[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8866-8867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03438]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. EL13-88-000]
Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice
of Request for Comments
February 12, 2015.
On September 11, 2013, Northern Indiana Public Service Company
(NIPSCO) filed a complaint against Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. (MISO) and PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). NIPSCO
requested that the Commission order MISO and PJM to reform the
interregional planning process of the Joint Operating Agreement between
MISO and PJM (MISO-PJM JOA).\1\ On December 18, 2014, the Commission
issued an order directing Commission staff to convene a technical
conference to explore issues raised in the Complaint related to the
MISO-PJM JOA and the MISO-PJM seam. The Commission also directed
Commission staff to issue a request for comments on these issues prior
to the technical conference to inform the technical conference
discussion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NIPSCO Complaint, Docket No. EL13-88-000 (filed Sept. 11,
2013).
\2\ Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Midcontinent Indep.
Sys. Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, LLC, 149 FERC ] 61,248,
at P 35 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shown below is the list of questions for which Commission staff
seeks comment. The questions cover the six reforms that NIPSCO
recommends to the cross-border transmission planning process that
occurs under the MISO-PJM JOA, as well as certain additional issues.
Commenters should discuss the potential benefits and/or drawbacks, cost
concerns, and technical feasibility of implementing the following
reforms and how long the reforms would take to implement if adopted.
1. Require the MISO-PJM cross-border transmission planning process
to run concurrently with the MISO and PJM regional transmission
planning cycles, rather than after those regional planning cycles.
2. Require MISO and PJM to develop and use a single model that uses
the same assumptions in the cross-border transmission planning process.
Until the joint model is developed, require that there is consistency
between the PJM and MISO planning analysis and that both entities are
consistent in their application of reliability criteria and modeling
assumptions.
3. Require MISO and PJM to use a single common set of criteria to
evaluate cross-border market efficiency projects.
4. Require MISO and PJM to amend the criteria to evaluate cross-
border market efficiency projects to address all known benefits,
including avoidance of future market-to-market (M2M) payments made to
reallocate short-term transmission capacity in the real-time operation
of the system.
5. Require MISO and PJM to have a process for joint planning and
cost allocation of lower voltage and lower cost cross-border upgrades.
6. Require MISO and PJM to improve the processes within the MISO-
PJM JOA with respect to new generator interconnections and generation
retirements.
7. Explain the relationship between the cross-border transmission
planning process (and approval of new transmission projects) and
persistent M2M payments being made between the RTOs. Are persistent M2M
payments a good indicator of the need for new transmission?
8. NIPSCO provides an estimate of M2M payments on pages 23-24 of
its Complaint. Please comment on these estimates and provide
information on other estimates of M2M payments, including whether PJM,
MISO and the market monitors have identified trends in M2M payments.
9. Please provide examples of transmission projects that have been
considered under the cross-border transmission planning process for the
purpose of mitigating congestion and/or constraints that lead to
persistent M2M payments, but that have not been developed. Provide the
reason the project was not developed.
Interested parties should submit comments on or before March 16,
2015. Reply comments must be filed on or before March 31, 2015.
Comments should be provided by question as enumerated above.
ADDRESSES: Parties may submit comments, identified by Docket No.
[[Page 8867]]
EL13-88-000, by one of the following methods.
Agency Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments via the eFiling link found under the ``Documents
and Filing'' tab.
Mail: Those unable to file comments electronically may mail or
hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jason Strong (Technical Information), Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of Energy Market Regulation, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6124, [email protected].
Ben Foster (Technical Information) Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6149, [email protected].
Lina Naik (Legal Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426 (202) 502-8882, [email protected].
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03438 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P