33700 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 

2EONY determined that the proposed 28-cfs 

minimum flow would not result in incremental 

losses of generation compared to the current 

condition because the field measurement of the 

existing minimum flow was approximately 28 cfs, 

which accounted for flashboard leakage and was 

most likely present during the term of the existing 

license. 

1 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq. 2See Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation 

by Transmission Owning and Operating Public 

Utilities, Order No. 1000, 76 FR 49842 (Aug. 11, 

2011), 136 FERC ¶ 61,051, at P 2 (2011), order on 

reh’g and clarification, Order No. 1000–A, 77 FR 

32184 (May 31, 2012), 139 FERC ¶ 61,132, order on 

reh’g and clarification, Order No. 1000–B, 77 FR 

64890 (Oct. 24, 2012), 141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012), 

aff’d sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 

F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (instituting reforms to 

ensure more efficient and cost-effective regional 

transmission planning); see also Elec. Transmission 

Incentives Pol’y Under Section 219 of the Federal 

Power Act, 170 FERC ¶ 61,204, at P 31 (2020) 

(Transmission Incentives NOPR) (noting ‘‘FPA 

section 219(a) requires that the Commission provide 

incentive-based rates for electric transmission for 

the purpose of benefitting consumers by ensuring 

reliability and reducing the cost of delivered power 

by reducing transmission congestion’’). The 

Commission noted in the Transmission Incentives 

NOPR that there is a need for existing and new 

transmission facilities to help facilitate integration 

of a variety of types of resources. Transmission 

Incentives NOPR, 170 FERC ¶ 61,204 at P 28. 

3Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 146. 

Order No. 1000 established rules and regulations 

addressing, among other things, regional 

transmission planning, interregional transmission 

coordination, and cost allocation methods for new 

transmission facilities. This includes requiring each 

public utility transmission provider to participate 

in a regional transmission planning process that 

produces a regional transmission plan and complies 

with certain transmission planning principles. 

agreement, EONY proposes to: (1) 

Continue to operate the project in a runof-river mode; (2) provide a minimum 

flow in the bypassed reach of 28 cfs; 2

(3) install seasonal trashracks with 1- 

inch spacing; (4) implement a Trashrack 

Operations and Maintenance Plan, a Bat 

and Eagle Protection Plan, an Invasive 

Species Management Plan, and an 

Impoundment Drawdown and 

Cofferdam Plan; and (5) implement 

several improvements to an existing 

fishing platform to make it accessible to 

persons with disabilities, including the 

addition of an accessible parking space, 

an associated access aisle and access 

route from the accessible parking space 

to the fishing platform, and 

modifications to the railing surrounding 

the fishing platform. 

m. A copy of the application is 

available for review via the 

Commission’s website 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 (P–4334). 

For assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support. At this time, the Commission 

has suspended access to the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room 

due to the proclamation declaring a 

National Emergency concerning the 

Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19) 

issued by the President on March 13, 

2020. For assistance, contact FERC at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (866) 208–3676 or (202) 502– 

8659 (TTY). In addition, the public 

portions of the application will be made 

available during regular business hours 

at two locations: (1) EONY’s Lyonsdale, 

NY office located at 7659 Lyonsdale 

Road, Lyons Falls, New York 13368; and 

(2) Bodman Memorial Library located at 

8 Aldrich Street, Philadelphia, New 

York 13673. 

You may also register online at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

esubscription.asp to be notified via 

email of new filings and issuances 

related to this or other pending projects. 

For assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support. 

n. Anyone may submit a protest or a 

motion to intervene in accordance with 

the requirements of Rules of Practice 

and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 

385.211, and 385.214. In determining 

the appropriate action to take, the 

Commission will consider all protests 

filed, but only those who file a motion 

to intervene in accordance with the 

Commission’s Rules may become a 

party to the proceeding. Any protests or 

motions to intervene must be received 

on or before the specified deadline date 

for the particular application. 

