57006 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 

DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARINGS

Location Day, date, time Directions 

Jacumba Highland Center, 44681 Old Highway 80, Jacumba, California 91934.Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 

7–9 p.m.

From the West, take I–8 East and take Exit 73 toward 

Jacumba. Turn right (South) onto Carrizo Gorge 

Road and drive South 1.1 miles. Turn right at Old 

Highway 80. Jacumba Highland Center will be on the 

left hand side. 

From the East, take I–8 West and take Exit 73 toward 

Jacumba. Turn left (South) onto Carrizo Gorge Road 

and drive South 1.1 miles. Turn right at Old Highway 

80. Jacumba Highland Center will be on the left hand 

side. 

Boulevard Volunteer Fire Department, 39919 Highway 94, Boulevard, California 91905.Wednesday, October 6, 2010, 

7–9 p.m.

From the West, take I–8 East and take the CA–94 Exit 

(Exit 65), toward Campo/Boulevard. Turn right 

(South) onto CA–94/Ribbonwood Road and drive 

South 0.5 miles. Boulevard Volunteer Fire Station will 

be on the left-hand side. 

From the East, take I–8 West and take the CA–94 Exit 

toward Boulevard/Manzanita. Turn left (South) onto 

CA–94/Ribbonwood Road and drive South 0.6 miles. 

Boulevard Volunteer Fire Station will be on the lefthand side. 

County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use Planning Commission Hearing Room, 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B, San 

Diego, CA 92123.

Thursday, October 7, 2010, 

5–7 p.m.

From Downtown, take Highway 163 North and take Exit 

7B towards CA–274/Balboa Boulevard East. Turn left 

on Kearny Villa Road and take the 1st right on Balboa Boulevard. Drive East 1.0 mile and turn left on 

Ruffin Road. 

From the East, take I–8 East to I–15 North. Take Exit 

10, Clairemont Mesa Boulevard. Drive 0.5 miles, turn 

left on Ruffin Road. 

From the North, take Highway 805 South, and take Exit 

23 for CA–52. Take Exit 7 for Kearny Villa Road. 

Turn right on Kearny Villa Road, drive 400 feet, and 

continue onto Ruffin Road. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have any questions about the EIS or 

Presidential permit process, please 

contact Dr. Jerry Pell at the Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability (OE–20), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585; 

Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov (preferred); 

telephone to 202–586–3362, or facsimile 

to 202–318–7761. 

For general information on the DOE 

NEPA process, contact Carol M. 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, telephone: 202– 

586–4600 or leave a message at 800– 

472–2756; facsimile: 202–586–7031. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In order to 

ensure that all interested parties can be 

heard in the time available, speakers are 

asked to limit their presentation to three 

minutes; however, there is no limit on 

the amount of written material that can 

be submitted either at the hearings or 

otherwise before the close of the 

comment period. 

The public hearings will consist of the 

formal taking of comments with 

transcription by a court stenographer. 

The hearings will provide interested 

parties the opportunity to view 

proposed project exhibits and make 

comments for consideration in the 

course of preparing the Final EIS. In 

advance of commencing the hearings, 

representatives from the applicant, DOE, 

and the County of San Diego as the 

cooperating agency will be available to 

informally (off the record) answer 

questions and provide additional 

information to attendees to the extent 

that additional information is available. 

Availability of the Draft EIS 

Copies of the Draft EIS have been 

distributed to appropriate Members of 

Congress, State and local government 

officials, American Indian tribal 

governments, and other Federal 

agencies, groups, and interested parties. 

Printed copies of the document may be 

obtained by contacting Dr. Pell at the 

above address. Copies of the Draft EIS 

and supporting documents are also 

available for inspection at the Jacumba 

Branch Library, 44605 Old Highway 80, 

Jacumba, CA 91934 and the CampoMorena Village Branch Library, 31466 

Highway 94, Campo, CA 91906. The 

Draft EIS is also available on the EIS 

Web site at http://esjprojecteis.org and 

on the DOE NEPA Web site at http:// 

nepa.energy.gov/draft_environmental_

impact_statements.htm. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

13, 2010. 

