39934 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 35 

[Docket No. RM22–14–000] 

Improvements to Generator 

Interconnection Procedures and 

Agreements 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

issuing a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing reforms 

to its pro forma Large Generator 

Interconnection Procedures, pro forma 

Small Generator Interconnection 

Procedures, pro forma Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement, and pro 

forma Small Generator Interconnection 

Agreement to address interconnection 

queue backlogs, improve certainty, and 

prevent undue discrimination for new 

technologies. The reforms are intended 

to ensure that the generator 

interconnection process is just and 

reasonable and not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential. The 

Commission invites all interested 

persons to submit comments on the 

proposed reforms, including proposed 

revisions to the pro forma 

interconnection procedures and 

agreements, and in response to specific 

questions. 

DATES: Comments are due October 13, 

2022 and Reply Comments are due 

November 14, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by 

docket number, may be filed in the 

following ways. Electronic filing 

through https://www.ferc.gov is 

preferred. 

• Electronic Filing: Documents must 

be filed in acceptable native 

applications and print-to-PDF, but not 

in scanned or picture format. 

• For those unable to file 

electronically, comments may be filed 

by U.S. Postal Service mail or by hand 

(including courier) delivery. 

Æ Mail via U.S. Postal Service only: 

Addressed to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426. 

Æ For delivery via any other carrier 

(including courier): Deliver to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, Office 

of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 

Rockville, MD 20852. 

The Comment Procedures Section of 

this document contains more detailed 

filing procedures. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tristan Kessler (Technical Information), 

Office of Energy Policy and 

Innovation, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6608, tristan.kessler@ferc.gov 

Franklin Jackson (Technical 

Information), Office of Energy Market 

Regulation, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6464, franklin.jackson@ferc.gov 

Sarah Greenberg (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, 888 

First Street NE, Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6230, 

sarah.greenberg@ferc.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

Paragraph 

Nos. 

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

A. Background ................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

1. The Commission’s Pro Forma Generator Interconnection Procedures ............................................................................... 7 

2. 2008 Order on RTO/ISO Interconnection Queuing Practices ............................................................................................. 12 

3. Order No. 845 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

4. Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation ANOPR .......................................................................................................... 14 

5. Joint Federal-State Task Force on Electric Transmission .................................................................................................... 16 

B. Need for Reform ............................................................................................................................................................................ 18 

II. Proposed Reforms ................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 

A. Reforms To Implement a First-Ready, First-Served Cluster Study Process ............................................................................. 37 

1. Interconnection Information Access ..................................................................................................................................... 40 

2. Cluster Study .......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 

3. Allocation of Cluster Study Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 80 

4. Allocation of Cluster Network Upgrade Costs ..................................................................................................................... 84 

5. Shared Network Upgrades ..................................................................................................................................................... 90 

6. Increased Financial Commitments and Readiness Requirements ...................................................................................... 102 

7. Transition Process .................................................................................................................................................................. 149 

B. Reforms To Increase the Speed of Interconnection Queue Processing ..................................................................................... 161 

1. Elimination of the Reasonable Efforts Standard .................................................................................................................. 161 

2. Affected Systems .................................................................................................................................................................... 174 

3. Optional Resource Solicitation Study .................................................................................................................................. 216 

C. Reforms To Incorporate Technological Advancements Into the Interconnection Process ...................................................... 238 

1. Increasing Flexibility in the Generator Interconnection Process ........................................................................................ 238 

2. Incorporating Alternative Transmission Technologies Into the Generator Interconnection Process ............................... 289 

3. Modeling and Performance Requirements for Non-Synchronous Generating Facilities ................................................... 303 

III. Proposed Compliance Procedures ..................................................................................................................................................... 342 

IV. Information Collection Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 345 

V. Environmental Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 359 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act .................................................................................................................................................................. 360 

VII. Comment Procedures ........................................................................................................................................................................ 364 

VIII. Document Availability ..................................................................................................................................................................... 368 

Appendix A: Interconnection Study Metrics. .........................................................................................................................................

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

Appendix C: Compilation of proposed changes to the pro forma SGIP. 

Appendix D: Compilation of proposed changes to the pro forma LGIA. 

Appendix E: Compilation of proposed changes to the pro forma SGIA. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39935 

1 16 U.S.C. 824e. Section 206 of the FPA requires 

that whenever the Commission finds any rate, term, 

or condition for the transmission of electric energy 

in interstate commerce or the sale of such energy 

at wholesale in interstate commerce to be unjust, 

unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or 

preferential, the Commission must establish a just 

and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential replacement rate, term, or condition. 

2Standardization of Generator Interconnection 

Agreements & Proc., Order No. 2003, 68 FR 49845 

(Aug. 19, 2003), 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 (2003), order on 

reh’g, Order No. 2003–A, 69 FR 15932 (Mar. 5, 

2004), 106 FERC ¶ 61,220, order on reh’g, Order No. 

2003–B, 70 FR 265 (Jan. 19, 2005), 109 FERC 

¶ 61,287 (2004), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003–C, 

70 FR 37661 (July 18, 2005), 111 FERC ¶ 61,401 

(2005), aff’d sub nom. Nat’l Ass’n of Regul. Util. 

Comm’rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007) 

(NARUC v. FERC). 

3Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 2. 

4 Id. P 1. 

5 Id. P 12. 

6Standardization of Small Generator 

Interconnection Agreements & Proc., Order No. 

2006, 70 FR 34189 (June 13, 2005), 111 FERC 

¶ 61,220, order on reh’g, Order No. 2006–A, 70 FR 

71760 (Nov. 30, 2005), 113 FERC ¶ 61,195 (2005), 

order granting clarification, Order No. 2006–B, 71 

FR 42587 (July 27, 2006), 116 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2006). 

7Order No. 2006, 111 FERC ¶ 61,220 at PP 15, 36. 

8A first-ready, first-served cluster study process 

includes the following elements: increased access to 

information prior to entering the queue; a 

mechanism to study interconnection requests in 

groups; and increased financial commitments and 

readiness requirements to enter and proceed 

through the queue. To contrast, the existing firstcome, first-served serial study process assigns 

interconnection requests an individual queue 

position based solely on the date of entry into the 

queue and does not include access to information 

prior to entering the queue. 

9 In this order, transmission provider ‘‘shall mean 

the public utility (or its designated agent) that 

owns, controls, or operates transmission or 

distribution facilities used for the transmission of 

electric energy in interstate commerce and provides 

transmission service under the [Transmission 

Provider’s Tariff]. The term . . . should be read to 

include the Transmission Owner when the 

Transmission Owner is separate from the 

Transmission Provider.’’ Pro forma LGIP section 1; 

pro forma LGIA art. 1; pro forma SGIP attach. 1; pro 

forma SGIA attach. 1. Therefore, unless otherwise 

noted, ‘‘transmission provider’’ refers only to public 

utility transmission providers. FPA section 201(e) 

defines ‘‘public utility’’ to mean ‘‘any person who 

owns or operates facilities subject to the jurisdiction 

of the Commission under this subchapter.’’ 16 

U.S.C. 824(e). A non-public utility that seeks 

voluntary compliance with the reciprocity 

condition of an Open Access Transmission Tariff 

(OATT) may satisfy that condition by filing an 

OATT, which includes the pro forma LGIP, the pro 

forma SGIP, the pro forma LGIA, and the pro forma 

SGIA. See Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 

1, 616; Order No. 2006, 111 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 1. 

10Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 11. 

Large generating facilities are defined to mean ‘‘a 

Generating Facility having a Generating Facility 

Capacity of more than 20 MW.’’ Pro forma LGIP 

section 1. 

11Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 9 

(citing Tenn. Power Co., 90 FERC ¶ 61,238 (2000)). 

I. Introduction 

1. Pursuant to our authority under 

section 206 of the Federal Power Act 

(FPA),1 we are proposing reforms in this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 

to the Commission’s pro forma Large 

Generator Interconnection Procedures 

(LGIP), pro forma Small Generator 

Interconnection Procedures (SGIP), pro 

forma Large Generator Interconnection 

Agreement (LGIA), and pro forma Small 

Generator Interconnection Agreement 

(SGIA) to address interconnection queue 

backlogs, improve certainty, and 

prevent undue discrimination for new 

technologies. 

2. Nineteen years ago the Commission 

issued Order No. 2003,2 in which the 

Commission required all public utilities 

that own, control, or operate facilities 

used for transmitting electric energy in 

interstate commerce to have on file 

standard procedures and a standard 

agreement for interconnecting 

generating facilities larger than 20 MW 

(called the pro forma LGIP, and the pro 

forma LGIA).3 The Commission stated 

its expectation that the changes would 

prevent undue discrimination, preserve 

reliability, increase energy supply, and 

lower wholesale prices for customers by 

increasing the amount and variety of 

new generation that would compete in 

the wholesale electricity market.4 The 

Commission further stated that the 

standard procedures would facilitate 

market entry for generation competitors 

by reducing interconnection costs and 

time.5 In Order No. 2006,6 the 

Commission adopted standard 

procedures and a standard agreement 

for interconnecting generating facilities 

no larger than 20 MW (called the pro 

forma SGIP, and the pro forma SGIA), 

citing the same purposes outlined in 

Order No. 2003.7

3. The electricity sector has 

transformed significantly since the 

issuance of Order Nos. 2003 and 2006. 

The growth of new resources seeking to 

interconnect to the transmission system 

and the differing characteristics of those 

resources have created new challenges 

for the generator interconnection 

process. These new challenges are 

creating large interconnection queue 

backlogs and uncertainty regarding the 

cost and timing of interconnecting to the 

transmission system, potentially 

increasing costs for consumers. Backlogs 

in the generator interconnection 

process, in turn, can create reliability 

issues as needed new generating 

facilities are unable to come online in 

an efficient and timely manner. 

Therefore, we believe that it may be 

appropriate to reform the Commission’s 

standard interconnection procedures 

and agreements to ensure that 

interconnection customers are able to 

interconnect to the transmission system 

in a reliable, efficient, transparent, and 

timely manner, thereby ensuring that 

rates, terms, and conditions for 

Commission-jurisdictional services 

remain just and reasonable and not 

unduly discriminatory or preferential. 

4. Accordingly, we propose in this 

NOPR reforms to the Commission’s pro 

forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA. 

Specifically, as explained in detail in 

this NOPR, we propose reforms to: (1) 

implement a first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process; 8 (2) increase the 

speed of interconnection queue 

processing; and (3) incorporate 

technological advancements into the 

interconnection process. 

5. We also propose reforms to the pro 

forma SGIP and pro forma SGIA. 

Specifically, as explained in detail in 

this NOPR, for small generators we 

propose reforms to incorporate 

alternative transmission technologies 

into the interconnection process and to 

provide modeling and performance 

requirements for non-synchronous 

generators. In addition, we seek 

comment on whether the other reforms 

proposed in this NOPR should be 

applied to the pro forma SGIP and pro 

forma SGIA. 

6. We recognize that transmission 

providers have undertaken efforts to 

address interconnection queue 

management issues. This NOPR is not 

intended to divert or slow the potential 

progress represented by those efforts. 

We will review any filings that result 

from those efforts based on the record 

before us in those proceedings and not 

based on whether they comply with the 

proposed reforms in this NOPR. We 

note that any compliance obligations 

arising out of any final rule in this 

docket on the issues addressed herein 

will be evaluated in light of the 

independent entity variation for RTO/ 

ISO regions and the consistent with or 

superior to standard for non-RTO 

regions. 

A. Background 

1. The Commission’s Pro Forma 

Generator Interconnection Procedures 

7. In Order No. 2003, the Commission 

recognized a need for a standard set of 

interconnection procedures for 

transmission providers 9 and a single, 

uniformly applicable interconnection 

agreement for large generating 

facilities.10 The Commission noted that 

generator interconnection is a ‘‘critical 

component of open access transmission 

service and thus is subject to the 

requirement that utilities offer 

comparable service under the [pro 

forma] OATT.’’ 11 The Commission 

found that it was appropriate to 

establish a standard set of generator 

interconnection procedures to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39936 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

12 Id. P 11. 

13 18 CFR 35.28(f)(1). 

14While we provide a broad description of the 

process in the Commission’s pro forma LGIP as 

background here, we recognize that many 

transmission providers have adopted (and the 

Commission has accepted) variations to many of the 

terms in the Commission’s pro forma LGIP and pro 

forma LGIA. Consequently, some or many of the 

details of a particular transmission provider’s 

generator interconnection procedures may vary 

considerably from the broad description provided 

here. 

15Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 35; pro 

forma LGIP sections 3.1, 3.4. 

16Pro forma LGIP section 4.1. 

17 Id. 

18Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 36; pro 

forma LGIP sections 3.4.4; 6–8. 

19The pro forma LGIP defines a feasibility study 

as ‘‘a preliminary evaluation of the system impact 

and cost of interconnecting the Generating Facility 

to the Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System.’’ The scope of a feasibility study is 

described in section 6 of the pro forma LGIP. Pro 

forma LGIP sections 1, 6. 

20The pro forma LGIP defines a system impact 

study as ‘‘an engineering study that evaluates the 

impact of the proposed interconnection on the 

safety and reliability of Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System and, if applicable, an Affected 

System.’’ In particular, a system impact study 

identifies and details ‘‘the system impacts that 

would result if the Generating Facility were 

interconnected without project modifications or 

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.’’ 

Id. section 1. 

21The pro forma LGIP defines a facilities study 

as ‘‘a study conducted by the Transmission 

Provider or a third-party consultant for the 

Interconnection Customer to determine a list of 

facilities (including Transmission Provider’s 

Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades as 

identified in the [system impact study]), the cost of 

those facilities, and the time required to 

interconnect the Generating Facility with the 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission System.’’ 

The scope of a facilities study is described in 

section 8 of the pro forma LGIP. Id. sections 1, 8. 

22An affected system is an electric system other 

than the transmission provider’s transmission 

system that may be affected by the proposed 

interconnection. Id. section 1; pro forma LGIA art. 

1. 

23For purposes of this NOPR, unless otherwise 

noted, ‘‘network upgrades’’ refers to 

interconnection-related network upgrades. More 

specifically, the pro forma LGIP and pro forma 

LGIA state that ‘‘Network Upgrades shall mean the 

additions, modifications, and upgrades to the 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission System 

required at or beyond the point at which the 

Interconnection Facilities connect to the 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission System to 

accommodate the interconnection of the Large 

Generating Facility to the Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System.’’ Pro forma LGIP section 1 

(Definitions); pro forma LGIA art. 1 (Definitions). 

24Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 35– 

37; pro forma LGIP sections 6–8. The 

interconnection customer is responsible for the 

actual costs of interconnection studies and any 

necessary re-studies. Pro forma LGIP section 13.3. 

25 Id. sections 6.3, 7.4, 8.3. 

26Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 38. 

Section 11.1 of the pro forma LGIP requires the 

transmission provider to tender a draft LGIA to the 

interconnection customer ‘‘in the form of 

Transmission Provider’s FERC-approved standard 

form LGIA.’’ 

27 If the transmission provider and 

interconnection customer execute an LGIA that 

conforms to the transmission provider’s FERCapproved standard form LGIA, the agreement does 

not need to be filed with the Commission (if the 

transmission provider has such a standard form 

LGIA on file and submits an Electronic Quarterly 

Report). Alternatively, the transmission provider 

must file an LGIA with the Commission for review 

and approval if: (1) the interconnection customer 

determines that negotiations with the transmission 

provider over the terms of an LGIA are at an 

impasse and requests submission of the unexecuted 

LGIA with the Commission; or (2) the LGIA does 

not conform to the transmission provider’s FERCapproved standard form LGIA. See Order No. 2003– 

A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 201; pro forma LGIP 

sections 11.2–11.3. 

28Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 351– 

354; pro forma LGIA art. 5.1.3. 

29Order No. 2006, 111 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 36. 

30Pro forma SGIP section 2.1. 

31 Id. attach. 5. 

32Order No. 2006, 111 FERC ¶ 61,220 at PP 36, 

38–39. 

‘‘minimize opportunities for undue 

discrimination and expedite the 

development of new generation, while 

protecting reliability and ensuring that 

rates are just and reasonable.’’ 12 To this 

end, the Commission adopted the pro 

forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA and 

amended its regulations to require all 

transmission providers to incorporate 

these standard procedures and 

agreement into their OATTs.13

8. To initiate the generator 

interconnection process set forth in the 

Commission’s pro forma LGIP,14 the 

interconnection customer submits an 

interconnection request for its proposed 

generating facility that includes 

preliminary documentation of the site of 

the proposed generating facility, certain 

technical information about the 

proposed generating facility, and the 

expected commercial operation date of 

the proposed generating facility, along 

with a refundable deposit of $10,000.15

After the transmission provider 

determines that the interconnection 

request is complete, the interconnection 

request enters the transmission 

provider’s interconnection queue with 

other pending interconnection requests 

and is assigned a queue position based 

on the time and date of its receipt.16 The 

queue position determines the order in 

which the transmission provider studies 

the interconnection requests in its 

queue.17

9. Transmission providers must 

schedule a scoping meeting with the 

interconnection customer to discuss 

possible points of interconnection for 

the proposed generating facility and 

exchange technical information, which 

is followed by a series of 

interconnection studies to evaluate the 

proposed interconnection in detail.18

Transmission providers study 

interconnection requests in three 

phases: (1) the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study (feasibility study); 19

(2) the Interconnection System Impact 

Study (system impact study); 20 and (3) 

the Interconnection Facilities Study 

(facilities study).21 These studies 

contain the power flow, short circuit, 

and stability analyses necessary to: (1) 

identify any adverse impacts on the 

transmission providers’ transmission 

system or any affected systems; 22 (2) 

determine the interconnection facilities 

and network upgrades 23 needed to 

reliably interconnect the generating 

facility; and (3) estimate the 

interconnection customer’s cost 

responsibility for these facilities.24 The 

pro forma LGIP requires that 

transmission providers use reasonable 

efforts to complete: (1) feasibility 

studies within 45 days; (2) system 

impact studies within 90 days; and (3) 

facilities studies within 90 or 180 days, 

depending on the interconnection 

customer’s requested accuracy margin.25

10. At the completion of the facilities 

study, the pro forma LGIP requires the 

transmission provider to issue a report 

on the best estimate of the costs to 

effectuate the requested interconnection 

and provide a draft generator 

interconnection agreement to the 

interconnection customer.26 If the 

interconnection customer wishes to 

proceed, after negotiations, the 

interconnection customer enters into a 

generator interconnection agreement 

with the transmission provider or, in 

specific circumstances, requests that the 

transmission provider file the agreement 

with the Commission unexecuted.27 The 

transmission provider is responsible for 

the construction of all network 

upgrades, but, as further discussed 

below, the interconnection customer has 

the option to build these facilities in 

certain circumstances.28

11. Similar to Order No. 2003, in 

Order No. 2006, the Commission 

recognized the need for standardized 

interconnection procedures and 

agreements for small generating 

facilities with a capacity of 20 MW or 

less.29 In addition to establishing a pro 

forma interconnection study process for 

small generating facilities similar to the 

process for large generation established 

in Order No. 2003, the Commission 

included: (1) a ‘‘Fast Track Process’’ 30

that uses technical screens to evaluate a 

certified small generating facility no 

larger than 2 MW; and (2) a ‘‘10 kW 

Inverter Process’’ 31 that uses the same 

technical screens to evaluate a certified 

inverter-based small generating facility 

no larger than 10 kW.32 The 

Commission later issued Order No. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39937 

33Small Generator Interconnection Agreements & 

Procs., Order No. 792, 78 FR 73240 (Dec. 5, 2013), 

145 FERC ¶ 61,159 (2013), clarifying, Order No. 

792–A, 146 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2014). 34See Order No. 792, 145 FERC ¶ 61,159 at P 1. 35 Interconnection Queuing Practices, Docket No. 

AD08–2–000, Notice of Technical Conference 

(issued Nov. 2, 2007). 36 Interconnection Queuing Practices, 122 FERC 

¶ 61,252 (2008) (2008 Technical Conference Order). 37 Id. P 3. 38 Id. P 8. 39See, e.g., Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 128 FERC 

¶ 61,114 (2009) (SPP); Midwest Ind. Sys. Operator, 

Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,183 (2008); Cal. Ind. Sys. 

Operator Corp., 124 FERC ¶ 61,292 (2008). 40Reform of Generator Interconnection Procs & 

Agreements, Order No. 845, 83 FR 21342 (May 09, 

2018), 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2018), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 845–A, 166 FERC ¶ 61,137, 84 FR 8156 

(Mar. 06, 2019), order on reh’g, Order No. 845–B, 

168 FERC ¶ 61,092 (2019). 

41Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 7. 

42 Id. P 2. 

43 Generating Facilities ‘‘shall mean 

Interconnection Customer’s device for the 

production and/or storage for later injection of 

electricity identified in the Interconnection 

Request, but shall not include the Interconnection 

Customer’s Interconnection Facilities.’’ Pro forma 

LGIP section 1. 

44The pro forma LGIP defines surplus 

interconnection service as ‘‘any unneeded portion 

of Interconnection Service established in a Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement, such that if 

Surplus Interconnection Service is utilized the total 

amount of Interconnection Service at the Point of 

Interconnection would remain the same.’’ Pro forma 

LGIP section 1. 

45Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 at PP 3–5. 

46Bldg. for the Future Through Elec. Reg’l 

Transmission Plan. & Cost Allocation & Generator 

Interconnection, 86 FR 40266 (July 15, 2021), 176 

FERC ¶ 61,024 (2021) (ANOPR). 47 Id. P 5. 48Point of Interconnection refers to ‘‘the point, as 

set forth in Appendix A to the Standard Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement, where the 

Interconnection Facilities connect to the 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission System.’’ Pro 

forma LGIP section 1. 

49ANOPR, 176 FERC ¶ 61,024 at P 41. 

792,33 in which the Commission revised 

the pro forma SGIP and pro forma SGIA 

to provide for interconnection 

customers to receive point of 

interconnection information in advance 

of submitting an interconnection 

request, increase the threshold for 

participation in the Fast Track Process 

to 5 MW, and to specifically include 

electric storage devices.34

2. 2008 Order on RTO/ISO 

Interconnection Queuing Practices 

12. In response to concerns voiced to 

the Commission about interconnection 

queue management, in 2007, the 

Commission held a technical 

conference,35 and later issued an 

order 36 addressing interconnection 

queue issues in RTOs/ISOs. In the order, 

the Commission noted that some 

transmission providers were not 

processing their interconnection queues 

within the timelines established in the 

pro forma LGIP, and in certain cases, 

were greatly exceeding them.37 The 

Commission stated that, although it 

‘‘may need to [impose solutions] if the 

RTOs and ISOs do not act themselves,’’ 

each RTO/ISO would have an 

opportunity to work with its 

stakeholders to develop its own 

solutions.38 As further discussed below, 

following the order, multiple RTOs/ 

ISOs submitted queue reform proposals 

to the Commission, some of which 

moved away from a so-called ‘‘firstcome, first-served’’ approach (whereby 

interconnection requests are processed 

in the order they are received) to a socalled ‘‘first-ready, first-served’’ 

approach (whereby interconnection 

requests are processed based on when 

interconnection customers meet certain 

project development milestones).39

3. Order No. 845 

13. In 2018, the Commission issued 

Order No. 845,40 in which the 

Commission made the most 

comprehensive revisions to the pro 

forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA since 

their adoption in Order No. 2003. In 

Order No. 845, the Commission 

concluded that reforms to the pro forma 

LGIP and pro forma LGIA were needed 

to mitigate concerns regarding systemic 

inefficiencies, remedy discriminatory 

practices, and address recent 

developments, including changes in the 

resource mix and emergence of new 

technologies.41 The Commission 

therefore adopted reforms designed to 

improve certainty for interconnection 

customers, promote more informed 

interconnection decisions, and enhance 

the generator interconnection process.42

Among other things, the Commission: 

(1) expanded the interconnection 

customer’s option to build certain 

network upgrades; (2) revised the 

definition of generating facility to 

include electric storage resources; 43 (3) 

established reporting requirements for 

aggregate interconnection study 

performance; (4) allowed 

interconnection customers to request a 

level of interconnection service that is 

lower than their generating facility 

capacity; (5) required transmission 

providers to allow provisional 

interconnection service that provides for 

limited operation of a generating facility 

prior to completion of the full generator 

interconnection process; (6) required 

transmission providers to create a 

process for interconnection customers to 

use surplus interconnection service 44 at 

existing points of interconnection; and 

(7) required transmission providers to 

assess and, if necessary, study, an 

interconnection customer’s technology 

changes without affecting the 

interconnection customer’s queue 

position.45

4. Transmission Planning and Cost 

Allocation ANOPR 

14. On July 15, 2021, the Commission 

issued an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANOPR) in Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, presenting potential 

reforms to the Commission’s 

requirements governing the regional 

transmission planning and cost 

allocation and generator interconnection 

processes.46 Specific to the generator 

interconnection process, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether and which reforms may be 

necessary to ensure a more purposeful 

integration of the generator 

interconnection process with the 

regional transmission planning and cost 

allocation processes, establish a faster 

and more efficient interconnection 

queueing process, and promote a more 

efficient and cost-effective allocation of 

interconnection-related network 

upgrade costs.47 For instance, the 

Commission noted that the cost of 

interconnection-related network 

upgrades can depend largely on both the 

timing of when the interconnection 

customer enters the interconnection 

queue and where the interconnection 

customer proposes to interconnect its 

generating facility. Therefore, the 

Commission noted, interconnection 

customers may submit multiple 

interconnection requests in an effort to 

determine the most favorable point of 

interconnection 48 that minimizes their 

interconnection-related network 

upgrade costs.49 The Commission stated 

that this practice, in turn, may lead to 

late-stage withdrawals of the excess 

interconnection requests, which can 

then impede the transmission provider’s 

ability to process its interconnection 

queue in an efficient manner. As a 

result, the Commission stated that it 

may be time to consider reforms to 

generator interconnection process that 

would make them more efficient and 

ensure that generation facilities that are 

more ‘‘ready’’ than others are not 

unduly delayed in the interconnection 

queue. 

15. On April 21, 2022, the 

Commission issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Transmission 

Planning and Cost Allocation NOPR) 

proposing reforms to its existing 

regional transmission planning and cost 

allocation requirements in the same 

proceeding as it issued the ANOPR. 

While the Transmission Planning and 

Cost Allocation NOPR did not address 

many of the concerns raised by the 

Commission in the ANOPR with respect 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39938 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

50Bldg. for the Future Through Elec. Reg’l 

Transmission Plan. & Cost Allocation & Generator 

Interconnection, 87 FR 26504 (May 04, 2022), 179 

FERC ¶ 61,028, at P 10 (2022) (Transmission 

Planning and Cost Allocation NOPR). 

51 Joint Fed.-State Task Force on Elec. 

Transmission, 175 FERC ¶ 61,224, at PP 1, 6 (2021). 

52An up-to-date list of Task Force members, as 

well as additional information on the Task Force, 

is available on the Commission’s website at: https:// 

www.ferc.gov/TFSOET. Public materials related to 

the Task Force, including transcripts from public 

meetings, are available in the Commission’s 

eLibrary in Docket No. AD21–15–000. 

53 Joint Fed.-State Task Force on Elec. 

Transmission, Notice of Meeting, Docket No. AD21– 

15–000 (issued Apr. 22, 2022) (attaching agenda). 

54Pro forma LGIP section 4.1. 

55 2008 Technical Conference Order, 122 FERC 

¶ 61,252 at P 15. 

56Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 24. 

57 Joseph Rand et al., Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l 

Lab’y, Queued Up: Characteristics of Power Plants 

Seeking Transmission Interconnection as of the End 

of 2021, at 26 (Apr. 2022), https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/ 

default/files/queued_up_2021_04-13-2022.pdf 

(Queued Up). 

58See Ryan Wiser et al., Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l 

Lab’y, Wind Energy Techs. Office, Land-Based 

Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition, at 10 (Aug. 

2021), https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/ 

land-based-wind-market-report-2021-editionreleased. 

59See app. A (compiling data publicly posted by 

transmission providers in compliance with Order 

No. 845); see also Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 

at P 305. This is based on informational reports 

submitted by transmission providers in compliance 

with Order No. 845. 

60See Joint Fed.-State Task Force on Elec. 

Transmission, Technical Conference, Docket No. 

AD21–15–000, Tr. 15:21–16:1 (Ted Thomas) (May 

6, 2022) (May Joint Task Force Tr.) (‘‘Houston, we 

have a problem. As stated in the NARUC ANOPR 

comments, existing methods for interconnecting 

new resources to the transmission grid are 

inadequate and inefficient because of the time 

necessary to interconnect new resources and the 

corresponding network upgrade costs.’’). 

61For the four RTOs/ISOs (California 

Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), 

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), New 

York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), 

and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C (PJM) and one 

utility (Arizona Public Service Company)) for 

which data was available, the average time projects 

spent in interconnection queues before being 

constructed increased from ∼2.1 years for projects 

built between 2000 and 2010 to ∼3.7 years for those 

built between 2011 and 2021. Queued Up at 3. As 

of the end of 2021, only 13% of total capacity in 

interconnection queues had an executed generator 

interconnection agreement. Id. at 17. See also May 

Joint Task Force Tr. 23:18–25 (Jason Stanek) 

(expressing frustration with the status quo and 

agreement that it is ‘‘no longer tenable’’ considering 

the inability of generators to interconnect in a 

timely manner, e.g., there are ‘‘2,500 projects under 

study [in the MACRUC region] and about a half of 

them have been in the queue since at least 2001’’). 

to the generator interconnection queue 

process, the Commission noted in the 

Transmission NOPR that it would 

continue to review the record and that 

it expected to address possible 

inadequacies through subsequent 

proceedings that propose reforms, as 

warranted, related to that topic.50 We 

are now taking that next step with the 

reforms we propose in this NOPR. 

5. Joint Federal-State Task Force on 

Electric Transmission 

16. On June 17, 2021, the Commission 

established a Joint Federal-State Task 

Force on Electric Transmission (Task 

Force) to formally explore broad 

categories of transmission-related 

topics.51 The Commission explained 

that the development of new 

transmission infrastructure implicates a 

host of different issues, including 

generator interconnection. The Task 

Force is comprised of all FERC 

Commissioners as well as 

representatives from 10 state 

commissions nominated by the National 

Association of Regulatory Utility 

Commissioners (NARUC), with two 

originating from each NARUC region.52

The Task Force will convene for 

multiple formal meetings and has thus 

far met three times—on November 10, 

2021, on February 16, 2022, and on May 

6, 2022. 

17. The discussion at the May meeting 

focused on interconnection issues, 

including generator interconnection 

queue processes and backlogs. The Task 

Force Members discussed: the primary 

challenges preventing more efficient 

processing of interconnection queues; 

specific improvements to 

interconnection processes (such as 

tighter applicant requirements to enter 

and remain in the queue, clustering, fast 

tracking, tighter deadlines on 

transmission providers completing 

studies, and minimizing reiterative 

studies); and how to balance near term 

improvements to the interconnection 

procedures with longer-term regional 

transmission planning and 

development.53

B. Need for Reform 

18. Under the Commission’s pro 

forma LGIP, the interconnection study 

process for large generating facilities is 

a serial first-come, first-served study 

process by which transmission 

providers study interconnection 

requests individually in the order the 

transmission provider received them.54

The Commission adopted these 

procedures at a time when most 

interconnection requests were for large 

traditional generating facilities that 

would use readily available 

transmission capacity. In the 2008 

Technical Conference Order, the 

Commission acknowledged that, while 

the generator interconnection process 

set forth in the pro forma LGIP made 

sense at the time that the Commission 

adopted it, it has since led to some 

unexpected consequences, particularly 

for transmission systems with numerous 

interconnection customers and limited 

excess transmission capacity.55 The 

Commission also explained that surges 

in the volume of new types of 

generating facilities, principally 

renewable generation, were placing 

stress on interconnection queue 

management because such generating 

facilities can be constructed and placed 

into operation more quickly than 

traditional types of generating facilities. 

The increase in the number of 

interconnection requests and limited 

transmission capacity have not subsided 

since the issuance of the 2008 Technical 

Conference Order. Although in Order 

No. 845, the Commission attempted to 

address interconnection queue 

backlogs,56 the interconnection queue 

backlog has persisted and worsened. 

