NYISO Tariffs --> Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) --> 31 OATT Attachment Y - New York ISO Comprehensive System Pla --> 31.2 OATT Att Y Reliability Planning Process
Each Transmission Owner will post on its website the planning criteria and assumptions currently used in its LTPP as well as a list of any applicable software and/or analytical tools currently used in the LTPP. Customers, Market Participants and other interested parties may review and comment on the planning criteria and assumptions used by each Transmission Owner, as well as other data and models used by each Transmission Owner in its LTPP. The Transmission Owners will take into consideration any comments received. Any planning criteria or assumptions for a Transmission Owner’s BPTFs will meet or exceed any applicable NERC, NPCC or NYSRC criteria. The LTPP shall include a description of the needs addressed by the LTPP as well as the assumptions, applicable planning criteria and methodology utilized and the Public Policy Requirements considered. A link to each Transmission Owner’s website will be posted on the ISO website.
In developing its LTP, each Transmission Owner shall consider whether there is a transmission need on its system that is being driven by a Public Policy Requirement. The LTP will identify any transmission project included in the LTP as a solution to a transmission need being driven by a Public Policy Requirement. In evaluating potential transmission solutions, the Transmission Owner will give consideration to the objectives of the Public Policy Requirement(s) driving the need for transmission.
As part of its LTP process pursuant to Section 31.2.1.2 below, each Transmission Owner will consider whether there is a transmission need on its local system that is being driven by a Public Policy Requirement for which a local transmission solution should be evaluated, including needs proposed by market participants and other interested parties. A market participant or other interested party proposing a transmission need on a Transmission Owner’s local system driven by a Public Policy Requirement shall submit its proposal to the ISO and the relevant Transmission Owner, and will identify the specific Public Policy Requirement that is driving the proposed transmission need and an explanation of why a local transmission upgrade is necessary to implement the Public Policy Requirement. Any proposed local system transmission need will be posted on the ISO website. The ISO will transmit proposed transmission needs on a Transmission Owner’s local system driven by Public Policy Requirements to the NYDPS, with a request that the NYDPS review the proposals and provide the relevant Transmission Owner with input to assist the Transmission Owner in its determination. The Transmission Owner, after considering the input provided by the NYDPS and any information provided by a market participant or other party, will determine whether there are transmission needs driven by Public Policy Requirements for which local transmission solutions should be evaluated. The Transmission Owner will post on its website a list of the transmission needs driven by Public Policy Requirements for which local transmission solutions should be evaluated, with an explanation of why the Transmission Owner identified those transmission needs and declined to identify other proposed transmission needs.
In evaluating potential transmission solutions, if any, the Transmission Owner will give consideration to the objectives of the Public Policy Requirement driving the need for a local transmission solution. The Transmission Owner will evaluate solutions to identified transmission needs, including transmission solutions proposed by market participants and other parties for inclusion in its LTP. The Transmission Owner, in consultation with the NYDPS, will evaluate proposed transmission solutions on its local system to determine the more efficient or cost-effective transmission solutions. The Transmission Owner will consider the relative costs and benefits of proposed transmission solutions and their impact on the Transmission Owner’s transmission system and its customers. Any local transmission solution identified by the Transmission Owner through the LTP process will be reviewed with stakeholders as part of each Transmission Owner’s regular LTP process and will be included in the Transmission Owner’s subsequent LTP. In conducting its evaluation the Transmission Owner will use criteria that are relevant to the Public Policy Requirement driving the transmission need, which may include its published local planning criteria and assumptions.
31.2.1.1.3The ISO will review the Transmission Owner LTPs as they relate to BPTFs and will also evaluate whether other solutions proposed to meet Reliability Needs, congestion identified in the CARIS, or Public Policy Requirements may meet such BPTF needs of the NYCA region more efficiently or cost-effectively than the Transmission Owners’ proposed LTP solutions. The ISO will report the results of its evaluation in the relevant ISO planning report prepared under this Attachment Y.
31.2.1.2.1Each Transmission Owner, in accordance with a schedule set forth in the ISO Procedures, will post its current LTP on its website for review and comment by interested parties sufficiently in advance of the time for submission to the ISO for input to its RNA so as to allow adequate time for stakeholder review and comment. Each LTP will include:
31.2.1.2.2To the extent the current LTP utilizes data or inputs, related to the ISO’s planning process, not already reported by the ISO in Form 715 and referenced on its website, any such data will be provided to the ISO at the time each Transmission Owner posts criteria and planning assumptions in accordance with Section 31.2.1.1 and will be posted by the ISO on its website subject to any confidentiality or Critical Energy Infrastructure Information restrictions or requirements.
31.2.1.2.3Each planning cycle, the ISO shall hold one or more stakeholder meetings of the ESPWG and TPAS at which each Transmission Owner’s current LTP will be discussed. Such meetings will be held either at the Transmission Owner’s Transmission District, or at an ISO location. The ISO shall post notice of the meeting and shall disclose the agenda and any other material distributed prior to the meeting.
31.2.1.2.4Interested parties may submit written comments to a Transmission Owner with respect to its current LTP within thirty days after the meeting. Each Transmission Owner shall list on its website, as part of its LTP, the person and/or location to which comments should be sent by interested parties. All comments will be posted on the ISO website. Each Transmission Owner will consider comments received in developing any modifications to its LTP. Any such modification will be explained in its current LTP posted on its website pursuant to Section 31.2.1.2.2 above and discussed at the next meeting held pursuant to Section 31.2.1.2.3 above.
31.2.1.2.5Each planning cycle, each Transmission Owner will submit the finalized portions of its current LTP to the ISO as contemplated in Section 31.2.2.4.2 below for timely inclusion in the RNA.
Disputes related to the LTPP are subject to the DRP. The objective of the DRP is to assist parties having disputes in communicating effectively and resolving disputes as expeditiously as possible. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the presentation by a Transmission Owner of its LTP to the ESPWG and TPAS, a party with a dispute shall notify in writing the Affected TO, the ISO, the ESPWG and TPAS of its intention to utilize the DRP. The notice shall identify the specific issue in dispute and describe in sufficient detail the nature of the dispute.
The issue raised by a party with a dispute shall be reviewed and discussed at a joint meeting of the ESPWG and the TPAS in an effort to resolve the dispute. The party with a dispute and the Affected TO shall have an opportunity to present information concerning the issue in dispute to the ESPWG and the TPAS.
To the extent the ESPWG and the TPAS are unable to resolve the dispute, the dispute will be subject to good faith informal discussions between the party with a dispute and the Affected TO. Each of those parties will designate a senior representative authorized to enter into informal discussions and to resolve the dispute. The parties to the dispute shall make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute through informal discussions as promptly as practicable.
In the event that the parties to the dispute are unable to resolve the dispute through informal discussions within sixty (60) days, or such other period as the parties may agree upon, the parties may, by mutual agreement, submit the dispute to mediation or any other form of alternative dispute resolution. The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute in accordance with a mutually agreed upon schedule but in no event may the schedule extend beyond ninety (90) days from the date on which the parties agreed to submit the dispute to alternative dispute resolution.
The Affected TO shall notify the ISO and ESPWG and TPAS of the results of the DRP and update its LTP to the extent necessary. The ISO shall use in its planning process the LTP provided by the Affected TO.
Nothing in the DRP shall affect the rights of any party to file a complaint with the Commission under relevant provisions of the FPA.
All information disclosed in the course of the DRP shall be subject to the same protections accorded to confidential information and CEII by the ISO under its confidentiality and CEII policies.
The ISO shall prepare and publish the RNA as described below. The RNA will identify Reliability Needs. The ISO shall also designate in the RNA the Responsible Transmission Owner with respect to each Reliability Need.
The ISO shall develop the RNA in consultation with Market Participants and all other interested parties. TPAS will have responsibility consistent with ISO Procedures for review of the ISO’s reliability analyses. ESPWG will have responsibility consistent with ISO Procedures for providing commercial input and assumptions to be used in the development of reliability assessment scenarios provided under Section 31.2.2.5, and in the reporting and analysis of historic congestion costs. Coordination and communication will be established and maintained between these two groups and ISO staff to allow Market Participants and other interested parties to participate in a meaningful way during each stage of the CSPP. The ISO staff shall report any majority and minority views of these collaborative governance work groups when it submits the RNA to the Operating Committee for a vote, as provided below.
31.2.2.3.1The ISO shall evaluate bulk power system needs in the RNA over the Study Period.
31.2.2.3.2The starting point for the development of the RNA Base Case will be the system as defined for the FERC Form No. 715 Base Case. The ISO shall develop this system representation to be used for its evaluations of the Study Period by primarily using: (1) the most recent NYISO Load and Capacity Data Report published by the ISO on its web site; (2) the most recent versions of ISO reliability analyses and assessments provided for or published by NERC, NPCC, NYSRC, and neighboring Control Areas; (3) information reported by neighboring Control Areas such as power flow data, forecasted load, significant new or modified generation and transmission facilities, and anticipated system conditions that the ISO determines may impact the BPTFs; and (4) data submitted pursuant to paragraph 31.2.2.4 below. The details of the development of the RNA Base Case are contained in the ISO Procedures. The RNA Base Case shall also include Interregional Transmission Projects that have been approved by the NYPSC transmission siting process and meet the base case inclusion requirements in the ISO Procedures.