Anthony J. Como, 

Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23244 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Addressing Policy and Logistical 

Challenges to Smart Grid 

Implementation 

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for Information. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is seeking comments from 

interested parties on policy and 

logistical challenges that confront smart 

grid implementation, as well as 

recommendations on how to best 

overcome those challenges. DOE is 

undertaking this Request for 

Information (RFI) on behalf of the 

Administration and in consultation with 

key stakeholders from state regulatory 

bodies. The RFI will assist these parties 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 57007 

as they seek to assure smart grid 

deployments benefit consumers, the 

economy and the environment. In 

particular, comments on the RFI will 

help inform the Administration’s 

analysis of policy challenges and 

possible solutions being developed by 

the Smart Grid Subcommittee of the 

National Science and Technology 

Council’s Committee on Technology. 

The Subcommittee seeks to base its 

analysis on an up-to-date understanding 

of the context in which smart grid 

technologies, business models and 

policies operate. This is the third in a 

series of RFIs issued by DOE regarding 

smart grid implementation. Prior RFIs 

sought comment on data access, data 

usage and privacy issues, and on 

communications requirements for the 

smart grid. In this RFI, DOE seeks 

specific input on: the best way to define 

the term ‘‘smart grid’’ for policymaking 

purposes; the consumer-level benefits 

from, and challenges to, smart grid 

deployment; the benefits and challenges 

associated with smart grid 

implementation on the ‘‘utility side’’ of 

the meter; the ways in which policy 

makers at all levels of government can 

share experience and resources; and the 

broader, economy-wide benefits and 

challenges associated with the smart 

grid. In so doing, this RFI avoids 

duplicating questions that were raised 

in prior RFIs. 

DATES: Comments must be transmitted 

or postmarked by no later than 

November 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by ‘‘Smart Grid RFI: 

Addressing Policy and Logistical 

Challenges’’ via any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov (following the 

instructions for submitting comments); 

E-mail: smartgridpolicy@hq.doe.gov. 

Include ‘‘Smart Grid RFI: Addressing 

Policy and Logistical Challenges’’ in the 

subject line of the message; or 

Mail: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Room 8H033, Washington, DC 

20585. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Li, Electricity Policy Specialist 

(202) 287–5718. For media inquiries you 

may contact Tiffany Edwards at 202– 

586–6683. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

As noted in earlier RFIs, the smart 

grid has significant promise. The smart 

grid better integrates information, 

communication, and intelligent control 

technology, into the nation’s electrical 

system. It will offer new tools to 

maintain reliability and improve 

flexibility. It has the potential to 

improve power quality, manage power 

scarcities and reduce transmission 

congestion costs. A truly smart grid 

should achieve environmental goals at 

lower cost than the traditional grid, be 

able to respond more quickly to natural 

or man-made outages and, overall, 

operate the electrical system more 

efficiently without reducing system 

cyber security or reliability. 

President Obama’s energy and climate 

change policy aims to reduce harmful 

greenhouse gas emissions and U.S. 

dependence on foreign oil, to create 

jobs, and to help U.S. industry compete 

successfully in global markets for clean 

energy technology. Smart grid 

deployment is an important component 

of the Administration’s broader strategy. 

The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (‘‘Recovery 

Act’’) took large, initial steps to 

accelerate the smart grid transition. The 

Recovery Act included $11 billion for 

smart grid technologies, transmission 

system expansion and upgrades, and 

other investments to modernize and 

enhance the electric transmission 

infrastructure. 

To build on the Recovery Act’s 

initiatives, the National Science and 

Technology Council’s (NSTC) 

Committee on Technology has 

established a Subcommittee on Smart 

Grid, co-led by DOE’s Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability and the Department of 

Commerce’s National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (http:// 

www.smartgrid.gov/news/ 

nstc_subcommittee). The Subcommittee 

on Smart Grid is working to ensure the 

federal government develops and 

executes a long-term, comprehensive 

strategy in partnership with the states 

that will further President Obama’s 

comprehensive energy and climate plan, 

as well as the Recovery Act’s effort to 

catalyze the development of a smarter 

grid. The Subcommittee will develop 

policy options and recommendations for 

the Administration as a whole and 

guide federal-state cooperative efforts. It 

will investigate emerging technologies 

and provide analysis about ways to 

advance the smart grid in a costeffective and appropriate manner. 

DOE’s Office of General Counsel 

issued two RFIs on May 11, 2010 on 

smart grid policy issues. (75 FR 26203 

and 75 FR 26206) The first RFI sought 

comments on ongoing federal, state and 

private sector efforts to make more 

effective use of consumer energy usage 

data, while at the same time 

safeguarding consumer privacy. The 

second RFI sought comments to assist 

the Department in identifying the 

present and future communications 

needs of electric utilities as smart grid 

technologies are deployed more broadly. 

