Offshore Wind Integration in RTOs/ISOs; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference, 66547-66549 [2020-23157]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
66547
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 2020 / Notices
Dated: October 14, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
proceeding on June 17, 2020, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will convene a staff-led
technical conference in the above
referenced proceeding on Tuesday,
October 27, 2020, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. (ET).1 The conference will be held
virtually and will be webcast.
Commissioners may attend and
participate. This conference will
consider whether and how existing
regional transmission organization
(RTO) and independent system operator
(ISO) interconnection, merchant
transmission and transmission planning
frameworks can accommodate
anticipated growth in offshore wind
generation in an efficient or cost-
[FR Doc. 2020–23200 Filed 10–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. AD20–18–000]
Offshore Wind Integration in RTOs/
ISOs; Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference
As first announced in the Notice of
Technical Conference issued in this
effective manner that safeguards open
access transmission principles. The
conference also will provide an
opportunity for participants to discuss
possible changes or improvements to
the current regulatory frameworks that
may accommodate such growth.
Attached to this Supplemental Notice is
an agenda for the technical conference,
which includes the final conference
program and speakers.
We note that discussions at the
conference may involve issues raised in
proceedings that are currently pending
before the Commission. These
proceedings include, but are not limited
to:
Docket Nos.
Constellation Mystic Power, LLC v. ISO New England Inc ..................................................................................
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc ..................................................................................................
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and Southwest Power Pool, Inc .............................................
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc ..................................................................................................
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc ..................................................................................................
New York Independent System Operator Inc .......................................................................................................
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C ...................................................................................................................................
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc .............................................
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C ...................................................................................................................................
Southwest Power Pool, Inc ...................................................................................................................................
Vineyard Wind LLC ................................................................................................................................................
There is no fee for attendance, and the
conference is open for the public to
attend via webcast. Information on this
technical conference, including a link to
the webcast, will be posted on the
conference’s event page on the
Commission’s website (https://
www.ferc.gov/news-events/events/
technical-conference-regarding-offshorewind-integration-rtosisos-docket-noad20) prior to the event. The conference
will be transcribed. Transcripts of the
conference will be available for a fee
from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202–
347–3700). For more information about
this technical conference, please
contact:
Sarah McKinley (Logistical
Information), Office of External
Affairs, (202) 502–8004,
sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov
David Rosner (Technical Information),
Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, (202) 502–8479,
david.rosner@ferc.gov
Rishi Garg (Legal Information), Office of
the General Counsel, (202) 502–8667,
rishi.garg@ferc.gov
1 18
Dated: October 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
Staff-Led Technical Conference on
Offshore Wind Integration in RTOs/
ISOs
Docket No. AD20–18–000
October 27, 2020
Agenda and Speakers
9:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m.: Welcome and
Opening Remarks
9:15 a.m.–10:45 a.m.: Panel 1:
Background on the U.S. Offshore
Wind Industry in RTO/ISO Markets
Judy Chang, Undersecretary of
Energy, State of Massachusetts,
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Energy and Environmental Affairs
Carrie Cullen Hitt, Executive Director,
National Offshore Wind Research
and Development Consortium
Johannes Pfeifenberger, Principal, The
Brattle Group
Casey Reeves, Project Coordinator,
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management
Gabe Tabak, Counsel, American Wind
Energy Association
This panel will provide an overview
of factors driving interest in the
development and integration of offshore
EL20–52–000, EL20–52–001.
ER20–940–002.
ER20–943–002.
ER20–942–002.
ER20–2788–000.
EL20–65–000.
ER20–939–001.
ER20–944–002.
ER20–2308–000.
ER20–945–001.
ER19–570–000.
wind generation in the RTO/ISO
regions, and will outline potential
models for grid integration to meet
anticipated growth in offshore wind
generation. The panel will include a
discussion of the following topics and
questions:
1. What factors are driving interest in
the development and integration of
offshore wind generation in the RTO/
ISO regions?
2. What is the status of state policy
targets regarding the procurement of
offshore wind generation? How do state
procurement processes for offshore
wind generation account for
Commission rules and RTO/ISO
processes for interconnection, merchant
transmission and transmission
planning? Are there any state-level
regulatory challenges surrounding
offshore wind generator
interconnection, merchant transmission
and transmission planning that
Commission staff should be aware of?
