Download:
pdf |
pdfFederal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any
requirement in this AD to obtain instructions
from a manufacturer, the instructions must
be accomplished using a method approved
by the Manager, International Validation
Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS’s
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
(3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except
as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if
any service information referenced in EASA
AD 2023–0106 contains paragraphs that are
labeled as RC, the instructions in RC
paragraphs, including subparagraphs under
an RC paragraph, must be done to comply
with this AD; any paragraphs, including
subparagraphs under those paragraphs, that
are not identified as RC are recommended.
The instructions in paragraphs, including
subparagraphs under those paragraphs, not
identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the
operator’s maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an
AMOC, provided the instructions identified
as RC can be done and the airplane can be
put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to instructions
identified as RC require approval of an
AMOC.
000; email [email protected]; website
easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA AD
on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
(4) You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
206–231–3195. This material may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA–2023–1396.
(5) You may view this material that is
incorporated by reference at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
(j) Additional Information
For more information about this AD,
contact Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety
Engineer, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 206–231–3667;
email: [email protected].
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
(IBR) of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
(2) You must use this service information
as applicable to do the actions required by
this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2023–0106, dated May 25, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA AD 2023–0106, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668
Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999
Issued on June 20, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–13743 Filed 6–23–23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
18 CFR Part 141
[Docket Nos. RM22–16–000, AD21–13–000;
Order No. 897]
One-Time Informational Reports on
Extreme Weather Vulnerability
Assessments Climate Change,
Extreme Weather, and Electric System
Reliability
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
adopting a reporting requirement to
SUMMARY:
41477
direct transmission providers to file
one-time informational reports
describing their current or planned
policies and processes for conducting
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments. The Commission defines
an extreme weather vulnerability
assessment as any analysis that
identifies where and under what
conditions jurisdictional transmission
assets and operations are at risk from
the impacts of extreme weather events,
how those risks will manifest
themselves, and what the consequences
will be for system operations.
Specifically, the Commission requires
transmission providers to file a one-time
informational report on whether, and if
so how, they establish a scope, develop
inputs, identify vulnerabilities and
exposure to extreme weather hazards,
and estimate the costs of impacts in
their extreme weather vulnerability
assessments, as well as how they use the
results of those assessments to develop
risk mitigation measures.
DATES: This rule is effective September
25, 2023. Each transmission provider
must file the one-time informational
report required by this final rule by
October 25, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alyssa Meyer (Technical Information),
Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
6835, [email protected]
Neal Anderson (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–8760,
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Paragraph
Nos.
I. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
II. Background ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
III. Need for Reports .................................................................................................................................................................................
A. NOPR Proposal .............................................................................................................................................................................
B. Comments ......................................................................................................................................................................................
C. Commission Determination ..........................................................................................................................................................
IV. Discussion on Required Reports ........................................................................................................................................................
A. Reporting Requirement ................................................................................................................................................................
1. NOPR Proposal .......................................................................................................................................................................
2. Comments ...............................................................................................................................................................................
3. Commission Determination ...................................................................................................................................................
B. Scope .............................................................................................................................................................................................
1. NOPR Proposal .......................................................................................................................................................................
2. Comments ...............................................................................................................................................................................
3. Commission Determination ...................................................................................................................................................
C. Inputs .............................................................................................................................................................................................
1. NOPR Proposal .......................................................................................................................................................................
2. Comments ...............................................................................................................................................................................
3. Commission Determination ...................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
1
5
15
15
16
20
29
29
29
34
47
62
62
63
68
71
71
72
77
41478
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Paragraph
Nos.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
D. Vulnerabilities and Exposure to Extreme Weather Hazards ......................................................................................................
1. NOPR Proposal .......................................................................................................................................................................
2. Comments ...............................................................................................................................................................................
3. Commission Determination ...................................................................................................................................................
E. Costs of Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................................
1. NOPR Proposal .......................................................................................................................................................................
2. Comments ...............................................................................................................................................................................
3. Commission Determination ...................................................................................................................................................
F. Risk Mitigation ..............................................................................................................................................................................
1. NOPR Proposal .......................................................................................................................................................................
2. Comments ...............................................................................................................................................................................
3. Commission Determination ...................................................................................................................................................
G. Compliance Issues ........................................................................................................................................................................
1. Deadline for Filing the One-Time Informational Reports ...................................................................................................
2. Public Comment on the One-Time Informational Reports ..................................................................................................
3. Treatment of Confidential Information .................................................................................................................................
H. Issues Outside the Scope of This Final Rule ..............................................................................................................................
1. Comments ...............................................................................................................................................................................
2. Commission Determination ...................................................................................................................................................
V. Information Collection Statement .......................................................................................................................................................
VI. Environmental Analysis .....................................................................................................................................................................
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act .................................................................................................................................................................
VIII. Document Availability .....................................................................................................................................................................
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification .................................................................................................................................
X. Appendix A: Report Questions
A. Scope
B. Inputs
C. Vulnerabilities and Exposure to Extreme Weather Hazards
D. Costs of Impacts
E. Risk Mitigation
XI. Appendix B: Edits Demonstrating Modifications To Report Questions Proposed in the NOPR
A. Scope
B. Inputs
C. Vulnerabilities and Exposure to Extreme Weather Hazards
D. Cost of Impacts
E. Risk Mitigation
I. Introduction
1. In this final rule, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) directs transmission
providers to file one-time informational
reports, pursuant to section 304 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA),1 describing
their current or planned policies and
processes for conducting extreme
weather vulnerability assessments of
their Commission-jurisdictional
transmission assets and operations. For
the purpose of these reports, we define
an extreme weather vulnerability
assessment as an analysis that identifies
where and under what conditions
jurisdictional transmission assets and
operations are at risk from the impacts
of extreme weather events, how those
risks will manifest themselves, and
what the consequences will be for
system operations.
2. As explained in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR),2 we find
that while weather events have
impacted the transmission grid
1 16
U.S.C. 825c.
Informational Reps. on Extreme
Weather Vulnerability Assessments, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 87 FR 39 414 (July 1, 2022),
179 FERC ¶ 61,196 (2022) (NOPR).
2 One-Time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
throughout its history, the frequency
and severity of extreme weather events
is increasing.3 A robust and growing
body of scientific evidence attributes
this trend to climate change and
indicates that this trend will persist.4
For the reasons discussed below, we
find that that the trend threatens
livelihoods, electric system reliability,
and the Commission’s ability to ensure
just and reasonable jurisdictional rates.
Our actions in this final rule will result
in a fuller record as to whether and how
transmission providers assess and
3 See National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration., National Centers for
Environmental. Information, U.S. Billion-Dollar
Weather and Climate Disasters (2023), https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/; Environmental
Protection Agency, Climate Change Indicators:
Weather and Climate (May 12, 2021) (EPA Climate
Change Indicators), https://www.epa.gov/climateindicators/weather-climate; see also NOPR, 179
FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 2.
4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability (2022); National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Attribution of
Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate
Change (2016); Herring, S.C., N. Christidis, A.
Hoell, M.P. Hoerling, and P.A. Stott, Eds.,
Explaining Extreme Events of 2020 from a Climate
Perspective, 103 Bulletin of the American
Meteoreorological Society 3 (2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
82
82
83
84
86
86
87
89
91
91
92
95
98
98
101
107
110
110
113
114
117
118
121
124
mitigate vulnerabilities to extreme
weather and will enable coordination
among transmission providers as well as
information sharing on best practices.
3. As discussed further below, in this
final rule, we direct each transmission
provider 5 to file, in the above-captioned
dockets, a one-time informational report
on its extreme weather vulnerability
assessment and risk mitigation efforts
within 120 days of the publication of
this final rule in the Federal Register.
This one-time informational report
should include whether, and if so how,
transmission providers: (1) establish a
scope; (2) develop inputs; (3) identify
vulnerabilities and exposure to extreme
weather hazards; (4) estimate the costs
5 See infra PP 47–50. In this final rule, unless
otherwise noted, we use the term ‘‘transmission
provider’’ to mean any public utility that owns,
controls, or operates facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate
commerce. See 16 U.S.C. 824(e); 18 CFR 35.28
(2022). To be clear, this term encompasses public
utility transmission owners that are members of
Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and
Independent System Operators (ISO). Accordingly,
the reports we are proposing herein would be filed
by either the public utility members of RTOs/ISOs,
the RTOs/ISOs themselves, or both, as well as other
public utility transmission providers outside of
RTO/ISO regions.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
of impacts in their extreme weather
vulnerability assessments; and (5) use
the results of those assessments to
develop risk mitigation measures. This
final rule only seeks to gather
information on current and planned
policies and processes from
transmission providers, not to establish
new requirements.
4. We largely adopt the Commission’s
proposal in the NOPR issued on June
16, 2022, with certain modifications.
Among other things, we have revised
aspects of the NOPR proposal to ask
how each transmission provider defines
extreme weather in its vulnerability
assessments and how RTOs/ISOs
account for differences between
transmission owner members’
assessment assumptions and results.
Additionally, we revise questions 8 and
19, which were proposed in the NOPR,
by replacing references to disadvantaged
and vulnerable communities, and
affected and frontline communities,
respectively, with the term ‘‘affected
communities.’’ We use the term
‘‘affected communities’’ in this final
rule to include disadvantaged,6
vulnerable, and frontline communities,7
and any other community or
stakeholder group respondents consider
in their extreme weather vulnerability
assessments that may be affected,
currently or in the future, by the
impacts of extreme weather on
jurisdictional electric transmission
assets and operations.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
II. Background
5. The NOPR, as supplemented by the
record in this proceeding, as well as
recent events illustrate the increasing
frequency and severity of extreme
6 Exact definitions and thresholds used to identify
disadvantaged communities vary. However, we note
that the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) explains that ‘‘[d]isadvantaged communities
refers to the areas throughout California which most
suffer from a combination of economic, health, and
environmental burdens. These burdens include
poverty, high unemployment, air and water
pollution, presence of hazardous wastes as well as
high incidence of asthma and heart disease.’’ CPUC,
Disadvantaged Communities (last visited May 17,
2023), https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-andtopics/electrical-energy/infrastructure/
disadvantaged-communities#:∼:text=
Disadvantaged%20communities%20
refers%20to%20the,of%20asthma%20and
%20heart%20disease.
7 Georgetown Climate Center explains that
‘‘[f]rontline communities include people who are
both highly exposed to climate risks (because of the
places they live and the projected changes expected
to occur in those places) and have fewer resources,
capacity, safety nets, or political power to respond
to those risks (e.g., these people may lack insurance
or savings, inflexible jobs, low levels of influence
over elected officials, etc.).’’ Georgetown Climate
Center, Equitable Adaptation Legal & Policy Toolkit
(last visited May 18, 2023), https://
www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/toolkits/
equitable-adaptation-toolkit/introduction.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
weather events and their impact on
reliability and rates.
6. While the nature of extreme
weather and the extent of transmission
impairments will vary across different
regions of the U.S., no region will be
unaffected. Indeed, in its 2022 LongTerm Reliability Assessment, the North
American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) lists the need for
the industry and policymakers to
include extreme weather scenarios in
resource and system planning among its
top recommendations to address
reliability risks.8 Similarly, the
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a report in May 2021
stating that climate change is expected
to have far-reaching effects on the
electric grid that could cost billions of
dollars and could affect the ability of
grid operators to transmit electricity.9
GAO identified potential impacts of
climate change-driven extreme weather
to the grid in every region of the U.S.
and discussed the risk that, absent
measures to increase resilience, more
frequent and severe weather associated
with climate change is likely to increase
the cost of outages, imposing billions of
dollars in costs on utility customers.10
GAO recommended that the
Commission take steps to identify and
assess climate change risks to the grid
in order to ensure the Commission is
well-positioned to determine the actions
needed to enhance resilience to those
risks.11
7. In early 2023, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration’s
(NOAA) National Centers for
Environmental Information released the
final update to its 2022 figures on
weather and climate disasters. That
update identifies each disaster that
caused damages exceeding one billion
dollars,12 using insurance data to
estimate damage costs.13 The update
shows that the U.S. experienced 18
separate billion-dollar weather and
climate disasters in 2022, as well as a
8 NERC, 2022 Long-term Reliability Assessment 8
(Dec. 2022), https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/
Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_LTRA_
2022.pdf.
9 GAO, Electricity Grid Resilience: Climate
Change Is Expected to Have Far-Reaching Effects
and DOE and FERC Should Take Actions (Mar.
2021), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-423t.pdf.
10 Id. at 4.
11 Id. at 8.
12 NOAA, Adam Smith, 2022 U.S. Billion-Dollar
Weather and Climate Disasters in Historical Context
(last visited June 1, 2023), https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/.
13 See Adam B. Smith, Richard W. Katz, U.S.
Billion-dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Data
Sources, Trends, Accuracy, and Biases, 67 Natural
Hazards 387 (Feb. 3, 2013), https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/billions/
docs/smith-and-katz-2013.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41479
macro-level trend of increasingly costly,
numerous, and intense disasters. NOAA
reports that 2022 had the third highest
number of billion-dollar weather and
climate disasters since it began tracking
in 1980, tied with 2011 and 2017, and
that, at $165 billion in damages, 2022
also ranked third highest in total
damage costs, behind 2017 and 2005.14
8. Reliable electric service is vital to
the nation’s economy, national security,
public health, and safety. Yet, in the
past three years alone, region-wide heat
waves, cold snaps, hurricanes, and
wildfires have resulted in outages or
other significant reliability impacts,
often while contributing to substantial
consumer costs.15
9. In December 2022, Winter Storm
Elliot impacted a swath of the U.S. with
record cold temperatures and blizzard
conditions in some areas, causing 1.6
million customers to lose power.16 PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) and
Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. (MISO) saw high load
forecast errors during this period due to
the unprecedented nature and scale of
that storm. As unusually low
temperatures drove electricity demand
up, almost 65 GW of generating capacity
was forced offline between these two
RTOs/ISOs.17 These outages highlight,
first, the difficulty in preparing for
extreme weather patterns that
increasingly diverge from historical
trends, and second, how extreme
weather events can often drive the need
for potentially lifesaving energy when it
14 NOAA, Adam Smith, 2022 U.S. Billion-Dollar
Weather and Climate Disasters in Historical Context
(last visited June 1, 2023), https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/. NOAA notes
that increasing population and material wealth
throughout the country, especially in regions
vulnerable to extreme weather events, is an
important factor in the rising costs described.
NOAA also notes that 2022’s figures may rise by
several billion additional dollars when the costs of
Winter Storm Elliot in the Central and Eastern
United States are fully accounted for. Furthermore,
this total only captures the costs of those weather
and climate disasters that exceeded $1 billion in
damages, based on insurance data.
15 Indeed, NERC found that all of the days in 2021
with the highest severity risk index, a quantitative
measure of the relative severity of risks to the bulkpower system, were attributed to some type of
weather occurrence. NERC, 2022 State of Reliability
Report 20 (2022), https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/
PA/Performance%20Analysis%20DL/NERC_SOR_
2022.pdf.
16 FERC, 2022 State of the Markets (Mar. 16,
2023), https://www.ferc.gov/media/report-2022state-market.
17 See MISO, Overview of Winter Storm Elliott
December 23, Maximum Generation Event 10 (Jan.
17, 2023), https://cdn.misoenergy.org/
20230117%20RSC%20Item%2005
%20Winter%20Storm%20Elliott%20
Preliminary%20Report627535.pdf; PJM, Winter
Storm Elliott 11 (2023), https://pjm.com/-/media/
committees-groups/committees/mic/2023/
20230111/item---winter-storm-elliott-overview.ashx.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
41480
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
is most difficult for the bulk-power
system to deliver it.
10. Hurricane Ian, a strong Category 4
storm in September 2022, left 2.6
million customers without power and
caused an estimated $113 billion of
damage.18 Hurricane Ida resulted in
outages for more than one million
customers across eight states in August
2021,19 with the most severe impacts in
Louisiana, which saw the collapse of a
transmission tower and an outage of
more than 2,000 miles of transmission
lines outside of New Orleans.20 Some
customers were without electricity for
nearly a month after Hurricane Ida’s
landfall.21 In July 2021, wildfires in
Oregon limited the ability to import
electricity into California as
temperatures soared above 100 degrees
Fahrenheit, ultimately triggering
emergency demand response measures
to avoid reliability impacts.22 During
Winter Storm Uri in February 2021,
more than four and half million people
in Texas alone lost power, and in some
cases the outages contributed to loss of
life.23 Winter Storm Uri caused over 65
GW of unplanned generation outages,
the nation’s largest controlled firm load
shed, at 23,418 MW, and drove energy
prices to historic levels across Texas
and the South-Central U.S.24 In August
18 NOAA National Centers for Environmental
Information, September 2022 National Climate
Report: Hurricane Ian Special Summary (Oct.
2022), https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/
monitoring/monthly-report/national/202209/
supplemental/page-5.
19 U.S. Energy Information Administration.,
Hurricane Ida Caused At Least 1.2 Million
Customers to Lose Power (Sept. 15, 2021), https://
www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49556.