This RFI seeks to collect information 

and open a dialogue about a wide range 

of additional issues dealing with smart 

grid technology, applications, consumer 

interaction, policy initiatives and 

economic impact. 

Background 

The smart grid has the potential to 

add devices and applications that 

improve power quality, reduce 

transmission congestion costs, read 

meters and provide prompt feedback 

that allows better decision making; 

better synchronize consumption with 

generation; help integrate variable 

renewable generation and electric 

vehicles into the electric system; detect 

and address equipment problems and 

outages; and provide central and enduser control over energy consumption. 

The United States can be a global leader 

in developing these innovative 

technologies. For many reasons, then, it 

is important to continue to research, 

develop and deploy smart grid systems. 

DOE is aware that technology, 

business, consumer and regulatory 

issues interact in complicated ways. The 

smart grid will be composed of 

numerous vast, evolving and 

interrelated systems including 

communication networks, sensors on 

transmission and distribution systems 

such as phasor measurement units 

(PMU) and advanced metering 

infrastructure (AMI), and controls such 

as programmable communicating 

thermostats. It will facilitate changes in 

how electricity is produced, distributed, 

consumed and conserved. 

DOE also recognizes that while it may 

be possible to estimate the benefits of 

current efforts to deploy smart grid 

technologies and applications, it may be 

unrealistic to precisely quantify their 

future impacts because the smart grid is 

not fully developed and its future 

applications are likely to change. 

Nevertheless, even unavoidable 

uncertainty should not deter federal and 

state authorities, utilities or other 

interested parties from assessing current 

implications of, barriers to, and the bestavailable estimates of the likely impact 

of making the grid smarter. For example, 

certain smart grid and demand-response 

applications have been deployed by 

utilities and electric cooperatives for 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
57008 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 

1Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, Assessment of 

Demand Response and Advanced Metering, 8, 65 

(Dec. 2008), available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/ 

staff-reports/12–08-demand-response.pdf. 

many years.1 These applications include 

automated collection of detailed meter 

data, direct load control, and systems 

that vary prices based on typical or 

actual grid conditions at the time the 

customer used power. We seek to learn 

from those preexisting efforts, as well as 

newer projects and pilots. 

Request for Information 

The following questions cover the 

major areas we seek comment on. They 

are not a determination of the final 

topics that DOE and the NSTC Smart 

Grid Subcommittee will address, and 

commenters may address any topic they 

believe to have important implications 

for smart grid policy regardless of 

whether this document mentions it. 

In response to any question that asks 

about smart grid technologies broadly 

defined, please describe the set of smart 

grid technologies your response 

considers. To aid the discussion of the 

relevant issues, commenters are 

welcome to use the following categories 

to classify the technologies they discuss, 

adding any clarifying language they 

view as appropriate. 

• Instrumenting and automating the 

transmission and generation system 

• Distribution automation 

• Upgraded metering, such as AMI or 

even enhanced technologies that 

improve the capabilities of traditional 

AMR 

• Consumer facing programs such as 

feedback, demand response, energy 

efficiency, and automation strategies 

• Integrating new end user equipment 

like distributed generation and 

electric vehicles 

Commenters can assume a high degree 

of general knowledge on the part of DOE 

and the Subcommittee. Commenters are 

encouraged to cite or include relevant 

data and analyses in their responses. In 

addressing the following questions, we 

ask stakeholders to be concise. We 

primarily seek facts and concrete 

recommendations that can augment that 

general knowledge. We encourage 

stakeholders to use concrete examples 

of benefits, costs, and challenges or to 

bring novel or underappreciated sources 

of evidence to our attention wherever 

possible. 

Definition and Scope 

The deployment of technology to 

make the nation’s electric grid a more 

interactive, efficient and responsive 

system is already underway. At the 

early stages of any major technological 

shift, stakeholders often use the same 

term-of-art to mean different things 

which can lead to miscommunication. 

To minimize confusion as we identify 

policy challenges and 

recommendations, this RFI uses the 

broad definition of Smart Grid laid out 

in Title XIII of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). Title 

XIII mentions that the smart grid uses 

communications, control, and 

information technology to optimize grid 

operations, integrate distributed 

resources including renewable 

resources, increase energy efficiency, 

deploy demand response, support 

electric vehicles, and integrate 

automated, interactive interoperable 

consumer devices. We encourage 

commenters to reference the full text of 

EISA section 1301. 