3. There are likely many challenges
and opportunities facing efficient or
cost-effective integration of offshore
wind generation. Where do
interconnection, merchant transmission
and transmission planning rank among
these?
CFR 2.1(a)(1)(xi) (2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:08 Oct 19, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
66548
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 2020 / Notices
4. What are the various conceptual
models being considered in the short
and long terms for the interconnection
of, and transmission for, offshore wind
generation? What are the major
challenges and opportunities associated
with these various conceptual models,
and which of these may be viable paths
forward to developing sufficient
transmission infrastructure in RTOs/
ISOs to accommodate anticipated
growth in offshore wind generation? Are
these various conceptual models
consistent with existing Commission
regulatory frameworks? If not, what are
the impediments?
5. What is the current procedure for
obtaining offshore wind leases from the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM), and how does the wind leasing
process influence interconnection and
transmission development needs? Is
BOEM considering any changes to that
process going forward? How do BOEM’s
processes interact with the
Commission’s regulatory frameworks or
RTO/ISO processes for interconnection,
merchant transmission and transmission
planning? Do the Commission’s
regulatory frameworks and/or RTO/ISO
processes present any impediments in
these areas? If so, what are the
impediments?
6. What is the current state of
development of various transmission
technologies related to offshore wind
generation, including AC and DC
technologies?
7. How might innovations in offshore
wind generation impact the amount of
generation additions expected in the
future? Similarly, how might
innovations in transmission
technologies impact RTO/ISO
approaches to integrating anticipated
offshore wind generation?
10:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m.: Break
11:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m.: Panel 2:
Transmission Planning and
Coordination for Integration of
Offshore Wind Generation
Robert Ethier, Director, System
Planning, ISO-New England
Larry Gasteiger, Executive Director,
WIRES
Sebastian Libonatti, Vice President,
Business Development, Avangrid
Networks
Anne Marie McShea, Head of
Offshore Wind Business
Development: New York—
MidAtlantic Region, OW Ocean
Winds
Stuart Nachmias, President and CEO,
Con Edison Transmission, Inc.
Zachary Smith, Vice President,
System and Resource Planning,
New York Independent System
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:08 Oct 19, 2020
Jkt 253001
Operator
Robert Snook, Assistant Attorney
General, Connecticut Office of the
Attorney General
This panel will explore whether and
how existing transmission planning
processes consider onshore and offshore
transmission projects to integrate
anticipated generation resources,
whether these transmission projects
should be considered through another
mechanism, and whether the Order No.
1000 interregional coordination
provisions facilitate development of
transmission projects to integrate remote
generation that can potentially serve
multiple RTOs/ISOs. The panel will
include a discussion of the following
topics and questions:
1. Do existing RTO/ISO transmission
planning and cost allocation
processes—including public policy
planning requirements, interregional
coordination, and other approaches—
accommodate the anticipated need for
transmission to integrate offshore wind
generation? If not, why not? Are there
existing impediments? If so, what are
they? How does the answer differ, if at
all, in the short term (e.g., by 2030) and
long term (e.g., after 2030)?
2. Staff is aware of various
transmission development options for
integrating offshore wind generation.
Among others, these include: (1) The
conventional approach in which
Interconnection Customer
Interconnection Facilities and Network
Upgrades are developed in tandem with
new generator interconnection requests,
and either sized to accommodate a
single generation facility or sized to
maximize the export capability on a
radial line given the anticipated
development of additional generation in
the same area; and (2) a ‘‘transmission
first’’ approach in which large-scale
transmission facilities, including an
extension of the transmission system
and/or expansion of capacity within
existing facilities, are constructed
onshore and/or offshore for anticipated
generation in order to realize economies
of scale. The Commission’s regulatory
frameworks, except perhaps the
merchant transmission framework, do
not include a ‘‘transmission first’’
approach. Do the Commission’s
regulatory frameworks and/or RTO/ISO
processes present any impediments to
these options? If so, what are the
impediments? What opportunities or
potential efficiencies, if any, do these or
other approaches offer?