20 See S. Van Voorhis, Transmission Tower
Destroyed by Ida Likely to Complicate Power
Restoration in New Orleans, Experts Say, Utility
Dive (Aug. 31, 2021), https://www.utilitydive.com/
news/transmission-tower-destroyed-by-ida-likely-tocomplicate-power-restoration/605826/.
21 U.S. Department of Energy, Hurricanes Ida and
Nicholas Update # 20 (Sept. 23, 2021), https://
www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/TLPWHITE_DOE%20Situation%20Update_
Hurricane%20Ida_20.pdf.
22 See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., California
ISO Issues Flex Alert for Monday, July 12 Due to
Wildfires, Heat (July 11, 2021), https://
www.caiso.com/Documents/California-ISO-IssuesFlex-Alert-for-Monday-July-12-due-to-WildfiresHeat.pdf.
23 FERC, FERC–NERC–Regional Entity Staff
Report: The February 2021 Cold Weather Outages
in Texas and the South Central United States 9
(Nov. 16, 2021), https://www.ferc.gov/media/
february-2021-cold-weather-outages-texas-andsouth-central-united-states-ferc-nerc-and.
24 Id. at 8–9; see also Elec. Reliability Council of
Texas, Review of February 2021 Extreme Cold
Weather Event 22 (2021), https://www.ercot.com/
files/docs/2021/03/03/Texas_Legislature_Hearings_
2-25-2021.pdf (average system wide pricing during
event greater than $6000/MWh compared to $18–
20/MWh in more typical conditions); Sw. Power
Pool, Inc, A Comprehensive Review of SPP’s
Response to the February 2021 Winter Storm 72
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
2020, California experienced rolling
outages during a West-wide extreme
heat event that impacted nearly 500,000
customers.25
11. The record shows that extreme
weather events can also increase
electricity prices because grid operators
are forced to dispatch higher-priced
generators to account for transmission
line outages.26 The level of increased
electricity prices depends on a number
of variables, including the clearing price
for electricity, the duration of the
outage, and the load.27 For example,
Winter Storm Uri had a significant
impact on consumers as energy prices
rose to historic levels in the wholesale
markets serving Texas and the SouthCentral region during the event.28
Above-average temperatures exacerbate
reliability risks by contributing to
prolonged periods of high electricity
demand, decreased transmission
capacity, and higher forced outage rates
for generation and other elements of the
bulk-power system. The historic 2021
(2021), https://spp.org/documents/65037/
comprehensive%20review%20of%20spp’s
%20response%20to%20the%20feb.%202021%20
winter%20storm%202021%2007%2019.pdf (‘‘SPP
experienced historically high market settlements for
the impacted operating days’’); Midcontinent Indep.
Sys. Operator, The February Artic Event: Event
Details, Lessons Learned, and Implications for
MISO’s Reliability Imperative 45 (2021), https://
cdn.misoenergy.org/2021%20Arctic%20
Event%20Report554429.pdf (Independent Market
Monitor reports average energy prices rose 226
percent in February because of the Artic Event in
February).
25 See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., Final Root
Cause Analysis: Mid-August 2020 Extreme Heat
Wave 35 (Jan. 13, 2021), http://www.caiso.com/
Documents/Final-Root-Cause-Analysis-Mid-August2020-Extreme-Heat-Wave.pdf.
26 See, e.g., Dale et al., Assessing the Impact of
Wildfires on the California Electricity Grid: A report
for California’s Fourth Climate Assessment 16–18
(Aug. 2018), https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/
default/files/2019-12/Forests_CCCA4-CEC-2018002_ada.pdf (estimating multi-million-dollar cost
increases per event due to disruption of
transmission paths caused by wildfires).
27 Id.
28 See Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Review of
February 2021 Extreme Cold Weather Event 22
(2021), https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2021/03/
03/Texas_Legislature_Hearings_2-25-2021.pdf
(average system wide pricing during event greater
than $6000/MWh compared to $18–20/MWh in
more typical conditions); Sw. Power Pool, Inc., A
Comprehensive Review of SPP’s Response to the
February 2021 Winter Storm 72 (2021), https://
spp.org/documents/65037/
comprehensive%20review%20of%20spp’s
%20response%20to%20the%20feb.
%202021%20winter%20
storm%202021%2007%2019.pdf (‘‘SPP
experienced historically high market settlements for
the impacted operating days . . . .’’); MISO, The
February Artic Event: Event Details, Lessons
Learned, and Implications for MISO’s Reliability
Imperative 45 (2021), https://cdn.misoenergy.org/
2021%20Arctic%20Event%20Report554429.pdf
(Independent Market Monitor reports average
energy prices rose 226% in February because of the
Artic Event in February).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
drought across much of the western U.S.
also reduced hydropower generation, a
key component of the generation fleet in
that region, to 48% below the 10-year
average in California and 14% below the
10-year average in the Pacific
Northwest.29 Heavy precipitation during
winter 2022–2023 has since reduced the
area of the western U.S. classified as ‘‘in
drought’’ from 74% to 25% 30 and
increased snowpack from 22% of the
historic median to 232%.31 However,
although the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) forecasts a 72%
increase in California hydropower
generation in 2023, it forecasts total
hydropower generation to remain
roughly equal to 2022 levels due to
continued below normal precipitation
and a mixed water supply forecast in
the Pacific Northwest.32
12. On June 1–2, 2021, in the
aftermath of Winter Storm Uri’s impact
on the South-Central U.S., Commission
staff hosted a technical conference on
Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and
Electric System Reliability. The
technical conference and comments
underscored the importance of planning
appropriately for extreme weather. But
the record did not provide the
Commission with a clear understanding
of whether and to what extent
transmission providers are currently
conducting, or planning to conduct,
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments, the method(s) used to
conduct those assessments, and what is
done with the information from those
assessments.33
13. On June 16, 2022, the Commission
issued the NOPR in this proceeding and
29 U.S. Energy Information Administration,
Drought Effects on Hydroelectricity Generation in
Western U.S. Differed by Region in 2021 (Mar. 30,
2022), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
detail.php?id=51839.
30 Jennifer Yachnin, NOAA Reports Big Decrease
in Western Drought Conditions, E&E NewsPM
(4:15PM May 9, 2023).
31 FERC, Summer Energy Market and Electric
Reliability Assessment 3, 43–44 (May 2023), https://
www.ferc.gov/media/report-2023-summer-energymarket-and-electric-reliability-assessment.
32 EIA, Mixed Water Supply Condition Across
Western States Affects 2023 Hydropower Outlook
(May 2023), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
detail.php?id=56440.
33 Based on the record developed during the
technical conference, these assessments did not
appear to be widespread among transmission
providers at that time. In addition, of the six
jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs, only New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. appeared to
have conducted such an assessment. Yet not every
RTO/ISO or transmission provider has indicated
whether or not it performs these assessments.
Therefore, we believe that this one-time
informational reporting requirement will provide
the necessary information for the Commission to
understand the extent to which transmission
providers are currently performing these
assessments.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
proposed to require transmission
providers to report on whether and how
they assess and mitigate the risks of
extreme weather to jurisdictional
transmission assets and operations. In
response to the NOPR, the Commission
received 18 comments from a diverse set
of stakeholders.
14. On July 12, 2022, the Commission
issued an errata notice to correct a series
of NOPR question paragraphs with
numbering errors.34 In this final rule, we
refer to the questions as listed in
Appendix A.
III. Need for Reports
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
A. NOPR Proposal
15. In the NOPR, the Commission
stressed that the trend of the increasing
frequency and severity of extreme
weather events threatens livelihoods,
electric system reliability, and the
Commission’s ability to ensure just and
reasonable jurisdictional rates. The
Commission found that it does not yet
know enough about how transmission
providers assess and mitigate the threat
of extreme weather to their transmission
assets and operations. Accordingly, the
Commission proposed to require onetime informational reports on extreme
weather vulnerability assessments and
mitigation efforts pursuant to FPA
section 304, which allows the
Commission to order reports as
‘‘necessary or appropriate to assist the
Commission in the proper
administration of [the FPA].’’ 35 The
Commission preliminarily found that
the proposed reports could also
facilitate coordination among
transmission providers and promote
information sharing about extreme
weather vulnerability assessments.
B. Comments
16. Most commenters support the
Commission’s proposal to require
transmission providers to file one-time
informational reports on extreme
weather vulnerability assessments,
including: Ameren Services Company
(Ameren), Bureau of Reclamation,
Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Electric
Power Supply Association (EPSA),
Electric Reliability Organization
Enterprise (ERO Enterprise),36
Environmental Defense Fund and
Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for
Climate Change Law (EDF/Sabin
Center), Eversource Energy Service
Company (Eversource), Indicated PJM
34 One-Time Informational Reps. on Extreme
Weather Vulnerability Assessments, Errata Notice,
180 FERC ¶ 61,020, at 1 (2022).
35 16 U.S.C. 825c.
36 ERO Enterprise includes NERC and the six
Regional Entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
Transmission Owners (PJM TO),37
MISO Transmission Owners (MISO
TO),38 National Association of Mutual
Insurance Companies (NAMIC),
National Mining Association, PJM,
Public Interest Organizations,39 San
Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E),
and WE ACT for Environmental Justice
(WE ACT).40 ERO Enterprise notes that
extreme weather events, particularly
extreme heat and cold conditions, have
threatened reliability multiple times
over the past decade, and that the grid
is increasingly vulnerable to the effects
of extreme weather.41 Public Interest
Organizations state that in February
2022, the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
37 PJM TOs include: Exelon Corporation; the
FirstEnergy Transmission Companies, including
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated,
Jersey Central Power & Light Company, MidAtlantic Interstate Transmission LLC, West Penn
Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company,
Monongahela Power Company; PPL Electric
Utilities Corporation; Public Service Electric and
Gas Company; and Virginia Electric and Power
Company d/b/a Dominion Energy Virginia.
38 MISO TOs consist of: Ameren Services
Company, as agent for Union Electric Company d/
b/a Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois Company d/
b/a Ameren Illinois and Ameren Transmission
Company of Illinois; American Transmission
Company LLC; Big Rivers Electric Corporation;
Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; City
Water, Light & Power (Springfield, IL); Cleco Power
LLC; Cooperative Energy; Dairyland Power
Cooperative; Duke Energy Business Services, LLC
for Duke Energy Indiana, LLC; East Texas Electric
Cooperative; Entergy Arkansas, LLC; Entergy
Louisiana, LLC; Entergy Mississippi, LLC; Entergy
New Orleans, LLC; Entergy Texas, Inc.; Great River
Energy; GridLiance Heartland LLC; Hoosier Energy
Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Indiana Municipal
Power Agency; Indianapolis Power & Light
Company; International Transmission Company d/
b/a ITC Transmission; ITC Midwest LLC; Lafayette
Utilities System; Michigan Electric Transmission
Company, LLC; MidAmerican Energy Company;
Minnesota Power (and its subsidiary Superior
Water, L&P); Missouri River Energy Services;
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.; Northern Indiana
Public Service Company LLC; Northern States
Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, and
Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin
corporation, subsidiaries of Xcel Energy Inc.;
Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Company; Otter
Tail Power Company; Prairie Power, Inc.; Republic
Transmission, LLC; Southern Illinois Power
Cooperative; Southern Indiana Gas & Electric
Company (d/b/a CenterPoint Energy Indiana South);
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency;
Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.; and
Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
39 Public Interest Organizations consist of:
Sustainable FERC Project, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Sierra Club, Southern
Environmental Law Center, and Western Resource
Advocates.
40 Ameren Comments at 1, 4; Bureau of
Reclamation Comments at 1; EDF/Sabin Center
Comments 3–4; EEI Comments at 3; EPSA
Comments at 3; ERO Enterprise Comments at 2, 4–
5; Eversource Comments at 3; MISO TOs Comments
at 2, 4; NAMIC Comments at 2; National Mining
Association Comments at 2; PJM Comments at 3;
PJM TOs Comments at 2; Public Interest
Organizations Comments at 1; SDG&E Comments at
1; WE ACT Comments at 2.
41 ERO Enterprise Comments at 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41481
Change (IPCC) reported that the effects
of climate change are already pervasive
and acknowledged that more frequent
and intense extreme weather events are
putting stress on the grid.42 Public
Interest Organizations argue that it is
imperative that the Commission
understand the impacts of extreme
weather on the transmission system and
how transmission providers are
addressing them.43 EEI agrees that the
informational reports can help the
Commission understand the extent to
which transmission providers are
assessing extreme weather
vulnerabilities and help inform
transmission providers when
developing their own extreme weather
vulnerability assessment practices.44
EPSA notes that data from recent
seasonal assessments highlights that
extreme weather impacts not only all
regions but all resource types in some
manner. EPSA argues that information
on whether and how transmission
providers are assessing weather and
other reliability risks over the near- and
longer-term will be critical in
establishing a reality-based
understanding of how transmission
providers are addressing these issues,
what may need to be reformed, and
whether to reassess reliability planning
criteria, capacity accreditation
approaches, and new products or
services to mitigate extreme weather
reliability risks.45 EDF/Sabin Center
highlight a 2020 study that found that
failing to build resilience into
infrastructure from the start could lead
to a 25% increase in transmission and
distribution spending each year by
2090.46 Conversely, the same study
found that building such infrastructure
for projected climate conditions can
halve the expected annual costs of
climate change experienced by 2090.47
17. Several commenters express
concern over the impact extreme
weather will have on jurisdictional
rates. Public Interest Organizations aver
that the extent to which transmission
providers assess their vulnerabilities to
42 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 1–
2 (citing IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability—Summary for
Policymakers 7 (Feb. 27, 2022), https://
report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/
IPCCAR6WGIISummaryForPolicymakers.pdf).
43 Id. at 2.
44 EEI Comments at 3.
45 EPSA Comments at 7.
46 EDF/Sabin Center Comments at 10 (citing
Charles Fant et al., Climate Change Impacts and
Costs to U.S. Electricity Transmission and
Distribution Infrastructure, 195 Energy 116,899, at
1, 7 (Mar. 2020)).
47 Id. (citing Charles Fant et al., Climate Change
Impacts and Costs to U.S. Electricity Transmission
and Distribution Infrastructure, 195 Energy 116,899,
at 7 (Mar. 2020)).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
41482
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
extreme weather events is unclear, and
without access to this information, the
Commission cannot assess whether and
how those practices are leading to
unjust and unreasonable rates.48 NAMIC
states that extreme weather, coupled
with inadequate resiliency, will impact
insurance markets and the public in
addition to the power sector. NAMIC
asserts that federal and state energy
regulators’ failure to ensure grid
resiliency will negatively impact
consumers and the broader economy.49
18. Commenters also agree that the
Commission has authority to direct
reports on extreme weather
vulnerability assessments.50 Public
Interest Organizations agree with the
Commission that if transmission
providers do not assess their
vulnerability to extreme weather, or do
so inadequately, consumers ultimately
bear the cost of increased outages and
replacing damaged facilities.51 ERO
Enterprise notes that, while the
Commission proposed these reports to
aid in its statutory obligations under
FPA section 215, the reports will also
aid ERO Enterprise in carrying out its
own statutory obligations with respect
to reliability.52
19. Many commenters argue that the
one-time reports will offer a record to
develop best practices.53 SDG&E
contends that the proposed one-time
reports could be a useful means of
sharing information and best practices
and aiding transmission provider efforts
to manage reliability risks.54 Similarly,
ERO Enterprise agrees that the proposed
reports would improve transparency
and information sharing between
transmission providers, which could
ultimately benefit reliability.55
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
C. Commission Determination
20. FPA section 304 authorizes the
Commission to require the filing of
special reports the Commission
‘‘prescribe[s] as necessary or appropriate
to assist the Commission in the proper
administration of [the FPA].’’ 56 FPA
section 215 provides the Commission
with jurisdiction for overseeing the
48 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 4
(arguing that if transmission providers do not assess
their vulnerability to extreme weather, or do so
inadequately, consumers ultimately bear the cost of
increased outages and replacing damaged facilities).
49 NAMIC Comments at 2.
50 EDF/Sabin Center Comments at 11–13; Public
Interest Organizations Comments at 3–4.
51 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 4
(citing NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 16).
52 ERO Enterprise Comments at 6.
53 E.g., Eversource Comments at 3; Xcel
Comments at 5–6.
54 SDG&E Comments at 3.
55 ERO Enterprise Comments at 5–6.
56 16 U.S.C. 825c.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
development and enforcement of
reliability standards for the bulk-power
system.57 Additionally, FPA sections
205 and 206 require that the
Commission ensure that the rates, terms,
and conditions of Commissionjurisdictional services are just and
reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential.58
21. As discussed above, the frequency
and severity of extreme weather events
have been increasing, are likely to
continue to increase, and, thereby, will
likely continue to jeopardize system
reliability and affect jurisdictional
electric rates.
22. The record shows that extreme
weather events can significantly impact
reliability of the bulk-power system.
The events outlined above exemplify
the reliability impacts of Hurricane Ian
in September 2022, Winter Storm Elliott
in December 2022, Winter Storm Uri in
February 2021, and Hurricane Ida in
August 2021, as well as the wildfires in
July 2021 and the extreme west-wide
heat event in August 2020.