We invite comment however on 

whether this is the best way to define 

the smart grid. What significant policy 

challenges are likely to remain 

unaddressed if we employ Title XIII’s 

definition? If the definition is overly 

broad, what policy risks emerge as a 

result? 

We also invite comments on the 

geographic scope of standardization and 

interconnection of smart grid 

technologies. Should smart grid 

technologies be connected or use the 

same communications standard across a 

utility, state, or region? How does this 

vary between transmission, distribution, 

and customer-level standards? For 

example, is there need to go beyond 

ongoing standards development efforts 

to choose one consumer-facing device 

networking standard for states or 

regions so that consumers can take their 

smart appliances when they move and 

stores’ smart appliance will work in 

more than one service area? 

Interactions With and Implications for 

Consumers 

Typical consumers currently get 

limited feedback about their daily 

energy consumption patterns and 

associated costs. They also have limited 

understanding of variations in the cost 

of providing power over the course of 

the day and from day to day. Many 

smart grid technologies aim to narrow 

the typical consumers’ knowledge gap 

by empowering consumers with greater 

knowledge of and ability to control their 

consumption and expenditures. This 

vision transforms many consumers’ 

relationship with the grid, which 

prompts us to ask the following 

questions. 

• For consumers, what are the most 

important applications of the smart 

grid? What are the implications, costs 

and benefits of these applications? What 

new services enabled by the smart grid 

would customers see as beneficial? 

What approaches have helped pave the 

way for smart grid deployments that 

deliver these benefits or have the 

promise to do so in the future? 

• How well do customers understand 

and respond to pricing options, direct 

load control or other opportunities to 

save by changing when they use power? 

What evidence is available about their 

response? To what extent have specific 

consumer education programs been 

effective? What tools (e.g. education, 

incentives, and automation) increase 

impacts on power consumption 

behavior? What are reasonable 

expectations about how these programs 

could reshape consumer power usage? 

• To what extent might existing 

consumer incentives, knowledge and 

decision-making patterns create barriers 

to the adoption or effective use of smart 

grid technologies? For instance, are 

there behavioral barriers to the adoption 

and effective use of information 

feedback systems, demand response, 

energy management and home 

automation technologies? What are the 

best ways to address these barriers? Are 

steps necessary to make participation 

easier and more convenient, increase 

benefits to consumers, reduce risks, or 

otherwise better serve customers? 

Moreover, what role do factors like the 

trust, consumer control, and civic 

participation play in shaping consumer 

participation in demand response, timevarying pricing, and energy efficiency 

programs? How do these factors relate to 

other factors like consumer education, 

marketing and monthly savings 

opportunities? 

• How should combinations of 

education, technology, incentives, 

feedback and decision structure be used 

to help residential and small 

commercial customers make smarter, 

better informed choices? What steps are 

underway to identify the best 

combinations for different segments of 

the residential and commercial market? 

• Are education or communications 

campaigns necessary to inform 

customers prior to deploying smart grid 

applications? If so, what would these 

campaigns look like and who should 

deploy them? Which related education 

or public relations campaigns might be 

attractive models? 

• What should federal and state 

energy policymakers know about social 

norms (e.g. the use of feedback that 

compares a customers’ use to his 

neighbors) and habit formation? What 

are the important lessons from efforts to 

persuade people to recycle or engage in 

other environmentally friendly activity? 

What are the implications of these 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 57009 

insights for determining which tasks are 

best automated and which should be 

subject to consumer control? When is it 

appropriate to use social norm based 

tools? 

• How should insights about 

consumer decision-making be 

incorporated into federal-state 

collaborative efforts such as the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) 

National Action Plan on Demand 

Response? 

Interaction With Large Commercial and 

Industrial Customers 

Large commercial and industrial 

customers behave differently than 

residential consumers and small 

businesses. They regularly use 

sophisticated strategies to maximize 

their energy efficiency, to save money 

and to assure reliable business 

operations. Indeed, some already are or 

others are seeking to participate directly 

in wholesale energy and ancillary 

services markets. Please identify 

benefits from, and challenges to, smart 

grid deployment that might be unique to 

this part of the market and lessons that 

can be carried over to the residential 

and small business market. Please 

identify unmet smart grid infrastructure 

or policy needs for large customers. 

