81 FR 18602 - Record of Decision in re Application of Clean Line Energy Partners LLC
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 62 (March 31, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 62 (March 31, 2016)
| Page Range | 18602-18607 | |
| FR Document | 2016-07282 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 18602-18607] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-07282] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Record of Decision in re Application of Clean Line Energy Partners LLC AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Record of decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) grants the Secretary of Energy the authority to design, develop, construct, operate, maintain, or own, or participate with other entities in designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining, and owning new electric power transmission facilities and related facilities located within any state in which the Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) operates. In response to an application submitted by Clean Line Energy Partners LLC on behalf of itself and several corporate affiliates (collectively, Clean Line or the Applicant) the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) announces its decision to participate in the development of approximately 705 miles of600 kilovolt (kV) overhead, high-voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission facilities and related facilities from western Oklahoma to the eastern state-line of Arkansas near the Mississippi River (the Project). This decision implements DOE's preferred alternative in Oklahoma and Arkansas as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Line Project (Final EIS) (DOE/EIS- 0486). Clean Line, acting on its own and without the Department's participation, would build additional facilities that would connect to the Project in Texas and Tennessee. Collectively, the facilities built by Clean Line would have the capacity to deliver approximately 4,000 megawatts (MW) from renewable energy generation facilities, located in the Oklahoma Panhandle and potentially Texas Panhandle regions, to the electrical grid in Arkansas and Tennessee. The potential environmental impacts associated with the Project, plus the additional facilities in Texas and Tennessee, are analyzed in the Final EIS. DOE's review included consultations in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). DOE's decision requires the implementation of mitigation measures, and a complete list of these measures can be found in the Mitigation Action Plan (MAP). ADDRESSES: Information regarding Section 1222 of EPAct 2005 can be found on the DOE Web site at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/section-1222. The determination by the Secretary of Energy, Summary of Findings, and Participation Agreement are available on the DOE Web site at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity- [[Page 18603]] policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/section- 1222-0. The Final EIS, associated errata, MAP, and this Record of Decision (ROD) are available on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web site at http://energy.gov/nepa and on the Plains & Eastern EIS Web site at http://www.plainsandeasterneis.com/. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the Section 1222 process, contact Mr. Christopher Lawrence, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; email at [email protected]; or phone (202) 586-5260. For information on the EIS or the consultation processes under Section 106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 300101) or Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), contact Jane Summerson, Ph.D., DOE NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE NNSA, Post Office Box 5400, Building 391, Kirtland Air Force Base East, Albuquerque, NM 87185; email at [email protected]; or phone (505) 845-4091. For general information about the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; or phone at (202) 586-4600; voicemail at (800) 472-2756; or email at [email protected]. Additional information regarding DOE's NEPA activities is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at http://energy.gov/nepa. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 1222 of EPAct 2005, 42 U.S.C. 16421, grants the Secretary of Energy authority, acting through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Southwestern, or both, to design, develop, construct, operate, maintain, or own, or participate with other entities in designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining, and owning new electric power transmission facilities and related facilities located within any state in which WAPA or Southwestern operates. In June 2010, the Department issued Request for Proposals for New or Upgraded Transmission Line Projects Under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (75 FR 32940; June 10, 2010). In response to the request for proposals (RFP), Clean Line Energy Partners LLC of Houston, Texas, the parent company of Plains and Eastern Clean Line LLC and Plains and Eastern Clean Line Oklahoma LLC, submitted a proposal to DOE in July 2010 for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Project. In August 2011, Clean Line modified the proposal and, at DOE's request, subsequently submitted additional information (referred to as the Part 2 Application) in January 2015. This ROD uses two terms that describe related elements of the application being discussed. The Project \1\ refers to those facilities in Oklahoma and Arkansas included in DOE's decision to participate, e.g., approximately 705 miles of 600 kV overhead, HVDC electric transmission facilities running from western Oklahoma to the eastern state-line of Arkansas near the Mississippi River and related facilities, including a converter station in Arkansas. Applicant Proposed Project \2\ refers to the Project plus the additional facilities that Clean Line, acting on its own and without the Department's participation, would build in Texas and Tennessee to connect to the Project. Collectively, the facilities would have the capacity to deliver approximately 4,000 MW from renewable energy generation facilities, located in the Oklahoma Panhandle and potentially Texas Panhandle regions, to the electrical grid in Arkansas (500 MW) and Tennessee (3,500 MW). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ In the Final EIS, ``the Project'' is used as a broad term that generically refers to elements of the project as proposed by Clean Line and/or DOE Alternatives when differentiation between the two is not necessary. The definition of ``the Project'' used in the Final EIS is distinct from the meaning of ``the Project'' in this ROD. \2\ In the Final EIS, the term ``Applicant Proposed Project'' refers to the project as described in Clean Line's modified proposal to DOE. This is described in Section S.5.2 of the Final EIS and does not include the converter station in Arkansas or alternative routes for the HVDC transmission line that are referred to in the Final EIS as ``DOE Alternatives.