145 FERC ¶ 61,159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

18 CFR Part 35

[RM13-2-000; Order No. 792]

Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures

(Issued November 22, 2013)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission) is amending the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures 

(SGIP) and pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA) to: 

(1) incorporate provisions that provide an Interconnection Customer with the option of 

requesting from the Transmission Provider a pre-application report providing existing 

information about system conditions at a possible Point of Interconnection; (2) revise the 

2 megawatt (MW) threshold for participation in the Fast Track Process included in 

section 2 of the pro forma SGIP; (3) revise the customer options meeting and the 

supplemental review following failure of the Fast Track screens so that the supplemental 

review is performed at the discretion of the Interconnection Customer and includes 

minimum load and other screens to determine if a Small Generating Facility may be 

interconnected safely and reliably; (4) revise the pro forma SGIP Facilities Study 

Agreement to allow the Interconnection Customer the opportunity to provide written 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 

comments to the Transmission Provider on the upgrades required for interconnection; 

(5) revise the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA to specifically include energy 

storage devices; and (6) clarify certain sections of the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma

SGIA. The reforms should ensure interconnection time and costs for Interconnection 

Customers and Transmission Providers are just and reasonable and help remedy undue 

discrimination, while continuing to ensure safety and reliability. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective [INSERT DATE 60 days after 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie Kerr (Technical Information)

Office of Energy Policy and Innovation

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8540

Leslie.Kerr@ferc.gov

Monica Taba (Technical Information)

Office of Electric Reliability

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6789

Monica.Taba@ferc.gov

Christopher Kempley (Legal Information)

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8442

Christopher.Kempley@ferc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket No. RM13-2-000

145 FERC ¶ 61,159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before Commissioners: Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris,

 Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark.

Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and 

Procedures

Docket No. RM13-2-000

ORDER NO. 792

FINAL RULE

(Issued November 22, 2013)

Paragraph Numbers

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................1.

II. Background ...........................................................................................................................4.

A. Order No. 2006.................................................................................................................4.

B. Solar Energy Industries Association Petition and the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ............................................................................................................................10.

III. Need for Reform..................................................................................................................15.

A. Commission Proposal.......................................................................................................15.

B. Comments.........................................................................................................................16.

C. Commission Determination..............................................................................................21.

IV. Proposed Reforms ...............................................................................................................28.

A. Pre-Application Report ....................................................................................................28.

1. Commission Proposal ...................................................................................................28.

2. Need for a Pre-Application Report...............................................................................31.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................31.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................37.

3. Pre-Application Report Fee ..........................................................................................41.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................41.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................45.

4. Pre-Application Report Timeline .................................................................................47.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................47.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................51.

5. Pre-application Report Request Form ..........................................................................53.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................53.
Docket No. RM13-2-000

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................56.

6. Readily Available Information .....................................................................................57.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................57.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................63.

7. Other Issues ..................................................................................................................65.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................65.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................74.

B. Threshold for Participation in the Fast Track Process .....................................................83.

1. Commission Proposal ...................................................................................................83.

2. Comments.....................................................................................................................84.

3. Commission Determination..........................................................................................102.

C. Fast Track Customer Options Meeting and Supplemental Review .................................112.

1. Commission Proposal ...................................................................................................112.

2. General Comments on the Customer Options Meeting and the Supplemental 

Review ...............................................................................................................................114.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................114.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................118.

3. Minimum Load Screen (SGIP Section 2.4.4.1)............................................................119.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................119.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................142.

4. Voltage and Power Quality Screen and Safety and Reliability Screen (SGIP 

Sections 2.4.4.2 and 2.4.4.3)..............................................................................................150.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................150.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................157.

5. Supplemental Review Screen Order (SGIP Section 2.4.2) ..........................................163.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................163.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................165.

6. Supplemental Review Fee (SGIP Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.3) ........................................166.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................166.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................171.

7. Process Following Completion of the Customer Options Meeting and the 

Supplemental Review (SGIP Sections 2.3.1, 2.4.4 and 2.4.5) .........................................175.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................175.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................182.

D. Review of Required Upgrades .........................................................................................190.

1. Commission Proposal ...................................................................................................190.

2. Comments.....................................................................................................................191.

3. Commission Determination..........................................................................................204.

E. Revision to SGIA Section 1.5.4 Regarding Over and Under-Frequency Events.............211.

1. Commission Proposal ...................................................................................................211.

2. Comments.....................................................................................................................212.

3. Commission Determination..........................................................................................221.

F. Interconnection of Storage Devices..................................................................................223.
Docket No. RM13-2-000

1. Commission Proposal ...................................................................................................223.

2. Comments.....................................................................................................................224.

3. Commission Determination..........................................................................................228.

G. Other Issues......................................................................................................................233.

1. Network Resource Interconnection Service .................................................................233.

a. Commission Proposal...............................................................................................233.

b. Comments.................................................................................................................234.

c. Commission Determination......................................................................................236.

2. Hosting Capacity ..........................................................................................................238.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................238.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................244.

3. Jurisdiction....................................................................................................................245.

a. Comments.................................................................................................................245.

b. Commission Determination .....................................................................................247.

4. Miscellaneous...............................................................................................................250.

a. Commission Proposal...............................................................................................250.

b. Comments.................................................................................................................251.

c. Commission Determination......................................................................................258.

V. Compliance ...........................................................................................................................263.

A. Commission Proposal.......................................................................................................263.

B. Comments.........................................................................................................................266.

C. Commission Determination..............................................................................................270.

VI. Information Collection Statement .......................................................................................278.

VII. Environmental Analysis.....................................................................................................283.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis.................................................................................284.

IX. Document Availability ........................................................................................................286.

X. Effective Date and Congressional Notification....................................................................289.

Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Appendix B: Flow Chart for Interconnecting a Certified Small Generating Facility 

Using the “Fast Track Process”

Appendix C: Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIP

Appendix D: Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIA
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 1 -

I. Introduction

1. In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

amending the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) and 

pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA) to: (1) incorporate 

provisions that provide an Interconnection Customer with the option of requesting from 

the Transmission Provider a pre-application report providing existing information about 

system conditions at a possible Point of Interconnection; (2) revise the 2 megawatt (MW)

threshold for participation in the Fast Track Process included in section 2 of the 

pro forma SGIP; (3) revise the customer options meeting and the supplemental review 

following failure of the Fast Track screens so that the supplemental review is performed 

at the discretion of the Interconnection Customer and includes minimum load and other 

screens to determine if a Small Generating Facility may be interconnected safely and 

reliably; (4) revise the pro forma SGIP Facilities Study Agreement to allow the 

Interconnection Customer the opportunity to provide written comments to the 

Transmission Provider on the upgrades required for interconnection; (5) revise the 

pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA to specifically include energy storage devices; 

and (6) clarify certain sections of the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA. The 

reforms should ensure interconnection time and costs for Interconnection Customers and 

Transmission Providers are just and reasonable and help remedy undue discrimination,

while continuing to ensure safety and reliability. 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 2 -

2. Originally adopted in Order No. 2006,

1

the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma

SGIA establish the terms and conditions under which public utilities2 must provide 

interconnection service to Small Generating Facilities3of no more than 20 MW. Based 

on the record in this proceeding, the Commission finds it necessary under section 206 of 

the Federal Power Act4(FPA) to revise the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA to 

ensure that the rates, terms and conditions under which public utilities provide 

interconnection service to Small Generating Facilities remain just and reasonable and not 

unduly discriminatory. The Commission believes that taking these actions at this time is 

in the public interest. The Commission routinely evaluates the effectiveness of its 

regulations and policies in light of changing industry conditions to determine if reforms

are necessary to satisfy its statutory obligation of ensuring just and reasonable and not 

 

1

Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and 

Procedures, Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180, order on reh 'g, Order 

No. 2006-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,196 (2005), order on clarification, Order 

No. 2006-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,221 (2006).

2

For purposes of this Final Rule, a public utility is a utility that owns, controls, or 

operates facilities used for transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce, as defined 

by the FPA. See 16 U.S.C. 824(e) (2012). A non-public utility that seeks voluntary 

compliance with the reciprocity condition of an Open Access Transmission Tariff 

(OATT) may satisfy that condition by filing an OATT, which includes the pro forma

SGIP and the pro forma SGIA.

3 Capitalized terms used in this Final Rule have the meanings specified in the 

Glossaries of Terms or the text of the pro forma SGIP or SGIA. A Small Generating 

Facility is the device for which the Interconnection Customer has requested 

interconnection. The owner of the Small Generating Facility is the Interconnection 

Customer. The utility entity with which the Small Generating Facility is interconnecting 

is the Transmission Provider. 

4

16 U.S.C. 824e (2012).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 3 -

unduly discriminatory rates, terms and conditions of service. 5 As concerns generator 

interconnection, regions of the country are experiencing significant penetrations of small 

generation and increasing requests for small generator interconnection. In Order No. 

2006, the Commission anticipated the need to revisit its small generator interconnection 

regulations as the industry evolves, requesting stakeholders to convene informal meetings

“to consider and recommend consensus proposals for changes in the Commission’s rules 

for small generator interconnection.”6 The time is ripe to promulgate such changes in 

light of the increased penetration of small generator resources, the continued focus by 

states and others on the development of distributed resources,7and the need for this 

Commission to have its regulations and policies ensure just and reasonable rates, terms 

and conditions of service. 

3. The reforms we adopt largely track the proposals set forth in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking issued in this proceeding on January 17, 2013,8 with modifications 

 

5

See Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, Docket No. AD12-6-000, 

available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/retro-analysis/ferc-eo-13579.pdf. See 

also Integration of Variable Energy Resources, Order No. 764, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,331 (2012).

6 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 118.

7 Distributed resources are sources of electric power that are not directly connected 

to a bulk power transmission system. Distributed resources include both generators and 

energy storage technologies. (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

Standard 1547 for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems, 

p. 3).

8

Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, 78 Fed. Reg. 

7524 (Feb. 1, 2013) (NOPR), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 (2013).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 4 -

to address suggestions and concerns raised in comments. Among other things, the 

Commission has revised aspects of the pre-application report requirement, the Fast Track 

eligibility threshold, and the supplemental review requirement to balance the interests of 

the Interconnection Customer with those of the Transmission Provider. With these 

modifications, the Commission concludes that the package of reforms adopted in this 

Final Rule will reduce the time and cost to process small generator interconnection 

requests for Interconnection Customers and Transmission Providers, maintain reliability, 

increase energy supply, and remove barriers to the development of new energy resources. 

This fulfills our statutory obligation to ensure that rates, terms and conditions for 

Commission-jurisdictional services are just and reasonable and not unduly 

discriminatory, as sections 205 and 206 of the FPA require.9

II. Background

A. Order No. 2006

4. In Order No. 2006, the Commission established a pro forma SGIP and SGIA for 

the interconnection of generation resources no larger than 20 MW, continuing the process 

begun in Order No. 200310 of standardizing the terms and conditions of Commissionjurisdictional interconnection service. The Commission adopted the pro forma SGIA and 

 

9

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

10 Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, 

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

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

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

¶ 31,190 (2005), aff'd sub nom. Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v. FERC, 475 

F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1230 (2008).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 5 -

the pro forma SGIP to respond to business and technology changes in the electric 

industry. Where the electric industry was once primarily the domain of vertically 

integrated utilities generating power at large centralized plants, the Commission noted in 

Order No. 2006 that advances in technology had created a burgeoning market for small 

power plants that may offer economic, reliability or environmental benefits.11

5. The pro forma SGIP describes how an Interconnection Customer’s 

interconnection request (application) should be evaluated, and includes three alternative 

procedures for evaluating an interconnection request. These procedures include the 

Study Process, which can be used by any generating facility with a capacity no larger 

than 20 MW, and two procedures that use certain technical screens to quickly identify

any safety or reliability issues associated with proposed interconnections: (1) the Fast 

Track Process for certified12 Small Generating Facilities no larger than 2 MW; and (2) the 

10 kilowatt (kW) Inverter Process for certified inverter-based13 Small Generating 

Facilities no larger than 10 kW.

 

11 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 9.

12 See Attachments 3 and 4 of the pro forma SGIP, which specify the codes, 

standards, and certification requirements that Small Generating Facilities must meet. 

Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180.

13 An inverter is a device that converts the direct current (DC) voltage and current 

of a DC generator to alternating voltage and current. For example, the output of a solar 

panel is DC. The solar panel’s output must be converted by an inverter to alternating 

current (AC) before it can be interconnected with a utility’s AC electric system. Such 

inverters, particularly newer inverters, often incorporate additional power electronics that 

can provide other safety or power quality functions.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 6 -

6. The Study Process in section 3 of the pro forma SGIP, which can be used by any 

generating facility with a capacity no larger than 20 MW, is used to evaluate small 

generator interconnection requests that do not qualify for either the Fast Track Process or 

the 10 kW Inverter Process. The Study Process is similar to the process under the Large 

Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP) set forth in Order No. 2003. The Study 

Process normally consists of a scoping meeting, a feasibility study, a system impact 

study, and a facilities study. These studies identify any adverse system impacts14 that 

must be addressed before the Small Generating Facility may be interconnected as well as 

any equipment modifications that may be required to accommodate the interconnection. 

Once the Interconnection Customer agrees to fund any needed upgrades, an SGIA is 

executed that, among other things, formalizes responsibility for construction and payment 

for interconnection facilities and upgrades.15

7. The Fast Track Process eliminates the scoping meeting and three interconnection 

studies and instead uses technical screens to quickly identify reliability or safety issues. 

If the proposed interconnection passes the screens, the Transmission Provider offers the 

Interconnection Customer an SGIA without further study. If the proposed 

interconnection fails the screens, but the Transmission Provider nevertheless determines 

that the Small Generating Facility may be interconnected without affecting safety and 

 

14 An adverse system impact means that technical or operational limits on 

conductors or equipment are exceeded under the interconnection, which may compromise 

the safety or reliability of the electric system.

15 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 44.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 7 -

reliability, the Transmission Provider provides the Interconnection Customer with an 

SGIA. If the Transmission Provider does not or cannot determine that the Small 

Generating Facility may be interconnected without affecting safety and reliability, the 

Transmission Provider offers the Interconnection Customer the opportunity to attend a 

customer options meeting to discuss how to proceed. In that meeting, the Transmission 

Provider must: (1) offer to perform facility modifications or minor modifications to the 

Transmission Provider’s system (e.g., changing meters, fuses, relay settings) that would 

allow interconnection and provide a non-binding good faith estimate of the cost to make 

such modifications; (2) offer to perform a supplemental review if the Transmission 

Provider concludes that the supplemental review might determine that the Small 

Generating Facility could continue to qualify for interconnection pursuant to the Fast 

Track Process, where such supplemental review is paid for by the Interconnection 

Customer, and provide a non-binding good faith estimate of the cost of that review;16or 

(3) obtain the Interconnection Customer’s agreement to continue evaluating the 

interconnection request under the Study Process. If the Transmission Provider 

determines in the supplemental review that the Small Generating Facility can be 

interconnected safely and reliably and the Interconnection Customer agrees to pay for any 

upgrades identified in the supplemental review, the Transmission Provider and the 

Interconnection Customer execute an SGIA. If, after the supplemental review, the 

 

16 The purpose of the supplemental review is to determine if the Small Generating 

Facility can be interconnected safely and reliably, however, the pro forma SGIP does not 

include details regarding how the Transmission Provider is to perform the supplemental 

review.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 8 -

Transmission Provider still is unable to determine that the proposed interconnection 

would not degrade the safety and reliability of its electric system, the interconnection 

request is evaluated using the Study Process.

8. The 10 kW Inverter Process is available for the interconnection of certified 

inverter-based generators no larger than 10 kW. The 10 kW Inverter Process includes a 

simplified application form, interconnection procedures, and a brief set of terms and 

conditions (rather than a separate interconnection agreement). The 10 kW Inverter 

Process uses the same technical screens as the Fast Track Process. If the results of the 

analysis using the technical screens indicate that the generator can be interconnected 

safely and reliably, the interconnection application is approved. To simplify the 10 kW 

Inverter Process, the Interconnection Customer agrees to the terms and conditions of the 

interconnection at the time the interconnection request is made.17

9. The ten technical screens used in the Fast Track and 10 kW Inverter Processes are 

included in section 2.2.1 of the pro forma SGIP. The screen in section 2.2.1.2 of the 

pro forma SGIP, which is referred to in this Final Rule as the 15 Percent Screen, will be 

discussed at some length below:

For interconnection of a proposed Small Generating Facility to a radial 

distribution circuit, the aggregated generation, including the proposed Small 

Generating Facility, on the circuit shall not exceed 15 [percent] of the line section 

annual peak load as most recently measured at the substation. A line section is 

that portion of a Transmission Provider’s electric system connected to a customer 

bounded by automatic sectionalizing devices or the end of the distribution line.

 

17 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 46.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 9 -

B. Solar Energy Industries Association Petition and the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking

10. On February 16, 2012, pursuant to sections 205 and 206 of the FPA and Rule 207 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure,18 and noting that the Commission 

encouraged stakeholders to submit proposed revisions to the regulations set forth in Order 

No. 2006, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) filed a Petition to Initiate 

Rulemaking (Petition) requesting that the Commission revise the pro forma SGIA and 

SGIP set forth in Order No. 2006.19 In its Petition, SEIA asserted that the pro forma

SGIP and SGIA as applied to small solar generation are no longer just and reasonable, 

have become unduly discriminatory, and present unreasonable barriers to market entry.20 

SEIA noted that its Petition applies exclusively to solar electric generation due to its 

unique characteristics.21

11. On February 28, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of Petition for Rulemaking 

in Docket No. RM12-10-000, seeking public comment on SEIA’s Petition. The 

Commission received a number of comments, protests, and answers in response.

12. On July 17, 2012, the Commission convened a technical conference in Docket 

Nos. RM12-10-000 and AD12-17-000 in order to discuss issues related to SEIA’s 

 

18 18 CFR 385.207 (2013).

19 SEIA Petition at 4 (citing Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at 

P 118). 

20 Id. at 12.

21 Id. at 4 (explaining that solar generation occurs only during daylight hours when 

peak load typically occurs, and solar photovoltaic technology utilizes inverters with builtin functions that protect the safety and reliability of the electric system).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 10 -

Petition. The Commission received nine post-technical conference comments, including 

clarifying comments from SEIA. 

13. On January 17, 2013, the Commission issued the NOPR in this proceeding, 

proposing a package of reforms to the pro forma SGIA and the pro forma SGIP.

22

 

Commission staff held a workshop on March 27, 2013, at which stakeholders discussed 

the NOPR proposals. In addition to the Commission staff workshop, some stakeholders 

formed a stakeholder working group (SWG) to develop revisions to the NOPR 

proposals.23 Comments on the NOPR as well as comments generated by the Commission 

staff workshop were due June 3, 2013. The Commission received thirty-three timely 

comments, four comments out of time and two reply comments out of time.24

14. The stakeholders that participated in the SWG indicated in their comments that the 

SWG came to agreement on certain revisions to the proposals for the pre-application 

report and the threshold for participation in the Fast Track Process. The National Rural 

Electric Cooperative Association, Edison Electric Institute and the American Public 

Power Association (NRECA, EEI & APPA), the Interstate Renewable Energy Council 

(IREC), SEIA, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) submitted SWG

proposed revisions with their comments.

 

22 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697. While SEIA’s Petition was specific to 

small solar generation, the NOPR included all Small Generating Facilities.

23 The SWG included EEI, NRECA, APPA, IREC, SEIA, NREL, and other 

stakeholders. 

24 See Appendix A, List of Short Names of Commenters on the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 11 -

III. Need for Reform

A. Commission Proposal

15. In light of changes in the energy industry since the issuance of Order No. 2006, 

and based on the comments submitted in response to the SEIA Petition and the July 17, 

2012 Technical Conference, the Commission preliminarily found that proposed reforms 

were needed to ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions of interconnection service for 

Small Generating Facilities are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential.25 In particular, the Commission cited the growth in grid-connected solar

photovoltaic (PV) generation since the issuance of Order No. 2006 and the growth in 

small generator interconnection requests driven by state renewable portfolio standards as 

the impetus for re-examining the pro forma SGIP.26 The Commission reasoned that if 

generation penetration levels are causing projects to fail the 15 Percent Screen, the screen 

should be re-examined to determine if revisions could be made to allow projects to 

continue to participate in the less costly and time-consuming Fast Track Process while 

maintaining the safety and reliability of the Transmission Provider’s system.27 Further, 

the Commission noted that in addition to the proposed reforms applying to Commissionjurisdictional interconnections, the Commission intended that the proposed reforms serve 

as a model for state interconnection rules.28 

 

25 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 18.

26 Id. P 20.

27 Id. P 22.

28 Id. P 23.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 12 -

B. Comments

16. Many commenters support the Commission's proposed reforms.29 Commenters 

state that the recent rapid growth in small generators and expected significant growth in 

coming years, driven by public policies such as state renewable portfolio standards, 

requires revising the SGIP and SGIA.30 For example, Public Interest Organizations31

note that state solar initiatives are resulting in penetrations of distributed generation in 

excess of 15 percent on some line sections32 and that the public policies driving the 

increase in Small Generating Facilities, together with lower prices for solar panels, smart 

 

29 See, e.g., American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) at 2-3; Clean Coalition 

at 2; ClearEdge Power (CEP) at 1-2; ComRent International (ComRent) at 1; Community 

Renewable Energy Association (CREA) at 1-2; Office of the People’s Counsel for the 

District of Columbia (DCOPC) at 1; Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) at 1; 

ELCON at 3; Electricity Storage Association (ESA) at 3; Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy 

Association (FCHEA) at 1-2; Max Hensley at 1-2; Industrial Energy Consumers of 

America (IECA) at 4; IREC at 2; NRG at 2; Public Interest Organizations at 6-9; SEIA at 

1; Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) at 3, 8-9; and Lucia Villaran at 1-2.

30 IREC at 3 (citing Solar Electric Power Association, 2012 SEPA Utility Solar 

Rankings Executive Summary 2 (2013)), available at

http://www.solarelectricpower.org/media/279520/sepa-top-10-executive-summary_finalv2.pdf); AWEA at 3; DCOPC at 3-4; ELCON at 5; NRG at 2; Public Interest 

Organizations at 3-4, 6-9; and UCS at 9.

31 The Center for Rural Affairs, Climate + Energy Project, Conservation Law 

Foundation, Energy Future Coalition, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law 

& Policy Center, Environment Northeast, Fresh Energy, Great Plains Institute, National 

Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Coalition, Pace 

Energy and Climate Center, Piedmont Environmental Council, Sierra Club, Southern 

Alliance for Clean Energy, Southern Environmental Law Center, Sustainable FERC 

Project, Union of Concerned Scientists, Utah Clean Energy, Western Grid Group, 

Western Resource Advocates, The Wilderness Society and Wind on the Wires are 

referred to collectively as Public Interest Organizations in this Final Rule.

32 Public Interest Organizations at 4-5.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 13 -

grid enhancements and other factors, have “given rise to barriers like lengthy 

interconnection queues and a lack of transparency about system conditions.”33 Public 

Interest Organizations believe that these facts clearly demonstrate the need to reconsider 

the SGIP and to enact the proposed reforms to reduce the time and cost of processing the 

increasing volume of distributed generation projects.34 IREC and SEIA similarly assert 

that reforming the SGIP and SGIA is essential to support the continued growth of the 

wholesale market for solar and other distributed resources.35 Public Interest 

Organizations go on to state that:

The increased volume of applications along with the higher 

penetration levels that will result from these policy changes 

necessitate updating SGIP to enable providers to continue processing 

applications efficiently and without imposing unnecessary financial 

or regulatory hurdles to [distributed generation] development. Since 

in some instances existing SGIP act as regulatory barriers to further 

reliable deployment of [distributed generation] resources, the SGIP 

have become unduly discriminatory and can no longer be assumed to 

be just and reasonable.36

17. CREA and ESA support the effort to reform the SGIP and assert that the current 

system results in delays and unnecessarily increases project costs. AWEA and ELCON37

 

33 Id. at 1.

34 Id. at 5-9.

35 IREC at 4 and SEIA at 1.

36 Public Interest Organizations at 5.

37 The Electricity Consumers Resource Council, American Chemistry Council, 

American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, CHP 

Association and Council of Industrial Boiler Owners are collectively referred to as 

ELCON in this Final Rule.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 14 -

similarly state that the proposed reforms ensure that small generator interconnection 

requests are processed in a just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory manner.38

18. International Transmission Company (ITC) supports streamlining the SGIP in 

ways that maintain safety and reliability.39 

19. Independent System Operators (ISO) and Regional Transmission Organizations 

(RTO) generally support the NOPR objectives,

40 but request, in recognition of regional 

differences and existing ISO/RTO interconnection processes, that they be allowed to 

meet those objectives under either the independent entity variation standard41or the

regional differences standard.

42

 Similarly, the National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners (NARUC) supports the Commission’s efforts to update the pro forma

 

38 AWEA at 2 and ELCON at 3.

39 ITC at 6.

40 CAISO at 1, 9; IRC at 1; ISO-NE at 8, 15; MISO at 4-5; NYISO & NYTO at 2; 

and PJM at 1, 3-4.

41 CAISO at 2 and 7 and NYISO & NYTO at 4, 24-25. The independent entity 

variation is a balanced approach that provides RTOs and ISOs greater flexibility to 

customize their interconnection procedures and agreements to accommodate regional 

needs. It recognizes that an RTO or ISO has differing operating characteristics 

depending on its size and location and is less likely to act in an unduly discriminatory 

manner than a Transmission Provider that is also a market participant. See Order 

No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at PP 822-827.

42 ISO-NE at 2, 5-7; PJM at 4; and IRC at 1, 3-6. A regional differences standard 

would allow variations based on regional differences resulting from regional 

interconnection standards or reliability requirements. For non-independent Transmission 

Providers, Order No. 2006 recognizes regional reliability variations based on established 

regional reliability requirements when supported by reference to established regional 

reliability requirements and including the text of the reliability requirement. See Order 

No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 546. 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 15 -

SGIP and SGIA, but requests flexibility in the revisions to account for regional 

differences.

43

 NARUC also states that the reforms should not impinge on successful state 

interconnection procedures.44

20. NRECA, EEI & APPA believe that the pro forma SGIP and SGIA adopted in 

Order No. 2006 continue to be just and reasonable and strike a fair balance between the 

competing goals of uniformity and flexibility while ensuring safety and reliability.45 

NRECA, EEI & APPA further assert that the current record cannot support a finding that 

existing Order No. 2006 procedures are unjust, unreasonable or unduly preferential, nor 

can the record support a finding that the Commission’s proposals are just and reasonable, 

not unduly preferential, or would not impair reliability or safety.46 Specifically, NRECA, 

EEI & APPA contend that before modifications to the Fast Track Process are considered, 

there must be evidence to suggest that the 15 Percent Screen no longer serves to 

adequately reduce interconnection costs and time compared to the full Study Process. 

They further argue that there also must be evidence showing that higher penetrations of 

generation can be safely and reliably accommodated without the need for the Study 

Process.47 They also believe, however, that the pro forma SGIP and SGIA can be revised 

to enable the growth of renewable energy while continuing to facilitate jurisdictional 

 

43 NARUC at 10.

44 Id.

45 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 9.

46 Id. at 10.

47 Id. at 11.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 16 -

interconnections in a just and reasonable manner and to benefit consumers and other 

stakeholders.48 

C. Commission Determination

21. The Commission is persuaded to adopt its proposed revisions to the pro forma

SGIP and the pro forma SGIA, as modified herein.49 Without these reforms, the 

continued growth in Small Generating Facilities could cause inefficient interconnection 

queue backlogs and require some Small Generating Facilities to undergo the more costly 

Study Process when they could be interconnected under the Fast Track Process safely and 

reliably. Costs resulting from such inefficiencies in the interconnection process would

ultimately be borne by consumers. The record in this proceeding does not refute the

nature of the changes now occurring and expected to continue.

22. For example, approximately 3,300 MW of grid-connected PV capacity were 

installed in the U.S. in 2012,50 compared to 79 MW in 2005, the year Order No. 2006 was 

issued.51 The cumulative capacity of U.S. distributed PV is projected to double from 

 

48 Id. at 1, 10. Duquesne Light supports the comments submitted by NRECA, 

EEI & APPA. (Duquesne Light at 3.)

49 The Commission concludes that the revisions to the pro forma SGIP and pro 

forma SGIA adopted herein were reasonably foreseeable based on the NOPR, the March 

2013 workshop and the comments received on the NOPR.

50 Sherwood, Larry, U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012 at 4, available at 

http://www.irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Solar-Report-Final-July-2013-1.pdf.

51 U.S. Solar Market Insight Report, 2012 Year in Review, Executive Summary 

Table 2.1, available at http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight2012-year-in-review.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 17 -

mid-2013 to the end of 2015.52 Similarly, installed wind generation with a capacity of 

20 MW or less has increased in the contiguous United States from 1,185 MW in 2005 to 

2,961 MW in 2012.53 The growth in Small Generating Facilities is leading to an increase 

in small generator interconnection requests. In the NOPR, the Commission cited 

Commission filings that referenced higher volumes of small generator interconnection 

requests.54 In its comments, IREC cited an unprecedented level of small solar 

interconnections.55 

23. As noted by some commenters56 and as the Commission noted in the NOPR, state 

renewable portfolio standards are driving small generator interconnection requests.57 As 

of March 2013, 29 states and the District of Columbia had renewable portfolio standards,

 

52 See Lacey, Stephen, Chart: 2/3rds of Global Solar PV Has Been Installed in the 

Last 2.5 Years, available at http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/chart-2-3rdsof-global-solar-pv-has-been-connected-in-the-last-2.5-years.

53 SNL Financial, Power Plant Summary (2013).

54 See, e.g., Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 133 FERC ¶ 61,223, at P 3 (2010) 

(stating that an increasing volume of small generator interconnection requests had created 

inefficiencies); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 135 FERC ¶ 61,094, at P 4 (2011) (stating that 

increased small generator interconnection requests resulted in a backlog of 170 requests 

over three years); PJM Interconnection, LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,079, at P 12 (2012) (stating 

that smaller projects comprised 66 percent of recent queue volume).

55 IREC at 3 (citing Becky Campbell & Mike Taylor, 2011 Solar Electric Power 

Association Utility Solar Rankings at 7 (May 2012)).

56 Public Interest Organizations at 3-5; IREC at 2; UCS at 3; and DCOPC at 3. 

57 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 20.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 18 -

and an additional eight states had renewable portfolio goals.58 Some state renewable 

portfolio standards include increasing percentages of renewable energy resources over 

time, which will lead to increasing penetrations of these resources. Some states have also 

adopted goals and policies to promote distributed generation.59 Commenters also 

attribute the increase in PV to a decline in capital costs.60 Installed costs for distributed 

PV installations fell by approximately 12 percent from 2011 to 2012, and have fallen 

33 percent since 2009.61 

24. The needs of Small Generating Facility developers, however, must be balanced 

against the concerns of the Transmission Providers, and the Commission has taken these 

concerns into consideration in developing this Final Rule. For example, the Commission 

notes that this Final Rule does not modify the 15 Percent Screen or any of the existing 

Fast Track screens. Rather, the Commission modifies the optional supplemental review 

process following failure of any of the Fast Track screens to include three supplemental 

review screens. In regions of the country where penetration levels are not high enough to 

cause Interconnection Customers to fail the 15 Percent Screen, Transmission Providers 

 

58 See Dep’t of Energy, IREC & North Carolina Solar Center, Renewable Portfolio 

Standard Policies (2013), available at

http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/RPS_map.pdf.

59 See Dep’t of Energy, IREC & North Carolina Solar Center, Renewable Portfolio 

Standard Policies with Solar/Distributed Generation Provisions (2013), available at

http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/Solar_DG_RPS_map.pdf.

60 VSI at 1-2 and Public Interest Organizations at 1.

61 Sherwood, Larry, U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012 at 2, available at

http://www.irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Solar-Report-Final-July-2013-1.pdf.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 19 -

will generally continue to evaluate the penetration level of generation based on the 

15 Percent Screen. However, in regions of the country where the 15 Percent Screen is 

causing Interconnection Customers to fail the Fast Track screens, the revised 

supplemental review will offer an opportunity to continue to be evaluated under the Fast 

Track Process. 

25. The Commission therefore finds that our actions in this Final Rule are consistent 

with the standards that the court set forth in National Fuel v. FERC62 and therefore 

disagrees with EEI, NRECA, and APPA that the existing record does not support the 

finding that the current SGIP and SGIA are unjust, unreasonable and unduly 

discriminatory. In the terminology of National Fuel, we find that a theoretical threat 

exists and we show herein how this threat justifies the costs that this Final Rule would 

create.63 We conclude that, in light of the increasing small generator interconnection 

requests referenced in Commission filings64 and in this proceeding,

65 the state renewable

 

62 468 F.3d 831, 839-44 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (National Fuel).

63 Id. at 844.

64 See, e.g., Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 133 FERC ¶ 61,223, at P 3 (2010) 

(stating that an increasing volume of small generator interconnection requests had created 

inefficiencies); Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 135 FERC ¶ 61,094, at P 4 (2011) (stating that 

increased small generator interconnection requests resulted in a backlog of 170 requests 

over three years); PJM Interconnection, LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,079, at P 12 (2012) (stating 

that smaller projects comprised 66 percent of recent queue volume).

65 IREC at 3, citing Becky Campbell & Mike Taylor, 2011 Solar Electric Power 

Association Utility Solar Rankings at 7 (May 2012).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 20 -

portfolio standards driving these requests,66 and the growth in solar PV installations,67 the 

reforms adopted herein are necessary to correct operational practices that can 

unnecessarily limit, and increase the cost of,68 Commission-jurisdictional 

interconnections under the SGIP and SGIA. The Commission believes that adopting the 

reforms in this Final Rule will reduce the time and cost to process small generator 

interconnection requests for Interconnection Customers and Transmission Providers

alike.

26. Specifically, as discussed above, the Commission believes that the current SGIP 

and SGIA inhibit the continued growth in Small Generating Facilities and cause 

unnecessary costs to be passed on to consumers. We agree with commenters that assert 

that the proposed reforms are necessary to avoid delays and unnecessary project costs 

(e.g., under the SGIP originally adopted in Order No. 2006, generators that could be 

 

66 As noted above, as of March 2013, 29 states and the District of Columbia had 

renewable portfolio standards, and an additional eight states had renewable portfolio 

goals. See supra P 23.

67 As noted above, approximately 3,300 MW of grid-connected PV capacity were 

installed in the U.S. in 2012 compared to 79 MW in 2005. Further, the cumulative 

capacity of U.S. distributed PV is projected to double from mid-2013 to the end of 2015. 

See supra P 22. 

68 E.g., some of the reforms adopted herein are intended to increase the number of 

Small Generating Facilities that may be interconnected under the Fast Track Process 

rather than the Study Process. The cost to be evaluated under the pro forma SGIP Fast 

Track Process (without supplemental review) is $500. Under the pro forma SGIP Study 

Process, the Interconnection Customer must pay a deposit not to exceed $1,000 toward 

the cost of the feasibility study with its interconnection request and pay the actual cost of 

any required studies (normally a feasibility study, a system impact study, and a facilities 

study). 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 21 -

interconnected safely and reliably under the Fast Track Process are required to undergo 

the more costly and time-consuming Study Process).69 Hence, we conclude that such 

delays and increased project costs are likely without the reforms proposed herein and that 

this threat is significant enough to justify the reforms imposed by this Final Rule. The 

threat is not one that can be addressed adequately or efficiently through the adjudication 

of individual complaints.70 The remedy we adopt is justified sufficiently by the 

theoretical threat identified herein and based on the comments received, the identified 

theoretical threat represents a reasonable prediction of future market conditions.71

27. As acknowledged in the NOPR, the need for implementation of the reforms may 

not be uniform across the country.

72 The reforms adopted in this Final Rule will likely 

have a greater impact on Transmission Providers in areas with a significant penetration of 

distributed resources and a larger number of small generator interconnection requests.73 

 

69 See supra P 17.

70 Individual adjudications by their nature focus on discrete questions of a specific 

case. Rules setting forth general principles are necessary to ensure that adequate 

processes are in place.

71 See, e.g., Black Oak Energy, LLC v. FERC, Nos. 08-1386, 11-1275, 12-1286, 

2013 WL 3988709, at *8 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 6, 2013) (stating “[W]e defer to reasonable and 

cogent explanations of predictable economic outcomes, even in the absence of 

retrospective data”); Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. v. FERC, 616 F.3d 520, 542 (D.C. Cir. 

2010); Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FERC, 551 F.3d 1042, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 2008); 

Envtl. Action, Inc. v. FERC, 939 F.2d 1057, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (stating, “[I]t is within 

the scope of the agency’s expertise to make ... a prediction about the market it regulates, 

and a reasonable prediction deserves ... deference notwithstanding that there might also 

be another reasonable view”).

72 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 24.

73 Id. at P 4.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 22 -

The Commission believes that this Final Rule balances the needs of Small Generating 

Facilities and public utility Transmission Providers, while providing flexibility to 

different regions of the country. Moreover, to further accommodate regional differences 

and in response to the comments submitted by RTOs and ISOs, the Commission is 

allowing independent Transmission Providers to comply with this Final Rule under the 

independent entity variation standard or the regional differences standard, consistent with 

the approach adopted in Order No. 2006.

74

 Finally, we affirm that it is not our intent in 

this Final Rule to interfere with state interconnection procedures and agreements in any 

way. Similar to our approach in Order No. 2006,75 our hope is that states may find this 

rule helpful in formulating or updating their own interconnection rules, but states are 

under no obligation to adopt the provisions of this Final Rule.

IV. Proposed Reforms

A. Pre-Application Report

1. Commission Proposal

28. According to the reforms included in the NOPR, Transmission Providers would be 

required to provide Interconnection Customers the option to request a pre-application 

report that would contain readily available information about system conditions at a Point 

of Interconnection in order to help that customer select the best site for its Small 

Generating Facility. The Commission proposed the pre-application report to promote 

transparency and efficiency in the interconnection process and to provide information to 

 

74 See infra section V.

75 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,380 at P 8.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 23 -

Interconnection Customers about system conditions at a particular Point of 

Interconnection.76 

29. To the extent available, the proposed pre-application report would include the 

following items: 

a. Total capacity and available capacity of the facilities that serve the Point of 

Interconnection;

b. Existing and queued generation at the facilities likely serving the Point of 

Interconnection;

c. Voltage of the facilities that serve the Point of Interconnection;

d. Circuit distance between the proposed Point of Interconnection and the 

substation likely to serve the Point of Interconnection (Substation);

e. Number and rating of protective devices and number and type of voltage 

regulating devices between the proposed Point of Interconnection and the 

Substation;

f. Number of phases available at the proposed Point of Interconnection;

g. Limiting conductor ratings from the proposed Point of Interconnection to the 

Substation;

h. Peak and minimum load data; and 

i. Existing or known constraints associated with the Point of Interconnection.