23. Generally, as the Commission
explained in the NOPR, the failure to
assess and mitigate the risks of extreme
weather could increase the frequency of
loss of load events, burden consumers
with more frequent outages and costs,
and lead to higher prices for wholesale
electricity.59 SDG&E notes that the
frequency, intensity, and duration of
wildfires in southern California are
increasing due to climate change, which
threatens public safety and also requires
mitigation efforts in the form of public
safety power shutoff.60 Public Interest
Organizations similarly argue that more
frequent and intense extreme weather
events will put stress on the grid,
leading to the loss of power and
increasing consumer prices. Public
Interest Organizations agree with the
NOPR that the failure of transmission
providers to adequately assess their
vulnerabilities to such extreme weather
events will result in increased outages
and consumer costs.61 EDF/Sabin
Center also agree that the increasing
frequency, severity, and duration of
extreme weather poses a reliability
threat to the bulk-power system.62
57 Id.
824o; see NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 15.
U.S.C. 824d, 824e; see NOPR, 179 FERC
¶ 61,196 at P 15.
59 NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 16; see also
GAO, Electricity Grid Resilience: Climate Change Is
Expected to Have Far-Reaching Effects and DOE
and FERC Should Take Actions 4, 5–6 (Mar. 2021),
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-423t; Public
Interest Organizations Comments at 4; EDF/Sabin
Center Comments at 10.
60 SDG&E Comments at 3.
61 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 1–
2, 4.
62 EDF/Sabin Center Comments at 3–4.
58 16
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NERC reports on short- and long-term
reliability issues highlight the impact of
extreme weather on system reliability,
as well as the Commission’s concern
that such events are likely to increase in
frequency and severity.
24. The record shows that extreme
weather events can also impact
jurisdictional rates. EDF/Sabin Center
agree that considering and planning for
the impacts of extreme weather can help
reduce the need for costly future
retrofits.63 Public Interest Organizations
point out that consumers will bear the
costs of increased outages and replacing
facilities damaged during extreme
weather events, which flow through into
transmission rates.64
25. As discussed above, the record
before the Commission demonstrates a
lack of consistency in whether and how
transmission providers plan for the
impacts of extreme weather.65 Based on
the foregoing, we find that requiring
transmission providers to file one-time
informational reports is justified
because the reports will allow the
Commission to understand whether and
how transmission providers assess their
vulnerabilities to extreme weather
events and enhance the Commission’s
ability to fulfill its obligations to ensure
system reliability and just and
reasonable rates.
26. In addition to our finding that the
reports will assist the Commission in
administering the FPA, the record
shows that the reports will provide the
opportunity to facilitate coordination
among transmission providers and
promote information sharing about
vulnerability assessments, including
best practices for vulnerability
assessments among transmission
providers. Several commenters,
including SDG&E, Xcel, and Eversource
explained that the reports could be used
to establish such best practices. For
instance, as explained by ERO
Enterprise, the proposed reports will
improve transparency and information
sharing between transmission providers,
which could ultimately benefit
reliability.66
27. Several commenters
acknowledged the value of extreme
weather vulnerability assessments, such
as helping transmission providers
mitigate extreme weather risks to the
bulk-power system.67 While we expect
that the reports will promote
information sharing about how
63 Id.
at 10.
Interest Organizations Comments at 4.
65 See supra P 12.
66 ERO Enterprise Comments at 5–6.
67 EDF/Sabin Center Comments at 8–9; ERO
Enterprise Comments at 4–5.
64 Public
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
transmission providers conduct extreme
weather vulnerability assessments, in
this final rule we do not require
transmission providers to conduct
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments.
28. Some commenters ask that the
Commission indicate how it plans to
use the information provided in the
reports and establish additional
procedures, such as disseminating best
practices or setting extreme weather
vulnerability assessment
requirements.68 We do not set forth in
this final rule what additional steps, if
any, the Commission may take in the
future in response to the informational
reports. After the reports are filed and
the public comments on them, the
Commission will consider any further
action.
IV. Discussion on Required Reports
A. Reporting Requirement
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
1. NOPR Proposal
29. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed to require transmission
providers to file one-time informational
reports describing their current or
planned policies and processes for
conducting extreme weather
vulnerability assessments and
mitigating identified extreme weather
risks within 90 days of the publication
of any final rule in this proceeding in
the Federal Register.
30. For the purposes of this
rulemaking, the Commission proposed
to define an extreme weather
vulnerability assessment as any analysis
that identifies where and under what
conditions jurisdictional transmission
assets and operations are at risk from
the impacts of extreme weather events,
how those risks will manifest
themselves, and what the consequences
will be for transmission system
operations. The Commission further
stated that the extreme weather threats
analyzed by these reports may include
those extreme weather events
exacerbated by climate change (e.g.,
extended heat waves or storm surge due
to sea level rise).69
31. The Commission explained that
transmission providers may use such
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments to develop mitigation
solutions in the form of extreme weather
resilience plans, which outline
measures to reduce risks to vulnerable
assets and operations. The Commission
further explained that extreme weather
68 See, e.g., EEI Comments at 7–8; Eversource
Comments at 5; MISO TOs Comments at 3–5; PJM
TOs Comments at 2–3; Xcel Comments at 5–6.
69 NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 20.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
resilience efforts can take many forms
but generally involve both measures to
prevent or minimize damage to
vulnerable assets (e.g., investments in
asset hardening or relocation) and to
manage the consequences of such
damage when it occurs (e.g.,
investments in system recoverability).70
32. The Commission stated that it did
not intend in the NOPR to require
transmission providers to conduct
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments where they do not do so
already, or to require transmission
providers to change how they conduct
or plan to conduct such assessments.71
Instead, the Commission expressly
stated that the goal of this proceeding is
to gather information, not to establish
new requirements. In addition, the
Commission did not propose for
transmission providers to file their
actual vulnerability assessments, the
results of their extreme weather
vulnerability assessments, or lists of
affected assets and operations, specific
vulnerabilities, or asset- or operationspecific mitigation strategies in the
informational reports. Rather, the
Commission proposed that the one-time
informational reports focus on
describing current or planned policies
and processes to assess and mitigate
extreme weather risks.
33. Finally, the Commission stated
that while individual extreme weather
vulnerability assessments may not
follow the same processes or include the
same analyses, the topic areas included
in the NOPR (and adopted in this final
rule)—Scope, Inputs, Vulnerabilities
and Exposure to Extreme Weather
Hazards, Costs of Impacts, Risk
Mitigation—reflect typical practices and
considerations in the development of
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments. If respondents’ policies
and processes for developing their own
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments differ from those the
Commission described, the Commission
proposed to require that transmission
providers still describe in their one-time
reports the policies and processes that
70 R.M. Webb, M. Panfil, and S. Ladin, Climate
Risk in the Electric Sector: Legal Obligations to
Advance Climate Resilience Planning by Electric
Utilities 10 (Dec. 2020), https://perma.cc/V25AKBNP.
71 Similarly, while the NOPR proposed that
transmission providers may describe what they
‘‘plan’’ to do with respect to various issues, the
Commission explained that the proposed reporting
requirement was meant only to capture plans that
have already been made, but not yet been
implemented. The NOPR emphasized that
transmission providers would not be required to
speculate on how they would conduct extreme
weather vulnerability analysis where they have no
firm plans to do so.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41483
most closely align with the topics
discussed.
2. Comments
34. Commenters generally support the
proposed reporting requirement in the
NOPR. EPSA argues that it is important
to have transparency and current data
available to inform discussions on
assessment, planning, operational, and
market approaches to ensuring grid
reliability.72 EPSA and EEI specifically
support the five areas of inquiry set out
in the NOPR.73 MISO, however, argues
the reporting requirement is redundant
because it submitted pre- and postconference comments in Docket No.
AD21–13–000 detailing its current and
planned actions under its Reliability
Imperative, on which MISO continues
to focus.74 MISO further explains that it,
with ERO Enterprise, participated in a
Commission technical conference on
generator winter readiness.75 MISO
asserts that preparing the report would
be complex and, because of resource
constraints related to its ongoing
reliability work, it requests a four-week
extension if the Commission moves
forward with requiring these reports.76
35. With respect to who has to file the
reports, Ameren agrees with the NOPR
that public utility transmission
providers, including both RTOs/ISOs
and transmission owner members, are
the appropriate entities covered under
the reporting obligation.77 Ameren
explains that requiring RTOs/ISOs to
file, in addition to having the
transmission-owning members of the
RTOs/ISOs file, makes sense because
the RTOs/ISOs have a wider view than
individual transmission owner
members.
36. However, other commenters
suggest allowing transmission providers
to file their informational reports either
individually or jointly with their RTO/
ISO.78 Public Interest Organizations
suggest that RTOs/ISOs could report on
the effects of extreme weather on their
market in a single RTO/ISO filing.79 PJM
adds that RTO/ISO transmission owner
members could supplement joint reports
with additional information on their
own transmission facilities.80 PJM TOs,
Eversource, and EEI contend that joint
reports have two benefits: they would
72 EPSA
Comments at 3.
Comments at 5; EPSA Comments at 7.
74 MISO Comments at 1–2.
75 Id. at 3.
76 Id. at 10.
77 Ameren Comments at 4.
78 EEI Comments at 6–7; Eversource Comments at
6; PJM Comments at 8; PJM TOs Comments at 6–
7.
79 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 7.
80 PJM Comments at 8.
73 EEI
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
41484
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
incorporate regional extreme weather
assessment practices absent from
individual reports and align the
reporting process with the joint nature
of system planning and operation.81 PJM
TOs similarly contend that joint reports
would provide the Commission with a
more holistic view of extreme weather
assessment and preparation because
they would incorporate the perspectives
of RTOs/ISOs and their transmission
owner members in a single report.82
MISO TOs state that much of the
information the Commission proposes
to collect is aggregated at the RTO/ISO
level and that RTOs/ISOs are more
capable of providing much of the
information than their transmission
owner members.83 MISO TOs explain
that MISO itself does most weather
forecasting and risk mitigation for its
region, evaluates issues like winter
readiness and resource availability, and
coordinates with neighboring entities.84
MISO TOs add that RTOs/ISOs can
provide information on vulnerability
assessments over wide areas and among
planning regions.85
37. Commenters have different views
on the proposed definitions of an
extreme weather vulnerability
assessment and an extreme weather
event. EPSA, Ameren, EEI, and
Eversource, support the NOPR’s
definition of an extreme weather
vulnerability assessment, and Ameren,
EEI, and Eversource state that the
definition is sufficiently flexible to
allow transmission providers to describe
their practices and processes, even if
they differ from the NOPR’s
conceptualization of extreme weather
vulnerability assessments.86 Other
commenters, by contrast, suggest that
the definition of extreme weather
vulnerability assessment may be too
narrow. Xcel states that the NOPR’s
definition may be too narrow and
exclude other types of studies that
inform transmission providers’
responses to extreme weather risks.87
For example, Xcel states that utilities
are constantly collecting and evaluating
operating and performance data, and
may perform studies on specific extreme
weather system impacts that could
inform the utility’s response.88 Given
this, Xcel requests the Commission be
prescriptive about the types of studies
and evaluations it is seeking reports
on.89 Xcel states that doing so would
prevent transmission providers from
failing to report or underreporting.90
Public Interest Organizations similarly
request that the Commission expand the
definition of extreme weather
vulnerability assessment.91
38. PJM TOs request that the
Commission provide guidance on what
constitutes an extreme weather event.92
PJM TOs point out that the NOPR
neither defines the term ‘‘extreme
weather’’ nor provide guidance or
criteria for what constitutes an ‘‘extreme
weather’’ event.93 As a result, PJM TOs
contend that in response to a final rule,
transmission providers would have to
determine, for example, whether winter
storms in the northeast or hurricanes in
the southeast are ‘‘extreme weather
events’’ or ordinary weather events.94
PJM TOs suggest the Commission could
distinguish weather events between
those that may be deemed ‘‘predictable’’
or ‘‘expected’’ based on historical trends
and those that are associated with
climate change.95 Given that
intermittent generation will increase in
the future, PJM TOs contend that cloud
cover or lack of wind, especially over
extended periods of time, may need to
be included in the definition of extreme
weather events and in planning
studies.96 PJM TOs argue that although
transmission providers already
incorporate weather events into
transmission planning and vulnerability
assessments, extreme and ordinary
weather events will vary greatly
depending on geography.97 At the same
time, PJM TOs caution that the
Commission should not starkly
delineate extreme weather impacts from
other low-probability, high impact
events that transmission providers
should also plan for to improve overall
grid resiliency.98
39. Other commenters argue that
extreme weather should be defined
broadly. PJM and Xcel assert that the
definition for extreme weather should
allow for regional flexibility as to what
types of extreme weather events should
be included in the one-time reports.99
PJM suggests including windstorms, ice/
snowstorms, and geo-magnetic
89 Id.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81 EEI
Comments at 6; Eversource Comments at 6;
PJM TOs Comments at 6–7.
82 PJM TOs Comments at 6–7.
83 MISO TOs Comments at 6.
84 Id. at 6–7.
85 Id. at 7.
86 Ameren at 5; EEI Comments at 3–4; EPSA
Comments at 7; Eversource Comments at 3.
87 Xcel Comments at 3–4.
88 Id. at 4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:50 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
at 5.
at 5–6.
91 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 7.
92 PJM TOs Comments at 3.
93 Id.
94 Id. at 4.
95 Id.
96 Id. at 4–5.
97 Id. at 3–4.
98 Id. at 5.
99 PJM Comments at 6; Xcel Comments at 6.
90 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
disturbance within the definition of
‘‘extreme weather events.’’ 100
40. Some commenters suggest
expanding the reporting requirement.
EDF/Sabin Center suggest adding
climate-related risks to the scope of the
reporting requirement because the
reasons the Commission cites in the
NOPR for requiring reports on extreme
weather vulnerability assessments apply
equally to climate-related impacts to the
grid.101 EDF/Sabin Center argue that
changing climate baselines will impact
the operation of transmission
infrastructure, as well as generation and
distribution assets, in ways that could
impair the reliability of the electric
system. EDF/Sabin Center explain that
increasing air and water temperatures
can reduce the capacity of the bulkpower system to generate and transmit
electricity and decrease asset
lifetimes.102 EDF/Sabin Center also
explain that shifting precipitation
patterns could reduce hydroelectric
operations by reducing snowmelt and
increasing drought.103 Finally, EDF/
Sabin Center explain that, as sea levels
rise, more bulk-power systems will be at
risk of nuisance flooding, storm surge,
and permanent inundation.104
41. EDF/Sabin Center also argue that
the reporting requirement should be
expanded to include information on
whether and how transmission
providers incorporate risks to
interconnected generators, electric
100 PJM
Comments at 6.
Center Comments at 3, 13–14.
102 Id. at 4–6 (citing Jayant Sathaye et al.,
Estimating Risk to California Energy Infrastructure
from Projected Climate Change 25–27 (2011),
https://doi.org/10.2172/1026811; Craig D. Zamuda
et al., Energy Supply, Delivery, and Demand, in
Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States:
Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II
174, 181 (D.R. Reidmiller et al. eds., 2018), https://
perma.cc/ZP2G-JJRK; Dennis Wamsted and Seth
Feaster, May Heat Wave Exposes Myth of Fossil
Fuel Reliability as Texas Coal- and Gas-fired
Generators Fail Early Season Performance Test,
Inst. for Energy Econs. and Fin. Analysis (June 27,
2022), https://ieefa.org/resources/may-heat-waveexposes-myth-fossil-fuel-reliability-texascoal-andgas-fired-generators; U.S. Department of Energy,
U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate
Change and Extreme Weather 10–11 (2013), https://
perma.cc/FMB6-RSRK).
103 Id. at 6 (citing D.R. Easterling et al.,
Precipitation Change in the United States, in
Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National
Climate Assessment, Volume I 207, 207, 217 (D.J.
Wuebbels et al. eds., 2017), https://perma.cc/MV9SNMAS; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Policy and Systems Analysis, Climate Change and
the Electricity Sector: Guide for Climate Resilience
Planning 10–11 (Sept. 2016), https://
toolkit.climate.gov/sites/default/files/
Climate%20Change%20and%20
the%20Electricity%20Sector%20Guide
%20for%20Climate%20Change%20Resilience
%20Planning%20September%202016_0.pdf (DOE
Guide for Resilience Planning)).
104 Id. at 7 (citing DOE Guide for Resilience
Planning at 89–90).