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1222 Authority Parallel with the NEPA process, DOE evaluated Clean Line's application under Section 1222 of the EPAct 2005. This evaluation under Section 1222 included a review of the application against statutory eligibility criteria and certain evaluation factors listed in the 2010 RFP. To aid in this review, Clean Line's Part 2 Application was made available for public comment from April 28, 2015 until July 13, 2015 (80 FR 23520 and 34626). Clean Line's application remains available on DOE's Web site at http://www.energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/section-1222-0. The results of DOE's evaluation under Section 1222 are addressed under the Decision section below in this ROD. NEPA Review DOE prepared the EIS and this ROD pursuant to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500 through 1508), and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's purpose and need for agency action is to implement Section 1222 of the EPAct 2005. In the Final EIS, DOE analyzed the potential environmental impacts from the Applicant Proposed Project, as the term is used in this ROD, the range of reasonable alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Major facilities associated with the Applicant Proposed Project include converter stations in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee; approximately 720-miles of 600 kV HVDC transmission line facilities; an alternating current (AC) collection system; and access roads. In response to public comments on the Draft EIS, DOE and Clean Line developed 23 route variations for the Applicant Proposed Route \3\ for the HVDC transmission line, which were evaluated in the Final EIS. These route variations involved minor changes to the segment lengths and were developed with the intent of reducing land use conflicts or minimizing potential environmental impacts of the route as analyzed in the Draft EIS. In all but one instance, Clean Line concluded that the route variations were technically feasible and expressed support for DOE's adoption of these route variations (the instance is described under the Basis for Decision section below in this ROD). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The Applicant Proposed Route, as used in the Final EIS and this ROD, refers to the single 1,000-foot-wide route alternative defined by Clean Line to connect the converter station in the Oklahoma Panhandle to the converter station in western Tennessee. The Applicant Proposed Route is described in Section S.5.3.2 of the Final EIS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The analysis of potential environmental impacts for the HVDC transmission facilities, including the 23 route variations addressed in the Final EIS, was based on a representative 200-foot-wide right of way (ROW) within a 1,000-foot-wide corridor. The final location of the transmission line ROW could be anywhere within this 1,000-foot-wide corridor and would be determined following the issuance of this ROD based on the completion of final engineering design, federal and state related construction permits and authorizations, ROW acquisition activities, and the incorporation of all measures identified in the MAP. Determination of this final location of [[Page 18604]] the ROW within the 1,000-foot-wide corridor is referred to as micrositing. In addition to the HVDC transmission facilities, the Applicant Proposed Project would include construction, operation, and maintenance of an AC collection system. The collection system would consist of four to six AC transmission lines up to 345 kV from the Oklahoma converter station to points in the Oklahoma Panhandle region and potentially Texas Panhandle region to facilitate efficient interconnection of wind energy generation. The Final EIS evaluated 13 possible routes, each consisting of a 2-mile-wide corridor within which a 200-foot-wide ROW could be located. The specific locations of these transmission lines cannot be known at this time and would depend on the locations of future wind farms in this area. DOE's analysis in the Final EIS also includes the potential environmental impacts resulting from connected actions (wind energy generation and currently identified substation and transmission upgrades related to the Applicant Proposed Project). On February 26, 2016, DOE issued errata to correct errors, inconsistencies, and omissions in the Final EIS. These included, for example, correcting inconsistencies in two tables identifying the lengths of the HVDC transmission line routes, updating emissions estimates for air quality impacts, correcting socioeconomic and transportation impact estimates to account for the Arkansas converter station, and including and responding to 26 comment documents that were inadvertently left out of Appendix Q of the Final EIS. DOE considered each of the errata individually and collectively and determined that they do not represent significant new information relevant to environmental consequences and do not change the conclusions in the Final EIS. Cooperating Agencies DOE was the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EIS and, pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6, prepared the EIS in consultation with the following cooperating agencies: Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). BIA, NRCS, TVA, USACE, and USFWS can, to the extent permitted by law, rely on the Final EIS to fulfill their obligations under NEPA for any action, permit, or approval by these agencies for the Applicant Proposed Project. TVA conducted studies that indicate certain upgrades to its transmission system would be necessary for TVA to interconnect with the Applicant Proposed Project while maintaining reliable service to its customers. Additionally, TVA would need to construct a new 500 kV transmission line to enable the injection of 3,500 MW of power from the Applicant Proposed Project. TVA would complete its own NEPA review, tiering from DOE's Final EIS, to assess the impact of the upgrades and the new 500 kV line. The USACE may consider the routing alternatives in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, and Tennessee as presented in the Final EIS when making its permit decisions and can use the analysis contained in the Final EIS to inform all of its permit decisions for the Applicant Proposed Project. Consultation DOE is the lead agency for consultation required under Section 106 of the NHPA. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), DOE is using the NEPA process and documentation required for the EIS to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA in lieu of the procedures set forth in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.6. This approach is consistent with the recommendations set forth in the CEQ NEPA regulations, 40 CFR 1500.2, and NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106, issued in 2013 by CEQ and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which encourage federal agencies to integrate the NEPA process with other planning and environmental reviews, such as Section 106 of the NHPA. DOE invited certain federal, state, Indian Tribes or Nations, and local agencies to consult under Section 106 of the NHPA in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c). The Programmatic Agreement, which satisfies DOE's Section 106 responsibilities, was executed on December 7, 2015. The Programmatic Agreement describes roles and responsibilities for DOE and the consulting parties; the tribal consultation protocol; the area of potential effects; the phased process to address historic properties, including continued consultation; procedures to address the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources or inadvertent discovery of human remains, graves or associated funerary objects; the communication plan; the historic properties management plan for operations and maintenance activities, annual reporting and close out report requirements; and dispute resolution requirements. The Programmatic Agreement is included as Appendix A of the MAP. In March 2015, DOE and TVA requested the initiation of formal consultation and conference with the USFWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) regarding the Applicant Proposed Project and its potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat. DOE responded to USFWS's request for additional information with a revised BA in May 2015. In July 2015, DOE submitted an addendum to the revised BA to address route variations based on public comments on the Draft EIS. The USFWS issued its Biological Opinion on November 20, 2015, which concluded formal consultation. The Biological Opinion is included as Appendix B of the MAP. The Biological Opinion concluded that implementation of the Applicant Proposed Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected species, but likely will result in incidental take of certain species and, therefore, includes an enforceable incidental take statement. DOE's decision is conditioned on the Applicant complying with the incidental take statement and taking all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative as required