Indeed, as of the end of 2021, there were 

over 8,100 active interconnection 

requests in interconnection queues 

throughout the United States, 

representing over 1,000 GW of 

generation and an estimated 420 GW of 

electric storage.57 This is more than 

triple the total volume, in gigawatts, of 

generation and electric storage in 

interconnection queues nationwide just 

five years earlier.58

19. The continued use of the 

Commission’s pro forma LGIP in the 

face of dramatic increases in 

interconnection requests is leading to a 

growing backlog of interconnection 

requests for many transmission 

providers. Based on Commission staff’s 

compilation of information posted by 

transmission providers for 2021, 

nationwide, almost 1,900 

interconnection requests were awaiting 

interconnection studies that had not 

been performed as of the tariff-defined 

deadline.59 These interconnection 

queue backlogs and study delays create 

uncertainty and inhibit project 

developers’ ability to interconnect 

generating facilities to the transmission 

system.60 In addition, as 

interconnection studies fall behind, the 

amount of time subsequent 

interconnection requests spend in the 

interconnection queue rises.61

20. Numerous factors appear to 

contribute to these interconnection 

queue backlogs. Increasing volumes of 

interconnection requests are entering 

the interconnection queue due to a 

confluence of the rapidly changing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39939 

62Corporations purchased over 30 GW of clean 

energy through power purchase agreements in 2021, 

up nearly 24% from 2020. U.S.-based purchases 

represented 17 GW of the power purchase 

agreements executed in 2021. Bloomberg New 

Energy Finance, Corporate Clean Energy Buying 

Tops 30GW Mark in Record Year (Jan. 31, 2022), 

https://about.bnef.com/blog/corporate-cleanenergy-buying-tops-30gw-mark-in-record-year/ 

#:∼:text=Corporate%20Clean%20Energy%20

Buying%20Tops%2030GW%20Mark%20in%20

Record%20Year,-January%2031%2C%20

2022&text=New%20York%20and%20

London%2C%20January,research%20firm%20

BloombergNEF%20 (BNEF). 

63From 2009 to 2021, the levelized cost of energy 

from unsubsidized utility scale wind and solar 

photovoltaic facilities dropped 72% and 90%, 

respectively. Lazard, Lazard’s Levelized Cost of 

Energy Analysis—Version 15.0, at 9 (Oct. 2021), 

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-costof-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelizedcost-of-hydrogen/ (Lazard’s LCOE). 

64For instance, 42% (285 GW) of solar and 8% 

(17 GW) of wind projects currently in the queue 

include are proposed as hybrid resources including 

electric storage. Queued Up at 18. 

65Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation 

NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,028 at P 36. 

66 Id. 

67For example, CAISO stated in its recent 

proposal to extend its interconnection study 

deadlines to accommodate its interconnection 

queue cluster 14 that neither CAISO nor the 

participating transmission owners could increase 

staffing as few experts are available to hire. Cal. 

Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 176 FERC ¶ 61,207, at 

PP 7, 21 (2021). The Midcontinent Independent 

System Operator (MISO) has indicated that it 

similarly has experienced delays in performance of 

interconnection studies by outside consultants. See 

MISO, Informational Report, Transmittal, Docket 

No. ER19–1960, at 12 (filed Nov. 16, 2020). 

68See May Joint Task Force Tr. 88:10–12 (Ted 

Thomas) (‘‘[T]he RTOs have been working on these 

interconnection issues and we don’t have a solution 

yet.’’). 

69 Dominion Energy S.C., Inc., Docket No. ER22– 

301–000 (Dec. 28, 2021) (delegated order) 

(Dominion); Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 176 FERC 

¶ 61,075 (2021) (Duke); PacifiCorp, 171 FERC 

¶ 61,112 (2020); Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Colo., 169 

FERC ¶ 61,182 (2019) (PSCo); Tri-State Generation 

& Transmission Ass’n, Inc., 173 FERC ¶ 61,015 

(2020) (2020 Tri-State Order). 

70See, e.g., Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, 

Inc., 178 FERC ¶ 61,141 (2022); Sw. Power Pool, 

Inc., 178 FERC ¶ 61,015 (2022). 

71See May Joint Task Force Tr. 23:6–11 (Riley 

Allen) (‘‘Ultimately, this system is not working 

efficiently now and those inefficiencies translate 

into costs. It’s not just cost on the developers, but 

I find from my decades of experience that, if there 

are inefficiencies in the system, they ultimately 

have to be borne by the loads and ratepayer 

interests.’’). 

72See id. 184:6–19 (Clifford Rechtschaffen) (‘‘I 

think it’s beyond dispute that we need queue 

reform. I don’t know if it’s a crisis, but there’s 

logjams, dysfunctions, inefficiencies . . . . I think 

there’s a real need to keep the foot on the gas and 

for FERC to provide guidance templates, best 

practices, . . . minimum baselines, while again, 

providing for flexibility.’’). 

73As in the background of this NOPR, we 

describe the generator interconnection process set 

forth in the Commission’s pro forma LGIP, which 

Continued 

resource mix,62 market forces,63 and 

emerging technologies.64 At the same 

time, available transmission capacity 

appears to have been exhausted in many 

regions. As the Commission observed in 

the Transmission Planning and Cost 

Allocation NOPR, ‘‘[t]he evidence 

suggests that long-term regional 

transmission planning and cost 

allocation to identify and plan for 

transmission needs . . . is not occurring 

in most transmission planning regions 

on a regular or consistent basis.’’ 65

Instead, the Commission added, 

significant transmission expansion 

appears to be happening in an 

incremental fashion, in response to 

individual interconnection requests.66

This reactive approach to transmission 

expansion adds to the challenge many 

proposed projects face to successfully 

complete the interconnection queue 

process and reach commercial 

operation. Therefore, the number of 

projects waiting in the interconnection 

queue is increasing. Further, 

transmission providers report that there 

is a nationwide shortage of qualified 

engineers to keep pace with the 

increasing number of interconnection 

requests in the queue and associated 

interconnection studies.67 Many, if not 

all, of these drivers are either ongoing or 

increasing. Thus, we are concerned that, 

without reforms to the generator 

interconnection process, existing 

interconnection queue backlogs are 

likely to intensify. 

21. In recent years, numerous 

transmission providers have responded 

to the types of trends and challenges 

outlined above by seeking to reform 

their interconnection queue processes.68

Since 2018, the Commission has 

approved proposals from five nonindependent transmission providers to 

transition from the serial first-come, 

first-served study process set forth in 

the pro forma LGIP to a first-ready, firstserved cluster study process that 

imposes increasing readiness 

requirements to advance through the 

study phases.69 Meanwhile, several 

RTOs/ISOs, including MISO and 

Southwest Power Pool (SPP), have 

proposed refinements to the cluster 

study processes in their regions that the 

Commission had previously approved.70

22. As the factors contributing to 

interconnection queue backlogs and 

study delays continue and even 

increase, it has become more apparent 

that the Commission’s existing generator 

interconnection procedures and 

agreements may be insufficient to 

ensure that interconnection customers 

are able to interconnect to the 

transmission system in a reliable, 

efficient, transparent, and timely 

manner, thereby ensuring that rates, 

terms, and conditions for Commissionjurisdictional services remain just and 

reasonable and not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential.71 We 

preliminarily find that the 

Commission’s pro forma LGIP, pro 

forma LGIA, pro forma SGIP, and pro 

forma SGIA result in rates, terms, and 

conditions pursuant to which 

transmission providers provide 

generator interconnection service are 

unjust and unreasonable and unduly 

discriminatory or preferential. Further, 

because the interconnection queue 

backlogs and study delays afflicting 

generator interconnection service 

nationwide hinder the timely 

development of new generation and 

thereby stifle competition in the 

wholesale electric markets, we 

preliminarily find that the 

Commission’s pro forma LGIP, pro 

forma LGIA, pro forma SGIP, and pro 

forma SGIA result in rates, terms, and 

conditions in the wholesale electric 

markets that are unjust and 

unreasonable and unduly 

discriminatory or preferential. 

23. Our preliminary findings are 

based on several features of the 

Commission’s existing generator 

interconnection procedures and 

agreements that are of concern, 

specifically: (1) the information (or lack 

thereof) available to prospective 

interconnection customers and the 

commitments required of them to enter 

and progress through the 

interconnection queue; (2) the reliance 

on a serial first-come, first-served study 

process and the standard to which 

transmission providers are held for 

meeting interconnection study 

deadlines; (3) the protocols for affected 

systems studies; (4) the provisions for 

studying new or hybrid (co-located) 

generation technologies and considering 

alternative transmission technologies; 

and (5) the performance requirements 

for inverter-based technologies, 

including wind, solar, and electric 

storage facilities. We describe these 

features of the Commission’s existing 

generator interconnection procedures 

and agreements—as set forth in the 

Commission’s pro forma LGIP, pro 

forma LGIA, pro forma SGIP, and pro 

forma SGIA—in this section and then 

turn to our proposed reforms to address 

the concerns identified with those 

features.72

24. First, the pro forma LGIP does not 

contain a process by which an 

interconnection customer can obtain 

information at a specific location or 

point of interconnection about potential 

interconnection costs prior to 

submitting an interconnection request. 

As a result, at the outset of the generator 

interconnection process,73


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39940 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

we recognize differs from many transmission 

providers’ generator interconnection processes due 

to Commission-approved variations. 74For example, the total cost of interconnection 

studies under the pro forma LGIP is often under 

$500,000. See pro Forma LGIP sections 3.1 ($10,000 

deposit with interconnection request), 6.1 ($10,000 

deposit with Feasibility Study Agreement), 7.2 

($50,000 deposit with System Impact Study 

Agreement), 8.1 (minimum $100,000 deposit with 

Facilities Study Agreement). 75See, e.g., Review of Generator Interconnection 

Agreements and Procedures, Technical Conference 

Transcript, Docket No. RM16–12–000, at 211:10–21 

(May 13, 2016) (Steve Naumann, Exelon Corp.) 

(filed Aug. 23, 2016) (‘‘We would look at putting 

let’s say new gas fired generation in PJM, it may 

have four queue positions. And we only intend to 

go through with one, that’s not speculation, that’s 

trying to get information on which is the most 

viable.’’). 

76For example, Dominion, PSCo, and Tri-State 

each provided statistics to this effect as part of their 

argument for interconnection queue reforms. See 

Dominion, Transmittal Letter, Docket No. ER22– 

301–000, at 8 (filed Nov. 1, 2021); PSCo, 

Transmittal Letter, Docket No. ER19–2774–000, at 

27 (filed Sep. 9, 2019); Tri-State, Transmittal Letter, 

Docket No. ER21–410–000, at 20 (filed Nov. 13, 

2020). 

77See pro forma LGIP section 7.6; see also May 

Joint Task Force Tr. 70:20–71:6 (Matthew Nelson) 

(analogizing reiterative studies to going to the 

supermarket to buy ingredients for a recipe without 

knowing how much the ingredients cost, finding 

out at the register that they cost too much for your 

budget, and having to ‘‘go home, get a new recipe, 

and start it all over again’’). 

78 Id 74:9–21 (Andrew French) (stating that 

generator developers complain principally about 

cost certainty and cost sharing and that ‘‘cost 

certainty is the much bigger issue’’ given that ‘‘an 

essential element of being able to sell a product is 

to know what your inputs are so you can market 

it’’). 

79Reasonable efforts are defined as ‘‘actions that 

are timely and consistent with Good Utility Practice 

and are substantially equivalent to those a Party 

would use to protect its own interests.’’ Order No. 

2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 67; pro forma LGIP 

section 1. 

80See pro forma LGIP sections 2.2, 6.3, 7.4, 8.3. 

81 Id. section 3.7 (‘‘[I]f Interconnection Customer 

fails to adhere to all requirements of this LGIP . . . 

Transmission Provider shall deem the 

Interconnection Request to be withdrawn and shall 

provide written notice to Interconnection Customer 

. . . [.] Interconnection Customer shall have fifteen 

(15) Business Days in which to either respond with 

information or actions that cures the deficiency or 

to notify Transmission provider of its intent to 

pursue Dispute Resolution.’’). 

82Affected systems studies are used to study the 

impact of proposed interconnection requests on 

neighboring transmission systems. Transmission 

providers are obligated to coordinate the conduct of 

affected system studies, but the Commission has not 

required transmission providers to follow any 

specific affected system coordination process. See 

pro forma LGIP section 3.6. 

83EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Midcontinent 

Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 168 FERC ¶ 61,173 

(2019) (EDF v. MISO). 

interconnection customers typically 

have little insight into the 

interconnection capacity available at 

various points on the transmission 

system. Furthermore, interconnection 

customers face limited financial 

commitments to enter and stay in the 

interconnection queue and few 

requirements to prove the commercial 

viability of proposed generating 

facilities.74 Therefore, developers often 

submit multiple interconnection 

requests for proposed generating 

facilities at various points of 

interconnection, not all of which are 

expected to reach commercial operation, 

as an exploratory mechanism to obtain 

information to allow them to choose the 

most favorable site.75

25. Second, securing a higher 

interconnection queue position is 

valuable when interconnecting to a 

transmission provider that uses the 

serial first-come, first-served study 

process as laid out in the pro forma 

LGIP because the transmission provider 

will process interconnection requests 

(i.e., perform required interconnection 

studies) in the order in which the 

interconnection requests are received. 

By obtaining an early queue position, a 

generating facility may be able to use 

available transmission capacity and not 

need to incur costs for network 

upgrades that later-queued 

interconnection customers potentially 

incur. Under this framework, 

interconnection customers have an 

incentive to submit interconnection 

requests to secure a queue position as 

early as possible, even if they are not 

prepared to move forward with the 

proposed generating facility at the time 

the interconnection request is made, to 

identify locations with available 

headroom on the transmission system 

and establish priority over later-queued 

interconnection requests. 

26. Often, these more speculative 

interconnection requests do not prove to 

be commercially viable. For example, in 

many interconnection queues, the MW 

volumes of interconnection requests far 

exceed the transmission provider’s peak 

network load.76 A lack of commercial 

viability often means that many 

proposed generating facilities in the 

interconnection queue will eventually 

withdraw after not finding a purchaser 

for their output. In the case where the 

interconnection customer submits 

multiple requests, the developer may 

select only the one or two most viable 

project candidates and withdraw the 

interconnection requests for the 

remaining projects. These withdrawals 

then impact the remaining 

interconnection customers in the 

interconnection queue. A withdrawal 

may necessitate re-studies and cause the 

shifting of network upgrade costs to 

lower-queued interconnection 

customers. New cost estimates, in turn, 

can alter a proposed generating facility’s 

commercial viability and create further 

re-studies and withdrawals, often 

referred to as cascading re-studies and 

withdrawals.77 These re-studies 

exacerbate the cost uncertainty faced by 

interconnection customers 78 and 

prevent the transmission provider from 

maintaining a model base case for how 

its transmission system is expected to 

reliably operate and serve load in the 

future. 

27. These delays faced by individual 

interconnection customers may hinder 

the timely development of new 

generation, and, thereby, stifle 

competition in wholesale energy 

markets or delay access to potential low 

cost generation, which ultimately drive 

up costs for consumers. 

28. Compounding these issues, the 

pro forma LGIP does not require 

transmission providers to meet 

deadlines for conducting 

interconnection studies. Rather, 

transmission providers are only 

required to use ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ 79 to 

complete interconnection studies on 

time.80 Despite complaints from 

interconnection customers, the 

Commission has not yet found that a 

transmission provider failed to use 

reasonable efforts to meet 

interconnection study deadlines, even 

though such studies are routinely 

completed months or years late. While 

interconnection customers can be 

removed from the queue for failure to 

comply with deadlines throughout the 

generator interconnection process,81

transmission providers face no 

consequences for failure to comply with 

study deadlines. 

29. Third, similar to the lack of 

requirements for timely completion of 

interconnection studies, the pro forma 

LGIP provides almost no requirements 

regarding how or when transmission 

providers or affected systems should 

complete affected system studies; in 

particular, even the reasonable efforts 

standard does not apply to these 

studies.82 In practice, these studies often 

lag behind those completed by the host 

transmission provider and are 

sometimes completed very late in the 

process, causing an additional round of 

delays and cost uncertainty for 

interconnection customers.83

30. In short, under the Commission’s 

existing pro forma LGIP, pro forma 

LGIA, pro forma SGIP, and pro forma 

SGIA, it is difficult for transmission 

providers to disincentivize 

interconnection customers from 

entering multiple speculative 

interconnection requests into the 

interconnection queue or minimize the 

risk of late-stage withdrawals of 

interconnection requests. Conversely, 

transmission providers have little 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39941 

84Reform of Generator Interconnection 

Procedures and Agreements, 157 FERC ¶ 61,212, at 

P 30 (2016). 

85See, e.g., SOO Green HVDC Link Project Co, 

LLC, Complaint, Docket No. EL21–85–000, at 24, 

38–39 (filed June 21, 2021). 

86As of the end of 2019, 90% of the generating 

capacity that was waiting in interconnection queues 

nationwide was wind, solar, or energy storage 

projects. See Jay Caspary et al., Ams. for a Clean 

Energy Grid, Disconnected: The Need for a New 

Generator Interconnection Policy, at 4 (Jan. 2021), 

https://cleanenergygrid.org/disconnected-the-needfor-new-interconnection-policy/ (ACEG Report). 

87 42% (285 GW) of solar and 8% (17 GW) of 

wind projects currently in the queue are proposed 

as hybrid resources including electric storage. 

Queued Up at 18. 

88 In researching hybrid interconnection requests, 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

encountered many projects for which ‘‘the 

‘Generator Type’ field includes multiple types for 

a single queue entry.’’ See Mark Bolinger, et al., 

Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l Lab’y, Hybrid Power 

Plants: Status of Installed and Proposed Projects, at 

16 (Aug. 2021), https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/ 

files/hybrid_plant_development_2021.pdf. 

89Hybrid Resource Coalition, Comments, Docket 

No. AD20–9–000, at 11–12 (filed Sept. 20, 2021); 

City of New York, Comments, Docket No. AD20–9– 

000, at 3 (filed Sept. 20, 2021); Clean Grid Alliance, 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 3 (filed 

Sept. 20, 2021); Savion, Post-Technical Conference 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 7 (filed 

Sept. 24, 2020); Enel, Post-Technical Conference 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 2–3 (filed 

Sept. 24, 2020). 

90A variety of technologies offer potential 

alternatives to standard infrastructure network 

upgrades (e.g., reconductoring transmission lines or 

building new ones). These technologies include 

advanced power flow control devices, transmission 

switching, dynamic line ratings, static synchronous 

compensators, static volt-ampere reactive (VAR) 

compensators, and electric storage in specific use 

cases. 

91See, e.g., EDF Renewables, Comments, Docket 

No. RM21–17–000, at 16 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); State 

Agencies, Comments, Docket No. RM21–27–000, at 

30–33 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); Alliant Energy 

Corporate Services, Inc. et al., Comments, Docket 

No. RM20–16–000, at 6 (filed Mar. 22, 2021) (stating 

that ‘‘utilization of [dynamic line ratings] can 

improve contingency planning and defer or 

eliminate the need for line upgrades or 

reconductoring’’). 

92See, e.g., EDF Renewables, Comments, Docket 

No. RM21–17–000, at 16 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); 

Potomac Economics, Comments, Docket No. RM21– 

17–000, at 8–9 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); State Agencies, 

Comments, Docket No. RM21–27–000, at 31–32 

(filed Nov. 30, 2021). 

93Non-synchronous generating facilities are 

‘‘connected to the bulk power system through 

power electronics, but do not produce power at 

system frequency (60 Hz).’’ They ‘‘do not operate 

in the same way as traditional generators and 

respond differently to network disturbances.’’ 

Reactive Power Requirements for Non-Synchronous 

Generation, Order No. 827, 81 FR 40793 (June 23, 

2016), 155 FERC ¶ 61,277, at P 10 n.24 (2016) 

(citing Interconnection for Wind Energy, Order No. 

661, 70 FR 34993 (June 16, 2005), 111 FERC 

¶ 61,353, at P 3 n.4 (2005)). 

incentive to perform interconnection 

studies in a timely fashion. The 

resulting timing and cost uncertainty 

creates a barrier to entry that hinders 

competitive wholesale electric markets. 

As the Commission has previously 

observed, delayed interconnection study 

results or unexpected cost increases can 

disrupt numerous aspects of generating 

facility development, including project 

financing and the ability to obtain a 

power purchase agreement.84

Developers in the interconnection 

queues have recently filed complaints 

with the Commission alleging that 

interconnection study delays have 

caused direct and indirect financial 

harm to them by threatening the 

viability of their projects.85 Cost 

uncertainty poses an especially 

significant obstacle because proposed 

generating facilities may simply not be 

able to absorb substantial unexpected 

interconnection costs allocated as the 

result of a re-study. As indicated earlier, 

our fundamental concern is the followon impacts of these issues on rates paid 

by consumers. Unnecessary 

interconnection costs, either on the part 

of project developers or transmission 

providers, are ultimately passed through 

to consumers through higher energy or 

transmission rates, respectively. 

Conversely, efficient interconnection 

queues and well-functioning wholesale 

markets deliver enormous benefits to 

consumers by driving down wholesale 

electricity costs. 

31. Fourth, in addition to our 

preliminary findings related to the 

interconnection queue backlogs 

described above, we preliminarily find 

that the Commission’s pro forma LGIP, 

pro forma LGIA, pro forma SGIP, and 

pro forma SGIA are unjust and 

unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, 

and preferential as applied to several 

interconnection procedural and 

modeling issues. This set of inquiries 

was prompted by newer technologies 

entering interconnection queues in 

greater numbers. Interconnection 

queues consist now predominantly of 

non-synchronous resources such as 

wind, solar, and electric storage 

projects, all of which have operating 

characteristics that were not anticipated 

when the Commission issued Order No. 

2003.86 In particular, interest in hybrid 

resources, which combine more than 

one generating facility type, often with 

electric storage, has increased 

dramatically.87 This change in the types 

of resources has brought to light several 

issues. For example, the pro forma LGIP 

does not specify whether 

interconnection customers of all 

resource types can submit a single 

interconnection request for co-located 

components of a generating facility, 

although research shows that this option 

is frequently used in regions where it 

has been made available through 

variations from the Commission’s pro 

forma generator interconnection 

procedures.88

32. Further, the addition of generating 

facilities that do not affect the requested 

interconnection service level are often 

deemed a material modification without 

review, which can cause unnecessary 

network upgrades. Also, the use of the 

surplus interconnection process, as 

adopted in Order No. 845, has proven 

helpful for interconnection customers 

seeking to access interconnection 

capacity that has already been approved 

through an LGIA, but it is currently only 

available when a resource is fully 

operational. Lastly, with respect to 

interconnection requests involving 

electric storage resources, a 

transmission provider may use 

operating assumptions for 

interconnection studies that employ 

worst-case assumptions or other 

inaccuracies (e.g., that electric storage 

will charge during peak load periods) 89

that do not accurately reflect the 

planned operation of these resources, 

thus requiring network upgrades that 

may not be necessary. 

33. We also preliminarily find that 

failing to consider alternative 

transmission technologies that can be 

deployed both more quickly and at 

lower costs than network upgrades may 

render Commission-jurisdictional rates 

unjust and unreasonable. Therefore, we 

propose to modify the Commission’s pro 

forma LGIP and SGIP to require their 

consideration to achieve their benefits 

in generator interconnection 

processes.90 Alternative transmission 

technologies might allow for the 

interconnection of a proposed 

generating facility at a lower cost and 

require less time to implement than 

traditional network upgrades.91 Despite 

these potential benefits, alternative 

transmission technologies often do not 

receive the same consideration during 

generator interconnection processes and 

have only been deployed in a small 

number of instances.92 The result is that 

interconnection customers—and 

ultimately consumers—may be paying 

more than is reasonable to reliably 

interconnect new generating facilities, 

rendering Commission-jurisdictional 

rates unjust and unreasonable and 

unduly discriminatory and preferential. 

34. Fifth, we preliminarily find that 

the pro forma LGIP and SGIP’s data 

submission and performance 

requirements for non-synchronous 

generating facilities 93 (including wind, 

solar, and electric storage facilities) 

require reform to avoid undue 

discrimination and ensure just and 

reasonable Commission-jurisdictional 

rates. When an interconnection 

customer submits an interconnection 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39942 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

94This information includes model block 

diagrams for excitation systems, power system 

stabilizers, and governor systems, to inform and 

verify the dynamic models used by the transmission 

provider to assess the proposed synchronous 

generating facility’s response to transmission 

system disturbances. See pro forma LGIP app. 1, 

attach. A. 95See infra PP 310–312. 96Pro forma LGIA art. 9.73; pro forma SGIA art. 

1.57. 

97See infra note 463. 

98PacifiCorp, 171 FERC ¶ 61,112 at P 3. 

99NRIS allows the interconnection customer to 

integrate its generating facility with the 

transmission provider’s transmission system in a 

manner comparable to that in which the 

transmission provider integrates its generating 

facilities to serve native load customers, or in an 

RTO/ISO with market-based congestion 

management, in the same manner as Network 

Resources. NRIS in and of itself does not convey 

transmission service. Pro forma LGIP section 1. 

100PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 21. 

request for a proposed synchronous 

generating facility, it must provide a 

variety of system information, which 

allows the transmission provider to 

assess and model the facility’s ability to 

respond appropriately to transmission 

system disturbances.94 By contrast, nonsynchronous generating facilities are not 

required to provide a comparable level 

of information that would allow the 

transmission provider to model and 

assess the facility’s ability to respond 

appropriately to transmission system 

disturbances.95 As the penetration of 

wind, solar, and electric storage 

resources increases, the behavior of 

these types of non-synchronous 

generating facilities during transmission 

system disturbances becomes more 

consequential, as does the need to 

assess their potential contribution to 

cascading outages or other major electric 

system issues. Furthermore, we are 

concerned that, without reform to 

require interconnection customers 

developing non-synchronous resources 

to provide sufficiently accurate and 

validated models, interconnection 

studies may not identify the appropriate 

interconnection facilities and network 

upgrades needed for that 

interconnection request. If the 

interconnection studies are not able to 

identify the appropriate interconnection 

facilities and network upgrades, then 

the interconnection costs assigned to 

that interconnection customer may be 

skewed, resulting in unjust and 

unreasonable rates for interconnection 

service. 

35. In addition, we are concerned that 

the pro forma LGIA and SGIA may 

impose disparate performance 

requirements during system 

disturbances on synchronous and nonsynchronous resources. Specifically, the 

physical characteristics of synchronous 

generating facilities result in such 

facilities continuing to inject electric 

current during transmission system 

disturbances, consistent with the need 

to remain ‘‘connected to and 

synchronized with the Transmission 

System’’ as required by the pro forma 

LGIA and SGIA.96 As a result, services 

that support transmission system 

reliability are not disrupted during such 

events. However, the pro forma LGIA 

and SGIA do not currently require nonsynchronous generating facilities to 

continue injecting current in a 

comparable manner during system 

disturbances. Specifically, nonsynchronous resources many cease 

injecting current through ‘‘momentary 

cessation.’’ 97 As a result, transmission 

providers cannot determine whether 

non-synchronous generating facilities, 

in the aggregate, will continue to inject 

electric current during transmission 

system disturbances. 

36. In light of the concerns outlined 

above, we preliminarily find that it is 

necessary to reform the Commission’s 

pro forma LGIP, pro forma LGIA, pro 

forma SGIP, and pro forma SGIA to 

ensure that interconnection customers 

are able to interconnect to the 

transmission system in a reliable, 

efficient, transparent, and timely 

manner, thereby ensuring that rates, 

terms, and conditions for Commissionjurisdictional services remain just and 

reasonable and not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential. 

II. Proposed Reforms 

A. Reforms To Implement a First-Ready, 

First-Served Cluster Study Process 

37. In recent years, late-stage 

withdrawals of interconnection requests 

have caused significant delays in 

interconnection study processes. In its 

January 2020 interconnection queue 

reform filing, PacifiCorp noted that 

about 75% of all interconnection 

requests ultimately withdraw from its 

interconnection queue and that 

withdrawals are a significant cause of 

delays in the generator interconnection 

process because withdrawals trigger restudies. PacifiCorp argued that the 

current generator interconnection 

process encourages speculative projects 

to enter the interconnection queue 

because it does not require any progress 

toward commercial viability and does 

not penalize withdrawals from the 

interconnection queue.98

38. In support of its 2019 

interconnection queue reform proposal, 

PSCo stated that it has experienced a 

surge in interconnection requests that 

cannot be processed under its current 

generator interconnection process. PSCo 

explained that, because the amount of 

generation requesting interconnection is 

significantly greater than the region’s 

needs, only a small fraction of the 

generating facilities in the 

interconnection queue are likely to 

reach commercial operation. In 

addition, PSCo stated that, due to the 

configuration of PSCo’s transmission 

system and the fact that most requests 

are for network resource integration 

service (NRIS),99 almost all lowerqueued interconnection requests, 

regardless of study phase, are affected 

by changes to higher-queued 

interconnection requests.100

39. For the reasons explained above, 

we preliminarily find that the 

Commission’s pro forma LGIP and LGIA 

are unjust, unreasonable, unduly 

discriminatory, and preferential and 

that reforms are needed to allow 

interconnection customers to 

interconnect in a reliable, efficient, 

timely manner, thereby ensuring that 

rates, terms, and conditions for 

Commission-jurisdictional services 

remain just and reasonable and not 

unduly discriminatory or preferential. 

In particular, with regard to 

interconnecting in an efficient and 

timely manner, we propose reforms to 

the pro forma LGIP that: (1) require 

transmission providers to offer an 

optional informational interconnection 

study to serve as additional information 

for prospective interconnection 

customers in deciding whether to 

submit an interconnection request and 

set minimum requirements for 

transmission providers to publicly post 

available information pertaining to 

generator interconnection; (2) require 

transmission providers to implement a 

first-ready, first-served cluster study 

process that allocates costs associated 

with cluster studies and identified 

network upgrades consistent with the 

discussion below; and (3) impose more 

stringent financial commitments and 

readiness requirements on 

interconnection customers, including 

increased study deposits, more stringent 

site control requirements, a commercial 

readiness framework, and higher 

withdrawal penalties. To implement 

these reforms, we also propose to 

require transmission providers to 

establish a transition process, consistent 

with the proposed requirements below. 

1. Interconnection Information Access 

a. Need for Reform 

40. We are concerned that the lack of 

transparency for prospective 

interconnection customers to obtain 

information about potential 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39943 

101 Dominion, Docket No. ER22–301–000 (Dec. 

28, 2021) (delegated order); Duke, 176 FERC 

¶ 61,075 at P 19; PacifiCorp, 171 FERC ¶ 61,112 at 

P 54; PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at PP 9–10, 30; TriState Generation & Transmission Ass’n, Inc., 174 

FERC ¶ 61,021, at P 6 (2021) (Tri-State). 

102See, e.g., Dominion, OATT and Service 

Agreements, attach. M (4.5.0), section 3.1; PSCo, 

Transmission and Service Agreements Tariff, 

OATT, attach. N. (0.8.0), section 6.1 (requiring a 

$10,000 deposit for an informational study request). 

103The pro forma LGIA defines ‘‘Transmission 

Provider’s Interconnection Facilities’’ as ‘‘all 

facilities and equipment owned, controlled or 

operated by the Transmission Provider from the 

Point of Change of Ownership to the Point of 

Interconnection as identified in Appendix A to the 

Standard Large Generator Interconnection 

Agreement, including any modifications, additions 

or upgrades to such facilities and equipment. 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection Facilities 

are sole use facilities and shall not include 

Distribution Upgrades, Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades or Network Upgrades.’’ These are distinct 

from ‘‘Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection 

Facilities,’’ which are those facilities ‘‘identified in 

Appendix A of the Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement, that are located 

between the Generating Facility and the Point of 

Change of Ownership, including any modification, 

addition, or upgrades to such facilities and 

equipment necessary to physically and electrically 

interconnect the Generating Facility to the 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission System. 

Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection 

Facilities are sole use facilities.’’ Pro forma LGIA 

section 1. 

104See, e.g., Dominion, OATT and Service 

Agreements, attach. M (4.5.0), section 3.1 (‘‘Any one 

Interconnection Customer (including affiliates) 

shall have no more than five (5) requests for 

Informational Interconnection Study reports 

pending at one time.’’). 

interconnection costs prior to 

submitting an interconnection request is 

problematic. Without this information, 

it is difficult for interconnection 

customers to assess the viability of a 

specific proposed generating facility. 

Subsequently, interconnection 

customers submit multiple speculative 

interconnection requests in an attempt 

to obtain information through the 

system impact study process about the 

costs associated with various project 

configurations. 

41. Some transmission providers have 

attempted to solve these problems by 

making more information available to 

interconnection customers before they 

enter the interconnection queue through 

an optional informational 

interconnection study that provides 

estimates of costs and scheduling for 

various sites.101 These optional 

informational interconnection studies 

evaluate the feasibility of a proposed 

interconnection request and provide 

interconnection customers with nonbinding information upon which to base 

preliminary siting decisions. 

