157 FERC ¶ 61,212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

18 CFR Parts 35 and 37

[Docket No. RM17-8-000]

Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements 

(December 15, 2016)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing 

to revise its regulations and the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures 

and pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement. The Commission proposes 

reforms designed to improve certainty, promote more informed interconnection, and 

enhance interconnection processes. The proposed reforms are intended to ensure that the 

generator interconnection process is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential. 

DATES: Comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following 

ways: 

• Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically 

using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-toPDF format and not in a scanned format.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 2 -

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures section of this 

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tony Dobbins (Technical Information)

Office of Energy Policy and Innovation

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6630

Tony.Dobbins@ferc.gov

Adam Pan (Legal Information)

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6023

Adam.Pan@ferc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
157 FERC ¶ 61,212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures and

Agreements

Docket No. RM17-8-000

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

(December 15, 2016)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

-Page NumberI. Introduction ............................................................................................................ - 1 -

II. Background............................................................................................................. - 7 -

A. Order No. 2003................................................................................................... - 7 -

B. 2008 Order on Interconnection Queueing Practices........................................... - 9 -

C. 2015 American Wind Energy Association Petition ......................................... - 10 -

D. 2016 Technical Conference.............................................................................. - 12 -

III. Need for Reform of the Interconnection Process............................................. - 12 -

IV. Proposed Reforms............................................................................................. - 18 -

A. Improving Certainty for Interconnection Customers ....................................... - 20 -

1. Scheduled Periodic Restudies....................................................................... - 21 -

2. The Interconnection Customer’s Option to Build ........................................ - 28 -

3. Self-Funding by the Transmission Owner.................................................... - 37 -

4. RTO/ISO Dispute Resolution....................................................................... - 47 -

5. Capping Costs for Network Upgrades.......................................................... - 54 -

B. Promoting More Informed Interconnection...................................................... - 61 -

1. Identification and Definition of Contingent Facilities ................................. - 61 -

2. Transparency Regarding Study Models and Assumptions........................... - 68 -

3. Congestion and Curtailment Information..................................................... - 73 -

4. Definition of Generating Facility in the Pro Forma LGIP and LGIA......... - 82 -

5. Interconnection Study Deadlines.................................................................. - 84 -

6. Improving Coordination with Affected Systems.......................................... - 94 -

C. Enhancing Interconnection Processes .............................................................. - 99 -

1. Requesting Interconnection Service Below Generating Facility Capacity - 100 -

2. Provisional Interconnection Service........................................................... - 111 -

3. Utilization of Surplus Interconnection Service .......................................... - 117 -

4. Material Modification and Incorporation of Advanced Technologies....... - 131 -

5. Modeling of Electric Storage Resources for Interconnection Studies ....... - 139 -
Docket No. RM17-8-000 ii

V. Proposed Compliance Procedures...................................................................... - 144 -

VI. Information Collection Statement .................................................................. - 145 -

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act.............................................................................. - 152 -

VIII. Environmental Analysis ................................................................................. - 153 -

IX. Comment Procedures...................................................................................... - 154 -

X. Document Availability ....................................................................................... - 155 -

Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the AWEA Petition (Docket No. 

RM 15-21-000) and the 2016 Technical Conference (Docket No. RM16-12-000)... - 159 -

Appendix B: Compilation of proposed changes to the pro forma LGIP................... - 162 -

Appendix C: Compilation of proposed changes to the pro forma LGIA.................. - 173 -

Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the AWEA Petition (Docket 

No. RM15-21-000) and the 2016 Technical Conference (Docket No. RM16-12-000). 

Appendix B: Compilation of proposed changes to the pro forma Large Generator 

Interconnection Procedures (LGIP).

Appendix C: Compilation of proposed changes to the pro forma Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement (LGIA).
157 FERC ¶ 61,212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures and 

Agreements

Docket No. RM17-8-000

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

(December 15, 2016)

I. Introduction

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Proposed Rule), the Commission is 

proposing to revise its regulations and the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection 

Procedures (LGIP) and pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA).1

The Commission proposes reforms designed to improve certainty, promote more informed 

interconnection, and enhance interconnection processes. The proposed reforms are intended 

to ensure that the generator interconnection process is just and reasonable and not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential.2

 

 1 Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order 

No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 (2003) (Order No. 2003), order on reh’g, Order 

No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160 (Order No. 2003-A), order on reh’g, Order 

No. 2003-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,171 (2004) (Order No. 2003-B), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 2003-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,190 (2005) (Order No. 2003-C), 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). 

2 In this proceeding, the Commission refers to comments and filings in Docket 

Nos. RM15-21-000 and RM16-12-000. A list of commenters in those proceedings and the 

abbreviated names used in this Proposed Rule appears in Appendix A. Any comments to 

this Proposed Rule should be filed in this proceeding, Docket No. RM17-8-000.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 2 -

The pro forma LGIP and LGIA establish the terms and conditions under which 

public utilities3 must provide interconnection service to Large Generating Facilities.4

 While 

Order No. 2003 was a significant step to reduce undue discrimination in the generator 

interconnection process, interconnection customers have continued to express concerns with 

systemic inefficiencies and discriminatory practices that affect them.

5

 In addition, there 

have been a number of developments that impact generator interconnection, including the 

changing resource mix, the emergence of new technologies, and state and federal policies 

that have impacted the resource mix. At the same time, transmission providers have 

expressed concern that the interconnection study process can be difficult to manage because 

some interconnection customers submit requests for interconnection service associated with 

new generating facilities that have little chance of reaching commercial operation. Upon 

consideration of these issues, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to propose reforms 

to the interconnection processes.

In 2015, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) filed a Petition for 

Rulemaking (Petition) requesting changes to the Commission’s interconnection rules and 

 3 A public utility is a utility that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for 

transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce, as defined by the Federal Power Act 

(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 LGIP and the 

pro forma LGIA. See Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160 at P 773.

4 A large generating facility is “a Generating Facility having a Generating Facility 

Capacity of more than 20 MW.” Pro forma LGIA Art. 1.

5 See, e.g., AWEA June 19, 2015 Petition at 2 (Petition).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 3 -

procedures.6 The Commission sought and received comments on the Petition. In 

May 2016, a technical conference was convened to further explore these issues

(2016 Technical Conference). Comments were requested and received both prior to the 

technical conference and after the technical conference. 

Based, in part, on that input, the Commission has identified proposed reforms that

could remedy potential shortcomings in the existing interconnection processes. The 

Commission believes the proposed reforms will benefit interconnection customers through 

more timely and cost-effective interconnection and will benefit transmission providers by 

mitigating the potential for serial re-studies associated with late-stage interconnection 

request withdrawals. Specifically, the Commission believes that the provision of more 

timely and accurate information could increase certainty for interconnection customers and 

assist them in earlier evaluation and quicker development, as well as assist in earlier, less 

disruptive withdrawals from the interconnection queue. The Commission also believes that 

more thorough and transparent information presented for the interconnection customer could 

enable more informed decisions earlier in the interconnection process, which could reduce 

late-stage interconnection request withdrawals and result in fewer restudies and delays. 

More timely and accurate information regarding an interconnection request, as well as 

greater transparency, will also reduce the incentive for interconnection customers to submit 

multiple interconnection requests when they only intend to see one to commercial operation. 

 6 American Wind Energy Association, Petition for Rulemaking to Revise Generator 

Interconnection Rules and Procedures, Docket No. RM15-21-000 (filed June 19, 2015).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 4 -

The Commission has also identified a set of reforms that enhance the interconnection 

process by, for example, addressing interconnection issues experienced most acutely by new 

technologies. The Commission believes there are ways to allow flexibility in the 

interconnection process to accommodate innovation.

Specifically, the Commission preliminarily finds that certain interconnection 

practices may not be just and reasonable and may be unduly discriminatory or preferential

and proposes several potential reforms. The Commission is proposing fourteen reforms that 

focus on improving aspects of the pro forma LGIP and LGIA, the pro forma Open Access 

Transmission Tariff, and the Commission’s regulations. The proposed reforms fall into

three broad categories and are intended to: (1) improve certainty in the interconnection 

process; (2) improve transparency by providing more information to interconnection 

customers; and (3) enhance interconnection processes. 

First, the Commission proposes four reforms to improve certainty by affording 

interconnection customers more predictability in the interconnection process. To 

accomplish this goal, the Commission proposes to: (1) revise the pro forma LGIP to require 

transmission providers that conduct cluster studies to move toward a scheduled, periodic 

restudy process; (2) remove from the pro forma LGIA the limitation that interconnection 

customers may only exercise the option to build transmission provider’s interconnection 

facilities and stand alone network upgrades if the transmission owner cannot meet the dates 

proposed by the interconnection customer; (3) modify the pro forma LGIA to require 

mutual agreement between the transmission owner and interconnection customer for the 

transmission owner to opt to initially self-fund the costs of the construction of network 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 5 -

upgrades; and (4) require that the Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and 

Independent System Operators (ISO) establish dispute resolution procedures for 

interconnection disputes. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which a cap 

on the network upgrade costs for which interconnection customers are responsible can 

mitigate the potential for serial restudies without inappropriately shifting cost responsibility.

Second, the Commission proposes five reforms to improve transparency by providing

improved information for the benefit of all participants in the interconnection process. 

These reforms would provide a fuller picture of the considerations involved in 

interconnecting a new large generating facility. The Commission proposes to: (1) require 

transmission providers to outline and make public a method for determining contingent 

facilities in their LGIPs and LGIAs based upon guiding principles in the Proposed Rule; 

(2) require transmission providers to list in their LGIPs and on their Open Access SameTime Information System (OASIS) sites the specific study processes and assumptions for 

forming the networking models used for interconnection studies; (3) require congestion and 

curtailment information to be posted in one location on each transmission provider’s OASIS 

site; (4) revise the definition of “Generating Facility” in the pro forma LGIP and LGIA to 

explicitly include electric storage resources; and (5) create a system of reporting 

requirements for aggregate interconnection study performance. The Commission also seeks 

comment on proposals or additional steps that the Commission could take to improve the 

resolution of issues that arise when affected systems are impacted by a proposed 

interconnection.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 6 -

Third, the Commission proposes five reforms to enhance interconnection processes

by making use of underutilized existing interconnections, providing interconnection 

service earlier, or accommodating changes in the development process. In this area, the 

Commission proposes to: (1) allow interconnection customers to limit their requested level 

of interconnection service below their generating facility capacity; (2) require transmission 

providers to allow for provisional agreements so that interconnection customers can operate

on a limited basis prior to completion of the full interconnection process; (3) require 

transmission providers to create a process for interconnection customers to utilize surplus 

interconnection service at existing interconnection points; (4) require transmission providers 

to set forth a separate procedure to allow transmission providers to assess and, if necessary, 

study an interconnection customer’s technology changes (e.g., incorporation of a newer

turbine model) without a change to the interconnection customer’s queue position; and 

(5) require transmission providers to evaluate their methods for modeling electric storage 

resources for interconnection studies and report to the Commission why and how their 

existing practices are or are not sufficient.

The Commission seeks comments on these proposed reforms and areas for further 

comment within 60 days after publication of this Proposed Rule in the Federal Register.

The purpose of these proposals is to ensure that the processing of generator 

interconnection requests will be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential consistent with Federal Power Act (FPA) sections 205 and 206. These proposed 

reforms could help improve the efficiency of processing interconnection requests for both 

transmission providers and interconnection customers, maintain reliability, increase energy 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 7 -

supply, balance the needs of interconnection customers and transmission owners and 

remove barriers to needed resource development.

7 

Unless otherwise noted, the proposed reforms described below would result in

changes to the pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA and regulations that affect transmission 

provider LGIPs and LGIAs. The Commission also seeks comment, however, on whether 

any of these proposed reforms should be applied to small generating facilities and 

implemented in the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) and 

Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA).

8

II. Background

A. Order No. 2003

In 1996, the Commission issued Order No. 888,9 which “established the foundation 

necessary to develop competitive bulk power markets in the United States: 

nondiscriminatory open access transmission services by public utilities and stranded cost 

 7 16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e (2012). 

8 The Commission adopted these documents in Order No. 2006. 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 granting clarification, Order No. 2006-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,221 (2006).

9 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory 

Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities 

and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), order on 

reh’g, Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048, order on reh’g, Order No. 888-B, 

81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), 

aff’d in relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 

667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff’d sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 8 -

recovery rules to provide a fair transition to competitive markets.”10 In Order No. 888, 

the Commission did not, however, address generator interconnection issues. In Tennessee 

Power Company, the Commission encouraged, but did not require, transmission providers 

to revise their OATTs to include interconnection procedures, including a standard 

interconnection agreement and specific criteria, procedures, milestones, and timelines for 

evaluating interconnection requests.11

In Order No. 2003, the Commission recognized a “pressing need for a single set of 

procedures for jurisdictional Transmission Providers and a single, uniformly applicable 

interconnection agreement for Large Generators.”12 Prior to the issuance of Order 

No. 2003, the Commission addressed interconnection issues on a case-by-case basis

through, for example, applications under FPA section 205. 

In Order No. 2003, the Commission asserted that interconnection is a “critical 

component of open access transmission service and thus is subject to the requirement that 

utilities offer comparable service under the OATT.”13 The Commission found that a 

standard set of procedures would “minimize opportunities for undue discrimination and 

 10 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 8. 

11 Tenn. Power Co., 90 FERC ¶ 61,238 (Tennessee).

12 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 11.

13 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 9 (citing Tennessee, 90 FERC 

¶ 61,238).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 9 -

expedite the development of new generation, while protecting reliability and ensuring that 

rates are just and reasonable.”14 

Consequently, in Order No. 2003, the Commission required public utilities that own, 

control, or operate transmission facilities to file standard generator interconnection 

procedures and a standard agreement to provide interconnection service to generating

facilities with a capacity greater than 20 megawatts (MW). To this end, the Commission 

adopted the pro forma LGIP and LGIA and required all public utilities subject to Order 

No. 2003 to modify their OATTs to incorporate the pro forma LGIP and LGIA. 

B. 2008 Order on Interconnection Queueing Practices

The Commission held a technical conference on December 17, 2007 and issued a 

notice inviting further comments in response to concerns raised about the effectiveness of 

queue management practices.15 Comments revealed that some transmission providers 

were not processing their interconnection queues with the timelines envisioned in Order 

No. 2003. Commenters pointed to surges in the volume of new generation development in 

some regions, particularly for renewable resources, as taxing interconnection queues. 

Commenters also noted that some regions had developed capacity markets after the issuance 

of Order No. 2003 and struggled with accommodating these new markets.16

 14 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 11.

15 Interconnection Queuing Practices, Docket No. AD08-2-000, November 2, 2007 

Notice of Technical Conference.

16 Interconnection Queuing Practices, 122 FERC ¶ 61,252, at P 3 (2008) (2008 

Order). With regard to capacity markets, commenters noted that in regions that had 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 10 -

On March 20, 2008, the Commission issued an order addressing interconnection 

queue issues (2008 Order). The Commission acknowledged that delays in processing 

interconnection queues were more pronounced in RTOs/ISOs that were attracting significant 

new entry. 

The Commission declined to impose generally applicable solutions, given the 

regional nature of some interconnection queue issues. However, the Commission provided 

guidance to assist RTOs/ISOs and their stakeholders in their efforts to improve the 

processing of interconnection queues.

17 The Commission further stated that, while it “may 

need to [impose solutions] if the RTOs and ISOs do not act themselves,” each region would 

be provided an opportunity to propose its own solutions through “consensus proposals.”18 

Following the 2008 Order, RTOs/ISOs submitted multiple queue reform proposals to the 

Commission, generally moving their interconnection queuing practices from a “first-come, 

first-served” approach to a “first-ready, first-served” approach.

C. 2015 American Wind Energy Association Petition

On June 19, 2015, AWEA filed the Petition in Docket No. RM15-21-000 requesting 

that the Commission revise the pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA. AWEA asserts that 

the current interconnection process has “imbedded unjust and unreasonable and unduly 

 

established capacity markets, interconnection queue delays could prevent least cost 

resources from being available in new capacity market auctions. Id. P 5.

17 2008 Order, 122 FERC ¶ 61,252 at PP 16-18.

18 2008 Order, 122 FERC ¶ 61,252 at P 8.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 11 -

discriminatory delays, costs, rates, terms and conditions” and “imposes barriers to the 

development of needed new generation resources.”19 AWEA states that while transmission 

providers have modified their LGIPs in ways that “occasionally [provide] limited benefits. . 

. . [they] have not solved, and have even exacerbated, problems encountered by

interconnection customers.”20 AWEA contends that, consequently, the interconnection 

process often results in “complex, time consuming technical disputes about . . . 

interconnection feasibility, cost, and cost responsibility” with delays that “undermine the 

ability of new generators to compete.”21 

AWEA proposes multiple reforms to improve: (1) certainty in the interconnection 

study/restudy process; (2) transparency in the interconnection process; (3) certainty with 

respect to network upgrade costs; and (4) accountability.22

On July 7, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Petition for Rulemaking in 

Docket No. RM15-21-000 to seek public comment on the Petition. The Commission 

received thirty-five comments and three answers and reply comments.23

 19 Petition at 2. 

20 Petition at 3.

21 Petition at 3.

22 Petition at 4-5.

23 See Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the AWEA Petition 

(Docket No. RM15-21-000) and the 2016 Technical Conference (Docket No. RM16-12-

000). 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 12 -

D. 2016 Technical Conference

On May 13, 2016, Commission staff convened the 2016 Technical Conference at 

Commission headquarters. The 2016 Technical Conference featured five panels on “The 

Current State of Generator Interconnection Queues,” “Transparency and Timing in the 

Interconnection Study Process,” “Certainty in Cost Estimates and Construction Time,” 

“Other Queue Coordination and Management Issues,” and “Interconnection of Electric 

Storage Resources.” The panels featured representatives from RTOs/ISOs, non-independent 

transmission providers, transmission owners within RTOs/ISOs, renewable generation 

developers, and other stakeholders.

On June 3, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice Inviting Post-Technical 

Conference Comments. The Commission received 24 post-technical conference comments.

III. Need for Reform of the Interconnection Process

Since the issuance of Order No. 2003, the electric power industry has undergone

numerous changes. For example, the nation’s resource mix has undergone significant 

change. In many regions, the resource mix now includes increasing amounts of generation 

powered by wind,24 natural gas, solar, and most recently, electric storage resources.25 These 

 24 In 2015, for example, wind, natural gas, and solar power were the largest 

classes of new entrants. See Wind Adds the Most Electric Generation Capacity in 2015, 

Followed by Natural Gas and Solar (Mar. 23, 2016) 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25492. 

25 See U.S. Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Expected to Surpass 

Coal in Mix of Fuel Used for U.S. Power Generation in 2016 (Mar. 16, 2016), 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25392; see also Energy Storage 

Association, US Surpasses 100 MW of Storage Deployments through Q3 2015, Already Best 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 13 -

changes are the result of a multitude of factors, such as the economics of new power 

generation largely driven by sustained low natural gas prices, technology advances, and 

federal and state policies, including federal environmental regulations and state-level 

mandates for renewable capacity. The changing resource mix has impacted the 

Commission’s interconnection policies. 

The increasing penetration of variables energy resources and emerging technologies 

has implications for the interconnection process, for both interconnection customers and 

transmission providers.26 For example, wind generation is limited geographically because it

is concentrated in locations where there are dependable windy conditions that are sufficient 

to generate electricity. Additionally, a lengthy interconnection process affects all resources 

attempting to interconnect and can have a disproportionate effect on resources that can be 

built more quickly than traditional resources. Further, interconnection processes should 

consider the evolving capabilities of electric storage resources, which may involve different 

considerations than the interconnection of more traditional generation resources. These 

 

Year Ever (Dec. 3, 2015, 11:13 AM), http://energystorage.org/resources/us-surpasses-100-

mw-storage-deployments-through-q3-2015-already-best-year-ever. The Commission 

defines an electric storage resource as a facility that can receive electric energy from the 

grid and store it for later injection of electricity back to the grid. This includes all types of 

electric storage technologies, regardless of their size or storage medium (e.g., batteries, 

flywheels, compressed air, pumped-hydro, etc.). See Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, 

Inc., 155 FERC ¶ 61,211, at n.7 (2016).

26 See, e.g., Monitoring Analytics, PJM State of the Market at Table 12-17, 

http://monitoringanalytics.com/reports/PJM_State_of_the_Market/2016/2016q2-som-pjmsec12.pdf.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 14 -

factors suggest a need for the Commission to reevaluate its interconnection policies to 

ensure that they are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.

As described above, beginning with Order No. 2003, the Commission has sought to 

improve the interconnection process by minimizing opportunities for undue discrimination 

and expediting the development of new generation while protecting system reliability and 

ensuring just and reasonable rates. However, at present, many interconnection customers 

experience delays, and interconnection queues have significant backlogs and long 

timelines.27 According to interconnection customers and transmission providers, a recurring 

problem is that late-stage interconnection request withdrawals lead to interconnection study 

restudies and consequent delays for lower-queued interconnection customers.28

Interconnection request withdrawals can also lead to increased network upgrade cost 

responsibility for lower-queued interconnection customers, which could, in turn, result in 

further cascading withdrawals. Further, a lack of cost and timing certainty can hinder 

interconnection customers from obtaining financing. Cost uncertainty in particular presents 

a significant obstacle, as some interconnection customers are less able to absorb unexpected 

and potentially higher costs.

Consistent with the 2008 Order, where the Commission allowed RTOs/ISOs to 

develop and propose their own solutions to interconnection timing issues, most RTOs/ISOs 

 27 See, e.g., 2016 Technical Conference Tr. 210: 1-10 (discussion of delays up to a 

year).

28 See, e.g., 2016 Technical Conference Tr. 20:15-23 (discussion regarding MISO’s 

experiencing 50 percent withdrawal rates in many parts of the queue).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 15 -

have implemented different procedures to alleviate queue delays. MISO, in particular, has 

proposed four different queue reforms, each of which have been designed to improve and 

expedite the interconnection process.29 SPP has implemented two queue reforms, for 

similar reasons.30 CAISO has employed network upgrade cost caps and periodic, scheduled 

restudies in order to provide certainty to the interconnection customer.31 Despite these 

efforts, delays, backlogs, and long queue times continue to affect interconnection 

customers.32

The Petition highlighted some of the issues affecting the interconnection process and 

encouraged the Commission to consider these and other interconnection issues as well as the 

overall state of interconnection queues. In light of these issues, the Commission in this 

proceeding reviewed current interconnection processes and proposes reforms to ensure that 

these processes continue to “minimize opportunities for undue discrimination and expedite 

the development of new generation, while protecting reliability and ensuring that rates are 

 29 See Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,183 (2008), 

order on reh’g, 127 FERC ¶ 61,294 (2009); Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, 

Inc., 129 FERC ¶ 61,301 (2009); Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 

138 FERC ¶ 61,233, order on reh’g and compliance, 139 FERC ¶ 61,253 (2012); Docket 

No. ER17-156-000. 

30 See Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 128 FERC ¶ 61,114, order on compliance, 129 FERC 

¶ 61,226 (2009), order on compliance, 133 FERC ¶ 61,139 (2010); Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 

147 FERC ¶ 61,201 (2014), order on reh’g and compliance, 151 FERC ¶ 61,235 (2015).

31See California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 124 FERC ¶ 61,292 (2008).

32 See Petition at 8-11.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 16 -

just and reasonable.”33 The Commission conducted this review and developed proposals 

based on information provided in the 2016 Technical Conference and comments submitted 

in that proceeding. 

The Commission preliminarily finds that aspects of the current interconnection 

process may hinder the timely development of new generation and, thereby, stifle 

competition in the wholesale markets, resulting in rates, terms, and conditions that are 

not just and reasonable or are unduly discriminatory or preferential. The current 

interconnection process can create uncertainty for interconnection customers regarding both 

costs and timing. A lack of transparency in the interconnection process can result in

interconnection customers submitting interconnection requests to the queue that may be

speculative or unlikely to reach commercial operation, which can affect other 

interconnection customers and create difficulties for transmission providers and owners. 

Increasing transparency will allow for interconnection customers to better evaluate the

viability of an interconnection request prior to entering the queue, which could result in 

fewer interconnection requests dropping out of the queue. A lack of timely and clear

information can also affect an interconnection customer’s decisions regarding whether and 

where to build a generating facility or other resource and can also affect the viability of an 

interconnection request after it enters the interconnection queue. Finally, the current 

interconnection process can involve unnecessary obstacles to the interconnection of new 

technologies and as such, the Commission has proposed reforms to address these issues.

 33 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 11.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 17 -

The Commission also preliminarily finds that the process for a transmission provider 

to conduct interconnection studies may result in uncertainty and inaccurate information. 

The current interconnection study process is meant to allow for refinements in the study 

estimates of interconnection costs as an interconnection request moves through each of the 

interconnection study phases.34 However, uncertainty in study results and a lack of 

transparency may hamper generation development. Cost uncertainty presents a particularly 

significant obstacle as some interconnection customers are less able to absorb unexpected 

and potentially higher costs for interconnection facilities and network upgrades that may 

occur either in the normal course of refined estimates or as a result of restudy. Moreover, if 

an interconnection customer does not obtain timely studies or is assessed previously 

unanticipated network upgrade costs, this could affect a number of development aspects, 

including the interconnection customer’s land lease agreements required to support 

unanticipated network upgrades, additional project financing required for increased network 

upgrade costs, and/or ability to obtain a power purchase agreement in the face of a potential 

delay. 

Additionally, the Commission preliminarily finds that the potential for discriminatory 

interconnection processes exists as new technologies enter the power generation sphere. 

New technologies may be hampered in the study process as study conductors come up to 

speed on how to evaluate the incorporation of these technologies onto the system. 

 34 See Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at PP 195, 217-34.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 18 -

Interconnection customers involving new technologies may be affected more by process and 

information uncertainty than incumbents experienced with the interconnection process in 

certain regions. 

IV. Proposed Reforms

The Commission is proposing to reform certain aspects of the Commission’s 

regulations and the pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA that affect the interconnection 

process to ensure that they are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential. 

The provision of more timely and accurate information could increase certainty

for interconnection customers and assist them in earlier project evaluation and quicker 

project development, as well as assist in earlier, less disruptive withdrawals from the 

interconnection queue. Interconnection customers and transmission providers alike have 

frequently expressed frustration at the need for repeated restudies and prolonged queue 

times resulting from the withdrawal of higher-queued interconnection requests.35 With 

improvements in certainty and the quality of information conveyed at an earlier stage in the 

interconnection process, some of these withdrawals could be eliminated, and the queue 

could proceed more quickly. At the same time, fewer withdrawals would benefit 

transmission providers by reducing the burden of processing requests that are unlikely to 

reach commercial operation.

 35 See, e.g., 2016 Technical Conference Tr. 20:15-23.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 19 -

The Commission also believes that providing interconnection customers with access 

to more detailed information could enable the interconnection customer to make more 

informed decisions earlier in the interconnection process. For example, increased 

knowledge of the assumptions used in interconnection studies could assist an 

interconnection customer with identifying optimal points of interconnection as well as allow 

it to better anticipate the duration of the interconnection process and better understand issues 

that may arise as the result of study outcomes. Interconnection customers may also benefit 

from a more complete up front understanding of the network upgrades, contingencies, and 

risks of curtailment that their interconnection requests may face, which could reduce latestage interconnection request withdrawals and result in fewer restudies and delays. More 

timely and accurate information regarding an interconnection request, as well as greater 

transparency of the study process and of congestion, will reduce the incentive for 

interconnection customers to submit multiple interconnection requests when expecting to 

interconnect a large generating facility. While interconnection customers may still submit 

multiple requests, the Commission anticipates that they would submit fewer requests with 

better information and that the interconnection customer would terminate a non-viable 

interconnection request earlier. 

The Commission also proposes reforms that could enhance interconnection 

processes. The Commission believes that new technologies will drive grid innovation, as 

well as offer other facility efficiencies and advances. These innovations may reach the 

market after an interconnection customer has initiated or completed an interconnection 

request. However, in some circumstances, there are likely ways to inject efficiencies in the 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 20 -

traditional interconnection process or to preempt the need for a transmission provider to 

construct new, unnecessary interconnection facilities and network upgrades. Additionally, 

the Commission believes there are ways to allow flexibility in the interconnection process to 

incorporate innovation or developments that transpire while an interconnection request is in 

the queue. 

At this time, the Commission does not propose reforms to generator interconnection 

processes and agreements other than those described herein. This limitation includes any 

reforms proposed by AWEA in its Petition that are not included in this Proposed Reforms 

section. 

A. Improving Certainty for Interconnection Customers

The reforms proposed below would improve certainty by providing interconnection 

customers more predictability in the interconnection process, including more predictability 

regarding the costs and the timing of interconnecting to the grid. Increasing certainty for 

interconnection customers—particularly cost certainty—may decrease the number of latestage interconnection request withdrawals from the interconnection queue, which could 

meaningfully ameliorate the cycle of repeated, cascading restudies. In addition to the 

proposed reforms, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which capping 

interconnection customer cost responsibility for actual network upgrade costs to some 

margin above estimated network upgrade costs can mitigate the potential for serial restudies 

without inappropriately shifting cost responsibility.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 21 -

1. Scheduled Periodic Restudies 

As discussed below, the Commission proposes to revise the pro forma LGIP to 

require transmission providers that conduct cluster studies to establish a schedule for 

conducting periodic restudies. 

a. Current Provisions and Background

The current pro forma LGIP requires the transmission provider to make reasonable 

efforts36 to provide: (i) feasibility study results within 45 days after receipt of a signed 

feasibility agreement; (ii) system impact study results within 90 days after receipt of a 

signed system impact study agreement or after the cluster window closes; and (iii) facilities

study results either within 90 days after receipt of a signed facilities study agreement or 

180 days after receipt of a signed facilities study agreement, depending on the accuracy 

margin provided.37 For the purpose of conducting the system impact study, the current 

pro forma LGIP allows transmission providers the option to process interconnection 

requests on a serial basis or in groups using clusters.38

A transmission provider may require a restudy of an interconnection customer’s 

study results if a higher-queued interconnection request drops out of the queue or an 

 36 Reasonable Efforts “shall mean, with respect to an action required to be attempted 

or taken by a Party under the Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement, efforts 

that are timely and consistent with Good Utility Practice and are otherwise substantially 

equivalent to those a Party would use to protect its own interests.” Pro forma LGIP Sec. 1 

(Definitions).

37 See Pro forma LGIP Sec. 6.3, 7.4 and 8.3. 

38 See Pro forma LGIP Sec. 4.2. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 22 -

interconnection customer modifies its interconnection request.39 A transmission provider 

may also require restudy if either the feasibility or system impact studies uncover any 

unexpected result not contemplated during the scoping meeting that will require redesignation of the point of interconnection. According to the pro forma LGIP, restudy of an 

interconnection feasibility study shall take no longer than 45 days from the date the 

transmission provider provides notice that such restudy is required. Restudy of an 

interconnection system impact study or interconnection facilities study shall not take longer 

than 60 days from the date the transmission provider provides notice to the interconnection 

customer that such restudy is required.40 While the current pro forma language establishes 

timeframes in which to complete restudies after an interconnection customer is notified, it 

does not provide guidance on the frequency at which such restudies should occur for 

clustered or grouped interconnection requests. 

b. AWEA Petition and Comments

In its Petition, AWEA recognizes that restudies are often necessary, but it states that, 

in certain regions, restudies are conducted on an ad hoc basis as the need arises.41 AWEA 

argues that repeated restudies conducted at irregular intervals may increase or prolong 

uncertainty for interconnection customers. 

 39 See Pro forma LGIP Sec. 6.4, 7.6, and 8.5. 

40 See Pro forma LGIP Sec. 6.4, 7.6 and 8.5.

41 Petition at 22.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 23 -

AWEA further explains that, under the current pro forma LGIP, the withdrawal of a 

higher-queued interconnection request may necessitate a restudy, which may then change 

the assumptions for other queued interconnection requests within a cluster, necessitating 

further restudies in a cascading effect. AWEA contends that these cascading restudies 

prolong cost uncertainty, cause delays in finalizing interconnection study results, and delay 

the execution of LGIAs. As a potential solution, AWEA proposes an annual or periodic 

restudy process for interconnection requests within a cluster, in which the transmission 

provider would consider all relevant system condition changes, including higher-queued 

interconnection requests that withdraw from the queue. AWEA contends that such a restudy 

process provides certainty because each restudy would be completed according to a 

schedule, rather than conducted on an ad hoc basis due to intervening events.42 

However, AWEA also asserts that when an unplanned restudy becomes necessary 

outside of the scheduled restudy process, it is of critical importance that the restudy be 

processed in as timely a manner as possible. AWEA adds that the transmission provider 

should, if necessary, hire additional consultants or staff to ensure proper resources to 

process the restudy in a consistent and timely manner.43 

Several commenters, including a number of entities that have been interconnection 

customers for wind generation such as NRG, EDF, and NextEra, support a scheduled 

restudy process and offer suggestions for how transmission providers should conduct this 

 42 Petition at 22-25.

43 AWEA 2016 Comments at 30.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 24 -

process.

44 MISO also acknowledges that the withdrawal of higher-queued interconnection 

requests creates the need for cascading restudies of lower-queued interconnection requests 

and that scheduled restudies may alleviate the need for multiple ad hoc restudies.45 NextEra 

states that, under an annual restudy process, the transmission provider should consider all 

relevant system condition changes, as well as all higher-queued interconnection requests 

that dropped out of the queue, in one restudy for the applicable interconnection requests in a 

cluster or sub-region. Although it believes there may be some efficiency in a group restudy, 

EDF cautions that, if the restudy were to include different interconnection requests from 

different clusters, it could result in as many issues and inefficiencies as are produced by the 

current process.46

Some commenters oppose scheduled, periodic restudies. ISO-NE, Xcel, and ITC 

express the belief that an annual, group restudy would not be useful. These commenters 

assert that the primary cause for restudies — namely, the withdrawal of higher-queued 

interconnection requests — is out of the transmission provider’s control and can occur at 

any time. These commenters contend that limiting restudies to once a year could force 

viable generation interconnection requests to wait longer than necessary for restudy 

 44 NRG 2015 Comments at 4; EDF 2016 Comments at 31; NextEra 2015 Comments 

at 8-9. 

45 MISO 2016 Comments at 13.

46 EDP 2016 Comments at 17.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 25 -

results.47 The ISO/RTO Council states that this proposal is inapplicable to NYISO due to its 

“non-serial” interconnection queue approach, in which an interconnection request is only 

included in the base case for restudy when it has satisfied certain requirements. The 

ISO/RTO Council also notes that ISO-NE’s interconnection process is merged with the 

Forward Capacity Market. Thus, the ISO/RTO Council argues, AWEA’s proposals for the 

restudy process could be disruptive.48 

c. Proposal 

The Commission proposes to revise the pro forma LGIP to require transmission 

providers that conduct cluster studies to conduct restudies on a scheduled, periodic basis 

(e.g., annually, semi-annually, quarterly, or a set number of days after the completion of the 

cluster study). The Commission proposes to require transmission providers to update their 

LGIPs to specify the frequency of restudies for interconnection customers in a cluster study 

and post the dates of these restudies on the transmission provider’s OASIS. 

A scheduled, periodic restudy process could enhance the efficiency and certainty of 

the study process for all parties by mitigating the problem of cascading restudies. This 

reform could achieve this result because it creates some milestones that can serve as

decision points for interconnection customers and allows transmission providers to further 

revise their interconnection processes as necessary to incorporate scheduled restudies. 

 47 ISO-NE 2016 Comments at 24; Xcel 2016 Comments at 13; ITC 2016 Comments 

at 8. 

48 ISO/RTO Council 2015 Comments at 5-7.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 26 -

Further, the Commission notes that it is not proposing that all transmission providers 

establish the same restudy schedule; rather, the Commission proposes to give transmission 

providers flexibility in establishing the frequency of restudies to best accommodate the 

needs of interconnection customers and transmission providers.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to require each transmission provider that 

conducts cluster studies to revise sections 6.4 and 7.6 of the pro forma LGIP as follows

(proposing to delete italicized text):

If Re-Study of the [insert appropriate study] Study is required due to a higher 

queued project dropping out of the queue, or a modification of a higher 

queued project subject to Section 4.4, or re-designation of the Point of 

Interconnection pursuant to Section [insert appropriate section] Transmission 

Provider shall notify Interconnection Customer in writing. Serially processed 

Re-Studies Such Re-Study shall take no longer than [forty-five (45)/ sixty 

(60)] Calendar Days from the date of the notice. Any cost of Re-Study shall 

be borne by the Interconnection Customer being re-studied.

If a Transmission Provider that conducts cluster studies identifies a need for 

restudies, it will conduct periodic Re-Studies for each cluster [placeholder for 

time frame proposed by each Transmission Provider]. Re-Study dates for 

each cluster will also be posted on the Transmission Provider’s OASIS. ReStudy shall take no longer than [forty-five (45)/ sixty (60)] Calendar Days 

from the commencement date of the Re-Study. Any cost of Re-Study shall be 

borne by the Interconnection Customer being re-studied.

 

Likewise, the Commission proposes to require each transmission provider that 

conducts cluster studies to revise section 8.5 of the pro forma LGIP as follows (proposing to 

delete italicized text):

If Re-Study of the Interconnection Facilities Study is required due to a higher 

queued project dropping out of the queue or a modification of a higher queued 

project pursuant to Section 4.4, Transmission Provider shall so notify 

Interconnection Customer in writing. Serially processed Re-Studies Such ReStudy shall take no longer than sixty (60) Calendar Days from the date of the 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 27 -

notice. Any cost of Re-Study shall be borne by the Interconnection Customer 

being re-studied.

A Transmission Provider that conducts cluster studies will conduct periodic 

Re-studies for each cluster [placeholder for time frame proposed by each 

Transmission Provider]. Re-Study dates for each cluster will also be posted 

on the Transmission Provider’s OASIS. Re-Study of the cluster shall take no 

longer than sixty (60) Calendar Days from the commencement date of the ReStudy.

 

The Commission acknowledges the concern held by some stakeholders that a 

scheduled, periodic restudy process could force viable interconnection requests to wait 

longer than necessary to progress through the interconnection process. The Commission

seeks comment on whether regions that conduct cluster studies and move to periodic 

re-studies should retain some discretion to conduct restudies outside of the established 

schedule at the request of interconnection customers or under specific circumstances that 

deem such deviations necessary. The Commission seeks comments on when this discretion

should be restricted and the circumstances under which such deviations should be allowed. 

Additionally, some commenters allege that transmission provider tariffs generally 

provide insufficient transparency regarding the type of triggers that would require restudy

for projects processed through serial or cluster studies; they also contend that transmission 

providers do not apply such triggers consistently.49 In contrast, some transmission providers 

assert that their tariffs sufficiently detail restudy triggers.50 We believe that the 

 49 E.g., AWEA 2016 Comments at 30; Invenergy 2016 Comments at 19-20; EDPR 

NA 2016 Comments at 16-17.

50 MISO 2016 Comments at 15; ISO-NE 2016 Comments at 23.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 28 -

Commission’s proposal above to require scheduled, periodic restudies could help address 

these concerns for interconnection requests processed through cluster studies. However, the 

Commission also seeks comment on (1) whether the Commission should further revise the 

pro forma LGIP to improve the transparency and application of restudy triggers generally, 

and (2) if so, what reforms are needed.

2. The Interconnection Customer’s Option to Build 

The Commission proposes to allow the interconnection customer to exercise the 

option to build unilaterally; that is, the Commission proposes that the interconnection 

customer’s option to assume responsibility for construction of the transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities and stand alone network upgrades is not contingent on the 

transmission provider notifying the interconnection customer that it cannot complete such

facilities on the schedule proposed by the interconnection customer. 

a. Current Provisions and Background

Under the current pro forma LGIA, the interconnection customer’s option to build is 

contingent on the transmission provider’s notification that the transmission provider cannot 

complete the facilities on schedule. Specifically, under the pro forma LGIA, the 

interconnection customer selects the “In-Service Date, Initial Synchronization Date, and 

Commercial Date”51 and “either the Standard Option or Alternative Option” unless mutually 

 51 The In-Service Date is “the date upon which the Interconnection Customer 

reasonably expects it will be ready to begin use of the Transmission Provider's 

Interconnection Facilities to obtain back feed power.” Pro forma LGIA Art. 1. The Initial 

Synchronization Date is “the date upon which the Generating Facility is initially

synchronized and upon which Trial Operation begins.” Id. The Commercial Operation 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 29 -

agreed to between the parties to the agreement.52 Under the standard option, the 

transmission provider “shall construct the Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities53 and Network Upgrades using Reasonable Efforts to complete the construction by 

the dates designated by the Interconnection Customer.”54 Under the alternate option, 

“Transmission Provider shall construct the Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities and Network Upgrades according to the construction completion dates established 

by the Interconnection Customer, and if it fails to meet those dates, it may be liable for 

liquidated damages,” although the transmission provider may decline this option “within 30 

Calendar Days of executing the LGIA.”55

 

Date is “the date on which the Generating Facility commences Commercial Operation as 

agreed to by the Parties pursuant to Appendix E to the Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement.” Id.

52 Pro forma LGIA Sec. 5.1.

53 According to the pro forma LGIA:

Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities shall mean all 

facilities and equipment owned, controlled or operated by the 

Transmission Provider from the Point of Change of Ownership to the 

Point of Interconnection as identified in Appendix A to the Standard 

Large Generator Interconnection Agreement, including any 

modifications, additions or upgrades to such facilities and equipment. 

Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities are sole use facilities 

and shall not include Distribution Upgrades, Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades or Network Upgrades.

Pro forma LGIA Art. 1.

54 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 351.

55 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 352.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 30 -

Under the current OATT, there are two other options, which are available if the 

transmission provider informs the interconnection customer that it cannot meet the proposed 

dates: the “Option to Build” and the “Negotiated Option.”56 The “Option to Build,” which 

the pro forma LGIA describes in section 5.1.3, provides an interconnection customer with 

the option to build the transmission provider’s interconnection facilities and stand alone

network upgrades, but limits that option to circumstances where the transmission provider 

cannot meet the dates proposed by the interconnection customer. That is, an interconnection 

customer may “assume responsibility for the design, procurement and construction of 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities and Stand Alone Network Upgrades.”57 

However, the interconnection customer may only exercise this option if the transmission 

provider notifies the interconnection customer that the transmission provider cannot meet 

the interconnection customer’s preferred construction completion dates.58

The “Negotiated Option” applies “if the Transmission Provider notifies the 

Interconnection Customer that it cannot meet the dates established by the Interconnection 

Customer, and the Interconnection Customer does not want to assume responsibility for 

construction.”59 Under this option, the “Interconnection Customer may decide that the 

Parties shall negotiate in good faith to revise the construction completion dates and other 

 56 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 353.

57 Pro forma LGIA Sec. 5.1.3. 

58 See, e.g., ISO New England Inc., 149 FERC ¶ 61,274, at P 18 (2014).

59 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 354.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 31 -

provisions under which the Transmission Provider is responsible for the construction.”60 If 

the parties are unable to reach an agreement during these negotiations, the transmission 

provider assumes responsibility “for construction of the Transmission Provider’s 

Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades in accordance with the Standard 

Option.”61

b. Comments

Multiple parties that have experience as interconnection customers at the 

2016 Technical Conference expressed support for reforms that would allow them to build 

some interconnection facilities and network upgrades, explaining that they are often able to 

build more rapidly and at lower cost than transmission owners.62 Several commenters 

advocate expanding the option to build to circumstances beyond those described in current 

section 5.1.3 of the LGIA.63 They contend that the Commission should not condition the 

usage of the option to build on timing but should instead allow for an absolute right for 

interconnection customers to build interconnection facilities and stand alone upgrades. 

 60 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 354.

61 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 354.

62 2016 Technical Conference Tr. 121: 1-22.

63 E.g., E.ON 2016 Comments at 15; Xcel 2016 Comments at 16; Invenergy 2016 

Comments at 26; EDP 2016 Comments at 19; EDF 2016 Comments at 40. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 32 -

Other commenters oppose expansion of the circumstances under which an 

interconnection customer may exercise the option to build.64 For instance, ITC suggests that 

removing the limitation on when the option to build can be exercised would threaten system 

reliability.65 Additionally, MISO TOs states that in Order No. 2003-A, the Commission 

clarified that the transmission provider has no obligation to cede ownership of stand alone

network upgrades or the transmission provider’s interconnection facilities to the 

interconnection customer.66 Some commenters that support expanding the option to build 

acknowledge that usage of this option should still require that reliability standards be 

maintained.67

c. Proposal

The Commission preliminarily finds that limiting the option to build only to 

circumstances where the transmission provider cannot meet the interconnection customer’s 

requested dates may not be just and reasonable and may be unduly discriminatory or 

preferential. The limitation may restrict an interconnection customer’s ability to efficiently 

build the transmission provider’s interconnection facilities and the interconnection 

 64 ISO-NE 2016 Comments at 27.

65 ITC 2016 Comments at 10.

66 MISO TOs 2016 Comments at 21.

67 See AES 2016 Comments at 9.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 33 -

customer’s stand alone network upgrades in a cost-effective manner.68 As a result, an 

interconnection customer may pay more for the transmission provider’s interconnection 

facilities and standalone upgrades. Furthermore, removing the limitation may provide 

interconnection customers more control and certainty during the design and construction 

phase of the interconnection process.

The Commission proposes to modify the pro forma LGIA to allow an 

interconnection customer to exercise the option to build regardless of whether the 

transmission provider can meet the requested construction dates. More specifically, the 

Commission proposes to modify the pro forma LGIA to allow an interconnection customer 

to design, procure, and construct the transmission provider’s interconnection facilities and 

stand alone network upgrades – even if the transmission provider can meet the requested 

construction dates – where the interconnection customer and transmission provider (and

transmission owner, if applicable) are in agreement as to the transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities and stand alone network upgrades that would be built, including 

the design and construction details. Existing responsibilities and protections, including 

 68 The pro forma LGIA states that:

Stand Alone Network Upgrades shall mean Network Upgrades that an 

Interconnection Customer may construct without affecting day-to-day 

operations of the Transmission System during their construction. Both 

the Transmission Provider and the Interconnection Customer must 

agree as to what constitutes Stand Alone Network Upgrades and 

identify them in Appendix A to the Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement.

Pro forma LGIA Art. 1.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 34 -

reliability considerations, in section 5.2 of the pro forma LGIP under “General Conditions 

Applicable to Option to Build” would continue to apply.

The Commission is not proposing changes with respect to how transmission 

provider’s interconnection facilities and stand-alone network upgrades are designed or 

approved, which standards or practices must be followed, or the ownership of transmission 

provider’s interconnection facilities and stand-alone network upgrades that are built under 

the option to build.

69 Nor is the Commission proposing to expand the types of stand-alone 

facilities that interconnection customers may construct under the option to build beyond 

transmission provider’s interconnection facilities and stand-alone network upgrades. The 

proposal instead removes the limitation on when the interconnection customer can exercise 

the option to build such that an interconnection customer may opt to build in an effort to 

reduce its costs or improve the timeline for construction. Specifically, the Commission 

proposes to modify the language in section 5.1 of the pro forma LGIA as follows (proposing 

to delete italicized text):

Options. Unless otherwise mutually agreed to between the Parties, 

Interconnection Customer shall select the In-Service Date, Initial 

Synchronization Date, and Commercial Operation Date; and either the

Standard Option or Alternate Option set forth below for completion of 

Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades, as 

set forth in Appendix A, Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades, 

and such dates and selected option shall be set forth in Appendix B, 

Milestones. At the same time, Interconnection Customer shall indicate 

whether it elects to exercise the Option to Build set forth in section 5.1.3 

below. If the dates designated by Interconnection Customer are not acceptable 

to Transmission Provider, Transmission Provider shall so notify 

 69 Pro forma LGIA Sec. 5.2.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 35 -

Interconnection Customer within thirty (30) Calendar Days. Upon receipt of 

the notification that Interconnection Customer’s designated dates are not 

acceptable to Transmission Provider, the Interconnection Customer shall 

notify the Transmission Provider within thirty (30) Calendar Days whether it 

elects to exercise the Option to Build if it has not already elected to exercise 

the Option to Build.

The Commission also proposes to modify the language in article 5.1.3 of the pro 

forma LGIA as follows (proposing to delete italicized text):

Option to Build. If the dates designated by Interconnection Customer are not 

acceptable to Transmission Provider, Transmission Provider shall so notify 

Interconnection Customer within thirty (30) Calendar Days. and unless the 

Parties agree otherwise, Interconnection Customer shall have the option to 

assume responsibility for the design, procurement and construction of 

Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades on the dates specified in Article 5.1.2. Transmission Provider and 

Interconnection Customer must agree as to what constitutes Stand Alone 

Network Upgrades and identify such Stand Alone Network Upgrades in 

Appendix A. Except for Stand Alone Network Upgrades, Interconnection 

Customer shall have no right to construct Network Upgrades under this 

option.

Given the changes proposed above, revisions to the negotiated option are necessary 

because the current version of the negotiated option references the current limitations on the 

option to build. For this reason, it is necessary to remove these references in the negotiated 

option and to address scenarios in which an interconnection customer exercises the option to 

build and still wishes to negotiate completion times for other facilities, including network 

upgrades that are not stand alone network upgrades, as well as circumstances in which the 

interconnection customer does not wish to exercise the option to build. Such revisions are

necessary because the ability to exercise the option to build would no longer be contingent 

upon a transmission provider’s inability to meet the interconnection customer’s proposed 

dates. However, the negotiated option must also contemplate the possibility that the 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 36 -

transmission provider does not agree to the interconnection customer’s proposed dates as to 

other facilities not covered by the option to build (i.e., other than transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities and stand-alone network upgrades). That is, even if the 

interconnection customer elects to exercise the option to build, the transmission provider 

would still be responsible for the design, procurement, and construction of the 

interconnection facilities and network upgrades other than transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities and stand-alone network upgrades. The option to build does not 

grant any right to the interconnection customer to construct network upgrades that are not 

stand-alone upgrades. Furthermore, both the transmission provider and the interconnection 

customer must agree on which facilities are the stand-alone network upgrades and identify 

them in Appendix A to the LGIA.70

The Commission therefore proposes to modify the language in article 5.1.4 of the

pro forma LGIA as follows (proposing to delete italicized text):

Negotiated Option. If Interconnection Customer elects not to exercise its 

option under Article 5.1.3, Option to Build, Interconnection Customer shall so 

notify Transmission Provider within thirty (30) Calendar Days, and If the 

dates designated by Interconnection Customer are not acceptable to 

Transmission Provider, the Parties shall in good faith attempt to negotiate 

terms and conditions (including revision of the specified dates and liquidated 

damages, the provision of incentives, or the procurement and construction of 

a portion of Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and Stand 

Alone Network Upgrades by Interconnection Customer all facilities other than 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities and Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades if the Interconnection Customer elects to exercise the Option to 

Build under Article 5.1.3) pursuant to which Transmission Provider is 

responsible for the design, procurement and construction of Transmission 

 70 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 353.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 37 -

Provider’s Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades. If the Parties 

are unable to reach agreement on such terms and conditions, then, pursuant to 

5.1.1 (Standard Option), Transmission Provider shall assume responsibility for 

the design, procurement and construction of Transmission Provider's 

Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgradesall facilities other than 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities and Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades if the Interconnection Customer elects to exercise the Option to 

Buildpursuant to 5.1.1, Standard Option. 

3. Self-Funding by the Transmission Owner

The Commission proposes to require agreement between a transmission owner or 

provider and interconnection customer before the transmission owner or provider may elect 

to initially fund network upgrades.

a. Existing Provisions and Background

Order No. 2003 laid out a pricing policy with regard to the costs of interconnection. 

There, the Commission stated that, where the transmission provider is not an RTO/ISO, it is 

appropriate for the interconnection customer to “be solely responsible for the costs of 

Interconnection Facilities”71 and for network upgrades72 to be “funded initially by the 

 71 Interconnection Facilities refer to: 

shall mean the Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and the 

Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities. Collectively, 

Interconnection Facilities include all facilities and equipment between the 

Generating Facility and the Point of Interconnection, including any 

modification, additions or upgrades that are necessary to physically and 

electrically interconnect the Generating Facility to the Transmission Provider's 

Transmission System. Interconnection Facilities are sole use facilities and 

shall not include Distribution Upgrades, Stand Alone Network Upgrades or 

Network Upgrades. 

Pro forma LGIA Art. 1.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 38 -

interconnection customer unless the Transmission Provider elects to fund them.”73 If the 

interconnection customer funds the network upgrades, then the interconnection customer is 

“entitled to a cash equivalent refund . . . equal to the total amount paid for the Network 

Upgrades ” paid “as credits against the Interconnection Customer’s payments for 

transmission services, with the full amount to be refunded . . . within five years of the date 

the Network Upgrades are placed in service.”74 This upfront payment from the 

interconnection customer “serves not as a rate for interconnection or transmission service, 

but simply as a financing mechanism that is designed to facilitate the efficient construction 

of Network Upgrades.”75 In Order No. 2003, the Commission explained that, while it is 

appropriate for the interconnection customer to pay the initial full cost for network upgrades 

that “would not be needed but for the interconnection,” the interconnection customer must 

receive transmission service credits in return to ensure that it “will not have to pay both 

 72 Network upgrades refer to: 

the additions, modifications, and upgrades to the Transmission 

Provider's Transmission System required at or beyond the point at 

which the Interconnection Facilities connect to the Transmission 

Provider's Transmission System to accommodate the interconnection of 

the Large Generating Facility to the Transmission Provider's 

Transmission System.

Pro forma LGIA Art. 1.

73 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at PP 693-694, 676.

74 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 676.

75 Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160 at P 612.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 39 -

incremental costs and an average embedded cost rate for the use of the Transmission 

System.”76 The Commission further stated that this policy helps ensure that every 

interconnection “is treated comparably to the interconnections that a non-independent 

Transmission Provider completes for its own Generating Facilities.” 77 The Commission 

further explained that the costs of network upgrades for a transmission provider’s own 

generation are traditionally rolled into the transmission provider’s transmission rates. The 

Commission allows some pricing flexibility for transmission providers that are part of an 

RTO/ISO and independent of market participants, as these transmission providers have “no 

incentive to use the cost determination and allocation process to unfairly advantage [their] 

own generation.”78 

Currently, article 11.3 of the pro forma LGIA states that: 

Network Upgrades and Distribution Upgrades. Transmission Provider or 

Transmission Owner shall design, procure, construct, install, and own the 

Network Upgrades and Distribution Upgrades described in Appendix A, 

Interconnection Facilities, Network Upgrades and Distribution Upgrades. The 

Interconnection Customer shall be responsible for all costs related to 

Distribution Upgrades. Unless Transmission Provider or Transmission Owner 

elects to fund the capital for the Network Upgrades, they shall be solely 

funded by Interconnection Customer. 

 76 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 694.

77 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 694.

78 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 694; Order No. 2003-A, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160 at P 587.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 40 -

The option for the transmission owner or provider to fund the cost for network upgrades is

termed the “self-fund option.” Under Order No. 2003, a transmission owner or provider

electing the self-fund option provides the up-front funding for the capital cost of the network 

upgrades and then recovers the costs of those upgrades through its rolled-in transmission 

rates charged to transmission customers.79

In 2009, the Commission accepted a MISO proposal to increase the cost 

responsibility of an interconnection customer to 100 percent of the costs of network 

upgrades with a possible 10 percent reimbursement for network upgrades that are 345 kV or 

above.80 This approach reflects a departure from the pro forma LGIA interconnection 

pricing policy provided in Order No. 2003. In 2013, MISO proposed to allow a 

transmission owner to elect to initially fund network upgrades and to directly assign those 

costs to the interconnection customer under MISO’s interconnection customer funding 

policy.81 In that proceeding, the Commission accepted MISO’s proposal for a transmission 

owner that elects to initially fund network upgrades under MISO’s pro forma GIA to 

 79 See Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 676. Order No. 2003, 

however, allows independent entities to depart from the pro forma LGIA approach. See 

Interstate Power and Light Co. v. ITC Midwest, LLC, 144 FERC ¶ 61,052, at P 38 (2013). 

80 Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 129 FERC ¶ 61,060, at P 8 

(2009).

81 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 145 FERC ¶ 61,111 (2013) (Hoopeston).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 41 -

recover the capital costs for network upgrades through a network upgrade charge assessed to 

the interconnection customer.82 

Recently, another transmission owner in MISO sought to unilaterally elect the selffund option for network upgrades.83 The Commission found that article 11.3 of MISO’s 

pro forma GIA may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential because 

it allows the transmission owner the discretion to elect to initially fund the upgrades and 

subsequently assess the interconnection customer a network upgrade charge that is not later 

reimbursed through the provision of credits. The Commission found that this practice could

result in discriminatory treatment by the transmission owner of different interconnection 

customers.84 The Commission additionally found that, by unilaterally electing to initially 

fund network upgrades for which the interconnection customer is ultimately financially

responsible and does not receive credits for those costs, the affected system operator or 

transmission owner may deprive the interconnection customer of more favorable network 

upgrade financing options. For instance, the Commission found that the transmission 

owner’s unilateral election to initially fund network upgrades may increase costs of 

interconnection service by assigning increased capital costs and a security requirement to 

 82 Hoopeston, 145 FERC ¶ 61,111 at P 41.

83 See Otter Tail Power Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 153 FERC 

¶ 61,352 (2015).

84 See Otter Tail Power Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 153 FERC 

¶ 61,352 at P 14; Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 151 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2015); 

Otter Tail Power Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 156 FERC ¶ 61,099 (2016) 

(Otter Tail Proceedings). 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 42 -

the interconnection customer with no corresponding increase in service.85 As a result, the 

Commission directed MISO to revise article 11.3 of its GIA to require mutual agreement 

with the interconnection customer for the transmission owner to elect to initially fund 

network upgrades.86

b. AWEA Petition and Comments

In its Petition, AWEA argues that, where the Commission has granted independent 

entity variations that do not credit back network upgrade costs to the interconnection 

customer, transmission owners or providers should not have exclusive decision-making 

authority with respect to the self-fund option. AWEA specifically raises concerns that the 

self-fund option hinders competition and provides an opportunity for undue discrimination 

and affiliate abuse. In support, AWEA argues that the self-fund option allows transmission 

owners or providers to levy large upgrade costs onto the interconnection customer. AWEA 

requests that the Commission allow the transmission owner or provider to self-fund network 

upgrades only if the interconnection customer agrees.87 

Some commenters oppose requiring mutual agreement for self-funding in all regions. 

MISO TOs view the proposal as eliminating a transmission owner’s right to self-fund 

network upgrades, arguing that this could preclude the transmission owner from the ability 

 85 Otter Tail Power Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 153 FERC 

¶ 61,352 at P 9.

86 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 151 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 53. 

87 RENEW and Wind on the Wires support this request. RENEW 2015 Comments 

at 6; Wind on the Wires 2015 Comments at 3.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 43 -

to earn a return on its investment.88 ITC agrees, arguing that it is just and reasonable for 

transmission owners to earn a fair rate of return on constructed network upgrades.89 EEI 

argues that the Commission has long permitted transmission owners to self-fund upgrades 

while collecting the capital costs for such upgrades, further asserting that self-funding is an 

important aspect of the Commission’s interconnection pricing policy. EEI notes that the 

Commission has clarified that the self-fund option should not include the recovery of costs 

other than the return of and on the capital costs of the network upgrades.90 Additionally, 

several commenters state that self-funding is a regional issue; thus, a generic rulemaking is 

not needed.91 

c. Proposal

The Commission proposes to revise the pro forma LGIA to require mutual agreement 

between the interconnection customer and the transmission owner or provider for the 

transmission owner or provider to elect to fund the capital for network upgrades. 

Specifically, the Commission proposes to revise section 11.3 of the pro forma LGIA to 

include the requirements established in the Otter Tail Proceedings. To which, the Otter Tail 

 88 MISO TOs 2015 Comments at 18.

89 ITC 2015 Comments at 12 (citing, e.g., Ameren Energy Resource Generating Co. 

v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 148 FERC ¶ 61,057, at P 38 (2014)).

90 EEI 2015 Comments at 44-45 (citing Hoopeston, 145 FERC ¶ 61,111 at P 42).

91 MISO TOs 2015 Comments at 18; MISO 2015 Comments at 21.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 44 -

Proceedings resulted in the changes as indicated below to article 3.2.1 of MISO’s 

Attachment X to read:

Transmission Owner shall provide Transmission Provider and Interconnection 

Customer with written notice pursuant to Article 15 that Transmission Owner 

elects to fund the capital for the Network Upgrades and Transmission Owner’s 

System Protection Facilities, which election shall only be available upon 

mutual agreement of Interconnection Customer and Transmission Owner; 

otherwise, such facilities, if any, shall be solely funded by Interconnection 

Customer.

As such, the Commission proposes to modify the language in article 11.3 of the pro forma

LGIA as follows:

Transmission Provider or Transmission Owner shall design, procure, 

construct, install, and own the Network Upgrades and Distribution Upgrades 

described in Appendix A, Interconnection Facilities, Network Upgrades and 

Distribution Upgrades. The Interconnection Customer shall be responsible for 

all costs related to Distribution Upgrades. Unless Transmission Provider or 

Transmission Owner elects to fund the capital for the Network Upgrades, 

which election shall only be available upon mutual agreement of 

Interconnection Customer and Transmission Owner or Transmission Provider,

they shall be solely funded by Interconnection Customer.

The Commission preliminarily finds that allowing the unilateral option to self-fund to 

continue for any transmission owner or transmission provider may be unjust, unreasonable, 

unduly discriminatory, or preferential. The Commission affirmed in the Otter Tail 

Proceedings that the unilateral election to self-fund created the same condition that was of 

concern in E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC v. Midwest Indep. 

Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., namely “unacceptable opportunities for undue 

discrimination by affording a transmission owner the discretion to increase the costs of 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 45 -

interconnection service by assigning both increased capital costs, as well as non-capital 

costs . . . to particular interconnecting generators, but not others.”92 The Commission 

further added that the unilateral election for the transmission owner to provide initial 

funding for network upgrades may deprive the interconnection customer of other options to 

finance the cost of the network upgrades that may provide more favorable terms and rates.

93 

The Commission proposes this reform to balance the interconnection customer’s 

ability to manage the cost of interconnection with the transmission owner’s or provider’s 

desire to earn a return on any network upgrades. The Commission recognizes that 

interconnection customers may have internal reasons for funding their own network 

upgrades and that doing so may enhance the interconnection customer’s ability to manage 

the cost of interconnection. The Commission, in addition, does not believe that requiring 

mutual agreement in order for the transmission provider or owner to initially fund network 

upgrades in regions that follow the pro forma LGIA crediting approach would harm the 

transmission provider or owner. To the extent an interconnection customer does not 

withhold agreement to allow the transmission owner or provider to pay the upfront cost of 

network upgrades, the transmission provider or owner will be able to earn a return. The 

Commission invites comment on benefits the interconnection customer may realize by 

 92 E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC v. Midwest Indep. Transmission 

Sys. Operator, Inc., 137 FERC ¶ 61,076, at P 37 (2011), order on reh’g, 142 FERC ¶ 

61,048, at P 21 (2013).

93 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 151 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 49 (citing E.ON, 

137 FERC ¶ 61,076 at P 37).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 46 -

forgoing its opportunity to fund network upgrades and thereby allowing the transmission 

owner or provider to initially fund the network upgrades. The Commission is similarly 

interested in the comments regarding the benefits an interconnection customer may realize 

by funding network upgrades itself. Finally, the Commission seeks further comment on 

whether extending the requirement for mutual agreement for the transmission owner or 

provider to initially fund the network upgrades would result in circumstances that could 

harm an interconnection customer. 

While the concern motivating this proposed change may typically be more salient in 

regions where transmission credits are not provided for the costs paid by interconnection 

customers, there may occasionally be reasons that interconnection customers in regions 

where transmission credits are provided may want to require mutual agreement with the 

transmission owner or provider before it could self-fund. Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes that all transmission providers revise article 11.3 in their pro forma LGIA to 

require mutual agreement between the interconnection customer and transmission owner or 

provider before the transmission owner or provider can choose to self-fund, but seeks 

comment as to whether the proposal should apply to all regions, as proposed, or be limited 

to RTOs/ISOs or regions that do not provide transmission credits.

The Commission preliminarily disagrees with MISO TOs and ITC that requiring 

mutual agreement is akin to removing the option to self-fund. In regions where 

transmission credits are not provided, transmission owners or providers may still exercise 

the self-funding option, as long as there is mutual agreement between the interconnection 

customer and the transmission owner or provider. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 47 -

The Commission agrees that self-funding is an important aspect of the Commission’s 

interconnection pricing policy and that transmission owners or providers opting to self-fund 

in regions where transmission credits are not provided, pursuant to mutual agreement with 

the interconnection customer, may recover the return of and on their capital costs. Further, 

the Commission believes that requiring mutual agreement between the transmission owner

or provider and the interconnection customer should not affect the costs recovered by the 

transmission owner or provider when the self-fund option is utilized. 

As stated above, the Commission’s proposal will clarify article 11.3 of the existing 

pro forma LGIA to require mutual agreement between the transmission owner or provider

and interconnection customer before the transmission owner or provider may elect to 

initially fund network upgrades. The Commission also seeks comment on whether this 

proposal, if adopted, should apply to all regions as proposed or be limited to RTOs/ISOs or 

regions that do not provide transmission credits. 

4. RTO/ISO Dispute Resolution

The Commission proposes that RTOs/ISOs establish interconnection dispute 

resolution procedures that allow a disputing party to unilaterally seek dispute resolution in 

RTO/ISO regions. Commenters have not raised dispute resolution procedures outside of 

RTO/ISO regions as an issue, so the Commission has not proposed changes to nonRTO/ISO dispute resolution procedures in this Proposed Rule. However, as discussed 

below, the Commission invites comments regarding the adequacy of dispute resolution 

processes outside of RTO/ISO regions.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 48 -

a. Current Provisions and Background

The current interconnection dispute resolution process is described in article 13.5 of 

the pro forma LGIP. This article states that, if a dispute “arises out of or in connection 

with” the LGIA, LGIP, or either party’s performance thereunder, a disputing party provides 

written notice of dispute to the other party outlining the dispute’s terms.94 If the parties 

have not resolved the dispute within thirty days, one party may, “upon mutual consent,” 

submit the dispute for external arbitration procedures.95 If the parties fail to agree upon a 

single arbitrator within ten days, they may each select an arbitrator, and both arbitrators will 

have twenty days to select a third arbitrator. Each arbitrator must be knowledgeable “in 

electric utility matters, including electric transmission and bulk power issues, and shall not 

have any current or past substantial business or financial relationships with any party to the 

arbitration.”96 Unless otherwise agreed, the arbitrator(s) must render a decision within 

ninety days, and the parties must pay their own costs and the costs of the arbitrators.

97

 94 Pro forma LGIP Sec. 13.5.1.

95 Pro forma LGIP Sec. 13.5.1.

96 Pro forma LGIP Sec. 13.5.2.

97 Pro forma LGIP Sec. 13.5.3, 13.5.4. Under section 13.5.4, each party must pay (1) 

the cost of the arbitrator chosen by the party to sit on the three member panel and one half of 

the cost of the third arbitrator chosen; or (2) one half the cost of the single arbitrator jointly 

chosen by the parties. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 49 -

Some RTOs/ISOs have adopted interconnection dispute resolution procedures similar 

to those laid out in the pro forma LGIP;

98 others direct parties to their general dispute 

resolution procedures.99 

b. AWEA Petition and Comments

Interconnection customers can have disputes with transmission owners about a 

number of issues, including costs, construction schedules, and the design of interconnection 

facilities and network upgrades.100 Multiple renewable interconnection customers state that 

they consider current RTO/ISO dispute resolution procedures inadequate and argue that the 

filing of a complaint pursuant to FPA section 206 is not a serviceable substitute for dispute 

resolution because the complaint process is too expensive and time-consuming, given the 

time sensitivity of the interconnection process.101 Nonetheless, commenters disagree about

how to improve RTO/ISO dispute resolution procedures. EDP contends that RTOs/ISOs are 

 98 ISO-NE, Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff, Section II, Schedule 22 

(9.0.0), Section 13.5; NYISO, NYISO Tariffs, OATT Section 30.13 (2.0.0) (Miscellaneous); 

CAISO, eTariff, FERC Electric Tariff, OATT, app. DD, Section 15 (1.0.0) (Miscellaneous); 

SPP, OATT, Attachment V, Section 1.5 (2.0.0).

99 MISO, FERC Electric Tariff, Attachment X (49.0.0), art. 11.5 (Disputes); PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C., 123 FERC ¶ 61,163, at n. 41 (2008) (“dispute resolution procedures 

in section 12 [PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, OATT, Section 12 (0.0.0)] are applicable to disputes 

arising regarding the interconnection process”). PJM’s general dispute resolution 

procedures are similar to those laid out in section 13.5 of the pro forma LGIP. 

100 2016 Technical Conference Tr. 131: 4-17; 133: 18-21.

101 Invenergy 2016 Comments at 2, 3, 26; EDF 2016 Comments at 40-41; EDP 2016 

Comments at 20; NextEra 2016 Comments at 9-10.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 50 -

often in the best position to mediate such discussions and disputes.102 NextEra asserts, 

however, that on occasion, RTOs refuse to be a party to dispute resolution and tell the 

parties to resolve the issues themselves.103 Furthermore, EDP argues that there is some 

question about RTO/ISO independence because RTOs/ISOs “often lean on” the 

transmission owner for assistance in modeling or design information.104 Similarly, EDF 

argues that the interconnection customer “almost always loses” because issues are judged by 

the RTO/ISO and fellow transmission owners and transmission providers.105

Because of its unease with RTOs/ISOs, NextEra states that the Commission is the 

“ideal adjudicator” of such conflicts and asks the Commission to devise an expeditious 

interconnection dispute adjudication process.

106 NextEra states that this process could 

involve more formal predictable procedures through the Commission’s hotline or some 

other method to quickly respond to the facts presented.107 Similarly, Invenergy and AWEA 

propose that each RTO/ISO establish an in-house ombudsman that can reach out to

 102 EDP 2016 Comments at 20.

103 2016 Technical Conference Tr. 141:11-16.

104 EDP 2016 Comments at 20.

105 EDF 2016 Comments at 40.

106 NextEra 2016 Comments at 9-10.

107 NextEra 2016 Comments at 10.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 51 -

designated Commission staff to intervene as needed.108 EDP also voices the need for an

independent arbiter to assist in resolving these disputes without relying on the RTO/ISO.109 

Not all commenters argue that the current available procedures are defective or that 

dispute resolution reform is necessary. For instance, MISO argues that parties rarely take 

advantage of its dispute resolution process for interconnection issues.110 Similarly, CAISO 

and ISO-NE state that issues that require dispute resolution seldom arise.

111 These 

commenters and others consider the available dispute resolution procedures adequate.

112 

c. Proposal

The Commission preliminarily finds that RTO/ISO generator interconnection dispute 

resolution procedures may not be just and reasonable or may be unduly discriminatory or 

preferential. The current processes allow a disputing party to pursue a streamlined dispute 

resolution process only if the other party to the dispute agrees to this process. As a result, 

disputing parties may have little recourse. Multiple commenters have suggested that the 

Commission, rather than the RTO/ISO, is in the best position to resolve interconnection 

 108 Invenergy 2016 Comments at 2, 3, 26; 2016 Technical Conference Tr. 63:11-18; 

AWEA 2016 Comments at 38.

109 EDP 2016 Comments at 40-41.

110 MISO 2016 Comments at 21.

111 2016 Technical Conference Tr. 135: 13-15; 137: 6-9; ISO-NE 2016 Comments 

at 27.

112 ISO-NE 2016 Comments at 27; NYISO 2016 Comments at 26; AVANGRID 2016 

Comments at 12; MISO 2016 Comments at 21; Modesto Irrigation District at 11-12.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 52 -

disputes. It is not clear whether such commenters are suggesting that the Commission adopt 

the dispute resolution provisions of the pro forma SGIP, which allow disputing parties to 

contact the Commission’s Dispute Resolution Service to assist in either resolving a dispute 

or in selecting an appropriate dispute resolution venue.113 Regardless, because RTOs/ISOs 

are more familiar with the details regarding their respective systems and interconnection 

processes, the Commission proposes to require that RTOs/ISOs serve as the neutral 

decision-makers to interconnection disputes. While several commenters have expressed 

concern about the RTOs’/ISOs’ neutrality, independence of market participants was, and is, 

a foundational requirement of the RTOs/ISOs.114 The Commission proposes that 

RTOs/ISOs provide staff member(s) or utilize subcontractor(s) to preside over such dispute 

resolution (e.g., as mediators or arbitrators) and that such staff member(s) or 

subcontractor(s) be independent of the influence of transmission owners and interconnection 

customers and can thus serve as neutral decision-makers. To establish this neutrality, the 

Commission proposes that the selected staff member(s) or subcontractor(s) shall not have 

any current or past substantial business or financial relationships with any party to the 

dispute.115 This standard is identical to the one provided in section 13.5.2 of the pro forma 

 113 Pro forma SGIP Sections 4.2.2 & 4.2.4.

114 See Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,089, at PP 193-94 (1999), order on reh’g, Order No. 2000-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,092 (2000), aff’d sub nom. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. FERC, 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. 

Cir. 2001). 

115 See Pro Forma LGIP Sec. 13.5.2.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 53 -

LGIP. Additionally, the RTO/ISO-devised procedures must account for the time sensitivity 

of the generator interconnection process.

The Commission also proposes that RTOs/ISOs eliminate the requirement that a

dispute resolution process only be available “upon the mutual agreement of the Parties.”116 

While no commenter has suggested that the arbitration process embodied in section 13.5 of 

the pro forma LGIP lacks neutrality, this process is effectively unavailable to the 

interconnection customer if a transmission provider or a transmission owner opposes this 

arbitration process. The Commission also proposes that each Commission-approved 

RTO/ISO amend its generator interconnection procedures to provide dispute resolution 

procedures (e.g., mediation or arbitration) that are tailored to address interconnection 

process disputes. 

The comments received regarding dispute resolution procedures only express 

concerns about dispute resolution within RTOs/ISOs. Accordingly, the Commission has 

preliminarily concluded that interconnection customers and non-RTO/ISO transmission 

providers are satisfied with the dispute resolution procedures outside of RTOs/ISOs. In any 

case, the Commission does not propose to change section 13.5 (Disputes) of the pro forma 

LGIP at this time. Additionally, at this time, the Commission does not propose to adopt

procedures in the pro forma LGIP similar to those adopted in section 4.2 (Disputes) of the 

pro forma SGIP, which directs disputing parties to address their issues through the 

Commission’s Dispute Resolution Service. The Commission seeks comment, however, on

 116 Pro forma LGIP Sec. 13.5.1.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 54 -

the need for reform to generator interconnection dispute procedures outside of the 

RTOs/ISOs and the appropriateness of adopting procedures similar to those outlined in the 

pro forma SGIP.

To effectuate this proposal, the Commission proposes to revise section 35.28(g)(9) of 

the Code of Federal Regulations by adding the following: 

(9) Generator Interconnection Dispute Resolution Procedures. Every 

Commission-approved independent system operator or regional transmission 

organization tariff must contain provisions governing generator 

interconnection dispute resolution procedures to allow a disputing party to 

unilaterally initiate dispute resolution procedures under the respective tariff. 

Such provisions must provide for independent system operator or regional 

transmission organization staff member(s) or utilize subcontractor(s) to serve 

as the neutral decision-maker(s) or presiding staff member(s) or 

subcontractor(s) to the dispute resolution procedures. Such staff participating 

in dispute resolution procedures shall not have any current or past substantial 

business or financial relationships with any party. Additionally, such dispute 

resolution procedures must account for the time sensitivity of the generator 

interconnection process. 

5. Capping Costs for Network Upgrades 

a. Existing Provisions and Background

The pro forma LGIP requires that transmission providers provide a good faith 

estimate of the cost of interconnection facilities and network upgrades needed to 

accommodate an interconnection customer’s requested level of interconnection service.117 

The transmission provider includes this cost estimate with the facilities study results, 

typically with a stated accuracy margin within 10 to 20 percent of the estimate.118 After 

 117 See, e.g., pro forma LGIP Sec. 6.2 and 7.3.

118 Pro forma LGIP Sec. 8.3.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 55 -

completion of the construction of the transmission provider’s interconnection facilities and 

network upgrades needed to interconnect a generating facility, the transmission provider 

conducts a true-up to assess the final cost of construction to the interconnection customer. 

The transmission provider provides a final invoice to the interconnection customer that

details variations between actual and estimated costs. Overpayment by the interconnection 

customer results in a refund to the interconnection customer, or a surcharge in case of an 

underpayment.119

In Order No. 2003-A, the Commission also clarified that the cost of network 

upgrades originally assigned to a higher-queued interconnection customer that has 

withdrawn its interconnection request could fall to a lower-queued interconnection 

customer, if the network upgrades are still necessary to support the interconnection of the 

lower-queued interconnection customer’s generating facility. The Commission 

acknowledged that this business risk creates uncertainty for the interconnection customer. 

However, the Commission found that such costs shifts were just and reasonable, as the 

lower-queued interconnection customer would need the network upgrades to support the 

interconnection of its generating facility.120 

The Commission has approved an independent entity variation from this Commission 

policy in the CAISO region.121 CAISO caps cost responsibility for reliability and local 

 119 Pro forma LGIA Art. 12.

120 Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160 at P 320.

121 California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 124 FERC ¶ 61,292.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 56 -

delivery network upgrades122 at the lower of its Phase I and Phase II study report amounts. 

Transmission owners are responsible for additional reliability network upgrade and local 

delivery network upgrade costs beyond the cap, unless they are due to interconnection 

 122 The CAISO Tariff defines the term “Reliability Network Upgrade” as: 

The transmission facilities at or beyond the Point of Interconnection 

identified in the Interconnection Studies as necessary to interconnect 

one or more Generating Facility(ies) safely and reliably to the CAISO 

Controlled Grid, which would not have been necessary but for the 

interconnection of one or more Generating Facility(ies), including 

Network Upgrades necessary to remedy short circuit or stability 

problems, or thermal overloads. Reliability Network Upgrades shall 

only be deemed necessary for system operating limits, occurring under 

any system condition, which system operating limits cannot be 

adequately mitigated through Congestion Management, Operating 

Procedures, or Special Protection Systems based on the characteristics 

of the Generating Facilities included in the Interconnection Studies, 

limitations on market models, systems, or information, or other factors 

specifically identified in the Interconnection Studies. Reliability 

Network Upgrades also include, consistent with [Western Electricity 

Coordinating Council] practice, the facilities necessary to mitigate any 

adverse impact the Generating Facility’s interconnection may have on a 

path’s [Western Electricity Coordinating Council] rating.” CAISO 

Tariff, Appendix A, Definition—Reliability Network Upgrade. 

The CAISO Tariff defines “Local Deliverability Network Upgrade” as:

“A transmission upgrade or addition identified by the CAISO in the 

[Generator Interconnection and Deliverability Allocation Procedures] 

interconnection study process to relieve a Local Deliverability 

Constraint.” CAISO Tariff, Appendix A, Definition—Local Delivery 

Network Upgrade. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 57 -

customer errors or changes.123 Transmission owners, in turn, reflect these costs in their 

transmission service rates, which ultimately shifts these costs onto load.

124

b. AWEA Petition and Comments 

In its Petition, AWEA claims that interconnection customers frequently pay costs that 

exceed the higher bound of a transmission provider’s cost estimates and that significant 

excess costs can disrupt an interconnection customer’s business model. AWEA asserts that 

it is just and reasonable to protect interconnection customers from excessive cost overruns. 

AWEA contends that the transmission provider should be obligated to pay the portion of 

any final cost beyond the estimated cost accuracy margin for interconnection studies, 

excluding demonstrated, extraordinary costs beyond its control. AWEA asserts that it is 

unjust and unreasonable to shift the consequences of a transmission provider’s inaccurate 

cost estimates onto the interconnection customer. It argues that the transmission provider 

should assume such risk because it has control over the interconnection process. AWEA 

points to CAISO’s phased study approach as an example of a cost cap mechanism that 

would provide more cost certainty.125 Several commenters support AWEA’s request to cap 

costs at the higher bound of a stated accuracy margin, absent demonstrated, extraordinary 

 123 CAISO Tariff, Appendix DD, Sec. 10.

124 2016 Technical Conference Tr. 161: 7-23. 

125 AWEA Petition at 47-48.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 58 -

circumstances beyond a transmission provider’s control.126 Six Cities supports establishing 

maximum cost responsibility for network upgrades but opposes a cap on interconnection 

facility costs, contending that interconnection customers should bear all cost responsibility 

for interconnection facilities.127 CAISO states that its phased study approach, coupled with 

a cost cap, has helped reduce the need for restudies in its region and provided more certainty 

to interconnection customers earlier in the study process.128

Other commenters oppose AWEA’s proposal to impose caps on interconnection cost 

estimates.129 These commenters argue that this proposal would achieve little because the 

most significant contributors to cost overruns, such as the withdrawal of higher-queued 

interconnection requests and inaccurate cost estimates provided by transmission owners, are 

outside the transmission provider’s control.130 Additionally, commenters express concerns 

that implementing a cost cap will result in inappropriate cost shifts, particularly to load, that 

 126 RENEW 2015 Comments at 6; Wind Coalition 2015 Comments at 3; Wind on the 

Wires 2015 Comments at 3.

127 Six Cities 2015 Comments at 8.

128 2016 Technical Conference Tr. 83: 17-25, 84: 1-25, 85: 1-4. 

129 CMUA 2015 Comments at 4-6; EEI 2015 Comments at 23-24; KCP&L 2015 

Comments at 18; MISO 2015 Comments at 20; MISO TOs 2015 Comments at 10-13; 

Modesto Irrigation District 2015 Comments at 7-12; NYTOs 2015 Comments at 7; PSEG 

2015 Comments at 8.

130 CMUA 2015 Comments at 5-6; MISO 2015 Comments at 20; MISO TOs 2015 

Comments at 12; Modesto Irrigation District 2015 Comments at 7-8; PSEG 2015 Comments 

at 8.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 59 -

violate traditional cost causation principles.131 Several commenters also express concern 

that AWEA’s proposal would be problematic in regions in which the Commission has 

approved cost allocation variations from the pro forma GIA. MISO asserts that, because 

CAISO is a single-state RTO, any cost overruns are ultimately shifted to load, which will

eventually benefit from any generation resulting from the interconnection. MISO argues, 

however, that capping costs, whether in aggregate or per unit, and socializing the cost of 

overruns is not necessarily embraced by regulators in multistate RTOs/ISOs that require 

generator costs to be more specifically borne by the beneficiaries of the power from the 

resource.132 ISO-NE concurs, contending that implementing a cost cap would shift costs to 

ratepayers that the interconnection customer should bear. That shift, argues ISO-NE, is not 

an option under its “but for” cost allocation design.133 

c. Request for Comments

Several of the proposed reforms in this Proposed Rule seek to provide more certainty 

to interconnection customers during the interconnection study process, such as the proposal

to schedule the frequency of restudies. As noted above, increasing certainty for 

interconnection customers—particularly cost certainty—may decrease the number of latestage interconnection request withdrawals from the interconnection queue, which could 

meaningfully ameliorate the cycle of repeated, cascading restudies. Capping costs at a 

 131 EEI 2015 Comments at 23; MISO TOs 2015 Comments at 11.

132 MISO 2016 Comments at 2-3.

133 ISO-NE 2016 Comments at 24.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 60 -

certain variance above estimates could provide interconnection customers with business 

certainty useful to more efficiently develop an interconnection request. A cost cap could 

also discipline the study process to produce more accurate cost estimates. The Commission 

acknowledges, however, that a cost cap could incentivize transmission providers to 

overestimate network upgrade costs in order to minimize potential cost shifts.

The Commission also recognizes that the prospect of implementing a cost cap raises 

difficult issues. Several RTO/ISO regions have reached consensus on cost allocation 

policies under the independent entity variation that differ from the pricing policy laid out in 

Order No. 2003. These cost allocation policies, in turn, have become embedded in these 

RTO/ISO regions and have supported other cost allocation strategies, which are not easily 

disturbed. Implementing a cost cap would diverge from the Commission’s “but for” cost 

allocation policy with respect to network upgrades because it would reallocate costs that 

would not have been necessary but for a particular interconnection request. The 

Commission appreciates insights into balancing the benefits of increasing cost certainty to 

interconnection customers against the potential drawbacks of shifting costs to other parties, 

particularly load. 

The Commission seeks comment on whether it should revise the pro forma LGIP and 

LGIA to provide for a cost cap that would limit an interconnection customer’s network 

upgrade costs at the higher bound of a transmission provider’s cost estimate plus a stated 

accuracy margin following a certain stage in the interconnection study process. Such a cap 

could permit the interconnection customer to assume costs that exceed the cap under limited 

circumstances, such as where there is demonstrable proof that the cause of a cost increase is 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 61 -

beyond the transmission provider’s control. The cost cap could also specify which party or 

parties would assume network upgrade costs in excess of the cap. The Commission seeks 

comment on how to minimize potential cost shifts to other parties if such a cost cap is 

imposed. The Commission also seeks comments on alternative proposals, or additional 

steps that the Commission could take, to provide more cost certainty to interconnection 

customers during the interconnection study process. 

B. Promoting More Informed Interconnection

The five reforms in this section would improve transparency regarding the 

interconnection process and provide improved information to the benefit of all participants 

in the interconnection process. These benefits have the potential to lead to efficiencies in 

the development process and a reduction in participation disagreements or uncertainty. 

Additionally, these reforms may address aspects of the interconnection process that may not 

be just and reasonable or that may be unduly discriminatory or preferential. In addition to 

the proposed reforms, the Commission seeks comment on proposals or additional steps that 

the Commission could take to improve the resolution of issues that arise when affected 

systems are impacted by a proposed interconnection.

1. Identification and Definition of Contingent Facilities

The Commission proposes to revise the pro forma LGIP to require transmission 

providers to detail the method they use to determine contingent facilities. The Commission 

proposes to define contingent facilities as those unbuilt interconnection facilities and 

network upgrades upon which the interconnection request’s costs, timing, and study 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 62 -

findings are dependent, and if not built, could cause a need for restudies of the 

interconnection request or a reassessment of network upgrades and/or costs and timing. 

a. Existing Provisions

The Commission currently requires transmission providers to identify for 

interconnection customers contingencies potentially affecting interconnection studies134 and 

list applicable contingent facilities in interconnection agreements.

135 

b. AWEA Petition and Comments

In its Petition, AWEA asserts that interconnection customers rely on the detailed list 

of contingent facilities that are listed in studies and their interconnection agreements in 

order to assess future risk.136 AWEA states that transmission providers are not consistently 

providing full and accurate lists of contingent facilities within interconnection studies and 

interconnection agreements. Moreover, AWEA asserts that transmission providers and 

transmission owners may add more contingent facilities after the interconnection agreement 

has been signed or filed with the Commission.137 AWEA also states that some, but not all,

LGIPs or related business practices manuals acknowledge the need to study contingent 

 134 Pro forma LGIP Section 2.3.

135 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 409 (“[i]f it is apparent to the 

Parties . . . that contingencies (such as other Interconnection Customers terminating their 

LGIAs) might affect the financial arrangements, the Parties should include such 

contingencies in their LGIA and address the effect of such contingencies on their financial 

obligations”).

136 Petition at 25-26.

137 Petition at 26. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 63 -

facilities. AWEA asserts that there is often neither a clear definition of contingent facilities 

in LGIPs or in business practice manuals, nor an affirmative obligation in the LGIPs to 

apprise the interconnection customer of such contingencies in the facilities study and 

interconnection agreement. AWEA further asserts that in some cases, the appendices to an

interconnection agreement may contain a long list of contingencies, including higherqueued generators throughout the RTO and numerous transmission upgrades; however, no 

showing has been made regarding whether these interconnection requests and facilities will 

impact a particular interconnection request.

138 AWEA supports MISO’s practice of listing, 

in the interconnection agreement, contingent facilities that have a five percent or greater 

distribution factor impact on an interconnection request. AWEA notes that this practice has 

resulted in a reduction in the number of contingent facilities listed in interconnection 

agreements by focusing on those that are electrically-impacted by the proposed 

interconnection request.

139 In particular, AWEA states that MISO’s five percent threshold 

has resulted in an 85 percent reduction in contingent facilities listed in interconnection 

agreements.

140 

Several commenters assert that there is little clarity on how a transmission provider 

identifies contingent facilities and request that the Commission require transmission 

 138 Petition at 27.

139 Petition at 27.

140 Petition at 27.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 64 -

providers to specify the method they use to identify contingent facilities.

141 Invenergy states 

that the number of contingent facilities can change dramatically from the system impact 

study phase to the interconnection agreement phase, which can result in disputes between 

stakeholders regarding the study assumptions that resulted in addition or removal of certain 

contingent facilities from the list.142 NextEra encourages the Commission to identify 

additional best practices that can be implemented in all regions.143

Some commenters note the potential difficulties in creating a generic methodology 

for determining the list of contingent facilities or note that a generic methodology may not 

be applicable to a given region. For example, EEI asserts that providing additional 

information, in line with MISO’s five percent threshold, may increase the time and cost for 

preparing interconnection studies, cautioning that the five percent threshold might not work 

outside of MISO.144 Indicated NYTOs note that developing a contingent facilities method is 

not applicable to NYISO because of NYISO’s Class Year Study process.145 MISO states 

that it is currently reviewing “how to identify the network upgrades [that] a generation 

 141 EDF 2016 Comments at 38-39; AWEA 2016 Comments at 36-37; Invenergy 2016 

Comments at 23-24; NextEra 2015 Comments at 7.

142 Invenergy 2016 Comments at 23-24.

143 NextEra 2015 Comments at 7.

144 EEI 2015 Comments at 25.

145 Indicated NYTOs 2015 Comments at 4.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 65 -

interconnection would be contingent upon.”146 ISO-NE states that contingent facilities are 

identified in the system impact study and are memorialized in the interconnection 

agreement, and the interconnection customer learns about these contingent facilities through 

the study of its interconnection request.

147 

c. Proposal

As noted above, the Commission requires transmission providers to list applicable 

contingent facilities in interconnection agreements.

148 However, the existing requirements 

do not specify how transmission providers should determine the list of contingent facilities, 

and this omission could result in uncertainty for interconnection customers. The 

Commission preliminarily finds that some practices with regard to these contingent facilities 

may not be just and reasonable or may be unduly discriminatory or preferential. Therefore, 

the method for determining contingent facilities must be described in pro forma LGIPs, 

rather than the business practices manuals. 

The Commission proposes to require transmission providers to detail in the 

pro forma LGIP the method that transmission providers will use to determine the list of 

contingent facilities in evaluating an interconnection request. The Commission proposes 

that the transmission provider’s method be transparent and sufficiently detailed to determine 

why a specific contingent facility was included on the list and how it impacts the 

 146 MISO 2016 Comments at 19.

147 ISO-NE 2016 Comments at 26.

148 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 409.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 66 -

interconnection request. The Commission also proposes for transmission providers to 

provide the list of contingent facilities to interconnection customers at the conclusion of the 

system impact study. 

The transmission provider should also provide, upon request of the interconnection 

customer, the estimated network upgrade costs and estimated in-service completion time

associated with each identified contingent facility when this information is not 

commercially sensitive. The Commission believes that such information will inform the 

interconnection customer about the potential impacts of a contingent facility on an 

interconnection request.

The Commission is considering whether the method for determining contingent 

facilities used by transmission providers should be harmonized among regions as much as 

possible. To this end, the Commission seeks comment on how transmission providers 

currently identify contingent facilities and what improvements to the existing approach(es) 

would be recommended by interconnection customers or others to determine whether there 

are identifiable best practices. The Commission also seeks comment on how the process for 

identifying contingent facilities could be standardized. For example, the Commission seeks 

comment on the usefulness of requiring transmission providers to include a distribution 

factor analysis in their methodologies for identifying contingent facilities, and if so, whether 

a specific distribution factor should be implemented in the pro forma LGIP (e.g., a 5 percent 

distribution factor as referenced by AWEA). The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether there are alternative methodologies besides a distribution factor analysis that could 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 67 -

be used to identify contingent facilities, and that may be better suited for standardization 

across transmission providers and included in the pro forma LGIP.

The Commission proposes to add the following new definition to Section 1 of the 

pro forma LGIP: 

Contingent Facilities shall mean those unbuilt interconnection facilities and network 

upgrades upon which the interconnection request’s costs, timing, and study findings 

are dependent, and if not built, could cause a need for restudies of the interconnection 

request or a reassessment of the network upgrades and/or costs and timing.

The Commission proposes to add a new section 3.8 to the pro forma LGIP:

3.8 Identification of Contingent Facilities 

Transmission Provider shall post in this section a method for identifying the 

Contingent Facilities to be provided to Interconnection Customer at the conclusion of 

the System Impact Study and included in Interconnection Customer’s GIA. The 

method shall be sufficiently transparent to determine why a specific Contingent 

Facility was identified and how it relates to the interconnection request. 

Transmission Provider shall also provide, upon request of the Interconnection 

Customer, the estimated interconnection facility and/or network upgrade costs and 

estimated in-service completion time of each identified Contingent Facility when this 

information is not commercially sensitive.

The Commission seeks comment on the proposed reforms to the pro forma LGIP for 

transmission providers to include a method to identify contingent facilities and to provide 

the list of contingent facilities to interconnection customers at the conclusion of the system 

impact study. The Commission also seeks comment on whether estimates of the costs and 

timing of higher-queued contingent facilities are helpful to the interconnection customer and 

can be provided to the interconnection customer without disclosing commercially sensitive 

information.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 68 -

2. Transparency Regarding Study Models and Assumptions

As discussed in the previous section, increasing the transparency of the network 

models and underlying assumptions used for interconnection studies, including shift factors 

and dispatch information, is a key improvement that could be made to the interconnection 

process. To increase transparency with regard to the interconnection study processes for 

interconnection customers and to ensure consistency in the analysis of interconnection 

requests, the Commission proposes a general requirement that transmission providers list all 

the network models and underlying assumptions used for interconnection studies in their 

pro forma LGIPs and on their OASIS sites. The Commission believes this information will 

benefit both interconnection customers in the queue as well as those developing

interconnection requests by potentially helping them avoid entering the queue with nonviable interconnection requests. The Commission also proposes that transmission providers 

include non-confidential supporting data on OASIS.

a. Existing Provisions and Background

Section 2.3 of the pro forma LGIP requires the transmission provider to provide base 

power flow, short circuit, and stability databases, including all underlying assumptions, and 

a contingency list upon request, subject to confidentiality provisions in section 13.1 of the 

pro forma LGIP. A transmission provider may require that an interconnection customer 

sign a confidentiality agreement before the release of commercially sensitive information or 

Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) in the base case data.149 

 149 Pro forma LGIP Sec. 2.3. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 69 -

In Attachment A to the individual interconnection study agreements in the pro forma 

LGIP, the interconnection customer and the transmission provider list the assumptions under 

which the individual studies are to be performed. However, the general assumptions used to 

form the network models are not universally listed or posted for interconnection customers 

to examine prior to entering the queue. 

While some regions allow their network models to be accessed prior to an 

interconnection customer submitting an interconnection request in order to facilitate 

development decisions, such access is not consistent across regions. At times, information 

that would be relevant for prospective interconnection customers to plan interconnection 

requests is contained within business practice manuals and may not be consolidated in one 

location or easily found. 

b. AWEA Petition and Comments

It its Petition, AWEA claims that the study processes and assumptions for forming 

network models used in interconnection studies are not always transparent. AWEA claims 

that some transmission providers inconsistently apply certain assumptions, such as shift 

factors, which can lead to vastly different study results for similar interconnection requests 

participating in the same market.150 In its post-technical conference comments about the use 

of non-disclosure agreements to facilitate the study process, AWEA contends that, once a 

non-disclosure agreement is provided by the interconnection customer, the transmission 

 150 AWEA Petition at 33-35.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 70 -

provider or transmission owner should not deny or delay providing models or other 

requested information.151

Several commenters, such as Wind on the Wires, agree with AWEA that further 

transparency is necessary with respect to interconnection studies and study assumptions.152 

Additionally, the Wind Coalition asserts that transmission providers should make clear to all 

stakeholders how they model interconnections.153 EDF states that study assumptions have a 

direct effect on generator interconnection study results that determine available capacity and 

whether network upgrades are necessary to accommodate the level of requested 

interconnection service. According to EDF, a key study assumption is generation dispatch, 

i.e., the assumed levels of dispatch during peak and off-peak periods assigned to an 

interconnection request. EDF claims that it has seen significant variation in study 

assumptions from RTO to RTO and also within an RTO.154 EDF also states that 

interconnection customers need access to models before deciding to enter the 

interconnection queue and that these models need to take into account up-to-date power 

flow data.155 

 151 AWEA 2016 Comments at 32.

152 Wind on the Wires 2015 Comments at 3. 

153 Wind Coalition 2015 Comments at 2.

154 EDF 2015 Comments at 21-23.

155 EDF 2016 Comments at 31.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 71 -

Some commenters do not think it is appropriate for the Commission to require 

transmission providers to be more transparent about interconnection study assumptions. 

ISO-NE states that it already provides extensive information about assumptions underlying 

its interconnection studies.156 TVA contends that transmission providers may be able to 

provide more detailed information regarding study process practices, inputs, and results, but 

certain information cannot be made public and can be provided to customers only under a 

non-disclosure agreement.157 

While some transmission providers might already provide sufficient information 

regarding their study assumptions, some commenters do not consider all transmission 

providers to be sufficiently transparent in this regard.158 

c. Proposal

The Commission believes that stakeholders benefit from increased transparency. The 

Commission preliminarily finds that clear network model assumptions, made available early 

in the interconnection process, will provide interconnection customers with data that will 

allow them to better plan interconnection requests and lead to a more efficient 

interconnection process. Additionally, the Commission preliminarily finds that 

interconnection customers’ ability to obtain study assumptions will reduce the need for 

protracted study discussions. 

 156 ISO-NE 2015 Comments at 44.

157 TVA 2015 Comments at 8.

158 See, e.g., EDF 2015 Comments at 21-23; Wind Coalition 2015 Comments at 2.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 72 -

The Commission proposes to require transmission providers to make more 

transparent the assumptions underlying the network models used in conducting 

interconnection studies. The Commission proposes that transmission providers detail 

the network model assumptions used during the feasibility study in Attachment A to 

Appendix 2 of the pro forma LGIP. The Commission also proposes that transmission 

providers detail the network model assumptions used during the system impact study in 

Attachment A to Appendix 3 of the pro forma LGIP. 

Additionally, because interconnection customers would benefit from an 

understanding of network models and their underlying assumptions before submitting 

interconnection requests, the Commission proposes that transmission providers be required 

to provide network model details on their OASIS sites, including, but not limited to, shift 

factors, dispatch assumptions, load power factors, and power flows. The Commission 

proposes modifying section 2.3 of the pro forma LGIP: 

Base Case Data. Transmission Provider shall provide base power flow, short 

circuit and stability databases, including all underlying assumptions, and 

contingency list upon request subject to confidentiality provisions in LGIP 

Section 13.1. Additionally, Transmission Provider will maintain network 

models and underlying assumptions on its OASIS site for access by OASIS 

users. Transmission Provider is permitted to require that Interconnection 

Customer and OASIS site users sign a confidentiality agreement before the 

release of commercially sensitive information or Critical Energy Infrastructure 

Information in the Base Case data. Such databases and lists, hereinafter 

referred to as Base Cases, shall include all (1) generation projects and (ii) 

transmission projects, including merchant transmission projects that are 

proposed for the Transmission System for which a transmission expansion 

plan has been submitted and approved by the applicable authority. 

The Commission seeks comment on whether there are other specific network model 

details and underlying assumptions that transmission providers should post on their OASIS 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 73 -

site and should describe in the pro forma LGIP. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether and how transmission providers should provide notice of any variation from posted 

network model assumptions for a specific study, including whether the Commission should 

require notice of any variation to be submitted to the Commission. 

The Commission appreciates that transmission providers have confidentiality and 

data security concerns associated with providing certain information and system access, e.g., 

business sensitive information and cybersecurity-related information. However, the 

Commission believes there are likely safeguards that can be put in place to satisfactorily 

address these concerns. The Commission seeks comment on any confidentiality or security 

concerns regarding the posting of specific model assumptions on OASIS or describing them 

in the pro forma LGIP. Commenters should also specify any data elements that should be 

subject to confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements. 

3. Congestion and Curtailment Information 

The Commission proposes to require transmission providers to post congestion and 

curtailment information and seeks comment regarding the location of such posting and the 

level of disaggregation (or granularity) of the information posted. This information can be 

particularly important for interconnection customers that are considering Energy Resource 

Interconnection Service (ERIS),159 as the interconnection customer may interconnect to the 

 159 Energy Resource Interconnection Service shall mean an Interconnection Service 

that allows the Interconnection Customer to connect its Generating Facility to the 

Transmission Provider's Transmission System to be eligible to deliver the Generating 

Facility's electric output using the existing firm or nonfirm capacity of the Transmission 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 74 -

transmission system and be eligible to deliver its output using the existing firm or non-firm 

capacity of that transmission system on an “as available” basis.

160 An important 

consideration for such a customer is the degree to which the customer will be curtailed. 

Historic congestion and curtailment information can inform the interconnection customer’s

assessment. This information could also be relevant for any interconnection customer in 

determining where on the system to request interconnection. For instance, knowledge that a 

particular location experiences frequent congestion or curtailment may suggest that any “asavailable” service at such a location will likely be frequently unavailable or may require 

extensive network upgrades to enable interconnection. 

a. Existing Provisions and Background

Currently, transmission providers are not required to provide consistent and 

transparent congestion information to interconnection customers. The level of 

disaggregation and availability of this data varies per transmission provider. Additionally, 

how and where this data is posted may be inconsistent from transmission provider to 

transmission provider. 

b. AWEA Petition and Comments

In its Petition, AWEA asserts that interconnection studies do not provide system 

information showing the extent of potential curtailments. AWEA argues that 

 

Provider's Transmission System on an as available basis. Energy Resource Interconnection 

Service in and of itself does not convey transmission service. See Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Procedures, Section 1, Definitions.

160 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at PP 752–753.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 75 -

interconnection customers cannot make informed business decisions regarding the financial 

viability of their interconnection requests and cannot accurately assess the extent of energy 

deliverability unless they have a reasonable expectation of their curtailment risk. AWEA 

requests that the Commission require transmission providers to provide curtailment risk 

information on their websites and in interconnection studies. AWEA contends that 

requiring transmission providers to provide curtailment information on a monthly basis, as 

well as provide more detailed information on all interfaces, including local interfaces, could 

improve the deliverability of energy from new generation and improve interconnection 

customers’ ability to optimally site generating facilities.

161 

Several commenters concur with AWEA that more information on curtailment and 

congestion provided by transmission providers would benefit interconnection customers. 

NRG asserts that accurate reporting of congestion and curtailment information, and having 

access to congestion and operational data, could play a crucial role in siting generating 

facilities and lowering the amount of required network upgrades needed to interconnect.162 

E.ON contends that transmission providers have the tools to determine the extent to which 

historical congestion on local transmission elements may impact an interconnection request, 

but they do not share this information with interconnection customers.163 

 161 Petition at 40.

162 NRG 2015 Comments at 4-5.

163 E.ON 2016 Comments at 11.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 76 -

Several commenters make specific suggestions on the types of information they 

would like transmission providers to share.164 For example, AWEA requests that the 

Commission require that transmission providers post, on a monthly basis, information on 

congested transmission facilities and interfaces covering the previous three years, including 

flow duration curves, the number of hours of curtailments due to congestion on those 

facilities and interfaces, and the cause(s) of congestion. AWEA also requests that the 

Commission require transmission providers to include, in interconnection studies, 

information on existing usage and congestion on the transmission facilities that are 

electrically significant to the interconnection request based on system conditions known at 

the time.165

ISO-NE and MISO argue that their processes to share curtailment and congestion 

data are sufficient.166 ISO-NE notes that it frequently informs stakeholders of areas where 

curtailment is likely to occur, and MISO states that it posts real-time information on 

constraints. MISO argues that interconnection customers can hire consultants to investigate 

curtailment risks, rather than requiring RTOs/ISOs to do this research for them.167 ISO-NE 

 164 EDF 2016 Comments at 3; E.ON 2016 Comments at 11.

165 Petition at 43–44. 

166 MISO 2015 Comments at 17-18. MISO states that it does post in real-time 

information on constraints according to its Business Practice Manuals. ISO-NE states that 

assumptions underlying planning are already shared according to its Planning Procedures 

and Planning Guides, and base case data can be requested according to section 2.3 of 

Schedule 22 of its LGIP. 

167 MISO 2015 Comments at 17-18.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 77 -

also argues that system impact studies are discrete testing programs and cannot capture the 

full range of real-time load and outages. MISO and EEI argue that AWEA’s request for 

more curtailment information would result in administrative burden and further queue 

delays. Additionally, ISO-NE asserts that AWEA inaccurately implies that ISO-NE’s

minimum interconnection service grants new generators rights to avoid curtailment risks,168

arguing that all interconnection customer of new assets face curtailment risk stemming from 

a competitive market design. Similarly, MISO TOs interpret AWEA’s request as a 

complaint about the lack of certainty associated with ERIS, which by definition is an asavailable service.169 They argue that a customer with ERIS assumes the risk of potentially 

intermittent service and could choose to pay for Network Resource Interconnection Service 

(NRIS).170 Six Cities argues that interconnection customers may misinterpret information 

on expected congestion as a commitment to future availability of service when 

interconnecting under ERIS or Energy-Only Deliverability Status procedures.171 

 168 ISO-NE 2015 Comments at 46.

169 MISO TOs 2015 Comments at 16 (citing Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 

31,146 at P 752; pro forma LGIA at Art. 1 (definition of ERIS) and Sec. 4.1.1; MISO, 

FERC Electric Tariff, Attachment X, Sec. 3.2.1.1 (49.0.0)).

170 If an interconnection customer chooses NRIS, Order No. 2003 requires the 

transmission provider to conduct interconnection studies similar to how the transmission 

provider would integrate its own generators to serve load. This approach assumes a portion 

of the capacity of existing network resources is displaced by the output of the facility 

seeking to interconnect. Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at PP 754-55. 

171 Six Cities 2015 Comments at 4. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 78 -

c. Proposal

The Commission preliminarily finds that improving access to congestion and 

curtailment data may allow interconnection customers to more accurately assess curtailment 

risks at different locations on the system. As a result, interconnection customers may be 

better able to assess the value of requesting ERIS relative to NRIS and may be better able to 

choose where to site their generating facilities. Such better informed decision-making could 

result in a more efficient use of the transmission system. In addition, improving access to 

congestion and curtailment data could mitigate the risk of interconnection customers exiting 

at later stages of the interconnection process, thereby reducing the need for restudies, given 

that interconnection customers would be better informed on grid conditions through more 

transparent access to congestion and curtailment data. The Commission proposes revising

section 37.6 of its regulations to require that transmission providers post congestion 

information and curtailment information in one location on their OASIS sites so that 

interconnection customers can more easily assess information that may aid in their decisionmaking. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there is congestion and 

curtailment information that is specific to an interconnection request and whether 

transmission providers should be required to provide this information to interconnection 

customers through the interconnection study process.

Improving access to curtailment and congestion data could reduce uncertainties 

associated with as-available service, as well as better inform interconnection customers of 

the risks surrounding as-available transmission service. With regard to whether 

interconnection customers may misinterpret information and make assumptions about the 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 79 -

availability of service, the Commission finds that this is a reasonable risk of doing business, 

and it is the interconnection customers’ responsibility to make certain decisions based on the 

best data available.

In addition, the Commission proposes to require transmission providers to post 

disaggregated, or more granular (e.g., hourly and locational data), congestion and 

curtailment information that is more specific than the information currently provided by 

some transmission providers.172 The Commission proposes that the transmission provider 

must post on OASIS information on congestion data representing (i) total hours of 

curtailment on all interfaces, (ii) total hours of Transmission Provider-ordered generation 

curtailment and transmission service curtailment due to congestion on that facility or 

interface, (iii) the cause of the congestion (e.g., a contingency or an outage), and (iv) total 

megawatt hours of curtailment due to lack of transmission for that month. The Commission 

proposes that this data shall be posted on a monthly basis by the 15th day of the following 

month in one location on the OASIS, and maintained for a minimum of three years. This 

proposed reform aims to increase transparency regarding congestion and curtailment risks at 

various points in the transmission system that could help interconnection customers identify 

 172 AWEA requests that the Commission require that transmission providers post, on 

a monthly basis, information on congested transmission facilities and interfaces covering the 

previous three years, including flow duration curves, the number of hours of curtailments 

due to congestion on those facilities and interfaces, and the cause(s) of congestion. AWEA 

also requests that the Commission require transmission providers to include, in 

interconnection studies, information on existing usage and congestion on the transmission 

facilities that are electrically significant to the interconnection request based on system 

conditions known at the time. Petition at 43-44. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 80 -

interconnection locations in less congested areas. To effectuate this proposal, the 

Commission proposes to revise section 37.6 of the Code of Federal Regulations to add new 

section (l) as follows:

(l) Posting of congestion and curtailment data. The Transmission Provider 

must post on OASIS information as to congestion data representing (i) total 

hours of curtailment on all interfaces, (ii) total hours of Transmission 

Provider-ordered generation curtailment and transmission service curtailment 

due to congestion on that facility or interface, (iii) the cause of the congestion 

(e.g., a contingency or an outage), and (iv) total megawatt hours of curtailment 

due to lack of transmission for that month. This data shall be posted on a 

monthly basis by the 15th day of the following month and shall be posted in 

one location on the OASIS. The Transmission Provider should maintain this 

data for a minimum of three years.

The Commission seeks comments on the level of information to be provided, the 

frequency at which the information should be provided, and how many months/years the 

provided information should cover. The Commission further seeks comment on the value to 

interconnection customers of requiring transmission providers to post on OASIS flow 

duration curves on the major transmission interfaces, based on hourly flow data. The 

Commission also seeks comment on whether there is detailed, interconnection requestspecific congestion and curtailment information that would be more appropriately provided 

to the interconnection customer through the interconnection study process (e.g., at the 

scoping meeting).

With regard to the sharing of more detailed congestion and curtailment data, several 

parties raise concerns that this level of detail could expose market sensitive information, 

such as CEII data, and give interconnection customers a market advantage over other market 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 81 -

participants.173 The Commission does not find these arguments credible. The Commission

believes that the posting of more detailed congestion and curtailment data will not give 

undue advantage to interconnection customers over other market participants, as all market 

participants will have access to this data, and none of the data should include proprietary 

marginal costs. With regard to concerns that the provision of congestion and curtailment 

information unnecessarily burdens transmission providers, the Commission notes that the 

proposal merely requires the posting of congestion and curtailment information in one 

location on OASIS, which should improve interconnection customers’ ability to conduct 

their own research on which to base their decisions. The Commission seeks comments on 

the level of detail appropriate for congestion and curtailment information, the frequency of 

reporting, the length of time reported data should cover, and whether there is 

interconnection-request-specific congestion and curtailment information that could be 

provided to interconnection customers as part of the interconnection study process.

The Commission seeks comment on further changes to Section 3.3.4 of the LGIP

requiring transmission providers and/or transmission owners to provide curtailment and 

congestion information at the scoping meeting between the transmission provider, 

transmission owner, and interconnection customer. For example, the Commission could 

revise Section 3.3.4 of the LGIP to read:

3.3.4 Scoping Meeting. Within ten (10) Business Days after receipt of a valid 

Interconnection Request, Transmission Provider shall establish a date agreeable to 

Interconnection Customer for the Scoping Meeting, and such date shall be no later 

 173 EEI 2015 Comments at 38-39; MISO 2015 Comments at 18. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 82 -

than thirty (30) Calendar Days from receipt of the valid Interconnection Request, 

unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the Parties. The purpose of the Scoping 

Meeting shall be to discuss alternative interconnection options, to exchange 

information including any transmission data, including any curtailment and/or 

congestion information, that would reasonably be expected to impact such 

interconnection options, to analyze such information and to determine the potential 

feasible Points of Interconnection. Transmission Provider and Interconnection 

Customer will bring to the meeting such technical data, including, but not limited to: 

(i) general facility loadings, (ii) general instability issues, (iii) general short circuit 

issues, (iv) general voltage issues, and (v) general reliability issues as may be 

reasonably required to accomplish the purpose of the meeting. Transmission Provider 

and Interconnection Customer will also bring to the meeting personnel and other 

resources as may be reasonably required to accomplish the purpose of the meeting in 

the time allocated for the meeting. On the basis of the meeting, Interconnection 

Customer shall designate its Point of Interconnection, pursuant to Section 6.1, and 

one or more available alternative Point(s) of Interconnection. The duration of the 

meeting shall be sufficient to accomplish its purpose. 

4. Definition of Generating Facility in the Pro Forma LGIP and LGIA 

The Commission proposes to revise the definition of a “Generating Facility” in the 

pro forma LGIP/LGIA to include electric storage resources. 

a. Existing Provisions and Background

While the Commission includes electric storage resources in the definition of a 

generating facility in the pro forma SGIP/SGIA,

174 the Commission has not explicitly set 

forth a similar definition in the pro forma LGIP/LGIA. Although some transmission 

providers have extended the clarification for electric storage resources to large generating 

facilities, doing so consistently may ensure that all transmission providers have 

 174 Small Generator Interconnection Agreement and Procedures, 78 FR 73,240 

(Nov. 22, 2013), Order No. 792, 145 FERC ¶ 61,159 at P 227, clarifying, Order 792-A, 

146 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2014).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 83 -

interconnection procedures and agreements that are applicable to FERC-jurisdictional 

electric storage resources, regardless of size. 

b. Proposal

The Commission preliminarily finds that the failure to include electric storage 

resources in the definition of “Generating Facility” in the pro forma LGIA/LGIP may pose a 

barrier to the development of large electric storage resources, which may not be just and 

reasonable or may be unduly discriminatory or preferential. In Order No. 792, the 

Commission revised the definition of “Small Generating Facility” in the pro forma 

SGIP/SGIA to: “[t]he Interconnection Customer’s device for the production and/or storage 

for later injection of electricity identified in the Interconnection Request, but shall not 

include the Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection Facilities.”175 

Given the existing precedent for small generators, the inconsistency between the 

pro forma definitions of small generating facilities and large generating facilities, and the 

potential that development of electric storage resources larger than 20 MW will increase,176

the Commission proposes a conforming change to the definition of “Generating Facility” in 

the pro forma LGIP/LGIA.

 175 Order No. 792, 145 FERC ¶ 61,159 at P 228 (emphasis in original).

176 Slaughter, Andrew, “Electricity Storage Technologies, impacts, and prospects,” 

Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions, 2015 at 7; 

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/energy-resources/us-erelectric-storage-paper.pdf. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 84 -

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend the definition 

of Generating Facility in the pro forma LGIP/LGIA to: 

Generating Facility shall mean Interconnection Customer’s device for the 

production and/or storage for later injection of electricity identified in the 

Interconnection Request, but shall not include the interconnection customer's 

Interconnection Facilities.

This revised definition is also reflected in the proposed revisions to section 1 of the 

pro forma LGIP and the proposed revisions to article 1 of the pro forma LGIA. 

5. Interconnection Study Deadlines 

The Commission proposes that transmission providers report on their completion of

interconnection studies within established timeframes, in order to improve transparency and 

to provide greater insight into the causes of processing delays.

a. Existing Provisions and Background

Currently in the pro forma LGIP, transmission providers must use “Reasonable 

Efforts”177 to complete feasibility studies in 45 days, system impact studies in 90 days, and 

the facility studies within 90 or 180 days.

178 While independent entities may propose

variations to these study completion timeframes, they must use reasonable efforts to 

complete interconnection studies within such timeframes. The Commission currently 

 177 As noted above, Reasonable Efforts shall mean, with respect to an action required 

to be attempted or taken by a Party under the Standard Large Generator Interconnection 

Agreement, efforts that are timely and consistent with Good Utility Practice and are 

otherwise substantially equivalent to those a Party would use to protect its own interests. 

Pro forma LGIP Sec. 1 (Definitions). 

178 Pro forma LGIP at Sec. 6.3, 7.4, and 8.3. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 85 -

requires transmission providers to post information about transmission service request 

processing time on the transmission providers OASIS179 and assesses penalties to 

transmission providers that complete too many transmission service request studies outside 

of the study completion timeframes. Transmission providers are able to explain extenuating 

circumstances in a filing with the Commission to avoid such penalties.

b. AWEA Petition and Comments

In its Petition, AWEA voices concern about the nature of study delays and requests 

elimination of the reasonable effort standard and instituting firm deadlines to give some 

certainty to the process.180 Some commenters disagree about AWEA’s proposal to remove 

the reasonable efforts standard from established timeframes to require that transmission 

providers meet firm deadlines. Several commenters contend that AWEA does not account 

for the various factors that impact the interconnection study and restudy processes.181 

NYISO states that the performance of interconnection studies requires the active 

participation and input of multiple parties, including the provision of extensive information 

and technical data by interconnection customers. NYISO and Indicated NYTOs assert that 

flexibility in performing interconnection studies is necessary.182 Similarly, TVA contends 

 179 See 18 CFR 37.6 (h) (2016).

180 Petition at 17.

181 Avista 2015 Comments at 3; EEI 2015 Comments at 21; KCP&L 2015 Comments 

at 10; NYISO 2015 Comments at 20-21; TVA 2015 Comments at 2.

182 NYISO 2015 Comments at 21 and Indicated NYTOs 2015 Comments at 6.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 86 -

that the lack of uniformity in generator interconnection requests does not allow a 

transmission provider to follow an inflexible, standardized study schedule. TVA argues that 

differences in size and location of proposed generators result in significant variability in the 

studies’ complexity and the required analysis time, asserting that the process is not entirely 

within a transmission provider’s control.183 Additionally, some commenters argue that 

restudy delays are often due to the actions or inactions of the interconnection customer.184

TVA asserts that if a transmission provider must always meet a fixed study schedule, 

it would have to either maintain a larger analytical staff that would frequently be idle when 

there are few interconnection requests or would have to increasingly rely on contractors to 

conduct studies.185 KCP&L states that interconnection customers would ultimately pay the 

additional costs for increased staffing and resources needed to meet firm study deadlines.

186 

KCP&L argues that there are costs to faster processing of interconnection requests, costs

which are most likely, and appropriately, recovered in higher study fees – fees that AWEA 

criticizes and seeks to cap.187 TVA contends that allowing greater flexibility in study 

 183 TVA 2015 Comments at 2.

184 Avista 2015 Comments at 3; KCP&L 2015 Comments at 10; NYISO 2015 

Comments at 21; PSEG 2015 Comments at 9; TVA 2015 Comments at 3.

185 TVA 2015 Comments at 2, 3.

186 KCP&L Comments at 10 (citing Order No. 2003-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 

31,171 at P 2).

187 KCP&L 2015 Comments at 8-9.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 87 -

completion time allows the transmission provider to balance the legitimate timing needs of 

generation developers with the costs to load.

188

Several parties with experience as interconnection customers with renewable 

generating facilities support efforts to provide interconnection study requests and restudy 

results by the dates listed in the generator interconnection procedures.189 Sustainable FERC 

contends that the ability to accurately and timely complete interconnection studies pursuant 

to interconnections requests is within transmission providers’ control but that these delays 

chiefly affect interconnection customers even though interconnection customers have no 

control over the process.190 NRG asserts that the uncertainty created by sliding study dates 

causes significant risk to interconnection customers, which is, in turn, passed through to all 

purchasers of renewable power in the form of higher risk premiums.191 

Similarly, RENEW argues that the current interconnection process, which it believes 

contains embedded unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory delays, imposes barriers 

to the development of new generation sources.192 In addition, Interwest Energy Alliance 

contends that for renewable energy generators in the West, some interconnection processes 

 188 TVA 2015 Comments at 2, 3.

189 NRG Companies 2015 Comments at 3; RENEW 2015 Comments at 4; 

Sustainable FERC 2015 Comments at 2; Wind Coalition 2015 Comments at 2; Wind on the 

Wires 2015 Comments at 2.

190 Sustainable FERC 2015 Comments at 2.

191 NRG 2015 Comments at 3.

192 RENEW 2015 Comments at 3.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 88 -

have imposed delays and unduly discriminatory costs that resulted in “increased potential

for missed deadlines and disqualification when submitting bids in response to requests for 

proposals in competitive procurements.”193 

c. Proposal

The Commission has expressed concerns about interconnection queue delays in other 

proceedings.194 In the 2008 Order, the Commission required all RTOs/ISOs to file an 

interconnection queue status report at the Commission and, as a condition of approving 

requested queue reforms, required RTOs/ISOs to file periodic queue status updates at the 

Commission for a period of time.195 

Although the Commission has approved queue reforms to attempt to streamline the 

interconnection process, there are still delays associated with the interconnection process. 

Some commenters have asked the Commission to require transmission providers to 

complete interconnection connection studies within the pro forma LGIP time frames rather 

than simply require the transmission providers to make reasonable efforts to do so. The 

Commission believes that transmission providers should continue to have flexibility in 

 193 Interwest 2015 Comments at 2.

194 See, e.g., 2008 Order, 122 FERC ¶ 61,252 at PP 4-6.

195 See, e.g., Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,183 at 

P 164 (directing MISO to file annual updates on interconnection queue metrics and queue 

improvement efforts from 2009 – 2011); California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 124 FERC 

¶ 61,292 at PP 199-200 (directing CAISO to file quarterly reports on the interconnection 

including the number of interconnection requests received, studies conducted and the 

reasons for missing study deadlines).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 89 -

completing interconnection studies, but is nonetheless concerned that delays in the 

interconnection process continue. At times, it is not clear to interconnection customers why 

and where queue delays are occurring, and the underlying causes of queue delays are not 

always agreed upon by interconnection customers and transmission providers. Providing 

greater transparency by identifying the geographical locations where these delays are 

occurring and the causes of these delays would benefit stakeholders. 

The Commission proposes to require that transmission providers post summary 

statistics related to processing interconnection studies, pursuant to interconnection service 

requests, on their OASIS sites on a quarterly basis. This proposal is analogous to the 

requirement we established in Order No. 890 that transmission providers post information 

on processing of transmission service request studies within the best efforts timeframes.196

The Commission proposes to require that a transmission provider that has more than

25 percent of any study type exceeding study deadlines for interconnection requests for 

two consecutive quarters must file informational reports at the Commission for the next 

four calendar quarters. For example, if a transmission provider had 35 percent of its 

interconnection feasibility studies exceeding study deadlines one calendar quarter and 

40 percent of them exceeding study deadlines the next calendar quarter, the transmission 

provider would have to file reports to the Commission for the following four calendar 

quarters describing the reason for each study (or group of clustered studies) delay and post 

on OASIS the total number of employee or consultant hours devoted to processing studies 

 196 See 18 CFR 37.6(h) (2016). 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 90 -

that quarter. The transmission provider must continue to file these reports for four 

consecutive quarters. If during this period, the transmission provider exceeds more than 

25 percent of study deadlines for any study type for two consecutive quarters, the reporting 

requirement would be retriggered for another four consecutive quarters from the date of the 

last consecutive quarter to exceed the 25 percent threshold. For example, if a transmission 

provider had more than 25 percent of its interconnection feasibility studies exceeding study 

deadlines every calendar quarter in Year 1, it must begin reporting to the Commission in 

the third quarter of Year 1 and must continue reporting until at least the fourth quarter of 

Year 2. 

To this end, the Commission proposes to modify section 3.4 of the pro forma

LGIP197 as follows (proposing to delete italicized text):

3.4 3.5.1 OASIS Posting.

3.5.2 The Transmission Provider will maintain on its OASIS summary 

statistics related to processing Interconnection Studies pursuant to 

Interconnection Requests, updated quarterly. For each calendar quarter, 

Transmission Providers must calculate and post the information detailed in 

sections 3.5.2.1 through 3.5.2.4. 

3.5.2.1 Interconnection Feasibility Studies processing time. (A) Number 

of Interconnection Requests that had Interconnection Feasibility Studies 

completed within the Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter, (B) Number of Interconnection Requests that had 

Interconnection Feasibility Studies completed within the Transmission 

 197 In the “Utilization of Surplus Interconnection Service” section, the Commission 

proposes revisions to the pro forma LGIP that result in renumbering of several existing 

sections. One section that the Commission proposes to be renumbered is section 3.4. For 

this reason, the proposed revisions to the “OASIS Posting” section (current section 3.4) will 

begin at section 3.5.1.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 91 -

Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter that were 

completed more than [timeline as listed in the Transmission Provider’s LGIP]

after receipt by the Transmission Provider of the Interconnection Customer’s

executed Interconnection Feasibility Study Agreement, (C) At the end of the 

reporting quarter, the number of active valid Interconnection Requests with

ongoing incomplete Interconnection Feasibility Studies where such 

Interconnection Requests had executed Interconnection Feasibility Study 

Agreements received by the Transmission Provider more than [timeline as 

listed in the Transmission Provider’s LGIP] before the reporting quarter end, 

(D) Mean time (in days), Interconnection Feasibility Studies completed within 

the Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter, 

from the date when the Transmission Provider received the executed the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study Agreement to the date when the 

Transmission Provider provided the completed Interconnection Feasibility 

Study to the Interconnection Customer, (E) Percentage of Interconnection 

Feasibility Studies exceeding [timeline as listed in the Transmission 

Provider’s LGIP] to complete this reporting period, calculated as 1 – (the sum 

of 3.5.2.2(A) minus 3.5.2.2(B) and dividing that amount by the sum of 

3.5.2.2(A) plus 3.5.2.2(C)). 

3.5.2.2 Interconnection System Impact Studies processing time. (A) 

Number of Interconnection Requests that had Interconnection System Impact 

Studies completed within the Transmission Provider’s coordinated region 

during the reporting quarter, (B) Number of Interconnection Requests that had 

Interconnection System Impact Studies completed within the Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter that were 

completed more than [timeline as listed in the Transmission Provider’s LGIP] 

after receipt by the Transmission Provider of the Interconnection Customer’s

executed Interconnection System Impact Study Agreement, (C) At the end of 

the reporting quarter, the number of active valid Interconnection Requests 

with ongoing incomplete System Impact Studies where such Interconnection 

Requests had executed Interconnection System Impact Study Agreements

received by the Transmission Provider more than [timeline as listed in the 

Transmission Provider’s LGIP] before the reporting quarter end, (D) Mean 

time (in days), Interconnection System Impact Studies completed within the 

Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter, from 

the date when the Transmission Provider received the executed

Interconnection System Impact Study Agreement to the date when the 

Transmission Provider provided the completed Interconnection System Impact 

Study to the Interconnection Customer, (E) Percentage of Interconnection 

System Impact Studies exceeding [timeline as listed in the Transmission 

Provider’s LGIP] to complete this reporting period, calculated as 1 – (the sum 

of 3.5.2.3(A) minus 3.5.2.3(B) and dividing that amount by the sum of 

3.5.2.3(A) plus 3.5.2.3(C)).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 92 -

3.5.2.3 Interconnection Facilities Studies Processing time. (A) Number 

of Interconnection Requests that had Interconnection Facilities Studies that are 

completed within the Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter, (B) Number of Interconnection Requests that had 

Interconnection Facilities Studies that are completed within the Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter that were 

completed more than [timeline as listed in the Transmission Provider’s LGIP] 

after receipt by the Transmission Provider of the Interconnection Customer’s

executed Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement, (C) At the end of the 

reporting quarter, the number of active valid Interconnection Service requests 

with ongoing incomplete Interconnection Facilities Studies where such 

Interconnection Requests had executed Interconnection Facilities Studies 

Agreement received by the Transmission Provider more than [timeline as 

listed in the Transmission Provider’s LGIP] before the reporting quarter end 

(D) Mean time (in days), Interconnection Facilities Studies completed within 

the Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter, 

from the date when the Transmission Provider received the executed 

Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement to the date when the Transmission 

Provider provided the completed Interconnection Facilities Study to the 

Interconnection Customer, (E) Percentage of delayed Interconnection 

Facilities Studies this reporting period, calculated as 1 – (the sum of 

3.5.2.4(A) minus 3.5.2.4(B) and dividing that amount by the sum of 3.5.2.4(A) 

plus 3.5.2.4(C)).

3.5.2.4 Interconnection Service requests withdrawn from 

interconnection queue. (A) Number of Interconnection Service requests 

withdrawn from the Transmission Provider’s interconnection queue during the 

reporting quarter, (B) Number of Interconnection Service requests withdrawn 

from the Transmission Provider’s interconnection queue during the reporting 

quarter before completion of any interconnection studies or execution of any 

interconnection study agreements, (C) Number of Interconnection Service 

requests withdrawn from the Transmission Provider’s interconnection queue 

during the reporting quarter before completion of an Interconnection System 

Impact Study, (D) Number of Interconnection Service requests withdrawn 

from the Transmission Provider’s interconnection queue during the reporting 

quarter before completion of an Interconnection Facility Study, (E) Number of 

Interconnection Service requests withdrawn from the Transmission Provider’s 

interconnection queue after execution of a generator interconnection 

agreement or Interconnection Customer requests the filing of an unexecuted, 

new interconnection agreement, (F) Mean time (in days), for all withdrawn 

Interconnection Service requests, from the date when the request was 

determined to be valid to when the Transmission Provider received the request 

to withdraw from the queue.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 93 -

3.5.3 The Transmission Provider is required to post on OASIS the measures 

in paragraph 3.5.2.1(A) through paragraph 3.5.2.4(F) for each calendar quarter 

within 30 days of the end of the calendar quarter. The Transmission Provider 

will keep the quarterly measures posted on OASIS for three calendar years 

with the first required reporting year to be 2017.

3.5.4 In the event that any of the values calculated in paragraphs 3.5.2.1(E), 

3.5.2.2(E) or 3.5.2.3(E) exceeds 25 percent for two consecutive calendar 

quarters the Transmission Provider will have to comply with the measures 

below for the next four consecutive calendar quarters and must continue 

reporting this information until the Transmission Provider reports four 

consecutive calendar quarters without the values calculated in 3.5.2.1(E), 

3.5.2.2(E) or 3.5.2.3(E) exceeding 25 percent for two consecutive calendar 

quarters:

(i) The Transmission Provider must submit a report to the Commission 

describing the reason for each study or group of clustered studies pursuant to 

an Interconnection Request that exceeded its deadline (i.e., 45, 90 or 180 days) 

for completion (excluding any allowance for Reasonable Efforts). The 

Transmission Provider must describe the reasons for each study delay and any 

steps taken to remedy these specific issues and, if applicable, prevent such 

delays in the future. The report must be filed at the Commission within 45 

days of the end of the calendar quarter. 

(ii) The Transmission Provider shall aggregate the total number of 

employee-hours and third party consultant hours expended towards 

interconnection studies within its coordinated region that quarter and post on 

OASIS. This information is to be posted within 30 days of the end of the 

calendar quarter. 

The Commission preliminarily finds that this proposal will increase transparency into 

study timeliness and the reason for delays in regions that have consistent study delays. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether to require fewer or additional interconnection 

processing statistics to be posted on OASIS by the transmission provider. For example, 

such additional statistics could include: the number of new valid interconnection requests 

received by the transmission provider, the average number of days it takes for the 

transmission provider to determine whether a received interconnection service request is a 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 94 -

valid interconnection request, the average number of days it takes for an interconnection 

request to receive a study agreement, and the number of study agreements executed in the 

transmission provider’s region during the reporting period. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it is proposing the appropriate summary data requirements to enhance 

transparency into interconnection queue processes and what, if any, customizations of these 

requirements should be made to adjust for different regional processes. 

The Commission notes that LGIP Sections 6.3, 7.4 and 8.3 have provisions requiring 

transmission providers to inform interconnection customers as to the causes of study delays 

and to provide them with revised study schedules. The Commission requests comment on 

whether interconnection customers have sufficient information regarding, and transparency 

into, the cause of study delays under the current LGIP provisions and whether transmission 

providers should have to provide a more detailed explanation to interconnection customers 

regarding the cause(s) of study delays. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a 

transmission provider should have to inform interconnection customers regarding its process 

for revising study timelines once a delay occurs and whether the transmission provider 

should also describe in sufficient detail any relevant issues that could further affect the 

revised timeline for a particular interconnection customer. 

6. Improving Coordination with Affected Systems

a. Existing Provisions and Background

The interconnection of a new generating facility to a transmission system may 

sometimes affect the reliability of a neighboring transmission system, termed the affected 

system. Currently, section 3.5 of the pro forma LGIP requires the transmission provider to 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 95 -

coordinate required interconnection studies with affected systems198 and, if possible, include 

those results within applicable results from the LGIP study process. In Order No. 2003, the 

Commission found that: 

[a]lthough the owner or operator of an Affected System is not bound by the 

provisions of the Final Rule LGIP or LGIA, the Transmission Provider must 

allow any Affected System to participate in the process when conducting the 

Interconnection Studies, and incorporate the legitimate safety and reliability 

needs of the Affected System.199

Because the transmission operator of the affected system is not bound by the terms of the 

LGIP or LGIA of a particular interconnection request, the transmission operator of the 

affected system may choose not to abide by the time limits established for the various 

interconnection studies. 

Order No. 2003 further explained that, if the affected system does not provide 

information in a timely manner, a transmission provider may proceed without taking into 

account any information that could have been provided by the affected system.200 

 198 An “Affected System shall mean an electric system other than the Transmission 

Provider's Transmission System that may be affected by the proposed interconnection.” 

Pro forma LGIP, Sec. 1 (Definitions); Pro Forma LGIA, Art. 1 (Definitions).

199 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 121.

200 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 121. On rehearing, the 

Commission clarified that delays by an affected system in performing interconnection 

studies or providing information for such studies is not an acceptable reason to deviate from 

the timetables established in Order No. 2003 unless the interconnection itself (as distinct 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 96 -

Typically, transmission providers do not proceed with the interconnection process until they 

receive the analysis of reliability impact from the affected system(s). The issue of impacts 

on an affected system is raised in a recent contested proceeding.201 

Order No. 2003 does not require that transmission providers publicize their process 

for coordination with affected systems. It also does not require that transmission providers 

include the affected systems analysis alongside the system impact study and facilities study. 

During the Order No. 2003 process, the Commission declined Duke’s request to require 

affected systems to participate in the interconnection process with interconnection 

customers.202 The Commission reiterated, however, that a transmission provider must allow 

any affected system to participate in the interconnection study process and incorporate the 

affected system’s legitimate safety and reliability needs.

203

b. AWEA Petition and Comments 

Multiple commenters that represent interconnection customers and RTOs/ISOs 

voiced a need for improved affected system coordination. For example, MISO supports 

 

from any future delivery service) will endanger reliability. See Order No. 2003-A, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,171 at P 114.

201 See Docket No. ER17-75-000, in which PJM filed an unexecuted LGIA with 

Lackawanna, Energy Center, LLC (Lackawanna) at Lackawanna’s request. This 

unexecuted GIA contains non-conforming terms and conditions, including limitations on 

Lackawanna’s output, due to preliminary (and as yet incomplete) affected systems analysis 

by NYISO.

202 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 121.

203 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at PP 120-121.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 97 -

more specific guidance in the pro forma LGIP on when and how to engage affected systems, 

as well as how to impose obligations on affected systems to minimize delays in the 

interconnection process.204 AWEA asks the Commission to require a standard contract 

between affected systems.205 Additionally, AWEA asks the Commission to require affected

systems to share their respective models to ensure that prospective interconnection 

customers can more readily ascertain the impacts of their interconnection requests in a 

timely manner.206 SoCal Edison states that the primary challenge associated with the 

coordination of affected systems is the enforceability of provisions in a particular balancing 

authority area tariff if those provisions place obligations on potentially affected systems, 

especially those outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. To address this issue, SoCal 

Edison proposes that RTOs/ISOs amend existing balancing authority area agreements or 

enter into new, legally-binding affected system agreements, to implement appropriate, 

enforceable mechanisms, including cost responsibility for mitigation.

El Paso states that it is not always clear how many affected systems an 

interconnection request may impact until after study work on the request is complete or near 

completion. El Paso argues that, to improve this process, the transmission provider should 

invite all electrically-connected transmission owners and operators to participate in the 

interconnection study process upon receipt of a valid interconnection request. El Paso 

 204 Id. at 9.

205 AWEA 2016 Comments at 18.

206 AWEA 2016 Comments at 18.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 98 -

further suggests that the transmission provider extend this invitation to any other 

transmission system(s) for which the transmission provider has reason to suspect that the 

interconnection request may have adverse impacts, given its location, size, type, and other 

characteristics. Transmission Dependent Utility Systems urge the Commission to clarify the 

definition of affected system in the pro forma LGIP, pro forma LGIA, and pro forma SGIP 

to reflect the recognition, articulated in Order No. 2006, that the definition is not limited to

transmission facilities but also to “an electric system . . . that may be affected by the 

proposed interconnection.”207

Some entities, like Modesto Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Xcel, and 

MISO TOs, indicate no changes are needed in affected systems provisions.208 

c. Request for Comments

Several of the proposed reforms in this Proposed Rule seek to improve the 

information provided to interconnection customers through the interconnection process and 

facilitate the timely interconnection of new generating facilities. Based on the comments 

received, it appears that transmission providers may not provide sufficient information on 

the guidelines and timelines they will use to coordinate with affected systems during the 

 207 Transmission Dependent Utility Systems 2016 Comments at 7 (quoting Order 

No. 2006 at P 543). Transmission Dependent Utility Systems consist of the following rural 

electric generation and transmission cooperatives: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., 

Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation; 

PowerSouth Energy Cooperative, and Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. 

208 Modesto Irrigation District 2015 Comments at 3; Imperial Irrigation District 2016 

Comments at 4-6; Xcel 2016 Comments at 11; MISO TOs Comments at 13.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 99 -

interconnection process. Providing these guidelines and timelines could improve the 

information available to the interconnection customer in the interconnection process and 

could help to avoid late-stage withdrawals due to unforeseen costly network upgrades on 

affected systems. Furthermore, a clear set of procedures and timelines regarding the 

affected system’s study of the proposed interconnection memorialized in a Commissionapproved agreement regarding affected systems analysis could help to ameliorate delays 

experienced awaiting study results from affected systems. 

The Commission seeks comment on whether it should prescribe guidelines for 

affected systems analyses and coordination or if it should impose study requirements and 

associated timelines on affected systems that are also public utility transmission providers. 

The Commission also seeks comment on whether to standardize the process for coordinating 

an affected system analysis and whether to develop a standard affected system study 

agreement. Finally, the Commission seeks comments on proposals or additional steps that 

the Commission could take (e.g., conducting a workshop or technical conference focused on 

improving issues that arise when affected systems are impacted by a proposed 

interconnection). 

C. Enhancing Interconnection Processes

The five proposed reforms in this section would enhance interconnection processes

by making use of underutilized interconnection service, providing interconnection service 

earlier, and accommodating changes in the development process. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 100 -

1. Requesting Interconnection Service Below Generating Facility 

Capacity

The Commission proposes to allow interconnection customers to request a level of 

interconnection service for a generating facility that is lower than the generating facility’s

capacity.209 The use of a level of interconnection service below generating facility capacity

will allow generating facilities that do not intend to use the full generating facility capacity

to avoid constructing network upgrades and interconnection facilities to meet a level of 

interconnection service that is not necessary. For example, the owner of an electric storage 

resource with a generating facility capacity of 30 MW may choose to always operate the 

facility in such a way that it only uses 25 MW of interconnection service. Under this

proposal, the transmission provider would allow the interconnection customer to apply for 

the 25 MW it intends to use instead of the entire 30 MW of generating facility capacity. If a 

facility utilizes this option, it must establish in its interconnection agreement the appropriate 

hardware and/or software to prevent it from exceeding its interconnection service, consent 

to penalties if its output does exceed its interconnection service, and be subject to 

curtailment provisions consistent with 9.7.2 of the LGIA. 

a. Existing Provisions and Background

There are no current provisions in the pro forma LGIP and LGIA that directly speak 

to this issue. However, in certain regions of the country, there are already generating 

 209 The term generating facility capacity means “the net capacity of the Generating 

Facility and the aggregate net capacity of the Generating Facility where it includes multiple 

energy production devices.” Pro forma LGIA at Art.1.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 101 -

facilities with a level of interconnection service lower than the generating facility capacity. 

The details of these limitations have thus far been included in Appendix C of the LGIA.

210 

b. Comments

In post-technical conference comments, parties with experience as interconnection 

customers emphasized their desire for the ability to request interconnection service that 

meets a facility’s needs, even if this service is below the generating facility capacity.211 

Commenters argue that the unique characteristics of electric storage resources, including 

their fast response times and high controllability, justify interconnection service below the 

rated capacity of the facility because they can time their charging and discharging of the 

resource to avoid or mitigate congestion of the transmission grid or to support transmission 

grid voltage and frequency.212 SoCal Edison provides examples of interconnection 

agreements that limited interconnection service to an amount lower than full capacity 213 

ESA and NextEra note that PJM and CAISO have allowed interconnection customers to 

 210 See, e.g., S. Cal. Edison Co., Docket No. ER16-1459-000 (June 14, 2016) 

(delegated letter order); S.Cal. Edison Co., Docket No. ER16-44-000 (November 16, 2015) 

(delegated letter order); S.Cal. Edison Co., Docket No. ER15-2730-000 (November 12, 

2015) (delegated letter order).

211 See, e.g., NextEra 2016 Comments at 10-12; AES 2016 Comments at 15; ESA 

2016 Comments at 5; RES Americas 2016 Comments at 3, 5-6; California Energy Storage 

Alliance 2016 Comments at 12-13.

212 California Energy Storage Alliance 2016 Comments at 6 (citing Midcontinent 

Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 155 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2016)).

213 SoCal Edison 2016 Comments at 6. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 102 -

limit injection rights in certain circumstances.214 NextEra suggests that the structure of 

interconnection rights could alternatively be set forth in a separate pro forma agreement, 

similar to MISO’s Monitoring and Consent Agreement for Net Zero Interconnection 

Service.215

The RTOs/ISOs comments suggest they are cautiously open to the idea of allowing 

interconnection service below the total generating facility capacity if the interconnection 

request is subject to the proper control technologies and penalties.216 MISO notes that it is 

actively discussing the issue with stakeholders.217 NYISO states that allowing 

interconnection at a level below the generating facility capacity should not be permitted 

without adequate provisions for enforcement of the maximum limit, but that interconnection 

customers should be able to submit proposals for limited interconnection service.218 ISONE notes that it would still need to know the network impacts for the full output of the 

generating facility capacity.219

 214 ESA 2016 Comments at 9; NextEra 2016 Comments at 14.

215 NextEra 2016 Comments at 14.

216 See, e.g., NYISO 2016 Comments at 28.

217 MISO 2016 Comments at 12-13.

218 NYISO 2016 Comments at 28.

219 ISO-NE 2016 Comments at 28.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 103 -

Representatives of the storage industry agree that safeguards to limit output should be 

in place to ensure safety and reliability when limiting interconnection service.220 ESA and 

RES Americas suggest that operational tests and/or demonstrations could validate 

interconnection customers’ intended uses and control technologies.221 Commenters also 

suggest that RTOs/ISOs could install physical safeguards and/or impose financial penalties 

and legal liability.222 California Energy Storage Alliance suggests that verifiable controls 

and algorithms, as well as utility equipment already in place (e.g., reclosers), cap the 

discharge at the point of interconnection and that there is no need to require power relays 

and other physical equipment.223 NYISO argues that monitoring and corrective action must 

maintain reliability if the facility exceeds the maximum power limit.224 SoCal Edison 

explains that, pursuant to its current agreements that allow interconnection below generating 

facility capacity, SoCal Edison will notify the interconnection customer if that customer is 

violating its maximum output and notes that the customer risks disconnection if the 

violation persists.225

 220 Xcel 2016 Comments at 18-19; Exelon 2016 Comments at 16.

221 RES Americas 2016 Comments at 5-6; ESA 2016 Comments at 9.

222 SoCal Edison 2016 Comments at 6; ESA 2016 Comments at 9; RES Americas 

2016 Comments at 5-6.

223 California Energy Storage Alliance 2016 Comments at 12-13.

224 NYISO 2016 Comments at 28.

225 SoCal Edison 2016 Comments at 6.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 104 -

c. Proposal

The Commission preliminarily finds that the pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA

may not be just and reasonable and may be unduly discriminatory or preferential to the 

extent that they disallow interconnection service below generating facility capacity. 

Disallowing the requests for interconnection service below generating facility capacity

forces generating facilities intending to utilize lower levels of interconnection service 

capacity to pay for interconnection facilities and network upgrades they do not need. 

The Commission proposes to require that transmission providers allow 

interconnection customers to request interconnection service below their generating facility 

capacity. The Commission recognizes the concerns raised regarding the need for proper 

control technologies and penalties to ensure that an interconnection is safe and reliable when 

a generating facility requests interconnection service below the facility’s full capacity. 

Provided these concerns can be addressed through hardware and/or software installed to 

prevent a facility from exceeding its interconnection service, as well as penalties and 

possible curtailment, the Commission believes that there are legitimate reasons for allowing 

an interconnection customer to request interconnection service at a level less than its 

generating facility capacity. Reducing the amount of interconnection facilities and network 

upgrades required for lower interconnection service capability could also result in lower 

interconnection costs, lower ratepayer costs, and more efficient use of the network upgrades 

and interconnection facilities that are constructed. Therefore, the Commission preliminarily 

finds that this proposal will result in just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential rates, terms and conditions. The proposal will help to reduce overbuilding of 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 105 -

interconnection facilities and network upgrades by tailoring the interconnection facilities 

and network upgrades to a facility’s needed capacity. This means that if a facility, for 

operational or other reasons, will never exceed its interconnection service limitations, it may 

request to build upgrades for interconnection service at a lower level to match the intended 

operation of the facility. This proposal will therefore remove barriers to the development of 

generating facilities which do not intend to operate at full generating facility capacity. 

Allowing generating facilities to limit their interconnection costs by avoiding the 

construction of unnecessary interconnection facilities and network upgrades may also lower 

costs to customers.

The Commission proposes that transmission providers have a process in the 

pro forma LGIP and LGIA in place to consider such requests. The Commission proposes to

require that any interconnection customer that seeks interconnection service below its 

generating facility capacity install appropriate monitoring and control technologies at its 

generating facility. Such a generating facility or interconnection customer will be subject to 

reasonable provisions that enforce a maximum export limit, a notification process to a 

generating facility that has exceeded such limit, and a process for resolving disputes if 

deemed necessary by the transmission provider and/or transmission owner as part of the 

pro forma LGIP and LGIA. Additionally, the Commission proposes that interconnection 

customers that request interconnection service below generating facility capacity be subject 

to reasonable penalties imposed by transmission owners, or transmission providers if more 

appropriate, if they exceed the limitations for interconnection service established in their 

interconnection agreements. Such penalties could be financial, could include a requirement 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 106 -

to pay the cost of additional interconnection facilities or network upgrades, or could consist 

of a loss of interconnection rights. The Commission seeks comment on the potential

penalties that transmission providers or transmission owners may impose if an

interconnection customer exceeds the interconnection service levels agreed upon.

In addition to seeking comment on these proposals, the Commission seeks comment 

on the types and availability of control technologies and protective equipment that could 

ensure that a generating facility does not exceed its level of interconnection service. The 

Commission expects that the transmission providers, transmission owners, and 

interconnection customers will establish the necessary control technologies, as well as 

reasonable penalties or other enforcement mechanisms necessary to ensure compliance with 

the maximum injection limit in Appendix C of the pro forma LGIA. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether certain protection systems would eliminate the need to study the 

full generator facility capacity in some circumstances, potentially reducing study costs. 

This proposal would not eliminate the transmission provider’s potential need to study 

interconnection customers’ interconnection facilities and network upgrades at generating 

facility capacity in addition to the generating facility’s requested level of interconnection 

service when needed to ensure reliability.226 The Commission seeks comment on what 

types of studies and under what conditions the transmission provider may need to study the

generating facility at its generating facility capacity, even if the interconnection customer 

 226 ISO-NE suggests that it would always need to evaluate the generating facility 

capacity to know the network impacts of the full rated capacity and ensure reliability. ISONE Comments at 28.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 107 -

does not intend to use that level of interconnection service and agrees to install all necessary 

equipment to prevent injections of electricity in excess of the requested level of 

interconnection service. 

The Commission acknowledges that allowing interconnection customers to request 

service below their generating facility capacity could result in additional study costs during 

the interconnection process because the transmission provider may need to study the full 

generating facility capacity as well as the requested level of interconnection service. The 

Commission proposes that interconnection customers should bear any additional study costs 

associated with requesting interconnection service below their generating facility capacity, 

but the Commission seeks comment on the potential nature and extent of such costs. 

The Commission also proposes changes to the definitions of “Large Generating 

Facility” and “Small Generating Facility” in the pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA so 

that they are based on the level of interconnection service for the generating facility rather 

than the generating facility capacity. The Commission considers this proposed change to be

consistent with the reform in Order No. 792 where the Commission allowed, subject to 

certain conditions, transmission providers to measure the capacity of small generating 

facilities based on the capacity specified in the interconnection request.227 The Commission 

 227 See Order No. 792, 145 FERC ¶ 61,159 at P 230 (stating that “Under 

section 4.10.3 adopted herein, the Transmission Provider is to measure the capacity 

of a Small Generating Facility based on the capacity specified in the interconnection 

request, which may be less than the maximum capacity that a device is capable of injecting 

into the Transmission Provider’s system, provided that the Transmission Provider agrees, 

with such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, that the manner in which the 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 108 -

seeks comment on the proposed changes to the definitions of “Large Generating Facility” 

and “Small Generating Facility” and the impact of such a change, if any, on the 

interconnection procedures and the interconnection agreement, including the need for other 

related changes to the pro forma LGIP and LGIA.

The Commission also seeks comment on whether revisions in addition to those 

proposed here for the pro forma LGIP or LGIA are necessary to accommodate requests for 

interconnection service below generating facility capacity. We also seek comment on 

whether in lieu of changes to the Commission’s pro forma LGIP and LGIA, transmission 

providers should describe the processes for processing and studying requests for 

interconnection service below generating facility capacity in their pro forma LGIPs and 

LGIAs on compliance, or if such requests should be processed on an ad hoc basis rather 

than having a specified process in the pro forma documents.

The Commission proposes to add the following new paragraph at the end of 

section 3.1 of the pro forma LGIP as follows:

The Transmission Provider shall have a process in place to consider requests 

for Interconnection Service below the Generating Facility Capacity. These 

requests for Interconnection Service shall be studied at the level of 

Interconnection Service requested for purposes of Interconnection Facilities, 

Network Upgrades, and associated costs, but may be subject to other studies at 

the full Generating Facility Capacity to ensure safety and reliability of the 

system, with the study costs borne by the Interconnection Customer. Any 

Interconnection Facility and/or Network Upgrade costs required for safety and 

reliability also would be borne by the Interconnection Customer.

 

Interconnection Customer proposes to limit the maximum capacity that its facility is capable 

of injecting into the Transmission Provider’s system will not adversely affect the safety and 

reliability of the Transmission Provider’s system.”).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 109 -

Interconnection Customers may be subject to additional control technologies 

as well as testing and validation of those technologies consistent with Article 6 

of the LGIA. The necessary control technologies and protection systems as 

well as any potential penalties for exceeding the level of Interconnection 

Service established in the executed, or requested to be filed unexecuted, LGIA 

shall be established in Appendix C of that executed, or requested to be filed 

unexecuted, LGIA.

The Commission proposes to add the following language to the end of section 6.3 of 

the pro forma LGIP:

Transmission Provider shall study the interconnection request at the level of 

service requested by the interconnection customer, unless otherwise required

to study the full Generating Facility Capacity due to safety or reliability 

concerns. 

The Commission proposes to insert the following language in section 7.3 of the 

pro forma LGIP in line 8 of the second paragraph, just before the sentence “The

Interconnection System Impact Study will provide a list of facilities that are required as a 

result of the Interconnection Request and a non-binding good faith estimate of cost 

responsibility and a non-binding good faith estimated time to construct.”

For purposes of determining necessary interconnection facilities and network 

upgrades, the System Impact Study shall consider the level of interconnection 

service requested by the Interconnection Customer, unless otherwise required 

to study the full Generating Facility Capacity due to safety or reliability 

concerns.

The Commission proposes to add the following language to the end of section 8.2 of 

the pro forma LGIP:

The Facilities Study will also identify any potential control equipment for 

requests for Interconnection Service that are lower than the Generating 

Facility Capacity.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 110 -

The Commission proposes to add the following language to Appendix 1, Item 5, of 

the pro forma LGIP, as sub-item h: 

Requested capacity (in MW) of Interconnection Service (if lower than the Generating 

Facility Capacity) 

Lastly, the Commission proposes to change the definition of “Large Generating 

Facility” and “Small Generating Facility” in section 1 of the pro forma LGIP and article 1 of 

the pro forma LGIA as follows (proposing to delete italicized text):

Large Generating Facility shall mean a Generating Facility for which an 

Interconnection Customer has having a Generating Facility Capacity

requested Interconnection Service of more than 20 MW.

Small Generating Facility shall mean a Generating Facility for which an 

Interconnection Customer has requested Interconnection Servicethat has a 

Generating Capacity of no more than 20 MW.

The Commission recognizes that the NERC reliability standards are generally 

applicable to generating facilities with a gross nameplate rating of greater than 20 MVA,228

and do not generally apply to Small Generating Facilities with SGIAs. The Commission 

clarifies that its proposed revisions to the definition of Large Generating Facility and Small

Generating Facility are not intended to conflict with any applicable NERC Reliability 

Standards or NERC’s compliance registration process.

 228 See NERC Statement of Compliance Registry Criteria (effective: July 1, 2014),

http://www.nerc.com/FilingsOrders/us/RuleOfProcedureDL/Appendix_5B_RegistrationCrit

eria_20140701.pdf
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 111 -

2. Provisional Interconnection Service 

The Commission recognizes that the length of the interconnection process can pose a 

challenge for interconnection customers. In some cases, there is a certain amount of 

interconnection capacity that has already been studied at the point of interconnection. The 

Commission therefore proposes to adopt a provisional agreement process wherein new 

generating facilities could interconnect, possibly under limited operation, using 

interconnection service pursuant to existing and regularly updated studies while they wait to 

complete the additional studies needed to satisfy their full interconnection request.

a. Existing Provisions and Background

There are no current provisions in the pro forma LGIP or pro forma LGIA that allow 

for provisional agreements where new generating facilities could interconnect, possibly 

under limited operation, using interconnection service pursuant to existing and regularly 

updated studies while they wait to complete the additional studies needed to satisfy their full 

interconnection request. Under the current interconnection process, an interconnection 

customer that seeks to interconnect quickly, possibly under limited operation, and is willing 

to bear the financial risk of network upgrades that will be identified after the interconnection 

process has been completed, may not use interconnection service that is available as 

indicated by existing and regularly updated studies. Only at the end of the interconnection

process—after the transmission provider has studied the final form of the proposed 

generating facility and its effects, and has evaluated the need for any interconnection 

facilities and network upgrades—may the interconnection customer begin injection onto the 

grid. Thus, the pro forma LGIP/LGIA do not provide for provisional arrangements that 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 112 -

would allow interconnection customers to interconnect using existing capacity on the 

transmission system prior to the completion of the interconnection study process. 

However certain regions, such as SPP and MISO, already permit interconnection 

customers to execute provisional agreements prior to the completion of the full 

interconnection process.

229 In MISO, interconnection customers are able to request 

provisional agreements to provide a limited amount of service prior to completion of the 

interconnection process, i.e., prior to the completion of any network upgrades, based on the 

availability of existing studies.230 To do so, interconnection customers must demonstrate 

that sufficient facilities exist for the level of output requested in the provisional agreement 

and must re-verify that determination on a regular basis.231 Extending this policy to other 

transmission providers could help facilitate the interconnection of generating facilities that 

have a desire to build and/or provide service prior to completion of the full interconnection 

process. 

b. Comments

Multiple commenters, particularly those in the electric storage industry, expressed a 

desire to expedite the interconnection process and to employ existing interconnection and 

network facilities as a way to do so. Several note that increasing the speed of 

 229 SPP, OATT, Attachment V, app. 6 (6.1.0). MISO, FERC Electric Tariff, Att. X, 

Section 11.5 (47.0.0). 

230 MISO, FERC Electric Tariff, Att. X, Section 11.5 (47.0.0).

231 MISO, FERC Electric Tariff, Att. X, Section 11.5 (47.0.0).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 113 -

interconnection for resources such as electric storage is important because these resources 

can physically come on-line before completion of the interconnection process.232 

c. Proposal

The Commission preliminarily finds that the lack of a process in the pro forma LGIP 

and the lack of a provision in the pro forma LGIA for an interconnection customer to obtain 

a provisional agreement for interconnection service weakens competition due to the inability 

of interconnection customers to leverage prior investments in interconnection studies and 

related facilities to provide wholesale services. This lack of provisional interconnection 

service may also raise costs due to the inability to use some existing interconnection 

facilities and network upgrades, thereby leading to unjust and unreasonable rates for 

customers. Although a transmission provider may be able to provide interconnection 

service at the currently studied and approved level of interconnection capacity while it is 

studying a larger interconnection request, the pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA do not 

currently provide for such flexibility for provisional service at currently studied levels. 

Therefore, lack of a process for provisional interconnection service precludes the 

interconnection customer from providing wholesale services during the pendency of its 

interconnection request. 

The Commission therefore proposes to allow interconnection customers to enter into 

provisional agreements for limited interconnection service prior to the completion of the full 

interconnection process. Such provisional agreements could benefit interconnection 

 232 See, e.g., AES 2016 Comments at 3.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 114 -

customers by permitting limited operation based on existing and regularly updated studies, 

and prior to the completion of studies and network upgrades being built for the larger 

interconnection service that is requested. Provisional agreements could also benefit 

interconnection customers with short development lead times, such as electric storage 

resources, which can provide some services prior to completion of the full interconnection 

process. Under this proposal, interconnection customers with provisional agreements would 

be able to begin operation up to the MW level as permitted by existing and regularly 

updated studies. The transmission provider may require milestone payments prior to 

submission of the provisional agreement. The provisional agreement would be in effect 

while awaiting the final results of the interconnection studies, finalization of a final 

interconnection agreement, and the construction of any additional interconnection facilities 

and network upgrades and cost assignments for the network upgrades that may result from 

the full interconnection process. The Commission also proposes that provisional large 

generator interconnection agreements and the associated provisional interconnection service

would terminate upon completion of construction of network upgrades. At this point, the 

interconnection customer would proceed according to the terms of the interconnection 

agreement. 

Provisional agreements may also mitigate interconnection customer risk associated 

with unknown final network upgrade costs by creating revenue streams earlier in an 

interconnection customer’s life. However, the Commission proposes that such 

interconnection customers must still assume all risks and liabilities associated with the 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 115 -

required interconnection facilities and network upgrades for their interconnection that are 

identified pursuant to the interconnection studies for the requested interconnection service. 

The Commission therefore proposes to require that transmission providers allow 

interconnection customers to request provisional interconnection service and operate under 

provisional interconnection agreements based on existing and regularly updated studies that 

demonstrate that necessary interconnection facilities and network upgrades are in place to 

meet applicable North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) or other regional 

reliability requirements for new, modified, and/or expanded generating facilities. If 

available studies do not demonstrate whether provisional interconnection service can be 

reliably accommodated, the transmission provider shall perform additional studies as 

necessary. An evaluation of provisional service by the transmission provider shall 

determine whether stability, short circuit, and/or voltage issues would arise if the 

interconnection customer seeking provisional interconnection service interconnects without 

modifications to the generating facility or the transmission provider’s system. The 

Commission also proposes that transmission providers must assess any safety or reliability 

concerns posed by provisional agreements, and establish a process for the interconnection 

customer that will mitigate any reliability risks associated with operation pursuant to 

provisional agreements. The costs of such mitigation, if necessary, would be borne by the 

interconnection customer. The Commission is interested in additional comments on this

proposal and the means by which transmission providers and interconnection customers 

could mitigate any risks and liabilities for provisional interconnection service. Additionally, 

acknowledging that transmission providers have limited resources to conduct studies, we 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 116 -

also seek comment on the circumstances under which provisional interconnection service 

would be beneficial and how common such circumstances would be for potential 

interconnection customers. 

The Commission proposes to add the following new definitions to Section 1 of the 

pro forma LGIP, as well as to article 1 of the LGIA: 

Provisional Interconnection Service shall mean interconnection service 

provided by the Transmission Provider associated with interconnecting the 

Interconnection Customer's Generating Facility to the Transmission Provider's 

Transmission System and enabling that Transmission System to receive 

electric energy and capacity from the Generating Facility at the Point of 

Interconnection, pursuant to the terms of the Provisional Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement and, if applicable, the Tariff.

Provisional Large Generator Interconnection Agreement shall mean the 

interconnection agreement for Provisional Interconnection Service established 

between the Transmission Provider and/or the Transmission Owner and the 

Interconnection Customer. This agreement shall take the form of the Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement, modified for provisional purposes.

Additionally, the Commission proposes a new section 5.10 for the pro forma LGIA 

that defines the requirements for transmission providers to provide provisional 

interconnection service and the responsibilities of the interconnection customer. The 

Commission has not developed a pro forma Provisional Large Generator Interconnection 

Agreement because such agreements could either be established on an ad hoc basis for 

provisional interconnection service, or transmission providers could establish their own 

pro forma provisional agreements. However, the Commission seeks comment on the need 

for the Commission to establish a pro forma Provisional Large Generator Interconnection 

Agreement as part of the pro forma LGIA as well as any important details related to the 

service, e.g., the stage in the interconnection process where the customer would be able to 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 117 -

request this service and whether all milestone payments would be required to be paid upon 

submission of the provisional agreement. The Commission proposes to add the following 

new section 5.10 to the pro forma LGIA:

5.10 Provisional Interconnection Service. Upon the request of 

Interconnection Customer, and prior to completion of requisite Network 

Upgrades, the Transmission Provider may execute a Provisional Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement or Interconnection Customer may 

request the filing of an unexecuted Provisional Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement with the Interconnection Customer for limited 

interconnection service at the discretion of Transmission Provider based upon 

an evaluation that will consider the results of available studies. Transmission 

Provider shall determine, through available studies or additional studies as 

necessary, whether stability, short circuit, thermal, and/or voltage issues 

would arise if Interconnection Customer interconnects without modifications 

to the Generating Facility or Transmission Provider’s system. Transmission 

Provider shall determine whether any Network Upgrades, Interconnection 

Facilities, Distribution Upgrades, or System Protection Facilities that are 

necessary to meet the requirements of NERC, or any applicable Regional 

Entity for the interconnection of a new, modified and/or expanded Generating 

Facility are in place prior to the commencement of interconnection service 

from the Generating Facility. Where available studies indicate that such 

Network Upgrades, Interconnection Facilities, Distribution Upgrades, and/or 

System Protection Facilities that are required for the interconnection of a new, 

modified and/or expanded Generating Facility are not currently in place, 

Transmission Provider will perform a study, at the Interconnection Customer’s 

expense, to confirm the facilities that are required for provisional 

interconnection service. The maximum permissible output of the Generating 

Facility in the Provisional Large Generator Interconnection Agreement shall 

be studied and updated on a quarterly basis. Interconnection Customer 

assumes all risks and liabilities with respect to changes between the 

Provisional Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and the Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement, including changes in output limits and 

Network Upgrades, Interconnection Facilities, Distribution Upgrades, and/or

System Protection Facilities cost responsibilities.

3. Utilization of Surplus Interconnection Service 

Based on comments received during this proceeding, it has become clear that a 

number of interconnection customers would like to co-locate new generating facilities with 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 118 -

existing generating facilities which may not be fully utilizing an existing generating 

facility’s interconnection service. Commenters provided examples of circumstances when 

this can happen, including instances where an existing variable energy resource is paired 

with a new electric storage resource. In this example, the variability in the variable energy 

resource’s output may prevent it from fully utilizing its interconnection capacity during 

some hours. To address these comments, the Commission proposes to require transmission 

providers to include in their tariffs and the pro forma LGIP an expedited process for 

interconnection customers to utilize or transfer surplus interconnection service at existing 

generating facilities. The Commission further proposes that this process give an existing 

generating facility owner or its affiliate priority to use the surplus interconnection service, 

but that the tariffs and pro forma LGIP also establish an open and transparent process for the 

sale of that surplus interconnection service if the owner and its affiliates elect not to use it, 

and elect to make it available to another party. Lastly, the Commission proposes that this 

expedited process for surplus interconnection service be available for any quantity of 

surplus interconnection service, regardless of whether it is above or below the 20 MW 

threshold for small and large generator interconnection. 

a. Existing Provisions and Background

On occasion, interconnection customers request more interconnection service for an 

interconnection request than they may need at any given time. As a result, they may have 

surplus interconnection service that the relevant transmission provider has already studied

and approved. An interconnection customer with an existing interconnection agreement 

might want to add resources, such as electric storage resources, which were not planned as 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 119 -

part of the original interconnection request, or it may wish to sell surplus interconnection 

service without conveying the originally planned generating facility as part of the sale. In 

these instances, it is difficult for an interconnection customer at present to utilize this 

surplus interconnection service. The Commission has addressed the desire for an 

interconnection customer to retain access to excess capacity on interconnection customer 

interconnection facilities.233 These reforms were motivated by phased generating facilities

that have built additional interconnection customer interconnection facility capacity beyond 

that needed by the initial phases of development. However, there are other circumstances 

when an interconnection customer may have surplus interconnection service and the 

pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA do not address the utilization or transfer of surplus 

interconnection service where there is no transfer of the underlying generating facility. 

MISO’s tariff offers Net Zero Interconnection Service, which MISO designed to 

allow an existing interconnection customer to increase the gross generating capacity at the 

point of interconnection of an existing generating facility without increasing the total 

interconnection service at the point of interconnection.234 Under MISO’s approach, a new 

generating facility could use this service to interconnect at an existing point of 

 233 Open Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection 

Facilities, Order No. 807, 150 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2015).

234 MISO FERC Electric Tariff, Att. X, Section 1 (Definitions) (47.0.0) (“Net Zero 

Interconnection Service shall mean a form of Energy Resource Interconnection Service that 

allows an interconnection customer to alter the characteristics of an existing generating 

facility, with the consent of the existing generating facility, at the same POI such that the 

Interconnection Service limit remains the same”).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 120 -

interconnection.235 In MISO, Net Zero Interconnection Service entails a separate 

interconnection process for interconnection service that an existing interconnection 

customer wishes to make available for a new interconnection customer.

236 This process 

includes an energy displacement agreement between the existing and the new 

interconnection customers,

237 a monitoring and consent agreement between the new

interconnection customer and the transmission owner,238 as well as the appropriate studies, 

and an evaluation process for Net Zero Interconnection Service.239 

 235 Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, 138 FERC ¶ 61,233 at P 16. 

236 MISO FERC Electric Tariff, Att. X, Section 1 (Definitions) (47.0.0) (“Net Zero 

Interconnection Service shall mean a form of Energy Resource Interconnection Service that 

allows an interconnection customer to alter the characteristics of an existing generating 

facility, with the consent of the existing generating facility, at the same POI such that the 

Interconnection Service limit remains the same”).

237 MISO FERC Electric Tariff, Att. X, Section 1 (Definitions) (47.0.0) (“Energy 

Displacement Agreement shall mean an agreement between an Interconnection Customer 

with an existing generating facility on the Transmission Provider’s Transmission System 

and an Interconnection Customer with a proposed Generating Facility seeking to 

interconnect with Net Zero Interconnection Service. The Energy Displacement Agreement 

specifies the term of operation, the Generating Facility Interconnection Service limit, and 

the mode of operation for energy production (common or singular operation)”).

238 MISO FERC Electric Tariff, Att. X, Section 1 (Definitions) (47.0.0) (“Monitoring 

and Consent Agreement shall mean an agreement that defines the terms and conditions 

applicable to a Generating Facility acquiring Net Zero Interconnection Service. The 

Monitoring and Consent Agreement will list the roles and responsibilities of an 

Interconnection Customer seeking to interconnect with Net Zero Interconnection Service 

and Transmission Owner to maintain the total output of the Generating Facility inside the 

parameters delineated in the GIA”).

239 MISO FERC Electric Tariff, Att. X, Sections 3.2.3 & 3.3.1 (47.0.0).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 121 -

As implemented in MISO, Net Zero Interconnection Service is a restricted form of 

Energy Resource Interconnection Service. The interconnection study consists of reactive 

power, short circuit/fault duty, and stability analyses. Steady-state (thermal/voltage) 

analyses may be performed as necessary to ensure that all required reliability conditions are 

studied. Moreover, if the existing generating facility was not studied under off-peak 

conditions, off-peak steady state analyses will be performed to the required level necessary 

to demonstrate reliable operation of the Net Zero Interconnection Service. If no system 

impact study was available for the existing generation, both off-peak and peak analysis may 

need to be performed for the generating facility seeking Net Zero Interconnection Service in 

accordance with the LGIP. The interconnection study will identify the interconnection 

facilities required and the network upgrades necessary to address reliability issues.

In its order accepting MISO’s proposal for Net Zero Interconnection Service, the 

Commission expressed concern about the “lack of transparency” and failure to “provide a 

clear and consistent way in which generators seeking Net Zero Interconnection Service may 

identify opportunities for [such service] or how such a generator would be chosen for such 

service.”240 For these reasons, the Commission directed MISO to submit a compliance 

filing to ensure that MISO offers Net Zero Interconnection Service “on a fair, transparent, 

 240 Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 138 FERC ¶ 61,233, at P 301 

(2012) (First Net Zero Order).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 122 -

and non-discriminatory basis and that comply with the filing requirements of FPA 

section 205.”241 

b. Comments

The Commission received multiple comments that support Commission action to 

improve the interconnection process with regard to surplus interconnection service. Some 

commenters stressed the importance of getting resources, especially electric storage 

resources, on-line more quickly. For instance, NextEra states that a program that allows for 

utilization of surplus interconnection capacity could result in faster processing of requests to 

co-locate batteries with existing generation.242 ESA argues that customers that wish to 

install electric storage resources without additional injection rights should be able to limit 

interconnection service to the level established in the existing interconnection agreement. 

ESA also suggests that interconnection customers should be able to transfer some of their 

injection rights to others, with thermal studies required only for the incremental service.243

Commenters also assert that co-locating electric storage resources with generators 

that have existing interconnection rights should require less modeling and should not require 

thermal injection studies.244 NextEra suggests that studies should be tailored to the service 

 241 First Net Zero Order, 138 FERC ¶ 61,233 at P 302.

242 See, e.g., NextEra 2016 Comments at 13. MISO notes that its Net Zero 

Interconnection Service product is available to any new resources. MISO 2016 Comments 

at 24-25.

243 ESA 2016 Comments at 8-10.

244 NextEra 2016 Comments at 13; California Energy Storage Alliance 2016.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 123 -

requested, with a focus on stability studies and thermal withdrawal studies only if they are 

necessary. NextEra suggests that these changes should apply to both electric storage 

resources that seek to interconnect at existing generation sites and to new brownfield 

electric storage resources co-located with new generation.245 

During the technical conference, transmission providers noted that processes and 

procedures would need to be in place to determine whether the requested interconnection 

service was available, including having service, rights, and descriptions that are clear and 

implementable.246

c. Proposal

The Commission is concerned that existing interconnection service is underutilized. 

The Commission also recognizes changes in the industry that have created greater 

opportunities for co-located facilities, such as generation and electric storage resources. It is 

appropriate to incentivize the utilization of surplus interconnection service because creating 

an expedited process for interconnection customers to utilize or transfer the utilization of 

surplus interconnection service will help reduce system costs by leveraging existing assets. 

Doing so could also improve competition in the wholesale markets by accelerating the 

interconnection process and facilitating the use of new complementary technologies such as 

electric storage resources that can further improve reliability and competition. Therefore, 

 245 NextEra 2016 Comments at 13.

246 Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, American 

Wind Energy Association, Docket No RM16-12-000, Technical Conference Transcript 

at 251.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 124 -

the Commission preliminarily finds that facilitating the use of surplus interconnection 

service will reduce costs and improve competition, helping to ensure just and reasonable 

rates as required of the Commission under the FPA.

The Commission preliminarily finds that providing an expedited process for 

interconnection customers to utilize or transfer surplus interconnection service at existing 

generating facilities could remove barriers to the interconnection of a new generator, or to 

the modification and/or expansion of the existing generating facility. Expediting the use of 

surplus interconnection service could be particularly beneficial to electric storage and other 

resources that can be developed and constructed faster than existing interconnection 

processes often allow. Allowing interconnection customers to better leverage existing 

assets, whether for their own purposes or for transfer to another interconnection customer, 

will help prevent stranded costs and improve access to the transmission system, thereby 

enhancing competition and helping to ensure just and reasonable rates, terms, and 

conditions.

The Commission proposes to add a new definition for Surplus Interconnection 

Service to section 1 of the pro forma LGIP and to article 1 of the pro forma LGIA that 

provides an expedited process for interconnection customers to utilize or transfer surplus 

interconnection service at existing generating facilities. The Commission further proposes 

that this process give an existing generating facility owner or its affiliates priority to use the 

surplus interconnection service, but that the transmission providers would also establish an 

open and transparent process for the transfer of that surplus interconnection service if the 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 125 -

generating facility owner and its affiliates elect not to use it, and the generating facility 

owner elects to make it available to another party. 

The Commission proposes that the studies for surplus interconnection service shall 

consist of reactive power, short circuit/fault duty, and stability analyses, and that steadystate (thermal/voltage) analyses may be performed as necessary to ensure that all required 

reliability conditions are studied. The Commission proposes that if the surplus 

interconnection service was not studied under off-peak conditions, off-peak steady state 

analyses shall be performed to the required level necessary to demonstrate reliable operation 

of the surplus interconnection service. The Commission also proposes that if the original 

System Impact Study is not available for the surplus interconnection service, both off-peak 

and peak analysis may need to be performed for the existing generating facility associated 

with the request for surplus interconnection service. Additionally, the Commission 

proposes that this process for the use or transfer of surplus interconnection service be 

available for any quantity of surplus interconnection service that currently exists. 

The Commission proposes that a new interconnection agreement for surplus 

interconnection service must be executed, or filed unexecuted, by the transmission provider, 

transmission owner (as applicable), and the surplus interconnection service customer. The 

surplus interconnection service customer may be the interconnection customer for the 

existing generating facility, one of its affiliates, or a new interconnection customer selected 

through an open and transparent solicitation process. In addition to the new interconnection 

agreement for surplus interconnection service, we recognize that other contractual 

arrangements may also be necessary. For example, the interconnection customer for the 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 126 -

existing generating facility and the surplus interconnection service customer will likely want 

to memorialize their rights and obligations with regard to the operation of the existing 

generating facility and the new generating facility that will use the surplus interconnection 

service. 

While the Commission does not propose specific contractual arrangements with 

respect to surplus interconnection service in this Proposed Rule, the Commission seeks 

comment on how these arrangements should work and on whether requirements for such 

arrangements should be established in the Commission’s pro forma LGIP and LGIA. The 

Commission notes that the pro forma LGIA only permits survival of the LGIA under limited 

circumstances.247 For this reason, one important consideration for the new interconnection 

agreement for surplus interconnection service is whether the surplus interconnection service 

should survive the retirement of the existing generating facility. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether the interconnection agreement for surplus interconnection service 

should terminate upon the retirement of the existing generating facility, or whether there are 

 247 Article 2.6 provide that an LGIA:

shall continue in effect after termination to the extent necessary to provide for 

final billings and payments and for costs incurred hereunder, including 

billings and payments pursuant to this LGIA; to permit the determination and 

enforcement of liability and indemnification obligations arising from acts or 

events that occurred while this LGIA was in effect; and to permit each Party to 

have access to the lands of the other Party pursuant to this LGIA or other 

applicable agreements, to disconnect, remove or salvage its own facilities and 

equipment.

Pro forma LGIA Art. 2.6 (Survival).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 127 -

circumstances under which the surplus interconnection service customer may operate its 

generating facility under terms of the surplus interconnection service agreement after the 

retirement of the existing generating facility. If the transmission provider, transmission 

owner (as applicable), and the surplus interconnection service customer choose to provide 

for survival of the surplus interconnection service agreement for the surplus interconnection 

service customer after the retirement of the existing generating facility, they must 

memorialize this arrangement in the surplus interconnection service agreement. The 

Commission notes, however, that in recent precedent, the Commission stated that 

procedures that allow retiring generators to transfer their interconnection service must 

“ensure that the opportunity to replace or increase the capacity of the retiring facility is 

offered on a fair, transparent, and nondiscriminatory basis.”248 For this reason, the 

Commission anticipates that, upon the retirement of the existing generating facility, any 

interconnection service could only be transferred on a fair, transparent, and 

nondiscriminatory basis.

While some commenters suggest that other transmission providers should adopt a 

process similar to MISO’s process for Net Zero Interconnection Service, upon further 

consideration of the MISO Net Zero Interconnection Service proceeding, the Commission 

proposes to modify its position with regard to utilization of surplus interconnection service 

so that the existing generating facility owners have priority to utilize such surplus 

 248 Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 153 FERC ¶ 61,313, at P 27 

(2015).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 128 -

interconnection service. In revisiting these previous findings, the Commission notes that 

existing generating facility owners (or their predecessors) have already paid for the 

interconnection studies and interconnection facilities and have real property interests and 

other assets associated with those existing generating facilities, such as real estate and 

permits. After executing an interconnection agreement, a generating facility owner is 

entitled to the interconnection service contained therein, and is not required to make such 

service available unless it elects to. 

Under this proposal, an existing generating facility owner or its affiliate would have 

priority to use any surplus interconnection service and would be able to execute, or request 

the filing of an unexecuted, new interconnection agreement for surplus interconnection 

service without posting or going through an open solicitation. However, if an existing 

generating facility owner that has surplus interconnection service wishes to transfer this 

surplus interconnection service, and it does not wish to use the surplus interconnection 

service itself or to transfer it to one of its affiliates, the existing generator must conduct an 

open and transparent solicitation process for that surplus interconnection service. The 

proposal to grant existing generating facility owners priority over their surplus 

interconnection service is similar to the Commission’s findings in Order No. 807 where the 

Commission waived certain open access requirements and granted interconnection 

customers priority over their interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities.249 While 

 249 Order No. 807, Open Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities, 150 FERC ¶ 61,211.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 129 -

the Commission proposes that priority be given to the existing generating facility owner of 

the surplus interconnection service or its affiliates, the Commission seeks comment on 

whether any further limitations should be placed on the entities with priority use of that 

surplus interconnection service.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to add a new definition 

for Surplus Interconnection Service to section 1 of the pro forma LGIP and to article 1 of 

the pro forma LGIA. Additionally, the Commission proposes to add new sections 3.3, 3.3.1 

and 3.3.2 to the pro forma LGIP that define the requirements of the transmission provider 

regarding requests for the use of surplus interconnection service and the solicitation process 

for surplus interconnection service that the existing generating facility owner must follow if 

it, or one of its affiliates, elects not to use the surplus interconnection service and wants to 

transfer that service to another interconnection customer. 

The Commission proposes to add the following new definition to Section 1 of the 

pro forma LGIP and to article 1 of the pro forma LGIA: 

Surplus Interconnection Service shall mean any unused portion of 

Interconnection Service established in a Large Generator Interconnection 

Agreement, such that if Surplus Interconnection Service is utilized the 

Interconnection Service limit at the Point of Interconnection would remain the 

same.

The Commission proposes to add a new section 3.3 to the pro forma LGIP that 

requires the transmission provider to establish a process for the use of surplus 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 130 -

interconnection service. This section will displace the current section 3.3, changing the

numbering of current sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 to 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7, respectively.250

Utilization of Surplus Interconnection Service. The Transmission Provider 

must provide a process that allows an Interconnection Customer to utilize or 

transfer Surplus Interconnection Service at an existing Generating Facility. 

The original Interconnection Customer or one of its affiliates shall have 

priority to utilize Surplus Interconnection Service. If the existing 

Interconnection Customer or one of its affiliates does not exercise its priority, 

then that service may be made available to other potential interconnection 

customers through an open and transparent solicitation process.

The Commission proposes to add a new section 3.3.1 to the pro forma LGIP that 

describes the process for using surplus interconnection service:

Surplus Interconnection Service Requests

Surplus Interconnection Service requests may be made by the existing Generating 

Facility or one of its affiliates. Surplus Interconnection Service requests also may be 

made by another Interconnection Customer selected through an open and transparent 

solicitation process. The Transmission Provider shall provide a process for 

evaluating interconnection requests for Surplus Interconnection Service. Studies for 

Surplus Interconnection Service shall consist of reactive power, short circuit/fault 

duty, stability analyses, and any other appropriate studies. Steady-state 

(thermal/voltage) analyses may be performed as necessary to ensure that all required 

reliability conditions are studied. If the Surplus Interconnection Service was not 

studied under off-peak conditions, off-peak steady state analyses shall be performed 

to the required level necessary to demonstrate reliable operation of the Surplus 

Interconnection Service. If the original System Impact Study is not available for the 

Surplus Interconnection Service, both off-peak and peak analysis may need to be 

performed for the existing Generating Facility associated with the request for Surplus 

Interconnection Service. The reactive power, short circuit/fault duty, stability, and 

steady-state analyses for Surplus Interconnection Service will identify any additional 

Interconnection Facilities and/or Network Upgrades necessary.

The Commission proposes to add a new section 3.3.2 to the pro forma LGIP that 

establishes the open and transparent solicitation process for surplus interconnection service:

 250 Renumbering detailed in Appendix B of this Proposed Rule.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 131 -

Solicitation Process for Surplus Interconnection Service

If the existing Generating Facility owner elects to transfer rights for Surplus 

Interconnection Service to an unaffiliated Interconnection Customer, it must do so 

through an open and transparent solicitation process. The existing Generating 

Facility owner must first request that the Transmission Provider post on its website 

that it is willing to accept requests for Surplus Interconnection Service at the existing 

Point of Interconnection. Such posting will include the name of the existing 

Generating Facility, the exact electrical location of the physical termination point of 

the Surplus Interconnection Service, including proposed breaker position(s) within its 

substation, the state and county of the existing Generating Facility, and a valid email 

address and phone number to contact the representative of the existing Generating 

Facility. The existing Generating Facility owner must provide the Transmission 

Provider with the System Impact Study performed for the existing Generating 

Facility with its request for posting Surplus Interconnection Service or indicate that 

such study is not available. 

After the existing Generating Facility owner requests that the Transmission Provider 

post the availability of Surplus Interconnection Service, the Transmission Provider 

will also post on its website a description of the selection process for transferring 

rights to the Surplus Interconnection Service that will include a timeline and the 

selection criteria developed by the existing Generating Facility owner. The selection 

process may vary among existing Generating Facility owners but the existing 

Generating Facility owner will choose the winning request after all necessary studies 

have been performed by the Transmission Provider. The existing Generating Facility 

owner will submit to the Transmission Provider, for posting on the Transmission 

Provider’s website, the results of the selection process and will include a description 

of whose proposal for the Surplus Interconnection Service was selected and why. 

After an Interconnection Customer has been chosen, the new Interconnection 

Customer will execute, or request the filing of an unexecuted, interconnection 

agreement with the Transmission Provider and Transmission Owner (as applicable)

upon completion of all necessary studies for its new Generating Facility.

4. Material Modification and Incorporation of Advanced 

Technologies

It is not uncommon for equipment manufacturers to make technological 

advancements to equipment while an interconnection request progresses through the 

interconnection process since the process can span several years. Technological 

advancements to equipment may achieve cost efficiencies and/or electrical grid performance 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 132 -

benefits. These changes may include, for example, advancements to turbines, inverters, 

plant supervisory controls, or may affect a generating facility’s ability to provide ancillary 

services. However, the pro forma LGIP does not include clear guidelines on what 

technology changes constitute material modifications and how these changes can be 

incorporated into an interconnection request. The pro forma LGIP also does not contain 

guidance regarding the analysis and modeling for the incorporation of technological 

advancements into an existing interconnection request. The Commission proposes to 

require that transmission providers develop: (1) a definition of permissible technological 

advancements pursuant to an interconnection request that the interconnection process can 

accommodate and (2) an accompanying procedure that will be used to accommodate the 

incorporation of technological advancements to interconnection requests for synchronous 

and non-synchronous generating facilities. Further, the Commission proposes that this 

definition should contemplate advancements that provide cost efficiency and/or electrical 

performance benefits.

a. Existing Provisions and Background

Under the pro forma LGIP, an interconnection customer must submit to the 

transmission provider, in writing, modifications to any information provided in the 

interconnection request.251 An interconnection customer retains its queue position if the 

modifications are either allowed explicitly under the pro forma LGIP or if the transmission 

 251 See Pro forma LGIP at Section 4.4.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 133 -

provider determines that the modifications are not Material Modifications.252 The pro forma

LGIP directs transmission providers to commence any necessary additional studies related 

to the interconnection customer’s modification request no later than 30 calendar days after 

receiving notice of the request.253 If a transmission provider finds a proposed modification 

to be material, the interconnection customer can choose whether to abandon the proposed 

modification or to proceed with the modification and lose its existing queue position.

b. Comments

During the 2016 Technical Conference, some panelists questioned whether 

interconnection customers should be able to incorporate technological advancements into 

their interconnection requests as they move through the interconnection study process. The 

Commission subsequently solicited post-technical conference comments on whether 

technological advancements could be incorporated without presenting system reliability 

concerns and causing delays to the interconnection study process.254 Multiple commenters 

assert that the interconnection process could benefit from the additional flexibility to 

accommodate technological advancements that do not cause significant reliability issues or 

 252 See Pro forma LGIP at Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4.

253 See Pro forma LGIP at Section 4.4.4.

254 See Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments, Question 1.13 Docket 

Nos. RM16-12-000 and RM15-21-000 (June 3, 2016).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 134 -

timing delays.255 Some commenters state that these advancements should be permissible as 

long as they do not trigger the Material Modification provision of the LGIP and do not 

disrupt other interconnection requests.256 PacifiCorp proposed a formal procedure for 

transmission providers to evaluate technological advancements.257 In particular, 

PacifiCorp’s proposal would require interconnection customers to provide formal 

notification and a $10,000 deposit for the performance of a technological change study that 

the transmission provider would complete within 30 days.258 MISO asserts that a new 

approach to account for technological advancements would require manufacturers to 

provide validation documentation that the advancement performs equally or better than 

without the technological change. MISO further asserts that if a technological advancement 

would result in improved performance, in most cases, a transmission provider study is 

unnecessary.259 Xcel acknowledges that new technologies may not be appropriately 

modeled in the existing analytical software, and states that developing sufficient modeling 

 255 See, e.g., PacifiCorp 2016 Comments at 3-4; AWEA 2016 Comments at 27; 

Invenergy 2016 Comments at 18; MISO 2016 Comments at 14; EDF 2016 Comments at 25; 

NYISO 2016 Comments at 19; ISO-NE 2016 Comments at 20-21.

256 See, e.g., Xcel 2016 Comments at 12-13; MISO 2016 Comments at 14; EDP 2016 

Comments at 14-15; Invenergy 2016 Comments at 18.

257 PacifiCorp 2016 Comments at 3-4.

258 Id.

259 MISO 2016 Comments at 14.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 135 -

parameters should be made clear to interconnection customers’ technology vendors.260 Xcel 

argues that confidentiality issues should not preclude the sharing of functional specifications 

sufficient to model the new equipment.261 

With regard to the timing of technological change requests, most commenters did not 

identify an appropriate deadline within the interconnection process beyond which 

transmission providers could not accommodate technological advancements. EDF argues 

that technological advancements should be accommodated as an interconnection request

proceeds through the LGIP process up until the commercial operation date, because 

advancements provide benefits to all customers.262 NYISO, on the other hand, asserts that 

technological advances and other modifications can be incorporated into an interconnection 

request only if they are proposed at appropriate stages.263 

c. Proposal

The Commission preliminarily finds that the provisions regarding material 

modifications in the pro forma LGIP provide the transmission provider with significant 

discretion in determining whether a modification is deemed material, and that this discretion 

can lead to unjust and unreasonable rates, terms, and conditions, and unduly discriminatory 

 260 Xcel 2016 Comments at 12-13.

261 Xcel 2016 Comments at 12-13.

262 EDF 2016 Comments at 25.

263 NYISO 2016 Comments at 19.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 136 -

or preferential practices when transmission providers evaluate technological advancements 

under the existing material modification construct. 

The Commission thus proposes to require transmission providers to establish a 

technological change procedure to assess and, if necessary, study whether they can 

accommodate a technological change request without the change considered to be a material 

modification. The Commission proposes that transmission providers include the

technological change procedure in their pro forma LGIPs. The Commission proposes an 

approach below for how this new procedure should be structured and proposes to require 

that transmission providers use this approach when developing their technological change 

procedure.

The Commission proposes that an interconnection customer that seeks to incorporate 

technological advancements into an interconnection request must formally notify the 

relevant transmission provider. In order for the transmission provider to determine that a 

proposed technological change is not a material modification,264 the interconnection 

customer’s formal technological change request would include analyses to demonstrate that 

the proposed incorporation of the technological advancement would result in electrical 

performance that is equal to or better than the electrical performance expected prior to the 

technology change. In some instances, a transmission provider may determine that no 

 264 The pro forma LGIP defines Material Modification as “those modifications that 

have a material impact on the cost or timing of any Interconnection Request with a later 

queue priority date.” See pro forma LGIP at Section 1.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 137 -

additional study is necessary to accommodate a proposed technological advancement 

without a loss of queue position.

In other instances, a transmission provider may require a study for a proposed 

technological advancement to not be considered a material modification. The Commission 

proposes that, in this scenario, the interconnection customer should tender an appropriate 

study deposit and provide the necessary modeling data that sufficiently models the behavior 

of the new equipment and any other required data about the technological advancement to 

the transmission provider. The transmission provider should then provide the study results 

within 30 days.

Under this proposal, the technological change procedure should specify what 

technological advancements can be incorporated at various stages of the interconnection 

process and the procedure should clearly specify which requirements apply to the 

interconnection customer and which apply to the transmission provider. The procedure 

should, for example, state that an interconnection customer that seeks to incorporate 

technological advancements into its generating facility should submit a formal technological 

change request. Additionally, the procedure should specify the necessary information that 

should be submitted by the interconnection customer as part of a formal technological 

change request and, to the extent practicable, specify the conditions when a study will or 

will not be necessary. If a study is necessary, the procedure should clearly specify the 

information that the interconnection customer needs to provide, including study scenarios, 

modeling data, and any other assumptions. The procedure should also clearly indicate what 

types of information and/or study results are necessary from the interconnection customer 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 138 -

and explain how the transmission provider will evaluate the technological change request. 

In the instance where the transmission provider performs the study, the interconnection 

customer may be required to tender a deposit, and the procedure should specify the amount 

of the study deposit and include the timeframe for the transmission provider to perform the 

study and return the results to the interconnection customer. If a proposed technological 

advancement cannot be accommodated without triggering the material modification 

provision of the pro forma LGIP or be completed through an abbreviated assessment that 

does not affect the interconnection customer’s queue position, the Commission proposes to 

require the transmission provider to provide an explanation to the interconnection customer. 

The Commission seeks comment on reasonable study deposits and time frames.265

Consistent with the discussion above, the Commission proposes to revise 

Section 4.4.2 of the pro forma LGIP as follows (proposing to delete italicized text):

4.4.2 Prior to the return of the executed Interconnection Facility Study 

Agreement to the Transmission Provider, the modifications permitted under 

this Section shall include specifically: (a) additional 15 percent decrease in 

plant size (MW), and (b) Large Generating Facility technical parameters 

associated with modifications to Large Generating Facility technology and 

transformer impedances; provided, however, the incremental costs associated 

with those modifications are the responsibility of the requesting 

Interconnection Customer; and (c) certain technological advancements for the 

Large Generating Facility after the submission of the interconnection request. 

Section 4.4.4 specifies a separate Technological Change Procedure including

the requisite information and process that will be followed to assess whether 

the Interconnection Customer’s proposed technological advancement under 

section 4.4.2(c) is a Material Modification. Section 1 contains a definition of 

technological advancements.

 265 In its 2016 Comments, PacifiCorp proposes a $10,000 study deposit and 30-day 

timeframe for the study to be performed. PacifiCorp 2016 Comments at 4-5.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 139 -

Pursuant to this proposal, the Commission also proposes to require transmission 

providers to develop a definition of technological advancements in their LGIPs. This 

definition should consider technological changes to equipment that may achieve cost and 

grid performance efficiencies. Examples of technological advancements that fit within these 

parameters include, but are not limited to, upgrades to turbines, inverters, and plant 

supervisory controls.

This proposal should reduce barriers to the implementation of technological 

advancements that improve the electrical characteristics of a generating facility and that 

perform equally or better than the performance of previous equipment and/or provide cost 

efficiencies. The Commission proposes that transmission providers use sound engineering 

judgment to determine whether they can accommodate the proposed technological changes 

so that they would not require a material modification. The Commission proposes to permit 

interconnection customers to submit requests to incorporate technological advancements

prior to the execution of the interconnection facilities study agreement, and the Commission 

seeks comment as to whether this is the appropriate stage in the interconnection process to 

implement the technological change procedure.

5. Modeling of Electric Storage Resources for Interconnection Studies 

The Commission proposes to require that transmission providers evaluate their 

methods for modeling electric storage resources for interconnection studies, identify 

whether their current modeling and study practices adequately and efficiently account for 

the operational characteristics of electric storage resources, and report to the Commission 

why and how their existing practices are or are not sufficient.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 140 -

a. Existing Provisions and Background

Electric storage resources present unique interconnection challenges because they are 

able to both receive electricity from the grid and inject electricity onto the grid. For this 

reason, transmission providers must study them in a way that measures their potential 

impact as both generation and load. It is not currently clear to the Commission whether 

making electric storage resources fit into the existing procedures for generation and load is 

the most effective means of evaluating these interconnection requests. The fact that 

generation studies and load studies are often conducted separately appears to complicate the 

way electric storage resources are modeled during the interconnection process and was a 

source of frustration among interconnection customers of electric storage resources that 

filed post-technical conference comments.

b. Comments

At the 2016 Technical Conference, panelists and staff discussed the modeling of 

electric storage resources for interconnection studies, including potential means for 

interconnection studies to better reflect the intended operation of electric storage resources. 

The Commission requested comment on whether current interconnection studies adequately 

account for the operational characteristics of electric storage resources in its request for 

post-technical conference comments. In response, several commenters note that two 

changes would improve the functionality of the interconnection study process: (1) changing 

the way storage is evaluated and modeled to follow California’s “negative generation” 

approach; and (2) allowing interconnection customers to specify the charge/discharge 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 141 -

parameters to be used by the transmission provider in interconnection studies.266 

Commenters also recommend that interconnection studies model the impacts of storage 

resources under their planned use cases and argue that they include the operational 

characteristics of storage and the benefits it provides for reliability.267 AES notes that its 

software eliminates the potential for voltage flicker and that transmission providers should 

be able to take into account that a particular interconnection customer can operate without 

voltage flicker.268

The RTOs/ISOs generally believe that their practices for modeling electric storage 

resources for interconnection studies are adequate. MISO asserts that the generator 

interconnection process is an appropriate process to study new storage interconnections and 

that only minor changes from that process are necessary for it to study storage 

interconnection.269 NYISO contends that interconnection studies currently account for the 

operating characteristics of electric storage resources to the extent necessary under the 

minimum interconnection standard. However, NYISO states that it has experienced 

challenges with the accuracy of modeling information used to evaluate electric storage 

 266 See, e.g., ESA Comments at 5, RES Americas Comments at 3. The Commission 

notes that RES Americas would prefer a separate process but alternatively suggests using 

the negative generation approach. NextEra Comments at 10-11.

267 Energy Storage Association Comments at 7-8; RES Americas Comments at 5; 

California Energy Storage Alliance Comments at 11; Invenergy Comments at 28; AES 

comments at 3-4; NextEra Comments at 11; Xcel Comments at 18.

268 AES Comments at 14.

269 MISO Comments at 23.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 142 -

resources in the interconnection process.270 ISO-NE claims that its current interconnection 

studies adequately account for the operational characteristics of electric storage resources.271 

CAISO’s approach to modeling electric storage resources (or Non-Generator 

Resources) as “negative generation” was identified as a best practice during the 2016 

Technical Conference and in the post-technical conference comments.272 NextEra states 

that allowing electric storage resources to provide better information about their resources 

for interconnection studies would benefit the study process, and NYISO indicates that it has 

experienced challenges with the accuracy of modeling information.273 Both NextEra’s and 

NYISO’s concern suggests that more specific information requirements for modeling 

electric storage resources would be appropriate.

c. Proposal

The Commission proposes to require that transmission providers evaluate their 

methods for modeling electric storage resources for interconnection studies, identify 

whether their current modeling and study practices adequately and efficiently account for 

the operational characteristics of electric storage resources, and provide their responses to 

the Commission in comments to this Proposed Rule regarding why and how their existing 

practices are or are not sufficient. Specifically, transmission providers and others should 

 270 NYISO Comments at 27-28.

271 ISO-NE Comments at 28.

272 ESA Comments at 5; RES Americas Comments at 3.

273 NextEra Comments at 11; NYISO Comments at 28.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 143 -

comment on whether establishing a unified model for studying electric storage resources 

would expedite the study process and therefore reduce the time and costs expended by the 

transmission providers for studying the interconnection of electric storage resources. For 

example, the negative-generation practice in CAISO may allow transmission providers to 

better account for the transitions of electric storage resources between generation and load 

and may better enable the use of existing generator interconnection procedures and 

agreements due to their treatment as negative generation instead of load. This approach to 

studying electric storage resources may also expedite their interconnection by allowing the 

transmission provider to study them as a single resource and perform one study (as opposed 

to separate studies for generation and load impacts). In addition, this approach may also 

help ensure the applicability of existing interconnection agreements and procedures to 

electric storage resources.

Additionally, commenters should describe what information electric storage 

resources should provide that is not already consistently provided with interconnection 

requests. Since transmission providers evaluate electric storage resources using existing 

processes for generation and load, it is unclear to the Commission whether the existing 

information requirements for new interconnection customers that want to interconnect 

electric storage resources are adequate to capture the operational characteristics of electric 

storage resources. Bringing electric storage resources onto the system as efficiently as 

possible may enhance competition in the wholesale markets and improve reliability. If there 

are approaches to studying electric storage resources that capture their unique characteristics 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 144 -

and facilitate their interconnection, the Commission would like to identify those potential 

improvements as best practices for all transmission providers.

V. Proposed Compliance Procedures

The Commission proposes to require each public utility274 transmission provider to 

submit a compliance filing within 90 days of the effective date of the final rule in this 

proceeding revising its LGIP and LGIA, as necessary, to demonstrate that it meets the 

requirements set forth in any final rule issued in this proceeding.

Some public utility transmission providers may have provisions in their existing

LGIPs and LGIAs that the Commission has previously deemed to be consistent with or 

superior to the pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA. Where these provisions would be 

modified by the final rule, public utility transmission providers must either comply with the 

final rule or demonstrate that these previously-approved variations continue to be consistent 

with or superior to the pro forma as modified by the final rule. The Commission also 

proposes to permit appropriate entities to seek “regional reliability variations” or 

“independent entity variations” from the proposed revisions to the pro forma.

275 

 274 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 OATT may satisfy that condition by filing an OATT, which includes an 

SGIA. 

275 See, e.g., Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at PP 822-827; Order 

No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at PP 546-550.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 145 -

The Commission will assess whether each compliance filing satisfies the proposed 

requirements stated above and issue additional orders as necessary to ensure that each public 

utility transmission provider meets the requirements of the subsequent final rule.

The Commission proposes that Transmission Providers that are not public utilities 

will have to adopt the requirements of this Proposed Rule as a condition of maintaining the 

status of their safe harbor tariff or otherwise satisfying the reciprocity requirement of Order 

No. 888.276

VI. Information Collection Statement

The following collection of information contained in this Proposed Rule is subject to 

review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.277 OMB’s regulations require approval of certain 

information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.278 Upon approval of a 

collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration date. 

Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this Proposed Rule will not be penalized 

for failing to respond to the collection of information unless the collection of information 

displays a valid OMB control number.

 276 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory 

Transmission on Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities 

and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036, at 31,760-763 

(1996). 

277 44 U.S.C. 507(d) (2012).

278 5 CFR 1320.11 (2016).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 146 -

The reforms proposed in this Proposed Rule would revise the Commission’s 

pro forma LGIP, pro forma LGIA, and the Commission’s regulations in accordance with 

section 35.28(f)(1) of the Commission’s regulations.279 This Proposed Rule proposes that

each public utility transmission provider will amend its LGIP and LGIA to improve the 

interconnection process. The Commission anticipates the revisions proposed in this 

Proposed Rule, once implemented, will not significantly change currently existing burdens 

on an ongoing basis. The Commission will submit the proposed reporting requirements to 

OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act.280

While the Commission expects the revisions proposed in this Proposed Rule will 

provide significant benefits, the Commission understands that implementation can be a 

complex and costly endeavor. The Commission solicits comments on its need for this 

information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided 

burden and cost estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 

to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondents’ 

burdens.

Burden Estimate and Information Collection Costs: The Commission believes that the 

burden estimates below are representative of the average burden on respondents. The 

 279 18 CFR 35.28(f)(1) (2016).

280 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 147 -

estimated burden and cost281 for the requirements contained in this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking follow.

FERC 516F

Number 

of 

Applicable 

Registered 

Entities

(1)

Annual 

Number of 

Responses 

per 

Respondent

(2) )282

Total 

Number 

of 

Responses

(1)*(2)=(3)

Average 

Burden 

(Hours) & 

Costs per 

Response283

(4)

Total 

Annual 

Burden 

Hours & 

Total 

Annual Cost

(3)*(4)=(5)

Issue A1 –

Scheduled 

periodic restudies

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–126 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–504 

Year 2– 0 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0

Year 1– 24 

Year 2– 0 

Issue A2 –

Interconnection 

customer’s option 

to build

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–126 

Year 2– 0

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–504 

Year 2– 0 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 24 

Year 2– 0 

Issue A3 – Selffunding by the 

transmission 

owner

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

N/A N/A N/A N/A

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 24 

Year 2– 0 

 281 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: 

Average Burden hours per Response * $74.50 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The 

hourly cost figure comes from the Commission average salary of $154,647. Subject matter 

experts found that industry employment costs closely resemble the Commission’s regarding 

the FERC-516F information collection.

282 Any figures labeled as “Year 2” should be considered ongoing response or burden 

amounts.

283 ($154,647/year) / (2,080 hours/year) = $74.349 per hour and is rounded to $74.50

per hour.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 148 -

FERC 516F

Number 

of 

Applicable 

Registered 

Entities

(1)

Annual 

Number of 

Responses 

per 

Respondent

(2) )282

Total 

Number 

of 

Responses

(1)*(2)=(3)

Average 

Burden 

(Hours) & 

Costs per 

Response283

(4)

Total 

Annual 

Burden 

Hours & 

Total 

Annual Cost

(3)*(4)=(5)

Issue A4 –

RTO/ISO dispute 

resolution

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

N/A N/A N/A N/A

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 24 

Year 2– 0 

Issue A5 –

Capping costs for 

network upgrades

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

N/A N/A N/A N/A

RTO/ISO

(6)

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Issue B1 –

Identification and 

definition of 

contingent 

facilities

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–126 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 80 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–

10,080 

Year 2– 0 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 80 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–480 

Year 2– 0 

Issue B2 – Lack 

of transparency 

in the 

interconnection 

process

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–126 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 80 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–

10,080 

Year 2– 0 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 80 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–480 

Year 2– 0 

Issue B3 –

Curtailment 

concerns

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 12 

Year 1–126 

Year 2–

1512 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 4 

Year 1–504 

Year 2–

6,048 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 12 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 72 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 4 

Year 1– 24 

Year 2–288 

Issue B4 –

Definition of 

generating 

facility

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1

Year 2– 0

Year 1–126 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–504 

Year 2– 0 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1

Year 2– 0

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 24 

Year 2– 0 

Issue B5 –

Interconnection 

study deadlines

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 4 

Year 1–126 

Year 2–504 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 4 

Year 1–504 

Year 2–

2,016 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 4 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 24 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 4 

Year 1– 24 

Year 2– 96 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 149 -

FERC 516F

Number 

of 

Applicable 

Registered 

Entities

(1)

Annual 

Number of 

Responses 

per 

Respondent

(2) )282

Total 

Number 

of 

Responses

(1)*(2)=(3)

Average 

Burden 

(Hours) & 

Costs per 

Response283

(4)

Total 

Annual 

Burden 

Hours & 

Total 

Annual Cost

(3)*(4)=(5)

Issue C1 –

Requesting 

interconnection 

service below 

generating 

facility capacity

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–126 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–504 

Year 2– 0 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 24 

Year 2– 0 

Issue C2 –

Provisional 

agreements

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–126 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–504 

Year 2– 0 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 24 

Year 2– 0 

Issue C3 –

Utilization of 

surplus 

interconnection 

service

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–126 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–504 

Year 2– 0 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 24 

Year 2– 0 

Issue C4 –

Material 

modification and 

incorporation of 

advanced 

technologies

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–126 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–504 

Year 2– 0 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 4 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 24 

Year 2– 0 

Issue C5 –

Modeling of 

electric storage 

resources

NonRTO/ISO

(126)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–126 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 80 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–

10,080 

Year 2– 0 

RTO/ISO

(6)

Year 1– 1 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 6 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1– 80 

Year 2– 0 

Year 1–480 

Year 2– 0 

Total Non-RTO/ISO, Year 1 276 34,776

Non-RTO/ISO, Ongoing 64 8,064

RTO/ISO, Year 1 284 1,704

RTO/ISO, Ongoing 64 384
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 150 -

Cost to Comply: The Commission has projected the total cost of compliance as follows:284

Year 1: $2,590,812 ($20,562/non-RTO/ISO utility), $126,948 ($21,158/RTO/ISO utility)285

Year 2: $600,768 ($4,768/non-RTO/ISO utility), $28,608 ($4,768/RTO/ISO utility)286

Year 1 costs reflect filing of new LGIP and LGIA language with the Commission, as well as 

certain efforts to review and revise existing interconnection procedures. Year 2 represents 

ongoing costs that the transmission provider will face on an ongoing basis to fulfill the 

directives of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The reforms proposed in this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, once implemented, would not significantly change existing burdens 

on an ongoing basis.

Title: FERC-516, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings.

Action: Proposed revision to an information collection.

OMB Control No.: TBD

Respondents for Proposal: Businesses or other for profit and/or not-for-profit institutions.

 284 The costs for Year 1 would consist of filing proposed changes to the LGIP and 

LGIA with the Commission within 90 days of the effective date of the final revision plus 

initial implementation. The costs for year 2 represent ongoing requirements that would 

persist in subsequent years. 

285 Non-RTO/ISO utility costs (Year One): 34,776 hours * $74.50 = $2,590,812; 

$2,590,812 ÷ 126 = $20,562. RTO/ISO utility costs: 384 hours * $74.50 = $28,608; $28,608 

÷ 6 = $4,768. 

286 Non-RTO/ISO utility costs (Year 2 and ongoing): 8,064 hours * $74.50 = 

$600,768; $600,768 ÷ 126 = $4,768. RTO/ISO utility costs: 384 hours * $74.50 = $28,608; 

$28,608 ÷ 6 = $4,768.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 151 -

Frequency of Information: One-time during year one. Multiple times during subsequent 

years.

Necessity of Information: The Commission issues this Proposed Rule to address 

interconnection practices that may be resulting in unjust and unreasonable or unduly 

discriminatory or preferential rates, terms, and conditions. The Commission seeks to 

improve certainty in the interconnection process, to promote more informed interconnection 

decisions by interconnection customers, and to enhance interconnection processes.

Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined 

that such changes are necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission’s need for 

efficient information collection, communication, and management within the energy 

industry. The Commission has specific, objective support for the burden estimates 

associated with the information collection requirements.

Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 

Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], 

email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873. Comments 

concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimate(s) in the 

Proposed Rule should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent 

to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 

725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-0710, fax: (202) 395-7285]. Due to 

security concerns, comments should be sent electronically to the following email address: 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 152 -

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments submitted to OMB should include FERC-516D

and OMB Control No. 1902-0288.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)287 generally requires a description and 

analysis of rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The RFA does not mandate any particular outcome in a rulemaking. It only 

requires consideration of alternatives that are less burdensome to small entities and an 

agency explanation of why alternatives were rejected.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size standards (effective 

January 22, 2014) for electric utilities from a standard based on megawatt hours to a 

standard based on the number of employees, including affiliates. Under SBA’s standards, 

some transmission owners will fall under the following category and associated size 

threshold: electric bulk power transmission and control, at 500 employees.288

The Commission estimates that the total number of public utility transmission 

providers that would have to modify the LGIPs and LGIAs within their currently effective 

OATTs is 132. Of these, the Commission estimates that approximately 43 percent are small 

entities (approximately 57 entities). The Commission estimates the average total cost to 

each of these entities will be between $20,562 and $21,158 in Year One and $4,768 in 

 287 5 U.S.C. 601-12 (2012).

288 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22 (Utilities), NAICS code 221121 (Electric Bulk Power 

Transmission and Control) (2016).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 153 -

subsequent years. According to SBA guidance, the determination of significance of impact 

“should be seen as relative to the size of the business, the size of the competitor’s business, 

and the impact the regulation has on larger competitors.”289 The Commission does not 

consider the estimated burden to be a significant economic impact. As a result, the 

Commission certifies that the revisions proposed in this Proposed Rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VIII. Environmental Analysis

The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect 

on the human environment.290 The Commission concludes that neither an Environmental 

Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required or the revisions proposed in 

this Proposed Rule under section 380.4(a)(15) of the Commission’s regulations, which 

provides a categorical exemption for approval of actions under sections 205 and 206 of the 

FPA relating to the filing of schedules containing all rates and charges for the transmission 

or sale of electric energy subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, plus the classification, 

practices, contracts and regulations that affect rates, charges, classification, and services.291 

 289 U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide for Government Agencies How to 

Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 18 (May 2012), 

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf.

290 Regulation Implementing National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order 

No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

291 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15) (2016).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 154 -

The revisions proposed in this Proposed Rule fall within the categorical exemptions 

provided in the Commission’s regulations, and as a result neither an Environmental Impact 

Statement nor an Environmental Assessment is required.

IX. Comment Procedures

The Commission invites persons to submit comments on the matters and issues 

proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to be adopted, including any related 

matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are 

due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Comments must refer to Docket 

No. RM17-8-000, and must include the commenter’s name, the organization they represent, 

if applicable, and their address.

The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link 

on the Commission’s web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most 

standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing 

software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned 

format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original 

of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

All comments will be placed in the Commission’s public files and may be viewed, 

printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability Section below. 

Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other 

commenters.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 155 -

X. Document Availability

In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the 

Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents 

of this document via the Internet through the Commission’s Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, 

Washington, DC 20426.

From the Commission’s Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on 

eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft 

Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in 

eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the 

docket number field.

User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission’s website during 

normal business hours from the Commission’s Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free 

at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room 

at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 156 -

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 35:

Electric power rates

Electric utilities

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 37:

Electric power rates

Electric utilities

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

By direction of the Commission.

( S E A L )

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 157 -

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Parts 35 and 37 

Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows. 

PART 35 – FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

1. The authority citation for Part 35 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

2. Amend § 35.28 to add (g)(9) as follows:

The additions read as follows:

§ 35.28 Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff.

(g) * * *

(9) Generator Interconnection Dispute Resolution Procedures. Every 

Commission-approved independent system operator or regional transmission 

organization tariff must contain provisions governing generator 

interconnection dispute resolution procedures to allow a disputing party to 

unilaterally initiate dispute resolution procedures under the respective tariff. 

Such provisions must provide for independent system operator or regional 

transmission organization staff member(s) or utilize subcontractor(s) to serve 

as the neutral decision-maker(s) or presiding staff member(s) or 

subcontractor(s) to the dispute resolution procedures. Such staff participating 

in dispute resolution procedures shall not have any current or past substantial 

business or financial relationships with any party. Additionally, such dispute 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 158 -

resolution procedures must account for the time sensitivity of the generator 

interconnection process. 

PART 37 – OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEMS

1. The authority citation for Part 37 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7107-

7352

2. Amend § 37.6 to add (l) as follows:

§ 37.6 Information to be posted on the OASIS

* * *

(l) Posting of congestion and curtailment data. The Transmission Provider 

must post on OASIS information as to congestion data representing (i) total 

hours of curtailment on all interfaces, (ii) total hours of Transmission 

Provider-ordered generation curtailment and transmission service curtailment 

due to congestion on that facility or interface, (iii) the cause of the congestion 

(e.g., a contingency or an outage), and (iv) total megawatt hours of curtailment 

due to lack of transmission for that month. This data shall be posted on a 

monthly basis by the 15th day of the following month and shall be posted in 

one location on the OASIS. The Transmission Provider should maintain this 

data for a minimum of three years.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 159 -

Note: Appendix A will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations

Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the AWEA Petition (Docket No. 

RM 15-21-000) and the 2016 Technical Conference (Docket No. RM16-12-000)

Short Name or Acronym Commenter

AES Companies Indianapolis Power & Light Company, 

Dayton Power and Light Company, AES 

Storage LLC, AES ES Tait LLC and all 

other AES U.S. operating companies that 

own generation and storage

AVANGRID AVANGRID, Inc.

Avista Avista Corporation

AWEA American Wind Energy Association

CAISO California Independent System Operator, Corp.

CMUA California Municipal Utilities Association

EDF EDF Renewable Energy, Inc.

EDP EDF Renewables North America LLC

EEI Edison Electric Institute

E.ON E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, 

LLC

ESA Energy Storage Alliance

Exelon Exelon Corporation

Interwest Interwest Energy Alliance

Invenergy Invenergy Wind Development LLC, Invenergy

Thermal Development LLC, Invenergy Storage 

Development LLC, and Invenergy Solar 

Development LLC
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 160 -

ISO-NE ISO New England Inc.

ITC ITC Holdings

KCP&L Kansas City Power & Light Company and 

KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations

MISO Midcontinent Independent System Operator, 

Inc.

MISO TOs Ameren Services Company, as agent for Union 

Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri, 

Ameren Illinois Company d/b/a Ameren Illinois 

and Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois; 

American Transmission Company LLC; Central 

Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; City Water, 

Light & Power (Springfield, IL); Cleco Power 

LLC; Dairyland Power Cooperative; Duke Energy 

Business Services, LLC for Duke Energy Indiana, 

Inc.; East Texas Electric Cooperative; Entergy 

Arkansas, Inc.; Entergy Louisiana, LLC; Entergy 

Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.; Entergy 

Mississippi, Inc.; Entergy New Orleans, Inc.; 

Entergy Texas, Inc.; Great River Energy; Indiana 

Municipal Power Agency; Indianapolis Power & 

Light Company; International Transmission 

Company d/b/a ITC Transmission; ITC Midwest 

LLC; Michigan Electric Transmission Company, 

LLC; MidAmerican Energy Company; Minnesota 

Power (and its subsidiary Superior Water, L&P); 

Missouri River Energy Services; Montana-Dakota 

Utilities Co.; Northern Indiana Public Service 

Company; Northern States Power Company, a 

Minnesota corporation, and Northern States Power 

Company, a Wisconsin corporation, subsidiaries of 

Xcel Energy Inc.; Northwestern Wisconsin 

Electric Company; Otter Tail Power Company; 

Prairie Power Inc.; Southern Indiana Gas & 

Electric Company (d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery 

of Indiana); Wabash Valley Power Association, 

Inc.; and Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, 

Inc.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 161 -

NextEra NextEra Energy Resources, LLC

NRG NRG Power Marketing LLC and GenOn Energy 

Management, LLC

NYISO New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

NYTOs Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, 

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., 

Power Supply Long Island, New York Power 

Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 

d/b/a National Grid, and Orange and Rockland 

Utilities, Inc.

PacifiCorp PacifiCorp Transmission

PSEG Public Service Electric and Gas Company, PSEG 

Power LLC, and PSEG Energy Resources & Trade 

LLC

RENEW RENEW Northeast, Inc.

RES Americas RES America Developments Inc.

Six Cities Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, 

Pasadena, and Riverside, California 

SoCal Edison Southern California Edison Company

Sustainable FERC Sustainable FERC Project

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

Xcel Xcel Energy Services Inc., Northern States Power 

Company, Northern States Power Company, 

Public Service Company of Colorado, and 

Southwestern Public Service Company
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 162 -

Note: Appendix B will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations

Appendix B: Compilation of proposed changes to the pro forma LGIP

The Commission proposes to modify the following sections of the pro forma LGIP as 

indicated below: 

Section 1. Definitions

Contingent Facilities shall mean those unbuilt interconnection facilities and network 

upgrades upon which the interconnection request’s costs, timing, and study findings are 

dependent, and if not built, could cause a need for restudies of the interconnection request or 

a reassessment of the network upgrades and/or costs and timing.

Generating Facility shall mean Interconnection Customer’s device for the 

production and/or storage for later injection of electricity identified in the Interconnection 

Request, but shall not include the interconnection customer's Interconnection Facilities.

Large Generating Facility shall mean a Generating Facility for which an 

Interconnection Customer has having a Generating Facility Capacity requested 

Interconnection Service of more than 20 MW.

Provisional Interconnection Service shall mean interconnection service 

provided by the Transmission Provider associated with interconnecting the 

Interconnection Customer's Generating Facility to the Transmission Provider's 

Transmission System and enabling that Transmission System to receive electric 

energy and capacity from the Generating Facility at the Point of Interconnection, 

pursuant to the terms of the Provisional Large Generator Interconnection Agreement 

and, if applicable, the Tariff.

Provisional Large Generator Interconnection Agreement shall mean the 

interconnection agreement for Provisional Interconnection Service established 

between the Transmission Provider and/or the Transmission Owner and the 

Interconnection Customer. This agreement shall take the form of the Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement, modified for provisional purposes.

Small Generating Facility shall mean a Generating Facility for which an 

Interconnection Customer has requested Interconnection Servicethat has a Generating 

Capacity of no more than 20 MW.

Surplus Interconnection Service shall mean any unused portion of 

Interconnection Service established in a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement, 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 163 -

such that if Surplus Interconnection Service is utilized the Interconnection Service 

limit at the Point of Interconnection would remain the same.

2.3. Base Case Data. 

Base Case Data. Transmission Provider shall provide base power flow, short circuit 

and stability databases, including all underlying assumptions, and contingency list 

upon request subject to confidentiality provisions in LGIP Section 13.1. Additionally, 

Transmission Provider will maintain network models and underlying assumptions on 

its OASIS site for access by OASIS users. Transmission Provider is permitted to 

require that Interconnection Customer and OASIS site users sign a confidentiality 

agreement before the release of commercially sensitive information or Critical 

Energy Infrastructure Information in the Base Case data. Such databases and lists, 

hereinafter referred to as Base Cases, shall include all (1) generation projects and (ii) 

transmission projects, including merchant transmission projects that are proposed for 

the Transmission System for which a transmission expansion plan has been 

submitted and approved by the applicable authority. 

3.1 General

An Interconnection Customer shall submit to Transmission Provider an 

Interconnection Request in the form of Appendix 1 to this LGIP and a 

refundable deposit of $10,000. Transmission Provider shall apply the deposit 

toward the cost of an Interconnection Feasibility Study. Interconnection 

Customer shall submit a separate Interconnection Request for each site and 

may submit multiple Interconnection Requests for a single site. 

Interconnection Customer must submit a deposit with each Interconnection 

Request even when more than one request is submitted for a single site. An 

Interconnection Request to evaluate one site at two different voltage levels 

shall be treated as two Interconnection Requests.

At Interconnection Customer's option, Transmission Provider and 

Interconnection Customer will identify alternative Point(s) of Interconnection 

and configurations at the Scoping Meeting to evaluate in this process and 

attempt to eliminate alternatives in a reasonable fashion given resources and 

information available. Interconnection Customer will select the definitive

Point(s) of Interconnection to be studied no later than the execution of the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study Agreement.

The Transmission Provider shall have a process in place to consider requests 

for Interconnection Service below the Generating Facility Capacity. These 

requests for Interconnection Service shall be studied at the level of 

Interconnection Service requested for purposes of Interconnection Facilities, 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 164 -

Network Upgrades, and associated costs, but may be subject to other studies at 

the full Generating Facility Capacity to ensure safety and reliability of the 

system, with the study costs borne by the Interconnection Customer. Any 

Interconnection Facility and/or Network Upgrade costs required for safety and 

reliability also would be borne by the Interconnection Customer. 

Interconnection Customers may be subject to additional control technologies 

as well as testing and validation of those technologies consistent with Article 6 

of the LGIA. The necessary control technologies and protection systems as 

well as any potential penalties for exceeding the level of Interconnection 

Service established in the executed, or requested to be filed unexecuted, LGIA 

shall be established in Appendix C of that executed, or requested to be filed 

unexecuted, LGIA. 

3.3 Utilization of Surplus Interconnection Service. 

The Transmission Provider must provide a process that allows an 

Interconnection Customer to utilize or transfer Surplus Interconnection 

Service at an existing Generating Facility. The original Interconnection 

Customer or one of its affiliates shall have priority to utilize Surplus 

Interconnection Service. If the existing Interconnection Customer or one of its 

affiliates does not exercise its priority, then that service may be made 

available to other potential interconnection customers through an open and 

transparent solicitation process.

3.3.1 Surplus Interconnection Service Requests

Surplus Interconnection Service requests may be made by the existing Generating 

Facility or one of its affiliates. Surplus Interconnection Service requests also may be 

made by another Interconnection Customer selected through an open and transparent 

solicitation process. The Transmission Provider shall provide a process for 

evaluating interconnection requests for Surplus Interconnection Service. Studies for 

Surplus Interconnection Service shall consist of reactive power, short circuit/fault 

duty, stability analyses, and any other appropriate studies. Steady-state 

(thermal/voltage) analyses may be performed as necessary to ensure that all required 

reliability conditions are studied. If the Surplus Interconnection Service was not 

studied under off-peak conditions, off-peak steady state analyses shall be performed 

to the required level necessary to demonstrate reliable operation of the Surplus 

Interconnection Service. If the original System Impact Study is not available for the 

Surplus Interconnection Service, both off-peak and peak analysis may need to be 

performed for the existing Generating Facility associated with the request for Surplus 

Interconnection Service. The reactive power, short circuit/fault duty, stability, and 

steady-state analyses for Surplus Interconnection Service will identify any additional 

Interconnection Facilities and/or Network Upgrades necessary.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 165 -

3.3.2 Solicitation Process for Surplus Interconnection Service

If the existing Generating Facility owner elects to transfer rights for Surplus 

Interconnection Service to an unaffiliated Interconnection Customer, it must do so 

through an open and transparent solicitation process. The existing Generating 

Facility owner must first request that the Transmission Provider post on its website 

that it is willing to accept requests for Surplus Interconnection Service at the existing 

Point of Interconnection. Such posting will include the name of the existing 

Generating Facility, the exact electrical location of the physical termination point of 

the Surplus Interconnection Service, including proposed breaker position(s) within its 

substation, the state and county of the existing Generating Facility, and a valid email 

address and phone number to contact the representative of the existing Generating 

Facility. The existing Generating Facility owner must provide the Transmission 

Provider with the System Impact Study performed for the existing Generating 

Facility with its request for posting Surplus Interconnection Service or indicate that 

such study is not available. 

After the existing Generating Facility owner requests that the Transmission Provider 

post the availability of Surplus Interconnection Service, the Transmission Provider 

will also post on its website a description of the selection process for transferring 

rights to the Surplus Interconnection Service that will include a timeline and the 

selection criteria developed by the existing Generating Facility owner. The selection 

process may vary among existing Generating Facility owners but the existing 

Generating Facility owner will choose the winning request after all necessary studies 

have been performed by the Transmission Provider. The existing Generating Facility 

owner will submit to the Transmission Provider, for posting on the Transmission 

Provider’s website, the results of the selection process and will include a description 

of whose proposal for the Surplus Interconnection Service was selected and why. 

After an Interconnection Customer has been chosen, the new Interconnection 

Customer will execute, or request the filing of an unexecuted, interconnection 

agreement with the Transmission Provider and Transmission Owner (as applicable) 

upon completion of all necessary studies for its new Generating Facility. 

3.34 Valid Interconnection Request. 

3.34.1 Initiating an Interconnection Request. 

3.34.2 Acknowledgment of Interconnection Request. 

3.4 3.5.1 OASIS Posting. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 166 -

3.5.2 The Transmission Provider will maintain on its OASIS summary statistics 

related to processing Interconnection Studies pursuant to Interconnection 

Requests, updated quarterly. For each calendar quarter, Transmission 

Providers must calculate and post the information detailed in sections 3.5.2.1 

through 3.5.2.4. 

3.5.2.1

Interconnection Feasibility Studies processing time. (A) Number of 

Interconnection Requests that had Interconnection Feasibility Studies 

completed within the Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter, (B) Number of Interconnection Requests that had 

Interconnection Feasibility Studies completed within the Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter that were 

completed more than [timeline as listed in the Transmission Provider’s LGIP] 

after receipt by the Transmission Provider of the Interconnection Customer’s 

executed Interconnection Feasibility Study Agreement, (C) At the end of the 

reporting quarter, the number of active valid Interconnection Requests with 

ongoing incomplete Interconnection Feasibility Studies where such 

Interconnection Requests had executed Interconnection Feasibility Study 

Agreements received by the Transmission Provider more than [timeline as 

listed in the Transmission Provider’s LGIP] before the reporting quarter end, 

(D) Mean time (in days), Interconnection Feasibility Studies completed within 

the Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter, 

from the date when the Transmission Provider received the executed the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study Agreement to the date when the 

Transmission Provider provided the completed Interconnection Feasibility 

Study to the Interconnection Customer, (E) Percentage of Interconnection 

Feasibility Studies exceeding [timeline as listed in the Transmission 

Provider’s LGIP] to complete this reporting period, calculated as 1 – (the sum 

of 3.5.2.2(A) minus 3.5.2.2(B) and dividing that amount by the sum of 

3.5.2.2(A) plus 3.5.2.2(C)). 

3.5.2.2

Interconnection System Impact Studies processing time. (A) Number of 

Interconnection Requests that had Interconnection System Impact Studies 

completed within the Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter, (B) Number of Interconnection Requests that had 

Interconnection System Impact Studies completed within the Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter that were 

completed more than [timeline as listed in the Transmission Provider’s LGIP] 

after receipt by the Transmission Provider of the Interconnection Customer’s 

executed Interconnection System Impact Study Agreement, (C) At the end of 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 167 -

the reporting quarter, the number of active valid Interconnection Requests 

with ongoing incomplete System Impact Studies where such Interconnection 

Requests had executed Interconnection System Impact Study Agreements 

received by the Transmission Provider more than [timeline as listed in the 

Transmission Provider’s LGIP] before the reporting quarter end, (D) Mean 

time (in days), Interconnection System Impact Studies completed within the 

Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter, from 

the date when the Transmission Provider received the executed 

Interconnection System Impact Study Agreement to the date when the 

Transmission Provider provided the completed Interconnection System Impact 

Study to the Interconnection Customer, (E) Percentage of Interconnection 

System Impact Studies exceeding [timeline as listed in the Transmission 

Provider’s LGIP] to complete this reporting period, calculated as 1 – (the sum 

of 3.5.2.3(A) minus 3.5.2.3(B) and dividing that amount by the sum of 

3.5.2.3(A) plus 3.5.2.3(C)).

3.5.2.3

Interconnection Facilities Studies Processing time. (A) Number of 

Interconnection Requests that had Interconnection Facilities Studies that are 

completed within the Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter, (B) Number of Interconnection Requests that had 

Interconnection Facilities Studies that are completed within the Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter that were 

completed more than [timeline as listed in the Transmission Provider’s LGIP] 

after receipt by the Transmission Provider of the Interconnection Customer’s 

executed Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement, (C) At the end of the 

reporting quarter, the number of active valid Interconnection Service requests 

with ongoing incomplete Interconnection Facilities Studies where such 

Interconnection Requests had executed Interconnection Facilities Studies 

Agreement received by the Transmission Provider more than [timeline as 

listed in the Transmission Provider’s LGIP] before the reporting quarter end 

(D) Mean time (in days), Interconnection Facilities Studies completed within 

the Transmission Provider’s coordinated region during the reporting quarter, 

from the date when the Transmission Provider received the executed 

Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement to the date when the Transmission 

Provider provided the completed Interconnection Facilities Study to the 

Interconnection Customer, (E) Percentage of delayed Interconnection 

Facilities Studies this reporting period, calculated as 1 – (the sum of 

3.5.2.4(A) minus 3.5.2.4(B) and dividing that amount by the sum of 3.5.2.4(A) 

plus 3.5.2.4(C)).
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 168 -

3.5.2.4

Interconnection Service requests withdrawn from interconnection queue. (A) 

Number of Interconnection Service requests withdrawn from the Transmission 

Provider’s interconnection queue during the reporting quarter, (B) Number of 

Interconnection Service requests withdrawn from the Transmission Provider’s 

interconnection queue during the reporting quarter before completion of any 

interconnection studies or execution of any interconnection study agreements, 

(C) Number of Interconnection Service requests withdrawn from the 

Transmission Provider’s interconnection queue during the reporting quarter 

before completion of an Interconnection System Impact Study, (D) Number of 

Interconnection Service requests withdrawn from the Transmission Provider’s 

interconnection queue during the reporting quarter before completion of an 

Interconnection Facility Study, (E) Number of Interconnection Service 

requests withdrawn from the Transmission Provider’s interconnection queue 

after execution of a generator interconnection agreement or Interconnection 

Customer requests the filing of an unexecuted, new interconnection 

agreement, (F) Mean time (in days), for all withdrawn Interconnection Service 

requests, from the date when the request was determined to be valid to when 

the Transmission Provider received the request to withdraw from the queue.

3.5.3 The Transmission Provider is required to post on OASIS the measures in 

paragraph 3.5.2.1(A) through paragraph 3.5.2.4(F) for each calendar quarter 

within 30 days of the end of the calendar quarter. The Transmission Provider 

will keep the quarterly measures posted on OASIS for three calendar years 

with the first required reporting year to be 2017.

3.5.4 In the event that any of the values calculated in paragraphs 3.5.2.1(E), 

3.5.2.2(E) or 3.5.2.3(E) exceeds 25 percent for two consecutive calendar 

quarters the Transmission Provider will have to comply with the measures 

below for the next four consecutive calendar quarters and must continue 

reporting this information until the Transmission Provider reports four 

consecutive calendar quarters without the values calculated in 3.5.2.1(E), 

3.5.2.2(E) or 3.5.2.3(E) exceeding 25 percent for two consecutive calendar 

quarters:

(i) The Transmission Provider must submit a report to the Commission 

describing the reason for each study or group of clustered studies pursuant to 

an Interconnection Request that exceeded its deadline (i.e., 45, 90 or 180 days) 

for completion (excluding any allowance for Reasonable Efforts). The 

Transmission Provider must describe the reasons for each study delay and any 

steps taken to remedy these specific issues and, if applicable, prevent such 

delays in the future. The report must be filed at the Commission within 45 

days of the end of the calendar quarter. 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 169 -

(ii) The Transmission Provider shall aggregate the total number of 

employee-hours and third party consultant hours expended towards 

interconnection studies within its coordinated region that quarter and post on 

OASIS. This information is to be posted within 30 days of the end of the 

calendar quarter. 

3.56 Coordination with Affected Systems. 

3.67 Withdrawal. 

3.8 Identification of Contingent Facilities 

Transmission Provider shall post in this section a method for identifying the 

Contingent Facilities to be provided to Interconnection Customer at the conclusion of 

the System Impact Study and included in Interconnection Customer’s GIA. The 

method shall be sufficiently transparent to determine why a specific Contingent 

Facility was identified and how it relates to the interconnection request. 

Transmission Provider shall also provide, upon request of the Interconnection 

Customer, the estimated interconnection facility and/or network upgrade costs and 

estimated in-service completion time of each identified Contingent Facility when this 

information is not commercially sensitive.

4.4.2

Prior to the return of the executed Interconnection Facility Study Agreement 

to the Transmission Provider, the modifications permitted under this Section 

shall include specifically: (a) additional 15 percent decrease in plant size 

(MW), and (b) Large Generating Facility technical parameters associated with 

modifications to Large Generating Facility technology and transformer 

impedances; provided, however, the incremental costs associated with those 

modifications are the responsibility of the requesting Interconnection 

Customer; and (c) certain technological advancements for the Large 

Generating Facility after the submission of the interconnection request. 

Section 4.4.4 specifies a separate Technological Change Procedure including 

the requisite information and process that will be followed to assess whether 

the Interconnection Customer’s proposed technological advancement under 

section 4.4.2(c) is a Material Modification. Section 1 contains a definition of 

technological advancements. 

6.3 Interconnection Feasibility Study Procedures. 

Transmission Provider shall utilize existing studies to the extent practicable when it 

performs the study. Transmission Provider shall use Reasonable Efforts to complete 

the Interconnection Feasibility Study no later than forty-five (45) Calendar Days after 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 170 -

Transmission Provider receives the fully executed Interconnection Feasibility Study 

Agreement. At the request of Interconnection Customer or at any time Transmission 

Provider determines that it will not meet the required time frame for completing the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study, Transmission Provider shall notify Interconnection 

Customer as to the schedule status of the Interconnection Feasibility Study. If 

Transmission Provider is unable to complete the Interconnection Feasibility Study 

within that time period, it shall notify Interconnection Customer and provide an 

estimated completion date with an explanation of the reasons why additional time is 

required. Upon request, Transmission Provider shall provide Interconnection 

Customer supporting documentation, workpapers and relevant power flow, short 

circuit and stability databases for the Interconnection Feasibility Study, subject to 

confidentiality arrangements consistent with Section 13.1.

Transmission Provider shall study the interconnection request at the level of 

service requested by the interconnection customer, unless otherwise required 

to study the full Generating Facility Capacity due to safety or reliability 

concerns. 

6.4 Re-Study.

If Re-Study of the Interconnection Feasibility Study is required due to a higher 

queued project dropping out of the queue, or a modification of a higher 

queued project subject to Section 4.4, or re-designation of the Point of 

Interconnection pursuant to Section 6.1 Transmission Provider shall notify 

Interconnection Customer in writing. Serially processed Re-Studies Such ReStudy shall take no longer than forty-five (45) Calendar Days from the date of 

the notice. Any cost of Re-Study shall be borne by the Interconnection 

Customer being re-studied.

If a Transmission Provider that conducts cluster studies identifies a need for 

restudies, it will conduct periodic Re-Studies for each cluster [placeholder for 

time frame proposed by each Transmission Provider]. Re-Study dates for 

each cluster will also be posted on the Transmission Provider’s OASIS. ReStudy shall take no longer than [forty-five (45)/ sixty (60)] Calendar Days 

from the commencement date of the Re-Study. Any cost of Re-Study shall be 

borne by the Interconnection Customer being re-studied.

7.3 Scope of Interconnection System Impact Study. 

The Interconnection System Impact Study shall evaluate the impact of the 

proposed interconnection on the reliability of the Transmission System. The 

Interconnection System Impact Study will consider the Base Case as well as 

all generating facilities (and with respect to (iii) below, any identified Network 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 171 -

Upgrades associated with such higher queued interconnection) that, on the 

date the Interconnection System Impact Study is commenced: (i) are directly 

interconnected to the Transmission System; (ii) are interconnected to Affected 

Systems and may have an impact on the Interconnection Request; (iii) have a 

pending higher queued Interconnection Request to interconnect to the 

Transmission System; and (iv) have no Queue Position but have executed an 

LGIA or requested that an unexecuted LGIA be filed with FERC. 

The Interconnection System Impact Study will consist of a short circuit 

analysis, a stability analysis, and a power flow analysis. The Interconnection 

System Impact Study will state the assumptions upon which it is based; state 

the results of the analyses; and provide the requirements or potential 

impediments to providing the requested interconnection service, including a 

preliminary indication of the cost and length of time that would be necessary 

to correct any problems identified in those analyses and implement the 

interconnection. For purposes of determining necessary interconnection 

facilities and network upgrades, the System Impact Study shall consider the 

level of interconnection service requested by the Interconnection Customer, 

unless otherwise required to study the full Generating Facility Capacity due to 

safety or reliability concerns. The Interconnection System Impact Study will 

provide a list of facilities that are required as a result of the Interconnection 

Request and a non-binding good faith estimate of cost responsibility and a 

non-binding good faith estimated time to construct.

7.6 Re-Study.

 

If Re-Study of the System Impact Study is required due to a higher queued 

project dropping out of the queue, or a modification of a higher queued project 

subject to Section 4.4, or re-designation of the Point of Interconnection 

pursuant to Section 6.1 Transmission Provider shall notify Interconnection 

Customer in writing. Serially processed Re-Studies Such Re-Study shall take 

no longer than sixty (60) Calendar Days from the date of the notice. Any cost 

of Re-Study shall be borne by the Interconnection Customer being re-studied.

If a Transmission Provider that conducts cluster studies identifies a need for 

restudies, it will conduct periodic Re-Studies for each cluster [placeholder for 

time frame proposed by each Transmission Provider]. Re-Study dates for 

each cluster will also be posted on the Transmission Provider’s OASIS. ReStudy shall take no longer than [forty-five (45)/ sixty (60)] Calendar Days 

from the commencement date of the Re-Study. Any cost of Re-Study shall be 

borne by the Interconnection Customer being re-studied.
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 172 -

8.2 Scope of Interconnection Facilities Study.

The Interconnection Facilities Study shall specify and estimate the cost of the 

equipment, engineering, procurement and construction work needed to 

implement the conclusions of the Interconnection System Impact Study in 

accordance with Good Utility Practice to physically and electrically connect 

the Interconnection Facility to the Transmission System. The Interconnection 

Facilities Study shall also identify the electrical switching configuration of the 

connection equipment, including, without limitation: the transformer, 

switchgear, meters, and other station equipment; the nature and estimated cost 

of any Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and Network 

Upgrades necessary to accomplish the interconnection; and an estimate of the 

time required to complete the construction and installation of such facilities. 

The Facilities Study will also identify any potential control equipment for 

requests for Interconnection Service that are lower than the Generating 

Facility Capacity.

8.5 Re-Study.

If Re-Study of the Interconnection Facilities Study is required due to a higher 

queued project dropping out of the queue or a modification of a higher queued 

project pursuant to Section 4.4, Transmission Provider shall so notify 

Interconnection Customer in writing. Serially processed Re-Studies Such ReStudy shall take no longer than sixty (60) Calendar Days from the date of the 

notice. Any cost of Re-Study shall be borne by the Interconnection Customer 

being re-studied.

A Transmission Provider that conducts cluster studies will conduct periodic 

Re-studies for each cluster [placeholder for time frame proposed by each 

Transmission Provider]. Re-Study dates for each cluster will also be posted 

on the Transmission Provider’s OASIS. Re-Study of the cluster shall take no 

longer than sixty (60) Calendar Days from the commencement date of the ReStudy.

Appendix 1 to LGIP

5.

h. Requested capacity (in MW) of Interconnection Service (if lower than 

the Generating Facility Capacity) 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 173 -

Note: Appendix C will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations

Appendix C: Compilation of proposed changes to the pro forma LGIA

Article 1. Definitions

Generating Facility shall mean Interconnection Customer’s device for the 

production and/or storage for later injection of electricity identified in the Interconnection 

Request, but shall not include the interconnection customer's Interconnection Facilities.

Large Generating Facility shall mean a Generating Facility for which an 

Interconnection Customer has having a Generating Facility Capacity requested 

Interconnection Service of more than 20 MW.

Provisional Interconnection Service shall mean interconnection service 

provided by the Transmission Provider associated with interconnecting the 

Interconnection Customer's Generating Facility to the Transmission Provider's 

Transmission System and enabling that Transmission System to receive electric 

energy and capacity from the Generating Facility at the Point of Interconnection, 

pursuant to the terms of the Provisional Large Generator Interconnection Agreement 

and, if applicable, the Tariff.

Provisional Large Generator Interconnection Agreement shall mean the 

interconnection agreement for Provisional Interconnection Service established 

between the Transmission Provider and/or the Transmission Owner and the 

Interconnection Customer. This agreement shall take the form of the Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement, modified for provisional purposes.

Small Generating Facility shall mean a Generating Facility for which an 

Interconnection Customer has requested Interconnection Servicethat has a Generating 

Capacity of no more than 20 MW.

Surplus Interconnection Service shall mean any unused portion of 

Interconnection Service established in a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement, 

such that if Surplus Interconnection Service is utilized the Interconnection Service 

limit at the Point of Interconnection would remain the same.

5.1 Options. Unless otherwise mutually agreed to between the Parties, 

Interconnection Customer shall select the In-Service Date, Initial 

Synchronization Date, and Commercial Operation Date; and either the

Standard Option or Alternate Option set forth below for completion of 

Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades, as 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 174 -

set forth in Appendix A, Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades, 

and such dates and selected option shall be set forth in Appendix B, 

Milestones. At the same time, Interconnection Customer shall indicate 

whether it elects to exercise the Option to Build set forth in section 5.1.3 

below. If the dates designated by Interconnection Customer are not acceptable 

to Transmission Provider, Transmission Provider shall so notify 

Interconnection Customer within thirty (30) Calendar Days. Upon receipt of 

the notification that Interconnection Customer’s designated dates are not 

acceptable to Transmission Provider, the Interconnection Customer shall 

notify the Transmission Provider within thirty (30) Calendar Days whether it 

elects to exercise the Option to Build if it has not already elected to exercise 

the Option to Build.

5.1.3 Option to Build. If the dates designated by Interconnection Customer are not 

acceptable to Transmission Provider, Transmission Provider shall so notify 

Interconnection Customer within thirty (30) Calendar Days. and unless the 

Parties agree otherwise, Interconnection Customer shall have the option to 

assume responsibility for the design, procurement and construction of 

Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades on the dates specified in Article 5.1.2. Transmission Provider and 

Interconnection Customer must agree as to what constitutes Stand Alone 

Network Upgrades and identify such Stand Alone Network Upgrades in 

Appendix A. Except for Stand Alone Network Upgrades, Interconnection 

Customer shall have no right to construct Network Upgrades under this 

option.

5.1.4 Negotiated Option. If Interconnection Customer elects not to exercise its 

option under Article 5.1.3, Option to Build, Interconnection Customer shall so 

notify Transmission Provider within thirty (30) Calendar Days, and If the 

dates designated by Interconnection Customer are not acceptable to 

Transmission Provider, the Parties shall in good faith attempt to negotiate 

terms and conditions (including revision of the specified dates and liquidated 

damages, the provision of incentives, or the procurement and construction of 

a portion of Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and Stand 

Alone Network Upgrades by Interconnection Customer all facilities other than 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities and Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades if the Interconnection Customer elects to exercise the Option to 

Build under Article 5.1.3) pursuant to which Transmission Provider is 

responsible for the design, procurement and construction of Transmission 

Provider’s Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades. If the Parties are 

unable to reach agreement on such terms and conditions, then, pursuant to 

5.1.1 (Standard Option), Transmission Provider shall assume responsibility for 

the design, procurement and construction of Transmission Provider's 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 175 -

Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgradesall facilities other than 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities and Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades if the Interconnection Customer elects to exercise the Option to 

Buildpursuant to 5.1.1, Standard Option. 

5.10 Provisional Interconnection Service. Upon the request of Interconnection 

Customer, and prior to completion of requisite Network Upgrades, the 

Transmission Provider may execute a Provisional Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement or Interconnection Customer may request the 

filing of an unexecuted Provisional Large Generator Interconnection 

Agreement with the Interconnection Customer for limited interconnection 

service at the discretion of Transmission Provider based upon an evaluation 

that will consider the results of available studies. Transmission Provider shall 

determine, through available studies or additional studies as necessary, 

whether stability, short circuit, thermal, and/or voltage issues would arise if 

Interconnection Customer interconnects without modifications to the 

Generating Facility or Transmission Provider’s system. Transmission 

Provider shall determine whether any Network Upgrades, Interconnection 

Facilities, Distribution Upgrades, or System Protection Facilities that are 

necessary to meet the requirements of NERC, or any applicable Regional 

Entity for the interconnection of a new, modified and/or expanded Generating 

Facility are in place prior to the commencement of interconnection service 

from the Generating Facility. Where available studies indicate that such 

Network Upgrades, Interconnection Facilities, Distribution Upgrades, and/or 

System Protection Facilities that are required for the interconnection of a new, 

modified and/or expanded Generating Facility are not currently in place, 

Transmission Provider will perform a study, at the Interconnection Customer’s 

expense, to confirm the facilities that are required for provisional 

interconnection service. The maximum permissible output of the Generating 

Facility in the Provisional Large Generator Interconnection Agreement shall 

be studied and updated on a quarterly basis. Interconnection Customer 

assumes all risks and liabilities with respect to changes between the 

Provisional Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and the Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement, including changes in output limits and 

Network Upgrades, Interconnection Facilities, Distribution Upgrades, and/or 

System Protection Facilities cost responsibilities. 

11.3 Network Upgrades and Distribution Upgrades. 

Transmission Provider or Transmission Owner shall design, procure, 

construct, install, and own the Network Upgrades and Distribution Upgrades 

described in Appendix A, Interconnection Facilities, Network Upgrades and 

Distribution Upgrades. The Interconnection Customer shall be responsible for 

all costs related to Distribution Upgrades. Unless Transmission Provider or 
Docket No. RM17-8-000 - 176 -

Transmission Owner elects to fund the capital for the Network Upgrades, 

which election shall only be available upon mutual agreement of 

Interconnection Customer and Transmission Owner or Transmission Provider,

they shall be solely funded by Interconnection Customer.