by USFWS in the Biological Opinion. These conditions are further described under the Mitigation section below in this ROD. DOE also acknowledges that re-initiation of formal ESA consultation may be required in accordance with 50 CFR 402.16. Public Comments On December 21, 2012, DOE issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) (77 FR 75623) to prepare an EIS for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project. DOE conducted 13 public scoping meetings. DOE considered input from scoping in preparing the Draft EIS, which was issued on December 17, 2014. The 90-day public comment period for the Draft EIS began on December 19, 2014, and was scheduled to end on March 19, 2015 (79 FR 78079). On February 12, 2015, DOE announced in the Federal Register that it was extending the comment period until April 20, 2015 (80 FR 7850). As part of this public comment period, DOE invited comments on the NHPA Section 106 process and any potential adverse impacts to historic properties. The Final EIS and errata considered and responded to all comments submitted on the Draft EIS. During the comment period, DOE held 15 public hearings in the following locations: [[Page 18605]] Woodward, Oklahoma; Guymon, Oklahoma; Beaver, Oklahoma; Perryton, Texas; Muskogee, Oklahoma; Cushing, Oklahoma; Stillwater, Oklahoma; Enid, Oklahoma; Newport, Arkansas; Searcy, Arkansas; Marked Tree, Arkansas; Millington, Tennessee; Russellville, Arkansas; Fort Smith, Arkansas; and Morrilton, Arkansas. In addition to numerous comments that provided a statement of general opposition to or support for the Project, the primary topics raised in comments on the Draft EIS included, but were not limited to: Concern about electric and magnetic fields; concern about reductions in property value; concern about impacts to agricultural resources such as crop production, irrigation, and aerial spraying; concern about the use of eminent domain; and concern about visual impacts. Analysis of Potential Environmental Impacts The EIS analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the alternatives for each of the following resource areas: Agricultural resources; air quality and climate change; electrical environment; environmental justice; geology, paleontology, minerals, and soils; groundwater; health, safety, and intentional destructive acts; historic and cultural resources; land use; noise; recreation; socioeconomics; special status wildlife and fish, aquatic invertebrate, and amphibian species; surface water; transportation; vegetation communities and special status plant species; visual resources; wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas; wildlife, fish, and aquatic invertebrate species; and cumulative impacts. Analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Applicant Proposed Project and DOE Alternatives on each resource area (Chapter 3 of the Final EIS) assumes the implementation of all Applicant-proposed environmental protection measures (EPMs) to avoid or minimize adverse impacts (summarized in Appendix F of the Final EIS). In some resource sections, DOE identified best management practices (BMPs) that could further avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts. BMPs are summarized in Table 2.7-1 of Chapter 2 in the Final EIS. In accordance with DOE's Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR part 1022), DOE prepared a floodplain assessment and has determined that the Applicant Proposed Project would avoid floodplains to the maximum extent practicable, that appropriate measures to minimize adverse effects on human health and safety and the functions and values provided by floodplains would be taken, and that the Applicant Proposed Project would comply with applicable floodplain protection standards. The Floodplain Statement of Findings (Appendix N of the Final EIS) relied on the implementation of the EPMs developed and committed to by the Applicant and BMPs identified in consultation with USACE. DOE's selected route for the HVDC transmission line is the Applicant Proposed Route (with one exception, as noted under the Basis for Decision section below in this ROD). Because DOE's selected route is the HVDC route alternative with the lowest potential for environmental impacts when compared against the other HVDC route alternatives, DOE has designated it as the environmentally preferable HVDC route alternative with associated facilities. DOE's selected route incorporates input on potential environmental impacts that DOE received from the public and agencies (during scoping and in comments on the Draft EIS). The selected route was developed through a series of stages including the preliminary routing process, refinements during DOE's independent verification of that process, and further changes to address public and agency input. While the No Action Alternative would avoid the environmental impacts identified in the EIS, adoption of this alternative would not meet DOE's purpose and need to implement Section 1222 of the EPAct 2005. Comments Received on the Final EIS DOE distributed the Final EIS to congressional members and committees; state and local governments; other federal agencies; certain American Indian Tribes or Nations; non-governmental organizations; and other stakeholders, including members of the public who requested the Final EIS. The Final EIS also was made available to the public via the Internet. DOE subsequently received eight comment documents. As discussed in Appendix A to this ROD, DOE has concluded that these comment documents do not identify a need for further NEPA analysis. Decision DOE has decided to participate in the Project as defined in this ROD. Thus, this decision implements the preferred alternative described in Section 2.14 of the Final EIS for the Project, which is defined in this ROD as facilities in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Concurrent with this ROD, the Secretary of Energy has issued a determination that the Project meets the criteria of Section 1222 and merits the Department's participation. (http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/section-1222-0). Basis for Decision The decision to participate in the Project considered the analysis of potential environmental impacts in the Final EIS, other statutory requirements (e.g., ESA and Section 106 of the NHPA), and the Department's review of Clean Line's application against the eligibility criteria in Section 1222 and the evaluation factors identified in the Department's 2010 RFP. The Department's analysis of the statutory eligibility criteria and the RFP evaluation factors is contained in the Summary of Findings, which the Department is publishing concurrent with this ROD and is incorporated herein. Also relevant to the Department's decision is the Participation Agreement, which sets forth the terms and conditions under which the Department will participate. (Both the Summary of Findings and the Participation Agreement are available at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/transmission-planning/section-1222-0). There is no ``impact-free'' routing choice for a large transmission line. In some regions, where there are multiple resource conflicts, the HVDC alternative routes impact certain resources differently, and some alternative routes were included in DOE's analysis to emphasize protection of one resource or land value over another. The Final EIS analyzed potential impacts for the HVDC transmission line by resource and highlighted substantive differences between the Applicant Proposed Route, route variations, and HVDC alternative routes. A detailed discussion of the route development and basis for identification of the Applicant Proposed Route is included in Appendix G of the Final EIS. To respond to public comments on the Draft EIS, DOE and the Applicant developed 23 route variations for the Applicant Proposed Route. These route variations were developed with the intent of reducing land use conflicts or minimizing potential environmental impacts of the Applicant Proposed Route from the levels of potential impacts described in the Draft EIS. In all but one instance, the route variations replaced their