PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Linden VFT, LLC

)

Complainant,

)

Docket No. EL12-64-000

)

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

)

Respondent

)

ANSWER OF THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC.

Pursuant to Rule 2131 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the New

York Independent System Operator (“NYISO”) respectfully submits this answer to the May 4,

2012 complaint filed by Linden VFT, LLC (“Linden VFT”) in this proceeding (“Complaint”).

Linden VFT alleges that the NYISO has acted in a discriminatory manner with regard to Linden

VFT’s Merchant Transmission Facility2 that connects the transmission systems operated by PJM

Interconnection, LLC and the NYISO (“Linden VFT Project”). Linden VFT requests that the

Commission direct the NYISO to award the Linden VFT Project an additional 15 MW of

Unforced Capacity Delivery Rights (“UDR”), without requiring the submission of a new

Interconnection Request.

Linden VFT has failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that the NYISO violated its

tariffs or acted in a discriminatory manner. As demonstrated herein, the NYISO’s determination

was consistent with its tariffs and Commission precedent requiring the submission of an

1 18 C.F.R. § 385.213 (2011).

2 Terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set

forth in the NYISO’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”), or, if not defined therein, in the

NYISO’s Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (“Services Tariff”).

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

Interconnection Request for any increase in the capacity of an existing facility. Thus, the

Complaint must be denied.

COMMUNICATIONS

Communications regarding this proceeding should be addressed to:

Robert E. Fernandez, General Counsel

* Vanessa A. Colón

Raymond Stalter, Director of Regulatory Affairs

Hunton & Williams LLP

* Karen G. Gach, Deputy General Counsel

Bank of America Center

Sara B. Keegan, Senior Attorney

700 Louisiana St., Suite 4200

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

Houston, TX 77002

10 Krey Boulevard

Tel: (713) 229-5724

Rensselaer, NY 12144

Fax: (713) 229-5782

Tel: (518) 356-6103

vcolon@hunton.com

Fax: (518) 356-7678

rfernandez@nyiso.com

*J. Kennerly Davis3

rstalter@nyiso.com

Hunton & Williams LLP

kgach@nyiso.com

951 East Byrd Street

skeegan@nyiso.com

Richmond, VA 23219

Tel: (804) 788-8200

Fax: (804) 788-8218

kdavis@hunton.com

* Persons designated to receive service

II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Linden VFT Project is a 300 MW Merchant Transmission Facility. Linden VFT

submitted its first interconnection request for the project on July 18, 2002.4 This was prior to the

issuance of the Commission’s Order No. 20035 and the NYISO’s compliance filing in response

3 Waiver of the Commission’s regulations (18 C.F.R. § 385.203(b)(3) (2011)) is requested to the

extent necessary to permit service on counsel for the NYISO in both Richmond, VA and Houston, TX.

4 See Complaint at Exhibit 3A - NYISO Interconnection Request (July 10, 2002).

5 Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003,

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 (2003), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160,

order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,171 (2004), order on reh’g, Order No.

2003-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,190 (2005), aff'd sub nom. Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v.

FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

to that order. On January 20, 2004, the NYISO submitted compliance filings in response to

Order No. 2003’s directives, including tariff revisions to implement the OATT Attachment X

Large Facility Interconnection Procedures (“LFIP”). On August 6, 2004, the Commission

accepted the NYISO’s LFIP (“August 2004 Order”),6 subject to additional compliance filings.

The Commission-accepted LFIP included new tariff provisions regarding the rules for new

Interconnection Requests. Most relevantly, the LFIP included the Commission’s pro forma

definition of Interconnection Request7 which clearly requires the submission of a new

Interconnection Request for any increase in capacity to an existing facility.

Pursuant to the LFIP, the Linden VFT Project was studied as a 300 MW project in the

Class Year 2006 Interconnection Facilities Study and completed all of its Interconnection Studies

in 2007. The Commission accepted the Interconnection Agreement on April 29, 2008, effective

February 29, 2008.8 The Interconnection Agreement provided that the Linden VFT Project

would consist of three 100 MW variable frequency transformers (“VFTs”), associated

transmission facilities, and appurtenant equipment with a total transmission transfer capacity of

300 MW.

On October 5, 2007, the NYISO submitted a compliance filing in response to

Commission directives in the August 2004 Order which proposed a Consensus Deliverability

Plan9 for the establishment of Capacity Rights Interconnection Service (“CRIS”).10 The

6 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 108 FERC ¶ 61,159 (2004) (“August 2004

Order”).

7 See Docket No. RM02-1-000 Compliance Filing at Attachment I at Original Sheet No. 745,

Docket No. ER04-449-000 (filed January 20, 2004).

8New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 123 FERC ¶ 61,093 (2008).

9 See Consensus Deliverability Plan of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and the

New York Transmission Owners at 6, Docket No. ER04-449-016 (filed October 5, 2007).

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

Consensus Deliverability Plan proposed to grandfather projects prior to Class Year 2007 from

the deliverability requirements by granting them a pre-determined level of CRIS. The

Commission accepted the Consensus Deliverability Plan, directing the NYISO to file

compliance tariff revisions.11 In that order, the Commission found that all projects prior to Class

Year 2007, including the Linden VFT Project, would be grandfathered from the deliverability

requirement.12

The Commission issued an order in January 15, 200913 accepting the tariff sheets

containing a detailed implementation of the framework contained in the Consensus

Deliverability Plan. With respect to controllable lines, like the Linden VFT Project, the accepted

tariff language provides that “the CRIS capacity level for controllable lines pre-dating Class

Year 2007 will be set at the MWs of Unforced Deliverability Rights awarded to them.”14 An

entity may request Unforced Capacity Deliverability Rights (“UDRs”) rights for new,

incremental, controllable transmission projects that connect a Locality in the New York Control

Area (“NYCA”) to a non-constrained, non-Locality region of the NYCA or an External Control

Area.15 The NYISO assigns the UDRs, measured in an amount of MW.16

10 CRIS is required for generators in order for them to participate in the capacity market, and for

Merchant Transmission Facilities requesting UDRs. Their capacity must be found deliverable or their

facility must agree to fund transmission upgrades necessary to make the capacity deliverable. See OATT

Attachment S, § 25.3.1.

11 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 122 FERC ¶ 61,267 (2008).

12 Id. at PP 63-67.

13 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 126 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2009).

14 See OATT Attachment S § 25.9.3.1.

15 See Services Tariff § 2.21 at definition of “Unforced Capacity Deliverability Right”; see also

NYISO Installed Capacity Manual at § 4.14 (January 2012) available at

<http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/documents/manuals/operations/icap_mnl.pdf> (“ICAP Manual”).

16 See ICAP Manual at § 4.14, et seq.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

On May 16, 2007, Linden VFT formally requested 300 MW of UDRs for the project.17

On June 13, 2008, the NYISO granted Linden VFT’s request. In October 2009, more than two

years after its request for UDRs, the Linden VFT Project conducted its pre-commercial

operations testing, and, according to Linden VFT, it became apparent that the facility was

capable of producing 315 MW.18 On November 13, 2009, after the project achieved commercial

operation, albeit in limited operations,19 Linden VFT requested that the NYISO increase the

number of UDRs granted to 315 MW to reflect the project’s actual transmission transfer

capability. Linden VFT indicated that the 15 MW increase was the result of capabilities proven

during facility testing and did not involve any changes to the project. On January 15, 2010, the

NYISO denied the request and informed Linden VFT that it was required to submit a new

Interconnection Request to increase its capacity from the current 300 MW.

On February 26, 2010, Linden VFT submitted a new Interconnection Request for the

additional 15 MW noting that it “reserves the right to dispute the determination of the NYISO …

rejecting Linden VFT’s request for an additional 15 MW of UDRs and require a separate

interconnection request.” A System Reliability Impact Study was completed for the requested 15

MW increase, and Linden VFT signed a Facilities Study Agreement with the NYISO and the

Connecting Transmission Owner. Additionally, the requested 15 MW increase is being studied

as part of the Class Year 2011 Interconnection Facilities Study, which is currently well

17 See Attachment 2 - May 16, 2007 Letter from Mr. Andrew Kelemen, Vice President East Coast

Power LLC to Mr. Henry Chao requesting 300 MW UDR and attaching information to support the

request (“2007 UDR Request”).

18 All projects are required to conduct pre-commercial operation testing under Article 6 of the pro

forma Interconnection Agreement.

19 Pursuant to Article 5.9 of the Interconnection Agreement, Linden VFT commenced

Commercial Operations prior to Linden VFT’s completion of the construction of certain required system

upgrades. Linden VFT’s construction of the system upgrades has been delayed.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

underway. On September 27, 2011,20 Linden VFT provided a Notice of Dispute requesting

dispute resolution regarding its disagreement with NYISO’s January 15, 2010 determination.

III.

ANSWER

The NYISO Complied With its Tariffs When it Grandfathered the Linden

VFT Project From the Deliverability Requirement at 300 MW of CRIS

Linden VFT materially misrepresents the tariff requirements when it states that the

OATT provisions implementing the Deliverability Plan state that the amount of

grandfathered Capacity for all existing facilities and pre-Class Year 2007 projects

would be determined by the highest value achieved in a test of each project’s

actual physical capability.

Similarly, Linden VFT’s contention that the NYISO must recognize “315 MW as the Project’s

CRIS value because that is the transmission capability to which it is entitled as a grandfathered

2006 Class Year Project”21 conflicts with the clear language of the OATT.

When the NYISO’s tariff was amended in 2009 to add a second level of interconnection

service that included a deliverability requirement (i.e. CRIS), existing projects and certain

proposed projects were grandfathered from the new deliverability requirement. Accordingly, the

tariff language implementing deliverability explicitly addresses how facilities were

grandfathered from deliverability. First, the tariff identifies which facilities are grandfathered,

which were all facilities predating Class Year 2007. Second, the tariff sets forth the process by

which the NYISO determines the CRIS MW level at which each facility would be grandfathered

20 Linden VFT asserts that requiring a new Interconnection Request has resulted in delays due to

the need to perform necessary studies which have caused it to incur additional costs. See, e.g., Complaint

at 5. However, more than two years have passed between the date the NYISO formally determined that

the 15 MW increase requires a new Interconnection Request and the filing of this Complaint. The

interconnection process for Linden VFT’s new Interconnection Request for the 15 MW increase has

progressed significantly during that time.