 

76 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 26.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 24 -

30. The Commission proposed a non-refundable $300 fee for the pre-application 

report and required that the report be provided within 10 business days of the initial 

request.77 The Commission proposed that the pre-application report would only include 

information already available to the Transmission Provider.78 Additionally, the proposed 

revisions to the pro forma SGIP, which were attached to the NOPR, state that “The preapplication report request does not obligate the Transmission Provider to conduct a study 

or other analysis of the proposed generator in the event that data is not readily 

available.”79

2. Need for a Pre-Application Report

a. Comments

31. Many commenters support the concept of a pre-application report.80 The 

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) supports the pre-application report and 

states that it will increase transparency and efficiency, reduce costs, and provide 

necessary information to Interconnection Customers.81 Other commenters assert that the 

pre-application report is critical for developers to determine the best Points of 

Interconnection because it will eliminate some of the uncertainties involved in the 

 

77 Id. at P 28 and proposed pro forma SGIP at section 1.2.2.

78 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 27. 

79 Id., Appendix C, SGIP section 1.2.4.

80 NREL at 2; Clean Coalition at 3; CPUC at 4; CREA at 2; DCOPC at 4; Duke 

Energy at 3; ELCON at 4; FCHEA at 1; IECA at 4; LES at 1; NRECA, EEI & APPA at 

6; and NRG at 5.

81 CPUC at 5.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 25 -

interconnection process and thus reduce developer costs and schedule delays.82 FCHEA 

states that the pre-application report will alert a project developer to potential issues at a 

Point of Interconnection prior to making a significant financial commitment.83 

32. A number of commenters state that the pre-application report will likely reduce the 

number of interconnection requests submitted to Transmission Providers because 

developers frequently submit multiple interconnection requests for a single project in an 

effort to determine the most advantageous Point of Interconnection.84 Similarly, IREC 

and SEIA contend that a pre-application report would benefit Transmission Providers by 

reducing the volume of interconnection requests that are either non-viable or difficult to 

accommodate.85 Finally, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) and SEIA state that the 

pre-application report will foster communication between developers and Transmission 

Providers and will improve the interconnection process.86 

33. Several RTOs and ISOs,87 however, contend that they already offer various 

opportunities for Interconnection Customers to ask questions and request information that 

is similar to the information in the pre-application report. These commenters state that 

 

82 CEP at 1; CREA at 2; DCOPC at 4; Duke Energy at 3; IREC at 9; NRG at 4; 

and Public Interest Organizations at 9.

83 FCHEA at 1.

84 AWEA at 3-4; CREA at 2; IREC at 9; ITC at 8; and NRG at 5.

85 IREC at 9 and SEIA at 10.

86 Sandia at 2 and SEIA at 12.

87 ISO-NE, MISO, PJM, and NYISO.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 26 -

information related to the type, amount and location of interconnected and pending 

projects and studies is readily available by phone, on their websites, or through their 

Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) process.88 ISO New England (ISO-NE)

asserts that there is no indication that the information it currently makes available to 

Interconnection Customers is insufficient.89

34. Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) states that its existing 

procedures, including a pre-application meeting, may be more effective than the proposed 

pre-application report procedures.90 MISO asserts that a pre-application meeting 

achieves the same goals of transparency and data sharing without the cost and inefficient 

expenditure of resources that a pre-application report would require.91 MISO further 

asserts that requiring the Transmission Provider to contact the Transmission Owner to 

collect information may be inefficient and that permitting the Interconnection Customer 

to directly contact the Transmission Owner may be more efficient.92

35. The California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) states that it 

supports the provision of a pre-application report, but in some cases the pre-application 

report information is only available from the participating Transmission Owner and in 

 

88 ISO-NE at 8; MISO at 5-6; NYISO & NYTO at 13-14; and PJM at 5.

89 ISO-NE at 8.

90 MISO at 4 (referencing section 6.1 of MISO’s Generator Interconnection 

Procedure).

91 Id. at 5.

92 Id. at 5-6.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 27 -

other cases it does not exist for networked transmission systems. CAISO requests that 

the Commission allow ISOs and RTOs to provide a pre-application report that is 

appropriate to interconnecting to a networked transmission system, such as existing and 

queued generation not at the same Point of Interconnection but affected by the same 

transmission constraints.93 

36. San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company and 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (California Utilities) state that larger interconnection 

projects should be required to obtain a pre-application report because it will increase the 

likelihood that these projects will select Points of Interconnection that qualify for Fast 

Track evaluation.94

b. Commission Determination

37. The Commission concludes that providing the Interconnection Customer with the 

opportunity to request the pre-application report will benefit the interconnection process 

by helping Interconnection Customers make more informed siting decisions and may 

diminish the practice of requesting multiple interconnection requests for a single project, 

which benefits both Transmission Providers and Interconnection Customers. As such, 

the Commission adopts its proposal to require the Transmission Provider to provide 

Interconnection Customers with the opportunity to request a pre-application report, as 

modified herein.

 

93 CAISO at 4.

94 California Utilities at 4.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 28 -

38. While the Commission appreciates that some Transmission Providers may already 

make available some of the information in the pre-application report, commenters suggest 

that this information may not be available from all Transmission Providers. Therefore, 

the Commission finds it just and reasonable to include the pre-application report in the 

pro forma SGIP. 

39. With regard to MISO’s assertion that requiring the Transmission Provider to 

contact the Transmission Owner to collect information may be less efficient than 

permitting the Interconnection Customer to directly contact the Transmission Owner, we 

note that the Transmission Provider is generally the point of contact for the 

Interconnection Customer that coordinates the various SGIP processes (e.g., 

interconnection requests and the studies in the section 3 Study Process). As such, the 

Transmission Provider is expected to coordinate with the Transmission Owner and the 

Interconnection Customer, so we are not persuaded that we should adopt SGIP language 

requiring the Interconnection Customer to contact the Transmission Owner directly in the 

case of the pre-application report. 

40. Finally, with regard to MISO’s comment that its existing pre-application 

procedures may be more effective than the pre-application report proposed in the NOPR, 

as discussed below, in cases where provisions in public utility Transmission Providers’ 

existing interconnection procedures would be modified by the Final Rule, public utility 

Transmission Providers must either comply with the Final Rule or demonstrate that 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 29 -

previously approved variations meet one of the standards for variance provided for in this 

Final Rule.

95

3. Pre-Application Report Fee

a. Comments

41. Several commenters support the proposed $300 fee for the pre-application report.96 

IREC asserts that the $300 fee is appropriate for the effort required to provide the report, 

noting that there is currently no fee for the provision of similar system information under 

section 1.2.1 of the SGIP.97 NREL states that the proposed $300 fee only allows the 

Transmission Provider to provide information that is quickly accessible.98

42. Several commenters, including many Transmission Providers, recommend that the 

Commission set the cost of the pre-application report equal to the Transmission 

Provider’s actual incurred cost rather than a fixed $300 fee.99 

43. PJM Interconnection (PJM) estimates that the processing and preparation of a 

single report will take ten to twelve hours in administration, preparation, and final review 

 

95 See infra section V.

96 CPUC at 4; CREA at 2; IREC at 12; MISO at 3-4; NRG at 5; and Public Interest 

Organizations at 9.

97 IREC at 12. Under section 1.2 of the pro forma SGIP, the Interconnection 

Customer may request from the Transmission Provider “relevant system studies, 

interconnection studies, and other materials useful to an understanding of an 

interconnection” at a specific proposed Point of Interconnection.

98 NREL at 3.

99 ISO-NE at 13-14; ITC at 7-8; NARUC at 5; NRECA, EEI & APPA at 16; and 

NREL at 3.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 30 -

and cost at least $1,500.100 NRECA, EEI & APPA similarly state that, on average, the 

processing and preparation of a single report will likely require at least eight hours of an 

engineer’s time, at a cost of $150 per hour, resulting in a minimum initial pre-application 

report fee of $1,200, not including time spent coordinating with the distribution utility to 

gather system information.101 IREC, on the other hand, contends that the coordination 

between the Transmission Provider and the utility should not be overly burdensome for 

either party, and it is not significantly different from the coordination required during the 

SGIP Study Process.102 

44. NRECA, EEI & APPA also request that the $300 fee be adjusted annually based 

on an inflation index, such as the Consumer Price or Handy-Whitman index, so that fees 

charged reflect the actual cost to prepare the pre-application report.103 ITC proposes a 

“deposit/not-to-exceed” fee structure for the pre-application report whereby the 

Interconnection Customer submits a $300 deposit and designates a dollar amount that the 

Transmission Provider is not to exceed when preparing the report.104 ITC proposes that 

the cost of the pre-application report be trued-up upon completion based on the 

Transmission Provider’s actual incurred costs.105 

 

100 PJM at 8.

101 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 16.

102 IREC at 12.

103 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 16.

104 ITC at 8.

105 Id. at 8-9.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 31 -

b. Commission Determination

45. The Commission finds that a fixed pre-application report fee will both provide 

cost certainty to Interconnection Customers and result in lower administrative costs than 

other fee structures. The Commission notes that this approach is similar to Commission 

treatment of other fixed processing fees in Order No. 2006.106 Thus, the Commission 

will not adopt NRECA, EEI & APPA’s proposal to index the pre-application report fee 

because Transmission Providers will have the opportunity to propose revisions to the 

fixed pre-application report fee in the compliance filing and in any subsequent FPA 

section 205 filings.

46. While the Commission believes that the $300 fee often will be adequate to recover 

Transmission Providers’ costs of preparing the pre-application report given that

Transmission Providers are only asked to provide “readily available” information, the 

Commission finds it would be unjust and unreasonable for Transmission Providers not to 

recover their actual pre-application report preparation costs. Accordingly, the 

Commission will adopt the $300 fee as the default fee in the pro forma SGIP and give 

Transmission Providers the opportunity to propose a different fixed cost-based fee for 

preparing pre-application reports supported by a cost justification as part of the 

compliance filing required by this Final Rule. The Commission notes that the 

Transmission Provider already provides information to the Interconnection Customer 

under section 1.2 of the pro forma SGIP. Therefore the pre-application report fee should 

 

106 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 126. 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 32 -

only include the cost of providing the incremental information required under this Final 

Rule.

4. Pre-Application Report Timeline

a. Comments

47. The Commission received multiple comments about the ten-business-day timeline 

for providing the proposed pre-application report. MISO and Public Interest 

Organizations support the proposed ten-business-day timeframe for the pre-application 

report.107 SEIA contends that a predictable date certain for the pre-application report is 

crucial for developers.108 SEIA finds the proposed timeline reasonable, but requests that 

if the Commission extends the timeline, it allow Transmission Providers to request a onetime ten-day extension if necessary.109

 

48. NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that SEIA’s ten-day extension proposal would lead 

to inefficient use of Commission and utility resources, and that ten additional days would 

likely be insufficient in many circumstances.110 Instead, NRECA, EEI & APPA request 

that the Commission clarify that section 4.1 of the current pro forma SGIP (“Reasonable 

Efforts”) provides the Transmission Provider with the option of promptly communicating 

to the Interconnection Customer the nature of any delays, including force majeure 

 

107 MISO Comments at 3-4; Public Interest Organizations at 9.

108 SEIA Reply Comments at 6.

109 Id. at 7.

110 NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 13-14.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 33 -

events,111 in preparing a pre-application report and allows for both parties to agree on the 

Transmission Provider delivering the pre-application report on a different date.112 

NRECA, EEI & APPA state that this arrangement will give the developer some degree of 

certainty as to when it can expect to see a pre-application report, while allowing the 

utility reasonable flexibility given the realities of staffing and work load.113 ISO-NE, 

PJM and the ISO/RTO Council (IRC) also ask the Commission to affirmatively state that 

section 4.1 of the SGIP applies to the pre-application report timeline.114 

49. Duke Energy proposes that when a Transmission Provider has reached its 

maximum ability to process pre-application requests within the prescribed ten-businessday deadline, any subsequent requests received during that heavy volume period would 

be placed in a queue. Under Duke Energy’s proposal, Interconnection Customers would 

be notified of the likely timing of the Transmission Provider’s processing of their 

requests. Once the backlog of requests has been processed, the Transmission Provider 

would resume processing pre-application requests within the ten-business-day period.115 

 

111 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 18, Appendix C (requesting that the Commission 

include language in the SGIP to cover delays related to force majeure events).

112 Id. at 18-19.

113 Id. at 19.

114 IRC at 9-10; ISO-NE at 12; and PJM at 10.

115 Duke Energy at 4-5.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 34 -

50. ISO-NE also requests that the Commission allow for additional time for providing 

the pre-application report.116 New York Independent System Operator and New York 

Transmission Owners (NYISO & NYTO) and PJM recommend that the Commission 

extend the proposed time period for processing the pre-application report to 20 business 

days.117 IRC also states that ten business days is not enough time to produce the preapplication report and therefore asks the Commission to provide each region with the 

flexibility to propose its own time frame.118 

b. Commission Determination

51. The Commission is persuaded by Transmission Provider comments that certain 

circumstances could make the ten-business-day timeline difficult to meet. The 

Commission will therefore modify its proposal and extend the pre-application report due 

date from 10 to 20 business days, as proposed by NYISO & NYTO and PJM.

119

 We find 

that this deadline balances Transmission Provider concerns about having adequate time to 

prepare the report with Interconnection Customer concerns regarding the importance of 

knowing when they will receive the report. As such, Transmission Providers will be 

required to provide the pre-application report within 20 business days of the initial 

request.

 

116 ISO-NE at 12-13.

117 NYISO & NYTO at 16; and PJM at 10.

118 IRC at 9.

119 NYISO & NYTO at 16; and PJM at 10. 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 35 -

52. With regard to the request of ISO-NE, IRC, PJM, and NRECA, EEI & APPA for

clarification about whether section 4.1 (“Reasonable Efforts”) of the existing pro forma

SGIP will apply to the pre-application report timeline,

120 we affirm that section 4.1 of the 

pro forma SGIP applies to the pre-application report. To not do so would mean that the 

Reasonable Efforts section would apply to some items in the SGIP and not others. As 

such, the Commission declines to adopt Duke Energy’s proposal to establish a preapplication queue when a Transmission Provider experiences heavy volumes of preapplication report requests and is unable to meet the pre-application report timeline 

because such situations may be addressed under section 4.1 of the pro forma SGIP in a 

comparable, not unduly discriminatory manner. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that 

the pre-application report contains only readily available information, so we expect that 

the Transmission Provider should be able to produce a pre-application report within 20 

business days in most circumstances. 

5. Pre-application Report Request Form

a. Comments

53. Several commenters recommend that Interconnection Customers complete a preapplication report request form to facilitate report preparation.121

 ITC offers as a basis for 

such a form that Interconnection Customers could designate broad geographic areas as 

proposed Points of Interconnection when requesting a pre-application report, thus 

 

120 IRC at 10; ISO-NE at 12; NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 14; and 

PJM at 10.

121 IREC at 10; ISO-NE at 11; ITC at 10; NRECA, EEI and APPA at 13; NYISO 

& NYTO at 16; SEIA at 2; NREL at 2; and PJM at 9.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 36 -

requiring the Transmission Provider to select the exact Point of Interconnection for the 

Interconnection Customer.

122

 

54. Such a form is also supported by the SWG123 and PJM.124 They suggest that the

proposed pre-application request form seeks the following information from 

Interconnection Customers: (1) project contact information; (2) project location, 

including street address with nearby cross streets and town; (3) meter number, pole 

number, or other equivalent information identifying the proposed Point of 

Interconnection; (4) type of generator; (5) size of generator; (6) single or three-phase 

generator configuration; (7) whether the generator is stand-alone or serves on-site load; 

and (8) whether the project requires new service or is an expansion of existing service.125 

55. ITC, IRC and NYISO & NYTO also support a standardized pre-application report 

request form.126 IRC states that, although it supports including a standard request form in 

each Transmission Provider’s tariff, the Final Rule should allow the request form to vary 

by region if needed.127 

 

122 ITC at 10.

123 See supra note 23. The group drafted proposed revisions to the pre-application 

report proposal that were submitted by several commenters. 

124 IREC at 10 and PJM at 9.

125 PJM at 9; IREC, Attachment A, §§ 1.2.2.1–1.2.2.8; NRECA, EEI & APPA, 

Attachment A, §§ 1.2.2.1–1.2.2.8; NREL, attachment to comments, §§ 1.2.2.1–1.2.2.8; 

and SEIA, Attachment B, §§ 1.2.2.1–1.2.2.8.

126 ITC at 10; IRC at 9; NRECA, EEI & APPA at 13; and NYISO & NYTO at 16.

127 IRC at 9.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 37 -

b. Commission Determination

56. In response to commenter requests, the Commission adopts the standardized preapplication report request form as proposed by the SWG in section 1.2.2 of the pro forma

SGIP, as modified herein128 and with certain minor clarifying modifications, to use when 

requesting a pre-application report. The Commission believes the request form will 

resolve uncertainty about the precise location of the Point of Interconnection and expedite 

the pre-application report process. 

6. Readily Available Information

a. Comments

57. SEIA and DCOPC state that the proposed pre-application report will not burden 

Transmission Providers because it will be compiled from existing material.129 IREC 

claims that utilities have made significant investments in smart grid infrastructure, 

SCADA and other methods of gathering system information so that minimum and peak 

load data will be available in the future, and the SGIP should encourage the collection of 

such information.130 Sandia and UCS raise similar arguments about the availability of 

this data.131

58. Several commenters request that the Commission affirm that Transmission 

Providers are only required to provide existing information that is readily available in the 

 

128 See, e.g., supra P 54.

129 DCOPC at 4 and SEIA at 11.

130 IREC at 10.

131 Sandia at 2 and UCS at 14-15.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 38 -

pre-application report.132 Additionally, multiple commenters request that the 

Commission define the terms “already available” and/or “readily available” as they relate 

to information provided in the pre-application report.133 MISO suggests it means 

providing existing data in its existing form.134 IRC further requests that the Commission 

clearly state in section 1.2.4 or add a new section 1.2.5 stating that “[a]ny further analysis 

related to the proposed generator or in follow-up to the information contained in the 

report shall be conducted pursuant to an interconnection request.”135

59. ISO-NE and NYISO & NYTO state that notwithstanding the caveat in section 

1.2.4, the pre-application report only need include existing data and note that the 

inclusion of all of the categories of data listed in section 1.2.3 of the pro forma SGIP 

could create an unreasonable expectation regarding the information to be included in the 

pre-application report.136 ISO-NE and NYISO & NYTO therefore ask the Commission 

to clarify that the items proposed to be included in the pre-application report are 

examples that may be amended by the Transmission Provider based on readily available 

information.137 IRC asks that the Commission allow each region to specify what 

 

132 Bonneville at 2-3; Duke Energy at 4; ISO-NE at 14; and MISO at 6.

133 Clean Coalition at 3; Duke Energy at 4; IRC at 10; and MISO at 6.

134 MISO at 6.

135 IRC at 10-11.

136 ISO-NE at 9 and NYISO & NYTO at 15.

137 NYISO & NYTO at 14.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 39 -

information is actually available in a pre-application process to assist prospective 

Interconnection Customers.138

60. NREL comments that the proposed SGIP states that minimum daytime load 

information will be provided in the pre-application report “when available” and that this 

should be modified to state that load information “will be measured or calculated.”139 

FCHEA and CEP assert that one of the key pieces of information that should be included 

in the pre-application report is whether the 15 Percent Screen has been exceeded or is 

close to being exceeded on a particular line segment.140 NRECA, EEI & APPA 

submitted proposed revisions to the information included in the pre-application report, 

including removing some items from the report.141 IREC states that striking relevant 

pieces of information, such as minimum or peak load data, from the report because it may 

not be currently available would be inconsistent with policy goals and fails to recognize 

that grid investments may make the information possible to collect in the future.142 

61. NRECA, EEI & APPA state that they are particularly concerned with the 

Commission’s proposal to require that utilities provide minimum load and available 

capacity in the pre-application report when such data are not currently available.143 They

 

138 IRC at 10.

139 NREL at 3.

140 CEP at 2 and FCHEA at 2.

141 NRECA, EEI & APPA, Appendix B at 1-2.

142 IREC at 9-10.

143 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 14.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 40 -

assert that collection of minimum load data is burdensome to most utilities because it is 

not a critical system operating criteria and is difficult to determine accurately.144

62. Duke Energy states that although daytime minimum load data may be available 

where there are electronic meters and communication equipment, in many instances the 

data are available only at the substation circuit breaker and not by line section. Duke 

Energy therefore asserts that in some cases it would have to estimate the minimum 

load.145 ITC suggests that the Commission explain how Transmission Providers should 

calculate minimum load for the purposes of the pre-application report.146

b. Commission Determination

63. The Commission appreciates Transmission Provider concerns about the burden 

associated with creating new information (either form or substance) for the purposes of 

the pre-application report. We reaffirm that Transmission Providers are only required to 

provide the items in the pro forma SGIP section 1.2.3 if they are readily available, in 

accordance with section 1.2.4 of the SGIP. Accordingly, in response to NRECA, EEI 

& APPA and Duke Energy, the provision of actual or estimated minimum load data is not 

required unless it is readily available. To address concerns with the definition of “readily 

available,” we clarify that “readily available” means information that the Transmission 

Provider currently has on hand. That is, the Transmission Provider is not required to 

 

144 Id. at 14.

145 Duke Energy at 5.

146 ITC at 9-10.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 41 -

create new data.147 However, the Transmission Provider is required to compile, gather, 

and summarize the information that it has readily available to it in a format that presents 

useful information.148 The costs associated with that effort should be commensurate with 

the fee the Transmission Provider charges for the pre-application report. If providing 

some of the items in the pre-application report would require the Transmission Provider 

to undertake studies or analysis beyond gathering and presenting existing information, 

then the information is not readily available and the Transmission Provider is not 

obligated to include this information in the report. We note, however, that performing 

simple calculations with existing information, such as calculating available capacity as 

described below, falls within the meaning of readily available information.149 The 

Commission finds that requiring Transmission Providers to provide information in preapplication reports beyond what is readily available would increase Transmission 

Provider costs and likely result in the under-recovery of report preparation costs. The 

 

147 The Commission declines to prescribe a methodology for calculating minimum 

load for the purpose of the pre-application report, as requested by ITC, because such a 

calculation is not required for the sole purpose of the pre-application report. The 

provision of minimum load data in the pre-application report, whether actual or 

estimated, is only required if this information is readily available. Further, to the extent 

such a calculation is made under section 2.4.4.1 of the SGIP adopted herein, the 

Commission leaves the methodology to the discretion of the Transmission Provider. 

148 See supra P 39. The Commission clarifies that the Transmission Provider shall 

be the point of contact for the Interconnection Customer and may be required to 

coordinate with the Transmission Owner to execute the requirements of the SGIP adopted 

herein, including the pre-application report. Accordingly, we find that information that is 

readily available to the Transmission Owner shall be deemed readily available to the 

Transmission Provider as well.

149 See infra P 81.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 42 -

Commission believes the default $300 fixed fee is consistent with the readily available 

standard, which limits the effort required by Transmission Providers.

 

64. The Commission is also persuaded by IREC’s comments that pre-application 

report items should not be struck from the report due to current unavailability because the 

items may become available in the future. Thus, the Commission finds that the default 

pre-application report should include the items listed from section 1.2.3 of the proposed 

SGIP while at the same time reaffirming that Transmission Providers are not obligated to 

provide information that is not readily available. 

7. Other Issues

a. Comments

65. IREC, Pepco150 and SEIA propose adding a new section 1.2.3.1 to the pro forma

SGIP stating that the Transmission Provider will identify the substation/area bus, bank or 

circuit likely to serve the proposed Point of Interconnection and clarifying how the 

Transmission Provider will select which circuit to include as the Point of Interconnection 

in the pre-application report if there is more than one circuit to which the Interconnection 

Customer could connect.

151

 The commenters also propose to clarify in section 1.2.3.1

that the Transmission Provider will not be liable if the selected circuit is not the most 

 

150 Pepco Holdings Inc., Atlantic City Electric Company, Delmarva Power & 

Light Company, and Potomac Electric Power Company are referred to collectively as 

Pepco in this Final Rule.

151 IREC at 10; Pepco, Appendix to comment at section 1.2.3.1; SEIA at 

Attachment A section 1.2.3.1.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 43 -

cost-effective option and explains that customers who want information on all options 

must request multiple pre-application reports.152 

66. Several commenters,153 including the SWG, note that the electric system is 

constantly changing and the information provided in the pre-application report might 

quickly become out of date. As a result, they request that the SGIP and each preapplication report that a utility produces include a disclaimer indicating that the preapplication report is for informational purposes, is non-binding, and does not convey any 

rights in the interconnection process.154 

67. ITC argues that given its dynamic nature, Transmission Providers may not be able 

to accurately predict the available capacity of the substation/area bus or bank circuit most 

likely to serve the proposed Point of Interconnection at every point in time.155 ITC 

proposes that the Commission specify that the Transmission Provider’s base-case 

estimate of available capacity is sufficient for the pre-application report.156 Duke Energy 

states that Interconnection Customers can calculate this available capacity from the 

information provided in sections 1.2.3.1 through 1.2.3.3 of the SGIP; therefore, the 

 

152 IREC at 10-11; Pepco at 6.

153 Duke Energy at 6; IREC Attachment A, section 1.2.2 presenting the SWG 

recommendations; and NRECA, EEI & APPA at 12. 

154 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 12-13, and NYISO & NYTO at 16.

155 ITC at 9.

156 Id. at 9.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 44 -

Transmission Provider should not be required to provide available capacity in the preapplication report.157

68. Various commenters request that the pre-application report contain information 

that the Commission did not include in the NOPR. For example, several commenters 

propose to add the following items to the pre-application report: (1) distance from a 

three-phase circuit if the Point of Interconnection is on a single-phase circuit; and 

(2) whether the Point of Interconnection is located on an area network, spot network, grid 

network, or radial supply.158 IREC asserts that this approach will provide relevant system 

information to developers.

159

 SEIA also proposes to include the substation/area bus, bank 

or circuit most likely to serve the Point of Interconnection.160 NARUC states that the preapplication report should include a simple “yes” or “no” question as to whether minimum 

load data would be readily available should it be needed to help a developer remain in the 

Fast Track Process.161 

69. Landfill Energy Systems (LES) state that the pre-application report should identify 

the type of existing relays that are currently being utilized and any known, or likely, need 

 

157 Duke Energy at 6.

158 IREC at 11-12; NRECA, EEI & APPA Appendix B at 1; Pepco at 11; and 

SEIA at 11. 

159 IREC at 11.

160 SEIA at 11.

161 NARUC at 5.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 45 -

to replace those relays.162 LES states that if, for example, the Transmission Owner is 

likely to require the Interconnection Customer to replace and/or upgrade existing 

equipment, such as a relay system, a reclosing system, or a breaker failure protection 

system, or to install fiber optic cable, it should be noted in the pre-application report.163 

LES also requests that the pre-application report include a map that shows the 

Transmission Provider’s lines in the area for the Interconnection Customer to consider as 

alternative Points of Interconnection.164

70. Clean Coalition recommends that the Commission require that Transmission 

Providers maintain information about all distribution interconnection applications in a 

public spreadsheet/database for easy review and tracking by developers, advocates, and 

policymakers.165 Clean Coalition further asserts that, where warranted by demand, 

existing grid information should be made available in map and spreadsheet formats on 

the utility’s website.166 NRECA, EEI & APPA claim that the Clean Coalition’s proposal 

is unduly burdensome, overbroad, ambiguous, may result in the release of CEII, and 

would constitute jurisdictional overreach by the Commission.167

 

162 LES at 2. 

163 Id. at 2-3.

164 Id. at 3.

165 Clean Coalition at 5-6.

166 Id. at 6.

167 NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 15-16.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 46 -

71. NRECA, EEI & APPA state that any information that is required to be included in 

the pre-application report must be consistent with existing safeguards against the public 

disclosure of non-public transmission system information, confidential information, or 

CEII.168 CAISO similarly notes that some of the information may be proprietary to 

participating Transmission Owners or might be CEII, which could require a nondisclosure and limited use agreement.169

 

72. PJM asks the Commission to clarify that although there may be some limited 

follow-up on the pre-application report (e.g., questions about the report from the 

Interconnection Customer), more detailed inquiries would need to be addressed through 

the submission of an interconnection request by the Interconnection Customer.170 Duke 

Energy requests that the Commission clarify that any transmission information provided 

in the report would not be required to be posted on the OASIS.171 NRECA, EEI & APPA 

state that each request related to a particular Point of Interconnection should be treated as 

a request for a separate pre-application report and the Transmission Provider must be able 

to collect a fee for each report it prepares.172 NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that this is 

appropriate because requests for multiple interconnection points may require companies 

 

168 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 14.

169 CAISO at 4.

170 PJM at 10.

171 Duke Energy at 6.

172 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 17.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 47 -

to gather information from various sources for each Point of Interconnection.173 IREC 

and Pepco also propose SGIP language which states that customers who want 

information on multiple circuits at a single Point of Interconnection must request a 

separate pre-application report for each circuit.174

73. CAISO suggests that the Commission may want to provide greater flexibility for 

Transmission Providers to fashion a pre-application process to exchange information with 

developers following issuance of a pre-application report if developers have any followup questions.175

 NYISO & NYTO suggest that Transmission Providers might provide the 

Interconnection Customer the option of a follow-up meeting to discuss the preapplication report.176

 Finally, ISO-NE proposes to refer to entities that request preapplication reports as “potential Interconnection Customers” rather than “Interconnection 

Customers” in section 1.2 of the SGIP, which outlines the pre-application report.177

b. Commission Determination

74. The Commission agrees with commenters that the information provided in preapplication reports should be for informational purposes only given the dynamic nature of 

system conditions. Accordingly, the Commission will include a disclaimer in the pro 

forma SGIP and pre-application report stating that the information provided in the pre-

 

173 Id.

174 IREC at 10-11; Pepco at 6.

175 CAISO at 4.

176 NYISO & NYTO at 16.

177 ISO-NE at 10.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 48 -

application report is non-binding and that the Transmission Provider will not be held 

liable if information in the report is no longer accurate. The Commission notes that 

similar pre-application report disclaimers are proposed in SGIP proceedings in Ohio and 

Massachusetts.178 

75. NRECA, EEI & APPA, Pepco, SEIA, and IREC propose adding the following 

two items to the pre-application report: (1) for single-phase circuits, the distance of the 

Point of Interconnection from the three-phase circuit; and (2) whether the Point of 

Interconnection is located on an area network, spot network, grid network, or radial 

supply.

179

 The Commission is persuaded that this additional information will be useful to 

assess whether a project will qualify for the Fast Track Process at a given Point of 

Interconnection. Furthermore, the information should be readily available to 

Transmission Providers because it relates to basic system configuration. Accordingly,

sections 1.2.3.10 and 1.2.3.12 of the SGIP are revised to include these items.

76. In order to clarify Interconnection Customer expectations with respect to the preapplication report, the Commission adopts IREC, SEIA and Pepco’s proposed disclaimer 

that the bank or circuit selected by the Transmission Provider in the pre-application 

report does not necessarily indicate the circuit to which the Interconnection Customer 

 

178 Pub. Utilis. Comm'n of Ohio, In the Matter of the Comm'n's Review of Chapter 

4901:1-22, Ohio Admin. Code, Regarding Interconnection Servs., Case No. 12-2051-ELORD, at 7 (2013), available at http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/Ohio-SupplementalEntry.pdf; Mass. Dep't of Pub. Utils., Order on the Distributed Generation Working 

Group’s Redlined Tariff and Non-Tariff Recommendations, Docket No. D.P.U. 11-75-E, 

at 14 (2013).

179 See supra note 158.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 49 -

may ultimately connect. The disclaimer is added to section 1.2.3 of the SGIP. However, 

the Commission declines to adopt IREC, SEIA and Pepco’s request to clarify how the 

Transmission Provider will select which circuit to include in the pre-application report if 

there is more than one circuit to which the Interconnection Customer could interconnect 

because methodologies for selecting a circuit may be differ depending on the 

circumstances of the proposed interconnection and may differ among Transmission 

Providers. If Transmission Providers wish to provide this information to Interconnection 

Customers, they may do so in business practices.

77. In response to Duke Energy’s inquiry, the Commission affirms that information 

Transmission Providers provide in the pre-application will have no bearing on OASIS 

reporting requirements. The Commission also affirms that the pre-application report only 

applies to a single Point of Interconnection and that Interconnection Customers must 

submit payment and separate pre-application request forms if they are requesting 

information about multiple Points of Interconnection, including multiple circuits at a 

single Point of Interconnection. The Commission also finds that it would be unjust and 

unreasonable to expect the Transmission Provider to bear the cost of any follow-up 

studies resulting from the pre-application report. Therefore, apart from reasonable 

clarification of items in the pre-application report, the Transmission Provider is not 

required as part of this Final Rule to conduct any studies or analysis after furnishing the 

pre-application report unless the Interconnection Customer proceeds with a formal 

interconnection request. 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 50 -

78. The Commission expects Transmission Providers to continue to abide by the 

recommendations outlined in section 1.1.5 of the pro forma SGIP and with section 1.2.1 

of the pro forma SGIP, which states that information may be provided “to the extent such 

provision does not violate confidentiality provisions of prior agreements or critical 

infrastructure requirements” and that “[t]he Transmission Provider shall comply with 

reasonable requests for such information.” 

79. The Commission rejects ISO-NE’s request to refer to entities requesting preapplication reports as “potential Interconnection Customers” within the pro forma SGIP 

because we are not aware that use of the term “Interconnection Customer” in the preapplication section 1.2 of the pro forma SGIP adopted under Order No. 2006 caused 

confusion or set incorrect expectations for Interconnection Customers or Transmission 

Providers.

80. The Commission rejects LES’s request that Transmission Providers indicate what 

upgrades, if any, will be required at a Point of Interconnection when preparing a preapplication report for that Point of Interconnection. This information may not be readily 

available to a Transmission Provider.

81. The Commission is not persuaded by Duke Energy’s assertion that it is 

unreasonable to ask Transmission Providers to provide available capacity, or an estimate 

of available capacity. Providing available capacity will not burden the Transmission 

Provider because doing so only requires Transmission Providers to subtract aggregate 

existing and queued capacity from total capacity, and will provide additional clarity to the 

interconnection customer.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 51 -

82. The Commission finds Clean Coalition and LES’s proposal to make certain small 

generator interconnection data publicly available as beyond the scope of the NOPR. 

However, we encourage Transmission Providers to look for ways to streamline the 

provision of and make transparent relevant public information in order to facilitate small 

generator interconnections.

B. Threshold for Participation in the Fast Track Process

1. Commission Proposal

83. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise the 2 MW threshold for 

participation in the Fast Track Process to be based instead on individual system and 

generator characteristics up to a limit of 5 MW, as shown in Table 1 below. 

Table 1: Fast Track eligibility as proposed in the NOPR.

180

Line Voltage

Fast Track Eligibility 

Regardless of Location

Fast Track Eligibility 

on ≥ 600 Ampere Line 

and ≤ 2.5 Miles from 

Substation

< 5 kilovolt (kV) ≤ 1 MW ≤ 2 MW

≥ 5 kV and < 15 kV ≤ 2 MW ≤ 3 MW

≥ 15 kV and < 30 kV ≤ 3 MW ≤ 4 MW

≥ 30 kV ≤ 4 MW ≤ 5 MW

 

180 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 30.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 52 -

2. Comments

84. Many commenters support increasing the Fast Track threshold from 2 MW to 5 

MW.181 IREC states that the purpose of eligibility limits to the Fast Track Process should 

be to filter out projects that are highly unlikely to pass the Fast Track screens in order to 

save time and set clear customer expectations. However, IREC states that the eligibility 

limits do not need to duplicate or go beyond the Fast Track screens themselves.182 

85. DCOPC states that it has no objections to the new Fast Track eligibility table 

proposed for section 2.1 of the SGIP or to raising the maximum eligibility size from 2 

MW to 5 MW, as long as this change does not compromise system safety and grid 

reliability.183

86. Sandia supports the new Fast Track eligibility proposal in the NOPR, as it more 

accurately differentiates interconnection requests that do not cause impacts from those 

that could need further study and states that the characteristics in the proposal for Fast 

Track eligibility are technically reasonable.184 

87. Clean Coalition states that it prefers no Fast Track eligibility threshold because the 

Fast Track screens themselves eliminate projects that are not appropriate for the Fast 

 

181 AWEA at 4; CREA at 2; IECA at 4-5; NRG at 5; SEIA at 13-14; Clean 

Coalition at 7; CEP at 1; ELCON at 4-5; ESA at 3-4; FCHEA at 1; IECA at 4-5; IREC at 

13; LES at 2; Sandia at 2; and Public Interest Organizations at 10.

182 IREC at 13.

183 DCOPC at 5.

184 Sandia at 2.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 53 -

Track Process.185 However, Clean Coalition states that because of utility concerns about 

eliminating the threshold, it supports the Commission’s proposal for increasing the 

threshold.186

88. Max Hensley states that the Commission should allow facilities of up to 10 MW to 

qualify for the Fast Track Process. Mr. Hensley believes this would increase the market 

for distributed solar power generation and lower prices for residential customers.

187

89. ITC generally supports increasing the upper bound of the Fast Track proposal 

based on line voltage, line amperage and proximity to the substation but is concerned 

that Interconnection Customers will abuse the 5 MW limit by submitting multiple 

interconnection requests for the same project in an effort to circumvent the Study 

Process, to the detriment of system reliability (e.g., a 20 MW wind farm comprised of 

five 4-MW wind turbines might submit five separate interconnection requests rather than 

a single 20 MW interconnection request). ITC recommends that the Commission allow 

individual ISOs or RTOs to coordinate Fast Track interconnections through their existing 

interconnection queue process to ensure Interconnection Customers are not able to 

circumvent the required studies necessary to protect safety and reliability.188

90. ISO-NE requests that the Final Rule allow flexibility to account for eligibility 

limits that may be unique to the region. For example, ISO-NE states that eligibility for 

 

185 Clean Coalition at 7.

186 Id.

187 Max Hensley at 1.

188 ITC at 11.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 54 -

the Fast Track Process in New England is limited to interconnections to distribution 

facilities and does not apply to facilities rated 69 kV or higher that are used for regional 

transmission service.189

91. NYISO & NYTO do not believe the Commission’s proposed expansion of the Fast 

Track eligibility to 5 MW and the introduction of minimum load and other screens for the 

supplemental review process are likely to improve the time and cost to process the 

interconnection requests of small facilities in New York at this time.190 NYISO & NYTO 

state that most of the very small generating facilities in New York seek to interconnect to 

distribution facilities that are not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction and are 

generally able to skip most, if not all, of the time and expense of the full study process 

due to their limited system impacts.191

92. Duke Energy states that the proposed values in the Fast Track threshold table are 

not realistic for distribution systems. Duke Energy asserts that, based on its experience, a 

1 MW generator proposing to interconnect to its distribution facilities under 5 kV, which 

are lightly loaded and have small conductor sizes, would not pass the Fast Track screens

because it would likely exceed the minimum load of the line section and might exceed 

the rating of the conductor.192 Duke Energy therefore urges the Commission to consider 

 

189 ISO-NE at 15.

190 NYISO & NYTO at 16.

191 Id. at 16-17.

192 Duke Energy at 7.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 55 -

lowering the proposed threshold levels to values that are more realistic for a distribution 

system.193

93. NRECA, EEI & APPA support basing Fast Track eligibility on individual system 

and generator characteristics.194 They state that it is difficult to use the size of the 

generator as a threshold to determine whether the Small Generating Facility should go 

through the Fast Track Process and that the location of the point of common coupling and 

the interconnecting feeder and loading characteristics should be major factors for 

determining Fast Track eligibility.195 

94. NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that there is no standard definition of distribution 

system voltages in the United States and that there needs to be an upper bound voltage 

class limit that captures voltages of up to 69 kV. They state that the Commission should 

continue to follow its own precedent of taking into account the differences in utilities’ 

distribution systems by building a degree of flexibility into the Final Rule with respect to 

the criteria for determining Fast Track eligibility.196

95. NRECA, EEI & APPA note that in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the Fast 

Track Process does not include a 2 MW limit, but instead inverter-based equipment that 

has been “listed” using the UL1741 testing procedure is eligible for an expedited 

 

193 Id. at 9-10. See Duke Energy at 9 for its proposed Fast Track eligibility table.

194 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 19.

195 Id. at 19-20.

196 Id. at 20.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 56 -

process.

197

 They state that multiple inverter projects may or may not be considered 

“listed” in the proposed configuration, which means that some projects may not be 

eligible for the Fast Track Process.198 According to NRECA, EEI & APPA, on a regional 

level, the capacity of solar projects that tend to pass the screen tests is typically in the 2 

MW range. They therefore urge the Commission to keep this factor in mind when 

considering raising the limit to 5 MW.199

96. NRECA, EEI & APPA state that they are concerned that the third column of the 

Fast Track eligibility table in the NOPR, which refers to the location of a distributed 

generation facility on the feeder system relative to the distance from the source 

substation, would raise expectations from developers that they may be eligible for the 

Fast Track Process when they may not be.200 The SWG agreed on proposed revised 

language to be inserted in section 2.1 of the SGIP to clarify the intent of the Fast Track 

eligibility limits and to address concerns regarding the role of the eligibility limits in 

setting customer expectations.201 

97. Several commenters202 submitted the table for Fast Track eligibility proposed by 

the SWG as shown in Table 2 below. The SWG proposes revising the Fast Track 

 

197 Id.

198 Id. at 20-21.

199 Id. at 21.

200 Id.

201 IREC at 14.

202 NRECA, EEI & APPA Appendix A; IREC Attachment A; NREL Attachment; 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 57 -

eligibility threshold applicable to inverter-based generators. The SWG also proposes the 

following changes to Fast Track Process eligibility: (1) making all projects 

interconnecting to lines greater than 69-kV ineligible for the Fast Track Process (inverterbased projects interconnecting to lines up to and including 69 kV would be eligible for 

the Fast Track Process based on Table 2 below); (2) maintaining the current 2 MW limit 

for Fast Track eligibility for synchronous and induction machines (as opposed to inverterbased generators); (3) for lines below 5 kV, changing the Fast Track eligibility regardless 

of location to 500 kW for inverter-based projects; and (4) in the third column of the table, 

replacing “≥ 600 Ampere Line” with “a Mainline” and a footnote defining “Mainline.”

203

 

 

and SEIA Attachment B. The Commission notes that there were minor differences 

among the tables submitted by NRECA, EEI & APPA, IREC, SEIA and NREL.

203 IREC at 14-15.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 58 -

Table 2: Fast Track eligibility for listed inverter-based systems as proposed by 

NRECA, EEI & APPA.

204

* For purposes of this table, a mainline will typically constitute lines with wire sizes 

of 4/0 AWG,205 336.4 kcmil, 397.5 kcmil, 477 kcmil and 795 kcmil.

** Electrical Circuit Miles.

*** An Interconnection Customer can determine this information in advanced [sic] by 

requesting a Pre-Application Report pursuant to section 1.2 [of the SGIP].

98. IREC believes the proposed revisions to the Fast Track eligibility table agreed to 

by the SWG are reasonable and reflect a technically justified approach to Fast Track 

eligibility. It recommends that the Commission adopt the proposed revisions.

206 Further, 

IREC states that some projects connecting to lines greater than 69 kV should go through 

the Study Process because the cost of interconnecting to larger lines is likely to be 

 

204 NRECA, EEI & APPA, Appendix A.

205 AWG is American wire gauge, a standardized system used for the diameters of 

round conducting wires to help determine its current-carrying capacity and electrical 

resistance.

206 IREC at 14.

Line Voltage

Fast Track Eligibility 

Regardless of Location

Fast Track Eligibility on a 

Mainline* and ≤ 2.5 Miles** 

from Substation

< 5 kilovolt (kV) ≤ 500 kW ≤ 500 kW

≥ 5 kV and < 15 kV ≤ 2 MW ≤ 3 MW

≥ 15 kV and < 30 kV ≤ 3 MW ≤ 4 MW

≥ 30 kV and < 70 kV ≤ 4 MW ≤ 5 MW
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 59 -

significant enough that generators may benefit from a more thorough cost estimate.207 

Regarding the 2 MW Fast Track eligibility limit for synchronous, induction machines, 

IREC notes that there are important technical differences between these generators and 

inverter-based systems that may require further consideration, so the SWG agreed that 

the Commission should maintain the current limit for these generators.208 Finally, IREC 

states that although it believes that the MW limits proposed by the Commission in the 

NOPR are sufficiently conservative, it supports the SWG proposal because it provides 

comfort to utilities interconnecting generators on lines below 5 kV.

209

99. While SEIA would prefer to eliminate the threshold for participation in the Fast 

Track Process, it views the Commission’s proposal as a reasonable and appropriate 

balance between a developer’s need for an efficient interconnection process and the 

safety and reliability concerns raised with respect to broadening the Fast Track screens.210 

SEIA supports the agreement reached by the SWG on revisions to the Commission’s 

proposal, which primarily narrows the scope of projects that would be eligible for the 

Fast Track Process at either end of the voltage spectrum, while maintaining Fast Track 

eligibility for the vast majority of distributed solar projects.211 SEIA believes the 

Commission’s proposal as modified by the SWG represents a reasonable compromise 

 

207 Id. at 15.

208 Id.

209 Id.

210 SEIA at 13-14.

211 Id. at 14.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 60 -

between developers and Transmission Providers and therefore recommends that the 

Commission adopt the SWG’s proposal on Fast Track Process eligibility.212 Public 

Interest Organizations and NREL also support the SWG’s proposed changes to Fast 

Track eligibility.213

100. NYISO & NYTO support the SWG’s revised Fast Track eligibility table, but state 

that the upper voltage limit for a very small generating facility’s eligibility in the Fast 

Track Process should be limited to 50 kV.214 They note that the system modifications 

and costs associated with a Small Generating Facility interconnecting to 69 kV facilities 

in New York will require careful evaluation to ensure safety and reliability and should 

therefore remain within the Study Process.215

101. AWEA opposes limiting Fast Track eligibility to 2 MW for synchronous and 

induction machines. AWEA states that it understands the reason for this limit is due to 

concerns about the fault current contribution of different types of wind turbine 

generators. It states that these concerns are unfounded and that wind turbines up to 5 

MW should be allowed to participate in the Fast Track Process. Alternatively, AWEA 

states that screens that identify the type of wind turbine and the fault current contribution 

 

212 Id.

213 NREL at 3 and Public Interest Organizations at 10-11.

214 NYISO & NYTO at 17.

215 Id.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 61 -

of that type could be used to allow wind turbines to participate in the Fast Track Process 

up to 5 MW.216

3. Commission Determination

102. The Commission concludes that it is just and reasonable to adopt the Fast Track 

eligibility thresholds proposed by the SWG, with modifications as discussed below. 

103. The Commission agrees with the following reforms proposed by the SWG: (1) 

modifying Fast Track eligibility for inverter-based machines to be based on individual 

system and generator characteristics; (2) for lines below 5 kV, limiting Fast Track 

eligibility to generators less than 500 kW for a conductor less than 5 kV regardless of 

location; and (3) making all projects interconnecting to lines greater than 69-kV ineligible 

for the Fast Track Process. The Commission finds that the modifications to Fast Track 

eligibility proposed by the SWG, reflected in Table 3 below, are just and reasonable and 

strike a balance between allowing larger projects to use the Fast Track Process while 

ensuring safety and reliability.

Table 3: Fast Track eligibility for inverter-based systems, as adopted in this Final 

Rule.

 

216 AWEA Supplemental Comments at 3-5.

Line Voltage

Fast Track Eligibility 

Regardless of Location

Fast Track Eligibility on a 

Mainline1and ≤ 2.5 

Electrical Circuit Miles from 

Substation2

< 5 kilovolt (kV) ≤ 500 kW ≤ 500 kW

≥ 5 kV and < 15 kV ≤ 2 MW ≤ 3 MW

≥ 15 kV and < 30 kV ≤ 3 MW ≤ 4 MW
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 62 -

1

For purposes of this table, a mainline is the three-phase backbone of a circuit. It will 

typically constitute lines with wire sizes of 4/0 American wire gauge, 336.4 kcmil, 

397.5 kcmil, 477 kcmil and 795 kcmil.

2 An Interconnection Customer can determine this information about its proposed 

interconnection location in advance by requesting a pre-application report pursuant to 

section 1.2 of the SGIP.

104. The SWG’s proposed Fast Track eligibility table indicates that it is applicable to 

“listed” (see Table 2 above) inverter-based systems. However, section 2.1 of the SGIP 

states that a Small Generating Facility must meet the “codes, standards, and certification 

requirements of Attachments 3 and 4” of the SGIP, “or the Transmission Provider has to 

have reviewed the design or tested the proposed Small Generating Facility and is satisfied 

that it is safe to operate.” In order to eliminate potential confusion regarding the 

applicability of the Fast Track Process and to eliminate potential conflicts between the 

language of section 2.1 of the SGIP and the Fast Track eligibility table (Table 3 above), 

the Commission does not adopt the references to listing or certification in the title of the 

table submitted by the SWG. In doing so, the text of the Fast Track eligibility table will 

be consistent with section 2.1, which allows that Small Generating Facilities either be

certified or have been reviewed or tested by the Transmission Provider and determined to 

be safe to operate. We also note that in section 2.1 of the SGIP, we only refer to 

“certified inverter-based systems” rather than “listed or certified inverter-based systems” 

as proposed by the SWG because listing is a type of certification under Attachments 3

and 4 of the SGIP.

≥ 30 kV and ≤ 69 kV ≤ 4 MW ≤ 5 MW
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 63 -

105. The Commission acknowledges comments stating that voltages below 5 kV are

being phased out. Nonetheless, such facilities can still be found in parts of the country 

and, therefore, our reforms must address reliability concerns with this voltage class. We 

conclude that imposing lower limits on lower voltage lines is reasonable. As Duke 

Energy notes in its comments, a request to interconnect to distribution facilities under 

5 kV, which are typically lightly loaded and have small conductor sizes, would likely 

exceed the minimum load of the line section and the conductor rating. 

106. The Commission will maintain the 2 MW Fast Track threshold for synchronous 

and induction machines as suggested by the SWG because there are important technical 

differences between these generators and inverter-based generators. The Commission 

notes that, in general, the technical characteristics of synchronous and induction 

machines, such as higher fault current capabilities, may require further study to ensure 

the safety and reliability of the interconnection.217 Therefore, we agree that synchronous 

and induction machines should continue to be subject to the 2 MW Fast Track 

threshold.218 We are not persuaded by AWEA that the safety and reliability concerns of 

the SWG associated with synchronous and induction machines are unfounded and 

therefore decline at this time to include these machines in Fast Track eligibility beyond 

 

217 Thomas Cleveland & Michael Sheehan, Updated Recommendations for FERC 

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures Screens (July 2010), available at

http://www.solarabcs.org/about/publications/reports/ferc-screens/pdfs/ABCSFERC_studyreport.pdf, p. 2 and Appendix I.

218 We note that inverter-based wind turbines would not be excluded from the 2 

MW to 5 MW thresholds shown in the Fast Track eligibility table adopted in this Final 

Rule.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 64 -

the existing 2 MW threshold. Further, in response to AWEA’s proposal to modify the 

Fast Track Process to include screens based on the type of wind turbine and the fault 

current contribution of that type to allow wind turbines to participate in the Fast Track 

Process up to 5 MW, we find that AWEA’s proposal has not been developed and vetted

in this rulemaking process, therefore we decline to adopt the proposal.219 We note, 

however, that in accordance with section 2.1 of the SGIP, synchronous and induction 

machines up to 5 MW that are interconnected to the Transmission Provider’s system 

through a certified inverter or that have been reviewed or tested by the Transmission 

Provider and determined to be safe to operate may be interconnected under the Fast Track 

Process in accordance with Table 3 above.

107. The Commission adopts the SWG proposal to limit Fast Track eligibility to those 

projects connecting to lines at 69 kV and below. The Commission is persuaded by 

commenters220 that even though not all Small Generating Facilities interconnecting to 

lines above 69 kV would require study, some of them will, and the Commission agrees 

that the costs and system modifications of interconnecting to lines larger than 69 kV are 

 

219 If a Transmission Provider prefers to adopt Fast Track eligibility criteria that 

differ from the table adopted in this Final Rule and that would accomplish AWEA’s 

proposal, it may propose to do so as part of its compliance filing. Transmission Providers 

that propose to adopt different Fast Track eligibility criteria must submit compliance 

filings demonstrating that their proposed approach is consistent with or superior to the 

table adopted in this Final Rule, or meets another standard allowed in section V of this 

Final Rule.

220 IREC at 14-15, Public Interest Organizations at 11.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 65 -

likely significant enough that generators may benefit from the more thorough estimate 

developed through the Study Process. 

108. Regarding ITC’s concerns, the Commission believes that the potential for 

Interconnection Customers to submit multiple interconnection requests for the same 

project in an effort to circumvent the Study Process is limited because the Fast Track 

screens consider the aggregate generation on a line section. 

109. The Commission acknowledges NYISO & NYTO’s comment that certain 

facilities in New York may require a detailed study to ensure safety and reliability. 

However, the Fast Track Process itself will identify such facilities so they need not be 

eliminated from Fast Track eligibility.

110. Finally, to address NRECA, EEI & APPA’s concern that the third column of the 

Fast Track eligibility table in the NOPR could raise Interconnection Customer 

expectations regarding eligibility for the Fast Track Process, the Commission adopts 

language in section 2.1 of the pro forma SGIP reminding small generators that Fast Track 

eligibility is distinct from the Fast Track Process itself, and that being found eligible for 

the Fast Track Process does not imply or indicate that a project will pass the Fast Track 

or supplemental review screens.221 

 

221 The Commission adds the following language to the first paragraph of section 

2.1 of the SGIP: 

However, Fast Track eligibility is distinct from the Fast Track Process itself, and 

eligibility does not imply or indicate that a Small Generating Facility will pass the 

Fast Track screens in section 2.2.1 below of the Supplemental Review screens in 

section 2.4.1 below.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 66 -

C. Fast Track Customer Options Meeting and Supplemental Review

1. Commission Proposal

111. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed modifications to the customer options 

meeting following the failure of any of the Fast Track screens. The Commission 

proposed to require the Transmission Provider to offer to perform a supplemental review 

of the proposed interconnection without condition.

222

 Additionally, the Commission 

proposed to modify the supplemental review by including three screens: (1) the 

Minimum Load Screen; (2) the power quality and voltage screen; and (3) the safety and 

reliability screen.223

112. The Commission also proposed language in section 2.4.2 of the SGIP to clarify the 

requirements following the conclusion of the supplemental review. The Commission 

proposed that the Transmission Provider perform the supplemental review for a 

nonrefundable fee of $2,500. 

 

222 Section 2.3.2 of the SGIP adopted in Order No. 2006 gave the Transmission 

Provider the discretion to offer to perform a supplemental review if the “Transmission 

Provider concludes that the supplemental review might determine that the Small 

Generating Facility could continue to qualify for interconnection pursuant to the Fast 

Track Process.”

223 For the full text of the proposed screens, see section 2.4 of Appendix C to the 

NOPR. “Minimum Load Screen” refers to SGIP section 2.4.1.1 of Appendix C to the 

NOPR or SGIP section 2.4.4.1 of Appendix C to the Final Rule. The Minimum Load 

Screen tests whether the aggregate Generating Facility capacity on a line section is less 

than 100 percent of minimum load for all line sections bounded by automatic 

sectionalizing devices upstream of the proposed Small Generating Facility (using 100 

percent of daytime minimum load for solar PV generators with no battery storage and 

100 percent of absolute minimum load for all other Small Generating Facilities).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 67 -

2. General Comments on the Customer Options Meeting and the 

Supplemental Review

a. Comments

113. Several commenters support the Commission’s proposed supplemental review 

reforms.224 ITC expresses general support for the proposed changes in the customer 

options meeting and supplemental review process but offers several recommendations.225 

IREC supports the proposed supplemental review process with the optional use of 

“hosting capacity.”

226

 IREC states that utilities operating with high distributed generation 

penetrations have found that with additional time and screening, they are able to safely 

interconnect generators without full study (e.g., California and Hawaii have adopted 

screens similar to those in the NOPR).227 SEIA believes the proposed supplemental 

review reforms will support the interconnection of renewable generation needed to meet 

the demand created by state policies.228 AWEA and IREC both assert that the proposed 

revisions to the supplemental review process are a well-designed solution for efficiently 

 

224 AWEA, CEP, Clean Coalition, DCOPC, ELCON, FCHEA, IREC, NRG, 

Public Interest Organizations, SEIA, and UCS.

225 ITC at 11.

226 IREC at 17. “Hosting capacity” is an alternative approach to the 

interconnection procedures in the NOPR under which the Transmission Provider

calculates the maximum aggregate generating capacity that a distribution circuit can 

accommodate at a proposed Point of Interconnection without requiring the construction 

of facilities by the Transmission Provider on its own system and while maintaining the 

safety, reliability and power quality of the distribution circuit. See infra P 237.

227 IREC at 19.

228 SEIA at 6.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 68 -

handling increased volume and penetrations of distributed generation without 

compromising safety and reliability.229 NRG Companies states the revised supplemental 

review process will provide transparency and allow small generators to avoid lengthy and 

costly interconnection procedures.230 

114. CPUC notes that the proposed supplemental review screens are modeled after 

California’s Electric Rule 21 and recommends that the Commission adopt the 

supplemental review screens.231 CPUC states that the proposed supplemental review 

screens will harmonize state and federal interconnection standards, allow for increased 

penetration of Small Generating Facilities, and are consistent with safe and reliable 

electric service.232

115. MISO warns that although the additional screens are designed to create more 

cohesiveness between the parties and to increase the movement of projects through the 

interconnection queue, they can instead lead to conflict over the underlying data used in 

the screens.233 

 

229 AWEA at 4 and IREC at 17.

230 NRG at 4.

231 CPUC at 6-7. California Electric Rule 21 is the California distribution level 

interconnection rules and regulations (Rule 21). It includes supplemental review screens 

similar to those proposed by the Commission in the NOPR.

232 CPUC at 7.

233 MISO at 8-9.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 69 -

116. NYISO & NYTO state that the time required to perform the supplemental review 

screens would be better spent conducting an Interconnection Feasibility Study.234 

According to NYISO & NYTO, requiring that the performance of the additional screens 

could exacerbate, rather than mitigate, the time and costs associated with the 

interconnection process and would not preclude the possibility that the proposed Small 

Generating Facility may still be required to participate in the Study Process.235 

b. Commission Determination

117. The Commission adopts the proposed revisions to the customer options meeting 

and the supplemental review, with some modifications as discussed below, including 

three supplemental review screens (the Minimum Load Screen,236 the voltage and power 

quality screen237 and the safety and reliability screen238). The Commission is persuaded 

by the comments and by the apparent successful implementation thus far of a similar 

process in California that the revised customer options meeting and supplemental review 

will enhance transparency and consistency of the supplemental review process and thus

ensure that interconnection remains just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory, 

particularly in regions with increasing penetrations of Small Generating Facilities. The 

Commission further finds that the SGIP retains sufficient flexibility (e.g., through the 

 

234 NYISO & NYTO at 20-21.

235 Id. at 21.

236 See SGIP section 2.4.4.1 of Appendix C attached hereto.

237 See SGIP section 2.4.4.2 of Appendix C attached hereto.

238 See SGIP section 2.4.4.3 of Appendix C attached hereto.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 70 -

initial Fast Track screens in section 2.2.1) to meet the needs of regions that do not have 

significant penetrations of Small Generating Facilities. The Commission believes 

adopting the revisions to the customer options meeting and the supplemental review best 

balances the benefits of interconnecting Small Generating Facilities under the quicker, 

less costly Fast Track Process with the needs of Transmission Providers to protect the 

safety and reliability of their systems.

3. Minimum Load Screen (SGIP Section 2.4.4.1)

a. Comments

118. IREC, SEIA, the Vote Solar Initiative (VSI) and UCS support including the 

Minimum Load Screen in the supplemental review.239 IREC contends that minimum 

load is an appropriate evaluation standard in the SGIP supplemental review because 

minimum load is a more accurate metric for evaluating system risk, and many utilities 

have or soon will have a year or more of minimum load data on some circuits.240 

According to IREC, utilities that are not experiencing high penetrations of distributed 

generation will not have a need to determine minimum load in the near term and will 

have time to refine their process for evaluating minimum load as distributed generation 

penetration grows in their service territory.241 

119. SEIA states that without the Minimum Load Screen, ratepayers will bear the cost 

of unnecessarily costly and complex interconnection processes, and that achievement of 

 

239 IREC at 17; SEIA at 4-5; VSI at 2; and UCS at 18-19.

240 IREC at 17-18.

241 Id. at 18-19.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 71 -

the states’ clean energy policies may be jeopardized.242 Public Interest Organizations 

state that the Minimum Load Screen will accommodate higher penetrations of distributed 

generation without creating significant backlogs in study queues.243

120. SEIA and AWEA state that the Minimum Load Screen, which is similar to CPUC 

Rule 21, is a national best practice for distributed generation penetration levels and 

demonstrates that aggregate interconnected generating capacity can be 100 percent of 

minimum load on a distribution line section without impairing safety or reliability.244 

SEIA notes that the California Utilities called Rule 21 “a model for use in reforming the 

Fast Track [P]rocess”

245 and that EEI indicated support for a minimum load screen 

similar to the one in Rule 21 in the context of a supplemental review process.246 SEIA 

states that California’s experience with Rule 21 demonstrates the viability of the 

Minimum Load Screen on a national level so there is no need for a lower standard.247 

Given the widespread support for the Minimum Load Screen, NREL analysis, the 

CPUC’s adoption of the Rule 21 minimum load screen, and the technical feasibility and 

protections afforded by the other proposed supplemental review screens, SEIA urges the 

 

242 SEIA at 6.

243 Public Interest Organizations at 13-14.

244 SEIA at 6; AWEA at 4.

245 SEIA at 6 (citing comments of the California Utilities in Docket No. AD12-17-

000 at 4).

246 Id. at 6-7 (citing EEI comments in Docket No. AD12-17-000 at 11, n. 10).

247 Id. at 10.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 72 -

Commission to adopt the proposed supplemental review process, including the Minimum 

Load Screen.248 Clean Coalition credits the Rule 21 supplemental review with leading to 

significant improvements in the Fast Track Process, including allowing larger projects to 

succeed under the Fast Track Process than would be allowed under the 15 Percent 

Screen.249 FCHEA recommends that all types of distributed generation, especially 

stationary fuel cells, be included in the new screen.

250

121. NREL considers minimum daytime load, as included in the proposed Minimum 

Load Screen, to be the appropriate approach for solar PV systems because it more 

precisely estimates the ratio between generation and load on a line section.251

122. NRECA, EEI & APPA and NYISO & NYTO do not support the Minimum Load 

Screen, stating that minimum load is not a critical system operating criterion and cannot 

be determined accurately because line section monitoring is typically unavailable.252 

NRECA, EEI & APPA contend that the investment needed to obtain the data would be 

unacceptably high unless a utility has other operational reasons for investing in the 

measuring devices needed to acquire the data.253

 

248 Id.

249 Clean Coalition at 7.

250 FCHEA at 2.

251 NREL at 4.

252 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 23 and NYISO & NYTO at 21.

253 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 23.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 73 -

123. Duke Energy expresses concern about the proposal to calculate daytime minimum 

load, stating that calculating minimum load when actual load data are not available may 

not adequately reflect system conditions.254

124. SEIA claims that NRECA, EEI & APPA’s NOPR comments that describe how 

utilities use other sources of information to estimate minimum load data demonstrate that 

the proposed pro forma SGIP gives Transmission Providers sufficient flexibility to 

perform the Minimum Load Screen when minimum load data are not available.255

125. UCS asserts that the Commission should order utilities to start collecting daytime 

minimum load data in areas where distributed generation penetration levels of five 

percent of peak load or higher are proposed.256 

126. NRECA, EEI & APPA contend that utilities must take an “appropriately cautious” 

approach to integrating distributed generation because the industry is still in the early 

stages of evaluating the impact that increased distributed generation will have on 

transmission and distribution systems.257 They claim that rapid integration of distributed 

generation can cause the flow direction to change and introduce significant reliability 

concerns. They argue that while interconnection studies may identify reverse power flow 

 

254 Duke Energy at 11-12.

255 SEIA Reply Comments at 4.

256 UCS at 20.

257 NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 7.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 74 -

issues and possible solutions, more detailed studies of individual line protection and 

control devices are necessary to prevent damage to Transmission Provider equipment.258 

127. NRECA, EEI & APPA dispute SEIA’s claims that the Minimum Load Screen is 

widely supported, offering their own opposition as evidence to the contrary. They also 

urge the Commission to give substantial weight to Transmission Provider comments 

about the Minimum Load Screen because they are responsible for ensuring the safety and 

reliability of their systems.259

128. NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that the Minimum Load Screen: (1) is not consistent 

with Good Utility Practice because utilities typically do not operate their systems at or 

beyond the threshold of when problems are known to occur; (2) limits the utility’s future 

flexibility to move loads when new facilities are built in an area and limits the ability to 

deploy additional line sectionalizing devices for reliability enhancement; (3) requires the 

utility to maintain some amount of minimum load on a feeder where a distributed 

generation project has been operating and a large load is lost; and (4) results in additional 

costs being recovered from all other customers to rectify the problems, requiring 

additional infrastructure investment to move loads by constructing new feeder ties or 

 

258 Id. at 6.

259 Id. at 10.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 75 -

other needed solutions.260 Therefore, they urge the Commission to retain the existing 

15 Percent Screen.261

129. Duke Energy believes that the Minimum Load Screen may not provide a sufficient 

margin of safety to account for the variability of load on a distribution circuit and for the 

variability of output of certain types of Small Generating Facilities.262 Duke Energy 

asserts that the intermittent nature of PV generation connected on distribution lines may 

interfere with smart grid applications and load monitoring equipment, and may cause 

restoration schemes and voltage and reactive power schemes to operate improperly. 

Duke Energy states that the existing 15 Percent Screen has a safety margin for minimum 

load built into the screen, which minimizes the negative effects of variable generation.263 

Duke Energy also comments that the Minimum Load Screen will require utilities to 

estimate minimum load and that these estimates may involve high rates of error.264

130. IREC argues, however, that Transmission Providers infrequently have to transfer 

load between circuits and can retain flexibility on a particular circuit by identifying this 

need through the application of the additional supplemental review screens.265 IREC 

further states that the safety, reliability, and power quality screens in the supplemental 

 

260 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 26.

261 Id. at 7.

262 Duke Energy at 10.

263 Id. at 11.

264 Id. at 11-12.

265 IREC at 24.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 76 -

review process, along with providing 20 business days for the Transmission Provider to 

perform the supplemental review, provide utilities with sufficient time and flexibility to 

evaluate a proposed generator and enable more generators to be interconnected safely 

without a full study.266

131. IREC asserts that it is inappropriate to view the Minimum Load Screen in isolation 

from the other supplemental review screens. 267 IREC argues that when viewed together, 

the supplemental review screens provide the flexibility to identify circumstances where 

high penetrations of distributed generation may require additional study.268 SEIA and 

Public Interest Organizations similarly assert that even if a proposed Small Generating 

Facility passes the Minimum Load Screen, it would be subject to additional study if it 

failed either of the other two screens, which address reliability and operational 

flexibility.269 IREC states that inverter-based systems minimize risks that may arise at 

higher penetrations.270 IREC further states that the Minimum Load Screen does not 

increase the risk of problems related to load changes and notes that problems related to 

load changes could also be raised in relation to projects that undergo the Study Process 

(i.e., increasing the number of generators that are able to interconnect without full study 

does not exacerbate the problem associated with changes in load, nor would requiring full 

 

266 Id. at 17.

267 Id. at 22.

268 Id.

269 Public Interest Organizations at 14 and SEIA at 8.

270 IREC at 23.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 77 -

study for more generators reduce this risk).271 SEIA states that the Minimum Load 

Screen is conservative because the likelihood of every generator on a circuit generating

power at its nameplate capacity while the circuit’s load is simultaneously at its minimum 

is extremely rare.272 

132. NRECA, EEI & APPA state that if the Commission adopts a minimum load 

screen, 67 percent for such a screen is a reasonable starting point because it provides an 

appropriate initial buffer to protect safety, reliability and power quality, and is consistent 

with the configuration of many distribution systems.273 Further, they claim that any 

threshold higher than 67 percent of minimum load for those distribution circuits 

involving both inverter-based PV and rotating generator machines would impose an 

unacceptable threat to safety, reliability, and power quality.274 They argue that no more 

than a 33 percent minimum load screen is appropriate for areas or applications involving 

only rotating machines.275 They state that the Commission could follow the 

Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities’ procedure by adopting a 67 percent 

minimum load screen and holding an annual technical workshop with interested parties to 

 

271 Id.

272 SEIA at 8-9.

273 NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments 9.

274 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 7, 25.

275 Id. at 25.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 78 -

determine whether the percentage chosen for the screen is working as planned or 

determine whether the chosen percentage should be revised.

276

133. SEIA contends that the 67 percent Minimum Load Screen is inappropriate because 

the only rationale presented was the adoption of this screen on an interim basis in 

Massachusetts.277 Sandia and SEIA state that the 67 percent minimum load screen 

adopted in Massachusetts serves only as an interim standard while a working group 

investigates the appropriate level for a minimum load screen.

278

 SEIA asserts that 

holding annual technical conferences to reassess the Minimum Load Screen will impose 

uncertainty on utilities and developers and will burden the Commission.279

134. Sandia, IREC and SEIA argue that a 67 percent minimum load screen lacks 

technical justification.

280

 Sandia and IREC note that the 67 percent minimum load screen 

adopted in Massachusetts on an interim basis was derived from a Sandia report on antiislanding, and that it is not appropriate to use the screen to determine if further study of a

 

276 Id.

277 SEIA Reply Comments at 3.

278 Sandia at 4 and SEIA at 9 (citing Order on the Distributed Generation Working 

Group’s Redlined Tariff and Non-Tariff Recommendations, Massachusetts Department of 

Public Utilities 11-75-E at 34).

279 SEIA Reply Comments at 3.

280 IREC at 20-21; Sandia at 4; and SEIA at 9.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 79 -

Small Generating Facility is required.

281 IREC asserts that a 67 percent minimum load 

screen would do little to improve the interconnection process.282 

135. SEIA further states that NREL determined that if aggregate generation on a line 

section is below 100 percent of minimum load, the risk of power backfeeding beyond the 

substation is minimal; therefore power quality, voltage control and other safety and 

reliability concerns may be addressed without a full study of the proposed Small 

Generating Facility.283 SEIA also notes that at the July 17, 2012 technical conference,284

NREL stated that there are systems designed to work well with aggregate generation in 

excess of 100 percent of minimum load and there is no “hard and fast ceiling” that 

exceeding 100 percent of daytime minimum load would cause a system to fail.285

136. Sandia states that there are many circuits with aggregated PV that are operating 

above 100 percent of minimum load, but the risk of unintentional islanding of inverterbased distributed generation is extremely low.286

 Therefore, Sandia asserts that, for 

 

281 IREC at 20-21 and Sandia at 4, citing M. Ropp and A. Ellis, Suggested 

Guidelines for Assessment of DG Unintentional Islanding Risk, Sandia National 

Laboratories (March 2013), p. 5, available at: http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wpcontent/gallery/uploads/SAND2012-1365-v2.pdf.

282 IREC at 21.

283 SEIA at 7 (citing NREL, Technical Report: Updating Small Generator 

Interconnection Procedures for New Market Conditions 30 (Dec. 2012)).

284 See supra P 12.

285 SEIA at 7 (citing Technical Conference Transcript at 92:15-21). 

286 Sandia at 5.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 80 -

distributed generation with anti-islanding capability,287 a screening threshold of 

100 percent of minimum load is sufficiently conservative to mitigate the risk of 

unintentional islanding.288

137. NREL states that it has documented examples of PV systems operating at levels 

over 300 percent of minimum daytime load.289 NREL believes that utilities should be 

encouraged to increase this penetration screen percentage on line sections with feeders 

that have shorter average distances to a substation, lower average impedance, and a lower 

average stiffness factor.290

138. MISO suggests that for facilities less than 100 kV, it may be more efficient to 

assess the impact of a possible back-feed event rather than conduct a Minimum Load 

Screen analysis.291

139. VSI asserts that the Minimum Load Screen can be implemented without the other 

supplemental review screens for two reasons: (1) minimum daytime loads tend to occur 

in the early morning hours and are not coincident with maximum solar output; and (2) the 

diversity of solar installations adds to the safety margin because the varying size, angles, 

 

287 Id. at 4-5 (noting that all new UL 1741-listed inverter-based distributed 

generation must have anti-islanding capability).

288 Id. at 5.

289 NREL at 4.

290 Id. at 5, stiffness factor is defined as the available utility fault current divided 

by the distributed generation rated output current at the point of common coupling.

291 MISO Comments at 9.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 81 -

orientations, and regional cloud cover make it unlikely that the generation of all the solar 

installations will peak at the same time.292 

140. NRECA, EEI & APPA suggest deleting the proposed requirement to consider only 

net export energy from small generators that serve onsite load (proposed SGIP section 

2.4.1.1.2) because it requires consideration of the net export of power by the Small 

Generating Facility that may flow on the Transmission Provider’s system rather than total 

output of the Small Generating Facility in the application of the Minimum Load Screen. 

They argue that on-site load can vary and cannot be counted on to consume some of the 

Small Generating Facility’s output. The commenters also state that relying on reverse 

power relays alone does not mitigate all concerns related to the potential impact of 

reverse power flow on the Transmission Provider’s system.293

b. Commission Determination

141. The Commission adopts the Minimum Load Screen294 as proposed in the NOPR, 

with modifications as discussed below. We appreciate the concerns of Transmission 

Providers with regard to the Minimum Load Screen, but believe that the Minimum Load 

Screen is sufficiently conservative, particularly when viewed together with the other 

two supplemental review screens. Taken as a whole, the supplemental review screens 

provide the flexibility to identify circumstances when additional studies may be required 

while avoiding an unjust and unreasonable increase in expense and delay in 

 

292 VSI at 3.

293 NRECA, EEI & APPA, Appendix B at 2.

294 See SGIP section 2.4.4.1 of Appendix C attached hereto.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 82 -

interconnection. That is, the three screens in the supplemental review are designed to 

strike a balance between handling the increased volume of interconnection requests and 

penetrations of small generators and maintaining the safety and reliability of the electric 

systems. 

142. The Minimum Load Screen is used in assessing whether an Interconnection 

Customer that initially failed the Fast Track screens may still interconnect under the Fast 

Track Process. If the aggregate generating capacity on a line section, including the 

proposed Small Generating Facility, is less than 100 percent of minimum load, there are 

two additional screens, the voltage and power quality screen and the safety and reliability

screen, that the Small Generating Facility must pass to be interconnected. Regarding 

NRECA, EEI & APPA’s assertion that the use of 100 percent of minimum load limits the 

flexibility to move loads and the ability to deploy additional sectionalizing devices for 

reliability enhancement, we note that one of the factors to be considered in the safety and 

reliability screen of the supplemental review asks whether operational flexibility is 

reduced by the proposed Small Generating Facility (see SGIP section 2.4.1.3.5). 

Therefore, the Commission agrees with IREC that this concern can be evaluated under 

the safety and reliability screen.

143. The Commission finds that a 100 percent minimum load screen more 

appropriately balances these considerations than the 33 and 67 percent minimum load 

screens proposed by NRECA, EEI & APPA. We note that a 33 percent minimum load 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 83 -

screen would be even more conservative than the existing 15 Percent Screen (which 

approximates a 50 percent minimum load screen).295 

144. The Commission acknowledges the concerns of NRECA, EEI & APPA and 

NYISO & NYTO that minimum load does not represent a critical system operating 

criterion so currently minimum load data are typically not measured and/or recorded, but 

the Commission agrees with IREC that minimum load is a more accurate metric for 

evaluating system risk posed by a potential interconnection than peak load. The 

Commission also acknowledges IREC’s comment that Transmission Providers 

experiencing high penetrations of Small Generating Facilities have or soon may have a 

year or more of minimum load data on some circuits. Contrary to UCS’ request and in 

response to NRECA, EEI & APPA’s comments, the Commission is not at this time 

requiring Transmission Providers to purchase equipment or otherwise make investments 

to obtain minimum load data. The adopted reform gives the Transmission Provider the 

flexibility to calculate, estimate or determine minimum load if data are not available. 

Further, the language allows the Transmission Provider not to perform the Minimum 

Load Screen if data are unavailable or if it is unable to calculate, estimate or determine 

minimum load.296 

 

295 The 15 Percent Screen can be viewed as a “rule of thumb” that minimum load 

is approximately 30 percent of peak load on a given line section with a 50 percent safety 

margin. See Nat’l Renewable Energy Lab, Updating Interconnection Screens for PV 

System Integration 2 (Feb. 2012), available at

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/54063.pdf.