Transmission providers that offer these 

types of studies require a $10,000 

deposit for the studies, subject to a trueup based on actual costs of performing 

the studies.102 While some transmission 

providers offer such an option, it is not 

currently required by the pro forma 

LGIP. 

b. Proposed Reforms 

i. Informational Interconnection Study 

42. To address the lack of information 

available to interconnection customers 

prior to entering the interconnection 

queue, and the associated impacts on 

development of new generating 

facilities, interconnection queue 

backlogs, and interconnection study 

delays, we propose to revise the 

Commission’s pro forma LGIP to require 

transmission providers to offer an 

informational interconnection study to 

serve as additional information for 

prospective interconnection customers 

in deciding whether to submit an 

interconnection request. The study 

would provide cost estimates for the 

transmission provider’s interconnection 

facilities 103 and network upgrade costs 

specific to the interconnection scenario 

detailed in the study agreement. 

Specifically, we propose to revise 

sections 6.1–6.3 and Appendix 2 to the 

pro forma LGIP to implement this 

reform: section 6.1 (Informational 

Interconnection Study Agreement), 

section 6.2 (Scope of Informational 

Interconnection Study), section 6.3 

(Informational Interconnection Study 

Procedures), Appendix 2 (Informational 

Interconnection Study Request form), 

and Attachment A to Appendix 2 

(Informational Interconnection Study 

Agreement form). We also propose to 

include new definitions for an 

informational interconnection study and 

informational interconnection study 

agreement. 

43. Proposed section 6.1 of the pro 

forma LGIP provides that a prospective 

interconnection customer may request 

an informational interconnection study. 

The proposed provision would limit 

prospective interconnection customers 

to no more than five separate 

informational interconnection study 

requests pending at a time to ensure that 

transmission providers are not 

overburdened with these studies and 

that one prospective interconnection 

customer cannot prevent others from 

taking advantage of this informationgathering process.104 Each configuration 

of an interconnection request would 

require a separate informational 

interconnection study. For example, 

prospective interconnection customers 

seeking to evaluate different sites or 

different voltage levels at the same site 

would need to submit a separate request 

for each configuration. The 

informational interconnection study 

would be at the interconnection 

customer’s expense, and each study 

would require a $10,000 deposit, subject 

to a true-up based on actual study costs. 

44. Under the proposal, within seven 

business days of the receipt of a 

prospective interconnection customer’s 

request for an informational 

interconnection study, the transmission 

provider would have to provide the 

prospective interconnection customer 

with an informational interconnection 

study agreement in the form of 

Attachment A to Appendix 2 of the pro 

forma LGIP. The informational 

interconnection study agreement would 

specify the technical data that the 

prospective interconnection customer 

must provide and an estimate of the 

expected costs of the study, including, 

to the extent known by the transmission 

provider, an estimate of the study costs 

expected to be incurred by any relevant 

affected systems. The prospective 

interconnection customer would have 

10 business days to execute the 

agreement and deliver it to the 

transmission provider, along with the 

relevant technical data and study 

deposit, after which the transmission 

provider would have 45 days to 

complete the study. 

45. Proposed section 6.2 of the pro 

forma LGIP explains that the 

informational interconnection study 

consists of a sensitivity analysis based 

on the assumptions specified in the 

informational interconnection study 

agreement. The informational 

interconnection study would identify 

potential interconnection facilities and 

network upgrades that may be required 

to interconnect the prospective 

interconnection customer’s proposed 

generating facility, including an 

approximation of the costs of such 

interconnection facilities and network 

upgrades. The transmission provider 

would also coordinate with affected 

systems that may be impacted by the 

prospective interconnection customer’s 

request to provide information on 

affected systems-related issues. 

46. Proposed Attachment A to 

Appendix 2 of the pro forma LGIP 

contains the informational 

interconnection study agreement form. 

The form agreement explains that the 

informational interconnection study is 

performed solely for informational 

purposes and is not binding on either 

party. It also requires the study report to 

provide specific information, including, 

at a minimum: (1) preliminary 

identification of any circuit breaker 

short circuit capability limits exceeded; 

(2) preliminary identification of any 

thermal overload or voltage limit 

violations; and (3) estimated network 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39944 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

105See, e.g., Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, 

Points of Interconnection, https://giqueue.

misoenergy.org/PoiAnalysis/index.html (accessed 

March 17, 2022). 106 Id. 

upgrade costs related to the identified 

overloads and violations. 

47. We recognize that the benefit of 

the informational interconnection study 

results would depend on the 

information provided, the assumptions 

made, and the timing of the proposed 

interconnection, with studies looking at 

interconnection requests with proposed 

commercial operation dates further into 

the future carrying greater uncertainty. 

Nevertheless, we seek comment on 

whether the informational 

interconnection study, as proposed, 

would provide prospective 

interconnection customers with 

sufficient and timely information to 

inform decision-making prior to 

submitting an interconnection request. 

48. We seek comment on whether 

transmission providers should be 

required to establish a request window 

of a limited number of days each year 

in which potential interconnection 

customers can request an optional 

informational interconnection study. 

Lastly, we seek comment on the burdens 

on transmission providers of conducting 

informational studies and whether other 

options, such as the proposal below for 

public interconnection information, 

might strike a better balance of 

providing interconnection customers 

with useful information while making 

efficient use of transmission provider 

resources. 

ii. Public Interconnection Information 

49. In addition to the optional 

informational interconnection study 

described above, to address the lack of 

information available to interconnection 

customers prior to entering the 

interconnection queue, and the 

associated impacts on development of 

new generating facilities, 

interconnection queue backlogs, and 

interconnection study delays, we also 

propose to set minimum requirements 

for transmission providers to publicly 

post available information pertaining to 

generator interconnection. We believe 

that providing an interactive visual 

representation 105 of available 

interconnection capacity, as explained 

below, across a transmission provider’s 

transmission system could provide 

valuable information to prospective 

interconnection customers that are 

considering efficient points of 

interconnection and could ameliorate 

the incentive to submit multiple 

speculative interconnection requests to 

gather information useful to assessing 

the viability of proposed generating 

facilities. 

50. Some transmission providers 

already post such generator 

interconnection information as an extra 

tool for prospective interconnection 

customers. For example, MISO provides 

an interactive heatmap of expected 

congestion to serve as a guide on 

potential points of interconnection with 

available interconnection capacity.106

The heatmap allows prospective 

interconnection customers to see 

estimated changes in variables such as 

the distribution factor (an 

approximation of congestion) and the 

percentage impact on power flow for 

monitored facilities based on a userentered MW amount and voltage level at 

a user-selected point of interconnection. 

Transmission congestion is a key 

consideration for potential 

interconnection customers because 

elevated congestion in a particular area 

of the transmission system may signal 

that it is a location where network 

upgrades are more likely to be required 

or curtailments are more likely to occur 

relative to an area with less congestion. 

This heatmap is based on the 

assumptions in a given interconnection 

study cycle and MISO includes the 

caveat that the tool does not provide 

consideration for all system conditions, 

including voltage and stability 

constraints. 

51. In order to make similar 

information available to prospective 

interconnection customers across the 

country—ensuring comparable access to 

information regardless of the 

interconnecting transmission provider— 

we propose to require transmission 

providers to maintain and make 

publicly available an interactive visual 

representation of available 

interconnection capacity as well as a 

table of relevant interconnection metrics 

that allow prospective interconnection 

customers to see certain estimates of a 

potential generating facility’s effect on 

the transmission provider’s 

transmission system. Specifically, we 

propose to revise section 6.4 of the pro 

forma LGIP to implement this reform. 

Section 6.4 (Publicly Posted 

Interconnection Information) would set 

forth minimum requirements that 

include a heatmap of estimated 

incremental injection capacity (in MW) 

available at each bus in the transmission 

provider’s footprint under N–1 

conditions, as well as providing a table 

of results showing the estimated impact 

of the addition of a proposed project 

(based on the user-specified MW 

amount, voltage level, and point of 

interconnection) for each monitored 

facility impacted by the proposed 

project on: (1) the distribution factor; (2) 

the MW impact (based on the proposed 

project size and the distribution factor); 

(3) the percentage impact on the 

monitored facility (based on the MW 

values of the proposed project and the 

monitored facility rating); (4) the 

percentage of power flow on the 

monitored facility before the proposed 

project; and (5) the percentage power 

flow on the monitored facility after the 

injection of the proposed project. These 

metrics would be calculated based on 

the power flow model of the cluster 

study or re-study with the transfer 

simulated from each bus to the whole 

transmission providers footprint (to 

approximate NRIS), and with the 

incremental capacity at each bus 

decremented by the existing and queued 

generation in the Cluster (based on the 

existing or requested interconnection 

service limit of the generation). These 

metrics would be intended to facilitate 

a high-level comparison between 

various points of interconnection, 

without submitting an interconnection 

request. We propose to require 

transmission providers to make this 

information available on their public 

websites to facilitate transparency and 

the usefulness of this information for 

prospective interconnection customers. 

We propose to require transmission 

providers to update this information 

within 30 days after the completion of 

each cluster study and re-study. Should 

prospective interconnection customers 

require more detailed analysis, they 

could submit a request for an 

informational interconnection study, as 

we proposed to establish above in 

Section A.1.b. 

52. We seek comment on whether 

there are any security concerns with this 

proposed requirement. We also seek 

comment on whether the assumptions 

specified for the analysis are the right 

set of assumptions. 

2. Cluster Study 

a. Need for Reform 

53. As discussed above, the 

inefficiency of the pro forma serial firstcome, first-served interconnection study 

process in the pro forma LGIP is a major 

cause of the backlogs delaying 

transmission providers’ interconnection 

queues. Using the pro forma serial 

interconnection study process in the 

face of a large interconnection queue 

backlog leads to uncertainty with regard 

to how long it will take to complete the 

interconnection study process, and the 

interconnection customer’s cost 

responsibility for network upgrades. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39945 

107See May Joint Task Force Tr. 43:25–44:4 (Riley 

Allen) (‘‘Clustering helps the regions identify what 

I’ll call the backbone or trunk facilities that provide 

efficiencies in the system to the benefit ultimately 

of ratepayers. New England has been relying on 

clustering and I’m told that that’s going very 

well.’’). 

108See, e.g., Duke, 176 FERC ¶ 61,075 at P 3 

(explaining that, in many cases, assignment of such 

significant network upgrade costs can make new 

generation projects infeasible, incentivizing those 

projects to delay in committing to fund the network 

upgrades or to withdraw from the interconnection 

queue, causing delays and the need for re-studies). 

Interconnection customers may be even more likely 

to withdraw in RTO/ISO areas where the 

Commission has allowed for participant funding of 

network upgrades, whereby the interconnection 

customer will not be fully reimbursed for the cost 

of the network upgrades. 

109See Order No. 845–A, 166 FERC ¶ 61,137 at P 

78 (‘‘The principle of cost causation generally 

requires that costs ‘are to be allocated to those [that] 

cause the costs to be incurred and reap the resulting 

benefits.’’’) (citing S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 

762 F.3d 41, 87 (D.C. Cir. 2014)) (quoting NARUC 

v. FERC, 475 F.3d at 1285). 

110Pro forma LGIP section 2.3. 

111 Id. section 6.2. Some transmission providers— 

including CAISO, Arizona Public Service Company, 

El Paso Electric Company (El Paso Electric), Sierra 

Pacific Power Company and Nevada Power 

Company (jointly, NV Energy), and Public Service 

Company of New Mexico (PNM)—have eliminated 

the feasibility study to reduce interconnection 

request processing time. 

112 Id. section 6.3. 

113 Id. section 7.3. 

114 Id. section 7.4. 

115Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 153– 

156; pro forma LGIP section 4.2. If the transmission 

provider elects to study interconnection requests 

using clustering, all interconnection requests 

received within 180 days (queue cluster window) 

must be studied together without regard to the 

nature of the underlying interconnection service, 

whether NRIS or ERIS. However, the pro forma 

LGIP allows the transmission provider to study an 

interconnection request separately based on the 

electrical remoteness of the proposed generating 

facility. Pro forma LGIP section 4.2. 

116 Id. section 8.2. 

54. Even for transmission providers 

that have not yet experienced large 

backlogs, the serial interconnection 

study process may cause unnecessary 

delay and inefficiently allocate network 

upgrade costs. Under the pro forma 

LGIP study process, interconnection 

requests are typically studied 

individually where a single proposed 

generating facility may create a need for 

network upgrades. This current serial 

process may result in a piecemeal 

identification of network upgrades 

which does not account for possible 

efficiencies of studying multiple 

interconnection customer requests and 

identifying fewer network upgrades that 

are able to accommodate multiple 

interconnection requests, particularly 

requests that may be located in a similar 

area.107

55. Moreover, advancing 

interconnection customers’ facilities 

through the queue based solely on date 

of entry may result in inefficiencies 

where earlier queued customers have 

the potential to delay later-queued 

facilities. Specifically, the serial process 

combined with existing allocation of 

costs may cause unreasonable delays in 

the study process. Under existing tariffs 

within the RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ 

ISO regions, the transmission provider 

allocates the full cost of those network 

upgrades to the individual 

interconnection customer. Although the 

crediting policy in the pro forma LGIP 

requires that the interconnection 

customer is ultimately reimbursed for 

the cost of the network upgrades, the 

large upfront network upgrade cost 

allocation may render a proposed 

generating facility economically nonviable, such that the interconnection 

customer is forced to withdraw from the 

interconnection queue.108 Unless the 

withdrawing interconnection customer’s 

proposed generating facility is 

electrically isolated, this withdrawal 

will also trigger individual re-study of 

lower-queued interconnection requests. 

As the transmission provider attempts 

to allocate this large network upgrade 

cost to the next interconnection 

customer in the interconnection queue, 

it can cause several projects to withdraw 

and trigger further re-studies— 

commonly referred to as cascading restudies. If the interconnection customer 

does not withdraw and pays for the 

network upgrade to be constructed, 

lower-queued interconnection 

customers that will benefit from the 

network upgrade are not required to 

share cost responsibility simply because 

they submitted an interconnection 

request at a later date.109 Therefore, the 

existing serial study process may now 

be unjust and unreasonable because 

interconnection customers are no longer 

able to consistently progress through the 

interconnection process in a timeframe 

consistent with Order No. 2003 and the 

pro forma LGIP. Further, the existing 

serial study process may now be unjust 

and unreasonable because the process 

frequently allocates to individual 

interconnection customers the cost 

network upgrades that may create 

additional interconnection capacity 

needed for several interconnection 

customers. 

b. Proposed Reforms 

i. Background 

56. The serial first-come, first-served 

study process in the pro forma LGIP 

includes three distinct studies, 

conducted on an individual basis, to 

identify the interconnection facilities 

and network upgrades that are needed 

to accommodate the interconnection 

request and provide an estimate of the 

cost responsibility and timing for those 

facilities. Each study incorporates the 

base case study model, which includes 

all generating facilities and the 

associated interconnection facilities and 

network upgrades needed for higherqueued interconnection requests that 

are pending, as well as an up-to-date 

model of the transmission provider’s 

transmission system.110 First, the 

transmission provider conducts the 

feasibility study, which is a preliminary 

evaluation of the system impact and 

cost of interconnecting the generating 

facility to the transmission provider’s 

transmission system, and consists of a 

power flow and short circuit analysis.111

The transmission provider must use 

reasonable efforts to complete the 

feasibility study no later than 45 days 

after it receives the executed 

interconnection feasibility study 

agreement.112

57. Second, the transmission provider 

conducts the system impact study. The 

system impact study identifies and 

details the impacts to the transmission 

provider’s transmission system or an 

affected system of the interconnection of 

the proposed generating facility.113 The 

system impact study consists of a short 

circuit analysis, a stability analysis, and 

a power flow analysis. The transmission 

provider must use reasonable efforts to 

complete the system impact study 

within 90 days after it receives the 

executed interconnection system impact 

study agreement.114 The pro forma LGIP 

provides transmission providers with 

the option to study interconnection 

requests on a clustered basis for the 

system impact study.115

58. Third, the transmission provider 

conducts the facilities study, which 

specifies and estimates the cost of the 

equipment, engineering, procurement, 

and construction work needed to 

implement the conclusions of the 

system impact study.116 Where the 

system impact study focuses mainly on 

impacts to the transmission system, the 

facilities study aims to provide a more 

accurate estimate of the electrical 

switching configuration of the 

connection equipment, such as 

transformers, switchgear, meters, and 

other station equipment and a more 

accurate estimate of the specific costs 

associated with required network 

upgrades rather than a per-mile 

estimate. The facilities study will also 

identify any potential control 

equipment needed to accommodate 

requests for interconnection service that 

are lower than the generating facility 

capacity. Interconnection customers 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39946 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

117 If the interconnection customer wants its cost 

estimate to be accurate within a range of +/¥20%, 

the study must be completed within 90 days since 

there is greater room for error on the part of the 

transmission provider’s estimate, whereas if the 

interconnection customer wants its cost estimate to 

be accurate within a range of +/¥10%, the 

transmission provider has up to 180 days to 

develop a more accurate cost estimate. Id. section 

8.3. 

118 Id. sections 6.4, 7.6, 8.5. 

119 Id. section 11.2. 

120 Id. section 11.3. 

121 Id. 

122Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 155, 

Order No. 2006, 111 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 181. 

123 2008 Technical Conference Order, 122 FERC 

¶ 61,252 at P 18. 

124 Midwest Ind. Sys. Operator, Inc., 124 FERC 

¶ 61,183 at PP 114, 143 (accepting usage of group 

studies as a means to help alleviate interconnection 

queue backlog and finding that clustering studies 

offers considerable benefits); SPP, 128 FERC 

¶ 61,114 at P 32 (finding that performing cluster 

studies should enable processing the 

interconnection queue backlog more effectively); 

So. Cal. Edison Co., 135 FERC ¶ 61,093, at P 50 

(2011) (finding that coordinating the cluster study 

processes for interconnection requests to a utility’s 

transmission and distribution systems would 

‘‘achieve greater efficiency and effectively manage 

network impacts’’); see also May Joint Task Force 

Tr. 42:3–9 (Gladys Brown Dutrieuille) (explaining 

that clustering has two goals: minimizing the study 

time and minimizing the first mover disadvantage 

by sharing costs among those resources that need 

the same upgrades). 

125PacifiCorp, Tri-State, Duke, ISO New England 

Inc. (ISO–NE), MISONYISO, and SPP have annual 

windows. 

126PNM, Arizona Public Service Company, El 

Paso Electric, NV Energy, PSCo, and CAISO have 

semi-annual windows. 

127PSCo and Tri-State have 75-day customer 

engagement windows, while Duke has a 60-day 

customer engagement window. 

128MISO, CAISO, SPP, ISO–NE, NV Energy, 

Arizona Public Service Company, and PNM group 

projects in such a way, and PacifiCorp and Tri-State 

have added the term Cluster Area to their LGIPs. 

See PacifiCorp, Transmission OATT and Service 

Agreements, part. IV.36 (Definitions) (5.0.0); TriState Generation and Transmission Association, 

Inc., Open Access Transmission Tariff, attach. N, 

Standard LGIP (7.0.0), section 1. 

129NV Energy, however, uses clusters for the 

facilities study. MISO performs both the system 

impact study and facilities study in a group study 

format. 

130The resource solicitation process provision is 

discussed later in the NOPR. 

have two options for the timeframe in 

which the facilities study must be 

completed: 90 days, if the 

interconnection customer requests a +/ 

¥20% cost estimate contained in the 

report; or 180 days, if the 

interconnection customer requests a +/ 

¥10% cost estimate.117

59. Re-study is required when (1) a 

higher-queued interconnection request 

withdraws from the interconnection 

queue, (2) a higher-queued 

interconnection request modifies its 

proposed generating facility pursuant to 

section 4.4 of the pro forma LGIP, or (3) 

the interconnection customer 

redesignates its point of 

interconnection.118 Transmission 

providers are required to conduct restudy of the feasibility study within 45 

days of the triggering event and re-study 

of the system impact and facilities 

studies within 60 days of the triggering 

event. 

60. Under the pro forma LGIP, the 

interconnection customer can request to 

begin negotiations to the LGIA with the 

transmission provider at any time after 

the interconnection customer executes 

the interconnection facilities study 

agreement, for not more than 60 days 

after tender of the final interconnection 

facilities study report.119 If the 

interconnection customer determines 

that negotiations are at an impasse, it 

may request termination of the 

negotiations at any time after tender of 

the draft LGIA and request submission 

of the unexecuted LGIA to the 

Commission, or initiate dispute 

resolution procedures. The transmission 

provider must provide a final LGIA to 

the interconnection customer within 15 

days after the completion of the 

negotiation process. Within 15 days 

after receipt of the final LGIA, the 

interconnection customer must provide 

the transmission provider either (1) 

reasonable evidence of continued site 

control or (2) post additional nonrefundable security of $250,000, which 

will be applied toward future 

construction costs.120 The 

interconnection customer also must 

provide reasonable evidence that it has 

achieved one or more milestones in the 

development of the generating facility as 

listed in section 11.3 of the pro forma 

LGIP. As soon as practicable, but not 

later than 10 days after receiving the 

tendered LGIA or the request to file an 

unexecuted LGIA, the transmission 

provider must file the LGIA with the 

Commission.121

61. The Commission has stated that 

clustering is the preferred method for 

conducting interconnection studies, and 

has strongly encouraged clustering in 

interconnection queue management and 

interconnection study processes for all 

transmission providers.122 In the 2008 

Technical Conference Order, the 

Commission noted that clustering that 

takes into account factors other than the 

interconnection request filing date may 

allow for more efficient prioritization of 

interconnection requests while still 

providing protection from undue 

discrimination by transmission 

providers.123 Subsequently, the 

Commission approved many variations 

of cluster study processes where the 

transmission provider groups 

interconnection requests received 

during an open window period and 

processes those requests as a cluster, 

with some form of shared cost 

responsibility for identified network 

upgrades triggered by the cluster. The 

Commission noted that performing 

studies in clusters helps alleviate 

interconnection queue backlogs and 

offers considerable benefits as the 

network upgrades required for an 

interconnection customer to 

interconnect to the transmission system 

may be large enough to accommodate 

more than one interconnection 

request.124 Generally, cluster study 

processes include the following 

elements: (1) an interconnection request 

window; (2) a customer engagement 

window; (3) cluster studies including (a) 

a power-flow and voltage study, which 

is similar to a feasibility study under the 

pro forma LGIP, and (b) a stability and 

short circuit study, which completes the 

traditional system impact study; (4) a 

facilities study; (5) re-study, if needed; 

and (6) LGIA execution or filing of an 

unexecuted LGIA. 

62. To join a cluster, an 

interconnection customer must 

generally submit a valid interconnection 

request before the close of the request 

window for that cluster. Some 

transmission providers accept 

interconnection requests during an 

annual 125 window, whereas others have 

a semi-annual 126 window. After the 

interconnection requests are received 

and deemed valid, and before the start 

of the interconnection study process for 

the cluster, a customer engagement 

window begins.127 During the customer 

engagement window, transmission 

providers work with interconnection 

customers to build study models, verify 

data, hold stakeholder meetings, and 

generally prepare for the 

interconnection study process. At the 

end of the customer engagement 

window, all interconnection customers 

with complete interconnection requests 

and a signed study agreement will be 

included in that cluster. 

63. Many transmission providers with 

large transmission systems typically 

group interconnection requests on the 

basis of geographic location and 

electrical relevance before conducting a 

cluster study.128 Most transmission 

providers that use a cluster study 

process still conduct facilities studies 

on an individual basis.129 In addition, 

some non-RTO/ISO transmission 

providers offer a separate generator 

interconnection process for 

interconnection customers participating 

in a resource solicitation process.130


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39947 

131See May Joint Task Force Tr. 46:15–19 

(Clifford Rechtschaffen) (stating that CAISO’s 

cluster process has been helpful and important for 

improving interconnection queue processing and 

that clustering ‘‘is a best practice and should be 

promoted’’). 

132See 2020 Tri-State Order, 173 FERC ¶ 61,015 

at PP 29, 45 (finding that a first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process would address 

interconnection queue backlog and rejecting the 

filing on other grounds); PacifiCorp, 171 FERC 

¶ 61,112 at P 47 (finding that proposed 

interconnection queue reform was a just and 

reasonable solution to an interconnection queue 

backlog); PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 30 (same); 

Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M., 136 FERC ¶ 61,231, at P 77 

(2011) (PNM) (finding that first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process would address 

interconnection queue backlog and allow projects 

that are further along in development to proceed on 

a more accelerated basis while allowing less 

developed projects to receive early information); 

Duke, 176 FERC ¶ 61,075 at P 51 (finding that 

proposed revisions to Duke LGIP and LGIA were 

consistent with or superior to the pro forma LGIP 

and LGIA); see also Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at 

P 27 (noting previous findings from the 2020 TriState Order). 

133See Duke, 176 FERC ¶ 61,075 at P 52 (finding 

that Duke’s transition to a first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process could relieve ‘‘(1) delays in 

completing generator interconnection studies; (2) 

inability of interconnection customers to share costs 

of network upgrades; and (3) existence of nonviable projects in the queues’’); see also Tri-State, 

174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 31 (noting PSCo’s 

Comments that PSCo’s preliminary experience of 

operating under the cluster study process has 

demonstrated that ‘‘studying requests in clusters is 

shown to be more efficient than studying each 

request individually,’’ and that ‘‘this approach to 

generator interconnection is superior to the pro 

forma LGIP and LGIA’’). 

134PNM, 136 FERC ¶ 61,231 at P 79 (noting that 

‘‘PNM’s proposal adopting the cluster approach to 

study related projects together will likely improve 

efficiency by limiting the need for re-studies’’) 

(citing Order No. 2006, 111 FERC ¶ 61,220, at P 

181). 

135Under the current pro forma, Stand Alone 

Network Upgrades are defined as ‘‘Network 

Upgrades that are not part of an Affected System 

that an Interconnection Customer may construct 

without affecting day-to-day operations of the 

Transmission System during their construction. 

Both the Transmission Provider and the 

Interconnection Customer must agree as to what 

constitutes Stand Alone Network Upgrades and 

identify them in Appendix A to the Standard Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement. If the 

Transmission Provider and Interconnection 

Customer disagree about whether a particular 

Network Upgrade is a Stand Alone Network 

Upgrade, the Transmission Provider must provide 

the Interconnection Customer a written technical 

explanation outlining why the Transmission 

Provider does not consider the Network Upgrade to 

be a Stand Alone Network Upgrade within 15 days 

of its determination.’’ Pro forma LGIP section 1. 

136Under the current pro forma, Material 

Modification is defined as ‘‘those modifications that 

have a material impact on the cost or timing of any 

Interconnection Request with a later queue priority 

date.’’ Pro forma LGIP section 1. 

ii. Proposal 

64. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA to 

make cluster studies the required 

interconnection study method under the 

pro forma LGIP.131 We therefore 

propose to require transmission 

providers to eliminate the serial firstcome, first-served study process and 

instead use a first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process. We preliminarily 

find that a first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process, coupled with 

increased financial commitments and 

readiness requirements that we also 

propose in this NOPR, will address the 

interconnection queue issues described 

above, thereby remedying potentially 

unjust and unreasonable Commissionjurisdictional rates.132 Even in areas that 

have not yet experienced large backlogs, 

we believe the first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process increases 

efficiency of the interconnection process 

and would help prevent delays in the 

future. A first-ready, first-served cluster 

study process is a more efficient way of 

studying a large interconnection queue 

because transmission providers can 

perform larger interconnection studies 

encompassing numerous proposed 

generating facilities, rather than separate 

studies for each individual 

interconnection customer.133

Additionally, conducting a single 

cluster study and cluster re-study each 

year would minimize delays that can 

arise from proposed generating facility 

interdependencies and also minimize 

the risk of cascading re-studies when a 

higher-queued interconnection 

customer withdraws.134 This limited restudy process would consume far less 

time than under a serial first-come, firstserved re-study process, which requires 

re-studying all proposed generating 

facilities in isolation with a new base 

case. In addition, the proposed reforms 

may assist interconnection queue 

management because, even if clusters 

have cascading re-study issues, there 

will be fewer re-studies needed and 

fewer cost consequences for lowerqueued generators as compared to serial 

re-studies. Thus, we believe that 

requiring a first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process, coupled with 

increased financial commitments and 

readiness requirements that we also 

propose in this NOPR, should improve 

the efficiency in processing generator 

interconnection requests, and result in 

just and reasonable Commissionjurisdictional rates. 

65. In particular, we propose several 

revisions to the pro forma LGIP and pro 

forma LGIA to implement a first-ready, 

first-served cluster study process. We 

describe these revisions briefly in this 

section and include the full proposed 

language in appendices to this NOPR. 

We propose to add several new defined 

terms and revise several defined terms 

in section 1 of the pro forma LGIP and 

article 1 of the pro forma LGIA. For 

example, we propose to modify the 

definition of stand alone network 

upgrade to clarify that, for a network 

upgrade to be eligible for treatment as a 

stand alone network upgrade,135 the 

network upgrade must only be required 

for one interconnection customer. This 

clarification should prevent lengthy 

conflict and negotiations in instances 

where multiple interconnection requests 

trigger the need for a network upgrade 

that could be considered a stand alone 

network upgrade under the current 

definition mainly because it can be 

constructed without affecting day-to-day 

operations of the transmission system, 

and several interconnection customers 

have an interest in exercising the option 

to build. We also propose modifying the 

definition of material modification to 

account for the equal queue position of 

generating facilities in the same 

cluster.136 The new definition would 

clarify that material modifications are 

those with a material impact on the cost 

or timing of interconnection requests 

with a later or equal queue position. 

66. We propose revisions to add new 

subsection 3.1.1.1 (Initial Study 

Deposit) to the pro forma LGIP, which 

provides that an interconnection 

customer must submit its 

interconnection request and applicable 

study deposit during a cluster request 

window (described below). We also 

propose to add new subsection 3.1.2 

(Submission) to the pro forma LGIP, 

which provides that interconnection 

customers evaluating different options 

(such as different sizes, sites, or 

voltages) are encouraged but not 

required to use the new informational 

interconnection study proposed in this 

NOPR before entering the cluster study. 

New subsection 3.1.2 of the pro forma 

LGIP also provides that the 

interconnection customers must select a 

definitive point of interconnection to be 

studied when executing the cluster 

study agreement. Upon mutual 

agreement, the transmission provider 

may make reasonable changes to the 

requested point of interconnection to 

facilitate efficient interconnection of 

clustered interconnection requests at 

common points of interconnection. 

67. We also propose to add new 

subsection 3.4.1 (Cluster Request 

Window) to the pro forma LGIP, which 

provides that interconnection customers 

must submit an interconnection request 

during a specified period, the cluster 

request window, which is a 45-day 

period with the start date to be 

determined by each transmission 

provider (with the annual start date for 

the transmission provider’s cluster 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39948 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

137See supra PP 42–45 (explaining that the 

informational interconnection study is intended to 

provide prospective interconnection customers 

with information prior to entering the queue). 

138Pro forma LGIP section 4.4.3. 

request window included in its LGIP). 

The transmission provider would 

consider all interconnection requests 

accepted within this period to have 

equal queue priority for purposes of the 

cluster study. Following the close of the 

cluster request window, the 

transmission provider would begin a 30- 

day customer engagement window as 

provided in new subsection 3.4.5 

(Customer Engagement Window) of the 

pro forma LGIP. 

68. We propose to renumber and 

revise subsection 3.4.4 (Scoping 

Meeting) as subsection 3.4.6 of the pro 

forma LGIP to provide that, during the 

customer engagement window, 

transmission providers must hold a 

scoping meeting with all 

interconnection customers whose 

interconnection requests were received 

in that cluster request window. Revised 

subsection 3.4.6 of the pro forma LGIP 

would also require transmission 

providers to hold individual customerspecific scoping meetings, at the 

interconnection customer’s request, 

which must be requested by no later 

than 15 business days after the close of 

the cluster request window. By the end 

of the customer engagement window, 

the transmission provider would post 

on OASIS the final cluster study plan, 

which lists all valid interconnection 

requests with an executed cluster study 

agreement that will be part of the cluster 

study. 

69. We propose to replace the sections 

of the pro forma LGIP, including 

subsection 3.5.2 (Requirement to Post 

Interconnection Study Metrics) of the 

pro forma LGIP, that require the posting 

of metrics for interconnection feasibility 

studies processing time and system 

impact study processing time with 

sections that require the posting of 

metrics for cluster study processing time 

and cluster re-study processing time. 

We also propose to add a new 

subsection to require the posting of the 

time from when the transmission 

provider received a valid 

interconnection request to the 

completion of the cluster study, cluster 

re-study, and facilities study. 

70. We also propose several revisions 

to section 4 (Queue Position) of the pro 

forma LGIP to make clear that cluster 

studies are the required interconnection 

study method under the pro forma LGIP 

and that transmission providers may not 

have a first-come, first-served 

interconnection study method under 

their respective LGIPs. We propose to 

rename and revise section 4.1 of the pro 

forma LGIP as ‘‘Queue Position’’ and 

add two new subsections: (1) subsection 

4.1.1 (Assignment of Queue Position), 

which makes clear that queue position 

will be based on the time and date that 

the transmission provider receives all 

items required under section 3.4 (Valid 

Interconnection Request) and that there 

is no queue priority for interconnection 

customers that opted for informational 

interconnection studies; 137 and (2) 

subsection 4.1.2 (Higher Queue 

Position), which provides that all 

interconnection requests studied in a 

single cluster shall be considered to 

have equal queue priority, but clusters 

initiated earlier in time shall be 

considered to have a higher queue 

position than clusters initiated later. To 

be clear, the date of submission of an 

individual interconnection request 

within the same cluster would have no 

bearing on the allocation of the cost of 

the network upgrades identified in the 

applicable cluster study, because such 

costs would be allocated among 

interconnection requests using a 

proportional impact method (discussed 

below in section II.A.4.). 

71. New subsection 4.1.2 of the pro 

forma LGIP also provides that moving a 

point of interconnection shall result in 

a loss of queue position if the 

transmission provider deems the change 

a material modification. To align with 

this, we propose corresponding changes 

to the material modification provisions 

in section 4.4 (Modification) of the pro 

forma LGIP to provide that moving a 

point of interconnection shall result in 

a loss of interconnection queue position 

if it is deemed a material modification 

by the transmission provider. We note 

that the interconnection customer may 

decide to forego the requested change 

that constitutes a material modification 

and retain its existing queue position.138

We also propose to revise pro forma 

LGIP section 4.4.5, which currently 

states that an extension of less than 

three cumulative years of the generating 

facility’s commercial operation date are 

not material and should be handled 

through construction sequencing. We 

propose to provide that the commercial 

operation date reflected in the initial 

interconnection request shall be used in 

calculating the permissible three-year 

extension. 

72. We propose to remove from 

section 4.2 (Clustering) of the pro forma 

LGIP the provisions allowing 

interconnection requests to be studied 

serially. We also propose to remove the 

requirement for the transmission 

provider to provide 180 days’ advance 

notice before opening a cluster window. 

In addition to removing these 

provisions, we propose to rename 

section 4.2 of the pro forma LGIP 

‘‘General Study Process’’ and revise it to 

provide that interconnection studies 

shall be performed within the cluster 

study process. 

73. We propose to revise subsection 

4.4.1 of the pro forma LGIP to make 

clear that: (1) the modifications 

previously permitted prior to return of 

the executed system impact study 

agreement are now permitted to be 

made prior to return of the executed 

cluster study agreement; and (2) for 

plant increases, the incremental 

increase will be studied with the next 

cluster study for purposes of cost 

allocation and study analysis. 

74. We propose to delete section 6 

(Interconnection Feasibility Study) of 

the pro forma LGIP (and all 

subsections). As explained above, we 

propose to adopt the new section 6 

(Interconnection Information Access) of 

the pro forma LGIP to establish a 

mechanism for the interconnection 

customer to evaluate the feasibility of a 

prospective generating facility. We 

propose to revise section 7 

(Interconnection System Impact Study) 

of the pro forma LGIP to make clear that 

the system impact study will now be 

conducted on a clustered basis, and that 

the transmission provider must 

complete the cluster study within 150 

days of the closing of the customer 

engagement window. We further 

propose revisions to sections 3.4.2 and 

8.1 of the pro forma LGIP to include the 

financial commitments and readiness 

requirements that must be met for the 

interconnection customer to remain in 

the interconnection queue following the 

completion of the cluster study. Those 

requirements are discussed in greater 

detail below. We propose additional 

revisions to delete section 7.5 (Meeting 

with Transmission Provider) of the pro 

forma LGIP and adopt the new section 

7.5 (Cluster Study Re-Studies) of the pro 

forma LGIP to include provisions 

governing clustered re-studies where an 

interconnection customer in the cluster 

or a higher-queued cluster withdraws its 

interconnection request. Specifically, 

we propose to require transmission 

providers to conduct a re-study of the 

cluster within 150 days of informing the 

cluster of the need for re-study. 

75. We propose revisions to the 

facilities study provisions in section 8 

(Interconnection Facilities Study) of the 

pro forma LGIP to make clear that restudies can be triggered by a higher or 

equally queued interconnection project 

withdrawing from the interconnection 

queue or modification of a higher or 

equally queued interconnection project 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39949 

139Commenters that believe that the Commission 

should adopt provisions governing how cluster 

areas should be formed should also explain how to 

define such a cluster area (e.g., based on geographic 

proximity, geographic constraints such as bodies of 

water or mountain ranges, system topology, and/or 

major transmission system constraints). 

140See Duke, 176 FERC ¶ 61,075 at P 18; 

Dominion, Docket No. ER22–301–000 (Dec. 28, 

2021) (delegated order). 

141See SPP, OATT, attach. V (4.0.0), section 4.2.5; 

PNM, 136 FERC ¶ 61,231 at P 24; PSCo, 169 FERC 

¶ 61,182 at P 32; PacifiCorp, 171 FERC ¶ 61,112 at 

P 13; Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 33. 

142CAISO, CAISO eTariff, OATT, app. DD, 

section 3 (14.0.0), section 3.5.1.2; NYISO, NYISO 

Tariffs, attach. X, section 30.13 (5.0.0), section 

30.13.3. 

143MISO, FERC Electric Tariff, OATT, attach. X, 

(155.0.0) section 3.3.1. 

144 If an interconnection customer withdraws its 

interconnection request prior to the start of the 

cluster study, that customer would be required to 

pay the actual costs of processing its 

interconnection request but would not be assessed 

a withdrawal penalty. 

pursuant to section 4.4 (Modifications) 

of the pro forma LGIP. 

76. We also propose revisions to 

section 11.1 (Tender) of the pro forma 

LGIP to clarify the procedures for 

executing the LGIA. We propose 

revisions to section 11.3 (Execution and 

Filing) of the pro forma LGIP to provide 

that the interconnection customer must 

submit to the transmission provider at 

the same time it submits the executed 

LGIA demonstration of continued site 

control, the requisite deposit, and 

reasonable evidence of achieving 

milestones in the development of the 

generating facility. An interconnection 

customer that requests that the 

transmission provider file an 

unexecuted LGIA with the Commission 

must submit the aforementioned 

information within 15 days of the 

Commission issuing an order on the 

unexecuted LGIA filing, or its 

interconnection request will be deemed 

withdrawn. We propose revisions to the 

system impact study agreement and 

facilities study agreement to be 

consistent with the new cluster study 

process. We propose to add several new 

definitions to section 1 of the pro forma 

LGIP and article 1 of the pro forma 

LGIA that relate to the new first-ready, 

first-served cluster study process and to 

modify a number of other definitions. 

77. We seek comment on whether the 

Commission should require 

transmission providers to conduct 

cluster studies on subgroups of 

interconnection customers based on 

areas of geographic and electric 

relevance, and, if so, whether the 

Commission should adopt provisions 

governing how cluster areas should be 

formed to ensure that cluster areas are 

formed in a transparent and not unduly 

discriminatory manner.139

78. We seek comment on whether the 

pro forma LGIP should specify how 

cluster studies must be rerun after restudy is triggered or whether there are 

provisions the Commission could adopt 

to improve the efficacy of the re-study 

process, such as preventing excessive 

re-study by limiting the transmission 

provider to two re-studies per month 

within the 150-day cluster re-study 

period. 

79. We seek comment on whether the 

Commission should maintain an option 

in the pro forma LGIP for some 

interconnection requests to be processed 

outside of the annual cluster study 

process, and if so, in what 

circumstances and on what timeframe 

(for completion of the study), and on 

what priority compared to any active 

clusters. 

3. Allocation of Cluster Study Costs 

a. Background 

80. Under the pro forma LGIP, 

interconnection studies are conducted 

for each individual interconnection 

request and study costs are paid by the 

interconnection customer. Transitioning 

to a first-ready, first-served cluster study 

process would require transmission 

providers to establish a method to 

allocate the shared cost of clustered 

interconnection studies among the 

interconnection customers in the 

cluster. 

81. The Commission has accepted a 

variety of approaches to allocating the 

costs of cluster studies, most of which 

allocate costs using two factors: (1) the 

total MW size requested in a cluster; 

and (2) the number of interconnection 

requests in the cluster. Approaches 

among transmission providers vary with 

regard to the weight assigned to each of 

these factors. For example, Duke and 

Dominion allocate 90% of the 

applicable study costs to 

interconnection customers on a pro rata 

basis based on requested MWs included 

in the applicable cluster, and 10% on a 

per capita basis based on the number of 

interconnection requests included in the 

applicable cluster.140 SPP, PNM, PSCo, 

PacifiCorp, and Tri-State allocate 50% 

of the study costs based on requested 

MWs, and 50% based on the number of 

interconnection requests.141 CAISO, 

NYISO, and MISO only use one of the 

two factors in their allocation method. 

CAISO and NYISO allocate all study 

costs equally based on the number of 

interconnection requests within the 

cluster,142 while MISO allocates all 

study costs pro rata based on the 

number of MWs requested.143

b. Proposal 

82. We propose to revise section 13.3 

(Obligation for Study Costs) of the pro 

forma LGIP to allocate the shared costs 

of cluster studies as follows: 90% of the 

applicable study costs to 

interconnection customers on a pro rata 

basis based on requested MWs included 

in the applicable cluster, and 10% of the 

applicable study costs to 

interconnection customers on a per 

capita basis based on the number of 

interconnection requests included in the 

applicable cluster.144 We preliminarily 

find that this allocation of the costs of 

cluster studies would result in just and 

reasonable Commission-jurisdictional 

rates because it appropriately recognizes 

that the MW size of a cluster has a 

dramatic impact on the cost of studying 

the cluster, while also recognizing that 

the number of interconnection requests 

included in the cluster also impacts the 

cost of studying the cluster, but to a 

lesser degree. 

83. We seek comment on whether a 

different cost allocation approach may 

be appropriate or whether each 

transmission provider should be 

provided additional flexibility to 

propose a cost allocation approach on 

compliance with any final rule. 

4. Allocation of Cluster Network 

Upgrade Costs 

a. Background 

84. As discussed above, under the 

serial first-come, first-served study 

process in the pro forma LGIP, 

transmission providers study 

interconnection requests individually 

and in the order in which they are 

received. If a study identifies a need for 

network upgrades in response to an 

individual interconnection customer 

request, the transmission provider 

allocates the initial cost of those 

network upgrades to the individual 

interconnection customer. The pro 

forma LGIP allows transmission 

providers to perform clustered system 

impact studies but does not explain how 

transmission providers should allocate 

network upgrade costs among 

interconnection customers within a 

cluster. 

85. Several of the transmission 

providers that have adopted a cluster 

first-ready, first-served study process 

have also adopted methods for 

allocating network upgrade costs that 

differ from their previously existing cost 

allocation mechanisms in one of two 

ways: (1) proportional capacity (based 

on the proposed generating facility’s 

MW capacity in proportion to the 

cluster’s total MW capacity); or (2) 

proportional impact (determined based 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39950 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

145E.g., PNM, 136 FERC ¶ 61,231 at P 25. 

146 Id.; PacifiCorp, 171 FERC ¶ 61,112 at P 18. 

147PacifiCorp, Transmittal, Docket No. ER20– 

924–000, at n.107 (filed Jan. 31, 2020). 

148PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 34; Tri-State, 

174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 38; Duke, 176 FERC 

¶ 61,075 at P 11; Dominion, Docket No. ER22–301– 

000 (Dec. 28, 2021) (delegated order). 

149Tri-State LGIP section 4.2.4.b. 

150We propose to revise section 1 of the pro 

forma LGIP to provide that Proportional Impact 

Method shall mean a technical analysis conducted 

by the transmission provider to determine the 

degree to which each generating facility in the 

cluster contributes to the need for a specific 

network upgrade. 

151Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 38. 

152See NYISO, NYISO Tariffs, attach. S, section 

25 (16.0.0), section 25.7.2; MISO, FERC Electric 

Tariff, MISO OATT, attach. FF section III (81.0.0), 

section III.A.2.d.2. 

on a distribution factor analysis). 

Several transmission providers also 

separate network upgrades into two 

categories prior to allocating costs based 

on the proportional capacity or 

proportional impact method: (1) station 

equipment, including all equipment 

located in the substation immediately 

beyond the point of interconnection to 

which the generating facility is 

connected (called station equipment 

network upgrades); and (2) all other 

network upgrades, including equipment 

located beyond the substation, such as 

transmission lines, transformers, voltage 

support, and distantly located breakers 

(called system network upgrades).145

These methods allocate station 

equipment network upgrade costs based 

on the number of generating facilities 

interconnecting at an individual station 

(i.e., allocated equally to each 

interconnection customer 

interconnecting to the substation). 

86. For network upgrades beyond the 

transmission provider’s substation, 

PNM and PacifiCorp use the 

proportional capacity method.146

PacifiCorp explained in its 

interconnection queue reform proposal 

that the proportional capacity method is 

better for PacifiCorp given the size of its 

service territory, and that PacifiCorp 

uses a cluster area approach in which it 

clusters projects by electrical relevance, 

which prevents interconnection 

customers from bearing the costs of 

network upgrades in distant areas of 

PacifiCorp’s transmission system.147

87. CAISO, MISO, SPP, NYISO, PSCo, 

Tri-State, Duke, and Dominion use the 

proportional impact method by 

performing a distribution factor 

analysis.148 Relative to other 

transmission providers, Tri-State 

includes a more comprehensive 

explanation of its distribution factor 

analysis method in its tariff. 

Specifically, Tri-State’s tariff provides 

that: (1) thermal network upgrade costs 

are allocated based on the impact (in 

MWs) from each generating facility 

within the cluster or cluster area; (2) 

voltage network upgrade costs are 

allocated based on the voltage impact 

from each generating facility within the 

cluster or cluster area on the most 

constrained bus under the most 

constraining contingency in the 

definitive interconnection study case(s); 

(3) transient stability network upgrade 

costs within a cluster or cluster area are 

allocated based on the pro rata share of 

the total MW requests of all generating 

facilities causing instability; (4) short 

circuit network upgrade costs are 

allocated based on the impact (in 

kiloamperes) from each generating 

facility within the cluster or cluster 

area, on the constrained facilities under 

the most constraining fault in the 

definitive interconnection study case(s); 

and (5) in instances when a network 

upgrade resolves multiple types of 

constraints (such as thermal and voltage 

or thermal and voltage and transient 

stability), the costs are allocated within 

a cluster or cluster area based on a ratio 

share of the total cost of the 

independent mitigation types to 

equitably allocate the cost to all 

generating facilities contributing to 

constraints.149

b. Proposal 

88. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to include new subsection 

4.2.3 to require transmission providers 

to allocate network upgrade costs to 

interconnection customers within a 

cluster using a proportional impact 

method. Therefore, we propose to 

establish the definition ‘‘Proportional 

Impact Method’’ in the pro forma 

LGIP,150 and require transmission 

providers to revise their LGIPs to 

include the specific technical 

parameters and thresholds of the 

method for cost allocation. We 

preliminarily find that this approach 

will ensure just and reasonable 

Commission-jurisdictional rates because 

it will allow the transmission provider 

to allocate network upgrade costs among 

several interconnection customers that 

may benefit from (and cause the need 

for) certain network upgrades.151 By 

allocating shared network upgrade costs 

among a cluster of interconnection 

customers, we expect that this reform 

will reduce the frequency of an 

individual customer being allocated a 

large network upgrade that benefits 

subsequent interconnection customers, 

reduce the incentive to submit multiple 

speculative requests, and reduce the 

amount of cascading withdrawals and 

re-studies. We believe that a 

proportional impact method will 

accurately reflect the level of 

contribution of an interconnection 

request to the need for the network 

upgrade. 

89. We seek comment on whether 

there are specific types of analyses that 

the Commission should require 

transmission providers to use to 

determine the proportional impact 

attributed to an interconnection request, 

including the benefits and drawbacks of 

any proposed approach. Conversely, we 

seek comment on whether there are 

specific types of analyses that the 

Commission should prohibit because 

they are known to be inaccurate, 

provide undue discretion to the 

transmission provider, or could 

otherwise be problematic. Additionally, 

we seek comment on alternative 

methods to allocate the cost of network 

upgrades within a cluster such as the 

proportional capacity method as 

discussed above. While such a method 

does not assign cost based on level of 

contribution of an interconnection 

request to the need for a network 

upgrade, we seek comment on whether 

this method can be sufficiently accurate, 

in certain instances, in a manner 

consistent with or superior to the 

proposed method. For instance, we seek 

comment on whether the proportional 

capacity method may be appropriate 

when a transmission provider with a 

relatively small service territory clusters 

projects by electrical relevance. 

Conversely, we seek comment on 

whether there are some circumstances 

where the proportional capacity method 

would not be appropriate, such as 

circumstances where there may be 

potential for discriminatory treatment. 

5. Shared Network Upgrades 

a. Background 

90. There are no existing provisions in 

the pro forma LGIP that require 

transmission providers to share network 

upgrade costs between earlier-in-time 

and later-in-time interconnection 

customers (e.g., customers studied in 

separate clusters). However, in MISO 

and NYISO, the Commission has 

approved tariff provisions that require 

interconnection customers in later 

cluster studies that benefit from network 

upgrades completed prior to that laterin-time interconnection customer 

commencing commercial operation to 

partially reimburse the interconnection 

customers in an earlier cluster study 

that were initially responsible for the 

facilities’ construction.152

91. MISO tests all network upgrades 

in service for less than five years to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39951 

153MISO Business Practice Manual No. 15, 

section 6.1.1.1.11, version 23 (May 2021), https:// 

cdn.misoenergy.org/BPM%20015%20- 

%20Generation%20Interconnection49574.zip 154TDF measures the energy the interconnection 

customer has requested to inject onto the 

transmission system, expressed as the percent of the 

flows across a given transmission facility. 155NYISO defines headroom as ‘‘the functional or 

electrical capacity of the System Upgrade Facility 

or the electrical capacity of the System 

Deliverability Upgrade that is in excess of the 

functional or electrical capacity actually used by 

the Developer’s Project.’’ NYISO, NYISO Tariffs, 

attach. S, section 25.1 (12.0.0). 

156See id. section 25.8.7. 

157NARUC, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17– 

000, at 23 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

158MISO, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, 

at 87–88 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

159NYISO, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, 

at 45 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

160Michigan Comm’n, Comments, Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, at 21–22 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

161EDF Renewables, Inc., Comments, Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, at 13 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

162Transmission Access Policy Study Group 

(TAPS), Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, at 

47–48 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

163See May Joint Task Force Tr. 135:6–7 (Andrew 

French) (‘‘I do think costs should be shared between 

clusters.’’) 

determine whether they qualify for cost 

sharing. MISO requires interconnection 

customers in a later cluster study to 

share costs if they (1) connect to that 

network upgrade or (2) pass a two-part 

power flow screening.153 If the test 

reveals that more than five MW of the 

later-in-time interconnection customer’s 

generating facility uses the network 

upgrade with a network upgrade rating 

exceeding one percent, MISO performs 

an additional analysis. If the results of 

the second analysis conclude that the 

interconnection customer generating 

facility’s impact exceeds more than five 

percent of the network upgrade’s facility 

rating, or that the transmission 

distribution factor (TDF) 154 is greater 

than 20%, the interconnection customer 

in the later cluster study will reimburse 

interconnection customers from the 

earlier cluster study based on the share 

of the cost of the network upgrade 

allocated to each interconnection 

customer. MISO allocates the costs of 

the shared network upgrades using the 

pro rata share of the MW contribution 

on all constraints from each project. 

92. NYISO accounts for excess 

capacity created by network upgrades 

and requires that interconnection 

customers in a later cluster study 

reimburse the interconnection 

customers from an earlier cluster study 

for the use of these facilities. NYISO 

tracks any excess capacity, or 

headroom,155 created by network 

upgrades and determines eligibility for 

cost sharing using two methods. When 

technically feasible, a later-in-time 

interconnection customer’s use of 

headroom is measured in terms of the 

interconnection customer’s electrical 

impact. Otherwise, headroom usage is 

based on the total number of 

interconnection customers using a given 

network upgrade. The headroom is 

available for 10 years or until it is 

depleted.156

b. Relevant ANOPR Comments 

93. Multiple commenters support the 

concept of cost sharing approaches. The 

National Association of Regulatory 

Utility Commissioners (NARUC), for 

example, contends that the Commission 

should encourage improvements to the 

participant funding model through 

sharing the costs of clusters of similarly 

situated interconnection customers.157

94. MISO and NYISO each highlight 

the advantages of their existing network 

upgrade cost sharing approaches. MISO 

claims that its cost sharing method 

appropriately balances the 

interconnection customers’ interests.158

NYISO asserts that its group-based 

facilities study minimizes later-in-time 

interconnection customers benefiting 

without paying for the use of a network 

upgrade at the outset.159 NYISO also 

states that its headroom accounting 

process partly addresses the issue 

caused by later-in-time interconnection 

customers benefiting from preexisting 

network upgrades. 

95. The Michigan Commission asserts 

that MISO has not made frequent use of 

its shared network upgrade process and 

suggests that the Commission explore 

whether analyzing network upgrades up 

to 20 years post-construction would 

encourage the development of highercost network upgrades in transmission 

constrained areas.160

96. Some commenters argue that a 

network upgrade sharing arrangement 

would be too complicated to execute 

and lead to stakeholder disagreements. 

EDF asserts that, while a study-based 

cost allocation might offer a more 

precise representation of benefits, such 

approaches are time-consuming and can 

be prone to stakeholder disagreement 

over the study’s assumptions and 

results; EDF believes that any cost 

sharing percentage for generators should 

be commensurate with the value of the 

reimbursement generators receive.161

TAPS states that, while cost sharing 

arrangements make sense conceptually, 

developing a cost sharing process can be 

resource-intensive and highly 

contentious.162

c. Need for Reform 

97. We preliminarily find that the 

absence of network upgrade cost sharing 

provisions in the pro forma LGIP poses 

a barrier to entry to generation 

development. Absent cost sharing 

provisions among clusters, 

interconnection customers may 

significantly benefit from earlier-in-time 

network upgrades but not share in the 

cost of those network upgrades in a 

manner that is roughly commensurate 

with benefits.163 As a result, individual 

interconnection customers may be 

responsible for the entire cost of 

network upgrades and may be reluctant 

to move forward with the development 

of an interconnection request if there is 

no opportunity to recover some of the 

costs associated with the construction of 

significant network upgrades that are 

likely to benefit interconnection 

customers in subsequent cluster studies. 

d. Proposal 

98. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA to 

require transmission providers to 

allocate the costs for network upgrade 

costs between interconnection 

customers in an earlier cluster study 

and interconnection customers in a 

subsequent cluster study that benefit 

from the same network upgrade in a 

manner that is roughly commensurate 

with the benefits received. First, we 

propose to require that, as part of the 

first-ready, first-served cluster study 

process that we also propose in this 

NOPR, the transmission provider 

analyze all network upgrades identified 

through the transmission provider’s 

study process, and, if a generating 

facility of an interconnection customer 

in a later cluster study directly connects 

either to (1) a network upgrade inservice for less than five years or (2) a 

substation where the network upgrade 

in-service for less than five years 

terminates, then the transmission 

provider would be required to designate 

the network upgrade a shared network 

upgrade, and the interconnection 

customer in the later cluster study 

would be required to contribute a pro 

rata portion of the shared network 

upgrade’s remaining undepreciated 

capital cost based on the impact the 

interconnection customer in the later 

cluster study has on the network 

upgrade as measured using the same 

method the transmission provider used 

to determine the impact of the 

interconnection customer(s) in the 

earlier cluster study. Second, if the new 

generating facility does not directly 

connect to the network upgrade, then 

the transmission provider would 

perform a power flow analysis with a 

two-step test to measure the later-intime interconnection customer’s use of 

and benefit from the network upgrade 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39952 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

164 Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, 

Inc., 133 FERC ¶ 61,221, at P 336 (2010) (finding 

that the 20% TDF screen is an appropriate measure 

of benefits for shared network upgrades that strikes 

an appropriate balance between cost sharing and 

guarding against overcharging late-coming 

generating facilities). 

165Contingent facilities include ‘‘those unbuilt 

. . . Network Upgrades upon which the 

Interconnection Request’s costs, timing, and study 

findings are dependent, and if delayed or not built, 

could cause a need for Re-Studies of the 

Interconnection Request or a reassessment of the 

Interconnection Facilities and/or Network Upgrades 

and/or costs and timing.’’ Pro forma LGIP section 

1. Pursuant to section 3.8 of the pro forma LGIP, 

transmission providers must have a method for 

identifying contingent facilities to be provided to 

the interconnection customer at the conclusion of 

the system impact study and including in the LGIA. 

Id. section 3.8. 

166See, e.g., Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. 

Operator, Inc., 133 FERC ¶ 61,221 at PP 55, 336 

(accepting shared network upgrades as just and 

reasonable and agreeing that the proper test for cost 

sharing with regard to an already-constructed 

upgrade is not what effect a late-coming generating 

facility would have had on the system as it existed 

prior to the network upgrade, but rather whether 

that late-coming generating facility will actually 

benefit from the network upgrade). 

167 Id. P 336. 

168See, e.g., Tri-State Generation and 

Transmission Association, Inc., Transmittal Letter, 

Docket No. ER20–2593–000, at 3, 14, and 17 (filed 

Jul. 31, 2020); Transmittal Letter, Docket No. ER11– 

3522–000, at 3 (filed May 5, 2011); PacifiCorp, 

Transmittal Letter, Docket No. ER20–924–000, at 5 

(filed Jan. 31, 2020). 169See May Joint Task Force Tr. 38:7–8 (Matthew 

Nelson) (‘‘[W]hat we hope to do is try to make sure 

that being in the queue means something[.]’’); id 

47:1–4 (Clifford Rechtschaffen) (cautioning that 

clustering is important but must be accompanied by 

other reforms to interconnection queue processing 

to address existing problems). 

funded by interconnection customers 

from an earlier cluster study. Under the 

first step, the transmission provider 

would determine if the impact of the 

interconnection customer in the later 

cluster study exceeds 5 MW and 

exceeds one percent of the network 

upgrade’s rating, which we believe 

would reasonably identify 

interconnection customers that benefit 

from the network upgrade. Then, if 

those criteria are met, the transmission 

provider would determine if the laterin-time interconnection customer’s 

impact either exceeds more than five 

percent of the network upgrade’s facility 

rating or if the TDF is greater than 

20%.164 Finally, if either of these 

criteria were met, the transmission 

provider would be required to designate 

that network upgrade a shared network 

upgrade, and the interconnection 

customer in the later cluster study 

would be responsible for a pro rata 

share of the network upgrade’s 

remaining undepreciated capital cost 

based on the impact the interconnection 

customer in the later cluster study has 

on the network upgrade as measured 

using the same method the transmission 

provider used to determine the impact 

of the interconnection customer(s) from 

the earlier cluster study. 

99. We propose to require the 

interconnection customer in the later 

cluster study to pay the transmission 

provider for the interconnection 

customer’s share of the shared network 

upgrade costs through a one-time lump 

sum, which the transmission provider 

would disburse to the appropriate 

interconnection customer(s) from the 

earlier cluster study. Where applicable, 

the interconnection customer from the 

earlier cluster study or the relevant 

transmission provider would be 

required to assign transmission credits 

for the portion of the shared network 

upgrade that the interconnection 

customer in the later cluster study 

funded to the interconnection customer 

in the later cluster study. Additionally, 

we propose to require that the 

interconnection customer in the later 

study cluster not be required to pay for 

its share of the cost of the shared 

network upgrade until that shared 

network upgrade is in service. We 

propose to require transmission 

providers to provide the list of shared 

network upgrades to interconnection 

customers in subsequent cluster studies 

at the conclusion of the cluster study 

and to list those network upgrades in 

the LGIA. 

100. As noted above, an 

interconnection customer in a later 

cluster study that otherwise meets the 

criteria described above would only 

bear some of the network upgrade costs 

for a network upgrade that was in 

service before the commercial operation 

date of the generating facility of the 

interconnection customer in the later 

cluster study. Thus, there could be 

scenarios where the network upgrade 

may be identified as both a shared 

network upgrade and a contingent 

facility pursuant to section 3.8 of the 

pro forma LGIP; and, therefore a 

designation of a network upgrade as a 

contingent facility does not preclude it 

from also being a shared network 

upgrade if the network upgrade meets 

the aforementioned criteria and passes 

the screens.165

101. We preliminarily find that 

requiring transmission providers to 

develop a method to share network 

upgrade costs among interconnection 

customers in earlier and later cluster 

studies will result in just and reasonable 

Commission-jurisdictional rates by 

allowing for allocation of costs of 

network upgrades in a manner more 

closely aligned to the distribution of 

benefits than the status quo.166

Specifically, to the extent that 

interconnection customers in later 

cluster studies benefit from pre-existing 

network upgrades, we preliminarily find 

that it is just and reasonable for those 

interconnection customers to share a 

portion of those network upgrade 

costs.167

6. Increased Financial Commitments 

and Readiness Requirements 

a. Need for Reform 

102. The pro forma LGIP allows an 

interconnection customer to proceed 

through the generator interconnection 

process without having shown evidence 

to the transmission provider of 

meaningful progress toward achieving 

commercial viability (e.g., a power 

purchase agreement or site control). We 

are concerned that without requiring 

this type of evidence, interconnection 

customers will continue to submit 

multiple speculative interconnection 

requests and later withdraw those 

requests, triggering rounds of re-studies. 

While we believe that our proposal to 

require transmission providers to 

implement a first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process will substantially 

improve transmission providers’ ability 

to manage their interconnection queues, 

we recognize that the sheer volume of 

interconnection requests in 

interconnection queues nationwide are 

overwhelming many transmission 

providers’ resources.168 Although the 

optional informational interconnection 

study that we also propose in this NOPR 

would provide a mechanism for 

prospective interconnection customers 

to obtain key information on potential 

points of interconnection for proposed 

generating facilities, prospective 

interconnection customers may still 

prefer to submit an interconnection 

request to establish a queue position 

rather than investing in and waiting for 

the results of an optional informational 

interconnection study. 

103. Therefore, in addition to the 

reforms that we propose to implement a 

first-ready, first-served cluster study 

process, we also propose a set of reforms 

to adopt more stringent financial 

commitments and readiness 

requirements for interconnection 

customers to remain in the 

interconnection queue to discourage 

speculative interconnection requests 

and allow transmission providers to 

focus on processing viable 

interconnection requests and to better 

approximate the cost of the 

interconnection study process.169 These 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39953 

170Pro forma LGIP sections 6.1, 7.2, 8.1. 

171PNM, 136 FERC ¶ 61,231 at P 80. 

172PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 36 (citing Order 

No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 37). 

173Proposed pro forma LGIP section 3.1.1. 

174 Id. section 3.1.1.1. 

175 Id. section 3.1.1.2. 176 Id. section 3.1.1.2. 177Consistent with Order No. 2003, 

interconnection customers would be responsible for 

actual study costs, and the study deposits would be 

subject to true-up. Order No. 2003, 104 FERC 

¶ 61,103 at P 37; pro forma LGIP section 8.1. 

178Proposed pro forma LGIP section 3.1.1.3. 

179 2008 Technical Conference Order, 122 FERC 

¶ 61,252 at P 15. 

180PNM, 136 FERC ¶ 61,231 at P 80; see also 

PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at PP 36, 49. 

181PNM, 136 FERC ¶ 61,231 at P 80. 

proposed reforms pertain to (1) 

increased study deposits, (2) 

demonstration of site control, (3) 

commercial readiness, and (4) 

withdrawal penalties. 

b. Proposed Reforms 

i. Increased Study Deposits and LGIA 

Deposit 

(a) Background 

104. Under the serial first-come, firstserved interconnection study process in 

the pro forma LGIP, an interconnection 

customer must submit the following 

study deposits: 170

• $10,000 deposit with its 

interconnection request, which is used 

for the feasibility study, 

• $50,000 deposit when executing the 

system impact study agreement, and 

• $100,000 deposit when executing 

the facilities study agreement. 

105. Several transmission providers 

have increased the study deposit 

requirements in a tiered fashion to 

recognize that interconnection requests 

with higher generating facility 

capacities cost more to study. In 

accepting PNM’s tiered approach, the 

Commission stated that increasing the 

study deposit in a tiered fashion is 

reasonable because it recognizes that 

larger proposed generating facilities 

within a cluster likely carry a greater 

risk (such as risk triggering the need for 

substantial network upgrades and 

triggering re-studies when withdrawing 

from the queue).171 The Commission 

has accepted maximum study deposits 

as high as $250,000 for interconnection 

requests of 200 MW and greater and 

accepted proposals requiring study 

deposits at multiple points throughout 

the interconnection study process. For 

example, PSCo, Tri-State, Dominion, 

and Duke require four study deposits 

throughout their cluster study 

processes, and an additional deposit 

upon LGIA execution. In accepting 

PSCo’s study deposit framework, the 

Commission reasoned that the study 

deposits represented the total 

approximate cost of PSCo’s reformed 

cluster study process and that this 

framework was consistent with Order 

No. 2003’s requirement that 

interconnection customers pay the 

actual costs of their studies.172

(b) Proposal 

106. We propose to adopt the 

following study deposit framework in 

the pro forma LGIP: 

Size of proposed 

generating facility 

associated with interconnection request 

Amount of deposit 

>20 MW <80 MW ...................................................................................................................................... $35,000 + $1,000/MW. 

≤80 MW <200 MW .................................................................................................................................... $150,000. 

≤200 MW ................................................................................................................................................... $250,000. 

107. We propose to require 

transmission providers to collect this 

study deposit before each phase of the 

new first-ready, first-served cluster 

study process (i.e., cluster study, cluster 

re-study, and facilities study).173 We 

propose to require the interconnection 

customer to provide an initial study 

deposit along with its interconnection 

request which will be used to pay for 

the cluster study.174 We propose to 

require the interconnection customer to 

provide the second study deposit of the 

same amount within 20 days of 

receiving the cluster study report from 

the transmission provider.175 This 

second study deposit will cover the cost 

of any clustered re-studies. We propose 

to require the interconnection customer 

to provide the third study deposit of the 

same amount along with its executed 

facilities study agreement.176 Study 

deposits would be refundable, and the 

transmission provider would refund any 

portion of the study deposits above the 

applicable study costs and withdrawal 

penalties once the interconnection 

customer executes the LGIA, requests 

the filing of an unexecuted LGIA and 

submits the corresponding payment 

discussed below, or withdraws from the 

queue.177

108. We also propose to require 

interconnection customers to submit a 

deposit equal to nine times the amount 

of its study deposit when executing the 

LGIA or requesting the filing of an 

unexecuted LGIA.178 This deposit 

would be fully refunded once the 

generating facility achieves commercial 

operation, but if the interconnection 

customer withdraws after executing the 

LGIA or after requesting the filing of an 

unexecuted LGIA, this deposit would be 

refunded subject to the withdrawal 

penalty discussed below. 

109. We believe that increasing the 

total study deposit amounts submitted 

in the interconnection study process 

would better approximate the cost of the 

interconnection study process and 

disincentivize interconnection 

customers from submitting 

interconnection requests for speculative, 

non-commercially viable generating 

facilities. As the Commission 

recognized in the 2008 Technical 

Conference Order, ‘‘relatively small 

deposit amounts, coupled with the 

incentives produced by a first-come, 

first-served approach to allocating 

capacity, provides an incentive for 

developers to secure a place in the 

queue even for projects that may not be 

commercially viable.’’ 179 Conversely, 

the Commission has specifically found 

that increased study deposits ‘‘better 

identif[y] viable projects that are more 

ready to proceed with construction and 

commercial operation while 

discouraging speculative projects that 

could delay the cluster study 

process.’’ 180 The Commission has 

similarly explained ‘‘that increasing the 

deposit in a tiered fashion . . . is 

reasonable because it recognizes that 

larger projects likely carry a greater 

risk.’’ 181 Accordingly, we propose to 

revise section 3 of the pro forma LGIP 

to implement these proposed increased 

study deposit reforms. 

110. We seek comment on whether 

the proposed study deposit amounts 

accurately estimate the cost of 

conducting cluster studies, such that 

interconnection customers are not 

required to submit deposits that are 

likely to far exceed actual study costs. 

We also seek comment on whether the 

Commission should adopt additional 

provisions or a different framework that 

would require larger proposed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39954 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

182Pro forma LGIP section 1. 

183 Id. section 3.4.1. 

184Pro forma LGIA art. 5.16. 

185NV Energy, Inc., 142 FERC ¶ 61,165, at P 25 

(2013). 

186Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 137 FERC ¶ 61,099, at P 

11 (2011); El Paso Elec. Serv. Co., 137 FERC 

¶ 61,101, at P 11 (2011). 

187PacifiCorp, Transmission OATT and Service 

Agreements, attach. W, section 5 (3.0.0), section 5.2. 

188 Duke, Tariffs, Rate Schedules and Service 

Agreements, OATT, attach. J (18.0.0), section 4.4.2; 

Dominion, OATT and Service Agreements, attach. 

M (4.5.0), section 4.4.2. 

189PNM, 136 FERC ¶ 61,231 at P 81. 

190PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 58. Site control 

requirements for PSCo are as follows: (1) before 

entering Phase 1, demonstration of 50% site control 

and 0% site control of interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities is required; (2) before 

entering Phase 2, demonstration of 50% site control 

and 0% site control of interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities is required; (3) before 

entering Phase 1, demonstration of 60% site control 

and 0% site control of interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities is required; (4) before 

entering Phase 4, demonstration of 75% site control 

and 0% site control of interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities is required; (5) before 

executing an LGIA, demonstration of 90% site 

control and 50% site control of interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities is required. 

PSCo, Transmission and Service Agreements Tariff, 

Xcel Energy Operating Cos. Joint OATT, attach. N 

(0.8.0), section 7.7.6. 

191 In order to demonstrate regulatory limitations 

to securing site control, MISO requires the 

interconnection customer to submit: (1) a signed 

affidavit from an officer of the company indicating 

that site control is unobtainable due to regulatory 

requirements; and (2) documentation sufficiently 

describing and explaining the source and effects of 

such regulatory restrictions, including a description 

of any conditions that must be met in order to 

satisfy the regulatory restrictions and the 

anticipated time by which the interconnection 

customer expects to satisfy the regulatory 

restrictions. MISO, FERC Electric Tariff, MISO 

OATT, attach. X (155.0.0), section 7.2.1.2. 

192 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 169 

FERC ¶ 61,173, at P 27 (2019). 

193 Id. P 48; see also Midcontinent Indep. Sys. 

Operator, Inc., 166 FERC ¶ 61,187 (2019). 

194See, e.g., PNM, 136 FERC ¶ 61,231 at P 81 

(accepting PNM’s increased deposit requirement 

and revised site control); PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 

at P 58 (stating that removing the $10,000 deposit 

option ‘‘provides interconnection customers with 

the flexibility to demonstrate their viability while 

also balancing the goal of ensuring viable projects 

continue through the queue’’). 

generating facilities to provide a higher 

deposit amount—such as a per MW 

framework. 

ii. Demonstration of Site Control 

(a) Background 

111. The pro forma LGIP defines site 

control as documentation 

demonstrating: (1) ownership of, a 

leasehold interest in, or a right to 

develop a site for the purpose of 

constructing the generating facility; (2) 

an option to purchase or acquire a 

leasehold site for such purpose; or (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.182 Interconnection customers 

are required to submit a demonstration 

of site control along with the 

interconnection request or submit a 

$10,000 deposit in lieu of such a 

demonstration.183 The in-lieu-of deposit 

allows the interconnection customer to 

proceed through the generator 

interconnection process without 

providing evidence of site control. At 

the end of the study process, within 15 

days after receipt of the draft LGIA, the 

interconnection customer must provide 

evidence of continued site control or 

post $250,000 of non-refundable 

security that will be applied toward 

future construction costs. The pro forma 

LGIA allows the interconnection 

customer to suspend its LGIA for up to 

three years before providing the 

additional security or demonstration of 

site control.184

112. The Commission has accepted 

several interconnection queue reform 

proposals that have increased the initial 

$10,000 deposit in lieu of site control. 

For example, Nevada Power increased 

the initial deposit amount to $50,000 185

and Arizona Public Service Company 

and El Paso Electric increased the 

amount of the initial deposit in lieu of 

site control to match their increased 

study deposits—$160,000 for 

interconnection requests less than 75 

MW, and $250,000 for interconnection 

requests for 75 MW and greater.186 All 

of these transmission providers 

maintain the pro forma LGIP provision 

allowing the interconnection customer 

to post $250,000 of non-refundable 

security in lieu of site control at LGIA 

execution. 

113. PacifiCorp allows 

interconnection customers to submit a 

$10,000 deposit in lieu of site control to 

begin the cluster study process but 

requires that the interconnection 

customer demonstrate exclusive site 

control before proceeding to the 

facilities study.187 Duke and Dominion 

adopted a similar approach of requiring 

that the interconnection customer 

demonstrate exclusive site control 

before proceeding to the facilities study 

but increased the deposit amount to 

$20,000 plus $500 per MW.188 These 

transmission providers have removed 

the option to post $250,000 of nonrefundable security in lieu of site 

control at LGIA execution and instead 

require proof of site control without 

exception. 

114. PNM,189 PSCo,190 and MISO 

have eliminated the deposit in lieu of 

site control. However, MISO allows a 

deposit in lieu of site control of $10,000 

per MW where regulatory limitations 

prohibit the procurement of site 

control.191 This deposit is subject to a 

floor of $500,000 and a ceiling of 

$2,000,000. The cash in lieu deposit is 

only available to customers at the start 

of the study process: interconnection 

customers must demonstrate 100% site 

control prior to MISO conducting the 

facilities study.192 To cut down on 

multiple speculative projects leasing the 

same site in order to remain in the 

queue, MISO also requires that 

interconnection customers demonstrate 

an ‘‘exclusive right to develop the site’’ 

of a generating facility or, where 

facilities are to be co-located, a right that 

is ‘‘sufficient to accommodate the final 

design of the facility and account for 

any other projects that will utilize all or 

part of the same site.’’ 193

(b) Proposal 

115. We believe that more stringent 

site control requirements will help 

prevent interconnection customers from 

submitting interconnection requests for 

speculative, non-commercially viable 

proposed generating facilities.194 We 

preliminarily find that an 

interconnection customer securing the 

exclusive land right necessary to 

construct its proposed generating 

facility (or for co-located resources, 

demonstration of shared land use) is 

sufficient evidence of the 

interconnection customer’s commitment 

to construct the generating facility. 

116. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to require interconnection 

customers to demonstrate 100% site 

control for their proposed generating 

facilities when they submit their 

interconnection request. We propose to 

have transmission providers include in 

their tariff specific acreage requirements 

for each generating facility technology 

type. 

117. To cut down on multiple 

interconnection customers leasing the 

same site in order to remain in the 

queue, we propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to require interconnection 

customers to demonstrate the exclusive 

land right (where the land rights are 

exclusive to the interconnection 

customer, not necessarily the individual 

project) to develop, construct, operate, 

and maintain its generating facility or, 

where facilities are co-located, to 

demonstrate a shared land use right to 

develop, construct, operate, and 

maintain co-located facilities. 

118. We propose to include a limited 

option for interconnection customers to 

submit a deposit in lieu of site control 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39955 

195For example, in MISO, the Commission found 

that 100% site control for the interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities, the 

transmission owner’s interconnection facilities, and 

network upgrades at the point of interconnection is 

impractical because those facilities often are subject 

to additional state siting and permitting 

requirements that do not apply to generating 

facilities. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 

169 FERC ¶ 61,173 at P 40. 

196See, e.g., PSCo, Transmission and Service 

Agreements Tariff, Xcel Energy Operating Cos. Joint 

OATT, attach. N, (0.8.0) § 7.7.6; PacifiCorp, 

Transmission OATT and Service Agreements, 

OATT, pt. IV.38 (6.0.0), section 38.4.1. 197Pro forma LGIA art. 5.16. 198See pro forma LGIP sections 3.4.1, 6.1, 7.2, 8.1 

(providing for: $10,000 for the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study, $50,000 for the Interconnection 

System Impact Study, and $100,000 for the 

Interconnection Facilities Study). 

199Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 410. 

when they submit their interconnection 

request only when regulatory 

limitations prohibit the interconnection 

customer from obtaining site control.195

In such instances, the interconnection 

customer would submit an initial 

deposit in lieu of site control of $10,000 

per MW, subject to a floor of $500,000 

and a ceiling of $2,000,000, which 

would be applied toward any 

interconnection studies or withdrawal 

penalty, if applicable. Such an 

interconnection customer must 

demonstrate 100% site control prior to 

the facilities study. 

119. In compliance with any final rule 

in this proceeding, we also propose that, 

after notifying the transmission provider 

of a change to the interconnection 

customer’s site control demonstration, 

the transmission provider give the 

interconnection customer 10 business 

days to demonstrate satisfaction with 

the applicable requirement after 

notification. We propose to implement 

these requirements through revisions to 

sections 3.4.1 and 11.3 of the pro forma 

LGIP, as set forth in Appendix B to this 

NOPR. 

120. We believe that strengthening the 

site control requirements of the pro 

forma LGIP to include a demonstration 

of 100% site control would help prevent 

speculative interconnection requests. 

We recognize that requiring site control 

effectively bars entry into the queue 

until land is acquired, and that this may 

prevent early-stage projects from 

entering the queue. We nevertheless 

believe this proposed reform to be just 

and reasonable because it will address 

the concerns with interconnection 

queue backlogs and study delays 

explained in the Need for Reform by 

reducing the number of interconnection 

requests being submitted and ensure 

that interconnection customers in the 

queue are ready to proceed. 

121. We seek comment on whether 

there are other specific situations in 

which the Commission should accept a 

deposit in lieu of site control. 

122. We seek comment on whether 

the definition of ‘‘site control,’’ 

including the requirement to obtain an 

exclusive land right (or, for co-located 

resources, a shared land right), should 

be broadened or refined to account for 

circumstances that may arise in, for 

example, the siting and permitting of 

offshore resources in bodies of water 

and/or submerged land. Further, for 

circumstances where interconnection 

customers are proposing to develop 

generating facilities on sites owned or 

physically controlled by a state 

governmental entity and/or federal 

governmental entity, there may be a 

need to craft a different site control 

requirement that acknowledges that the 

interconnection customer, that has to 

comply with regulatory requirements, 

may not be able to demonstrate site 

control as proposed in this NOPR until 

later. For this reason, we seek comment 

on whether and how the definition of 

‘‘site control’’ should be adjusted for 

interconnection customers (including 

both onshore and offshore) to account 

for any regulatory requirements they 

may have associated with proposed 

generating facilities developed on sites 

owned or physically controlled by a 

state governmental entity and/or a 

federal governmental entity. We also 

seek comment on the appropriate stage 

in developing such sites when the 

Commission should view completion of 

such stage as indicative of an 

interconnection customer’s request 

being non-speculative and whether 

there are substantive differences among 

interconnection customers (including 

both onshore and offshore) developing 

sites owned or physically controlled by 

a state governmental entity and/or a 

federal governmental entity. 

123. We also seek comment on 

whether the Commission should allow 

transmission providers to accept 

demonstrations of less than 100% site 

control in the initial phases of the 

interconnection study process, outside 

of when regulatory limitations prohibit 

the interconnection customer from 

obtaining site control. Additionally, we 

seek comment on whether the 

Commission should instead adopt site 

control provisions that allow a deposit 

in lieu of site control to enter the 

generator interconnection process and 

be evaluated under the first-ready, firstserved cluster study process described 

above but require interconnection 

customers to demonstrate site control to 

enter the facilities study. 

iii. Commercial Readiness 

(a) Background 

124. Generally, at least in bilateral 

markets, an interconnection customer 

does not proceed to construct a 

generating facility unless it has executed 

some form of off-take agreement, such as 

a contract for the sale of electric energy 

or capacity from the generating facility. 

Transmission providers often use the 

terms ‘‘ready’’ or ‘‘commercially viable’’ 

to describe projects that have 

demonstrated commercial progress by 

executing such an agreement.196 Aside 

from a demonstration of site control or 

the $10,000 deposit in lieu of site 

control, the pro forma LGIP does not 

require interconnection customers to 

demonstrate progress towards achieving 

commercial readiness throughout the 

interconnection study process. Rather, 

section 11.3 of the pro forma LGIP only 

requires demonstrations of commercial 

progress within 15 days after receipt of 

the final LGIA, after the transmission 

provider has completed its studies of 

the interconnection request. If 

interconnection customers cannot meet 

this deadline, the pro forma LGIA 

allows them to suspend their LGIAs for 

up to three years: that suspension may 

include a decision by the 

interconnection customer to pause work 

on their proposed generating facilities 

and network upgrades.197 Under this 

approach, interconnection customers 

are able to submit interconnection 

requests and progress through the 

interconnection queue for only $160,000 

in study deposits, subject to true-up 

based on actual study costs and then 

suspend their LGIAs for an additional 

three year time period for no cost.198 In 

Order 2003, the Commission allowed 

suspension for a three year time period 

to allow generation projects the 

flexibility necessary to accommodate 

permitting and other delays that are 

particularly likely to affect large 

projects.199

125. PSCo, PacifiCorp, Tri-State, 

Dominion, and Duke have implemented 

frameworks that require interconnection 

customers to demonstrate commercial 

readiness early in the generator 

interconnection process to incentivize 

developers to submit ready or nearready proposed generating facilities into 

the interconnection queue and to 

discourage the inclusion of speculative 

interconnection requests in the 

interconnection queue. These 

transmission providers offer several 

options to demonstrate commercial 

readiness. Notably, the commercial 

readiness requirements become more 

stringent as the interconnection 

customer proceeds to the later phases of 

the interconnection study process: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39956 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

200PSCo, Transmission and Service Agreements 

Tariff, Xcel Energy Operating Cos. Joint OATT, 

attach. N (0.8.0), section 7.7; PacifiCorp, 

Transmission OATT and Service Agreementts, 

OATT, pt. IV.38 (6.0.0), section 38.4.1; Tri-State, 

Tri-State OATT, attach. N (7.0.0), section 7.7; 

Dominion, OATT and Service Agreements, attach. 

M (4.5.0), section 10.1; Duke, Tariffs, Rate 

Schedules and Service Agreements, OATT, attach. 

J (18.0.0), section 10.11 . 

201PacifiCorp, Transmission OATT and Service 

Agreements, OATT, pt. IV.38 (6.0.0), section 

38.4.1(v). 

202PSCo, Transmission and Service Agreements 

Tariff, Xcel Energy Operating Cos. Joint OATT, 

attach. N (0.8.0), section 7.7.5; Tri-State, Tri-State 

OATT, attach. N (7.0.0), section 7.7.5; Dominion, 

OATT and Service Agreements, attach. M (4.5.0), 

section 10.1.6; Duke, Tariffs, Rate Schedules and 

Service Agreements, OATT, attach. J (18.0.0), 

section 10.11.6. 

203PNM, Transmittal Letter, Docket No. ER11– 

3522–000, at 10–12 (filed May 5, 2011); PacifiCorp, 

Transmittal Letter, Docket No. ER20–924–000, at 51 

(filed Jan. 31, 2020). 

204We propose to revise section 1 of the pro 

forma LGIP to provide that Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration shall have the meaning set forth in 

Sections 3.4.2, 7.5, and 8.1 of this LGIP. 

205We propose to revise section 1 of the pro 

forma LGIP to provide that Commercial Readiness 

Deposit shall mean a deposit paid in lieu of 

submitting a Commercial Readiness Demonstration, 

as set forth in Sections 3.4.2, 7.5, and 8.1 of this 

LGIP. 

• Executed term sheet in early 

phases, or executed contract or power 

purchase agreement in later phases; 

• Reasonable evidence of being 

selected in a resource plan or offered 

into a resource solicitation plan in early 

phases, or proof of applying for 

certificate of public convenience and 

necessity, if required, in later phases; or 

• Provisional LGIA filed executed or 

unexecuted at the Commission in early 

phases or accepted at the Commission 

in later phases.200

126. As an alternative, PSCo, 

PacifiCorp, Tri-State, Dominion, and 

Duke allow interconnection customers 

that cannot provide these non-financial 

forms of readiness to instead provide 

additional deposit funds to proceed 

through the interconnection study 

process. Because PacifiCorp’s cluster 

study process has fewer phases than 

PSCo, Tri-State, Dominion, and Duke, 

PacifiCorp offers the option to submit a 

deposit in lieu of readiness of $3,000/ 

MW at the interconnection request 

phase, and for the later phase, a deposit 

equal to the network upgrade costs 

allocated to the interconnection 

customer in the most recent cluster 

study.201 To contrast, in PSCo, Tri-State, 

Dominion, and Duke, an 

interconnection customer that cannot 

provide a readiness demonstration must 

provide additional deposits equal to: 

• Two times the study deposit 

amount to enter the phase 1 cluster 

study; 

• Three times the study deposit 

amount after the phase 1 report meeting 

to enter the phase 2 cluster study; 

• Five times the study deposit 

amount after the phase 2 report meeting; 

and 

• Seven times the study deposit 

amount after receipt of the facilities 

study agreement.202

127. As explained earlier, we are 

concerned with the significant 

interconnection queue backlogs and 

study delays, which we believe are 

caused in part by the minimal 

requirements for submitting 

interconnection requests and the 

tendency for non-viable projects to 

linger in interconnection queues. We 

have learned through interconnection 

queue reform filings that 

interconnection customers typically do 

not actually construct generating 

facilities unless they have entered into 

an off-take agreement for the output of 

such facilities, at least in bilateral 

market areas.203 On the other hand, 

interconnection customers that do not 

enter into such agreements frequently 

withdraw from the interconnection 

queue, sometimes late in the study 

process or even after the conclusion of 

the study process, triggering the types of 

delays and re-studies for commercially 

viable projects that raise concerns for 

us. Thus, we believe that the existing 

pro forma LGIP requirements may be 

insufficient because they do not require 

customers to demonstrate commercial 

readiness early enough in the study 

process to deter interconnection 

customers from submitting 

interconnection requests for, and 

continuing in the interconnection 

queue, speculative proposed generating 

facilities. 

(b) Proposal 

128. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to include a commercial 

readiness framework. One major benefit 

of the frameworks adopted by PSCo, 

PacifiCorp, Tri-State, Dominion, and 

Duke is that the financial requirement in 

lieu of readiness increases throughout 

the study process, which encourages 

interconnection customers that are not 

ready to proceed to withdraw from the 

interconnection queue earlier in the 

study process while also providing them 

the flexibility to enter and remain in the 

interconnection queue without an offtake agreement. We believe that such a 

mechanism would reduce the number of 

times an interconnection customer 

executes and suspends an LGIA for a 

speculative interconnection request, 

only to later withdraw the request, 

which impacts the remaining 

interconnection customers in the 

interconnection queue by causing restudies and shifting network upgrade 

costs to lower-queued interconnection 

customers. This proposed reform should 

also reduce the strain on transmission 

providers and enable viable 

interconnection requests to progress 

more quickly through a less congested 

interconnection queue, thereby 

remedying the unjust and unreasonable 

Commission-jurisdictional rates 

discussed in our need for reform. 

129. Therefore, we propose to 

establish the defined terms 

‘‘Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration’’ 204 and ‘‘Commercial 

Readiness Deposit’’ 205 in the pro forma 

LGIP. We also propose to add to 

sections 3.4.2, 7.5 and 8.1 of the pro 

forma LGIP the following options as 

acceptable commercial readiness 

demonstration options to enter into the 

cluster study and cluster re-study: 

• Executed term sheet (or comparable 

evidence) related to a contract, binding 

upon the parties to the contract, for sale 

of (1) the constructed generating facility, 

(2) the generating facility’s energy or 

capacity, or (3) the generating facility’s 

ancillary services; where the term of 

sale is not less than five years. 

• Reasonable evidence that the 

project has been selected in a resource 

plan or resource solicitation process by 

or for a load serving entity, is being 

developed by a load-serving entity 

(LSE), or is being developed for 

purposes of a sale to a commercial, 

industrial, or other large end-use 

customer. 

• Provisional LGIA which has been 

filed at the Commission (executed or 

unexecuted), which is not suspended 

and includes a commitment to construct 

the generating facility. 

130. We propose to add to section 8.1 

of the pro forma LGIP that the following 

may serve as commercial readiness 

demonstration options to enter the 

facilities study, and must be provided 

with the executed facilities study 

agreement: 

• Executed contract (as opposed to 

term sheet), binding upon the parties to 

the contract, for sale of (1) the 

constructed generating facility, (2) the 

generating facility’s energy or capacity, 

or (3) the generating facility’s ancillary 

services; where the term of sale is not 

less than five years. 

• Reasonable evidence that the 

project has been selected in a resource 

plan or resource solicitation process by 

or for a load serving entity, is being 

developed by an LSE, or is being 

developed for purposes of a sale to a 

commercial, industrial, or other large 

end-use customer. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39957 

206See, e.g., PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 50; 

PacifiCorp, 171 FERC ¶ 61,112 at P 102. 

207Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 1– 

2. 

208See PSCo, Transmission and Service 

Agreements Tariff, Xcel Energy Operating Cos. Joint 

OATT, attach. N (0.8.0), section 7.7.5; Tri-State, TriState OATT, attach. N (7.0.0), section 7.7.5; 

Dominion, OATT and Service Agreements, attach. 

M (4.5.0), section 10.1.6; Duke, Tariffs, Rate 

Schedules and Service Agreements, Duke OATT, 

attach. J (18.0.0), section 10.11.6. 

209See e.g., PacifiCorp, 171 FERC ¶ 61,112; PSCo, 

169 FERC ¶ 61,182; Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021; 

see also May Joint Task Force Tr. 31:19–32:1 

(Kimberly Duffley) (describing Duke’s withdrawal 

penalty requirements, stating that ‘‘North Carolina 

is optimistic that these revisions will allow for the 

efficient interconnection of generation projects.’’). 

• Provisional LGIA accepted for filing 

by the Commission, which is not 

suspended, with reasonable evidence 

that the generating facility and 

interconnection facilities have 

commenced design and engineering. 

131. We also propose to require the 

interconnection customer to inform the 

transmission provider of any material 

change to its commercial readiness 

demonstration. We propose to require 

the transmission provider to give the 

interconnection customer 10 business 

days to demonstrate satisfaction with 

the applicable requirement after 

notification of a change to the 

interconnection request’s commercial 

readiness demonstration. The 

interconnection customer would have 

the option to submit a commercial 

readiness deposit, discussed further 

below, within the 10-day cure period if 

the change to the commercial readiness 

demonstration meant that the 

interconnection request no longer 

satisfied the criteria. 

132. The Commission has previously 

accepted interconnection queue reform 

proposals that allow interconnection 

customers to submit additional 

refundable deposits in lieu of a 

demonstration of commercial readiness. 

In accepting these proposals, the 

Commission has found that the 

demonstrations of commercial readiness 

and alternative deposit in lieu of 

commercial readiness framework 

provide interconnection customers with 

the flexibility to employ a variety of 

business models.206 We believe that this 

approach is appropriate for all 

transmission providers and therefore 

propose to allow interconnection 

customers the option to submit a 

Commercial Readiness Deposit in lieu of 

demonstrating commercial readiness 

through the commercial readiness 

demonstration options required to enter 

a cluster study, cluster re-study, and 

facilities study. We note that, outside of 

RTOs/ISOs, transmission providers may 

be able to provide certain contractual 

arrangements to their own projects or 

other preferred interconnection 

customers, such as the term sheet option 

discussed above, which could lead to 

unduly discriminatory behavior. This 

deposit in lieu of demonstrating 

commercial readiness may potentially 

prevent any undue discrimination in the 

generator interconnection process, 

consistent with the adoption of a 

standard set of procedures in the first 

instance.207

133. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to include a framework to 

allow interconnection customers to 

provide a commercial readiness deposit 

in lieu of meeting commercial readiness 

requirements in the following amounts: 

• Two times the study deposit 

amount to enter the initial cluster study 

phase; 

• Five times the study deposit 

amount after the initial cluster study 

phase and before the system impact restudy phase; and 

• Seven times the study deposit after 

receipt of the facilities study 

agreement.208

134. The commercial readiness 

deposit is separate from the study 

deposit. The commercial readiness 

deposit is returned if the 

interconnection customer later makes a 

commercial readiness demonstration. If 

the interconnection customer withdraws 

from the interconnection queue, the 

commercial readiness deposit is applied 

toward any incurred withdrawal 

penalties. As described below in section 

III.A.1.iv, we propose that withdrawal 

penalties will be higher for 

interconnection customers that made a 

deposit in lieu of a demonstration of 

commercial readiness. 

135. Additionally, we propose 

revisions to the list of development 

milestones in section 11.3 of the pro 

forma LGIP to clarify the following: (1) 

a contract for the supply or 

transportation of fuel and a contract for 

the supply of cooling water will not be 

accepted for wind, storage, or solar 

photovoltaic resources; (2) comparable 

evidence of a contract for the sale of 

energy or capacity will be accepted; and 

(3) any of the commercial readiness 

demonstration options accepted to enter 

the facilities study will be accepted 

along with the executed LGIA or within 

15 days of the Commission issuing an 

order on the unexecuted LGIA filing, 

while a commercial readiness deposit 

will not be accepted. 

136. We propose this framework 

because we believe that it will allow 

interconnection customers to calculate 

the exact deposit that will be required 

prior to entering the interconnection 

queue, as it is based on multiples of the 

study deposit, and the study deposit is 

based on the size of the proposed 

generating facility, as chosen by the 

interconnection customer, leading to 

predictability in the deposit amount. We 

believe this increased transparency of 

the deposit amount early in the 

generator interconnection process will 

discourage speculative requests from 

entering the queue. 

137. We seek comment on whether 

the Commission should also establish, 

as another alternative demonstration of 

commercial readiness, evidence of a 

commitment to participate in RTO/ISO 

markets, a site specific purchase order 

for generating equipment specific to the 

interconnection request, or a statement 

signed by an officer or authorized agent 

of the interconnection customer 

attesting that the generating facility 

included is to be supplied with major 

electric generating components (such as 

wind turbines) with a manufacturer’s 

blanket purchase agreement to which 

the interconnection customer is a party. 

iv. Withdrawal Penalties 

(a) Background 

138. The pro forma LGIP does not 

require transmission providers to assess 

withdrawal penalties when an 

interconnection customer withdraws 

from the interconnection queue. Under 

the pro forma LGIP, withdrawing 

interconnection customers need only 

pay the actual study costs that the 

transmission provider incurred. 

Specifically, section 3.7 of the pro forma 

LGIP states that ‘‘[a]n Interconnection 

Customer that withdraws or is deemed 

to have withdrawn its Interconnection 

Request shall pay to Transmission 

Provider all costs that Transmission 

Provider prudently incurs with respect 

to that Interconnection Request prior to 

Transmission Provider’s receipt of 

[Interconnection Customer’s written 

notice of such withdrawal to 

Transmission Provider].’’ 

139. The Commission has accepted 

several transmission providers’ 

proposals to assess withdrawal penalties 

on interconnection customers that 

withdraw from a cluster study process 

and thereby delay the timing or increase 

the interconnection costs for other 

proposed generating facilities in the 

same cluster, reasoning that such 

penalties decrease the number of latestage withdrawals and mitigate potential 

harm to other interconnection 

customers.209 The Commission found 

that withdrawal penalties provide an 

incentive to interconnection customers 

to ensure that their interconnectionVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Jul 01, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM 05JYP2

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39958 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

210PacifiCorp, 171 FERC ¶ 61,112 at P 112. 211See May Joint Task Force Tr. 75:23–76:1 

(Kimberly Duffley) (‘‘I think one of the best 

practices of the new system that DEP & DEC have 

implemented is the increase of withdrawal 

penalties as the interconnection moves through the 

process.’’) 

related decisions consider the costs 

associated with an interconnection 

customer withdrawing from the 

queue.210

(b) Proposal 

140. As explained below, we propose 

to revise the pro forma LGIP to require 

transmission providers to assess 

withdrawal penalties to interconnection 

customers in certain circumstances. We 

preliminarily find that withdrawal 

penalties are needed to account for the 

harms that can occur when 

interconnection customers withdraw 

from the interconnection queue, as 

detailed in the Need for Reform for this 

NOPR. We believe that withdrawal 

penalties—as we propose to require 

below—will encourage interconnection 

customers to make every effort to ensure 

their proposed projects are viable and 

all interconnection requirements are 

met in a timely fashion, thereby limiting 

the potential for situations where an 

interconnection customer must 

withdraw at a late stage of the generator 

interconnection process and remedying 

the unjust and unreasonable 

Commission-jurisdictional rates 

discussed in our Need for Reform. 

141. More specifically, we propose to 

revise the pro forma LGIP to require 

transmission providers to assess 

withdrawal penalties to interconnection 

customers that choose to withdraw at 

any point in the interconnection study 

process or do not otherwise reach 

commercial operation unless: (1) the 

withdrawal does not delay the timing of 

other proposed generating facilities in 

the same cluster; (2) the withdrawal 

does not increase the cost of network 

upgrades for other proposed generating 

facilities in the same cluster; (3) the 

interconnection customer withdraws 

after receiving the most recent cluster 

study report and the costs assigned to 

the interconnection customer have 

increased 25% compared to the 

previous cluster study report; or (4) the 

interconnection customer withdraws 

after receiving the individual facilities 

study report and the costs assigned to 

the interconnection customer have 

increased by more than 100% compared 

to costs identified in the cluster study 

report. Thus, under this proposal, 

interconnection customers would be 

exempt from a withdrawal penalty if the 

withdrawal does not harm other 

interconnection customers or if the 

withdrawal follows a significant 

unanticipated increase in network 

upgrade cost estimates. 

142. The proposed withdrawal 

penalty will increase as the 

interconnection customer moves 

through the study process and will also 

increase if a commercial readiness 

deposit is provided in lieu of a 

demonstration of commercial 

readiness.211 For an interconnection 

customer that provides a commercial 

readiness deposit in lieu of a 

demonstration of commercial readiness, 

we propose that its withdrawal penalty 

will be higher and increase as the 

interconnection customer progresses in 

the interconnection study process. This 

will help dissuade interconnection 

customers from submitting 

interconnection requests for speculative, 

non-commercially viable proposed 

generating facilities or from remaining 

in the interconnection queue despite the 

non-viability of the proposed generating 

facility. 

143. We propose that the withdrawal 

penalty for an interconnection customer 

that provides a commercial readiness 

deposit in lieu of a demonstration of 

commercial readiness will be the greater 

of the study deposit or: (1) two times the 

study cost if the customer withdraws 

during the cluster study or after receipt 

of a cluster study report, capped at 

$1,000,000; (2) three times the study 

cost if the customer withdraws during 

the cluster re-study or after receipt of 

any applicable re-study reports, capped 

at $1,500,000; (3) five times the study 

cost if the customer withdraws during 

the facilities study, after receipt of the 

individual facilities study report, or 

after receipt of the draft LGIA, capped 

at $2,000,000; or (4) nine times the 

study costs if the customer withdraws 

before achieving commercial operation 

and after executing the LGIA or filing an 

unexecuted LGIA. We also propose that 

the withdrawal penalty revenues be 

used to fund studies conducted under 

the cluster study process. 

144. The table below summarizes the 

proposed withdrawal penalty structure 

for both interconnection requests that 

have demonstrated commercial 

readiness and those that have not (by 

instead submitting a deposit in lieu of 

commercial readiness). 

Phase of withdrawal Commercial readiness 

demonstration provided? 

Total withdrawal penalty 

(if greater than study deposit) Withdrawal penalty cap 

1 ..................................................... Yes ................................................ 1 times study costs ....................... No Cap. 

2 ..................................................... Yes ................................................ 1 times study costs ....................... No Cap. 

3 ..................................................... Yes ................................................ 1 times study costs ....................... No Cap. 

LGIA ............................................... Yes ................................................ 9 times study costs ....................... No Cap. 

1 ..................................................... No ................................................. 2 times study costs ....................... $1 million. 

2 ..................................................... No ................................................. 3 times study costs ....................... $1.5 million. 

3 ..................................................... No ................................................. 5 times study costs ....................... $2 million. 

LGIA ............................................... No ................................................. 9 times study costs ....................... No Cap. 

145. Accordingly, we propose to add 

the defined term ‘‘Withdrawal Penalty’’ 

and revise section 3.7 of the pro forma 

LGIP, as set forth in Appendix B to this 

NOPR. 

146. We seek comment on how to 

define the circumstances in which a 

withdrawal is deemed to have delayed 

the timing or increased the cost of 

network upgrades for other proposed 

generating facilities in the same cluster, 

including what criteria should be used 

to determine whether the withdrawal 

caused the delay or increased cost, and 

whether to establish a threshold for 

when a delay or increase in cost will 

trigger a withdrawal penalty (and if so, 

what that threshold should be). 

147. We seek comment on whether 

the Commission should consider 

exceptions to the proposed withdrawal 

penalties beyond those we propose in 

this NOPR. 

148. In addition, we seek comment on 

whether withdrawal penalties that 

increase with proposed generating 

facility size (as measured by MW) 

would more effectively deter 

withdrawals that cause the greatest 

harm. Specifically, we seek comment on 

whether a correlation exists between the 

size of a withdrawing proposed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39959 

212CAISO also grandfathered interconnection 

customers with a power purchase agreement 

approved by the California Public Utilities 

Commission or pending with it, and 

interconnection customers seeking to interconnect 

to a new transmission line, with sufficient capacity, 

that had received land-use approval. See Cal. Ind. 

Sys. Operator Corp., 124 FERC ¶ 61,031, at PP 1, 11, 

12 (2008). 

213SPP also allowed interconnection customers 

that had received a system impact study but not yet 

executed a facilities study agreement to opt out of 

the new cluster study process. See Sw. Power Pool, 

Inc., 126 FERC ¶ 61,012, at P 6 (2009). 

214See Midwest Ind. Sys. Operator, Inc., 124 

FERC ¶ 61,183 at PP 84, 90, 112, 114. 

215See, e.g., Duke, 176 FERC ¶ 61,075 at P 20; 

PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 64; Tri-State, 174 

FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 17. 

216PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 7. 

217See, e.g., id. P 58; Midwest Indep. Sys. 

Operator, Inc., 124 FERC ¶ 61,183 at P 90; Sw. 

Power Pool, Inc., 129 FERC ¶ 61,226 at P 28. 

218See PacifiCorp, 171 FERC ¶ 61,112 at P 115. 

219PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 65; 2020 TriState Order, 173 FERC ¶ 61,015 at P 54. 

220See, e.g., PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 65; 

2020 Tri-State Order, 173 FERC ¶ 61,015 at PP 17– 

18 (describing transitional study requirements but 

rejecting the filing due to insufficient time period 

to meet them); Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 45. 

221 In its interconnection queue reform filing, 

PSCo stated that this value is ‘‘likely at the low end 

of the potential cost’’ of interconnection, based on 

a review of interconnection costs from 2003 to 

2017, estimates of transmission investments in 

PSCo’s Resource Planning Process, and the 

experience of a neighboring facility. PSCo, 

Transmittal Letter, Docket No. ER19–2774–000, at 

86–87 (filed Sept. 9, 2019). 

222See, e.g., PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 65; 

2020 Tri-State Order, 173 FERC ¶ 61,015 at P 56 

(order describing $5 million deposit yet rejecting 

filing for other reasons); Tri-State, 174 FERC 

¶ 61,021 at P 45. 

generating facility and the relative level 

of harm (in terms of delays and 

increased cost) to other interconnection 

customers as a result of the withdrawal. 

7. Transition Process 

a. Need for Reform 

149. Requiring transmission providers 

both to utilize a first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process and to adopt more 

stringent financial commitments and 

readiness requirements to remain in the 

interconnection queue should 

significantly improve interconnection 

queue management in the future. 

However, we are mindful that many 

providers currently face significant 

backlogs of existing interconnection 

customers. Absent a transition process, 

the need to study all existing 

interconnection requests under existing 

rules could substantially delay the 

transmission provider’s ability to use 

and benefit from the new cluster study 

process and commercial readiness 

requirements, thus diminishing the 

effectiveness of these reforms in the 

near term. Therefore, we are proposing 

that transmission providers be required 

to implement a transition process 

whereby most existing interconnection 

customers will be subject to the new 

study process, financial commitments, 

and readiness requirements, while 

certain late-stage customers will be 

allowed to finish the interconnection 

process under the existing rules. 

b. Proposed Reform 

i. Background 

150. The transmission providers that 

have proposed to adopt a first-ready, 

first-served cluster study process have 

proposed a transition process to provide 

an orderly move to the new approach 

and to resolve their interconnection 

queue backlogs. 

151. Following the 2008 Technical 

Conference Order, the Commission 

accepted several RTO/ISO proposals to 

implement a one-time transition process 

as the RTOs/ISOs moved to a first-ready, 

first-served cluster study process. To 

expedite interconnection queue 

processing, each of these transition 

plans applied a cluster study process to 

the majority of the interconnection 

requests in the interconnection queue. 

CAISO and SPP created a large 

transitional cluster study group (or a 

pair of study groups) yet continued to 

study later-stage interconnection 

customers under the preexisting serial 

first-come, first-served study process 

(i.e., grandfathered). Specifically, 

CAISO grandfathered all 

interconnection customers slated to 

receive a system impact study by the 

date of CAISO’s filing with the 

Commission (as well as those meeting 

selected readiness requirements),212

while SPP grandfathered all 

interconnection customers with 

executed facilities study agreements.213

MISO gave existing interconnection 

customers 60 days to meet new 

commercial readiness requirements, 

although interconnection requests for 

which the facilities study had already 

commenced were only subject to new 

suspension procedures. All projects in 

MISO’s interconnection queue at the 

start of the transition were slated for 

cluster study unless they were 

determined to be electrically remote. 

However, the size of cluster study 

groups was not addressed in MISO’s 

filing.214

152. Recent non-RTO/ISO 

interconnection queue reform filings 

gave existing interconnection customers 

three options: transitional serial study, 

transitional cluster study, or withdrawal 

from the interconnection queue.215

Eligibility for the transitional studies 

was based on study status and/or 

commercial readiness demonstrations, 

as discussed further below. In accepting 

PSCo’s interconnection queue reform 

filing, the Commission found that 

PSCo’s transition process ‘‘consider[s] 

the interests of interconnection 

customers whose requests are far along 

in the process’’ while allowing a 

transmission provider to resolve its 

interconnection queue backlog.216

153. As discussed above, in the 

interconnection queue reform filings 

immediately following the 2008 

Technical Conference Order, the 

Commission approved transition plans 

that grandfathered interconnection 

customers that had executed a system 

impact study agreement or a facilities 

study agreement.217 However, in more 

recent interconnection queue reform 

filings, only late-stage interconnection 

customers have been consistently given 

a path to executing an LGIA under the 

existing interconnection procedures. 

Specifically, a grandfathering threshold 

based on the execution of a facilities 

study agreement has been more 

common. For example, transmission 

providers may require receipt of a 

facilities study agreement by the 

interconnection customer 218 or receipt 

of a completed system impact study as 

well as execution of a facilities study 

agreement for an interconnection 

customer to qualify for 

grandfathering.219

154. The Commission has also 

allowed transmission providers to apply 

the new commercial readiness 

requirements in their interconnection 

queue reforms to existing 

interconnection customers. For 

example, to qualify for a transitional 

serial study, several transmission 

providers have required interconnection 

customers to: execute a transitional 

facilities study agreement; provide a 

deposit equivalent to 100% of the costs 

identified in the system impact study 

for interconnection facilities and 

network upgrades; demonstrate 

exclusive site control; and demonstrate 

commercial readiness.220 To qualify for 

the transitional cluster study, the 

Commission has approved transition 

plans that require interconnection 

customers to: execute a transitional 

cluster study agreement; provide a $5 

million deposit; 221 demonstrate 

exclusive site control for the generating 

facility; and demonstrate commercial 

readiness.222 The Commission has also 

approved less stringent requirements for 

transitional cluster study eligibility. For 

example, Duke’s transition plan imposes 

lower cost security deposit requirements 

for ready interconnection customers and 

allows the use of cash deposits in lieu 

of site control (for the first phase of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39960 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

223See Duke, Transmittal Letter, Docket No. 

ER21–1579–000, at 48, 52 (filed Apr. 1, 2021). In 

its interconnection queue reform proposal, Duke 

stated that it selected these lower thresholds d in 

response to stakeholder feedback. See Duke, 176 

FERC ¶ 61,075 at P 51 (approving these provisions). 

224Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 43. 

225See, e.g., Midwest Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 

124 FERC ¶ 61,183 at P 84; PSCo, 169 FERC 

¶ 61,182 at P 65; Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 

60. 

226We note that this proposed reform may not be 

applicable to transmission providers that already 

employ a cluster study approach. 

227ERIS allows the interconnection customer to 

connect its generating facility to the transmission 

provider’s transmission system to be eligible to 

deliver the generating facility’s electric output using 

the existing firm or nonfirm capacity of the 

transmission provider’s transmission system on an 

as available basis. ERIS in and of itself does not 

convey transmission service. Pro forma LGIP 

section 1. 

228See supra note 99. 

transitional cluster study) or 

commercial readiness.223

155. The Commission has also made 

it clear that existing interconnection 

customers must be given sufficient time 

to meet new requirements. For example, 

the Commission rejected Tri-State’s 

initial transition process proposal 

because it would have given 

interconnection customers just 10 

calendar days after the filing’s effective 

date to meet new requirements.224

Commission-approved transition 

processes commonly allow 

interconnection customers between 30– 

60 days after a filing’s effective date (or 

the provision of written notice) to meet 

new commercial readiness 

requirements.225

ii. Proposal 

156. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to require transmission 

providers to establish a transition 

process for moving to a first-ready, firstserved cluster study process, as 

proposed in this NOPR.226 Specifically, 

we propose to require transmission 

providers to offer existing eligible, 

interconnection customers the options, 

for each project in the queue, to either 

enter a transitional serial 

interconnection facilities study or a 

transitional cluster study, with 

commercial readiness requirements, or 

to permit them to withdraw from the 

interconnection queue without penalty. 

157. We believe that this approach 

would provide an efficient way to 

prioritize and process interconnection 

requests in the interconnection queue 

based on how far they have advanced 

through the interconnection study 

process on the effective date of these 

reforms and their commercial readiness 

to continue that process. We also 

believe that this proposal strikes an 

appropriate balance between respecting 

previous expectations of 

interconnection customers and ensuring 

that the interconnection requests that 

continue under the transition process 

pose an acceptably low risk of 

withdrawal from the interconnection 

queue, which should help reduce the 

likelihood of re-studies. Accordingly, 

we propose to revise section 5 of the pro 

forma LGIP to specify how 

interconnection customers can elect to 

enter a transitional serial study or 

transitional cluster study or withdraw 

from the interconnection queue without 

penalty, as set forth in Appendix B to 

this NOPR. 

158. Our proposed transitional serial 

study process will allow late-stage 

interconnection customers that have 

executed a facilities study agreement by 

the deadline discussed below to 

continue under the existing serial study 

process, enter into an LGIA, and 

interconnect, provided they are ready to 

move forward to commercial operation. 

To proceed to the transitional serial 

study, eligible interconnection 

customers would be required to execute 

a transitional serial interconnection 

facilities study agreement to codify their 

choice. At the time of execution of such 

agreement, the interconnection 

customer would be required to provide 

a deposit equal to 100% of the 

interconnection facility and network 

upgrade costs allocated to the 

interconnection customer in the system 

impact study report. If the customer 

reaches commercial operation, this 

deposit would be used towards 

construction costs of the same facilities. 

If the customer withdraws, the deposit 

would be refunded after the final 

invoice for study costs and the 

withdrawal penalty are settled. The 

transitional serial study withdrawal 

penalty would equal nine times the 

study cost because all future 

interconnection requests may be harmed 

if the transitional projects do not reach 

commercial operation. Specifically, 

these transitional projects would be 

included in the base case of the 

transitional cluster study, so a 

transitional serial project withdrawing 

could cause the entire first cluster to be 

re-studied. Transitional serial projects 

would also be required to provide 

evidence of exclusive site control for the 

entire generating facility and 

demonstrate commercial readiness 

through one of the following: (1) an 

executed term sheet (or comparable 

evidence) related to a contract for the 

sale of the generating facility or its 

energy/ancillary services; (2) reasonable 

evidence that the generating facility is 

included in a resource planning entity’s 

resource plan, has received a contract 

via a resource solicitation process, or is 

being developed for a large end-use 

customer; or (3) a provisional LGIA that 

is not suspended and includes a 

commitment to build the generating 

facility. We propose that the deadline 

for the interconnection customer to 

meet all the provisions above will be 60 

days after the effective date of a 

transmission provider’s compliance 

filing with the final rule. Finally, we 

propose that the transitional serial 

studies be completed by the 

transmission provider within 90 days 

after the deadline for eligibility 

requirements to be satisfied. 

159. Existing interconnection 

customers that opt for the transitional 

cluster study would have to execute a 

transitional cluster study agreement to 

codify their choice. The costs of this 

study and the identified facilities would 

be allocated as the costs are allocated for 

future clusters as set forth in the final 

rule in this proceeding. The transitional 

cluster will be subject to an expedited 

combined system impact and 

interconnection facilities study. 

Transitional cluster study projects 

would be required to select Energy 

Resource Interconnection Service 

(ERIS) 227 or NRIS.228 To ensure that 

interconnection customers are ready to 

move forward, interconnection 

customers opting for a transitional 

cluster study would be required to make 

a $5 million deposit. We draw on the 

evidence provided by PSCo in 

proposing this value; specifically, it is 

equivalent to a reasonable estimate of 

the costs that would be allocated to the 

customer via the transitional cluster 

study. We propose to subject this 

deposit to the same conditions as the 

transitional serial study deposit. 

Transitional cluster study projects also 

would be required to produce evidence 

of exclusive site control for the entire 

generating facility and demonstrate 

commercial readiness through one of 

the same three options described above 

for transitional serial studies. Once 

again, we propose to set the deadline for 

satisfying these requirements as 60 days 

after the effective date of a transmission 

provider’s compliance filing with any 

final rule. Finally, we propose that the 

transitional cluster study be completed 

by the transmission provider within 300 

days after the deadline for eligibility 

requirements to be satisfied. 

160. We seek comment on whether 

certain interconnection customers with 

a pending interconnection request prior 

to the issuance of a final rule in this 

proceeding should be allowed to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39961 

229Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 67; 

pro forma LGIP section 1. 

230Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 315. 

231 Id. P 322. 

232 Id. P 323. 

233 Id. P 305. 

234 Id. PP 290, 305. 

235 Id. P 306. 

236 Id. PP 309, 323. 

237Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., Filing, Docket No. 

ER19–1939–000 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); Avista Corp., 

Filing, Docket No. ER19–1959–000 (filed Feb. 11, 

2022); Dominion, Filing, Docket No. ER19–1946– 

000 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); Duke, Filing, Docket No. 

ER19–1507–000 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); FP&L, Filing, 

ER20–1384–000 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); ISO–NE, 

Filing, Docket No. ER19–1951–000 (filed Feb. 14, 

2022); LG&E/KU, Filing, Docket No. ER19–1916– 

000 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); Midcontinent Indep. Sys. 

Operator, Inc., Filing, Docket No. ER19–1960–004 

(filed Feb. 11, 2022); NorthWestern Corp., Filing, 

Docket No. ER19–1943–000 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); 

NYISO, Filing, Docket No. ER19–1949–000 (filed 

Feb. 14, 2022); PacifiCorp., Filing, Docket No. 

ER19–1948–000 (filed Feb. 9, 2022); PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C., Filing, Docket No. ER19– 

1958–003 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); PNM, Filing, Docket 

No. ER19–1955–000 (filed Feb. 15, 2022); Puget 

Sound, Filing, Docket No. ER19–1947–000 (filed 

Feb. 15, 2022); Tri-State, Filing, Docket No. ER20– 

687–000 (filed Feb. 2, 2022); Tucson Electric, 

Filing, Docket No. ER19–1934–000 (filed Feb. 14, 

2022). 

238See, e.g., Dominion, Filing, Docket No. ER19– 

1946–000, at 3 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); ISO–NE, Filing, 

Docket No. ER19–1951–000, at 5 (filed Feb. 14, 

2022); LG&E/KU, Filing, Docket No. ER19–1916– 

000, at 2 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); NYISO, Filing, 

Docket No. ER19–1949–000, at 5 (filed Feb. 14, 

2022); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Filing, Docket 

No. ER19–1958–003, at 1–2, 5–6 (filed Feb. 14, 

2022). 

239See, e.g., ISO–NE, Filing, Docket No. ER19– 

1951–000, at 5 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); NorthWestern 

Corp., Filing, Docket No. ER19–1943–000, at 2 (filed 

Feb. 14, 2022). 

240See, e.g., ISO–NE, Filing, Docket No. ER19– 

1951–000, at 5 (filed Feb. 14, 2022); Midcontinent 

Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Filing, Docket No. ER19– 

1960–004, at 9–12, 14–15 (filed Feb. 11, 2022); 

NYISO, Filing, Docket No. ER19–1949–000, at 4 

(filed Feb. 14, 2022); PJM Interconnection, LLC, 

Filing, Docket No. ER19–1958–003, at 13–15 (filed 

Feb. 14, 2022). 

241May Joint Task Force Tr. 89:6–25 (Ted LeVar) 

(encouraging FERC to examine ‘‘appropriate 

consequences to the transmission providers when 

they don’t comply with the tariffs,’’ including by 

missing study deadlines). 

proceed to LGIA execution without 

entering the transition process, for 

example, interconnection customers 

with an executed facilities study 

agreement. We seek comment on 

whether the Commission should require 

transmission providers to accept any 

additional commercial readiness 

demonstrations for entry into the 

transition process, and whether existing 

interconnection customers should be 

permitted to enter the transitional 

cluster study process by posting a 

deposit in lieu of demonstrating 

commercial readiness. We seek 

comment on whether five million 

dollars is a reasonable estimate of the 

costs that would be allocated to the 

customer via the transitional cluster 

study. 

B. Reforms To Increase the Speed of 

Interconnection Queue Processing 

1. Elimination of the Reasonable Efforts 

Standard 

a. Background 

161. The pro forma LGIP requires 

transmission providers to use 

reasonable efforts to process 

interconnection requests in a timely 

manner. Reasonable efforts are defined 

as ‘‘actions that are timely and 

consistent with Good Utility Practice 

and are substantially equivalent to those 

a Party would use to protect its own 

interests.’’ 229

162. Specifically, section 2.2 of the 

pro forma LGIP requires transmission 

providers to use reasonable efforts in 

processing and analyzing 

interconnection requests. Sections 6.3, 

7.4, and 8.3 of the pro forma LGIP 

require transmission providers to use 

reasonable efforts to complete feasibility 

studies within 45 days, system impact 

studies within 90 days, and facilities 

studies within 90 or 180 days, 

depending on the requested accuracy of 

the cost estimate. The pro forma LGIP 

does not include any penalties or 

financial consequences if a transmission 

provider fails to meet these deadlines. 

163. In the Order No. 845 proceeding, 

some commenters advocated for the 

elimination of the reasonable efforts 

standard and imposition of firm study 

deadlines.230 The Commission declined 

to do so, explaining that the record in 

that proceeding did not support such 

action.231 Further, the Commission 

reasoned that ‘‘reliance on improved 

reporting is a preferable approach to 

encourage timely processing of 

interconnection studies, rather than 

moving to a regime of firm study 

deadlines.’’ 232

164. To improve reporting, the 

Commission required transmission 

providers to post interconnection study 

metrics on a quarterly basis to increase 

the transparency of interconnection 

study completion timeframes.233 The 

Commission also adopted a filed report 

requirement pursuant to which 

transmission providers that exceed 

study deadlines for more than 25% of 

any study type for two consecutive 

quarters must file informational reports 

at the Commission.234 In adopting these 

requirements, the Commission reasoned 

that the increased transparency should 

provide for improved interconnection 

queue management.235 The Commission 

also explained that the informational 

requirements could highlight systemic 

problems in interconnection study 

processing and could be useful to the 

Commission in determining if 

additional action is required to address 

interconnection study delays in the 

future.236

b. Need for Reform 

165. The transmission provider 

reporting requirements adopted in 

Order No. 845 indicate that the failure 

to timely complete interconnection 

studies is a significant problem 

nationwide. Appendix A to this NOPR 

compiles the interconnection study 

metrics that transmission providers 

publicly posted in 2021 in compliance 

with Order No. 845. The data shows that 

almost 1,900 interconnection studies 

were delayed as of the end of Q4 2021. 

Additionally, in February 2022, the 

following transmission providers 

submitted required informational 

reports to the Commission because they 

exceeded an interconnection study 

deadline for more than 25% of any 

study type for two consecutive quarters: 

Arizona Public Service Company, 

Avista, Dominion, Duke, FP&L, ISO–NE, 

LG&E/KU, MISO, Northwestern Corp, 

NYISO, PacifiCorp, PJM, PNM, Puget 

Sound, Tri-State, and Tucson 

Electric.237 Common explanations for 

these study delays include the high 

volume of interconnection requests,238

re-studies caused by withdrawal of 

higher-queued interconnection 

requests,239 and coordination among 

transmission owners, affected systems, 

and interconnection customers.240

166. Overall, the data demonstrate 

that nearly all transmission providers 

across the country regularly fail to meet 

interconnection study deadlines. 

Importantly, the data show that many of 

the transmission providers that have 

implemented some of the reforms that 

we propose in this NOPR, such as a 

first-ready, first-served cluster study 

process, still often fail to meet 

interconnection study deadlines. We 

believe that this indicates the potential 

need for further reforms to better ensure 

that transmission providers meet 

interconnection study deadlines. In 

particular, we believe that the 

reasonable efforts standard in the pro 

forma LGIP contributes to 

interconnection study delays because 

transmission providers do not face any 

consequence for missing study 

deadlines.241

167. The timely provision of 

interconnection service is critical to 

maintaining just and reasonable rates. 

As such, this NOPR proposes reforms to 

remedy several well-established sources 

of delay, such as speculative 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39962 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

242See, e.g., EDF v. MISO, 163 FERC ¶ 61,003, at 

P 47, order on reh’g, 165 FERC ¶ 61,071, at PP 7– 

12 (2018); California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 

124 FERC ¶ 61,292 at PP 188–189, 199. 

243This proposal would not affect the application 

of the reasonable efforts standard in other contexts, 

such as construction of network upgrades or legally 

ordered disclosure of confidential information. Pro 

forma LGIP sections 12.2.2, 13.1.6. 

244See Preventing Undue Discrimination & 

Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890, 

72 FR 12266 (Mar. 15, 2007), 118 FERC ¶ 61,119, 

at P 1340 (2007) (imposing penalties when 

transmission providers fail to meet study deadlines 

for transmission service request). 

245Specifically, we propose to penalize 

transmission providers when they fail to meet study 

deadlines for studying interconnection requests on 

an affected transmission system. 

246See supra PP 64–76. 

247See Order No. 890, 118 FERC ¶ 61,119 at P 

1347. 

248See Order No. 890, 118 FERC ¶ 61,119 at P 

1357 (‘‘We will prohibit all jurisdictional 

transmission providers from recovering penalties 

for late studies from transmission customers); Order 

No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 884 (‘‘[B]ecause 

liquidated damages liability will not have to be paid 

unless the Transmission Provider is at fault, we 

conclude that these damages will not be considered 

just and reasonable costs of service and will not be 

recoverable in transmission rates.’’). 

249 Id. P 1357. 

250Rules Concerning Certification of the Elec. 

Reliability Org.; & Procs. for the Establishment, 

Approval, & Enforcement of Elec. Reliability 

Standards, Order No. 672–A, 71 FR 19814 (Apr. 18, 

2006), 114 FERC ¶ 61,104, at P 56 (2006). 

251Reliability Standard Compliance & Enf’t in 

Regions with Reg’l Transmission Organizations or 

Indep. Sys. Operators, 122 FERC ¶ 61,247 (2008) 

(Reliability Penalty Guidance Order). 

interconnection requests, affected 

systems coordination, and serial 

interconnection queues. While we 

expect that these reforms will yield a 

more efficient process, we also believe 

that it is appropriate to establish 

mechanisms to hold transmission 

providers accountable for the timely 

execution of their duties under the 

tariff. The data collected pursuant to 

Order No. 845 indicates that the 

reasonable efforts standard does not 

provide a meaningful incentive for the 

transmission providers to complete their 

studies within the deadlines established 

in their tariffs. Indeed, the fact that the 

Commission has never found a 

transmission provider to have violated 

the reasonable efforts standard despite 

wide-spread study delays further 

heightens this concern.242 Accordingly, 

we preliminary find that use of the 

reasonable efforts standard results in 

rates that are unjust and unreasonable. 

c. Proposal 

168. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to eliminate the reasonable 

efforts standard for transmission 

providers completing interconnection 

studies, and instead impose firm study 

deadlines and establish penalties that 

would apply when transmission 

providers fail to meet these 

deadlines.243 Specifically, we propose 

to revise sections 2.2, 3.5.4(i), 7.4, 8.3, 

and Attachment A to Appendix 4 of the 

pro forma LGIP to remove the phrase 

‘‘reasonable efforts’’ in relation to the 

completion of cluster studies and 

facilities studies. 

169. Furthermore, we propose to add 

a new section 3.9 to the pro forma LGIP 

to impose financial penalties on 

transmission providers that fail to meet 

study deadlines 244 for cluster studies, 

cluster re-studies, facilities studies, and 

affected system studies,245 except in 

situations where force majeure is 

determined to be applicable. By cluster 

studies,246 we mean those that are part 

of the first-ready, first-served cluster 

study process that we propose in this 

NOPR, and we exclude the proposed 

transitional cluster study process from 

this meaning. Specifically, we propose 

to require transmission providers that 

do not complete a cluster, cluster restudy, facilities, or affected system 

study by the deadline specified in the 

pro forma LGIP to pay a penalty of $500 

per day that the study is late. For 

example, a transmission provider that 

misses a study deadline by 150 days 

would be penalized $75,000. We believe 

that $500 per day is an appropriate 

penalty because (1) it is in line with the 

penalties applied in the context of 

studies performed for transmission 

service requests, and (2) it is high 

enough to incent transmission providers 

to comply with study deadlines, 

without being unnecessarily 

punitive.247 Such penalties would be 

distributed to the delayed 

interconnection customers on a pro rata 

basis to offset their study costs. 

Consistent with other penalties, we 

propose that such penalties would not 

be recoverable in transmission rates.248

170. We propose to cap penalties at 

100% of the total study deposit received 

for the late study to provide a safeguard 

against overly large penalties that may 

be considered punitive. We further 

propose that no financial penalties on 

transmission providers that fail to meet 

study deadlines shall be assessed until 

one cluster study cycle (that is not a 

transitional study cycle) after the 

effective date accepted on compliance 

for implementing the reforms proposed 

herein. Thus, for example, once the 

reforms proposed herein become 

effective, a transmission provider would 

not be subject to penalties until after the 

completion of (1) the transition process, 

and (2) the first cluster study cycle 

applying the first-ready, first-served 

cluster study process. We also propose 

a 10-day grace period such that no 

penalties will be assessed for a study 

that is delayed by 10 business days or 

less. However, for studies that are 

delayed by more than 10 business days, 

the penalty would be calculated based 

on the first business day the study was 

late. For example, a transmission 

provider whose study was delayed by 

11 business days would pay a $5,500 

penalty. Additionally, we propose to 

permit the transmission provider to 

extend the deadline or a particular 

study by 30 days by mutual agreement 

of the transmission provider and all 

interconnection customers in the 

relevant study. In such a scenario, we 

propose that no penalties will be 

assessed for missing the original 

deadline. Finally, we propose to require 

transmission providers to post to its 

OASIS or a public website on a 

quarterly basis (1) the total amount of 

such penalties from the previous 

quarter, and (2) the highest amount of 

such penalties to a single 

interconnection request from the 

previous quarter. 

171. We recognize that the application 

of penalties for late interconnection 

studies in the context of RTOs/ISOs may 

raise several unique issues. Consistent 

with our findings in Order No. 890, we 

continue to believe that penalties are 

appropriate in certain circumstances to 

incent compliance with tariff deadlines, 

notwithstanding the RTO’s/ISO’s status 

as a not-for-profit entity. As the 

Commission explained in Order No. 

890, ‘‘we believe that all entities 

administering the tariff should operate 

under the same rules, reporting 

obligations, and performance metrics 

. . . Non-profit transmission providers 

have other sources of money to pay 

penalties beyond the revenue they 

collect for sales of transmission 

service.’’ 249 Similarly, in Order No. 

672–A, the Commission noted ‘‘it is not 

arbitrary and capricious to treat all 

operators alike, including RTOs and 

ISOs, in terms of their liability for 

violation of a Reliability Standard.’’ 250

We continue to believe it is appropriate 

to apply penalties to RTOs/ISOs in a 

similar manner to other transmission 

providers. 

172. In the context of reliability 

penalties, the Commission has 

recognized that, as not-for-profit 

entities, RTOs/ISOs may need to seek to 

recover from other entities the costs of 

monetary penalties imposed on the 

RTO/ISO.251 As such, the Commission 

has approved tariff provisions creating 

mechanisms to permit RTOs/ISOs to 

recover monetary penalties imposed by 

NERC for violations of reliability 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39963 

252 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 147 

FERC ¶ 61,022 (2014); Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator 

Corp., 138 FERC ¶ 61,156 (2012); N.Y. Indep. Sys. 

Operator, Inc., 127 FERC ¶ 61,196 (2009). 253See Reliability Penalty Guidance Order, 122 

FERC ¶ 61,247 at P 23. 

254Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 305. 

255An affected system is an electric system other 

than the transmission provider’s transmission 

system that may be affected by the proposed 

interconnection. Pro forma LGIP section 1; pro 

forma LGIA art. 1. 

256An affected system operator is an entity that 

operates an affected system. Pro forma LGIP section 

1; pro forma LGIA art. 1. 

257Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 121. 

258See pro forma LGIP section 3.6. 

259 Id. 

260Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 121; 

see also Order No. 2003–A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220 at 

P 114 (clarifying on rehearing that delays by an 

affected system operator are not an acceptable 

reason to deviate from the timetables established in 

Order No. 2003 unless the interconnection will 

endanger reliability). 

261Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 121. 

262Transmission providers are obliged to 

coordinate the conduct of affected system studies 

(see pro forma LGIP section 3.6), but the 

Commission has not required transmission 

providers to follow any specific affected systems 

study process. 

263EDF v. MISO, 168 FERC ¶ 61,173. 

264See May Joint Task Force Tr. 67:6–8 (Dan 

Scripps) (‘‘Specifically, there may be an 

Continued 

standards from entities that are 

responsible for, or contributed to, such 

violations, or from a broader set of 

entities.252 We recognize that similar 

tariff provisions are likely to be 

necessary to permit RTOs/ISOs to 

recover the costs of penalties they are 

obligated to pay for failing to meet 

interconnection study deadlines. 

Therefore, to ensure that RTOs/ISOs 

will be able to pay any such penalties, 

we propose to require RTOs/ISOs to 

propose tariff provisions that require the 

RTO/ISO to submit requests to recover 

the costs of specific interconnection 

study penalties under FPA section 205. 

Similar to the ability of RTOs/ISOs to 

seek to directly assign monetary 

penalties for violations of reliability 

standards to other responsible entities, 

RTOs/ISOs may include a provision that 

the RTO/ISO may make a FPA section 

205 filing seeking to allocate such 

penalties to the appropriate 

transmission owner that is responsible 

for, or contributed to, the delay.253

However, given the complexity 

recognized above regarding assigning 

monetary penalties to RTOs/ISOs for 

late interconnection studies, we seek 

comment on whether there is a more 

appropriate method for assigning such 

penalties in RTOs/ISOs. More generally, 

we seek comment on whether penalties 

will effectively incent more timely 

completion of interconnection studies 

in RTOs/ISOs, and/or whether monetary 

penalties may have adverse 

consequences (e.g., incenting timeliness 

over accuracy or increased waiver 

requests). 

173. Additionally, we seek comment 

on the proposed penalty structure, 

including whether the penalty amount 

for a cluster study should be $500 per 

day or whether an approach that 

accounts for the number of 

interconnection customers affected, 

such as $100 per day per customer in 

the delayed study, would be more 

appropriate. We further seek comment 

on how and when the Commission 

should require transmission providers 

to communicate to interconnection 

customers the status of studies that may 

be delayed. Additionally, we seek 

comment on whether to include 

exceptions to the penalty other than 

force majeure, and if so, what those 

exceptions should be. Lastly, to improve 

transparency, we seek comment on 

whether Commission staff should issue 

periodic reports summarizing the status 

of transmission providers’ queues and 

timeliness of interconnection studies 

based on information collected through 

existing reporting requirements,254 and 

whether this periodic report should be 

in addition to or a substitute for the 

proposed monetary penalties discussed 

above. 

2. Affected Systems 

a. Background 

174. In Order No. 2003, the 

Commission found that the transmission 

system with which a generating facility 

directly interconnects (the host 

transmission system) must allow any 

affected system 255 to participate in the 

process when conducting 

interconnection studies, as well as 

incorporate the legitimate safety and 

reliability needs of the affected system. 

However, the Commission rejected a 

request to require that an affected 

system operator 256 participate in the 

host transmission provider’s generator 

interconnection process.257 Instead, 

section 3.6 of the pro forma LGIP 

requires the host transmission provider 

to coordinate required interconnection 

studies with affected system operators 

and, if possible, to include those results 

within the host transmission provider’s 

applicable results in the LGIP study 

process. 

175. Specifically, the pro forma LGIP 

requires that host transmission 

providers: (1) coordinate the conduct of 

any studies required to determine the 

impact of an interconnection request on 

an affected system with the affected 

system operator and, if possible, include 

those study results in the transmission 

provider’s applicable interconnection 

study; and (2) include affected system 

operators in all meetings held with the 

interconnection customer.258 The pro 

forma LGIP further requires affected 

system operators to ‘‘cooperate with 

[Host] Transmission Provider . . . in all 

matters related to the conduct of studies 

and the determination of modifications 

to Affected Systems.’’ 259

176. The affected system operator is 

not bound by the terms of the host 

transmission provider’s pro forma LGIP, 

is not a party to any study agreement, 

and is not otherwise required to meet 

any deadlines to complete the affected 

system study. Additionally, in Order 

No. 2003, the Commission explicitly 

stated that a host transmission provider 

may proceed with the generator 

interconnection process even if an 

affected system operator does not 

provide information in a timely manner 

by not taking into account any 

information that could have been 

provided by the affected system 

operator, provided that the 

interconnection itself (as distinct from 

any future delivery service) will not 

endanger reliability.260 The Commission 

also stated that neither the pro forma 

LGIP nor the pro forma LGIA is 

intended to expose the host 

transmission provider to liability 

resulting from delays by the affected 

system operator.261

177. The Commission did not 

specifically require in Order No. 2003 

that host transmission providers post 

their process for coordinating with 

affected system operators.262 The 

Commission also did not require that 

affected system operators give 

interconnection customers the affected 

systems study results at any specific 

time in the generator interconnection 

process. 

178. The Commission convened a 

technical conference in Docket No. 

AD18–8–000 to explore affected systems 

coordination issues and address a 

complaint filed by EDF in Docket No. 

EL18–26–000 regarding affected systems 

coordination between PJM, MISO, and 

SPP. In the order on complaint and 

technical conference, the Commission 

declined to act generically to reform 

affected systems requirements but 

required PJM, MISO, and SPP to clarify 

certain aspects of their affected systems 

study processes in their tariffs and joint 

operating agreements (JOA).263

b. Need for Reform 

179. As further discussed below, 

affected systems study processes lack 

consistency between transmission 

providers.264 Interconnection customers 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39964 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

opportunity to create a general framework that 

would be consistent across RTO seams.’’); id. 

68:12–18 (Ted Thomas) (agreeing with Chair 

Scripps that ‘‘the most effective place that FERC can 

operate is in the area where you have two RTOs and 

the real issue is getting them on the same page’’). 

265 See id. 65:2–8 (Dan Scripps) (citing affected 

systems studies as ‘‘a growing source of delay and 

cost uncertainty for interconnection customers, 

both in terms of just the timelines involved and the 

difficulty in pinning those down’’). 

266See id. 67:14–17 (Dan Scripps) (‘‘[W]e expect 

the affected systems study process to become 

increasingly critical as more renewable resources 

come online in renewable rich areas and 

transmission capacity becomes ever more scarce.’’). 

267See, e.g., Clean Energy Coalition, 

Supplemental Comments, Docket No. RM21–17– 

000, at 9–12 (filed Feb. 14, 2022). 

268See also May Joint Task Force Tr. 64:18–24 

(Dan Scripps) (stating that ‘‘FERC may have a larger 

role to play in issues that cross RTO boundaries, 

particularly, around cross-RTO affected system 

studies where individual RTOs have limited 

control’’ and certainty ‘‘around the timing of 

affected systems studies’’). 

269Compare Sw. Power Pool, Inc., Rate Schedule 

FERC No. 9, MISO–SPP Joint Operating Agreement 

(1.0.0), with Sw. Power Pool, Inc., Rate Schedule 

FERC No. 10, SPP–AECI Joint Operating Agreement 

(0.0.0). 

270As we propose to define in the LGIP, the 

‘‘Affected System Interconnection Customer’’ shall 

mean ‘‘any entity that proposes interconnection of 

a device for the production and/or storage for later 

injection of electricity to a transmission system 

other than Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System.’’ See proposed LGIP section 1. 

need a timely cost determination to 

make decisions to facilitate the 

interconnection of their generating 

facilities, and without any requirement 

for a timely cost determination, affected 

system operators may not return study 

results in time for interconnection 

customers to make those decisions.265

As explained earlier, interconnection 

queues have dramatically increased in 

size and are only getting larger. Without 

an efficient affected system study 

process that enables interconnection 

customers to receive affected system 

study results and cost estimates in a 

timely manner, there will continue to be 

late-stage withdrawals due to 

unexpected high costs for affected 

system network upgrades and resulting 

re-studies and delays.266

180. During the technical conference 

in Docket No. AD18–8–000 and in 

comments on the ANOPR,267

interconnection customers have 

recommended standardization of the 

affected systems study process. 

Specifically, they requested that the 

Commission standardize the timing of 

study results, the amount of study costs, 

and modeling criteria used in affected 

systems studies.268

181. Currently, detailed information 

about any two transmission providers’ 

affected systems study processes is 

found in multiple transmission provider 

documents and is not necessarily 

cohesive, which creates confusion and 

uncertainty. For example, some 

information about the study process 

may be contained in a JOA between two 

transmission providers and some may 

be in the transmission provider’s 

business practice manuals. However, 

much of the study process coordination 

between transmission providers is ad 

hoc and, therefore, unclear to 

interconnection customers. Affected 

systems study processes are also highly 

variable based on region and 

transmission provider and may not be 

uniform even across a single 

transmission provider’s footprint.269

c. Affected Systems Study Process 

i. Need for Reform 

182. We preliminarily find that the 

lack of an affected system study process 

results in Commission-jurisdictional 

rates that are unjust and unreasonable 

because an interconnection customer 

cannot evaluate its costs in a timely 

manner, which increases uncertainty 

and may result in late-stage withdrawals 

and subsequent re-studies, delays, and 

increased costs to the remaining 

interconnection customers in the 

interconnection queue. Without a 

transparent affected system study 

process, neither an interconnection 

customer nor the Commission can 

evaluate whether the affected system 

operator has acted in an unduly 

discriminatory manner. Reforms to 

improve transparency and coordination, 

therefore, may be necessary to establish 

a just and reasonable and not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential affected 

systems study process. 

ii. Proposal 

183. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to include an affected 

systems study process. The proposed 

process includes initial notification, 

affected system scoping meeting, study 

process, cost allocation, study results 

and assessment, and financial penalties 

assessment. We also propose to add 

several definitions to section 1 of the 

pro forma LGIP, including ‘‘Affected 

System Interconnection Customer,’’ 

‘‘Affected System Network Upgrades,’’ 

‘‘Affected System Scoping Meeting,’’ 

and ‘‘Affected System Study.’’ 

184. In subsection 3.6.1 of the pro 

forma LGIP, we propose to require that 

the transmission provider notify the 

affected system operator of a potential 

affected system impact caused by the 

interconnection request within 10 

business days after the close of the first 

event giving rise to the identification of 

an affected system impact. For 

transmission providers utilizing a 

cluster study process, this event could 

be (1) the cluster request window, (2) 

the customer engagement window, (3) 

the cluster study, or (4) the cluster restudy as part of the first-ready, firstserved cluster study process we also 

propose in this NOPR (described above 

in section II.A). At the same time that 

the transmission provider notifies the 

affected system, we propose to require 

the transmission provider to provide the 

interconnection customer with a list of 

potential affected systems, along with 

relevant contact information. The 

transmission provider would be 

required to provide the affected system 

operator data monthly, or more 

frequently as needed, about its 

transmission system and generation in 

its interconnection queue for the 

duration of the affected system study 

process. 

185. In subsection 3.6.2 and section 9 

of the pro forma LGIP, we also propose 

several requirements on transmission 

providers acting as an affected system, 

whose transmission systems may be 

impacted by the proposed 

interconnection of a generating facility 

to a transmission system other than 

transmission provider’s transmission 

system. We propose to add a new 

definition for the interconnection 

customer whose proposed 

interconnection with the host 

transmission system impacts the 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system: the ‘‘Affected System 

Interconnection Customer.’’ 270 We 

propose to require the transmission 

provider acting as an affected system, 

within 15 business days of receiving 

notification from the host transmission 

provider of an impact on its 

transmission system, to respond in 

writing indicating whether it intends to 

perform an affected system study. We 

believe that the proposed initial 

notification requirement would 

streamline the affected systems study 

process and minimize 

miscommunications that lead to delays 

and cost uncertainty for interconnection 

customers as well as potential impacts 

on affected systems that may be 

unaccounted for absent an effective 

coordination process. Firm deadlines 

ensure that the notification process 

advances expediently and that the 

obligations of each party are clear. 

186. In subsection 3.6.2 of the pro 

forma LGIP, we propose to require that 

the transmission provider acting as the 

affected system schedule an affected 

system scoping meeting within seven 

business days after providing written 

notification that it intends to conduct an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39965 

271See infra PP 197–198 for an explanation of the 

proposed pro forma affected system study 

agreement. 

272See, e.g., Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 179 FERC 

¶ 61,148 (2022) (accepting JOA between SPP and 

MISO with similar queue priority provisions setting 

forth, in section 9.4 of the JOA, procedures under 

which ‘‘[t]he relative queue position for 

interconnection requests in the MISO or SPP 

interconnection queues will be determined . . .’’). 

273See infra PP 200–201 for a discussion of the 

proposed pro forma affected system facilities 

construction agreement. 274See supra P 169. 

affected system study. We also propose 

to require that the affected system 

scoping meeting be held within seven 

business days after it is scheduled. The 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system must include the 

affected system interconnection 

customer, using best efforts to include 

the transmission provider with whom 

interconnection has been requested. The 

purpose of the affected system scoping 

meeting is to discuss the potential 

impacts on transmission provider’s 

transmission system and how they may 

be mitigated. Within 15 business days 

after the close of this meeting, the 

transmission provider would share with 

all scoping meeting attendees the 

schedule to complete the affected 

system study. We believe that these 

requirements will ensure that all 

relevant parties are timely aware of 

relevant impacts to affected systems and 

have the opportunity to discuss 

potential required network upgrades 

and mitigation measures. 

187. In subsection 3.6.3 of the pro 

forma LGIP, we propose to require that 

the transmission provider provide data 

monthly, or more frequently as needed, 

regarding the amount and location of 

generation in the transmission 

provider’s interconnection queue as 

well as updated information about the 

transmission provider’s transmission 

system. 

188. In section 9 of the pro forma 

LGIP, we propose to require the 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system to tender an affected 

system study agreement to the affected 

system interconnection customer within 

five business days of sharing the 

schedule for the affected system 

study.271 The affected system 

interconnection customer must then 

return the executed affected system 

study agreement within 10 business 

days of receipt. 

189. In subsection 9.2 of the pro 

forma LGIP, we propose to require the 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system to use what we refer to 

as a ‘‘first-ready, first-served 

interconnection queue priority 

approach,’’ which should explain how 

affected system network upgrade costs 

will be allocated by that transmission 

provider amongst interconnection 

customers in separate transmission 

systems.272 Specifically, in some 

situations, both affected system 

interconnection customers and 

interconnection customers on the 

transmission system of the transmission 

provider acting as the affected system 

cause the need for affected system 

network upgrades; in this case, each 

interconnection customer’s relative 

queue priority must be determined. A 

first-ready, first-served interconnection 

queue priority approach would require 

the transmission provider acting as the 

affected system to assign the affected 

system interconnection customer an 

interconnection queue position its 

interconnection queue according to 

when the affected system 

interconnection customer executes an 

affected system study, rather than when 

the affected system interconnection 

customer entered its host transmission 

provider’s queue. Such a position would 

be equivalent to that of a transmission 

provider’s own interconnection 

customer that had just received its 

cluster study report. Under subsection 

9.8 of the pro forma LGIP, the 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system must allocate network 

upgrade costs in accordance with LGIP 

section 4.2.3, which requires using a 

proportional impact method, as 

discussed above in section II.A.4. 

190. In subsection 9.6 of the pro 

forma LGIP, the transmission provider 

acting as the affected system must 

provide the affected system 

interconnection customer with affected 

system study results within 90 calendar 

days after the receipt of the executed 

affected system study agreement. The 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system would be required to 

include in the study results both the 

estimated costs for any network 

upgrades identified in the study and the 

timing for the construction of those 

network upgrades. 

191. In subsection 9.9 of the pro 

forma LGIP, we also propose to require, 

after the completion of the affected 

system study, that the transmission 

provider acting as the affected system 

provide the affected system 

interconnection customer with an 

affected system facilities construction 

agreement within 30 calendar days after 

providing the affected system study 

results.273 The affected system 

interconnection customer would then be 

required to notify the transmission 

provider within five business days of 

executing its generating interconnection 

agreement with its host transmission 

provider whether it would like to 

execute the affected system facilities 

construction agreement or request it to 

be filed unexecuted with the 

Commission. The transmission provider 

acting as the affected system would then 

be required to execute (or file 

unexecuted) the affected system 

facilities construction agreement within 

five business days after receiving such 

direction from the affected system 

interconnection customer. 

192. In subsection 9.6 of the pro 

forma LGIP, we propose to impose 

financial penalties on transmission 

providers acting as the affected systems 

that fail to timely complete actions 

required within section 9 of the pro 

forma LGIP, in accordance with the 

proposed new section 3.9 of the pro 

forma LGIP, discussed above.274 We 

reiterate that transmission providers 

conducting cluster studies are not 

required to delay those studies by 

waiting for the results of affected 

systems studies. A host transmission 

provider would not be penalized for a 

late Affected System Study, and we do 

not require a host transmission provider 

to wait on the results of an Affected 

System Study to conduct its Cluster 

Study, so any Affected System Study 

delay would not delay such a Cluster 

Study. The transmission provider acting 

as the affected system is the only entity 

that would be penalized for failure to 

timely complete an Affected System 

Study. 

193. These proposals aim to 

streamline the affected systems study 

process by addressing concerns about 

the lack of transparency and certainty in 

the affected systems study process. A 

detailed affected systems study process 

within the pro forma LGIP would 

prevent the use of ad hoc approaches 

that may give rise to interconnection 

customers being treated in an unjust, 

unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or 

preferential manner. Such an approach 

would provide interconnection 

customers certainty regarding 

expectations throughout the generator 

interconnection process, including 

greater cost certainty when it is time to 

finalize an LGIA. Definitive deadlines 

should ensure that the process moves 

along expediently, provide clarity and 

certainty in costs prior to an 

interconnection customer finalizing an 

LGIA, and provide increased 

transparency throughout the study 

process that should minimize 

opportunities for undue discrimination. 

We seek comment on the proposed 

affected systems study process. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39966 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

275See Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 

12, 919. 

276 Id. P 11. 

277 Id. P 121. 

278 Id. P 739. 

279See Duke Energy Progress, LLC, 177 FERC 

¶ 61,001, reh’g denied, 177 FERC ¶ 62,114 (2021), 

appeal pending sub nom. Duke Energy Progress, 

LLC v. FERC, No. 21–1272 (Dec. 27, 2021); see also 

Edgecombe Solar Energy LLC v. Duke Energy 

Progress, LLC, 177 FERC ¶ 61,122 (2021). 

280MISO Tariff, attach. X, app. 8 (Facilities 

Construction Agreement) (45.0.0); id. app. 9 (MultiParty Facilities Construction Agreement) (45.0.0). 

281MISO, Transmittal, Docket No. ER21–2793– 

000 (filed Aug. 31, 2021). 

282We also note that the Commission recently 

approved adoption of a pro forma affected system 

study agreement for CAISO, which CAISO proposed 

in anticipation of an increase in the need to perform 

affected system studies. Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator 

Corp., 178 FERC ¶ 61,223 (2022) (delegated order). 

d. Pro Forma Agreements 

i. Need for Reform 

194. We are concerned that the lack 

of pro forma agreements related to 

affected system studies and the 

construction of network upgrades on 

affected systems is both hindering the 

efficiency of the generator 

interconnection process through 

increased litigation over such 

agreements and leaving the door open to 

potential unduly discriminatory 

behavior against interconnection 

customers whose interconnection 

requests necessitate affected system 

network upgrades. In Order No. 2003, 

the Commission found that standard 

agreements applicable to large 

generating facilities would, among some 

other functions, minimize opportunities 

for undue discrimination and expedite 

the development of new generation, 

while protecting reliability and ensuring 

that rates are just and reasonable.275

195. We believe that there is a 

pressing need for (1) a standardized, 

uniformly applicable affected system 

study agreement that stipulates how to 

study the impact of interconnecting 

generating facilities on an affected 

system to identify network upgrades 

needed to accommodate the 

interconnection request and (2) a 

standardized affected system facilities 

construction agreement to set the terms 

and conditions for the construction of 

those network upgrades to minimize 

opportunities for undue discrimination 

against interconnection customers and 

expedite the development of new 

generation.276 In Order No. 2003, the 

Commission stated that, if an affected 

system operator fails to provide 

information in a timely manner, the 

transmission provider may proceed in 

the generator interconnection process 

without taking into account the 

information that could have been 

provided by the affected system 

operator. However, there is no 

definition for a ‘‘timely manner’’ and 

affected system study delays could 

result in delays to the host transmission 

provider’s interconnection study 

process.277 Additionally, the 

Commission found in Order No. 2003 

that, when an interconnection customer 

is required to pay for network upgrades 

on an affected system, the 

interconnection customer must enter 

into an agreement with the affected 

system operator unless the costs are 

incorporated in the interconnection 

agreement between the interconnection 

customer and the host transmission 

provider.278 Although the Commission 

incorporated this requirement into 

article 11.4.1 of the pro forma LGIA, the 

pro forma LGIP does not contain a pro 

forma agreement that governs the terms 

and conditions of the affected system 

study process to identify when the 

interconnection request requires 

network upgrades to be built on the 

affected system. The Commission has 

recently seen disputes arising from an 

affected system operator attempting to 

negotiate terms not in accordance with 

the pro forma LGIA and Order No. 

2003.279 With the increasing number of 

affected system-related disputes, it has 

become apparent that the current 

approach is an inadequate and 

inefficient means to address affected 

system issues. 

196. We preliminarily find that it is 

unjust and unreasonable to leave 

affected systems facilities construction 

agreements wholly up to individualized 

negotiations because such negotiations 

leave open opportunities for undue 

discrimination against interconnection 

customers throughout the process. 

Among other things, the pro forma LGIA 

sets terms and conditions for the 

construction of network upgrades 

identified as necessary to interconnect 

the generating facility to the 

transmission owner’s transmission 

system to which it will directly connect. 

However, the Commission does not 

have a similar pro forma agreement 

governing the construction of affected 

system network upgrades. Notably, 

MISO has both a pro forma facilities 

construction agreement and a pro forma 

multi-party facilities construction 

agreement in its tariff for instances 

when an interconnection customer is 

interconnecting to the MISO 

transmission system and network 

upgrades are needed to ensure 

reliability on a neighboring transmission 

owner’s transmission system within the 

MISO footprint.280 Specifically, MISO’s 

pro forma facilities construction 

agreement is an agreement for network 

upgrades constructed for an 

interconnection customer by a MISO 

transmission owner other than the 

MISO transmission owner with which it 

directly interconnects. MISO’s pro 

forma multi-party facilities construction 

agreement is used when multiple 

interconnection requests cause the need 

for construction of common network 

upgrades (network upgrades that are 

constructed by a transmission owner for 

more than one interconnection 

customer) on the transmission owner’s 

transmission system to which the 

interconnection customer is either 

directly or indirectly connecting to in 

MISO. The Commission found in its 

acceptance of these pro forma 

agreements that MISO accomplished the 

goal of Order No. 2003 to standardize 

procedures. As evidence of the 

importance of these pro forma 

agreements, which set consistent terms 

and conditions for the construction of 

network upgrades necessary for an 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection, more than 69 multiparty facilities construction agreements 

have been executed since 2017.281

ii. Proposal 

(a) Pro Forma Affected System Study 

Agreement 

197. We propose to establish a pro 

forma affected system study agreement 

to further improve the efficiency and 

transparency of the interconnection 

customer’s interaction with the affected 

system operator. We believe that a pro 

forma affected system study agreement 

could reduce uncertainty for the 

interconnection customer and save time 

by reducing the need for individualized 

negotiations for each interconnection 

customer with the affected system 

operator. 

198. We propose to model the pro 

forma affected system study agreement, 

incorporated as a new Appendix 15 to 

the pro forma LGIP, on the form of the 

existing pro forma system impact study 

agreement, with necessary minor 

revisions to the party names.282

Specifically, the affected system 

interconnection customer and 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system would be parties to the 

agreement to ensure close coordination, 

which should reduce delays and errors 

in the affected system study process. 

199. In article 5 of the proposed 

affected system study agreement, we 

propose to require the affected system 

study to provide the following 

information: identification of any circuit 

breaker short circuit capability limits 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39967 

283 ‘‘Network Resource shall mean 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 noninterruptible basis.’’ Pro forma LGIP section 1; pro 

forma LGIA art. 1. 

284The term ‘‘modeling standard’’ refers to the 

distribution factor threshold on a transmission 

element used by transmission providers, such that 

beyond this threshold an interconnection request 

will require network upgrades. For example, for 

SPP, if a transmission element is found to be 

overloaded in the study, and an NRIS 

interconnection request has over a 3% distribution 

factor on that element, the requesting entity will be 

assigned network upgrades. SPP uses a 19.5% 

distribution factor threshold for ERIS requests. See 

EDF v. MISO, 168 FERC ¶ 61,173 at P 17. A lower 

threshold indicates a stricter modeling standard 

because a smaller impact triggers network upgrades. 

Additionally, when conducting an affected system 

analysis, although some RTOs/ISOs (PJM and SPP, 

for example) use a modeling standard associated 

with the same level of service as requested on the 

host transmission provider’s transmission system, 

the output of proposed generating facilities is 

always sunk into the host transmission provider’s 

transmission system by reducing the output of other 

generating facilities on that system. Id. P 85. 

285See Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 

768; Order No. 2003–A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220 at P 500. 

Specifically, a transmission provider studying 

generating facility for NRIS would study the 

transmission system at peak load, under a variety 

of severely stressed conditions to determine 

whether, with the generating facility operating at 

full output, the aggregate of generation in the local 

area can be delivered to the aggregate of load, 

consistent with reliability criteria and procedures. 

exceeded as a result of the 

interconnection; identification of any 

thermal overload or voltage limit 

violations resulting from the 

interconnection; identification of any 

instability or inadequately damped 

response to system disturbances 

resulting from the interconnection; a 

non-binding, good faith estimated cost 

of facilities required to interconnect the 

Affected System Interconnection 

Customer’s project to its host 

transmission provider’s system; and a 

description of how such facilities will 

address the identified short circuit, 

instability, and power flow issues. We 

seek comment on whether the 

information required for the study 

report provides adequate information to 

the affected system interconnection 

customer to understand the results of 

the affected system study. 

(b) Pro Forma Affected Systems 

Facilities Construction Agreement 

200. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to add a new Appendix 16 

to include a pro forma affected systems 

facilities construction agreement. A pro 

forma affected systems facilities 

construction agreement would improve 

the efficiency of the generator 

interconnection process by reducing 

delays through improved coordination 

among the parties and minimizing 

opportunities for undue discrimination. 

201. The proposed Appendix 16 

includes 11 articles based on the pro 

forma facilities construction agreement 

included in MISO’s tariff, including: 

terms of the agreement; construction of 

network upgrades; taxes; force majeure; 

information reporting; security, billing, 

and payments; assignment; indemnity; 

breach, cure, and default; termination; 

contractors; confidentiality; information 

access and audit rights; dispute 

resolution; and notices. Appendix A to 

the agreement details network upgrades, 

cost estimates and responsibility, 

construction schedule, and payment 

schedule. Appendix B discusses how to 

handle notification of completed 

construction. Appendix C includes the 

transmission provider site map, the site 

plan, the network upgrades plan and 

profile, and the estimated cost of the 

network upgrades. 

202. The affected systems facilities 

construction agreement would be 

entered into by the transmission 

provider acting as the affected system 

and the affected system interconnection 

customer. The transmission provider 

acting as the affected system would be 

responsible for the design, procurement, 

construction, and installation of all 

network upgrades identified in 

Appendix A using reasonable efforts to 

complete construction consistent with 

the schedule identified in Appendix A. 

The affected system interconnection 

customer will initially fund the cost of 

any assigned network upgrades and be 

reimbursed by the transmission 

provider acting as the affected system. 

Because affected system interconnection 

customers do not take transmission 

service over the affected system’s 

transmission system, we do not require 

transmission providers acting as 

affected systems to reimburse affected 

system interconnection customers with 

transmission service credits. Rather, we 

propose to require that the transmission 

provider acting as the affected system 

repay the affected system 

interconnection customer the full cost of 

network upgrades, plus interest, in a 

term to be mutually agreed upon but not 

to exceed 20 years. This term mirrors 

the repayment term in the pro forma 

LGIA but allows for flexibility for the 

parties to come to another arrangement 

if they prefer. Within six months of 

construction completion of the network 

upgrades, the transmission provider 

acting as the affected system would 

invoice the affected system 

interconnection customer for the final 

construction costs to include a true-up 

of estimated and actual costs. The 

affected system facilities construction 

agreement would terminate upon the 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system’s final repayment to the 

affected system interconnection 

customer. The affected system 

interconnection customer could also 

terminate the affected system facilities 

construction agreement with 60 days’ 

written notice to the transmission 

provider acting as the affected system. 

203. We seek comment on the 

network upgrade funding and 

repayment provisions in the proposed 

affected system facilities construction 

agreement. Specifically, we seek 

comment as to the repayment time 

frame and whether the similarity of the 

proposal to the repayment terms in the 

pro forma LGIA is appropriate. 

204. We also seek comment on 

whether any additional articles or 

provisions should be added to the pro 

forma affected system facilities 

construction agreement or whether the 

proposed provisions are sufficient. 

e. Affected System Modeling and Study 

Assumptions 

i. Background 

205. When an interconnection 

customer submits an interconnection 

request, they must choose to be studied 

as ERIS or NRIS, depending on the level 

of deliverability they will ultimately 

seek for the electric output of their 

facility. For interconnection customers 

seeking to deliver their generating 

facility’s electric output using the 

existing firm or non-firm capacity of the 

transmission provider’s system on an asavailable basis, the interconnection 

customer will choose an ERIS study. A 

customer will choose an NRIS study 

when seeking to integrate their 

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/ISO with 

market-based congestion management, 

in the same manner as network 

resources.283 An NRIS study goes 

beyond the prerequisite ERIS study and 

uses stricter modeling standards 284 to 

assess an interconnection request to 

ensure that the interconnection 

customer’s electric output is deliverable 

to load in aggregate on the host 

transmission provider’s system.285 Such 

a deliverability analysis varies from 

region to region but can analyze 

anything from various stressed dispatch 

scenarios to an additional set of 

contingencies. As such, an NRIS study 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39968 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

286EDF v. MISO, 168 FERC ¶ 61,173 at PP 75–76. 

287Relevant comments are incorporated into the 

discussion below, and a full summary of comments 

is available in Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, 

Inc., 169 FERC ¶ 61,173 at PP 79–85. 

288 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 169 

FERC ¶ 61,173 at P 82. 

289 Id. P 79. 

290Order No. 2003 provided that NRIS 

interconnection entitles a generating facility to be 

treated in the same manner as the transmission 

provider’s own resources in assessing whether 

aggregate supply is sufficient to meet aggregate load 

within the transmission provider’s control area. 

Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 768. On 

rehearing, Order No. 2003–A clarified that: ‘‘NRIS 

ensures that the generating facility, as well as other 

generating facilities in the same electrical area, can 

be operated simultaneously at peak load and that 

any output produced above peak load requirements 

can be transmitted to other electrical areas within 

the transmission provider’s transmission system. 

Thus, NRIS ensures that output of the generating 

facility will not be ‘bottled up’ during peak load 

conditions.’’ Order No. 2003–A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220 

at P 531. Order No. 2003–A further clarified that 

‘‘[t]he [NRIS] interconnection customer holds, 

through the life of the interconnection agreement, 

the right to use the network upgrade capacity that 

allows the generating facility to be designated as a 

network resource.’’ Id. P 560. 291 16 U.S.C. section 824d. 

will likely identify more network 

upgrades than an ERIS study. 

206. When an affected system 

operator is notified of a possible impact 

on its system due to an interconnection 

request on the host transmission 

provider’s system, the host transmission 

provider must specify whether the 

interconnection customer requested 

ERIS or NRIS. Currently, there is no 

requirement for transmission providers 

acting as affected system operators to 

apply either ERIS or NRIS modeling 

standards to study interconnection 

requests made on neighboring systems. 