Assessing and Allocating Costs and 

Benefits 

Regulators pay a great deal of 

attention to the costs and benefits of 

new investments, appropriate allocation 

of risk and protection of vulnerable 

customer segments. The many 

unknowns associated with smart grid 

programs make these ubiquitous 

questions particularly challenging, 

which suggests a great need to share 

perspectives and lessons. 

• How should the benefits of smart 

grid investments be quantified? What 

criteria and processes should regulators 

use when considering the value of smart 

grid applications? 

• When will the benefits and costs of 

smart grid investments be typically 

realized for consumers? How should 

uncertainty about whether smart grid 

implementations will deliver on their 

potential to avoid other generation, 

transmission and distribution 

investments affect the calculation of 

benefits and decisions about risk 

sharing? How should the costs and 

benefits of enabling devices (e.g. 

programmable communicating 

thermostats, in home displays, home 

area networks (HAN), or smart 

appliances) factor into regulatory 

assessments of smart grid projects? If 

these applications are described as 

benefits to sell the projects, should the 

costs also be factored into the costbenefit analysis? 

• How does the notion that only some 

customers might opt in to consumerfacing smart grid programs affect the 

costs and benefits of AMI deployments? 

• How do the costs and benefits of 

upgrading existing AMR technology 

compare with installing new AMI 

technology? 

• How does the magnitude and 

certainty of the cost effectiveness of 

other approaches like direct load 

management that pay consumers to give 

the utility the right to temporarily turn 

off air conditioners or other equipment 

during peak demand periods compare to 

that of AMI or other smart grid 

programs? 

• How likely are significant cost 

overruns? What can regulators do to 

reduce the probability of significant cost 

overruns? How should cost overruns be 

addressed? 

• With numerous energy efficiency 

and renewable energy programs across 

the country competing for ratepayer 

funding, how should State Commissions 

assess proposals to invest in smart grid 

projects where the benefits are more 

difficult to quantify and the costs are 

more uncertain? 

• What are appropriate ways to track 

the progress of smart grid 

implementation efforts? What additional 

information about, for example, 

customer interactions should be 

collected from future pilots and program 

implementations? How are State 

Commissions studying smart grid and 

smart meter applications in pilots? In 

conducting pilots, what best practical 

approaches are emerging to better 

ascertain the benefits and costs of 

realistic options while protecting 

participants? 

• How should the costs of smart grid 

technologies be allocated? To what 

degree should State Commissions try to 

ensure that the beneficiaries of smart 

grid capital expenditures carry the cost 

burdens? Which stakeholder(s) should 

bear the risks if expected benefits do not 

materialize? How should smart grid 

investments be aligned so customers’ 

expectations are met? 

• When should ratepayers have the 

right to opt out of receiving and paying 

for smart grid technologies or programs 

like meters, in home displays, or critical 

peak rebates? When do system-wide 

benefits justify uniform adoption of 

technological upgrades? How does the 

answer depend on the nature of the 

offering? How should regulators address 

customer segments that might not use 

smart grid technologies? 

• How might consumer-side smart 

grid technologies, such as HANs, 

whether controlled by a central server or 

managed by consumers, programmable 

thermostats, or metering technology 

(whether AMR or AMI), or applications 

(such as dynamic pricing, peak time 

rebates, and remote disconnect) benefit, 

harm, or otherwise affect vulnerable 

populations? What steps could ensure 

acceptable outcomes for vulnerable 

populations? 

Utilities, Device Manufacturers and 

Energy Management Firms 

Electricity policy involves the 

interaction of local distribution utilities, 

bulk power markets and competitive 

markets for electrical appliances and 

equipment. Retail electricity service is 

under state and local jurisdiction. 

Generally, bulk power markets are 

under FERC jurisdiction. Appliances 

comply with federal safety and 

efficiency rules. Smart grid technologies 

will change the interactions among 

these actors and should create new 

opportunities for federal-state 

collaboration to better serve citizens. 

Greater collaboration seems essential. 

