80 FR 43080 - Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Request for Comments

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 139 (July 21, 2015)

Page Range		43080-43080
FR Document		2015-17811

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 43080]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17811]



[[Page 43080]]

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

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, L.L.C.; 
Notice of Request for Comments

    On September 11, 2013, Northern Indiana Public Service Company 
(NIPSCO) filed a complaint against Midcontinent Independent System 
Operator, Inc. (MISO) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM).\1\ NIPSCO 
requested that the Commission order MISO and PJM (the RTOs) to reform 
the interregional planning process of the Joint Operating Agreement 
between MISO and PJM (MISO-PJM JOA). On June 15, 2015, the Commission 
held a technical conference to explore issues raised in the Complaint 
related to the MISO-PJM JOA and the MISO-PJM seam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NIPSCO Complaint, Docket No. EL13-88-000 (filed Sept. 11, 
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shown below are post-technical conference questions for which the 
Commission seeks further comment. To the extent that any response calls 
for specific revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA, the Commission requests 
that parties also provide redline revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA where 
possible.
    1. According to comments made at the technical conference, it 
appears that several MISO and/or PJM stakeholder groups are currently 
working on potential revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA, MISO tariff and/or 
PJM tariff (e.g., models and assumptions, Market Efficiency Project and 
Cross Border Market Efficiency Project criteria, etc.). Please comment 
on the status of that effort, the potential revisions being considered, 
and the timing of any proposed revisions to be filed with the 
Commission for consideration.
    2. Provide specific examples of types of facilities that could have 
a significant benefit (e.g., relieving congestion across the seam) but 
may not pass MISO's regional Market Efficiency Project and/or Cross-
Border Market Efficiency Project criteria. To the extent such 
facilities would have significant benefit, what steps do the RTOs need 
to take to address the matter?
    3. What specific revisions would need to be made to the MISO-PJM 
JOA in order to better align the existing regional transmission 
planning cycles with the interregional transmission planning process?
    4. Would revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA to require the RTOs to, 
annually, or at some other regular interval, conduct a joint 
interregional transmission planning study help to address the issues 
created by the configuration of the PJM and MISO planning regions? If 
so, what specific revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA would be required?
    5. Based on comments at the technical conference, it appears that 
projects that successfully navigate the Interregional Planning 
Stakeholder Advisory Committee process must be studied and approved two 
more times--once through the MISO regional planning process and once 
through the PJM regional planning process. Please give specific 
examples of reforms that could be made to address this ``triple 
hurdle'' \2\ (e.g., creation of a new project category for 
interregional transmission projects to be eligible for selection in the 
two RTOs' respective regional transmission plans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Various panelists referred to this process as the ``triple 
hurdle'' problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Please explain whether the avoidance of market-to-market 
payments should be included in the assessment of the benefits of Cross-
Border Market Efficiency Projects.
    7. Should the MISO-PJM JOA be revised to include the process and 
study scope of the ``Quick Hit'' \3\ study process? Please explain why 
or why not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MISO and PJM state that under the newly initiated PJM and 
MISO ``Quick Hit'' study, the RTOs are considering near-term 
upgrades to remedy recent historical interregional congestion 
issues. MISO and PJM explain that this study allows projects to be 
identified more quickly and alleviate the underlying issues 
promptly. MISO and PJM Joint Comments at 3, n.10 (filed Mar. 31, 
2015). See also PJM/MISO Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory 
Committee Meeting Presentation at 4 (The ``Quick Hit'' study goal is 
to identify valuable projects on the MISO-PJM seam. Valuable 
projects are those that will relieve known Market-to-Market issues, 
are completed in a relatively short time frame, have a quick payback 
on investment, and are not greenfield projects.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Explain ways in which the RTOs can better coordinate planning of 
new generator interconnection and generator retirement. Would using 
models with the same assumptions and criteria be one way to better 
coordinate? What specific revisions would need to be made to the MISO-
PJM JOA?
    Interested parties should submit comments in response to the 
questions above on or before August 14, 2015. Reply comments must be 
filed on or before August 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Parties may submit comments 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.
    All comments submitted should be identified by Docket No. EL13-88-
000.
    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
jason.strong@ferc.gov
Ben Foster (Technical Information)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Policy and 
Innovation
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426
(202) 502-6149
ben.foster@ferc.gov
Lina Naik (Legal Information)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the General Counsel
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426
(202) 502-8882
lina.naik@ferc.gov

    Dated: July 15, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17811 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