31.2.2.3.3The ISO shall assess the RNA Base Case to determine whether the BPTFs meet all Reliability Criteria for both resource and transmission adequacy in each year, and report the results of its evaluation in the RNA. Transmission analyses will include thermal, voltage, short circuit, and stability studies. Then, if any Reliability Criteria are not met in any year, the ISO shall perform additional analyses to determine whether additional resources and/or transmission capacity expansion are needed to meet those requirements, and to determine the Target Year of need for those additional resources and/or transmission. A short circuit assessment will be performed for the tenth year of the Study Period. The study will not seek to identify specific additional facilities. Reliability Needs will be defined in terms of total deficiencies relative to Reliability Criteria and not necessarily in terms of specific facilities.
31.2.2.4.1At the ISO’s request, Market Participants, Developers, and other parties shall provide, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the ISO Procedures, the data necessary for the development of the RNA. This data will include but not be limited to (1) existing and planned additions to the New York State Transmission System (to be provided by Transmission Owners and municipal electric utilities); (2) proposals for merchant transmission facilities (to be provided by merchant Developers); (3) generation additions and retirements (to be provided by generator owners and Developers); (4) demand response programs (to be provided by demand response providers); and (5) any long-term firm transmission requests made to the ISO.
31.2.2.4.2The Transmission Owners shall submit their current LTPs referenced in Section 31.1.3 and Section 31.2.1 to the ISO. The Transmission Owners and the ISO will coordinate with each other in reviewing the LTPs. The ISO will review the Transmission Owners’ LTPs, as they relate to BPTFs, to determine whether they will meet reliability needs identified in the LTPs, recommend an alternate means to resolve the local needs from a regional perspective pursuant to Section 31.2.6.4, and indicate if it is not in agreement with a Transmission Owner’s proposed additions. The ISO shall report its determinations under this section in the RNA and in the CRP.
31.2.2.4.3All data received from Market Participants, Developers, and other parties shall be considered in the development of the system representation for the Study Period in accordance with the ISO Procedures.
The ISO, in consultation with the ESPWG and TPAS, shall develop reliability scenarios addressing the Study Period. Variables for consideration in the development of these reliability scenarios include but are not limited to: load forecast uncertainty, fuel prices and availability, new resources, retirements, transmission network topology, and limitations imposed by proposed environmental or other legislation.
The ISO will conduct additional reliability analyses for the reliability scenarios developed pursuant to paragraph 31.2.2.5. These evaluations will test the robustness of the needs assessment studies conducted under paragraphs 31.2.2.3. This evaluation will only identify conditions under which Reliability Criteria may not be met. It will not identify or propose additional Reliability Needs. In addition, the ISO will perform appropriate sensitivity studies to determine whether Reliability Needs previously identified can be mitigated through alternate system configurations or operational modes. The Reliability Needs may increase in some reliability scenarios and may decrease, or even be eliminated, in others. The ISO shall report the results of these evaluations in the RNA.
The ISO will coordinate with the ISO/RTO Regions to identify the consequences of the reliability transmission projects on such ISO/RTO Regions using the respective planning criteria of such ISO/RTO Regions. The ISO shall report the results in the CRP. The ISO shall not bear the costs of required upgrades in another region.
Once all the analyses described above have been completed, ISO staff will prepare a draft of the RNA including discussion of its assumptions, Reliability Criteria, and results of the analyses and, if necessary, designate the Responsible Transmission Owner. One or more compensatory MW/ Load adjustment scenarios will be developed by the ISO as a guide to the development of proposed solutions to meet the identified Reliability Need.
The draft RNA shall be submitted to both TPAS and the ESPWG for review and comment. The ISO shall make available to any interested party sufficient information to replicate the results of the draft RNA. The information made available will be electronically masked and made available pursuant to a process that the ISO reasonably determines is necessary to prevent the disclosure of any Confidential Information or Critical Energy Infrastructure Information contained in the information made available. Market Participants and other interested parties may submit at any time optional suggestions for changes to ISO rules or procedures which could result in the identification of additional resources or market alternatives suitable for meeting Reliability Needs. Following completion of the TPAS and ESPWG review, the draft RNA reflecting the revisions resulting from the TPAS and ESPWG review, shall be forwarded to the Operating Committee for discussion and action. The ISO shall notify the Business Issues Committee of the date of the Operating Committee meeting at which the draft RNA is to be presented. Following the Operating Committee vote, the draft RNA will be transmitted to the Management Committee for discussion and action.
Following the Management Committee vote, the draft RNA, with working group, Operating Committee, and Management Committee input, will be forwarded to the ISO Board for review and action. Concurrently, the draft RNA will be provided to the Market Monitoring Unit for its review and consideration of whether market rules changes are necessary to address an identified failure, if any, in one of the ISO’s competitive markets. The Board may approve the RNA as submitted, or propose modifications on its own motion. If any changes are proposed by the Board, the revised RNA shall be returned to the Management Committee for comment. The Board shall not make a final determination on a revised RNA until it has reviewed the Management Committee comments. Upon approval by the Board, the ISO shall issue the final RNA to the marketplace by posting it on its web site.
The responsibilities of the Market Monitoring Unit that are addressed in the above section of this Attachment are also addressed in Section 30.4.6.8.2 of the Market Monitoring Plan, Attachment O to the ISO Services Tariff.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Attachment, the ISO OATT, or the NYISO Services Tariff, in the event that a Market Participant raises a dispute solely within the NYPSC’s jurisdiction relating to the final conclusions or recommendations of the RNA, a Market Participant may refer such dispute to the NYPSC for resolution. The NYPSC’s final determination shall be binding, subject only to judicial review in the courts of the State of New York pursuant to Article 78 of the NYCPLR.
In order to provide ample exposure for the marketplace to understand the identified Reliability Needs, the ISO will provide various opportunities for Market Participants and other potentially interested parties to discuss the final RNA. Such opportunities may include presentations at various ISO Market Participant committees, focused discussions with various industry sectors, and/or presentations in public venues.
For purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the Developer qualification criteria in this Section 31.2.4.1 and its subsections, the term “Developer” includes Affiliates, as that term is defined in Section 2 of the ISO Services Tariff and Section 1 of the ISO OATT. To the extent that a Developer relies on Affiliate(s) to satisfy any or all of the qualification criteria set forth in Section 31.2.4.1.1, the Affiliate(s) shall provide to the ISO: (i) the information required in Section 31.2.4.1.1 to demonstrate its capability to satisfy the applicable qualification criteria, and (ii) a notarized officer’s certificate, signed by an authorized officer of the Affiliate with signatory authority, in a form acceptable to the ISO, certifying that the Affiliate will participate in the Developer’s project in the manner described by the Developer and will abide by the requirements set forth in this Attachment Y, the ISO Tariffs, and ISO Procedures related and applicable to the Affiliate’s participation.
The ISO shall provide each Developer with an opportunity to demonstrate that it has or can draw upon the financial resources, technical expertise, and experience needed to develop, construct, operate and maintain a transmission project to meet identified Reliability Needs. The ISO shall consider the qualifications of each Developer in an evenhanded and non-discriminatory manner, treating Transmission Owners and Other Developers alike. The ISO shall make a determination on the qualification of a Developer to propose to develop a transmission project as a solution to an identified Reliability Need based on the following criteria:
31.2.4.1.1.1The technical and engineering qualifications and experience of the Developer relevant to the development, construction, operation and maintenance of a transmission facility, including evidence of the Developer’s demonstrated capability to adhere to standardized construction, maintenance, and operating practices and to contract with third parties to develop, construct, maintain, and/or operate transmission facilities;
31.2.4.1.1.2The current and expected capabilities of the Developer to finance, develop and construct a transmission facility and to operate and maintain it for the life of the facility. For purposes of this criteria, the Developer shall provide the ISO a description of transmission facilities (not to exceed ten) that the Developer has previously developed, constructed, maintained or operated and the status of those facilities, including whether the construction was completed, whether the facility entered into commercial operations, whether the facility has been suspended or terminated for any reason, and evidence demonstrating the ability of the Developer to address and timely remedy any operational failure of the facilities; and
31.2.4.1.1.3 The Developer’s current and expected capability to finance, or its experience in arranging financing for, transmission facilities. For purposes of the ISO’s determination, the Developer shall provide the ISO:
(1) evidence of its demonstrated experience financing or arranging financing for transmission facilities, including a description of such projects (not to exceed ten) over the previous ten years, the capital costs and financial structure of such projects, a description of any financing obtained for these projects through rates approved by the Commission or a state regulatory agency, the financing closing date of such projects, and whether any of the projects are in default;
(2) its audited annual financial statements from the most recent three years and its most recent quarterly financial statement, or equivalent information;
(3) its credit rating from Moody’s Investor Services, Standard & Poor’s, or Fitch, or equivalent information, if available;
(4) a description of any prior bankruptcy declarations, material defaults, dissolution, merger or acquisition by the Developer or its predecessors or subsidiaries occurring within the previous five years; and
(5) such other evidence that demonstrates its current and expected capability to finance a project to solve a Reliability Need.
Any Developer seeking to become qualified may submit the required information, or update any previously submitted information, at any time. The ISO shall treat on a confidential basis in accordance with the requirements of its Code of Conduct in Attachment F of the ISO OATT any non-public financial qualification information that is submitted to the ISO by the Developer under Section 31.2.4.1.1.3 and is designated by the Developer as “Confidential Information.” The ISO shall within 15 days of a Developer’s submittal, notify the Developer if the information is incomplete. If the submittal is deemed incomplete, the Developer shall submit the additional information within 30 days of the ISO’s request. The ISO shall notify the Developer of its qualification status within 30 days of receiving all necessary information. A Developer shall retain its qualification status for a three-year period following the notification date; provided, however, that the ISO may revoke this status if it determines that there has been a material change in the Developer’s qualifications and the Developer no longer meets the qualification requirements. A Developer that has been qualified shall inform the ISO within thirty days of any material change to the information it provided regarding its qualifications and shall submit to the ISO each year its most recent audited annual financial statement when available. At the conclusion of the three-year period or following the ISO’s revocation of a Developer’s qualification status, the Developer may re-apply for a qualification status under this section.