21 Complaint at 17; see also Complaint at 5.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

from deliverability. Using that process, the NYISO properly grandfathered the Linden VFT

Project at 300 MW.

OATT Attachment S section 25.9.3.1, titled “Retaining CRIS Status” contains the

provisions applicable to awarding CRIS for facilities grandfathered from the deliverability

requirement. It states, in relevant part:

For generators pre-dating Class Year 2007, the CRIS capacity level will be set at

the maximum DMNC level achieved during the five most recent Summer

Capability Periods prior to October 5, 2008, even if that DMNC value exceeds

nameplate MWs.

For a generator pre-dating Class Year 2007 and not having DMNC levels

recorded for five Summer Capability Periods prior to October 5, 2008, its CRIS

capacity level will be set, and reset if necessary, at the maximum DMNC level

achieved during successive Summer Capability Periods until it has DMNC levels

recorded for five Summer Capability Periods. Prior to the establishment of the

generator’s first DMNC value for a Summer Capability Period, the generator’s

CRIS level will be set at nameplate MW, and the CRIS capacity level for

intermittent resources pre-dating Class Year 2007 will be set at nameplate MW,

and the CRIS capacity level for controllable lines pre-dating Class Year 2007

will be set at the MW of Unforced Capacity Deliverability Rights awarded to

them.22

It is clearly evident from the plain language of the tariff that the grandfathered CRIS

capacity level for a controllable line like Linden VFT was to be set at the MW of UDRs awarded

to the line. The NYISO’s tariff is just as clear that the CRIS capacity level for a grandfathered

generator was to be set quite differently by using the generator’s highest Dependable Maximum

Net Capability (“DMNC”) value achieved over a five-year time period, or by using the

22 OATT Attachment S § 25.9.3.1 (emphasis added).

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

generator’s nameplate MW rating, when the generator had not yet established a DMNC value.23

Intermittent Resources were grandfathered using their nameplate value.

As of the effective date of the applicable tariff provisions, all controllable lines that were

grandfathered from deliverability, including Linden VFT, had been awarded UDRs. Linden

VFT submitted a request for 300 MW of UDRs on May 16, 200724 and was awarded 300 MW of

UDRs on June 13, 2008.25 Accordingly, pursuant to the tariff, the Linden VFT Project was

properly grandfathered from deliverability at 300 MW of CRIS.26

Further, Linden VFT’s assertion, that it is discriminatory to establish a different basis for

the grandfathering from deliverability of controllable lines and generators, must be rejected.27

These were logical and appropriate distinctions to make because they were based upon

characteristic features of the different NYISO capacity market rules that already applied to

controllable lines and generators, well before the implementation of the new deliverability

requirement.28

UDRs are rights, measured in MW, that are awarded to new incremental controllable

lines that provide a transmission interface to an area or Locality in the NYCA, such as New York

23 A multi-year time period was selected in an effort to identify a reasonable representation of the

generator’s capacity since a DMNC value from a single summer might be impacted by temporary

conditions at the generator.

24 See Attachment 2 - 2007 UDR Request.

25 See Complaint at Exhibit 13 - NYISO Letter (dated June 13, 2008).

26 See Complaint at Exhibit 3A - NYISO Interconnection Request (July 10, 2002).

27 Complaint at 22-28.

28 The clear distinction between grandfathering controllable lines and generators for purposes of

deliverability were described in section III.A.6 of the filing letter for the August 5, 2008, NYISO

compliance filing to implement the new capacity deliverability rules in Attachment X. See Joint

Compliance Filing of New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and the New York Transmission

Owners on Consensus Deliverability Plan, Docket No. ER04-449-017 (filed August 5, 2008).

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

City, in which a minimum amount of Installed Capacity must be maintained by the Load Serving

Entity. When combined with generation capacity located in an External Control Area that is

deliverable to the Locality interface created by the interconnection of the controllable line, UDRs

allow external capacity to be treated as if it was located within the NYCA Locality itself, thereby

helping to satisfy the Load Serving Entity’s Minimum Installed Capacity Requirement for the

Locality. In this way, Linden VFT’s UDRs, when combined with 300 MW of generation

capacity located in the PJM Control Area, can contribute those 300 MW to a Load Serving

Entity’s Locational Minimum Installed Capacity Requirement for the New York City Locality.

Thus, the award of 300 MW of UDRs to Linden VFT defined the maximum amount of capacity

for New York City that can be attributable to the new controllable line.

In contrast, DMNC values help define the maximum amount of capacity that generators

interconnected within the NYCA can bring to the New York capacity markets. A DMNC test

measures “[t]he sustained maximum net output of a Generator, as demonstrated by the

performance of a test or through actual operation, averaged over a continuous time period as

defined in the ISO Procedures.”29 Following procedures described in section 4.2 of the ICAP

Manual, this generator performance test data is used to calculate the maximum MW of capacity

that the generator can supply to the NYISO administered capacity markets. Section 4.2 of the

ICAP Manual requires identified types of generator resources to submit results from a DMNC

test or a DMNC Demonstration using specific procedures. The ICAP Manual does not provide

any resource-specific DMNC test conditions for controllable lines. Controllable lines do not

perform DMNC tests and, therefore, do not have to report DMNC test results to the NYISO.30

29 Services Tariff § 2.4

30 ICAP Manual at 4.2.2.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

The NYISO’s OATT sets the CRIS MW capacity value for each grandfathered

controllable line and generator using established NYISO capacity market procedures associated

with each different resource type. This process allowed consistent grandfathering within each

resource type and used information that was already being compiled to administer the capacity

market. For generators, DMNC test results were used, because those resources were already

required to perform DMNC tests.31 For controllable lines grandfathering was done based on the

amount of UDRs awarded to them. Therefore, grandfathering controllable lines at their UDR

MW for CRIS purposes was consistent with, and reasonable in light of, all applicable tariff

requirements. Linden VFT’s extensive discussion and assertions regarding its startup test and

the NYISO’s tariff provisions regarding CRIS updates based on DMNC are altogether

inapplicable.32 The tariff reasonably and explicitly applies an entirely different standard to

controllable lines.

Linden VFT’s contention that it was considered a generator and therefore the

deliverability grandfathering provisions that apply to generators should be applied to Linden

VFT should be rejected.33 It is undisputable that the Linden VFT Project is not a generator; it is

a controllable line.34 This distinction is pronounced in the case of Linden VFT since it creates a

31 In order for the grandfathered CRIS values to be comparable, the NYISO had to use a number

that all resources in a given category possessed. For example, the NYISO could not have used MW

studied in the interconnection process, because most existing generators pre-dated the NYISO.

32 Complaint at 19-22.

33 Id. at 14.

34 Throughout the interconnection process, and after, Linden VFT has consistently described its

facility as a Merchant Transmission Facility or VFT transmission facility, not a generator. See, e.g.,

Attachment 2 - 2007 UDR Request; Attachment 3 - October 15, 2004 email from Mr. Thomas Hoatson,

VP Goldman Sachs & Company to Mr. Steve Corey regarding NYISO Interconnection Request - Linden

Transmission Project and attached interconnection request form (“2004 Interconnection Request”);

Complaint at Exhibit 3A - NYISO Interconnection Request (July 10, 2002);Complaint at Exhibit 7 -

Linden VFT System Reliability and Impact Study (dated August 1, 2005); Complaint at Exhibit 16 -

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

new tie between control areas. There was no reasonable basis for Linden VFT to believe that the

tariff provision that referred to DMNC applied to it, because as discussed above the tariff is clear

that DMNC does not apply to controllable lines. To read the tariff as Linden VFT suggests

would invalidate the unambiguous provisions regarding the awarding of CRIS for grandfathered

controllable lines based on UDRs.

Also, Linden VFT’s assertions that extrinsic evidence35 shows that a “performance test”

should have been used to grandfather Linden VFT from deliverability, are misleading and should

be rejected. Linden VFT’s contention that the July 2, 2008 Interconnection Issues Task Force

Deliverability Issues List (“Issues List”) is evidence that the NYISO identified the need for an

equivalent DMNC test for controllable lines, but “never developed such a procedure” is

unquestionably false.36 The very document that Linden VFT points to as showing the “DMNC

level equivalent for … controllable lines” as an open issue actually contains the proposed

resolution of that issue.37 Specifically, the Issues List clearly shows that the NYISO had

proposed in its stakeholder meetings to grandfather controllable lines for purposes of CRIS at the

awarded UDR value.38 Consistent with the proposal discussed with stakeholders, the

Commission-accepted tariff language explicitly provides that “[c]ontrollable lines will be

Project Letter (dated November 13 2009); Complaint at Exhibit 20 - Project Letter (dated February 26,

2010); and Merchant Transmission Facility Interconnection Agreement effective 2/29/08, Docket No.

ER08-618-000 (filed February 29, 2008).

35 See New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 131 FERC ¶ 61,032 at P 30 (2010) (finding

that “when presented with a dispute concerning the interpretation of a tariff or contract, the Commission

looks first to the tariff or contract itself, and only if it cannot discern the meaning of the contract or tariff

from the language of the contract or tariff, will it look to extrinsic evidence”) (internal citations omitted).

36 Complaint at 27 and Exhibit 18.

37 Id. at Exhibit 18.

38 See Id. at Exhibit 18 at 1. It is clear from the document that the list contained issues that had

been discussed and the bracketed language was the “proposed resolution.”

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

grandfathered at the MWs of UDRs awarded to them.”39 There was no intention or need to

subsequently develop a “performance test” process. The tariff language fully addressed how

UDRs would be grandfathered.

Furthermore, the Complaint is a collateral attack on the Commission’s order40 accepting

these provisions. The Commission looks with disfavor upon parties that seek to re-litigate

applicable precedent, especially when those parties were active in the earlier proceedings.41

Linden VFT was a party in the proceedings regarding the tariff language on grandfathering

controllable lines for CRIS at their level of UDR. Linden VFT filed comments in support of

those tariff revisions.42 Those tariff provisions clearly provide that controllable lines would be

grandfathered from deliverability based on their MW level of UDRs. There is no reasonable

basis for Linden VFT to now allege that it was unaware or did not understand those tariff

provisions.43 Therefore, the Commission must reject Linden VFT’s collateral attack on the prior

39 OATT Attachment S § 25.9.3.1

40 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 126 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2009).

