UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

Small Generator Interconnection Agreements)Docket No. RM13-2-000

And Procedures)

COMMENTS OF ISO/RTO COUNCIL ON
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

The ISO/RTO Council (“IRC”)1 respectfully submits these comments in response to the January 17, 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) in the above-referenced proceeding (“NOPR”).2 The IRC supports providing small generation projects an efficient process to interconnect. In the
experience of IRC members throughout the nation, transmission providers have implemented
varying procedures across different regions to streamline the interconnection of small generation projects. The IRC believes it is important to maintain regional flexibility and requests that the Commission allow each RTO and ISO to address specific issues in each of its regions, as
necessary, rather than implement pro forma reforms to interconnection procedures that have
already undergone different variations in each region.

To the extent the Commission does not allow for flexibility to implement region-specific
reforms, the IRC offers suggestions for improving the pre-application report process. Various

1 The IRC is comprised of the Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”), the California Independent System
Operator Corporation (“CAISO”), the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (“ERCOT”) the Independent
Electricity System Operator (“IESO”), ISO New England Inc. (“ISO-NE”), the Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. (“MISO”), the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”), PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C. (“PJM”) and the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (“SPP”). ERCOT, AESO and IESO are not FERC-jurisdictional and are not joining these comments.

2 Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 142 FERC ¶ 61,049 (2013) (“NOPR”), 78 Fed. Reg. p.7,524 (Feb. 1, 2013).

IRC members may file separate comments that address the pre-application report proposal in more detail, as well as other aspects of the NOPR.

I.COMMENTS

A.Current ISO/RTO Small Generator Interconnection Processes Support

Timely and Efficient Processing of Small Generator Interconnection Requests

The NOPR states the proposed reforms are intended to reduce the time and cost for small
generator interconnection requests, and it cites market changes and the increase in solar
photovoltaic installations as driving the need for reforms at this time.3 The IRC understands the
need to ensure small generators are afforded the opportunity to interconnect in a timely and cost
effective manner. IRC members already apply their current procedures consistent with this
objective.

For instance, to date, every proposed small generation project in the NYISO

interconnection queue has been able to forgo at least one of the interconnection studies and has
not been required to go through the full study process. PJM’s process allows for combined
studies which result in those projects - typically small generation projects -- moving more
quickly through the queue. PJM also allows the facilities study to be waived and for projects in
the fast track to be expedited ahead of larger projects. Similarly, ISO-NE allows for the
feasibility study to be included as part of the system impact study and will waive facilities
studies where appropriate. MISO’s provides a “first ready, first served” process that permits
projects that are ready to proceed to move through the queue and be studied more swiftly if they
are prepared to do so. The CAISO currently applies a 5MW eligibility screen for projects to
qualify for fast track interconnection.

3 NOPR at PP 2, 4.

However, a streamlined process does not necessarily result in generating projects

reaching commercial operation. In some cases, projects may move quickly through the queue,
but stall before reaching commercial operation and ultimately withdraw.4 This appears to be the
result of economic or other factors unrelated to cost or efficiency of the interconnection process
itself.

B. The Final Rule Should Allow For Regional Flexibility

The Commission has recognized regional flexibility is desirable in some circumstances,
rather than proscribing a uniform approach across the country.5 The IRC members continuously
review their interconnection processes for both small and large generator interconnections to
improve transparency and efficiency where identified issues exist and to meet ever-changing
challenges.6 The IRC members request the Commission order a similar approach here -

4 For instance, FERC has accepted PJM’s termination of Interconnection Service Agreements and Wholesale Market Participation Agreements recently in Docket Nos. ER13-814-000, ER13-861-000, ER13-877-000, ER13-890-000, ER13-892-000, ER13-893-000, ER13-1308-000, and ER13-1224-000. Similarly, FERC has accepted MISO’s
termination of Generator Interconnection Agreements for five projects over the last several months in Docket Nos. ER13-1074; ER13-940-000; ER13-886-000; ER13-14-000; and ER13-30-000.