Any Developer determined by the ISO to be qualified under this section shall be eligible to propose a regulated transmission project as a solution to an identified Reliability Need and shall be eligible to use the cost allocation and cost recovery mechanism for regulated transmission projects set forth in Section 31.5 of this Attachment Y and Rate Schedule 10, Section 6.10, of the ISO OATT for any approved project.
Interregional Transmission Projects may be proposed as regulated backstop solutions, alternative regulated solutions, or market-based solutions. Interregional Transmission Projects proposed as regulated backstop solutions, alternative regulated solutions or market-based solutions shall be subject to the applicable requirements of the reliability planning process of this Attachment Y.
31.2.4.3.1When a Reliability Need is identified in any RNA issued under this tariff, the ISO shall request and the Responsible Transmission Owner shall provide to the ISO, as set forth in Section 31.2.5 below, a proposal for a regulated solution or combination of solutions that shall serve as a backstop to meet the Reliability Need if requested by the ISO due to the lack of sufficient viable market-based solutions to meet such Reliability Needs identified for the Study Period. The Responsible Transmission Owner shall be eligible to recover its costs for developing its proposal and seeking necessary approvals under Rate Schedule 10 of the ISO OATT. Regulated backstop solutions may include generation, transmission, or demand side resources. Such proposals may include reasonable alternatives that would effectively address the Reliability Need; provided however, the Responsible Transmission Owner’s obligation to propose and implement regulated backstop solutions under this tariff is limited to regulated transmission solutions. Prior to providing its response to the RNA, each Responsible Transmission Owner will present for discussion at the ESPWG and TPAS any updates in its LTP that impact a Reliability Need identified in the RNA. The ISO will present at the ESPWG and TPAS any updates to its determination under Section 31.2.2.4.2 with respect to the Transmission Owners’ LTPs. Should more than one regulated backstop solution be proposed by a Responsible Transmission Owner to address a Reliability Need, it will be the responsibility of that Responsible Transmission Owner to determine which of the regulated backstop solutions will proceed following a finding by the ISO under Section 31.2.10 of this Attachment Y. The determination by the Responsible Transmission Owner will be made prior to the approval of the CRP which precedes the Trigger Date for the regulated backstop solution with the longest lead time. Contemporaneous with the request to the Responsible Transmission Owner, the ISO shall solicit market-based and alternative regulated responses as set forth in Sections 31.2.4.5 and 31.2.4.7, which shall not be a formal RFP process.
31.2.4.4.1The submission of a regulated backstop solution to a Reliability Need for purposes of the ISO’s evaluation under Section 31.2.5 of the viability and sufficiency of the proposed solution and the determination of the Trigger Date for the proposed solution shall include, at a minimum, the following details: (1) contact information; (2) the lead time necessary to complete the project, including, if available, the construction windows in which the Responsible Transmission Owner can perform construction and what, if any, outages may be required during these periods; (3) a description of the project, including type, size, and geographic and electrical location, as well as planning and engineering specifications and drawings as appropriate; (4) evidence of a commercially viable technology, (5) a major milestone schedule; (6) the schedule for obtaining any permits and other certifications, if available; (7) status of ISO interconnection studies and interconnection agreement, if available; and (8) status of equipment availability and procurement, if available.
31.2.4.4.2 The submission of a regulated backstop solution to a Reliability Need for purposes of the ISO’s evaluation of the proposed solution for possible selection as the more efficient or cost effective solution to the Reliability Need shall include, at a minimum, the following details: (1) updates to the information required under Section 31.2.4.4.1; (2) the schedule for obtaining required permits and other certifications; (3) a demonstration of Site Control or a schedule for obtaining such control; (4) the status of any contracts (other than an Interconnection Agreement) that are under negotiation or in place; (5) status of ISO interconnection studies and interconnection agreement; (6) status of equipment availability and procurement; (7) evidence of financing or ability to finance the project; (8) capital cost estimates for the project; (9) a description of permitting or other risks facing the project at the stage of project development, including evidence of the reasonableness of project cost estimates, all based on the information available at the time of the submission; and (10) any other information requested by the ISO.
A Responsible Transmission Owner shall submit the following information to indicate the status of any contracts: (i) copies of all final contracts the ISO determines are relevant to its consideration, or (ii) where one or more contracts are pending, a timeline on the status of discussions and negotiations with the relevant documents and when the negotiations are expected to be completed. The final contracts shall be submitted to the ISO when available. The ISO shall treat on a confidential basis in accordance with the requirements of its Code of Conduct in Attachment F of the ISO OATT any contract that is submitted to the ISO and is designated by the Responsible Transmission Owner as “Confidential Information.”
A Responsible Transmission Owner shall submit the following information to indicate the status of any required permits: (i) copies of all final permits received that the ISO determines are relevant to its consideration, or (ii) where one or more permits are pending, the completed permit application(s) with information on what additional actions must be taken to meet the permit requirements and a timeline providing the expected timing for finalization and receipt of the final permit(s). The final permits shall be submitted to the ISO when available.
A Responsible Transmission Owner shall submit the following information, as appropriate, to indicate evidence of financing by it or any Affiliate upon which it is relying for financing: (i) evidence of self-financing or project financing through approved rates or the ability to do so, (ii) copies of all loan commitment letter(s) and signed financing contract(s), or (iii) where such financing is pending, the status of the application for any relevant financing, including a timeline providing the status of discussions and negotiations of relevant documents and when the negotiations are expected to be completed. The final contracts or approved rates shall be submitted to the ISO when available.
31.2.4.4.3If the regulated backstop solution does not meet the Reliability Needs , the ISO will provide sufficient information to the Responsible Transmission Owner to determine how the regulated backstop should be modified to meet the identified Reliability Needs. The Responsible Transmission Owner will make necessary changes to its proposed regulated backstop solution to address reliability deficiencies identified by the ISO, and submit a revised proposal to the ISO for review and approval.
At the same time that a proposal for a regulated backstop solution is requested from the Responsible Transmission Owner under Section 31.2.4.3, the ISO shall also request market-based responses from the market place. Subject to the execution of appropriately drawn confidentiality agreements and the Commission’s standards of conduct, the ISO and the appropriate Transmission Owner or Transmission Owners shall provide any party who wishes to develop such a response access to the data that is necessary to develop its response. Such data shall only be used for the purposes of preparing a market-based response to a Reliability Need under this section. Such responses will be open on a comparable basis to all resources, including generation, demand response providers, and merchant transmission Developers.
The submission of a proposed market-based solution must include, at a minimum: (1) contact information; (2) the lead time necessary to complete the project, including, if available, the construction windows in which the Developer can perform construction and what, if any, outages may be required during these periods; (3) a description of the project, including type, size, and geographic and electrical location, as well as planning and engineering specifications and drawings as appropriate; (4) evidence of a commercially viable technology; (5) a major milestone schedule; (6) a schedule for obtaining any required permits and other certifications; (7) a demonstration of Site Control or a schedule for obtaining Site Control; (8) the status of any contracts (other than an Interconnection Agreement) that are under negotiation or in place; (9) the status of ISO interconnection studies and interconnection agreement; (10) the status of equipment availability and procurement; (11) evidence of financing or ability to finance the project; and (12) any other information requested by the ISO.
A Developer shall submit the following information to indicate the status of any contracts: (i) copies of all final contracts the ISO determines are relevant to its consideration, or (ii) where one or more contracts are pending, a timeline on the status of discussions and negotiations with the relevant documents and when the negotiations are expected to be completed. The final contracts shall be submitted to the ISO when available. The ISO shall treat on a confidential basis in accordance with the requirements of its Code of Conduct in Attachment F of the ISO OATT any contract that is submitted to the ISO and is designated by the Developer as “Confidential Information.”
A Developer shall submit the following information to indicate the status of any required permits: (i) copies of all final permits received that the ISO determines are relevant to its consideration, or (ii) where one or more permits are pending, the completed permit application(s) with information on what additional actions must be taken to meet the permit requirements and a timeline providing the expected timing for finalization and receipt of the final permit(s). The final permits shall be submitted to the ISO when available.
A Developer shall submit the following information, as appropriate, to indicate evidence of financing by it or any Affiliate upon which it is relying for financing: (i) copies of all loan commitment letter(s) and signed financing contract(s), or (ii) where such financing is pending, the status of the application for any relevant financing, including a timeline providing the status of discussions and negotiations of relevant documents and when the negotiations are expected to be completed. The final contracts shall be submitted to the ISO when available.
Failure to provide any data requested by the ISO within the timeframe set forth in Section 31.2.5.1 of this Attachment Y will result in the rejection of the proposed market-based solution from further consideration during that planning cycle.
31.2.4.7.1The ISO will request alternative regulated responses to Reliability Needs at the same time that it requests market-based responses and regulated backstop solutions. Such proposals may include reasonable alternatives that would effectively address the identified Reliability Need.
31.2.4.7.2In response to the ISO’s request, Other Developers may develop alternative regulated proposals for generation, demand side alternatives, and/or other solutions to address a Reliability Need and submit such proposals to the ISO. Transmission Owners, at their option, may submit additional proposals for regulated solutions to the ISO. Transmission Owners and Other Developers may submit such proposals to the NYDPS for review at any time. Subject to the execution of appropriately drawn confidentiality agreements and the Commission’s standards of conduct, the ISO and the appropriate Transmission Owner(s) shall provide Other Developers access to the data that is needed to develop their proposals. Such data shall be used only for purposes of preparing an alternative regulated proposal in response to a Reliability Need.
31.2.4.8.1The submission of an alternative regulated solution to a Reliability Need for purposes of the ISO’s evaluation under Section 31.2.5 of the viability and sufficiency of the proposed solution and the determination of the Trigger Date for the proposed solution shall include, at a minimum, the following details: (1) contact information; (2) the lead time necessary to complete the project, including, if available, the construction windows in which the Other Developer or Transmission Owner can perform construction and what, if any, outages may be required during these periods; (3) a description of the project, including type, size, and geographic and electrical location, as well as planning and engineering specifications and drawings as appropriate; (4) evidence of a commercially viable technology; (5) a major milestone schedule; (6) the schedule for obtaining any permits and other certifications, if available; (7) status of ISO interconnection studies and interconnection agreement, if available; and (8) status of equipment availability and procurement, if available.
31.2.4.8.2The submission of a proposed alternative regulated solution to a Reliability Need for purposes of the ISO’s evaluation of the proposed solution for possible selection as the more efficient or cost effective solution for the Reliability Need must include, at a minimum: (1) updates to the information required under Section 31.2.4.8.1; (2) a demonstration of Site Control or a schedule for obtaining Site Control; (3) the status of any contracts (other than an Interconnection Agreement) that are under negotiation or in place; (4) the status of any interconnection studies and interconnection agreement; (5) the schedule for obtaining any required permits and other certifications; (6) the status of equipment availability and procurement; (7) evidence of financing or ability to finance the project; (8) capital cost estimates for the project; (9) a description of permitting or other risks facing the project at the stage of project development, including evidence of the reasonableness of project cost estimates, all based on the information available at the time of the submission; and (10) any other information requested by the ISO.
An Other Developer or Transmission Owner shall submit the following information to indicate the status of any contracts: (i) copies of all final contracts the ISO determines are relevant to its consideration, or (ii) where one or more contracts are pending, a timeline on the status of discussions and negotiations with the relevant documents and when the negotiations are expected to be completed. The final contracts shall be submitted to the ISO when available. The ISO shall treat on a confidential basis in accordance with the requirements of its Code of Conduct in Attachment F of the ISO OATT any contract that is submitted to the ISO and is designated by the Other Developer or Transmission Owner as “Confidential Information.”
An Other Developer or Transmission Owner shall submit the following information to indicate the status of any required permits: (i) copies of all final permits received that the ISO determines are relevant to its consideration, or (ii) where one or more permits are pending, the completed permit application(s) with information on what additional actions must be taken to meet the permit requirements and a timeline providing the expected timing for finalization and receipt of the final permit(s). The final permits shall be submitted to the ISO when available.
An Other Developer or Transmission Owner shall submit the following information, as appropriate, to indicate evidence of financing by it or any Affiliate upon which it is relying for financing: (i) evidence of self-financing or project financing through approved rates or the ability to do so, (ii) copies of all loan commitment letter(s) and signed financing contract(s), or (iii) where such financing is pending, the status of the application for any relevant financing, including a timeline providing the status of discussions and negotiations of relevant documents and when the negotiations are expected to be completed. The final contracts or approved rates shall be submitted to the ISO when available.
31.2.4.8.3Failure to provide any data requested by the ISO within the timeframe provided in Sections 31.2.5.1 and 31.2.6.1 of this Attachment Y will result in the rejection of the proposed alternative regulated solution from further consideration during that planning cycle. A proponent of a proposed alternative regulated solution must notify the ISO immediately of any material change in status of a proposed alternative regulated solution. For purposes of this provision, a material change includes, but is not limited to, a change in the financial viability of the developer, a change in the siting status of the project, or a change in a major element of the project’s development. If the ISO, at any time, learns of a material change in the status of a proposed alternative regulated solution, it may, at that time, make a determination as to the continued viability of the proposed alternative regulated solution.
Should the ISO determine that it has not received adequate regulated backstop or market-based solutions to satisfy the Reliability Need, the ISO may, in its discretion, solicit additional regulated backstop or market-based solutions. Other Developers or Transmission Owners may submit additional alternative regulated solutions for the ISO’s consideration at that time.
Within 60 days after a request for solutions to a Reliability Need is made by the ISO after completion of the RNA, a Developer proposing a solution to an identified Reliability Need shall submit to the ISO for purposes of its evaluation the project qualification information, as applicable, for: (i) a proposed regulated backstop solution under Section 31.2.4.4.1, (ii) a proposed market-based solution under Section 31.2.4.6, or (iii) a proposed alternative regulated solution under Section 31.2.4.8.1 of this Attachment Y.
Any Developer that the ISO has determined under Section 31.2.4.1.1 or as set forth in this Section 31.2.5.1 below to be qualified to propose to develop a project as a transmission solution to an identified Reliability Need may submit the required information for project qualification; provided, however, that: (i) the Developer shall provide a non-refundable application fee of $10,000 and (ii) based on the actual identified need, the ISO may request that the qualified Developer provide additional Developer qualification information. Any Developer that has not been determined by the ISO to be qualified, but that wants to propose to develop a project, must submit to the ISO the information required for Developer qualification under Section 31.2.4.1.1 within 30 days after a request for solutions is made by the ISO. The ISO shall within 30 days of a Developer’s submittal of its Developer qualification information, notify the Developer if this information is incomplete. The Developer shall submit additional Developer or project qualification information required by the ISO within 15 days of the ISO’s request. A Developer that fails to submit the additional Developer qualification information or the required project information will not be eligible for its project to be considered in that planning cycle.
The ISO shall evaluate: (i) any proposed market-based solution submitted by a Developer pursuant to Section 31.2.4.5, (ii) any proposed regulated backstop solution submitted by a Responsible Transmission Owner pursuant to Section 31.2.4.3, and (iii) any proposed alternative regulated solution submitted by a Transmission Owner or Other Developer pursuant to Section 31.2.4.7. The ISO will evaluate whether each proposed solution is viable and is sufficient to satisfy the identified Reliability Need by the need date pursuant to Sections 31.2.5.3 and 31.2.5.4. The proposed solutions may include multiple components and resource types. When evaluating proposed solutions to Reliability Needs from any Developer, all resource types – generation, transmission, demand response, or a combination of these resource types – shall be considered on a comparable basis as potential solutions to the Reliability Needs identified. All solutions will be evaluated in the same general time frame.
The ISO will determine the viability of a solution – transmission, generation, demand response, or a combination of these resource types – proposed to satisfy a Reliability Need. For purposes of its analysis, the ISO will evaluate whether: (i) the Developer has provided the required Developer qualification data pursuant to Section 31.2.4.1 and the required project information data under Sections 31.2.4.4.1, 31.2.4.6, or 31.2.4.8.1; (ii) the proposed solution is technically practicable; (iii) the Developer has indicated possession of, or an approach for acquiring, any necessary rights-of-way, property, and facilities that will make the proposal reasonably feasible in the required timeframe; and (iv) the proposed solution can be completed in the required timeframe. If the ISO determines that the proposed solution is not viable and, for regulated solutions, the Developer does not address any identified deficiency pursuant to Section 31.2.5.6, the ISO shall reject the proposed solution from further consideration during that planning cycle.
The ISO will perform a comparative analysis of each proposed solution – transmission, generation, demand response, or a combination of these resource types – through the Study Period to identify whether it satisfies the Reliability Need(s). The ISO will evaluate each solution independently to confirm that the solution proposed by the Developer eliminates the Reliability Need(s). If the ISO determines that the proposed solution is not sufficient and, for regulated solutions, the Developer does not address any identified deficiency pursuant to Section 31.2.5.6, the ISO shall reject the proposed solution from further consideration during that planning cycle.
Upon receipt of all Developers’ proposed regulated solutions pursuant to Section 31.2.5.1, the ISO will notify all Developers if any Developer has proposed a lead time for the implementation of its regulated solution that could result in a Trigger Date for the regulated solution within thirty-six months of the ISO’s presenting the results of its review of the viability and sufficiency of proposed solutions under Section 31.2.5.7, provided that the ISO will not disclose the identity of such Developer or the details of its project at that time. The ISO will independently analyze the lead time proposed by each Developer for the implementation of its regulated solution. The ISO will use the Developer’s estimate and the ISO’s analysis to establish the ISO’s Trigger Date for each regulated solution. The ISO will also establish benchmark lead times for proposed market-based solutions.
Following initial review of the proposals, as described above, ISO staff will identify any reliability deficiencies in each of the proposed solutions. The Responsible Transmission Owner, Transmission Owner or Other Developer will discuss any identified deficiencies with the ISO staff. Other Developers and Transmission Owners that propose alternative regulated solutions shall have the option to remedy their proposals to address any deficiency within 30 days of notification by the ISO. With respect to regulated backstop solutions proposed by a Responsible Transmission Owner pursuant to Section 31.2.4.3, the Responsible Transmission Owner shall make necessary changes to its proposed backstop solution to address any reliability deficiencies identified by the ISO, and submit a revised proposal to the ISO for review within 30 days. The ISO shall review all such revised proposals to determine whether the identified deficiencies have been resolved.
The ISO shall report the results of its viability and sufficiency analysis to stakeholders, interested parties, and the NYDPS for comment and will indicate at that time whether any of the proposed regulated solutions found to be viable and sufficient under this Section 31.2.5 will have a Trigger Date within thirty-six months of the date of its presentation.