corresponding segments of the Applicant Proposed Route. This exception (Region 4, Applicant [[Page 18606]] Proposed Route Link 3, Variation 2; approximately 3 miles northwest of Sallisaw, Oklahoma) was carried forward as an additional alternative for comparative analysis in the Final EIS with the corresponding segment of the Applicant Proposed Route. DOE has decided to implement the Applicant Proposed Route presented in the Final EIS, with one exception (Region 4, Applicant Proposed Route Link 3, Variation 2). The basis for DOE's selection of this route variation over the corresponding segment of the Applicant Proposed Route includes the following: (1) The route variation crosses 32 percent fewer land parcels (17 versus 25); (2) the route variation parallels more than twice the length of existing infrastructure, including transmission lines and roads (4.42 miles versus 1.85 miles); (3) the representative ROW of the route variation would be located within 500 feet of 8 fewer residences (1 versus 9); and (4) the route variation would avoid a private airstrip whose operations could be impacted by the Applicant Proposed Route. DOE has considered the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS and taken into consideration the comparison of potential impacts for each resource area along with comments received on the Draft EIS and the Final EIS. Mitigation DOE's environmental analyses in the Final EIS and consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA and Section 7 of the ESA have identified all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. DOE's decision to participate in the Project is contingent upon the Applicant implementing all of the EPMs in the Final EIS to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects resulting from construction, operations and maintenance, and decommissioning. Furthermore, the Applicant will be required to develop and implement all of the project plans listed in Appendix F of the Final EIS. DOE's decision also requires that the Applicant implement the BMPs, set forth in the Final EIS and developed by DOE and in consultation with other agencies, to further avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts. Chapter 2 of the Final EIS (Table 2.7-1) summarizes the BMPs identified for applicable resource areas analyzed in Chapter 3. DOE's decision to participate requires that the Applicant comply with the Biological Opinion issued by USFWS on November 20, 2015. This includes adhering to the terms of the incidental take statement, and implementing all reasonable and prudent measures and implementing terms and conditions described in the Biological Opinion. The Programmatic Agreement executed in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA addresses historic properties identification and evaluation, assessment of effects, and resolution of effects, including avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. Federal agencies that do not adopt the executed Programmatic Agreement, but whose involvement constitutes an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.16(y) would conduct consultations with State Historic Preservation Offices and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Offices and/or other appropriate parties in accordance with 36 CFR part 800. Clean Line, as a signatory to the Programmatic Agreement, will be required to implement the stipulations as agreed to in the executed Programmatic Agreement as a condition of DOE's decision to participate. The Applicant is responsible for implementing all of the measures identified above (EPMs, BMPs, the USFWS Biological Opinion, and stipulations in the executed Programmatic Agreement), as set forth in the MAP. Additional required actions will be identified as a result of ongoing consultations (e.g., regarding Clean Water Act Section 404) between the Applicant and state and federal agencies as part of approval and permitting processes. The MAP lists the mitigation requirements and provides for the development of the implementation and monitoring of the EPMs, BMPs, reasonable and prudent measures and other requirements identified in the Biological Opinion, and mitigation measures contained in the Programmatic Agreement. DOE will track and annually report progress made in implementing, and the effectiveness of, the mitigation commitments made in this ROD. The MAP is posted on the DOE NEPA Web site at http://energy.gov/nepa and on the Plains & Eastern EIS Web site at http://www.plainsandeasterneis.com/. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2016. Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary of Energy. Appendix A: Public Comments Received After the Publication of the Final EIS DOE received eight comment documents regarding the Final EIS after its publication. In order of their receipt, these documents were submitted by the following individuals or groups: (1) Bob Hardy; (2) Paul Nedlose; (3) Steve Clair on behalf of residents of Walnut Valley Estates (north of Dover, Arkansas); (4) Residents of Walnut Valley Estates; (5) Residents of Walnut Valley Estates; (6) J.D. Dyer; (7) Mark Fuksa; and (8) Steve Clair on behalf of residents of Walnut Valley Estates. Comment documents 4, 5, and 8 contain the same information as was presented in comment document 3. DOE considered all comments contained in these documents. DOE has concluded that these comment documents do not identify a need for further NEPA analysis. Six of these comment documents are similar to, and in most cases the same as, comments submitted on the Draft EIS, to which DOE responded in the Final EIS. DOE responses to comments similar to Mr. Hardy's concerns regarding communication can be found in the General NEPA Process and Compliance section of Appendix Q, Chapter 3 of the Final EIS (beginning on page 3-27 of that appendix). Mr. Nedlose's comment expresses that he does not want the Project on his property. DOE responses to similar comments can be found in the Easements and Property Rights/Values and the General Opposition Comments sections of Appendix Q, Chapter 3 of the Final EIS (beginning on pages 3-103 and 3-473, respectively, of that appendix). Letters expressing similar concerns from residents of Walnut Valley Estates were submitted to DOE. Comment summaries and DOE's responses can be found on pages 3-161 and 3-338 to 3-339 of Appendix Q, Chapter 3 in the Final EIS. The discussion below summarizes the comment documents from J.D. Dyer and Mark Fuksa, which include comments that were not addressed in the Final EIS, and presents DOE's responses. Comment. Mr. Dyer described a flooding issue associated with a section of the Applicant Proposed Route in the area of Dyer, Arkansas, within the 1,000-foot-wide corridor in Region 4, Link 6. Mr. Dyer stated that transmission towers could fail during a flooding event and would be difficult to repair for a considerable amount of time. Mr. Dyer expressed concern that there could be long periods of time when the transmission line would be unable to deliver electricity to customers. Response. The Final EIS evaluates the potential impacts related to floodplains. Appendix N of the Final EIS includes a Floodplain Statement of Findings in accordance with DOE's Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR part 1022). Appendix N states, ``All structures and facilities would be designed to be consistent with the intent of the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR part 60, Criteria for Land Management and Use).'' Additionally, Appendix N explains that transmission line structures would not prohibit the flow of water within floodplains, because water can flow around structure foundations. Transmission structure foundation dimensions are shown in the Final EIS (Chapter 2; Table 2.1-4). Section 7 of Appendix N includes EPMs and BMPs that would minimize potential impacts associated with flooding. Appendix N explains that the ``first measure to be taken to minimize potential adverse effects to floodplains would be avoidance.'' In the case [[Page 18607]] of siting the transmission line, the span between structures would also provide some flexibility for avoiding floodplains. That is, in