Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and Electric System Reliability; Correction, 47485-47487 [2021-18259]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER21–2699–000] khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Minco Wind Energy III, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Minco Wind Energy III, LLC’s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant’s request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 8, 2021. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http:// www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file 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 (http:// www.ferc.gov) using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket number excluding the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 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. Dated: August 19, 2021. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2021–18298 Filed 8–24–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER21–2711–000] Octopus Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Octopus Energy LLC’s application for marketbased rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant’s request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 8, 2021. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http:// www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 47485 eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file 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 (http:// www.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. Dated: August 19, 2021. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2021–18293 Filed 8–24–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD21–13–000] Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and Electric System Reliability; Correction Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice; correction. AGENCY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published a notice in the Federal Register of August 17, 2021, inviting comments to address a list of questions that were inadvertently omitted from the notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rahim Amerkhail, 202–502–8266 or Michael Haddad, 202–502–8088. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Correction In the Federal Register of August 17, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021–17626, on page E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1 47486 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Notices 45980, in the first column after the words ‘‘Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary’’ insert the following additional text: khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment 1. Multiple panelists at the technical conference suggested that utilities and other industry participants should engage in an assessment of climate change risks to their systems.1 Should public utilities be required to engage in either a one-time assessment or periodic assessments of climate change risks to their assets and/or on how their system is expected to perform under expected climate change driven scenarios? If so, should such requirements be incorporated into jurisdictional local transmission planning and/or regional transmission planning/cost allocation process tariff provisions? Similarly, should such requirements be incorporated into FERC-jurisdictional resource adequacy tariff provisions? 2. Several panelists at the technical conference suggested that greater use of probabilistic approaches could provide a more robust approach to accounting for extreme weather.2 Would incorporating probabilistic methods into local transmission planning and/or regional transmission planning/cost allocation processes allow public utility transmission providers to more effectively assess low probability/high impact events and common mode failures? 3 If so, should such practices be incorporated into public utility transmission providers’ local transmission planning and/or regional transmission planning/cost allocation processes? What, if any, jurisdictional tariff changes would be necessary to incorporate these practices into existing transmission planning and cost allocation processes? Similarly, should such practices be incorporated into any resource adequacy assessments carried out under FERC-jurisdictional tariff provisions? 3. At the technical conference, panelists noted the importance of coordinating transfers across the seams between Regional Transmission 1 See June 1 Tr. at 14 (Adam Smith); 17 (Jessica Hogle); 55, 83 (Romany Webb); 79 (Derek Stenclik). 2 See June 1 Tr. at 36–37, 81 (Lisa Barton); 53, 69– 70 (Judy Chang); 79, 92 (Derek Stenclik); 83 (Romany Webb); 119 (Richard Tabors); 129 (Neil Millar). 3 As described in the March 15, 2021 Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference Inviting Comments in this proceeding, common mode failures occur where, due to climate change or an extreme weather event, a large number of facilities critical to electric reliability (e.g., generation resources, transmission lines, substations, and natural gas pipelines) experience outages or significant operational limitations, either simultaneously or in close succession. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 Organizations/Independent System Operators (RTOs/ISOs) and non-RTO/ ISO areas to both reduce costs and improve the resilience of the transmission grid during extreme weather events.4 How do RTO/ISO and non-RTO/ISO transmission providers manage congestion at system seams? What are the benefits and drawbacks of the current management regime, from the perspectives of cost, resource participation, and ability to maximize reliability and other benefits of transmission service? Can more costeffective congestion management at the border between RTOs/ISOs and neighboring non-RTO/ISO transmission providers be facilitated through new pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) provisions? If so, how could the pro forma OATT be modified to achieve this enhanced coordination? For example, could existing pro forma OATT section 33.2 (Transmission Constraints), which permits a transmission provider to use redispatch to maintain reliability during transmission constraints, be modified to enhance coordination with a neighboring RTO/ISO during such redispatch? Are there any other potential modifications to the pro forma OATT that might facilitate cost-effective congestion management at the border between RTOs/ISOs and neighboring non-RTO/ISO transmission providers? If so, please describe them in as much detail as possible. If such modifications were made to the pro forma OATT, could they also help improve coordination between RTOs/ISOs and non-jurisdictional entities through their inclusion in the reciprocity tariffs that are voluntarily filed by some nonjurisdictional entities? What challenges would any such modifications need to address? 