5 See, e.g., Interconnection Queuing Practices, Order on Technical Conference, 122 FERC ¶ 61,252 at P 3 (2008)
(“Queuing Practices Order”); Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity Markets, Order No.
681, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,226 (2006) (stating a flexible approach is appropriate because "there is no 'one size
fits all' long-term firm transmission right design that could be implemented in each of the various transmission
organization markets."), order on reh’g, Order No. 681-A, 117 FERC ¶ 61,201 (2006), order on reh’g and
clarification, Order No. 681-B, 126 FERC ¶ 61,254 (2009); Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by
Transmission Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000 at P 61, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,323 (2011)
(stating each transmission planning region has unique characteristics, and, therefore, Order No. 1000 accords
transmission planning regions significant flexibility to tailor regional transmission planning and cost allocation
processes to accommodate regional differences), order on reh’g, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132, order on
reh’g, Order No. 1000-B, 141 FERC ¶ 61,044 (2012).

6 See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Letter Order, Docket No. EL08-36-000

(issued Aug. 19, 2008); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Letter Order, Docket No. ER09-26-000 (issued Nov. 6, 2008);
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Letter Order, Docket No. ER09-755-000 (issued Mar. 25, 2009); PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., Letter Order, Docket No. ER09-978-001 (Aug. 17, 2009); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,
Letter Order, Docket No. ER11-3085-000 (issued May 5, 2011); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 139 FERC ¶ 61,079,
Letter Order accepting compliance filing, Docket No. ER12-117-001 (issued Aug. 28, 2012) ; New York
Independent System Operator, Inc.,135 FERC ¶ 61,014 (2011); New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 142
FERC ¶ 61,113 (2013); Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,183 (2008),
order on rehearing, 127 FERC ¶ 61,294 (2009), order on compliance and requiring further compliance, 127 FERC
¶ 61,295 (2009).

requiring each IRC member to review and assess its interconnection process in light of the

Commission’s guidance in the NOPR, and propose specific improvements, as necessary, in their respective regions.

Significant differences exist across regions regarding the volume and growth of

interconnection requests for small generating facilities and the impact of these requests on the
efficiency of the interconnection process. Certain regions receive larger number of requests to
interconnect small generating facilities to Commission jurisdictional facilities than others.
Moreover, certain regions have experienced recent surges of such requests as the result of state
renewable portfolio requirements. As the Commission has previously recognized, “[a]lthough
there are some common issues affecting all the regions, there are also significant differences in
the nature and scope of the problem from region to region; there may, therefore be no right
answer for how to improve queue management.”7 As a result, the regions have implemented
different procedures. For instance, MISO has found that its pre-application meeting process is
utilized by developers to gain general information about the system where they are potentially
going to interconnect, such as facility loadings, instability, short circuit and voltage issues, power
quality issues including voltage flicker, and harmonics.8 Contrast that with the NYISO in which
Interconnection Customers have rarely, if ever used the existing pre-application process. This is
largely because of the readily available information on the NYISO public web site and other
sources of information available to potential customers through the NYISO’s Critical Energy
Infrastructure Information request procedures. Earlier this year, CAISO commenced an initiative

7 Queuing Practices Order at P 8,

8 MISO Tariff Attachment X, Section 6.1

to examine interconnection procedures enhancements, including refinements to its fast track screens.9

Relevant to this proceeding, in its order regarding Interconnection Queuing Practices in
Docket No. AD08-2-000 referenced in the NOPR, the Commission identified concerns that
interconnection requests for large generating facilities were not being efficiently processed due
to surges in the volume of new generation, including an unprecedented demand in some regions
for renewable generation.10 However, rather than requiring a single approach, the Commission
allowed each RTO and ISO to address specific issues in each of its regions. The Commission
stated:

While the Commission could take action to impose solutions, and may need to do so if

the RTOs and ISOs do not act themselves, we agree that we should allow each region the
opportunity to propose its own solution. Although there are some common issues
affecting all the regions, there are also significant differences in the nature and scope of
the problem from region to region; there may, therefore, be no one right answer for how
to improve queue management. Further, any solution involves a balancing of interests.
Therefore, we urge the RTOs and ISOs to work with their stakeholders to develop
consensus proposals.11

The Commission informed the ISOs/RTOs that it was open to a range of possible variations to address the identified issue.12

Just like the Commission did in its Queuing Practices Order, the IRC requests the

Commission allow for individually tailored modifications, as needed, on a region-by-region
basis. The Commission already has accepted various tariff proposals that modify the small
generator interconnection process to meet identified needs in various regions. For example,

9 CAISO Interconnection Process Enhancements Scoping Proposal, dated April 8, 2013 which can be found at the
following URL: http://www.caiso.com/Documents/ScopingProposal-InterconnectionProcessEnhancements.pdf

10Queuing Practices order at P 3.

11Id. at P 8.

12 Id. at P 15.

among its most recent interconnection process improvement filings, the NYISO modified its
tariff to limit the circumstances under which a small generating facility is required to enter the
Class Year Interconnection Facilities Study process, resulting in fewer small generating projects
having to incur study costs from such study.13 PJM adopted an alternate queue process whereby
small generators with no impact on the PJM monitored transmission system are placed in an
alternate queue process and proceed on a path that is not dependent on the timing or cost
allocation of projects remaining in the main queue.14 MISO merged its large and small generator
procedures, effectively adjusting the costs downward for smaller generators.15 To the extent the
Commission’s final rule in this proceeding adopts a reform that would impact a previously-
approved modification in small generator procedures, the IRC asks that the final rule allow for
flexibility to maintain those processes.

C. Specific Comments on the Pre-Application Report Proposal

The NOPR proposes that a potential interconnection customer can request for a $300 fee
a pre-application report that will provide it with various categories of information16 related to the
requestor’s specified point of interconnection. This report is to be based on readily available

13 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 135 FERC ¶ 61,014 (2011). See also New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 142 FERC ¶ 61,113 (2013) (accepting clarifications to improve the small generator interconnection procedures).

14 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 139 FERC ¶ 61,079, Letter Order accepting compliance filing, Docket No. ER12-
117-001 (issued Aug. 28, 2012)

15 See Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,183 (2008), order on rehearing,
127 FERC ¶ 61,294 (2009), order on compliance and requiring further compliance, 127 FERC ¶ 61,295 (2009).

16 Information is to include: (a) Total capacity and available capacity of the facilities that serve the Point of

Interconnection; (b) Existing and queued generation at the facilities likely serving the Point of Interconnection; (c)
Voltage of the facilities that serve the Point of Interconnection; (d) Circuit distance between the proposed Point of
Interconnection and the substation likely to serve the Point of Interconnection (Substation); (e) Number and rating of
protective devices and number and type of voltage regulating devices between the proposed Point of
Interconnection and the Substation; (f) Number of phases available at the proposed Point of Interconnection; (g)
Limiting conductor ratings from the proposed Point of Interconnection to the Substation; (h) Peak and minimum
load data; and (i). Existing or known constraints associated with the Point of Interconnection. NOPR at P 28.

information and is to be circulated in 10 business days.17 The IRC is concerned the proposed
pre-application process may produce reports that are not actionable and will create false
expectations on the part of potential interconnection customers that could ultimately add more
administrative burden - taking away from actual interconnection projects - with little benefit.18
As explained above, any final rule in this proceeding should allow for regional flexibility and
allow transmission providers to maintain current processes which already allow for efficient and
timely interconnection studies. However, the IRC believes the Commission can refine the
proposed pre-application process to increase the usefulness of these reports should the
Commission decline to allow for regional flexibility in its final rule.
The IRC recognizes the value of providing developers with accurate information and the IRC members offer various opportunities for potential interconnection customers to ask
questions and seek additional information. Indeed, the current processes already support this.
There is also information available to potential interconnection customers through the IRC
members’ websites related to type, amount, and location of projects that are already
interconnected or that are being studied in the queue.19 Feasibility and impact study reports
contain information about constraints and other limiting factors that can be useful to potential
interconnection customers. As noted above, MISO holds pre-application meetings; PJM engages