41 See, e.g., San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary Services, et al., 134

FERC ¶ 61,229 at P 15 (2011) (“[collateral attacks on final orders and relitigation of applicable precedent

by parties that were active in the earlier cases thwart the finality and repose that are essential to

administrative efficiency and are strongly discouraged.”) citing Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. v.

Consolidated Edison Co., 112 FERC ¶ 61,117, at P 12 (2005); see also EPIC Merchant Energy NJ/PA,

LP v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, 131 FERC ¶ 61,130 (2010) (dismissing as an impermissible collateral

attack a complaint that merely sought to re-litigate the same issues as raised in the prior case citing no

new evidence or changed circumstances).

42 See, Comments and Conditional Protest of Linden VFT, LLC at 1-2, Docket No. ER04-449-017

(filed August 26, 2008) (stating that Linden VFT supported the compliance filing, discussing the

grandfathering of controllable lines using UDRs); Comments of Linden VFT, LLC, Docket No. ER04-

449-019 (filed May 18, 2009) (supporting the further compliance filing).

43 Linden VFT’s assertion that: “The CRIS value, which is a limit on how much of a project's

Capacity may be allowed to participate in the ICAP market, is now based on a deliverability test. Until the

Deliverability Plan was effective, beginning with Class Year 2007, the ‘CRIS value’ was 100% of project

actual maximum net capability as determined through testing because no project had to demonstrate that

its Capacity was deliverable” is not accurate. See Complaint at n. 41. Prior to the implementation of the

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

orders by attempting to establish an entirely new deliverability grandfathering standard nearly

four years after the original tariff language was submitted to the Commission.

The NYISO Complied with Applicable Commission Precedent and its Tariff

When it Required That Linden VFT Submit an Interconnection Request for

the Additional 15 MW for the Linden VFT Project

Linden VFT’s assertion that the NYISO violated its tariff by requiring the submission of

a new Interconnection Request for the additional 15 MW of capacity for the Linden VFT Project

must be rejected. The NYISO’s determination that a new Interconnection Request was necessary

is consistent with Commission precedent regarding increases in capacity for existing facilities.

The NYISO’s OATT Attachment X defines “Interconnection Request” as a:

Developer’s request, in the form of Appendix 1 to the Standard Large Facility

Interconnection Procedures, in accordance with the Tariff, to interconnect a new

Large Generating Facility or Merchant Transmission Facility to the New York

State Transmission System, or to increase the capacity of, or make a material

modification to the operating characteristics of, an existing Large Generating

Facility or Merchant Transmission Facility that is interconnected with the New

York State Transmission System.44

The tariff clearly states that where a Developer is seeking to increase the capacity of an existing

facility, an Interconnection Request must be filed. A determination regarding a “material

modification” is separate and distinct from an “increase in capacity.” Thus, the tariff requires

that a Developer submit an Interconnection Request for any increase in capacity or material

modification to an existing facility.

Commission precedent requires the submission of new Interconnection Request for any

increase in the capacity of an existing facility. An existing facility is one that has completed all

deliverability tariff provisions, CRIS did not exist under the NYISO’s tariff, and thus there was no

calculation of CRIS values.

44 OATT Attachment X § 30.1.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

interconnection studies and possesses an effective interconnection agreement, even if it is not yet

fully constructed and interconnected.45 When interpreting the tariff provision requiring the

submittal of an Interconnection Request, the Commission has stated that “any increase in

generation capacity from an existing generator requires a new interconnection request and a new

LGIA conforming to the transmission provider’s current pro forma LGIA.”46 The Commission

has found that “[i]nsisting that parties file new pro forma LGIAs when electing to increase

generation capacity … provides consistency and eliminates confusion.”47 Further, the

Commission has held that there is no de minimis increase that would be exempt from the

requirement to submit an Interconnection Request.48

The Commission has explained that increases in capacity require the submission of a new

Interconnection Request, because

an increase in the amount of power the Generating Facility will produce should be

treated as significant because it is an important change in one of the most

45 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 125 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 15 (2008)

(finding that a facility was existing and thus required to submit a new Interconnection Request to change

its MW level of capacity where it had completed the interconnection process).

46 See, e.g, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,277 at P 11

(2008) (interpreting Midwest ISO provisions regarding the submittal of Interconnection Requests which

use similar language to that found in the NYISO’s OATT Attachment X); see also, Midwest Independent

Transmission System Operator, Inc., 132 FERC ¶ 61,241 at P 33(2011) (same).

47 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,277 at P 11 (2008).

48 Additionally, the Commission has stated that “[i]n Order No. 2003, and in company-specific

cases, the Commission has found that any increase in generation capacity from an existing generator

requires a new LGIA conforming to the Transmission Provider's current pro forma LGIA” see Midwest

Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 122 FERC ¶ 61,019 at P 16 (2008), citing, New

England Power Co., 109 FERC ¶ 61,364 at P 13 (2004); Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 109 FERC ¶

61,392 (2004); Southern California Edison Co., 109 FERC ¶ 61,375 at P 10 (2004); Jersey Central

Power & Light Co., 110 FERC ¶ 61,273 (2005); Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,

Inc., 117 FERC ¶ 61,125 at P 3 (2006); 330 Fund I, L.P. v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,

121 FERC ¶ 61,001 at P 32 (2007) (stating that “Order No. 2003’s interconnection requirements do not

apply where no increase in capacity or material modification of the characteristics of an existing facility

are proposed”).

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

fundamental characteristics of a Generating Facility. How much power a

Generating Facility will produce is critical to the very nature of the Generating

Facility, and it is reasonable to treat a change to that characteristic as a new

Interconnection Request.49

Commission precedent provides that existing facilities must submit a new Interconnection

Request, even for small increases in capacity.50 Linden VFT contends that this precedent does

not apply to its project, because its increase is not due to a physical change in its facility.51

However, contrary to that assertion, the Commission has found that an Interconnection Request

is necessary even where the increase is due to changes in how capacity was estimated for

purposes of the interconnection process.52

The issue in this proceeding is not whether the facility has physically changed, but

whether the facility’s characteristics have changed from how the project was originally proposed

by Linden VFT and studied in the NYISO interconnection process. The original Linden VFT

project was proposed and studied as a 300 MW facility. Linden VFT’s 2002 interconnection

request and “Study Application” represented that the facility size was 300 MW.53 The 2004

Interconnection Request form submitted by Linden VFT clearly described the Linden VFT

Project as having a Maximum Rating of 300 MW import to New York, and also indicated a

49 See Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 122 FERC ¶ 61,019 at P 16

(2008).

50 Midwest Independent System Operator, Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,277 at P 11 (2008) (requiring the

submission of an interconnection request for a 0.7 MW increase in capacity); see also Midwest

Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 118 FERC ¶ 61,270 at P 16 (rejecting arguments that a

new interconnection request should not be required where the increase in capacity was de minimis).

51 Complaint at 19-20.

52 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 125 FERC ¶ 61,210 at PP 7, 12-16

(2008) (requiring the submission of a new Interconnection Request where the increase in capacity was not

due to a physical change in facility but rather on the development of a better estimate of the output for the

facility”).

53 See Complaint at Exhibit 3A - NYISO Interconnection Request (dated July 10, 2002)

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

maximum 300 MW export from New York adjusted for losses.54 Additionally, the August 1,

2005 System Reliability Impact Study55 clearly studied the facility at 300 MW, stating, for

example:

•

“[a] 300MW Variable Frequency Transformer (VFT) which is an

asynchronous bi-directional transmission tie, between the PSE&G 230 kV

system and Con Edison’s 345 kV system has been proposed”;56

•

“[t]he 300MW VFT project will consist of three 100MW VFT modules or

channels”;57

•

“[a] system reliability impact study (SRIS) was performed to evaluate the

impact of the proposed 300MW project on the bulk power transmission

system in the southeast New York area.”58

Linden VFT also consistently described the Linden VFT Project in various Commission

proceedings, during the time it was progressing through the NYISO’s interconnection process, as

a 300 MW facility. For example, in its petition for authority to make sales of transmission rights

at negotiated rates, Linden VFT stated that the Linden VFT Project “will provide 300 MWs of

additional transmission capacity in the New York City area”59 That petition also stated that:

54 See Attachment 3 - 2004 Interconnection Request.

55 See Complaint at Exhibit 7 - Linden VFT System Reliability and Impact Study (dated August

1, 2005).

56 Id. at Exhibit 7 at viii.

57 Id.

58 Id. at Exhibit 7 at ix. The statement noted by Linden VFT on page 6 of its Complaint regarding

each of the Variable Frequency Transformers having a nominal rating of 110 megavolt amperes (MVA),

does not support the assertion that Linden VFT was modeled with a capability above 300 MW in the

power flow analysis or other relevant analyses. In fact, Linden VFT was consistently modeled at 300

MW throughout the interconnection process for its original queue position. See, Class Year 2006

Interconnection Facilities Study Reports (dated May 2, 2007 and August 16, 2007).

59 Application of Linden VFT, LLC for Authority to Make Sales of Transmission Rights at

Negotiated Rates at 1, Docket No. ER07-543-000 (submitted February 14, 2007).

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

•

“[t]he 2006 DOE Study also identified constraints in the PJM region as

included the constraint from PJM to New York City. The additional 300 MW

of transmission capacity provided by the Linden VFT Project directly

addresses resolving that constraint”;60

•

“[t]he Linden VFT Project consists of three variable frequency transformers,

associated transmission facilities and appurtenant equipment that will have a

total electrical transmission transfer capacity of approximately 300 MW”;61

•

“Linden VFT intends to develop the Linden VFT Project in a manner that will

make 300 MW of incremental transmission capacity available to market

participants pursuant to PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff.”62

The Commission clearly relied on these representations, as evidenced by its order which stated

that:

[T]he capacity on the new transmission line between PJM and Linden’s existing

345 KV line is 300 MW. This is the same amount of capacity that Linden

proposes to add to its 345 kV line. Therefore, customers that desire to utilize this

project for the transfer of power between the PJM and NYISO systems are limited

to the 300 MW of capacity offered by the new transmission line which connects

the PJM line to Linden’s 345 kV line.63

Because Linden VFT was a 300 MW project, recognizing an additional 15 MW is an increase in

capacity requiring a new Interconnection Request.