All filings must (1) bear in all capital 

letters the title ‘‘PROTEST’’ or 

‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE;’’ (2) set 

forth in the heading the name of the 

applicant and the project number of the 

application to which the filing 

responds; (3) furnish the name, address, 

and telephone number of the person 

protesting or intervening; and (4) 

otherwise comply with the requirements 

of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. 

Agencies may obtain copies of the 

application directly from the applicant. 

A copy of any protest or motion to 

intervene must be served upon each 

representative of the applicant specified 

in the particular application. 

Dated: June 21, 2021. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13600 Filed 6–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. PL21–2–000] 

State Voluntary Agreements To Plan 

and Pay for Transmission Facilities 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of policy statement. 

SUMMARY: This policy statement 

addresses state efforts to develop 

transmission facilities through 

voluntary agreements to plan and pay 

for those facilities. We clarify that 

Voluntary Agreements are not 

categorically precluded by the Federal 

Power Act or the Commission’s existing 

rules and regulations. 

DATES: This policy statement is effective 

June 17, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Tobenkin (Technical 

Information), Office of Energy Policy 

and Innovation, (202) 502–6445, 

david.tobenkin@ferc.gov 

Lina Naik (Legal Information), Office of 

the General Counsel, (202) 502–8882, 

lina.naik@ferc.gov 

Jay Sher (Technical Information), Office 

of Energy Market Regulation, (202) 

502–8921, jay.sher@ferc.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. This policy statement addresses 

state efforts to develop transmission 

facilities through voluntary agreements 

to plan and pay for those facilities 

(Voluntary Agreements). Voluntary 

Agreements include agreements among: 

(1) Two or more states; (2) one or more 

states and one or more public utility 

transmission providers; or (3) two or 

more public utility transmission 

providers. We clarify that Voluntary 

Agreements are not categorically 

precluded by the Federal Power Act 

(FPA) 1 or the Commission’s existing 

rules and regulations, and encourage 

interested parties considering the use of 

such agreements to consult with 

Commission staff. To the extent that 

states, public utility transmission 

providers, or other stakeholders believe 

that the relevant tariffs impose barriers 

to Voluntary Agreements, the 

Commission is open to filings to remove 

or otherwise address those barriers. 

2. Developing cost-effective and 

reliable transmission facilities remains a 

priority of this Commission.2 Voluntary 

Agreements can further those goals by, 

for example, providing states with a way 

to prioritize, plan, and pay for 

transmission facilities that, for whatever 

reason, are not being developed 

pursuant to the regional transmission 

planning processes required by Order 

No. 1000.3 In addition, in some cases, 

Voluntary Agreements may allow stateprioritized transmission facilities to be 

planned and built more quickly than 

would comparable facilities that are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33701 

4See id. PP 561, 724; Order No. 1000–A, 139 

FERC ¶ 61,132 at PP 728–729; see also Order No. 

1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 at P 209 n.189 (‘‘[W]e 

strongly encourage states to participate actively in 

the identification of transmission needs driven by 

Public Policy Requirements. Public utility 

transmission providers, for example, could rely on 

committees of state regulators or, with appropriate 

approval from Congress, compacts between 

interested states to identify transmission needs 

driven by Public Policy Requirements for the public 

utility transmission providers to evaluate in the 

transmission planning process.’’). While we focus 

here on Voluntary Agreements as a potential tool 

for states to advance state policy goals, the policy 

statement does not alter market participants’ ability 

to pursue such arrangements absent state 

involvement. 

5For example, the Commission accepted PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM) State Agreement 

Approach to transmission planning, which is a 

transmission planning and cost allocation 

mechanism supplementary to PJM’s Order No. 1000 

regional transmission planning process. Through 

the State Agreement Approach, one or more state 

governmental entities authorized by their respective 

states, individually or jointly, may agree voluntarily 

to be responsible for the allocation of all costs of 

a proposed transmission facility that addresses state 

public policy requirements identified or accepted 

by the relevant state(s) in the PJM region. See PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C., 142 FERC ¶ 61,214, at PP 

142–143 (2013), order on reh’g and compliance, 147 

FERC ¶ 61,128, at P 92 (2014); PJM, Intra-PJM 

Tariffs, Operating Agreement, sched. 6, section 

1.5.9(a) (State Agreement Approach) (26.0.0). 