Some state regulatory agencies already 

oversee energy efficiency programs that 

help ratepayers acquire equipment like 

energy efficient appliances. Those 

appliances also are subject to federal 

regulatory oversight. As the smart grid 

evolves, these types of ties are likely to 

deepen. Moreover, EISA foresees a 

federal role in developing potentially 

mandatory standards for some smart 

grid equipment and voluntary standards 

for smart-grid enabled mass-produced 

electric appliances and equipment for 

homes and businesses. Many 

commentators suggest that utilities may 

lack appropriate incentives to invest in 

the most cost effective smart grid 

infrastructure and allow that 

infrastructure to be used to conserve 

energy, because most service providers 

generate revenue based on the number 

of kilowatt hours sold and pass through 

the capital costs of things like smart grid 

infrastructure. If this is accurate, then 

those disincentives are an impediment 

to achieving national and state goals 

and, therefore, merit state and federal 

policy makers’ attention. 

In issuing this RFI, DOE is mindful 

that the states oversee retail electric 

service and that state regulation differs 

state by state. Within states different 

types of service providers may be 

subject to different regulatory schemes 

depending, for example, on whether the 

service provider is investor owned, 

publicly owned or a cooperative. 

Recognizing the primary role of states in 

this area, we ask the following 

questions: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
57010 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 

• How can state regulators and the 

federal government best work together 

to achieve the benefits of a smart grid? 

For example, what are the most 

appropriate roles with respect to 

development, adoption and application 

of interoperability standards; supporting 

technology demonstrations and 

consumer behavior studies; and 

transferring lessons from one project to 

other smart grid projects? 

• How can federal and state 

regulators work together to better 

coordinate wholesale and retail power 

markets and remove barriers to an 

effective smart grid (e.g. regional 

transmission organization require that 

all loads buy ‘‘capacity’’ to ensure the 

availability of power for them during 

peak demand periods, which makes 

sense for price insensitive loads but 

requires price sensitive loads to pay to 

ensure the availability of power they 

would never buy)? 

• How will programs that use pricing, 

rebates, or load control to reduce 

consumption during scarcity periods 

affect the operations, efficiency, and 

competiveness of wholesale power 

markets? Will other smart grid programs 

have important impacts on wholesale 

markets? Can policies improve these 

interactions? 

• Do electric service providers have 

the right incentives to use smart grid 

technologies to help customers save 

energy or change load shapes given 

current regulatory structures? 

• What is the potential for third-party 

firms to provide smart grid enabled 

products and services for use on either 

or both the consumer and utility side of 

the meter? In particular, are changes 

needed to the current standards or 

standard-setting process, level of access 

to the market, and deployment of 

networks that allow add-on products to 

access information about grid 

conditions? How should the interaction 

between third-party firms and regulated 

utilities be structured to maximize 

benefits to consumers and society? 

• How should customer-facing 

equipment such as programmable 

communicating thermostats, feedback 

systems, energy management systems 

and home area networks be made 

available and financed? Are there 

consumers behavior or incentive 

barriers to the market achieving efficient 

technology adoption levels without 

policy intervention? 

• Given the current marketplace and 

NIST Smart Grid Interoperability Panel 

efforts, is there a need for additional 

third-party testing and certification 

initiatives to assure that smart grid 

technologies comply with applicable 

standards? If there is a need for 

additional certification, what would 

need to be certified, and what are the 

trade-offs between having public and 

private entities do the certification? Is 

there a need for certifying bodies to 

oversee compliance with other smart 

grid policies, such as privacy standards? 

Commenters should feel free to 

describe current and planned 

deployments of advanced distribution 

automation equipment, architectures, 

and consumer-facing programs in order 

to illustrate marketplace trends, 

successes, and challenges. And they 

should feel free to identify any major 

policy changes they feel would 

encourage appropriate deployment of 

these technologies. 

Long Term Issues: Managing a Grid 

With High Penetration of New 

Technologies 

Significant change in the technologies 

used to generate power and to keep 

supply and demand balanced is likely to 

occur over the foreseeable future. We 

invite comments on the steps that 

should be taken now to give the grid the 

flexibility it will need to deal with 

transitions that are likely in the next few 

decades. Commenters might address the 

following questions, some of which 

have more immediate implications. 

• What are the most promising ways 

to integrate large amounts of electric 

vehicles, photovoltaic cells, wind 

turbines, or inflexible nuclear plants? 

What approaches make sense to address 

the possibility that large numbers of 

other consumer devices that might 

simultaneously increase power 

consumption as soon as power prices 

drop? For instance, what is known 

about the viability of and tradeoffs 

between frequently updated prices and 

direct load control as approaches to 

help keep the system balanced? How do 

factors like the speed of optimization 

algorithms, demand for reliability and 

the availability of grid friendly 

appliances affect those trade-offs? 

