REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER AND ANSWER OF

THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR AND
THE NEW YORK TRANSMISSION OWNERS

Pursuant to Rule 213 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“Commission”)
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.213, the New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”) and Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc., Long Island Lighting Company d/b/a LIPA, New York Power
Authority, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
d/b/a National Grid, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric
Corporation (referred to herein as the “New York Transmission Owners” or “NYTOs”),

individually and collectively request leave to file an answer and submit this answer in response to the August 22, 2014 motion to intervene and protest of the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (“IREC”) in the above-captioned proceeding.1

1 The Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc.’s Motion to Intervene and to Protest New York Independent System Operator’s and New York Transmission Owners’ Small Generator Interconnection Procedures Compliance Tariff, Docket No. ER14-2573-000, filed Aug. 22, 2014 (“Protest”).

I.REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER

The NYISO and the NYTOs (collectively, “Filing Parties”) request leave to file this Answer because it will help to clarify the issues before the Commission, provide additional information that will assist the Commission, or will otherwise be helpful in the development of a more complete and accurate record in this proceeding.2

II.ANSWER

On August 1, 2014, the Filing Parties made a compliance filing (“Filing”) in accordance
with the requirements of Order No. 792.3 Among other things, the Filing requested a variation
from the Commission’s pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (“SGIP”)

concerning the amount of the fee to be charged for preparation of pre-application reports. In
Order No. 792, the Commission established a default fee of $300 for preparation of a pre-
application report and specified that the fee should “only include the cost of providing the
incremental information required under this Final Rule.”4 The Commission also determined that
the Transmission Provider could propose an alternative fixed cost-based fee supported by cost
justification because “it would be unjust and unreasonable for Transmission Providers not to

2 See, e.g., N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 99 FERC ¶ 61,246, at 62,040 (2002) (accepting answers to protests that helped to clarify issues and did not disrupt the proceeding); Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. v. N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 93 FERC ¶ 61,017, at 61,036 (2000) (accepting an answer that was “helpful in the development of the record”); N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 91 FERC ¶ 61,218, at 61,797 (2000) (allowing an answer deemed “useful in addressing the issues arising in these proceedings”); Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 88 FERC ¶ 61,138, at 61,381 (1999) (accepting otherwise prohibited pleadings because they helped to clarify complex issues).

3 Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 792, 145 FERC ¶ 61,149
(2013).

4 Order No. 792 at P 46.

recover their actual pre-application report preparation costs.”5 It further provided that such fees
should reflect the cost of providing the “incremental information” required by Order No. 792.6
In accordance with the Commission’s directives, the Filing Parties proposed to set a cost-
based fee of $1000 for the NYISO and the NYTOs to prepare a pre-application report for an
interconnection customer.7 By identifying “several Small Generator Facility projects previously
included on the NYISO’s interconnection queue and perform[ing] the work necessary to
complete a pre-application report for these projects,” the Filing Parties determined that $1000
was a more accurate representation of their actual costs of preparing pre-application reports than
the default $300 fee, based on the actual time it took to assemble the necessary information.8
IREC protests that, since Transmission Providers were required to provide certain information to interconnection customers at no cost prior to the issuance of Order No. 792, not all of the costs identified in the examples provided by the Filing Parties constitute incremental costs.9 This criticism is misplaced. The pre-application report will predominantly contain information not previously provided by the NYISO and the NYTOs to interconnection customers prior to submission of a formal Interconnection Request. In addition, as stated in the Filing, the Filing Parties “performed the work necessary to complete a pre-application report” and “reviewed the time and resources required to complete the sample reports” in developing the proposed fee.10 The Filing Parties thus made clear that preparation of pre-application reports in

5Id.

6 Id.; see SGIP §§ 1.2.1 and 1.2.2-4.

7 Filing at 6-7.

8 Id. at 6-7.

9 Protest at 6.

10 Filing at 6-7.

compliance with Order No. 792’s formal requirements is a new obligation to be borne by
transmission providers, and the full amount of the fee constitutes an incremental cost.
The Filing Parties have developed a cost-based fee consistent with the Commission’s express directives providing for such fees. IREC itself concedes that the Commission set a default fee that was intended to cover the costs of preparing pre-application reports, but provided for variations in cases where the default fee does not cover actual costs.11 IREC further does not question whether the Filing Parties’ proposed fee is cost-based, but instead objects to the fee on other grounds that are irrelevant under the fee development framework established by the Commission.

Beyond claiming that the proposed fee is not based on incremental costs, IREC relies on the notion that the Filing Parties’ proposed fee would act as a deterrent to small interconnection customers.12 While the Protest asserts that small generators cannot afford the fee,13 it fails to acknowledge that most of the small generators about which it expresses concern are connected to local distribution systems (rather than selling into wholesale markets), and are thus outside the Commission’s jurisdiction and unaffected by the proposed fee. The example cited in the Protest, a Massachusetts rule providing for preparation of reports at no cost,14 illustrates this fact and does not support IREC’s position. The Massachusetts rule applies to state-jurisdictional generators that are connected to the local distribution system only.

11 Protest at 4-5.

12 Id. at 6.

13 Id.

14 See id. at 7.

/s/ Sara B. Keegan

Sara B. Keegan, Senior Attorney
New York Independent System Operator,
Inc.

10 Krey Boulevard
Rensselaer, NY 12144

Phone: (518) 356-6000 Fax: (518) 356-4702 skeegan@nyiso.com

/s/ John Borchert by EES

John Borchert

Senior Director of Energy Policy and Transmission Development

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation 284 South Avenue

Poughkeepsie, NY12601
Email: jborchert@cenhud.com

/s/ Jacqueline Hardy by EES

Jacqueline Hardy

Assistant General Counsel
Power Supply Long Island

333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 403 Uniondale, NY 11553

Email: jhardy@lipower.org

/s/ David Clarke by EES

David Clarke

Deputy Director of FERC/RTO Policy Power Supply Long Island

99 Washington Avenue, 10th Floor Albany, NY 12210-2822

Email: dclarke@lipower.org

/s/ Elias G. Farrah by EES Elias G. Farrah

Erica E. Stauffer

Winston & Strawn LLP 1700 K St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20006-3817
Email: efarrah@winston.com

estauffer@winston.com

Counsel to the New York Transmission Owners

/s/ Susan Vercheak by EES

Susan Vercheak, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

4 Irving Place, Room 1815-S New York, NY 10003

Email: vercheaks@coned.com

/s/ Glenn D. Haake

Principal Attorney

New York Power Authority

30 South Pearl Street - 10th Floor Albany, NY 12207-3245

Email: glenn.haake@nypa.gov

/s/ Timothy R. Roughan by EES

Timothy R. Roughan

Director of Energy & Environmental Policy Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

d/b/a National Grid

National Grid USA Service Company, Inc.

40 Sylvan Road

Waltham, MA 02451-1120

Timothy.Roughan@nationalgrid.com

/s/ Amanda C. Downey by EES

Amanda C. Downey Counsel

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a/ National Grid

National Grid USA Service Company, Inc.

40 Sylvan Road

Waltham, MA 02451-1120

Email: Amanda.Downey@nationalgrid.com

Dated: September 8, 2014

/s/ R. Scott Mahoney by EES

R. Scott Mahoney, Esq.

New York State Electric & Gas Corporation Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation

Iberdrola USA

18 Link Drive
P.O. Box 5224

Binghamton, NY 13902-5224

Email: scott.mahoney@iberdrolausa.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Rule 2010 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §385.2010.
Dated at Rensselaer, NY this 8th day of September, 2014.

/s/ Mohsana Akter

Mohsana Akter

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

10 Krey Blvd.

Rensselaer, NY 12144 (518) 356-7560