[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 23454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10724]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AD18-12-000; Docket No. EL17-45-000; Docket No. ER18-370-
000]
Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments; Transmission
Planning Within the California Independent System Operator Corporation;
California Public Utilities Commission, Northern California Power
Agency, City and County of San Francisco, State Water Contractors,
Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Pacific Gas and Electric
Company; Southern California Edison Company
On May 1, 2018, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
staff convened a technical conference to discuss the processes used by
participating transmission owners (PTOs) in the California Independent
System Operator Corporation (CAISO) to determine which transmission-
related maintenance and compliance activities/facilities, including,
but not limited to, transmission-related capital additions, are subject
to the CAISO Transmission Planning Process (TPP).
All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments on the topics relating to the processes used by
PTOs to determine which activities/facilities are subject to the CAISO
TPP as discussed during the technical conference, including the
questions listed in the Supplemental Notice issued in this proceeding
on April 10, 2018. Commission staff is particularly interested in
comments on the following topics:
1. Technical conference participants used the terms asset
management and asset management program during the technical
conference. Please provide a definition for those terms when they are
used to address or administer transmission capability.
2. Describe the criteria, standards, or industry best practices
that the PTOs use in their asset management programs or activities.
3. Technical conference participants used the terms ``incremental''
and ``incidental'' at the technical conference. Provide a definition
for those terms when they are used to describe any increases to
transmission capability that result from the use of new technology when
replacing one-for-one assets.
4. Explain how any incremental or incidental increases to
transmission capacity are accounted for by each PTO in relation to
``asset management'' activities, and how these increases in
transmission capacity are communicated to CAISO.
5. Technical conference participants used the terms ``expansion''
and ``enhancement'' at the technical conference. Provide the
definitions of those terms when they are used to describe certain
changes to the configuration of the CAISO transmission system resulting
from ``asset management'' activities that are subject to the CAISO TPP.
6. Do CAISO's tariff or BPMs provide guidance and clarity to CAISO
PTOs regarding what transmission-related maintenance and compliance
activities/facilities must be considered and reviewed through CAISO's
TPP? If so, please list the relevant sections.
7. How does each CAISO PTO decide whether to pursue reliability
related transmission-related maintenance and compliance activities/
facilities that are not required by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), Western Electricity Coordinating
Council (WECC), or other regulatory entities? What criteria or
parameters are used by each CAISO PTO to make this decision? Where are
such criteria or parameters documented or otherwise made available?
8. Is there a difference between (a) the process through which each
CAISO PTO pursues solutions to transmission-related maintenance and
compliance activities/facilities that arise from NERC and WECC
reliability standards or reliability standards established by other
regulatory entities, and (b) the process through which each CAISO PTO
pursues solutions to other transmission-related maintenance and
compliance activities/facilities? If so, please explain (1) the
difference between the two processes and (2) elaborate on the reasons
for the differences.
9. What benefits and/or concerns, if any, would arise from
introducing greater transparency and more opportunities for stakeholder
input into each CAISO PTO's asset management process in the early
stages of the assessment, ranking, and selection of particular ``asset
management'' projects? To the extent that you support additional
opportunities for stakeholder input, please describe the ideal format
and/or frequency of such opportunities.
Commenters need not respond to all topics or questions asked.
Commenters may reference materials previously filed in the above-
captioned dockets, including the technical conference transcript, but
are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material.
Initial comments must be submitted on or before May 31, 2018, and reply
comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2018. Initial comments
should not exceed 15 pages and reply comments should not exceed 10
pages.
For further information, please contact individuals identified for
each topic:
Technical Information, Laura Switzer, Office of Energy Markets
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6231, [email protected].
Legal Information for Docket Nos. AD18-12-000 and EL17-45-000, Linda
Kizuka, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8773,
[email protected].
Legal Information for Docket Nos. AD18-12-000 and ER18-370-000, Susanna
Ehrlich, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6260,
[email protected].
Dated: May 15, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10724 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P