[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66547-66549]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD20-18-000]

Offshore Wind Integration in RTOs/ISOs; Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference

    As first announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in
this proceeding on June 17, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference
in the above referenced proceeding on Tuesday, October 27, 2020, from
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET).\1\ The conference will be held virtually
and will be webcast. Commissioners may attend and participate. This
conference will consider whether and how existing regional transmission
organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO)
interconnection, merchant transmission and transmission planning
frameworks can accommodate anticipated growth in offshore wind
generation in an efficient or cost-effective manner that safeguards
open access transmission principles. The conference also will provide
an opportunity for participants to discuss possible changes or
improvements to the current regulatory frameworks that may accommodate
such growth. Attached to this Supplemental Notice is an agenda for the
technical conference, which includes the final conference program and
speakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 2.1(a)(1)(xi) (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that discussions at the conference may involve issues
raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission.
These proceedings include, but are not limited to:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Docket Nos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Mystic Power, LLC v. ISO New England Inc.  EL20-52-000, EL20-52-001.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc..........  ER20-940-002.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and       ER20-943-002.
 Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc..........  ER20-942-002.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc..........  ER20-2788-000.
New York Independent System Operator Inc...............  EL20-65-000.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.............................  ER20-939-001.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Midcontinent             ER20-944-002.
 Independent System Operator, Inc.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.............................  ER20-2308-000.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc..............................  ER20-945-001.
Vineyard Wind LLC......................................  ER19-570-000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is no fee for attendance, and the conference is open for the
public to attend via webcast. Information on this technical conference,
including a link to the webcast, will be posted on the conference's
event page on the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events/technical-conference-regarding-offshore-wind-integration-rtosisos-docket-no-ad20) prior to the event. The conference will be
transcribed. Transcripts of the conference will be available for a fee
from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>). For more information
about this technical conference, please contact:

Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
(202) 502-8004<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Rosner (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rishi Garg (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, (202)
502-8667<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Staff-Led Technical Conference on Offshore Wind Integration in RTOs/
ISOs

Docket No. AD20-18-000

October 27, 2020

Agenda and Speakers
9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m.: Welcome and Opening Remarks
9:15 a.m.-10:45 a.m.: Panel 1: Background on the U.S. Offshore Wind
Industry in RTO/ISO Markets
    Judy Chang, Undersecretary of Energy, State of Massachusetts,
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
    Carrie Cullen Hitt, Executive Director, National Offshore Wind
Research and Development Consortium
    Johannes Pfeifenberger, Principal, The Brattle Group
    Casey Reeves, Project Coordinator, U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
    Gabe Tabak, Counsel, American Wind Energy Association

    This panel will provide an overview of factors driving interest in
the development and integration of offshore wind generation in the RTO/
ISO regions, and will outline potential models for grid integration to
meet anticipated growth in offshore wind generation. The panel will
include a discussion of the following topics and questions:
    1. What factors are driving interest in the development and
integration of offshore wind generation in the RTO/ISO regions?
    2. What is the status of state policy targets regarding the
procurement of offshore wind generation? How do state procurement
processes for offshore wind generation account for Commission rules and
RTO/ISO processes for interconnection, merchant transmission and
transmission planning? Are there any state-level regulatory challenges
surrounding offshore wind generator interconnection, merchant
transmission and transmission planning that Commission staff should be
aware of?
    3. There are likely many challenges and opportunities facing
efficient or cost-effective integration of offshore wind generation.
Where do interconnection, merchant transmission and transmission
planning rank among these?

    4. What are the various conceptual models being considered in the
short and long terms for the interconnection of, and transmission for,
offshore wind generation? What are the major challenges and
opportunities associated with these various conceptual models, and
which of these may be viable paths forward to developing sufficient
transmission infrastructure in RTOs/ISOs to accommodate anticipated
growth in offshore wind generation? Are these various conceptual models
consistent with existing Commission regulatory frameworks? If not, what
are the impediments?
    5. What is the current procedure for obtaining offshore wind leases
from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and how does the
wind leasing process influence interconnection and transmission
development needs? Is BOEM considering any changes to that process
going forward? How do BOEM's processes interact with the Commission's
regulatory frameworks or RTO/ISO processes for interconnection,
merchant transmission and transmission planning? Do the Commission's
regulatory frameworks and/or RTO/ISO processes present any impediments
in these areas? If so, what are the impediments?
    6. What is the current state of development of various transmission
technologies related to offshore wind generation, including AC and DC
technologies?
    7. How might innovations in offshore wind generation impact the
amount of generation additions expected in the future? Similarly, how
might innovations in transmission technologies impact RTO/ISO
approaches to integrating anticipated offshore wind generation?