Contrary to what Linden VFT states, the identified nameplate for the facility is not the

issue or what triggers the need for Linden VFT to submit an Interconnection Request for the

additional 15 MW.64 It is the fact that Linden VFT’s actual capability exceeds the original

project size that was studied at the Developer’s request. At the time it made the request for the

additional 15 MW, the Linden VFT Project had completed all of its interconnection studies, had

60 Id. at 1.

61 Id. at 4.

62 Id. at 11.

63 Linden VFT, LLC, 119 FERC ¶ 61,066 at P 46 (2007).

64 Complaint at 14, 18-19.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

an interconnection agreement in effect since February 29, 2008, and had completed construction

on October 15, 2009. Thus, consistent with Commission precedent, and the tariff,65 the Linden

VFT Project was an existing facility when it requested the additional 15 MW.

Linden VFT’s assertion that section 4.14.1 of the ICAP Manual requires the measurement

of an adjustment to establish transmission capability for controllable lines, is irrelevant.66

Section 4.14.1 of the ICAP Manual does indicate that UDRs are subject to future adjustment due

to the “transmission capability, reliability, availability of the facility, and appropriate NYSRC

reliability studies.”67 However, nothing in that provision indicates that the tariff requirement that

a new Interconnection Request be submitted for increases in capacity of existing facilities is

inapplicable. Additionally, section 4.14.2 of the ICAP Manual states that UDR requests “may be

made anytime after submittal of the studies required to support the NYISO’s Interconnection

process, or if the NYISO is conducting those studies, after the NYISO has completed the

studies.”68 Thus, while the provision acknowledges that measurement and adjustment to

establish transmission capability for purposes of adjusting UDRs may occur, it does not

invalidate the tariff obligation to submit a new Interconnection Request.

Further, the contention that the increase will not have an effect on reliability is irrelevant

in determining whether a new Interconnection Request is required.69 The Commission has made

clear that there is no materiality consideration for increases in capability of existing facilities like

65 OATT Attachment X, Section 30.1.3 requires that Linden VFT submit a new Interconnection

Request for any proposal to “increase the capacity … of an existing … Merchant Transmission Facility

that is interconnected to the New York State Transmission System.”

66 Complaint at 25-26.

67 ICAP Manual § 4.14.1.

68 Id. at § 4.14.2.

69 Complaint at 28-29.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

Linden VFT. It is circular for Linden VFT to argue its position that the 15 MW of CRIS should

be awarded without a new Interconnection Request because there was no reliability impact as

shown in the SRIS study that was conducted for the Interconnection Request for the 15 MW

increase.70 The fact that the SRIS for the additional 15 MW found no reliability impacts does not

mean that the study was unnecessary or that it was inappropriate for the NYISO to require the

submission of a new Interconnection Request. Further, Linden VFT’s conclusion that the 2005

SRIS is evidence that its additional 15 MW is reliable is also unreasonable.71 The results of a

seven year old study do not account for other system conditions or standards that may have

changed since the original study was conducted with the Linden VFT Project studied at 300

MW. Thus the Commission must reject Linden VFT’s circular argument regarding the reliability

impact studies.

The Linden VFT Project Was Not Grandfathered From the NYISO’s LFIP

Linden VFT’s novel contention that there is a “logical and equitable flaw” in the

application of “the OATT definition of interconnection request, first effective in August 2004, to

interpret the rights of a developer pursuant to an interconnection request made in July 2002”72 is

wholly without merit. Linden VFT had an interconnection request pending in the NYISO queue

at the time the LFIP became effective. Linden VFT’s original interconnection request was not

grandfathered from the application of the LFIP, but in fact transitioned to the LFIP under specific

transition rules prescribed by the LFIP.

70 Id. at 29.

71 Id. at 28-29.

72 Id. at 18.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

The LFIP addresses the transition of pending projects. Specifically, section 30.5.1.1.1 of

OATT Attachment X states:

If an Interconnection Study Agreement has not been executed as of the effective

date of these Large Facility Interconnection Procedures, then such Interconnection

Study, and any subsequent Interconnection Studies, shall be processed in

accordance with these Large Facility Interconnection Procedures.

To implement these tariff provisions, the NYISO, in October 2004, issued a notice to the projects

in the interconnection queue. The notice stated the following:

As you know, the NYISO’s new Large Facility Interconnection Procedures

(“LFIP”) became effective with FERC’s order on August 6, 2004. The

procedures, with few exceptions, require the NYISO and developers to transition

outstanding interconnection requests to the new procedures within 60 days of the

August 6 effective date, which is October 5, 2004.

Whether and how a specific project will transition to the new procedures will

depend on the project’s status as of the effective date of the LFIP. For clarity, we

have provided the attached chart identifying the status of each project in the

NYISO’s queue. This chart groups projects that have reached the same

milestones in the interconnection process. …

Group C: Have Not Executed a Study Agreement

The projects in Group C must complete all studies and enter into a three-party IA

under the new procedures.73

As shown above, the Notice clearly provided that projects in the NYISO’s interconnection queue

that had not yet executed a study agreement would be transitioned to the newly accepted rules

(i.e., the LFIP). For projects such as Linden VFT’s, the NYISO required that a new

Interconnection Request form be submitted, and that those projects “continue the interconnection

process under the new procedures.” The submission was required because the form requested

73 See Attachment 4 - Notice to Market Participants Concerning Transition to New

Interconnection Procedures and attachment (dated October 1, 2004).

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

data that was necessary for projects to proceed in accordance with the new procedures, but which

had not been collected pursuant to the prior procedure.

In fact, the Notice explicitly identified Linden VFT as a project that was required to

transition to the new rules. Pursuant to the Notice, Linden VFT submitted a new Interconnection

Request form for the project on October 15, 2004, the deadline established by the NYISO.

Linden VFT’s email submitting the new Interconnection Request form stated that it was doing so

“[i]n accordance with the new NYISO interconnection procedures.”74 Clearly, Linden VFT was

aware that the LFIP provisions were applicable to its then pending interconnection request.

Thus, its assertions regarding the continued applicability of the prior tariff provisions are

baseless and must be rejected.

Additionally, Linden VFT misleadingly characterizes NYISO statements made at a

NYISO Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee (“TPAS”) meeting regarding the

transition. Linden VFT twists a statement made by a NYISO representative and claims that the

NYISO took the position that “non-material change criteria would continue to apply to projects

then in the interconnection queue, notwithstanding the new rule, which would only be applied to

new entrants.”75 Linden VFT contends, therefore, that a materiality determination should have

been applied to the 15 MW increase request. The minutes from the TPAS meeting which Linden

refers to deal with a discussion of a materiality determination for a facility that was not yet an

existing facility.76 Those minutes reflect that NYISO represented that the new procedures would

74 See Attachment 3 - 2004 Interconnection Request.

75 Complaint at 21.

76 See Complaint at Exhibit 19 at 3 (stating that “[t]he NYISO has reviewed the change and

determined this is non-material change. Mr. Corey stated that the project has not yet completed an SRIS

or a scope yet…”).

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

be applied to projects going forward “once the transition of pre-existing projects in the queue has

been completed.”77 It is unclear what Linden VFT is referring to as the source of its contention

because no such language appears in the document that Linden VFT cites. As described above

in the Notice, the transfer of projects to the new process was completed shortly after the effective

date of the new rules.

The Determinations Cited by Linden VFT to Support its Claim of

Discriminatory Treatment Are Distinguishable

Linden VFT’s assertion that even if the NYISO tariff interpretation is correct, the NYISO

has not consistently applied this interpretation to other projects, must be rejected. The

determinations which Linden VFT cites are all distinguishable. In addition, they were all

presented to and discussed openly with stakeholders. The projects that Linden VFT identifies in

its Complaint, as having increased capacity subject to non-materiality determinations, are all

proposed facilities still in the interconnection process, as opposed to existing facilities that have

completed the interconnection process studies and have an effective Interconnection Agreement.

OATT Attachment X section 30.4.4 regarding modifications to Interconnection Requests applies

only to requests for increases in capacity by proposed facilities being evaluated in the

interconnection process.78 Section 30.4.4.3 includes provisions allowing a proposed facility

being evaluated in the interconnection process to request the NYISO to determine whether a

change, including a capacity change, is a Material Modification.79 Where the NYISO determines

77 Id.

78 See OATT Attachment X § 30.4.4 (stating that “The Developer shall submit to the NYISO, in

writing, modifications to any information provided in the Interconnection Request. The Developer shall

retain its Queue Position if the modifications are in accordance with Sections 30.4.4.1, 30.4.4.2, 30.4.4.5

or 30.4.4.6, or are determined not to be Material Modifications pursuant to Section 30.4.4.3”).

79 See OATT Attachment X § 30.4.4.3.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

that a change would be a Material Modification, a new Interconnection Request must be

submitted, or the proposed modification must be withdrawn.80

The projects which Linden VFT identifies in the Complaint81 were all pending facilities

as of the date of the materiality determination, as they had yet to complete their interconnection

studies or have an effective interconnection agreement or both. Thus, consistent with OATT

Attachment X § 30.4.4, the NYISO determined that modifications in those projects’ capacities

were not Material Modifications. Because the NYISO’s determinations were not inconsistent

with the tariff or with the determination made for Linden VFT, the Commission must reject

Linden VFT’s assertion.

The NYISO did not discriminate against Linden VFT by requiring the submittal of a new

Interconnection Request for the additional 15 MW, but is rather properly applying its tariff

requirements. In fact the NYISO has made materiality determinations with respect to other types

of changes that Linden VFT has requested, that did not involve increases in capacity, consistent

with its tariff. OATT Attachment X § 30.3.1 provides that, where a change does not involve a

capacity increase, only a “material modification to operating characteristics” requires the

submission of a new Interconnection Request. Pursuant to that provision, the NYISO has made

two non-materiality determinations for changes to Linden VFT’s existing facility, finding

80 Id.

81 Linden VFT cites as its examples Stony Creek Wind Farm, CPV Valley Energy Center, Cricket

Valley Energy Center. Complaint at 30; see also Complaint at Exhibit 9 - List of Project/Facility

Changes Submitted to NYISO and Determined to be Non-Material Under the NYISO Interconnection

Procedures (Updated as of 03/12/2012).