Similarly, ISO New England Inc.’s (ISO–NE) tariff 

includes a voluntary process that enables the New 

England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE) 

and state public utility regulators to plan and pay 

for transmission facilities. See ISO New England 

Inc., 143 FERC ¶ 61,150, at P 121 (2013); ISO–NE, 

ISO New England Inc. Transmission, Markets and 

Services Tariff, sched. 12, section B.6 (Public Policy 

Transmission Upgrade Costs) (7.0.0). 

6PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 142 FERC ¶ 61,214 

at P 142. 7 Id. 

8PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 174 FERC ¶ 61,090 

(2021). 9 Id. P 10. 

planned through the regional 

transmission planning process(es). 

3. Nevertheless, we are concerned that 

confusion regarding the relationship 

between Voluntary Agreements and 

Commission rules and regulations may 

be deterring such agreements. 

Accordingly, in this policy statement, 

we clarify that neither the FPA nor the 

Commission’s rules and regulations 

categorically preclude Voluntary 

Agreements among: (1) Two or more 

states; (2) one or more states and one or 

more public utility transmission 

providers; or (3) two or more public 

utility transmission providers to plan 

and pay for new transmission facilities. 

In particular, we note that Order No. 

1000 allows market participants, 

including states, to negotiate voluntarily 

alternative cost sharing arrangements 

that are distinct from the relevant 

regional cost allocation method(s).4

4. As an illustration, we note that the 

Commission accepted certain non-Order 

No. 1000, alternative cost sharing 

arrangements in the context of Order 

No. 1000 compliance filings.5 In the 

case of PJM, the Commission held that 

it ‘‘need not find that the State 

Agreement Approach and 

corresponding cost allocation method 

comply with Order No. 1000.’’ 6

Specifically, with regard to PJM’s State 

Agreement Approach, the Commission 

found the approach supplemented and 

did ‘‘not conflict or otherwise replace’’ 

PJM’s Order No. 1000 process to 

consider transmission needs driven by 

public policy requirements.7

5. More recently, the Commission 

approved a study agreement that 

initiated a Voluntary Agreement process 

in PJM. There, the New Jersey Board of 

Public Utilities (New Jersey Board), 

acting pursuant to PJM’s State 

Agreement Approach, issued an order 

formally requesting that PJM open a 

competitive proposal window to solicit 

proposals for transmission facilities to 

expand the PJM transmission system 

and to identify system improvements to 

interconnect and provide for the 

deliverability of 7,500 MW of offshore 

wind generation into New Jersey by 

2035. The New Jersey Board and PJM 

entered into a study agreement directing 

PJM to solicit proposals for possible 

transmission facilities and analyze them 

to determine the more efficient or costeffective enhancement or expansion of 

transmission facilities to meet New 

Jersey’s offshore wind goals.8 The New 

Jersey Board explained that this type of 

collaborative approach to transmission 

planning will help ensure that the highvoltage transmission system 

accommodates state clean energy 

policies and represents a type of statefederal collaboration consistent with 

Commission rules and regulations.9

6. To the extent that states or public 

utility transmission providers believe 

there are barriers to Voluntary 

Agreements in Commissionjurisdictional tariffs or other 

agreements, we encourage them to 

identify those barriers and, as necessary, 

consider making filings before this 

Commission to address those barriers. 

Commission staff is available to consult 

on these issues as states, public utility 

transmission providers, and other 

stakeholders consider addressing such 

barriers and the topic of Voluntary 

Agreements more generally. We 

encourage relevant parties to contact 

Commission staff regarding all potential 

Voluntary Agreements. 