17 NOPR at PP 26-29.

18 The proposed pre-application process is modeled on the State of California’s Rule 21 settlement. NOPR at P 27. The Rule 21 process was implemented in September 2012 and, at least at the time of the Commission’s March 27, 2013 workshop in this proceeding, it was too early to tell if the Rule 21 pre-application process is leading to better interconnection request decisions or to more generation going through the process and being built.

19 See, e.g., http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-interconnection/generation-queue-active.aspx;

http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/services/planning/nyiso_interconnection_queue/nyiso_interconnection_queu
e.xls; http://www.iso-ne.com/genrtion_resrcs/nwgen_inter/status/index.html

in phone and email communications with potential interconnection customers; ISO-NE and NYISO engage in informal discussions with potential customers.

The IRC appreciates language in the proposed rule that provides: (1) the report is to be
based on readily available information and no new analysis shall be performed; (2) the
information about available capacity does not imply there will be no impacts; and (3) the report
is based on best available information at the time of the pre-application report request and may
become outdated at the time the developer submits an interconnection request.20 Additionally,
the IRC offers the following suggestions that could result in a more effective pre-application
process.

Need for a Standard Request Form - The NOPR proposes that a potential

interconnection customer seeking a pre-application report submit a request that includes “a
proposed Point of Interconnection, which shall be defined sufficiently to clearly identify the
location of the proposed Point of Interconnection.”21 The IRC believes more information than
just the proposed point of interconnection is needed to process such requests. Such information
should include project contact information as well as other identifying information, such as
details about the proposed location, type of generation, size of the generator, and other related
information. Requiring this information may increase the likelihood that there is an actual
project proposed rather than merely a request for system information. Further, this information
can help transmission providers determine if the request is subject to the FERC interconnection

20 See NOPR, Appendix C, Section 1.2.4 which provides “The provision of information on ‘available capacity’

pursuant to section 1.2.3.4 does not imply that an interconnection up to this level may be completed without impacts since there are many variables studied as part of the interconnection review process, and data provided in the preapplication report may become outdated at the time of the submission of the complete Interconnection Request. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this section, the Transmission Provider shall, in good faith, include data in the pre-application report that represents that best available information at the time of reporting.”

21 NOPR, Appendix C., Section 1.2.2

process or whether it should be considered under a state interconnection process. The IRC

supports including a standard request form in each transmission provider’s tariff. However, the final rule should allow the request form to vary by region if needed.

15-20 Business Days Needed To Process Request, Particularly In An ISO or RTO
Region -- The NOPR proposes the transmission provider produce the pre-application report
within 10 business days.22 This is not enough time, particularly in an ISO or RTO region where
the ISO/RTO will need to coordinate with the appropriate transmission owner. The IRC asks
that the Final Rule allow for flexibility for each region to propose a specific time frame that
makes sense for its region for the same reasons discussed previously, but suggests more than 10
business days may be necessary to accomplish the following steps which are likely to take place:
An ISO/RTO will receive a pre-application report request and it will need a reasonable amount
of time to process and send it to the appropriate transmission owner (3-5 business days). Next,
the transmission owner will need a reasonable amount of time to review the request, pull the
relevant information, fill in the report and send it back to the ISO/RTO (5-7 business days). The
ISO/RTO will then need to review it, consult with the transmission owner over any questions, fill
in any missing information to the extent that it can do so, and send it back to the potential
interconnection customer (5-7 business days). In some instances, the pre-application report
request may trigger the need for the potential interconnection customer to sign a critical energy
infrastructure information non-disclosure agreement. Although the timeframes may seem long
for a report that is to be based on readily available information, allowing for this time
acknowledges the reality that the same employees who are administering the study process for
queued interconnection projects will administer this process as well and will need to manage the

22 NOPR at P 28 & Appendix C, Section 1.2.2

pre-application report requests alongside of its existing project load. To that end, the IRC also

asks that the Final Rule confirm that the reasonable efforts standard included in SGIP Section 4.1
will apply to the pre-application report process to allow for additional time as needed.
Clarity is Needed About What is Considered Readily Available - The NOPR provides a transmission provider is not obligated to conduct a study or other analysis of the proposed
generator in the event information is not readily available.23 As noted above, the IRC
appreciates this report should include readily available information and no additional analysis or
study is required of the transmission provider. But this directive may subject transmission
providers (and the transmission owners who will actually prepare the reports in ISO or RTO
regions) to claims they are not providing all information that is readily available. For this reason,
allowing each region to specify what information is actually available in a pre-application
process to assist prospective interconnection customers will create greater certainty for both
transmission providers and developers.

Limitation of Post-Report Analysis - The NOPR does not provide for any post-report
process. Based on experience, the IRC believes it is inevitable the potential interconnection
customers will have one or more questions about the pre-application report. While the IRC
would not object to a single follow-up conference call with the transmission provider and
transmission owner to discuss the information provided in the pre-application report, the IRC
would not support a post-report analysis of the information provided in the report. Therefore, the
IRC asks the Commission to clearly state in Section 1.2.4 or add a new section 1.2.5 to provide:
“Any further analysis related to the proposed generator or in follow-up to the information

23 NOPR at P 27; Appendix C, Section 1.2.4.

contained in the report shall be conducted pursuant to an Interconnection Request submitted in accordance with Section 1.3.”

II.CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, the IRC respectfully asks that the Commission allow for regional

flexibility in proposing and implementing proposed modifications to each region’s Small

Generator Interconnection Procedures, as necessary, to address the concerns the Commission enunciated in the NOPR. To the extent the Commission declines such request, the IRC
respectfully requests that the Commission consider the modifications to the pre-application report as stated herein.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Anna McKenna/s/ Carl F. Patka

Nancy SaracinoCarl F. Patka*

General CounselAssistant General Counsel

Anthony IvancovichRaymond Stalter

Deputy General Counsel, Regulatory*Director of Regulatory Affairs

Anna McKennaSara B. Keegan,* Senior Attorney

Assistant General Counsel, RegulatoryNew York Independent System Operator,

California Independent System OperatorInc.

Corporation10 Krey Blvd

250 Outcropping WayRensselaer, New York 12144

Folsom, California 95630cpatka@nyiso.com

amckenna@caiso.com

/s/ Theodore J. Paradise/s/ Craig Glazer

Raymond W. HepperCraig Glazer*

Vice President, General Counsel, and SecretaryVice President-Federal Government Policy

Theodore J. Paradise*Jennifer H. Tribulski,* Senior Counsel

Assistant General Counsel, Operations andPJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

PlanningSuite 600

ISO New England Inc.1200 G Street, N.W.

One Sullivan RoadWashington, D.C. 20005

Holyoke, Massachusetts 01040202-423-4743

tparadise@iso-ne.comglazec@pjm.com

/s/ Stephen G. Kozey

Stephen G. Kozey*

Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary

Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.

P.O. Box 4202

Carmel, Indiana 46082-4202

skozey@midwestiso.org

*Designated to receive service

Dated: June 3, 2013

/s/ Paul Suskie

Paul Suskie*

Sr. VP Regulatory Policy & General Counsel

Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

201 Worthen Drive

Little Rock, Arkansas 72223-4936 psuskie@spp.org