UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C.)Docket No. ER17-75-000

)

MOTION TO INTERVENE OUT OF TIME, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER AND
ANSWER OF THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”), respectfully moves to
intervene out of time, moves for leave to answer and submits an answer to the protest filed by
Lackawanna Energy Center LLC (“Lackawanna”) in the captioned docket.1 The NYISO should
be permitted to intervene in this proceeding which involves a dispute over terms in an
unexecuted Interconnection Service Agreement (the “Interconnection Agreement”) among PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”), PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (“PPL”) and Lackawanna -
terms regarding the construction of upgrades identified by the NYISO to mitigate the adverse
impacts to the New York State Transmission System caused by the Lackawanna project.
The NYISO’s late intervention will not disrupt the proceeding or prejudice any party. To the contrary, the NYISO’s intervention and answer to the protest filed by Lackawanna2 clarifies issues raised by Lackawanna and provides a more complete record to assist the Commission in this proceeding.

1 NYISO submits this filing pursuant to Rules 212, 213 and 214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission’s (“FERC” or “Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure. See 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212, 385.213 and 385.214 (2016).

2 See Motion to Intervene and Protest of Lackawanna Energy Center LLC and Request for Expedited

Issuance of an Order Accepting for Filing and Modifying Interconnection Service Agreement, Docket No. ER17-75-
000 (October 18, 2016) (“Lackawanna Protest”).

As discussed in more detail below, the Lackawanna Protest submits extensive

information that goes beyond the limited issues before the Commission. Lackawanna raises
concerns about a pending Interconnection Impact Study being performed by the NYISO as an
Affected System for the Lackawanna interconnection (“Affected System Study”); however,
Lackawanna’s concerns regarding this study are not ripe for Commission action and are beyond the scope of the limited issues before the Commission in this proceeding.
Lackawanna acknowledges that the Protest is limited to the very narrow issue of whether PJM appropriately proposes to limit Lackawanna’s injection and Capacity Interconnection
Rights until required upgrades are constructed.3 The NYISO fully supports PJM’s inclusion of the disputed terms in the Interconnection Agreement to the extent such provisions are required under the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (“PJM Tariff”).4 Further, NYISO agrees that limiting the injection of the Lackawanna project until all required upgrades are constructed is
necessary to protect the New York State Transmission System.5

I. BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO THE LACKAWANNA PROTEST

Consistent with its obligations under the Amended and Restated Northeastern ISO/RTO
Planning Coordination Protocol among the NYISO, PJM and ISO-New England, PJM identified
the NYISO as a system potentially impacted by the proposed Lackawanna project. PJM
subsequently included the NYISO as an Affected System in the PJM interconnection studies for
the Lackawanna project.6 NYISO provided a preliminary report on its Affected System Study to

3 Id.

4 See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Filing, Docket No. ER17-75-000 (November 2, 2016) (“PJM Answer”).
5 Id.

6 Under the PJM Tariff, an “Affected System” is “[a] An electric system other than the Transmission
Provider’s Transmission System that may be affected by a proposed interconnection or on which a proposed

Lackawanna, PJM and the affected Transmission Owners (i.e., PPL and National Grid),

identifying transfer limit degradations that require mitigation in the form of upgrades. NYISO continues its technical evaluation regarding the viability of alternative upgrades to mitigate the adverse impacts of the Lackawanna project on the reliability of the New York State
Transmission System, and continues to provide Lackawanna, PJM, PPL and National Grid the opportunity to review and comment on the NYISO’s analyses.

On October 12, 2016, in the midst of the above-referenced technical analysis, PJM filed
(at Lackawanna’s request) an unexecuted Interconnection Agreement among PJM, Lackawanna
and PPL.7 Among the provisions in the Interconnection Agreement are two provisions specific
to the NYISO. First, the Interconnection Agreement includes a milestone in Section 6.5
requiring Lackawanna to enter into a Facilities Construction Agreement with the NYISO for the
construction of any upgrades identified by the NYISO in its Affected System Study.8 Second,
Section 2.1a of the Interconnection Agreement limits the total injections from the Lackawanna
facility to 1,000 MW until all network upgrades required on the NYISO transmission system are
completed and in service.9 Lackawanna disputes the language in Section 2.1a of the
Interconnection Agreement.