101 EDF/Sabin
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
demand, and distribution system assets
in their assessments.105 In particular,
EDF/Sabin Center contend that
questions 6, 8, 14, and 15 should
specifically request information on
whether the transmission provider
includes generation assets and
operations in its assessments and
whether the transmission provider
considers interdependencies of its assets
with independently-owned generation
assets.106 EDF/Sabin Center note that
relationships between transmission
providers and generation owners can
take a number of different forms that
could affect whether and how the
transmission provider assesses climate
risks to generating units.107
42. Public Interest Organizations
similarly request that the Commission
expand the reporting requirement to
include generation assets and demand
side resources; specifically, they request
that the definition include any analysis
concerning where and under what
conditions generation assets or demandside resources within the transmission
provider’s footprint are at risk from the
impacts of extreme weather events, how
those risks will manifest themselves,
and what the consequences will be for
the ability to serve load. Public Interest
Organizations argue that the reporting
requirement should be expanded
because ‘‘even if a transmission
provider does not also own generation
or demand-side resources, it will need
to understand the effect of extreme
weather on those resources because they
are often large contingencies within its
footprint.’’ 108 In addition, Public
Interest Organizations aver that the
NOPR only mentions disadvantaged
communities in the context of
transmission providers’ stakeholder
outreach; they argue that, instead, the
Commission should require
transmission providers to file
information on whether, and if so how,
they consider the effects on these
communities in each section of the
NOPR.109
43. Some commenters raise concerns
that a one-time reporting requirement
may be insufficient. Ameren agrees that
a one-time reporting requirement is
appropriate but expresses concern that
report collection alone may not make
information and insights accessible
enough to the industry and suggests that
the Commission also convene a forum
on extreme weather vulnerability
assessments and barriers to transmission
105 Id.
at 3, 16.
106 Id. at 16.
107 Id. at 16–17.
108 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 7.
109 Id. at 11.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
providers improving assessments.110
Similarly, Bureau of Reclamation asserts
that one-time informational reports may
be useful to establish a baseline
regarding extreme weather event
information, but it is unlikely that onetime submissions alone will satisfy the
Commission’s desire for this
information.111 EPSA urges that, in
order to move forward as expeditiously
as possible, the Commission convene a
technical conference soon after the
reports are filed in order to (1) assess the
information gathered, (2) highlight best
practices, and (3) publicly discuss
information sharing avenues.112 WE
ACT contends that the Commission
should assess any gaps or deficiencies
revealed by the reports and require
transmission providers to develop
appropriate mitigation strategies that
promote resilience and affordable
rates.113
44. Commenters offer the following
comments on the reporting burden.
EPSA states that the reporting
requirement will minimally burden
transmission providers.114 It explains
that this is because the Commission is
only seeking information on policies
and processes already in place or
planned by each transmission provider
and concerning only one aspect of
reliability risks, and does not seek the
results or conclusions reached by any
individual transmission provider.115
Ameren, EEI, and Eversource agree that
transmission providers should not have
to hypothesize how they might conduct
an extreme weather vulnerability
assessment if they have no plans of
doing so.116
45. Bureau of Reclamation
recommends that the Commission use
an online or electronic database or form
with fillable fields to collect the
information to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information
collected and to minimize the burden
on responding entities.117 Xcel also
requests that the Commission specify in
what form or format transmission
providers should file their reports to
minimize the burden of the data
request.118
46. Lastly, EDF/Sabin Center offer
several suggestions on best practices for
conducting extreme weather
vulnerability assessments. EDF/Sabin
110 Ameren
Comments at 4, 6.
of Reclamation Comments at 1.
112 EPSA Comments at 4.
113 WE ACT Comments at 5.
114 EPSA Comments at 7.
115 Id. at 7–8.
116 Ameren Comments at 5; EEI Comments at 4;
Eversource Comments at 3.
117 Bureau of Reclamation Comments at 2.
118 Xcel Comments at 5.
111 Bureau
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41485
Center explain that resilience planning
should prevent maladaptation by
identifying measures consistent with
reducing greenhouse gas emissions that
exacerbate climate risks.119 EDF/Sabin
Center explain that forward-looking
climate resilience planning with a longrange view that considers interactions
between sectors can identify climaterelated risks that other planning
processes that rely on historic weather
data may miss, and ensure that
transmission providers make informed
investments based on future conditions
within the lifespan of their assets.120
3. Commission Determination
47. We adopt the NOPR proposal to
require one-time informational reports
from all transmission providers,
including RTOs/ISOs and their
transmission owner members, and
adopt, with modification, the questions
proposed in the NOPR.121 We find that
the reporting requirement is necessary
for the Commission’s proper
administration of the FPA by providing
the Commission with information
related to its statutory responsibilities
regarding reliability and rates.122 We
also find that the reporting requirement
will also promote information sharing
and best practices about extreme
weather vulnerability assessments as
well as coordination among
transmission providers. The questions
for transmission providers as modified
by this final rule are listed in Appendix
A below.123
48. We modify the proposal to allow
each transmission owner that is a
member of an RTO/ISO to either file its
one-time informational report
individually or jointly with its RTO/
ISO. That is, a transmission owner
member of an RTO/ISO and an RTO/ISO
may satisfy its reporting requirement by
filing a joint one-time informational
report without needing to also file
separate one-time informational reports.
For example, an RTO/ISO could work
with all of its interested transmission
owner members to complete and submit
a joint one-time report.
49. We find that RTOs/ISOs and their
transmission owner members will have
a unique view of their own practices
with respect to assessing and mitigating
vulnerabilities. By allowing joint onetime informational reports from RTOs/
119 EDF/Sabin
Center Comments at 10.
120 Id.
121 NOPR,
179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 1.
U.S.C. 825c. FPA section 304(a) states
‘‘Such reports shall be made under oath unless the
Commission otherwise specifies.’’ We specify that
the one-time informational reports filed under this
final rule need not be made under oath. Id. 825c(a).
123 See infra Appendix A—Report Questions.
122 16
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
41486
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
ISOs and their transmission owner
members, any joint reports will provide
the perspectives of multiple entities in
a single filing, align the reporting
process with the joint and collaborative
nature of system planning and
operation, and potentially streamline
the reporting process.124
50. In a joint informational report, the
RTO/ISO itself must also convey
information about its own extreme
weather vulnerability assessment as
well as information provided by its
transmission owner members about any
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments they conduct. Joint
informational reports must include each
participating transmission owner
member’s response to every question
listed in this final rule. Joint filers must
list the RTO/ISO and transmission
owner members that participated in the
development of the joint informational
report.
51. To reiterate the expectation stated
in the NOPR, we do not intend to
require transmission providers to
conduct extreme weather vulnerability
assessments where they do not do so
already, or to require transmission
providers to change how they conduct
or plan to conduct such assessments.125
The goal of this proceeding is to allow
the Commission to understand whether
and how transmission providers
currently assess their vulnerabilities to
extreme weather events, not to establish
new requirements.126 If a transmission
provider does not currently assess its
vulnerabilities to extreme weather
events, it should report that in its
responses. If transmission providers’
policies and processes for developing
their own extreme weather vulnerability
assessments differ from those described
in the questions in Appendix A,
transmission providers must still
describe their relevant policies and
processes, or indicate their lack thereof,
in their responses. We note that the final
rule does not require transmission
providers to file the results of their
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments or include lists of affected
assets and operations, specific
vulnerabilities, or asset- or operationspecific mitigation.127
124 See EEI Comments at 6; Eversource Comments
at 6; PJM TOs Comments at 6–7.
125 While we require transmission providers to
describe what they ‘‘plan’’ to do with respect to
various issues, this is meant only to capture plans
that have been made but not yet implemented;
transmission providers are not required to speculate
on how they would conduct extreme weather
vulnerability analysis where they have no plans to
do so.
126 See NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 22.
127 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
52. For the purposes of the required
reporting, we adopt the definition of
extreme weather vulnerability
assessment proposed in the NOPR: an
extreme weather vulnerability
assessment is any analysis that
identifies where and under what
conditions jurisdictional transmission
assets and operations are at risk from
the impacts of extreme weather events,
how those risks will manifest
themselves, and what the consequences
will be for system operations. We find
that this definition provides sufficient
guidance to transmission providers on
which analyses should be described in
their reporting. Further, this definition
ensures that the Commission receives
information regarding the transmission
assets and operations that are within its
jurisdiction; it also ensures that the
Commission receives information
relevant to its statutory responsibilities
regarding reliability and rates.
53. Further, as noted by Ameren, EEI,
and Eversource, this definition provides
flexibility for transmission providers to
describe their practices and processes.
In contrast, Xcel expresses concern that
the Commission’s definition of an
extreme weather vulnerability
assessment may be too narrow. We
disagree with Xcel. As a threshold
matter, this definition of extreme
weather vulnerability assessment was
crafted to guide transmission providers
filing in compliance with the one-time
reports required by this final rule. These
reports are meant to aid the
Commission’s understanding of these
issues with respect to jurisdictional
transmission assets and operations.128
In that context, we find that the
definition the Commission proposed for
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments properly focuses the
reporting requirement on analyses that
evaluate impacts of extreme weather
and provides flexibility for respondents
to report on their analyses that fall
within this description.
54. To preserve the flexibility of the
definition of extreme weather
vulnerability assessments and to avoid
making the reporting requirement too
narrow, we decline to define the term
‘‘extreme weather,’’ as requested by
some commenters. One of the purposes
of the required reports is to share
information and best practices,
including on how transmission
providers define extreme weather for
purposes of assessing vulnerabilities. A
specific definition of ‘‘extreme weather’’
128 Our use of this definition for these reports in
no way limits the ability of transmission providers
or others to assess vulnerabilities to other assets and
operations, such as those for generation and
distribution systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
would hinder this purpose by
unnecessarily narrowing the reporting.
55. However, to further the purpose of
the sharing of information and best
practices for extreme weather
vulnerability assessments, we will
require each transmission provider to
explain how it defines extreme weather
in its vulnerability assessments by
responding to a new question, question
3, in the list of questions in Appendix
A. In responding to question 3, a
transmission provider will explain
whether, and if so how, it defines
extreme weather events in relation to
ordinary or historical weather events or
patterns for the purposes of their
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments. For instance, a
transmission provider’s definition of
extreme weather may be consistent with
the explanation from NOAA that
extreme weather can be considered as a
weather event in which the magnitude
of one or more variables (such as
temperature, precipitation, drought,
flooding, or duration) falls outside a
certain threshold relative to historical
measurements, or one whose estimated
probability of occurrence falls below a
certain historical value.129
56. We find that this approach to the
term ‘‘extreme weather’’ and the new
question will promote information
sharing and best practices and further
the overall goal of the required reporting
to assist the Commission in fulfilling its
statutory responsibilities regarding
reliability and rates. We note that some
commenters identified best practices in
their comments 130 and we believe that
the one-time informational reports will
foster such information sharing. We find
that this modification to the NOPR
proposal also accommodates the
flexibility requested by PJM to consider
events such as windstorms, ice/
snowstorms, and geo-magnetic
disturbance as extreme weather events.
57. We decline to adopt EDF/Sabin
Center’s recommendation to require
transmission providers to report on
whether, and if so how, they evaluate
climate risks beyond those risks caused
by extreme weather. The focus of this
rulemaking and the one-time
informational reports is on risks and
mitigation of the effects of extreme
weather events such as those described
above. Although we acknowledge that
climate change is expected to exacerbate
129 David Herring, What Is an ‘Extreme Event’? Is
There Evidence that Global Warming Has Caused
or Contributed to Any Particular Extreme Event?,
NOAA (Oct. 29, 2020), https://www.climate.gov/
news-features/climate-qa/what-extreme-event-thereevidence-global-warming-has-caused-orcontributed.
130 EDF/Sabin Center Comments at 9–10.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
the frequency and severity of extreme
weather events, we believe that climate
risks manifest in wider, more gradually
onsetting risks that are not the focus of
this proceeding.131 In addition, question
9 requires respondents to describe the
‘‘methods and processes the
transmission provider uses, or plans to
use, to determine the meteorological
data needed for its assessment’’ and
question 10 requires respondents to
describe how they determine whether to
use scenario analysis. We adopt these
questions in this final rule and, as
discussed further in the Inputs section,
expect respondents to discuss in their
reports the extent to which they
incorporate or consider climatic trends
in determining the meteorological data
needed and identifying and/or
developing extreme weather projections
or scenarios for their assessments, if
applicable.
58. Public Interest Organizations and
EDF/Sabin Center seek to expand the
scope of the reporting requirement
beyond transmission assets and
operations to include analysis of
generation, distribution, and demand
side resources. We decline to expand
the reporting requirement. As discussed
above, the focus of this rulemaking is
extreme weather impacts to
jurisdictional transmission assets and
operations. We have chosen to focus
this rulemaking on jurisdictional
transmission providers because of the
key role that the transmission system
can play in ensuring reliability and
resilience. In addition, expanding the
scope of this final rule would result in
adding a significant number of
additional respondents; increase the
burden on respondents that own
transmission as well as generation and/
or distribution; and increase the burden
on the Commission to review and
analyze the responses.
59. We further disagree with MISO’s
assertion that the NOPR’s proposed
reporting requirement would provide
the Commission with little new
information on how transmission
providers assess and mitigate the
impacts of extreme weather to their
systems. We instead find that the
information provided through these
reports will help the Commission carry
out its responsibilities under the FPA to
oversee the development and
enforcement of reliability standards for
the bulk-power system and ensure that
the rates, terms, and conditions of
Commission-jurisdictional services are
131 Respondents
may of course voluntarily
describe the extent to which they analyze climate
risks, if they so desire.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
just and reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential.
60. Regarding commenters’ assertions
that a one-time information collection
may not be sufficient, and that the
NOPR’s proposed reporting requirement
could likely lead to additional
information collections or technical
conferences, we reiterate that we are
neither requiring a recurring reporting
requirement nor are we establishing
further proceedings at this time. We are
not persuaded by commenters that
request that the Commission also
commit at this time to convene a
technical conference or forum to
address these issues after the reports are
filed. The Commission will assess
whether further actions are appropriate
after reviewing the reports. As discussed
herein, and consistent with the
Commission’s broad discretion in
formulating its procedures, we find that
the approach in this final rule that
requires transmission providers to file
the one-time informational reports to be
appropriate.132
61. Finally, we decline Bureau of
Reclamation’s request that the
Commission collect informational
reports using an online form.
Respondents must file reports using the
Commission’s eFiling portal, as they
would with any other submission to the
Commission. Likewise, in response to
Xcel’s request for guidance on report
formatting, we confirm that
transmission providers should provide
narrative responses to each individual
question listed in Appendix A. They
may file their reports in these dockets
using a file format allowable under the
eFiling portal.
B. Scope
1. NOPR Proposal
62. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed to require each transmission
provider to explain, as a threshold
matter, whether it conducts extreme
weather vulnerability assessments.
Further, the Commission proposed to
require each transmission provider to
file information on the policies and
processes it employs, or plans to
employ, in determining the scope of its
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments. Specifically, through the
questions on scope, the Commission
proposed to seek a description of the
types of extreme weather events for
which the transmission provider
132 See, e.g., Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 524–
25 (1978) (agencies have broad discretion over the
formulation of their procedures); Stowers Oil & Gas
Co., 27 FERC ¶ 61,001 (1984) (stating that the
Commission is generally the master of its own
calendar and procedures).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41487
conducts, or plans to conduct,
vulnerability assessments, if any, as
well as a description of how the
transmission provider determined
which extreme weather hazards and
which transmission assets and
operations to examine. The Commission
also proposed to seek a description of
how the transmission provider
determines the assessment’s geographic
or regional scope, and whether the
transmission provider also considers, or
plans to consider, external
interdependencies (such as other critical
infrastructure sectors and supply chainrelated vulnerabilities). The
Commission further proposed to seek
information on whether, and to what
extent, the transmission provider
coordinates, or plans to coordinate, with
neighboring utilities or other relevant
entities while completing their
assessment. Finally, the Commission
proposed to seek information on
whether, and to what extent, the
transmission provider engages, or plans
to engage, with stakeholders in the
scoping phase of the assessment,
inclusive of processes used to identify
and engage with relevant groups,
including disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities, and incorporate relevant
feedback.133
2. Comments
63. Commenters generally support the
questions in the NOPR on the scope of
the extreme weather vulnerability
assessments. Ameren agrees that the six
scope-related questions—ranging from a
description of the types of extreme
weather events for which the
transmission provider conducts, or
would conduct, extreme weather
vulnerability assessments, to whether
and to what extent the transmission
provider considers, or plans to consider,
external interdependencies—are
reasonable.134 WE ACT supports
transmission providers incorporating
broad geographic or regional scopes and
assessing long-term extreme weather
events such as drought.135 WE ACT also
praises the Commission for highlighting
PG&E as a case study for exemplifying
the consideration of external
interdependencies including utilities
and community- and customer-level
resilience.136
64. Some commenters contend that
the scope of the extreme weather
vulnerability assessment should be
modified in various ways. EDF/Sabin
Center argue that transmission providers
133 NOPR,
179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 28.
Comments at 7.
