Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures
Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2013)
Federal Register Volume 78, Number 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2013)
Rules and Regulations
Pages 73239-73354
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office www.gpo.gov
FR Doc No: 2013-28515
Page 73239
Vol. 78
Thursday,
No. 234
December 5, 2013
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
18 CFR Part 35
Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures; Final Rule
Page 73240
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 35
RM13-2-000; Order No. 792
Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) and pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA) to: Incorporate provisions that provide an Interconnection Customer with the option of requesting from the Transmission Provider a pre-application report providing existing information about system conditions at a possible Point of Interconnection; revise the 2 megawatt (MW) threshold for participation in the Fast Track Process included in section 2 of the pro forma SGIP; revise the customer options meeting and the supplemental review following failure of the Fast Track screens so that the supplemental review is performed at the discretion of the Interconnection Customer and includes minimum load and other screens to determine if a Small Generating Facility may be interconnected safely and reliably; revise the pro forma SGIP Facilities Study Agreement to allow the Interconnection Customer the opportunity to provide written comments to the Transmission Provider on the upgrades required for interconnection; revise the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA to specifically include energy storage devices; and clarify certain sections of the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA. The reforms should ensure interconnection time and costs for Interconnection Customers and Transmission Providers are just and reasonable and help remedy undue discrimination, while continuing to ensure safety and reliability.
DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leslie Kerr (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8540, Leslie.Kerr@ferc.gov.
Monica Taba (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6789, Monica.Taba@ferc.gov.
Christopher Kempley (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8442, Christopher.Kempley@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
145 FERC 61,159
Before Commissioners: Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark.
Final Rule
(Issued November 22, 2013)
Paragraph Nos.
-
Introduction...................................... 1
-
Background....................................... 4
-
Order No. 2006................................ 4
-
Solar Energy Industries Association Petition 10
and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking...........
-
-
Need for Reform................................. 15
-
Commission Proposal........................... 15
-
Comments...................................... 16
-
Commission Determination...................... 21
-
-
Proposed Reforms................................. 28
-
Pre-Application Report........................ 28
-
Commission Proposal....................... 28
-
Need for a Pre-Application Report......... 31
-
Comments.............................. 31
-
Commission Determination.............. 37
-
-
Pre-Application Report Fee................ 41
-
Comments.............................. 41
-
Commission Determination.............. 45
-
-
Pre-Application Report Timeline........... 47
-
Comments.............................. 47
-
Commission Determination.............. 51
-
-
Pre-application Report Request Form....... 53
-
Comments.............................. 53
-
Commission Determination.............. 56
-
-
Readily Available Information............. 57
-
Comments.............................. 57
-
Commission Determination.............. 63
-
-
Other Issues.............................. 65
-
Comments.............................. 65
-
Commission Determination.............. 74
-
-
-
Threshold for Participation in the Fast Track 83
Process.........................................
-
Commission Proposal....................... 83
-
Comments.................................. 84
-
Commission Determination.................. 102
-
-
Fast Track Customer Options Meeting and 112
Supplemental Review.............................
-
Commission Proposal....................... 112
-
General Comments on the Customer Options 114
Meeting and the Supplemental Review.........
-
Comments.............................. 114
-
Commission Determination.............. 118
-
-
Minimum Load Screen (SGIP Section 2.4.4.1) 119
-
Comments.............................. 119
Page 73241
-
Commission Determination.............. 142
-
-
Voltage and Power Quality Screen and 150
Safety and Reliability Screen (SGIP Sections
2.4.4.2 and 2.4.4.3)........................
-
Comments.............................. 150
-
Commission Determination.............. 157
-
-
Supplemental Review Screen Order (SGIP 163
Section 2.4.2)..............................
-
Comments.............................. 163
-
Commission Determination.............. 165
-
-
Supplemental Review Fee (SGIP Sections 166
2.4.1 and 2.4.3)............................
-
Comments.............................. 166
-
Commission Determination.............. 171
-
-
Process Following Completion of the 175
Customer Options Meeting and the
Supplemental Review (SGIP Sections 2.3.1,
2.4.4 and 2.4.5)............................
-
Comments.............................. 175
-
Commission Determination.............. 182
-
-
-
Review of Required Upgrades................... 190
-
Commission Proposal....................... 190
-
Comments.................................. 191
-
Commission Determination.................. 204
-
-
Revision to SGIA Section 1.5.4 Regarding Over 211
and Under-Frequency Events......................
-
Commission Proposal....................... 211
-
Comments.................................. 212
-
Commission Determination.................. 221
-
-
Interconnection of Storage Devices............ 223
-
Commission Proposal....................... 223
-
Comments.................................. 224
-
Commission Determination.................. 228
-
-
Other Issues.................................. 233
-
Network Resource Interconnection Service.. 233
-
Commission Proposal................... 233
-
Comments.............................. 234
-
Commission Determination.............. 236
-
-
Hosting Capacity.......................... 238
-
Comments.............................. 238
-
Commission Determination.............. 244
-
-
Jurisdiction.............................. 245
-
Comments.............................. 245
-
Commission Determination.............. 247
-
-
Miscellaneous............................. 250
-
Commission Proposal................... 250
-
Comments.............................. 251
-
Commission Determination.............. 258
-
-
-
-
Compliance........................................ 263
-
Commission Proposal........................... 263
-
Comments...................................... 266
-
Commission Determination...................... 270
-
-
Information Collection Statement................. 278
-
Environmental Analysis.......................... 283
-
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis............ 284
-
Document Availability............................ 286
-
Effective Date and Congressional Notification..... 289
Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Appendix B: Flow Chart for Interconnecting a
Certified Small Generating Facility Using the ``Fast
Track Process''
Appendix C: Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIP
Appendix D: Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIA
-
Introduction
-
In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) and pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA) to: (1) Incorporate provisions that provide an Interconnection Customer with the option of requesting from the Transmission Provider a pre-application report providing existing information about system conditions at a possible Point of Interconnection; (2) revise the 2 megawatt (MW) threshold for participation in the Fast Track Process included in section 2 of the pro forma SGIP; (3) revise the customer options meeting and the supplemental review following failure of the Fast Track screens so that the supplemental review is performed at the discretion of the Interconnection Customer and includes minimum load and other screens to determine if a Small Generating Facility may be interconnected safely and reliably; (4) revise the pro forma SGIP Facilities Study Agreement to allow the Interconnection Customer the opportunity to provide written comments to the Transmission Provider on the upgrades required for interconnection; (5) revise the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA to specifically include energy storage devices; and (6) clarify certain sections of the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA. The reforms should ensure interconnection time and costs for Interconnection Customers and Transmission Providers are just and reasonable and help remedy undue discrimination, while continuing to ensure safety and reliability.
Page 73242
-
Originally adopted in Order No. 2006,\1\ the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA establish the terms and conditions under which public utilities \2\ must provide interconnection service to Small Generating Facilities \3\ of no more than 20 MW. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission finds it necessary under section 206 of the Federal Power Act \4\ (FPA) to revise the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA to ensure that the rates, terms and conditions under which public utilities provide interconnection service to Small Generating Facilities remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. The Commission believes that taking these actions at this time is in the public interest. The Commission routinely evaluates the effectiveness of its regulations and policies in light of changing industry conditions to determine if reforms are necessary to satisfy its statutory obligation of ensuring just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory rates, terms and conditions of service.\5\ As concerns generator interconnection, regions of the country are experiencing significant penetrations of small generation and increasing requests for small generator interconnection. In Order No. 2006, the Commission anticipated the need to revisit its small generator interconnection regulations as the industry evolves, requesting stakeholders to convene informal meetings ``to consider and recommend consensus proposals for changes in the Commission's rules for small generator interconnection.'' \6\ The time is ripe to promulgate such changes in light of the increased penetration of small generator resources, the continued focus by states and others on the development of distributed resources,\7\ and the need for this Commission to have its regulations and policies ensure just and reasonable rates, terms and conditions of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,180, order on reh 'g, Order No. 2006-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,196 (2005), order on clarification, Order No. 2006-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,221 (2006).
\2\ For purposes of this Final Rule, a public utility is a utility that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce, as defined by the FPA. See 16 U.S.C. 824(e) (2012). A non-public utility that seeks voluntary compliance with the reciprocity condition of an Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) may satisfy that condition by filing an OATT, which includes the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA.
\3\ Capitalized terms used in this Final Rule have the meanings specified in the Glossaries of Terms or the text of the pro forma SGIP or SGIA. A Small Generating Facility is the device for which the Interconnection Customer has requested interconnection. The owner of the Small Generating Facility is the Interconnection Customer. The utility entity with which the Small Generating Facility is interconnecting is the Transmission Provider.
\4\ 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012).
\5\ See Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, Docket No. AD12-6-000, available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/retro-analysis/ferc-eo-13579.pdf. See also Integration of Variable Energy Resources, Order No. 764, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,331 (2012).
\6\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,180 at P 118.
\7\ Distributed resources are sources of electric power that are not directly connected to a bulk power transmission system. Distributed resources include both generators and energy storage technologies. (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 1547 for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems, p. 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The reforms we adopt largely track the proposals set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in this proceeding on January 17, 2013,\8\ with modifications to address suggestions and concerns raised in comments. Among other things, the Commission has revised aspects of the pre-application report requirement, the Fast Track eligibility threshold, and the supplemental review requirement to balance the interests of the Interconnection Customer with those of the Transmission Provider. With these modifications, the Commission concludes that the package of reforms adopted in this Final Rule will reduce the time and cost to process small generator interconnection requests for Interconnection Customers and Transmission Providers, maintain reliability, increase energy supply, and remove barriers to the development of new energy resources. This fulfills our statutory obligation to ensure that rates, terms and conditions for Commission-
jurisdictional services are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory, as sections 205 and 206 of the FPA require.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, 78 FR 7524 (Feb. 1, 2013) (NOPR), FERC Stats. & Regs. 32,697 (2013).