3. Should ‘‘transmission first’’
facilities be considered through a
dedicated planning process designed for
offshore wind generation? If so, how
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
would that process work and relate to
existing interconnection, merchant
transmission and transmission planning
processes? Are there any impediments
or advantages/disadvantages to using a
dedicated process?
4. When considering proposed
transmission projects to integrate
anticipated growth in offshore wind
generation pursuant to RTO/ISO
transmission planning and cost
allocation processes, how would the
benefits be considered? Are potential
co-benefits, such as improved reliability
or greater capacity to integrate other
resources, of the proposed transmission
projects, considered? If not, why not?
What are the impediments to such
consideration?
1:00 p.m.–2:00 p.m.: Lunch
2:00 p.m.–3:30 p.m.: Panel 3:
Interconnection of Offshore Wind
via Generator and Merchant
Transmission Interconnection
Processes
Jessica Lau, Senior Technical Project
Manager, Grid Systems, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory
Alan McBride, Director, Transmission
Services and Resource
Qualification, ISO–NE
Theodore Paradise, Senior Vice
President, Transmission Strategy &
Counsel, Anbaric Development
Partners, LLC
Kenneth Seiler, Vice President—
Planning, PJM Interconnection
Abraham Silverman, General
Counsel, New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities
Jon Wellinghoff, CEO, Grid Policy, Inc.
Eric Wilkinson, Energy Policy Analyst,
North America, Orsted
This panel will explore whether and
how existing RTO/ISO generator
interconnection and transmission
interconnection frameworks could
accommodate anticipated growth in
offshore wind generation in the short
and long terms and, if not, consider the
nature of any impediments. The panel
will include a discussion of the
following topics and questions:
1. To what extent do existing RTO/
ISO merchant transmission rules
accommodate a ‘‘transmission first’’
approach for the development of
onshore and/or offshore transmission
facilities that may be needed to integrate
offshore wind generation?
2. What are the potential advantages
or disadvantages of using a merchant
transmission approach—in which the
developer assumes all risks associated
with the transmission project and
charges negotiated transmission rates—
to develop transmission for anticipated
offshore wind generation? How do these
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 2020 / Notices
potential advantages or disadvantages
compare to those of the conventional
interconnection, merchant transmission
and/or transmission planning? Is one
approach more likely to lead to
integrated offshore wind generation
development?
3. Are there any challenges associated
with using the merchant transmission
model where subscribing generation has
not yet been identified? What types of
injection rights may be appropriate for
merchant transmission projects that
have not yet identified all
interconnecting offshore wind
generation?
4. If RTO/ISO merchant transmission
frameworks were to be used, what
milestones currently exist or should be
established if such a framework were to
apply to transmission facilities for
offshore wind generation? At what point
in the merchant transmission
interconnection process should an
offshore transmission project be
required to demonstrate that it has
contracted with offshore wind
generation?
5. What steps must an offshore or
onshore merchant transmission
developer complete to meet site control
requirements? Does a merchant
transmission developer need full site
control of onshore connections as well
as the offshore lease area? Are the
existing merchant transmission rules
pertaining to partial vs. full site control
creating any impediments for offshore
wind generation? If so, what are the
impediments? Do the requirements for
site control in RTO/ISO processes for
generator interconnection and merchant
transmission interconnection differ? If
so, how? If so, does that difference
create impediments for offshore wind
generation?
6. Should the current criteria for
granting negotiated rate authority to
merchant transmission developers be
adjusted to consider potential market
power concerns that may emerge from
unique attributes of offshore wind
generation (e.g., a limited number of
points of interconnection)?
7. When merchant transmission
developers select and interconnect
offshore wind generation, what factors
do they consider, and which are most
important (e.g., available landing points,
existing interconnection infrastructure,
existing system capacity for injections,
etc.)? What are the benefits of being a
first mover with regards to merchant
transmission interconnection? Are there
any impediments under the merchant
transmission framework to the
development of offshore wind
generation? If so, what are the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:08 Oct 19, 2020
Jkt 253001
impediments? What are the best ways to
reduce or eliminate the impediments?