some areas it would be reasonable to minimize the number of structures in a floodplain by controlling the spans or to place the structures outside the floodplain, which would then be spanned by the transmission line.'' If a transmission structure would be required to be sited in a floodplain, it would be designed and constructed to meet the anticipated design loads from a maximally-credible flooding event in accordance with applicable regulatory standards. Therefore, a flooding event would be unlikely to result in the failure of a transmission structure. In the unlikely event that structure failure did occur as a result of a flooding event, the system repair would be similar to failures from other off-normal events. As presented in the Final EIS comment response document (Appendix Q, page 3-307), ``Temporary interruption of the power transmission system could occur to the Project from a variety of off-normal events such as natural disasters, terrorism, or accidents. The Project would be designed to prevent outages from these events to the maximum extent practicable. While it stands to reason that interruption of a smaller regional power transmission system would impact a smaller customer base than a larger system, neither situation is necessarily considered disastrous. There are multiple thousands of miles of aboveground electrical transmission lines providing electrical power to consumers over long distances in the United States. Interruptions of power have occurred to power transmission systems in the past and have been mitigated and power restored through standard industry, engineering, and security practices. The Project alone would not represent a critically high percentage of power transmission service to consumers nationally and therefore temporary disruption of the grid would be considered manageable. The Applicant would operate the system and respond to any unplanned outages according to those practices and identified EPMs, BMPs, plans and procedures, and applicable regulatory requirements.'' Clean Line has provided additional information in their Operations and Maintenance Plan (Section 3.12; Corrective Actions), which states, ``To minimize the frequency and duration of corrective activities, Clean Line has designed robust structures that incorporate the appropriate NESC [National Electric Safety Code] requirements. Current engineering plans call for stop-structures every 5-10 miles to prevent cascading events. Clean Line plans to utilize weather-monitoring systems currently in place in the project area . . . and to communicate elevated risk levels to interconnecting utilities in order to ensure operational readiness. A spare parts inventory will be put in place along the route to address both high and low probability weather events. Standby contracts for labor and emergency equipment will provide for quick responses to any outages. A spare parts inventory will include information on critical components and parts, storage location, and lead times/current availability for replacement parts.'' Comment. Mr. Fuksa's email states that the National Park Service added the Fuksa portion of the Chisholm Trail to the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) in September 2015, and designated the John and Mary Fuksa Family Farm (including dustbowl-era farmyard, buildings, and structures) as a national historic area and added it to the NRHP in December 2015. Mr. Fuksa urges DOE to adopt Alternative Route 2B instead of the Applicant Proposed Route in this location. Response. The location of the Chisholm Trail relative to the Applicant Proposed Route is identified and discussed in Section 3.9.5.2 of the Final EIS. Impacts to property structures would be addressed through micrositing within the 1,000-foot-wide corridor and implementing EPM LU-5, which states that Clean Line will make reasonable efforts, consistent with design criteria, to accommodate requests from individual landowners to adjust the siting of the ROW on their properties. These adjustments may include consideration of routes along or parallel to existing divisions of land (e.g., agricultural fields and parcel boundaries) and existing compatible linear infrastructure (e.g., roads, transmission lines, and pipelines), with the intent of reducing the impact of the ROW on private properties. DOE has developed a Programmatic Agreement that, in accordance with the regulations that implement Section 106 of the NHPA, provides a framework for the assessment of potential Project effects to historic properties (this would include potential effects to the Fuksa portion of the Chisholm Trail and the John and Mary Fuksa Family Farm), and adoption of strategies to resolve potential effects. [FR Doc. 2016-07282 Filed 3-30-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
![18602 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2016 / Notices
SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of seagrass bed restoration. The study will design, develop, construct, operate,
Engineers (USACE) intends to prepare a evaluate potential benefits and impacts maintain, or own, or participate with
Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and of the proposed action including direct, other entities in designing, developing,
Environmental Impact Statement (DIFR– indirect and cumulative effects to the constructing, operating, maintaining,
EIS) for the Coastal Texas Protection human, water and natural environments and owning new electric power
and Restoration Feasibility Study. This that balance the interests of flood risk transmission facilities and related
study will identify and evaluate the management, hurricane and storm risk facilities located within any state in
feasibility of developing a management, and ecosystem restoration which the Southwestern Power
comprehensive plan for flood risk purposes for Texas and the Nation. Administration (Southwestern)
management, hurricane and storm risk 3. Scoping. In August, 2014, early operates. In response to an application
management, and ecosystem restoration scoping meetings were held in League submitted by Clean Line Energy
for the coastal areas of the State of City, Palacios, Corpus Christi, and the Partners LLC on behalf of itself and
Texas. The study will focus on City of South Padre Island, Texas. several corporate affiliates (collectively,
providing for the protection, Comments were received for 30 days Clean Line or the Applicant) the
conservation, and restoration of following the last scoping meeting. Department of Energy (DOE or the
wetlands, barrier islands, shorelines, Additional input from Federal, state and Department) announces its decision to
and related lands and features that local agencies, Indian tribes, and other participate in the development of
protect critical resources, habitat, and interested private organizations and approximately 705 miles of ±600
infrastructure from the impacts of parties is being solicited with this kilovolt (kV) overhead, high-voltage
coastal storms, hurricanes, erosion, and notice. The USACE requests public direct current (HVDC) electric
subsidence. This notice announces the scoping comments to: (a) Identify the transmission facilities and related
USACE’s intent to determine the scope affected public and agency concerns; (b) facilities from western Oklahoma to the
of the issues to be addressed and for identify the scope of significant issues eastern state-line of Arkansas near the
identifying the significant resources to be addressed in the DIFR–EIS; (c) Mississippi River (the Project). This
related to a proposed action. identify the critical problems, needs, decision implements DOE’s preferred
DATES: Comments on the scope of the and significant resources that should be alternative in Oklahoma and Arkansas
DIFR–EIS will be accepted through May considered in the DIFR–EIS; and (d) as described in the Final Environmental
9, 2016. identify reasonable measures and Impact Statement for the Plains &
ADDRESSES: Scoping comments may be alternatives that should be considered Eastern Clean Line Transmission Line
sent by electronic mail to: in the DIFR–EIS. A Scoping Notice Project (Final EIS) (DOE/EIS–0486).