\9\ 16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
Background
-
Order No. 2006
-
In Order No. 2006, the Commission established a pro forma SGIP and SGIA for the interconnection of generation resources no larger than 20 MW, continuing the process begun in Order No. 2003 \10\ of standardizing the terms and conditions of Commission-jurisdictional interconnection service. The Commission adopted the pro forma SGIA and the pro forma SGIP to respond to business and technology changes in the electric industry. Where the electric industry was once primarily the domain of vertically integrated utilities generating power at large centralized plants, the Commission noted in Order No. 2006 that advances in technology had created a burgeoning market for small power plants that may offer economic, reliability or environmental benefits.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,146 (2003), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,160, order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,171 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,190 (2005), aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1230 (2008).
\11\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,180 at P 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The pro forma SGIP describes how an Interconnection Customer's interconnection request (application) should be evaluated, and includes three alternative procedures for evaluating an interconnection request. These procedures include the Study Process, which can be used by any generating facility with a capacity no larger than 20 MW, and two procedures that use certain technical screens to quickly identify any safety or reliability issues associated with proposed interconnections: (1) The Fast Track Process for certified \12\ Small Generating Facilities no larger than 2 MW; and (2) the 10 kilowatt (kW) Inverter Process for certified inverter-based \13\ Small Generating Facilities no larger than 10 kW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Attachments 3 and 4 of the pro forma SGIP, which specify the codes, standards, and certification requirements that Small Generating Facilities must meet. Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,180.
\13\ An inverter is a device that converts the direct current (DC) voltage and current of a DC generator to alternating voltage and current. For example, the output of a solar panel is DC. The solar panel's output must be converted by an inverter to alternating current (AC) before it can be interconnected with a utility's AC electric system. Such inverters, particularly newer inverters, often incorporate additional power electronics that can provide other safety or power quality functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The Study Process in section 3 of the pro forma SGIP, which can be used by any generating facility with a capacity no larger than 20 MW, is used to evaluate small generator interconnection requests that do not qualify for either the Fast Track Process or the 10 kW Inverter Process. The Study Process is similar to the process under the Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP) set forth in Order No. 2003. The Study Process normally consists of a scoping meeting, a feasibility study, a system impact study, and a facilities study. These studies identify any adverse system impacts \14\ that must be
Page 73243
addressed before the Small Generating Facility may be interconnected as well as any equipment modifications that may be required to accommodate the interconnection. Once the Interconnection Customer agrees to fund any needed upgrades, an SGIA is executed that, among other things, formalizes responsibility for construction and payment for interconnection facilities and upgrades.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ An adverse system impact means that technical or operational limits on conductors or equipment are exceeded under the interconnection, which may compromise the safety or reliability of the electric system.
\15\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,180 at P 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The Fast Track Process eliminates the scoping meeting and three interconnection studies and instead uses technical screens to quickly identify reliability or safety issues. If the proposed interconnection passes the screens, the Transmission Provider offers the Interconnection Customer an SGIA without further study. If the proposed interconnection fails the screens, but the Transmission Provider nevertheless determines that the Small Generating Facility may be interconnected without affecting safety and reliability, the Transmission Provider provides the Interconnection Customer with an SGIA. If the Transmission Provider does not or cannot determine that the Small Generating Facility may be interconnected without affecting safety and reliability, the Transmission Provider offers the Interconnection Customer the opportunity to attend a customer options meeting to discuss how to proceed. In that meeting, the Transmission Provider must: (1) Offer to perform facility modifications or minor modifications to the Transmission Provider's system (e.g., changing meters, fuses, relay settings) that would allow interconnection and provide a non-binding good faith estimate of the cost to make such modifications; (2) offer to perform a supplemental review if the Transmission Provider concludes that the supplemental review might determine that the Small Generating Facility could continue to qualify for interconnection pursuant to the Fast Track Process, where such supplemental review is paid for by the Interconnection Customer, and provide a non-binding good faith estimate of the cost of that review; \16\ or (3) obtain the Interconnection Customer's agreement to continue evaluating the interconnection request under the Study Process. If the Transmission Provider determines in the supplemental review that the Small Generating Facility can be interconnected safely and reliably and the Interconnection Customer agrees to pay for any upgrades identified in the supplemental review, the Transmission Provider and the Interconnection Customer execute an SGIA. If, after the supplemental review, the Transmission Provider still is unable to determine that the proposed interconnection would not degrade the safety and reliability of its electric system, the interconnection request is evaluated using the Study Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The purpose of the supplemental review is to determine if the Small Generating Facility can be interconnected safely and reliably, however, the pro forma SGIP does not include details regarding how the Transmission Provider is to perform the supplemental review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The 10 kW Inverter Process is available for the interconnection of certified inverter-based generators no larger than 10 kW. The 10 kW Inverter Process includes a simplified application form, interconnection procedures, and a brief set of terms and conditions (rather than a separate interconnection agreement). The 10 kW Inverter Process uses the same technical screens as the Fast Track Process. If the results of the analysis using the technical screens indicate that the generator can be interconnected safely and reliably, the interconnection application is approved. To simplify the 10 kW Inverter Process, the Interconnection Customer agrees to the terms and conditions of the interconnection at the time the interconnection request is made.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,180 at P 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The ten technical screens used in the Fast Track and 10 kW Inverter Processes are included in section 2.2.1 of the pro forma SGIP. The screen in section 2.2.1.2 of the pro forma SGIP, which is referred to in this Final Rule as the 15 Percent Screen, will be discussed at some length below:
For interconnection of a proposed Small Generating Facility to a radial distribution circuit, the aggregated generation, including the proposed Small Generating Facility, on the circuit shall not exceed 15 percent of the line section annual peak load as most recently measured at the substation. A line section is that portion of a Transmission Provider's electric system connected to a customer bounded by automatic sectionalizing devices or the end of the distribution line.
-
-
Solar Energy Industries Association Petition and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
-
On February 16, 2012, pursuant to sections 205 and 206 of the FPA and Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,\18\ and noting that the Commission encouraged stakeholders to submit proposed revisions to the regulations set forth in Order No. 2006, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) filed a Petition to Initiate Rulemaking (Petition) requesting that the Commission revise the pro forma SGIA and SGIP set forth in Order No. 2006.\19\ In its Petition, SEIA asserted that the pro forma SGIP and SGIA as applied to small solar generation are no longer just and reasonable, have become unduly discriminatory, and present unreasonable barriers to market entry.\20\ SEIA noted that its Petition applies exclusively to solar electric generation due to its unique characteristics.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 18 CFR 385.207 (2013).
\19\ SEIA Petition at 4 (citing Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,180 at P 118).
\20\ Id. at 12.
\21\ Id. at 4 (explaining that solar generation occurs only during daylight hours when peak load typically occurs, and solar photovoltaic technology utilizes inverters with built-in functions that protect the safety and reliability of the electric system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
On February 28, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of Petition for Rulemaking in Docket No. RM12-10-000, seeking public comment on SEIA's Petition. The Commission received a number of comments, protests, and answers in response.
-
On July 17, 2012, the Commission convened a technical conference in Docket Nos. RM12-10-000 and AD12-17-000 in order to discuss issues related to SEIA's Petition. The Commission received nine post-technical conference comments, including clarifying comments from SEIA.
-
On January 17, 2013, the Commission issued the NOPR in this proceeding, proposing a package of reforms to the pro forma SGIA and the pro forma SGIP.\22\ Commission staff held a workshop on March 27, 2013, at which stakeholders discussed the NOPR proposals. In addition to the Commission staff workshop, some stakeholders formed a stakeholder working group (SWG) to develop revisions to the NOPR proposals.\23\ Comments on the NOPR as well as comments generated by the Commission staff workshop were due June 3, 2013. The Commission received thirty-three timely comments, four comments out of time and two reply comments out of time.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. 32,697. While SEIA's Petition was specific to small solar generation, the NOPR included all Small Generating Facilities.
\23\ The SWG included EEI, NRECA, APPA, IREC, SEIA, NREL, and other stakeholders.
\24\ See Appendix A, List of Short Names of Commenters on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The stakeholders that participated in the SWG indicated in their comments
Page 73244
that the SWG came to agreement on certain revisions to the proposals for the pre-application report and the threshold for participation in the Fast Track Process. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Edison Electric Institute and the American Public Power Association (NRECA, EEI & APPA), the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC), SEIA, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) submitted SWG proposed revisions with their comments.
-
-
-
Need for Reform
-
Commission Proposal
-
In light of changes in the energy industry since the issuance of Order No. 2006, and based on the comments submitted in response to the SEIA Petition and the July 17, 2012 Technical Conference, the Commission preliminarily found that proposed reforms were needed to ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions of interconnection service for Small Generating Facilities are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.\25\ In particular, the Commission cited the growth in grid-connected solar photovoltaic (PV) generation since the issuance of Order No. 2006 and the growth in small generator interconnection requests driven by state renewable portfolio standards as the impetus for re-examining the pro forma SGIP.\26\ The Commission reasoned that if generation penetration levels are causing projects to fail the 15 Percent Screen, the screen should be re-examined to determine if revisions could be made to allow projects to continue to participate in the less costly and time-consuming Fast Track Process while maintaining the safety and reliability of the Transmission Provider's system.\27\ Further, the Commission noted that in addition to the proposed reforms applying to Commission-jurisdictional interconnections, the Commission intended that the proposed reforms serve as a model for state interconnection rules.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. 32,697 at P 18.
\26\ Id. P 20.
\27\ Id. P 22.
\28\ Id. P 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
Comments
-
Many commenters support the Commission's proposed reforms.\29\ Commenters state that the recent rapid growth in small generators and expected significant growth in coming years, driven by public policies such as state renewable portfolio standards, requires revising the SGIP and SGIA.\30\ For example, Public Interest Organizations \31\ note that state solar initiatives are resulting in penetrations of distributed generation in excess of 15 percent on some line sections \32\ and that the public policies driving the increase in Small Generating Facilities, together with lower prices for solar panels, smart grid enhancements and other factors, have ``given rise to barriers like lengthy interconnection queues and a lack of transparency about system conditions.'' \33\ Public Interest Organizations believe that these facts clearly demonstrate the need to reconsider the SGIP and to enact the proposed reforms to reduce the time and cost of processing the increasing volume of distributed generation projects.\34\ IREC and SEIA similarly assert that reforming the SGIP and SGIA is essential to support the continued growth of the wholesale market for solar and other distributed resources.\35\ Public Interest Organizations go on to state that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, e.g., American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) at 2-3; Clean Coalition at 2; ClearEdge Power (CEP) at 1-2; ComRent International (ComRent) at 1; Community Renewable Energy Association (CREA) at 1-2; Office of the People's Counsel for the District of Columbia (DCOPC) at 1; Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) at 1; ELCON at 3; Electricity Storage Association (ESA) at 3; Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) at 1-2; Max Hensley at 1-2; Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) at 4; IREC at 2; NRG at 2; Public Interest Organizations at 6-9; SEIA at 1; Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) at 3, 8-9; and Lucia Villaran at 1-2.
\30\ IREC at 3 (citing Solar Electric Power Association, 2012 SEPA Utility Solar Rankings Executive Summary 2 (2013)), available at http://www.solarelectricpower.org/media/279520/sepa-top-10-executive-summary_final-v2.pdf); AWEA at 3; DCOPC at 3-4; ELCON at 5; NRG at 2; Public Interest Organizations at 3-4, 6-9; and UCS at 9.
\31\ The Center for Rural Affairs, Climate + Energy Project, Conservation Law Foundation, Energy Future Coalition, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environment Northeast, Fresh Energy, Great Plains Institute, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Coalition, Pace Energy and Climate Center, Piedmont Environmental Council, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Southern Environmental Law Center, Sustainable FERC Project, Union of Concerned Scientists, Utah Clean Energy, Western Grid Group, Western Resource Advocates, The Wilderness Society and Wind on the Wires are referred to collectively as Public Interest Organizations in this Final Rule.
\32\ Public Interest Organizations at 4-5.
\33\ Id. at 1.
\34\ Id. at 5-9.
\35\ IREC at 4 and SEIA at 1.
The increased volume of applications along with the higher penetration levels that will result from these policy changes necessitate updating SGIP to enable providers to continue processing applications efficiently and without imposing unnecessary financial or regulatory hurdles to distributed generation development. Since in some instances existing SGIP act as regulatory barriers to further reliable deployment of distributed generation resources, the SGIP have become unduly discriminatory and can no longer be assumed to be just and reasonable.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Public Interest Organizations at 5.
-
CREA and ESA support the effort to reform the SGIP and assert that the current system results in delays and unnecessarily increases project costs. AWEA and ELCON \37\ similarly state that the proposed reforms ensure that small generator interconnection requests are processed in a just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory manner.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The Electricity Consumers Resource Council, American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, CHP Association and Council of Industrial Boiler Owners are collectively referred to as ELCON in this Final Rule.
\38\ AWEA at 2 and ELCON at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
International Transmission Company (ITC) supports streamlining the SGIP in ways that maintain safety and reliability.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ITC at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Independent System Operators (ISO) and Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) generally support the NOPR objectives,\40\ but request, in recognition of regional differences and existing ISO/RTO interconnection processes, that they be allowed to meet those objectives under either the independent entity variation standard \41\ or the regional differences standard.\42\ Similarly, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) supports the Commission's efforts to update the pro forma SGIP and SGIA, but requests flexibility in the revisions to account for regional differences.\43\ NARUC also states that
Page 73245
the reforms should not impinge on successful state interconnection procedures.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ CAISO at 1, 9; IRC at 1; ISO-NE at 8, 15; MISO at 4-5; NYISO & NYTO at 2; and PJM at 1, 3-4.
\41\ CAISO at 2 and 7 and NYISO & NYTO at 4, 24-25. The independent entity variation is a balanced approach that provides RTOs and ISOs greater flexibility to customize their interconnection procedures and agreements to accommodate regional needs. It recognizes that an RTO or ISO has differing operating characteristics depending on its size and location and is less likely to act in an unduly discriminatory manner than a Transmission Provider that is also a market participant. See Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,146 at PP 822-827.
\42\ ISO-NE at 2, 5-7; PJM at 4; and IRC at 1, 3-6. A regional differences standard would allow variations based on regional differences resulting from regional interconnection standards or reliability requirements. For non-independent Transmission Providers, Order No. 2006 recognizes regional reliability variations based on established regional reliability requirements when supported by reference to established regional reliability requirements and including the text of the reliability requirement. See Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,180 at P 546.
\43\ NARUC at 10.
\44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NRECA, EEI & APPA believe that the pro forma SGIP and SGIA adopted in Order No. 2006 continue to be just and reasonable and strike a fair balance between the competing goals of uniformity and flexibility while ensuring safety and reliability.\45\ NRECA, EEI & APPA further assert that the current record cannot support a finding that existing Order No. 2006 procedures are unjust, unreasonable or unduly preferential, nor can the record support a finding that the Commission's proposals are just and reasonable, not unduly preferential, or would not impair reliability or safety.\46\ Specifically, NRECA, EEI & APPA contend that before modifications to the Fast Track Process are considered, there must be evidence to suggest that the 15 Percent Screen no longer serves to adequately reduce interconnection costs and time compared to the full Study Process. They further argue that there also must be evidence showing that higher penetrations of generation can be safely and reliably accommodated without the need for the Study Process.\47\ They also believe, however, that the pro forma SGIP and SGIA can be revised to enable the growth of renewable energy while continuing to facilitate jurisdictional interconnections in a just and reasonable manner and to benefit consumers and other stakeholders.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 9.
\46\ Id. at 10.
\47\ Id. at 11.
\48\ Id. at 1, 10. Duquesne Light supports the comments submitted by NRECA, EEI & APPA. (Duquesne Light at 3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
Commission Determination
-
The Commission is persuaded to adopt its proposed revisions to the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA, as modified herein.\49\ Without these reforms, the continued growth in Small Generating Facilities could cause inefficient interconnection queue backlogs and require some Small Generating Facilities to undergo the more costly Study Process when they could be interconnected under the Fast Track Process safely and reliably. Costs resulting from such inefficiencies in the interconnection process would ultimately be borne by consumers. The record in this proceeding does not refute the nature of the changes now occurring and expected to continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ The Commission concludes that the revisions to the pro forma SGIP and pro forma SGIA adopted herein were reasonably foreseeable based on the NOPR, the March 2013 workshop and the comments received on the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
For example, approximately 3,300 MW of grid-connected PV capacity were installed in the U.S. in 2012,\50\ compared to 79 MW in 2005, the year Order No. 2006 was issued.\51\ The cumulative capacity of U.S. distributed PV is projected to double from mid-2013 to the end of 2015.\52\ Similarly, installed wind generation with a capacity of 20 MW or less has increased in the contiguous United States from 1,185 MW in 2005 to 2,961 MW in 2012.\53\ The growth in Small Generating Facilities is leading to an increase in small generator interconnection requests. In the NOPR, the Commission cited Commission filings that referenced higher volumes of small generator interconnection requests.\54\ In its comments, IREC cited an unprecedented level of small solar interconnections.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Sherwood, Larry, U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012 at 4, available at http://www.irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Solar-Report-Final-July-2013-1.pdf.
\51\ U.S. Solar Market Insight Report, 2012 Year in Review, Executive Summary Table 2.1, available at http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight-2012-year-in-review.
\52\ See Lacey, Stephen, Chart: 2/3rds of Global Solar PV Has Been Installed in the Last 2.5 Years, available at http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/chart-2-3rds-of-global-solar-pv-has-been-connected-in-the-last-2.5-years.
\53\ SNL Financial, Power Plant Summary (2013).
\54\ See, e.g., Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 133 FERC 61,223, at P 3 (2010) (stating that an increasing volume of small generator interconnection requests had created inefficiencies); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 135 FERC 61,094, at P 4 (2011) (stating that increased small generator interconnection requests resulted in a backlog of 170 requests over three years); PJM Interconnection, LLC, 139 FERC 61,079, at P 12 (2012) (stating that smaller projects comprised 66 percent of recent queue volume).
\55\ IREC at 3 (citing Becky Campbell & Mike Taylor, 2011 Solar Electric Power Association Utility Solar Rankings at 7 (May 2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
As noted by some commenters \56\ and as the Commission noted in the NOPR, state renewable portfolio standards are driving small generator interconnection requests.\57\ As of March 2013, 29 states and the District of Columbia had renewable portfolio standards, and an additional eight states had renewable portfolio goals.\58\ Some state renewable portfolio standards include increasing percentages of renewable energy resources over time, which will lead to increasing penetrations of these resources. Some states have also adopted goals and policies to promote distributed generation.\59\ Commenters also attribute the increase in PV to a decline in capital costs.\60\ Installed costs for distributed PV installations fell by approximately 12 percent from 2011 to 2012, and have fallen 33 percent since 2009.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Public Interest Organizations at 3-5; IREC at 2; UCS at 3; and DCOPC at 3.
\57\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. 32,697 at P 20.
\58\ See Dep't of Energy, IREC & North Carolina Solar Center, Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies (2013), available at http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/RPS_map.pdf.
\59\ See Dep't of Energy, IREC & North Carolina Solar Center, Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies with Solar/Distributed Generation Provisions (2013), available at http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/Solar_DG_RPS_map.pdf.
\60\ VSI at 1-2 and Public Interest Organizations at 1.
\61\ Sherwood, Larry, U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012 at 2, available at http://www.irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Solar-Report-Final-July-2013-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The needs of Small Generating Facility developers, however, must be balanced against the concerns of the Transmission Providers, and the Commission has taken these concerns into consideration in developing this Final Rule. For example, the Commission notes that this Final Rule does not modify the 15 Percent Screen or any of the existing Fast Track screens. Rather, the Commission modifies the optional supplemental review process following failure of any of the Fast Track screens to include three supplemental review screens. In regions of the country where penetration levels are not high enough to cause Interconnection Customers to fail the 15 Percent Screen, Transmission Providers will generally continue to evaluate the penetration level of generation based on the 15 Percent Screen. However, in regions of the country where the 15 Percent Screen is causing Interconnection Customers to fail the Fast Track screens, the revised supplemental review will offer an opportunity to continue to be evaluated under the Fast Track Process.
-
The Commission therefore finds that our actions in this Final Rule are consistent with the standards that the court set forth in National Fuel v. FERC \62\ and therefore disagrees with EEI, NRECA, and APPA that the existing record does not support the finding that the current SGIP and SGIA are unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory. In the terminology of National Fuel, we find that a theoretical threat exists and we show herein how this threat justifies the costs that this Final Rule would create.\63\ We conclude that, in light of the increasing small generator interconnection requests referenced in Commission filings \64\ and
Page 73246
in this proceeding,\65\ the state renewable portfolio standards driving these requests,\66\ and the growth in solar PV installations,\67\ the reforms adopted herein are necessary to correct operational practices that can unnecessarily limit, and increase the cost of,\68\ Commission-
jurisdictional interconnections under the SGIP and SGIA. The Commission believes that adopting the reforms in this Final Rule will reduce the time and cost to process small generator interconnection requests for Interconnection Customers and Transmission Providers alike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ 468 F.3d 831, 839-44 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (National Fuel).
\63\ Id. at 844.
\64\ See, e.g., Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 133 FERC 61,223, at P 3 (2010) (stating that an increasing volume of small generator interconnection requests had created inefficiencies); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 135 FERC 61,094, at P 4 (2011) (stating that increased small generator interconnection requests resulted in a backlog of 170 requests over three years); PJM Interconnection, LLC, 139 FERC 61,079, at P 12 (2012) (stating that smaller projects comprised 66 percent of recent queue volume).
\65\ IREC at 3, citing Becky Campbell & Mike Taylor, 2011 Solar Electric Power Association Utility Solar Rankings at 7 (May 2012).
\66\ As noted above, as of March 2013, 29 states and the District of Columbia had renewable portfolio standards, and an additional eight states had renewable portfolio goals. See supra P 0.
\67\ As noted above, approximately 3,300 MW of grid-connected PV capacity were installed in the U.S. in 2012 compared to 79 MW in 2005. Further, the cumulative capacity of U.S. distributed PV is projected to double from mid-2013 to the end of 2015. See supra P 0.
\68\ E.g., some of the reforms adopted herein are intended to increase the number of Small Generating Facilities that may be interconnected under the Fast Track Process rather than the Study Process. The cost to be evaluated under the pro forma SGIP Fast Track Process (without supplemental review) is $500. Under the pro forma SGIP Study Process, the Interconnection Customer must pay a deposit not to exceed $1,000 toward the cost of the feasibility study with its interconnection request and pay the actual cost of any required studies (normally a feasibility study, a system impact study, and a facilities study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Specifically, as discussed above, the Commission believes that the current SGIP and SGIA inhibit the continued growth in Small Generating Facilities and cause unnecessary costs to be passed on to consumers. We agree with commenters that assert that the proposed reforms are necessary to avoid delays and unnecessary project costs (e.g., under the SGIP originally adopted in Order No. 2006, generators that could be interconnected safely and reliably under the Fast Track Process are required to undergo the more costly and time-consuming Study Process).\69\ Hence, we conclude that such delays and increased project costs are likely without the reforms proposed herein and that this threat is significant enough to justify the reforms imposed by this Final Rule. The threat is not one that can be addressed adequately or efficiently through the adjudication of individual complaints.\70\ The remedy we adopt is justified sufficiently by the theoretical threat identified herein and based on the comments received, the identified theoretical threat represents a reasonable prediction of future market conditions.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See supra P 0.
\70\ Individual adjudications by their nature focus on discrete questions of a specific case. Rules setting forth general principles are necessary to ensure that adequate processes are in place.
\71\ See, e.g., Black Oak Energy, LLC v. FERC, Nos. 08-1386, 11-
1275, 12-1286, 2013 WL 3988709, at *8 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 6, 2013) (stating ``We defer to reasonable and cogent explanations of predictable economic outcomes, even in the absence of retrospective data''); Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. v. FERC, 616 F.3d 520, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FERC, 551 F.3d 1042, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Envtl. Action, Inc. v. FERC, 939 F.2d 1057, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (stating, ``It is within the scope of the agency's expertise to make . . . a prediction about the market it regulates, and a reasonable prediction deserves . . . deference notwithstanding that there might also be another reasonable view'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
As acknowledged in the NOPR, the need for implementation of the reforms may not be uniform across the country.\72\ The reforms adopted in this Final Rule will likely have a greater impact on Transmission Providers in areas with a significant penetration of distributed resources and a larger number of small generator interconnection requests.\73\
The Commission believes that this Final Rule balances the needs of Small Generating Facilities and public utility Transmission Providers, while providing flexibility to different regions of the country. Moreover, to further accommodate regional differences and in response to the comments submitted by RTOs and ISOs, the Commission is allowing independent Transmission Providers to comply with this Final Rule under the independent entity variation standard or the regional differences standard, consistent with the approach adopted in Order No. 2006.\74\ Finally, we affirm that it is not our intent in this Final Rule to interfere with state interconnection procedures and agreements in any way. Similar to our approach in Order No. 2006,\75\ our hope is that states may find this rule helpful in formulating or updating their own interconnection rules, but states are under no obligation to adopt the provisions of this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. 32,697 at P 24.
\73\ Id. at P 4.
\74\ See infra section V.
\75\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,380 at P 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
-
Proposed Reforms
-
Pre-Application Report
-
Commission Proposal
-
According to the reforms included in the NOPR, Transmission Providers would be required to provide Interconnection Customers the option to request a pre-application report that would contain readily available information about system conditions at a Point of Interconnection in order to help that customer select the best site for its Small Generating Facility. The Commission proposed the pre-
application report to promote transparency and efficiency in the interconnection process and to provide information to Interconnection Customers about system conditions at a particular Point of Interconnection.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. 32,697 at P 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To the extent available, the proposed pre-application report would include the following items:
-
Total capacity and available capacity of the facilities that serve the Point of Interconnection;
-
Existing and queued generation at the facilities likely serving the Point of Interconnection;
-
Voltage of the facilities that serve the Point of Interconnection;
-
Circuit distance between the proposed Point of Interconnection and the substation likely to serve the Point of Interconnection (Substation);
-
Number and rating of protective devices and number and type of voltage regulating devices between the proposed Point of Interconnection and the Substation;
-
Number of phases available at the proposed Point of Interconnection;
-
Limiting conductor ratings from the proposed Point of Interconnection to the Substation;
-
Peak and minimum load data; and
-
Existing or known constraints associated with the Point of Interconnection.
-
-
The Commission proposed a non-refundable $300 fee for the pre-
application report and required that the report be provided within 10 business days of the initial request.\77\ The Commission proposed that the pre-application report would only include information already available to the Transmission Provider.\78\ Additionally, the proposed revisions to the pro forma SGIP, which were attached to the NOPR, state that ``The pre-application report request does not obligate the Transmission Provider to conduct a
Page 73247
study or other analysis of the proposed generator in the event that data is not readily available.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Id. at P 28 and proposed pro forma SGIP at section 1.2.2.
\78\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. 32,697 at P 27.
\79\ Id., Appendix C, SGIP section 1.2.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Need for a Pre-Application Report
-
Comments
-
-
Many commenters support the concept of a pre-application report.\80\ The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) supports the pre-application report and states that it will increase transparency and efficiency, reduce costs, and provide necessary information to Interconnection Customers.\81\ Other commenters assert that the pre-application report is critical for developers to determine the best Points of Interconnection because it will eliminate some of the uncertainties involved in the interconnection process and thus reduce developer costs and schedule delays.\82\ FCHEA states that the pre-application report will alert a project developer to potential issues at a Point of Interconnection prior to making a significant financial commitment.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ NREL at 2; Clean Coalition at 3; CPUC at 4; CREA at 2; DCOPC at 4; Duke Energy at 3; ELCON at 4; FCHEA at 1; IECA at 4; LES at 1; NRECA, EEI & APPA at 6; and NRG at 5.
\81\ CPUC at 5.
\82\ CEP at 1; CREA at 2; DCOPC at 4; Duke Energy at 3; IREC at 9; NRG at 4; and Public Interest Organizations at 9.
\83\ FCHEA at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
A number of commenters state that the pre-application report will likely reduce the number of interconnection requests submitted to Transmission Providers because developers frequently submit multiple interconnection requests for a single project in an effort to determine the most advantageous Point of Interconnection.\84\ Similarly, IREC and SEIA contend that a pre-application report would benefit Transmission Providers by reducing the volume of interconnection requests that are either non-viable or difficult to accommodate.\85\ Finally, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) and SEIA state that the pre-application report will foster communication between developers and Transmission Providers and will improve the interconnection process.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ AWEA at 3-4; CREA at 2; IREC at 9; ITC at 8; and NRG at 5.
\85\ IREC at 9 and SEIA at 10.
\86\ Sandia at 2 and SEIA at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Several RTOs and ISOs,\87\ however, contend that they already offer various opportunities for Interconnection Customers to ask questions and request information that is similar to the information in the pre-application report. These commenters state that information related to the type, amount and location of interconnected and pending projects and studies is readily available by phone, on their Web sites, or through their Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) process.\88\ ISO New England (ISO-NE) asserts that there is no indication that the information it currently makes available to Interconnection Customers is insufficient.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ ISO-NE., MISO, PJM, and NYISO.
\88\ ISO-NE at 8; MISO at 5-6; NYISO & NYTO at 13-14; and PJM at 5.
\89\ ISO-NE at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) states that its existing procedures, including a pre-application meeting, may be more effective than the proposed pre-application report procedures.\90\ MISO asserts that a pre-application meeting achieves the same goals of transparency and data sharing without the cost and inefficient expenditure of resources that a pre-application report would require.\91\ MISO further asserts that requiring the Transmission Provider to contact the Transmission Owner to collect information may be inefficient and that permitting the Interconnection Customer to directly contact the Transmission Owner may be more efficient.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ MISO at 4 (referencing section 6.1 of MISO's Generator Interconnection Procedure).
\91\ Id. at 5.
\92\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) states that it supports the provision of a pre-application report, but in some cases the pre-application report information is only available from the participating Transmission Owner and in other cases it does not exist for networked transmission systems. CAISO requests that the Commission allow ISOs and RTOs to provide a pre-application report that is appropriate to interconnecting to a networked transmission system, such as existing and queued generation not at the same Point of Interconnection but affected by the same transmission constraints.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ CAISO at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (California Utilities) state that larger interconnection projects should be required to obtain a pre-application report because it will increase the likelihood that these projects will select Points of Interconnection that qualify for Fast Track evaluation.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ California Utilities at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Commission Determination
-
-
The Commission concludes that providing the Interconnection Customer with the opportunity to request the pre-application report will benefit the interconnection process by helping Interconnection Customers make more informed siting decisions and may diminish the practice of requesting multiple interconnection requests for a single project, which benefits both Transmission Providers and Interconnection Customers. As such, the Commission adopts its proposal to require the Transmission Provider to provide Interconnection Customers with the opportunity to request a pre-application report, as modified herein.
-
While the Commission appreciates that some Transmission Providers may already make available some of the information in the pre-application report, commenters suggest that this information may not be available from all Transmission Providers. Therefore, the Commission finds it just and reasonable to include the pre-application report in the pro forma SGIP.
-
With regard to MISO's assertion that requiring the Transmission Provider to contact the Transmission Owner to collect information may be less efficient than permitting the Interconnection Customer to directly contact the Transmission Owner, we note that the Transmission Provider is generally the point of contact for the Interconnection Customer that coordinates the various SGIP processes (e.g., interconnection requests and the studies in the section 3 Study Process). As such, the Transmission Provider is expected to coordinate with the Transmission Owner and the Interconnection Customer, so we are not persuaded that we should adopt SGIP language requiring the Interconnection Customer to contact the Transmission Owner directly in the case of the pre-application report.
-
Finally, with regard to MISO's comment that its existing pre-
application procedures may be more effective than the pre-application report proposed in the NOPR, as discussed below, in cases where provisions in public utility Transmission Providers' existing interconnection procedures would be modified by the Final Rule, public utility Transmission Providers must either comply with the Final Rule or demonstrate that previously approved variations meet one of the standards for variance provided for in this Final Rule.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See infra section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 73248
-
Pre-Application Report Fee
-
Comments
-
-
Several commenters support the proposed $300 fee for the pre-
application report.\96\ IREC asserts that the $300 fee is appropriate for the effort required to provide the report, noting that there is currently no fee for the provision of similar system information under section 1.2.1 of the SGIP.\97\ NREL states that the proposed $300 fee only allows the Transmission Provider to provide information that is quickly accessible.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ CPUC at 4; CREA at 2; IREC at 12; MISO at 3-4; NRG at 5; and Public Interest Organizations at 9.
\97\ IREC at 12. Under section 1.2 of the pro forma SGIP, the Interconnection Customer may request from the Transmission Provider ``relevant system studies, interconnection studies, and other materials useful to an understanding of an interconnection'' at a specific proposed Point of Interconnection.
\98\ NREL at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Several commenters, including many Transmission Providers, recommend that the Commission set the cost of the pre-application report equal to the Transmission Provider's actual incurred cost rather than a fixed $300 fee.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ ISO-NE at 13-14; ITC at 7-8; NARUC at 5; NRECA, EEI & APPA at 16; and NREL at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
PJM Interconnection (PJM) estimates that the processing and preparation of a single report will take ten to twelve hours in administration, preparation, and final review and cost at least $1,500.\100\ NRECA, EEI & APPA similarly state that, on average, the processing and preparation of a single report will likely require at least eight hours of an engineer's time, at a cost of $150 per hour, resulting in a minimum initial pre-application report fee of $1,200, not including time spent coordinating with the distribution utility to gather system information.\101\ IREC, on the other hand, contends that the coordination between the Transmission Provider and the utility should not be overly burdensome for either party, and it is not significantly different from the coordination required during the SGIP Study Process.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ PJM at 8.
\101\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 16.
\102\ IREC at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NRECA, EEI & APPA also request that the $300 fee be adjusted annually based on an inflation index, such as the Consumer Price or Handy-Whitman index, so that fees charged reflect the actual cost to prepare the pre-application report.\103\ ITC proposes a ``deposit/not-
to-exceed'' fee structure for the pre-application report whereby the Interconnection Customer submits a $300 deposit and designates a dollar amount that the Transmission Provider is not to exceed when preparing the report.\104\ ITC proposes that the cost of the pre-application report be trued-up upon completion based on the Transmission Provider's actual incurred costs.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 16.
\104\ ITC at 8.
\105\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Commission Determination
-
-
The Commission finds that a fixed pre-application report fee will both provide cost certainty to Interconnection Customers and result in lower administrative costs than other fee structures. The Commission notes that this approach is similar to Commission treatment of other fixed processing fees in Order No. 2006.\106\ Thus, the Commission will not adopt NRECA, EEI & APPA's proposal to index the pre-application report fee because Transmission Providers will have the opportunity to propose revisions to the fixed pre-application report fee in the compliance filing and in any subsequent FPA section 205 filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,180 at P 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
While the Commission believes that the $300 fee often will be adequate to recover Transmission Providers' costs of preparing the pre-
application report given that Transmission Providers are only asked to provide ``readily available'' information, the Commission finds it would be unjust and unreasonable for Transmission Providers not to recover their actual pre-application report preparation costs. Accordingly, the Commission will adopt the $300 fee as the default fee in the pro forma SGIP and give Transmission Providers the opportunity to propose a different fixed cost-based fee for preparing pre-
application reports supported by a cost justification as part of the compliance filing required by this Final Rule. The Commission notes that the Transmission Provider already provides information to the Interconnection Customer under section 1.2 of the pro forma SGIP. Therefore the pre-application report fee should only include the cost of providing the incremental information required under this Final Rule.
-
Pre-Application Report Timeline
-
Comments
-
-
The Commission received multiple comments about the ten-
business-day timeline for providing the proposed pre-application report. MISO and Public Interest Organizations support the proposed ten-business-day timeframe for the pre-application report.\107\ SEIA contends that a predictable date certain for the pre-application report is crucial for developers.\108\ SEIA finds the proposed timeline reasonable, but requests that if the Commission extends the timeline, it allow Transmission Providers to request a one-time ten-day extension if necessary.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ MISO Comments at 3-4; Public Interest Organizations at 9.
\108\ SEIA Reply Comments at 6.
\109\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that SEIA's ten-day extension proposal would lead to inefficient use of Commission and utility resources, and that ten additional days would likely be insufficient in many circumstances.\110\ Instead, NRECA, EEI & APPA request that the Commission clarify that section 4.1 of the current pro forma SGIP (``Reasonable Efforts'') provides the Transmission Provider with the option of promptly communicating to the Interconnection Customer the nature of any delays, including force majeure events,\111\ in preparing a pre-application report and allows for both parties to agree on the Transmission Provider delivering the pre-application report on a different date.\112\ NRECA, EEI & APPA state that this arrangement will give the developer some degree of certainty as to when it can expect to see a pre-application report, while allowing the utility reasonable flexibility given the realities of staffing and work load.\113\ ISO-
NE., PJM and the ISO/RTO Council (IRC) also ask the Commission to affirmatively state that section 4.1 of the SGIP applies to the pre-
application report timeline.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 13-14.
\111\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 18, Appendix C (requesting that the Commission include language in the SGIP to cover delays related to force majeure events).
\112\ Id. at 18-19.
\113\ Id. at 19.
\114\ IRC at 9-10; ISO-NE at 12; and PJM at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Duke Energy proposes that when a Transmission Provider has reached its maximum ability to process pre-application requests within the prescribed ten-business-day deadline, any subsequent requests received during that heavy volume period would be placed in a queue. Under Duke Energy's proposal, Interconnection Customers would be notified of the likely timing of the Transmission Provider's processing of their requests. Once the backlog of requests has been processed, the Transmission Provider would resume
Page 73249
processing pre-application requests within the ten-business-day period.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Duke Energy at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
ISO-NE also requests that the Commission allow for additional time for providing the pre-application report.\116\ New York Independent System Operator and New York Transmission Owners (NYISO & NYTO) and PJM recommend that the Commission extend the proposed time period for processing the pre-application report to 20 business days.\117\ IRC also states that ten business days is not enough time to produce the pre-application report and therefore asks the Commission to provide each region with the flexibility to propose its own time frame.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ ISO-NE at 12-13.
\117\ NYISO & NYTO at 16; and PJM at 10.
\118\ IRC at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Commission Determination
-
-
The Commission is persuaded by Transmission Provider comments that certain circumstances could make the ten-business-day timeline difficult to meet. The Commission will therefore modify its proposal and extend the pre-application report due date from 10 to 20 business days, as proposed by NYISO & NYTO and PJM.\119\ We find that this deadline balances Transmission Provider concerns about having adequate time to prepare the report with Interconnection Customer concerns regarding the importance of knowing when they will receive the report. As such, Transmission Providers will be required to provide the pre-
application report within 20 business days of the initial request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ NYISO & NYTO at 16; and PJM at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
With regard to the request of ISO-NE., IRC, PJM, and NRECA, EEI & APPA for clarification about whether section 4.1 (``Reasonable Efforts'') of the existing pro forma SGIP will apply to the pre-
application report timeline,\120\ we affirm that section 4.1 of the pro forma SGIP applies to the pre-application report. To not do so would mean that the Reasonable Efforts section would apply to some items in the SGIP and not others. As such, the Commission declines to adopt Duke Energy's proposal to establish a pre-application queue when a Transmission Provider experiences heavy volumes of pre-application report requests and is unable to meet the pre-application report timeline because such situations may be addressed under section 4.1 of the pro forma SGIP in a comparable, not unduly discriminatory manner. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that the pre-application report contains only readily available information, so we expect that the Transmission Provider should be able to produce a pre-application report within 20 business days in most circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ IRC at 10; ISO-NE at 12; NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 14; and PJM at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Pre-Application Report Request Form
-
Comments
-
-
Several commenters recommend that Interconnection Customers complete a pre-application report request form to facilitate report preparation.\121\ ITC offers as a basis for such a form that Interconnection Customers could designate broad geographic areas as proposed Points of Interconnection when requesting a pre-application report, thus requiring the Transmission Provider to select the exact Point of Interconnection for the Interconnection Customer.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ IREC at 10; ISO-NE at 11; ITC at 10; NRECA, EEI and APPA at 13; NYISO & NYTO at 16; SEIA at 2; NREL at 2; and PJM at 9.
\122\ ITC at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Such a form is also supported by the SWG \123\ and PJM.\124\ They suggest that the proposed pre-application request form seeks the following information from Interconnection Customers: (1) Project contact information; (2) project location, including street address with nearby cross streets and town; (3) meter number, pole number, or other equivalent information identifying the proposed Point of Interconnection; (4) type of generator; (5) size of generator; (6) single or three-phase generator configuration; (7) whether the generator is stand-alone or serves on-site load; and (8) whether the project requires new service or is an expansion of existing service.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See supra note 23. The group drafted proposed revisions to the pre-application report proposal that were submitted by several commenters.
\124\ IREC at 10 and PJM at 9.
\125\ PJM at 9; IREC, Attachment A, Sec. Sec. 1.2.2.1-1.2.2.8; NRECA, EEI & APPA, Attachment A, Sec. Sec. 1.2.2.1-1.2.2.8; NREL, attachment to comments, Sec. Sec. 1.2.2.1-1.2.2.8; and SEIA, Attachment B, Sec. Sec. 1.2.2.1-1.2.2.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
ITC, IRC and NYISO & NYTO also support a standardized pre-
application report request form.\126\ IRC states that, although it supports including a standard request form in each Transmission Provider's tariff, the Final Rule should allow the request form to vary by region if needed.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ ITC at 10; IRC at 9; NRECA, EEI & APPA at 13; and NYISO & NYTO at 16.
\127\ IRC at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Commission Determination
-
-
In response to commenter requests, the Commission adopts the standardized pre-application report request form as proposed by the SWG in section 1.2.2 of the pro forma SGIP, as modified herein \128\ and with certain minor clarifying modifications, to use when requesting a pre-application report. The Commission believes the request form will resolve uncertainty about the precise location of the Point of Interconnection and expedite the pre-application report process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See, e.g., supra P 0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Readily Available Information
-
Comments
-
-
SEIA and DCOPC state that the proposed pre-application report will not burden Transmission Providers because it will be compiled from existing material.\129\ IREC claims that utilities have made significant investments in smart grid infrastructure, SCADA and other methods of gathering system information so that minimum and peak load data will be available in the future, and the SGIP should encourage the collection of such information.\130\ Sandia and UCS raise similar arguments about the availability of this data.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ DCOPC at 4 and SEIA at 11.
\130\ IREC at 10.
\131\ Sandia at 2 and UCS at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Several commenters request that the Commission affirm that Transmission Providers are only required to provide existing information that is readily available in the pre-application report.\132\ Additionally, multiple commenters request that the Commission define the terms ``already available'' and/or ``readily available'' as they relate to information provided in the pre-
application report.\133\ MISO suggests it means providing existing data in its existing form.\134\ IRC further requests that the Commission clearly state in section 1.2.4 or add a new section 1.2.5 stating that ``any further analysis related to the proposed generator or in follow-up to the information contained in the report shall be conducted pursuant to an interconnection request.'' \135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Bonneville at 2-3; Duke Energy at 4; ISO-NE at 14; and MISO at 6.
\133\ Clean Coalition at 3; Duke Energy at 4; IRC at 10; and MISO at 6.
\134\ MISO at 6.
\135\ IRC at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
ISO-NE and NYISO & NYTO state that notwithstanding the caveat in section 1.2.4, the pre-application report only need include existing data and note that the inclusion of all of the categories of data listed in section 1.2.3 of the pro forma SGIP could create an unreasonable expectation regarding the information to be included in the pre-
Page 73250
application report.\136\ ISO-NE and NYISO & NYTO therefore ask the Commission to clarify that the items proposed to be included in the pre-application report are examples that may be amended by the Transmission Provider based on readily available information.\137\ IRC asks that the Commission allow each region to specify what information is actually available in a pre-application process to assist prospective Interconnection Customers.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ ISO-NE at 9 and NYISO & NYTO at 15.
\137\ NYISO & NYTO at 14.
\138\ IRC at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NREL comments that the proposed SGIP states that minimum daytime load information will be provided in the pre-application report ``when available'' and that this should be modified to state that load information ``will be measured or calculated.'' \139\ FCHEA and CEP assert that one of the key pieces of information that should be included in the pre-application report is whether the 15 Percent Screen has been exceeded or is close to being exceeded on a particular line segment.\140\ NRECA, EEI & APPA submitted proposed revisions to the information included in the pre-application report, including removing some items from the report.\141\ IREC states that striking relevant pieces of information, such as minimum or peak load data, from the report because it may not be currently available would be inconsistent with policy goals and fails to recognize that grid investments may make the information possible to collect in the future.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ NREL at 3.
\140\ CEP at 2 and FCHEA at 2.
\141\ NRECA, EEI & APPA, Appendix B at 1-2.
\142\ IREC at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NRECA, EEI & APPA state that they are particularly concerned with the Commission's proposal to require that utilities provide minimum load and available capacity in the pre-application report when such data are not currently available.\143\ They assert that collection of minimum load data is burdensome to most utilities because it is not a critical system operating criteria and is difficult to determine accurately.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 14.
\144\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Duke Energy states that although daytime minimum load data may be available where there are electronic meters and communication equipment, in many instances the data are available only at the substation circuit breaker and not by line section. Duke Energy therefore asserts that in some cases it would have to estimate the minimum load.\145\ ITC suggests that the Commission explain how Transmission Providers should calculate minimum load for the purposes of the pre-application report.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ Duke Energy at 5.
\146\ ITC at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Commission Determination
-
-
The Commission appreciates Transmission Provider concerns about the burden associated with creating new information (either form or substance) for the purposes of the pre-application report. We reaffirm that Transmission Providers are only required to provide the items in the pro forma SGIP section 1.2.3 if they are readily available, in accordance with section 1.2.4 of the SGIP. Accordingly, in response to NRECA, EEI & APPA and Duke Energy, the provision of actual or estimated minimum load data is not required unless it is readily available. To address concerns with the definition of ``readily available,'' we clarify that ``readily available'' means information that the Transmission Provider currently has on hand. That is, the Transmission Provider is not required to create new data.\147\ However, the Transmission Provider is required to compile, gather, and summarize the information that it has readily available to it in a format that presents useful information.\148\ The costs associated with that effort should be commensurate with the fee the Transmission Provider charges for the pre-application report. If providing some of the items in the pre-application report would require the Transmission Provider to undertake studies or analysis beyond gathering and presenting existing information, then the information is not readily available and the Transmission Provider is not obligated to include this information in the report. We note, however, that performing simple calculations with existing information, such as calculating available capacity as described below, falls within the meaning of readily available information.\149\ The Commission finds that requiring Transmission Providers to provide information in pre-application reports beyond what is readily available would increase Transmission Provider costs and likely result in the under-recovery of report preparation costs. The Commission believes the default $300 fixed fee is consistent with the readily available standard, which limits the effort required by Transmission Providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ The Commission declines to prescribe a methodology for calculating minimum load for the purpose of the pre-application report, as requested by ITC, because such a calculation is not required for the sole purpose of the pre-application report. The provision of minimum load data in the pre-application report, whether actual or estimated, is only required if this information is readily available. Further, to the extent such a calculation is made under section 2.4.4.1 of the SGIP adopted herein, the Commission leaves the methodology to the discretion of the Transmission Provider.
\148\ See supra P 0. The Commission clarifies that the Transmission Provider shall be the point of contact for the Interconnection Customer and may be required to coordinate with the Transmission Owner to execute the requirements of the SGIP adopted herein, including the pre-application report. Accordingly, we find that information that is readily available to the Transmission Owner shall be deemed readily available to the Transmission Provider as well.
\149\ See infra P 0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The Commission is also persuaded by IREC's comments that pre-
application report items should not be struck from the report due to current unavailability because the items may become available in the future. Thus, the Commission finds that the default pre-application report should include the items listed from section 1.2.3 of the proposed SGIP while at the same time reaffirming that Transmission Providers are not obligated to provide information that is not readily available.
-
Other Issues
-
Comments
-
-
IREC, Pepco \150\ and SEIA propose adding a new section 1.2.3.1 to the pro forma SGIP stating that the Transmission Provider will identify the substation/area bus, bank or circuit likely to serve the proposed Point of Interconnection and clarifying how the Transmission Provider will select which circuit to include as the Point of Interconnection in the pre-application report if there is more than one circuit to which the Interconnection Customer could connect.\151\ The commenters also propose to clarify in section 1.2.3.1 that the Transmission Provider will not be liable if the selected circuit is not the most cost-effective option and explains that customers who want information on all options must request multiple pre-application reports.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Pepco Holdings Inc., Atlantic City Electric Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, and Potomac Electric Power Company are referred to collectively as Pepco in this Final Rule.
\151\ IREC at 10; Pepco, Appendix to comment at section 1.2.3.1; SEIA at Attachment A section 1.2.3.1.
\152\ IREC at 10-11; Pepco at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Several commenters,\153\ including the SWG, note that the electric system is constantly changing and the information provided in the pre-application report might quickly become out of date. As a result, they request that the SGIP and each pre-application report that a utility
Page 73251
produces include a disclaimer indicating that the pre-application report is for informational purposes, is non-binding, and does not convey any rights in the interconnection process.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Duke Energy at 6; IREC Attachment A, section 1.2.2 presenting the SWG recommendations; and NRECA, EEI & APPA at 12.
\154\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 12-13, and NYISO & NYTO at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
ITC argues that given its dynamic nature, Transmission Providers may not be able to accurately predict the available capacity of the substation/area bus or bank circuit most likely to serve the proposed Point of Interconnection at every point in time.\155\ ITC proposes that the Commission specify that the Transmission Provider's base-case estimate of available capacity is sufficient for the pre-
application report.\156\ Duke Energy states that Interconnection Customers can calculate this available capacity from the information provided in sections 1.2.3.1 through 1.2.3.3 of the SGIP; therefore, the Transmission Provider should not be required to provide available capacity in the pre-application report.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ ITC at 9.
\156\ Id. at 9.
\157\ Duke Energy at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Various commenters request that the pre-application report contain information that the Commission did not include in the NOPR. For example, several commenters propose to add the following items to the pre-application report: (1) Distance from a three-phase circuit if the Point of Interconnection is on a single-phase circuit; and (2) whether the Point of Interconnection is located on an area network, spot network, grid network, or radial supply.\158\ IREC asserts that this approach will provide relevant system information to developers.\159\ SEIA also proposes to include the substation/area bus, bank or circuit most likely to serve the Point of Interconnection.\160\ NARUC states that the pre-application report should include a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' question as to whether minimum load data would be readily available should it be needed to help a developer remain in the Fast Track Process.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ IREC at 11-12; NRECA, EEI & APPA Appendix B at 1; Pepco at 11; and SEIA at 11.
\159\ IREC at 11.
\160\ SEIA at 11.
\161\ NARUC at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Landfill Energy Systems (LES) state that the pre-application report should identify the type of existing relays that are currently being utilized and any known, or likely, need to replace those relays.\162\ LES states that if, for example, the Transmission Owner is likely to require the Interconnection Customer to replace and/or upgrade existing equipment, such as a relay system, a reclosing system, or a breaker failure protection system, or to install fiber optic cable, it should be noted in the pre-application report.\163\ LES also requests that the pre-application report include a map that shows the Transmission Provider's lines in the area for the Interconnection Customer to consider as alternative Points of Interconnection.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ LES at 2.
\163\ Id. at 2-3.
\164\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Clean Coalition recommends that the Commission require that Transmission Providers maintain information about all distribution interconnection applications in a public spreadsheet/database for easy review and tracking by developers, advocates, and policymakers.\165\ Clean Coalition further asserts that, where warranted by demand, existing grid information should be made available in map and spreadsheet formats on the utility's Web site.\166\ NRECA, EEI & APPA claim that the Clean Coalition's proposal is unduly burdensome, overbroad, ambiguous, may result in the release of CEII, and would constitute jurisdictional overreach by the Commission.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Clean Coalition at 5-6.
\166\ Id. at 6.
\167\ NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NRECA, EEI & APPA state that any information that is required to be included in the pre-application report must be consistent with existing safeguards against the public disclosure of non-public transmission system information, confidential information, or CEII.\168\ CAISO similarly notes that some of the information may be proprietary to participating Transmission Owners or might be CEII, which could require a non-disclosure and limited use agreement.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 14.
\169\ CAISO at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
PJM asks the Commission to clarify that although there may be some limited follow-up on the pre-application report (e.g., questions about the report from the Interconnection Customer), more detailed inquiries would need to be addressed through the submission of an interconnection request by the Interconnection Customer.\170\ Duke Energy requests that the Commission clarify that any transmission information provided in the report would not be required to be posted on the OASIS.\171\ NRECA, EEI & APPA state that each request related to a particular Point of Interconnection should be treated as a request for a separate pre-application report and the Transmission Provider must be able to collect a fee for each report it prepares.\172\ NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that this is appropriate because requests for multiple interconnection points may require companies to gather information from various sources for each Point of Interconnection.\173\ IREC and Pepco also propose SGIP language which states that customers who want information on multiple circuits at a single Point of Interconnection must request a separate pre-application report for each circuit.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ PJM at 10.
\171\ Duke Energy at 6.
\172\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 17.
\173\ Id.
\174\ IREC at 10-11; Pepco at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
CAISO suggests that the Commission may want to provide greater flexibility for Transmission Providers to fashion a pre-application process to exchange information with developers following issuance of a pre-application report if developers have any follow-up questions.\175\ NYISO & NYTO suggest that Transmission Providers might provide the Interconnection Customer the option of a follow-up meeting to discuss the pre-application report.\176\ Finally, ISO-NE proposes to refer to entities that request pre-application reports as ``potential Interconnection Customers'' rather than ``Interconnection Customers'' in section 1.2 of the SGIP, which outlines the pre-application report.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ CAISO at 4.
\176\ NYISO & NYTO at 16.
\177\ ISO-NE at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Commission Determination
-
-
The Commission agrees with commenters that the information provided in pre-application reports should be for informational purposes only given the dynamic nature of system conditions. Accordingly, the Commission will include a disclaimer in the pro forma SGIP and pre-application report stating that the information provided in the pre-application report is non-binding and that the Transmission Provider will not be held liable if information in the report is no longer accurate. The Commission notes that similar pre-application report disclaimers are proposed in SGIP proceedings in Ohio and Massachusetts.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Pub. Utilis. Comm'n of Ohio, In the Matter of the Comm'n's Review of Chapter 4901:1-22, Ohio Admin. Code, Regarding Interconnection Servs., Case No. 12-2051-EL-ORD, at 7 (2013), available at http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/Ohio-Supplemental-Entry.pdf; Mass. Dep't of Pub. Utils., Order on the Distributed Generation Working Group's Redlined Tariff and Non-
Tariff Recommendations, Docket No. D.P.U. 11-75-E, at 14 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 73252
-
NRECA, EEI & APPA, Pepco, SEIA, and IREC propose adding the following two items to the pre-application report: (1) For single-phase circuits, the distance of the Point of Interconnection from the three-
phase circuit; and (2) whether the Point of Interconnection is located on an area network, spot network, grid network, or radial supply.\179\ The Commission is persuaded that this additional information will be useful to assess whether a project will qualify for the Fast Track Process at a given Point of Interconnection. Furthermore, the information should be readily available to Transmission Providers because it relates to basic system configuration. Accordingly, sections 1.2.3.10 and 1.2.3.12 of the SGIP are revised to include these items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ See supra note 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
In order to clarify Interconnection Customer expectations with respect to the pre-application report, the Commission adopts IREC, SEIA and Pepco's proposed disclaimer that the bank or circuit selected by the Transmission Provider in the pre-application report does not necessarily indicate the circuit to which the Interconnection Customer may ultimately connect. The disclaimer is added to section 1.2.3 of the SGIP. However, the Commission declines to adopt IREC, SEIA and Pepco's request to clarify how the Transmission Provider will select which circuit to include in the pre-application report if there is more than one circuit to which the Interconnection Customer could interconnect because methodologies for selecting a circuit may be differ depending on the circumstances of the proposed interconnection and may differ among Transmission Providers. If Transmission Providers wish to provide this information to Interconnection Customers, they may do so in business practices.
-
In response to Duke Energy's inquiry, the Commission affirms that information Transmission Providers provide in the pre-application will have no bearing on OASIS reporting requirements. The Commission also affirms that the pre-application report only applies to a single Point of Interconnection and that Interconnection Customers must submit payment and separate pre-application request forms if they are requesting information about multiple Points of Interconnection, including multiple circuits at a single Point of Interconnection. The Commission also finds that it would be unjust and unreasonable to expect the Transmission Provider to bear the cost of any follow-up studies resulting from the pre-application report. Therefore, apart from reasonable clarification of items in the pre-application report, the Transmission Provider is not required as part of this Final Rule to conduct any studies or analysis after furnishing the pre-application report unless the Interconnection Customer proceeds with a formal interconnection request.
-
The Commission expects Transmission Providers to continue to abide by the recommendations outlined in section 1.1.5 of the pro forma SGIP and with section 1.2.1 of the pro forma SGIP, which states that information may be provided ``to the extent such provision does not violate confidentiality provisions of prior agreements or critical infrastructure requirements'' and that ``the Transmission Provider shall comply with reasonable requests for such information.''
-
The Commission rejects ISO-NE's request to refer to entities requesting pre-application reports as ``potential Interconnection Customers'' within the pro forma SGIP because we are not aware that use of the term ``Interconnection Customer'' in the pre-application section 1.2 of the pro forma SGIP adopted under Order No. 2006 caused confusion or set incorrect expectations for Interconnection Customers or Transmission Providers.
-
The Commission rejects LES's request that Transmission Providers indicate what upgrades, if any, will be required at a Point of Interconnection when preparing a pre-application report for that Point of Interconnection. This information may not be readily available to a Transmission Provider.
-
The Commission is not persuaded by Duke Energy's assertion that it is unreasonable to ask Transmission Providers to provide available capacity, or an estimate of available capacity. Providing available capacity will not burden the Transmission Provider because doing so only requires Transmission Providers to subtract aggregate existing and queued capacity from total capacity, and will provide additional clarity to the interconnection customer.
-
The Commission finds Clean Coalition and LES's proposal to make certain small generator interconnection data publicly available as beyond the scope of the NOPR. However, we encourage Transmission Providers to look for ways to streamline the provision of and make transparent relevant public information in order to facilitate small generator interconnections.
-
-
Threshold for Participation in the Fast Track Process
-
Commission Proposal
-
In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise the 2 MW threshold for participation in the Fast Track Process to be based instead on individual system and generator characteristics up to a limit of 5 MW, as shown in Table 1 below.
Page 73253
GRAPHIC TIFF OMITTED TR05DE13.000
-
Comments
-
Many commenters support increasing the Fast Track threshold from 2 MW to 5 MW.\181\ IREC states that the purpose of eligibility limits to the Fast Track Process should be to filter out projects that are highly unlikely to pass the Fast Track screens in order to save time and set clear customer expectations. However, IREC states that the eligibility limits do not need to duplicate or go beyond the Fast Track screens themselves.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. 32,697 at P 30.
\181\ AWEA at 4; CREA at 2; IECA at 4-5; NRG at 5; SEIA at 13-
14; Clean Coalition at 7; CEP at 1; ELCON at 4-5; ESA at 3-4; FCHEA at 1; IECA at 4-5; IREC at 13; LES at 2; Sandia at 2; and Public Interest Organizations at 10.
\182\ IREC at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DCOPC states that it has no objections to the new Fast Track eligibility table proposed for section 2.1 of the SGIP or to raising the maximum eligibility size from 2 MW to 5 MW, as long as this change does not compromise system safety and grid reliability.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ DCOPC at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Sandia supports the new Fast Track eligibility proposal in the NOPR, as it more accurately differentiates interconnection requests that do not cause impacts from those that could need further study and states that the characteristics in the proposal for Fast Track eligibility are technically reasonable.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Sandia at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Clean Coalition states that it prefers no Fast Track eligibility threshold because the Fast Track screens themselves eliminate projects that are not appropriate for the Fast Track Process.\185\ However, Clean Coalition states that because of utility concerns about eliminating the threshold, it supports the Commission's proposal for increasing the threshold.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Clean Coalition at 7.
\186\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Max Hensley states that the Commission should allow facilities of up to 10 MW to qualify for the Fast Track Process. Mr. Hensley believes this would increase the market for distributed solar power generation and lower prices for residential customers.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ Max Hensley at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
ITC generally supports increasing the upper bound of the Fast Track proposal based on line voltage, line amperage and proximity to the substation but is concerned that Interconnection Customers will abuse the 5 MW limit by submitting multiple interconnection requests for the same project in an effort to circumvent the Study Process, to the detriment of system reliability (e.g., a 20 MW wind farm comprised of five 4-MW wind turbines might submit five separate interconnection requests rather than a single 20 MW interconnection request). ITC recommends that the Commission allow individual ISOs or RTOs to coordinate Fast Track interconnections through their existing interconnection queue process to ensure Interconnection Customers are not able to circumvent the required studies necessary to protect safety and reliability.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ ITC at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
ISO-NE requests that the Final Rule allow flexibility to account for eligibility limits that may be unique to the region. For example, ISO-NE states that eligibility for the Fast Track Process in New England is limited to interconnections to distribution facilities and does not apply to facilities rated 69 kV or higher that are used for regional transmission service.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ ISO-NE at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NYISO & NYTO do not believe the Commission's proposed expansion of the Fast Track eligibility to 5 MW and the introduction of minimum load and other screens for the supplemental review process are likely to improve the time and cost to process the interconnection requests of small facilities in New York at this time.\190\ NYISO & NYTO state that most of the very small generating facilities in New York seek to interconnect to distribution facilities that are not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction and are generally able to skip most, if not all, of the time and expense of the full study process due to their limited system impacts.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ NYISO & NYTO at 16.
\191\ Id. at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Duke Energy states that the proposed values in the Fast Track threshold table are not realistic for distribution systems. Duke Energy asserts that, based on its experience, a 1 MW generator proposing to interconnect to its distribution facilities
Page 73254
under 5 kV, which are lightly loaded and have small conductor sizes, would not pass the Fast Track screens because it would likely exceed the minimum load of the line section and might exceed the rating of the conductor.\192\ Duke Energy therefore urges the Commission to consider lowering the proposed threshold levels to values that are more realistic for a distribution system.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ Duke Energy at 7.
\193\ Id. at 9-10. See Duke Energy at 9 for its proposed Fast Track eligibility table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NRECA, EEI & APPA support basing Fast Track eligibility on individual system and generator characteristics.\194\ They state that it is difficult to use the size of the generator as a threshold to determine whether the Small Generating Facility should go through the Fast Track Process and that the location of the point of common coupling and the interconnecting feeder and loading characteristics should be major factors for determining Fast Track eligibility.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 19.
\195\ Id. at 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that there is no standard definition of distribution system voltages in the United States and that there needs to be an upper bound voltage class limit that captures voltages of up to 69 kV. They state that the Commission should continue to follow its own precedent of taking into account the differences in utilities' distribution systems by building a degree of flexibility into the Final Rule with respect to the criteria for determining Fast Track eligibility.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NRECA, EEI & APPA note that in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the Fast Track Process does not include a 2 MW limit, but instead inverter-based equipment that has been ``listed'' using the UL1741 testing procedure is eligible for an expedited process.\197\ They state that multiple inverter projects may or may not be considered ``listed'' in the proposed configuration, which means that some projects may not be eligible for the Fast Track Process.\198\ According to NRECA, EEI & APPA, on a regional level, the capacity of solar projects that tend to pass the screen tests is typically in the 2 MW range. They therefore urge the Commission to keep this factor in mind when considering raising the limit to 5 MW.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Id.
\198\ Id. at 20-21.
\199\ Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
NRECA, EEI & APPA state that they are concerned that the third column of the Fast Track eligibility table in the NOPR, which refers to the location of a distributed generation facility on the feeder system relative to the distance from the source substation, would raise expectations from developers that they may be eligible for the Fast Track Process when they may not be.\200\ The SWG agreed on proposed revised language to be inserted in section 2.1 of the SGIP to clarify the intent of the Fast Track eligibility limits and to address concerns regarding the role of the eligibility limits in setting customer expectations.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ Id.
\201\ IREC at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Several commenters \202\ submitted the table for Fast Track eligibility proposed by the SWG as shown in Table 2 below. The SWG proposes revising the Fast Track eligibility threshold applicable to inverter-based generators. The SWG also proposes the following changes to Fast Track Process eligibility: (1) Making all projects interconnecting to lines greater than 69-kV ineligible for the Fast Track Process (inverter-based projects interconnecting to lines up to and including 69 kV would be eligible for the Fast Track Process based on Table 2 below); (2) maintaining the current 2 MW limit for Fast Track eligibility for synchronous and induction machines (as opposed to inverter-based generators); (3) for lines below 5 kV, changing the Fast Track eligibility regardless of location to 500 kW for inverter-based projects; and (4) in the third column of the table, replacing ``>= 600 Ampere Line'' with ``a Mainline'' and a footnote defining ``Mainline.'' 203 204 205
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ NRECA, EEI & APPA Appendix A; IREC Attachment A; NREL Attachment; and SEIA Attachment B. The Commission notes that there were minor differences among the tables submitted by NRECA, EEI & APPA, IREC, SEIA and NREL.
\203\ IREC at 14-15.
\204\ NRECA, EEI & APPA, Appendix A.
\205\ AWG is American wire gauge, a standardized system used for the diameters of round conducting wires to help determine its current-carrying capacity and electrical resistance.
Table 2--Fast Track Eligibility for Listed Inverter-Based Systems as
Proposed by NRECA, EEI & APPA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast Track
Fast Track eligibility on a
Line voltage eligibility mainline * and
regardless of =5 kV and =15 kV and =30 kV and =5 kV and =15 kV and =30 kV and
-
-