8. Are existing dynamic modeling
data requirements adequate for
increased penetration of inverter-based
wind generation and offshore
transmission projects, under either
conventional transmission planning
processes or merchant transmission
frameworks? Are there specific
improvements that would have to be
made to data requirements or
transmission planning assumptions
regarding dynamic modeling to
accommodate a ‘‘transmission first’’
approach?
3:30 p.m.–3:45 p.m.: Break
3:45 p.m.–4:45 p.m.: Panel 4:
Alternative Models for Offshore
Wind Transmission
Jeff Billinton, Director, Transmission
Infrastructure Planning, California
ISO
James Cotter, General Manager,
American Offshore Wind, Shell
New Energies
Beth Garza, Senior Fellow, Electricity
Policy, R Street Institute
Michael Goggin, Business Network for
Offshore Wind and Vice President,
Grid Strategies, LLC
Kim Hanemann, SVP & Chief
Operating Officer, Public Service
Electric & Gas Company
Jan Papsch: Team Lead Electricity,
European Commission, Directorate
General for Energy
This panel will explore potential
alternative models for building
transmission that may be needed to
accommodate anticipated growth in
offshore wind generation. The panel
will include a discussion of the
following topics and questions:
1. In an ideal world, what would a
model for transmission development
that could accommodate anticipated
growth in offshore wind generation look
like? Could this be achieved under
existing RTO/ISO approaches? If not,
what are the impediments?
2. Are there examples of existing
interconnection, merchant transmission,
and/or transmission planning processes
for accessing remote onshore generation
resources that could be adapted to the
offshore wind context? If so, how?
3. What reforms would you
recommend that the Commission
consider pursuing to facilitate the
efficient or cost-effective integration of
anticipated offshore wind generation in
RTOs/ISOs, including potential
modifications of the existing
interconnection, merchant transmission,
and/or transmission planning processes,
or other potential changes?
4. Are there existing or anticipated
state legislative efforts related to
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66549
transmission development for offshore
wind generation? Are these efforts
consistent with existing RTO/ISO tariffs
and the Commission’s existing
regulatory frameworks?
5. Which aspects of the
interconnection, merchant transmission,
and/or transmission planning and cost
allocation processes related to offshore
wind generation used in European
markets could be adapted to or inform
the U.S. framework?
4:45 p.m.–5:00 p.m.: Closing Remarks
[FR Doc. 2020–23157 Filed 10–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 13417–008]
Western Technical College; ReNew
Hydro Power, LLC; Notice of
Application for Transfer of License and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Protests
On September 14, 2020, Western
Technical College (transferor) and
ReNew Hydro Power, LLC (transferee)
filed jointly an application for the
transfer of license of the Angelo Dam
Hydroelectric Project No. 13417. The
project is located on the La Crosse River,
Monroe County, Wisconsin.
The applicants seek Commission
approval to transfer the license for the
Angelo Dam Hydroelectric Project from
the transferor to the transferee.
Applicants Contact: For transferor:
Roger Stanford, President, Western
Technical College, 400 7th St. N, La
Crosse, WI 54601, Phone: (608) 785–
9123.
For transferee: Christopher or Beth
Cutts, Manager, ReNew Hydro Power,
LLC, W7547 County Road P., Wild Rose,
WI 54984, Phone: (920) 765–2193.
FERC Contact: Anumzziatta
Purchiaroni, (202) 502–6191,
Anumzziatta.purchiaroni@ferc.gov.
Deadline for filing comments, motions
to intervene, and protests: 30 days from
the date that the Commission issues this
notice. The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and
protests using the Commission’s eFiling
system at https://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end
of your comments. For assistance,
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66547-66549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23157]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AD20-18-000]
Offshore Wind Integration in RTOs/ISOs; Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference
As first announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in
this proceeding on June 17, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference
in the above referenced proceeding on Tuesday, October 27, 2020, from
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET).\1\ The conference will be held virtually
and will be webcast. Commissioners may attend and participate. This
conference will consider whether and how existing regional transmission
organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO)
interconnection, merchant transmission and transmission planning
frameworks can accommodate anticipated growth in offshore wind
generation in an efficient or cost-effective manner that safeguards
open access transmission principles. The conference also will provide
an opportunity for participants to discuss possible changes or
improvements to the current regulatory frameworks that may accommodate
such growth. Attached to this Supplemental Notice is an agenda for the
technical conference, which includes the final conference program and
speakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 18 CFR 2.1(a)(1)(xi) (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that discussions at the conference may involve issues
raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission.