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

proposed changes to the existing facility to be non-material.82 Therefore, Linden VFT’s

assertion that it is being treated in a discriminatory manner must be rejected.

Further, Linden VFT uses the NYISO’s treatment of the Caithness Long Island

(“Caithness”) project as its primary illustration of the supposed discriminatory treatment.

However, the Caithness request did not involve a materiality determination. The NYISO’s

decision regarding Caithness’s winter capability was appropriate because of the specific facts of

that project, which are distinguishable from the facts in this Complaint.

The Caithness request was unique because it related to the winter capability of a

temperature sensitive83 unit that completed its SRIS under the pre-LFIP procedures. Caithness

began the interconnection process under the old procedures when the interconnection request

form did not request a winter capability. Caithness was not required to submit the new

Interconnection Request form currently required by OATT Attachment X because of its status at

the time the LFIP when into effect.84 Under the procedures in effect at the time, the NYISO’s

interconnection studies evaluated the facility’s capability under summer peak conditions.

Caithness was appropriately studied under the applicable procedures. Caithness’s request

did not involve a change to the existing facility as it was studied in the interconnection process.

Caithness’ was not requesting a modification of its summer capability; rather it was seeking an

acknowledgement of the winter capability. Out of an abundance of caution the NYISO and the

82 See Complaint at Exhibit 9 - List of Project/Facility Changes Submitted to NYISO and

Determined to Be Non-Material Under the NYISO Interconnection Procedures (Updated as of March 2,

2012).

83 The capability of a temperature sensitive unit varies depending on the ambient temperature, and

typically that capability increases as the temperature decreases.

84 Caithness was a “Group B” project, pursuant to the NYISO’s Notice regarding the transition to

the LFIP. As a Group B project, Caithness had an executed Study Agreement but had not completed its

Facilities Study or Cost Allocation.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

Developer agreed to perform an analysis of the higher winter capability. The analysis was not an

input into a materiality determination, because there was no change from what was studied.

Since only the summer capability number was studied and that did not change, the request was

not considered an increase in capacity.85

Linden VFT cannot claim that its project is situated in a manner similar to Caithness.

Because the Caithness facts are inapposite, Linden VFT’s contention that the “NYISO has failed

to apply the “no increase” tariff to similarly situated projects” must be rejected.86

IV.

COMPLIANCE WITH COMMISSION RULE 213(c)(2)(i)

Attachment 1 to this Answer addresses the formal requirements of Commission Rule

213(c)(2) in order to ensure the NYISO’s compliance with them.

SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS

The NYISO attaches the following documents in support of the facts of this answer:

• Attachment 1- Compliance with Commission Rule 213(c)(2)

• Attachment 2 - Letter from Mr. Andrew Kelemen, Sr. VP GE Energy Financial

Services to Mr. Henry Chao regarding 300 MW UDR Request for Linden VFT

merchant transmission project (dated May 16, 2007) and attachment.

• Attachment 3 - October 15, 2004 email from Mr. Thomas Hoatson, VP Goldman

Sachs & Company to Mr. Steve Corey regarding NYISO Interconnection Request -

Linden Transmission Project and attached interconnection request form.

• Attachment 4 - Notice to Market Participants Concerning Transition to New

Interconnection Procedures and attachment (dated October 1, 2004)

85 The NYISO’s contemporaneous table of non-materiality determinations, posted on the NYISO

website did not, and has not, included any entry for the winter capability of Caithness.

86 Complaint at 29.

PUBLIC VERSION

CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED

VI.

REQUEST FOR CEII TREATMENT

Pursuant to the Commission’s regulations at 18 C.F.R. §388.112 (2011), the NYISO

requests that the one-line diagram included as part of Attachment 3 to this Answer be protected

from disclosure as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (“CEII”). The diagram depicts

electric transmission facilities that constitute a significant tie between the New York and PJM

control areas. Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 388.112(b) the CEII Data has been efiled with the

Commission pursuant to the procedures provided for on the Commission’s website.

VII. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the New York Independent System Operator,

Inc. (“NYISO”), respectfully requests that the Commission deny the Complaint and the relief

sought by Linden VFT.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Vanessa A. Colón____________________________

Vanessa A. Colón

Counsel to

the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

May 24, 2012

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Compliance with Commission Rule 213(c)(2)

Specific Admissions and Denials of Material Allegations

In accordance with Commission Rule 213(c)(2)(i), to the extent practicable and to the

best of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (“NYISO”) knowledge and belief at

this time, the NYISO admits or denies the factual allegations in the Complaint, as specified

below. To the extent that any fact or allegation in the Complaint is not specifically admitted

below, it is denied. Except as specifically stated herein, the NYISO does not admit any facts in

the form or manner stated in the Complaint. Denials of allegations made in the text of the

Complaint should be understood as encompassing all related allegations and assertions in, and

regarding, the attachments accompanying the Complaint.

Denials

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that requiring Linden VFT to

submit a new Interconnection Request for the additional 15 MW of capacity for the

project violated the tariff or was discriminatory. (Complaint at 2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23,

24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that the tariff requires all

projects, including controllable lines, to be awarded CRIS equal to their maximum

capability established through testing.

(Complaint at 5, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that the tariff does not make a

distinction between the bases for grandfathering for purposes of deliverability different

resources types. (Complaint at 14).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that the existing tariff

provisions and Installed Capacity Manual provisions are circular, ambiguous, or provide

“no guidance on how the award of UDRs to a grandfathered project was to be

determined.” (Complaint at 25, 27).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that its application of the tariff

is contrary to interpretations it has provided in the past. (Complaint at 21, 22).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that it agreed that the tariff

should include a procedure for establishing a DMNC level equivalency test for

controllable lines or intermittent resources, but “it never developed such a procedure.”

(Complaint at 27).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that the tariff supports Linden

VFT’s assertions that its project should be allowed to use its 2009 performance test to

“demonstrate its transmission capability or ‘DMNC equivalent.’” (Compliant at 7).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that a transmission capability of

315 MW was consistent with Linden VFT’s data submittals supporting its 2002

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

interconnection request or was used in the NYISO’s studies for the project. (Compliant

at 6, 28, 29).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that its materiality criteria, or

the application of those criteria to other projects, support Linden VFT’s contention that

a new Interconnection Request for the additional 15 MW of capacity for the project is

not necessary. (Complaint at 6, 29, 30).

The NYISO denies that its determinations regarding other projects have been

inconsistent with its tariff.

(Complaint at 30, 31).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that Linden VFT’s assertions

regarding reliability studies somehow relieve Linden VFT of the tariff obligations to

submit a new Interconnection Request. (Complaint at 7, 8, 17).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that requiring Linden VFT to

submit a new Interconnection Request for the additional 15 MW of capacity for the

project has resulted in costs, delays or the subjecting of the project to “unwarranted

deliverability assessments.” (Complaint at 5, 34).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that the inability to resolve this

matter using alternative dispute resolution is due to NYISO being “under continued

stakeholder pressure to treat” Linden VFT’s project differently. (Complaint at 16).

The NYISO denies all allegations and characterizations that it has incorrectly applied to

the Linden VFT Project the Large Facility Generator Interconnection Procedures

(“LFIP”) which became effective in 2004 (i.e., August 6, 2004). (Complaint at 17, 18).

Admissions

The NYISO admits that it is a not-for-profit corporation formed under New York Law.

(Complaint at 4).

The NYISO admits that it is subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction and administered

the New York State Transmission system. (Complaint at 4).

The NYISO admits that it is an independent body that provides open access

transmission service, facilitates reliability services, and administers organized wholesale

markets for electricity, capacity, and ancillary services in New York State pursuant to its

OATT and Services Tariff. (Complaint at 4).

The NYISO admits that it has required Linden VFT to submit a new Interconnection

Request for the additional 15 MW of capacity for the project. (Complaint at 7, 10, 15,

16).

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

The NYISO admits that the interconnection procedures in the OATT have materially

changed since 2002 as a result of the Commission’s Order No. 2003, including the

addition of the LFIP. (Complaint at 8, 17).

The NYISO admits that it revised its OATT, in compliance with Order No. 2003, to add

a second level of interconnection service (i.e., Capacity Resource Interconnection

Service (“CRIS”)) which incorporates a deliverability component. (Complaint at 8).

The NYISO admits that its OATT contains both Energy Resource Interconnection

Service, which provides a basic level of interconnection service and CRIS, which

provides interconnection customers with the ability to participate in the NYISO’s

installed capacity (“ICAP”) market to the extent of its deliverable capacity. (Complaint

at 9).

The NYISO admits that its OATT provides that the NYISO studies projects as a class

and groups projects which satisfy certain milestones into a Class Year. (Complaint at

8).

The NYISO admits that the Linden VFT project was a member of Class Year 2006.

(Complaint at 8, 9, 12).

The NYISO admits that it has stated that provisions in the LFIP require the submittal of

a new Interconnection Request for any increases in capacity of an existing facility.

(Complaint at 17).

The NYISO admits that its Installed Capacity Manual “contains the procedures that will

be followed by the NYISO and its Customers with regard to the Installed Capacity

Markets administered by the NYISO pursuant to the Services Tariff.” (Complaint at 23).

Defenses

In accordance with Commission Rule 213(c)(2)(ii), the NYISO sets forth the following

defenses.

· Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof under section 206 of the FPA, and

Commission Rule 206.

· Complainant has failed to show that the NYISO did not comply with its tariffs or treated

Linden VFT in a discriminatory manner, when it grandfathered the Linden VFT project

from deliverability at 300 MW.

· Complainant has failed to show that the NYISO did not comply with Commission

precedent or its tariffs when it required that Linden VFT submit a new Interconnection

Request for the additional 15 MW of capacity for the project.

· Complainant has failed to show that its project was grandfathered from the NYISO

OATT’s LFIP.

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Attachment A To Appendix 1

Interconnection Request

(Page 1)

The undersigned Developer submits this request to interconnect its Large Generating

Facility or Merchant Transmission Facility with the New York State Transmission

System pursuant to the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures in the NYISO OATT.

This Interconnection Request is for (check one):

____ A proposed new Large Generating Facility, named ___________________.

_X__ A proposed new Merchant Transmission Facility, named

____ An increase in the capacity of an existing Large Generating Facility or existing

Merchant Transmission Facility.