I. Document Availability 

7. 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 (https://

www.ferc.gov). At this time, the 

Commission has suspended access to 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, due to the proclamation 

declaring a National Emergency 

concerning the Novel Coronavirus 

Disease (COVID–19), issued by the 

President on March 13, 2020. 

8. 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. 

9. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s website 

during normal business hours from the 

Commission’s Online Support at (202) 

502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) 

or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, 

or the Public Reference Room at (202) 

502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email 

the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Commissioner Chatterjee is not 

participating. 

Commissioner Danly is concurring 

with a separate statement attached. 

Commissioner Christie is concurring 

with a separate statement attached. 

Issued: June 17, 2021. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

Department of Energy 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

State Voluntary Agreements To Plan 

and Pay for Transmission Facilities 

PL21–2–000 

DANLY, Commissioner, concurring: 

1. I concur in the issuance of this 

policy statement on state voluntary 

agreements to plan and pay for 

transmission facilities. I do not know 

what it accomplishes, but we are not 

‘‘categorically precluded’’ from issuing 

it, and if there is a chance that it can 

help critical transmission infrastructure 

to be built, then I see no reason to 

oppose it. 

2. The policy states that ‘‘[W]e are 

concerned that confusion regarding the 

relationship between Voluntary 

Agreements and Commission rules and 

regulations may be deterring [Voluntary] 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
33702 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 

1State Voluntary Agreements to Plan and Pay for 

Transmission Facilities, 175 FERC ¶ 61,225, at P 3 

(2021) (Policy Statement). 

2 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq. 

3Policy Statement, 175 FERC ¶ 61,225 at P 1. 

4 Id. P 6. 

1State Voluntary Agreements to Plan and Pay for 

Transmission Facilities, 175 FERC ¶ 61,225 (2021) 

(Policy Statement). 

2See Policy Statement at PP 3–4, nn.4–5. 

3See id. at n.4. Interstate compacts among states 

must be approved by Congress. U.S. Const. art.1, 

section 10, cl. 3. 

4Policy Statement at n.5 (citing PJM’s State 

Agreement Approach as an example of a vehicle by 

which a state or states may voluntarily pursue 

transmission projects to fulfill their own individual 

public policies and bear the costs of such policydriven projects themselves.). 

5Technically speaking, state-regulated utilities 

participate in RTOs/ISOs, subject to state law. 

6See Regional Transmission Organizations, Order 

No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,089 (1999) 

(cross-referenced at 89 FERC ¶ 61,285), order on 

reh’g, Order No. 2000–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,092 (2000) (cross-referenced at 90 FERC 

¶ 61,201), aff’d sub nom. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of 

Snohomish Cty. v. FERC, 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 

2001). Order No. 2000 was issued in 1999 and 

established criteria for RTOs/ISOs. 

7The restructuring era was short-lived. Several 

states subsequently reversed their earlier decisions 

and returned to some form of vertical integration. 

See Tyson Slocum, The Failure of Electricity 

Deregulation: History, Status and Needed Reforms, 

Public Citizen’s Energy Program, March 2007, at 5; 

see, e.g., Ch. 933, 2007 Va. Acts of Assembly (April 

4, 2007). Restructuring was sometimes inaccurately 

called ‘‘deregulation,’’ which implied a move from 

highly structured cost-of-service regulation to true 

free markets in power supply, but it was typically 

more a swap of one complicated regulatory 

construct for another one just as vulnerable to rentseeking. See, e.g., Severin Borenstein and James 

Bushnell, The U.S. Electricity Industry after 20 

Years of Restructuring, National Bureau of 

Economic Research, April 2015, at Abstract (‘‘We 

argue that the greatest political motivation for 

restructuring was rent shifting, not efficiency 

improvements, and that this explanation is 

supported by observed waxing and waning of 

political enthusiasm for electricity reform.’’); see 

also id. at 1. 