10:45 a.m.-11:00 a.m.: Break
11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.: Panel 2: Transmission Planning and Coordination
for Integration of Offshore Wind Generation
    Robert Ethier, Director, System Planning, ISO-New England
    Larry Gasteiger, Executive Director, WIRES
    Sebastian Libonatti, Vice President, Business Development, Avangrid
Networks
    Anne Marie McShea, Head of Offshore Wind Business Development: New
York--MidAtlantic Region, OW Ocean Winds
    Stuart Nachmias, President and CEO, Con Edison Transmission, Inc.
    Zachary Smith, Vice President, System and Resource Planning, New
York Independent System Operator
    Robert Snook, Assistant Attorney General, Connecticut Office of the
Attorney General

    This panel will explore whether and how existing transmission
planning processes consider onshore and offshore transmission projects
to integrate anticipated generation resources, whether these
transmission projects should be considered through another mechanism,
and whether the Order No. 1000 interregional coordination provisions
facilitate development of transmission projects to integrate remote
generation that can potentially serve multiple RTOs/ISOs. The panel
will include a discussion of the following topics and questions:
    1. Do existing RTO/ISO transmission planning and cost allocation
processes--including public policy planning requirements, interregional
coordination, and other approaches--accommodate the anticipated need
for transmission to integrate offshore wind generation? If not, why
not? Are there existing impediments? If so, what are they? How does the
answer differ, if at all, in the short term (e.g., by 2030) and long
term (e.g., after 2030)?
    2. Staff is aware of various transmission development options for
integrating offshore wind generation. Among others, these include: (1)
The conventional approach in which Interconnection Customer
Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades are developed in tandem
with new generator interconnection requests, and either sized to
accommodate a single generation facility or sized to maximize the
export capability on a radial line given the anticipated development of
additional generation in the same area; and (2) a ``transmission
first'' approach in which large-scale transmission facilities,
including an extension of the transmission system and/or expansion of
capacity within existing facilities, are constructed onshore and/or
offshore for anticipated generation in order to realize economies of
scale. The Commission's regulatory frameworks, except perhaps the
merchant transmission framework, do not include a ``transmission
first'' approach. Do the Commission's regulatory frameworks and/or RTO/
ISO processes present any impediments to these options? If so, what are
the impediments? What opportunities or potential efficiencies, if any,
do these or other approaches offer?
    3. Should ``transmission first'' facilities be considered through a
dedicated planning process designed for offshore wind generation? If
so, how would that process work and relate to existing interconnection,
merchant transmission and transmission planning processes? Are there
any impediments or advantages/disadvantages to using a dedicated
process?
    4. When considering proposed transmission projects to integrate
anticipated growth in offshore wind generation pursuant to RTO/ISO
transmission planning and cost allocation processes, how would the
benefits be considered? Are potential co-benefits, such as improved
reliability or greater capacity to integrate other resources, of the
proposed transmission projects, considered? If not, why not? What are
the impediments to such consideration?

1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m.: Lunch
2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Panel 3: Interconnection of Offshore Wind via
Generator and Merchant Transmission Interconnection Processes
    Jessica Lau, Senior Technical Project Manager, Grid Systems,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
    Alan McBride, Director, Transmission Services and Resource
Qualification, ISO-NE
    Theodore Paradise, Senior Vice President, Transmission Strategy &
Counsel, Anbaric Development Partners, LLC
    Kenneth Seiler, Vice President--Planning, PJM Interconnection
    Abraham Silverman, General Counsel, New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities
    Jon Wellinghoff, CEO, Grid Policy, Inc.
    Eric Wilkinson, Energy Policy Analyst, North America, Orsted