43080 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 4. Would revisions to the MISO–PJM link found under the ‘‘Documents and
JOA to require the RTOs to, annually, or Filing’’ tab.
Federal Energy Regulatory at some other regular interval, conduct Mail: Those unable to file comments
Commission a joint interregional transmission electronically may mail or hand-deliver
[Docket No. EL13–88–000] planning study help to address the comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
issues created by the configuration of Commission, Secretary of the
Northern Indiana Public Service the PJM and MISO planning regions? If Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Company v. Midcontinent Independent so, what specific revisions to the MISO– Washington, DC 20426.
System Operator, Inc. and PJM PJM JOA would be required? All comments submitted should be
Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of 5. Based on comments at the technical identified by Docket No. EL13–88–000.
Request for Comments conference, it appears that projects that For further information contact:
successfully navigate the Interregional Jason Strong (Technical Information)
On September 11, 2013, Northern Planning Stakeholder Advisory Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Indiana Public Service Company Committee process must be studied and Office of Energy Market Regulation
(NIPSCO) filed a complaint against approved two more times—once 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
Midcontinent Independent System through the MISO regional planning 20426
Operator, Inc. (MISO) and PJM process and once through the PJM (202) 502–6124
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM).1 NIPSCO regional planning process. Please give jason.strong@ferc.gov
requested that the Commission order specific examples of reforms that could Ben Foster (Technical Information)
MISO and PJM (the RTOs) to reform the be made to address this ‘‘triple hurdle’’ 2 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
interregional planning process of the (e.g., creation of a new project category Office of Energy Policy and
Joint Operating Agreement between for interregional transmission projects to Innovation
MISO and PJM (MISO–PJM JOA). On be eligible for selection in the two 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
June 15, 2015, the Commission held a RTOs’ respective regional transmission 20426
technical conference to explore issues plans). (202) 502–6149
raised in the Complaint related to the 6. Please explain whether the ben.foster@ferc.gov
MISO–PJM JOA and the MISO–PJM avoidance of market-to-market Lina Naik (Legal Information)
seam. payments should be included in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Shown below are post-technical Office of the General Counsel
assessment of the benefits of Cross-
conference questions for which the 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
Border Market Efficiency Projects.
Commission seeks further comment. To 20426
7. Should the MISO–PJM JOA be
the extent that any response calls for (202) 502–8882
revised to include the process and study
specific revisions to the MISO–PJM lina.naik@ferc.gov
scope of the ‘‘Quick Hit’’ 3 study
JOA, the Commission requests that
process? Please explain why or why not. Dated: July 15, 2015.
parties also provide redline revisions to
8. Explain ways in which the RTOs Kimberly D. Bose,
the MISO–PJM JOA where possible.
1. According to comments made at the can better coordinate planning of new Secretary.
technical conference, it appears that generator interconnection and generator
[FR Doc. 2015–17811 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
several MISO and/or PJM stakeholder retirement. Would using models with
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
groups are currently working on the same assumptions and criteria be
potential revisions to the MISO–PJM one way to better coordinate? What
JOA, MISO tariff and/or PJM tariff (e.g., specific revisions would need to be DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
models and assumptions, Market made to the MISO–PJM JOA?
Efficiency Project and Cross Border Interested parties should submit Federal Energy Regulatory
Market Efficiency Project criteria, etc.). comments in response to the questions Commission
Please comment on the status of that above on or before August 14, 2015.
Reply comments must be filed on or [Docket No. CP15–525–000; PF15–9–000]
effort, the potential revisions being
considered, and the timing of any before August 31, 2015. UGI Sunbury, LLC; Notice of
proposed revisions to be filed with the ADDRESSES: Parties may submit Application
Commission for consideration. comments by one of the following
2. Provide specific examples of types methods: Agency Web site: http:// Take notice that on July 1, 2015, UGI
of facilities that could have a significant www.ferc.gov/. Follow the instructions Sunbury, LLC (Sunbury), 460 N. Gulph
benefit (e.g., relieving congestion across for submitting comments via the eFiling Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406, filed
the seam) but may not pass MISO’s an application pursuant to section 7(c)
regional Market Efficiency Project and/ 2 Various panelists referred to this process as the of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts
or Cross-Border Market Efficiency ‘‘triple hurdle’’ problem. 157 and 284 of the Commission’s
Project criteria. To the extent such
3 MISO and PJM state that under the newly Regulations requesting: (i) A certificate
initiated PJM and MISO ‘‘Quick Hit’’ study, the authorizing Sunbury to construct, own,
facilities would have significant benefit, RTOs are considering near-term upgrades to remedy
what steps do the RTOs need to take to recent historical interregional congestion issues.
and operate new interstate natural gas
address the matter? MISO and PJM explain that this study allows pipeline facilities (Sunbury Pipeline
Project); (ii) a blanket certificate
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

3. What specific revisions would need projects to be identified more quickly and alleviate
the underlying issues promptly. MISO and PJM authorizing Sunbury to construct and/or
to be made to the MISO–PJM JOA in Joint Comments at 3, n.10 (filed Mar. 31, 2015). See
order to better align the existing regional also PJM/MISO Interregional Planning Stakeholder
abandon certain eligible facilities, and
transmission planning cycles with the Advisory Committee Meeting Presentation at 4 (The (iii) a blanket certificate authorizing
interregional transmission planning ‘‘Quick Hit’’ study goal is to identify valuable Sunbury authority to provide open-
projects on the MISO–PJM seam. Valuable projects access transportation services with pre-
process? are those that will relieve known Market-to-Market
issues, are completed in a relatively short time
granted abandonment authority. The
1 NIPSCO Complaint, Docket No. EL13–88–000 frame, have a quick payback on investment, and are Sunbury Pipeline Project is designed to
(filed Sept. 11, 2013). not greenfield projects.) add an additional 200,000 Dth/d of new

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jul 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM 21JYN1

Document Created: 2018-02-23 09:22:54
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 09:22:54

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
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]
FR Citation		80 FR 43080

80 FR 43080 - Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Request for Comments

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYFederal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 139 (July 21, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission