139 FERC ¶ 61,051

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000]

Open Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection Facilities

(April 19, 2012)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks comment on open access 

and priority rights for capacity on interconnection facilities.

DATES: Comments are due [Insert Date 45 days after publication in the FEDERAL 

REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and in 

accordance with the requirements posted on the Commission’s web site, 

http://www.ferc.gov. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

• Agency Web Site: Documents created electronically using word processing 

software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a 

scanned format, at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments electronically must 

mail or hand-deliver an original and copy of their comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 - 2 -

Washington, DC 20426. These requirements can be found on the Commission’s 

web site, see, e.g., the “Quick Reference Guide for Paper Submissions,” available 

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or via phone from Online Support 

at (202) 502-6652 or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676.

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:

Becky Robinson (Technical Information)

Office of Energy Policy and Innovation

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8868

Christopher Thomas (Technical Information)

Office of Energy Market Regulation

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8412

Olga Kolotushkina (Legal Information)

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6024

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
139 FERC ¶ 61,051

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Open Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection 

Facilities

Priority Rights to New Participant-Funded Transmission

Docket Nos. AD12-14-000

AD11-11-000

NOTICE OF INQUIRY

(April 19, 2012)

1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Commission seeks to explore whether, and, if 

so, how the Commission should revise its current policy concerning priority rights and 

open access with regard to certain interconnection facilities. In a series of cases that have 

come before the Commission in recent years, the Commission has treated certain 

interconnection facilities1

as transmission facilities for purposes of open access policies. 

However, the Commission has permitted an owner of interconnection facilities to have 

priority to capacity over its facilities for its existing use at the time of a third-party 

request for service.2

 In the instance where an owner of interconnection facilities has 

specific, pre-existing generator expansion plans with milestones for construction of 

 

1 As noted below, the Commission in the past has used the term “generator lead 

lines” to describe the class of facilities at issue in this proceeding. In this NOI, we will 

use the term “interconnection facilities,” except when referencing comments on generator 

lead lines.

2 See Milford Wind Corridor, LLC, 129 FERC ¶ 61,149, at P 24 (2009) (Milford);

Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, 132 FERC ¶ 61,215, at P 49 (2010) (Terra-Gen I).
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 2 -

generation facilities and can demonstrate that it has made material progress toward 

meeting those milestones, the Commission may grant priority rights for the capacity on 

the interconnection facilities to those future generation projects or expansions as well.3

 

Further, an affiliate of the current interconnection facility owner that is developing its 

own generator projects also may obtain priority rights to the capacity on the 

interconnection facilities by meeting the “specific plans and milestones” standard with 

respect to future use, provided that the plans include a future transfer of ownership of the 

interconnection facilities to such an affiliate.4 This granting of priority rights preserves 

the ability of the generation developer to deliver its output to the point of interconnection 

with the transmission system, so long as it can make the relevant showing to the 

Commission sufficient to justify priority. The Commission requires that, upon receipt of 

a request for transmission service from an unaffiliated third party, a pro forma Open 

Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) must be filed by the owner of the facilities 

considered interconnection facilities under Order No. 2003 within 60 days of the date of 

the request.5

 

 3 Aero Energy LLC, 116 FERC ¶ 61,149, at P 28 (2006) (Aero); Milford, 

129 FERC ¶ 61,149 at P 22; and Alta Wind, 134 FERC ¶ 61,109, at P 16-17 (2011) (Alta

Wind). Such plans and initial progress also must pre-date a valid request for service. 

Terra-Gen I, 132 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 53.

4 See Milford, 129 FERC ¶ 61,149 at P 5.

5 Black Creek Hydro, Inc., 77 FERC ¶ 61,232, at 61,941 (1996); Termoelectrica 

U.S., LLC, 105 FERC ¶ 61,087, at P 11 (2003).
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 3 -

2. To date, the Commission has applied this policy on a case-by-case basis. The 

Commission’s current policy is guided by the desire to prevent undue discrimination by 

ensuring that third parties have open access to available transfer capability that is not 

being used by the owner of the interconnection facilities. In doing so, the Commission 

has considered priority access to firm service, and granted waivers of certain provisions 

in the pro forma OATT to reflect the limited service available over interconnection 

facilities and the limited ability of generation developers to support certain OATT 

ancillary services and requirements.

3. Through this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks comment on options for 

addressing priority rights on interconnection facilities given the responses filed to the 

March 2011 technical conference, which identified a number of concerns with the 

Commission’s current policy. As discussed in the sections that follow, the Commission 

seeks comments on alternative approaches to govern third-party requests for service and 

priority rights: continued use of an OATT framework with potential modification and 

clarification, including the potential introduction of a safe harbor period, and a case-bycase determination on the generation developer’s priority rights; and use of a Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA)/Large Generator Interconnection 

Procedures (LGIP) framework in which the existing LGIA provisions that govern thirdparty use of a transmission provider’s interconnection facilities would be extended to 

interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities (i.e., allowing parties to mutually 

agree to the use of and compensation for the facilities). The Commission also seeks 
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 4 -

comment on the scope of our inquiry in this proceeding and whether, as a threshold 

matter, there is a need to reconsider the Commission policy as set forth in the recent 

series of cases.

6

 

4. We note that there are numerous and potentially detailed issues embedded within 

the broad categories of this NOI. We encourage all interested stakeholders to address the 

specific questions for which the Commission seeks comment and to include as 

appropriate any proposed tariff language that should be considered.

7

 We also encourage 

comments on how any individual potential policy change discussed below would affect 

the viability of other policies (e.g., if the Commission were to adopt a safe harbor period, 

what are the implications for the current policy of demonstrating specific plans and 

milestones to secure priority rights)? 

I. Background

5. Interconnection facilities are constructed to enable a generation facility or multiple 

generation facilities to transmit power from the generation facility to the integrated 

transmission grid. They are radial in nature, with a single point of interconnection with 

the network grid, and power flows toward the network grid, with no electrical loads 

 6 See, e.g., Aero, 116 FERC ¶ 61,149; Milford, 129 FERC ¶ 61,149; Terra-Gen I,

132 FERC ¶ 61,215; and Alta Wind, 134 FERC ¶ 61,109. 

7 The Commission distinguishes this proceeding from the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) current investigation into the applicability of 

Reliability Standards to interconnection facilities (Project 2010-07). Comments related 

to NERC’s investigation are not the subject of this Notice of Inquiry and should be 

directed to NERC.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 5 -

between the generation facilities and the point of interconnection with the network grid. 

Interconnection facilities can be relatively short ancillary components to a single 

generation facility.8

 Alternatively, they may span much longer distances and represent 

significant transmission capacity, being capable of interconnecting additional generation 

projects.9

6. Ownership and operation of interconnection facilities may take several forms. 

Under Order No. 2003,10 generation developers that wish to interconnect their generation 

facilities to the integrated transmission grid must submit an interconnection request to the 

relevant transmission provider pursuant to the transmission provider’s LGIP and develop 

an LGIA. Interconnection facilities that are owned, controlled, or operated by the 

transmission provider, regardless of which party constructed the facilities, are designated 

as transmission provider’s interconnection facilities under the LGIA. Third party use of

the transmission provider’s interconnection facilities is governed by the provisions of the 

 8 See, e.g., Southern Company Serv., Inc., Docket No. ER12-554-000 (involving 

an approximately 2,000 foot interconnection facility).

9 See, e.g., Bayonne Energy Center, 136 FERC ¶ 61,019 (2011) (involving a 

345 kV interconnection facility); Terra-Gen I, 132 FERC ¶ 61,215 (involving a 212 mile

interconnection facility).

10 Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, 

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

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

Regs. ¶ 31,171 (2004), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,190 

(2005), aff’d sub nom. Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v. FERC, 475 F3d. 1277 

(D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1230 (2008).
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 6 -

LGIA.11 This provision permits the parties to negotiate for a third party to use the 

interconnection facilities and entitles the original interconnection customer to

compensation for capital expenses it incurred to pay for the transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities and to compensation for the ongoing costs, including operation 

and maintenance costs, based on a pro rata use among the parties. 

7. However, where a generation developer has funded and constructed a portion of 

the interconnection facilities, and does not transfer ownership or operational control of 

those facilities to the transmission provider after construction, under the pro forma LGIA 

those facilities are classified as interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities.

That is, interconnection customers’ interconnection facilities are located between the 

generation facility and the point at which either the transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities begin or the point of interconnection with the transmission 

provider’s transmission system. Section 9.9.2 of the pro forma LGIA is inapplicable to 

third-party requests for use of an interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities. 

These interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities are the types of facilities at 

issue in this proceeding. 

 

11 Section 9.9.2 states “...if the Parties mutually agree, such agreement not to be 

unreasonably withheld, to allow one or more third parties to use Transmission Provider’s 

Interconnection Facilities, or any part thereof, Interconnection Customer will be entitled 

to compensation for the capital expenses it incurred in connection with the 

Interconnection Facilities based upon the pro rata use of the Interconnection Facilities by 

the Transmission Provider, all third-party users and the Interconnection Customer....”
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 7 -

March 2011 Technical Conference

8. The Commission held a technical conference in March 2011 to explore, among 

other things, the application of the Commission’s open access policies to generator lead 

lines12 in the instance when affiliated or unaffiliated third-party generators also seek to 

use these facilities.13 Generally, commenters assert that these policies may be unduly 

burdensome and ill-suited for generator lead lines, and may have detrimental implications 

for the future development and financing of generator lead lines and their associated 

generation projects, especially renewable energy projects.14 Specifically, commenters15

argue that the Commission should recognize the commercial, technological, legal, and 

other differences between transmission lines and these generator lead lines when 

considering open access principles in the context of radial generator lead lines. Further, 

commenters raise a number of concerns with the Commission’s current practice of 

imposing an OATT Filing requirement on generator lead line developers. 

9. Among the unique attributes of generator lead lines, commenters suggest the 

following features: (1) generator lead lines are radial lines that serve the limited and sole 

 12 The technical conference announcements and participants used the term 

“generator lead lines.” While for this NOI we think it is appropriate to hold the 

discussion in terms of interconnection facilities, in the interest of being true to the 

comments, we will maintain the use of the term “generator lead lines” in this section.

13 Priority Rights to New Participant-Funded Transmission, March 15, 2011 

Technical Conference, AD11-11-000. 

14 The list of entities that filed comments or participated at this conference is in 

Appendix A of this NOI. 

15 First Wind, Invenergy, Duke, and NextEra.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 8 -

purpose of connecting generation facilities to the transmission network, i.e., they are not 

an element of the integrated transmission network; (2) generator lead lines do not provide 

benefits to the transmission system in terms of capability or reliability, and cannot be 

relied on for coordinated operation of the transmission system; (3) an outage on the 

generator lead lines would not affect the entire transmission system; (4) generator lead 

lines do not provide ancillary services; (5) generator lead lines are often located in remote 

regions not in close proximity to load; (6) generator lead lines are owned by entities 

entirely different than those that typically own transmission; and (7) generator lead lines 

are viewed by their developers and banks providing financing as an integral part of the 

whole, not as a project or business separate from the generating facility.16

10. Among the main concerns raised, commenters17 identify a “free rider” problem 

that, in their opinion, produces a disincentive to be the first developer to build a generator 

lead line, while creating a relative advantage for other generation developers to be second 

in line.18 Several commenters19 argue that being subject to the open access requirements 

of Order Nos. 888, 889, and 890 (including the obligations to file an OATT within 

60 days of a request for service and to administer an OATT, Open Access Same Time 

Information System, Standards of Conduct, and Uniform System of Accounts) imposes 

 16 See, e.g., First Wind at 2-4; Invenergy at 1-2; Duke at 5-6; and NextEra at 12-

13. 

17 Invenergy, CAHW, First Wind, Puget, and MidAmerican. 

18 See, e.g., Puget at 14-15; MidAmerican at 14-15. 

19 SCE, BP, CAHW, Puget, National Grid, MidAmerican, and Wenner. 
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 9 -

significant costs and difficulties for independent developers, especially small ones that 

are not affiliated with large utilities.20 These developers assert that complying with such 

responsibilities, in addition to the obligation to commence studies related to a third-party 

request for service, may require expenditure of a significant portion of their capital, and 

require additional expertise, hardware, software, and staffing resources.21

11. Although these expenses may generally be considered normal costs of operating in 

a regulated environment, commenters argue that the costs are triggered by a relatively 

low threshold event – a written request unaccompanied by any deposit.

22 Thus, 

commenters assert that the minimal commitment required for third-party requests for 

transmission service on generator lead lines may not sufficiently distinguish serious 

customers from those who may have merely a speculative interest in taking transmission 

service, while the generator lead line owner is immediately affected by having to file an 

 20 See, e.g., Puget at 7-8; AWEA at 10. 

21 Id.

22 See, e.g., BP at 8; CAWH at 3; and NextEra at 20-21. Commenters appear to be 

referring to sections 17.2, 18.2, or 29.2 of the pro forma OATT, which set forth 

information required for a completed application. In addition, where the owner of the 

facilities does not have an OATT on file, a third-party customer does not need to submit a 

deposit as part of its application for transmission service to the interconnection facilities. 

See Sagebrush, a California Partnership, 130 FERC ¶ 61,093, at P 57, order on reh’g, 

132 FERC ¶ 61,234 (2010) (Sagebrush). We note that the deposit is required once an 

OATT is filed. See also Sagebrush, 132 FERC ¶ 61,234 at P 44; Terra-Gen I, 132 FERC 

¶ 61,215 at n.84. 
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 10 -

OATT, expend significant staff resources, and incur significant costs to evaluate the 

feasibility of providing the requested service.23 

12. Commenters also state that priority rights on their generator lead line are essential 

for the financing of generation projects because priority rights provide lenders with 

assurance that developers will still be able to use the line for their planned generation 

facilities.24 Commenters assert that lenders are wary of financing generation projects 

without a guarantee that the generator lead line will have sufficient capacity available to 

transmit the generation to the grid, for both early and later phases of their generation 

projects.25 In addition, commenters26 argue that generator developers are concerned with 

the policy of demonstrating “specific plans and milestones,” as it is unclear to them 

which milestones need to be described and which factors would adequately demonstrate 

material progress towards those milestones. They note that, although the Commission 

has found certain evidence sufficient in prior cases,27 its review was limited largely to 

privileged and confidential evidence, which could not be described in the Commission 

orders or otherwise disclosed to the public.28 Also, commenters argue that, given the

uncertainty of generation project development due to financing, permitting, and various 

 23 See, e.g., BP at 8; NextEra at 20-21.

24 See, e.g., First Wind at 3-4. 

25 See, e.g., Allete at 2. 

26 Allete, BP and NextEra. 

27 See Aero, 118 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 22; Milford, 129 FERC ¶ 61,149 at P 22; and 

Alta Wind, 134 FERC ¶ 61,109 at P 17.

28 NextEra at 22; BP Wind at 7.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 11 -

other factors, it may be neither possible for a generator developer to provide the needed 

detail about phases of generation that will be constructed in the future, nor prudent for 

developers to prematurely enter into binding contractual commitments merely for 

purposes of attempting to demonstrate priority rights.29 

13. Commenters note that certain sections of the pro forma OATT may be 

inapplicable to generator lead lines on a generic basis. For instance, commenters argue 

that a single circuit generator lead line can only provide firm or non-firm point-to-point 

service and cannot provide network service,

30 so the pro forma OATT’s standard terms 

and conditions for network service are unnecessary.31 Additionally, several commenters 

assert that because generator lead line owners do not have the capability to supply many 

ancillary services to third parties, the ancillary services provisions of the pro forma

OATT are likewise inapplicable.32 Further, commenters argue that the planning 

requirements included in Attachment K of the OATT may be an unnecessary regulatory 

burden for generator developers of generation lead lines, as they have no native load 

growth, they do not own network transmission facilities, will not typically expand their 

 29 See, e.g., NextEra at 24; First Wind at 4.

30 See, e.g., Sagebrush, 130 FERC ¶ 61,093 at P 29 (waiving the pro forma

OATT’s provisions for network service to a single transmission line that does not have a 

control area or the generation resources necessary to provide network service). See also

Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, 134 FERC ¶ 61,027, at P 10-12 (2011) (Terra-Gen II).

31 See, e.g., First Wind at 6-7. 

32 See, e.g., First Wind at 6-7; AWEA at 11; Edison Mission at 25; and NextEra at 

13.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 12 -

lines absent a request for service, and the costs of such facilities are not socialized or 

based on a regional planning needs analysis.33 

14. Commenters concede that generator lead line owners are free to propose non-rate 

terms and conditions that differ from the pro forma OATT, where each deviation is 

supported by a demonstration that it is consistent with or superior to the pro forma OATT 

or does not apply given the particular generator lead line owner’s business model.34 

However, rather than the Commission continuing to evaluate such requests on a case-bycase basis, some commenters35 suggest that the Commission should establish a new pro 

forma OATT to apply generically to all generator lead lines.

15. As an alternative to the current Commission policy, some commenters suggest 

expanding section 9.9.2 of the LGIA, which addresses third-party access to transmission 

provider’s interconnection facilities, to apply to interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities as well, and argue that doing so would render unnecessary the 

requirement for the original interconnection customer to file an OATT when a third party 

requests service on their interconnection facilities.

36 They argue that treating a generator 

requesting access to interconnection facilities as an interconnection request is a pragmatic 

approach that more accurately characterizes the service being sought, and eliminates the 

 33 See, e.g., NextEra at 19-20.

34 See, e.g., Montana-Alberta Tie, Inc., 116 FERC ¶ 61,071, at P 60 (2006) 

(MATL).

35 NextEra, AWEA, SCE, CAHW, NU/NSTAR, and First Wind. 

36 Puget at 8; Edison Mission at 17.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 13 -

unduly burdensome and costly obligations imposed upon generation developers under the 

Commission’s current policies that commenters assert impedes the development of 

location-constrained renewable generation.37 

16. Further, commenters express concern that the current policy does not adequately 

engage the transmission provider in the process of interconnecting a third-party requestor 

of service on a generator lead line.38 To reach load and serve customers under current 

policy, a third party may be required to make separate requests for access to the original 

interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities and the transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities, as well as a transmission service request on the interconnecting 

transmission provider’s transmission system.39 Commenters assert that this bifurcated 

process is inefficient.40

17. Transmission providers,41 however, caution the Commission against 

discriminating against existing transmission providers vis-à-vis independent merchant 

transmission developers with regard to priority rights or other regulatory requirements. 

Transmission providers argue that any separate treatment for independent developers is 

not appropriate, as transmission providers do not want to be disadvantaged or 

discouraged from constructing generator lead lines. Instead, these commenters favor any 

 37 Edison Mission at 19.

38 See, e.g., Puget at 11.

39 Puget at 9.

40 See, e.g., id. at 10. 

41 SCE at 3; Puget at 7; and MidAmerican at 6.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 14 -

future policies or clarifications of existing policy to be based on the type of facility being 

constructed, not on the entity that is proposing to own the facility.42 

II. Discussion

A. Scope of Inquiry

18. In this NOI, the Commission seeks comment on various options for addressing 

third-party access to and priority rights on interconnection customer’s interconnection 

facilities. Appendix B to this document provides a schematic and explanation of what the 

Commission believes to be a typical situation. Much of the discussion and questions in 

this NOI derive from this understanding. As discussed above, Order No. 2003 addresses 

third party use of transmission provider interconnection facilities, but not interconnection 

customer interconnection facilities. With a goal of ensuring that a third party generator 

(G2) may be able to interconnect to interconnection customer interconnection facilities 

that in some instances have been 30, 50, or even hundreds of miles long, and up to 

345 kV, the Commission has in a series of recent cases treated interconnection customer 

interconnection facilities as transmission facilities for purposes of open access policies

and required that the original developer (G1) file an OATT within 60 days of a request 

for service on these facilities. In light of comments received, and as discussed in the 

sections that follow, the Commission seeks comments on two alternative approaches to 

govern third-party use and priority rights to use: (1) continued use of an OATT 

framework with potential modification and clarification, including the potential 

 42 See, e.g., Puget at 3.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 15 -

introduction of a safe harbor period, and a case-by-case determination on the generation 

developer’s priority rights; or (2) use of a LGIA/LGIP framework in which the existing 

LGIA provisions that govern third-party use of transmission provider’s interconnection 

facilities would be extended to interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities. In 

addition to the details of each approach, the Commission seeks comment on the relative 

ability of each to meet customer needs while ensuring that the rates, terms, and conditions 

of jurisdictional services remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory.

19. At the outset, however, the Commission also seeks comment on the scope of our 

inquiry in this proceeding and whether, as a threshold matter, there is a need to reconsider

existing Commission policies. With the passage of time, concerns raised at the March 

2011 technical conference and in subsequent comments may have been addressed as the 

industry has considered the Commission’s existing precedent. If not, additional views on 

what approach would be most effective in addressing third-party requests for service 

and/or evaluating priority rights on interconnection facilities would be useful. The 

Commission encourages commenters to discuss their views of the needs of their business 

models in the context of the Commission’s open access and interconnection policies, 

which are designed to ensure that transmission service is made available on terms that are 

just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. 

20. As noted above, the Commission intends that the focus of this proceeding is on 

interconnection customers’ interconnection facilities as a class of facilities. If 

commenters disagree that this is the set of facilities at issue, then they should explain 
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 16 -

their understanding of the facilities at issue (referencing the drawing in Appendix B) and 

respond to the questions below in terms of the set of facilities they believe is at issue, and 

clarify that they are doing so. Similarly, if commenters distinguish application of certain 

policies based on the size of a facility or other characteristics, then they should respond to 

the questions below in terms of the relevant characteristics, and clarify that they are doing 

so. 

21. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on these issues:

i. To what specific set of facilities are commenters’ concerns directed? That 

is, are commenters’ concerns directed toward access to interconnection 

customer interconnection facilities, or to both interconnection customer 

interconnection facilities and transmission provider interconnection 

facilities? 

ii. Is requiring interconnection customer interconnection facilities to provide 

third-party access under an OATT framework necessary to ensure against

undue discrimination and ensure just and reasonable rates, given that 

developers of remote generation are building interconnection facilities of 

considerable length and/or size? 

iii. Has the Commission’s current policy blurred the pre-existing line between 

interconnection service and transmission service with respect to providing 

for third-party access to interconnection facilities in such as way as to 

create unintended consequences? 

iv. Has industry largely adapted to current Commission policy such that the 

Commission should continue its current policy? If not, should the 

Commission respond to concerns expressed at the Technical Conference 

with (a) potential clarification of and modification to its current policy of 

treating interconnection facilities under the OATT framework; or (b) 

adoption of a framework under which it would consider issues of thirdparty access and priority rights under its interconnection rules and 

procedures? 

v. Should the Commission consider different treatment for larger versus 

smaller interconnection facilities, e.g., treating larger interconnection 
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 17 -

facilities under the OATT framework and smaller interconnection facilities 

under the LGIA/LGIP framework? If so, what would be the appropriate 

threshold for separating large versus small interconnection facilities (e.g., 

voltage, miles, or potential third party interconnection)? Should any 

distinctions be made among existing interconnection facilities, planned 

expansions of existing interconnection facilities, and new interconnection 

facilities, for any of the options? 

vi. From commenters’ perspective, is there a meaningful distinction between 

the interconnection/operation of facilities proposed to provide independent 

transmission service (e.g., Chinook43) and generator interconnection 

facilities of long length and high voltage (e.g., Terra Gen I)?

vii. Are there circumstances under which it would be feasible and/or desirable 

to allow the generation developer to choose whether its interconnection 

facilities would be governed by the OATT framework or the LGIA/LGIP

framework, with the attendant rights and responsibilities of either choice? 

viii. For purposes of access policies, should the Commission distinguish 

between affiliates and nonaffiliates even when parties have otherwise 

agreed to the terms and conditions of access to the facilities?

ix. Are there additional approaches that the Commission should consider? Be 

specific as to details. For example, commenters mention common facilities 

agreements (CFAs) as a means for parties to agree on access to 

interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities. 44 Commenters also 

mention a rebuttable de minimis exception for small interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities.

x. To the extent that the concerns regarding third-party use and priority rights 

 43 Chinook Power Transmission, LLC, 126 FERC ¶ 61,134 (2009) (Chinook). 

44 See, e.g., BP Wind Energy North America Inc., 129 FERC ¶ 61,207 (2009) (for 

an order accepting a CFA among affiliated parties and granting waiver of the 

requirements of Order Nos. 888 and 890). See Sky River, LLC, 134 FERC ¶ 61,064, at 

P 13 (2011) (for an order rejecting a CFA between unaffiliated parties and denying 

waiver of the requirements of Order Nos. 888 and 890). But see Ashtabula Wind, LLC, 

127 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 10 (2009) (granting waiver of the OATT requirements of Order 

Nos. 888 and 890 in the context of a Common Facilities Agreement between two 

unaffiliated parties).
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 18 -

do not exist for transmission provider’s interconnection facilities, why 

would a generation developer that builds its own interconnection facilities 

choose to retain operational control of them as opposed to turning them 

over to the transmission provider?

B. Alternative Approaches for Comment 

1. Open Access Transmission Tariff Framework

22. If the Commission were to maintain reliance on the existing OATT framework, 

should it be modified to recognize the characteristics of interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities and needs of generation developers? 

a. Clarification of Specific Plans and Milestones Evaluation

23. Our current case-by-case policy of determining a generation developer’s priority 

rights to its interconnection facilities provides a degree of flexibility and recognizes that 

there is not necessarily a standard method for development of generation projects. 

However, as mentioned above, some commenters voice concerns that the Commission’s 

current case-by-case evaluation of generation developers’ requests for priority rights on 

their interconnection facilities based on the demonstration of specific plans and 

milestones for construction of their generation projects is not clear. To address this 

concern, the Commission could be more prescriptive on the “specific plans and 

milestones” standard to provide direction to generation developers seeking to establish 

their firm priority rights. Such requirements could include the type of evidence that 

would be indicative of sufficient “specific plans and milestones,” and the factors to be 

considered in determining whether “material progress has been made.”
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 19 -

24. The Commission seeks comment on issues related to the evaluation of specific 

plans and milestones in requests for priority rights to use capacity on interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities. Specifically:

i. Should the Commission continue its practice of evaluating requests for 

priority rights for interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities on a 

case-by-case basis? If so, should the existing standards used to evaluate 

sufficiency of evidence to demonstrate priority be clarified or modified? 

How?

ii. Should the Commission require generation developers to meet a given set 

of uniform criteria to secure priority rights? If so, what are the necessary 

criteria and what types of evidence are sufficient to demonstrate these 

criteria? Or, should generation developers have the flexibility to 

demonstrate the sufficiency of their plans based on various criteria, and 

what might these criteria be? In this regard, how should the Commission 

balance needs for regulatory certainty and flexibility?

b. OATT Filing Trigger

25. The Commission’s current policy to grant waiver of the requirement to file an 

OATT prior to the receipt of a third-party request for transmission is designed to reduce 

the regulatory burden on entities that did not intend to be transmission providers. 

However, as noted above, several commenters express concern with the existing standard 

for what constitutes a valid third-party request for service on interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities. One panelist suggests that the standard for a third-party request

should be at least to match the level of generation development that has been 

demonstrated by the original interconnection customer,

45 although one commenter argues

that this is an impossible standard because a generation developer is limited in how far it 

 45 Transcript at 128 (citing Kurt Adams of First Wind).
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 20 -

can proceed with its project until it has secured transmission capacity.46 One commenter 

also argues that generation developers should be allowed to require that transmission 

customers satisfy more stringent creditworthiness standards than currently required, 

because generation developers, in forming their business models and capital structure, do 

not contemplate taking on significant credit risks of competing generators.47

26. Some commenters suggest modifying the rules for when and under what 

circumstances an OATT would need to be filed. For example, commenters argue that 

extending the current 60-day requirement to file an OATT is justified because of a 

possibility that a third party requesting service might withdraw after the generation 

developer has incurred significant costs in putting an OATT into place, including the 

internal structure to administer it.48 One commenter suggests requiring the generation 

developer to file a notice of a request for service within a certain number of days after 

receiving a request, and requiring them to file an OATT only after a generation 

interconnection agreement or a transmission service agreement is executed. They argue

that this process would allow the generation developer to focus on performing the 

necessary studies instead of filing an OATT.49 

27. The Commission seeks comment on issues related to third-party requests and 

when to require an OATT to be filed. Specifically:

 46 Gradient at 7.

47 Edison Mission at 24.

48 BP Wind at 8; NextEra at 20-21.

49 NextEra at 20-21.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 21 -

i. Should the Commission alter the standard for what constitutes a third-party

request for service on interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities? 

If so, what should the standard be? What would be the advantages and 

disadvantages of doing so, compared to current policy?

ii. Should the standard that is required for a third-party request for service be 

the same standard that is required for the original interconnection customer 

(or its affiliate) to request priority rights, i.e., the specific plans and 

milestones demonstration discussed above? Why or why not? Would this 

raise confidentiality concerns, and if so, how could those be mitigated or 

avoided?

iii. Should the Commission alter the requirement that a third-party request 

triggers an OATT Filing requirement by the original interconnection 

customer within 60 days of receipt of a request for service? If so, how?

iv. If the Commission were to alter the requirement that a third-party request 

triggers an OATT Filing requirement by the original interconnection 

customer, should there be different approaches when affiliates gain access 

to the interconnection facilities as opposed to when nonaffiliates gain 

access? 

v. Would it enhance regulatory certainty for the Commission to amend the 

LGIA to include contractual terms apprising the interconnection customer 

that it will become a transmission provider if a third party requests 

transmission service over its interconnection customer interconnection 

facilities?

vi. Would the creation of a pro forma tailored OATT (discussed below) ease 

the burden on the generation developer to the point that the existing 60-day 

window for filing an OATT would be sufficient?

vii. Some commenters argue that under current Commission policy, third 

parties must make up to four sequential requests for service (for 

interconnection and transmission services, from both the original 

interconnection customer and the transmission provider) to deliver their 

power. These commenters use this as an argument in favor of using the 

LGIA/LGIP framework. Is there a way under the OATT framework to 

coordinate the requests that a third party would need to make?
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 22 -

c. Tailored OATT

28. Order No. 888 set forth a pro forma tariff that provides standardized terms and 

conditions for the provision of open access transmission service. The unique features of 

interconnection facilities may warrant tailoring the terms and conditions of the OATT to 

correspond to these unique features for providing open access transmission service. One 

option for recognizing these differences and for responding to the concerns laid out above 

may be to continue to use a pro forma OATT framework but, on a generic basis, modify 

the pro forma OATT to establish a tailored set of terms and conditions for service, i.e., a 

pro forma “tailored OATT,” that would apply to a well-defined set of interconnection 

facilities. 

29. The Commission has previously granted waiver of specific provisions of the pro 

forma OATT to accommodate unique situations. For instance, as mentioned above, 

because interconnection facilities are not networked facilities, the Commission has 

granted waiver of the pro forma OATT requirement to provide network services on 

interconnection facilities.

50 Also, because the transmission provider to which the 

interconnection facilities are interconnected is required to have an OATT that provides 

for ancillary services on a non-discriminatory basis, and because of the physical 

 50 See Sagebrush, 130 FERC ¶ 61,093 at P 29; Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, 

135 FERC ¶ 61,134, at P 12 (2011) (Terra-Gen III).
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 23 -

limitations of interconnection facilities, the Commission has granted waiver of the pro 

forma OATT requirement to provide ancillary services.

51

30. Many generation developers argue that the pro forma OATT is not well-suited for 

interconnection facilities and that these facilities should either be substantially or entirely 

exempt from pro forma OATT requirements.52 Some of those commenters argue that

using a tailored OATT could address several of the concerns with existing policy by 

lessening the time, expense, and other burdens inherent in developing, filing, and 

administering an OATT. Proponents also argue that this approach would reduce 

confusion and the risk of inconsistency, which is heightened by employing a case-by-case 

waiver approach.53 

31. Several participants in the Technical Conference identify pro forma OATT 

provisions they believe could be eliminated to create a pro forma tailored OATT. One 

commenter submitted a proposed pro forma “Radial OATT.”54 Commenters argue that 

the network service provisions,55 the requirement to provide scheduling services,56 and 

 51 See Sagebrush, 130 FERC ¶ 61,093 at P 29; Terra-Gen III, 135 FERC ¶ 61,134 

at PP 31-33.

52 See, e.g., SCE at 4; Edison Mission at 13-14; Puget at 6; NextEra at 6; and First 

Wind at 7.

53 NextEra at 2-3.

54 NextEra at Attachment 1.

55 CAHW at 23-24; Edison Mission at 22; NextEra at 15-16; and First Wind at 

6-7.

56 AWEA at 11; NextEra at 13.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 24 -

the requirement to provide ancillary services,

57 all provisions which the Commission has 

previously waived for interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities, should be 

removed from a tailored OATT framework. 

32. Additionally, commenters argue that some other provisions the Commission has 

not waived are inappropriate for interconnection facilities. Specifically, commenters 

argue that requiring generation developers to adopt comparable Attachment K 

transmission planning process procedures makes little sense, and that instead the 

Commission should direct the generation developer, after receiving a request for service, 

to participate in the interconnecting transmission provider’s Attachment K process.58 

Commenters also suggest that the pro forma OATT requirement to calculate Available 

Transfer Capability may be inapplicable to interconnection facilities.

59 Additionally, one 

commenter argues that developing rates for point-to-point transmission service for 

Schedules 7 and 8 may be particularly burdensome for generation developers not 

experienced with traditional rate regulation and that do not usually follow the Uniform 

System of Accounts,60 and also suggests waiver of the Open Access Same-Time 

Information System and the Standards of Conduct.61 Another commenter suggests

allowing generation developers to use a single set of interconnection procedures and a 

 57 AWEA at 11; Edison Mission at 25; and NextEra at 11-12.

58 NextEra at 19-20; AWEA at 12; CAHW at 23; and NU/NSTAR at 7-8.

59 See, e.g., CAHW at 23; NextEra at 9-11.

60 CAHW at 23-24.

61 Id. at 24.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 25 -

single interconnection agreement for all generators, instead of separate procedures and 

agreements for large and small generators, because there is a limited set of potential 

customers.62 Another commenter argues that generation developers should not have an 

obligation to expand their interconnection facilities if there is insufficient capacity for a 

third party’s intended use.63

33. Commenters also identify provisions in the pro forma OATT that they think 

should be modified in a tailored OATT framework. For instance, several commenters

argue that, while the pro forma OATT requires the use of average line losses, it is 

appropriate for interconnection facilities to use incremental line losses, because they are 

discrete facilities and do not form a network.64 One commenter asserts that allocating 

average line losses under section 15.7 of the pro forma OATT fails to recognize that each 

successive user increases the losses borne by earlier users because losses increase as the 

line becomes fully used, and can render the power contracts of earlier users uneconomical 

or interfere with their ability to supply contracted power.65 

34. The Commission seeks comments on these issues. Specifically, 

i. Would a pro forma tailored OATT accomplish the Commission’s goals of 

ensuring non-discriminatory access? Is a pro forma tailored OATT 

appropriate in these circumstances, or should the Commission continue to 

 62 Edison Mission at 27. They note the Commission rejected this idea in 

Sagebrush, 130 FERC ¶ 61,093 at P 52, but has allowed the use of a single set of 

procedures and a single agreement by the Midwest ISO.

63 Invenergy at 11.

64 See, e.g., NextEra at 14-15; CAHW at 23; and Invenergy at 9-10.

65 CAHW at 23.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 26 -

evaluate requests for waiver of certain pro forma OATT provisions on 

interconnection facilities on a case-by-case basis?

ii. Does a pro forma tailored OATT provide developers clarity beyond that 

which has already been established by Commission precedent on the 

applicability of the pro forma OATT to interconnection facilities? 

iii. How does a pro forma tailored OATT framework compare to the other 

options presented here in terms of commercial viability?

iv. What are the relative benefits and drawbacks of the pro forma tailored 

OATT framework as compared to the existing policy? How should the 

Commission distinguish use of a pro forma tailored OATT for 

interconnection facilities and use of the pro forma OATT for public utility 

transmission providers that have divested their generation and thus may 

have limited ability to provide all OATT services, e.g., ancillary services?

Similarly, should the Commission distinguish interconnection facilities that 

may use a pro forma tailored OATT from transmission facilities that may 

typically receive waiver of some pro forma OATT provisions, such as 

merchant transmission lines? If so, how? 

v. Identify the pro forma OATT provisions that should be excluded from a 

pro forma tailored OATT. Why should these be excluded? 

vi. What, if any, new or modified provisions only applicable to interconnection 

facilities should be added to a pro forma tailored OATT? Why? 

vii. If the Commission were to pursue a pro forma tailored OATT, should the 

Commission adopt the proposed pro forma Radial OATT submitted by 

NextEra?66 Please explain and be specific as to any changes that would 

need to be made to that proposal.

viii. If a pro forma tailored OATT did not include a requirement to provide 

ancillary services, would relying on the public utility transmission provider 

to provide these services create an undue burden on the public utility 

transmission provider?

ix. Should all interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities be eligible 

to provide service under a tailored OATT? If not, which facilities should 

 66 NextEra at Attachment 1.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 27 -

be excluded? Is the size of the facilities (for example, length, capacity, 

voltage) relevant to being eligible for tailored OATT treatment?

d. Safe Harbor

35. A variation on the OATT framework is a safe harbor period. Within a safe harbor 

the generation developer would have a grace period in which the open access rules 

determined to be relevant for interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities would 

not apply, to allow for the phased development of generation projects over that period. 

Accordingly, a generation developer would be assumed to have priority rights to capacity 

on its interconnection facilities during the safe harbor period.

36. The Commission previously rejected a proposal for a safe harbor period of firm

priority rights in Milford, stating that such a period would be inconsistent with 

Commission precedent granting waiver of open access requirements unless and until the 

owner of the line receives a request for transmission service.

67 Nevertheless, many of the 

commenters68 suggest this option as a means to protect generation developers’ priority 

rights to use their interconnection facilities for their phased generation project 

development. 

37. The Commission seeks comments on issues related to a safe harbor period. 

Specifically: 

i. Is a safe harbor period a viable approach? What are the benefits and 

drawbacks of the safe harbor period approach, as compared with the current 

 67 Milford, 129 FERC ¶ 61,149 at P 23.

68 AWEA, BP, CAHW, Edison Mission, First Wind, Gradient, Invenergy, 

NextEra, and Sempra. 
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 28 -

case by case demonstration of specific plans and milestones, or the other 

options presented herein? For instance, to what extent could such a safe 

harbor period be used as a means to prevent others from accessing the 

transmission system?

ii. If the Commission were to institute a safe harbor period, should a 

generation developer be allowed to provide access to its interconnection 

facilities to others during the safe harbor period? If so, how should the 

Commission guard against discriminatory access?

iii. If the Commission were to institute a safe harbor period, could the 

Commission adopt for the safe harbor period the requirement, currently 

applicable where the Commission has granted priority rights, that a 

generation developer make any currently unused capacity available to third 

parties until such time as its future generation projects come on line, in a 

way that is consistent with the objectives of a safe harbor period?

iv. What would be the appropriate duration for the safe harbor period? Should 

there be differences in the duration of the safe harbor period based upon 

different resource types (geothermal, wind, solar, etc.)? If so, how can such 

distinctions be justified? 

v. Should a safe harbor period be established to begin automatically from 

some fixed milestone date (e.g., such as the in-service date of the 

interconnection facilities)? If so, what should that milestone be? Or, 

should a developer be required to make a demonstration before it qualifies 

for a safe harbor (e.g., such as plans for phased generation development)? 

If the latter, what should be required to make such demonstration? 

vi. What types of interconnection facilities should qualify, and how should a 

generation developer identify itself as one that is pursuing phased 

generation development? Should there be an upper or lower limit on

physical characteristics of the interconnection facilities such as length, 

voltage, capacity, etc. to qualify for safe harbor treatment? 

vii. Should there be intermediate development requirements to maintain safe 

harbor status? What would these requirements be? If requirements are not 

satisfied, what consequences are appropriate?
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 29 -

2. LGIA/LGIP

38. An alternative framework for dealing with third-party requests for service and 

priority rights on interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities would be to rely 

on a modified version of the LGIA/LGIP. Some commenters suggest expanding section 

9.9.2 of the pro forma LGIA, which addresses third-party access to transmission 

provider’s interconnection facilities, to apply to interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities as well, and argue that doing so would render unnecessary the 

requirement for the generation developer to file an OATT.69 They argue that this would 

provide access to interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities in the same 

manner that access to transmission provider’s interconnection facilities is now 

provided.70 One commenter suggests that the Commission could also revise the 

definition of Affected System to include interconnection customer’s interconnection 

facilities specifically, which would mean that these facilities would be studied as part of 

subsequent interconnection studies performed by the transmission provider for other 

interconnection customers, because an interconnection system impact study is defined in 

the pro forma LGIA as “an engineering study that evaluates the impact of the proposed 

interconnection on the safety and reliability of Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System and, if applicable, an Affected System.”71 Commenters also propose that, under 

 69 Puget at 8; Edison Mission at 17; Allete at 2; SCE at 3-4; and MidAmerican at 

15-16.

70 Puget at 15.

71 Edison Mission at 18 (referencing definitions in LGIA section 1).
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 30 -

an LGIA framework, third parties should apply directly to the transmission provider (and 

not the generation developer) for access to excess capacity on the interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities at the same time that they apply for service on the 

transmission provider’s interconnection facilities and transmission system.72 These 

commenters argue that this process would be preferable to the Commission’s current 

policy, under which a new interconnection customer could be required to negotiate 

separately with the generation developer and the transmission provider. Commenters 

further argue that involving the transmission provider at the onset of the process is more 

efficient because the transmission provider is critical to assessing system impacts, 

providing support such as ancillary services, and coordinating reliability issues.73

39. Commenters add that section 9.9.2 of the pro forma LGIA recognizes an 

opportunity for interconnection customers and the transmission provider to negotiate a 

multi-party agreement to determine the amount of compensation owed to an 

interconnection customer for capital expenses related to the transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities, as well as the allocation of on-going expenses.74 Some 

commenters suggest that the Commission could develop a pro forma multi-party 

agreement to be used by entities in negotiating under section 9.9.2.75

 72 Puget at 9-10.

73 Id.

74 See, e.g., Edison Mission at 18. 

75 Id.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 31 -

40. Generally, commenters argue that treating a third-party request for access to 

interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities as an interconnection request is a 

pragmatic approach that more accurately characterizes the service being sought, and 

eliminates the unduly burdensome and costly obligations imposed upon generation 

developers under the Commission’s current policies which commenters assert impede the 

development of location-constrained renewable generation.76 Commenters characterize 

expanding section 9.9.2 of the pro forma LGIA as an administratively simple and less 

onerous way to facilitate access to interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities.

77 

41. The Commission seeks comment on whether treating third-party use of 

interconnection facilities as interconnection service is a workable alternative to current 

Commission policy. Specifically:

i. If the Commission were to expand section 9.9.2 to govern third party use of 

interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities, what would prevent 

the original interconnection customer from evading negotiations with the 

third party (which is likely its competitor), withholding capacity for reasons 

other than a legitimate planned project, or putting excessive cost 

responsibilities on the third party?

ii. Would extending section 9.9.2 as discussed above be sufficient to enable 

the transmission provider to facilitate granting third parties access to the 

interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities? Or would other 

arrangements or modifications to the pro forma LGIA be needed to give the 

transmission provider that ability? For example, what commercial 

arrangements between the transmission provider and the original 

interconnection customer would be required to enable third-party

interconnection to the interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities? 

 76 Edison Mission at 19.

77 Puget at 8; Edison Mission at 19; and SCE at 3-4.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 32 -

iii. What are the benefits and drawbacks of a third party requesting 

interconnection service from the transmission provider, rather than from the 

original interconnection customer? 

iv. Should the pro forma LGIA be modified to include an obligation to expand 

the existing capacity of the interconnection customer’s interconnection 

facilities to accommodate a third-party request for interconnection service? 

If so, should the obligation apply to the original interconnection customer

or the transmission provider? Would such a modification be consistent 

with the roles and responsibilities established in the rest of the pro forma 

LGIA for whichever party the obligation applies to (i.e., either the original 

interconnection customer or the transmission provider)?

v. Are there other issues associated with third-party use of the interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities that would require other modifications 

to the pro forma LGIA? If so, what are the issues, and what would these 

modifications be? For example, as the term is defined in the pro forma

LGIA, interconnection facilities are “sole use” facilities. If the 

Commission were to rely on the interconnection rules and procedures to 

govern third party use of interconnection facilities, would we need to 

eliminate language in the LGIA/LGIP that refers to these as “sole use” 

facilities? If so, what would be the collateral consequences?

vi. In addition to the modifications to the pro forma LGIA/LGIP identified 

above, would there be benefit in the Commission developing other pro 

forma agreements to facilitate third-party access to the interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities (e.g., pro forma multi-party agency 

agreements, service agreements, cost-sharing agreements, etc.), or should 

those agreements be developed by the affected entities and reviewed by the 

Commission on a case-by-case basis?

vii. How would expanding the pro forma LGIA to govern third-party requests 

for service on the interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities

otherwise solve the concerns identified above? Are there other concerns 

with current Commission policy on access to interconnection customer’s

interconnection facilities that would remain under an LGIA/LGIP

framework? 

viii. Should there be a limit (e.g., with respect to voltage, capacity, or length) to 

the interconnection customer’s interconnection facilities that would qualify 

for treatment under the LGIA/LGIP framework discussed above?
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 33 -

ix. How would an LGIA/LGIP approach compare to the other options 

presented here in terms of commercial viability and removing barriers to 

the development of location-constrained generation?

42. The Commission also seeks comment on how priority rights to interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities for phased generation development would work 

within an LGIA/LGIP framework. In making a valid interconnection request under the 

pro forma LGIP, an interconnection customer must submit (1) a $10,000 deposit, (2) a 

completed application with detailed generator data (Appendix 1 of the LGIP), and (3) a 

demonstration of site control or post an additional deposit of $10,000.

78 Additionally, the 

LGIA stipulates various milestones that must be logged with dates for completion in 

Appendix B of the LGIA. If future generation phases are included in an initial request 

for interconnection service, then meeting these milestones as a means to demonstrate 

intended future use of the facilities would arguably be similar in substance to the 

Commission’s current policy of demonstrating plans and milestones to secure priority 

rights, though relying solely on the interconnection rules and procedures for securing 

priority rights would nevertheless be a different approach than the Commission’s current

policy of demonstrating plans and milestones. The LGIP stipulates that a generator with 

a higher queued interconnection request or an executed LGIA (or unexecuted LGIA that 

a party has requested be filed with the Commission) is included in the base case for any 

subsequent Interconnection Feasibility or System Impact Study.

79 So as long as the 

 78 LGIP section 3.3.1.

79 See LGIP section 6.2 and 7.3.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 34 -

initial interconnection request or executed LGIA includes later phases of a generation 

project, under the interconnection rules and procedures with a modified section 9.9.2 to 

include interconnection customer interconnection facilities, the generation developer 

would not risk losing its planned interconnection service simply because a third party 

also seeks to use the interconnection customer interconnection facilities. Rather, the full 

capacity of the original interconnection customer’s request, including capacity for future 

phases of generation if those are included in the original LGIA that was developed, is 

unavailable for use by any third party. This is currently how the transmission provider 

treats transmission provider interconnection facilities when it studies a new 

interconnection request. The Commission seeks comment, however, on whether this is a 

viable and fair approach for demonstrating and securing priority rights to capacity for 

phased generation projects. Specifically:

i. For generation projects that are built in phases, is it possible and/or typical 

to request the interconnection facilities be constructed in such a manner as 

to accommodate the capacity for future phases in an initial interconnection 

request and/or LGIA? How have developers been submitting 

interconnection requests and executing LGIAs for phased projects; i.e.,

have developers been including the capacity necessary for future generation 

phases in the initial interconnection request under LGIP?

ii. How would the LGIA/LGIP approach fit with the current standard of 

demonstrating plans and milestones on a case-by-case basis to receive 

priority rights for future phases of a generation project? Does the existing 

pro forma LGIA/LGIP contain a sufficiently clear procedure, e.g., in 

submitting and maintaining a valid interconnection request and meeting the 

milestones set forth in Appendix B, such that this procedure might serve a 

similar purpose as the current standard of demonstrating specific plans and 

milestones? 

iii. If no separate priority rights request for a generation developer to establish 
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 35 -

capacity rights for its interconnection facilities would be necessary, what 

are the benefits and/or drawbacks of such an approach?

iv. How would adopting an LGIA/LGIP framework otherwise affect 

generation developers seeking priority rights on their interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities for their phased generation projects? 

If the generation developer plans to eventually use currently unused 

capacity on interconnection facilities, should the pro forma LGIA be 

modified to require that capacity on interconnection facilities be made 

available for third-party use until the generation developer is ready to use 

that capacity? 

III. Comment Procedures

43. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters, 

issues and specific questions identified in this notice. Comments are due 60 days from 

publication in the Federal Register. Comments must refer to Docket No. AD12-14, and 

must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and 

their address in their comments.

44. 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.

45. Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an 

original and copy of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC, 20426.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 36 -

46. 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.

IV. Document Availability

47. 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 FERC's Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC'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.

48. From FERC'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 excluding the last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field.

49. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC’s website during normal 

business hours from FERC 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.

List of subjects in 18 C.F.R. Part 40
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 37 -

By direction of the Commission.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 38 -

Appendix A

List of Commenters and Participants in Docket No. AD11-11-000

Adam Wenner*

Allete, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota Power

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Anbaric Transmission (Anbaric)

BP Wind Energy North America (BP Wind)

California High Wind Partners (CAHW)

Clean Line Energy Partners (Clean Line)

Duke Energy (Duke)

Edison Mission Energy (Edison Mission)

Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA)

First Wind Holdings (First Wind)

Gradient Resources (Gradient)

Grasslands Renewable Energy (Grasslands)

Horizon Wind Energy LLC (Horizon)

Invenergy Wind & Invenergy Thermal (Invenergy)

LS Power Transmission (LS Power)

MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. (MidAmerican)

National Grid USA (National Grid)

NextEra Energy Resources (NextEra)

Northeast Utilities (Northeast)

Northwestern Energy (Northwestern)

Pattern Transmission (Pattern)

Puget Sound Energy (Puget)

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E )

Sempra Generation (Sempra)

Shell Wind Energy (Shell)

Southern California Edison (SCE)

Southern Co. (Southern)

Tonbridge Power (Tonbridge)

Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS)

Transmission Developers, Inc. (TDI)

United Illuminating Co. (United)

Western Independent Transmission Group (WITG) 

Zephyr Power Transmission (Zephyr)

*Comments filed after due date.
Docket Nos. AD12-14-000 and AD11-11-000 

- 39 -

Appendix B

Order No. 2003 addresses third party use of Transmission Provider Interconnection 

Facilities, which are those that are owned, controlled, or operated by the Transmission 

Provider. Order No. 2003 permits the interconnection customer to build, own, control,

and operate interconnection facilities, which are then defined as Interconnection 

Customer Interconnection Facilities under the LGIP/LGIA, but Order No. 2003 does not 

address third party use of Interconnection Customer Interconnection Facilities. With a 

goal of ensuring that a third party generator (G2 in the above schematic) may be able to 

interconnect to Interconnection Customer Interconnection Facilities that in some 

instances have been 30, 50, or even hundreds of miles long, the Commission has in a 

series of recent cases considered these Interconnection Customer Interconnection 

Facilities to be open access transmission facilities and required that the original developer 

(G1 in the above schematic) file an OATT within 60 days of a request for service on 

these facilities. In light of comments received, this NOI seeks feedback on whether the 

filing of an OATT, modifications to the LGIA/LGIP, or other means are better for 

addressing third-party access to facilities at issue here. 

G1

G2

Point of 

interconnection

Transmission 

Provider’s 

transmission 

system

Interconnection 

Customer 

Interconnection 

Facilities

Transmission 

Provider 

Substation

Interconnection 

Customer 

Substation

Transmission 

Provider 

Interconnection 

Facilities

Point of 

change of 

ownership