135 WE ACT Comments at 5–6.
136 Id.
134 Ameren
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
41488
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
should be required to specifically report
on the frequency with which
assessments are conducted or
updated.137 WE ACT asserts that
transmission providers should also
assess vulnerabilities to upstream and
downstream interdependencies, such as
water, telecommunications, and
community and customer-level
resilience.138 Public Interest
Organizations similarly argue the
Commission should require
transmission providers to report on gaselectric coordination, including ‘‘natural
gas production, storage, and
transportation systems’’ as critical
interdependencies with the bulk-power
system.139 PJM contends that
transmission providers should be
required to describe any steps being
taken to enhance gas-electric
coordination to better integrate the
development of new natural gas
infrastructure with the development of
new generation infrastructure.140 EDF/
Sabin Center similarly assert that some
questions, such as question 6, should be
expanded to request specific
information on whether and how the
transmission provider coordinates with
distribution system operators and
considers interdependencies with the
distribution system.141
65. EDF/Sabin Center and WE ACT
assert that transmission providers
should engage in a process of
vulnerability assessment and resilience
planning regularly, assessing climaterelated vulnerabilities and any updates
to methodologies, while evaluating
measures to reduce those
vulnerabilities.142 WE ACT supports
periodic reports and states that they
may allow the Commission to stay upto-date with climate science and
evolving extreme weather vulnerability
assessment methodologies.143 EDF/
Sabin Center state that although these
risks will vary on a regional basis, there
are certain general principles for
assessing and planning for the impacts
of climate change that all transmission
providers should follow.144
137 EDF/Sabin
Center Comments at 14–15.
ACT Comments at 5–6.
139 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 8.
140 PJM TOs Comments at 7–8.
141 EDF/Sabin Center Comments at 17–18.
142 Id. at 8–9; WE ACT Comments at 5.
143 WE ACT Comments at 5.
144 Id.; EDF/Sabin Center Comments at 9 (stating
that climate vulnerability assessments should (1) be
based on scientifically credible climate projections
that anticipate future conditions; (2) examine long
time horizons and all possible climate change
impacts that could occur over assets’ useful lives;
and (3) recognize interactions between the bulkpower system, distribution systems, load impacts,
and other sectors).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
138 WE
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
66. Commenters argue that the reports
should also highlight impacts on
disadvantaged communities. Public
Interest Organizations contend that
transmission providers should report on
how they engage with disadvantaged
and vulnerable communities as
stakeholders, arguing that these
communities have distinct perspectives
on how extreme weather impacts on the
power system affect them, and that it is
insufficient for transmission providers
only to seek information on these
communities from other
stakeholders.145 Public Interest
Organizations further argue that the
Commission should require
transmission providers to report on any
ways in which they consider the effect
of extreme weather vulnerabilities on
disadvantaged or vulnerable
communities in their extreme weather
vulnerability assessments.146
67. WE ACT agrees that transmission
providers should report on their efforts
to identify and engage with
disadvantaged communities, as well as
community and environmental justice
groups, during the scoping phase of
their extreme weather vulnerability
assessments and how they incorporate
feedback from such engagement into
their assessment process.147 WE ACT
notes that communities of color and
environmental justice and frontline
communities experience
disproportionately higher burdens from
extreme weather due to higher energy
burdens, lack of backup supplies and
backup generators, higher reliance on
electrical medical equipment, lower
prioritization for power outage
restoration, historic underinvestment in
infrastructure, and disinvestment from
redlining.148 WE ACT asserts that
transmission providers should report on
the processes used to identify and
engage them and to incorporate their
feedback into the extreme weather
vulnerability assessment.
3. Commission Determination
68. We adopt the NOPR proposal to
require transmission providers to report
on how they determine the scope of
their extreme weather vulnerability
assessments. However, as explained
below we modify the threshold
reporting question, question 1, so that
the question addresses frequency of
assessments. We also add question 3 on
145 Public
Interest Organizations Comments at 11.
at 3.
147 WE ACT Comments at 6.
148 Id. at 1–2 (citing Reuters, Creaky U.S. Power
Grid Threatens Progress on Renewables, EVs (May
12, 2022 10:00 a.m.), https://www.reuters.com/
investigates/special-report/usa-renewables-electricgrid/).
146 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the definition of extreme weather as
discussed below. Otherwise, the
Commission in this final rule is
requiring transmission providers to
respond to the set of questions regarding
scope as proposed in the NOPR, set
forth as question 2 and questions 4
through 8.
69. We modify the NOPR proposal to
require transmission providers to report
on the frequency with which they
conduct extreme weather vulnerability
assessments.149 Such responses will
help the Commission understand the
extent to which transmission providers
are performing extreme weather
vulnerability assessments, a point noted
by EDF/Sabin Center.150
70. With respect to commenters’
assertions that the Commission should
require transmission providers to report
specifically on gas-electric coordination,
we find that no modification of the
NOPR proposal is necessary. Question 6
requires transmission providers to
describe ‘‘whether and to what extent
the transmission provider considers, or
plans to consider, external
interdependencies, such as
interconnected utilities, other critical
infrastructure sectors (e.g., water,
telecommunications) and supply chainrelated vulnerabilities, in the [extreme
weather vulnerability] assessment.’’
Natural gas delivery systems qualify as
a type of external interdependency and
would fall under this description.
Therefore, to the extent that a
transmission provider considers gaselectric interdependencies in its
extreme weather vulnerability
assessment, it should report on how it
evaluates such interdependencies in its
report.
C. Inputs
1. NOPR Proposal
71. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed to require each transmission
provider to provide information about
the inputs it uses, or plans to use, for
any extreme weather vulnerability
assessment. Specifically, through the
questions on inputs, the Commission
proposed to seek a description of
methods and processes the transmission
provider uses, or plans to use, to
determine the meteorological data
needed for its assessment. The
Commission requested that the
description include how the
149 For clarity, we have modified the NOPR’s
proposed threshold question into a standalone
question, question 1, in the reporting requirement.
Although the question was previously set forth in
the body of the NOPR, this modification will help
ensure respondents fully comply with the reporting
requirement.
150 EDF/Sabin Center at 8–9.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
transmission provider determines
whether it can rely on existing extreme
weather projections, and if so, whether
such projections are adequately robust.
The Commission also proposed to seek
a description of how the transmission
provider determines whether to use
scenario analysis, and if so, whether the
analysis includes multiple scenarios.
The Commission proposed that the
transmission provider discuss the extent
to which it reviews neighboring
transmission providers’ extreme
weather vulnerability assessments, if
available, to evaluate the consistency of
extreme weather projections between
transmission providers, as well as the
timeframe(s) and discount rate(s)
selected for the extreme weather
vulnerability assessment. Finally, the
Commission proposed to seek a
description of the methods and
processes the transmission provider
uses, or plans to use, to create an
inventory of potentially vulnerable
assets and operations.151
2. Comments
72. Commenters generally support the
questions on extreme weather
vulnerability assessment inputs
proposed in the NOPR.152 Ameren avers
that the questions are generally
appropriate and answerable in a
narrative format. Eversource supports
the flexibility the Commission proposed
to grant to transmission providers to
determine the timeframes selected for
the reports.153
73. Several commenters, however,
provide suggestions on specific
questions. In response to question 11,
regarding the extent to which a
transmission provider reviews
neighboring transmission providers’
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments, Public Interest
Organizations recommend that the
Commission require transmission
providers to report on how they
coordinate and share their assessment
information with neighboring
transmission providers, rather than only
requiring transmission providers to
report on how they review their
neighbors’ assessments.154 Ameren also
notes that question 11 assumes a level
of information sharing and/or alignment
on extreme weather events between
neighboring transmission providers that
may not exist.155 Therefore, Ameren
recommends the Commission also (1)
151 See
NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 34.
Comments at 9; Public Interest
Organizations Comments at 13.
153 Eversource Comments at 3 (citing NOPR, 179
FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 32).
154 Public Interest Organizations at 3, 13.
155 Ameren Comments at 9–10.
152 Ameren
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
ask transmission providers whether, and
to what extent, they share information
and align on events with neighboring
transmission providers, and (2) ask
RTOs/ISOs how they account for
differences in transmission owner
members’ assumptions about extreme
weather events.156
74. Public Interest Organizations
recommend that the Commission ‘‘add
more specificity to the inputs the
transmission provider must report
on.’’ 157 Public Interest Organizations
recommend that the Commission
require transmission providers to
explain whether they use historical or
forward-looking weather data, whether
and how they account for how climate
change increases the frequency and
magnitude of extreme weather events,
and whether and how they account for
the increasing frequency and severity of
extreme weather in their analyses.158
75. EDF/Sabin Center assert that
transmission providers should be
required to describe the sources or data
underlying the climate projections they
use, how they determine whether
existing projections are adequate or
whether new projections are required,
and whether they have a process for
identifying or generating new
projections or updating previously-used
ones to make them more robust.159 EDF/
Sabin Center also assert that a question
should be added to the inputs section
requesting information on ‘‘methods,
processes, and data sources the
transmission provider uses to determine
anticipated electric demand.’’ 160
Additionally, EDF/Sabin Center argue
that the questions about scenario
analysis will not enable the Commission
to determine whether transmission
providers analyze worst-case
scenarios.161 EDF/Sabin Center
recommend that the Commission
request information on whether and
how transmission providers determine
which scenarios to use in their
assessments.162
76. PJM states that it currently uses
forecasting data to perform vulnerability
analyses for the development of
operating plans, generation owner/
operator and transmission owner outage
coordination, and interregional
coordination. PJM argues that these
assessments should be used as the
framework for any extreme weather
vulnerability assessment and be
156 Id.
at 10.
Interest Organizations Comments at 3.
158 Id. at 13.
159 EDF/Sabin Center Comments at 15.
160 Id. at 17–18.
161 Id. at 15.
162 Id.
157 Public
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41489
reviewed to incorporate appropriate
levels of extreme weather testing.163
3. Commission Determination
77. We adopt, with one modification,
the NOPR proposal to require each
transmission provider to report on the
inputs it uses, or plans to use, for its
extreme weather vulnerability
assessment. Thus, we require
transmission providers to respond to the
set of questions regarding inputs as
proposed in the NOPR, set forth as
questions 9 through 13, with
modification to question 11 requiring
that each RTO/ISO provide a
description of how it accounts for
differences between transmission owner
members’ extreme weather vulnerability
assessment assumptions and results.
78. We find that this revision, as
proposed by Ameren, will allow RTOs/
ISOs to describe how they account for
differences in transmission owner
members’ assumptions about extreme
weather events. Such information will
give the Commission and the public a
better understanding of how RTOs’/
ISOs’ own extreme weather
vulnerability assessments address the
variations in assumptions among their
members. As Ameren expressed in its
comments, this information will also
avoid assuming that transmission
providers use any information from
neighboring transmission providers.
79. In response to Public Interest
Organizations’ and Ameren’s concerns
that the Commission should require
transmission providers to report on
coordination with neighboring
transmission providers, we note that
question 7 requires such reporting. It
requires reporting on coordination with
neighboring transmission providers as
well as with neighboring utilities and
other entities that could be relevant to
the extreme weather vulnerability
assessment. Additionally, question 11
requires reporting on the extent to
which transmission providers review
neighboring transmission providers’
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments. In response to
commenters’ requests that the
Commission require reporting on
whether, and to what extent,
transmission providers share
information with neighboring
transmission providers, in question 19
transmission providers must explain
how they inform, or plan to inform,
relevant stakeholders of identified
extreme weather risks, including
neighboring transmission providers.
163 PJM Comments at 5 (citing PJM Technical
Conference Comments, Docket AD21–13, at 3).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
41490
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
80. We decline to require
transmission providers to provide more
specific information regarding the
inputs used in their assessments. The
questions regarding inputs address more
broadly the policies and processes each
transmission provider uses to select
inputs as part of its extreme weather
vulnerability assessment. For instance,
question 9 requires a transmission
provider to report on how it determines
whether it can rely on existing extreme
weather projections and whether its
extreme weather projections are
adequately robust. To the extent that a
transmission provider considers
historical versus forward-looking data as
a factor in determining whether a
projection is reliable and/or adequately
robust, it may describe such
considerations in its report.
81. Similarly, we decline to require
reporting on whether and how
transmission providers account for the
increasing frequency and severity of
extreme weather, as requested by Public
Interest Organizations. To the extent
that a transmission provider considers
increasing frequency and severity of
extreme weather events in evaluating
extreme weather projections or in their
scenario analysis, we find question 9 on
extreme weather projection and
question 10 on scenario analysis will
allow the Commission to understand
whether transmission providers account
for these considerations.
D. Vulnerabilities and Exposure to
Extreme Weather Hazards
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
1. NOPR Proposal
82. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed to direct each transmission
provider to provide information about
the methods or processes it uses, or
plans to use, to assess the vulnerability
of its transmission assets and operations
to extreme weather events. Specifically,
through the questions on this topic, the
Commission proposed to require each
transmission provider to describe how
it: (1) identifies the transmission assets
or operations vulnerable to the extreme
weather events for which it conducts
assessments; (2) uses, or plans to use,
screening analyses to test for potential
vulnerabilities; and (3) examines, or
plans to examine, the sensitivities of the
transmission assets and operations
being studied to types and magnitudes
of extreme weather events.164
2. Comments
83. While Ameren supports the type
of information the NOPR proposes to
require, it also expresses concern that
making information on how
transmission providers identify
vulnerable assets publicly available
could expose vulnerabilities in
transmission providers’ processes that
could be taken advantage of.165
Therefore, Ameren suggests the
Commission reconsider these questions
to prevent the potential for information
to be released that could be used by bad
actors.166
3. Commission Determination
84. We adopt the NOPR proposal to
require transmission providers to report
on the methods or processes they use,
or plan to use, in their extreme weather
vulnerability assessments to identify
vulnerabilities and determine exposure
to extreme weather hazards of their
transmission assets and operations.
Thus, we require transmission providers
to respond to questions 14 and 15
regarding this topic.
85. As discussed below, the one-time
informational reports do not require
submission of the extreme weather
vulnerability assessments themselves
and should avoid the need for
respondents to file Critical Energy/
Electric Infrastructure Information.167
We find that Ameren has not explained
why disclosing information on how
transmission providers identify assets
that are vulnerable to extreme weather
could, by itself, expose vulnerabilities
that could be exploited by a bad actor.
E. Costs of Impacts
1. NOPR Proposal
86. The Commission proposed to
require each transmission provider to
provide information on whether, and if
so how, it estimates, or plans to
estimate, the costs associated with
extreme weather impacts in its extreme
weather vulnerability assessments.
Specifically, through the questions on
costs of impacts, the Commission
proposed to seek a description of the
methodology or process, if any, the
transmission provider uses, or plans to
use, to estimate the potential costs of
extreme weather impacts on identified
vulnerable transmission assets and
operations. If the transmission provider
estimates such potential costs, the
Commission further proposed to seek a
description of: (a) direct costs, such as
replacements or repair costs, restoration
costs, associated labor costs, or
opportunity costs of lost sales; and (b)
indirect costs, such as costs associated
with loss of service to electric customers
and other utilities that purchase power
165 Ameren
Comments at 11.
166 Id.
164 NOPR,
179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 39.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
167 See
PO 00000
infra P 109.
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
from the transmission provider,
including equipment damage, spoilage,
and health and safety effects, in
calculating the costs of extreme weather
impacts.168
2. Comments
87. Commenters generally support the
Commission’s proposal.169 EEI states
that additional flexibility may be
necessary with respect to how
transmission providers can define direct
costs and indirect costs as they relate to
extreme weather impacts.170 EEI
elaborates that there is currently no
broad agreement across the industry on
methodologies for calculating the costs
of extreme weather impacts.171
Therefore, EEI requests that the
Commission clarify that it will not
require reporting of such information
where agreed-upon methodologies are
not yet developed.172 Ameren’s
comments similarly underscore the
need for flexibility, noting that some
transmission providers may use value of
lost load to assess impacts without
directly quantifying economic losses.173
Therefore, Ameren suggests that the
Commission may want to consider
seeking information on that approach
and thresholds used.174
88. WE ACT notes that low-income
communities and communities of color,
who already experience higher energy
burdens, will be disproportionately
impacted by rising energy costs due to
rebuilding the grid from and adapting it
to extreme weather.175 Public Interest
Organizations assert that the
Commission should revise the NOPR
proposal to require information about
how transmission providers consider
extreme weather impacts on
disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities in each section of the
report and to report on how they
consider the costs of extreme weather
vulnerabilities to these communities, at
each time interval of the outage, for
example, 15 minutes out, hourly, or
daily.176
3. Commission Determination
89. We adopt, with one modification,
the NOPR proposal to require
transmission providers to report on how
they estimate, or plan to estimate, the
costs associated with extreme weather
impacts in their extreme weather
168 NOPR,
179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 43.
e.g., Ameren Comments at 12.
170 EEI Comments at 5–6.
171 Id. at 6.
172 Id.
173 Ameren Comments at 12.
174 Id.
175 WE ACT Comments at 3.
176 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 11.
169 See,
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
vulnerability assessments. Thus, we
require transmission providers to
respond to the questions regarding costs
of impacts as proposed in the NOPR, set
forth as questions 16 and 17.
90. In response to EEI’s concerns
around flexibility regarding the
reporting of costs, as stated in the
NOPR,177 transmission providers that
neither currently estimate nor plan to
estimate the costs associated with
extreme weather impacts in their
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments—or that do not conduct
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments at all—are not required to
develop new methods to comply with
this reporting requirement and may
simply state that they do not perform
such cost estimations. In response to
Ameren’s similar concerns about
flexibility, we clarify that transmission
providers should describe any
methodologies or processes used to
estimate the potential costs of extreme
weather impacts on identified
vulnerable transmission assets and
operations, such as value of lost load,
including those that do not directly
quantify economic losses.
F. Risk Mitigation
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
1. NOPR Proposal
91. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed to require each transmission
provider to report on the policies and
processes it uses, or plans to use, to
determine and implement appropriate
measures for mitigating extreme weather
risks identified by its vulnerability
assessments. Specifically, through the
questions on risk mitigation, the
Commission proposed to require
transmission providers to provide
information regarding how they
currently, or plan to: (1) use extreme
weather vulnerability assessment results
to identify appropriate mitigation
actions, including methods for
determining highest impact and lowest
cost mitigation measure portfolios; (2)
inform relevant stakeholders and
government agencies of vulnerabilities
and mitigation plans; (3) incorporate
extreme weather risk mitigation into
local and regional transmission
planning processes; and (4) measure the
success of risk mitigation measures and
incorporate findings into future
mitigation actions.178
2. Comments
92. Ameren supports the NOPR’s
proposed questions on risk mitigation.
Ameren states that Winter Storm Uri
provides a recent example of the
177 NOPR,
179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 43.
178 Id. P 48.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
widespread effects of an extreme
weather event. Ameren argues that it is
incumbent on transmission providers to
assess these and other types of extreme
weather events and plan to have robust
transmission systems and operational
arrangements in place.179 Public Interest
Organizations generally support the
proposed questions on risk
mitigation.180
93. Public Interest Organizations and
WE ACT support requiring information
on how transmission providers inform
disadvantaged, vulnerable, and frontline
communities of extreme weather risks
and mitigation measures.181 Public
Interest Organizations recommend that
the Commission expand the list of
relevant stakeholders in question 19 to
include disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities and market monitors.182
Public Interest Organizations further
urge the Commission to require
transmission providers to discuss
whether they consider performance
impacts in specific disadvantaged or
vulnerable communities when
evaluating extreme weather risk
mitigation measures.183
94. PJM suggests that the questions
should not necessarily be limited to
‘‘extreme weather risks and mitigation
measures’’ but should also include
additional questions such as how local
and regional planning address the
potential need for storm hardening of
certain facilities and the steps being
taken to reduce the criticality of CIP–14
facilities 184 through their planning
processes.185
3. Commission Determination
95. We adopt the NOPR proposal to
require transmission providers to report
on the policies and processes they use,
or plan to use, to determine and
implement appropriate measures to
mitigate risks identified by their
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments. Thus, we require
transmission providers to respond to the
set of questions regarding risk
mitigation as proposed in the NOPR, set
forth as questions 18 through 21.
96. With respect to the list of relevant
stakeholders in question 19, that list
was intended to provide examples of
179 Ameren
Comments at 13.
Interest Organizations Comments at 14.
181 Id. at 15; WE ACT Comments at 6.
182 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 15.
183 Id. at 11.
184 CIP–14 facilities are transmission stations and
substations, and their associated primary control
centers, that if rendered inoperable or damaged as
a result of a physical attack could result in
widespread instability, uncontrolled separation, or
cascading within an interconnection.
185 PJM Comments at 7–8.
180 Public
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41491
relevant stakeholders, it was not
intended to be exhaustive of all
potential stakeholders. To the extent
that transmission providers inform, or
plan to inform, all affected
communities, market monitors, or any
other relevant stakeholder groups not
listed in question 19 of identified
extreme weather risks and selected
mitigation measures, they should report
on how they currently, or plan to, do so.
97. Regarding PJM’s request to require
reporting on how local and regional
transmission planning processes
address the need for storm hardening,
we find no modification of the NOPR
proposal is necessary. Question 20
requires respondents to report ‘‘[a]
description of the extent to which the
transmission provider incorporates, or
plans to incorporate, identified extreme
weather risks and mitigation measures
into local and regional transmission
planning processes.’’ Therefore, to the
extent transmission providers
incorporate, or plan to incorporate,
identified risk mitigation measures into,
and seek to address that risk through,
local or regional transmission planning
processes, they should report on that.
G. Compliance Issues
1. Deadline for Filing the One-Time
Informational Reports
a. NOPR Proposal
98. The Commission proposed to
require transmission providers to file
the one-time informational reports
within 90 days of the publication of any
final rule in this proceeding in the
Federal Register.
b. Comments
99. Commenters have different views
about the proposed 90-day deadline for
filing the one-time reports. Eversource,
EEI, and MISO request that the
Commission extend the submission
period to at least 120 days after the
publication of a final rule. Eversource
states that a 120-day deadline would
balance the urgency of the issues and
the sensitivity of the information.186
Eversource and EEI argue that a
transmission provider’s policies and
practices would have to be internally
vetted to avoid disclosing sensitive
information.187 EEI states that, in some
cases, subject to the transmission
provider’s development of such policies
and practices, the reporting requirement
may require it to expend significant
time and resources.188 MISO asserts that
preparing the report will be complex
186 Eversource
Comments at 3–4.
EEI Comments at 8.
188 EEI Comments at 8.
187 Id.;
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
41492
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
and that its work on the Reliability
Imperative causes resource constraints,
and therefore requests a four-week
extension.189 PJM TOs prefer a longer
timeline of 180 days, which they argue
is more reasonable if transmission
providers are required to develop and
implement new protocols and metrics or
acquire new software and technology to
assess their extreme weather
vulnerabilities.190 On the other hand,
EPSA argues that the information the
Commission proposes to collect could
be gathered more quickly than
proposed.191
c. Commission Determination
100. We extend the submission
deadline proposed in the NOPR and,
accordingly, we alter the proposed
compliance schedule. Specifically, we
require transmission providers to file in
the above-captioned dockets (that is,
RM22–16–000 and AD21–13–000) the
one-time reports within 120 days after
the publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. We agree with
commenters that extending the deadline
could improve the quality of responses
and facilitate coordination. We do not
require transmission providers to
develop new metrics, and therefore, we
find that an extension beyond 120 days
is unnecessary.192
2. Public Comment on the One-Time
Informational Reports
a. NOPR Proposal
101. The Commission proposed to
seek public comment on the reports 30
days after they are filed.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
b. Comments
102. EEI, Eversource, and Ameren do
not support the Commission’s proposal
to seek public comments on the reports,
while EDF/Sabin Center request that the
comment period be extended to 60 days
after the reports are filed.193 EEI and
Eversource claim that, generally, the
Commission does not allow public
comment on informational reports
provided to the Commission and doing
so would be a departure from
Commission precedent.194 EEI and
Eversource state that informational
reporting, including the one-time report
proposed in the NOPR, is inappropriate
for public comment because it threatens
to turn good-faith and impartial
information sharing into a de facto
189 MISO
Comments at 4.
190 PJM TOs Comments at 5–6.
191 EPSA Comments at 8.
192 See NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 22.
193 Ameren Comments at 14; EDF/Sabin Center
Comments at 19; EEI Comments at 8–9; Eversource
Comments at 4–5.
194 Eversource Comments at 4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
adversarial proceeding in which entities
are compelled to defend themselves.195
Eversource adds that an adversarial
proceeding may undermine the
Commission’s use of the reports to assist
its administration of the FPA and
industry efforts to improve extreme
weather policies and procedures.196
Ameren asserts that comments on the
substance of a particular transmission
provider’s report are likely of little value
because the proposed rule seeks
descriptive information about the
transmission provider’s policies and
practices without a standard by which
to measure or judge them.197 Ameren
contends that the Commission did not
contemplate an opportunity for
transmission providers to respond to
comments on the transmission
provider’s explanations or propose
reforms. Eversource and Ameren add
that if the Commission decides to
pursue future reforms, including
updates to its regulations, based on the
information filed in the one-time
reports, that proceeding would be the
appropriate place to seek comments.198
103. Conversely, EPSA states that
while the public should be afforded the
opportunity to comment on Commission
action, that part of the timeline is
extremely compressed for any entity
that may be impacted by multiple
transmission providers.199 EDF/Sabin
Center assert that the Commission
should allow at least 60 days for
stakeholders to review and submit
comments on the one-time reports.200
WE ACT asserts that the reports should
be available for public scrutiny, and
notes that the Commission’s Office of
Public Participation could play an
important role in facilitating vigorous
and meaningful public engagement.201
c. Commission Determination
104. We adopt the NOPR proposal to
provide for public comment on the onetime informational reports.202 We
modify the due date for public
comments so that public comments are
due 60 days after the due date for filing
the informational reports. By allowing
the filing of comments 60 days after the
due date for the filing of informational
reports (rather than 30 days after as
proposed), we address EPSA’s concern
that the comment period is extremely
compressed for any entity that may be
195 EEI Comments at 8–9; Eversource Comments
at 4–5.
196 Eversource Comments at 4–5.
197 Ameren Comments at 14.
198 Id.; Eversource Comments at 5.
199 EPSA Comments at 3–4.
200 EDF/Sabin Center Comments at 18–19.
201 WE ACT Comments at 5.
202 NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at PP 10, 19.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
impacted by multiple transmission
providers.
105. Given the impacts of extreme
weather on transmission assets and
operations, we believe that the
Commission, transmission providers,
and the stakeholder community at large
will benefit from comments on the
informational reports by establishing a
more robust record. In turn, a record
that includes public comments would
better meet the goals of this reporting
requirement to provide the Commission
with information related to its statutory
responsibilities regarding reliability and
rates as well as to promote information
sharing and best practices.
106. In response to EEI’s and
Eversource’s statement that, generally,
the Commission does not allow public
comment on informational reports
provided to the Commission and that
doing so would be a departure from
Commission precedent, we note that the
Commission has previously allowed
public comment on informational
reports filed with the Commission.203
We disagree with Ameren’s claim that
public comments are likely of little
value. As stated above, we believe
public comment will in fact be
beneficial because it will help establish
a more robust record.
3. Treatment of Confidential
Information
a. NOPR Proposal
107. The Commission suggested that
transmission providers should not need
to file Critical Energy/Electric
Infrastructure Information (CEII) given
the focus of the one-time informational
reports on policies and processes for
assessing vulnerabilities rather than the
assessments themselves. The
Commission proposed that to the extent
transmission providers believe that
information they file warrants
protections, they may make a request for
such treatment pursuant to §§ 388.112
and 388.113 of the Commission’s
regulations.204
b. Comments
108. Commenters raised concerns
about the sensitive nature of
information about proposed or existing
critical infrastructure. EEI and
Eversource state that, because
vulnerability assessments contain
highly-sensitive information, they agree
with the Commission’s decision to
203 E.g., Modernizing Wholesale Elec. Mkt. Design,
179 FERC ¶ 61,029, at P 1 (2022); Grid Resilience
in Reg’l Transmission Orgs. and Independent
System Operators, 162 FERC ¶ 61,012, at P 19
(2018).
204 18 CFR 388.112–113 (2022); NOPR, 179 FERC
¶ 61,196 at P 22.
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
require transmission providers to report
process-related information, rather than
outcomes.205 EEI states that
transmission providers should be able to
request protective treatment for certain
information they file in their reports.206
ERO Enterprise requests that the
Commission share on a confidential
basis with ERO Enterprise all reliability
information filed to the Commission in
these dockets that is afforded privileged
treatment.207 Eversource contends that
the Commission should grant requests
for privileged treatment in information
contained in the reports marked as
Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure
Information, or as confidential business
or commercial information.208
c. Commission Determination
109. We reiterate that the Commission
did not propose to require that
transmission providers file extreme
weather vulnerability assessments.
Instead, the Commission proposed that
the one-time informational reports focus
on describing the current or planned
policies and processes that respondents
have in place, or plan to implement, to
assess and mitigate extreme weather
risks.209 As stated in the NOPR, we
continue to believe that this focus of the
one-time informational reports should
avoid the need for respondents to file
privileged information or CEII.210
However, to the extent a transmission
provider believes that information it
will file warrants protections, it may
make a request for privileged or CEII
treatment pursuant to §§ 388.112 and
388.113 of the Commission’s
regulations, and the Commission will
address requests for privileged
information or CEII consistent with
applicable Commission regulations.211
But again, we reiterate that we do not
expect privileged information or CEII
will need to be included in these onetime reports.
205 EEI
Comments at 4; Eversource Comments at
3.
206 EEI
Comments at 5.
Enterprise Comments at 6.
208 Eversource Comments at 5.
209 NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 22.
210 Id.
211 18 CFR 388.112–113. Section 388.112 of the
Commission’s regulations specifies that any person
submitting a document to the Commission may
request privileged treatment for some or all of the
information contained in a particular document that
it claims is exempt from the mandatory public
disclosure requirements of the Freedom of
Information Act, and that should be withheld from
public disclosure. See 5 U.S.C. 552. Section 388.113
of the Commission’s regulations governs the
procedures for submitting, designating, handling,
sharing, and disseminating Critical Energy/Electric
Infrastructure Information submitted to or generated
by the Commission.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
207 ERO
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
H. Issues Outside the Scope of This
Final Rule
1. Comments
110. National Mining Association
expresses concern that the retirement of
coal generation could exacerbate
extreme weather risks to the bulk-power
system.212 National Mining Association
asserts that baseload coal generation is
essential to ensuring grid reliability,
especially during adverse weather
events such as those contemplated by
the Commission.213 Ampjack states that
today’s grid calls for a new holistic
approach that brings together all
utilities to fully maximize existing
transmission line assets to increase
capacity and optimize operating
revenue.214
111. WE ACT argues that the
Commission should reframe its
approach to regulation to center on
environmental justice and encourage a
more holistic and accurate accounting of
extreme weather impacts, inclusive of
acknowledging inequitable energy
burdens and how distributed
renewables can increase resilience and
lower costs for ratepayers.215
112. Public Interest Organizations
contend that RTO/ISOs should be
required to describe what, if any, effect
extreme weather has on their
markets.216 Public Interest
Organizations also recommend that the
Commission require RTOs/ISOs to
explain how they use extreme weather
vulnerability assessment results to
revise their market rules to mitigate
extreme weather risks.217 Public Interest
Organizations argue that, because
extreme weather impacts market
functions, the Commission needs to
understand how RTOs/ISOs use
information on extreme weather risks in
market formation.218
2. Commission Determination
113. The NOPR focuses on whether
and how transmission providers are
assessing and mitigating extreme
weather risks to Commissionjurisdictional transmission assets and
operations. Therefore, these comments
are outside the scope of this proceeding
and will not be addressed here.
V. Information Collection Statement
114. The information collection
requirements contained in this final rule
212 National
Mining Association Comments at 2–
3.
213 Id.
at 7.
214 Ampjack
Comments at 4.
ACT Comments at 3.
216 Public Interest Organizations Comments at 7.
217 Id. at 15.
218 Id.
215 WE
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41493
are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.219 OMB’s
regulations require approval of certain
information collection requirements
imposed by agency rules.220 Upon
approval of a collection of information,
OMB will assign an OMB control
number and an expiration date.
Respondents subject to the filing
requirements of a rule will not be
penalized for failing to respond to the
collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
valid OMB control number.
115. This final rule, pursuant to FPA
section 304, requires transmission
providers 221 to file one-time reports on
their extreme weather vulnerability
assessment policies and processes. The
Commission believes requiring
transmission providers to submit a onetime informational report on their
current or planned efforts to assess the
vulnerabilities of their jurisdictional
transmission assets and operations to
extreme weather events will assist in the
proper administration of the FPA.
Title: One-Time Informational Reports
on Extreme Weather Vulnerability
Assessments.
Action: Newly Implemented FERC–
1004 collection of information in
accordance with Docket Nos. RM22–16–
000 and AD21–13–000.
OMB Control No.: 1902–TBD.
Respondents: Transmission providers
(including public utility transmission
owners that are members of RTOs/ISOs
and the RTOs/ISOs themselves).
Frequency of Information Collection:
One time.
Necessity of Information: The
Commission seeks to address the
increasing risks of extreme weather to
bulk-power system reliability and
jurisdictional rates, and to better
understand how transmission providers
assess and mitigate those risks. The
Commission believes the informational
reports directed by this rulemaking will
assist the Commission in the proper
administration of the FPA.
Internal Review: The Commission has
reviewed the reporting requirement and
219 44
U.S.C. 3507(d) (2022).
CFR 1320.11 (2022).
221 As noted above, in this final rule, unless
otherwise noted, we use the term ‘‘transmission
provider’’ to mean any public utility that owns,
controls, or operates facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate
commerce. See 16 U.S.C. 824(e); 18 CFR 35.28. To
be clear, this term encompasses public utility
transmission owners that are members of RTOs/
ISOs. Accordingly, the reports we are proposing
herein would be filed by either the public utility
members of RTOs/ISOs, the RTOs/ISOs themselves,
or both, as well as other public utility transmission
providers outside of RTO/ISO regions.
220 5
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
41494
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
has determined that such a requirement
is necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission’s need for
efficient information collection,
communication, and management
within the energy industry. The
Commission has specific, objective
support for the burden estimates
associated with the information
collection requirements. Interested
persons may obtain information on the
reporting requirements by contacting
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive
Director, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426 via email
([email protected]) or telephone
((202) 502–8663).
Public Reporting Burden: Our
estimates are based on the NERC
Compliance Registry as of April 7, 2023
and each RTO/ISO’s list of participating
transmission owners per their websites,
which indicates that there are 47
transmission providers 222 (including
the six RTOs/ISOs) and 81 transmission
owners that are registered with NERC
within the United States and are subject
to this rulemaking.223
116. The Commission estimates that
the burden 224 and cost of the FERC–
1004 are as follows:
FERC–1004, FINAL RULE IN DOCKET NOS. RM22–16–000 AND AD21–13
A.
Area of modification
Report on Extreme Weather Vulnerability
Assessment (one-time).
128 (47 TPs 226 and
81 TOs).
128
D.
Average burden hours & cost 225
per response
E.
Total estimated burden hours &
total estimated cost
(column C × column D)
Year 1: 94.5 hours; $8,599.50. Subsequent Years: 0 hours per year; $0.
Year 1: 12,096 hours; $1,100,736. Subsequent Years: 0 hours per year; $0.
estimated cost to be a significant
economic impact. As a result, pursuant
to section 605(b) of the RFA,235 the
Commission certifies that the final rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
118. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 229 generally requires a
description and analysis of proposed
rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The RFA
mandates consideration of regulatory
alternatives that accomplish the stated
objectives of a proposed rule and
minimize any significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.230 The Small Business
Administration (SBA) sets the threshold
for what constitutes a small business.
Under SBA’s size standards,231
transmission providers (including
RTOs/ISOs) and transmission owners
fall under the category of Electric Bulk
Power Transmission and Control
(NAICS code 221121),232 with a size
threshold of 950 employees (including
the entity and its associates).233
119. We estimate that there are 128
total transmission providers and owners
that (including the six RTOs/ISOs) are
affected by the final rule. Using the list
of transmission service providers from
the NERC Registry (dated April 7, 2023),
we estimate that approximately 19% of
those entities are small entities. We
estimate an additional average one-time
cost of $8,599.50 for each of the 128
entities affected by the final rule.
120. According to SBA guidance, the
determination of significance of impact
‘‘should be seen as relative to the size
of the business, the size of the
competitor’s business, and the impact
the regulation has on larger
competitors.’’ 234 We do not consider the
222 The transmission service provider (TSP)
function is a NERC registration function which is
similar to the transmission provider that is
referenced in the pro forma Open Access
Transmission Tariff. The TSP function is being used
as a proxy to estimate the number of transmission
providers that are impacted by this proposed
rulemaking.
223 The number of entities listed from the NERC
Compliance Registry reflects the omission of the
Texas RE registered entities.
224 ‘‘Burden’’ is the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information
to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation
of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3 (2022).
225 Commission staff estimates that respondents’
hourly wages plus benefits are comparable to those
of FERC employees. Therefore, the hourly cost used
in this analysis is $91.00 (or $188,922 per year).
226 The number of entities listed from the NERC
Compliance Registry reflects the omission of the
Texas RE registered entities.
227 Reguls. Implementing the Nat’l Env’t Pol’y
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987) (crossreferenced at 41 FERC ¶ 61,284).
228 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5) &
380.4(a)(27) (2022).
229 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
230 Id. 603(c).
231 13 CFR 121.201 (2022).
232 The North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) is an industry classification system
that Federal statistical agencies use to categorize
businesses for the purpose of collecting, analyzing,
and publishing statistical data related to the U.S.
economy. United States Census Bureau, North
American Industry Classification System, https://
www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.
233 The threshold for the number of employees
indicates the maximum allowed for an entity and
its affiliates to be considered small. 13 CFR 121.201.
234 U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide
for Government Agencies How to Comply with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act 18 (August 2017), https://
cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/
06/21110349/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA.pdf.
235 16 U.S.C. 605(b).
VI. Environmental Analysis
117. The Commission is required to
prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement
for any action that may have a
significant adverse effect on the human
environment.227 The actions proposed
to be taken here fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission’s
regulations for rules regarding
information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination, and for rules regarding
sales, exchange, and transportation of
natural gas that require no construction
of facilities.228 Therefore, an
environmental review is unnecessary
and has not been prepared in this
rulemaking.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
C.
Annual
estimated
number of
responses
(1 per
respondent)
B.
Annual
number of
respondents
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
VIII. Document Availability
121. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (http://
www.ferc.gov).
122. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
123. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s website
during normal business hours from the
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Commission’s Online Support at (202)
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676)
or email at [email protected],
or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email
the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
IX. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
124. This rule will become effective
September 25, 2023. Each transmission
provider must file the one-time
informational report required by this
final rule by October 25, 2023. The
Commission has determined, with the
concurrence of the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined in section 351
of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
By the Commission.
Chairman Phillips and Commissioner
Clements are concurring with a joint
statement attached.
Commissioner Danly is concurring in
part with a separate statement attached.
Issued: June 15, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
Note: The following appendices will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
X. Appendix A: Report Questions
For the reasons discussed in this final
rule we direct transmission providers to
file a one-time informational report
related to their extreme weather
vulnerability assessment policies and
processes, if any. The report must
respond to the following questions.
(Q1) As a threshold matter, state
whether the transmission provider
conducts extreme weather vulnerability
assessments, and if so, how frequently
it conducts those assessments.
A. Scope
(Q2) A description of the types of
extreme weather events for which the
transmission provider conducts, or
plans to conduct, extreme weather
vulnerability assessments, if any. For
transmission providers that conduct, or
plan to conduct, such assessments, a
description of how the transmission
provider determined which extreme
weather hazards to include in the
assessment (e.g., extreme storms such as
hurricanes and the associated flooding
and high winds, wildfires, extreme
prolonged heat or cold, or drought
conditions);
(Q3) A description of how the
transmission provider defines an
extreme weather event for the purposes
of its extreme weather vulnerability
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
assessment, including what thresholds
it uses relative to historical
measurements or probabilities of
occurrence, if applicable;
(Q4) A description of how the
transmission provider selects, or plans
to select, the set of assets and operations
that will be examined;
(Q5) A description of how the
transmission provider determines, or
plans to determine, the geographic or
regional scope of the analysis;
(Q6) A description of whether and to
what extent the transmission provider
considers, or plans to consider, external
interdependencies, such as
interconnected utilities, other critical
infrastructure sectors (e.g., water,
telecommunications) and supply chainrelated vulnerabilities, in the
assessment;
(Q7) A description of whether and to
what extent the transmission provider
coordinates, or plans to coordinate, with
neighboring utilities and/or entities in
other sectors that could potentially be
relevant to the assessment;
(Q8) A description of whether and to
what extent the transmission provider
engages, or plans to engage, with
stakeholders in the scoping phase of the
assessment, including the processes
used to identify and engage relevant
stakeholder groups and incorporate
stakeholder feedback into the extreme
weather vulnerability assessment,
including all affected communities.
B. Inputs
(Q9) A description of methods and
processes the transmission provider
uses, or plans to use, to determine the
meteorological data needed for its
assessment. In particular, how the
transmission provider determines
whether it can rely on existing extreme
weather projections, and if so, whether
such projections are adequately robust;
(Q10) A description of how the
transmission provider determines
whether to use scenario analysis, and if
so, whether to do so with multiple
scenarios;
(Q11) The extent to which it reviews
neighboring transmission providers’
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments, if available, to evaluate the
consistency of extreme weather
projections between transmission
providers. Further, for RTOs/ISOs, a
description of how it accounts for
differences between transmission owner
members’ extreme weather vulnerability
assessment assumptions and results;
(Q12) The timeframe(s) and discount
rate(s) selected for the extreme weather
vulnerability assessment;
(Q13) A description of the methods
and processes the transmission provider
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41495
uses, or plans to use, to create an
inventory of potentially vulnerable
assets and operations.
C. Vulnerabilities and Exposure to
Extreme Weather Hazards
(Q14) A description of how the
transmission provider identifies the
transmission assets or operations
vulnerable to the extreme weather
events for which it conducts
assessments;
(Q15) A description of how the
transmission provider uses, or plans to
use, screening analyses to test for
potential vulnerabilities, as well as how
the transmission provider examines, or
plans to examine, the sensitivities of the
transmission assets and operations
being studied to types and magnitudes
of extreme weather events.
D. Costs of Impacts
(Q16) A description of the
methodology or process, if any, the
transmission provider uses, or plans to
use, to estimate the potential costs of
extreme weather impacts on identified
vulnerable assets and operations;
(Q17) If the transmission provider
estimates such potential costs, a
description of the types of: (a) direct
costs, such as replacements or repair
costs, restoration costs, associated labor
costs, or opportunity costs of lost sales,
and (b) indirect costs, such as costs
associated with loss of service to electric
customers and other utilities that
purchase power from the transmission
provider, including equipment damage,
spoilage, and health and safety effects,
in calculating the costs of extreme
weather impacts.
E. Risk Mitigation
(Q18) A description of how the
transmission provider uses, or plans to
use, the results of its assessment to
develop measures to mitigate extreme
weather risks, including:
i. How the transmission provider
determines which risks should be
mitigated and the appropriate time
horizon for mitigation;
ii. How the transmission provider
determines appropriate extreme weather
risk mitigation measures, including any
analyses used to determine the lowestcost or most impactful portfolio of
measures;
(Q19) A description of how the
transmission provider informs, or plans
to inform, relevant stakeholders—such
as neighboring transmission providers,
RTOs/ISOs of which the transmission
provider is a member, electric
customers, all affected communities,
emergency management agencies, local
and state administrations, and state
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
41496
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
utility regulators—of identified extreme
weather risks and selected mitigation
measures;
(Q20) A description of the extent to
which the transmission provider
incorporates, or plans to incorporate,
identified extreme weather risks and
mitigation measures into local and
regional transmission planning
processes;
(Q21) A description of how the
transmission provider measures, or
plans to measure, the progress and
success of extreme weather risk
mitigation measures (e.g., through
reduced outages) and how it
incorporates these observations into
ongoing and future extreme weather risk
mitigation actions.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
XI. Appendix B: Edits Demonstrating
Modifications To Report Questions
Proposed in the NOPR
The following compares the reporting
requirement proposed in the NOPR with
the reporting requirement adopted in
this final rule. Deletions from the NOPR
proposal appear in brackets and
additions appear in italics. Please note
that this convention does not apply to
question numbers, which appear as they
do in the final rule:
For the reasons discussed in this final
rule we direct transmission providers to
file a one-time informational report
related to their extreme weather
vulnerability assessment policies and
processes, if any. The report must
respond to the following questions.
(Q1) As a threshold matter, state
whether the transmission provider
conducts extreme weather vulnerability
assessments, and if so, how frequently it
conducts those assessments.
A. Scope
[As a threshold matter, we propose
that each transmission provider state
whether it conducts extreme weather
vulnerability analyses. Further, we
propose to require each transmission
provider to provide the following
information on the policies and
processes they employ, or plan to
employ, for determining the scope of
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments:]
(Q2) A description of the types of
extreme weather events for which the
transmission provider conducts, or
plans to conduct, extreme weather
vulnerability assessments, if any. For
transmission providers that conduct, or
plan to conduct, such assessments, a
description of how the transmission
provider determined which extreme
weather hazards to include in the
assessment (e.g., extreme storms such as
hurricanes and the associated flooding
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
and high winds, wildfires, extreme
prolonged heat or cold, or drought
conditions);
(Q3) A description of how the
transmission provider defines an
extreme weather event for the purposes
of its extreme weather vulnerability
assessment, including what thresholds it
uses relative to historical measurements
or probabilities of occurrence, if
applicable;
(Q4) A description of how the
transmission provider selects, or plans
to select, the set of assets and operations
that will be examined;
(Q5) A description of how the
transmission provider determines, or
plans to determine, the geographic or
regional scope of the analysis;
(Q6) A description of whether and to
what extent the transmission provider
considers, or plans to consider, external
interdependencies, such as
interconnected utilities, other critical
infrastructure sectors (e.g., water,
telecommunications) and supply chainrelated vulnerabilities, in the
assessment;
(Q7) A description of whether and to
what extent the transmission provider
coordinates, or plans to coordinate, with
neighboring utilities and/or entities in
other sectors that could potentially be
relevant to the assessment;
(Q8) A description of whether and to
what extent the transmission provider
engages, or plans to engage, with
stakeholders in the scoping phase of the
assessment, including the processes
used to identify and engage relevant
stakeholder groups and incorporate
stakeholder feedback into the extreme
weather vulnerability assessment,
[especially with regard to disadvantaged
or vulnerable] including all affected
communities.
B. Inputs
(Q9) A description of methods and
processes the transmission provider
uses, or plans to use, to determine the
meteorological data needed for its
assessment. In particular, how the
transmission provider determines
whether it can rely on existing extreme
weather projections, and if so, whether
such projections are adequately robust;
(Q10) A description of how the
transmission provider determines
whether to use scenario analysis, and if
so, whether to do so with multiple
scenarios;
(Q11) The extent to which it reviews
neighboring transmission providers’
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments, if available, to evaluate the
consistency of extreme weather
projections between transmission
providers. Further, for RTOs/ISOs, a
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
description of how it accounts for
differences between transmission owner
members’ extreme weather vulnerability
assessment assumptions and results;
(Q12) The timeframe(s) and discount
rate(s) selected for the extreme weather
vulnerability assessment;
(Q13) A description of the methods
and processes the transmission provider
uses, or plans to use, to create an
inventory of potentially vulnerable
assets and operations.
C. Vulnerabilities and Exposure to
Extreme Weather Hazards
(Q14) A description of how the
transmission provider identifies the
transmission assets or operations
vulnerable to the extreme weather
events for which it conducts
assessments;
(Q15) A description of how the
transmission provider uses, or plans to
use, screening analyses to test for
potential vulnerabilities, as well as how
the transmission provider examines, or
plans to examine, the sensitivities of the
transmission assets and operations
being studied to types and magnitudes
of extreme weather events.
D. Cost of Impacts
(Q16) A description of the
methodology or process, if any, the
transmission provider uses, or plans to
use, to estimate the potential costs of
extreme weather impacts on identified
vulnerable assets and operations;
(Q17) If the transmission provider
estimates such potential costs, a
description of the types of: (a) direct
costs, such as replacements or repair
costs, restoration costs, associated labor
costs, or opportunity costs of lost sales,
and (b) indirect costs, such as costs
associated with loss of service to electric
customers and other utilities that
purchase power from the transmission
provider, including equipment damage,
spoilage, and health and safety effects,
in calculating the costs of extreme
weather impacts.
E. Risk Mitigation
(Q18) A description of how the
transmission provider uses, or plans to
use, the results of its assessment to
develop measures to mitigate extreme
weather risks, including:
i. How the transmission provider
determines which risks should be
mitigated and the appropriate time
horizon for mitigation;
ii. How the transmission provider
determines appropriate extreme weather
risk mitigation measures, including any
analyses used to determine the lowestcost or most impactful portfolio of
measures;
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(Q19) A description of how the
transmission provider informs, or plans
to inform, relevant stakeholders—such
as neighboring transmission providers,
RTOs/ISOs of which the transmission
provider is a member, electric
customers, all affected [and frontline]
communities, [shareholders and
investors,] emergency management
agencies, local and state
administrations, and state utility
regulators—of identified extreme
weather risks and selected mitigation
measures;
(Q20) A description of the extent to
which the transmission provider
incorporates, or plans to incorporate,
identified extreme weather risks and
mitigation measures into local and
regional transmission planning
processes;
(Q21) A description of how the
transmission provider measures, or
plans to measure, the progress and
success of extreme weather risk
mitigation measures (e.g., through
reduced outages) and how it
incorporates these observations into
ongoing and future extreme risk
mitigation actions.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Docket Nos.
One-Time Informational Reports on
Extreme Weather Vulnerability
Assessments.
Climate Change, Extreme Weather,
and Electric System Reliability.
RM22–16–000
AD21–13–000
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
PHILLIPS, Chairman, and
CLEMENTS, Commissioner, concurring:
1. Today’s final rule will facilitate
better preparation for extreme weather
by requiring transmission providers to
file one-time informational reports with
the Commission discussing
vulnerability assessments that they
carry out. We write separately to
encourage transmission providers to
include within those reports a
discussion of the intersection of these
assessments and disadvantaged and
vulnerable communities.1
1 The Commission is requiring these reports
pursuant to section 304 of the Federal Power Act.
Section 304 empowers the Commission to seek
information ‘‘necessary or appropriate to assist the
Commission in the proper administration of [the
FPA].’’ 16 U.S.C. 825c(a). Congress provided such
reports could be on a broad range of topics. These
topics include ‘‘among other things, full
information as to assets and liabilities . . .
generation, transmission, distribution, delivery, use,
and sale of electric energy.’’ Id. Although some have
asked that the Commission indicate what it plans
to do with the information, as the final rule makes
clear, ‘‘the Commission will assess whether further
actions are appropriate after viewing the reports.’’