8The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a 

definition of economic dispatch: as ‘‘the operation 

of generation facilities to produce energy at the 

lowest cost to reliably serve consumers, recognizing 

any operational limits of generation and 

transmission facilities.’’ Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPAct 2005), Public Law 109–58, 1234(b), 119 Stat. 

594, 960 (2005) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 16432(b)) 

(emphasis added). 

9This divergence did not happen yesterday, but 

has been building. One commentator wrote ten 

years ago that ‘‘. . . state legislation and regulatory 

choices continue to push the electricity industries 

of the various states along vastly different paths.’’ 

Ari Peskoe, A Challenge for Federalism: Achieving 

National Goals in the Electricity Industry, 18 Mo. 

Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 209, 211 (2011) (‘‘Peskoe’’) 

(emphasis added). 

10For over half a century, PJM was a power pool. 

See https://pjm.com/about-pjm/who-we-are/pjmhistory. 

agreements.’’ 1 We do not cite any 

examples of such confusion, but—who 

knows—it may well exist. 

3. To attempt to dispel this possible 

confusion, we ‘‘clarify that Voluntary 

Agreements are not categorically 

precluded by the Federal Power Act 

(FPA) 2 or the Commission’s existing 

rules and regulations.’’ 3 This amounts 

to a declaration that the FPA and 

existing rules and regulations do not 

obviously prohibit all Voluntary 

Agreements—I have no quarrel with 

that. But I do believe it necessary to 

remind everyone that each Voluntary 

Agreement must still individually pass 

muster under our statute and 

regulations. 

4. The actual policy in our statement 

is an invitation: 

To the extent that states or public 

utility transmission providers believe 

there are barriers to Voluntary 

Agreements in Commissionjurisdictional tariffs or other 

agreements, we encourage them to 

identify those barriers and, as necessary, 

consider making filings before this 

Commission to address those barriers.4

5. We do not need a policy statement 

to invite filings. But there is no harm in 

it. I also invite and welcome filings 

before the Commission so that we can 

ensure that critical transmission, and 

critical natural gas pipelines, and other 

critical infrastructure, can obtain the 

approvals and regulatory certainty they 

require in order to be built. 

For these reasons, I respectfully 

concur. 

James P. Danly, 

Commissioner. 

Department of Energy 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

State Voluntary Agreements To Plan 

and Pay for Transmission Facilities 

Docket No. PL21–2–000 

CHRISTIE, Commissioner, concurring: 

1. I concur and write separately to add 

the following. 

2. Today’s Policy Statement 1

reaffirms that voluntary agreements 

among states to promote transmission 

development to meet state public 

policies are not categorically precluded 

by Commission rules and regulations. 

Order No. 1000 made clear that states 

voluntarily could negotiate alternative 

cost sharing arrangements that are 

distinct from the relevant regional cost 

allocation method 2 and that order 

highlighted a vehicle for multiple states 

to cooperate, interstate compacts.3 As 

the Policy Statement notes, the 

Commission has accepted certain 

alternative cost sharing arrangements in 

the context of Order No. 1000 

compliance filings.4 I would note that 

voluntary agreements are open to all 

states without regard to whether they 

participate in Regional Transmission 

Organizations (RTOs) or Independent 

System Operators (ISOs) 5 and they need 

not be limited in purpose to 

transmission only. Relevant history 

illustrates. 

3. RTOs/ISOs 6 were established more 

than two decades ago during the 

‘‘restructuring’’ era that saw about half 

the states initially adopt some version of 

policies requiring their verticallyintegrated utilities to divest or at least 

‘‘functionally separate’’ their generating 

assets, which were then supposed to 

compete on price in RTO/ISO markets 

with independent power producers 

(‘‘IPPs,’’ sometimes called ‘‘NUGS’’ for 

non-utility generators—the acronyms 

float like confetti in this business).7

4. Importantly, the states which chose 

to participate in RTO/ISO markets 

during the restructuring era shared a 

general consensus that the purpose of 

RTOs/ISOs was to plan the regional 

transmission necessary to promote 

reliability at the least-cost to consumers 

and to operate energy and capacity 

markets to provide consumers with 

least-cost power on a nondiscriminatory basis, i.e., without regard 

to the source of the electrons 

(sometimes called ‘‘economic 

dispatch’’). Federal regulation reflected 

this consensus about the purpose of 

RTOs/ISOs.8

5. That consensus no longer exists at 

either the state or federal levels. The 

past several years have seen an 

increasing divergence of public policies 

in states that are members of multi-state 

RTOs/ISOs, over such fundamental 

issues as mandated resource mixes, 

compensation in capacity markets, 

transmission planning criteria and cost 

allocation, and carbon taxes.9 The 

disappearance of the original consensus 

about the purpose of RTO/ISO markets 

has serious implications across a range 

of issues, but the adoption of this Policy 

Statement by the Commission offers a 

good time to emphasize that states that 

wish to cooperate with other states 

which share similar public-policy 

goals—whether environmental, 

reliability or economic—have options 

for achieving regional benefits outside 

the context of RTO/ISO participation. 

6. In particular, I would point out that 

while this Policy Statement emphasizes 

the potential availability of voluntary 

agreements among states to promote 

interstate transmission development, 

voluntary state agreements may also be 

available for other purposes. Before the 

restructuring era, many state-regulated 

utilities participated in multi-state 

power pools 10 designed to support 

reliability by wheeling power from state 

to state when needed to avoid load 

shedding, as well as facilitating bilateral 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Notices 33703 

11See generally Peskoe at 223–24. Any 

application to this Commission to establish a power 

pool or other similar arrangement will, of course, 

come with its own specific evidentiary record and 

will be considered individually under applicable 

laws at the time. 

12Power pools were generally regulated by the 

Federal Power Commission, and later by FERC. See, 

e.g., id. Congress could, however, through enabling 

legislation, grant various regulatory powers to the 

requesting states which seek to participate in a 

power pool arrangement. For example, Congress 

could include in such grant of authority an explicit 

power to apply a carbon tax to wholesale 

transactions in a power pool if such power was 

requested by the member states, avoiding the many 

questions attendant to whether RTOs/ISOs 

themselves have such power. See Carbon Pricing in 

Organized Wholesale Electricity Markets, 175 FERC 

¶ 61,036 (2021) (Christie, Comm’r concurring in 

part and dissenting in part at PP 12–14, 17–24 

(available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/ 

news/item-e-2-commissioner-mark-c-christieconcurring-part-and-dissenting-part)). 

13For an example of such a broad grant of power 

to the states, Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 allowed three or more contiguous states to 

enter into a compact, subject to the approval by 

Congress, to form their own regional transmission 

siting entities that would have siting authority for 

those states. EPAct 2005, Public Law 109–58, 

section 1221(i), 119 Stat. 594, 950 (2005) (codified 

at 16 U.S.C. 824p(i)). 

sales of excess power.11 These sales 

would benefit customers of the selling 

utility, when booked as a customer 

credit for off-system sales, and benefit 

customers of the purchasing utility 

when booked in the ‘‘fuel factor’’ at cost, 

with no return on equity (ROE) applied. 

7. Options such as these are still 

available. Through the use of interstate 

compacts, enabling legislation 12 could 

create multi-state entities that can plan 

transmission projects—as this Policy 

Statement encourages—but such entities 

also could be designed to function as 

modern, innovative versions of power 

pools aligned with the member states’ 

public policies as to resource adequacy 

and preferences. The enabling 

legislation could also ensure a sufficient 

state role in the governance to ensure 

that the authority was used only in 

accordance with member-state 

policies.13

8. States sharing similar public 

policies which desire to collaborate 

with each other to obtain the benefits of 

regional cooperation have innovative 

options to explore and consider whether 

they participate in an RTO/ISO or do 

not. The adoption of this Policy 

Statement is a good time to emphasize 

that opportunity. 