CoastalTexas@usace.army.mil. announcing the USACE’s request for Clean Line, acting on its own and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: public scoping comments will be sent without the Department’s participation,
Galveston District Public Affairs Office via electronic mail to affected and would build additional facilities that
at 409–766–3004 or swgpao@ interested parties. Scoping comments would connect to the Project in Texas
usace.army.mil. are requested to be sent by May 9, 2016. and Tennessee.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
4. Coordination. Further coordination Collectively, the facilities built by
1. Authority. The Coastal Texas with environmental agencies will be Clean Line would have the capacity to
Protection and Restoration Feasibility conducted under the National deliver approximately 4,000 megawatts
Study is authorized under Section 4091, Environmental Policy Act, the Fish and (MW) from renewable energy generation
Water Resources Development Act Wildlife Coordination Act, the Clean facilities, located in the Oklahoma
(WRDA) of 2007, Public Law 110–114, Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Panhandle and potentially Texas
to develop a comprehensive plan to National Historic and Preservation Act, Panhandle regions, to the electrical grid
determine the feasibility of carrying out the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery in Arkansas and Tennessee. The
projects for flood risk management, Conservation and Management Act, and potential environmental impacts
hurricane and storm risk management, the Coastal Zone Management Act associated with the Project, plus the
and ecosystem restoration in the coastal under the Texas Coastal Management additional facilities in Texas and
areas of the State of Texas. Program. Tennessee, are analyzed in the Final
2. Proposed Action. The study will 5. Availability of DIFR–EIS. The EIS. DOE’s review included
identify critical data needs and DIFR–EIS will be available for public consultations in accordance with
recommend a comprehensive strategy review and comment in July 2018. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
for reducing coastal storm flood risk Dated: March 23, 2016. (ESA) and Section 106 of the National
through structural and nonstructural Richard P. Pannell,
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
measures that take advantage of natural DOE’s decision requires the
Colonel, U.S. Army, Commanding.
features like barrier islands and storm implementation of mitigation measures,
[FR Doc. 2016–07283 Filed 3–30–16; 8:45 am]
surge storage in wetlands. Structural and a complete list of these measures
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P can be found in the Mitigation Action
alternatives to be considered include
improvements to existing systems (such Plan (MAP).
as existing hurricane protection projects ADDRESSES: Information regarding
at Port Arthur, Texas City, Freeport, and DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Section 1222 of EPAct 2005 can be
Lynchburg, and seawalls at Galveston, found on the DOE Web site at http://
Record of Decision in re Application of
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Palacios, Corpus Christi, North and energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-
Clean Line Energy Partners LLC
South Padre Island), and the creation of policy-coordination-and-
new structural plans for hurricane storm AGENCY: Department of Energy. implementation/transmission-planning/
risk management. Ecosystem restoration ACTION: Record of decision. section-1222. The determination by the
alternatives to be considered include Secretary of Energy, Summary of
estuarine marsh restoration, beach and SUMMARY: Section 1222 of the Energy Findings, and Participation Agreement
dune restoration, rookery island Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) grants are available on the DOE Web site at
restoration, oyster reef restoration, and the Secretary of Energy the authority to http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM 31MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_18664/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2016 / Notices 18603
policy-coordination-and- proposal to DOE in July 2010 for the NEPA Review
implementation/transmission-planning/ Plains & Eastern Clean Line Project. In DOE prepared the EIS and this ROD
section-1222-0. The Final EIS, August 2011, Clean Line modified the pursuant to NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
associated errata, MAP, and this Record proposal and, at DOE’s request, seq.), the Council on Environmental
of Decision (ROD) are available on the subsequently submitted additional Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40
DOE National Environmental Policy Act information (referred to as the Part 2 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts
(NEPA) Web site at http://energy.gov/ Application) in January 2015. 1500 through 1508), and DOE’s NEPA
nepa and on the Plains & Eastern EIS This ROD uses two terms that implementing regulations (10 CFR part
Web site at http:// describe related elements of the 1021). DOE’s purpose and need for
www.plainsandeasterneis.com/. application being discussed. The agency action is to implement Section
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Project 1 refers to those facilities in 1222 of the EPAct 2005. In the Final
information on the Section 1222 Oklahoma and Arkansas included in EIS, DOE analyzed the potential
process, contact Mr. Christopher DOE’s decision to participate, e.g., environmental impacts from the
Lawrence, U.S. Department of Energy, approximately 705 miles of ±600 kV Applicant Proposed Project, as the term
1000 Independence Avenue SW., overhead, HVDC electric transmission is used in this ROD, the range of
Washington, DC 20585; email at facilities running from western reasonable alternatives, and a No Action
Christopher.Lawrence@hq.doe.gov; or Oklahoma to the eastern state-line of Alternative.
phone (202) 586–5260. Arkansas near the Mississippi River and Major facilities associated with the
For information on the EIS or the related facilities, including a converter Applicant Proposed Project include
consultation processes under Section station in Arkansas. Applicant Proposed converter stations in Oklahoma,
106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. 300101) or Project 2 refers to the Project plus the Arkansas, and Tennessee;
Section 7 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et additional facilities that Clean Line, approximately 720-miles of ±600 kV
seq.), contact Jane Summerson, Ph.D., acting on its own and without the HVDC transmission line facilities; an
DOE NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department’s participation, would build alternating current (AC) collection
Department of Energy, DOE NNSA, Post in Texas and Tennessee to connect to system; and access roads.