Final Rule at P 61; see also J.P. Morgan Ventures
Energy Corp., 142 FERC ¶ 61,150 at PP 11–12 (2013)
(stating that ‘‘the Commission controls its own
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
2. In this proceeding and in response
to a recent Commission-led Roundtable
on Environmental Justice and Equity in
Infrastructure Permitting, commenters
highlighted that disadvantaged
communities may face disproportionate
risks from the increasing frequency and
severity of extreme weather events,
including higher utility prices and
prolonged outages.2 Panelists and
commenters underscored that
environmental justice communities are
particularly vulnerable to Commission
decisions on electric and gas rates,
reliability, resiliency, and resource mix
because they suffer from higher energy
burden 3 and often are both more
vulnerable to and more at risk of
outages.4 For example, during Winter
Storm Uri, low-income Texans bore the
brunt of prolonged power loss.
Commenters noted that areas with lower
household incomes and higher
percentages of ethnic minorities
remained without power for longer.5
3. Reports to the Commission could
address how transmission providers
respond to these impacts in several
ways. First, in answering question eight
regarding stakeholder engagement, we
encourage transmission providers to
specifically report on how they engage
with disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities as stakeholders, rather
than merely discussing how they obtain
information about these communities
from other stakeholders.6 Transmission
providers should report on how they
incorporate feedback from
disadvantaged and vulnerable
community stakeholders into their
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments.
4. Second, beyond addressing the
questions set forth in this final rule, we
dockets and has substantial discretion to manage its
proceedings.’’); Fla. Mun. Power Agency v. FERC,
315 F.3d 362, 366 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (noting that
administrative agencies enjoy broad discretion to
manage their own dockets).
2 See WE ACT Comments at 2–4; WE ACT
Comments, Docket No. AD23–5–000, at 6–7 (filed
May 16, 2023); Center for Biological Diversity
Comments, Docket No. AD23–5–000, at 6 (filed May
12, 2023).
3 Energy burden is defined as the percentage of a
household’s annual income spent on energy
consumption. High energy burdens are often
defined as allocating greater than 6% of income
towards energy costs, while severe energy burdens
are those greater than 10% of income. Department
of Health and Human Servs., LIHEAP Energy
Burden Evaluation Study 8 (2005),
www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/comm_
liheap_energyburdenstudy_apprise.pdf.
4 Environmental Defense Fund Comments, Docket
No. AD23–5–000, at 4 (filed May 15, 2023).
5 Americans for a Clean Energy Grid Comments,
Docket No. AD23–5–000, at 4–5 (filed May 15,
2023).
6 See WE ACT Comments at 6; Public Interest
Organizations Comments at 11.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41497
encourage transmission providers to
discuss how they estimate or evaluate
the cost of extreme weather
vulnerabilities of transmission assets
and operations that will be specifically
borne by disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities. Such discussion would
benefit from a description of how such
estimates or evaluations are carried out,
including what types of direct, indirect,
and/or other costs are considered in
such analyses, and whether and how
duration of extreme weather impacts are
included in such estimates or
evaluations. Providing the Commission
and the public with information on how
transmission providers evaluate impacts
to disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities in their footprints could be
a first step in developing industry best
practices for considering impacts to
disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities of extreme weather risks.7
5. Third, we encourage transmission
providers, in responding to question 21,
to include a description of how the
transmission provider measures, or
plans to measure the progress and
success of mitigation measures,
specifically in disadvantaged and
vulnerable communities. The final rule
requires transmission providers to
describe how they inform affected and
frontline communities, and other
stakeholders, of risks identified by
extreme weather vulnerability
assessments and selected mitigation
measures.8 Including a specific
description of how mitigation measures
in disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities will be evaluated will help
provide the Commission with a more
complete picture of how transmission
providers address impacts generally.
For these reasons, we respectfully
concur.
lllllllllllllllllllll
Willie L. Phillips,
Chairman.
lllllllllllllllllllll
Allison Clements,
Commissioner.
7 WE ACT argues that ‘‘transmission planners
need to assess vulnerabilities and mitigate’’ the
risks of extreme weather events ‘‘on the electric
grid, including the negative consequences for areas
of low-income and communities of color.’’ WE ACT
Comments at 5.
8 See Final Rule, Question 19 (requiring a
‘‘description of how the transmission provider
informs, or plans to inform relevant stakeholders—
such as . . . all affected communities’’); P 4 (‘‘We
use the term ‘affected communities’ in this final
rule to include disadvantaged, vulnerable, and
frontline communities’’).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
41498
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Docket Nos.
One-Time Informational Reports on
Extreme Weather Vulnerability
Assessments.
Climate Change, Extreme Weather,
and Electric System Reliability.
RM22–16–000
AD21–13–000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
DANLY, Commissioner, concurring in
the result:
1. Last June, I concurred with the
Commission’s Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) requiring one-time
informational reports on extreme
weather vulnerability assessments.9 I
wrote separately to express that, while
the question of the weather’s effect on
reliability is a subject that doubtless
merits study and planning, misguided
government policies (not weather) have
been the root cause of the impending
reliability crises facing our markets.10
2. Today, I write separately, not to
repeat my assessment that the United
States is heading toward a reliability
crisis (a prediction that is widely
shared),11 but to caution the
Commission that it should not lose
sights of the limits of its authority under
the Federal Power Act (FPA). I
acknowledge that the final rule
generally adopts the NOPR without
significant modification,12 and that in
my concurrence, I agreed that
informational reports may help the
Commission identify opportunities to
avoid adverse rate impacts.13 However,
a question repeated by nearly a third of
the commenters has given me pause and
forced me to reconsider the information
requested: How exactly does the
Commission intend to use the
information provided in the one-time
informational reports?14 In posing that
9 One-Time Informational Reports on Extreme
Weather Vulnerability Assessments, 179 FERC
¶ 61,196 (2022) (Danly, Comm’r, concurring)
(NOPR).
10 Id. (Danly, Comm’r, concurring at PP 2–5).
11 See Full Committee Hearing to Examine the
Reliability & Resiliency of Elec. Servs. in the U.S.
in Light of Recent Reliability Assessments & Alerts
Before the S. Comm. on Energy & Natural Res.,
118th Cong. (2023), https://www.energy.senate.gov/
hearings/2023/6/full-committee-hearing-toexamine-the-reliability-and-resiliency-of-electricservices-in-the-u-s-in-light-of-recent-reliabilityassessments-and-alerts (statements of North
American Electric Reliability Corporation President
and CEO Jim Robb and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
President and CEO Manu Asthana in response to
Senator Hoeven citing FERC Commissioners Mark
Christie and Danly).
12 See One-Time Informational Reports on
Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessments, Final
Rule, 183 FERC ¶ 61,192 (2023) (Final Rule).
13 NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,196 (Danly, Comm’r, at
P 2).
14 See Edison Electric Institute, August 31, 2022
Initial Comments, at 3 (‘‘the Commission should
. . . clarify how the one-time informational reports
will be used.’’); id. at 7 (‘‘The Commission should
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
question, one must also ask the question
of whether the Commission can or
should request that information in the
first instance.
3. While FPA section 304 15
empowers the Commission to require
special reports, it does not give the
Commission carte blanche to require
public utilities to file special reports
disclosing anything it sees fit. The
Commission must find that the special
report is ‘‘necessary or appropriate to
assist [it] in the proper administration’’
of the FPA 16—that is, the information
sought must ‘‘aid the Commission in
exercising its powers.’’ 17 For instance,
information on a public utilities’
community service, which had no effect
on the rates charged, would not ‘‘aid[]
the Commission in exercising its
powers.’’
4. In addition, the Paperwork
Reduction Act requires that the
specify how it plans to use the information
contained in the onetime reports. While the
Commission notes that the reports ‘will enhance the
Commission’s understanding of whether, and if so,
how transmission providers are assessing risks to
transmission assets and operations as a result of
extreme weather events,’ and that ‘it is important
for the Commission to understand whether and to
what extent such assessments are being conducted
to assist the Commission in the proper
administration of the [Federal Power Act],’ it does
not detail how it plans to utilize the information
included in the reports to accomplish these ends.’’)
(footnote omitted); Eversource Energy Service Co.,
August 30, 2022 Comments, at 5 (‘‘Eversource also
respectfully requests that the Commission clarify
how it will use the one-time reports and the
information contained therein.’’); PJM Transmission
Owners, August 30, 2022 Comments, at 2 (‘‘The
Commission should provide clarification regarding
how the one-time reports will be used for
developing future transmission planning
requirements.’’); id. (‘‘[T]he Indicated PJM
Transmission Owners would like to better
understand how the Commission intends to use this
data.’’); MISO Transmission Owners, August 30,
2022 Comments, at 2. (‘‘[T]he MISO Transmission
Owners encourage the Commission to explain in
the final rule how it intends to act on the
information provided by respondents.’’1); id. at 4
(‘‘The Extreme Weather Reports NOPR does not
explain how these one-time reports will assist the
Commission in accomplishing its goals.’’); Xcel
Energy Services, August 29, 2022 Initial Comments,
at 5 (‘‘the Commission should provide clarity about
how it intends to use the information provided
under this NOPR, if adopted’’); id. at 6 (‘‘[T]he
manner in which the Commission intends to use
information obtained through this NOPR, if
adopted, is unclear.’’).
15 16 U.S.C. 825c(a).
16 Id.
17 FPC v. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 337 U.S.
498, 505 (1949) (discussing the similar power set
forth in section 10(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)).
‘‘It is, of course, well settled that the comparable
provisions of the [NGA] and the [FPA] are to be
construed in pari materia.’’ Ky. Utils. Co. v. FERC,
760 F.2d 1321, 1325 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (citations
omitted). Case law involving the FPA has stated
similarly. See Duke Power Co. v. FPC, 401 F.2d 930,
947 & n.131 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (‘‘utilities are required
. . . to supply the Commission with essential
information’’) (emphasis added) (citing 16 U.S.C.
825(b), 825(c)(a)).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Commission only collect information
that is ‘‘necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information [will] have practical
utility’’ 18 Can the agency ‘‘use [the]
information’’ it collects? 19 If the
information proposed to be collected by
an agency is found ‘‘unnecessary[,] for
any reason, the [Commission] may not
engage in the collection of [the]
information.’’ 20
5. The final rule declares that the onetime informational report on policies
and processes related to extreme
weather vulnerability assessments is
‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ for the
Commission to oversee the development
and enforcement of reliability standards
under FPA section 215 and to ensure
that rates, terms, and conditions are just
and reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential under
FPA sections 205 and 206.21 A
persuasive case can be made that most
of the information to be collected in the
one-time informational reports could
aid the Commission in exercising these
powers. However, the practical utility of
the information sought from two of the
questions is uncertain at best: first,
question 8, which asks how a
transmission provider identifies and
engages ‘‘affected communities’’ and
incorporates those communities’
feedback into its extreme weather
vulnerability assessment,22 and second,
question 19, which asks how a
transmission provider informs ‘‘affected
communities’’ of identified extreme
weather risks and selected mitigation
measures.23
6. How exactly are ‘‘affected
communities’’ relevant here, and under
what provision of the FPA? FPA
sections 205 and 206 empower the
Commission to ensure that wholesale
transmission rates, terms, and
conditions are just and reasonable and
not unduly discriminatory or
preferential. FPA section 215 empowers
the Commission to oversee the
development and enforcement of
mandatory standards to ensure the
reliability of the bulk-power system,
which ‘‘does not include facilities used
in the local distribution of electric
energy.’’ 24 A ‘‘community,’’ defined as
18 44 U.S.C. 3508; id. § 3502(11) (defining
‘‘practical utility’’ as meaning ‘‘the ability of an
agency to use information, particularly the
capability to process such information in a timely
and useful fashion’’).
19 Id. section 3502(11).
20 Id. section 3508.
21 Final Rule, 183 FERC ¶ 61,192 at PP 20, 59.
22 Id. App. A, Question 8.
23 Id. App. A, Question 19.
24 16 U.S.C. 824o (emphasis added).
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 27, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
a ‘‘neighborhood, vicinity, or
locality,’’ 25 does not exactly evoke an
image of a customer paying wholesale
transmission rates. Rather, one imagines
local retail customers paying the local
utility to deliver electricity on a
distribution line to power one’s
business or dwelling.
7. I wonder what we expect to hear
back in response. Under what
circumstances would a wholesaler ever
engage with and inform a retail
customer? Would we expect a wholesale
food vendor, Sysco, for example, to
engage with a restaurant’s retail
customers on how it plans for potential
disruptions of the beef supply, and to
then inform those customers when
supplies have been disrupted and then
further consult with them on how
limited supplies will be allocated? No.
Put in the terms of the FPA, would
engaging retail customers in forecasting
or informing retail customers of risks
and mitigation measures render
otherwise unlawful wholesale
transmission rates just and reasonable?
Doubtful. Could it be that the
Commission envisions that transmission
providers will submit information on
some type of ‘‘flex alert’’ initiative that
encourages retail customers to
voluntarily conserve electricity, which
may relate to the adequate reliability of
the bulk-power system under FPA
section 215? Perhaps. But if so, why not
just make that clear.
8. The Commission ought to be more
judicious in use of FPA section 304. Its
powers are not without limit. Congress
has declared that the burdens of these
reports should be minimized, and that
the usefulness of information collected
by the government maximized.26 We
should better explain why we are asking
for this data or not collect it at all. The
Commission should not require
transmission providers to file
information for which it has no use or
is unwilling to explain why it is being
asked for in the first place.
For these reasons, I respectfully
concur in the result.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 9972]
RIN 1545–BN36
Electronic-Filing Requirements for
Specified Returns and Other
Documents; Correction
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Correcting amendment.
AGENCY:
This document contains
corrections to final regulations (TD
9972) that were published in the
Federal Register on Thursday, February
23, 2023. Those final regulations amend
the rules for filing electronically and
affect persons required to file
partnership returns, corporate income
tax returns, unrelated business income
tax returns, withholding tax returns,
certain information returns, registration
statements, disclosure statements,
notifications, actuarial reports, and
certain excise tax returns. The final
regulations reflect changes made by the
Taxpayer First Act (TFA) and are
consistent with the TFA’s emphasis on
increasing electronic filing.
DATES: This correction is effective on
June 27, 2023 and is applicable
beginning February 23, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Casey R. Conrad of the Office of the
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and
Administration), (202) 317–6844 (not a
toll-free number). The phone number
above may also be reached by
individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing or who have speech disabilities
through the Federal Relay Service tollfree at (800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final
regulations included in TD 9972 (88 FR
11754, Feb. 23, 2023) that are the
subject of this correction are under
section 6050I of the Internal Revenue
Code. Both the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) that was published
in the Federal Register on July 23, 2021
(86 FR 39910), and TD 9972
lllllllllllllllllllll inadvertently omitted two sentences
from § 1.6050I–1(a)(3)(ii) and (c)(1)(iv)
James P. Danly,
in the drafting process, which resulted
Commissioner.
in the two sentences being removed
[FR Doc. 2023–13268 Filed 6–26–23; 8:45 am]
from the Code of Federal Regulations.
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
The first omitted sentence has been
included in § 1.6050I–1 since the
original publication of the final
regulation (TD 8098) on September 4,
25 Community, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.
1986 (51 FR 31611). The second omitted
sentence was added to § 1.6050I–1 in
2019).
26 See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
final regulations (TD 8373) published on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jun 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41499
November 15, 1991 (56 FR 57976,
57977). The 1986 and 1991 final
regulations that included these two
sentences were both submitted as
NPRMs for public comments and a
public hearing was held for both NPRMs
before they were published as final
regulations.
The inadvertent omission of these two
sentences has no material impact on TD
9972 or the electronic-filing rules
included in the regulation. The omitted
sentences are favorable to cash
recipients and provide safe-harbors to
cash recipients who receive cash in
excess of $10,000 but who may be
exempt from reporting under § 1.6050I–
1(a)(1)(i). The removal of these safeharbors may cause a cash recipient who
would otherwise be exempt from
reporting under § 1.6050I–1(a)(1)(i) to
report the cash transaction out of an
abundance of caution, which would
impose additional burdens on the cash
recipient and the IRS.
The Treasury Department and the IRS
received one public comment on the
NPRM that addressed the proposed
amendments to the regulations under
section 6050I. The comment addressed
the situation of certain filers for whom
using the technology required to file
electronically conflicts with their
religious beliefs being nevertheless
obligated to file Form 8300, Report of
Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received
in a Trade or Business, electronically.
The final regulations acknowledge that
comment and adopt a rule that a waiver
granted under § 301.6011–(c)(6) for any
return required to be filed under
§ 301.6011–2(b)(1) or (2) will be deemed
to have waived the electronic-filing
requirement for any Form 8300 the filer
is required to file during the calendar
year. See § 301.6011–2(c)(6)(i).
The Treasury Department and the IRS
believe that the inclusion of these two
sentences in the NPRM would not have
resulted in substantive comments from
the public that recommended the
sentences be removed from the
regulation.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
E:\FR\FM\27JNR1.SGM
27JNR1
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2023-06-27 |
| File Created | 2023-06-27 |