These proceedings include, but are not limited to:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket Nos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Mystic Power, LLC v. ISO New England Inc. EL20-52-000, EL20-52-001.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.......... ER20-940-002.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and ER20-943-002.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.......... ER20-942-002.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.......... ER20-2788-000.
New York Independent System Operator Inc............... EL20-65-000.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............................. ER20-939-001.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Midcontinent ER20-944-002.
Independent System Operator, Inc.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C............................. ER20-2308-000.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.............................. ER20-945-001.
Vineyard Wind LLC...................................... ER19-570-000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no fee for attendance, and the conference is open for the
public to attend via webcast. Information on this technical conference,
including a link to the webcast, will be posted on the conference's
event page on the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events/technical-conference-regarding-offshore-wind-integration-rtosisos-docket-no-ad20) prior to the event. The conference will be
transcribed. Transcripts of the conference will be available for a fee
from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202-347-3700). For more information
about this technical conference, please contact:
Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
(202) 502-8004, [email protected]
David Rosner (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, (202) 502-8479, [email protected]
Rishi Garg (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, (202)
502-8667, [email protected]
Dated: October 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
Staff-Led Technical Conference on Offshore Wind Integration in RTOs/
ISOs
Docket No. AD20-18-000
October 27, 2020
Agenda and Speakers
9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m.: Welcome and Opening Remarks
9:15 a.m.-10:45 a.m.: Panel 1: Background on the U.S. Offshore Wind
Industry in RTO/ISO Markets
Judy Chang, Undersecretary of Energy, State of Massachusetts,
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Carrie Cullen Hitt, Executive Director, National Offshore Wind
Research and Development Consortium
Johannes Pfeifenberger, Principal, The Brattle Group
Casey Reeves, Project Coordinator, U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Gabe Tabak, Counsel, American Wind Energy Association
This panel will provide an overview of factors driving interest in
the development and integration of offshore wind generation in the RTO/
ISO regions, and will outline potential models for grid integration to
meet anticipated growth in offshore wind generation. The panel will
include a discussion of the following topics and questions:
1. What factors are driving interest in the development and
integration of offshore wind generation in the RTO/ISO regions?
2. What is the status of state policy targets regarding the
procurement of offshore wind generation? How do state procurement
processes for offshore wind generation account for Commission rules and
RTO/ISO processes for interconnection, merchant transmission and
transmission planning? Are there any state-level regulatory challenges
surrounding offshore wind generator interconnection, merchant
transmission and transmission planning that Commission staff should be
aware of?
3. There are likely many challenges and opportunities facing
efficient or cost-effective integration of offshore wind generation.
Where do interconnection, merchant transmission and transmission
planning rank among these?
[[Page 66548]]
4. What are the various conceptual models being considered in the
short and long terms for the interconnection of, and transmission for,
offshore wind generation? What are the major challenges and
opportunities associated with these various conceptual models, and
which of these may be viable paths forward to developing sufficient
transmission infrastructure in RTOs/ISOs to accommodate anticipated
growth in offshore wind generation? Are these various conceptual models
consistent with existing Commission regulatory frameworks? If not, what
are the impediments?
5. What is the current procedure for obtaining offshore wind leases
from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and how does the
wind leasing process influence interconnection and transmission
development needs? Is BOEM considering any changes to that process
going forward? How do BOEM's processes interact with the Commission's
regulatory frameworks or RTO/ISO processes for interconnection,
merchant transmission and transmission planning? Do the Commission's
regulatory frameworks and/or RTO/ISO processes present any impediments
in these areas? If so, what are the impediments?
6. What is the current state of development of various transmission
technologies related to offshore wind generation, including AC and DC
technologies?
7. How might innovations in offshore wind generation impact the
amount of generation additions expected in the future? Similarly, how
might innovations in transmission technologies impact RTO/ISO
approaches to integrating anticipated offshore wind generation?