On October 18, 2016, Lackawanna filed a Motion to Intervene and Protest to the PJM
Filing. Lackawanna’s Protest requests that the Commission direct PJM to remove the language
in Section 2.1a of the Interconnection Agreement that limits the injections from the Lackawanna
facility until all network upgrades required on the NYISO transmission system are completed

interconnection or addition of facilities or upgrades may require modifications or upgrades to the Transmission System.” See PJM Tariff, Section 1.01A.

7 See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Filing, Docket No. ER17-75-000 (October 12, 2016) (“PJM Filing”).

8 Id. at 4.

9 Id. at 5.

and in service. Among the issues raised in the Lackawanna Protest, although admittedly not

issues for the Commission’s determination,10 are the analyses and results of NYISO’s Affected System Study regarding the impacts of the Lackawanna facility on the New York State
Transmission System.11

II.COMMUNICATIONS

Copies of correspondence concerning this filing should be served on:

Robert E. Fernandez, General Counsel

Raymond Stalter, Director of Regulatory Affairs *Sara B. Keegan, Senior Attorney

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

10 Krey Boulevard

Rensselaer, NY 12144
Tel: (518) 356-8554
rfernandez@nyiso.com
rstalter@nyiso.com
skeegan@nyiso.com

*Person designated for service.

III.MOTION TO INTERVENE

The NYISO is the independent body responsible for providing open access transmission
service, maintaining reliability, and administering competitive wholesale markets for electricity,
capacity, and ancillary services in New York State. Additionally, the NYISO administers the
interconnection process pursuant to its Commission-approved tariffs. The NYISO was identified
by PJM as potentially impacted by the Lackawanna project and as a result, has been included as
an Affected System in PJM’s interconnection studies evaluating the Lackawanna project. The
NYISO is currently finalizing its Interconnection Impact Study report regarding adverse impacts

10 Lackawanna Protest at 21.

11 Lackawanna Protest at 5.

the Lackawanna project has on the New York State Transmission System, and the specific

upgrades required to mitigate such impacts. The NYISO, therefore, has a unique interest in this
proceeding that cannot be adequately represented by any other entity and requests that the
Commission permit the NYISO to intervene with all the rights of a party.
The NYISO submits that good cause exists for the Commission to grant this motion to intervene out of time in accordance with Rule 214(d), 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(d). The NYISO was unable to timely intervene because the NYISO was not made aware of this proceeding until
November 2, 2016. The NYISO therefore requests that the Commission permit it to intervene in
this proceeding.

V.MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER

The Commission has discretion to accept, and has accepted, answers to responsive

pleadings when doing so assures a complete record, provides helpful information, permits the
issues to be narrowed or clarified, or aids the Commission in understanding and resolving
issues.12 This answer satisfies these standards because it is narrowly drawn to clarify certain
issues raised in the Lackawanna Protest - namely to (1) correct misstatements regarding the
Lackawanna project’s adverse impact on the reliability of the New York State Transmission
System; and (2) clarify the status of the ongoing study by the NYISO regarding the Lackawanna
project, concerns about which are not ripe for Commission’s consideration or determination in
this proceeding.

12 See, e.g., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 134 FERC ¶ 61,058 at P 24 (2011) (accepting the answers to protests and answers because they provided information that aided the Commission in better
understanding the matters at issue in the proceeding); New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 140 FERC ¶ 61,160 at P 13 (2012) and PJM Interconnection, LLC, 132 FERC ¶ 61,217 at P 9 (2010) (accepting answers to
answers and protests because they assisted in the Commission’s decision-making process).