    This panel will explore whether and how existing RTO/ISO generator
interconnection and transmission interconnection frameworks could
accommodate anticipated growth in offshore wind generation in the short
and long terms and, if not, consider the nature of any impediments. The
panel will include a discussion of the following topics and questions:
    1. To what extent do existing RTO/ISO merchant transmission rules
accommodate a ``transmission first'' approach for the development of
onshore and/or offshore transmission facilities that may be needed to
integrate offshore wind generation?
    2. What are the potential advantages or disadvantages of using a
merchant transmission approach--in which the developer assumes all
risks associated with the transmission project and charges negotiated
transmission rates--to develop transmission for anticipated offshore
wind generation? How do these

potential advantages or disadvantages compare to those of the
conventional interconnection, merchant transmission and/or transmission
planning? Is one approach more likely to lead to integrated offshore
wind generation development?
    3. Are there any challenges associated with using the merchant
transmission model where subscribing generation has not yet been
identified? What types of injection rights may be appropriate for
merchant transmission projects that have not yet identified all
interconnecting offshore wind generation?
    4. If RTO/ISO merchant transmission frameworks were to be used,
what milestones currently exist or should be established if such a
framework were to apply to transmission facilities for offshore wind
generation? At what point in the merchant transmission interconnection
process should an offshore transmission project be required to
demonstrate that it has contracted with offshore wind generation?
    5. What steps must an offshore or onshore merchant transmission
developer complete to meet site control requirements? Does a merchant
transmission developer need full site control of onshore connections as
well as the offshore lease area? Are the existing merchant transmission
rules pertaining to partial vs. full site control creating any
impediments for offshore wind generation? If so, what are the
impediments? Do the requirements for site control in RTO/ISO processes
for generator interconnection and merchant transmission interconnection
differ? If so, how? If so, does that difference create impediments for
offshore wind generation?
    6. Should the current criteria for granting negotiated rate
authority to merchant transmission developers be adjusted to consider
potential market power concerns that may emerge from unique attributes
of offshore wind generation (e.g., a limited number of points of
interconnection)?
    7. When merchant transmission developers select and interconnect
offshore wind generation, what factors do they consider, and which are
most important (e.g., available landing points, existing
interconnection infrastructure, existing system capacity for
injections, etc.)? What are the benefits of being a first mover with
regards to merchant transmission interconnection? Are there any
impediments under the merchant transmission framework to the
development of offshore wind generation? If so, what are the
impediments? What are the best ways to reduce or eliminate the
impediments?
    8. Are existing dynamic modeling data requirements adequate for
increased penetration of inverter-based wind generation and offshore
transmission projects, under either conventional transmission planning
processes or merchant transmission frameworks? Are there specific
improvements that would have to be made to data requirements or
transmission planning assumptions regarding dynamic modeling to
accommodate a ``transmission first'' approach?

3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m.: Break
3:45 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Panel 4: Alternative Models for Offshore Wind
Transmission
    Jeff Billinton, Director, Transmission Infrastructure Planning,
California ISO
    James Cotter, General Manager, American Offshore Wind, Shell New
Energies
    Beth Garza, Senior Fellow, Electricity Policy, R Street Institute
    Michael Goggin, Business Network for Offshore Wind and Vice
President, Grid Strategies, LLC
    Kim Hanemann, SVP & Chief Operating Officer, Public Service
Electric & Gas Company
    Jan Papsch: Team Lead Electricity, European Commission, Directorate
General for Energy

    This panel will explore potential alternative models for building
transmission that may be needed to accommodate anticipated growth in
offshore wind generation. The panel will include a discussion of the
following topics and questions:
    1. In an ideal world, what would a model for transmission
development that could accommodate anticipated growth in offshore wind
generation look like? Could this be achieved under existing RTO/ISO
approaches? If not, what are the impediments?
    2. Are there examples of existing interconnection, merchant
transmission, and/or transmission planning processes for accessing
remote onshore generation resources that could be adapted to the
offshore wind context? If so, how?
    3. What reforms would you recommend that the Commission consider
pursuing to facilitate the efficient or cost-effective integration of
anticipated offshore wind generation in RTOs/ISOs, including potential
modifications of the existing interconnection, merchant transmission,
and/or transmission planning processes, or other potential changes?
    4. Are there existing or anticipated state legislative efforts
related to transmission development for offshore wind generation? Are
these efforts consistent with existing RTO/ISO tariffs and the
Commission's existing regulatory frameworks?
    5. Which aspects of the interconnection, merchant transmission,
and/or transmission planning and cost allocation processes related to
offshore wind generation used in European markets could be adapted to
or inform the U.S. framework?

4:45 p.m.-5:00 p.m.: Closing Remarks

[FR Doc. 2020-23157 Filed 10-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P