
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 43080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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