• What are these strategies’ 

implications for competition among 

demand response, storage and fast 

reacting generation? What research is 

needed to identify and develop effective 

strategies to manage a grid that is 

evolving to, for example, have an 

increasing number of devices that can 

respond to grid conditions and to be 

increasingly reliant on variable 

renewable resources? 

• What policies, if any, are necessary 

to ensure that technologies that can 

increase the efficiency of ancillary 

services provision can enter the market 

and compete on a level playing field? 

• What policies, if any, are necessary 

to ensure that distributed generation 

and storage of thermal and electrical 

energy can compete with other supply 

and demand resources on a level 

playing field? 

• What barriers exist to the 

deployment of grid infrastructure to 

enable electric vehicles? What policies 

are needed to address them? 

Reliability and Cyber-Security 

We invite comment on the reliability 

opportunities and challenges that smart 

grid technologies create, including: 

What smart grid technologies are or will 

become available to help reduce the 

electric system’s susceptibility to 

service disruptions? 

• What policies are needed to 

facilitate the data sharing that will allow 

sensors (e.g., phasor measurement units) 

and grid automation to achieve their 

potential to make reliability and 

performance improvements in the grid? 

Is there a need to revisit the legal and 

institutional approaches to generation 

and transmission system data collection 

and interchange? 

• What is the role of federal, state, 

and local governments in assuring smart 

grid technologies are optimized, 

implemented, and maintained in a 

manner that ensures cyber security? 

How should the Federal and State 

entities coordinate with one another as 

well as with the private and nonprofit 

sector to fulfill this objective? 

Managing Transitions and Overall 

Questions 

The following questions focus on 

managing incremental change during 

the gradual evolution of the grid that 

may transform the power sector over the 

next few decades. 

• What are the best present-day 

strategies for transitioning from the 

status quo to an environment in which 

consumer-facing smart grid programs 

(e.g., alternative pricing structures and 

feedback) are common? What has been 

learned from different implementations? 

What lessons fall into the ‘‘it would have 

been good to know that when we 

started’’ category? What additional 

mechanisms, if any, would help share 

such lessons among key stakeholders 

quickly? 

• Recognizing that most equipment 

on the electric grid, including meters, 

can last a decade or more, what cyber 

security, compatibility and integration 

issues affect legacy equipment and merit 

attention? What are some strategies for 

integrating legacy equipment into a 

robust, modernized grid? What 

strategies are appropriate for investing 

in equipment today that will be more 

valuable if it can delay obsolescence by 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Notices 57011 

integrating gracefully with future 

generations of technology? 

• How will smart grid technologies 

change the business model for electric 

service providers, if at all? What are the 

implications of these changes? 

• What are the costs and benefits of 

delaying investment in metering and 

other smart grid infrastructure while the 

technology and our understanding of it 

is rapidly evolving? How does that 

affect the choice of an appropriate time 

to invest? 

• What policy changes would ensure 

that the U.S. maintains global 

competiveness in smart grid technology 

and related businesses? 

• What should be the priority areas 

for federally funded research that can 

support smart grid deployment? 

Finally, as noted at the outset, we invite 

commenters to address any other 

significant issues that they believe 

implicate the success or failure of the 

transition to smart grid technology. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

13, 2010. 

Patricia Hoffman, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23251 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP10–494–000] 

Tallulah Gas Storage LLC; Notice of 

Application 

September 9, 2010. 

Take notice that on August 31, 2010, 

Tallulah Gas Storage LLC (Tallulah), 

10370 Richmond Avenue, Suite 510, 

Houston, TX 77042, filed in Docket No. 

CP10–494–000, an application, pursuant 

to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 

subpart F of part 157, and subpart G of 

part 284 of the Commission’s 

regulations for: (1) A certificate of 

public convenience and necessity 

authorizing Tallulah to construct and 

operate a natural gas storage facility and 

pipeline facilities connecting with 

Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC 

(Midcontinent Express), Columbia Gulf 

Transmission Co. (Columbia Gulf), Gulf 

South Pipeline Co., LP (Gulf South) and 

Southeast Supply Header, LLC (SESH) 

in Madison Parish Louisiana; (2) a 

blanket certificate authorizing Tallulah 

to construct, acquire, operate, rearrange, 

and abandon facilities; (3) a blanket 

certificate authorizing Tallulah to 

provide open access firm and 

interruptible gas storage services on 

behalf of others in interstate commerce 

with pre-granted abandonment of such 

services; and (4) waivers of Commission 

regulations, all as more fully set forth in 

the application which is on file with the 

Commission and open to public 

inspection. 