The ISO shall report in the CRP the results of its evaluation under this Section 31.2.5: (i) whether each proposed regulated backstop solution, alternative regulated solution, and market-based solution is viable and is sufficient to satisfy the identified Reliability Need by the need date, and (ii) the Trigger Dates for the proposed regulated solutions.
If the ISO determines that the Trigger Date of any Developer’s proposed regulated solution that was found to be viable and sufficient under Section 31.2.5 will occur within thirty-six months of the ISO’s presenting the results of its review of the viability and sufficiency of proposed solutions under Section 31.2.5.7, the ISO will request that all Developers of regulated transmission solutions that the ISO determined were viable and sufficient submit to the ISO their project qualification information, as applicable, for: (i) a proposed regulated backstop transmission solution under Section 31.2.4.4.2, or (ii) a proposed alternative regulated transmission solution under Section 31.2.4.8.2. If the ISO determines that none of the Developers’ proposed regulated solutions that were found to be viable and sufficient under Section 31.2.5 will occur within the thirty-six month period, the ISO will not perform the evaluation or a make a selection of a more efficient or cost effective regulated solution under this Section 31.2.6 for that planning cycle.
The ISO will make its request, if necessary, for project qualification information under this Section 31.2.6.1 sufficiently in advance of the earliest Trigger Date of the viable and sufficient regulated solutions to enable the ISO to evaluate and select the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution. Upon the ISO’s request for project qualification information, the Developer shall submit such information for its regulated transmission solution within thirty (30) days or such other additional period as the ISO determines is reasonable. The Developer shall submit additional project qualification information required by the ISO within 15 days of the ISO’s request. A Developer that fails to submit the required project information will not be eligible for its project to be considered in that planning cycle.
A Developer that proposes a regulated backstop transmission solution or an alternative regulated transmission solution to satisfy the identified Reliability Need shall submit to the ISO, at the same time that it provides the project qualification information required pursuant to Section 31.2.6.1, a study deposit of $100,000. The study deposit shall be applied to study costs and is refundable as described below.
The ISO shall charge, and a Developer proposing a regulated backstop transmission solution or an alternative regulated transmission solution shall pay, the actual costs of the ISO’s evaluation of the Developer’s proposed transmission solution under this Section 31.2.6 for purposes of selecting the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution to satisfy a Reliability Need for cost allocation purposes, including costs associated with the ISO’s use of third-party consultants. If the ISO conducts study work for multiple proposed transmission solutions on a combined basis, the ISO will allocate the costs of the combined study work equally among the applicable Developers.
The ISO shall invoice the Developer monthly for any costs incurred by the ISO in the prior month in evaluating the Developer’s proposed transmission solution under this Section 31.2.6. Such invoice shall include a description of the costs incurred and invoiced by the ISO. The Developer shall pay the invoiced amount within thirty (30) calendar days of the Developer’s receipt of the monthly invoice. The ISO shall continue to hold the full amount of the study deposit until settlement of the final monthly invoice. After the conclusion of the ISO’s evaluation of the Developer’s proposed transmission solution or if the Developer withdraws its proposed transmission solution, the ISO shall issue a final invoice and refund to the Developer any portion of the Developer’s study deposit that exceeds outstanding amounts that the ISO has incurred in evaluating that Developer’s proposed transmission solution. The ISO shall refund the remaining portion within sixty (60) days of the ISO’s receipt of all final invoices from its consultants and involved Transmission Owners.
In the event of a Developer’s dispute over invoiced amounts, the Developer shall: (i) timely pay any undisputed amounts to the ISO, and (ii) pay into an independent escrow account the portion of the invoice in dispute, pending resolution of such dispute. If the Developer fails to meet these two requirements, then the ISO shall not be obligated to perform or continue to perform its evaluation of the Developer’s proposed transmission solution. Disputes arising under this section shall be addressed through the Dispute Resolution Procedures set forth in Section 2.16 of the ISO OATT and Section 11 of the ISO Services Tariff. Within thirty (30) Calendar Days after resolution of the dispute, the Developer will pay the ISO any amounts due with interest calculated in accordance with Section 35.19a(a)(2) of FERC’s regulations.
A proposed regulated transmission solution that will have a significant adverse impact on the reliability of the New York State Transmission System shall not be eligible for selection by the ISO under Section 31.2.6.5. The ISO shall evaluate the system impacts for the entire Study Period of a proposed regulated transmission solution that the ISO has determined under Section 31.2.5 is viable and sufficient. The ISO shall perform power flow and short circuit studies for the proposed regulated transmission solutions and additional studies, as appropriate. If the ISO identifies a significant adverse impact based on these studies, the ISO shall request that the Developer make an adjustment to its proposed regulated transmission solution to address this impact and remain eligible for selection. The Developer shall submit the adjustment within 30 days of the ISO’s notification.
If the Developer modifies its proposed regulated transmission solution, the ISO shall confirm that the adjusted solution still satisfies the viability and sufficiency requirements set forth in Section 31.2.5. If the ISO determines that the proposed regulated transmission solution does not satisfy the viability and sufficiency requirements or continues to have a significantly adverse impact on the reliability of the New York State Transmission System, the ISO shall remove the proposed solution from further consideration during that planning cycle.
The ISO will review the LTPs as they relate to BPTFs. The ISO, using engineering judgment, will determine whether proposed regional transmission solutions on the BPTFs may more efficiently or cost effectively satisfy reliability needs identified in the LTPs. If the ISO identifies that a regional transmission solution on the BPTFs has the potential to more efficiently or cost effectively satisfy the reliability need identified in the LTPs, it will perform a sensitivity analysis to determine whether the proposed regional transmission solution on the BPTFs would satisfy the reliability needs identified in the LTPs. If the ISO determines that the proposed regional transmission solutions on the BPTFs would satisfy the reliability need, the ISO will evaluate the proposed regional transmission solution using the metrics set forth in Section 31.2.6.5.1 to determine whether it may be a more efficient or cost effective solution on the BPTFs to satisfy the reliability needs identified in the LTPs than the local solutions proposed in the LTPs. The results of the ISO’s analysis will be reported in the CRP.
A proposed regulated transmission solution – including a regulated backstop transmission solution submitted by a Responsible Transmission Owner pursuant to Section 31.2.4.3 and an alternative regulated transmission solution submitted by a Transmission Owner or Other Developer pursuant to Section 31.2.4.7 – that the ISO has determined satisfies the viability and sufficiency requirements in Section 31.2.5 and the system impact requirements in Section 31.2.6.3 shall be eligible under this Section 31.2.6.5 for selection in the CRP for the purpose of cost allocation and recovery under the ISO Tariffs. The ISO shall evaluate any eligible proposed regulated transmission solutions for the planning cycle using the metrics set forth in Section 31.2.6.5.1 below. For purposes of this evaluation, the ISO will review the information submitted by the Developer and determine whether it is reasonable and how such information should be used for purposes of the ISO evaluating each metric. The ISO may engage an independent consultant to review the reasonableness and comprehensiveness of the information submitted by the Developer and may rely on the independent consultant’s analysis in evaluating each metric. The ISO shall select in the CRP for cost allocation purposes the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution to satisfy a Reliability Need in the manner set forth in Section 31.2.6.5.2 below.
In determining which of the eligible proposed regulated transmission solutions is the more efficient or cost effective solution to satisfy the Reliability Need, the ISO will consider, and will consult with the NYDPS regarding, the following metrics set forth in this Section 31.2.6.5.1 and rank each proposed solution based on the quality of its satisfaction of these metrics:
31.2.6.5.1.1 The capital cost estimates for the proposed regulated transmission solutions, including the accuracy of the proposed estimates. For this evaluation, the Developer shall provide the ISO with credible capital cost estimates for its proposed solution, with itemized supporting work sheets that identify all material and labor cost assumptions, and related drawings to the extent applicable and available. The work sheets should include an estimated quantification of cost variance, providing an assumed plus/minus range around the capital cost estimate.
The estimate shall include all components that are needed to meet the Reliability Need throughout the Study Period. To the extent information is available, the Developer should itemize: material and labor cost by equipment, engineering and design work, permitting, site acquisition, procurement and construction work, and commissioning needed for the proposed solution, all in accordance with Good Utility Practice. For each of these cost categories, the Developer should specify the nature and estimated cost of all major project components and estimate the cost of the work to be done at each substation and/or on each feeder to physically and electrically connect each facility to the existing system. The work sheets should itemize the extent applicable and available all equipment for: (i) the proposed project; (ii) interconnection facilities (including Attachment Facilities and Direct Assignment Facilities); and (iii) System Upgrade Facilities, System Deliverability Upgrades, Network Upgrades, and Distribution Upgrades.
31.2.6.5.1.2 The cost per MW ratio of the proposed regulated transmission solutions. For this evaluation, the ISO will first determine the present worth, in dollars, of the total capital cost of the proposed solution in current year dollars. The ISO will then determine the MW value of the solution by summing the Reliability Need, in MW, with the additional improvement, in MW, that the proposed solution offers beyond serving the Reliability Need. The ISO will then determine the cost per MW ratio by dividing the present worth of the total capital cost by the MW value. 31.2.6.5.1.3 The expandability of the proposed regulated transmission solution. The ISO will consider the impact of the proposed solution on future construction. The ISO will also consider the extent to which any subsequent expansion will continue to use this proposed solution within the context of system expansion.
31.2.6.5.1.4 The operability of the proposed regulated transmission solution. The ISO will consider how the proposed solution may affect additional flexibility in operating the system, such as dispatch of generation, access to operating reserves, access to ancillary services, or ability to remove transmission for maintenance. The ISO will also consider how the proposed solution may affect the cost of operating the system, such as how it may affect the need for operating generation out of merit for reliability needs, reducing the need to cycle generation, or providing more balance in the system to respond to system conditions that are more severe than design conditions.
31.2.6.5.1.5 The performance of the proposed regulated transmission solution. The ISO will consider how the proposed project may affect the utilization of the system (e.g. interface flows, percent loading of facilities).
31.2.6.5.1.6 The extent to which the Developer of a proposed regulated transmission solution has the property rights, or ability to obtain the property rights, required to implement the solution. The ISO will consider whether the Developer: (i) already possesses the rights of way necessary to implement the solution; (ii) has completed a transmission routing study, which (a) identifies a specific routing plan with alternatives, (b) includes a schedule indicating the timing for obtaining siting and permitting, and (c) provides specific attention to sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands, river crossings, protected areas, and schools); or (iii) has a specified a plan or approach for determining routing and acquiring property rights.
31.2.6.5.1.7 The potential issues associated with delay in constructing the proposed regulated transmission solution consistent with the major milestone schedule and the schedule for obtaining any permits and other certifications as required to timely meet the need.
The ISO shall select under this Section 31.2.6.5.2 the proposed regulated transmission solution, if any, that is the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution proposed in the planning cycle to satisfy the identified Reliability Need. The ISO shall report the selected regulated transmission solution in the CRP. The selected regulated transmission solution reported in the CRP shall be eligible to be triggered by the ISO to satisfy the identified Reliability Need pursuant to Section 31.2.8 at any point within thirty-six months of the ISO’s presenting the results of its review of the viability and sufficiency of proposed solutions under Section 31.2.5.7. An Other Developer or Transmission Owner of a selected alternative regulated transmission project shall not be eligible to recover costs for its project unless its project is triggered pursuant to Section 31.2.8. Once such project is triggered, the Other Developer or Transmission Owner shall be eligible to recover costs for the project. Costs will be recovered when the project is completed in accordance with the cost recovery requirements set forth in Rate Schedule 10 of the ISO OATT, or as otherwise determined by the Commission. Actual project cost recovery, including any issues related to cost recovery and project cost overruns, will be submitted to and decided by the Commission.
Following the ISO’s evaluation of the proposed market-based and regulated solutions to Reliability Need(s), the ISO will prepare a draft CRP that sets forth the ISO’s findings regarding the viability and sufficiency of solutions, the trigger dates of regulated solutions, and any recommendations that implementation of regulated solutions (which may be a Gap Solution) is necessary to ensure system reliability. The draft CRP will reflect any input from the NYDPS. If the CRP cannot be completed in the two-year planning cycle, the ISO will notify stakeholders and provide an estimated completion date and an explanation of the reasons the additional time is required.
The ISO will include in the draft CRP the list of Developers that qualify pursuant to Section 31.2.4.1 and will identify the proposed solutions that it has determined under Section 31.2.5 are viable and sufficient to satisfy the identified Reliability Need(s) by the need date. The ISO will identify in the CRP the regulated backstop solution that the ISO has determined will meet the Reliability Need by the need date and the Responsible Transmission Owner. If the ISO determines that a market-based solution will not be available in time to meet a Reliability Need, and finds that it is necessary to take action to ensure reliability, it will state in the CRP that implementation of a regulated solution (regulated backstop or alternative regulated solution) is necessary. The draft CRP will also include the results of the ISO’s analysis of the LTPs consistent with Section 31.2.6.4.
The draft CRP shall indicate whether the ISO has determined that the Trigger Date to any proposed regulated solution will occur within thirty-six months of the ISO’s presenting the results of its review of the viability and sufficiency of proposed solutions under Section 31.2.5.7. If the Trigger Date of any proposed regulated solution will occur within the thirty-six month period and the ISO makes a selection of the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution under Section 31.2.6.5.2, the draft CRP shall include the regulated transmission solution selected for cost allocation purposes pursuant to Section 31.2.6.5.2 as the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution to satisfy the Reliability Need(s) and shall indicate whether that transmission solution should be triggered. If: (i) none of the proposed regulated solutions has a Trigger Date within the thirty-six month period, or (ii) the Trigger Date of any proposed regulated solution will occur within the thirty-six month period but the ISO determines in its discretion that it is not necessary at that time to select a more efficient or cost effective transmission solution under Section 31.2.6.5.2 prior to the completion of the CRP, the draft CRP will not select a regulated transmission solution. If: (i) the Trigger Date of any proposed regulated solution will occur within the thirty-six month period, and (ii) the ISO selects a more efficient or cost effective solution subsequent to the completion of the CRP but prior to the completion of that thirty-six month period, the ISO shall issue an updated CRP report pursuant to Section 31.2.7.3 that includes the regulated transmission solution selected for cost allocation purposes pursuant to Section 31.2.6.5.2 as the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution to satisfy the Reliability Need(s) and shall indicate whether that transmission solution should be triggered.
The draft CRP shall include a comparison of a proposed regional solution to an identified Reliability Need to an Interregional Transmission Project identified and evaluated under the “Analysis and Consideration of Interregional Transmission Projects” section of the Interregional Planning Protocol, if any. An Interregional Transmission Project proposed in the ISO’s reliability planning process may be selected as a market based response, regulated backstop solution, or an alternative regulated solution under the provisions of the ISO’s reliability planning process.
The ISO staff shall submit the draft CRP to the TPAS and ESPWG for review and comment. The ISO shall make available to any interested party sufficient information to replicate the results of the draft CRP. The information made available will be electronically masked and made available pursuant to a process that the ISO reasonably determines is necessary to prevent the disclosure of any Confidential Information or Critical Energy Infrastructure Information contained in the information made available. Following completion of the TPAS and ESPWG review, the draft CRP reflecting the revisions resulting from the TPAS and ESPWG review shall be forwarded to the Operating Committee for a discussion and action. The ISO shall notify the Business Issues Committee of the date of the Operating Committee meeting at which the draft CRP is to be presented. Following the Operating Committee vote, the draft CRP will be transmitted to the Management Committee for a discussion and action.
Following the Management Committee vote, the draft CRP, with working group, Operating Committee, and Management Committee input, will be forwarded to the ISO Board for review and action. Concurrently, the draft CRP will also be provided to the Market Monitoring Unit for its review and consideration of whether market rule changes are necessary to address an identified failure, if any, in one of the ISO’s competitive markets. The Board may approve the draft CRP as submitted or propose modifications on its own motion, including the recommendations regarding the selection of transmission projects for cost allocation and cost recovery under the ISO Tariffs if such selection will occur during that planning cycle. If any changes are proposed by the Board, the revised CRP shall be returned to the Management Committee for comment. The Board shall not make a final determination on the draft CRP until it has reviewed the Management Committee comments. Upon final approval by the Board, the ISO shall issue the CRP to the marketplace by posting the CRP on its website. The ISO will provide the CRP to the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) for consideration and appropriate action.
The responsibilities of the Market Monitoring Unit that are addressed in the above section of Attachment Y to the ISO OATT are also addressed in Section 30.4.6.8.3 of the Market Monitoring Plan, Attachment O to the ISO Services Tariff.
If, pursuant to Section 31.2.7, the ISO identifies a proposed regulated transmission solution as the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution following the completion of the CRP, the ISO will prepare a draft updated CRP report that indicates the regulated transmission solution recommended for selection for cost allocation purposes pursuant to Section 31.2.6.5.2 as the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution to satisfy the Reliability Need(s) and shall indicate whether that transmission solution should be triggered at that time. The draft updated CRP report shall be reviewed in accordance with the stakeholder process set forth in Section 31.2.7.1 and will be then forwarded to the ISO Board for its review and action pursuant to Section 31.2.7.2.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Attachment, the ISO OATT, or the ISO Services Tariff, in the event that a Market Participant or other interested party raises a dispute solely within the NYPSC’s jurisdiction concerning ISO’s final determination in the CRP that a proposed solution will or will not meet a Reliability Need, a Market Participant or other interested party seeking further review shall refer such dispute to the NYPSC for resolution, as provided for in the ISO Procedures. The NYPSC’s final determination of such disputes shall be binding, subject only to judicial review in the courts of the State of New York pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.
31.2.8.1.1The ISO shall review proposals for market-based solutions pursuant to Section 31.2.5 of this Attachment Y. The ISO will not trigger a regulated solution if the ISO determines that there are sufficient market-based solutions to meet the Reliability Need by the need date.
31.2.8.1.2If: (i) the ISO determines that there are not sufficient market-based solutions to meet the identified Reliability Need by the need date, (ii) the regulated backstop solution proposed by the Responsible Transmission Owner is the only proposed viable and sufficient regulated solution or is selected by the ISO as the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution to meet the identified Reliability Need, and (iii) the Trigger Date for the regulated backstop solution has or will occur within thirty-six months of the ISO’s presenting the results of its review of the viability and sufficiency of proposed solutions under Section 31.2.5.7, the ISO will trigger the regulated backstop solution at its Trigger Date. The ISO will inform the Responsible Transmission Owner that it should submit the regulated backstop solution to the appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies) to begin the necessary approval process to site, construct, and operate the solution. In response to the ISO’s request, the Responsible Transmission Owner shall make such a submission to the appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies).
31.2.8.1.3If: (i) the ISO determines that there are not sufficient market-based solutions to meet the identified Reliability Need by the need date; (ii) the ISO selects an alternative regulated transmission solution as the more efficient or cost-effective transmission solution to meet the identified Reliability Need; (iii) the Trigger Date for the reliability backstop solution is later than the Trigger Date for the selected alternative regulated transmission solution; and (iv) the Trigger Date for the alternative regulated transmission solution has or will occur within thirty-six months of the ISO’s presenting the results of its review of the viability and sufficiency of proposed solutions under Section 31.2.5.7, the ISO shall trigger the alternative regulated transmission solution at its Trigger Date. The ISO will inform the Other Developer or Transmission Owner that it should submit the alternative regulated transmission solution to the appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies) to begin the necessary approval process to site, construct, and operate the solution. In response to the ISO’s request, the Other Developer or Transmission Owner shall make such a submission to the appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies). If the ISO determines prior to or at the Trigger Date for the regulated backstop solution that it is necessary for the Responsible Transmission Owner to proceed with a regulated backstop solution in parallel with the selected alternative regulated transmission solution, the ISO will trigger the regulated backstop solution and the Responsible Transmission Owner shall proceed with due diligence to develop its regulated backstop solution in accordance with Good Utility Practice and to submit its proposed solution to the appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies), unless or until notified by the ISO that it has determined that the regulated backstop solution is no longer needed as described in Section 31.2.8.2.3 below.
31.2.8.1.4If: (i) the ISO determines that there are not sufficient market-based solutions to meet the identified Reliability Need by the need date; (ii) the ISO selects an alternative regulated transmission solution as the more efficient or cost-effective transmission solution to meet the identified Reliability Need; (iii) the Trigger Date for the reliability backstop solution is earlier than the Trigger Date for the selected alternative regulated transmission solution; and (iv) the Trigger Date for the regulated backstop solution has or will occur within thirty-six months of the ISO’s presenting the results of its review of the viability and sufficiency of proposed solutions under Section 31.2.5.7, the ISO shall trigger both the alternative regulated transmission solution and the regulated backstop solution at the Trigger Date for the reliability backstop solution. The ISO will inform the Responsible Transmission Owner that proposed the regulated backstop solution and the Other Developer or Transmission Owner that proposed the alternative regulated transmission solution that they should submit the proposed solutions to the appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies) to begin the necessary approval process to site, construct, and operate the solution. In response to the ISO’s request, the Responsible Transmission Owner, Other Developer or Transmission Owner shall make such a submission to the appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies).
31.2.8.1.5If the selected regulated solution is an alternative regulated transmission solution, the Other Developer or Transmission Owner that proposed the alternative regulated solution shall within 60 days of the ISO’s triggering the proposed solution, or such other reasonable time period as determined by the ISO: (i) execute an agreement with the ISO committing the Other Developer or Transmission Owner to seek all necessary approvals required for its proposed project, to develop and construct its proposed project if approvals are received, and to abide by the related requirements set forth in Attachment Y of the ISO OATT, the ISO Tariffs, and ISO Procedures, and (ii) provide construction milestones necessary to develop and construct its proposed project to achieve the required in-service date, including milestone dates for obtaining all necessary approvals. The Other Developer or Transmission Owner shall inform the ISO of any material changes to its construction milestones within thirty days of the change. If the Other Developer or Transmission Owner does not perform the actions set forth in this Section 31.2.8.1.5, it shall not be eligible for cost allocation under the ISO Tariffs.
31.2.8.1.6Other Developers and Transmission Owners proposing alternative regulated solutions that the ISO has determined will resolve the identified Reliability Need may submit these proposals to the appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies) for review. The ISO does not determine the solution that will be permitted by the appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies) with jurisdiction over siting or whether the regulated backstop solution or an alternative regulated solution will be constructed to address the identified Reliability Need. If the appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies) makes a final determination that an alternative regulated solution should be permitted and constructed to satisfy a Reliability Need and that the regulated backstop solution should not proceed, implementation of the alternative regulated solution will be the responsibility of the Transmission Owner or Other Developer that proposed the alternative regulated solution, and the Responsible Transmission Owner will not be responsible for addressing the Reliability Need through the implementation of its regulated backstop solution. Should a regulated solution not be implemented, the ISO may request a Gap Solution pursuant to Section 31.2.10 of this Attachment Y.
31.2.8.2.1If the ISO determines in the CRP or any time before the approval of the next CRP that it is necessary for the Responsible Transmission Owner to proceed with a regulated backstop solution evaluated in the CRP in parallel with a market-based solution in order to ensure that a Reliability Need is met by the need date, the Responsible Transmission Owner shall proceed with due diligence to develop its regulated backstop solution in accordance with Good Utility Practice unless or until notified by the ISO that it has determined that the regulated backstop solution is no longer needed.
31.2.8.2.2 If, after consultation with: (i) the Responsible Transmission Owner or (ii) the Other Developer or Transmission Owner of an alternative regulated transmission solution selected by the ISO as the more efficient or cost efficient solution, the ISO determines that the Responsible Transmission Owner, Other Developer, or Transmission Owner has not submitted its proposed regulated backstop solution for necessary regulatory action within a reasonable period of time, or that the Responsible Transmission Owner, Other Developer, or Transmission Owner has been unable to obtain the approvals or property rights necessary under applicable law to construct the project, the ISO shall submit a report to the Commission for its consideration and determination of whether any action is appropriate under federal law.
31.2.8.2.3The ISO will immediately notify the Responsible Transmission Owner and will state in the CRP if it determines that the regulated backstop solution is no longer needed and should be halted because either: (i) the ISO has determined that there are sufficient market-based solutions to ensure that the identified Reliability Need is met by the need date, or (ii) the ISO has triggered an alternative regulated transmission solution that the ISO selected in the CRP as the more efficient or cost effective transmission solution and the Other Developer or Transmission Owner proposing this alternative regulated transmission solution has both satisfied the requirements of Section 31.2.8.1.5 and received its Article VII certification.
If a regulated backstop solution is halted by the ISO, all of the costs incurred and commitments made by the Responsible Transmission Owner up to that point, including reasonable and necessary expenses incurred to implement an orderly termination of the project, will be recoverable by the Responsible Transmission Owner under the cost recovery mechanism in Rate Schedule 10 of this tariff regardless of the nature of the solution.
31.2.8.2.4The ISO will also immediately notify the Other Developer or Transmission Owner of an alternative regulated transmission project that the ISO has selected as the more efficient or cost effective solution and triggered under Sections 31.2.8.1.3 or 31.2.8.1.4 if the ISO determines that the regulated transmission solution is no longer needed and should be halted because the ISO has determined that there are sufficient market-based solutions to ensure that the identified Reliability Need is met by the need date. If a selected regulated transmission solution is triggered and then halted by the ISO, all of the costs incurred and commitments made by the Other Developer or Transmission Owner up to that point, including reasonable and necessary expenses incurred to implement an orderly termination of the project, will be recoverable by the Other Developer or Transmission Owner under the cost recovery mechanism in Rate Schedule 10 of this tariff.
31.2.8.2.5Once the Responsible Transmission Owner receives state regulatory approval of the regulated backstop solution, or, if state regulatory approval is not required, once the Responsible Transmission Owner receives necessary regulatory approval, the entry of a market-based solution or an alternative regulated transmission solution will not result in the halting by the ISO of the regulated backstop solution pursuant Section 31.2.8.2.3. Similarly, once the Other Developer or Transmission Owner receives its state regulatory approval or any other necessary regulatory approval of its triggered alternative regulated transmission solution, the entry of a market-based solution will not result in the halting by the ISO of the regulated transmission solution.
31.2.8.2.6The ISO is not required to review market-based solutions to determine whether they will meet the identified Reliability Need by the need date after the triggered alternative regulated transmission solution or the regulated backstop solution has received federal and state regulatory approval, unless a federal or state regulatory agency requests the ISO to conduct such a review. The ISO will report the results of its review to the federal or state regulatory agency, with copies to the Responsible Transmission Owner, Other Developer, or Transmission Owner.
31.2.8.2.7If the appropriate federal, state or local agency(ies) does not approve a necessary authorization for the regulated backstop solution or a triggered alternative regulated transmission solution, all of the necessary and reasonable costs incurred and commitments made up to the final federal, state or local regulatory decision, including reasonable and necessary expenses incurred to implement an orderly termination of the project, will be recoverable by the Responsible Transmission Owner, Other Developer, or Transmission Owner under the ISO cost recovery mechanism in Rate Schedule 10 of the ISO OATT regardless of the nature of the solution.
31.2.8.2.8If a necessary federal, state or local authorization for a triggered alternative regulated transmission solution or a regulated backstop solution is withdrawn, all expenditures and commitments made up to that point including reasonable and necessary expenses incurred to implement an orderly termination of the project, will be recoverable under the ISO cost recovery mechanism in Rate Schedule 10 of the ISO OATT by the Responsible Transmission Owner, Other Developer, or Transmission Owner regardless of the nature of the solution.
31.2.8.2.9If a material modification to the regulated backstop solution or the alternative regulated transmission solution is proposed by any federal, state or local agency, the Responsible Transmission Owner, Other Developer, or Transmission Owner will request the ISO to conduct a supplemental reliability review. If the ISO identifies any reliability deficiency in the modified solution, the ISO will so advise the Responsible Transmission Owner, Other Developer, or Transmission Owner and the appropriate federal, state or local regulatory agency(ies).
31.2.8.3.1The ISO will apply the criteria in this Section 31.2.8.3 for determining the cutoff date for a determination that a market-based solution will not be available to meet a Reliability Need by the need date.
31.2.8.3.2In the first instance, the ISO shall employ its procedures for monitoring the viability of a market-based solution to determine when it may no longer be viable. Under the conditions where a market-based solution is proceeding after the Trigger Date for the relevant regulated solution, it becomes even more critical for the ISO to conduct a continued analysis of the viability of such market-based solutions.
31.2.8.3.3The Developer of such a market-based solution shall submit updated information to the ISO twice during each reliability planning process cycle, first during the input phase of the RNA, and again during the solutions phase during the period allowed for the solicitation for market-based and regulated solutions. If no solutions are requested in a particular year, then the second update will be provided during the ISO’s analysis of whether existing solutions continue to meet identified Reliability Needs. The updated information of the project status shall include: status of final permits, status of major equipment, current status of construction schedule, estimated in-service date, any potential impediments to completion by the Target Year, and any other information requested by the ISO.
31.2.8.3.4The Developer shall immediately report to the ISO when it has any indication of a material change in the project status or that the project in-service date may slip beyond the Target Year. A material change shall include, but not be limited to, a change in the financial viability of the Developer, a change in siting status, or a change in a major element of the project development.
31.2.8.3.5Based upon the above information, the ISO will perform an independent review of the development status of the market-based solution to determine whether it remains viable to meet the identified Reliability Need by the need date. If the ISO, at any time, learns of a material change in the project status of a market-based solution, it may, at that time, make a determination as to the continued viability of such project.
31.2.8.3.6The ISO, prior to making a determination about the viability of a specific proposed solution, will communicate its intended determination to the project Developer along with the basis for its intended determination. The ISO shall provide the Developer a reasonable period (not more than 2 weeks) to respond to the ISO’s intended determination, including an opportunity to provide additional information to the ISO to support the continued viability of the proposed solution.
31.2.8.3.7If the ISO determines that a market-based solution that is needed to meet an identified Reliability Need is no longer viable, it will request that a regulated solution proceed or seek other measures including, but not limited to, a Gap Solution, to ensure the reliability of the system.
31.2.8.3.8If the ISO determines that the market-based solution is still viable, but that its in-service date is likely to slip beyond the Target Year, the ISO may, if needed, request the Responsible Transmission Owner to prepare a Gap Solution in accordance with the provisions of Section 31.2.10 of this Attachment Y.
Upon a determination by the ISO under Section 31.2.8 that a regulated solution should proceed, the Responsible Transmission Owner, Other Developer, or Transmission Owner will make a presentation to the ESPWG that will provide a description of the regulated solution. The presentation will include a non-binding preliminary cost estimate of that regulated solution; provided, however, that the Responsible Transmission Owner, Other Developer or Transmission Owner shall be entitled to full recovery of all reasonably incurred costs as described in Rate Schedule 10 of the ISO OATT. The ISO and stakeholders through this process will have the opportunity to review and discuss the scope of the projects and their associated non-binding preliminary cost estimates prior to implementation.
31.2.10.1If the ISO determines that neither market-based proposals nor regulated proposals can satisfy the Reliability Needs by the need date, the ISO will set forth its determination that a Gap Solution is necessary in the CRP. The ISO will also request the Responsible Transmission Owner to seek a Gap Solution. Gap Solutions may include generation, transmission, or demand side resources.
31.2.10.2If there is an imminent threat to the reliability of the New York State Power System, the ISO Board, after consultation with the NYDPS, may request the appropriate Transmission Owner or Transmission Owners to propose a Gap Solution outside of the normal planning cycle.
31.2.10.3Upon the ISO’s determination of the need for a Gap Solution, pursuant to Sections 31.2.10.1 or 31.2.10.2 above, the Responsible Transmission Owner will propose such a solution as soon as reasonably possible, for consideration by the ISO and NYDPS.
31.2.10.4Any party may submit an alternative Gap Solution proposal to the ISO and the NYDPS for their consideration. The ISO shall evaluate all Gap Solution proposals to determine whether they will meet the Reliability Need or imminent threat. The ISO will also evaluate, as an alternative Gap Solution proposal, any Generator in a Mothball Outage or an ICAP Ineligible Forced Outage to determine whether its return to service would meet the Reliability Need or imminent threat; provided, however, that the Mothball Outage began on or after the effective date of Section 5.18 of the Services Tariff and the ICAP Ineligible Forced Outage followed a Forced Outage that began after the effective date of Section 5.18 of the Services Tariff. The ISO will report the results of its evaluation to the party making the proposal, or to the Generator when evaluating its return to service, as well as to the NYDPS and/or other appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies) for consideration in their review of the proposals. The appropriate governmental agency(ies) and/or authority(ies) with jurisdiction over the implementation or siting of Gap Solutions will determine whether the Gap Solution or an alternative Gap Solution will be implemented to address the identified Reliability Need. When the return to service of a Generator in a Mothball Outage or an ICAP Ineligible Forced Outage has been selected as either the Gap Solution or to resolve a reliability issue arising on a non-New York State Bulk Power Transmission Facility during its outage, the compensation and return to service procedures set forth in Section 5.18.4 of the Services Tariff shall apply.
31.2.10.5Gap Solution proposals submitted under Sections 31.2.10.3 and 31.2.10.4 shall be designed to be temporary solutions and to strive to be compatible with permanent market-based proposals.
31.2.10.6A permanent regulated solution, if appropriate, may proceed in parallel with a Gap Solution.
31.2.11.1The term “Confidential Information” shall include all types of solutions to Reliability Needs that are submitted to the ISO as a response to Reliability Needs identified in any RNA issued by the ISO as part of the reliability planning process if the Developer of that solution designates such reliability solutions as “Confidential Information.”
31.2.11.2For regulated backstop solutions and plans submitted by the Responsible Transmission Owner in response to the findings of the RNA, the ISO shall maintain the confidentiality of same until the ISO and the Responsible Transmission Owner have agreed that the Responsible Transmission Owner has submitted viable and sufficient regulated backstop solutions and plans to meet the Reliability Needs identified in an RNA and the Responsible Transmission Owner consents to the ISO’s inclusion of the proposed solution in the CRP. Thereafter, the ISO shall disclose the regulated backstop solutions and plans to the Market Participants; however, any preliminary cost estimates that may have been provided to the ISO shall not be disclosed.
31.2.11.3For an alternative regulated response, the ISO shall determine, after consulting with the Developer thereof, whether the response would meet part or all of the Reliability Needs identified in an RNA, whether the response is viable and sufficient to meet all or part of the Reliability Need, and the Developer consents to the ISO’s inclusion of the proposed solution in the CRP. Thereafter, the ISO disclose the alternative regulated response to the Market Participants and other interested parties; however, any preliminary cost estimates that may have been provided to the ISO shall not be disclosed.
31.2.11.4For a market-based response, the ISO shall maintain the confidentiality of same during the reliability planning process and in the CRP, except for the following information which may be disclosed by the ISO: (i) the type of resource proposed (e.g., generation, transmission, demand side); (ii) the size of the resource expressed in megawatts of equivalent load that would be served by that resource; (iii) the subzone in which the resource would interconnect or otherwise be located; and (iv) the proposed in-service date of the resource.
31.2.11.5In the event that the Developer of a market-based response has made a public announcement of its project or has submitted a proposal for interconnection with the ISO, the ISO shall disclose the identity of the market-based Developer and the specific project during the reliability planning process and in the CRP.
31.2.12.1The ISO will monitor and report on the status of market-based solutions to ensure their continued viability to meet Reliability Needs by the need date in the CRP. The ISO shall assess the continued viability of such projects using the following criteria:
31.2.12.1.1Between three and five years before the Trigger Date for a regulated solution, the ISO will use a screening analysis to verify the feasibility of the proposed market-based solution (this analysis will not require final permit approvals or final contract documents).
31.2.12.1.2Between one and two years before the Trigger Date for a regulated solution, the ISO will perform a more extensive review of the proposed market-based solution, including such elements as: status of the required interconnection studies, contract negotiations, permit applications, financing, and Site Control.
31.2.12.1.3Less than one year before the Trigger Date of a regulated solution, the ISO will perform a detailed review of the market-based solution’s status and schedule, including the status of: (1) final permits; (2) required interconnection studies; (3) the status of an interconnection agreement; (4) financing; (5) equipment; and (6) the implementation of construction schedules.
31.2.12.1.4If the ISO, following its analysis, determines that a proposed market-based solution is no longer viable to meet the Reliability Need, the proposed market-based solution will be removed from the list of potential market-based solutions.
31.2.12.2The ISO will monitor and report on the status of regulated solutions to ensure their continued viability to meet Reliability Needs by the need date in the CRP. The ISO shall assess the continued viability of such projects using the following criteria:
31.2.12.2.1Between three and five years before the Trigger Date for the regulated solution, the ISO will use a screening analysis to verify the feasibility of the regulated solution.
31.2.12.2.2Between one and two years before the Trigger Date for the regulated solution, the ISO will perform a more extensive review of the proposed regulated solution, including such elements as: the status of the required interconnection studies, contract negotiations, permit applications, financing, and Site Control.
31.2.12.2.3Less than one year before the Trigger Date for the regulated solution, the ISO will perform a detailed review of the regulated solution’s status, including the status of: (1) final permits; (2) required interconnection studies; (3) the status of an interconnection agreement; (4) financing; (5) equipment; and (6) the implementation of construction schedules.
31.2.12.2.4Prior to making a determination about the viability of a regulated solution, the ISO will communicate its intended determination to the project sponsor along with the basis for its intended determination, and will provide the sponsor a reasonable period (not more than two weeks) to respond to the ISO’s intended determination, including an opportunity to provide additional information to the ISO to support the continued viability of the proposed regulated solution. If the ISO, following its analysis, determines that a proposed regulated solution is no longer viable to meet the Reliability Need, the proposed regulated solution will be removed from the list of potential regulated solutions.
Effective Date: 11/1/2014 - Docket #: ER14-2518-000 - Page 1