10:45 a.m.-11:00 a.m.: Break
11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.: Panel 2: Transmission Planning and Coordination
for Integration of Offshore Wind Generation
Robert Ethier, Director, System Planning, ISO-New England
Larry Gasteiger, Executive Director, WIRES
Sebastian Libonatti, Vice President, Business Development, Avangrid
Networks
Anne Marie McShea, Head of Offshore Wind Business Development: New
York--MidAtlantic Region, OW Ocean Winds
Stuart Nachmias, President and CEO, Con Edison Transmission, Inc.
Zachary Smith, Vice President, System and Resource Planning, New
York Independent System Operator
Robert Snook, Assistant Attorney General, Connecticut Office of the
Attorney General
This panel will explore whether and how existing transmission
planning processes consider onshore and offshore transmission projects
to integrate anticipated generation resources, whether these
transmission projects should be considered through another mechanism,
and whether the Order No. 1000 interregional coordination provisions
facilitate development of transmission projects to integrate remote
generation that can potentially serve multiple RTOs/ISOs. The panel
will include a discussion of the following topics and questions:
1. Do existing RTO/ISO transmission planning and cost allocation
processes--including public policy planning requirements, interregional
coordination, and other approaches--accommodate the anticipated need
for transmission to integrate offshore wind generation? If not, why
not? Are there existing impediments? If so, what are they? How does the
answer differ, if at all, in the short term (e.g., by 2030) and long
term (e.g., after 2030)?
2. Staff is aware of various transmission development options for
integrating offshore wind generation. Among others, these include: (1)
The conventional approach in which Interconnection Customer
Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades are developed in tandem
with new generator interconnection requests, and either sized to
accommodate a single generation facility or sized to maximize the
export capability on a radial line given the anticipated development of
additional generation in the same area; and (2) a ``transmission
first'' approach in which large-scale transmission facilities,
including an extension of the transmission system and/or expansion of
capacity within existing facilities, are constructed onshore and/or
offshore for anticipated generation in order to realize economies of
scale. The Commission's regulatory frameworks, except perhaps the
merchant transmission framework, do not include a ``transmission
first'' approach. Do the Commission's regulatory frameworks and/or RTO/
ISO processes present any impediments to these options? If so, what are
the impediments? What opportunities or potential efficiencies, if any,
do these or other approaches offer?
3. Should ``transmission first'' facilities be considered through a
dedicated planning process designed for offshore wind generation? If
so, how would that process work and relate to existing interconnection,
merchant transmission and transmission planning processes? Are there
any impediments or advantages/disadvantages to using a dedicated
process?
4. When considering proposed transmission projects to integrate
anticipated growth in offshore wind generation pursuant to RTO/ISO
transmission planning and cost allocation processes, how would the
benefits be considered? Are potential co-benefits, such as improved
reliability or greater capacity to integrate other resources, of the
proposed transmission projects, considered? If not, why not? What are
the impediments to such consideration?
1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m.: Lunch
2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Panel 3: Interconnection of Offshore Wind via
Generator and Merchant Transmission Interconnection Processes
Jessica Lau, Senior Technical Project Manager, Grid Systems,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Alan McBride, Director, Transmission Services and Resource
Qualification, ISO-NE
Theodore Paradise, Senior Vice President, Transmission Strategy &
Counsel, Anbaric Development Partners, LLC
Kenneth Seiler, Vice President--Planning, PJM Interconnection
Abraham Silverman, General Counsel, New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities
Jon Wellinghoff, CEO, Grid Policy, Inc.
Eric Wilkinson, Energy Policy Analyst, North America, Orsted
This panel will explore whether and how existing RTO/ISO generator
interconnection and transmission interconnection frameworks could
accommodate anticipated growth in offshore wind generation in the short
and long terms and, if not, consider the nature of any impediments. The
panel will include a discussion of the following topics and questions:
1. To what extent do existing RTO/ISO merchant transmission rules
accommodate a ``transmission first'' approach for the development of
onshore and/or offshore transmission facilities that may be needed to
integrate offshore wind generation?
2. What are the potential advantages or disadvantages of using a
merchant transmission approach--in which the developer assumes all
risks associated with the transmission project and charges negotiated
transmission rates--to develop transmission for anticipated offshore
wind generation? How do these
[[Page 66549]]
potential advantages or disadvantages compare to those of the
conventional interconnection, merchant transmission and/or transmission
planning? Is one approach more likely to lead to integrated offshore
wind generation development?
3. Are there any challenges associated with using the merchant
transmission model where subscribing generation has not yet been
identified? What types of injection rights may be appropriate for
merchant transmission projects that have not yet identified all
interconnecting offshore wind generation?
4. If RTO/ISO merchant transmission frameworks were to be used,
what milestones currently exist or should be established if such a
framework were to apply to transmission facilities for offshore wind
generation? At what point in the merchant transmission interconnection
process should an offshore transmission project be required to
demonstrate that it has contracted with offshore wind generation?
5. What steps must an offshore or onshore merchant transmission
developer complete to meet site control requirements? Does a merchant
transmission developer need full site control of onshore connections as
well as the offshore lease area? Are the existing merchant transmission
rules pertaining to partial vs. full site control creating any
impediments for offshore wind generation? If so, what are the
impediments? Do the requirements for site control in RTO/ISO processes
for generator interconnection and merchant transmission interconnection
differ? If so, how? If so, does that difference create impediments for
offshore wind generation?
6. Should the current criteria for granting negotiated rate
authority to merchant transmission developers be adjusted to consider
potential market power concerns that may emerge from unique attributes
of offshore wind generation (e.g., a limited number of points of
interconnection)?
7. When merchant transmission developers select and interconnect
offshore wind generation, what factors do they consider, and which are
most important (e.g., available landing points, existing
interconnection infrastructure, existing system capacity for
injections, etc.)? What are the benefits of being a first mover with
regards to merchant transmission interconnection? Are there any
impediments under the merchant transmission framework to the
development of offshore wind generation? If so, what are the
impediments? What are the best ways to reduce or eliminate the
impediments?
8. Are existing dynamic modeling data requirements adequate for
increased penetration of inverter-based wind generation and offshore
transmission projects, under either conventional transmission planning
processes or merchant transmission frameworks? Are there specific
improvements that would have to be made to data requirements or
transmission planning assumptions regarding dynamic modeling to
accommodate a ``transmission first'' approach?
3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m.: Break
3:45 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Panel 4: Alternative Models for Offshore Wind
Transmission
Jeff Billinton, Director, Transmission Infrastructure Planning,
California ISO
James Cotter, General Manager, American Offshore Wind, Shell New
Energies
Beth Garza, Senior Fellow, Electricity Policy, R Street Institute
Michael Goggin, Business Network for Offshore Wind and Vice
President, Grid Strategies, LLC
Kim Hanemann, SVP & Chief Operating Officer, Public Service
Electric & Gas Company
Jan Papsch: Team Lead Electricity, European Commission, Directorate
General for Energy
This panel will explore potential alternative models for building
transmission that may be needed to accommodate anticipated growth in
offshore wind generation. The panel will include a discussion of the
following topics and questions:
1. In an ideal world, what would a model for transmission
development that could accommodate anticipated growth in offshore wind
generation look like? Could this be achieved under existing RTO/ISO
approaches? If not, what are the impediments?
2. Are there examples of existing interconnection, merchant
transmission, and/or transmission planning processes for accessing
remote onshore generation resources that could be adapted to the
offshore wind context? If so, how?
3. What reforms would you recommend that the Commission consider
pursuing to facilitate the efficient or cost-effective integration of
anticipated offshore wind generation in RTOs/ISOs, including potential
modifications of the existing interconnection, merchant transmission,
and/or transmission planning processes, or other potential changes?
4. Are there existing or anticipated state legislative efforts
related to transmission development for offshore wind generation? Are
these efforts consistent with existing RTO/ISO tariffs and the
Commission's existing regulatory frameworks?
5. Which aspects of the interconnection, merchant transmission,
and/or transmission planning and cost allocation processes related to
offshore wind generation used in European markets could be adapted to
or inform the U.S. framework?
4:45 p.m.-5:00 p.m.: Closing Remarks
[FR Doc. 2020-23157 Filed 10-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