296 Under section 2.4.4 of the SGIP adopted herein, if a Transmission Provider is 

unable to perform the Minimum Load Screen, it must notify the Interconnection 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 84 -

145. Regarding Duke Energy’s concern that calculations of daytime minimum load 

may not adequately reflect system conditions, the Commission clarifies that if the 

Transmission Provider is concerned that its minimum load calculations may not 

adequately reflect system conditions in a particular instance and the Transmission 

Provider is unable to correct for any inaccuracies in the calculations or estimate or 

determine minimum load in some other way, the Transmission Provider may elect not to 

perform the Minimum Load Screen. However, the Transmission Provider must provide 

the reason it is unable to perform the screen to the Interconnection Customer, in 

accordance with SGIP section 2.4.4.1. 

146. Regarding Duke Energy’s assertion that the 15 Percent Screen should be 

maintained because it includes a safety margin that minimizes the negative effects of 

intermittent generation (such as problems with smart grid applications, load monitoring 

equipment, restoration schemes, and voltage and reactive power control schemes), the 

Commission finds that such issues are appropriately addressed under the voltage and 

power quality and the safety and reliability screens of the supplemental review. 

147. The Commission acknowledges comments that utilities study the aggregate 

nameplate generation on the system relative to the Small Generating Facility output, that 

on-site load can vary, and that Transmission Providers should not net out on-site load 

 

Customer to obtain the Interconnection Customer’s permission to continue the 

supplemental review (see infra P 186), to terminate the supplemental review or to 

withdraw the interconnection request. Further, in section 2.4.4.1 of the SGIP, when the 

Transmission Provider notifies the Interconnection Customer of the results of the 

supplemental review, it must include the reason that it is unable to perform the Minimum 

Load Screen. 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 85 -

when applying the Minimum Load Screen. Rather than deleting proposed section 

2.4.1.1.2297 entirely, however, the Commission changes “onsite electrical load” to 

“station service load,” since station service load is typically netted out when considering 

the aggregate generation. Further, the Commission modifies section 2.4.4.1 to clarify

that on-site load served by a proposed Small Generating Facility should be accounted for 

in minimum load for the purpose of applying the Minimum Load Screen.

148. Finally, the Commission disagrees with VSI that the Minimum Load Screen alone 

is generally sufficient to determine if a Small Generating Facility may be interconnected 

safely and reliably without undergoing full study. The additional screens are necessary to 

ensure the safety and reliability of the proposed interconnection and to allow 

Transmission Providers the flexibility to identify issues that may be unique to a particular 

Small Generating Facility.

4. Voltage and Power Quality Screen and Safety and Reliability 

Screen (SGIP Sections 2.4.4.2 and 2.4.4.3)

a. Comments

149. The Commission received a number of comments regarding the details of the

proposed voltage and power quality screen298 and the safety and reliability screen.

299

NYISO & NYTO are concerned that these screens could be passed by a single generator, 

 

297 Section 2.4.4.1.2 in the SGIP adopted herein.

298 See SGIP section 2.4.1.2 of Appendix C to the NOPR.

299 See SGIP section 2.4.1.3 of Appendix C to the NOPR.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 86 -

but aggregate distributed generation in an area could result in voltage and/or power 

quality issues to neighboring customers.300 

150. ITC notes that it has performed power quality screens and asserts that performing 

the voltage and power quality screen requires monitoring equipment that is typically 

found on distribution-level systems and adding it to ITC’s transmission-level system 

would present “substantial logistical problems.”

301 ITC states that performing the power 

quality and voltage screen would impose costs in excess of the $2,500 supplemental 

review fee without providing commensurate benefits.302 Similarly, NRECA, EEI &

APPA state that the power quality and voltage screen is difficult to perform without 

detailed engineering analysis and the $2,500 supplemental review fee would not cover 

the cost of performing the screen.

303

 ITC does not recommend increasing the 

supplemental review fee to cover the cost of performing this screen. Rather, ITC 

recommends that the voltage and power quality screen should be an optional analysis

performed at the request of individual Interconnection Customers on a fee-for-service 

basis. Alternatively, ITC suggests that the inclusion and precise methodology of this 

screen should be left to the discretion of individual ISOs/RTOs.304

 

300 NYISO & NYTO at 21.

301 ITC at 13-14

302 Id. at 13-15.

303 NRECA, EEI & APPA, Appendix B at 3.

304 ITC at 13-15. 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 87 -

151. NRECA, EEI & APPA note that the voltage and power quality screen does not 

specify if the screen applies at the point of common coupling or at the Point of 

Interconnection.305 

152. NRECA, EEI & APPA suggest revising the screen as follows: 

2.4.1.2 In aggregate with existing generation on the line section:

(1)2.4.1.2.1 the voltage regulation on the line section can be maintained in 

compliance with relevant requirements under all system conditions such that load 

on the Transmission Provider’s transformer with automatic voltage control or line 

voltage regulator is 20% greater than the aggregate generation on the line section;

(2)2.4.1.2.2 the voltage fluctuation is within acceptable limits as defined by 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 1453, or utility 

practice similar to IEEE Standard 1453; and

(3)2.4.1.2.3 the harmonic levels meet IEEE Standard 519 limits at the Point of 

Interconnection.306

153. NRECA, EEI & APPA recommend adding the following final sentence to 

proposed SGIP section 2.4.1.3: “If any one or more of the following safety and reliability 

protection test screens fail, then proceed to a feasibility and/or system impact study in 

[s]ections 3.3 and 3.4.”307

154. In addition, NRECA, EEI & APPA recommend adding the following to proposed 

section 2.4.1.3: “For safety and reliability protection of the line section, the aggregate 

generation existing, in queue for installation, and being proposed shall be considered for 

 

305 NRECA, EEI & APPA, Appendix B at 3.

306 Id.

307 Id.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 88 -

evaluating the generation types within the regional limits established for interactive 

system operability as specified by the Transmission Provider.”308 

155. Finally, NRECA, EEI & APPA suggest deleting proposed SGIP section 2.4.1.3.3, 

which examines the proposed interconnection’s proximity to the substation and the class 

of conductor cable between the substation and the proposed Point of Interconnection, 

because different distribution line constructions can affect system impedance 

differently.309

b. Commission Determination

156. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal for the voltage and power quality 

screen and the safety and reliability screen, as modified below. 

157. Regarding NYISO & NYTO’s concern that the voltage and power quality and 

safety and reliability screens could be passed by a single generator, but aggregate 

distributed generation in an area could result in voltage and/or power quality issues to 

neighboring customers, we note that sections 2.4.4.2 and 2.4.4.3 of the SGIP adopted 

herein specify that the proposed Small Generating Facility should be evaluated with 

existing aggregate generation on a line section, so any issues associated with aggregate 

generation should emerge as a result of the performance of these screens.

158. In response to ITC’s comment that the cost of the voltage and power quality 

screen may be greater than the benefit associated with the screen and NRECA, EEI & 

 

308 Id.

309 Id.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 89 -

APPA's comment that this screen is difficult to perform without detailed engineering 

analysis, we will permit Transmission Providers to propose an alternative methodology 

for performing this screen when submitting filings in compliance with this Final Rule.310

159. In response to NRECA, EEI and APPA, the Commission clarifies that a proposed 

interconnection being evaluated under the voltage and power quality supplemental review 

screen must meet the requirements as specified in the applicable IEEE standards. 

Therefore, we delete "at the Point of Interconnection" from section 2.4.4.2 of the pro 

forma SGIP adopted herein so there is not a conflict between the SGIP and the IEEE 

standards. 

160. The Commission declines to add “such that load on the Transmission Provider’s 

transformer with automatic voltage control or line voltage regulator is 20 [percent]

greater than the aggregate generation on the line section” to section 2.4.4.2 of the SGIP

adopted herein as suggested by NRECA, EEI & APPA because the commenters do not 

provide an explanation or support for making this revision. For the same reasons the 

Commission declines to add the language under section 2.4.4.3 as proposed by NRECA, 

EEI & APPA.

161. Finally, the Commission acknowledges NRECA, EEI & APPA’s concerns 

regarding different distribution line constructions affecting system impedance differently. 

Therefore, in order to account for differences in distribution systems and to make this 

 

310 See infra section V.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 90 -

section consistent with the Fast Track eligibility table in section 2.1 of the SGIP, the 

Commission adopts the following language in section 2.4.4.3.3 of the SGIP:

Whether the proposed Small Generating Facility is located in close proximity to 

the substation (i.e., less than 2.5 electrical circuit miles), and whether the line 

section from the substation to the Point of Interconnection is a Mainline rated for 

normal and emergency ampacity.

5. Supplemental Review Screen Order (SGIP Section 2.4.2)

a. Comments

162. NRECA, EEI & APPA argue that the safety and reliability screen should be 

performed first in the supplemental review, and that a Small Generating Facility that fails 

the safety and reliability screen should be required to proceed directly to the Study 

Process.311 They assert that Transmission Providers could be spared the time and cost of 

performing the remaining supplemental review screens if it is known at the beginning of 

the supplemental review that interconnection of a Small Generating Facility poses a 

threat to the safety and reliability of the system.312 

163. SEIA opposes any change to the order in which the supplemental review screens 

are applied.313 SEIA contends that the Commission’s supplemental review screens are 

proposed to be completed in the same manner as the Rule 21 screens.314 Thus, SEIA 

contends that the Commission proposed that the three supplemental review screens be 

 

311 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 26.

312 Id. at 27.

313 SEIA Reply Comments at 2.

314 Id. at 5.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 91 -

conducted in the following order: (1) Minimum Load Screen; (2) power quality and 

voltage screen; and (3) safety and reliability screen. SEIA states that the Commission 

should maintain this order to avoid inconsistencies between the SGIP and Rule 21.315 

SEIA also argues that changing the order of the screens will not save utilities the time and 

expense of performing additional screens because the Interconnection Customer bears the 

cost of the supplemental review, not the utility.316 

b. Commission Determination

164. In order to allow for flexibility in the supplemental review process and to 

potentially save the Interconnection Customer the cost of unnecessary supplemental 

review screens, the Commission adopts language in SGIP section 2.4 that allows the 

Interconnection Customer to specify an order in which the supplemental review screens 

are to be performed, as well as a requirement that the Transmission Provider notify the 

Interconnection Customer if the Small Generating Facility fails any of the screens and 

obtain the Interconnection Customer’s permission to continue with the supplemental 

review for informational purposes or in order to determine if the interconnection may 

proceed with minor modifications to the Transmission Provider’s system.317 The 

Commission finds, contrary to arguments by NRECA, EEI & APPA and SEIA, that 

because the Interconnection Customer is paying for the screens, the Interconnection 

Customer should be able to specify the order in which the Transmission Provider 

 

315 Id.

316 Id.

317 See infra P 186. 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 92 -

performs the screens. However, we note that any delay in obtaining permission from an 

Interconnection Customer under these requirements may impact the Transmission 

Provider’s ability to complete the supplemental review within the specified timeframe. 

To avoid the possibility of any such delays, an Interconnection Customer may provide 

instructions for how to proceed after a supplemental review screen failure at the time the 

Interconnection Customer accepts the Transmission Provider’s offer to perform the 

supplemental review under section 2.4.1 of the pro forma SGIP adopted herein.

6. Supplemental Review Fee (SGIP Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.3)

a. Comments

165. NREL believes that the $2,500 supplemental review fee strikes a balance in cost 

and time and supports the fee.318 IECA states that the $2,500 fee is appropriate.319

166. NRECA, EEI & APPA and ISO-NE do not believe the $2,500 fee covers the cost 

of performing the supplemental review.320 NRECA, EEI & APPA recommend, at the 

very least, that the $2,500 fee represents a base payment, and that the fee be adjusted for 

inflation with either the Consumer Price Index or the Handy-Whitman Index.321 ISO-NE 

requests regional flexibility to determine a fee that adequately covers the supplemental 

review costs.322

 

318 NREL at 4.

319 IECA at 5.

320 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 22-23; ISO-NE at 17.

321 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 22-23.

322 ISO-NE at 17.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 93 -

167. NYISO & NYTO estimate the actual cost of a supplemental review will be 

approximately equivalent to the cost of an average interconnection feasibility study for a 

Small Generating Facility ($30,000), and therefore claim that the proposed $2,500 

supplemental review fee is insufficient to cover the cost of the review.323 NYISO & 

NYTO propose either adopting a higher supplemental review fee or retaining the existing 

requirement that the Interconnection Customer provide a deposit for the estimated cost of 

the work, which would be refunded, based on actual costs.324 

168. ITC and PJM assert that Interconnection Customers should be required to pay the 

Transmission Provider for its actual cost incurred in performing the supplemental review 

rather than a flat $2,500 fee, which may result in over- or under-recovery of the 

Transmission Provider’s actual incurred expenses.325 ITC believes the $2,500 fee will be 

“consistently and substantially less than the true cost” of performing the proposed 

supplemental review.326 DCOPC requests that the Commission ensure that the 

Interconnection Customer is solely responsible for all supplemental review costs rather 

than allocating these costs to load.327 If the Commission does not require the 

Interconnection Customer to pay the actual cost of the supplemental review, PJM 

 

323 NYISO & NYTO at 19.

324 Id. at 19-20.

325 ITC at 12; and PJM at 12.

326 ITC at 12.

327 DCOPC at 7.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 94 -

requests clarification by the Commission that allocating costs in excess of the $2,500 

review fee to load is just and reasonable.328 

169. ITC recommends that the Commission adopt a “deposit/not-to-exceed” fee 

structure whereby the Interconnection Customer provides an initial deposit and identifies 

an amount that the Transmission Provider is not to exceed while it prepares the 

supplemental review.329 ITC proposes that the supplemental review costs could be truedup based on actual incurred costs after the study is complete.330

 

b. Commission Determination

170. The Commission agrees with commenters that the Interconnection Customer 

should be responsible for the actual cost of conducting the supplemental review, 

therefore, the Commission adopts a supplemental review fee based on actual costs. We 

are concerned that because the supplemental review is not based solely on information 

already available to the Transmission Provider (unlike the pre-application report), there 

may be significant cost differences between supplemental reviews for different projects. 

Therefore, a fixed fee would result in Interconnection Customers with smaller 

supplemental review costs subsidizing Interconnection Customers with larger 

supplemental review costs. 

 

328 PJM at 12.

329 ITC at 12-13.

330 Id. at 8, 12-13.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 95 -

171. Similar to the supplemental review and other processes (e.g., the feasibility study 

and the system impact study) in the pro forma SGIP,331 prior to performing the 

supplemental review, the Transmission Provider will be required to provide the 

Interconnection Customer with a good faith estimate of the cost to perform the 

supplemental review, and the Interconnection Customer will be required to pay this 

amount as a deposit in advance of the supplemental review. After the supplemental 

review is complete, the Transmission Provider and the Interconnection Customer will

reconcile any difference between the deposit paid by the Interconnection Customer and 

the actual cost to perform the supplemental review. 

172. Consistent with the Commission’s determination on SGIP study cost responsibility 

in Order No. 2006, the Interconnection Customer will be required to pay for the 

supplemental review, regardless of the conclusions reached, rather than unreasonably 

shift this cost to other transmission customers that do not benefit from the review. 

However, whenever possible, the Transmission Provider should use existing information 

and studies instead of performing additional analyses for the supplemental review in 

order to reduce costs for the Interconnection Customer. Although the Interconnection 

Customer is not to be charged for such existing information and studies, it is responsible 

for costs associated with any new analysis and any modification to an existing analysis 

that are reasonably necessary to evaluate the proposed interconnection under the 

supplemental review.

 

331 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 187.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 96 -

173. We are not adopting ITC’s proposal to allow Interconnection Customers to specify 

the maximum amount that the Transmission Provider may spend to prepare the 

supplemental review. Rather, the Commission believes that the Transmission Provider’s 

good faith estimate of the cost to perform the review, along with the requirement 

described above that the Transmission Provider notify the Interconnection Customer 

upon failure of a supplemental review screen, provides the Interconnection Customer 

with a reasonable degree of transparency and cost certainty in the supplemental review 

process. 

7. Process Following Completion of the Customer Options Meeting 

and the Supplemental Review (SGIP Sections 2.3.1, 2.4.4 and 

2.4.5)

a. Comments

174. NRECA, EEI & APPA, MISO and ITC request additional clarification regarding 

what changes qualify as “minor modifications” to the Transmission Provider’s system.332 

ITC requests that the Commission provide a cost threshold or a more extensive list of 

examples of what constitutes a minor modification.333 NRECA, EEI & APPA believe 

that “minor” would mean that “the proposed interconnection requires no construction of 

facilities by the Transmission Provider on its own system” and refers to modifications 

 

332 ITC at 13; MISO at 8; and NRECA, EEI & APPA at 22 (citing the NOPR, 

142 FERC ¶ 61,049 at P 33 (stating that the Transmission Provider must offer to perform 

minor modifications to its system and provide a non-binding estimate of the cost at the 

customer options meeting)).

333 ITC at 13.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 97 -

such as “changing meters, fuses, [and] relay settings” on the Transmission Provider’s 

system.334 

175. NYISO & NYTO request that “minor modifications” only include upgrades that 

fall within the definition of Local System Upgrade Facilities in the NYISO tariff.335 

NYISO & NYTO also request that the Commission clarify the extent to which security is 

required for such modifications and clarify that the Transmission Provider will forward 

the Interconnection Customer an interconnection agreement that requires the 

Interconnection Customer to pay the costs of the required system modifications prior to 

interconnection and requests that the Commission make similar modifications to the

proposed requirement in section 2.4.2 regarding the provision of an interconnection 

agreement when the interconnection only requires minor modifications.336 NYISO 

& NYTO propose that the Commission also modify section 2.4.2 of the SGIP to require 

that an Interconnection Customer’s interconnection request “shall” be evaluated under the 

Study Process if it requires more than minor modifications to the Transmission Provider’s 

system or be withdrawn.337

176. NYISO & NYTO state that since the supplemental review is optional, an 

Interconnection Customer’s failure to agree and pay for the supplemental review should 

 

334 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 22 (citing the proposed pro forma SGIP at sections 

2.3.1 and 2.4.2).

335 NYISO & NYTO at 19.

336 Id.

337 Id. at 20.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 98 -

not lead to the withdrawal of its interconnection request. They request that the 

Commission require that if an Interconnection Customer does not agree in writing and 

pay the supplemental review fee within 15 business days, its interconnection request shall 

be directed to the Study Process for evaluation.338

177. ISO-NE argues that requiring the Transmission Provider to provide the 

Interconnection Customer with an interconnection agreement within five business days of 

the customer options meeting when the Interconnection Customer agrees to pay for 

modifications to the Transmission Provider’s system is problematic.339 Further, ISO-NE 

asserts that the existing ten business day deadline for providing an interconnection 

agreement following supplemental review when modifications to the Transmission 

Provider’s system are required is extremely tight and states that the Commission should

not reduce this timeframe.

340

 

178. PJM is concerned that Transmission Providers will not be able to provide an 

executable interconnection agreement within five business days if the Interconnection 

Customer chooses to move forward based on the non-binding good faith estimate to 

perform modifications to the Transmission Provider’s system offered during the customer 

options meeting. PJM therefore requests that the Commission allow ten business days, 

which it believes will enable more projects to obtain a quick interconnection 

 

338 Id.

339 ISO-NE at 16.

340 Id. at 16-17.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 99 -

agreement.341 PJM also asks that the Commission increase each of the timeframes

concerning the provision of interconnection agreements in the current supplemental 

review process by adding five business days to each stated deadline to accommodate the 

greater number of interconnection agreements that may result from the proposed reforms 

to the Fast Track Process.

342

179. Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) states that the supplemental review 

should include an examination of Affected Systems.343

180. Finally, NYISO & NYTO request that the Commission retain “does not” in 

section 2.2.4 of the SGIP in order to enable the Interconnection Customer to have a 

customer options meeting when the Transmission Provider has the capability to but does 

not determine from the initial screens that the proposed facility can be interconnected 

safely and reliability under current system conditions.344 Section 2.2.4 of the SGIP 

currently states that the Transmission Provider will offer Interconnection Customers a 

customer options meeting if the proposed interconnection fails the Fast Track screens but 

the Transmission Provider “does not or cannot” determine that the facility could 

interconnect consistently with safety, reliability, and power quality standards. In the 

 

341 PJM at 11.

342 Id. at 12.

343 Bonneville at 3-4. An Affected System is “[a]n electric system other than the 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission System that may be affected by the proposed 

interconnection.” SGIP, Attachment 1. 

344 NYISO & NYTO at 18.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 100 -

NOPR, the Commission proposes to replace “does not or cannot determine” with “cannot 

determine.” 

b. Commission Determination

181. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to govern the process after the 

supplemental screen(s) have been completed as modified below. We agree with NYISO 

& NYTO that section 2.4.5 of the SGIP should be modified to require that an 

Interconnection Customer’s interconnection request “shall” be evaluated under the Study 

Process if it requires more than minor modifications to the Transmission Provider’s 

system, and the Interconnection Customer does not withdraw its Small Generating 

Facility. To further clarify the outcome of the supplemental review process, the 

Commission adopts language in section 2.4.5 for the following circumstances: (1) the 

proposed interconnection passes the supplemental review screens and does not require 

construction of facilities by the Transmission Provider on its own system; (2)

interconnection facilities or minor modifications to the Transmission Provider’s system 

are required for the proposed interconnection to pass the supplemental review screens; 

and (3) the proposed interconnection would require more than interconnection facilities 

or minor modifications to the Transmission Provider’s system to pass the supplemental 

review screens. In the first circumstance, the proposed interconnection passes the 

supplemental review screens, and the Interconnection Customer is provided with an 

interconnection agreement within ten business days of notification of the supplemental 

review results. In the second circumstance, the proposed interconnection passes the 

supplemental review screens, and, if the Interconnection Customer agrees to pay for the 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 101 -

modifications to the Transmission Provider’s system, the Interconnection Customer is 

provided with an interconnection agreement within 15 business days of receiving written 

notification of the supplemental review results. In the third circumstance, the proposed 

interconnection does not pass the supplemental review screens and must continue to be 

evaluated under the Study Process unless the Interconnection Customer withdraws its 

Small Generating Facility.

182. The Commission affirms that, consistent with Order No. 2006, examples of 

“minor modifications” to the Transmission Provider’s system in the context of the 

supplemental review include changing meters, fuses, and relay settings.345 However, we 

also note that these are examples only and therefore minor modifications could include 

other items that the Transmission Provider determines could be made to its system safely 

and reliably without further study of the interconnection. Because “minor modifications” 

could include items other than the listed examples,

346 the Commission does not herein 

establish a cost threshold or a more extensive list of items that would qualify as “minor 

modifications.” We do, however, modify section 2.4.5 to include language that the 

Transmission Provider will provide an interconnection agreement to the Interconnection 

 

345 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 159 and section 2.3.1 of 

the SGIP.

346 “Minor modifications” could, in some circumstances, include construction of 

facilities by the Transmission Provider on its own system, provided that the Transmission 

Provider were able to determine without further study that such modifications are safe 

and reliable. Such circumstances may be rare, but we see no reason to foreclose their 

possibility completely.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 102 -

Customer if the Interconnection Customer agrees to pay for the modifications to the 

Transmission Provider’s system, similar to the language in section 2.3.1 of the SGIP. 

183. The Commission disagrees with NYISO & NYTO that the time spent on a 

supplemental review would be better spent on a feasibility study. The Commission 

acknowledges that a supplemental review could add to the overall time of the 

interconnection process if a project fails the supplemental review and must be evaluated 

under the Study Process. However, if the Small Generating Facility is able to be 

interconnected under the Fast Track Process as a result of undergoing supplemental 

review, the interconnection process will be much shorter when compared with the Study 

Process. Further, the Commission notes that the purpose of the supplemental review is to 

determine if the Small Generating Facility may be interconnected safely and reliably 

without undergoing full study, including a feasibility study.

184. We agree with NYISO & NYTO that since the supplemental review is optional, an 

Interconnection Customer’s failure to agree and pay for the supplemental review should 

not lead to the withdrawal of its interconnection request. Therefore, we adopt language 

in section 2.4.1 of the SGIP stating that, if an Interconnection Customer does not agree in 

writing and pay the supplemental review fee within 15 business days, the Transmission 

Provider shall direct the interconnection request to the section 3 Study Process for 

evaluation unless it is withdrawn by the Interconnection Customer. 

185. In response to comments that the five business day deadline for providing the 

Interconnection Customer with an interconnection agreement when the Interconnection 

Customer accepts the Transmission Provider’s offer at the customer options meeting to 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 103 -

perform modifications to the Transmission Provider’s system and agrees to pay for these 

modifications is too short, the Commission revises the deadline in section 2.3.1 to 

ten business days as proposed by PJM. Further, the Commission also adopts a 

ten business day deadline in section 2.4.5.1 for provision of an interconnection agreement 

that requires no construction of facilities or minor modifications to the Transmission 

Provider’s system to accommodate any increased volume of interconnection agreements 

associated with the Fast Track Process reforms adopted herein. Finally, the Commission 

adopts the 15 business day deadline in section 2.4.5.2 for provision of an interconnection 

agreement when interconnection facilities or minor modifications to the Transmission 

Provider’s system are required, as proposed in the NOPR.347 This provides an additional 

five business days beyond the deadline in section 2.4.1.3 of the pro forma SGIP adopted 

in Order No. 2006 and should accommodate any increased volume of interconnection 

agreements associated with the Fast Track Process reforms adopted herein. 

186. The Commission notes that in order to interconnect under the Fast Track Process 

supplemental review, a Small Generating Facility must pass all three supplemental 

review screens. In order to minimize supplemental review costs, the Commission will 

require the Transmission Provider to notify the Interconnection Customer within two 

business days following the failure of a supplemental review screen and obtain the 

Interconnection Customer’s permission to: (1) continue with the supplemental review at 

the Interconnection Customer’s expense for informational purposes or to determine if the 

 

347 See section 2.4.2 of the SGIP in Appendix C to the NOPR.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 104 -

proposed interconnection would require only interconnection facilities or minor 

modifications to the Transmission Provider’s system and thus qualify for interconnection 

under the Fast Track Process in accordance with section 2.4.5.2 of the pro forma SGIP 

adopted under this Final Rule; (2) terminate the supplemental review and continue 

evaluating the interconnection request under the SGIP section 3 Study Process; or (3) 

terminate the supplemental review upon withdrawal of the interconnection request by the 

Interconnection Customer. The Commission extends the supplemental review timeline in 

section 2.4.4 of the SGIP to 30 business days to accommodate this process.

187. With regard to Bonneville’s concern that the supplemental review should include 

an examination of Affected Systems, section 4.9 of the SGIP already directs 

Transmission Providers to consider Affected Systems during the Fast Track screens when 

possible. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Bonneville’s proposal to amend 

section 2.2.1.1 of the SGIP is unnecessary.

188. Finally, the Commission agrees with NYISO & NYTO’s request to keep “does not 

or cannot” in section 2.2.4 of the SGIP because it will enable the Interconnection 

Customer to have a customer options meeting when the Transmission Provider has the 

capability to but does not determine from the Fast Track screens that the proposed facility 

can be interconnected safely and reliably.

D. Review of Required Upgrades

1. Commission Proposal

189. The Commission proposed to give Interconnection Customers the opportunity to 

review and comment upon the upgrades the Transmission Provider finds necessary for
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 105 -

interconnection.348 The Commission also proposed that the Transmission Provider must 

provide “supporting documentation, workpapers, and databases or data” developed in 

preparation of the facilities study upon request.349 These proposals would make the SGIP 

consistent with the LGIP with respect to providing comments on upgrades required for 

interconnection. 

2. Comments

190. Many commenters support the Commission’s proposal to allow Interconnection 

Customers to review and comment on the upgrades the Transmission Provider deems

necessary for interconnection because it would facilitate communication and 

transparency in the interconnection process.350 SEIA states that many parties are already 

familiar with the proposed process because it is based on the LGIP.351 CREA states that 

the opportunity to provide written comments enables Interconnection Customers to 

understand the proposed upgrades, seek a professional review, and make comments to the 

Transmission Provider that must be considered.352 FCHEA states that allowing the 

Interconnection Customer the opportunity to provide written comments on the network 

 

348 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 41.

349 Id. P 43.

350 AWEA, CEIP, Clean Coalition, CREA, DCOPC, Duke Energy, ELCON, 

FCHEA, IECA, ITC, NRG, Public Interest Organizations, and SEIA. 

351 SEIA at 15.

352 CREA at 3.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 106 -

upgrades required for interconnection could significantly increase the amount of 

distributed generation.353

191. MISO states that its current generator interconnection procedures already provide 

for Interconnection Customer review and comment with respect to potential upgrades 

required for interconnection. Therefore, MISO does not oppose the Commission’s 

proposed revisions to the pro forma SGIP so long as it would consider MISO’s existing 

generator interconnection procedures to meet this requirement as it applies to small 

generator interconnections.354

192. ISO-NE, MISO and CAISO similarly request that the Commission accommodate 

previously approved regional variations.355 CAISO states that, although its procedures 

are not entirely aligned with the Commission’s proposal, its tariff provides all 

Interconnection Customers with the opportunity to submit written comments on both the 

phase I and phase II interconnection reports, which comply with the proposed reforms.356 

CAISO states that the Commission should recognize that variations from the proposed 

pro forma reforms may still be just and reasonable.357 

193. NYISO explains that it does not permit written comments in its LGIP, but instead 

offers Interconnection Customers the opportunity to meet with NYISO and NYTO to 

 

353 FCHEA at 1. 

354 MISO at 9-10.

355 CAISO at 6; ISO-NE at 17; and MISO at 9-10.

356 CAISO at 8.

357 CAISO at 6.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 107 -

discuss the results of the facilities study, which gives Interconnection customers ample 

opportunity to comment.358 NYISO & NYTO thus propose that the Commission require 

a facilities study meeting instead of written comments.359 NYISO & NYTO assert that a 

meeting would provide an opportunity for the Interconnection Customer to provide 

feedback without extending the process by a number of days or creating the expectation 

that the Transmission Provider will make changes to the facilities study based on the 

Interconnection Customer’s comments.360 

194. If the Commission requires written comments, NYISO & NYTO request that the 

Commission clarify that the Transmission Provider is not required to perform additional 

analysis or make other modifications based on the Interconnection Customer’s 

comments, unless the Interconnection Customer agrees to pay for the additional studies 

required.361

195. VSI supports the inclusion of written Interconnection Customer comments in the 

Facilities Study Agreement but expresses concern that the comments may not be 

seriously considered by the Transmission Provider.362 VSI and LES assert that 

Interconnection Customers should only be responsible for the cost of the minimum 

upgrades and interconnection facilities required to interconnect the small generator’s 

 

358 NYISO & NYTO at 22.

359 Id.

360 Id.

361 Id.

362 VSI at 4-5.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 108 -

project to prevent a Transmission Provider from knowingly or unknowingly making the 

interconnection upgrades prohibitively expensive.363 

196. LES states that if a Transmission Provider wishes to install interconnection 

facilities in addition to those needed to interconnect the Interconnection Customer’s 

project, the cost of those facilities should be included in the Transmission Provider’s rate 

base and allocated to all system users. LES asserts that the cost of those upgrades should 

not be imposed on the Small Generating Facility alone.364 LES asserts that the 

Interconnection Customer should not be required to interconnect at a substation when 

transmission or distribution lines are closer. Some parties request that the Commission 

offer the Interconnection Customer a mechanism to resolve disputes over required 

upgrades.365 VSI proposes new language for the Facilities Study Agreement section 10.0 

that would allow for an expedited review by the public utility regulatory authority having 

jurisdiction over the upgrade costs at issue.366 LES argues that the Commission needs to 

provide a remedy for promptly and efficiently resolving disputes over the minimum 

upgrades and interconnection facilities needed to interconnect a Small Generating 

Facility. For example, LES states that if a Transmission Provider mischaracterizes a 

network upgrade or interconnection facility in order to avoid paying that cost itself, the 

 

363 LES at 4 and VSI at 4-5.

364 LES at 4.

365 Max Hensley at 1; LES at 4; Lucia Villaran at 2; and VSI at 4-5.

366 VSI at 6.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 109 -

small generator must have recourse available.367 Otherwise, Transmission Providers may 

claim to have final discretion over what interconnection facilities are required to be 

built.368

197. IECA recommends that the Commission monitor and measure the effectiveness 

and efficiency of its SGIP. IECA states that the Commission should assure that the SGIP 

and LGIP do not have the unintended consequence of providing opportunities for 

Transmission Providers to easily stop SGIP or LGIP applications with endless evaluation 

processes of “meaningful dialogue,” which the review of required upgrades is intended to 

promote.369 IECA asserts that the Commission should initiate a process that routinely 

gathers key information to monitor the utilization and outcomes of the SGIP and should 

track, characterize, tabulate, and annually report all resolved and unresolved 

interconnection applications under its SGIP for the purpose of identifying and potentially 

removing interconnection barriers.370

198. Clean Coalition recommends that the Commission allow the Interconnection 

Customer to use third party contractors to perform the required upgrades, as is allowed 

under Rule 21, at the Interconnection Customer’s option.371 Clean Coalition asserts that 

 

367 LES at 4.

368 Id. at 4.

369 IECA at 7.

370 Id.

371 Clean Coalition at 8.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 110 -

this will allow competition to reduce upgrade costs and ensure that Transmission 

Providers keep upgrade costs low.372 

199. NRECA, EEI & APPA, however, state that a developer’s use of a third party to 

provide input on the process relating to upgrade requirements, alternatives and related 

issues can further complicate the process.373 They state that formalizing these practices 

will do more harm than good because adding steps to the process can potentially delay 

and adversely impact other projects.374 NRECA, EEI & APPA also assert that third-party 

contractors performing upgrades at the Interconnection Customer’s option raises safety, 

liability, access, and reliability concerns.375 The commenters suggest that the 

Commission only permit Interconnection Customers to use third-party contractors to 

perform upgrades in cases where the Transmission Provider agrees.

376

200. NRECA, EEI & APPA urge the Commission to ensure that utilities are properly 

compensated for the time and expenses associated with documenting the decision-making 

process to determine required upgrades.377 NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that in order to 

balance the Interconnection Customer’s desire to have additional information on required 

upgrades with the added burden on Transmission Providers of preparing such 

 

372 Id.

373 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 27-28.

374 Id. at 28.

375 NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 11-12.

376 Id. at 12.

377 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 8.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 111 -

information, the Commission must clearly state that the utility can collect its estimated 

costs before any additional study work is done.378

201. SEIA opposes charging Interconnection Customers additional fees associated with 

documenting the decision-making process of the facilities study.379 SEIA asserts that 

these additional costs are unwarranted because the LGIP currently requires 

Interconnection Customers to pay the Transmission Provider’s actual costs of completing 

the facilities study and the SGIP should be consistent with the LGIP.380 Additionally, 

SEIA claims that compensating Transmission Providers for meetings and data gathering 

would constitute an “unlimited and undefined blank check” to recover costs beyond those 

actually incurred and create unnecessary uncertainty for developers.381 NRECA, EEI &

APPA state that they are not requesting a blank check and assert that Transmission 

Providers should be permitted to recover all prudently incurred costs resulting from such 

documentation requirements.

382

 

202. Finally, NYISO & NYTO assert that the Commission should include the proposed 

revisions to the Facilities Study Agreement allowing the Interconnection Customer the 

opportunity to review and comment upon the upgrades the Transmission Provider finds 

necessary for interconnection in section 3.5 of the pro forma SGIP to be consistent with 

 

378 Id.

379 SEIA Reply Comments at 8.

380 Id.

381 Id.

382 NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 13.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 112 -

the similar procedures for Large Generating Facilities in sections 8.3 and 8.4 of the 

LGIP.383

3. Commission Determination

203. The Commission affirms its proposal to allow Interconnection Customers to 

provide written comments on the required upgrades in the facilities study. The 

Commission believes the adoption of this proposal will allow Interconnection Customers 

to have a meaningful opportunity to review any upgrades associated with an 

interconnection request and engage in a dialogue with the Transmission Provider. In 

addition, allowing Interconnection Customers the opportunity to provide written 

comments on required upgrades helps to ensure interconnection costs are just and 

reasonable. 

204. The Commission agrees with SEIA that the Interconnection Customer is entitled 

to view the facilities study supporting documentation because it is funding the study. The 

Commission is not persuaded by APPA, EEI & NRECA’s claim that documenting the 

facilities study will be unduly burdensome because the LGIP has a similar requirement. 

However, the Commission affirms that Transmission Providers are entitled to collect all 

just and reasonable costs associated with producing the facilities study, including any 

reasonable documentation costs. 

205. We note that Transmission Providers that incorporate, or propose to incorporate, 

comments through a different process may submit compliance filings demonstrating that 

 

383 NYISO & NYTO at 22-23.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 113 -

the process is consistent with or superior to the requirements contained herein or meets 

another standard allowed for in this Final Rule.384 

206. Various parties propose a regulatory review of required upgrades when there is a 

dispute. The Commission rejects this request because the parties have the option of 

utilizing the SGIA dispute resolution procedures outlined in section 4.2 of the SGIP to 

resolve such disputes. In addition, in the event the dispute cannot be resolved, the 

Interconnection Customer may request that the Transmission Provider file the unexecuted 

interconnection agreement with the Commission.385

207. The Commission declines to adopt NYISO & NYTO’s proposal to affirm that 

Transmission Providers are not required to perform additional analysis or make 

modifications based on comments unless the Interconnection Customer agrees to pay for 

the additional studies. While the Commission does not require Transmission Providers to 

modify the facilities study after receiving Interconnection Customer comments, the 

Commission encourages Transmission Providers to consider these comments when 

finalizing the facilities study. Further, the Commission reaffirms that the Transmission 

Provider should make the final decision on upgrades required for interconnection because 

the Transmission Provider is ultimately responsible for the safety and reliability of its

 

384 See infra section V.

385 See SGIP section 4.8 of Appendix C attached hereto.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 114 -

system.386 For the same reason, the Commission finds that third-party contractors may 

not perform any interconnection-associated network upgrades without Transmission 

Provider consent.

208. The Commission’s experience with the LGIP comment process does not suggest 

that allowing comments prevents new interconnections, which was a concern raised by 

IECA. Therefore, the Commission finds it unnecessary to formally monitor the number 

of Small Generating Facility interconnections at this time.

387

 If an Interconnection 

Customer believes it is being treated in an unduly discriminatory manner, it may file a 

complaint with the Commission. 

209. Finally, the Commission disagrees with NYISO & NYTO that the provisions 

related to Interconnection Customers providing written comments on required upgrades 

should be included in section 3.5 of the SGIP to be consistent with the LGIP. In the 

SGIP, the details regarding the facilities study report are found in the SGIA, so the 

Commission finds it appropriate to add the provisions related to providing written 

comments on required upgrades to the SGIA as proposed.

 

386 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 27. We note that this decision by 

the Transmission Provider is “final” in the context of the dialogue between the 

Interconnection Customer and the Transmission Provider, but may be reviewed in some 

circumstances by the Commission (e.g., in response to a compliant that a Transmission 

Provider is requiring certain upgrades in an arbitrary or unduly discriminatory manner).

387 We note that section 4.7 of the SGIP requires the retention of certain records 

for three years and provides that such records are subject to audit.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 115 -

E. Revision to SGIA Section 1.5.4 Regarding Over and Under-Frequency 

Events

1. Commission Proposal

210. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed revisions to section 1.5.4 of the SGIA to 

address a reliability concern related to automatic disconnection of the Small Generating 

Facility during over- and under-frequency events that could become a matter of concern 

at high penetrations of PV resources. The proposed revisions to section 1.5.4 would 

require the Interconnection Customer to design, install, maintain, and operate its Small 

Generating Facility, in accordance with the latest version of the applicable standards 

(e.g., IEEE Standard 1547 for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power 

Systems), to prevent automatic disconnection during over- and under-frequency events 

and to ensure that rates remain just and reasonable.388

2. Comments

211. ISO-NE supports the Commission’s proposal to mitigate the potential frequency 

problems and requests that the Commission revise the proposed modifications to include 

a voltage ride-through provision as well.389 CAISO supports the proposed reform but 

urges the Commission to coordinate its proposed reform with the outcome of the CPUC’s 

Rule 21 proceedings.390

 

388 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 46.

389 ISO-NE at 20.

390 CAISO at 8.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 116 -

212. CPUC states that it is currently developing technical standards to address voltage, 

frequency and other issues arising from Small Generating Facilities and is unable to 

provide comments until those standards are finalized.391 CPUC notes that it is focusing 

on “smart inverters” to mitigate the voltage, frequency and other impacts of Small 

Generating Facilities.392

213. ComRent suggests that the Final Rule recognize the upcoming changes to IEEE 

1547, including more interactive control of distributed resources by the electric power 

system operator and test requirements for interconnection.393 ComRent encourages the 

Commission to reference the current version of the standards and acknowledge that the 

requirements may evolve through the consensus standards making process. ComRent 

also notes that the capability to provide documented tests for interconnection and impact 

to a wide range of variables are available today in the size range being discussed in this 

rulemaking.394 

214. AWEA expresses concern that a requirement to comply with IEEE 1547 could 

actually be counterproductive for making the power system more resilient to over- or 

under- frequency events.

395

 AWEA argues that IEEE 1547 as currently drafted requires 

distributed generation up to 10 MW to remain online only during extremely small 

 

391 CPUC at 7-8.

392 Id. at 7.

393 ComRent at 1.

394 ComRent at 1.

395 AWEA at 2.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 117 -

frequency deviations, and requires them to disconnect during moderate frequency 

deviations.396 AWEA asserts that this requirement counters the Commission’s stated goal 

of preventing automatic disconnection during an over- or under- frequency event.397 In 

supplemental comments, AWEA notes that pending revisions to IEEE 1547 no longer 

prohibit voltage and frequency ride-through for distributed generators.398

215. AWEA states that the Commission should convene a technical conference and 

pursue other efforts to ensure that IEEE and other entities are working towards a standard 

that will prevent automatic disconnection of new distributed generation during moderate 

over- and under-frequency events.399 In addition, AWEA states that the Commission 

should clarify that, while the ride-through requirement for new generators may evolve as 

standards like IEEE 1547 evolve, the requirement for existing generators will be fixed at 

whatever standard was in place at the time the SGIA for that generator was 

implemented.400 

216. The California Utilities assert that further exploration of this issue is needed before 

any rules are proposed.401 The California Utilities assert that the Commission should 

consider the role of the smart inverter because it may provide the ability to address 

 

396 Id. at 5.

397 Id.

398 AWEA Supplemental Comments at 5.

399 AWEA at 6.

400 Id. at 7.

401 California Utilities at 5.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 118 -

frequency and voltage ride-through and other benefits related to voltage control and 

reactive power support.402

217. NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that the proposed revisions to SGIA section 1.5.4 

will require the Interconnection Customer to design, install, maintain and operate its 

Small Generating Facility in accordance with the latest version of the applicable North 

American electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability standards, unless the 

Transmission Provider has established different requirements that apply to all similarly 

situated generators in the control area on a comparable basis, to prevent automatic 

disconnection during an over- or under-frequency event.403 NRECA, EEI &APPA 

suggest revising the proposed language in SGIA section 1.5.4 as follows:

1.4.1.2“...The Interconnection Customer agrees to design, install, maintain, 

and operate its Small Generating Facility so as to reasonably minimize the 

likelihood of (1) a disturbance of its Small Generating Facility adversely 

affecting or impairing the system or equipment of the Transmission 

Provider and any Affected Systems, and (2) a disturbance of the system or 

equipment of the Transmission Provider or any Affected System causing 

off-normal frequency deviations unless the Transmission Provider has 

established different requirements that apply to all similarly situated

generators in the control area on a comparable basis and resulting in a 

common mode disconnection of its Small Generating Facility.”404

218. NRECA, EEI & APPA also request that the following sentence be added to SGIA 

section 1.5.2 requiring the Small Generating Facility to permit equal current in each 

phase conductor: “Voltage unbalance resulting from unbalanced currents shall not 

 

402 Id.

403 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 28-29.

404 Id., Appendix B at 4.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 119 -

exceed 2% between phases and shall not cause objectionable effects upon or interfere 

with the operation of the interconnection to the [Transmission Provider’s System]. This 

criterion shall be met with and without generation.”405 

219. NRECA, EEI & APPA state that the Commission should not reference or 

incorporate IEEE Standards 1547 or 1547.1 into the Final Rule because mandatory 

standards do not permit the flexibility needed to allow IEEE standards to evolve and will 

likely impede the current 1547 standard development process.406 They also assert that 

references to standards can lead to conflicting requirements if those standards are 

subsequently updated.407 Citing Commission precedent, NRECA, EEI & APPA state that 

in the past, the Commission has declined to use rulemaking proceedings to make 

voluntary IEEE standards mandatory.408

3. Commission Determination

220. The Commission declines to adopt the NOPR proposal to revise to section 1.5.4 of 

the SGIA, or any of the revisions proposed by commenters, at this time. Section 1.5.4 of 

the pro forma SGIA adopted in Order No. 2006 already requires an Interconnection 

Customer to “construct its facilities or systems in accordance with applicable 

specifications that meet or exceed those provided by the National Electrical Safety Code, 

 

405 Id.

406 NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 17.

407 Id.

408 Id. (citing Trans. Relay Loadability Reliability Std., Order No. 733, 130 FERC 

¶ 61,221, at P 207 (2010)).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 120 -

the American National Standards Institute, IEEE, Underwriter’s Laboratory, and 

Operating Requirements in effect at the time of construction and other applicable national 

and state codes and standards.” Based on the comments received, the Commission does 

not see a need to change section 1.5.4 of the SGIA at this time. As NRECA, EEI &

APPA note, these standards may be revised as systems evolve. The Commission 

recognizes that IEEE is currently in the process of revising the requirements under IEEE 

Standard 1547a409 for frequency ride-through, voltage ride-through, and voltage 

regulation. IEEE standards are reconsidered every 10 years, and at the end of the 10-year 

period, the standard may be either revised or withdrawn.410 The revision of the IEEE 

Standard 1547 will begin in early 2014, which will allow another opportunity to either 

correct or address outdated requirements in the standard. We encourage Transmission 

Providers and NERC to participate in the IEEE standards development process to provide 

input on the effects of the growing penetration of distributed generation on the bulkpower system. The Commission will continue to follow this process and may revise the 

pro forma SGIA as it relates to IEEE Standard 1547 in the future, if necessary. 

221. Finally, the Commission disagrees with NRECA, EEI & APPA’s comment that 

section 1.5.2 requires the Interconnection Customer to design, install, maintain, and 

operate its Small Generating Facility in accordance with the latest version of the 

 

409 IEEE Standard 1547a is an amendment to IEEE Standard 1547 to establish 

updates to voltage regulation, as well as response to abnormal voltage and frequency 

conditions.

410 See “Revising Standards,” available at

http://standards.ieee.org/develop/revisestds.html.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 121 -

applicable NERC reliability standards. The pro forma SGIA is applicable to generators 

no larger than 20 MW (approximately 20 megavolt amperes (MVA)). The NERC 

reliability standards are generally applicable to generators greater than 20 MVA.411 

Therefore, NERC reliability standards would generally not apply to Small Generating 

Facilities executing the SGIA. However, the Commission notes that IEEE Standard 1547 

applies to generators with a capacity of 10 MVA or less. The Commission encourages 

IEEE to formulate interconnection standards for generators between 10 and 20 MVA. 

F. Interconnection of Storage Devices

1. Commission Proposal

222. In the NOPR, the Commission announced that it would hold a workshop before 

the end of the comment period that would include the following topic: “Whether storage 

devices could fall within the definition of Small Generating Facility included in 

Attachment 1 to the SGIP and Attachment 1 to the SGIA as devices that produce 

electricity.” The March 27, 2013 workshop included a roundtable discussion on the 

interconnection of storage devices. The Commission requested comments on issues 

raised at the workshop in addition to comments on the NOPR.412

 

411 NERC Statement of Compliance Registry Criteria at p. 9, available at

http://www.nerc.com/files/Appendix_5B_RegistrationCriteria_20120131.pdf.

412 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 49.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 122 -

2. Comments

223. CREA supports including storage devices within the definition of Small 

Generating Facility.413 CREA opines that expanding the definition to include storage will 

incentivize small generators to keep abreast of future innovations in storage 

technology.414 CAISO believes the existing definition is sufficiently broad to encompass 

a storage device and therefore apply the SGIP to such a facility if it is less than 

20 MW.415 

224. The California Utilities believe that further exploration of this issue is needed 

before any rules are proposed and note that interconnection of storage devices will be 

discussed during Phase II of California’s Rule 21 proceeding.

416

225. ESA states that the Commission should define a Small Generating Facility as “a 

device used for the production and/or storage for later injection of electricity having a 

maximum output of no more than 20 MW.”417 ESA states that the Commission should 

measure the capacity of a storage resource based on the maximum quantity that the 

resource can inject to the grid to be comparable to other small generators for the purposes 

 

413 CREA at 3.

414 Id.

415 CAISO at 9.

416 California Utilities at 5. Also, see supra note 231.

417 ESA at 6.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 123 -

of determining if the storage device is a Small Generator or qualifying it for the Fast 

Track Process.418

226. ESA also recommends that the Commission clarify how to measure the size of 

interconnections that are combining renewable resources with storage devices.419 ESA 

recommends that interconnection size be measured by the maximum intended injection of 

the combined resource.

420

 ESA states that its recommendations are entirely consistent 

with the interpretation to date of the SGIP for storage projects, and that it merely wants 

the Commission to confirm existing practice.421

3. Commission Determination

227. The Commission finds, based on the comments received, that it is appropriate to 

adopt certain revisions to the pro forma SGIP to explicitly account for the 

interconnection of storage devices in order to ensure that storage devices are 

interconnected in a just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory manner. The 

Commission acknowledges that the interconnection of storage devices will be discussed 

in the ongoing Rule 21 proceeding as the California Utilities point out in their 

comments.422 As more experience is gained with the interconnection of storage devices 

and as the issue is explored further in other proceedings, such as the Rule 21 proceeding, 

 

418 Id. at 5.

419 Id.

420 Id. 6.

421 Id. at 5.

422 California Utilities at 5.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 124 -

the Commission may adopt further revisions to the pro forma SGIP and SGIA associated 

with the interconnection of storage devices.

228. The Commission agrees with CAISO that the definition of Small Generating 

Facility is broad enough to include storage devices. However, the Commission also 

agrees with ESA and CREA that, in order to improve the transparency of the SGIP, the 

definition of Small Generating Facility in the pro forma SGIP and SGIA should be 

clarified to explicitly include storage devices. Accordingly, the Commission revises the 

definition of Small Generating Facility in Attachment 1 to the SGIP and Attachment 1 to 

the SGIA as follows: “The 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.” 

229. The Commission agrees with ESA that when determining whether a storage 

device may interconnect under the SGIP and/or whether it qualifies for the Fast Track 

Process, the Transmission Provider should generally assume that the capacity of the 

storage device is equal to the maximum capacity that the particular device is capable of

injecting into the Transmission Provider’s system (e.g., a storage device capable of 

injecting 500 kW into the grid and absorbing 500 kW from the grid would be evaluated at 

500 kW for the purpose of determining if it is a Small Generating Facility or whether it 

qualifies for the Fast Track Process). Thus, the Commission revises SGIP section 4.10.3

to clarify that the term “capacity” of the Small Generating Facility in the SGIP refers to 

the maximum capacity that a device is capable of injecting into the Transmission 

Provider’s system. When interconnecting such a storage device, the revisions to SGIP 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 125 -

section 4.10.3 adopted herein do not preclude a Transmission Provider from studying the 

effect on its system of the absorption of energy by the storage device and making 

determinations based on the outcome of these studies. 

230. To address ESA’s comment related to combining generation resources with 

storage resources (e.g., a storage facility operating to firm a variable energy resource), the 

Commission further revises SGIP section 4.10.3. 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 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. For example, an Interconnection Customer with a

combined resource may propose a control system, power relays, or both for the purpose

of limiting its maximum injection amount into the Transmission Provider’s system. 

231. The Commission notes that in Order No. 2006 it considered evaluating Small 

Generating Facilities based on less than their maximum rated capacity, but determined 

that this would not ensure that proper protective equipment is designed and installed and 

that the safety and reliability of the Transmission Provider’s system could be 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 126 -

maintained.423 However, as discussed above, the energy industry has changed since 

Order No. 2006 was issued.424 The use of storage in combination with other resources 

was not contemplated in Order No. 2006. In order to balance the needs of Small 

Generating Facilities and Transmission Providers, the Commission clarifies that section 

4.10.3 adopted herein applies only to the determination of whether a resource is a Small 

Generating Facility to be evaluated under the SGIP rather than the LGIP, or if it qualifies 

for the Fast Track Process. In the Study Process, the Transmission Provider has the 

discretion to study the combined resource using the maximum capacity the Small 

Generating Facility is capable of injecting into the Transmission Provider’s system and 

require proper protective equipment to be designed and installed so that the safety and 

reliability of the Transmission Provider’s system is maintained. Similarly, in the Fast 

Track Process, the Transmission Provider may apply the Fast Track screens or the 

supplemental review screens using the maximum capacity the Small Generating Facility

is capable of injecting into the Transmission Provider’s system in a manner that ensures 

that the safety and reliability of its system is maintained.

 

423 See Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at PP 79-86.

424 See supra PP 22-23.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 127 -

G. Other Issues

1. Network Resource Interconnection Service

a. Commission Proposal

232. The Commission proposed to revise section 1.1.1 of the pro forma SGIP to require 

Interconnection Customers wishing to interconnect its Small Generating Facility using 

Network Resource Interconnection Service to do so under the LGIP and execute the 

LGIA. The Commission explained that this requirement was included in Order No. 

2006425 but was not made clear in the pro forma SGIP. To facilitate this clarification, the 

Commission also proposed to add the definitions of Network Resource and Network 

Resource Interconnection Service to Attachment 1, Glossary of Terms, of the pro forma

SGIP.426

b. Comments

233. MISO states that its generator interconnection procedures and agreement are the 

result of a merger of its LGIP/LGIA and SGIP/SGIA in 2008. Because it does not 

differentiate between small and large interconnection requests, MISO states that the 

proposed revisions to section 1.1.1 of the pro forma SGIP would likely not apply to 

MISO.427 MISO further asserts that its generator interconnection procedures already 

 

425 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 140.

426 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 45.

427 MISO at 10.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 128 -

provide comparable definitions for “Network Resource” and “Network Resource 

Interconnection Service.”428

234. NYISO & NYTO state this proposed revision could undermine the requirements 

in Attachment Z of the NYISO OATT that permit a Small Generating Facility to elect 

Capacity Resource Interconnection Service under NYISO’s SGIP and to execute an 

SGIA.429 NYISO & NYTO assert that making Small Generating Facilities subject to the 

LGIP and requiring an LGIA would greatly increase the time and expense of 

interconnecting such projects. Therefore, NYISO & NYTO ask the Commission to 

clarify that the proposed revisions will not disturb these existing procedures.

430

 

c. Commission Determination

235. The Commission adopts the revisions as proposed in the NOPR. As the 

Commission noted in the NOPR, the revision is meant to clarify in the pro forma SGIP 

an Order No. 2006 requirement rather than implement a new requirement. 

236. Our intent is not to require revisions to interconnection procedures that have 

previously been found to be consistent with or superior to the pro forma SGIP and SGIA 

with regard to this Order No. 2006 requirement or permissible under the independent 

entity variation standard. In cases where provisions in Transmission Providers’ existing 

interconnection procedures have been found by the Commission to be consistent with or 

superior to the pro forma SGIP and SGIA originally adopted under Order No. 2006 or 

 

428 Id. at 10-11.

429 NYISO & NYTO at 23.

430 Id.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 129 -

permissible under the independent entity variation standard 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 meet the standard under which 

they are filed.431 

2. Hosting Capacity

a. Comments

237. Pepco offers its “hosting capacity” process as an alternative approach to the 

interconnection procedures in the NOPR and claims that it is superior to the proposed 

pre-application report and Fast Track screens.

432

 According to Pepco, its hosting capacity 

approach calculates the maximum aggregate generating capacity that a distribution circuit 

can accommodate at a proposed Point of Interconnection without requiring the 

construction of facilities by the Transmission Provider on its own system and while 

maintaining the safety, reliability and power quality of the distribution circuit.433 Pepco

states that hosting capacity is determined by applying the screens set forth in section 

2.4.1.1 to 2.4.1.3 of the SGIP and will describe the amount of additional generating 

capacity a distribution circuit can accommodate above what has already been approved or

 

431 See infra P 270.

432 Pepco at 4.

433 Pepco, Attachment 1.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 130 -

queued for interconnection without requiring the construction of facilities by the 

Transmission Provider.434 

238. Pepco states that it has successfully interconnected over 7,700 PV systems by 

using load flow tools to determine a maximum allowable hosting capacity at a given 

Point of Interconnection on its transmission and distribution systems.435 Pepco asserts 

that load flow tools have allowed PV interconnections on many circuits that would 

otherwise not be available to new generation because they would violate a number of 

existing technical screens under the current SGIP, including the 15 Percent Screen.436

239. IREC, Sandia and SEIA support allowing Transmission Providers to use load-flow 

tools to determine the hosting capacity at a particular Point of Interconnection in both the 

pre-application report and the Fast Track process, and encourage the Commission to 

include language related to hosting capacity in the Final Rule and in the pro forma

SGIP.437 IREC states that hosting capacity would replace the total, allocated and 

available capacity in the pre-application report because these items are no longer valuable 

once the hosting capacity is known.438 IREC notes that the SGIP hosting capacity 

provisions it proposes with Pepco, NREL, and Sandia would not be mandatory for 

 

434 Id. (stating that its hosting capacity considers queued capacity for which an 

interconnection agreement has not been issued).

435 Id. at 4.

436 Id.

437 IREC at 8; Sandia at 3; and SEIA at 11.

438 IREC at 11.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 131 -

Transmission Providers, but would allow for the use of hosting capacity where the 

capability exists.439

240. IREC supports allowing Transmission Providers to elect not to use the Fast Track 

screens when they can provide hosting capacity, but would require them to comply with 

the 15 Percent Screen at a minimum.440 IREC states that if the Transmission Provider 

determines that using hosting capacity limits its ability to connect a proposed generator 

without further study, the Transmission Provider would be required to provide the 

Interconnection Customer with an explanation of the power flow, criteria violations, 

and/or queued projects that limit the hosting capacity.441 IREC believes the revisions 

related to hosting capacity will significantly improve the Fast Track Process for both 

generators and Transmission Providers, and may allow for larger generators or greater 

penetrations of distributed generation to interconnect using the Fast Track Process.442 

Further, IREC supports incorporating the hosting capacity provisions into the SGIP rather 

than requiring Transmission Providers to seek modifications to the pro forma SGIP.443

241. NREL supports the use of hosting capacity as long as Transmission Providers are 

transparent regarding how hosting capacity is determined.444 VSI also supports IREC 

 

439 Id. at 8, 11.

440 Id. at 16.

441 Id.

442 Id. at 8, 16.

443 Id. at 16.

444 NREL at 3.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 132 -

and Pepco’s hosting capacity proposal.445 VSI states that the duration of the Study 

Process would decrease and existing equipment would be better optimized if all 

Transmission Providers had the capability to determine their hosting capacity in advance 

of the pre-application report.446

242. Sandia supports the use of dynamic load flow analysis to determine the hosting 

capacity of a circuit, as it is the most comprehensive and accurate way to determine the 

deployment level of distributed generation that can be accommodated on a distribution 

circuit without system upgrades.447

b. Commission Determination

243. The Commission encourages Transmission Providers to develop innovative and 

transparent interconnection processes that provide valuable information to 

Interconnection Customers. However, the Commission declines to include hosting 

capacity in the SGIP at this time because the record does not contain a sufficient 

discussion of the proposal. Transmission Providers wishing to utilize hosting capacity as 

part of their interconnection process may propose such procedures in their compliance 

filings for this Final Rule. Similar to other filings that do not conform with the pro forma 

SGIP and SGIA adopted under this Final Rule, the Commission will consider whether 

such procedures meet the compliance standard under which the filing was made.448 

 

445 VSI at 2.

446 Id.

447 Sandia at 3.

448 See infra section V for a discussion of compliance with this Final Rule.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 133 -

3. Jurisdiction

a. Comments

244. NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that the NOPR incorrectly states that “[t]he pro 

forma SGIP and SGIA are used by a public utility to interconnect a Small Generating 

Facility with the utility’s transmission or with its jurisdictional distribution facilities for 

the purpose of selling electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce.”449 They state 

that, as explained in Order No. 2003-C, the Commission’s authority “is limited to the 

wholesale transaction” and “it may not regulate the ‘local distribution’ facility itself, 

which remains state-jurisdictional.”450 NRECA, EEI & APPA therefore state that the 

Commission was incorrect in characterizing distribution facilities as “[FERC] 

jurisdictional.” They ask that the Commission correct this improper characterization.

245. NYISO & NYTO similarly ask the Commission to clarify that the term 

“Distribution System” as proposed in sections 1.1.1, 3.1 and 2.1 of the SGIP is limited to 

distribution facilities that are subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.451 

b. Commission Determination

246. The Commission clarifies that the scope of its jurisdiction in this proceeding with 

respect to distribution facilities is identical to the jurisdiction previously asserted and as 

 

449 NRECA, EEI & APPA at 29 (quoting the NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32, 

6a7 at P1, n. 4) (emphasis added).

450 Id. at 29-30 (referencing Order No. 2003-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,190 at

P 53).

451 NYISO & NYTO at 24.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 134 -

described in Order Nos. 888452 and 2003. Just as the Commission stated in Order No. 

2003-A:

There is no intent to expand the jurisdiction of the Commission in any way; 

if a facility is not already subject to Commission jurisdiction at the time 

interconnection is requested, the Final Rule will not apply. Thus, only 

facilities that already are subject to the Transmission Provider’s OATT are 

covered by this rule. The Commission is not encroaching on the States’ 

jurisdiction and is not improperly asserting jurisdiction over “local 

distribution” facilities.453

247. In response to NYISO & NYTO’s comment, the Commission clarifies that the 

term “Distribution System” as used in this Final Rule is limited to distribution facilities 

that are subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

248. In Order No. 2006, the Commission stated that the regulations promulgated under 

Order No. 2006 applied to interconnections to facilities that are already subject to a 

Commission-jurisdictional OATT at the time the interconnection request is made and that 

will be used for purposes of jurisdictional wholesale sales.454 In Order No. 2003-C, 

however, the Commission clarified that, “while the Commission may regulate the entire 

transmission component ... of the wholesale transaction – whether the facilities used to 

 

452 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).

453 Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160 at P 700.

454 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at PP 7-8.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 135 -

transmit are labeled ‘transmission’ or ‘local distribution’ – it may not regulate the ‘local 

distribution’ facility itself, which remains state-jurisdictional.”455 The Commission 

clarifies that its jurisdiction under this Final Rule does not extend to local distribution 

facilities. 

4. Miscellaneous

a. Commission Proposal

249. In addition to the proposed reforms and clarifications described above, the 

Commission proposed to correct section 3.3.5 of the pro forma SGIA. Specifically, we 

proposed to replace the first word of this section (“This”) with “The.”

b. Comments

250. Several comments did not fit neatly within the topics discussed in the NOPR. 

FCHEA and CEP support increasing the project size threshold for requiring telemetry 

equipment to 5 MW because this equipment can add significant financial burden to 

distributed generation projects.456 FCHEA and CEP state that the Commission should 

strongly encourage the states to match the Commission threshold in state interconnection 

procedures to avoid discouraging development of distributed generation projects.457 CEP 

also recommends several changes to net metering and demand charges associated with 

distributed generation.458

 

455 Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146.

456 FCHEA at 1. 

457 Id. at 2.

458 CEP at 2-3.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 136 -

251. ELCON and IECA submitted comments in support of advancing combined heat 

and power (CHP) interconnections.459 ELCON claims that various barriers to the 

development of large CHP generation currently exist and urges the Commission to 

initiate a Notice of Inquiry to investigate the issues.460 IECA states that the Commission 

should establish longer-term capacity payment mechanisms to encourage capital 

formation for manufacturer CHP and waste heat recovery investments, such as a 15- to 

20-year term capacity payment.461

252. Bonneville recommends that, to prevent an Affected System462 from having to 

construct upgrades or new facilities in response to an interconnection, the Commission 

should revise section 2.2.1.10 of the SGIP to read “No construction of facilities by the 

Transmission Provider on its own system, nor construction of any facilities on any 

Affected System, shall be required to accommodate the Small Generating Facility.”463

253. NREL states that it has analyzed PV systems integrated onto secondary network 

distribution systems and has found that there are methods of increasing the amount of 

interconnected PV generation on a spot network without affecting reliability and power 

 

459 ELCON at 4. 

460 Id. at 6-7 and IECA at 10. 

461 IECA at 10.

462 See supra note 343.

463 Bonneville at 3.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 137 -

quality.464 NREL proposes adding language to the Secondary Network Distribution 

System screen.465

254. NRECA, EEI & APPA suggest adjusting the feasibility study deposit of $1,000 

and the Fast Track processing fee of $500 annually based on the Consumer Price 

Index.466 The commenters also suggest changing the record retention requirement in 

SGIP section 4.7 from three years to five years.467 NRECA, EEI & APPA also suggest 

two changes to the Fast Track screens in section 2.2.1: (1) adding language to section 

2.2.1.2 for areas bounded by a voltage regulation zone of a distribution line or a power 

transformer; and (2) revising the 10 MW aggregate interconnected generation threshold 

in section 2.2.1.9 for areas with known or posted transient stability limitations to 

accommodate ISOs and RTOs that may have lower thresholds.468

255. Clean Coalition strongly urges the Commission to ensure that any SGIP reforms 

adopted in this Final Rule apply equally to grid operators using the SGIP and to those that 

have combined the SGIP and LGIP into a single generator interconnection procedure.469

 

464 NREL at 5.

465 Id. NREL proposes adding the following to the Secondary Network 

Distribution System screen: “or 25kVA less than the minimum daytime load of the 

network when the proposed Small Generating Facility is a PV system and will have 

minimum import relay and dynamically controlled inverter controls installed to prevent 

backfeed onto the secondary network.”

466 NRECA, EEI & APPA, Appendix B at 3-4.

467 Id. at 3.

468 Id. at 2.

469 Clean Coalition at 9.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 138 -

256. UCS asks the Commission to “assert an affirmative obligation” that Transmission 

Providers integrate and use the voltage support capability provided by Small Generating 

Facilities.470 UCS asserts that the Transmission Provider’s failure to utilize the voltage 

control capability of Small Generating Facilities increases the interconnection costs 

because the Transmission Provider may require upgrades to provide voltage support 

rather than using the capability inherent in the proposed facility.471

c. Commission Determination

257. The Commission finds the following to be beyond the scope of this proceeding: 

(1) FCHEA and CEP’s requests to increase the threshold for requiring telemetry 

equipment; (2) ELCON and IECA’s recommendations regarding CHP; (3) CEP’s 

recommendations with regard to net metering and demand charges associated with 

distributed generation; (4) NRECA, EEI & APPA’s proposed changes to the Fast Track 

screens in SGIP section 2.2.1; (5) NRECA, EEI & APPA’s proposal to change the record 

retention requirement in SGIP section 4.7 from three years to five years; (6) NREL’s 

proposal to add language to the Secondary Network Distribution System screen in section 

2.2.1.3 of the SGIP; and (7) UCS’s request that the Commission require Transmission 

Providers to integrate and use the voltage support capability provided by Small 

Generating Facilities.

 

470 UCS at 22.

471 Id. at 25.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 139 -

258. With regard to the impact of Fast Track screens on Affected Systems, section 4.9 

of the SGIP already directs Transmission Providers to consider Affected Systems during 

the Fast Track screens when possible. Accordingly, the Commission finds that 

Bonneville’s proposal to amend section 2.2.1.1 of the SGIP is unnecessary. 

259. We decline to adjust the Fast Track processing fee for inflation because, as 

provided for in Order No. 2006, Transmission Providers may submit a filing under FPA 

section 205 if the fixed fees in the pro forma SGIP do not sufficiently recover their 

costs.472 We also decline to adjust the feasibility study deposit for inflation because 

Transmission Providers collect actual costs for the feasibility study. If a Transmission 

Provider would like to increase this deposit, it may propose to do so in its compliance

filing.473

260. Regarding Clean Coalition’s request that the Commission require that the SGIP 

reforms adopted herein apply to public utility Transmission Providers that have combined 

their SGIP and LGIP into a single set of generator interconnection procedures, the 

Commission affirms that the reforms adopted herein apply to all Commissionjurisdictional SGIPs, including those that have been combined with LGIPs. 

261. Finally, the Commission replaces the first word of section 3.3.5 of the pro forma

SGIA (“This”) with “The” as proposed in the NOPR. The Commission also makes 

certain minor clarifying revisions to the flow chart in Appendix B to this Final Rule. 

 

472 Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 126.

473 See infra section V.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 140 -

V. Compliance

A. Commission Proposal

262. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that each public utility Transmission 

Provider would be required to submit a compliance filing within six months of the 

effective date of the Final Rule revising its SGIP and SGIA or other document(s) subject 

to the Commission’s jurisdiction as necessary to demonstrate that it meets the 

requirements as set forth in the Final Rule.474

263. The Commission acknowledged that in some cases, public utility Transmission 

Providers may have provisions in their existing SGIPs and SGIAs that the Commission 

has deemed to be consistent with or superior to the pro forma SGIP and SGIA. The 

Commission indicated that where these provisions are 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 SGIP and SGIA as modified by the Final Rule.

264. The Commission also proposed that Transmission Providers that are not public 

utilities would have to adopt the requirements of the Final Rule as a condition of 

maintaining the status of their safe harbor tariff or otherwise satisfying the reciprocity 

requirement of Order No. 888.475

 

474 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,697 at P 50.

475 See Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at 31,760-63.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 141 -

B. Comments

265. Several commenters urge the Commission to permit regional discretion and 

flexibility in the implementation of the SGIP.476 Commenters urge the Commission to 

adopt a process that permits each region to develop and implement its own specific 

proposals to the problems identified by the Commission.477 CAISO comments that the 

pro forma proposals may not in all instances allow ISOs and RTOs operating highvoltage transmission systems to streamline interconnections for Small Generating 

Facilities.478

266. NYISO & NYTO state that the Commission should direct each ISO/RTO to report 

on the status of its processing of small generator interconnection requests and to develop 

with its stakeholders and implement, where needed, regionally-tailored reforms to its 

SGIP.479 Additionally, they state a regional approach would be consistent with the 

Commission’s order concerning interconnection queuing practices where the 

Commission permitted each region the opportunity to propose its own solution to 

problems identified by the Commission with respect to queue management.480 NYISO 

 

476 CAISO at 2; California Utilities at 4; ISO-NE at 2; IRC at 1; NYISO & NYTO 

at 2; and PJM at 4.

477 CAISO at 2; IRC at 1; and NYISO & NYTO at 3.

478 CAISO at 2.

479 NYISO & NYTO at 3.

480 NYISO & NYTO at 4 (referencing Interconnection Queuing Practices, Order 

on Technical Conference, 122 FERC ¶ 61,252 (March 20, 2008) (Queue Management 

Order)).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 142 -

& NYTO request that the Commission clarify that, consistent with Order No. 2006, it 

will permit RTOs and ISOs to seek “independent entity variations” from any revisions to 

the pro forma SGIP to accommodate regional differences.481 

267. CAISO states that it has commenced a stakeholder initiative to examine the need 

for interconnection procedure enhancements, including developing new Fast Track 

screens that are specific to the networked transmission system, and request that any 

action in this proceeding not preclude it from proposing enhancements to Fast Track 

screens consistent with the independent entity variation standard.482

268. ISO-NE states that its pro forma SGIP has varied greatly from the Commission’s 

pro forma SGIP since its implementation in 2006. Therefore ISO-NE requests regional 

flexibility to maintain the previously approved variations.483 NARUC similarly 

emphasizes that “proposals appropriate for one State or region of the country may not be 

appropriate, or permitted by State law or regulation, in other regions.”484 The California 

Utilities and NARUC also believe that the rules and procedures must be flexible enough 

to accommodate differences between the standards set by states and those set by the 

Commission in order for utilities to provide comparable service to generators 

interconnecting to their electric systems.485

 

481 Id. (referencing Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 549).

482 CAISO at 7.

483 ISO-NE at 19.

484 NARUC at 4.

485 California Utilities at 4.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 143 -

C. Commission Determination

269. The Commission requires each public utility Transmission Provider to submit a 

compliance filing within six months of the effective date of this Final Rule revising its 

SGIP and SGIA or other document(s) subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction as 

necessary to demonstrate that it meets the requirements set forth herein.

270. The Commission will consider requests for variations from this rule submitted on 

compliance on the same bases as the variations permitted for compliance with Order 

No. 2006.486 Specifically, in cases where provisions in public utility Transmission 

Providers’ existing SGIPs and SGIAs have been found by the Commission to be 

consistent with or superior to the pro forma SGIP and SGIA originally adopted under 

Order No. 2006 or permissible under the independent entity variation standard or regional 

reliability variation would be modified by the Final Rule, public utility Transmission 

Providers must either comply with the Final Rule or demonstrate that these previouslyapproved variations are consistent with or superior to the pro forma SGIP and SGIA as 

modified by the Final Rule or otherwise meet the requirements of this section.

271. Any non-public utility that has a safe harbor tariff may amend its small generator 

interconnection agreements and procedures so that they substantially conform or are 

superior to the pro forma SGIP and SGIA as revised by this Final Rule if it wishes to 

continue to qualify for safe harbor treatment.

 

486 See Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 546-550.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 144 -

272. As in Order Nos. 2003 and 2006, we will apply a regional differences rationale to 

accommodate variations from the Final Rule during compliance, but with certain 

restrictions. We conclude that a non-independent transmission provider (such as a 

Transmission Provider that owns generators or has Affiliates that own generators) and an 

RTO and ISO should be treated differently because an RTO or ISO does not raise the 

same level of concern regarding undue discrimination.487 Accordingly, we will allow an 

RTO or ISO greater flexibility to propose variations from the Final Rule provisions, as 

further discussed below.

273. We will require, however, that non-independent transmission providers justify 

variations in non-price terms and conditions of the Final Rule using the approach taken in 

Order No. 888, which allows them to propose variations on compliance that are 

“consistent with or superior to” the OATT.488 The Commission will consider two 

categories of variations from the Final Rule submitted by a non-independent 

Transmission Provider.489 First, the Commission will consider “regional reliability 

variations” that track established reliability requirements (i.e., requirements approved by 

the applicable NERC Regional Entity and the Commission).490 Any request for a 

“regional reliability variation” must be supported by references to established reliability 

 

487 See Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at P 822.

488 Id. at PP 822-827.

489 See Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 546 (citing Order 

No. 2003 FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at PP 824-825).

490 Id.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 145 -

requirements, and the text of the reliability requirements must be provided in support of 

the variation. If the variation is for any other reason, the non-independent Transmission 

Provider must demonstrate that the variation is “consistent with or superior to” the Final 

Rule provision. Any request for application of this standard will be considered under 

Federal Power Act section 205 and must be supported by arguments explaining how each 

variation meets the standard.491 

274. We will permit ISOs and RTOs to seek “independent entity variations” from any 

revisions to the pro forma SGIP and SGIA. This is a balanced approach that recognizes 

that an RTO or ISO has different operating characteristics depending on its size and 

location and is less likely to act in an unduly discriminatory manner than a Transmission 

Provider that is also a market participant. The RTO or ISO shall therefore have greater 

flexibility to customize its interconnection procedures and agreements to accommodate 

regional needs.492 

275. Finally, for a non-independent Transmission Provider that belongs to an RTO or 

ISO, the RTO’s or ISO’s Commission-approved agreements and procedures are to govern 

interconnection with its members’ facilities that are under the operational control of the 

RTO or ISO. An interconnection with a Commission jurisdictional facility that is owned 

by a non-independent Transmission Provider but is not under the operational control of 

the RTO or ISO is to be conducted according to the non-independent Transmission 

 

491 Id.

492 See Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 at PP 822-827.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 146 -

Provider’s procedures and agreements. A non-independent Transmission Provider, even 

if it belongs to an RTO or ISO, is not eligible for “independent entity variations” for 

procedures and agreements applicable to interconnection with facilities that remain 

within its operational control (and, therefore, are subject to a tariff different than the RTO 

or ISO’s OATT).493

276. Requests for regional reliability variations or independent entity variations are due 

on the effective date of this Final Rule. Requests for variations that are “consistent with 

or superior to” the pro forma OATT may be submitted on or after the effective date of the 

Final Rule. 

VI. Information Collection Statement

277. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require approval of 

certain information collection and data retention requirements imposed by agency 

rules.494 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB 

control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of 

a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information

unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. 

278. The Commission is submitting the proposed modifications to its information 

collections to OMB for review and approval in accordance with section 3507(d) of the 

 

493 See Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180 at P 550.

494 5 CFR 1320.11(b).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 147 -

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.495 In the NOPR, the Commission solicited comments 

on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the 

accuracy of provided burden 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’ burden, including the use of automated information techniques. The 

Commission included a table that listed the estimated public reporting burdens for the 

proposed reporting requirements, as well as a projection of the costs of compliance for 

the reporting requirements. The Commission also requested comments on three proposed 

revisions that were not included in the table: (1) the proposed revision of the 2 MW 

threshold for participation in the Fast Track Process (the Commission estimated that 100 

Interconnection Customers annually may participate in the Fast Track Process rather than 

the Study Process under the NOPR); (2), the proposed revision to section 2.3.2 of the 

SGIP wherein the Transmission Provider would no longer be required to provide a good 

faith estimate of the cost of performing the supplemental review to the Interconnection 

Customer; and (3) the proposal to revise section 1.1.1 of the pro forma SGIP to require 

that if an Interconnection Customer wishes to interconnect its Small Generating Facility 

using Network Resource Interconnection Service, it must do so under the LGIP and 

execute the LGIA. 

279. The Commission did not receive any comments specifically addressing the burden 

estimates provided in the NOPR. However, the Commission has made changes to its 

 

495 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 148 -

proposal that are adopted in this Final Rule. First, the number of conforming changes to 

the SGIP and SGIA have increased (e.g., changes related to the interconnection of storage 

facilities and the pre-application report request form), so we have increased the burden 

estimate in the table below. Second, the addition of the pre-application report request 

form may increase the burden on Interconnection Customers requesting a pre-application 

report, so we have increased the burden estimate in the table. Third, we added two items 

to the pre-application report, so we have increased the burden estimate for Transmission 

Providers to prepare the pre-application report in the table below. Because we did not 

adopt the proposed revision to section 2.3.2 of the SGIP wherein the Transmission 

Provider would no longer be required to provide a good faith estimate of the cost of 

performing the supplemental review to the Interconnection Customer, we are not 

modifying the burden estimate for the supplemental review. Further, because we did not 

receive comments on the other proposed revisions discussed above that were not included 

in the table, we are not modifying the burden estimate to account for these revisions. The 

Commission believes that the revised burden estimates below are representative of the 

average burden on respondents. 

Burden Estimate: The estimated public reporting burden and cost for the requirements 

contained in this Final Rule follow:
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 149 -

Data Collection

FERC 516A (All 

changes under 18 

CFR 35.28(f) 

(2013))

Number of 

Respondents 

[1]

Number of 

Responses496

[2]

Hours per 

Response

[3]

Total 

Annual 

Hours

[1 X 2 X 3]

Conforming SGIP 

and SGIA changes 

to incorporate 

proposed revisions. 

First year only. 

142 

Transmission 

Providers

1 7 994

Pre-Application 

Report

800 

Interconnection 

Customers497 1 1 800

Pre-Application 

Report

142 

Transmission 

Providers 5.63 2.5 1,999

Supplemental 

Review 

498

500 

Interconnection 

Customers 1 0.5 250

Supplemental 

Review 

142 

Transmission 

Providers 3.52 20 9,997

Review of Required 

Upgrades

250 

Interconnection 

Customers 1 1 250

Review of Required 

Upgrades

142 

Transmission 

Providers 1.76 2 500

First Year Total

14,790

 

496 The number of responses represents the average number of responses per 

respondent.

497 We assume each request for a pre-application report corresponds with one 

Interconnection Customer.

498 While this Final Rule adds a notification requirement if an Interconnection 

Customer fails any of the supplemental review screens, we believe that the burden is 

minimal and does not merit a change to the burden hours listed in the table.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 150 -

Year Two and 

Ongoing Total 13,796

Cost to Comply: Total Annual Hours for Collection in initial year (14,790 hours) @ 

$75/hour499 = $1,109,250.

Total Annual Hours for Collection in subsequent years (13,796 hours) @ $75/hour = 

$1,034,700. 

Title: FERC-516A, Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and 

Procedures.

Action: Revision of Currently Approved Collection of Information.

OMB Control No. 1902-0203.

Respondents for this Rulemaking: Businesses or other for profit and/or not-for-profit 

institutions.

Frequency of Information: As indicated in the table.

Necessity of Information: The Commission is adopting these amendments to the pro 

forma SGIP and SGIA in order to more efficiently and cost-effectively interconnect 

generators no larger than 20 MW (small generators) to Commission-jurisdictional 

transmission systems. The purpose of this Final Rule is to revise the pro forma SGIP and 

SGIA so small generators can be reliably and efficiently integrated into the electric grid 

and to ensure that Commission-jurisdictional services are provided at rates, terms and 

 

499 This figure is the average of the salary plus benefits for an attorney, consultant 

(engineer), engineer, and administrative staff. The wages are derived from the Bureau of 

Labor and Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm and the benefits 

figure from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 151 -

conditions that are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. This Final Rule 

seeks to achieve this goal by amending the pro forma SGIP and SGIA as described 

previously. 

Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has 

determined that the 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 assured itself, by means of 

internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates

associated with the information collection requirements.

280. 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], 

e-mail: DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873.

281. Comments on the requirements of this rule can 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]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by e-mail 

to: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments submitted to OMB should include 

Docket No. RM13-2-000 and OMB Control No. 1902-0203.

VII. Environmental Analysis

282. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 152 -

on the human environment.500 The Commission has categorically excluded certain 

actions from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 

environment.501 The actions proposed here fall within categorical exclusions in the 

Commission’s regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for 

information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and 

transportation of natural gas that requires no construction of facilities.502 Therefore, an 

environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared as part of this Final 

Rule.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

283. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)503 generally requires a description 

and analysis of Final Rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Commission estimates that the total number of 

Transmission Providers impacted by this Final Rule that are small entities is 11. The 

Commission estimates that the average total cost for each of these entities will be 

minimal, since most of the cost will be recovered from fees paid by Interconnection 

Customers. The estimated total number of Interconnection Customers that may be 

 

500 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

501 18 CFR 380.4 (2013).

502 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2013).

503 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2012).
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 153 -

impacted by the requirements of this Final Rule is 800.504 Of these, all are considered 

small. The Commission estimates that the total annual cost for each entity is $2,055.505 

The Commission does not consider this to be a significant economic impact. Further, the 

Commission expects that Interconnection Customers that are able to participate in the 

Fast Track Process rather than the Study Process will benefit from the proposed revisions 

to the pro forma SGIP.

284. Based on the above, the Commission certifies that this Final Rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

IX. Document Availability

285. 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 

 

504 We assume that 800 Commission-jurisdictional interconnection requests will be 

made annually. For the purposes of this Final Rule, each of these requests is assumed to 

be made by a separate Interconnection Customer.

505 This number is derived by multiplying the hourly figure for Interconnection 

Customers in the Burden Estimate table (1,300) plus an additional 750 hours associated 

with reviewing the draft facilities study report by the cost per hour ($75); plus the $300 

fee per pre-application report multiplied by 800 Interconnection Customers; plus the cost 

of the supplemental review (assumed to be $2,500) multiplied by 500 Interconnection 

Customers; all divided by the total number of Interconnection Customers (800). ((2,050 

hrs * $75/hr) + ($300 * 800) + ($2,500 * 500)) / 800 = $2,055.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 154 -

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, 

Washington, DC 20426.

286. 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 excluding the last three digits of this 

document in the docket number field.

287. 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.

X. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

288. These regulations are effective [INSERT DATE 60 days after publication in the 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the 

Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule 

is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 155 -

Enforcement Act of 1996. The Commission will submit this Final Rule to both houses of 

Congress and the Government Accountability Office.

The Commission orders:

By the Commission. Chairman Wellinghoff is not participating.

( S E A L )

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 1 -

Note: Appendix A will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Short Name or Acronym Commenter

AWEA American Wind Energy Association

Bonneville Bonneville Power Administration

CAISO California Independent System Operator 

Corporation

California Utilities San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern 

California Edison Company and Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company

CEP ClearEdge Power

Clean Coalition Clean Coalition

ComRent ComRent International

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

CREA Community Renewable Energy Association

DCOPC Office of the People’s Counsel for the District 

of Columbia

Duke Energy Duke Energy Corporation

Duquesne Light Duquesne Light

ELCON Electricity Consumers Resource Council, 

American Chemistry Council, American Forest 

& Paper Association, American Iron and Steel 

Institute, CHP Association and Council of 

Industrial Boiler Owners

ESA Electricity Storage Association
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 2 -

FCHEA Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association

IECA Industrial Energy Consumers of America

IREC Interstate Renewable Energy Council

IRC ISO/RTO Council

ISO-NE ISO New England

ITC International Transmission Company

LES Landfill Energy Systems

Lucia Villaran Lucia Villaran

Max Hensley Max Hensley

MISO Midcontinent Independent System Operator

NARUC National Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners

NRECA, EEI & APPA National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association, Edison Electric Institute and 

American Public Power Association

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NRG Companies NRG Companies

NYISO & NYTO New York Independent System Operator and 

New York Transmission Owners

Pepco Pepco Holdings Inc., Atlantic City Electric 

Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company 

and Potomac Electric Power Company

PJM PJM Interconnection, LLC

Public Interest Organizations Center for Rural Affairs, Climate + Energy 

Project, Conservation Law Foundation, Energy 

Future Coalition, Environmental Defense Fund,
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 3 -

Environmental Law & Policy Center, 

Environment Northeast, Fresh Energy, Great 

Plains Institute, National Audubon Society, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest 

Energy Coalition, Pace Energy and Climate 

Center, Piedmont Environmental Council, 

Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean 

Energy, Southern Environmental Law Center, 

Sustainable FERC Project, Union of Concerned 

Scientists, Utah Clean Energy, Western Grid 

Group, Western Resource Advocates, The 

Wilderness Society and Wind on the Wires

Sandia Sandia National Laboratories

SEIA Solar Energy Industries Association

UCS Union of Concerned Scientists

VSI Vote Solar Initiative
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

Note: Appendix B will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix B

Flow Chart for Interconnecting a Certified Small Generating

Facility Using the "Fast Track Process"
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

Appendix C: Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIP

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP)

(For Generating Facilities No Larger Than 20 MW)
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Section 1. Application....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Applicability............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Pre-Application ...................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Interconnection Request......................................................................................... 5

1.4 Modification of the Interconnection Request ........................................................ 6

1.5 Site Control ............................................................................................................ 6

1.6 Queue Position ....................................................................................................... 6

1.7 Interconnection Requests Submitted Prior to the Effective Date of the SGIP ...... 7

Section 2. Fast Track Process.......................................................................................... 7

2.1 Applicability........................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Initial Review......................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Customer Options Meeting .................................................................................. 13

2.4 Supplemental Review .......................................................................................... 14

Section 3. Study Process................................................................................................. 19

3.1 Applicability......................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Scoping Meeting .................................................................................................. 20

3.3 Feasibility Study .................................................................................................. 20

3.4 System Impact Study ........................................................................................... 21

3.5 Facilities Study..................................................................................................... 23

Section 4. Provisions that Apply to All Interconnection Requests............................. 24

4.1 Reasonable Efforts............................................................................................... 24

4.2 Disputes................................................................................................................ 24

4.3 Interconnection Metering..................................................................................... 25

4.4 Commissioning .................................................................................................... 25

4.5. Confidentiality ..................................................................................................... 25

4.6 Comparability....................................................................................................... 26

4.7 Record Retention.................................................................................................. 27
Docket No. RM13-2-000 2

- ii -

4.8 Interconnection Agreement.................................................................................. 27

4.9 Coordination with Affected Systems................................................................... 27

4.10 Capacity of the Small Generating Facility........................................................... 27

Attachment 1 – Glossary of Terms

Attachment 2 – Small Generator Interconnection Request

Attachment 3 – Certification Codes and Standards

Attachment 4 – Certification of Small Generator Equipment Packages

Attachment 5 – Application, Procedures, and Terms and Conditions for Interconnecting a 

Certified Invertor-Based Small Generating Facility No Larger than 10 kW (“10 kW 

Inverter Process”).

Attachment 6 – Feasibility Study Agreement

Attachment 7 – System Impact Study Agreement

Attachment 8 – Facilities Study Agreement
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 1 -

Section 1. Application

1.1 Applicability

1.1.1 A request to interconnect a certified Small Generating Facility (See 

Attachments 3 and 4 for description of certification criteria) no larger than 

2 MW to the Transmission Provider’s Distribution System shall be 

evaluated under the section 2 Fast Track Process if the eligibility 

requirements of section 2.1 are met. A request to interconnect a certified 

inverter-based Small Generating Facility no larger than 10 kilowatts (kW)

shall be evaluated under the Attachment 5 10 kW Inverter Process. A 

request to interconnect a Small Generating Facility larger than 2 MW but

no larger than 20 megawatts (MW) that does not meet the eligibility 

requirements of section 2.1, or a Small Generating Facility that does not 

pass the Fast Track Process or the 10 kW Inverter Process, shall be 

evaluated under the section 3 Study Process. If the Interconnection 

Customer wishes to interconnect its Small Generating Facility using 

Network Resource Interconnection Service, it must do so under the 

Standard Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and execute the 

Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement.

1.1.2 Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings specified in the 

Glossary of Terms in Attachment 1 or the body of these procedures.

1.1.3 Neither these procedures nor the requirements included hereunder apply to 

Small Generating Facilities interconnected or approved for interconnection 

prior to 60 Business Days after the effective date of these procedures.

1.1.4 Prior to submitting its Interconnection Request (Attachment 2), the 

Interconnection Customer may ask the Transmission Provider's 

interconnection contact employee or office whether the proposed 

interconnection is subject to these procedures. The Transmission Provider 

shall respond within 15 Business Days.

1.1.5 Infrastructure security of electric system equipment and operations and 

control hardware and software is essential to ensure day-to-day reliability 

and operational security. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

expects all Transmission Providers, market participants, and 

Interconnection Customers interconnected with electric systems to comply 

with the recommendations offered by the President's Critical Infrastructure 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 2

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 2 -

Protection Board and best practice recommendations from the electric 

reliability authority. All public utilities are expected to meet basic 

standards for electric system infrastructure and operational security, 

including physical, operational, and cyber-security practices.

1.1.6 References in these procedures to interconnection agreement are to the 

Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA).

1.2 Pre-Application

1.2.1 The Transmission Provider shall designate an employee or office from 

which information on the application process and on an Affected System 

can be obtained through informal requests from the Interconnection 

Customer presenting a proposed project for a specific site. The name, 

telephone number, and e-mail address of such contact employee or office 

shall be made available on the Transmission Provider's Internet web site. 

Electric system information provided to the Interconnection Customer 

should include relevant system studies, interconnection studies, and other 

materials useful to an understanding of an interconnection at a particular 

point on the Transmission Provider's Transmission System, to the extent 

such provision does not violate confidentiality provisions of prior 

agreements or critical infrastructure requirements. The Transmission 

Provider shall comply with reasonable requests for such information.

1.2.2 In addition to the information described in section 1.2.1, which may be 

provided in response to an informal request, an Interconnection Customer 

may submit a formal written request form along with a non-refundable fee 

of $300 for a pre-application report on a proposed project at a specific site. 

The Transmission Provider shall provide the pre-application data described 

in section 1.2.3 to the Interconnection Customer within 20 Business Days 

of receipt of the completed request form and payment of the $300 fee. The 

pre-application report produced by the Transmission Provider is nonbinding, does not confer any rights, and the Interconnection Customer must 

still successfully apply to interconnect to the Transmission Provider’s 

system. The written pre-application report request form shall include the 

information in sections 1.2.2.1 through 1.2.2.8 below to clearly and 

sufficiently identify the location of the proposed Point of Interconnection.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 3

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 3 -

1.2.2.1 Project contact information, including name, address, phone 

number, and email address.

1.2.2.2 Project location (street address with nearby cross streets and 

town)

1.2.2.3 Meter number, pole number, or other equivalent information 

identifying proposed Point of Interconnection, if available.

1.2.2.4 Generator Type (e.g., solar, wind, combined heat and power, 

etc.)

1.2.2.5 Size (alternating current kW)

1.2.2.6 Single or three phase generator configuration

1.2.2.7 Stand-alone generator (no onsite load, not including station 

service – Yes or No?)

1.2.2.8 Is new service requested? Yes or No? If there is existing 

service, include the customer account number, site minimum 

and maximum current or proposed electric loads in kW (if 

available) and specify if the load is expected to change.

1.2.3. Using the information provided in the pre-application report request form 

in section 1.2.2, the Transmission Provider will identify the substation/area 

bus, bank or circuit likely to serve the proposed Point of Interconnection. 

This selection by the Transmission Provider does not necessarily indicate, 

after application of the screens and/or study, that this would be the circuit 

the project ultimately connects to. The Interconnection Customer must 

request additional pre-application reports if information about multiple 

Points of Interconnection is requested. Subject to section 1.2.4, the preapplication report will include the following information:

1.2.3.1 Total capacity (in MW) of substation/area bus, bank or circuit 

based on normal or operating ratings likely to serve the 

proposed Point of Interconnection.

1.2.3.2 Existing aggregate generation capacity (in MW) 

interconnected to a substation/area bus, bank or circuit (i.e., 

amount of generation online) likely to serve the proposed 

Point of Interconnection.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 4

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 4 -

1.2.3.3 Aggregate queued generation capacity (in MW) for a 

substation/area bus, bank or circuit (i.e., amount of generation 

in the queue) likely to serve the proposed Point of 

Interconnection.

1.2.3.4 Available capacity (in MW) of substation/area bus or bank 

and circuit likely to serve the proposed Point of 

Interconnection (i.e., total capacity less the sum of existing 

aggregate generation capacity and aggregate queued 

generation capacity).

1.2.3.5 Substation nominal distribution voltage and/or transmission 

nominal voltage if applicable.

1.2.3.6 Nominal distribution circuit voltage at the proposed Point of 

Interconnection.

1.2.3.7 Approximate circuit distance between the proposed Point of 

Interconnection and the substation.

1.2.3.8 Relevant line section(s) actual or estimated peak load and 

minimum load data, including daytime minimum load as 

described in section 2.4.4.1.1 below and absolute minimum 

load, when available.

1.2.3.9 Number and rating of protective devices and number and type 

(standard, bi-directional) of voltage regulating devices 

between the proposed Point of Interconnection and the 

substation/area. Identify whether the substation has a load tap 

changer.

1.2.3.10 Number of phases available at the proposed Point of 

Interconnection. If a single phase, distance from the threephase circuit.

1.2.3.11 Limiting conductor ratings from the proposed Point of 

Interconnection to the distribution substation.

1.2.3.12 Whether the Point of Interconnection is located on a spot 

network, grid network, or radial supply.

1.2.3.13 Based on the proposed Point of Interconnection, existing or 

known constraints such as, but not limited to, electrical 

dependencies at that location, short circuit interrupting 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 5

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 5 -

capacity issues, power quality or stability issues on the 

circuit, capacity constraints, or secondary networks.

1.2.4 The pre-application report need only include existing data. A preapplication report request does not obligate the Transmission Provider to 

conduct a study or other analysis of the proposed generator in the event that 

data is not readily available. If the Transmission Provider cannot complete 

all or some of a pre-application report due to lack of available data, the

Transmission Provider shall provide the Interconnection Customer with a 

pre-application report that includes the data that is available. The provision

of information on “available capacity” pursuant to section 1.2.3.4 does not 

imply that an interconnection up to this level may be completed without 

impacts since there are many variables studied as part of the 

interconnection review process, and data provided in the pre-application 

report may become outdated at the time of the submission of the complete 

Interconnection Request. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this 

section, the Transmission Provider shall, in good faith, include data in the 

pre-application report that represents the best available information at the 

time of reporting.

1.3 Interconnection Request

The Interconnection Customer shall submit its Interconnection Request to 

the Transmission Provider, together with the processing fee or deposit 

specified in the Interconnection Request. The Interconnection Request 

shall be date- and time-stamped upon receipt. The original date- and timestamp applied to the Interconnection Request at the time of its original 

submission shall be accepted as the qualifying date- and time-stamp for the 

purposes of any timetable in these procedures. The Interconnection 

Customer shall be notified of receipt by the Transmission Provider within 

three Business Days of receiving the Interconnection Request. The 

Transmission Provider shall notify the Interconnection Customer within ten 

Business Days of the receipt of the Interconnection Request as to whether 

the Interconnection Request is complete or incomplete. If the 

Interconnection Request is incomplete, the Transmission Provider shall 

provide along with the notice that the Interconnection Request is 

incomplete, a written list detailing all information that must be provided to 

complete the Interconnection Request. The Interconnection Customer will 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 6

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 6 -

have ten Business Days after receipt of the notice to submit the listed 

information or to request an extension of time to provide such information. 

If the Interconnection Customer does not provide the listed information or a 

request for an extension of time within the deadline, the Interconnection 

Request will be deemed withdrawn. An Interconnection Request will be 

deemed complete upon submission of the listed information to the 

Transmission Provider.

1.4 Modification of the Interconnection Request

Any modification to machine data or equipment configuration or to the 

interconnection site of the Small Generating Facility not agreed to in 

writing by the Transmission Provider and the Interconnection Customer 

may be deemed a withdrawal of the Interconnection Request and may 

require submission of a new Interconnection Request, unless proper 

notification of each Party by the other and a reasonable time to cure the

problems created by the changes are undertaken.

1.5 Site Control

Documentation of site control must be submitted with the Interconnection 

Request. Site control may be demonstrated through:

1.5.1 Ownership of, a leasehold interest in, or a right to develop a site for the 

purpose of constructing the Small Generating Facility;

1.5.2 An option to purchase or acquire a leasehold site for such purpose; or

1.5.3 An exclusivity or other business relationship between the Interconnection 

Customer and the entity having the right to sell, lease, or grant the 

Interconnection Customer the right to possess or occupy a site for such 

purpose.

1.6 Queue Position

The Transmission Provider shall assign a Queue Position based upon the date- and 

time-stamp of the Interconnection Request. The Queue Position of each 

Interconnection Request will be used to determine the cost responsibility for the 

Upgrades necessary to accommodate the interconnection. The Transmission 

Provider shall maintain a single queue per geographic region. At the Transmission 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 7

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 7 -

Provider's option, Interconnection Requests may be studied serially or in clusters 

for the purpose of the system impact study.

1.7 Interconnection Requests Submitted Prior to the Effective Date of the SGIP

Nothing in this SGIP affects an Interconnection Customer's Queue Position 

assigned before the effective date of this SGIP. The Parties agree to complete 

work on any interconnection study agreement executed prior the effective date of 

this SGIP in accordance with the terms and conditions of that interconnection 

study agreement. Any new studies or other additional work will be completed 

pursuant to this SGIP.

Section 2. Fast Track Process 

2.1 Applicability

The Fast Track Process is available to an Interconnection Customer proposing to 

interconnect its Small Generating Facility with the Transmission Provider's 

Transmission Distribution System if the Small Generating Facility is no larger 

than 2 MW and if’s capacity does not exceed the size limits identified in the table 

below. Small Generating Facilities below these limits are eligible for Fast Track 

review. However, Fast Track eligibility is distinct from the Fast Track Process 

itself, and eligibility does not imply or indicate that a Small Generating Facility 

will pass the Fast Track screens in section 2.2.1 below or the Supplemental 

Review screens in section 2.4.1 below.

Fast Track eligibility is determined based upon the generator type, the size of the 

generator, voltage of the line and the location of and the type of line at the Point of 

Interconnection. All Small Generating Facilities connecting to lines greater than 

69 kilovolt (kV) are ineligible for the Fast Track Process regardless of size. All 

synchronous and induction machines must be no larger than 2 MW to be eligible 

for the Fast Track Process, regardless of location. For certified inverter-based 

systems, the size limit varies according to the voltage of the line at the proposed 

Point of Interconnection. Certified inverter-based Small Generating Facilities 

located within 2.5 electrical circuit miles of a substation and on a mainline (as 

defined in the table below) are eligible for the Fast Track Process under the higher 

thresholds according to the table below. In addition to the size threshold, the 

Interconnection Customer's proposed Small Generating Facility must meets the 

codes, standards, and certification requirements of Attachments 3 and 4 of these 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 8

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 8 -

procedures, or the Transmission Provider has to have reviewed the design or tested 

the proposed Small Generating Facility and is satisfied that it is safe to operate.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 9

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 9 -

2.2 Initial Review

Within 15 Business Days after the Transmission Provider notifies the 

Interconnection Customer it has received a complete Interconnection Request, the 

Transmission Provider shall perform an initial review using the screens set forth 

below, shall notify the Interconnection Customer of the results, and include with 

the notification copies of the analysis and data underlying the Transmission 

Provider's determinations under the screens.

2.2.1 Screens

2.2.1.1 The proposed Small Generating Facility’s Point of 

Interconnection must be on a portion of the Transmission 

Provider’s Distribution System that is subject to the Tariff.

2.2.1.2 For interconnection of a proposed Small Generating Facility 

to a radial distribution circuit, the aggregated generation, 

including the proposed Small Generating Facility, on the 

 

1

For purposes of this table, a mainline is the three-phase backbone of a circuit. It

will typically constitute lines with wire sizes of 4/0 American wire gauge, 336.4 kcmil, 

397.5 kcmil, 477 kcmil and 795 kcmil.

2 An Interconnection Customer can determine this information about its proposed 

interconnection location in advance by requesting a pre-application report pursuant to 

section 1.2.

Fast Track Eligibility for Inverter-Based Systems

Line Voltage Fast Track Eligibility 

Regardless of Location

Fast Track Eligibility on a 

Mainline1and ≤ 2.5 

Electrical Circuit Miles from 

Substation2

< 5 kV ≤ 500 kW ≤ 500 kW

≥ 5 kV and < 15 kV ≤ 2 MW ≤ 3 MW

≥ 15 kV and < 30 kV ≤ 3 MW ≤ 4 MW

≥ 30 kV and ≤ 69 kV ≤ 4 MW ≤ 5 MW
Docket No. RM13-2-000 10

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 10 -

circuit shall not exceed 15 % of the line section annual peak 

load as most recently measured at the substation. A line 

section is that portion of a Transmission Provider’s electric 

system connected to a customer bounded by automatic 

sectionalizing devices or the end of the distribution line.

2.2.1.3 For interconnection of a proposed Small Generating Facility 

to the load side of spot network protectors, the proposed 

Small Generating Facility must utilize an inverter-based 

equipment package and, together with the aggregated other 

inverter-based generation, shall not exceed the smaller of 5 % 

of a spot network's maximum load or 50 kW.3

2.2.1.4 The proposed Small Generating Facility, in aggregation with 

other generation on the distribution circuit, shall not 

contribute more than 10 % to the distribution circuit's 

maximum fault current at the point on the high voltage 

(primary) level nearest the proposed point of change of 

ownership.

2.2.1.5 The proposed Small Generating Facility, in aggregate with 

other generation on the distribution circuit, shall not cause 

any distribution protective devices and equipment (including, 

but not limited to, substation breakers, fuse cutouts, and line 

reclosers), or Interconnection Customer equipment on the 

system to exceed 87.5 % of the short circuit interrupting 

capability; nor shall the interconnection be proposed for a 

circuit that already exceeds 87.5 % of the short circuit 

interrupting capability.

2.2.1.6 Using the table below, determine the type of interconnection 

to a primary distribution line. This screen includes a review 

of the type of electrical service provided to the 

Interconnecting Customer, including line configuration and 

the transformer connection to limit the potential for creating 

 

3 A spot network is a type of distribution system found within modern commercial 

buildings to provide high reliability of service to a single customer. (Standard Handbook for 

Electrical Engineers, 11th edition, Donald Fink, McGraw Hill Book Company)
Docket No. RM13-2-000 11

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 11 -

over-voltages on the Transmission Provider's electric power 

system due to a loss of ground during the operating time of 

any anti-islanding function.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 12

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 12 -

Primary Distribution 

Line Type

Type of Interconnection to 

Primary Distribution Line

Result/Criteria

Three-phase, three wire 3-phase or single phase, 

phase-to-phase

Pass Screen

2.2.1.7 If the proposed Small Generating Facility is to be 

interconnected on single-phase shared secondary, the 

aggregate generation capacity on the shared secondary, 

including the proposed Small Generating Facility, shall not 

exceed 20 kW.

2.2.1.8 If the proposed Small Generating Facility is single-phase and 

is to be interconnected on a center tap neutral of a 240 volt 

service, its addition shall not create an imbalance between the 

two sides of the 240 volt service of more than 20 % of the 

nameplate rating of the service transformer.

2.2.1.9 The Small Generating Facility, in aggregate with other 

generation interconnected to the transmission side of a 

substation transformer feeding the circuit where the Small 

Generating Facility proposes to interconnect shall not exceed 

10 MW in an area where there are known, or posted, transient 

stability limitations to generating units located in the general 

electrical vicinity (e.g., three or four transmission busses from 

the point of interconnection).

2.2.1.10 No construction of facilities by the Transmission Provider on 

its own system shall be required to accommodate the Small 

Generating Facility.

2.2.2 If the proposed interconnection passes the screens, the 

Interconnection Request shall be approved and the Transmission 

Provider will provide the Interconnection Customer an executable 

interconnection agreement within five Business Days after the 

determination.

2.2.3 If the proposed interconnection fails the screens, but the 

Transmission Provider determines that the Small Generating Facility 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 13

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 13 -

may nevertheless be interconnected consistent with safety, 

reliability, and power quality standards, the Transmission Provider 

shall provide the Interconnection Customer an executable 

interconnection agreement within five Business Days after the 

determination.

2.2.4 If the proposed interconnection fails the screens, butand the 

Transmission Provider does not or cannot determine from the initial 

review that the Small Generating Facility may nevertheless be 

interconnected consistent with safety, reliability, and power quality 

standards unless the Interconnection Customer is willing to consider 

minor modifications or further study, the Transmission Provider 

shall provide the Interconnection Customer with the opportunity to 

attend a customer options meeting.

2.3 Customer Options Meeting

If the Transmission Provider determines the Interconnection Request cannot be 

approved without (1) minor modifications at minimal cost;, (2) or a supplemental 

study or other additional studies or actions;, or (3) or at incurring significant cost 

to address safety, reliability, or power quality problems, within the five Business 

Day period after the determination, the Transmission Provider shall notify the 

Interconnection Customer of that determination within five Business Days after 

the determination and provide copies of all data and analyses underlying its 

conclusion. Within ten Business Days of the Transmission Provider's 

determination, the Transmission Provider shall offer to convene a customer 

options meeting with the Transmission Provider to review possible 

Interconnection Customer facility modifications or the screen analysis and related 

results, to determine what further steps are needed to permit the Small Generating 

Facility to be connected safely and reliably. At the time of notification of the 

Transmission Provider's determination, or at the customer options meeting, the 

Transmission Provider shall:

2.3.1 Offer to perform facility modifications or minor modifications to the 

Transmission Provider's electric system (e.g., changing meters, fuses, relay 

settings) and provide a non-binding good faith estimate of the limited cost 

to make such modifications to the Transmission Provider's electric system. 

If the Interconnection Customer agrees to pay for the modifications to the
Docket No. RM13-2-000 14

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 14 -

Transmission Provider’s electric system, the Transmission Provider will 

provide the Interconnection Customer with an executable interconnection 

agreement within ten Business Days of the customer options meeting; or

2.3.2 Offer to perform a supplemental review in accordance with section 2.4 if 

the Transmission Provider concludes that the supplemental review might 

determine that the Small Generating Facility could continue to qualify for 

interconnection pursuant to the Fast Track Process, and provide a nonbinding good faith estimate of the costs of such review; or

2.3.3 Obtain the Interconnection Customer's agreement to continue evaluating the 

Interconnection Request under the section 3 Study Process.

2.4 Supplemental Review

2.4.1 If the Interconnection Customer agrees toTo accept the offer of a 

supplemental review, the Interconnection Customer shall agree in 

writing within 15 Business Days of the offer, and submit a deposit 

for the estimated costs of the supplemental review in the amount of 

the Transmission Provider’s good faith estimate of the costs of such 

review, both within 15 Business Days of the offer. If the written 

agreement and deposit have not been received by the Transmission 

Provider within that timeframe, the Interconnection Request shall 

continue to be evaluated under the section 3 Study Process unless it 

is withdrawn by the Interconnection Customer. 

2.4.2 The Interconnection Customer may specify the order in which the 

Transmission Provider will complete the screens in section 2.4.4.

2.4.3 The Interconnection Customer shall be responsible for the 

Transmission Provider's actual costs for conducting the 

supplemental review. The Interconnection Customer must pay any 

review costs that exceed the deposit within 20 Business Days of 

receipt of the invoice or resolution of any dispute. If the deposit 

exceeds the invoiced costs, the Transmission Provider will return 

such excess within 20 Business Days of the invoice without interest.

2.4.4 Within ten30 Business Days following receipt of the deposit for a 

supplemental review, the Transmission Provider will determine if 

the Small Generating Facility can be interconnected safely and 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 15

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 15 -

reliablyshall (1) perform a supplemental review using the screens set 

forth below; (2) notify in writing the Interconnection Customer of 

the results; and (3) include with the notification copies of the 

analysis and data underlying the Transmission Provider’s 

determinations under the screens. Unless the Interconnection 

Customer provided instructions for how to respond to the failure of 

any of the supplemental review screens below at the time the 

Interconnection Customer accepted the offer of supplemental 

review, the Transmission Provider shall notify the Interconnection 

Customer following the failure of any of the screens, or if it is 

unable to perform the screen in section 2.4.4.1, within two Business 

Days of making such determination to obtain the Interconnection 

Customer’s permission to: (1) continue evaluating the proposed 

interconnection under this section 2.4.4; (2) terminate the 

supplemental review and continue evaluating the Small Generating 

Facility under section 3; or (3) terminate the supplemental review 

upon withdrawal of the Interconnection Request by the 

Interconnection Customer.

2.4.4.1 If so, the Transmission Provider shall forward an 

executable interconnection agreement to the 

Interconnection Customer within five Business Days

Minimum Load Screen: Where 12 months of line 

section minimum load data (including onsite load but 

not station service load served by the proposed Small 

Generating Facility) are available, can be calculated, 

can be estimated from existing data, or determined 

from a power flow model, the aggregate Generating 

Facility capacity on the line section is less than 100% 

of the minimum load for all line sections bounded by 

automatic sectionalizing devices upstream of the 

proposed Small Generating Facility. If minimum load 

data is not available, or cannot be calculated, estimated 

or determined, the Transmission Provider shall include 

the reason(s) that it is unable to calculate, estimate or 

determine minimum load in its supplemental review 

results notification under section 2.4.4.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 16

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 16 -

2.4.4.1.1 The type of generation used by the proposed

Small Generating Facility will be taken into 

account when calculating, estimating, or 

determining circuit or line section minimum 

load relevant for the application of screen 

2.4.1.1. Solar photovoltaic (PV) generation 

systems with no battery storage use daytime 

minimum load (i.e. 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. for fixed 

panel systems and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. for PV 

systems utilizing tracking systems), while all 

other generation uses absolute minimum load. 

2.4. 4.1.2 When this screen is being applied to a Small 

Generating Facility that serves some station 

service load, only the net injection into the 

Transmission Provider’s electric system will be 

considered as part of the aggregate generation.

2.4. 4.1.3 Transmission Provider will not consider as part 

of the aggregate generation for purposes of this 

screen generating facility capacity known to be 

already reflected in the minimum load data.

2.4.4.2 Voltage and Power Quality Screen: In aggregate with 

existing generation on the line section: (1) the voltage 

regulation on the line section can be maintained in 

compliance with relevant requirements under all system 

conditions; (2) the voltage fluctuation is within acceptable 

limits as defined by Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers (IEEE) Standard 1453, or utility practice similar to 

IEEE Standard 1453; and (3) the harmonic levels meet IEEE 

Standard 519 limits.

2.4.4.3 Safety and Reliability Screen: The location of the proposed 

Small Generating Facility and the aggregate generation 

capacity on the line section do not create impacts to safety or 

reliability that cannot be adequately addressed without 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 17

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 17 -

application of the Study Process. The Transmission Provider 

shall give due consideration to the following and other factors 

in determining potential impacts to safety and reliability in 

applying this screen.

2.4.4.3.1 Whether the line section has significant 

minimum loading levels dominated by a small 

number of customers (e.g., several large 

commercial customers).

2.4.4.3.2 Whether the loading along the line section 

uniform or even.

2.4.4.3.3 Whether the proposed Small Generating 

Facility is located in close proximity to the 

substation (i.e., less than 2.5 electrical circuit 

miles), and whether the line section from the 

substation to the Point of Interconnection is a 

Mainline rated for normal and emergency 

ampacity.

2.4.4.3.4 Whether the proposed Small Generating 

Facility incorporates a time delay function to 

prevent reconnection of the generator to the 

system until system voltage and frequency are 

within normal limits for a prescribed time.

2.4.4.3.5 Whether operational flexibility is reduced by 

the proposed Small Generating Facility, such 

that transfer of the line section(s) of the Small 

Generating Facility to a neighboring 

distribution circuit/substation may trigger 

overloads or voltage issues.

2.4.4.3.6 Whether the proposed Small Generating 

Facility employs equipment or systems certified 

by a recognized standards organization to 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 18

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 18 -

address technical issues such as, but not limited 

to, islanding, reverse power flow, or voltage 

quality.

2.4.5 If the proposed interconnection passes the supplemental screens in sections 

2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2, and 2.4.4.3 above, the Interconnection Request shall be 

approved and the Transmission Provider will provide the Interconnection 

Customer with an executable interconnection agreement within the 

timeframes established in sections 2.4.5.1 and 2.4.5.2 below. If the 

proposed interconnection fails any of the supplemental review screens and 

the Interconnection Customer does not withdraw its Interconnection 

Request, it shall continue to be evaluated under the section 3 Study Process 

consistent with section 2.4.5.3 below.

2.4.5.1 If the proposed interconnection passes the supplemental 

screens in sections 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, and 2.4.1.3 above and 

does not require construction of facilities by the Transmission 

Provider on its own system, the interconnection agreement 

shall be provided within ten Business Days after the 

notification of the supplemental review results. 

2.4.5.2 If interconnection facilities or minor modifications to the 

Transmission Provider's system are required for the proposed 

interconnection to pass the supplemental screens in sections 

2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, and 2.4.1.3 above, and the Interconnection 

Customer agrees to pay for the modifications to the 

Transmission Provider’s electric system, the interconnection 

agreement, along with a non-binding good faith estimate for 

the interconnection facilities and/or minor modifications, 

shall be provided to the Interconnection Customer within 15 

Business Days after receiving written notification of the 

supplemental review results. 

2.4.5.3 If the proposed interconnection would require more than 

interconnection facilities or minor modifications to the 

Transmission Provider’s system to pass the supplemental 

screens in sections 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, and 2.4.1.3 above, the 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 19

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 19 -

Transmission Provider shall notify the Interconnection 

Customer, at the same time it notifies the Interconnection 

Customer with the supplemental review results, that the 

Interconnection Request shall be evaluated under the section 

3 Study Process unless the Interconnection Customer 

withdraws its Small Generating Facility.

2.4.1.2 If so, and Interconnection Customer facility modifications are 

required to allow the Small Generating Facility to be 

interconnected consistent with safety, reliability, and power 

quality standards under these procedures, the Transmission 

Provider shall forward an executable interconnection 

agreement to the Interconnection Customer within five 

Business Days after confirmation that the Interconnection 

Customer has agreed to make the necessary changes at the 

Interconnection Customer's cost.

2.4.1.3 If so, and minor modifications to the Transmission Provider's 

electric system are required to allow the Small Generating 

Facility to be interconnected consistent with safety, 

reliability, and power quality standards under the Fast Track 

Process, the Transmission Provider shall forward an 

executable interconnection agreement to the Interconnection 

Customer within ten Business Days that requires the 

Interconnection Customer to pay the costs of such system 

modifications prior to interconnection.

2.4.1.4 If not, the Interconnection Request will continue to be 

evaluated under the section 3 Study Process.

Section 3. Study Process

3.1 Applicability

The Study Process shall be used by an Interconnection Customer proposing to 

interconnect its Small Generating Facility with the Transmission Provider's 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 20

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 20 -

Transmission System or Distribution System if the Small Generating Facility (1) is 

larger than 2 MW but no larger than 20 MW, (2) is not certified, or (3) is certified 

but did not pass the Fast Track Process or the 10 kW Inverter Process.

3.2 Scoping Meeting

3.2.1 A scoping meeting will be held within ten Business Days after the 

Interconnection Request is deemed complete, or as otherwise mutually 

agreed to by the Parties. The Transmission Provider and the 

Interconnection Customer will bring to the meeting personnel, including 

system engineers and other resources as may be reasonably required to 

accomplish the purpose of the meeting.

3.2.2 The purpose of the scoping meeting is to discuss the Interconnection 

Request and review existing studies relevant to the Interconnection 

Request. The Parties shall further discuss whether the Transmission 

Provider should perform a feasibility study or proceed directly to a system 

impact study, or a facilities study, or an interconnection agreement. If the 

Parties agree that a feasibility study should be performed, the Transmission 

Provider shall provide the Interconnection Customer, as soon as possible, 

but not later than five Business Days after the scoping meeting, a feasibility 

study agreement (Attachment 6) including an outline of the scope of the 

study and a non-binding good faith estimate of the cost to perform the 

study.

3.2.3 The scoping meeting may be omitted by mutual agreement. In order to 

remain in consideration for interconnection, an Interconnection Customer 

who has requested a feasibility study must return the executed feasibility 

study agreement within 15 Business Days. If the Parties agree not to 

perform a feasibility study, the Transmission Provider shall provide the 

Interconnection Customer, no later than five Business Days after the 

scoping meeting, a system impact study agreement (Attachment 7) 

including an outline of the scope of the study and a non-binding good faith 

estimate of the cost to perform the study.

3.3 Feasibility Study

3.3.1 The feasibility study shall identify any potential adverse system impacts 

that would result from the interconnection of the Small Generating Facility.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 21

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 21 -

3.3.2 A deposit of the lesser of 50 percent of the good faith estimated feasibility 

study costs or earnest money of $1,000 may be required from the 

Interconnection Customer.

3.3.3 The scope of and cost responsibilities for the feasibility study are described 

in the attached feasibility study agreement (Attachment 6).

3.3.4 If the feasibility study shows no potential for adverse system impacts, the 

Transmission Provider shall send the Interconnection Customer a facilities 

study agreement, including an outline of the scope of the study and a nonbinding good faith estimate of the cost to perform the study. If no 

additional facilities are required, the Transmission Provider shall send the 

Interconnection Customer an executable interconnection agreement within 

five Business Days.

3.3.5 If the feasibility study shows the potential for adverse system impacts, the 

review process shall proceed to the appropriate system impact study(s).

3.4 System Impact Study

3.4.1 A system impact study shall identify and detail the electric system impacts 

that would result if the proposed Small Generating Facility were 

interconnected without project modifications or electric system 

modifications, focusing on the adverse system impacts identified in the 

feasibility study, or to study potential impacts, including but not limited to 

those identified in the scoping meeting. A system impact study shall 

evaluate the impact of the proposed interconnection on the reliability of the 

electric system.

3.4.2 If no transmission system impact study is required, but potential electric 

power Distribution System adverse system impacts are identified in the 

scoping meeting or shown in the feasibility study, a distribution system 

impact study must be performed. The Transmission Provider shall send the 

Interconnection Customer a distribution system impact study agreement 

within 15 Business Days of transmittal of the feasibility study report, 

including an outline of the scope of the study and a non-binding good faith 

estimate of the cost to perform the study, or following the scoping meeting 

if no feasibility study is to be performed.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 22

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 22 -

3.4.3 In instances where the feasibility study or the distribution system impact 

study shows potential for transmission system adverse system impacts, 

within five Business Days following transmittal of the feasibility study 

report, the Transmission Provider shall send the Interconnection Customer 

a transmission system impact study agreement, including an outline of the 

scope of the study and a non-binding good faith estimate of the cost to 

perform the study, if such a study is required.

3.4.4 If a transmission system impact study is not required, but electric power 

Distribution System adverse system impacts are shown by the feasibility 

study to be possible and no distribution system impact study has been 

conducted, the Transmission Provider shall send the Interconnection 

Customer a distribution system impact study agreement.

3.4.5 If the feasibility study shows no potential for transmission system or 

Distribution System adverse system impacts, the Transmission Provider 

shall send the Interconnection Customer either a facilities study agreement 

(Attachment 8), including an outline of the scope of the study and a nonbinding good faith estimate of the cost to perform the study, or an 

executable interconnection agreement, as applicable.

3.4.6 In order to remain under consideration for interconnection, the 

Interconnection Customer must return executed system impact study 

agreements, if applicable, within 30 Business Days.

3.4.7 A deposit of the good faith estimated costs for each system impact study 

may be required from the Interconnection Customer.

3.4.8 The scope of and cost responsibilities for a system impact study are 

described in the attached system impact study agreement.

3.4.9 Where transmission systems and Distribution Systems have separate 

owners, such as is the case with transmission-dependent utilities ("TDUs") 

– whether investor-owned or not – the Interconnection Customer may apply 

to the nearest Transmission Provider (Transmission Owner, Regional 

Transmission Operator, or Independent Transmission Provider) providing 

transmission service to the TDU to request project coordination. Affected 

Systems shall participate in the study and provide all information necessary 

to prepare the study.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 23

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 23 -

3.5 Facilities Study

3.5.1 Once the required system impact study(s) is completed, a system impact 

study report shall be prepared and transmitted to the Interconnection 

Customer along with a facilities study agreement within five Business 

Days, including an outline of the scope of the study and a non-binding good 

faith estimate of the cost to perform the facilities study. In the case where 

one or both impact studies are determined to be unnecessary, a notice of the 

fact shall be transmitted to the Interconnection Customer within the same 

timeframe.

3.5.2 In order to remain under consideration for interconnection, or, as 

appropriate, in the Transmission Provider's interconnection queue, the 

Interconnection Customer must return the executed facilities study 

agreement or a request for an extension of time within 30 Business Days.

3.5.3 The facilities study shall specify and estimate the cost of the equipment, 

engineering, procurement and construction work (including overheads) 

needed to implement the conclusions of the system impact study(s).

3.5.4 Design for any required Interconnection Facilities and/or Upgrades shall be 

performed under the facilities study agreement. The Transmission Provider 

may contract with consultants to perform activities required under the 

facilities study agreement. The Interconnection Customer and the 

Transmission Provider may agree to allow the Interconnection Customer to 

separately arrange for the design of some of the Interconnection Facilities. 

In such cases, facilities design will be reviewed and/or modified prior to 

acceptance by the Transmission Provider, under the provisions of the 

facilities study agreement. If the Parties agree to separately arrange for 

design and construction, and provided security and confidentiality 

requirements can be met, the Transmission Provider shall make sufficient 

information available to the Interconnection Customer in accordance with 

confidentiality and critical infrastructure requirements to permit the 

Interconnection Customer to obtain an independent design and cost 

estimate for any necessary facilities.

3.5.5 A deposit of the good faith estimated costs for the facilities study may be 

required from the Interconnection Customer.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 24

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 24 -

3.5.6 The scope of and cost responsibilities for the facilities study are described 

in the attached facilities study agreement.

3.5.7 Upon completion of the facilities study, and with the agreement of the 

Interconnection Customer to pay for Interconnection Facilities and 

Upgrades identified in the facilities study, the Transmission Provider shall 

provide the Interconnection Customer an executable interconnection 

agreement within five Business Days.

Section 4. Provisions that Apply to All Interconnection Requests

4.1 Reasonable Efforts

The Transmission Provider shall make reasonable efforts to meet all time frames 

provided in these procedures unless the Transmission Provider and the 

Interconnection Customer agree to a different schedule. If the Transmission 

Provider cannot meet a deadline provided herein, it shall notify the 

Interconnection Customer, explain the reason for the failure to meet the deadline, 

and provide an estimated time by which it will complete the applicable 

interconnection procedure in the process.

4.2 Disputes

4.2.1 The Parties agree to attempt to resolve all disputes arising out of the 

interconnection process according to the provisions of this article.

4.2.2 In the event of a dispute, either Party shall provide the other Party with a 

written Notice of Dispute. Such Notice shall describe in detail the nature of 

the dispute.

4.2.3 If the dispute has not been resolved within two Business Days after receipt 

of the Notice, either Party may contact FERC's Dispute Resolution Service 

(DRS) for assistance in resolving the dispute.

4.2.4 The DRS will assist the Parties in either resolving their dispute or in 

selecting an appropriate dispute resolution venue (e.g., mediation, 

settlement judge, early neutral evaluation, or technical expert) to assist the 

Parties in resolving their dispute. DRS can be reached at 1-877-337-2237 

or via the internet at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/adr.asp.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 25

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 25 -

4.2.5 Each Party agrees to conduct all negotiations in good faith and will be 

responsible for one-half of any costs paid to neutral third-parties.

4.2.6 If neither Party elects to seek assistance from the DRS, or if the attempted 

dispute resolution fails, then either Party may exercise whatever rights and 

remedies it may have in equity or law consistent with the terms of these 

procedures.

4.3 Interconnection Metering

Any metering necessitated by the use of the Small Generating Facility shall be 

installed at the Interconnection Customer's expense in accordance with Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, state, or local regulatory requirements or the 

Transmission Provider's specifications.

4.4 Commissioning

Commissioning tests of the Interconnection Customer's installed equipment shall 

be performed pursuant to applicable codes and standards. The Transmission 

Provider must be given at least five Business Days written notice, or as otherwise 

mutually agreed to by the Parties, of the tests and may be present to witness the 

commissioning tests.

4.5. Confidentiality

4.5.1 Confidential information shall mean any confidential and/or proprietary 

information provided by one Party to the other Party that is clearly marked 

or otherwise designated "Confidential." For purposes of these procedures 

all design, operating specifications, and metering data provided by the 

Interconnection Customer shall be deemed confidential information 

regardless of whether it is clearly marked or otherwise designated as such.

4.5.2 Confidential Information does not include information previously in the 

public domain, required to be publicly submitted or divulged by 

Governmental Authorities (after notice to the other Party and after 

exhausting any opportunity to oppose such publication or release), or 

necessary to be divulged in an action to enforce these procedures. Each 

Party receiving Confidential Information shall hold such information in 

confidence and shall not disclose it to any third party nor to the public 

without the prior written authorization from the Party providing that 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 26

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 26 -

information, except to fulfill obligations under these procedures, or to fulfill 

legal or regulatory requirements.

4.5.2.1 Each Party shall employ at least the same standard of care to 

protect Confidential Information obtained from the other 

Party as it employs to protect its own Confidential 

Information.

4.5.2.2 Each Party is entitled to equitable relief, by injunction or 

otherwise, to enforce its rights under this provision to prevent 

the release of Confidential Information without bond or proof 

of damages, and may seek other remedies available at law or 

in equity for breach of this provision.

4.5.3 Notwithstanding anything in this article to the contrary, and pursuant to 18 

CFR § 1b.20, if FERC, during the course of an investigation or otherwise, 

requests information from one of the Parties that is otherwise required to be 

maintained in confidence pursuant to these procedures, the Party shall 

provide the requested information to FERC, within the time provided for in 

the request for information. In providing the information to FERC, the 

Party may, consistent with 18 CFR § 388.112, request that the information 

be treated as confidential and non-public by FERC and that the information 

be withheld from public disclosure. Parties are prohibited from notifying 

the other Party prior to the release of the Confidential Information to 

FERC. The Party shall notify the other Party when it is notified by FERC 

that a request to release Confidential Information has been received by 

FERC, at which time either of the Parties may respond before such 

information would be made public, pursuant to 18 CFR § 388.112. 

Requests from a state regulatory body conducting a confidential 

investigation shall be treated in a similar manner if consistent with the 

applicable state rules and regulations.

4.6 Comparability

The Transmission Provider shall receive, process and analyze all Interconnection 

Requests in a timely manner as set forth in this document. The Transmission 

Provider shall use the same reasonable efforts in processing and analyzing 

Interconnection Requests from all Interconnection Customers, whether the Small 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 27

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 27 -

Generating Facility is owned or operated by the Transmission Provider, its 

subsidiaries or affiliates, or others.

4.7 Record Retention

The Transmission Provider shall maintain for three years records, subject to audit, 

of all Interconnection Requests received under these procedures, the times 

required to complete Interconnection Request approvals and disapprovals, and 

justification for the actions taken on the Interconnection Requests.

4.8 Interconnection Agreement

After receiving an interconnection agreement from the Transmission Provider, the 

Interconnection Customer shall have 30 Business Days or another mutually 

agreeable timeframe to sign and return the interconnection agreement or request 

that the Transmission Provider file an unexecuted interconnection agreement with 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. If the Interconnection Customer 

does not sign the interconnection agreement, or ask that it be filed unexecuted by 

the Transmission Provider within 30 Business Days, the Interconnection Request 

shall be deemed withdrawn. After the interconnection agreement is signed by the 

Parties, the interconnection of the Small Generating Facility shall proceed under 

the provisions of the interconnection agreement.

4.9 Coordination with Affected Systems

The Transmission Provider shall coordinate the conduct of any studies required to 

determine the impact of the Interconnection Request on Affected Systems with 

Affected System operators and, if possible, include those results (if available) in 

its applicable interconnection study within the time frame specified in these 

procedures. The Transmission Provider will include such Affected System 

operators in all meetings held with the Interconnection Customer as required by 

these procedures. The Interconnection Customer will cooperate with the 

Transmission Provider in all matters related to the conduct of studies and the 

determination of modifications to Affected Systems. A Transmission Provider 

which may be an Affected System shall cooperate with the Transmission Provider 

with whom interconnection has been requested in all matters related to the conduct 

of studies and the determination of modifications to Affected Systems.

4.10 Capacity of the Small Generating Facility
Docket No. RM13-2-000 28

Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) - 28 -

4.10.1 If the Interconnection Request is for an increase in capacity for an 

existing Small Generating Facility, the Interconnection Request shall 

be evaluated on the basis of the new total capacity of the Small 

Generating Facility.

4.10.2 If the Interconnection Request is for a Small Generating Facility that 

includes multiple energy production devices at a site for which the 

Interconnection Customer seeks a single Point of Interconnection, 

the Interconnection Request shall be evaluated on the basis of the 

aggregate capacity of the multiple devices.

4.10.3 The Interconnection Request shall be evaluated using the maximum 

rated capacity ofthat the Small Generating Facility is capable of 

injecting into the Transmission Provider’s electric system. 

However, if the maximum capacity that the Small Generating

Facility is capable of injecting into the Transmission Provider’s 

electric system is limited (e.g., through use of a control system, 

power relay(s), or other similar device settings or adjustments), then 

the Interconnection Customer must obtain the Transmission 

Provider’s agreement, with such agreement not to be unreasonably 

withheld, that the manner in which the Interconnection Customer 

proposes to implement such a limit will not adversely affect the 

safety and reliability of the Transmission Provider’s system. If the 

Transmission Provider does not so agree, then the Interconnection 

Request must be withdrawn or revised to specify the maximum 

capacity that the Small Generating Facility is capable of injecting 

into the Transmission Provider’s electric system without such 

limitations. Furthermore, nothing in this section shall prevent a 

Transmission Provider from considering an output higher than the 

limited output, if appropriate, when evaluating system protection 

impacts.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

SGIP Glossary of Terms - 1 -

Attachment 1

Glossary of Terms

10 kW Inverter Process – The procedure for evaluating an Interconnection Request for 

a certified inverter-based Small Generating Facility no larger than 10 kW that uses the 

section 2 screens. The application process uses an all-in-one document that includes a 

simplified Interconnection Request, simplified procedures, and a brief set of terms and 

conditions. See SGIP Attachment 5.

Affected System – An electric system other than the Transmission Provider's 

Transmission System that may be affected by the proposed interconnection.

Business Day – Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Holidays.

Distribution System – The Transmission Provider's facilities and equipment used to 

transmit electricity to ultimate usage points such as homes and industries directly from 

nearby generators or from interchanges with higher voltage transmission networks which 

transport bulk power over longer distances. The voltage levels at which Distribution 

Systems operate differ among areas.

Distribution Upgrades – The additions, modifications, and upgrades to the Transmission 

Provider's Distribution System at or beyond the Point of Interconnection to facilitate 

interconnection of the Small Generating Facility and render the transmission service 

necessary to effect the Interconnection Customer's wholesale sale of electricity in 

interstate commerce. Distribution Upgrades do not include Interconnection Facilities.

Fast Track Process – The procedure for evaluating an Interconnection Request for a 

certified Small Generating Facility no larger than 2 MW that meets the eligibility 

requirements of section 2.1 and includes the section 2 screens, customer options meeting, 

and optional supplemental review.

Good Utility Practice – Any of the practices, methods and acts engaged in or approved 

by a significant portion of the electric industry during the relevant time period, or any of 

the practices, methods and act which, in the exercise of reasonable judgment in light of 

the facts known at the time the decision was made, could have been expected to 

accomplish the desired result at a reasonable cost consistent with good business practices, 

reliability, safety and expedition. Good Utility Practice is not intended to be limited to 

the optimum practice, method, or act to the exclusion of all others, but rather to be 

acceptable practices, methods, or acts generally accepted in the region.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 2

SGIP Glossary of Terms - 2 -

Interconnection Customer – Any entity, including the Transmission Provider, the 

Transmission Owner or any of the affiliates or subsidiaries of either, that proposes to 

interconnect its Small Generating Facility with the Transmission Provider's Transmission 

System.

Interconnection Facilities – The Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and 

the Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities. Collectively, Interconnection 

Facilities include all facilities and equipment between the Small Generating Facility and 

the Point of Interconnection, including any modification, additions or upgrades that are 

necessary to physically and electrically interconnect the Small Generating Facility to the 

Transmission Provider's Transmission System. Interconnection Facilities are sole use 

facilities and shall not include Distribution Upgrades or Network Upgrades.

Interconnection Request – The Interconnection Customer's request, in accordance with 

the Tariff, to interconnect a new Small Generating Facility, or to increase the capacity of, 

or make a Material Modification to the operating characteristics of, an existing Small 

Generating Facility that is interconnected with the Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System.

Material Modification – A modification that has a material impact on the cost or timing 

of any Interconnection Request with a later queue priority date.

Network Resource – Any designated generating resource owned, purchased, or leased 

by a Network Customer under the Network Integration Transmission Service Tariff. 

Network Resources do not include any resource, or any portion thereof, that is committed 

for sale to third parties or otherwise cannot be called upon to meet the Network 

Customer's Network Load on a non-interruptible basis.

Network Resource Interconnection Service – An Interconnection Service that allows 

the Interconnection Customer to integrate its Generating Facility with the Transmission 

Provider’s System (1) in a manner comparable to that in which the Transmission Provider 

integrates its generating facilities to serve native load customers; or (2) in an RTO or ISO 

with market based congestion management, in the same manner as Network Resources. 

Network Resource Interconnection Service in and of itself does not convey transmission 

service.

Network Upgrades – Additions, modifications, and upgrades to the Transmission 

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

Generating Facility interconnects with the Transmission Provider’s Transmission System 

to accommodate the interconnection with the Small Generating Facility to the 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 3

SGIP Glossary of Terms - 3 -

Transmission Provider’s Transmission System. Network Upgrades do not include 

Distribution Upgrades.

Party or Parties – The Transmission Provider, Transmission Owner, Interconnection 

Customer or any combination of the above.

Point of Interconnection – The point where the Interconnection Facilities connect with 

the Transmission Provider's Transmission System.

Queue Position – The order of a valid Interconnection Request, relative to all other 

pending valid Interconnection Requests, that is established based upon the date and time 

of receipt of the valid Interconnection Request by the Transmission Provider.

Small Generating Facility – The 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.

Study Process – The procedure for evaluating an Interconnection Request that includes 

the section 3 scoping meeting, feasibility study, system impact study, and facilities study.

Transmission Owner – The entity that owns, leases or otherwise possesses an interest in 

the portion of the Transmission System at the Point of Interconnection and may be a 

Party to the Small Generator Interconnection Agreement to the extent necessary.

Transmission Provider – The public utility (or its designated agent) that owns, controls, 

or operates transmission or distribution facilities used for the transmission of electricity in 

interstate commerce and provides transmission service under the Tariff. The term 

Transmission Provider should be read to include the Transmission Owner when the 

Transmission Owner is separate from the Transmission Provider.

Transmission System – The facilities owned, controlled or operated by the Transmission 

Provider or the Transmission Owner that are used to provide transmission service under 

the Tariff.

Upgrades – The required additions and modifications to the Transmission Provider's 

Transmission System at or beyond the Point of Interconnection. Upgrades may be 

Network Upgrades or Distribution Upgrades. Upgrades do not include Interconnection 

Facilities.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

Small Generator Interconnection Request - 1 -

Attachment 2

SMALL GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION REQUEST

(Application Form)

Transmission Provider: ___________________________________________________

Designated Contact Person: ________________________________________________

Address: _______________________________________________________________

Telephone Number: ______________________________________________________

Fax: __________________________________________________________________

E-Mail Address: _________________________________________________________

An Interconnection Request is considered complete when it provides all applicable and correct 

information required below. Per SGIP section 1.5, documentation of site control must be 

submitted with the Interconnection Request.

Preamble and Instructions

An Interconnection Customer who requests a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

jurisdictional interconnection must submit this Interconnection Request by hand delivery, mail, 

e-mail, or fax to the Transmission Provider.

Processing Fee or Deposit:

If the Interconnection Request is submitted under the Fast Track Process, the non-refundable 

processing fee is $500.

If the Interconnection Request is submitted under the Study Process, whether a new submission 

or an Interconnection Request that did not pass the Fast Track Process, the Interconnection 

Customer shall submit to the Transmission Provider a deposit not to exceed $1,000 towards the 

cost of the feasibility study.

Interconnection Customer Information

Legal Name of the Interconnection Customer (or, if an individual, individual's name)

Name: __________________________________________________________________

Contact Person: __________________________________________________________ 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 2

Small Generator Interconnection Request - 2 -

Mailing Address: __________________________________________________________ 

City: ____________________________ State:_______________ Zip:____________ 

Facility Location (if different from above):_____________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________

Telephone (Day): ____________________ Telephone (Evening): __________________

Fax:___________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________

Alternative Contact Information (if different from the Interconnection Customer)

Contact Name: _________________________________________________________

Title: __________________________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

Telephone (Day): __________________ Telephone (Evening):___________________

Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: _________________________

Application is for: ______New Small Generating Facility

______Capacity addition to Existing Small Generating Facility

If capacity addition to existing facility, please describe: ___________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________

Will the Small Generating Facility be used for any of the following?

Net Metering? Yes ___ No ___

To Supply Power to the Interconnection Customer? Yes ___No ___

To Supply Power to Others? Yes ____ No ____

For installations at locations with existing electric service to which the proposed Small 

Generating Facility will interconnect, provide:

__________________________ _______________________________

(Local Electric Service Provider*) (Existing Account Number*)

[*To be provided by the Interconnection Customer if the local electric service provider is 

different from the Transmission Provider]
Docket No. RM13-2-000 3

Small Generator Interconnection Request - 3 -

Contact Name: ________________________________________________________________

Title: ________________________________________________________________________

Address: _____________________________________________________________________

 _____________________________________________________________________

Telephone (Day): _______________________ Telephone (Evening): ____________________

Fax: _________________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________

Requested Point of Interconnection: _______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Interconnection Customer's Requested In-Service Date: ________________________________

Small Generating Facility Information

Data apply only to the Small Generating Facility, not the Interconnection Facilities.

Energy Source: ___Solar ___Wind ___Hydro ___ Hydro Type (e.g. Run-of-River):_________ 

__Diesel __ Natural Gas __ Fuel Oil Other (state type) ___________________________

Prime Mover: __Fuel Cell __Recip Engine __Gas Turb __Steam Turb

 __Microturbine __PV __Other

Type of Generator: ____Synchronous ____Induction ____ Inverter

Generator Nameplate Rating: ________kW (Typical) Generator Nameplate kVAR: _______

Interconnection Customer or Customer-Site Load: _________________kW (if none, so state)

Typical Reactive Load (if known): _________________

Maximum Physical Export Capability Requested: ______________ kW

List components of the Small Generating Facility equipment package that are currently certified:

Equipment Type Certifying Entity

1. _____________________________ _____________________________

2. _____________________________ _____________________________

3. _____________________________ _____________________________

4. _____________________________ _____________________________

5. _____________________________ _____________________________

Is the prime mover compatible with the certified protective relay package? ____Yes ____No
Docket No. RM13-2-000 4

Small Generator Interconnection Request - 4 -

Generator (or solar collector) Manufacturer, Model Name & Number: __________________

Version Number: __________________

Nameplate Output Power Rating in kW: (Summer) _____________ (Winter) ______________

Nameplate Output Power Rating in kVA: (Summer) _____________ (Winter) ______________

Individual Generator Power Factor

Rated Power Factor: Leading: _____________Lagging: _______________

Total Number of Generators in wind farm to be interconnected pursuant to this

Interconnection Request: __________ Elevation:_____ ___Single phase ___Three phase

Inverter Manufacturer, Model Name & Number (if used):_______________________________

List of adjustable set points for the protective equipment or software: _____________________

Note: A completed Power Systems Load Flow data sheet must be supplied with the Interconnection 

Request.

Small Generating Facility Characteristic Data (for inverter-based machines)

Max design fault contribution current: _______ Instantaneous or RMS_______? 

Harmonics Characteristics: _______________________________________________________

Start-up requirements: ___________________________________________________________

Small Generating Facility Characteristic Data (for rotating machines)

RPM Frequency: _____________

(*) Neutral Grounding Resistor (If Applicable): ____________

Synchronous Generators:

Direct Axis Synchronous Reactance, Xd: _______ P.U.

Direct Axis Transient Reactance, X' d: ___________P.U.

Direct Axis Subtransient Reactance, X"d: ______________P.U.

Negative Sequence Reactance, X2: _________ P.U.

Zero Sequence Reactance, X0: ____________ P.U.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 5

Small Generator Interconnection Request - 5 -

KVA Base: _______________

Field Volts: _______________

Field Amperes: ____________

Induction Generators:

Motoring Power (kW): ______________

I22t or K (Heating Time Constant): ______________

Rotor Resistance, Rr: ______________

Stator Resistance, Rs: ______________ 

Stator Reactance, Xs: ______________

Rotor Reactance, Xr: ______________ 

Magnetizing Reactance, Xm: ______________

Short Circuit Reactance, Xd'': ______________

Exciting Current: ______________

Temperature Rise: ______________

Frame Size: ______________ 

Design Letter: ______________

Reactive Power Required In Vars (No Load): ______________

Reactive Power Required In Vars (Full Load): ______________

Total Rotating Inertia, H: _____________ Per Unit on kVA Base

Note: Please contact the Transmission Provider prior to submitting the Interconnection Request 

to determine if the specified information above is required.

Excitation and Governor System Data for Synchronous Generators Only

Provide appropriate IEEE model block diagram of excitation system, governor system and power 

system stabilizer (PSS) in accordance with the regional reliability council criteria. A PSS may 

be determined to be required by applicable studies. A copy of the manufacturer's block diagram 

may not be substituted.

Interconnection Facilities Information

Will a transformer be used between the generator and the point of common coupling?

__Yes __No

Will the transformer be provided by the Interconnection Customer? ____Yes ____No

Transformer Data (If Applicable, for Interconnection Customer-Owned Transformer):

Is the transformer: ____single phase _____three phase? Size: ___________kVA 

Transformer Impedance: _______% on __________kVA Base

If Three Phase:

Transformer Primary: _____ Volts _____ Delta _____Wye _____ Wye Grounded

Transformer Secondary: _____ Volts _____ Delta _____Wye _____ Wye Grounded

Transformer Tertiary: _____ Volts _____ Delta _____Wye _____ Wye Grounded
Docket No. RM13-2-000 6

Small Generator Interconnection Request - 6 -

Transformer Fuse Data (If Applicable, for Interconnection Customer-Owned Fuse):

(Attach copy of fuse manufacturer's Minimum Melt and Total Clearing Time-Current Curves)

Manufacturer: __________________ Type: _______________ Size: ______ Speed: _________

Interconnecting Circuit Breaker (if applicable):

Manufacturer: ____________________________ Type: __________

Load Rating (Amps): ______ Interrupting Rating (Amps): _______ Trip Speed (Cycles): ______

Interconnection Protective Relays (If Applicable):

If Microprocessor-Controlled:

List of Functions and Adjustable Setpoints for the protective equipment or software:

Setpoint Function Minimum Maximum

1. ______________________ _______ _______

2. ______________________ _______ _______

3. ______________________ _______ _______

4. ______________________ _______ _______

5. ______________________ _______ _______

6. ______________________ _______ _______

If Discrete Components:

(Enclose Copy of any Proposed Time-Overcurrent Coordination Curves)

Manufacturer:_____________ Type:____ Style/Catalog No.:_____ Proposed Setting:______

Manufacturer:_____________ Type:____ Style/Catalog No.:_____ Proposed Setting:______

Manufacturer:_____________ Type:____ Style/Catalog No.:_____ Proposed Setting:______

Manufacturer:_____________ Type:____ Style/Catalog No.:_____ Proposed Setting:______

Manufacturer:_____________ Type:____ Style/Catalog No.:_____ Proposed Setting:______
Docket No. RM13-2-000 7

Small Generator Interconnection Request - 7 -

Current Transformer Data (If Applicable):

(Enclose Copy of Manufacturer's Excitation and Ratio Correction Curves)

Manufacturer: __________________________________________________________________

Type: ____________________ Accuracy Class: _____ Proposed Ratio Connection: _________

Manufacturer: __________________________________________________________________

Type: ____________________ Accuracy Class: _____ Proposed Ratio Connection: _________

Potential Transformer Data (If Applicable):

Manufacturer: __________________________________________________________________

Type: ____________________ Accuracy Class: _____ Proposed Ratio Connection: _________

Manufacturer: __________________________________________________________________

Type: ____________________ Accuracy Class: _____ Proposed Ratio Connection: _________

General Information

Enclose copy of site electrical one-line diagram showing the configuration of all Small 

Generating Facility equipment, current and potential circuits, and protection and control 

schemes. This one-line diagram must be signed and stamped by a licensed Professional 

Engineer if the Small Generating Facility is larger than 50 kW. Is One-Line Diagram Enclosed? 

____Yes ____No

Enclose copy of any site documentation that indicates the precise physical location of the 

proposed Small Generating Facility (e.g., USGS topographic map or other diagram or 

documentation).

Proposed location of protective interface equipment on property (include address if different

from the Interconnection Customer's address)_________________________________________

Enclose copy of any site documentation that describes and details the operation of the protection 

and control schemes. Is Available Documentation Enclosed? ___Yes ____No

Enclose copies of schematic drawings for all protection and control circuits, relay current 

circuits, relay potential circuits, and alarm/monitoring circuits (if applicable). 

Are Schematic Drawings Enclosed? ___Yes ____No

Applicant Signature

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, all the information provided in this 

Interconnection Request is true and correct.

For Interconnection Customer: ____________________________________ Date: ___________
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

Small Generator Certification of Codes and Standards- 1 -

Attachment 3

Certification Codes and Standards

IEEE1547 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems 

(including use of IEEE 1547.1 testing protocols to establish conformity) 

UL 1741 Inverters, Converters, and Controllers for Use in Independent Power Systems

IEEE Std 929-2000 IEEE Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Photovoltaic (PV) 

Systems

NFPA 70 (2002), National Electrical Code

IEEE Std C37.90.1-1989 (R1994), IEEE Standard Surge Withstand Capability (SWC) Tests for 

Protective Relays and Relay Systems

IEEE Std C37.90.2 (1995), IEEE Standard Withstand Capability of Relay Systems to Radiated 

Electromagnetic Interference from Transceivers

IEEE Std C37.108-1989 (R2002), IEEE Guide for the Protection of Network Transformers

IEEE Std C57.12.44-2000, IEEE Standard Requirements for Secondary Network Protectors

IEEE Std C62.41.2-2002, IEEE Recommended Practice on Characterization of Surges in Low 

Voltage (1000V and Less) AC Power Circuits

IEEE Std C62.45-1992 (R2002), IEEE Recommended Practice on Surge Testing for Equipment 

Connected to Low-Voltage (1000V and Less) AC Power Circuits

ANSI C84.1-1995 Electric Power Systems and Equipment – Voltage Ratings (60 Hertz)

IEEE Std 100-2000, IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic Terms

NEMA MG 1-1998, Motors and Small Resources, Revision 3

IEEE Std 519-1992, IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for Harmonic Control in 

Electrical Power Systems

NEMA MG 1-2003 (Rev 2004), Motors and Generators, Revision 1
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

Small Generator Certification Process- 1 -

Attachment 4

Certification of Small Generator Equipment Packages

1.0 Small Generating Facility equipment proposed for use separately or packaged with other 

equipment in an interconnection system shall be considered certified for interconnected 

operation if (1) it has been tested in accordance with industry standards for continuous 

utility interactive operation in compliance with the appropriate codes and standards 

referenced below by any Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) recognized 

by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration to test and certify 

interconnection equipment pursuant to the relevant codes and standards listed in SGIP 

Attachment 3, (2) it has been labeled and is publicly listed by such NRTL at the time of 

the interconnection application, and (3) such NRTL makes readily available for 

verification all test standards and procedures it utilized in performing such equipment 

certification, and, with consumer approval, the test data itself. The NRTL may make 

such information available on its website and by encouraging such information to be 

included in the manufacturer’s literature accompanying the equipment.

2.0 The Interconnection Customer must verify that the intended use of the equipment falls 

within the use or uses for which the equipment was tested, labeled, and listed by the 

NRTL.

3.0 Certified equipment shall not require further type-test review, testing, or additional 

equipment to meet the requirements of this interconnection procedure; however, nothing 

herein shall preclude the need for an on-site commissioning test by the parties to the 

interconnection nor follow-up production testing by the NRTL.

4.0 If the certified equipment package includes only interface components (switchgear, 

inverters, or other interface devices), then an Interconnection Customer must show that 

the generator or other electric source being utilized with the equipment package is 

compatible with the equipment package and is consistent with the testing and listing 

specified for this type of interconnection equipment.

5.0 Provided the generator or electric source, when combined with the equipment package, is 

within the range of capabilities for which it was tested by the NRTL, and does not violate 

the interface components' labeling and listing performed by the NRTL, no further design 

review, testing or additional equipment on the customer side of the point of common 

coupling shall be required to meet the requirements of this interconnection procedure.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 2

Small Generator Certification Process- 2 -

6.0 An equipment package does not include equipment provided by the utility.

7.0 Any equipment package approved and listed in a state by that state’s regulatory body for 

interconnected operation in that state prior to the effective date of these small generator 

interconnection procedures shall be considered certified under these procedures for use in that 

state.

 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

Small Generator 10 kW Inverter Process- 1 -

Attachment 5

Application, Procedures, and Terms and Conditions for Interconnecting

a Certified Inverter-Based Small Generating Facility No

Larger than 10 kW ("10 kW Inverter Process")

1.0 The Interconnection Customer ("Customer") completes the Interconnection Request 

("Application") and submits it to the Transmission Provider ("Company").

2.0 The Company acknowledges to the Customer receipt of the Application within three 

Business Days of receipt.

3.0 The Company evaluates the Application for completeness and notifies the Customer 

within ten Business Days of receipt that the Application is or is not complete and, if not, 

advises what material is missing.

4.0 The Company verifies that the Small Generating Facility can be interconnected safely 

and reliably using the screens contained in the Fast Track Process in the Small Generator 

Interconnection Procedures (SGIP). The Company has 15 Business Days to complete 

this process. Unless the Company determines and demonstrates that the Small 

Generating Facility cannot be interconnected safely and reliably, the Company approves 

the Application and returns it to the Customer. Note to Customer: Please check with the 

Company before submitting the Application if disconnection equipment is required. 

5.0 After installation, the Customer returns the Certificate of Completion to the Company. 

Prior to parallel operation, the Company may inspect the Small Generating Facility for 

compliance with standards which may include a witness test, and may schedule 

appropriate metering replacement, if necessary.

6.0 The Company notifies the Customer in writing that interconnection of the Small 

Generating Facility is authorized. If the witness test is not satisfactory, the Company has 

the right to disconnect the Small Generating Facility. The Customer has no right to 

operate in parallel until a witness test has been performed, or previously waived on the 

Application. The Company is obligated to complete this witness test within ten Business 

Days of the receipt of the Certificate of Completion. If the Company does not inspect 

within ten Business Days or by mutual agreement of the Parties, the witness test is 

deemed waived.

7.0 Contact Information – The Customer must provide the contact information for the legal 

applicant (i.e., the Interconnection Customer). If another entity is responsible for 

interfacing with the Company, that contact information must be provided on the 

Application.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 2

Small Generator 10 kW Inverter Process- 2 -

8.0 Ownership Information – Enter the legal names of the owner(s) of the Small Generating 

Facility. Include the percentage ownership (if any) by any utility or public utility holding 

company, or by any entity owned by either.

9.0 UL1741 Listed – This standard ("Inverters, Converters, and Controllers for Use in 

Independent Power Systems") addresses the electrical interconnection design of various 

forms of generating equipment. Many manufacturers submit their equipment to a 

Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) that verifies compliance with 

UL1741. This "listing" is then marked on the equipment and supporting documentation.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 3

Small Generator 10 kW Inverter Process- 3 -

Application for Interconnecting a Certified Inverter-Based Small Generating Facility No 

Larger than 10kW

This Application is considered complete when it provides all applicable and correct information 

required below. Per SGIP section 1.5, documentation of site control must be submitted with the 

Interconnection Request. Additional information to evaluate the Application may be required.

Processing Fee

A non-refundable processing fee of $100 must accompany this Application.

Interconnection Customer

Name: _______________________________________________________________________

Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________

Address: _____________________________________________________________________

City: ____________________________ State: ______ Zip: _________

Telephone (Day): _______________ (Evening): _______________

Fax: _______________ E-Mail Address: _______________ 

Contact (if different from Interconnection Customer)

Name: _______________________________________________________________________

Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________

Address: _____________________________________________________________________

City: ____________________________ State: ______ Zip: _________

Telephone (Day): _______________ (Evening): _______________

Fax: _______________ E-Mail Address: _______________ 

Owner of the facility (include % ownership by any electric utility): _______________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________

Small Generating Facility Information

Location (if different from above): _________________________________________________ 

Electric Service Company: _______________________________________________________

Account Number: ______________________________________________________________
Docket No. RM13-2-000 4

Small Generator 10 kW Inverter Process- 4 -

Inverter Manufacturer: ____________________________ Model: ____________________ 

Nameplate Rating:_____(kW) _____(kVA) _____(AC Volts)

Single Phase ____ Three Phase____

System Design Capacity: _________ (kW) _______ (kVA)

Prime Mover: ___Photovoltaic ___Reciprocating Engine ___Fuel Cell 

 ___Turbine ___Other (describe)______________________

Energy Source: ___Solar ___Wind ___Hydro ___Diesel ___Natural Gas 

___Fuel Oil ___Other (describe) ________________________

Is the equipment UL1741 Listed? ___Yes ___No 

If Yes, attach manufacturer’s cut-sheet showing UL1741 listing

Estimated Installation Date: _____________Estimated In-Service Date: ____________ 

The 10 kW Inverter Process is available only for inverter-based Small Generating Facilities no 

larger than 10 kW that meet the codes, standards, and certification requirements of Attachments 

3 and 4 of the Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP), or the Transmission Provider 

has reviewed the design or tested the proposed Small Generating Facility and is satisfied that it is 

safe to operate.

List components of the Small Generating Facility equipment package that are currently certified:

Equipment Type Certifying Entity

1. ______________________ _________________

2. ______________________ _________________

3. ______________________ _________________

4. ______________________ _________________

5. ______________________ _________________

Interconnection Customer Signature 

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information provided in this Application is 

true. I agree to abide by the Terms and Conditions for Interconnecting an Inverter-Based Small 

Generating Facility No Larger than 10kW and return the Certificate of Completion when the 

Small Generating Facility has been installed.

Signed: ___________________________________________________________________ 

Title: __________________________________ Date: ___________________________ 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 5

Small Generator 10 kW Inverter Process- 5 -

.....................................................................................................................

Contingent Approval to Interconnect the Small Generating Facility

(For Company use only) 

Interconnection of the Small Generating Facility is approved contingent upon the Terms and 

Conditions for Interconnecting an Inverter-Based Small Generating Facility No Larger than 

10kW and return of the Certificate of Completion.

Company Signature: _________________________________________________________

Title: __________________________________ Date: ___________________________ 

Application ID number: __________________ 

Company waives inspection/witness test? Yes___No___
Docket No. RM13-2-000 6

Small Generator 10 kW Inverter Process- 6 -

Small Generating Facility Certificate of Completion

Is the Small Generating Facility owner-installed? Yes______ No ______

Interconnection Customer: ________________________________________________________

Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________________________________

Location of the Small Generating Facility (if different from above): _______________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

City: ____________________________ State: ______ Zip: _________

Telephone (Day): _______________ (Evening): _______________

Fax: _______________ E-Mail Address: _______________

Electrician: 

Name: ________________________________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________________________________

Location of the Small Generating Facility (if different from above): _______________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

City: ____________________________ State: ______ Zip: _________

Telephone (Day): _______________ (Evening): _______________

Fax: _______________ E-Mail Address: _______________

License number: ____________________________________

Date Approval to Install Facility granted by the Company: ___________________

Application ID number: ______________________________

Inspection: 

The Small Generating Facility has been installed and inspected in compliance with the local

building/electrical code of: ____________________________________________________ 

Signed (Local electrical wiring inspector, or attach signed electrical inspection): 

________________________________________

Print Name: ______________________________

Date: ____________________________________
Docket No. RM13-2-000 7

Small Generator 10 kW Inverter Process- 7 -

As a condition of interconnection, you are required to send/fax a copy of this form along with a 

copy of the signed electrical permit to (insert Company information below): 

Name: _______________________________________________

Company: ____________________________________________

Address:______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

City, State ZIP: ________________________________________

Fax: _________________________________________________ 

.....................................................................................................................

Approval to Energize the Small Generating Facility (For Company use only) 

Energizing the Small Generating Facility is approved contingent upon the Terms and Conditions 

for Interconnecting an Inverter-Based Small Generating Facility No Larger than 10kW

Company Signature: ______________________________________________________

Title: ________________________________________ Date: ____________________ 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 8

Small Generator 10 kW Inverter Process- 8 -

Terms and Conditions for Interconnecting an Inverter-Based

Small Generating Facility No Larger than 10kW

1.0 Construction of the Facility

The Interconnection Customer (the "Customer") may proceed to construct (including 

operational testing not to exceed two hours) the Small Generating Facility when the 

Transmission Provider (the "Company") approves the Interconnection Request (the 

"Application") and returns it to the Customer.

2.0 Interconnection and Operation

The Customer may operate Small Generating Facility and interconnect with the 

Company’s electric system once all of the following have occurred:

2.1 Upon completing construction, the Customer will cause the Small Generating 

Facility to be inspected or otherwise certified by the appropriate local electrical 

wiring inspector with jurisdiction, and

2.2 The Customer returns the Certificate of Completion to the Company, and 

2.3 The Company has either:

2.3.1 Completed its inspection of the Small Generating Facility to ensure that all 

equipment has been appropriately installed and that all electrical 

connections have been made in accordance with applicable codes. All 

inspections must be conducted by the Company, at its own expense, 

within ten Business Days after receipt of the Certificate of Completion and 

shall take place at a time agreeable to the Parties. The Company shall 

provide a written statement that the Small Generating Facility has passed 

inspection or shall notify the Customer of what steps it must take to pass 

inspection as soon as practicable after the inspection takes place; or

2.3.2 If the Company does not schedule an inspection of the Small Generating 

Facility within ten business days after receiving the Certificate of 

Completion, the witness test is deemed waived (unless the Parties agree 

otherwise); or

2.3.3 The Company waives the right to inspect the Small Generating Facility.

2.4 The Company has the right to disconnect the Small Generating Facility in the 

event of improper installation or failure to return the Certificate of Completion.

2.5 Revenue quality metering equipment must be installed and tested in accordance 

with applicable ANSI standards.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 9

Small Generator 10 kW Inverter Process- 9 -

3.0 Safe Operations and Maintenance 

The Customer shall be fully responsible to operate, maintain, and repair the Small 

Generating Facility as required to ensure that it complies at all times with the 

interconnection standards to which it has been certified.

4.0 Access

The Company shall have access to the disconnect switch (if the disconnect switch is 

required) and metering equipment of the Small Generating Facility at all times. The 

Company shall provide reasonable notice to the Customer when possible prior to using its 

right of access. 

5.0 Disconnection

The Company may temporarily disconnect the Small Generating Facility upon the 

following conditions:

5.1 For scheduled outages upon reasonable notice.

5.2 For unscheduled outages or emergency conditions.

5.3 If the Small Generating Facility does not operate in the manner consistent with 

these Terms and Conditions.

5.4 The Company shall inform the Customer in advance of any scheduled 

disconnection, or as is reasonable after an unscheduled disconnection.

6.0 Indemnification

The Parties shall at all times indemnify, defend, and save the other Party harmless from, 

any and all damages, losses, claims, including claims and actions relating to injury to or 

death of any person or damage to property, demand, suits, recoveries, costs and expenses, 

court costs, attorney fees, and all other obligations by or to third parties, arising out of or 

resulting from the other Party's action or inactions of its obligations under this agreement 

on behalf of the indemnifying Party, except in cases of gross negligence or intentional 

wrongdoing by the indemnified Party.

7. 0 Insurance

The Parties agree to follow all applicable insurance requirements imposed by the state in 

which the Point of Interconnection is located. All insurance policies must be maintained 

with insurers authorized to do business in that state.

8.0 Limitation of Liability

Each party’s liability to the other party for any loss, cost, claim, injury, liability, or 

expense, including reasonable attorney’s fees, relating to or arising from any act or 

omission in its performance of this Agreement, shall be limited to the amount of direct 

damage actually incurred. In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for 

any indirect, incidental, special, consequential, or punitive damages of any kind 

whatsoever, except as allowed under paragraph 6.0.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 10

Small Generator 10 kW Inverter Process- 10 -

9.0 Termination

The agreement to operate in parallel may be terminated under the following conditions:

9.1 By the Customer

By providing written notice to the Company.

9.2 By the Company

If the Small Generating Facility fails to operate for any consecutive 12 month 

period or the Customer fails to remedy a violation of these Terms and Conditions.

9.3 Permanent Disconnection

In the event this Agreement is terminated, the Company shall have the right to 

disconnect its facilities or direct the Customer to disconnect its Small Generating 

Facility.

9.4 Survival Rights

This Agreement shall continue in effect after termination to the extent necessary 

to allow or require either Party to fulfill rights or obligations that arose under the 

Agreement.

10.0 Assignment/Transfer of Ownership of the Facility

This Agreement shall survive the transfer of ownership of the Small Generating Facility 

to a new owner when the new owner agrees in writing to comply with the terms of this 

Agreement and so notifies the Company.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

SGIP Feasibility Study Agreement - 1 -

Attachment 6

Feasibility Study Agreement

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____day of ______________

20___ by and between_____________________________________________________,

a ____________________________organized and existing under the laws of the State of

__________________________________________, ("Interconnection Customer,") and

_____________________________________________________, a________________

existing under the laws of the State of________________________________________,

("Transmission Provider"). Interconnection Customer and Transmission Provider each may be 

referred to as a "Party," or collectively as the "Parties."

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Interconnection Customer is proposing to develop a Small Generating Facility or 

generating capacity addition to an existing Small Generating Facility consistent with the 

Interconnection Request completed by Interconnection Customer 

on_________________________; and

WHEREAS, Interconnection Customer desires to interconnect the Small Generating Facility 

with the Transmission Provider's Transmission System; and

WHEREAS, Interconnection Customer has requested the Transmission Provider to perform a 

feasibility study to assess the feasibility of interconnecting the proposed Small Generating 

Facility with the Transmission Provider's Transmission System, and of any Affected Systems; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of and subject to the mutual covenants contained herein 

the Parties agreed as follows:

1.0 When used in this Agreement, with initial capitalization, the terms specified shall have 

the meanings indicated or the meanings specified in the standard Small Generator 

Interconnection Procedures.

2.0 The Interconnection Customer elects and the Transmission Provider shall cause to be 

performed an interconnection feasibility study consistent the standard Small Generator 

Interconnection Procedures in accordance with the Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 2

SGIP Feasibility Study Agreement - 2 -

3.0 The scope of the feasibility study shall be subject to the assumptions set forth in 

Attachment A to this Agreement.

4.0 The feasibility study shall be based on the technical information provided by the 

Interconnection Customer in the Interconnection Request, as may be modified as the 

result of the scoping meeting. The Transmission Provider reserves the right to request 

additional technical information from the Interconnection Customer as may reasonably 

become necessary consistent with Good Utility Practice during the course of the 

feasibility study and as designated in accordance with the standard Small Generator 

Interconnection Procedures. If the Interconnection Customer modifies its Interconnection 

Request, the time to complete the feasibility study may be extended by agreement of the 

Parties.

5.0 In performing the study, the Transmission Provider shall rely, to the extent reasonably 

practicable, on existing studies of recent vintage. The Interconnection Customer shall not 

be charged for such existing studies; however, the Interconnection Customer shall be 

responsible for charges associated with any new study or modifications to existing studies 

that are reasonably necessary to perform the feasibility study.

6.0 The feasibility study report shall provide the following analyses for the purpose of 

identifying any potential adverse system impacts that would result from the 

interconnection of the Small Generating Facility as proposed:

6.1 Initial identification of any circuit breaker short circuit capability limits exceeded 

as a result of the interconnection;

6.2 Initial identification of any thermal overload or voltage limit violations resulting 

from the interconnection;

6.3 Initial review of grounding requirements and electric system protection; and

6.4 Description and non-binding estimated cost of facilities required to interconnect 

the proposed Small Generating Facility and to address the identified short circuit 

and power flow issues.

7.0 The feasibility study shall model the impact of the Small Generating Facility regardless 

of purpose in order to avoid the further expense and interruption of operation for 

reexamination of feasibility and impacts if the Interconnection Customer later changes 

the purpose for which the Small Generating Facility is being installed.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 3

SGIP Feasibility Study Agreement - 3 -

8.0 The study shall include the feasibility of any interconnection at a proposed project site 

where there could be multiple potential Points of Interconnection, as requested by the 

Interconnection Customer and at the Interconnection Customer's cost.

9.0 A deposit of the lesser of 50 percent of good faith estimated feasibility study costs or 

earnest money of $1,000 may be required from the Interconnection Customer.

10.0 Once the feasibility study is completed, a feasibility study report shall be prepared and 

transmitted to the Interconnection Customer. Barring unusual circumstances, the 

feasibility study must be completed and the feasibility study report transmitted within 30 

Business Days of the Interconnection Customer's agreement to conduct a feasibility 

study.

11.0 Any study fees shall be based on the Transmission Provider's actual costs and will be 

invoiced to the Interconnection Customer after the study is completed and delivered and 

will include a summary of professional time.

12.0 The Interconnection Customer must pay any study costs that exceed the deposit without 

interest within 30 calendar days on receipt of the invoice or resolution of any dispute. If 

the deposit exceeds the invoiced fees, the Transmission Provider shall refund such excess 

within 30 calendar days of the invoice without interest.

13.0 Governing Law, Regulatory Authority, and Rules

The validity, interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement and each of its provisions 

shall be governed by the laws of the state of __________________ (where the Point of 

Interconnection is located), without regard to its conflicts of law principles. This 

Agreement is subject to all Applicable Laws and Regulations. Each Party expressly 

reserves the right to seek changes in, appeal, or otherwise contest any laws, orders, or 

regulations of a Governmental Authority.

14.0 Amendment

The Parties may amend this Agreement by a written instrument duly executed by both 

Parties.

15.0 No Third-Party Beneficiaries

This Agreement is not intended to and does not create rights, remedies, or benefits of any 

character whatsoever in favor of any persons, corporations, associations, or entities other 

than the Parties, and the obligations herein assumed are solely for the use and benefit of 

the Parties, their successors in interest and where permitted, their assigns.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 4

SGIP Feasibility Study Agreement - 4 -

16.0 Waiver

16.1 The failure of a Party to this Agreement to insist, on any occasion, upon strict 

performance of any provision of this Agreement will not be considered a waiver 

of any obligation, right, or duty of, or imposed upon, such Party.

16.2 Any waiver at any time by either Party of its rights with respect to this Agreement 

shall not be deemed a continuing waiver or a waiver with respect to any other 

failure to comply with any other obligation, right, duty of this Agreement. 

Termination or default of this Agreement for any reason by Interconnection 

Customer shall not constitute a waiver of the Interconnection Customer's legal 

rights to obtain an interconnection from the Transmission Provider. Any waiver 

of this Agreement shall, if requested, be provided in writing.

17.0 Multiple Counterparts

This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which is deemed 

an original but all constitute one and the same instrument.

18.0 No Partnership

This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to create an association, joint 

venture, agency relationship, or partnership between the Parties or to impose any 

partnership obligation or partnership liability upon either Party. Neither Party shall have 

any right, power or authority to enter into any agreement or undertaking for, or act on 

behalf of, or to act as or be an agent or representative of, or to otherwise bind, the other 

Party.

19.0 Severability

If any provision or portion of this Agreement shall for any reason be held or adjudged to 

be invalid or illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction or other 

Governmental Authority, (1) such portion or provision shall be deemed separate and 

independent, (2) the Parties shall negotiate in good faith to restore insofar as practicable 

the benefits to each Party that were affected by such ruling, and (3) the remainder of this 

Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 5

SGIP Feasibility Study Agreement - 5 -

20.0 Subcontractors

Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Party from utilizing the services of any 

subcontractor as it deems appropriate to perform its obligations under this Agreement; 

provided, however, that each Party shall require its subcontractors to comply with all 

applicable terms and conditions of this Agreement in providing such services and each 

Party shall remain primarily liable to the other Party for the performance of such 

subcontractor.

20.1 The creation of any subcontract relationship shall not relieve the hiring Party of 

any of its obligations under this Agreement. The hiring Party shall be fully 

responsible to the other Party for the acts or omissions of any subcontractor the 

hiring Party hires as if no subcontract had been made; provided, however, that in 

no event shall the Transmission Provider be liable for the actions or inactions of 

the Interconnection Customer or its subcontractors with respect to obligations of 

the Interconnection Customer under this Agreement. Any applicable obligation 

imposed by this Agreement upon the hiring Party shall be equally binding upon, 

and shall be construed as having application to, any subcontractor of such Party.

20.2 The obligations under this article will not be limited in any way by any 

limitation of subcontractor’s insurance.

21.0 Reservation of Rights

The Transmission Provider shall have the right to make a unilateral filing with FERC to 

modify this Agreement with respect to any rates, terms and conditions, charges, 

classifications of service, rule or regulation under section 205 or any other applicable 

provision of the Federal Power Act and FERC's rules and regulations thereunder, and the 

Interconnection Customer shall have the right to make a unilateral filing with FERC to 

modify this Agreement under any applicable provision of the Federal Power Act and 

FERC's rules and regulations; provided that each Party shall have the right to protest any 

such filing by the other Party and to participate fully in any proceeding before FERC in 

which such modifications may be considered. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the 

rights of the Parties or of FERC under sections 205 or 206 of the Federal Power Act and 

FERC's rules and regulations, except to the extent that the Parties otherwise agree as 

provided herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their 

duly authorized officers or agents on the day and year first above written.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 6

SGIP Feasibility Study Agreement - 6 -

[Insert name of Transmission Provider] [Insert name of Interconnection Customer]

___________________________________ _________________________________

Signed: ____________________________ Signed: __________________________

Name (Printed): Name (Printed):

___________________________________ ________________________________

Title: ______________________________ Title: ____________________________
Docket No. RM13-2-000 7

SGIP Feasibility Study Agreement - 7 -

Attachment A to

Feasibility Study Agreement

Assumptions Used in Conducting the Feasibility Study

The feasibility study will be based upon the information set forth in the Interconnection Request 

and agreed upon in the scoping meeting held on _____________________:

1) Designation of Point of Interconnection and configuration to be studied.

2) Designation of alternative Points of Interconnection and configuration.

1) and 2) are to be completed by the Interconnection Customer. Other assumptions (listed 

below) are to be provided by the Interconnection Customer and the Transmission Provider.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 1

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 1 -

Attachment 7

System Impact Study Agreement

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____day of______________

20___ by and between_____________________________________________________,

a___________________________ organized and existing under the laws of the State of

__________________________________________, ("Interconnection Customer,") and

_____________________________________________________, a________________

existing under the laws of the State of________________________________________,

("Transmission Provider"). Interconnection Customer and Transmission Provider each may be 

referred to as a "Party," or collectively as the "Parties."

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer is proposing to develop a Small Generating Facility 

or generating capacity addition to an existing Small Generating Facility consistent with the 

Interconnection Request completed by the Interconnection Customer 

on________________________; and

WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer desires to interconnect the Small Generating Facility 

with the Transmission Provider's Transmission System; 

WHEREAS, the Transmission Provider has completed a feasibility study and provided the 

results of said study to the Interconnection Customer (This recital to be omitted if the Parties 

have agreed to forego the feasibility study.); and

WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer has requested the Transmission Provider to perform 

a system impact study(s) to assess the impact of interconnecting the Small Generating Facility 

with the Transmission Provider's Transmission System, and of any Affected Systems; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of and subject to the mutual covenants contained herein 

the Parties agreed as follows:

1.0 When used in this Agreement, with initial capitalization, the terms specified shall have 

the meanings indicated or the meanings specified in the standard Small Generator 

Interconnection Procedures.

2.0 The Interconnection Customer elects and the Transmission Provider shall cause to be 

performed a system impact study(s) consistent with the standard Small Generator 

Interconnection Procedures in accordance with the Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 2

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 2 -

3.0 The scope of a system impact study shall be subject to the assumptions set forth in 

Attachment A to this Agreement.

4.0 A system impact study will be based upon the results of the feasibility study and the 

technical information provided by Interconnection Customer in the Interconnection 

Request. The Transmission Provider reserves the right to request additional technical 

information from the Interconnection Customer as may reasonably become necessary 

consistent with Good Utility Practice during the course of the system impact study. If the 

Interconnection Customer modifies its designated Point of Interconnection, 

Interconnection Request, or the technical information provided therein is modified, the 

time to complete the system impact study may be extended.

5.0 A system impact study shall consist of a short circuit analysis, a stability analysis, a 

power flow analysis, voltage drop and flicker studies, protection and set point 

coordination studies, and grounding reviews, as necessary. A system impact study shall 

state the assumptions upon which it is based, state the results of the analyses, and provide 

the requirement 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. A system impact study shall provide a list of facilities that are required 

as a result of the Interconnection Request and non-binding good faith estimates of cost 

responsibility and time to construct.

6.0 A distribution system impact study shall incorporate a distribution load flow study, an 

analysis of equipment interrupting ratings, protection coordination study, voltage drop 

and flicker studies, protection and set point coordination studies, grounding reviews, and 

the impact on electric system operation, as necessary.

7.0 Affected Systems may participate in the preparation of a system impact study, with a 

division of costs among such entities as they may agree. All Affected Systems shall be 

afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon a system impact study that covers 

potential adverse system impacts on their electric systems, and the Transmission Provider 

has 20 additional Business Days to complete a system impact study requiring review by 

Affected Systems.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 3

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 3 -

8.0 If the Transmission Provider uses a queuing procedure for sorting or prioritizing projects 

and their associated cost responsibilities for any required Network Upgrades, the system 

impact study shall consider all generating facilities (and with respect to paragraph 8.3 

below, any identified Upgrades associated with such higher queued interconnection) that, 

on the date the system impact study is commenced –

8.1 Are directly interconnected with the Transmission Provider's electric system; or

8.2 Are interconnected with Affected Systems and may have an impact on the 

proposed interconnection; and

8.3 Have a pending higher queued Interconnection Request to interconnect with the 

Transmission Provider's electric system.

9.0 A distribution system impact study, if required, shall be completed and the results 

transmitted to the Interconnection Customer within 30 Business Days after this 

Agreement is signed by the Parties. A transmission system impact study, if required, 

shall be completed and the results transmitted to the Interconnection Customer within 45 

Business Days after this Agreement is signed by the Parties, or in accordance with the 

Transmission Provider's queuing procedures.

10.0 A deposit of the equivalent of the good faith estimated cost of a distribution system 

impact study and the one half the good faith estimated cost of a transmission system 

impact study may be required from the Interconnection Customer. 

11.0 Any study fees shall be based on the Transmission Provider's actual costs and will be 

invoiced to the Interconnection Customer after the study is completed and delivered and 

will include a summary of professional time.

12.0 The Interconnection Customer must pay any study costs that exceed the deposit without 

interest within 30 calendar days on receipt of the invoice or resolution of any dispute. If 

the deposit exceeds the invoiced fees, the Transmission Provider shall refund such excess 

within 30 calendar days of the invoice without interest.

13.0 Governing Law, Regulatory Authority, and Rules

The validity, interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement and each of its provisions 

shall be governed by the laws of the state of __________________ (where the Point of 

Interconnection is located), without regard to its conflicts of law principles. This 

Agreement is subject to all Applicable Laws and Regulations. Each Party expressly 

reserves the right to seek changes in, appeal, or otherwise contest any laws, orders, or 

regulations of a Governmental Authority.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 4

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 4 -

14.0 Amendment

The Parties may amend this Agreement by a written instrument duly executed by both 

Parties.

15.0 No Third-Party Beneficiaries

This Agreement is not intended to and does not create rights, remedies, or benefits of any 

character whatsoever in favor of any persons, corporations, associations, or entities other 

than the Parties, and the obligations herein assumed are solely for the use and benefit of 

the Parties, their successors in interest and where permitted, their assigns.

16.0 Waiver

16.1 The failure of a Party to this Agreement to insist, on any occasion, upon strict 

performance of any provision of this Agreement will not be considered a waiver 

of any obligation, right, or duty of, or imposed upon, such Party.

16.2 Any waiver at any time by either Party of its rights with respect to this Agreement 

shall not be deemed a continuing waiver or a waiver with respect to any other 

failure to comply with any other obligation, right, duty of this Agreement. 

Termination or default of this Agreement for any reason by Interconnection 

Customer shall not constitute a waiver of the Interconnection Customer's legal 

rights to obtain an interconnection from the Transmission Provider. Any waiver 

of this Agreement shall, if requested, be provided in writing.

17.0 Multiple Counterparts

This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which is deemed 

an original but all constitute one and the same instrument.

18.0 No Partnership

This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to create an association, joint 

venture, agency relationship, or partnership between the Parties or to impose any 

partnership obligation or partnership liability upon either Party. Neither Party shall have 

any right, power or authority to enter into any agreement or undertaking for, or act on 

behalf of, or to act as or be an agent or representative of, or to otherwise bind, the other 

Party.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 5

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 5 -

19.0 Severability

If any provision or portion of this Agreement shall for any reason be held or adjudged to 

be invalid or illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction or other 

Governmental Authority, (1) such portion or provision shall be deemed separate and 

independent, (2) the Parties shall negotiate in good faith to restore insofar as practicable 

the benefits to each Party that were affected by such ruling, and (3) the remainder of this 

Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

20.0 Subcontractors

Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Party from utilizing the services of any 

subcontractor as it deems appropriate to perform its obligations under this Agreement; 

provided, however, that each Party shall require its subcontractors to comply with all 

applicable terms and conditions of this Agreement in providing such services and each 

Party shall remain primarily liable to the other Party for the performance of such 

subcontractor.

20.1 The creation of any subcontract relationship shall not relieve the hiring 

Party of any of its obligations under this Agreement. The hiring Party shall be 

fully responsible to the other Party for the acts or omissions of any subcontractor 

the hiring Party hires as if no subcontract had been made; provided, however, that 

in no event shall the Transmission Provider be liable for the actions or inactions 

of the Interconnection Customer or its subcontractors with respect to obligations 

of the Interconnection Customer under this Agreement. Any applicable 

obligation imposed by this Agreement upon the hiring Party shall be equally 

binding upon, and shall be construed as having application to, any subcontractor 

of such Party.

20.2 The obligations under this article will not be limited in any way by any 

limitation of subcontractor’s insurance.

21.0 Reservation of Rights

The Transmission Provider shall have the right to make a unilateral filing with FERC to 

modify this Agreement with respect to any rates, terms and conditions, charges, 

classifications of service, rule or regulation under section 205 or any other applicable 

provision of the Federal Power Act and FERC's rules and regulations thereunder, and the 

Interconnection Customer shall have the right to make a unilateral filing with FERC to 

modify this Agreement under any applicable provision of the Federal Power Act and 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 6

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 6 -

FERC's rules and regulations; provided that each Party shall have the right to protest any 

such filing by the other Party and to participate fully in any proceeding before FERC in 

which such modifications

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their 

duly authorized officers or agents on the day and year first above written.

[Insert name of Transmission Provider] [Insert name of Interconnection Customer]

___________________________________ _________________________________

Signed: ____________________________ Signed: __________________________

Name (Printed): Name (Printed):

___________________________________ ________________________________

Title: ______________________________ Title: __________________________
Docket No. RM13-2-000 7

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 7 -

Attachment A to System

Impact Study Agreement

Assumptions Used in Conducting the System Impact Study

The system impact study shall be based upon the results of the feasibility study, subject to any 

modifications in accordance with the standard Small Generator Interconnection Procedures, and 

the following assumptions:

1) Designation of Point of Interconnection and configuration to be studied.

2) Designation of alternative Points of Interconnection and configuration.

1) and 2) are to be completed by the Interconnection Customer. Other assumptions (listed 

below) are to be provided by the Interconnection Customer and the Transmission Provider.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 1 -

Attachment 8

Facilities Study Agreement

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____day of______________

20___ by and between_____________________________________________________,

a ____________________________organized and existing under the laws of the State of

__________________________________________, ("Interconnection Customer,") and

_____________________________________________________, a________________

existing under the laws of the State of________________________________________,

("Transmission Provider"). Interconnection Customer and Transmission Provider each may be 

referred to as a "Party," or collectively as the "Parties."

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer is proposing to develop a Small Generating Facility 

or generating capacity addition to an existing Small Generating Facility consistent with the 

Interconnection Request completed by the Interconnection Customer 

on______________________; and

WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer desires to interconnect the Small Generating Facility 

with the Transmission Provider's Transmission System;

WHEREAS, the Transmission Provider has completed a system impact study and provided the 

results of said study to the Interconnection Customer; and

WHEREAS, the Interconnection Customer has requested the Transmission Provider to perform 

a facilities study to specify and estimate the cost of the equipment, engineering, procurement and 

construction work needed to implement the conclusions of the system impact study in 

accordance with Good Utility Practice to physically and electrically connect the Small 

Generating Facility with the Transmission Provider's Transmission System.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of and subject to the mutual covenants contained herein 

the Parties agreed as follows:

1.0 When used in this Agreement, with initial capitalization, the terms specified shall have 

the meanings indicated or the meanings specified in the standard Small Generator 

Interconnection Procedures.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 2 -

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 2 -

2.0 The Interconnection Customer elects and the Transmission Provider shall cause a 

facilities study consistent with the standard Small Generator Interconnection Procedures 

to be performed in accordance with the Open Access Transmission Tariff.

3.0 The scope of the facilities study shall be subject to data provided in Attachment A to this 

Agreement.

4.0 The facilities study shall specify and estimate the cost of the equipment, engineering, 

procurement and construction work (including overheads) needed to implement the 

conclusions of the system impact study(s). The facilities study shall also identify (1) the 

electrical switching configuration of the equipment, including, without limitation, 

transformer, switchgear, meters, and other station equipment, (2) the nature and estimated 

cost of the Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities and Upgrades necessary to 

accomplish the interconnection, and (3) an estimate of the time required to complete the 

construction and installation of such facilities.

5.0 The Transmission Provider may propose to group facilities required for more than one 

Interconnection Customer in order to minimize facilities costs through economies of 

scale, but any Interconnection Customer may require the installation of facilities required 

for its own Small Generating Facility if it is willing to pay the costs of those facilities.

6.0 A deposit of the good faith estimated facilities study costs may be required from the 

Interconnection Customer.

7.0 In cases where Upgrades are required, the facilities study must be completed within 45 

Business Days of the receipt of this Agreement. In cases where no Upgrades are 

necessary, and the required facilities are limited to Interconnection Facilities, the 

facilities study must be completed within 30 Business Days.

8.0 Once the facilities study is completed, a draft facilities study report shall be prepared and 

transmitted to the Interconnection Customer. Barring unusual circumstances, the 

facilities study must be completed and the draft facilities study report transmitted within 

30 Business Days of the Interconnection Customer's agreement to conduct a facilities 

study.

9.0 Interconnection Customer may, within 30 Calendar Days after receipt of the draft report, 

provide written comments to Transmission Provider, which Transmission Provider shall 

include in the final report. Transmission Provider shall issue the final Interconnection 

Facilities Study report within 15 Business Days of receiving Interconnection Customer’s 

comments or promptly upon receiving Interconnection Customer’s statement that it will 

not provide comments. Transmission Provider may reasonably extend such fifteen-day 

period upon notice to Interconnection Customer if Interconnection Customer’s comments 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 3 -

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 3 -

require Transmission Provider to perform additional analyses or make other significant 

modifications prior to the issuance of the final Interconnection Facilities Report. Upon 

request, Transmission Provider shall provide Interconnection Customer supporting 

documentation, workpapers, and databases or data developed in the preparation of the 

Interconnection Facilities Study, subject to confidentiality arrangements consistent with 

Section 4.5 of the standard Small Generator Interconnection Procedures.

10.0 Within ten 10 Business Days of providing a draft Interconnection Facilities Study report 

to Interconnection Customer, Transmission Provider and Interconnection Customer shall 

meet to discuss the results of the Interconnection Facilities Study.

911.0 Any study fees shall be based on the Transmission Provider's actual costs and will be 

invoiced to the Interconnection Customer after the study is completed and delivered and 

will include a summary of professional time.

1012.0 The Interconnection Customer must pay any study costs that exceed the deposit without 

interest within 30 calendar days on receipt of the invoice or resolution of any dispute. If 

the deposit exceeds the invoiced fees, the Transmission Provider shall refund such excess 

within 30 calendar days of the invoice without interest.

1113.0 Governing Law, Regulatory Authority, and Rules

The validity, interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement and each of its provisions 

shall be governed by the laws of the state of __________________ (where the Point of 

Interconnection is located), without regard to its conflicts of law principles. This 

Agreement is subject to all Applicable Laws and Regulations. Each Party expressly 

reserves the right to seek changes in, appeal, or otherwise contest any laws, orders, or 

regulations of a Governmental Authority.

1214.0 Amendment

The Parties may amend this Agreement by a written instrument duly executed by both 

Parties.

1315.0 No Third-Party Beneficiaries

This Agreement is not intended to and does not create rights, remedies, or benefits of any 

character whatsoever in favor of any persons, corporations, associations, or entities other 

than the Parties, and the obligations herein assumed are solely for the use and benefit of 

the Parties, their successors in interest and where permitted, their assigns.
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 4 -

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 4 -

1416.0 Waiver

1416.1 The failure of a Party to this Agreement to insist, on any occasion, upon strict 

performance of any provision of this Agreement will not be considered a waiver 

of any obligation, right, or duty of, or imposed upon, such Party.

1416.2 Any waiver at any time by either Party of its rights with respect to this Agreement 

shall not be deemed a continuing waiver or a waiver with respect to any other 

failure to comply with any other obligation, right, duty of this Agreement. 

Termination or default of this Agreement for any reason by Interconnection 

Customer shall not constitute a waiver of the Interconnection Customer's legal 

rights to obtain an interconnection from the Transmission Provider. Any waiver 

of this Agreement shall, if requested, be provided in writing.

1517.0 Multiple Counterparts

This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which is deemed 

an original but all constitute one and the same instrument.

1618.0 No Partnership

This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to create an association, joint 

venture, agency relationship, or partnership between the Parties or to impose any 

partnership obligation or partnership liability upon either Party. Neither Party shall have 

any right, power or authority to enter into any agreement or undertaking for, or act on 

behalf of, or to act as or be an agent or representative of, or to otherwise bind, the other 

Party.

1719.0 Severability

If any provision or portion of this Agreement shall for any reason be held or adjudged to 

be invalid or illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction or other 

Governmental Authority, (1) such portion or provision shall be deemed separate and 

independent, (2) the Parties shall negotiate in good faith to restore insofar as practicable 

the benefits to each Party that were affected by such ruling, and (3) the remainder of this 

Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

1820.0 Subcontractors

Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Party from utilizing the services of any 

subcontractor as it deems appropriate to perform its obligations under this Agreement; 

provided, however, that each Party shall require its subcontractors to comply with all 

applicable terms and conditions of this Agreement in providing such services and each 
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 5 -

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 5 -

Party shall remain primarily liable to the other Party for the performance of such 

subcontractor.

1820.1 The creation of any subcontract relationship shall not relieve the hiring 

Party of any of its obligations under this Agreement. The hiring Party shall be 

fully responsible to the other Party for the acts or omissions of any subcontractor 

the hiring Party hires as if no subcontract had been made; provided, however, that 

in no event shall the Transmission Provider be liable for the actions or inactions 

of the Interconnection Customer or its subcontractors with respect to obligations 

of the Interconnection Customer under this Agreement. Any applicable 

obligation imposed by this Agreement upon the hiring Party shall be equally 

binding upon, and shall be construed as having application to, any subcontractor 

of such Party.

1820.2 The obligations under this article will not be limited in any way by any 

limitation of subcontractor’s insurance.

1921.0 Reservation of Rights

The Transmission Provider shall have the right to make a unilateral filing with FERC to 

modify this Agreement with respect to any rates, terms and conditions, charges, 

classifications of service, rule or regulation under section 205 or any other applicable 

provision of the Federal Power Act and FERC's rules and regulations thereunder, and the

Interconnection Customer shall have the right to make a unilateral filing with FERC to 

modify this Agreement under any applicable provision of the Federal Power Act and 

FERC's rules and regulations; provided that each Party shall have the right to protest any 

such filing by the other Party and to participate fully in any proceeding before FERC in 

which such modifications

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their 

duly authorized officers or agents on the day and year first above written.

[Insert name of Transmission Provider] [Insert name of Interconnection Customer]

___________________________________ _________________________________

Signed______________________________ Signed___________________________

Name (Printed): Name (Printed):

___________________________________ ________________________________

Title_______________________________ Title____________________________
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 6 -

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 6 -

Attachment A to

Facilities Study Agreement

Data to Be Provided by the Interconnection Customer

with the Facilities Study Agreement

Provide location plan and simplified one-line diagram of the plant and station facilities. For 

staged projects, please indicate future generation, transmission circuits, etc.

On the one-line diagram, indicate the generation capacity attached at each metering 

location. (Maximum load on CT/PT)

On the one-line diagram, indicate the location of auxiliary power. (Minimum load on 

CT/PT) Amps

One set of metering is required for each generation connection to the new ring bus or existing 

Transmission Provider station. Number of generation connections: _____________

Will an alternate source of auxiliary power be available during CT/PT maintenance?

Yes ____ No ____

Will a transfer bus on the generation side of the metering require that each meter set be designed 

for the total plant generation? Yes ____ No ____ 

(Please indicate on the one-line diagram). 

What type of control system or PLC will be located at the Small Generating Facility?

_____________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

What protocol does the control system or PLC use?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Please provide a 7.5-minute quadrangle map of the site. Indicate the plant, station, transmission 

line, and property lines.

Physical dimensions of the proposed interconnection station:

______________________________________________________________________________
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 7 -

SGIP System Impact Study Agreement - 7 -

Bus length from generation to interconnection station:

______________________________________________________________________________

Line length from interconnection station to Transmission Provider's Transmission System.

______________________________________________________________________________

Tower number observed in the field. (Painted on tower leg)*:

______________________________________________________________________________

Number of third party easements required for transmission lines*:

______________________________________________________________________________

* To be completed in coordination with Transmission Provider. 

Is the Small Generating Facility located in Transmission Provider’s service area?

 Yes _____ No _____ If No, please provide name of local provider:

______________________________________________________________________________

Please provide the following proposed schedule dates: 

Begin Construction Date: ____________________________

Generator step-up transformers Date: ____________________________

receive back feed power

Generation Testing Date: ____________________________

Commercial Operation Date: ____________________________
Docket No. RM13-2-000 - 1 -

Appendix D: Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIA

Section Number Revision

3.3.5 (Termination) Replace the first word of the section (“This”) 

with “The”.

Attachment 1 (Glossary of Terms) Revise the definition of Small Generating 

Facility as follows: Small Generating 

Facility—The 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.