Office Box 5400, Building 391, Kirtland the Project. Collectively, the facilities In response to public comments on
Air Force Base East, Albuquerque, NM would have the capacity to deliver the Draft EIS, DOE and Clean Line
87185; email at Jane.Summerson01@ approximately 4,000 MW from developed 23 route variations for the
nnsa.doe.gov; or phone (505) 845–4091. renewable energy generation facilities, Applicant Proposed Route 3 for the
For general information about the located in the Oklahoma Panhandle and HVDC transmission line, which were
DOE NEPA process, contact Carol potentially Texas Panhandle regions, to evaluated in the Final EIS. These route
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA the electrical grid in Arkansas (500 MW) variations involved minor changes to
Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. and Tennessee (3,500 MW). the segment lengths and were developed
Department of Energy, 1000 with the intent of reducing land use
Section 1222 Authority conflicts or minimizing potential
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585; or phone at Parallel with the NEPA process, DOE environmental impacts of the route as
(202) 586–4600; voicemail at (800) 472– evaluated Clean Line’s application analyzed in the Draft EIS. In all but one
2756; or email at askNEPA@hq.doe.gov. under Section 1222 of the EPAct 2005. instance, Clean Line concluded that the
Additional information regarding DOE’s This evaluation under Section 1222 route variations were technically
NEPA activities is available on the DOE included a review of the application feasible and expressed support for
NEPA Web site at http://energy.gov/ against statutory eligibility criteria and DOE’s adoption of these route variations
nepa. certain evaluation factors listed in the (the instance is described under the
2010 RFP. To aid in this review, Clean Basis for Decision section below in this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Line’s Part 2 Application was made ROD).
Background available for public comment from April The analysis of potential
28, 2015 until July 13, 2015 (80 FR environmental impacts for the HVDC
Section 1222 of EPAct 2005, 42 U.S.C.
23520 and 34626). Clean Line’s transmission facilities, including the 23
16421, grants the Secretary of Energy route variations addressed in the Final
authority, acting through the Western application remains available on DOE’s
Web site at http://www.energy.gov/oe/ EIS, was based on a representative 200-
Area Power Administration (WAPA), foot-wide right of way (ROW) within a
Southwestern, or both, to design, services/electricity-policy-coordination-
and-implementation/transmission- 1,000-foot-wide corridor. The final
develop, construct, operate, maintain, or location of the transmission line ROW
own, or participate with other entities in planning/section-1222-0. The results of
DOE’s evaluation under Section 1222 could be anywhere within this 1,000-
designing, developing, constructing, foot-wide corridor and would be
operating, maintaining, and owning new are addressed under the Decision
section below in this ROD. determined following the issuance of
electric power transmission facilities this ROD based on the completion of
and related facilities located within any final engineering design, federal and
1 In the Final EIS, ‘‘the Project’’ is used as a broad
state in which WAPA or Southwestern state related construction permits and
term that generically refers to elements of the
operates. In June 2010, the Department project as proposed by Clean Line and/or DOE authorizations, ROW acquisition
issued Request for Proposals for New or Alternatives when differentiation between the two activities, and the incorporation of all
Upgraded Transmission Line Projects is not necessary. The definition of ‘‘the Project’’
measures identified in the MAP.
used in the Final EIS is distinct from the meaning
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Under Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Determination of this final location of
of ‘‘the Project’’ in this ROD.
Act of 2005 (75 FR 32940; June 10, 2 In the Final EIS, the term ‘‘Applicant Proposed
2010). In response to the request for Project’’ refers to the project as described in Clean 3 The Applicant Proposed Route, as used in the
proposals (RFP), Clean Line Energy Line’s modified proposal to DOE. This is described Final EIS and this ROD, refers to the single 1,000-
Partners LLC of Houston, Texas, the in Section S.5.2 of the Final EIS and does not foot-wide route alternative defined by Clean Line to
include the converter station in Arkansas or connect the converter station in the Oklahoma
parent company of Plains and Eastern alternative routes for the HVDC transmission line Panhandle to the converter station in western
Clean Line LLC and Plains and Eastern that are referred to in the Final EIS as ‘‘DOE Tennessee. The Applicant Proposed Route is
Clean Line Oklahoma LLC, submitted a Alternatives.’’ described in Section S.5.3.2 of the Final EIS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM 31MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_18664/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2016 / Notices 18607
of siting the transmission line, the span lead times/current availability for Tech Road, Elberton, Georgia 30635–
between structures would also provide some replacement parts.’’ 6711, (706) 213–3800.
flexibility for avoiding floodplains. That is, Comment. Mr. Fuksa’s email states that the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
in some areas it would be reasonable to National Park Service added the Fuksa
minimize the number of structures in a portion of the Chisholm Trail to the National Commission, by Order issued December
floodplain by controlling the spans or to Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) in 22, 2011, in Docket No. EF11–12–000,
place the structures outside the floodplain, September 2015, and designated the John and confirmed and approved Wholesale
which would then be spanned by the Mary Fuksa Family Farm (including Power Rate Schedules JW–1–J and JW–
transmission line.’’ dustbowl-era farmyard, buildings, and 2–F for a period ending September 19,
If a transmission structure would be structures) as a national historic area and 2016.
required to be sited in a floodplain, it would added it to the NRHP in December 2015. Mr.