4. RTOs/ISOs currently have differing levels of authority to approve or recall outages.5 Can generation and transmission outage scheduling practices be improved? For example, should RTOs/ISOs have greater authority to deny generation and transmission outage requests, such as having the ability to deny such a request based on estimated economic impact, as ISO New England currently has? Similarly, should transmission owners be given an incentive to schedule transmission outages more efficiently by making transmission owners responsible for uplift they cause from 4 See June 2 Tr. at 64, 66–67 (Renuka Chatterjee); 68 (Amanda Frazier); 153 (Dan Scripps); 66 (David Patton). 5 See June 2 Tr. at 21–23, 32 (Wesley Yeomans); 23–24 (Renuka Chatterjee); 30–31, 74–75 (David Patton). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 outages, as the New York Independent System Operator currently does? Would such changes help system operators better prepare for or respond to extreme weather events? 5. Transmission topology optimization (also sometimes known as transmission switching) involves dynamically modifying transmission topology as a component of determining optimal day-ahead and real-time energy market solutions.6 Should RTOs/ISOs be required to incorporate transmission switching or transmission topology optimization in their day-ahead and real-time energy markets? Could the adoption of such optimization approaches both reduce costs and improve the resilience of the transmission grid? 6. Panelists at the technical conference suggested that current requirements for system performance under extreme weather scenarios may need to evolve.7 Should the transmission planning requirements established under North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability standard TPL–001–4/5 be modified to better assess and mitigate the risk of extreme weather events and associated common mode failures? Should any additional changes be considered to the NERC Reliability Standards to address the risk of extreme weather events? 7. Multiple panelists at the conference emphasized the need to establish a requirement for interregional transmission planning and improve existing interregional cost allocation methods to prepare for extreme weather events.8 How can the existing requirement to have an interregional transmission coordination (not planning) and cost allocation process be modified to better account for the benefits that interregional transmission facilities provide during extreme weather events? Would defining a set of uniform transmission benefit metrics that can be used across regions in the interregional transmission coordination and cost allocation processes help interregional transmission projects come to fruition? If so, please propose such metrics in as much detail as possible. 8. Would having a target level of interregional transfer capacity help facilitate more effective development of interregional transmission projects? 6 See June 2 Tr. at 7(Amanda Frazier), 55 (Renuka Chatterjee), 55–57 (Mads Almassalkhi), 58–59 (David Patton), 60–61 (Robin Broder-Hytowitz), 61– 62 (Anne Hoskins), 94–96 (Charles Long), 97–98 (Daniel Brooks), 136 (Letha Tawney). 7 June 1 Tr. at 138–40 (Mark Lauby). 8 June 2 Tr. at 64–66 (Renuka Chatterjee), 147 (Patricia Hoffman), 153 (Dan Scripps). E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Notices Should minimum amounts of interregional transmission transfer capability be required or encouraged as a way to improve the resilience of the power system? 9 If so, how should such minimums be determined (e.g., a stated MW or percentage of load basis), and how specifically should such minimum requirements be implemented (e.g., NERC reliability standards or new tariff requirements)? 9. Multiple panelists at the conference suggested that the current reliance on the 1 day in 10-year Loss of Load Expectation is outmoded.10 Are there alternative resource adequacy planning approaches that could be more robust alternatives to the use of the 1 day in 10year Loss of Load Expectation standard? Please describe such alternatives, including describing whether such alternatives have been used either in the United States or elsewhere. Dated: August 19, 2021. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2021–18259 Filed 8–24–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER21–2674–000] khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Borderlands Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Borderlands Wind, LLC’s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant’s request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of 9 June 2 Tr. at 64–66 (Renuka Chatterjee). June 1 Tr. at 85 (Judy Chang), 119 (Richard Tabors), 122–123 (Alison Silverstein), 125 (Devin Hartman), 127 (Mark Lauby). 10 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Aug 24, 2021 Jkt 253001 future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 8, 2021. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http:// www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file 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 (http:// www.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. Dated: August 19, 2021. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP21–482–000] Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline Take notice that on August 4, 2021, Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. (Guardian), Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 100 West Fifth Street, ONEOK Plaza, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.211(a)(2) of the Commission’s regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Guardian’s blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP00– 36–000, for authorization to construct, own, and operate the BC Organics Interconnect (Project), in Brown County, Wisconsin. Specifically, Guardian proposes to complete the construction of a new delivery point connecting Guardian to BC Organics, LLC. (BC Organics), which will measure a gas volume of up to 1,500 Mcf/Day, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. 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 (http:// 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 FERC at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 502–8659. Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be directed to Denise Adams, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C., 100 West 5th Street, ONEOK Plaza, Tulsa, Oklahoma at (918) 732–1408 or at RegulatoryAffairs@oneok.com. Public Participation [FR Doc. 2021–18297 Filed 8–24–21; 8:45 am] PO 00000 47487 There are three ways to become involved in the Commission’s review of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 16, 2021. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below. Protests Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission’s regulations under the E:\FR\FM\25AUN1.SGM 25AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47485-47487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18259]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-13-000]


Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and Electric System Reliability; 
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published a notice in 
the Federal Register of August 17, 2021, inviting comments to address a 
list of questions that were inadvertently omitted from the notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rahim Amerkhail, 202-502-8266 or 
Michael Haddad, 202-502-8088.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 17, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-17626, 
on page

[[Page 47486]]

45980, in the first column after the words ``Kimberly D. Bose, 
Secretary'' insert the following additional text:

Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment

    1. Multiple panelists at the technical conference suggested that 
utilities and other industry participants should engage in an 
assessment of climate change risks to their systems.\1\ Should public 
utilities be required to engage in either a one-time assessment or 
periodic assessments of climate change risks to their assets and/or on 
how their system is expected to perform under expected climate change 
driven scenarios? If so, should such requirements be incorporated into 
jurisdictional local transmission planning and/or regional transmission 
planning/cost allocation process tariff provisions? Similarly, should 
such requirements be incorporated into FERC-jurisdictional resource 
adequacy tariff provisions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See June 1 Tr. at 14 (Adam Smith); 17 (Jessica Hogle); 55, 
83 (Romany Webb); 79 (Derek Stenclik).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Several panelists at the technical conference suggested that 
greater use of probabilistic approaches could provide a more robust 
approach to accounting for extreme weather.\2\ Would incorporating 
probabilistic methods into local transmission planning and/or regional 
transmission planning/cost allocation processes allow public utility 
transmission providers to more effectively assess low probability/high 
impact events and common mode failures? \3\ If so, should such 
practices be incorporated into public utility transmission providers' 
local transmission planning and/or regional transmission planning/cost 
allocation processes? What, if any, jurisdictional tariff changes would 
be necessary to incorporate these practices into existing transmission 
planning and cost allocation processes? Similarly, should such 
practices be incorporated into any resource adequacy assessments 
carried out under FERC-jurisdictional tariff provisions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See June 1 Tr. at 36-37, 81 (Lisa Barton); 53, 69-70 (Judy 
Chang); 79, 92 (Derek Stenclik); 83 (Romany Webb); 119 (Richard 
Tabors); 129 (Neil Millar).
    \3\ As described in the March 15, 2021 Supplemental Notice of 
Technical Conference Inviting Comments in this proceeding, common 
mode failures occur where, due to climate change or an extreme 
weather event, a large number of facilities critical to electric 
reliability (e.g., generation resources, transmission lines, 
substations, and natural gas pipelines) experience outages or 
significant operational limitations, either simultaneously or in 
close succession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. At the technical conference, panelists noted the importance of 
coordinating transfers across the seams between Regional Transmission 
Organizations/Independent System Operators (RTOs/ISOs) and non-RTO/ISO 
areas to both reduce costs and improve the resilience of the 
transmission grid during extreme weather events.\4\ How do RTO/ISO and 
non-RTO/ISO transmission providers manage congestion at system seams? 
What are the benefits and drawbacks of the current management regime, 
from the perspectives of cost, resource participation, and ability to 
maximize reliability and other benefits of transmission service? Can 
more cost-effective congestion management at the border between RTOs/
ISOs and neighboring non-RTO/ISO transmission providers be facilitated 
through new pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) 
provisions? If so, how could the pro forma OATT be modified to achieve 
this enhanced coordination? For example, could existing pro forma OATT 
section 33.2 (Transmission Constraints), which permits a transmission 
provider to use redispatch to maintain reliability during transmission 
constraints, be modified to enhance coordination with a neighboring 
RTO/ISO during such redispatch? Are there any other potential 
modifications to the pro forma OATT that might facilitate cost-
effective congestion management at the border between RTOs/ISOs and 
neighboring non-RTO/ISO transmission providers? If so, please describe 
them in as much detail as possible. If such modifications were made to 
the pro forma OATT, could they also help improve coordination between 
RTOs/ISOs and non-jurisdictional entities through their inclusion in 
the reciprocity tariffs that are voluntarily filed by some non-
jurisdictional entities? What challenges would any such modifications 
need to address?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See June 2 Tr. at 64, 66-67 (Renuka Chatterjee); 68 (Amanda 
Frazier); 153 (Dan Scripps); 66 (David Patton).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. RTOs/ISOs currently have differing levels of authority to 
approve or recall outages.\5\ Can generation and transmission outage 
scheduling practices be improved? For example, should RTOs/ISOs have 
greater authority to deny generation and transmission outage requests, 
such as having the ability to deny such a request based on estimated 
economic impact, as ISO New England currently has? Similarly, should 
transmission owners be given an incentive to schedule transmission 
outages more efficiently by making transmission owners responsible for 
uplift they cause from outages, as the New York Independent System 
Operator currently does? Would such changes help system operators 
better prepare for or respond to extreme weather events?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See June 2 Tr. at 21-23, 32 (Wesley Yeomans); 23-24 (Renuka 
Chatterjee); 30-31, 74-75 (David Patton).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Transmission topology optimization (also sometimes known as 
transmission switching) involves dynamically modifying transmission 
topology as a component of determining optimal day-ahead and real-time 
energy market solutions.\6\ Should RTOs/ISOs be required to incorporate 
transmission switching or transmission topology optimization in their 
day-ahead and real-time energy markets? Could the adoption of such 
optimization approaches both reduce costs and improve the resilience of 
the transmission grid?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See June 2 Tr. at 7(Amanda Frazier), 55 (Renuka Chatterjee), 
55-57 (Mads Almassalkhi), 58-59 (David Patton), 60-61 (Robin Broder-
Hytowitz), 61-62 (Anne Hoskins), 94-96 (Charles Long), 97-98 (Daniel 
Brooks), 136 (Letha Tawney).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Panelists at the technical conference suggested that current 
requirements for system performance under extreme weather scenarios may 
need to evolve.\7\ Should the transmission planning requirements 
established under North American Electric Reliability Corporation 
(NERC) reliability standard TPL-001-4/5 be modified to better assess 
and mitigate the risk of extreme weather events and associated common 
mode failures? Should any additional changes be considered to the NERC 
Reliability Standards to address the risk of extreme weather events?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ June 1 Tr. at 138-40 (Mark Lauby).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Multiple panelists at the conference emphasized the need to 
establish a requirement for interregional transmission planning and 
improve existing interregional cost allocation methods to prepare for 
extreme weather events.\8\ How can the existing requirement to have an 
interregional transmission coordination (not planning) and cost 
allocation process be modified to better account for the benefits that 
interregional transmission facilities provide during extreme weather 
events? Would defining a set of uniform transmission benefit metrics 
that can be used across regions in the interregional transmission 
coordination and cost allocation processes help interregional 
transmission projects come to fruition? If so, please propose such 
metrics in as much detail as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ June 2 Tr. at 64-66 (Renuka Chatterjee), 147 (Patricia 
Hoffman), 153 (Dan Scripps).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Would having a target level of interregional transfer capacity 
help facilitate more effective development of interregional 
transmission projects?

[[Page 47487]]

Should minimum amounts of interregional transmission transfer 
capability be required or encouraged as a way to improve the resilience 
of the power system? \9\ If so, how should such minimums be determined 
(e.g., a stated MW or percentage of load basis), and how specifically 
should such minimum requirements be implemented (e.g., NERC reliability 
standards or new tariff requirements)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ June 2 Tr. at 64-66 (Renuka Chatterjee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Multiple panelists at the conference suggested that the current 
reliance on the 1 day in 10-year Loss of Load Expectation is 
outmoded.\10\ Are there alternative resource adequacy planning 
approaches that could be more robust alternatives to the use of the 1 
day in 10-year Loss of Load Expectation standard? Please describe such 
alternatives, including describing whether such alternatives have been 
used either in the United States or elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See June 1 Tr. at 85 (Judy Chang), 119 (Richard Tabors), 
122-123 (Alison Silverstein), 125 (Devin Hartman), 127 (Mark Lauby).

    Dated: August 19, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18259 Filed 8-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P