For these reasons, I respectfully 

concur. 

Mark C. Christie, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13440 Filed 6–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–10025–03–OP] 

Request for Nominations of 

Candidates for the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee (CASAC) 

Particulate Matter (PM) Panel 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) Staff Office requests public 

nominations of scientific experts for the 

CASAC PM Panel. This panel will 

provide advice through the chartered 

CASAC on updates to the science and 

policy assessments supporting the 

agency’s reconsideration of the 

December 2020 decision to retain the 

PM National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). 

DATES: Nominations should be 

submitted by July 16, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public wishing further 

information regarding this Notice and 

Request for Nominations may contact 

Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal 

Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by 

telephone/voice mail at (202) 564–2050 

or via email at yeow.aaron@epa.gov. 

General information concerning the 

CASAC can be found on the following 

website: https://epa.gov/casac. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The CASAC was 

established pursuant to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, 

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to 

review air quality criteria and NAAQS 

and recommend to the EPA 

Administrator any new NAAQS and 

revisions of existing criteria and 

NAAQS as may be appropriate. The 

CASAC shall also: Advise the EPA 

Administrator of areas in which 

additional knowledge is required to 

appraise the adequacy and basis of 

existing, new, or revised NAAQS; 

describe the research efforts necessary 

to provide the required information; 

advise the EPA Administrator on the 

relative contribution to air pollution 

concentrations of natural as well as 

anthropogenic activity; and advise the 

EPA Administrator of any adverse 

public health, welfare, social, economic, 

or energy effects which may result from 

various strategies for attainment and 

maintenance of such NAAQS. As 

amended, 5 U.S.C., App. Section 

109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires that EPA carry out a periodic 

review and revision, as appropriate, of 

the air quality criteria and the NAAQS 

for the six ‘‘criteria’’ air pollutants, 

including PM. The ecological effects of 

PM will be covered as part of the 

ongoing review of the secondary 

NAAQS for oxides of nitrogen, oxides of 

sulfur, and PM. 

The EPA Administrator recently 

announced his decision to reconsider 

the December 2020 decision to retain 

the particulate matter (PM) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). These standards were last 

revised in 2012. EPA is reconsidering 

the 2020 decision because available 

scientific evidence and technical 

information suggests that the current 

standards may not be adequate to 

protect public health and welfare. EPA 

has requested that CASAC review 

updates to the science and policy 

assessments that will supplement the 

existing record. The CASAC PM Panel 

will provide advice through the 

Chartered CASAC. 

The CASAC is a Federal advisory 

committee chartered under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As a 

Federal Advisory Committee, the 

CASAC conducts business in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 

2) and related regulations. The CASAC 

and the CASAC PM Panel will comply 

with the provisions of FACA and all 

appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural 

policies. 

Request for Nominations: The SAB 

Staff Office is seeking nominations of 

nationally and internationally 

recognized scientists with demonstrated 

expertise and research in the field of air 

pollution related to criteria pollutants. 

For the CASAC PM Panel, experts are 

being sought in the following fields, 

especially with respect to PM: Air 

quality and climate responses, 

atmospheric science and chemistry, 

toxicology, controlled human exposure 

studies, epidemiology, biostatistics, 

exposure assessment/modeling, risk 

assessment/modeling, and visibility 

impairment. 

Process and Deadline for Submitting 

Nominations: Any interested person or 

organization may nominate qualified 

individuals in the areas of expertise 

described above. Individuals may selfnominate. Nominations should be 

submitted in electronic format 

(preferred) using the online nomination 

form under ‘‘Public Input on 

Membership’’ on the CASAC web page 

at https://epa.gov/casac. To be 

considered, all nominations should 

include the information requested 

below. EPA values and welcomes 

diversity. All qualified candidates are 

encouraged to apply regardless of sex, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1