be designed and constructed to meet the Fuksa urges DOE to adopt Alternative Route Dated: March 25, 2016.
anticipated design loads from a maximally- 2B instead of the Applicant Proposed Route Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall,
credible flooding event in accordance with in this location. Deputy Secretary.
applicable regulatory standards. Therefore, a Response. The location of the Chisholm
flooding event would be unlikely to result in Trail relative to the Applicant Proposed Department of Energy
the failure of a transmission structure. Route is identified and discussed in Section Deputy Secretary
In the unlikely event that structure failure 3.9.5.2 of the Final EIS. Impacts to property
did occur as a result of a flooding event, the structures would be addressed through Rate Order No. SEPA–60.
system repair would be similar to failures micrositing within the 1,000-foot-wide In the Matter of: Southeastern Power
from other off-normal events. As presented in corridor and implementing EPM LU–5, Administration—Jim Woodruff Project Power
the Final EIS comment response document which states that Clean Line will make Rates
(Appendix Q, page 3–307), ‘‘Temporary reasonable efforts, consistent with design
interruption of the power transmission criteria, to accommodate requests from Order Confirming and Approving
system could occur to the Project from a individual landowners to adjust the siting of Power Rates On an Interim Basis
variety of off-normal events such as natural the ROW on their properties. These
disasters, terrorism, or accidents. The Project
Pursuant to Sections 302(a) of the
adjustments may include consideration of
would be designed to prevent outages from routes along or parallel to existing divisions Department of Energy Organization Act,
these events to the maximum extent of land (e.g., agricultural fields and parcel Public Law 95–91, the functions of the
practicable. While it stands to reason that boundaries) and existing compatible linear Secretary of the Interior and the Federal
interruption of a smaller regional power infrastructure (e.g., roads, transmission lines, Power Commission under Section 5 of
transmission system would impact a smaller and pipelines), with the intent of reducing the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C.
customer base than a larger system, neither the impact of the ROW on private properties. 825s, relating to the Southeastern Power
situation is necessarily considered DOE has developed a Programmatic Administration (‘‘Southeastern’’ or
disastrous. There are multiple thousands of Agreement that, in accordance with the ‘‘SEPA’’) were transferred to and vested
miles of aboveground electrical transmission regulations that implement Section 106 of the in the Secretary of Energy. By
lines providing electrical power to NHPA, provides a framework for the
consumers over long distances in the United
Delegation Order No. 00–037.00A,
assessment of potential Project effects to
States. Interruptions of power have occurred historic properties (this would include effective October 25, 2013, the Secretary
to power transmission systems in the past potential effects to the Fuksa portion of the of Energy delegated to Southeastern’s
and have been mitigated and power restored Chisholm Trail and the John and Mary Fuksa Administrator the authority to develop
through standard industry, engineering, and Family Farm), and adoption of strategies to power and transmission rates, delegated
security practices. The Project alone would resolve potential effects. to the Deputy Secretary of Energy the
not represent a critically high percentage of [FR Doc. 2016–07282 Filed 3–30–16; 8:45 am] authority to confirm, approve, and place
power transmission service to consumers in effect such rates on an interim basis,
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
nationally and therefore temporary and delegated to the Federal Energy
disruption of the grid would be considered Regulatory Commission
manageable. The Applicant would operate
the system and respond to any unplanned DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (‘‘Commission’’) the authority to
outages according to those practices and confirm, approve, and place into effect
identified EPMs, BMPs, plans and Notice of Extension of Rate Schedules on a final basis or to disapprove rates
procedures, and applicable regulatory developed by the Administrator under
AGENCY: Southeastern Power
requirements.’’ the delegation. This rate order is issued
Clean Line has provided additional
Administration, DOE.
by the Deputy Secretary pursuant to
information in their Operations and ACTION: Notice of Rate Extension. said delegation.
Maintenance Plan (Section 3.12; Corrective Pursuant to 10 CFR 903.23(b), an
Actions), which states, ‘‘To minimize the SUMMARY: The Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Energy confirmed and existing rate may be extended on a
frequency and duration of corrective
approved an extension of Rate temporary basis by the Deputy Secretary
activities, Clean Line has designed robust
structures that incorporate the appropriate Schedules JW–1–J and JW–2–F through without advanced notice or comment.
NESC [National Electric Safety Code] September 30, 2016. This short 11 day The Deputy Secretary shall publish said
requirements. Current engineering plans call extension will allow the billing and rate extension in the Federal Register and
for stop-structures every 5–10 miles to terms to align going forward in the new promptly advise the Commission of the
prevent cascading events. Clean Line plans to rate to be proposed effective October 1, extension.
utilize weather-monitoring systems currently
in place in the project area . . . and to
2016 and to be announced in a separate Background
communicate elevated risk levels to Federal Register Notice. Power from the Jim Woodruff Project
interconnecting utilities in order to ensure DATES: Approval of extension of the rate
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
is presently sold under Wholesale
operational readiness. A spare parts schedules is effective September 20, Power Rate Schedules JW–1–J and JW–
inventory will be put in place along the route 2016. 2–F. These rate schedules were
to address both high and low probability
weather events. Standby contracts for labor FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: approved by the Commission on
and emergency equipment will provide for Virgil G. Hobbs III, Assistant December 22, 2011, for a period ending
quick responses to any outages. A spare parts Administrator, Finance & Marketing, September 19, 2016 (137 FERC
inventory will include information on critical Southeastern Power Administration, ¶62,248). Effective June 21, 2015,
components and parts, storage location, and Department of Energy, 1166 Athens Southeastern, Duke Energy Florida, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 30, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM 31MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_18664/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2016-03-31 00:55:27
Document Modified: 2016-03-31 00:55:27
| 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 | |
| Action | Record of decision. | |
| Contact | For information on the Section 1222 process, contact Mr. Christopher Lawrence, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; email at [email protected]; or phone (202) 586-5260. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 18602 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR