May 22, 2019
By Electronic Delivery
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Re: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.’s Compliance Filing; Docket Nos.
RM17-8-000, ER19-___-000
Dear Ms. Bose:
In compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“Commission’s”) Order No. 845 and Order No. 845-A,1 the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”) respectfully submits revisions to its Large Facility Interconnection Procedures (“LFIP”) and Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (“LGIA”) set forth in Attachment X of its Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”).2
In Order No. 845, the Commission revised the pro forma Large Generator
Interconnection Procedures (“LGIP”) and LGIA to implement ten reforms aimed at improving interconnection processes applicable to Large Facilities.3 The NYISO proposes to revise its
LFIP and LGIA to incorporate the revisions with the specified independent entity variations
described below.4 The proposed variations largely conform the revisions in Order No. 845 to the terminology and procedures of the NYISO OATT previously accepted by the Commission. A limited number of other, more substantive, variations are proposed with detailed explanations regarding, among other things, the need for independent entity variations in light of
interconnection, operational and market issues unique to the NYISO.
The NYISO respectfully requests that the revisions become effective sixty (60) calendar
days following the date of an order from the Commission accepting the revisions proposed
1 Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements, Order No. 845, 83 Fed. Reg. 21342 (May 9, 2018), 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2018) (“Order No. 845”), order on clarification and reh’g, Order No. 845-A, 166 FERC ¶ 61,137 (2019) (“Order No. 845-A”).
2 Capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined in this filing shall have the meaning specified in
Attachment X of the NYISO OATT, and if not defined therein, in Attachment S of the NYISO OATT and Section 1 of the NYISO OATT.
3 Order No. 845, at P 1.
4 The NYISO also proposes to make a limited, conforming revision to Attachment S of the OATT, as further described in herein.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 2
herein, as described in Part V below. The NYISO submits that with this compliance filing it fully complies with the requirements set forth in Order No. 845 and Order No. 845-A. The NYISO reviewed the proposed revisions with its stakeholders.
I.Documents Submitted
The NYISO submits the following documents with this filing letter:
1.A clean version of the proposed revisions to the NYISO’s OATT (“Attachment
I”); and
2.A blacklined version of the proposed revisions to the NYISO’s OATT
(“Attachment II”).
II.Communications
All communications, pleadings, and orders with respect to this proceeding should be sent to the following individuals:
Karen Georgenson Gach, Acting General Counsel Raymond Stalter, Director, Regulatory Affairs * Sara B. Keegan, Senior Attorney
* Brian R. Hodgdon, Senior Attorney
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
10 Krey Boulevard
Rensselaer, NY 12144
kgach@nyiso.com
rstalter@nyiso.com
skeegan@nyiso.com
bhodgdon@nyiso.com
*Designated to receive service.
III.Background
In its Order Nos. 2003,5 the Commission established the pro forma LGIP and LGIA to set
forth the terms and conditions under which public utilities must provide interconnection services
to Large Generating Facilities greater than 20 MW to existing transmission systems. These pro
forma interconnection procedures and agreements have since been revised by the Commission in
5 Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. &
Regs. 31,146 (2003) (“Order No. 2003”), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,160 (2004),
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. 131,190 (2005), aff’d sub nom. Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Util. Com’rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C.
Cir. 2007).
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 3
various proceedings.6 In compliance with these orders, the NYISO incorporated the
Commission’s interconnection procedures and agreements into its OATT, with certain variations that the Commission previously accepted under the “independent entity variation” standard.7
Over time, the NYISO has proposed, and the Commission has accepted, significant variations
from the pro forma LGIP and LGIA resulting in carefully tailored interconnection procedures
unique to New York.
On April 19, 2018, the Commission issued Order No. 845 to amend its pro forma
interconnection procedures and agreements by adopting ten reforms in order to improve certainty
for interconnection customers; promote more informed interconnection decisions; and enhance
the interconnection process.8 In an effort to improve certainty, Order No. 845 expanded the
ability for a Developer to exercise the option to build the transmission provider’s interconnection
facilities and stand alone network upgrades and enhanced dispute resolution procedures that can
be invoked unilaterally by a party. For promoting more informed decisions, Order No. 845
directed transmission providers to (1) outline and make public a method for determining
contingent facilities; (2) list specific study process and assumptions for forming network models
used in interconnection studies; (3) include electric storage resources in the definition of
“Generating Facility,” and (4) require summary reporting metrics for the performance of the
interconnection process. Finally, in order to enhance the interconnection process, Order No. 845
required provisions allowing the interconnection customer the ability to (1) request the level of
its facility’s interconnection service below the full generating capacity; (2) request provisional
interconnection service for facilities to have limited operations prior to completing the full
interconnection process; (3) use surplus interconnection service at existing points of
interconnection; and (4) make technological changes without affecting its queue position. The
Commission directed each public utility transmission provider to submit a compliance filing
demonstrating that it meets the requirements of Order No. 845,9 but clarified that it made “no
changes to variations allowed by Order No. 2003.10
6 See, e.g., Reactive Power Requirements for Non-Synchronous Generation, Order No. 827, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,385, 155 FERC ¶ 61,277 (2016); Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System -
Primary Frequency Response, Order No. 842, 83 Fed. Reg. 9,636 (Mar. 6, 2018), 162 FERC ¶ 61,128, order on clarification and reh’g, 164 FERC ¶ 61,135 (2018).
7 See, e.g., New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc. and New York Transmission Owners, Order Conditionally
Accepting Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and Large Generator Interconnection Agreement, 108 FERC ¶ 61,159 (2004) (accepting compliance filings and directing certain changes); New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc.
and New York Transmission Owners, Letter Order, Docket No. ER04-449-004 (2005); New York Indep. Sys.
Operator, Inc. and New York Transmission Owners, Order on Compliance Filing, 149 FERC ¶ 61,209, (2014); New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Letter Order on Compliance Filing Under Order Nos. 827 and 828, Docket Nos.
ER17-61-000, -001 (2017); New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Letter Order on Order No. 842 Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER18-1620-000 (2018).
8 See generally, Order No. 845.
9 Id. at P 253.
10 Id. at P 43; see also Order No. 845-A, at P 2.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 4
Twelve requests for rehearing and/or clarification of Order No. 845 were submitted by
various parties on a number of different issues. The NYISO submitted a Request for
Clarification and Alternative Request for Rehearing on several issues related to the ability of a
transmission provider to request an independent entity variation and substantive issues in
connection with the surplus interconnection reform identified in Order No. 845.11 On February
21, 2019, the Commission issued Order No. 845-A and granted clarification and/or rehearing on
several issues, including the option to build revisions, summary reporting metrics for the
performance of the interconnection process, determining contingent facilities, making network
models used in interconnection studies available to interested parties, and surplus
interconnection. With regard to the NYISO’s requests, the Commission granted the request for
rehearing on the independent entity variation for the surplus interconnection revisions and
modified Order No. 845 to make it clear that “requesting an independent entity variation
provides more flexibility than requesting a variation that is ‘consistent with or superior to’ a final
rule’s requirements.”12 The Commission, however, deferred ruling on any substantive
independent entity variations until the NYISO submits its compliance filing.13
A. Background of NYISO’s Interconnection Queue Process
The NYISO’s Standard LFIP establish the requirements by which the NYISO, in
coordination with the relevant Connecting Transmission Owner,14 administers the proposed interconnection of a Large Facility greater than 20 MW to the New York State Transmission System or Distribution System.15 The NYISO’s LFIP were developed with extensive
stakeholder involvement in response to the Commission’s Order No. 2003.
In Order No. 2003, the Commission acknowledged the differing characteristics of each
region and provided ISOs and RTOs with the flexibility to seek independent entity variations
from the final rule “to customize its interconnection procedures and agreements to fit regional
needs.”16 Accordingly, while generally following the pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA, the
11 Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements, Request for Clarification and
Alternative Request for Rehearing of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. RM17-8-001 (May 22, 2018) (“Request for Rehearing”).
12 Order No. 845-A, at P 141.
13 Id.
14 The term “Transmission Provider” as defined in the pro forma LGIP encompasses both the NYISO and the
New York Transmission Owners. The NYISO’s LFIP, with its Commission-approved variations from the pro
forma LGIP, assigns the responsibilities of “Transmission Providers” to the NYISO, as the system operator, and the
New York Transmission Owners, as the owners of the impacted transmission and distribution facilities in New
York.
15 The term “Large Facility” as defined in Attachment X to the NYISO OATT concerns a Large Generating Facility or a Class Year Transmission Project. With the exception of controllable transmission facilities that seek Capacity Resource Interconnection Service and transmission facilities proposed by a Transmission Owner as part of its local plan, the interconnection of transmission facilities are addressed through the NYISO’s separate
Transmission Interconnection Procedures located in Attachment P to the NYISO OATT.
16 Order No. 2003, at P 827.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 5
NYISO’s LFIP and the NYISO’s Standard LGIA include numerous independent-entity
variations accepted by the Commission that are specifically tailored to the unique circumstances in New York. Since Order No. 2003, the NYISO, in conjunction with Developer and
stakeholder input, has continued to implement additional and significant revisions to its
transmission expansion and interconnection processes to update and enhance the New Yorkspecific interconnection requirements in Attachments P, S, X, and Z to the OATT.
In particular, the NYISO’s interconnection process includes significant Commission-
approved variations from the pro forma LGIP and other ISOs’ and RTOs’ procedures concerning
the treatment of proposed projects in the interconnection queue, the scope of interconnection
studies, and the process for allocating the cost of System Upgrade Facilities and System
Deliverability Upgrades.17 Some of the more significant variations are highlighted below.
B.Overview of NYISO’s LFIP
Attachment X contains the procedures for processing interconnections of Large
Generating Facilities and Class Year Transmission Projects (i.e., transmission projects that are
eligible for and request Capacity Resource Interconnection Service) (collectively, “Large
Facilities”). Attachment X provides for potentially three successive Interconnection Studies of
each proposed project. These studies analyze proposed projects in varying levels of detail. First
is the Optional Interconnection Feasibility Study, which is a high-level evaluation of the
project’s configuration and local system impacts.18 The second study is the Interconnection
System Reliability Impact Study (“System Reliability Interconnection Study”), which is a
detailed single-project study that evaluates the project’s impact on transfer capability and system
reliability.19 The final study in the interconnection process is the Class Year Interconnection
Facilities Study (“Class Year Study”), which is a construct unique to the NYISO.20 The Class
Year Study is unique to the NYISO’s interconnection procedures in that it evaluates the
cumulative impact of a group of projects—a “Class Year” of projects. The Class Year Study
identifies the upgrade facilities needed to reliably interconnect all of the projects in a Class Year.
A Class Year is comprised of projects that have met specified Class Year Study eligibility
requirements by the time the combined group study begins. The hallmark of the NYISO’s Class
Year Study process is that it is performed for a group of projects that have achieved similar
interconnection milestones to determine the cumulative impact of such projects in order to
equitably allocate upgrade costs and generate detailed cost estimates that provide reasonable
17 The Commission refers to “Interconnection Customers” in Order No. 845 and Order No. 845-A. In these
comments, the NYISO uses the term “Developer,” which is the term used in Attachments X and S to the OATT to
refer to a project developer for a Large Facility. In addition, the Commission refers to “network upgrades” in Order
No. 845 and Order No. 845-A. In these comments, the NYISO uses the following terms defined in Attachments S
and X to the OATT: “System Upgrade Facilities,” which refer to the upgrades required to reliably interconnect a
Large Facility, and “System Deliverability Upgrades,” which refer to the upgrades required to make a Large Facility
deliverable.
18 See Attachment X, Section 30.6.
19 See Attachment X, Section 30.7.
20 See Attachment X, Section 30.8.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 6
accuracy on upgrade costs. Each Class Year Study allocates the cost of System Upgrade
Facilities and System Deliverability Upgrades identified in the study among the projects in the
Class Year in accordance with the cost allocation methodologies set forth in Attachment S.21
All Large Facilities (studied in the LFIP under Attachment X) are subject to the Class
Year Study procedures. Certain Small Generating Facilities are also required to participate in the
Class Year Study and other Small Generating Facilities may elect to participate in a Class Year
Study.22 The Class Year Study procedures are primarily contained in Attachment S,23 which sets
forth the eligibility requirements for Class Year entry, establishes the Class Year Start Date and
schedule, describes the obligations of Class Year Projects once they enter a Class Year Study,24
and details the scope and the cost allocation methodology for interconnection of new generation
and certain merchant transmission facilities. It also contains the detailed procedures for the
identification and cost allocation of System Upgrade Facilities required for a project to reliably
interconnect to the system and thereby provide Energy Resource Interconnection Service
(“ERIS”).25 For those Class Year Projects that elect Capacity Resource Interconnection Service
(“CRIS”),26 Attachment S provides for the evaluation of a project’s Deliverability and the
identification and cost allocation of System Deliverability Upgrades required for a project’s
proposed capacity to be fully deliverable. Attachment S also provides for the decisional process
toward the completion of the Class Year Study during which Class Year Projects accept or reject
their Project Cost Allocations (the costs allocated to a Class Year Project for System Upgrade
Facilities and System Deliverability Upgrades, as applicable), and the process by which Security
and Headroom obligations must be satisfied. Through this unique clustered Class Year Study,
21 See Attachment X, Section 30.8.2; see also Attachment S, Sections 25.6.2.3.1 and 25.6.2.3.4 (Class Year Study eligibility and re-entry criteria).
22 Small Generating Facilities no larger than 20 MWs proposing to interconnect to the New York State
Transmission System or to the Distribution System are studied in accordance with the SGIP in Attachment Z. As described in Section 32.3.5.3 of Attachment Z, if any Interconnection Study determines that a Small Generating Facility requires any non-Local System Upgrade Facilities to reliably interconnect, then that Small Generating Facility is placed in the next Class Year Study, and cost responsibility is allocated to the Small Generating Facility in accordance with the procedures and methodologies in Attachment S.
23 Attachment X details the obligations related to execution of a Class Year Study Agreement and provides a high-level scope of the Class Year Study and Class Year Study procedures, but it incorporates by reference the terms of Attachment S, which provide more detailed Class Year Study procedures.
24 Attachment X also details Developers’ obligations related to the execution of the Class Year Study Agreement and Class Year Study procedures, generally.
25 ERIS is basic interconnection service that allows a Developer to interconnect its facility to the New York
State Transmission System or Distribution System in accordance with the NYISO Minimum Interconnection
Standard to enable the New York State Transmission System or Distribution System to receive electric energy from
the facility.
26 CRIS is interconnection service that allows a Developer to interconnect its facility to the New York State
Transmission System or Distribution System in accordance with the NYISO Deliverability Interconnection standard,
which allows participation in the NYISO’s Installed Capacity market to the extent of the facility’s deliverable
capacity.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 7
the NYISO is able to equitably allocate upgrade costs and generate detailed good faith, binding cost estimates that provide reasonable closure on upgrade costs.
IV. Compliance Revisions
In Order No. 845, the Commission provided that, consistent with Order No. 2003,
RTOs/ISOs may propose independent entity variations from its pro forma provisions.27 In
addition, the Commission provided that RTOs/ISOs may demonstrate that previously approved
variations continue to be permissible under the independent entity variation standard.28 The
NYISO, therefore, proposes revisions to its interconnection procedures and agreements in
Attachment X of its OATT and a limited, conforming revision to Attachment S of its OATT to
adopt the Commission’s revisions to its pro forma interconnection procedures and agreements
set forth in Order No. 845 with certain variations described below and in the specific sections
herein.
A.NYISO’s Proposed Variations
The NYISO generally follows the Commission’s pro forma LGIP and LGIA, but its LFIP
and LGIA have long included numerous independent entity variations. These Commission-
accepted variations are specifically tailored to New York’s unique circumstances, and the
existence of previously accepted variations has prompted the NYISO to obtain additional
independent entity variations in response to prior modifications to the pro forma LGIP and
LGIA.29 All of the NYISO’s independent entity variations have been and continue to be
necessary in order to make Commission revisions to the pro forma LFIP and LGIA consistent
with NYISO’s existing OATT and current practices. Since Order No. 2003, the NYISO has
continued to implement significant revisions to its interconnection process to update and enhance
the New York-specific interconnection requirements.30 Importantly, these procedures are
fundamentally and inextricably integrated with the NYISO’s market and planning rules.
The independent entity variation standard provides ISOs/RTOs with flexibility in
adopting the Commission’s pro forma language because ISOs/RTOs have different operating
characteristics, depending on their geographic size and location, and are less likely to act in an
unduly discriminatory manner than non-independent transmission providers.31 The Commission
has explained that under this standard, “the Commission will review the proposed variations to
ensure they do not provide an unwarranted opportunity for undue discrimination or produce an
27 Id. at P 43.
28 Id. at P 254.
29 See, e.g., New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Order on Tariff Revisions, 135 FERC ¶ 61,014 (2011); New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Order Accepting and Rejecting Tariff Revisions, 124 FERC ¶ 61,238 (2008).
30 See, e.g., New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Letter Order on Interconnection Process Improvements, Docket No. ER18-80-000 (2017).
31 New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 108 FERC ¶ 61,159, at P 4; Order No. 2003, at P 827.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 8
interconnection process that is unjust and unreasonable.”32 It has recognized that where changes to interconnection procedures “are clarifying and/or ministerial in nature and/or NYISO has
supplied sufficient justification,” such modifications are acceptable under the independent entity variation standard.33 In addition, the Commission has recognized that the independent entity
variation standard “is more flexible than the ‘consistent with or superior to’ standard and the
regional differences standard.”34
For the reasons explained below, the NYISO’s proposed variations from the
Commission’s pro forma revisions are fully justified under the Commission’s independent entity variation standard and/or “consistent with or superior to” standard.
1.Independent Entity Variation with Respect to the Terminology Used
in the NYISO’s LFIP and LGIA
The following are independent entity variations in terminology that will apply throughout all of the NYISO’s proposed compliance revisions directed by Order No. 845.
Beginning with its compliance with Order No. 2003, the NYISO proposed and the
Commission accepted variations in the terminology used in the NYISO’s LFIP and LGIA.35 The following are Commission-accepted independent variations that the NYISO incorporates in its proposed revisions to comply with Order No. 845 and Order No. 845-A.
a)Independent Entity Variation with Respect to the Term
“Transmission Provider”
Both the NYISO and the New York Transmission Owners (“NYTOs”) have
responsibilities in the interconnection process in New York that are assigned to the
“Transmission Provider” in the Commission’s pro forma LGIP and LGIA. The Commission has
previously accepted the NYISO’s proposed revisions to the pro forma term “Transmission
Provider” that allocate the Transmission Provider’s responsibilities between the NYISO and the
NYTOs in a manner that reflects their roles in interconnection and system operations in New
York.36
Consistent with the existing allocation of the Transmission Provider’s responsibilities in
32 New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,238, at P 17.
33 Id. at PP 17-18.
34 Order No. 845-A, at P 141; Order No. 2003, at P 26.
35 See New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 108 FERC ¶ 61,159, at P 19.
36 See id.; see also, e.g., New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc. and New York Transmission Owners, Order
Granting Rehearing in Part and Denying Rehearing in Part and Accepting Compliance Filing, 119 FERC ¶ 61,333, P
34 (2007) (accepting compliance revisions filed by NYISO and NYTOs on March 22, 2007, in the Order No. 2006 proceeding, including the split of responsibilities between the NYISO and NYTO in the Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures and Small Generator Interconnection Agreement).
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 9
the NYISO’s LFIP and LGIA, the NYISO proposes to replace the term “Transmission Provider” as used in the Commission’s revisions in Order No. 845 with the terms “ISO” and/or
“Connecting Transmission Owner,” as applicable, to clarify the respective roles of the NYISO and the Connecting Transmission Owners as they relate to the modifications to the NYISO’s LFIP and LGIA directed by Order No. 845.
b)Independent Entity Variation with Respect to the Term
“Interconnection Customer”
The term “Developer,” as used in the NYISO’s LFIP and LGIA,37 is a tariff-defined term referring to a project developer for a Large Facility (versus a Small Generating Facility). The NYISO uses the term “Developer” instead of “Interconnection Customer” throughout its LFIP and LGIA. To avoid confusion and for consistency with the other provisions in the LGIA and LFIP not subject to revision under Order No. 845 and Order No. 845-A, the NYISO proposes to continue to use the term “Developer” in place of “Interconnection Customer.”
c) Independent Entity Variation with Respect to the Terminology
for Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades
The NYISO’s LFIP, as well as the ISO Tariffs, use different terminology to refer to the
types of interconnection facilities and network upgrades. The Commission has previously
accepted the NYISO’s terminology as it relates to attachment facilities and network upgrades.
For example, the NYISO defines “Attachment Facilities” in the LFIP and LGIA but further
designates it based upon the responsibility of the party—i.e., Developer Attachment Facility and
“Connecting Transmission Owner Attachment Facility.”38 Moreover, instead of using “network
upgrade,” the NYISO uses “System Upgrade Facilities” to reference network upgrades necessary
to address violations of the Applicable Reliability Criteria and “System Deliverability Upgrades”
to refer to network upgrades necessary for the project’s deliverability. For consistency in the
NYISO’s LFIP and LGIA, the NYISO proposes to continue the use of this terminology
consistent with the directives in Order No. 845 and Order No. 845-A.
d)Independent Entity Variation with Respect to the Term
“Transmission System”
The terms “New York State Transmission System” and “Distribution System,” as used in
the NYISO’s Commission-approved LFIP and LGIA, are tariff-defined terms that define the
scope of the New York State electric transmission system that is subject to the NYISO’s
interconnection procedures.39 The NYISO uses the term “New York State Transmission
37 New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 108 FERC ¶ 61,159 at PP 17-19.
38 See Attachment X, Section 30.1.
39 The NYISO’s LFIP and LGIA define “New York State Transmission System” as the “entire New York
State electric transmission system, which includes (i) the Transmission Facilities under ISO Operational Control; (ii) the Transmission Facilities Requiring ISO Notification; and (iii) all remaining transmission facilities within the New York Control Area.” Attachment X, Section 30.1; Section 30.14, Appx. 3, Art. 1.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 10
System” instead of “Transmission System” throughout its interconnection procedures and
agreements, while “Distribution System” refers to facilities and equipment used to distribute
electricity that is subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction and the NYISO’s LFIP under Order
No. 2003.40 To avoid confusion and for consistency with the other provisions in the NYISO’s
LFIP and LGIA not subject to revision under Order No. 845, the NYISO proposes to continue to
use the terms “New York State Transmission System” and “Distribution System,” as applicable,
in place of “Transmission System” in its proposed revisions to the LFIP and LGIA.
e)Additional Miscellaneous Variations in NYISO’s LFIP and
LGIA
The NYISO proposes a few additional minor clarifying or ministerial variations in
adopting the Commission’s language in order to ensure consistency within the NYISO’s LGIA. Consistent with its LGIA, the NYISO has substituted the word “Article” for the word “Section” in the LGIA provisions added in response to Order No. 845 and Order No. 845-A.
2. Proposal-Specific Variations
In addition to the above-identified variations, the NYISO proposes certain additional
independent entity variations, as well as variations “consistent with or superior to” the pro forma
revision, in its compliance revisions as discussed in detail below. As the NYISO explained in its
Request for Rehearing, independent entity variations are necessary to comply with Order No.
845 due, in part, to the fact that the NYISO’s rules are fundamentally different from other
regions. In light of this concern, the Commission determined, in Order No. 845-A, that it was
not its intent in Order No. 845 to limit the flexibility of independent entities to request
independent entity variations.41 The NYISO respectfully requests that the Commission accept
the variations described below in compliance with the Commission’s Order No. 845 directives.
B. Proposed Revisions to Address Order No. 845 Reforms
1. Improving Certainty for Developers
a) Developer’s Option to Build
Order No. 845 modifies articles 5.1, 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the pro forma LGIA to afford an
interconnection customer the option to build with respect to interconnection facilities and stand
alone network upgrades regardless of whether the transmission provider can meet the
interconnection customer’s proposed dates (i.e., in-service date, initial synchronization date, or
commercial operation date).42 In Order No. 845-A, the Commission clarified and/or granted
rehearing on several issues raised by commenters related to the modifications to the option to
40 See Attachment X, Section 30.1
41 Order No. 845-A, at PP 139-41.
42 Order No. 845, at P 85.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 11
build, including, but not limited to,43 modifying the definition of “Stand Alone Network
Upgrades” to clarify that the option to build does not apply to stand alone network upgrades on
affected systems44 and require the transmission provider to provide a written technical
explanation if it does not consider a network upgrade to be a stand alone network upgrade.45
The NYISO incorporates the Commission’s modifications to the NYISO’s LGIA and the
definition of “Stand Alone System Upgrade Facility” under the LFIP and LGIA with minor
revisions to the Commission’s language based on the previously accepted variations in the
terminology discussed above. Additionally, the NYISO proposes to continue, based on the
NYISO’s Class Year process, the Commission-accepted independent entity variation to Article
5.1.3 that a Developer’s option to build an Attachment Facility or Stand Alone System Upgrade Facility that is needed for more than one project is contingent on the agreement of all the other
affected Developers.46 Maintaining this independent entity variation is not inconsistent with and would not interfere with the option to build requirement under Order No. 845. The NYISO,
therefore, requests that the Commission accept the compliance revisions continuing to reflect this independent entity variation.
b) Dispute Resolution
Order No. 845 revises the pro forma LGIA to add a new section allowing a party to
unilaterally seek non-binding dispute resolution.47 The process would afford a disputing party
the opportunity to request the transmission provider to engage in non-binding dispute resolution
if an issue cannot be resolved within the initial informal 30-day period.48 The transmission
provider would then be required to appoint a neutral decision-maker, who is an independent
contractor without any current or past substantial business or financial relationships with either
party, that would render a written decision within 60 days of appointment.49 If a disputing party
elects to pursue non-binding dispute resolution, that party or any other party may still pursue the
existing binding arbitration process in a transmission provider’s procedures or bring a complaint
pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act.50 Order No. 845 also provided that each party
43 On March 25, 2019, American Electric Power Services Corporation filed a Request for Clarification, or in
the Alternative, Rehearing of Order No. 845-A in this docket, raising several issues concerning participant funding
and the expansion of the option to build based on the risk/reward rationale employed by the D.C. Circuit in Ameren
Services Co. v. FERC, 880 F.3d 571 (D.C. Circ. 2018). In the event that the Commission grants the above-
referenced Request for Clarification, or in the Alternative Rehearing of Order No. 845-A, this compliance filing
does not foreclose the NYISO’s right to submit a further compliance filing(s), as appropriate, to address any with
directives in a Commission order on such Request for Clarification, or in the Alternative, Rehearing of Order No.
845-A.
44 Order No. 845-A, at P 61.
45 Id. at P 68.
46 New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 108 FERC ¶ 61,159.
47 Order No. 845, at P 132.
48 Id. at P 133.
49 Id.
50 Id. at P 139.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 12
is responsible for its costs and that the cost of the decision-maker is to be divided equally among the disputing parties.51
The NYISO adopts the dispute resolution procedures in Order No. 845 and proposes to
include the language in new Section 30.13.5.5 of Attachment X to the OATT. In addition to the
language contained in Order No. 845, the NYISO proposes two variations to further the intent of
purpose of the non-binding dispute resolution—mainly, specifying what is necessary to include
in a written request and adding a requirement that the neutral decision-maker disclose any
disqualifying relationship or interest. These two variations are aimed at reducing delays once
non-binding dispute resolution is requested by providing high-level details and information
necessary to involve the correct parties and to be able to appoint a neutral decision-maker that
does not have any “current or past substantial business or financial relationships with either
party.”52
As it relates to the affirmative disclosure obligation by the neutral decision-maker, there
is always the possibility that an individual may initially appear to be neutral but it becomes
known, at a later point, that the individual has a potential impermissible relationship or interest.
The proposed language places an affirmative obligation on the neutral decision-maker to advise
of any disqualifying relationships and interests when known and a clear mechanism to either
replace the decision-maker or obtain the express written consent from each party.
These variations further the Commission’s goal with regard to the dispute resolution
directives in Order No. 845; therefore, the NYISO requests that the Commission accept these as consistent with or superior to the required revisions.53
2. Promoting More Informed Interconnection Decisions
a) Identification and Definition of Contingent Facilities
Order No. 845 adopted a definition of “contingent facilities” and added a new section to
the pro forma LGIP for transmission providers to specify a method to identify and to inform
interconnection customers of contingent facilities at the conclusion of the system impact study
and to include in the interconnection agreement.54 Order No. 845 also required transmission
providers to provide, upon the request of an interconnection customer, the estimated cost and in-
service completion date of any identified contingent facility at certain points in the process.55
51 Id. at P 133.
52 Id.
53 Id. at P 43.
54 Order No. 845, at P 218.
55 Id. at P 194.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 13
The NYISO adds a new Section 30.3.7 in Attachment X to specify the method used to
identify Contingent Facilities,56 but proposes several independent entity variations related to the
timing of identifying Contingent Facilities and the definition of Contingent Facilities in Order
No. 845 due to the differences in NYISO’s interconnection queue approach and its unique Class
Year process. Specifically, the NYISO proposes to identify and inform a Developer about
Contingent Facilities at the conclusion of the Class Year Studies in the detailed study report that
is provided to each Developer. The NYISO will also, upon the request of a Developer, provide
the estimated costs and estimated in-service completion time of each identified Contingent
Facility when the information is readily available and not commercially sensitive.57 Such
Contingent Facilities will also be specified in the Interconnection Agreement.
Additionally, the NYISO proposes to use a revised definition of contingent facility to
reflect the differences in the NYISO’s interconnection queue process, as detailed below.
Contingent Facilities shall mean those unbuilt interconnection facilities and
network upgrades Attachment Facilities and System Upgrade Facilities and/or
System Deliverability Upgrades associated with Class Year Projects upon which
the interconnection request’s costs, timing, and study findings Large Facility’s
Class Year Project Cost Allocations are dependent, and if delayed or not built, could
cause a need for restudies of the interconnection request or a reassessment of the
interconnection facilities and/or network upgrades and/or costs and timing impact
the actual costs and timing of the Large Facility’s System Upgrade Facilities or
System Deliverability Upgrades.58
The NYISO’s proposed variations are consistent with the purpose and intent of Order No. 845. As described above, the NYISO’s interconnection queue approach and study of a cluster of
projects in its Class Year Study does not use a “hard” or “serial” interconnection queue approach employed by most other regions. The queue position is only a limited factor in determining the progress of a project through the interconnection studies and is even less relevant to the
identification of required Attachment Facilities, System Upgrade Facilities, and System
Deliverability Upgrades and their related costs to reliably interconnect.59
In Order No. 845, the Commission selected the system impact study phase as the
appropriate time to provide the list of contingent facilities because that study “considers
generating facilities and identified network upgrades associated with higher-queued
interconnection requests, and an accompanying list of contingent facilities can contextualize
56 To the extent needed, the NYISO will publish additional, technical implementation details relating to the methods as necessary in NYISO Manuals and Procedures. See id. at P 200.
57 Proposed Attachment X, Section 30.3.7.
58 Proposed Attachment X, Section 30.1 (definition of “Contingent Facilities”); proposed Attachment S, Section 25.1.2 (definition of “Contingent Facilities”).
59 Section 25.5.8 of Attachment S to the OATT expressly provides that even in the Class Year Study, there is “no prioritization of the projects grouped and studied.”
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 14
these results.”60 Given the interconnection queue process employed by the NYISO, however, providing a list of contingent facilities would not accurately represent the potential facilities and upgrades that could affect a Developer’s Interconnection Request. Because the NYISO does not employ a serial queue approach, the NYISO would have to expand the scope of the System
Reliability Impact Study to evaluate the impact of both higher-queued projects, as well as lowerqueued projects and, as a result, would be unable to identify Contingent Facilities with the
accuracy that would be useful to a Developer.
The NYISO’s Class Year Study, however, is the stage in the interconnection process that will allow for a much more accurate identification of Contingent Facilities. Therefore, the
NYISO proposes to identify and provide the list of Contingent Facilities at the conclusion of the Class Year Study.
Attachment S of the OATT already provides detailed procedures for building the base
cases and identifying upgrade facilities, which can include sharing of upgrade facilities by
multiple projects, and allocating the costs of those upgrades to the responsible projects.61 At the
conclusion of a Class Year Study, all Developers remaining in the study must either accept or
reject their allocation of costs required for System Upgrade Facilities and System Deliverability
Upgrades.62 The remaining Developers—those that accepted their project cost allocations—
must also provide Security in the amount of the respective cost allocation. If such Security is
posted for an upgrade that is a Contingent Facility but that project does not go forward, the
Security will be used to the extent necessary to defray the cost of upgrades required for projects
that remain in a Class Year.63 For Interconnection Requests entering a future Class Year Study,
the base cases used for such studies include only those facilities that are either already
interconnected or proposed Large Facilities or Small Generating Facilities that have provided the
Security required to cover the costs of necessary upgrades. As a result, the NYISO’s
interconnection queue approach and Class Year process already account for Contingent
Facilities, as the facilities are reflected in the Class Year Study Report.
b) Transparency Regarding Study Models and Assumptions
The Commission determined in Order No. 845 that there is a benefit to interconnection
customers by increasing transparency of network models and assumptions, and directed
modifications to the pro forma LGIP to maintain network models and underlying assumptions on
the transmission provider’s OASIS site or a password-protected website that are representative of
current system conditions.64 The Commission, however, permitted that a transmission provider
could decide to “maintain the required information on its website as long as it has a link to the
60 Order No. 845, at P 204.
61 See generally, Attachment S, Sections 25.5.8, 25.6.2, and 25.7.
62 See Attachment S, Section 25.8.
63 See, e.g., Attachment S, Section 25.8.6.3.
64 Order No. 845, at PP 236-38.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 15
location of the information on OASIS.”65 In Order No. 845-A, the Commission made certain
clarifications in that transmission providers are not required to modify network models and
underlying assumptions in making them available to interested parties. “Current system
conditions” need only “reflect the conditions currently used in interconnection studies.”66
The NYISO proposes to adopt the requirement to maintain network models and
underlying assumptions on a password-protected website in Section 30.2.3 of Attachment X by
building off of existing provisions to make such representations and assumptions available to
Developers upon request. Currently, an existing system representation is included in the
NYISO’s Annual Transmission Base Assessment (“ATBA”) used for interconnection studies.
The NYISO proposes to modify its LFIP through revisions to Section 30.2.3 of Attachment X to
the OATT to not only make the ATBA and its underlying assumptions available, but also its
Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment (“ATRA”)—the ATBA base case with the addition
of projects in the current Class Year Study. Together with their underlying assumptions, the
NYISO will make the above base cases available to Developers upon request, and will also
maintain the completed ATBA and ATRA and the underlying assumptions that are currently
being used in interconnection studies on a secure portion of its website.
Section 30.2.3 already identifies that the power flow, short circuit, and stability base
cases available to a Developer, upon request, are “those [base cases] that the ISO is using in the
[ATBA] then in progress, or if such data bases are not available, the data bases from the last
completed [ATRA] conducted pursuant to Attachment S.”67 Specifically, the NYISO proposes
to add:
In addition, the ISO shall maintain network models and underlying assumptions within its possession on its secure portion of the NYISO website, which shall be accessible through a link from the OASIS. Such network models and underlying assumptions should reasonably represent those used during the most recent Class Year Interconnection Facilities Study and be representative of current system conditions used in the interconnection studies.
Additionally, Section 30.2.3 already provides requirements to access Confidential Information or Critical Energy Infrastructure Information. The NYISO proposes apply them to interested
parties accessing the network models but to make it clear that such requirements would not only apply to Developers but also “password-protected website users.”68
65 Id. at P 238.
66 Order No. 845-A, at P 79. In Order No. 845-A, the Commission clarified that “ the phrase ‘current system conditions’ does not require transmission providers to maintain network models that reflect current real-time
operating conditions of the transmission provider’s system.” Id. at P 88.
67 Attachment X, Section 30.2.3.
68 Proposed Attachment X, Section 30.2.3.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 16
c) Definition of Generating Facility
Order No. 845 directs transmission providers to revise the definition of “Generating
Facility” in the pro forma LGIP and LGIA to include electric storage resources.69 The NYISO proposes to incorporate “and/or storage for later injection” to the definition of Generating
Facility under the NYISO’s LFIP and LGIA, consistent with Order No. 845.
3. Enhancing Interconnection Processes
a) Interconnection Study Deadlines
Order No. 845 modifies the pro forma LGIP to require transmission providers to post
interconnection study processing metrics quarterly on its OASIS or website and to file
informational reports with the Commission if they exceed study deadlines for more than 25
percent of any study type for two consecutive quarters.70 New sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 of the pro
forma LFIP establish the required statistics concerning the processing time for the feasibility
study, system impact study, and facilities study, along with the interconnection service request
withdrawals from the interconnection queue.71 The Commission identified that the start date for
each study included in the performance reporting metrics is the date that the transmission
provider receives a fully executed study agreement.72 In Order No. 845-A, the Commission
granted rehearing and modified the commencement date for measuring study performance
metrics and the reporting requirement to “the first calendar quarter of 2020.”
The NYISO adopts the posting requirements of Order No. 845 and includes the
requirements in Sections 30.3.4.2, 30.3.4.3, and 30.3.4.4 of Attachment X to the OATT.
Consistent with Order No. 845, the NYISO proposes to post the metrics on its OASIS or
“publicly accessible portion of its website” and include any links as necessary.73 Consistent with Order No. 845-A, the NYISO will begin reporting metrics by completing the posting and
updating of the metrics for the first quarter of 2020 within 30 days from the end of that quarter.74 Additionally, the NYISO proposes several independent entity variations to account for
Commission-accepted variations in the NYISO’s interconnection process.
69 Order No. 845, at P 275.
70 Id. at P 305. Order No. 845 required they be updated within 30 days of the end of a calendar quarter and must be retained for three calendar years.
71 See id. at Appendix B, Compilation of Final Rule changes to the pro forma LGIP.
72 Id. at P 331.
73 The NYISO proposes a minor conforming change to existing language that would be contained in new Section 30.3.4.1 of Attachment X to also specify that the list of valid Interconnection Requests may be also maintained in a publicly accessible portion of its website.”
74 As the Commission determined in Order No. 845-A, the effective date of the NYISO’s revisions will be no earlier than the date of an order accepting such revisions. See Order No. 845-A, at P 166. In the event that the
NYISO does not have an order by the required time to post its metrics for the first quarter of 2020, the NYISO will post the metrics in the first quarter following the Commission’s order accepting the proposed revisions or as
otherwise specified in the order.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 17
First, while the Commission required the start date of the study to be the date on which
the fully executed study agreement is received by the transmission provider, the NYISO
proposes to use an alternative but equivalent date in light of Commission-approved independent
entity variations through which the NYISO eliminated study agreements for certain
interconnection studies. Specifically, the NYISO’s comprehensive queue improvement reforms
in 2018 added administrative efficiencies by eliminating separate study agreements for the
Optional Interconnection Feasibility Study and System Reliability Interconnection Study.75
Currently, the Optional Interconnection Feasibility Study begins following a notice provided by
the NYISO following the receipt of the required deposit and the NYISO deeming the required
technical data to be sufficient, together with the Connecting Transmission Owner(s)’s acceptance
of the scope for the Optional Interconnection Feasibility Study—all of which is necessary to
begin and complete the study work.76 Moreover, this is consistent with the study start date of the
pro forma LGIP under Order No. 2003. Before a study commences under the pro forma LGIP,
a Developer must have provided the required study deposit and have a fully executed study
agreement, which requires all technical data and the scope detailed in Attachment A to the study
agreements.77 The NYISO’s proposed variation for the study start date is synonymous with a
fully executed study agreement and is described in the metrics set forth in Section 30.3.4.2.1 of
Attachment X.78
The NYISO made similar changes for the System Reliability Interconnection Study
metrics but conformed them to the necessary requirements that must be met before such study
may commence.79 Specifically, the date on which a System Reliability Interconnection Study
commences would be “the date of the NYISO’s notification that the study commenced following
the latter of: (i) confirmation of receipt of the required study deposit; (ii) confirmation of receipt
of the required technical data; (iii) confirmation of Site Control; or (iv) approval of the study
scope for the Interconnection System Reliability Study by the ISO Operating Committee.”80
This is consistent with the start of the study under the pro forma LGIP set forth in Order No.
2003 because an interconnection customer must also demonstrate Site Control when the executed
system impact study agreement is delivered to the transmission provider.81
75 See New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Letter Order on Interconnection Process Improvements, Docket No. ER18-80-000 (2017); see also New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Proposed Tariff Revisions Regarding Interconnection Process Improvements, Docket No. ER18-80-000, at pp 11-22 (October 16, 2017).
76 Attachment X, Sections 30.6.1, 30.6.2.
77 Order No. 2003, pro forma Appendices 2 and 3 to LGIP.
78 Proposed Attachment X, Section 30.3.4.2.1 (specifying that the “start date of the study . . . is the date that
the ISO notifies the parties that the study commenced following the latter of: (i) confirmation of receipt of the
required study deposit; (ii) confirmation of receipt of the required technical data; or (iii) acceptance by the
Connecting Transmission Owner(s) of the study scope for the Optional Interconnection Feasibility Study”).
79 The date on which a System Reliability Interconnection Study commences is the date of the notification from the NYISO that the study commenced, which is issued following the receipt of the study deposit, all technical data, including Site Control if it was not previously provided, and approval of the study scope by the Operating Committee. See Attachment X, Sections 30.7.2 and 30.7.3.
80 Proposed Attachment X, Section 30.3.4.2.2.
81 Order No. 2003, section 7.2 of pro forma LGIP.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 18
Second, given the unique nature of the Class Year Study and the specific timelines
specified for completing the Class Year Study, the NYISO proposes to reference the Class Year
schedule set forth in Section 25.5.9 of Attachment S.82 This will account for the different paths
by which a Class Year Study can progress. Moreover, projects in a Class Year Study execute
Interconnection Facilities Study Agreements at different times, but all for the same Class Year
Study. This unique feature of the NYISO’s interconnection procedures necessitates the use of a
start date other than the execution of an Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement. The
NYISO, therefore, proposes to use the defined term Class Year Start Date as the study start date for purposes of reporting metrics related to the Class Year Study.
The NYISO also proposes other independent entity variations to clarify the calculation of the study timeframes and the date upon which a study is deemed complete for purposes of the
reporting metrics.
First, the NYISO proposes to account for potential delays caused by tariff-required time
periods for a Developer to cure deficiencies related to its Interconnection Request and tariff-
defined comment period following the NYISO’s issuance of the initial draft study report.
Specifically, the new Section 30.3.4.2 of Attachment X would include the following language:
For purposes of this section, an Interconnection Study is deemed complete on the
date upon which the study itself is completed and an initial study report is circulated
to the Developer and the Connecting Transmission Owner(s). Further, the statistics
related to processing of Interconnection Studies will exclude days within which, in
the event of a withdrawal notice issued by the ISO pursuant to Section 30.3.6 of
Attachment X, the Developer is permitted to cure the deficiencies that prompted
the withdrawal notice.
The Commission determined in Order No. 845-A that the purpose of these reforms is to
increase transparency to “allow interconnection customers to assess whether a transmission
provider is using ‘reasonable efforts’ to process interconnection studies.”83 In turn, a Developer
can “develop informed expectations about how long the interconnection study portion of the
process actually takes” within a particular transmission system.84 The NYISO’s proposed
revisions do not affect the stated purpose of reporting these statistics, as the delays are due to
affording a Developer time to cure its deficiencies and time to provide comments on the results
of its study. The cure period for deficiencies is up to 15 Business Days and, in some cases, could
amount to almost one-third or one half of the time for the NYISO to complete its analysis.
Additionally, the NYISO’s current tariff provisions afford a Developer, as well as other parties,
ample time to comment and identify potential issues to be resolved in the study evaluation prior
to finalizing the study report. This time period often allows for resolution of issues in the study
without the need to invoke dispute resolution or bring the matter before the Commission.
82 Proposed Attachment X, Section 30.3.4.2.3.
83 Order No. 845, at P 306; see also Order No. 845-A, at P 101.
84 Order No. 845, at P 306; see also Order No. 845-A, at P 101.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 19
Second, the NYISO proposes variations to account for the requirements under the
NYISO tariff and foundational agreements that require System Reliability Impact Study scopes
and reports to be approved by the NYISO Operating Committee before they are considered
final.85 The Commission-accepted tariff affords a Developer three months to bring the study
report to the NYISO Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee following delivery of the
final draft report (after receipt of all comments on the initial draft report), which is a tariff-
required step, before proceeding to the Operating Committee.86 This three-month period allows
a Developer to weigh its options in proceeding to the Operating Committee, which is to a
Developer’s benefit. In light of the Developer’s three-month window following the comment
period and issuance of a final draft report, the NYISO proposes to use the distribution of the
initial draft study report as the “deemed complete” point. To use the final report, which is the
date the Operating Committee approves the report, would reduce the NYISO’s study time to near
zero days within which to perform the study, as the Developer’s decision period to bring the
study to the Operating Committee and the Operating Committee’s approval will alone take more
than 90 days from receipt of the final draft.
Finally, the NYISO incorporates the requirements of section 3.5.3 of the pro forma LGIP, as revised by Order No. 845-A, in its new Section 30.3.4.3 of Attachment X but specifies that “days” refers to “Calendar Days” to provide further clarity and consistency with the language of the NYISO’s LFIP. Additionally, the NYISO adopts the requirements of section 3.5.4 of the pro forma LFIP in its new Section 30.3.4.4 of Attachment X specifying that “days” refers to
“Calendar Days” and other minor, non-substantive revisions to match the previously accepted terminology used throughout the NYISO’s LFIP.
b) Interconnection Service Below Generating Facility Capacity
Order No. 845 revised the pro forma LGIP to permit an interconnection customer to
request interconnection service that is lower than its facility’s full generating capacity and
required transmission providers to have a process for considering requests for such
interconnection service.87 Specifically, Order No. 845 and Order No. 845-A revised section 3.1 and appendix 1 of the pro forma LGIP to study requests for interconnection service at the level of requested interconnection service based on available studies, while permitting a transmission provider, at its discretion and based on good utility practice, to perform other studies, at the
interconnection customer’s expense, to evaluate the facility at its full generating capacity for
safety and reliability of the system.
Order No. 845 also revised sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 of the pro forma LGIP to specify that
a decrease in a facility’s output before execution of a system impact study agreement or an
interconnection facilities agreement could be due to a decrease in the size of the facility or a
decrease in the level of interconnection service through transmission provider-approved
85 OATT, Section 3.9.3; ISO Agreement, Article 8.0.
86 Attachment X, Section 30.7.5.
87 Order No. 845, at P 367.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 20
injection-limiting technologies.88 If it is due to a decrease in the level of interconnection service, an interconnection customer may also propose control technologies at this point in the process to limit the output of its facilities to match the reduced level of interconnection service.89
The NYISO incorporates the requirements of Order No. 845 and Order No. 845-A to
allow Developers to request interconnection service below a facility’s capacity with limited
requested variations. The process for requesting and studying a request for interconnection
service below the full generating facility capacity is detailed in revised Section 30.3.2.3 of
Attachment X to the OATT.90 Initially, the NYISO adapts some of the language to make it
applicable for both Large Generating Facilities as well as Class Year Transmission Projects.91
Additionally, if a Developer requests ERIS below the full capacity of the Large Facility, the
NYISO shall study the requested level of ERIS for purposes of Attachment Facilities,
Distribution Upgrades, System Upgrade Facilities, and associated costs. The NYISO proposes to
specify that it and the Connecting Transmission Owners can require the facility to be studied at
its full output, at the Developer’s expense, to ensure the safety and reliability of the New York
State Transmission (and Distribution System as applicable) “based on Good Utility Practice and
related engineering considerations after accounting for any control technology proposed by the
Developer.”92 Consistent with Order No. 845-A, the NYISO proposes to specify that it will
provide the Developer a detailed explanation for the need for additional studies prior to
beginning such studies.93
Order No. 845 did not permit a Developer to unilaterally determine what control
technologies would be permitted to limit a facility’s capacity.94 Therefore, borrowing on
language from the NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures, the NYISO proposes
revisions to Section 30.3.2.3 of Attachment X to require the agreement of the NYISO and the
Connecting Transmission Owners for the use of a control system, power relay, or other similar
device settings or adjustments in order to limit the output of the facility.95 Under the proposed
revisions, neither the NYISO nor Connecting Transmission Owner may unreasonably withhold
agreement, provided that the method that the Developer proposes to limit the injection “will not
88 Order No. 845, at P 406.
89 Order No. 845-A, at P 118; see also Order No. 845, at P 406.
90 The NYISO proposes revisions to the data form for the Large Facility Interconnection Request, as well as the Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement, to provide a specific location for a Developer to specify any
injection-limiting equipment that would limit the capacity of the Large Facility. See proposed Attachment X,
Appendices 1 and 3.
91 The Order No. 845 language focused on Generating Facility Capacity; however, given that a Class Year Transmission Project does not have generating capacity, the NYISO revised the language to ensure that the
provisions of the NYISO’s LFIP cover both types of Large Facilities. Compare Order No. 845, at PP 347-49, with proposed Attachment X, Sections 30.3.2.3, 30.6.3, 30.8.2.
92 Proposed Attachment X, Section 30.3.2.3.
93 Order No. 845-A, at P 117.
94 Order No. 845, at P 385 (permitting a transmission provider to either accept or design its own control technology).
95 Proposed Section 30.3.2.3 of Attachment X.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 21
adversely affect the safety and reliability of the New York State Transmission System (or
Distribution System as applicable).”96 In the event that the NYISO and Connecting
Transmission Owner do not agree with the method, Section 30.3.2.3 of Attachment X identifies some of the courses of action that are available to a Developer, as well as pursuing dispute
resolution under Section 30.13 of the Attachment X.
Lastly, the NYISO proposes a minor variation from the added field in Appendix 1 of the
pro forma LGIP for an interconnection customer to include the requested level of capacity of
interconnection service, “if lower than the Generating Facility Capacity.”97 The NYISO
proposes to keep its Commission-accepted variation that has a Developer specifying the
nameplate capacity of the facility under field number 5 and the requested level of ERIS under
field number 6.98 In addition, the NYISO proposes to include a parenthetical to note for a
Developer as it relates to the requested level of ERIS that “[a] Developer may request ERIS
below the Generating Facility Capability for Large Generating Facilities and the full facility
capacity for Class Year Transmission Projects subject to the requirements and limitations set
forth in Section 30.3.2.3 of Attachment X to the ISO OATT.” These variations further the
Commission’s goal with regard to the request for interconnection service below a facility’s
capacity in Order No. 845; therefore, the NYISO requests that the Commission accept these as
consistent with or superior to the required revisions.99
c) Provisional Interconnection Service
In Order No. 845, the Commission determined that transmission providers must allow
interconnection customers to request provisional interconnection service and operate under a
provisional interconnection agreement prior to completion of the full interconnection process.
Thus, Order No. 845 revised section 1 of the pro forma LGIP and sections 1 and 5.9.2 of the pro
forma LGIA to allow a Developer to seek provisional interconnection service once there are
available studies to indicate that there is “a level of interconnection that can occur without any
additional interconnection facilities and/or network upgrades.”100 However, such provisional
interconnection service is only permitted while the facility completes its interconnection studies
and may not receive “its full level of interconnection service” under the provisional
interconnection provision.
The NYISO proposes revisions to incorporate the requirements of Order No. 845 as it
relates to Provisional Interconnection Service with requests for independent entity variations to
account for (1) prior tariff revisions that the Commission accepted in which the NYISO
expanded the provisions regarding Limited Operations; (2) the NYISO’s unique Class Year
96 Id.
97 Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures, Errata Notice, 167 FERC ¶ 61,124 (May 13, 2019)
(adding “Requested capacity (in MW) of Interconnection Service (if lower than the Generating Facility Capacity)” to item no. 5 of Appendix 1 to the pro forma LGIP).
98 Attachment X, Appendix 1 of Section 30.14.
99 Order No. 845, at P 43.
100 Id. at P 441.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 22
structure; and (3) the NYISO’s CRIS requirements and necessary limitation on the use of CRIS for facilities interconnected with Provisional Interconnection Service.
Consistent with Order No. 845, the NYISO proposes to include a definition of
“Provisional Interconnection Service” in Section 30.1 of Attachment X to the OATT and the NYISO’s LGIA, as follows:
Provisional Interconnection Service shall mean interconnection service provided
by the ISO associated with interconnecting the Developer’s Large Facility to the
New York State Transmission System (or Distribution System as applicable) and
enabling the transmission system to receive electric energy from the Large Facility
at the Point of Interconnection, pursuant to the terms of the Provisional Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement and, if applicable, the ISO OATT.
The NYISO also includes (1) a definition for Provisional Large Facility Interconnection
Agreement, (2) a new Article 5.9.2 of the NYISO’s LGIA for Provisional Interconnection
Service at the request of the Developer prior to the completion of the NYISO’s LFIP, and (3) a similar provision for Provisional Interconnection Service that replaces Section 30.12.3 of
Attachment X (i.e., procedures for a request for limited operations).
In addition to the proposed revisions to the language in order to be consistent with the
terminology previously accepted by the Commission for the NYISO’s LFIP and LGIA, the
NYISO proposes an independent variation to specify that the interconnection service that a
facility may offer while providing Provisional Interconnection Service is limited to ERIS and
may not include CRIS unless the Developer has completed a Class Year Study, accepted cost
allocation, and posted Security for any required System Deliverability Upgrades. Section
30.11.4 of Attachment X includes language previously accepted by the Commission that affords
Developers the opportunity to enter into a LGIA prior to completion of the Class Year Study.101
However, a Developer cannot participate as an Installed Capacity Supplier until after it
completes a Class Year Study and its requested CRIS is either (i) deemed fully or partially
deliverable, and the Developer accepts its deliverable megawatts, or (ii) accepts its Project Cost
Allocation and posts Security for any required System Deliverability Upgrades identified in the
Class Year study.102 This is consistent with Commission-accepted provisions of the NYISO’s
Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff, requiring a Developer to obtain CRIS
(which, for any resource larger than 2 MW requires completion of a Class Year Study) before
being eligible to participate as an Installed Capacity Supplier.103 This limitation of allowing
101 See Attachment X, Section 30.11.4.
102 Attachment X, Section 30.11.4.
103 Section 5.12.1 of the NYISO Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (“In order to
qualify as an Installed Capacity Supplier, Generators and controllable transmission projects electrically located in the NYCA, and transmission projects with associated incremental transfer capability, must have obtained Capacity Resource Interconnection Service [“CRIS”] pursuant to the applicable provisions of Attachment S to the ISO OATT and have entered service: controllable transmission projects must also have obtained Unforced Capacity
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 23
facilities that go into service prior to completion of a Class Year Study to do so only with ERIS is one that has been accepted by the Commission in LGIAs for facilities yet to complete a Class Year Study at the time the LGIA was executed and should apply to Provisional Interconnection Service as well.104
The NYISO proposes an additional independent entity variation with regard to
Provisional Interconnection Service in order to extend the current requirement in Section 30.11.4
of Attachment X to Developers seeking Provisional Interconnection Service. This would require
such Developers to agree, in the LGIA, to accept the cost of System Upgrade Facilities that are
identified (after the facility commences Provisional Interconnection Service) in the Class Year
Study. The proposed revision to Section 30.12.3 of Attachment X applies the requirement in
Section 30.11.4 that the Developer with a Provisional Large Facility Interconnection Agreement
must agree that the proposed facility will accept the cost allocation from the Class Year Study
and post Security for any identified System Upgrade Facilities, regardless of whether the cost
allocation exceeds any identified System Upgrade Facilities or additional System Upgrade
Facilities are required.105 The proposed variations are consistent with the Commission-accepted
limitations on entering into a LGIA prior to completion of the Class Year Study, particularly
given the unique nature of the NYISO’s Class Year process and requirement to accept cost
allocation for System Upgrade Facilities.106
d) Utilization of Surplus Interconnection Service
Order No. 845 revises the pro forma LGIP and LGIA to require transmission providers to
establish an expedited interconnection process outside of the interconnection queue to allow for
transfers of surplus interconnection service.107 The Commission provided that Surplus
Interconnection Service is “created because generating facilities may not operate at full capacity
at all time,” and that if an existing transmission provider, or its affiliates, do not use such service,
the service may be made available to other potential interconnection customers.108 This
requirement relies on the premise that a facility’s interconnection service is based on an
evaluation of the facility at full capacity, with reliability upgrades being required for any adverse
reliability impacts of the facility’s injection of its full capacity, with no re-dispatch or dispatching
down of the facility to mitigate such adverse impacts.109 The Commission fashioned the order
based upon this construct. However, that is not the case under the NYISO’s unique Minimum
Interconnection Standard, described in more detail below, which allows for re-dispatch of a
facility (i.e., both the studied project and existing generators in the case) in interconnection studies
Deliverability Rights and transmission projects with associated incremental transfer capability must also have obtained External-to-ROS Deliverability Rights.”).
104 See, e.g., New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Letter Order, Docket No. ER18-1161-000 (2018); New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Letter Order, Docket No. ER17-467-000 (January 23, 2017).
105 Attachment X, Section 30.11.4.
106 See id.
107 Order No. 845, at P 467. 108 Id. at PP 468-72.
109 Id.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 24
to less than the facility’s full capacity in order to mitigate reliability impacts at full capacity. Even if an interconnection study did not require re-dispatch, a facility is never guaranteed that it can
operate at its full capacity in normal operations due to various system conditions and subsequent
new project entry.
The NYISO, therefore, requests an independent entity variation to continue its existing
interconnection process—a cornerstone of which is its formulation of the Minimum
Interconnection Standard. The NYISO’s existing interconnection process and application of its
unique Minimum Interconnection Standard rely on previously accepted variations from the pro
forma LGIP and LGIA, which differ from the basic premise relied on by Order No. 845’s
requirement to offer surplus interconnection service to Developers. As a result, the NYISO
requests this variation, as the surplus interconnection service required in Order No. 845 is
fundamentally incompatible with certain aspects of the NYISO’s interconnection process and
market design. If the Commission were to not accept this independent entity variation, the
NYISO anticipates that it could have the unfortunate effect of overturning long-settled and
understood procedures. Additionally, it could disrupt the careful balance of interests in the
process that has been broadly agreed upon by NYISO stakeholders and accepted by the
Commission. It would also lead to increased interconnection costs for Developers, thereby
erecting barriers to entry into the NYISO market—a significant departure from the NYISO’s
market design intended to foster competitive markets and encourage new entry.
(1) NYISO’s Unique Interconnection Standard and Planning
Rules are Fundamentally Incompatible with Surplus Interconnection Service
As explained above, the NYISO has established unique regional rules—and obtained
independent entity variations consistent with those rules—that are fundamentally different from
those that the Commission used in structuring the surplus interconnection service requirement.
One of the variations unique to the NYISO’s interconnection process is the manner in which it
conducts studies for requests for ERIS and identifies System Upgrade Facilities, which does not
align with the key assumptions underlying surplus interconnection service in Order No. 845.
Under the NYISO’s Commission-approved variation of the definition of ERIS in the
NYISO OATT, the interconnection service that a Developer receives is based on a facility’s
ability to satisfy the NYISO’s Minimum Interconnection Standard.110 The definition of
110 See New York Indep. Sys. Operator Inc. and New York Transmission Owners, Order Conditionally Accepting Compliance, 126 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2009); New York Indep. Sys. Operator Inc. and New York
Transmission Owners, Order on Rehearing, Clarification, and Compliance, 127 FERC ¶ 61,318 (2009). The current NYISO OATT definition of ERIS under Section 30.1 of Attachment X reads as:
Energy Resource Interconnection Service (“ERIS”) shall mean the service provided
by the ISO to interconnect the Developer’s Large Generating Facility or Class Year
Transmission Project to the New York State Transmission System or to the Distribution
System, in accordance with the NYISO Minimum Interconnection Standard, to enable
the New York State Transmission System to receive Energy and Ancillary Services from
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 25
Minimum Interconnection Standard was accepted by the Commission in 2001, but its origins in
the NYISO’s interconnection studies date almost back to the NYISO’s inception.111 When the
NYISO first proposed the definition, the “Minimum Interconnection Standard” was the standard
“described in the System Reliability Impact Study Criteria and Procedures developed by NYISO
staff and approved by the Operating Committee in July, 2000” (hereinafter “Minimum
Interconnection Standard methodology”).112 That Minimum Interconnection Standard
methodology specified that:
Any potential adverse reliability impact identified by the [System Reliability Impact Study] that can be managed through the normal operating procedures of the NYISO and/or [Connecting Transmission Owner (“CTO”)] will not be identified as a degradation of system reliability or noncompliance with the [North America Reliability Corporation (“NERC”)], [Northeast Power Coordinating Council (“NPCC”)], or [New York State Reliability Council (“NYSRC”)] reliability standards.
This definition of Minimum Interconnection Standard has remained nearly unchanged since it was first accepted by the Commission in 2001 and, more importantly, through the NYISO’s Order No. 2003 compliance filings.113 The methodology has since been incorporated in the NYISO’s Transmission Expansion and Interconnection Manual, which recites the original language almost verbatim with the only change italicized below:
Any potential adverse reliability impact identified by the Interconnection Study that can be managed through the normal operating procedures of the NYISO and/or CTO will not be identified as a degradation of system reliability or noncompliance with the NERC, NPCC, or NYSRC reliability standards.114
The key distinction between the pro forma LGIP definition and NYISO’s definition of
ERIS is that the latter relies on the NYISO’s Minimum Interconnection Standard, which, as
described above, “is designed to ensure reliable access by the proposed project to the New York
State Transmission System or to the Distribution System. The Standard does not impose any
deliverability test or deliverability requirement on the proposed interconnection.”115 In other
the Large Generating Facility or Class Year Transmission Project, pursuant to the terms of the ISO OATT.
111 New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Order Accepting Tariff Revisions Subject to Modifications, 97 FERC ¶ 61,118 (2001).
112 New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Filing of New Attachment S to Open Access Transmission Tariff to Implement Rules to Allocate Responsibility for the Cost of New Interconnection Facilities, Docket No, ER01-
2967-000, at p 5 (August 29, 2001).
113 See, e.g., New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc. and the New York Transmission Owners, Joint Compliance on Consensus Deliverability Plan, Docket No. ER04-449-017 (August 5, 2008); see also, e.g., New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Letter Order on Interconnection Process Improvements, Docket No. ER18-80-000 (2017).
114 NYISO Transmission Expansion and Interconnection Manual, Section 3.6.1, available at
https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/2924447/tei_mnl.pdf/099cdf73-feee-4247-df20-8605a67c5089.
115 Id.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 26
words, the NYISO’s Minimum Interconnection Service focuses on whether a specific facility proposed by the Developer can reliably connect to the system rather than identifying upgrades necessary to maintain any maximum MW output under various system conditions.
Under the Minimum Interconnection Standard, the NYISO in performing interconnection studies does not necessarily assume that a generating facility is operating at its full output under various system conditions and, instead, permits the re-dispatch of the facility and/or other
facilities to the extent possible under normal operating procedures to mitigate adverse reliability impacts—i.e., establish a feasible base dispatch.116 If the project’s or another generator’s output is reduced and does not require a System Upgrade Facility, the NYISO does not identify
upgrades. As a result, there is no specified output in connection with the facility whether or not a System Upgrade Facility is identified that could provide the “surplus” contemplated in Order No. 845. Therefore, the underlying premise of the surplus interconnection service requirement that
transmission providers assume that generating facilities operate at their full capacity in
interconnection studies is inconsistent with the NYISO’s process.
(2) NYISO’s Unique Market Design and Capacity Market Rules
are Inconsistent with Surplus Interconnection Service
Aspects of the surplus interconnection service requirements under Order No. 845 also are
inconsistent with the NYISO’s existing market rules. Under the NYISO’s existing market design,
two projects behind the same Point of Interconnection must be modeled, scheduled, and settled as
two separate generators.117 This difference in the NYISO’s market design makes adopting
various components of the proposed rule infeasible, particularly with regard to the ability of two
resources behind the same Point of Interconnection to transfer unused interconnection service
between them. This is true whether the transfer of interconnection service between the resources
is on an intermittent, short-term basis (e.g., a generation facility transferring interconnection
service to another resource when the first facility is out for maintenance) or whether the transfer
of interconnection service between the resources is on a continuous basis (e.g., a solar facility
transferring interconnection service during night-time hours to a wind facility).
The proposed rule is also incompatible with the NYISO’s capacity market rules. First,
Installed Capacity (“ICAP”) Suppliers have a daily requirement to offer into the Day Ahead
116 Transmission constraints and other adverse reliability impacts internal to the New York Control Area
(“NYCA”) are typically manageable through NYISO and/or Connecting Transmission Owner normal operating
procedures. There are scenarios in which neither the NYISO or the Connecting Transmission Owner can, through
normal operating procedures, dispatch down generation to eliminate the need for System Upgrade Facilities. For
example, multiple generation projects interconnecting to various locations within the NYCA may individually or
collectively have an adverse impact on transfer limit capability over inter-area tie lines. Such impacts are not fully
manageable by NYISO and/or Connecting Transmission Owner normal operating procedures alone.
117 The NYISO plans to provide limited flexibility in the market participation of Small Generating Facilities through tariff revisions recently approved by its stakeholders that are currently pending approval by its Board of Directors that will provide the ability to accommodate multiple units behind a single point of interconnection as a single Small Generating Facility.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 27
Market for energy in the amount of the ICAP equivalent of their capacity sold for that month.118 That obligation would preclude them from transferring ERIS in any month for which they sold associated ICAP or would establish a scenario that opens the door to a supplier failing to meet its obligations to offer energy as required under the rules and for its expected availability.
Second, the use of surplus interconnection service for two facilities behind the same Point
of Interconnection on a scheduled, periodic basis for a specified number of MW available only
intermittently is not feasible under the NYISO’s capacity market rules. Only one of the two
suppliers in the proposed scenario would be able to offer into the NYISO’s capacity market for an
obligation month because each supplier behind the same Point of Interconnection, even if the
same technology type, might have different proven capabilities (i.e., for traditional technology
types, their DMNC values)119 and different availability or performance derating factors (i.e.,
EFORd values),120 both of which are used to calculate resources’ Unforced Capacity (“UCAP”),
which is the quantity of capacity they are allowed to offer into the market each Capability Period.
Thus, were the NYISO required to implement the surplus interconnection service rule,
commitment participation caps for resources at the Point of Interconnection would need to be
established. Even if such a rule could reasonably be fashioned to identify the manner in which
such resources would be qualified and the amount thereof, the energy market obligations of ICAP
Suppliers that have sold UCAP for an obligation month would also need to be revised to reflect
the amount in which each resource, or both, would have to offer into the Day Ahead Market for
energy. In any case, both resources should be subject to the NYISO’s Supplemental Resource
Evaluation if required.
Third, the surplus interconnections service requirements under Order No. 845 do not
work under the NYISO’s unique and well established CRIS requirements and buyer-side
capacity market power mitigation measures (“BSM Rules”). CRIS was developed and accepted
by the Commission as an independent entity variation to Network Resource Interconnection
Service based on the “unique regional circumstances” related to the NYISO.121 When tariff
revisions implementing CRIS and the associated NYISO Deliverability Interconnection Standard
118 See Services Tariff, Section 5.12.7. An example of the general rule when applied to a hypothetical
generator that sells an ICAP equivalent of 100 MW of UCAP in a given month is that it is required to offer 100 MW of energy every day. That generator must have a corresponding amount of ERIS to validly offer that energy every day, even if the generator actually runs infrequently or even not at all.
119 A DMNC value or “Dependable Maximum Net Capability” is an annual demonstration of a generator’s ability to generator power, specifically, its sustained maximum net output. See Services Tariff, Section 2.4.
120 An EFORd or “Equivalent Demand Forced Outage Rate” represents the portion of time a unit is dispatched and unable to respond due to forced outages or derates. See Services Tariff, Section 2.5.
121 New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 108 FERC ⁋ 61,159, at PP 24-28 (2004) (requiring the
NYISO’s LFIP to incorporate two levels of interconnection service—one of which would contain a deliverability
standard, similar to Network Resource Interconnection Service), order on reh’g, 111 FERC ⁋ 61,347, at PP 13-14
(2005) (recognizing two competing principles—the requirement under Order No. 2003 to offer two levels of
interconnection service and that the NYISO’s region is distinct and should have flexibility to craft a system
appropriate to New York’s specific needs); see also New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., Letter Order,
Docket No. ER04-449-020 (2009); New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., 126 FERC ⁋ 61,046 (2009), order on
reh’g, 127 FERC ⁋ 61,318 (2009).
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 28
were submitted to the Commission in 2008, they represented the culmination of years of work
with stakeholders to develop an acceptable framework to implement a second level of
interconnection service that contained a deliverability standard as required by the Commission
while also being compatible with regional circumstances and rules.122 Under the current tariff, a facility must meet the NYISO’s Deliverability Interconnection Standard (as well as have ERIS)
before it can receive CRIS123 and must obtain CRIS in order to become eligible to become an
Installed Capacity Supplier.124
NYISO’s OATT Attachment S contains a comprehensive rule set regarding the
requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and transferring CRIS.125 A key aspect of those rules
provides for transfers of CRIS on a bilateral basis between an existing facility that is deactivating
and exiting the market and another facility, existing or new, regardless of whether the facilities
are at the same or different electrical location.126 In particular, transfer of CRIS at the same
electrical location is permitted without the recipient project being evaluated for deliverability in
the NYISO’s interconnection process (although the transferor must be deactivating and the
transferee must have ERIS and become operational prior to the transferor’s CRIS expiring).127
The CRIS transfer rules were designed to accommodate permanent transfers of CRIS
from an entity leaving the market. The CRIS transfer provisions are not intended to allow
temporary transfers—such transfers would be disruptive to the ICAP market, as described herein.
Further, any Commission requirement for a mechanism that permits CRIS to toggle back and
forth between two resources must appropriately account for this under the BSM review process.
Under the NYISO’s current CRIS transfer rules, if the “transferee” is located in a Mitigated
Capacity Zone or a New Capacity Zone, both CRIS transfers at the same location and CRIS
transfers from a different location are subject to the BSM Rules.128 These rules provide that the
examination of a recipient of transferred CRIS occurs in conjunction with the NYISO’s
examination of other proposed new projects and existing resources’ requests for Additional CRIS
122 See New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., Compliance Filing and Request for Further Extension of
Time, Docket No. ER04-449-017 (August 5, 2008); see also New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 122 FERC ¶
61,267 (2008) (providing guidance on NYISO’s Consensus Plan filed on October 5, 2007 and directing revisions to
the OATT to be submitted by August 4, 2008); New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., et al., Consensus Deliverability
Plan, Docket Nos. ER04-449-003, -007, -008 (October 5, 2007) (providing the agreed-upon framework under which
the NYISO and stakeholders would facilitate the development of tariff revisions); New York Indep. Sys. Operator,
Inc., et al., Compliance Filing and Request for Further Extension of Time, Docket No. ER04-449-005 (February 7,
2005).
123 OATT Attachment S, Section 25.3.1.
124 OATT Attachment S, Section 25.7.4; Services Tariff, Section 5.12.1. 125 See, generally, OATT Attachment S.
126 OTT Attachment S, Sections 25.9.4 and 25.9.5.
127 Same location CRIS transfers are permitted if a facility deactivates an existing unit and commissions a new one at the same electrical location. The CRIS of the deactivated facility may be transferred to the new facility at that same electrical location provided that the new facility becomes operational within three years from the
deactivation of the original facility. See OATT Attachment S, Section 25.9.4.
128 The BSM Rules are set forth in Section 23.4.5.7, et seq. of the Services tariff.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 29
MW. This process allows the NYISO to perform the economic analyses required to determine whether a proposed project’s entry would be uneconomic and to establish Offer Floors.
As is clear from the above, the surplus interconnection service requirement does not
comport with the Commission-accepted variations related to the NYISO’s markets. More
importantly, it would have broad ramifications for existing NYISO rules. As a result, the NYISO requests an independent entity variation to continue its current rules without offering surplus interconnection service as envisioned by the Commission in Order No. 845.
e) Material Modification and Incorporation of Advanced
Technologies
Order No. 845 lastly required each transmission provider’s pro forma LGIP to include a technological change procedure to “assess, and if necessary, study whether proposed
technological advancements can be incorporated into interconnection requests without triggering the material modification provisions.”129 The stated purpose of this revision is “to allow for
equipment changes resulting in electrical performance that is equal to or better than an
interconnection request’s previously projected electrical performance and not cause any
reliability concerns.”130 To achieve this result, permissible technological advancements were
added to the existing list of modifications contained in section 4.4.2 of the pro forma LFIP that
do not require a material modification.131
Transmission providers were also required to incorporate technological change
procedures to, among other things, (1) “specify what technological advancements can be
incorporated at various stages of the interconnection process;” (2) identify the responsibilities for
the respective parties; (3) specify that an interconnection customer should submit a technological
advancement request; and (4) specify the necessary information that must be submitted as a part
of the technological advancement request.132 The Developer’s technological advancement
request must demonstrate that such advancement would “result in electrical performance that is
equal to or better than the electrical performance expected prior to the technological change and
not cause any reliability concerns.”133 The Commission noted that a request to incorporate
technological advancements should come before the execution of a facilities study agreement,
but afforded transmission providers an opportunity to establish a rule that permits such
technological advancements at a designated point in time during the interconnection process.134
Order No. 845 also permitted the technological change procedures to require a study deposit to
129 Order No. 845, at P 518,
130 Id. at P 525.
131 Order No. 845-A, at P 152. 132 Order No. 845, at P 519. 133 Id. at P 520.
134 Id. at P 536.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 30
offset cost incurred by the transmission provider in conducting any necessary studies to determine whether a technological advancement is permissible.135
In addition to the technological change procedures, Order No. 845 required transmission
providers to adopt a definition of permissible technological advancements, which would per se
not constitute a material modification and, therefore, not result in the loss of queue position of
the interconnection request.136 Consistent with Order No. 845, the NYISO proposes to include a
definition of Permissible Technological Advancement in Section 30.1 of Attachment X to the
OATT, as follows:
Permissible Technological Advancement shall mean advancements to turbines,
inverters, or plant supervisory controls or other similar advancements to the
existing technology proposed in the Interconnection Request, provided that such
advancements result in electrical performance that is equal or better than the
electrical performance prior to the technological change and do not (i) increase the
capability of the Large Facility by more than two (2) megawatts, (ii) change the
generation technology or fuel type of the Large Facility, (iii) have a material
adverse impact on the New York State Transmission System or Distribution
System, and (iv) degrade the electrical characteristics of the generating equipment
proposed in the Interconnection Request (e.g., the ratings, impedances, efficiencies,
capabilities, and performance of the equipment under steady state and dynamic
conditions).
Consistent with the requirements of Order No. 845, the definition permissibly excludes changes
in the generation technology or fuel type, and includes those changes that do not cause any
reliability concerns, do not degrade the electrical characteristics of the generating equipment, and
are equal to or better than the performance expected prior to the change.137 The NYISO proposes
to permit, as part of a Permissible Technological Advancement, technological advancements that
result in a de minimis increase in the requested interconnection service, such increase not to
exceed 2 MW. While the Commission indicated that a technical advancement that does not
increase the interconnection customer’s requested interconnection service or cause reliability
concerns is generally not a material modification, it does not by extension preclude increases in
interconnection service as part of a Permissible Technological Advancement. The NYISO
proposes this permissible de minimis increase in order to accommodate the most frequent
technological changes requested in its interconnection studies—changes to turbine manufacturers
that slightly change the capability of a turbine, sometimes by mere tenths of a MW. To
accommodate this threshold for changes related to technological advancements, the NYISO
revises existing language in Attachment X regarding modifications generally to specifically
permit 2 MW increases resulting from a Permissible Technological Advancement.138
135 Id. at P 534.
136 Id. at PP 518, 534.
137 Id. at PP 530-31 (determining that a change in the fuel type—i.e., gas to wind—“involve[s] a change in the electrical characteristics of an interconnection request”).
138 Proposed Attachment X, Section 30.4.4.1.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 31
As directed by Order No. 845, the NYISO also incorporates a technological change
procedure in a new Section 30.4.4.7 of Attachment X that details the manner in which a
Developer can request a technological advancement. To initiate the procedure, a Developer is required to submit a request for a technological change using the request form as further detailed below. The technological change request may be made following the initial draft of the System Reliability Impact Study report to the Developer and Connecting Transmission Owner but prior to the return of an executed Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement.139
The first step of the procedures is to review the technological change and determine
whether it meets the definition and whether there is sufficient documentation submitted by the
Developer to demonstrate that the proposed change does not change the electrical characteristics
of the project that would result in a greater than two (2) percent voltage drop at the Point of
Interconnection, or a greater than 100 amperes short circuit contribution. If the proposed change
passes the first step, then it constitutes a Permissible Technological Advancement without the
need for further study.
If the proposed change does not satisfy the first step, the second step is for the NYISO to
perform additional studies to determine whether the electrical performance is equal to or better
than the electrical performance prior to the technological change and that the change does not
result in adverse reliability concerns. Due to the limited time to complete the study (i.e., 30
days), the procedures detail that the Developer is required to submit all information or data that
is required for the NYISO to perform the additional studies in the original request. In the event
that the Developer fails to provide the necessary information, the requested technological change
will be rejected, but the Developer may resubmit for the same technological change with the
required information.140 If the proposed change does not demonstrate that the project is equal to
or better than the electrical performance prior to the technological change or there are adverse
reliability violations, the third step will consist of a review to determine whether the change
would constitute a Material Modification consistent with Section 30.4.4.3 of Attachment X to the
OATT. The technological change procedures require the aforementioned steps to be completed
upon receipt of a technological change request, as further discussed below.
In addition to creating the technological change procedure under Section 30.4.7, the
NYISO proposes additional revisions to 30.4.4 of Attachment X,141 as well as adding a new
139 Proposed Attachment X, Sections 30.4.4.7 and 30.4.4.7.1. The NYISO proposes these procedures apply
following the completion of the System Reliability Impact Study but before commencement of the Class Year Study
because (1) current tariff provisions allow significant latitude in modifications prior to commencement the System
Reliability Impact Study and (2) modifications during the System Reliability Impact Study will prolong the study
and not afford the NYISO a basis upon which to evaluate the change (i.e., the System Reliability Impact Study
provides the technical parameters pre-modification against which the proposed modification will be evaluated).
140 Proposed Attachment X, Section 30.4.4.7.2.
141 Minor revisions are proposed to the preamble language to Section 30.4.4 of Attachment X to the OATT to
reference the new Section 30.4.4.7 and reference the use of the Large Facility Modification Request. NYISO also
proposes a minor revision to remove the term “Agreement” from Section 30.4.4.1 of Attachment X that was a
remnant of the tariff prior to the revisions proposed and the Commission accepted in Docket No. ER18-80-000.
Additionally, the NYISO proposes to strike the work “Agreement” from the first sentence, which was inadvertently
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 32
“Large Facility Modification Request” to streamline requesting modifications to Interconnection
Requests in the NYISO’s interconnection queue process. This request form will identify for the
Developer the specific information that must be submitted for a proposed technological
advancement.142 The addition of the Large Facility Modification Request does not result in any
substantive changes to other modifications that can be made or reviewed by the NYISO under
Section 30.4.4 of Attachment X to the OATT. It principally adds administrative efficiencies and
eliminates questions for Developers on the information that the NYISO will need to evaluate a
request to modify a pending Interconnection Request. It also adds terms and conditions that a
Developer will need to agree to for the NYISO to conduct the review and avoid the need for
delays in negotiating a study agreement with a Developer to evaluate whether a proposed
modification constitutes a Permissible Technological Advancement or if the NYISO needs to
conduct a materiality review under Section 30.4.4.3 of Attachment X to the OATT. If a
developer submits a technological change, the terms and conditions require the submission of a
$10,000 study deposit, together with documentation that shows that the technological change is a
Permissible Technological Advancement.143 This proposed variation furthers the Commission’s
goal with Permissible Technological Advancements in Order No. 845 and Order No.845-A;
therefore, the NYISO requests that the Commission accept it as consistent with or superior to the
required revisions.144
V.Effective Date
In Order No. 845-A, the Commission directed that the effective date of the proposed
revisions to comply with the requirements in Order No. 845 and Order No. 845-A “shall be the
date established in the Commission’s order accepting that RTO’s/ISO’s compliance filing, which
shall be no earlier than the issuance date of such an order.”145 Based on this directive, the
NYISO respectfully requests that the Commission allow for these tariff revisions to become
effective sixty (60) Calendar Days following the issuance of the an order accepting the NYISO’s
compliance filing or as otherwise set by the Commission. In the event that the proposed
effective date is later than the date of the Commission’s order, the NYISO submits that it has
good cause for the additional time period. Such an effective date will afford the NYISO
sufficient time to implement the changes to the NYISO’s LFIP, including, but not limited to,
making adjustments to its website, portals, and interconnection software.
left in the first sentence of Section 30.4.4.1 when the NYISO previously eliminated the need for a separate
Interconnection System Reliability Impact Study Agreement. See New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Proposed
Tariff Revisions Regarding Interconnection Process Improvements, Docket No. ER18-80-000, at pp 11-22 (October 16, 2017).
142 See Order No. 845, at P 521 (requiring the transmission provider to “clearly indicate to the
interconnection customer the types of information and/or study inputs that the transmission customer must provide to the transmission provider” if a study is necessary to evaluate a technological advancement).
143 Consistent with Order No. 845, the terms and conditions only require the $10,000 study deposit for a proposed technological change. See id. at P 534 (setting a $10,000 default study deposit). For all other
modifications to an Interconnection Request, there is no required study deposit in the OATT.
144 Id. at P 43.
145 Order No. 845-A, at P 166.
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose May 22, 2019
Page 33
VI. Service
The NYISO will send an electronic link to this filing to the official representative of each
party to this proceeding, to the official representative of each of its customers, to each participant
on its stakeholder committees, to the New York Public Service Commission, and to the New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities. In addition, a complete copy of the documents included with
this filing will be posted on the NYISO’s website at www.nyiso.com.
VII. Conclusion
Wherefore, the NYISO respectfully requests that the Commission accept this compliance
filing.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sara B. Keegan
Sara B. Keegan
Brian R. Hodgdon
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
10 Krey Boulevard
Rensselaer, NY 12144
skeegan@nyiso.com
bhodgdon@nyiso.com
Counsel for the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
cc:Nicole BuellDavid Morenoff
Anna CochraneDaniel Nowak
James DanlyLarry Parkinson
Jignasa GadaniDouglas Roe
Jette GebhartGary Will
Kurt Longo