The type of interconnection service provided:

__X_ Network Access Interconnection Service

The Developer provides the following information:

Address or location or the proposed new Large Facility site (to the extent known)

or, in the case of an existing Generating Facility or Merchant Transmission

Facility, the name and specific location of that existing facility;

Maximum summer at _______ degrees C and winter at ______ degrees C

megawatt electrical output of the proposed new Large Facility or the amount of

megawatt increase in the capacity of an existing facility;

General description of the equipment configuration;

In-Service Date, and Commercial Operation Date, by day, month, and year;

Name, title, company address, telephone number, FAX number and e-mail

address of the Developer’s contact person;

Approximate location of the proposed Point of Interconnection (optional); and

Interconnection Customer Data (set forth in Attachment A)

Applicable deposit amount as specified in the LFIP.

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Attachment A To Appendix 1

Interconnection Request

(Page 2)

Evidence of Site Control as specified in the LFIP (check one)

_X_ Is attached to this Interconnection Request

___ Will be provided at a later date in accordance with the Large Facility

Interconnection Procedures

This Interconnection Request shall be submitted to the representative indicated below:

Name:

Steven L. Corey

Title:

Manager Transmission Planning

Address:

New York Independent System Operator

290 Washington Avenue Ext.

Albany, NY 12203

Telephone No. (518) 356-6134

FAX No.

(518) 356-6208

E-mail Addr. scorey@nyiso.com

Representative of the Developer to contact:

Name:

Tom Hoatson

Title:

Vice President

Company:

Goldman Sachs & Company

Address:

85 Broad Street

New York, NY 10004

Telephone:

(212) 357-9723

Fax:

(212) 493-9780

Mobile:

(973) 951-1770

E-Mail:

thomas.hoatson@gs.com

This Interconnection Request is submitted by:

Name of Developer:

By (signature):

Name (type or print):

Title:

Date:

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Attachment A To Appendix 1

Interconnection Request

(Page 7)

Note: Please consult with the NYISO prior to submitting the Interconnection Request for

guidance on the information required for Merchant Transmission Facilities.

The proposed facility will be near the existing East Coast Power generating plant (a.k.a. Linden

Cogen) located within the former Tosco refinery in Linden, New Jersey.

300 MW import into NYISO

300 MW (plus internal losses) export from NYISO

This facility provides a controllable AC transmission connection between the NYISO/ConEd

345 kV system at the Linden Cogen plant to the PJM/PSE&G 230 kV system near the existing

Tosco 230 kV substation. It is essentially a continuously variable fast-reacting phase angle

regulating transformer consisting of three 100 MW “channels” connected in parallel to achieve

the 300 MW rating. Each channel has a 345-17 kV main transformer connecting to the

NYISO/ConEd 345 kV system, a 17 kV synchronizing breaker, a 17 kV-17 kV rotating

transformer, and a 17 kV - 230 kV main transformer for connection to the PJM/PSE&G 230 kV

system.

A one line diagram of the overall interconnection is attached (Drawing LIN-1).

November, 2006

June, 2007

Tom Hoatson

Vice President

Goldman Sachs & Company

85 Broad Street

New York, NY 10004

(212) 357-9723 (W)

(212) 493-9780 (fax)

(973) 951-1770 (cell)

thomas.hoatson@gs.com

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Foreword

This document was prepared by General Electric International, Inc. through its Power

Systems Energy Consulting (PSEC) in Schenectady, NY. Technical and Commercial

Questions and any correspondence concerning this document should be referred to:

Einar Larsen

Power Systems Energy Consulting

General Electric International, Inc.

Building 2, Room 605

Schenectady, New York 12345

Phone: (518) 385-1883

Fax:

(518) 385-5703

Email: einar.larsen@ps.ge.com

Legal Notice

This report was prepared by General Electric International, Inc.’s Power Systems Energy

Consulting (PSEC). Neither PSEC, nor any person acting on behalf of PSEC:

1. Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to

the use of any information contained in this report, or that the use of any

information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in the report may not

infringe privately owned rights; or

2. Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of or for damage resulting

from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in

this report.

Disclosure of any information in this report is subject to the written approval of an

authorized GE representative.

YIW PRGHO Y GRF &UHDWHG RQ

Disclosure subject to

Legal Notice on page i

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Table of Contents

SCOPE

VFT DESCRIPTION

2.1

VFT INSTALLATION

2.2

VFT OPERATION

LOAD FLOW AND SHORT-CIRCUIT REPRESENTATION

3.1

LOAD FLOW MODEL

3.2

SHORT-CIRCUIT CALCULATIONS

DYNAMIC MODEL

OVERVIEW

4.2

PHYSICAL EQUIPMENT

4.3

BASIC CONTROLS

4.4

TRANSDUCER

4.4.1

Thevenin Equivalent

4.4.2

Power Direction

4.5

APPLICATION-SPECIFIC CONTROLS

4.5.1

Voltage-Dependent Power Limit (VDPL)

4.5.2

Governor (GOV)

4.5.3

Power-Swing Damping Control (PSDC)

4.5.4

Runbacks

4.5.5

Special Functions

EXAMPLE CASES

5.1

VFT MODEL PARAMETERS

5.2

STUB FAULT

5.3

LINE CLEARING RESULTING IN WEAK RECEIVING SYSTEM

5.4

FAULT WITH CLEARING RESULTING IN ISLANDED RECEIVING SYSTEM

5.5

STEPS IN POWER ORDER

Appendix A BUS 7 MACHINE MODEL DATA

YIW PRGHO Y GRF &UHDWHG RQ

Disclosure subject to

Legal Notice on page i

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

2.2 VFT Operation

Power flow is proportional to the angle of the rotary transformer, as with any ac power

circuit. The impedance of the rotary transformer plus transformers and ac grid determine

the amount of angle shift needed to obtain a given power transfer. Typically the total

impedance from high-voltage bus to high-voltage bus is on the order of 35% to 40% of

the VFT rating.

The power regulator senses power flow through the VFT and adjusts the angle until the

actual power matches the power command. If the two grids have different frequency, the

rotary transformer will continuously rotate to maintain the appropriate effective power

angle.

For reactive power flow, the VFT acts just as any transformer. The series impedance of

the rotary transformer plus high-voltage transformers determines reactive flow through

the system as a function of voltage difference between the two high-voltage buses. An

area of lower voltage will naturally draw reactive support from the opposite system with

no control action.

Shunt capacitors or static var compensators applied at any bus will provide voltage

regulation as in a conventional ac system. The medium-voltage bus offers an economical

position for reactive control equipment.

YIW PRGHO Y GRF &UHDWHG RQ

Disclosure subject to

Legal Notice on page i

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

4.2 Physical Equipment

The substation, with reactive compensation, is represented as in the load flow. Should

the reactive compensation include controls, these should be represented as normally done

in stability simulations.

The rotary transformer is represented as a controlled phase-shifting transformer. The

position is determined by the rotor inertia model, and must be implemented in a

continuous manner in the network solution. Note that this angle must be able to wrap

around multiple 360° rotations during the course of a simulation.

The rotor dynamics are straightforward. An inertia integrates torque difference between

what the controls and drive determine and the reaction from the electrical transmission

grid. For the purposes of this model, the electrical reaction torque can be approximated

as being equal to the electrical power transferred through the rotary transformer, in per

unit on a common base.

The angle of the phase shifting transformer is the integral of speed. In steady state

operation with nominal frequency on both sides, speed is zero and the angle is constant.

The value will be initially determined from the power flow.

4.3 Basic Controls

The basic controls are responsible for regulating power flow to the command from the

application controls, subject to speed limits of the rotary system. Detailed block diagrams

of the power and speed regulators are shown in Figures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, respectively.

The speed regulator is a simple P-I type with limits. In a practical system the torque

limits will be a function of speed, but for typical planning purposes this relationship can

be ignored.

The power regulator is a P-I-D type, augmented by a predictive setting of speed order

based on measured frequency on the two sides of the VFT. The limit on speed command

represents the maximum allowable speed for the unit.

The status of the limit is used to prevent windup of the integrator within the power

regulator. This limit status is also defined as two logic variables for use by other control

functions. LfpuHigh is true when the upper limit is enforced, and similarly for LfpuLow

for the lower limit.

YIW PRGHO Y GRF &UHDWHG RQ

Disclosure subject to

Legal Notice on page i

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

4.4 Transducer

4.4.1 Thevenin Equivalent

The frequency signal used for predictive setting of speed order is determined from a

Thevenin equivalent looking into each transmission grid separately. The purpose of this

is to decouple the measured frequency signal from the action of the regulators. This

signal can also be used as feedback for other application-layer controls, e.g. power swing

damping.

The value of reactance used in the Thevenin equivalent calculation (Xth) is not too

critical to performance; it should simply be an estimate of the average short-circuit

impedance from the high-voltage bus plus the transformer reactance.

Using the power conventions of Figure 3-1, and assuming the shunt capacitance is not

significant, the Thevenin equivalent voltage at side 1 is:



⋅

Xth





⋅

Xth



Vth

−

















Thus, the Thevenin voltage and frequency are calculated as:

Vth

min[

Mag(Vth

1),0.1]

Ath1= Ang(Vth

sAth1+ f

Fth

sTfx

DFth1= Fth1−Fbase

where Fbase is the system frequency and Tfx is the transducer time constant for

measuring frequency.

Note that the value of V1 should be limited to be above a threshold, e.g. 10%, prior to

using in denominator when computing the components of Vth1. The magnitude of Vth1

is similarly limited to a small value prior to its use elsewhere in the control logic. Finally,

should the magnitude of Vth1 be smaller than a threshold, e.g. 10%, the angle should be

set to zero to prevent windup of the filter.

The side 2 Thevenin parameters are calculated in the same manner.

4.4.2 Power Direction

The direction of power must be established in the simulation tool. Typical convention is

to set “from” and “to” bus designations. The transducer then picks either P1 or P2

depending upon direction.

YIW PRGHO Y GRF &UHDWHG RQ

Disclosure subject to

Legal Notice on page i

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

5.1 VFT Model Parameters

Tables 5.1-1 and 5.1-2 define the VFT parameters used for the example cases. The first

table covers the physical system and basic controls. The second table covers the

application-specific functions used in the examples. Model data for the small machine on

Bus 7 is contained in Appendix A.

