UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

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

Agreements and Procedures)

JOINT COMMENTS OF THE

NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC.
AND THE NEW YORK TRANSMISSION OWNERS

Pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ("Commission’s") January 17,
2013, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the above-captioned proceeding (the “NOPR”),1 the
New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”) and Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York Power Authority,
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a
National Grid, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation
(“New York Transmission Owners”) (collectively, “Joint Filing Parties”) respectfully submit
these comments regarding the Commission’s proposed revisions to its pro forma Small
Generator Interconnection Procedures and Small Generator Interconnection Agreement
(collectively, “Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures”).2
In the NOPR, the Commission describes challenges that developers of Small Generating Facilities may face in the processing of their Interconnection Requests in certain regions due to an increase in requests for renewable energy and distributed generation resources. The
Commission proposes revisions to the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures
to address these concerns.

1 Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, 142 FERC ¶ 61,049 (January 17, 2013) (“FERC SGIA NOPR”).

2 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this letter have the meaning set forth in Attachments S, X and Z of the NYISO’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”).

The Joint Filing Parties support the Commission’s overall goal of ensuring that

Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities are processed in an efficient,

expeditious, and cost effective manner. The Commission, however, should refrain from

imposing uniform procedures that do not account for the differences across regions in processing such requests. In regions where Interconnection Requests are being processed in a timely
manner, the Commission’s proposed revisions may not materially enhance the current process. They could, if not properly tailored, introduce delays and higher costs by diverting finite
administrative and technical resources that are currently devoted to processing Interconnection Requests and attendant interconnection studies for projects that have demonstrated a
commitment to move forward in the interconnection process.

Significant differences exist across regions regarding the volume and growth of

Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities and the impact of these requests on the
efficiency of the interconnection process. Unlike in certain other regions, the NYISO currently
does not receive a large number of requests to interconnect Small Generating Facilities to
Commission jurisdictional facilities in New York3 and even fewer requests for those Small
Generating Facilities with a capacity of 5 MW or less (“Very Small Generating Facilities”).4
Nor has the NYISO experienced a recent surge of such requests. Presently, Interconnection
Requests for Small Generating Facilities constitute only 14 percent of the NYISO’s current
interconnection queue, while requests for Very Small Generating Facilities constitute a mere 7
percent. A majority of small generator requests to interconnect in New York - and nearly all

3 In its NOPR, the Commission referenced filings from certain regions to describe a general trend of increasing

numbers of Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities and resulting inefficiencies in processing these requests. See FERC SGIA NOPR at PP 20-22.

4 References herein to “Very Small Generating Facilities” refer to new facilities that submit interconnection requests for 5 MW or less. This term does not include existing Small Generating Facilities that submit interconnection
requests to be studied for uprates to their existing facilities (i.e., increases in capacity) of 5 MW or less.

such requests for facilities smaller than 5 MW - are submitted to the New York Transmission
Owners to interconnect to distribution facilities not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.
The NYISO’s limited volume of Interconnection Requests for Commission jurisdictional interconnections has not impeded the NYISO’s ability to process requests in a timely and cost effective manner nor created a backlog. This is in large part due to NYISO’s practice of
capitalizing on the flexibility that already exists in the Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures to streamline the time and costs of the interconnection process for Small Generating
Facilities, as described in more detail below. To the extent suggested process improvements
have been identified with respect to the NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures,
the NYISO has continued to work with stakeholders to improve its procedures and has proposed
improvements to the Commission that have been supported by stakeholders and subsequently
approved by the Commission. Notwithstanding the NYISO’s concerns regarding the NOPR’s
directive, the NYISO has every intention to continue such efforts to improve its interconnection
procedures.

Given the different circumstances in each region, the Joint Filing Parties strongly urge the
Commission to adopt a process that permits each region to develop and implement its own
specific proposals to the problems identified by the Commission. As the Commission
acknowledges in its NOPR, the need for reforming the procedures may not be uniform across the
country.5 Specifically, the Commission should direct each ISO/RTO6 to report on the status of
its processing of Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities and to develop with its
stakeholders and implement, where needed, regionally-tailored reforms to its Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures. In developing revisions, the ISOs/RTOs should look to the

5 FERC SGIA NOPR at P 24.

6 While the Joint Filing Parties refer to ISOs/RTOs in these comments, the Commission should require equivalent obligations from Transmission Providers outside of ISO/RTO footprints.

Commission’s proposal in this proceeding for guidance. A regional approach would be

consistent with the Commission’s action in its Docket No. AD08-2-000 to address on a regional basis similar challenges to the timely processing of Interconnection Requests for Large
Generating Facilities due in part to an increase in Interconnection Requests for renewable energy projects.7 There, the Commission permitted each region the opportunity to propose its own
solution to problems identified by the Commission with respect to queue management.8 As the Commission aptly noted, “[a]lthough there are some common issues affecting all the regions,
there are also significant differences in the nature and scope of the problem from region to
region; there may, therefore be no right answer for how to improve queue management.”9 The Commission should adopt a similar approach here.

If the Commission does not adopt a regionally-tailored approach, the Joint Filing Parties
respectfully submit in Part III below suggested improvements and clarifications for the
Commission’s proposed revisions to the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures. In addition, the Joint Filing Parties note that the NOPR only provides for the filing
of variations on the Commission’s proposed language where the variations are “consistent with
or superior” to the pro forma language.10 The Joint Filing Parties request that the Commission
clarify that consistent with Order 2006 it will permit ISOs/RTOs to seek “independent entity
variations” from any revisions to the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures to
accommodate regional differences.11

7 Interconnection Queuing Practices, Order on Technical Conference, 122 FERC ¶ 61,252 (March 20, 2008) (“FERC Queue Management Order”).

8 Id. at P 8.

9 Id. at P 8.

10 FERC SGIA NOPR at P 51.

11 Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2006, 111 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2005) (“Order No. 2006”) at P 549; see also Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 139 FERC ¶ 61,219 (2012) at P 9.

I.BACKGROUND

A.The NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures

The NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures in Attachment Z of the

NYISO OATT establish the requirements for processing the Interconnection Requests of a Small
Generating Facility no larger than 20 MW proposing to interconnect to the New York State
Transmission System or to the portions of the New York Transmission Owners’ distribution
facilities that are subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.12 The NYISO’s Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures were developed with extensive stakeholder involvement in response
to the Commission’s Order 2006 and related orders and were approved by the Commission with
an effective date of February 20, 2007.13 The NYISO has since made additional improvements
to these procedures.14 While generally following the Pro Forma Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures, the NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures include a
number of variations specific to New York. Significant variations include the NYISO’s retention
of its cost allocation process under Attachment S of the NYISO OATT and the inclusion of
specific requirements for the two levels of interconnection service in New York - Energy
Resource Interconnection Service (“ERIS”) and Capacity Resource Interconnection Service
(“CRIS”).

12 The NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures do not apply to interconnections to the Long Island Power Authority’s (“LIPA’s”) Commission jurisdictional distribution facilities. LIPA administers the
interconnection process for generators connecting to its distribution facilities and perform all required studies on its distribution system under its own tariffs and procedures.

13 See New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and New York Transmission Owners, Order on Small Generator Interconnection Filings, 118 FERC ¶ 61,130 (February 20, 2007), order on reh’g, Order Granting Rehearing in Part and Denying Rehearing in Part and Accepting Compliance Filing, 119 FERC ¶ 61,333 (June 29, 2007).

14 See, e.g., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 142 FERC ¶ 61,113 (2013) (accepting interconnection process improvements to NYISO OATT Attachments S, X, and Z); New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 135 FERC ¶ 61,014 (2011) (accepting limitations on circumstances under which a Small Generating Facility is required to enter a Class Year Interconnection Facilities Study and incur related costs).

The NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures are designed and

administered in a manner that promotes the efficient processing of Interconnection Requests and
provides opportunities to expedite the interconnection process. For example, to assist in the
selection of a point of interconnection, Section 32.1.2 of Attachment Z establishes that the
NYISO will provide an Interconnection Customer upon request with electric system information
concerning a particular point on Commission-jurisdictional facilities.15 In addition, for projects
larger than 2 MW that are too large to be evaluated under the Fast Track Process, Section

32.3.3.3 of Attachment Z provides the NYISO, the applicable New York Transmission Owner, and the Interconnection Customer with the flexibility to streamline the Study Process by
agreeing to skip one or more of the interconnection studies or to proceed directly to the
interconnection agreement based on the project’s potential system impacts.

B. The NYISO Processes Interconnection Requests for Small Generating

Facilities in New York in an Efficient Manner

The NYISO processes Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities in a

timely and cost effective manner. As noted above, the NYISO has not received a large number of requests to interconnect Small Generating Facilities to Commission jurisdictional facilities in New York. Most projects that are 5 MW or smaller seek to interconnect to distribution facilities not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. These interconnections are administered by the
New York Transmission Owners pursuant to requirements established by the New York State
Public Service Commission.

The NYISO’s current interconnection queue contains 72 separately-queued projects of
which only ten (10) (or 14 percent of the current interconnection queue) are Interconnection
Requests for Small Generating Facilities no larger than 20 MW. Of these, only five (5) (or 7

15 The NYISO obtains any required information about distribution facilities and low-voltage transmission facilities from the relevant New York Transmission Owner.

percent of the current interconnection queue) are Interconnection Requests for Very Small

Generating Facilities no larger than 5 MW. Importantly, over half of the queue positions of 5

MW or less in New York are uprates for larger projects that may not even be subject to the Small Generator Interconnection Procedures.16 Moreover, while it may be a problem in other regions,17 the NYISO rarely receives multiple Interconnection Requests for a single project that may be searching for the most advantageous point of interconnection.

To date, the NYISO has not experienced a surge in the volume of Interconnection

Requests for Small Generating Facilities. Since the NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures went into effect, the NYISO has received the following numbers of Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities:

YearSmall Generator InterconnectionVery Small InterconnectionUprates of 5

Requests (20 MW or Less)Requests (5 MW or Less) AddedMW or Less

Added to Interconnection Queueto Interconnection Queue

Excluding Uprates

200791821

2008701

2009711

2010110

2011400

2012511

201319100

Total3454

Of these 34 Interconnection Requests, nearly half of them were later withdrawn by the
Interconnection Customers largely due to financing or economic reasons unrelated to the

16 If the uprate is to an existing Large Facility or brings the existing Small Generating Facility over 20 MW, such uprate would be evaluated under the Large Facility Interconnection Procedures.

17 In its NOPR, the Commission stated that under the current Small Generator Facility procedures, an

Interconnection Customer is “often” led to “submit multiple requests for a single project to determine which Point of Interconnection is the most advantageous. See FERC SGIA NOPR at P16.

18 Note that the number of requests tallied here for 2007 includes “transition projects” that were transferred from the
prior Transmission Owner study process to the NYISO Small Generator Interconnection Procedures as directed by
Order 2006.

19 The Small Generator Facilities Interconnection Requests in 2013 are as of June 3, 2013.

NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures. The NYISO has not experienced a

backlog of such requests, nor does the NYISO anticipate a surge or Interconnection Requests

from Small Generating Facilities in the future, since the various subsidy programs for distributed
generation in New York are mainly state jurisdictional projects for interconnection purposes.
However, to the extent the NYISO sees a surge in Small Generating Facility Interconnection
Requests or observes any inefficiencies in its Small Generator Interconnection Procedures, the
NYISO is committed to continue to address such issues proactively through its stakeholder
process.

C. The Commission Proposes Revisions to the Pro Forma Small Generator

Interconnection Procedures to Promote the Efficient Interconnection of Small Generator Facilities

On January 17, 2013, the Commission issued its NOPR in this proceeding proposing

certain revisions to the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures to ensure the

efficient interconnection of Small Generating Facilities. In its NOPR, the Commission indicated
that a reevaluation of the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures is required in
light of an increased growth in Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities,
including solar photovoltaic installations, driven in part by state goals and policies promoting
renewable energy and distributed generation.20 The Commission referenced recent filings by
Transmission Providers in certain regions as demonstrating a general trend of increasing
numbers of Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities in interconnection queues
leading to inefficiencies and backlogs in processing such requests.21 In response, the
Commission proposed the revisions to its Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures described in the NOPR.

20 FERC SGIA NOPR at PP 20-22.

21 Id. at P 20 fn 30.

II.GENERAL COMMENTS

The Joint Filing Parties support the Commission’s overall goal of ensuring the efficient processing of Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities. The Commission’s
proposed revisions, however, would impose one-size-fits-all procedures across regions
regardless of clear differences among regions in the volume and efficient processing of
Interconnection Requests. As discussed in more detail below, for regions that are not
experiencing the issues identified by the NOPR, the Commission’s uniform approach may not enhance the efficiency of the existing processes and could instead create delays and higher
interconnection costs by diverting finite resources to focus on a small subset of Interconnection Requests. Given the different circumstances in each region, the Commission should adopt an approach that provides each region with the opportunity to develop and implement solutions, where needed, that are tailored to its particular circumstances.

A.The Commission’s Proposed Revisions Seek to Resolve Specific Issues Not

Present in All Regions

There are significant differences across regions with regard to the volume and growth of
Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities and the impact of these requests on the
efficiency of the interconnection process. In its NOPR, the Commission referenced filings from
certain regions to describe a general trend of increasing numbers of Interconnection Requests for
Small Generating Facilities and resulting inefficiencies in processing these requests.22 The
Commission also pointed to the development of state renewable portfolio standards and policies
or goals regarding distributed generation as driving increasing numbers of Interconnection
Requests.23

22 Id. at P 20.

23 Id. at PP 20-21.

These trends, however, do not exist consistently from region to region. The Commission
acknowledges this in its NOPR noting that the need for reforming the procedures may not be
uniform across the country.24 Yet, the Commission’s proposed revisions were developed to
address interconnection issues that are specific to certain regions and draw on the solutions being
developed within those regions.25 As described in Part III below, the Joint Filing Parties have
not identified similar issues in New York and have concerns regarding the implementation of the
Commission’s proposed revisions where they may not be needed, as such revisions could impact
the existing flexibility afforded by the Small Generator Interconnection Procedures, and create
administrative burdens and costs that will impact all participants in the interconnection process
in New York.

Notwithstanding their concerns with certain specific revisions proposed by the

Commission in the NOPR, the Joint Filing Parties recognize that it is prudent to continually
evaluate whether there is room for improvement of existing Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures. The Joint Filing Parties are therefore continually working through the NYISO
stakeholder process to develop and implement “queue improvement” proposals that are specific
to the circumstances in New York. In 2011, the Commission accepted the NYISO’s proposed
revisions to its Standard Large Facility Interconnection Procedures and Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures to more equitably allocate the study costs from the Class Year
Interconnection Facilities Study (“Class Year Study”) among the projects comprising a Class
Year group of projects electing to be evaluated for Energy Resource Interconnection Service
(“ERIS”).26 The modifications also revised the NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures to limit the circumstances under which a Small Generating Facility is required to

24 Id. at P 24.

25 Id. at PP 20-21.

26 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 135 FERC ¶ 61,014 (2011).

enter a Class Year Study and thereby incur additional Class Year Study costs. Most recently, the NYISO filed a comprehensive set of such proposals on December 19, 2012 involving numerous sections of the NYISO’s interconnection procedures, including clarifications to improve the
Small Generator Interconnection Procedures. These tariff amendments - accepted by the
Commission on February 15, 2013 - are among many efforts the NYISO has made to continually improve its interconnection process.27

B. The Commission’s Proposed Revisions May Not Enhance the

Interconnection Process and Could Create Inefficiencies in New York

The Joint Filing Parties believe that the interconnection process should function

efficiently for all Interconnection Requests received from developers of Small Generating

Facilities and Large Generating Facilities. In regions, such as New York, where the

Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities are currently being processed in a

timely and cost effective manner, the Commission’s proposed revisions are unlikely to improve
materially, if at all, the time and costs to process these requests at their current and anticipated
future volumes. By introducing new requirements for a small subset of Interconnection
Requests, the proposed revisions could introduce delays and higher costs for all participants in
the interconnection process. To implement the additional reports and screens set forth in the
NOPR, the Joint Filing Parties may have to divert finite administrative and technical resources at
the expense of their current responsibilities. These resources are currently devoted to processing
Interconnection Requests and performing the attendant interconnection studies for Large
Generating Facilities and Small Generating Facilities that have demonstrated - via extensive
studies and coordination with the NYISO and the applicable New York Transmission Owner - a
commitment to moving forward in the interconnection process. The reallocation of these

27 New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 142 FERC ¶ 61,113 (2013).

resources could introduce delays in the interconnection process for these projects and increase the costs of interconnection to Interconnection Customers.

C.The Commission Should Adopt an Approach that Provides for Regionally-

Tailored Solutions

Given the different challenges facing each region, the Joint Filing Parties strongly urge
the Commission to adopt a process to develop regionally-tailored reforms, rather than imposing
uniform requirements that may not accomplish and could potentially hinder the Commission’s
goals in certain region, including New York. The Commission should direct each ISO/RTO to
file a status report with the Commission describing the volume of Interconnection Requests for
Small Generating Facilities in its current queue, the projected timeframe for processing such
requests, and the nature and extent of any problems that have led to any backlog. The

Commission should also direct each ISO/RTO to provide a schedule for developing with its stakeholders and implementing any necessary reforms and for filing any necessary tariff amendments with the Commission.

The Commission has taken this approach previously to address interconnection issues

that have different regional impacts. In its order regarding Interconnection Queuing Practices in Docket No. AD08-2-000 referenced in the NOPR, the Commission identified concerns that
Interconnection Requests for Large Generating Facilities were not being efficiently processed due to surges in the volume of new generation, including an unprecedented demand in some regions for renewable generation.28 In its Order the Commission stated:

While the Commission could take action to impose solutions, and may need to do
so if the RTOs and ISOs do not act themselves, we agree that we should allow
each region the opportunity to propose its own solution. Although there are some
common issues affecting all the regions, there are also significant differences in
the nature and scope of the problem from region to region; there may, therefore,
be no one right answer for how to improve queue management. Further, any

28 FERC Queue Management Order at P 3.

solution involves a balancing of interests. Therefore, we urge the RTOs and ISOs to work with their stakeholders to develop consensus proposals.29

The Commission, therefore, directed each ISO/RTO to file a status report within 30 days of its order describing how each was managing its interconnection queue and the nature and extent of any problems that have led to backlogs.30 The Commission further required each ISO/RTO to explain the status of stakeholder discussions on queue reform and provide a schedule for
selecting and implementing any necessary reforms, including a target date for filing any
necessary tariff amendments or waivers.31 The Commission informed the ISOs/RTOs that it was open to a range of possible variations to address the identified issue.32

To ensure that Interconnection Requests for Small Generating Facilities are processed efficiently under the circumstances specific to each region, the Commission should adopt a regionally-tailored approach in this proceeding.

III. COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC NOPR PROVISIONS

As described above, the Joint Filing Parties request that the Commission adopt an

approach that permits each region to identify and implement reforms specific to its

circumstances. If, however, the Commission does not adopt this approach, the Joint Filing

Parties respectfully request that the Commission consider the following comments and suggested clarifications and improvements regarding the Commission’s proposed revisions.

A.Pre-Application Report

The Joint Filing Parties have not identified a need in New York for a more detailed pre-
application report or determined that the information currently available to Interconnection
Customers is insufficient for an Interconnection Customer to identify an appropriate point of

29 Id. at P 8.

30 Id. at P 9.

31 Id. at P 9.

32 Id. at P 15.

interconnection. While Section 32.1.2 of the NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection

Procedures currently provides an Interconnection Customer with the ability to request, at no
charge, electric system information concerning an interconnection at a particular point,
Interconnection Customers in New York have rarely, if ever, used this process, which appears
quite similar to a pre-application report. This is largely because much of the information NYISO
would be able provide for the pre-application report (without contacting the applicable
Transmission Owner for additional information) is readily available from the NYISO public web
site, or available under the NYISO Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (“CEII”) request
procedures without the need to specifically request a pre-application report. In addition, the
problem that the Commission aims to resolve through the pre-application report - a single
project clogging the interconnection queue with multiple Interconnection Requests - has not
been a concern in New York. Interconnection Customers do not regularly submit to the NYISO
multiple Interconnection Requests for a single project. For these reasons, the inclusion of an
enhanced pre-application report is unlikely to have an impact on the volume of Interconnection
Requests in New York.

However, should the Commission require an expanded pre-application process, the Joint Filing Parties request that the Commission consider the following comments and suggested clarifications and improvements to the Commission’s proposed revisions to Section 1.2 of the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures.

The Commission should clarify that its proposed list of categories of data for the pre-
application form in Section 1.2.3 are examples and may be amended by the Transmission
Provider to specify the data it can provide. The Joint Filing Parties cannot provide all of the
categories of data set forth in Section 1.2.3 without performing a study or additional analysis.

Notwithstanding the Commission’s caveat in Section 1.2.4 that the pre-application report only
need include existing data, the inclusion of all of the categories of data listed in Section 1.2.3 of
the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures could create an unreasonable
expectation regarding the information to be included in the pre-application report. To avoid
reliance on this list, the Commission should permit the Transmission Provider to amend this list
to identify the specific categories of information that will actually be provided within its region.
The NYISO anticipates that it could provide the following data in a pre-application report: (1)
non-Confidential information contained in the NYISO annual Load & Capacity Data Report
(“Gold Book”), which includes: (a) New York Control Area (NYCA) annual energy and peak
demand information; (b) non-Confidential details regarding existing generating capacity and
existing transmission facilities; (c) generation capability by zone and fuel type for each
capability period; and (d) non-Confidential details regarding proposed generation and
transmission facilities; (2) posted information regarding proposed generation, transmission and
load facilities currently in the NYISO interconnection queue; and (3) non-Confidential
information available under NYISO’s CEII request procedures including: the power flow base
cases, New York State Electric System Map, and one-line diagrams from the NYISO annual
FERC Form No. 715 filing. In addition, the New York Transmission Owners anticipate that they
could provide the following readily available information: (1) line voltage at which the proposed
Interconnection Customer would be served; (2) the manner in which the Interconnection
Customer could connect, (3) details regarding the smallest primary line conductor in the vicinity
of the proposed point of interconnection, and (4) location of the nearest substation. The other
categories of data proposed by the Commission would require the NYISO or New York

Transmission Owners to perform additional analysis or study work and are beyond the scope of existing, off the shelf material.

The Joint Filing Parties additional comments on the pre-application report are consistent
with comments being submitted by Edison Electric Institute and the ISO-RTO Council regarding

(1) the need to expand the proposed 10 business day time period for processing the pre-

application report to up to 20 business days; (2) the need to require that an Interconnection

Customer complete and submit a standardized application form requesting a pre-application

report to expedite the processing of the report; (3) the need to clarify that the pre-application

report is for informational purposes only, is non-binding on the Transmission Provider, and does not convey any rights in connection with the interconnection process; and (4) the suggestion to provide the Interconnection Customer the option of one follow-up meeting to discuss the preapplication report with the Transmission Provider to facilitate an understanding of the data in the report and to answer follow-up questions in a concise manner.

B.Fast Track Eligibility

The Commission’s proposed expansion of the threshold for participation in the Fast

Track Process for certain projects up to 5 MW and its introduction of minimum load and other
screens for the supplemental review process, at this time, don’t appear likely to improve the time
and costs to process the Interconnection Requests of Very Small Generator Facilities in New
York. As described above, most Very Small Generator Facilities in New York seek to
interconnect to distribution facilities not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction and fall outside
of the NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures. As described above, the Very
Small Generating Facilities that participate in the NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures are generally able to skip most, if not all, of the time and expense of the full Study

Process by opting out of some or all of the studies due to their limited system impacts.

Moreover, the Joint Filing Parties anticipate that they could be required to commit a similar level of time and resources to perform the Commission’s proposed screens in a supplemental review as they already devote to performing an Interconnection Feasibility Study.

For the above reasons, the expansion of the Fast Track Process and use of the

supplemental screens in New York may not improve the time or costs of processing

Interconnection Requests. However, to the extent the Commission requires a revision to the Fast
Track Process, the Joint Filing Parties request that the Commission consider the following
comments and suggested clarifications and improvements to the Commission’s proposed
revisions in Section 2 of the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures.
First, the Commission provides a table in Section 2.1 to identify which projects are
eligible to participate in the Fast Track Process. The Joint Filing Parties agree with the
contention that EEI and others have raised regarding certain elements of the table being unclear
and requiring revision in order to be implemented. The Joint Filing Parties support EEI’s
proposed revised chart with the following exception: The upper voltage limit for a Very Small
Generating Facility’s eligibility in the Fast Track Process should be limited to 50 kV. In New
York, 50 kV represents a reasonable threshold between 34.5 kV facilities that are largely used
for distribution and sub-transmission and 69 kV facilities that are largely used for transmission.
The Joint Filing Parties note that the system modifications and costs associated with a Very
Small Generating Facility interconnecting to 69 kV facilities in New York can, depending on the
circumstances, be as extensive as, if not more extensive, than an interconnection at voltages
lower than 50 kV and will require careful evaluation by the Joint Filing Parties to ensure safety
and reliability. Such requested interconnections should remain within the Study Process, which,

as described above, can still be streamlined to ensure a timely interconnection for a Very Small Generating Facility.

Second, the Commission proposes to revise Section 2.2.4, which currently provides that
the Transmission Provider will provide the Interconnection Customer with the opportunity to
attend a customer options meeting if the proposed interconnection fails the Fast Track screens,
but the Transmission Provider “does not or cannot” determine that the facility could nevertheless
interconnect consistently with safety, reliability, and power quality standards. In the NOPR, the
Commission proposes to remove “does not.” It is unclear why the Commission proposes this
deletion. The Joint Filing Parties request that the Commission retain “does not” to permit the
Interconnection Customer to attend a customer options meeting in cases in which the
Transmission Provider has the capability to, but does not, determine in its initial review that a
Small Generating Facility can be interconnected consistent with safety, reliability, and power
safety concerns.

C. Customer Options Meeting and Supplemental Review Process

The Joint Filing Parties request that the Commission consider the following comments
and suggested clarifications and improvements to the Commission’s proposed revisions to
Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures to revise the
customer options meeting and the supplemental review process following failure of the Fast
Track screens.

1. Customer Options Meeting

The Commission proposes to revise Section 2.3.1 of the Small Generator Interconnection Procedures to require the Transmission Provider to provide the Interconnection Customer with an interconnection agreement if the Interconnection Customer agrees to pay for minor

modifications to the Transmission Provider’s electric system. The Commission should clarify
what falls within this group of “minor modifications” and specifically under the NYISO tariff, that such modifications only include upgrades that fall within the definition of Local System
Upgrade Facilities. The Commission should also clarify the extent to which Security is required for such modifications.33 The Commission should further clarify that the Transmission Provider will forward the Interconnection Customer an interconnection agreement that requires the
Interconnection Customer to pay the costs of the required system modifications prior to
interconnection. The Commission should make similar modifications to it proposed requirement in Section 2.4.2 regarding the provision of an Interconnection Agreement when the
interconnection only requires minor modifications.

2. Supplemental Review

The Commission proposes to revise Section 2.4 to require that within fifteen (15) days of
a Transmission Provider’s offer to perform a supplemental review, the Interconnection Customer
must agree in writing to the review and submit a $2,500 fee or its Interconnection Request will
be withdrawn. The Joint Filing Parties, at this time, estimate that the amount of time and
resources required to perform the supplemental review will be equivalent to the time and
resources required to perform an average Interconnection Feasibility Study for a Small
Generating Facility, which on average costs approximately $30,000. The Commission’s
proposed supplemental review fee, therefore, is insufficient to cover the costs for the work
required for the supplemental review. The Commission should either adopt a higher
supplemental review fee more in line with the required work to perform the screens, or retain the
existing requirement that the Interconnection Customer provide a deposit for the estimated costs

33 Under the NYISO’s interconnection process, non-Local System Upgrade Facilities are identified, studied and cost allocated in the Class Year Interconnection Facilities Study process.

of the work, which would then be refunded, based on actual costs. If, in the future, the

supplemental review can be completed with less work than an Interconnection Feasibility Study,
the NYISO could consider requesting a change in the cost of a supplemental review.
In addition, as the supplemental review is an optional mechanism for potentially
expediting the interconnection process, an Interconnection Customer’s failure to agree and pay
for this option should not lead to the withdrawal of its Interconnection Request. Rather, the
Commission should amend this section to require that if an Interconnection Customer does not
elect to follow through with this option by agreeing in writing and providing the supplemental
review fee within fifteen days, its Interconnection Request will be directed to the Study Process
for evaluation.

The Commission also proposes in the final sentence of Section 2.4.2 to require that an
Interconnection Customer whose proposed interconnection requires more than minor
modifications to the Transmission Provider’s system “may” continue to be evaluated under the Study Process. Since such a project cannot proceed through the interconnection process without being reviewed under the Study Process, the Commission should clarify Section 2.4.2 to require than the Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection Request “shall” be evaluated under the
Study Process or will be withdrawn.

3. Supplemental Review Screens

With respect to the Commission’s proposed supplemental review screens, the Joint Filing
Parties note that the time required to perform the screens could better be expended on conducting
an Interconnection Feasibility Study. A full Interconnection Feasibility Study could be
performed in the same amount of time it would take to perform the proposed screens. Moreover,
an Interconnection Feasibility Study is already well-defined in the pro forma procedures and the

parties have experience applying its standards. The Joint Filing Parties contend that an

Interconnection Feasibility Study would better identify the resulting impacts of a project than the supplemental review screens. Requiring, instead, that the Joint Filing Parties perform additional screens could exacerbate, rather than mitigate, the time and costs associated with the
interconnection process and would not preclude the possibility that the proposed Small
Generating Facility may still be required to participate in the Study Process.
With regard to the specific supplemental review screens proposed in the NOPR, the Joint Filing Parties offer the following comments. First, the Commission’s proposed Minimum Load Screen does not account for the fact that in New York minimum load data is not a critical system operating criteria and cannot be determined accurately as line section monitoring is typically unavailable. Second, with regard to the Voltage and Power Quality Screen and the Safety and Reliability Screen, the Joint Filing Parties are concerned that these screens could be passed for a single generator, but in the aggregate of all distributed generation in the area, would cause
voltage and or power quality issues to neighboring customers.

D. Upgrades in the Facilities Study Agreement

The Joint Filing Parties request that the Commission consider the following comments
and suggested clarifications and improvements to the Commission’s proposed revisions to the
Facilities Study Agreement in Attachment 8 of the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures.

First, with respect to the Commission’s proposal to permit an Interconnection Customer
to include comments in the facilities study report for its Small Generating Facility, it is not clear
what the benefit is to include the Interconnection Customer’s comments in the report itself. In
fact, the NYISO - through an independent entity variation - did not adopt the option in Section

8.3 of the Commission’s pro forma Standard Large Generator Interconnection Procedures for a developer to provide comments for inclusion in its facility study. Rather, developers of Large Generating Facilities have the opportunity to meet with the NYISO and the applicable New York Transmission Owner to discuss the results of the facilities study. Even though not reflected in the report, Interconnection Customers and Developers have ample opportunity to provide
comments throughout the study process.

The Joint Filing Parties therefore request that the Commission limit the proposed

revisions to providing a study report meeting in which the Interconnection Customer has the
opportunity to discuss the results of the facilities study with the Transmission Provider. This
would provide an opportunity for the Interconnection Customer to provide feedback without
extending the interconnection process by a number of days or weeks or creating the expectation
that the Transmission Provider will make changes to the facilities study based on the
Interconnection Customer’s comments. In addition, this more limited process would be
consistent with the Commission’s position that the procedures for Small Generating Facilities be
shorter and less complex that the requirements for Large Generating Facilities. If, however, the
Commission adopts the written comment requirement, the Commission should clarify that the
Transmission Provider is not required to perform additional analysis or make other modifications
based on the Interconnection Customer’s comments, unless the Interconnection Customer agrees
to pay for the additional studies required.

Second, the Commission has inserted its proposed revisions into Section 9.0 of the

Facilities Study Agreement. Consistent with the similar procedures for Large Generator

Facilities in Sections 8.3 and 8.4 of the Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement,

the Commission should insert any such requirements into Section 3.5 of the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures.

F.Other Revisions to the SGIP

The Joint Filing Parties provide the following comments and requested clarifications to the Commission’s additional corrections and clarifications.

First, the Commission proposes to revise Section 1.1.1 of the Pro Forma Interconnection
Agreement to require that an Interconnection Customer that wishes to interconnect its Small
Generating Facility using Network Resource Interconnection Service must do so under the
Standard Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and must execute the Standard Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement. This proposed revision could undermine the NYISO’s
requirements in Section 32.1.1.7 of Attachment Z of the NYISO OATT that permit a Small
Generating Facility to elect Capacity Resource Interconnection Service (“CRIS”) under the
NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures and to execute a Small Generator
Interconnection Agreement. A Small Generating Facility project that elects CRIS must proceed
through a Class Year study, along with Large Generating Facility projects.34 However, the Small
Generating Facility projects are not subject to the Large Generator Interconnection Procedures
and are not required to execute the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement. Requiring
Small Generating Facility projects to do so would greatly increase the time and expense of
interconnecting such projects. The Commission should clarify that its proposed revisions will
not disturb these existing procedures.

Second, the Commission also proposes to insert the definition of “Network Resource”
and “Network Resource Interconnection Service” in Attachment 1 of the Pro Forma Small

34 The NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures differentiate between Small Generating Facility projects requiring Local System Upgrade Facilities and those requiring System Upgrade Facilities.

Generator Interconnection Procedures. These terms do not play a role in the NYISO’s Small Generator Interconnection Procedures, which provide for the two levels of interconnection service in New York - Energy Resource Interconnection Service and CRIS.

Finally, the Commission proposes to insert the term “Distribution System” in Sections

1.1.1 and 3.1 of the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures and to replace “Transmission System” with “Distribution System” in Section 2.1. The Commission should clarify that the term “Distribution System” as used in these provisions is limited to distribution facilities that are subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. The NYISO’s Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures already expressly limit the term Distribution System to facilities subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.

G.Independent Entity Variations

In the NOPR, the Commission indicates that any Transmission Provider’s modifications
to the revisions to the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures set forth in the
Commission’s final rule must be “consistent with or superior to” the pro forma language.35
Pursuant to its Order 2006, the Commission has permitted ISOs/RTOs with the flexibility to seek
“independent entity variations” from its Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures
to address regional needs.36 As the Commission stated in connection with the same requirement
under Order 2003, “this is a balanced approach that recognizes that an RTO or ISO has different
operating characteristics depending on its size and location and is less likely to act in an unduly
discriminatory manner than a Transmission Provider that is a market participant.”37 The
Commission indicated that it would review such ISO/RTO revisions to “ensure that they do not

35 FERC SGIA NOPR at P 51.

36 Order No. 2006 at P 549.

37 Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 (2003) at P 827.

provide an unwarranted opportunity for undue discrimination or result in an interconnection

process that is unjust and unreasonable.”38 The Joint Filing Parties request that the Commission clarify that consistent with its Order 2006 it will permit ISOs/RTOs to seek “independent entity variations” from any revisions to the Pro Forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures to accommodate regional differences.

IV.COMMUNICATIONS

Communications regarding this filing should be directed to:

For the NYISO

Robert E. Fernandez, General Counsel

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

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

10 Krey Boulevard

Rensselaer, NY 12144
Phone: (518) 356-6000
Fax: (518) 356-4702

skeegan@nyiso.com

For the New York Transmission Owners39

*Elias G. Farrah

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

Washington, DC 20006-3817

efarrah@winston.com

*Susan Vercheak

Assistant General Counsel

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

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

svercheak@coned.com

*John Borchert

Senior Director of Energy Policy and Transmission Development

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation

284 South Avenue

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

jborchert@cenhud.com

*Andrew Neuman, Esq. New York Power Authority 123 Main Street

White Plains, NY 10601-3170

andrew.neuman@nypa.gov

*R. Scott Mahoney, Esq.

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

Durham Hall, 52 Farm View Drive New Gloucester, ME 04260

Email: scott.mahoney@iberdrolausa.com

*Designated to receive service.

V.CONCLUSION

Timothy R. Roughan, Director of Energy & Environmental Policy

*Amanda C. Downey, Counsel Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a/ National Grid

National Grid USA Service Company, Inc.

40 Sylvan Road

Waltham, MA 02451-1120

Amanda.downey@nationalgrid.com

WHEREFORE, the Joint Filing Parties respectfully request that the Commission consider these comments and adopt an approach that permits each region to identify and implement
reforms specific to its circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sara B. Keegan/s/ Elias G. Farrah

Sara B. KeeganElias G. Farrah

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.Winston & Strawn LLP

10 Krey Boulevard1700 K St., N.W.

Rensselaer, NY 12144Washington, DC 20006-3817

skeegan@nyiso.comefarrah@winston.com

Counsel for the New York Independent SystemCounsel to the New York Transmission Owners

Operator, Inc.

/s/ John Borchert/s/ Susan Vercheak

John BorchertSusan Vercheak

Senior Director of Energy Policy andAssistant General Counsel

Transmission DevelopmentConsolidated Edison Company of New York,

Central Hudson Gas & Electric CorporationInc.

284 South AvenueOrange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Poughkeepsie, NY 126014 Irving Place, Room 1815-S

jborchert@cenhud.comNew York, NY 10003

svercheak@coned.com

/s/ Andrew Neuman/s/ R. Scott Mahoney

Andrew Neuman, Esq.R. Scott Mahoney, Esq.

New York Power AuthorityNew York State Electric & Gas Corporation

123 Main StreetRochester Gas and Electric Corporation

White Plains, NY 10601-3170Durham Hall, 52 Farm View Drive

andrew.neuman@nypa.govNew Gloucester, ME 04260

scott.mahoney@iberdrolausa.com

/s/ Timothy R. Roughan

Timothy R. Roughan

Director of Energy & Environmental Policy Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
d/b/a/ National Grid

National Grid USA Service Company, Inc.

40 Sylvan Road

Waltham, MA 02451-1120

Timothy.Roughan@nationalgrid.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Rule 2010 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §385.2010.
Dated at Rensselaer, NY this 3rd day of June, 2013.

/s/ Mohsana Akter

Mohsana Akter

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

10 Krey Blvd.

Rensselaer, NY 12144 (518) 356-7560