would be met.
C. Cost Recovery for SATOAs
MISO proposes that costs resulting from a SATOA's market activities
directed under MISO's functional control be collected through
transmission rates in a manner consistent with the treatment of costs
associated with the transmission project type in which the SATOA is
included in Appendix A to the MTEP. Any revenues collected from the
SATOA's market activities directed under MISO's functional control
would be credited through transmission rates in a manner consistent
with the treatment of costs associated with the transmission project
category in transmission rates.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 22, Tab A,
proposed MISO Tariff, Att. FF Sec. II.G.6 (71.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. How does MISO's current formula rate structure in Attachments
O, GG, or MM accommodate cost recovery for SATOAs? Are any of those
provisions sufficient to allow net market revenue to be credited
through the transmission revenue requirement? Will the net energy
revenue be credited outside the existing formulas, e.g., through a
separate rider?
16. If the existing formulas will need to be modified to
accommodate SATOAs, what types of modifications are needed and when
will such modifications be filed to ensure that they are effective
before a SATOA becomes operational?
D. Impact on the Generator Interconnection Queue
MISO proposes that, if it or a stakeholder identifies a potential
impact to newly-interconnecting generation resources in the
interconnection study process, MISO will assess whether the proposed
SATOA will have an impact. If the assessment demonstrates that the
necessary operating mode of the proposed SATOA will cause the need for
additional system mitigation, the cost of such mitigation will be
included in the evaluation of the proposed SATOA as compared with other
potential transmission solutions. MISO proposes that its impact
assessment may include targeted contingency analyses applying NERC TPL
and applicable regional and local planning criteria to evaluate the
incremental impact.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 20-21, Tab A,
proposed MISO Tariff Att. FF, Sec. II.G.1.d (71.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Please provide further details on how MISO would assess the
impact of a proposed SATOA on newly-interconnecting generation
resources and compute costs if system mitigation is needed. Would MISO
account for changes due to restudies in the interconnection study
process and, if so, how? Could a SATOA be considered a contingent
facility? Will MISO's interconnection procedures be modified to include
any of these details? Does MISO intend to include any of these details
in its Business Practice Manuals? Will the analysis of the impact of
the proposed SATOA on the newly-interconnecting generation resources be
available to market participants in the regional transmission planning
process and/or interconnection customers in the interconnection queue?
18. Will MISO's assessment of impacts include assessment of delays
in the interconnection queue, and if so, how would MISO mitigate those
delays? If not, why is it not necessary to assess potential delays to
the interconnection queue as a result of a proposed SATOA?
19. MISO states that the cost of additional mitigation if the SATOA
affecting newly-interconnecting generation resource is selected as the
preferred transmission solution in the MTEP will be included in the
evaluation of the proposed SATOA. Will such costs also be included in
the total SATOA cost recovered through transmission rates and, if so,
how?
E. Operating Guides
MISO states that it will coordinate with the SATOA owner, MISO
Operations, and the transmission operator to develop an operating guide
that will establish (1) conditions for which the SATOA should be
discharged and charged to meet the anticipated planning objective and
(2) boundaries for operation that will be consistent with this
objective and will reflect the unique operating parameters of the
individual SATOA.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ MISO Dec. 12 Filing, Transmittal Letter at 21, proposed
MISO Tariff, Att. FF, Sec. II.G.2 (71.0.0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Please provide a summary and explanation of the information
that may be contained in the operating guides. Please provide specific
examples of the information to be contained in the operating guides.
F. Miscellaneous
21. Are there any scenarios where a SATOA might be called upon
under emergency conditions to relieve an issue outside of the specific
transmission issue for which the SATOA was selected? If so, how will
MISO handle any out-of-market payments that the SATOA receives?
22. Are SATOAs studied for reliability impacts in the same way as
storage as non-transmission alternatives, particularly regarding
dynamic stability? If not, why not? Please explain in detail how SATOAs
will be studied for reliability impact.
The technical conference will be led by Commission staff, and is
open to the public. All people interested in participating in the
conference must register at the following link: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/05-04-20-form.asp by no later than noon on May
1, 2020. There is no registration fee. Information on joining the
technical conference will be posted on the Events Calendar available at
https://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx?View=listview.
The conference will include discussions between Commission staff
and MISO. If time permits, there may be an opportunity for parties that
are participating in the conference to ask questions or provide
comments. The proposed agenda for the technical conference is described
below. Procedures to be followed at the
[[Page 21226]]
conference and any changes to the proposed agenda will be announced by
staff at the opening of the conference. The technical conference will
not be transcribed.
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 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502 -8659 (TTY); or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with
the required accommodations.
Following the technical conference, the Commission will consider
post-technical conference comments submitted on or before May 25, 2020.
The written comments will be included in the formal record of the
proceeding, which, together with the record developed to date, will
form the basis for further Commission action.
For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Mark Byrd, 202-502-8071, [email protected]. For information
related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley, 202-502-8368,
[email protected].
Dated: April 10, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
Storage as a Transmission-Only Asset (SATOA) in MISO Technical
Conference--Webex Teleconference
Monday, May 4, 2020, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
9:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Evaluation and Selection Criteria for SATOA
Identified Transmission System performance requirement
Unique Characteristics or Circumstances
Functioning as SATOA Compared to Market Participant
10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m. Break
10:45 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Evaluation and Selection Criteria for SATOA
(continued)
Traditional Transmission Project compared to SATOA
SATOA Evaluation Criteria
Communication of Decision Approving a SATOA
11:30 a.m.-12:45 p.m. SATOA Market Activities and Market Impacts
Meaning of ``Functional Control''
Impact of SATOA Activity on Wholesale Market
Information Regarding Market Participant
12:45 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Lunch
1:30 p.m.-2:15 p.m. Cost Recovery for SATOAs
Formula Rate Structure
2:15 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Impact on the Generator Interconnection Queue
Assessing the Impact of a SATOA on Newly Interconnecting
Generating Resources
Assessment of Delays and Mitigation
3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Break
3:45 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Operating Guides
Information in Operating Guides
4:15 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Miscellaneous
Emergency Conditions
Reliability Impacts
[FR Doc. 2020-08021 Filed 4-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