Table 5.1-1 VFT Model Parameters for Physical System and Basic Controls

Physical System Parameters

Parameter

Units

Value

Comments

VFT MVA

MW rating

100

Nameplate rating of VFT System

XVFT

Pu-VFT

0.2

XmagVFT

Pu-VFT

HVFT

Pu-VFT-

sec

XT1

Pu-VFT

0.1

XT2

Pu-VFT

0.1

Pu-VFT

0.1

Fixed capacitor

Speed Regulator

Parameter

Units

Value

Comments

Kwp

PuT/

500

Note speed base for model is system

puSpd

frequency, not actual rated speed of

machine

Kwi

PuT/sec

500

/puSpd

Tdmax

puT

Torque base is 1.0 for PVFT = 1.0

Tdmaxi

puT

1.5

Power Regulator

Parameter

Units

Value

Comments

Kpp

Pufreq/puP

.035

Kpi

Pufreq/

.003

sec/ puP

Kpdf

Pufreq/

.003

puP/sec

Tpdf

Sec

.025

Dpratelim

PuP/sec

10.

Fplimi

Pu freq

.02

Fplim

Pu freq

.04

Maximum frequency difference

Fsrlim

Pu freq

.04

Maximum frequency difference

Fratelim

Pu freq/sec

0.06

Tfsr

Sec

0.1

Transducer - Thevenin Synthesis

Parameter

Units

Value

Comments

Xth1

Pu-VFT

.15

XT1 + average short-circuit impedance

at side 1 HV bus

Xth2

Pu-VFT

XT2 + average short-circuit impedance

at side 2 HV bus

Tfx

Sec

.05

Filter time constant on frequency

measurement

YIW PRGHO Y GRF &UHDWHG RQ

Disclosure subject to

Legal Notice on page i

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Table 5.1-2 VFT Model Parameters for Example Case Application Functions

Voltage-Dependent Power Limit

Parameter

Units

Value

Comments

Plimo

PuP

1.1

Maximum allowable power, or set

slightly higher than operating power

Vp1

PuV

0.95

Voltage below which power limit is

lowered

Vpx

puV

0.7

Voltage where Pvdlim=0

Tvd dn

Sec

0.3

Rate for reducing power limit

Tvd up

Sec

3.0

Rate for increasing power limit

Governor

Parameter

Units

Value

Comments

Tgov

Sec

0.3

fdb1 lo

PuFreq

-0.01

Deadband for underfreq

R1_lo

PuFreq for

0.01

Droop for underfreq

1puP

fdb1 hi

PuFreq

0.01

Deadband for overfreq

R1_hi

PuFreq for

0.01

Droop for overfreq

1puP

Dpgmax1

puP

1.5

Limit on power change due to freq

deviation

fdb2_lo

PuFreq

-0.01

Deadband for underfreq

R2_lo

PuFreq for

0.01

Droop for underfreq

1puP

fdb2_hi

PuFreq

0.01

Deadband for overfreq

R2_hi

PuFreq for

0.01

Droop for overfreq

1puP

Dpgmax2

puP

1.5

Limit on power change due to freq

deviation

YIW PRGHO Y GRF &UHDWHG RQ

Disclosure subject to

Legal Notice on page i

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

5.2 Stub Fault

Figure 5.2-1 shows the results of a six-cycle three-phase stub fault applied at Bus #5.

Recovery is smooth, with VFT power regulated closely to the final command within a

short time after fault clearing. Note the final power command is reduced during the fault

by the VDPL function, then slowly reset to the original operator setpoint. The small local

generator oscillates against the receiving transmission system with very little participation

through the VFT.

5.3 Line Clearing Resulting in Weak Receiving System

Figure 5.3-1 shows the results of a six-cycle three-phase fault applied at Bus #5, which is

cleared by opening circuit 1 between Bus#5 and #6. The high impedance (0.6 pu) of the

remaining circuit results in a very weak receiving end system. Figure 5.3-2 shows the

result of simply tripping the strong line, without a fault.

In both cases, recovery is stable, with the VFT power helping to stabilize the oscillations

of the local machine as the VFT ramps back to near full power via the VDPL function.

At the end of these simulations, the voltage on the weak system side of the VFT (Bus 4,

“V2” on plots) is below the 95% breakpoint of the VDPL. Thus, full power is not quite

achievable without additional voltage support.

These examples illustrate how the VDPL operates to prevent voltage collapse.

5.4 Fault with Clearing Resulting in Islanded Receiving System

Figure 5.4-1 shows the results of a six-cycle three-phase fault applied at Bus #5, which is

cleared by opening both circuits between Bus#5 and #6. This results in a local islanded

system on the receiving end, consisting of the Bus#5 load and the Bus#7 generator.

In this case the VFT must rapidly reduce power, since the receiving transmission grid is

removed. Only the small local load (10MW) and generator (25MW) remain, so in steady

state the VFT must absorb the excess generation (approximately 15MW).

The initial fast drop of power is a consequence of the natural response of the VFT, as it

acts like a transformer connecting the two systems. The power regulator sees a mismatch

compared to the operator command, so acts to increase speed of the VFT. This increases

the frequency on the island, and the governors of both the VFT and the small generator

react to attain a new equilibrium with a small overfrequency condition. The final

frequency is a function of the governor characteristics, with the VFT being the dominant

factor.

This would be a situation where a special control, e.g. island frequency regulation, would

be appropriate to adjust the operator power command such that the island frequency

returned to normal.

YIW PRGHO Y GRF &UHDWHG RQ

Disclosure subject to

Legal Notice on page i

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

5.5 Steps in Power Order

Steps to power order are shown in Figures 5.5-1 and 5.5-2. While such transients would

probably not be done in practice, the simulations serve to illustrate the nature of the

regulator performance as well as providing benchmarks for model validation.

Both large and small steps are shown. The large step shows a complete reversal, from

full power in one direction to full power in the opposite direction. The small step shows

a 20% change, selected to illustrate operation within the linear range of the regulators.

YIW PRGHO Y GRF &UHDWHG RQ

Disclosure subject to

Legal Notice on page i

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

10/01/04

Notice to Market Participants Concerning

Transition to New Interconnection Procedures

As you know, the NYISO’s new Large Facility Interconnection Procedures (“LFIP”)

became effective with FERC’s order on August 6, 2004. The procedures, with few

exceptions, require the NYISO and developers to transition outstanding interconnection

requests to the new procedures within 60 days of the August 6 effective date, which is

October 5, 2004.

Whether and how a specific project will transition to the new procedures will depend on

that project’s status as of the effective date of the LFIP. For clarity, we have provided the

attached chart identifying the status of each project in the NYISO’s queue. This chart

groups projects that have reached the same milestones in the interconnection process. If

you believe that your project has been listed in the wrong group, please notify the NYISO

as soon as possible and provide supporting documentation.

The transition process applicable to each group of projects is described below, including

any applicable deadlines.

Group A: Filed IA’s Prior to August 6 and Completed NYISO Study Process,

Including Cost Allocation

The interconnection agreements (“IA”) filed by projects in Group A are grandfathered

under Section 5.1.1.3 of the LFIP. Additionally, cost allocation for this group is

complete, or nearly complete.1 Therefore, these projects are not required to transition to

the new rules, and no additional action is required.

Group B: Have Executed a Study Agreement but Have Not Completed a Facilities

Study or Cost Allocation

Projects that have executed a study agreement under the old procedures have a choice as

to what procedures will apply to any remaining interconnection studies (LGIP, Section

5.1.1.2). The new procedures allow projects to complete any remaining interconnection

studies either under the old or new procedures, as described in detail below.

Projects choosing to remain under the old procedures will complete a two-party Facilities

Study with the Transmission Owner (“TO”) addressing attachment facilities. However,

for cost allocation purposes, these projects will be required to participate in the applicable

1 Some of the projects listed in Group A are currently in the Class Year 2002 for cost allocation. The Class

Year 2002 cost allocation is near completion, but needs to go through review, approval, and Developer

decision. Any projects that drop out of Class Year 2002 will be required to undergo a Facilities Study in a

subsequent Class Year, to the extent necessary to complete the cost allocation process.

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Class Year Facilities Study under the new procedures, only to the extent such study is

necessary under Attachment S to identify system upgrade facilities (“SUF”) and allocate

costs among Class Year Projects and TOs. The projects choosing the old procedures will,

therefore, also enter into a three-party agreement with the TO and the NYISO to

complete the required portion of the Class Year Facility Study, which will exclude the

evaluation of attachment facilities.

In contrast, projects choosing to transition to the new procedures will enter into a three-

party agreement with the TO and the NYISO to complete a full Class Year Facility Study

under the new procedures, which will include an evaluation of both attachment facilities

and SUFs.

Almost all projects in this group are required to execute three-party IAs under the new

procedures. The only projects that are not required to execute three-party IAs are those

with IAs filed with FERC prior to August 6, 2004. Those IAs are grandfathered under

the new procedures.

Therefore, projects in this group have the following choice:

(1) Stay under the old procedures: (a) Complete a two-party agreement for a

partial Facilities Study with the TO addressing attachment facilities (not

SUFs), and (b) complete a three-party agreement to participate in the Class

Year Facilities Study under the new procedures for the limited purpose of

determining SUFs for cost allocation among Class Year members and TOs; or

(2) Transition to the new procedures: Complete a three-party agreement to

participate in the Class Year Facilities Study as set out in the new procedures.

Projects in this group must notify the NYISO of their choice or request an extension of

time by October 15, 2004. Project representatives should contact Steven L. Corey (see

contact information below). A project’s failure to inform the NYISO of its choice or

to request an extension of time in timely manner will trigger the withdrawal

procedures under Section 3.6 of the LFIP, which may ultimately result in a project’s

removal from the interconnection request queue.

Once the NYISO is informed of a project’s choice, the NYISO will forward the relevant

agreement to the project contact.