Specifically, Tallulah proposes to 

construct, own, operate, and maintain a 

new underground natural gas salt 

cavern storage facility consisting of 

three caverns, each with a working gas 

capacity of 8 billion cubic feet (Bcf), and 

approximately 3.4 Bcf of base gas, 

having a combined maximum daily 

withdrawal rate of 1,575 million cubic 

feet per day (MMcf/d) and a maximum 

injection capability of 900 MMcf/d. 

Tallulah also states that the facility will 

have a total capacity of approximately 

11.4 Bcf and a peak deliverability of 525 

MMcf/d. Tallulah also proposes to 

construct approximately 3.3 miles of 

dual 24-inch diameter lateral pipeline to 

four new meter and regulator stations 

interconnecting with Midcontinent 

Express, Columbia Gulf, Gulf South, and 

SESH. Tallulah will also install six 

natural gas-fired compressors totaling 

28,410 horsepower as well as associated 

interconnecting piping and appurtenant 

facilities. Tallulah seeks authorization 

to charge market-based rates for its 

proposed services. 

The filing may be viewed on the web 

at http://www.ferc.gov using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket number 

excluding the last three digits in the 

docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, contact FERC 

at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 

502–8659. 

Any questions regarding this 

application should be directed to Mark 

Fullerton, Tallulah Gas Storage LLC, 

10370 Richmond Avenue, Suite 510, 

Houston, TX 77042, or by calling (713) 

403–6454 (telephone) or (713) 403–6461 

(fax), mfullerton@icon-ngs.com, or to 

John S. Decker, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., 

1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 

600, Washington, DC 20004–1008, or by 

calling (202) 639–6599 (telephone) or 

(202) 879–8899 (fax), 

jdecker@velaw.com. 

Pursuant to § 157.9 of the 

Commission’s rules, 18 CFR 157.9, 

within 90 days of this Notice the 

Commission staff will either: Complete 

its environmental assessment (EA) and 

place it into the Commission’s public 

record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or 

issue a Notice of Schedule for 

Environmental Review. If a Notice of 

Schedule for Environmental Review is 

issued, it will indicate, among other 

milestones, the anticipated date for the 

Commission staff’s issuance of the final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

or EA for this proposal. The filing of the 

EA in the Commission’s public record 

for this proceeding or the issuance of a 

Notice of Schedule for Environmental 

Review will serve to notify federal and 

state agencies of the timing for the 

completion of all necessary reviews, and 

the subsequent need to complete all 

Federal authorizations within 90 days of 

the date of issuance of the Commission 

staff’s FEIS or EA. 

There are two ways to become 

involved in the Commission’s review of 

this project. First, any person wishing to 

obtain legal status by becoming a party 

to the proceedings for this project 

should, on or before the comment date 

stated below, file with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

a motion to intervene in accordance 

with the requirements of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) 

and the Regulations under the NGA (18 

CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party 

status will be placed on the service list 

maintained by the Secretary of the 

Commission and will receive copies of 

all documents filed by the applicant and 

by all other parties. A party must submit 

14 copies of filings made with the 

Commission and must mail a copy to 

the applicant and to every other party in 

the proceeding. Only parties to the 

proceeding can ask for court review of 

Commission orders in the proceeding. 

However, a person does not have to 

intervene in order to have comments 

considered. The second way to 

participate is by filing with the 

Secretary of the Commission, as soon as 

possible, an original and two copies of 

comments in support of or in opposition 

to this project. The Commission will 

consider these comments in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but the filing of a comment alone 

will not serve to make the filer a party 

to the proceeding. The Commission’s 

rules require that persons filing 

comments in opposition to the project 

provide copies of their protests only to 

the party or parties directly involved in 

the protest. 

Persons who wish to comment only 

on the environmental review of this 

project should submit an original and 

two copies of their comments to the 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Environmental commentors will be 

placed on the Commission’s 

environmental mailing list, will receive 

copies of the environmental documents, 

and will be notified of meetings 

associated with the Commission’s 

environmental review process. 

Environmental commentors will not be 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1