VI.ANSWER

A. The Interconnection Agreement Appropriately Limits Lackawanna’s Output Prior to
Completion of Required Upgrades.

The Commission need not address the concerns related to the NYISO’s Affected System
Study or other issues that are beyond the scope of the limited issue in dispute. Lackawanna
raises concerns as tangential as the NYISO’s economic and public policy planning processes.13
These issues have no relevance to the issues in dispute in the Lackawanna Interconnection
Agreement.

Lackawanna acknowledges that it is not asking the Commission to resolve any issue
other than the limitations the Interconnection Agreement imposes on Lackawanna’s injection
capability and Capacity Interconnection Rights pending completion of all required upgrades:

To be clear, for purposes of addressing this Protest, Lackawanna is

not asking the Commission to resolve any challenge to any of

PJM’s or the NYISO’s factual assertions,14 or to evaluate whether
NYISO correctly performed its studies, or whether it correctly
identified the upgrades required to mitigate interface degradation
attributable to a 13 MW flow on the Huntley-Sawyer 230 kV line
or whether Lackawanna should be required to pay for those
upgrades.15

Therefore, the Commission need not at this time evaluate the standards, methodology, upgrades
or cost estimates being developed by the NYISO in its Affected System Study.
The results of NYISO’s Affected System Study are not ripe for Commission
consideration. The evaluations are not yet complete. To the extent Lackawanna disputes the
NYISO’s ultimate study results, upgrades and/or cost estimates for the required upgrades, the

13 Lackawanna Protest at 16-19.

14 It is unclear to which “factual assertions” Lackawanna refers to here.

15 Lackawanna Protest at 21.

appropriate forum for such a dispute would be the filing with the Commission of the applicable construction agreement for the construction of such upgrades.

B. Necessary Clarifications to Assertions in the Lackawanna Protest

While the Commission need not issue a determination regarding the NYISO’s Affected
System study, the NYISO would like to clarify several issues for the Commission. First, the
adverse impacts on the New York State Transmission System seen in the NYISO’s Affected
System Study are not pre-existing issues; they are adverse impacts seen only with the addition of the Lackawanna project. Second, contrary to the indications in the Lackawanna Protest, the
transfer limit degradation that results from adding the Lackawanna project is not 13 MW; but is in excess of 200 MW. Lackawanna’s repeated characterization of this significant degradation as “de minimis” is therefore inaccurate.16

Third, the adverse impacts at issue are not economic issues related to congestion, but
rather, are reliability concerns related to the NYISO’s ability to manage flows over interfaces
critical to the New York State Transmission System. The Affected System Study performed by
the NYISO reveals significant degradations in transfer limit capability with resulting adverse
impacts on key interfaces. Degradation of interface transfer capability requires mitigation so as
not to hinder the NYISO’s ability to operate its systems in a reliable manner. The NYISO’s

identification of such degradations in its Affected System Study is therefore entirely appropriate.
To the extent the Affected System Study identifies upgrades required to mitigate Lackawanna’s
impact on such degradations of transfer capability, it is equally appropriate, indeed necessary, for
PJM to limit Lackawanna’s interconnection rights until such time as the required upgrades are in
place.

16 Id. at 7-10, 21, 29, 32-35.

VII. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. respectfully requests that the Commission grant this motion to intervene out of time, grant this motion for leave to answer and consider this Answer in its determination on the issues in dispute in this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sara B. Keegan

Sara B. Keegan
Senior Attorney

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

November 10, 2016

cc:Michael Bardee

Anna Cochrane
Kurt Longo
Max Minzner
Daniel Nowak
Larry Parkinson

J. Arnold Quinn
Douglas Roe

Kathleen Schnorf
Jamie Simler
Gary Will

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person

designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding in accordance
with the requirements of Rule 2010 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §
385.2010.

Dated at Rensselaer, NY this 10th day of November 2016.

By:/s/ John C. Cutting

John C. Cutting

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

10 Krey Blvd.

Rensselaer, NY 12144 (518) 356-7521