Group C: Have Not Executed a Study Agreement

The projects in Group C must complete all studies and enter into a three-party IA under

the new procedures. So that the NYISO has the information needed to move forward

under the new procedures, these projects must complete the Interconnection Request

form attached to the LFIP. Subject to the requirements of the LFIP, the queue position of

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

these projects will be maintained. Each project will continue the interconnection process

under the new procedures beginning with the requirement that reasonably follows the last

requirement satisfied under the old procedures. The NYISO’s goal in transitioning this

group of projects is to avoid duplication of any steps already completed while ensuring

that adequate information is available to complete the interconnection process as required

under the new procedures.

Each project in this group must complete the attached Interconnection Request form and

return it to the NYISO by October 15, 2004. Completed forms should be submitted to

Steven L. Corey (see contact information below). Alternatively, projects may request an

extension of time to complete the form but must do so by the same date. A project’s

failure to submit the completed Interconnection Request form or to request an

extension of time in timely manner will trigger the withdrawal procedures under

Section 3.6 of the LFIP, which may ultimately result in a project’s removal from the

interconnection request queue.

Once the NYISO receives the completed Interconnection Request form, the NYISO will

contact the project regarding the next step applicable to the project under the new

procedures.

Steven L. Corey

Manager Transmission Planning

New York Independent System Operator

290 Washington Avenue Ext.

Albany, New York 12203

Phone No.

(518) 356-6134

Fax No.

(518) 356-6208

E-mail Addr: scorey@nyiso.com

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Status of Pre-August 6, 2004 Interconnection Requests (as of 10/1/04) Page 1 of 3

Date of

NYISO

Feasibility Study

Sys Rel Impact Study

Fac Study / Cost Alloc

Interconnection

Developer

Project

CTO

Appl or

Queue

Agreement

Study

Int Req

Pos

Filed

Exec

Completed

Exec

Completed

Exec

Completed

Group A - Projects That Have Completed the Interconnection Study Process and Filed an Interconnection Agreement (IA) by 8/6/04.

PG&E/Athens

Athens

NM-NG

4/27/98

Yes

PSEG Power

Bethlehem EC

NM-NG

4/27/98

Yes

TransEnergieUS

CT-LI DC

LIPA

7/20/98

Yes

NYPA

Poletti

ConEd

4/30/99

Yes

Con Edison

East River Repowering

ConEd

8/10/99

Yes

N/A

SCS Energy

Astoria Energy

ConEd

11/16/99

Yes

NYPA

NYC GTs

ConEd

12/5/00

79-84

Yes

KeySpan

Ravenswood

ConEd

4/21/99

Yes

Yes 1

Yes

Canastota Wind

Fenner Wind Energy

NM-NG

3/14/00

Yes

Yes 1

Yes

Fortistar-LMA

Lockport II

NYSEG

5/15/00

Yes

Yes 1

Yes

PSEG Power

Cross Hudson Project

ConEd

5/11/01

Yes

Yes 1

Yes

Group B - Projects That Have Completed an SRIS and/or Executed an Interconnection Study Agreement (ISA) by 8/6/04, but Have Not Completed a

Facilities Study or Cost Allocation.

ABB

Oak Point Yard

ConEd

4/15/99

Yes

NYC Energy

NYC Energy-Kent Ave

ConEd

5/7/99

Yes

KeySpan

Spagnoli Rd CC

LIPA

5/17/99

Yes

Calpine

Wawayanda

NYPA

6/10/99

Yes

Reliant

Astoria RP Phase 1

ConEd

7/13/99

Yes

Mirant

Bowline Point 3

ConEd

10/13/99

Yes

ANP

Brookhaven

LIPA

11/22/99

Yes

Glenville Energy

Glenville Energy Park

NM-NG

11/30/99

Yes

PP&L

Kings Park

LIPA

2/1/00

Yes

GenPower

NYC DC Tie

ConEd

2/9/00

Yes

Besicorp

Empire State Newsprint

NM-NG

7/14/00

Yes

Reliant

Astoria RP Phase 2

ConEd

8/18/00

Yes

Fortistar

ConEd

3/20/01

Yes

Fortistar

VAN

ConEd

3/20/01

Yes

Atlantic Energy

Neptune PJM-LI DC

LIPA

5/22/01

Yes

Calpine

CPN 3rd Turbine (JFK)

ConEd

5/29/01

Yes

Entergy

Indian Point EC

ConEd

7/23/01

102

Yes

TransGas Energy

ConEd

10/5/01

106

Yes

PG&E/Liberty

Liberty Gen 400 MW

ConEd

2/4/02

110

Yes

TransEnergieUS

PJM-Rainey DC

ConEd

4/9/02

112

Yes

1 These projects are in Class Year 2002 for cost allocation, which is near completion, but needs to go through review, approval, and Developer decision. Any projects that drop out

of Class 2002 will be required to participate in a Facilities Study in a subsequent Class Year, to the extent necessary to complete the cost allocation process.

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Status of Pre-August 6, 2004 Interconnection Requests (as of 10/1/04) Page 2 of 3

Date of

NYISO

Feasibility Study

Sys Rel Impact Study

Fac Study / Cost Alloc

Interconnection

Developer

Project

CTO

Appl or

Queue

Agreement

Study

Int Req

Pos

Filed

Exec

Completed

Exec

Completed

Exec

Completed

Global Winds Harvest

Prattsburgh Wind Park

NYSEG

4/22/02

113

Yes

Chautauqua Wind

Chautauqua WP

NM-NG

5/14/02

117

Yes

ECOGEN

Prattsburgh Wind Farm

NYSEG

5/20/02

119

Yes

Bay Energy

ConEd

7/1/02

124

Yes

TransEnergieUS

PJM-Newbridge Rd DC

LIPA

9/10/02

126

Yes

Conjunction

Empire Connection

NM/CE

6/16/03

137

Yes

Entergy

Indian Point 2 Uprate

ConEd

7/23/03

138

Yes

Entergy

Indian Point 3 Uprate

ConEd

7/23/03

139

Yes

Flat Rock Windpower

Flat Rock 300 MW

NM-NG

8/27/03

141

Yes

Constellation

Ginna Uprate

RG&E

1/30/04

143

N/A

Yes

Calpine

Sullivan County

NYPA

6/25/99

Yes

Twin Tier Power

NYSEG

8/20/99

Yes

1st Rochdale

Gotham Power-Bronx I

ConEd

1/12/00

Yes

Calpine

Waterford

NM-NG

10/30/00

Yes

TransEnergieUS

PJM-NYC 990MW DC

ConEd

6/22/01

Yes

Calpine

Titan Smith St

ConEd

10/5/01

105

Yes

Caithness Bellport

LIPA

10/9/01

107

Yes

River Hill

River Hill Project

NYSEG

2/5/02

111

Yes

No 2

Invenergy

Sheldon Windfarm

NYSEG

2/18/04

144

Yes

No 2

LIPA

Mobile Generators

LIPA

3/2/04

145

N/A

No 2

N/A

Group C - Projects That Neither Completed an SRIS, Nor Executed an ISA by 8/6/04.

Millennium

Millennium 1

ConEd

2/23/99

Millennium

Millennium 2

ConEd

2/23/99

East Coast Power

Linden 7

ConEd

3/25/99

No 2

East Coast Power

Linden Plant Improve’ts

ConEd

3/25/99

No 2

KeySpan

Shoreham

LIPA

5/17/99

KeySpan

Spagnoli Rd GT

LIPA

9/8/99

KeySpan

Far Rockaway

LIPA

2/1/00

KeySpan

Barrett

LIPA

2/1/00

KeySpan

Riverhead

LIPA

2/1/00

KeySpan

Southampton

LIPA

2/1/00

PP&L

Holbrook

LIPA

2/1/00

PP&L

Ruland Energy

LIPA

2/1/00

PP&L

Brookhaven

LIPA

2/3/00

PP&L

Brookhaven 2

LIPA

2/10/00

KeySpan

Wading River

LIPA

2/15/00

Mirant

Lovett 3

ConEd

3/23/00

PUBLIC VERSION--CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION REMOVED.

Status of Pre-August 6, 2004 Interconnection Requests (as of 10/1/04) Page 3 of 3

Date of

NYISO

Feasibility Study

Sys Rel Impact Study

Fac Study / Cost Alloc

Interconnection

Developer

Project

CTO

Appl or

Queue

Agreement

Study

Int Req

Pos

Filed

Exec

Completed

Exec

Completed

Exec

Completed

Mirant

Hillburn Unit #2

ConEd

3/23/00

Mirant

Hillburn #2 Conv

ConEd

3/23/00

Lewis Staley Assoc

Station A

NYSEG

5/11/00

Lewis Staley Assoc

Station B

NM-NG

5/11/00

PP&L

Ruland Energy 2

LIPA

6/23/00

Fortistar

Island Gen Station

ConEd

9/8/00

Fortistar

Island Gen Station #2

ConEd

9/8/00

FPL Energy

Oceanside EC

LIPA

10/10/00

KeySpan

Ravenswood RP Ph1

ConEd

12/4/00

NRG/Berrians

Berrians GT Repl.

ConEd

1/15/01

Amerada Hess

Redhook Energy

ConEd

5/1/01

Northeast Utilities

CT-LI HVDC Cable

LIPA

7/13/01

101

Pegasus Trans Co

Niagara Reinforcement

NM/PA/CE

8/15/01

103

PG&E

Jupiter PJM-NYC DC

ConEd

8/24/01

104

Sempra Energy

Long Island

LIPA

11/29/01

108

Calpine

Maspeth

ConEd

1/25/02

109

PG&E/Liberty

Liberty Gen 600 MW

ConEd

4/29/02

116

Global Winds Harvest

Prattsburgh WindPark II

NYSEG

5/15/02

118

East Coast Power

Linden VFT Inter-Tie

ConEd

7/18/02

125

No 2

Electrotek Concepts

Grace Corona Gen

ConEd

1/14/03

130

Green Power Energy

Cody Rd Wind Farm

NM-NG

3/5/03

131

Canandaigua Power

Canandaigua WF

NYSEG

5/30/03

135

Airtricity

Hartsville Wind Farm

NYSEG

10/30/03

142

No 2

NY Windpower

West Hill Windfarm

NM-NG

4/16/04

147

Trigen-Nassau

LIPA

5/18/04

148

Reunion Power

Cherry Val Wind Park

NYSEG

6/1704

150

Invenergy

Stamford Wind Project

NYSEG

7/23/04

152

No 2

2 These projects have a recently approved SRIS scope (i.e. the scope was approved in 2004).