For example, MISO, as an affected 

system, studies all interconnection 

requests from host transmission systems 

using ERIS modeling standards, even if 

the interconnection customer requested 

NRIS on the host system. In contrast, 

PJM and SPP, as affected systems, study 

interconnection requests from host 

transmission systems using the 

modeling standards associated with the 

level of service requested by the 

interconnection customer on the host 

transmission system (i.e., they study 

ERIS requests as ERIS and NRIS 

requests as NRIS).286

207. Commenters in Docket No. 

AD18–8–000 (the affected systems 

coordination technical conference 

proceeding) 287 support the MISO 

approach of using ERIS criteria to study 

affected system interconnection 

requests, regardless of the level of 

service requested by the interconnection 

customer.288 Some argued that the 

Commission should require affected 

system transmission providers to use 

the ERIS modeling standard for affected 

system analysis regardless of whether 

the interconnection customer requests 

NRIS or ERIS in the host system.289 This 

is due to the fact that the 

interconnection customer would not get 

NRIS on the affected system, yet could 

be required to pay for more extensive 

network upgrades based on the stricter 

modeling assumptions. 

i. Need for Reform 

208. The use of different modeling 

standards can significantly alter an 

interconnection customer’s network 

upgrade costs. As explained above, the 

NRIS modeling standard studies the 

generating facility’s full output such 

that it would be deliverable at all times. 

However, on an affected system, the 

interconnection customer does not seek 

to deliver power even if it is studied 

under the NRIS modeling standard. 

209. Further, an affected system has 

no obligation to continually ensure 

deliverability for a generating facility on 

a neighboring transmission system that 

has obtained NRIS on its host 

transmission provider’s system. 

Specifically, under Order No. 2003, a 

host transmission provider must 

maintain its system to: (1) ensure that 

NRIS-interconnected resources can 

transmit their output to other electrical 

areas within the transmission provider’s 

system, even while other generating 

facilities in the same electrical area are 

at peak output; and (2) allow the 

resource to be designated as a network 

resource for the life of the 

interconnection agreement.290 Order 

No. 2003 places no similar requirements 

on affected system operators to ensure 

deliverability for NRIS customers 

interconnecting to a host transmission 

provider’s system. Thus, the potential 

exists for an interconnection request to 

be studied by an affected system as 

NRIS and for an interconnection 

customer to construct significant 

network upgrades on the affected 

system, but not be fully deliverable on 

the host system due to curtailment or 

congestion on the affected system. 

210. We preliminarily find that it is 

unjust and unreasonable for a 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system to study interconnection 

requests on other transmission systems 

using NRIS modeling standards. As 

noted above, unlike the transmission 

provider with which affected system 

interconnection customer will directly 

interconnect, a transmission provider 

acting as the affected system does not 

have a continuing obligation to operate 

its system so that NRIS resources will 

remain deliverable on the host system. 

Without such an obligation, an affected 

system interconnection customer may 

be required to construct significant 

network upgrades on the transmission 

provider’s affected system, but not be 

fully deliverable due to curtailment or 

congestion on the affected system. We 

are concerned that this results in unjust 

and unreasonable rates by increasing the 

costs for the interconnection customer 

without a commensurate increase in 

service. 

iii. Proposal 

211. We propose in new subsection 

9.6 of the pro forma LGIP to require the 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system to study interconnection 

requests using ERIS modeling standards, 

regardless of the requested level of 

service on the host transmission 

provider’s transmission system. 

However, if a transmission provider 

acting as an affected system believes 

that it is necessary to study an 

interconnection request that is 

requesting NRIS-level service using 

NRIS modeling standards, such a 

transmission provider could make a 

filing under section 205 of the FPA. The 

Commission will evaluate such case-bycase section 205 filings to determine 

whether they are just and reasonable, 

and not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential.291 A transmission provider 

acting as an affected system making this 

type of filing should provide evidence 

indicating that using NRIS modeling 

standards in such a scenario would not 

treat similarly situated customers 

differently or afford similar treatment to 

dissimilar customers. In addition, this 

section 205 filing could contain, for 

example, such supporting 

documentation as a reference to a NERC 

Reliability Standard violation, an 

operational concern such as over-duty 

breakers, fault current violations, 

impacts on transmission stability, 

increased loop flows or other concerns 

that implicate any other critical 

reliability parameters. We seek 

comment on how to align the possibility 

for such case-by-case section 205 filings 

with the required timeline for the 

affected system study and other 

deadlines proposed herein for affected 

system studies. 

212. With respect to the proposal for 

a transmission provider acting as the 

affected system to study interconnection 

requests using ERIS modeling standards, 

regardless of the requested level of 

service on the host transmission 

provider’s transmission system, a 

standard modeling requirement would 

create consistency in the modeling 

standards used across all transmission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39969 

292We note that, while this proposal would 

standardize the use of ERIS for affected system 

studies, individual transmission providers use 

different specific thresholds for ERIS studies. 

293EDF v. MISO, 168 FERC ¶ 61,173 at PP 80–81. 

294See Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at P 

677 (‘‘The Commission noted that in a region that 

uses locational pricing, the RTO or ISO usually 

assigns to the Interconnection Customer the cost of 

any new network facilities that would not be in its 

transmission expansion plan but for the 

interconnecting Generating Facility.’’). 

295Loop flows refer to physical flows that differ 

from scheduled flows, which can cause congestion 

on transmission lines. N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, 

Inc., 132 FERC ¶ 61,031 (2010). 

296Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 49 FERC 

¶ 61,377, at 62,381 (1989), order on reh’g, 50 FERC 

¶ 61,192 (1990). 

297See, e.g., 4 Colo. Code Regs. section 723– 

3:3610 (2019) (Rule 3610: Assessment of Need for 

Additional Resources); id. section 723–3:3611 (Rule 

3611: Utility Plan for Meeting the Resource Need) 

(establishing that ‘‘a competitive acquisition 

process will normally be used to acquire new utility 

resources’’); id. section 723–3:3600 (Rule 3600: 

Applicability) (explaining which electric utilities 

are subject to electric resource planning 

requirements); id. section 723–3:3617 (Rule 3617: 

Commission Review and Approval of Resource 

Plans) (providing for review and approval of 

resource plans by the Colorado Commission). 

298See PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at PP 5, 14, 30; 

Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 65; see also TriState, Open Access Transmission Tariff, attach. N, 

Standard LGIP (7.0.0) section 1 (defining ‘‘Resource 

Planning Entity’’ as ‘‘any entity required to develop 

a Resource Plan or conduct a Resource Solicitation 

Process,’’ ‘‘Resource Plan’’ as ‘‘any process 

authorized or required by Applicable Laws and 

Regulations for, inter alia, the selection of 

Generating Facilities,’’ and ‘‘Resource Solicitation 

Process’’ as ‘‘any process authorized or required by 

Applicable Laws and Regulations for the 

acquisition of Network Resources’’). 

299See PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at PP 5, 14, 30; 

see also Xcel Energy Operating Cos., 109 FERC 

¶ 61,072 (2004) (accepting modifications to LGIP 

terms and conditions to accommodate the Coloradomandated resource solicitation process, subject to 

certain conditions); PSCo, Transmission and 

Service Agreements Tariff, attach. N, Standard LGIP 

(0.8.0) section 4.2.2 (Initiation of a Resource 

Solicitation Cluster) (describing process). 

300E.g., PSCo, Transmission and Service 

Agreements Tariff, attach. N, Standard LGIP (0.8.0) 

section 1 (defining ‘‘Resource Planning Entity’’ to 

mean ‘‘any entity required to develop a Resource 

Plan or conduct a Resource Solicitation Process’’). 

301See Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at PP 64–65. 

provider regions.292 ERIS modeling 

standards, in addition, generally reduce 

the number and cost of network 

upgrades identified. By using these 

standards, we believe that 

interconnection customers would be 

subject to fewer late-stage cost increases, 

which would reduce the number of 

potential re-studies and withdrawals, 

thereby addressing the concerns we 

have identified that we preliminarily 

find are resulting in unjust and 

unreasonable and unduly 

discriminatory and preferential 

Commission-jurisdictional rates. It 

would also allow interconnection 

queues to be processed more quickly 

because affected system network 

upgrades would be focused on local 

impacts that will generally implicate 

fewer other interconnection customers, 

reducing the amount of 

interdependence among interconnection 

customers. Under this reform, fewer 

interconnection requests will be found 

to cause impacts to large numbers of 

projects, which will reduce the number 

of high-cost network upgrades and 

potential withdrawals and re-studies. 

213. We acknowledge that using a less 

stringent modeling standard may result 

in more frequent redispatch or 

curtailment by not fully capturing all 

the potential impacts of the 

interconnecting generating facility(ies) 

on an affected system.293 However, we 

believe that these risks are limited in 

nature and any significant impact would 

be captured by an ERIS study, which 

would ensure that a proposed 

generating facility can safely connect to 

the affected system under the 

expectation it will deliver its electric 

output using the existing firm or nonfirm capacity of the affected system 

transmission provider’s system on an asavailable basis. As noted above, MISO 

has used this approach for many years 

without any adverse impacts on 

reliability. Nevertheless, we seek 

comment on whether the proposed 

reform will adversely affect reliability 

for the transmission provider acting as 

the affected system or the host 

transmission provider. This could 

include examples of reliability impacts 

caused by a transmission provider 

acting as the affected system conducting 

an ERIS study on an NRIS 

interconnection request from a host 

transmission provider or examples of 

why an NRIS study is required to ensure 

reliable interconnection on the 

transmission provider acting as the 

affected system’s system when the 

interconnection customer is not seeking 

to NRIS on the affected system. 

214. Additionally, we understand that 

there is some concern that requiring 

only ERIS modeling standards may be 

inconsistent with the Commission’s 

current policy of requiring 

interconnection customers to be 

responsible for all network upgrades 

needed ‘‘but for’’ their 

interconnection.294 This is because 

using only ERIS modeling standards 

would in some cases result in 

curtailment or redispatch on the 

affected system that is arguably caused 

by the interconnection customer’s 

proposed generating facility but that is 

not paid for by the interconnection 

customer. For example, the full 

possibility of loop flow 295 may not be 

accounted for under an ERIS modeling 

standard. However, we note that the 

Commission has previously 

acknowledged and accepted that some 

inadvertent or unauthorized power 

flows are an unavoidable consequence 

of interconnected public utilities and 

that public utilities must work closely to 

ensure their operations do not 

jeopardize the reliability of each 

other.296

215. We seek comment on the 

potential impact of requiring 

transmission providers acting as the 

affected systems to use ERIS modeling 

standards when an interconnection 

customer seeks NRIS in the host 

transmission provider’s system. We seek 

comment as to whether there are 

modifications to this proposal that 

would reduce the likelihood of 

curtailment or redispatch on the 

affected system transmission provider’s 

system without requiring the affected 

system interconnection customer to pay 

network upgrade costs that are not 

commensurate with the level of service 

it receives. 

3. Optional Resource Solicitation Study 

a. Background 

216. Some transmission providers 

operate in states that take a portfolio 

approach to resource planning, in which 

resource planning entities procure an 

entire portfolio of diverse resources that 

all need to interconnect to the 

transmission system on approximately 

the same timetable. Entities that have 

these resource planning responsibilities 

may conduct resource solicitations that 

involve an assessment of need for 

additional resources and, if necessary, 

competitive acquisition processes to 

procure new resources.297

217. To help meet the needs of 

entities that must develop a resource 

solicitation plan or conduct a resource 

solicitation process to meet stateimposed requirements,298 several 

transmission providers offer such 

resource planning entities the option to 

initiate an interconnection study that 

studies combinations of the resources 

that have submitted supply bids through 

the resource planning entity’s resource 

solicitation process.299 For example, a 

resource planning entity, under PSCo’s 

tariff, is defined as any entity required 

to develop a resource plan or resource 

solicitation process,300 which may 

include LSEs that must meet stateimposed resource procurement 

obligations.301 Though PSCo began 

offering this option more than a decade 

ago, several other transmission 

providers have followed suit—Tri-State, 

the Duke Southeast Utilities (i.e., Duke 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39970 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

302 See Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Transmittal, 

Docket No. ER21–1579–000, at 31 (filed Apr. 1, 

2021) (explaining section 10.2, Initiation of a 

Resource Solicitation Cluster); Duke, 176 FERC 

¶ 61,075 at PP 1, 51–52; Dominion Energy S.C., Inc., 

Transmittal, Docket No. ER22–301–000, at 19 (filed 

Nov. 1, 2021) (explaining section 10.2, Initiation of 

a Resource Solicitation Cluster); Dominion, Docket 

No. ER22–301–000 (Dec. 28, 2021) (delegated 

order). 

303See PSCo, 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 14. 

304PSCo, Transmission and Service Agreements 

Tariff, attach. N, (Standard LGIP) (0.8.0) section 

4.2.2. 

305See id. Resource planning entities must also 

submit all interconnection requests arising from the 

resource solicitation process at the same time to 

ensure an equal interconnection queue position for 

all generating facilities included in the resource 

solicitation study and cooperate with the 

transmission provider in conducting the studies as 

well. See id. 

306See id. (referring to steps that follow ‘‘[a]fter 

receipt of the Phase 2 Report’’); see also PSCo, 169 

FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 19 (explaining, in part, that 

‘‘Phase 2 completes the traditional system impact 

study by adding stability and short circuit analysis 

to the power-flow analysis’’). 

307See Fredrich Kahrl, Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l 

Lab’y, Solar Energy Techs. Office, All-Source 

Competitive Solicitations: State and Electric Utility 

Practices, at 2–7 (Mar. 2021), https://emp.lbl.gov/ 

publications/all-source-competitive-solicitations 

(describing different types of resource 

procurements). 

308 Id. at vi. 

309See Exelon, Comments, Docket No. AD20–18– 

000, at 19–21 (filed May 10, 2021); see also RWERA, 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–18–000, at 2 (filed 

May 10, 2021). 

310See ;rsted North America Offshore, 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–18–000, at 4–6 (filed 

May 11, 2021); American Clean Power Association 

for the Clean Energy Associations, Comments, 

Docket No. AD20–18–000, at 10–11 (filed May 10, 

2021). 

311See PJM, Comments, Docket No. AD20–18– 

000, at 6–7 (filed May 10, 2021); Eversource, 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–18–000, at 8–9 (filed 

May 10, 2021). 

Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress, 

and Duke Energy Florida), and 

Dominion offer versions of the resource 

solicitation study option to resource 

planning entities.302

218. Under PSCo’s process, 

interconnection requests associated 

with the resource solicitation are 

studied separately from clusters 

initiated through a fixed time interval 

window (e.g., bi-annual cluster 

windows), respecting the queue position 

of any ongoing interconnection cluster 

studies.303 Like interconnection cluster 

studies, the interconnection requests 

that reflect the resources being 

considered in the resource solicitation 

combinations are studied as their own 

cluster and proceed through the same 

series of interconnection studies as 

other clusters.304 Unlike 

interconnection cluster studies, 

however, the resource planning entity— 

i.e., the entity required to develop a 

resource solicitation plan or conduct a 

resource solicitation—requests a 

position in the interconnection queue as 

the authorized representative for all 

interconnection requests submitted to 

the resource solicitation cluster, and 

that entity may request study of a 

reasonable number of different 

combinations of such interconnection 

requests to meet the resource planning 

entity’s identified needs and 

assumptions in the resource solicitation 

process.305 Further, PSCo provides the 

study results for the requested 

combinations to the resource planning 

entity for use in the resource solicitation 

process, where interconnection-related 

costs may be considered as a factor in 

selection. After the completion of the 

system impact study for the cluster, the 

resource planning entity is then 

expected to select one of the studied 

combinations prior to the 

commencement of any interconnection 

facilities study associated with the 

resource solicitation process before 

proceeding to that stage.306

b. Need for Reform 

219. Although several transmission 

providers offer versions of the resource 

solicitation study concept to resource 

planning entities, transmission 

providers in general are not required to 

offer this option in their tariffs, and 

many do not. Across the country, 

however, electric resource procurement 

mandates have led to several statemanaged and other required resource 

solicitations that seek to procure entire 

portfolios of resources with significant 

interconnection needs.307 These 

resource solicitations may be managed 

by LSEs or by states. In addition, these 

resource solicitations may be open to all 

potential resources or targeted at 

specific types of resources, depending 

on the particular resource planning 

mandate or planning goals guiding the 

solicitation.308

220. In the Commission’s recent 

proceeding in Docket No. AD20–18– 

000, which explored offshore wind 

generation and potential issues related 

to such generation in RTOs/ISOs, 

several commenters addressed the 

relationship between state electric 

resource procurement mandates and the 

generator interconnection process. 

Exelon and RWE Renewables Americas, 

for example, supported the idea that 

state agencies should be permitted to 

participate in the generator 

interconnection process as a means to 

help account for state resource 

preferences.309 How new resource 

procurement portfolios are studied in 

the generator interconnection process is 

also important; for example, ;rsted 

North America Offshore and the Clean 

Energy Associations stated that studying 

new groups of resources in clusters 

would be more beneficial than studying 

them serially, because cluster studies 

may better identify opportunities to 

realize economies of scale from larger 

network upgrades that can 

accommodate multiple projects.310

Other commenters, however, expressed 

concerns regarding greater state 

participation in the generator 

interconnection process. PJM and 

Eversource Energy, for example, 

expressed concern that (potentially 

sizable) interconnection requests 

associated with state participation, if 

withdrawn, could have adverse 

consequences for other resources in the 

interconnection queue.311

221. We preliminarily find that the 

failure to provide a study process for 

entities required to conduct a resource 

plan or resource solicitation process 

may result in rates for Commissionjurisdictional service that are unjust and 

unreasonable. Resource solicitation 

processes inspire a number of 

interconnection requests, but in most 

cases, state agencies and LSEs 

implementing state mandates do not 

have the opportunity to request 

dedicated studies themselves. As a 

result, interconnection customers 

seeking to participate in a resource 

solicitation are interspersed throughout 

the queue, making it more difficult to 

compare the interconnection costs of 

their proposals. Moreover, 

interconnection customers that submit 

requests associated with state-mandated 

or supervised resource solicitation and 

selection processes have a greater 

incentive to submit numerous 

interconnection requests to better 

compete in the resource solicitation. 

Yet, the volume of interconnection 

requests submitted in total increases 

uncertainty regarding interconnection 

costs generally and decreases the value 

of information obtained. These 

problems in turn make the selection 

decisions to be made by state agencies 

and LSEs implementing state mandates 

more difficult and potentially less 

efficient. Additionally, the queue delays 

associated with increased volumes of 

interconnection requests then may delay 

states acquiring the resources needed to 

meet their resource procurement 

mandates. Delays in meeting such 

resource procurement mandates can 

then raise costs to consumers and affect 

reliability. 

222. Furthermore, we believe that the 

trends in electric resource procurement 

mandates and in state-managed and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39971 

312See May Joint Task Force Tr. 54:15–55:9 

(Kimberly Duffley) (explaining that aligning the 

generator interconnection process and the state 

solicitation process is a challenge). 

313See Xcel Energy Operating Cos., 109 FERC 

¶ 61,072 at P 43. 

314See Hughes v. Talen Energy Mktg., LLC, 578 

U.S. 150, 167 (2016) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) 

(recognizing the ‘‘congressionally designed 

interplay between state and federal regulation’’ 

envisioned by the Federal Power Act (quoting Nw. 

Cent. Pipeline Corp. v. State Corp. Comm’n of Kan., 

489 U.S. 493, 518 (1989)). 

315Proposed pro forma LGIP section 1 (defining 

‘‘Resource Planning Entity’’ as any entity required 

to develop a Resource Plan or conduct a Resource 

Solicitation Process, including a relevant state 

entity or load serving entity). A ‘‘Resource Planning 

Entity’’ could be an LSE, a state entity, a wholesale 

customer (e.g., an LSE not affiliated with the 

transmission provider), depending on the incidence 

of the state mandate(s). 

316See infra notes 324–326 (defining key terms). 

317See proposed pro forma LGIP section 4.2.2 

(providing, in part, that a ‘‘Resource Planning Entity 

must . . . act as the point of contact for purposes 

of the Optional Resource Solicitation Study for all 

Interconnection Requests submitted to the Optional 

Resource Solicitation Study’’). 

318See proposed pro forma LGIP section 4.2.2 

(‘‘Transmission Provider shall conduct the Optional 

Resource Solicitation Study separate from the 

Cluster Study Process.’’). 

319See Xcel Energy Operating Cos., 109 FERC 

¶ 61,072 at PP 38–39 (explaining that studies 

conducted under this concept may be ‘‘based on an 

assumption that not all solicitation bids will prevail 

as to that queue position,’’ and may also ‘‘avoid the 

need for extensive iterative studies’’ and ‘‘minimize 

the number of re-studies that will be necessary’’); 

see also id. P 39 (‘‘This increased efficiency will 

benefit both generators participating in the 

solicitation and any lower queued generators that 

will not participate in the solicitation.’’). 

320See id. PP 22–25. 

321See id. P 24. 

322See proposed pro forma LGIP section 4.2.2 

(providing, in part, that the optional resource 

solicitation study process is initiated by a request 

to perform an Optional Resource Solicitation Study 

that includes ’’ ‘‘a list of Interconnection Requests, 

which have already been submitted to Transmission 

Provider in the current Cluster Request Window, 

that the Resource Planning Entity would like 

evaluated in the Optional Resource Solicitation 

Study’’ and also that it is the ‘‘Interconnection 

Customer [that] must meet all requirements 

associated with maintaining its Queue Position’’). 

other required resource solicitations 

demonstrate the potential need to 

provide state agencies and LSEs with 

the opportunity to efficiently study 

solicitation requests in light of the 

reformed cluster study process.312

While resource solicitation processes 

are conducted pursuant to state 

mandates, not federal mandates,313 we 

believe that there is substantial 

interplay between resource solicitation 

processes and the generator 

interconnection process that should be 

accommodated.314 We thus recognize 

the need for our pro forma LGIP to 

better accommodate resource 

solicitation processes. 

c. Proposal 

223. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to require transmission 

providers to allow a resource planning 

entity 315 to initiate an optional resource 

solicitation study,316 as further 

described in this section. These 

qualifying solicitations may include allsource procurements, or procurements 

focused on particular geographic areas, 

such as offshore wind lease areas or 

other location-constrained resource 

procurements. 

224. We believe that this proposal 

will benefit interconnection customers 

and transmission providers through 

efficiencies in studying resources vying 

for selection in a qualifying solicitation 

process by grouping these resources 

together for purposes of informational 

interconnection studies. Under this 

proposal, a qualifying resource planning 

entity (including a state agency or LSE 

implementing state mandates) would 

play a facilitation role in helping group 

together and organize interconnection 

requests associated with the resource 

planning entity’s qualifying resource 

solicitation process or qualifying 

resource plan.317 The resource planning 

entity would identify the valid 

interconnection requests associated 

with its qualifying resource solicitation 

process or qualifying resource plan and 

request that the transmission provider 

study several combinations of those 

interconnection requests in a resource 

solicitation study.318

225. In other words, the proposed 

informational study option for these 

types of interconnection requests would 

enable the resource planning entity to 

initiate an optional resource solicitation 

study evaluating the various 

combinations of associated 

interconnection requests studied by the 

transmission provider. Because this 

arrangement affords the resource 

planning entity the flexibility to 

indicate to the transmission provider 

which interconnection requests in the 

optional resource solicitation study to 

study (and which to discontinue 

studying), this arrangement can help 

resource planning entities make 

decisions about their resource 

solicitations through increased access to 

information about the relative costs of 

different combinations of 

interconnection requests. This process 

can also help interconnection customers 

receive evidence of selection in a 

resource plan in a more timely manner 

by providing the resource planning 

entity with needed information.319 As 

the Commission has explained, it has 

approved similar modifications to the 

interconnection process as consistent 

with or superior to the pro forma LGIP, 

reasoning with respect to PSCo’s 

process that this ‘‘innovative approach 

to queue management’’ was ‘‘a 

reasonable approach to complying with 

a state-mandated resource solicitation 

process’’ in ‘‘states that have mandated 

resource planning programs.’’ 320

226. Although prior iterations of this 

approach may have involved a 

somewhat novel ‘‘concept of allowing 

load to reserve a queue position,’’ 321 we 

clarify here that interconnection 

customers will maintain their queue 

position obtained through the cluster 

request window and proceed through 

the regular interconnection queue 

alongside all other customers. The 

resource planning entity under our 

proposal (which may include a state 

agency or LSE) will not receive a queue 

position. The resource planning entity 

must submit for inclusion in the 

optional resource solicitation study 

valid interconnection requests made by 

interconnection customers, and those 

interconnection customers remain 

responsible for meeting all requirements 

associated with maintaining their 

individual queue position(s).322 Thus, 

while the resource planning entity plays 

an important organizational and 

facilitation role regarding the initiation 

and progress of an optional resource 

solicitation study, resource planning 

entities under this proposal are not 

themselves requesting interconnection 

service, establishing a separate 

interconnection queue or queue 

position, or reserving interconnection 

capacity or transmission capacity. While 

this proposal does not lessen 

interconnection study requirements, 

this proposal allows the sharing of 

information to administratively simplify 

the process of studying a potentially 

large number of interconnection 

requests that are all related to the same 

state-authorized or mandated resource 

solicitation. 

227. We believe that our proposed 

reforms related to qualifying resource 

solicitations will lead to greater 

efficiencies in the interconnection study 

process for proposed generating 

facilities participating in such 

solicitations, as well as for those 

proposed generating facilities in the 

interconnection queue that are not 

participating in those solicitations. 

Accordingly, we believe that our 

proposed reforms will remedy 

Commission-jurisdictional rates that 

may be unjust and unreasonable and 

deliver greater benefits for customers in 

the long run than the status quo. 

228. Additionally, we note that this 

proposal may help resource planning 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39972 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

323We propose to define ‘‘Resource Plan’’ as ‘‘any 

process for, inter alia, the selection of Generating 

Facilities that is competitive, substantively state 

agency-reviewed and approved, or state agencymanaged, and authorized or required by Applicable 

Laws and Regulations.’’ Proposed pro forma LGIP 

section 1. 

324We propose to define ‘‘Resource Solicitation 

Process’’ as ‘‘any process for the acquisition of 

Network Resources that is competitive, 

substantively state agency-reviewed and approved, 

or state agency-managed, and authorized or 

required by Applicable Laws and Regulations.’’ Id. 

325We propose to define an ‘‘Optional Resource 

Solicitation Study’’ as ‘‘the informational 

evaluation of one or more Interconnection Requests 

for a Resource Planning Entity as described in more 

detail in Section 4.2.2 of this LGIP.’’ Id. 

326We note that, while some state commissions 

must substantively review and approve the contents 

of utility resource plans, others simply provide 

interested stakeholders and the public with 

transparency regarding a utility’s intended resource 

procurements. Compare Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 

454.5(c) (2021) (providing that the California 

Commission ‘‘shall review and accept, modify, or 

reject each electrical corporation’s procurement 

plan and any amendments or updates to the plan’’) 

with Ind. Code section 8–1–8.5–3(e)(2) (2022) 

(requiring electric utilities to submit to the Indiana 

Commission an integrated resource plan); 170 Ind. 

Admin. Code 4–7–2.2(g)(3) (2022) (providing that 

the Indiana Commission’s staff report on such 

submissions will ‘‘not comment on . . . the 

desirability of the utility’s preferred resource 

portfolio’’ or on ‘‘a proposed resource action in the’’ 

integrated resource plan); 170 Ind. Admin. Code 4– 

7–2.5(b) (2022) (allowing utility resource actions to 

deviate from the utility’s most recent integrated 

resource plan if ‘‘fully explained and justified with 

supporting evidence, including an updated 

[integrated resource plan] analysis’’). 

327See, e.g., Carolina Solar Power, LLC, 164 FERC 

¶ 61,058, at PP 14–16 (2018) (explaining that the 

use of ‘‘a competitive procurement’’ model and an 

‘‘RFP process . . . designed to be a rigorous, fair, 

and open process that is administered by an 

independent evaluator and overseen by the North 

Carolina Commission’’ helped ‘‘ensure just and 

reasonable rates’’ and ‘‘safeguard against the 

exercise of market power’’). Substantive review and 

approval—or direct management—of a resource 

plan or resource solicitation process also helps 

indicate the commercial readiness of the resources 

selected by such a process. 

328Pro forma LGIP § 13.3 (noting that the 

interconnection customer is responsible for the 

actual costs of interconnection studies and any 

necessary restudies). 

329See id. (providing, in part, that ‘‘Transmission 

Provider shall charge and Interconnection Customer 

shall pay the actual costs of the Interconnection 

Studies’’); proposed pro forma LGIP § 1 (adding 

‘‘Optional Resource Solicitation Study’’ to the 

definition of ‘‘Interconnection Study’’). 

330See proposed pro forma LGIP section 4.2.2. 

entities procure resources more 

efficiently and effectively. By giving 

resource planning entities the ability to 

initiate an optional resource solicitation 

study, these reforms may also enable 

qualifying state agencies and LSEs to 

obtain better information about the 

interconnection requirements and 

potential network upgrade costs of 

various configurations of 

interconnection requests associated 

with bids submitted into their 

solicitations. With that information, 

state agencies and LSEs may then be 

able to make more informed choices in 

their qualifying solicitation processes. 

229. As mentioned above, we propose 

to revise the pro forma LGIP to require 

transmission providers to allow 

resource planning entities, i.e., any 

entity required to develop a resource 

plan 323 or conduct a resource 

solicitation process,324 including a state 

entity or LSE, to initiate an optional 

resource solicitation study,325 as further 

described in this section. Specifically, 

we propose to require transmission 

providers to adopt new subsection 4.2.2 

of the pro forma LGIP, which outlines 

the optional resource solicitation study 

and the roles of interconnection 

customers and the resource planning 

entity in that process. 

230. To limit opportunities for undue 

discrimination by transmission 

providers and reduce incentives for 

transmission providers or LSEs to obtain 

information through the optional 

resource solicitation study that could be 

used to favor or advance the interests of 

affiliated generation resources, we 

propose to require that a resource plan 

or resource solicitation process as 

defined in the pro forma LGIP either use 

competitive procurement techniques, or 

be substantively reviewed and approved 

or directly managed by a relevant state 

agency. Regarding competitive 

procurement techniques, while we do 

not propose to adopt a singular 

definition of that term, in general, we 

believe that competitive solicitation 

processes tend to be those that are open, 

fair, and employ the services of an 

independent third party that applies 

standardized evaluation criteria to 

choose amongst various options. 

Regarding state agency involvement or 

oversight, substantive review and 

approval of a resource plan or resource 

solicitation process could only be 

demonstrated by showing that the 

resource plan or resource solicitation 

process uses a process that results in or 

involves a state commission order or 

state agency decision that approves or 

ratifies a procurement plan or 

procurement results. Substantive review 

and approval of a resource plan or 

resource solicitation process would not 

be demonstrated by a purely 

informational planning process that 

does not require state commission or 

state agency approval or ratification of 

a procurement plan or procurement 

results.326 Thus, only resource planning 

entities whose resource plan or resource 

solicitation process either uses 

competitive procurement techniques, or 

is substantively reviewed and approved 

or directly managed by a relevant state 

agency, could qualify to request that a 

transmission provider initiate an 

optional resource solicitation study. We 

believe that these safeguards will help 

ensure that interconnection studies are 

not unfairly used to favor the resource 

planning entity’s own economic selfinterests.327

231. The resource planning entity 

232. would be responsible for 

identifying the interconnection requests 

it is submitting for inclusion in the 

optional resource solicitation study (and 

for which the resource planning entity 

would serve as point of contact 

regarding the study). The resource 

planning entity would also be required 

to submit no more than five different 

combinations of such interconnection 

requests to meet the resource planning 

entity’s identified needs and 

assumptions in its solicitation, which 

are considered as part of the study. The 

resource planning entity would not be 

responsible for the costs of this optional 

study; rather the interconnection 

customer would be responsible for 

actual study costs. While an additional 

deposit would not be required to 

perform this study, the costs would be 

included in the true-up based on actual 

costs of performing the studies.328 We 

also propose to amend the definition of 

Interconnection Study in the pro forma 

LGIP to clarify that the costs of an 

optional resource solicitation study 

would be the responsibility of 

participating interconnection 

customers.329

233. The resource planning entity and 

the transmission provider would 

determine a mutually agreeable scope of 

study for the optional resource 

solicitation study. We propose that the 

transmission provider must evaluate 

each combination of interconnection 

requests submitted by the resource 

planning entity as a group, in the same 

manner it will perform cluster studies 

under the proposed pro forma LGIP. 

The resource planning entity must act as 

the point of contact for purposes of the 

optional resource solicitation study for 

all interconnection requests submitted 

to the optional resource solicitation 

study. To allow the resource planning 

entity sufficient time to select 

interconnection customers in the 

solicitation, we propose a 135-day time 

limit on the optional resource 

solicitation study (compared to 150- 

days of the cluster study) to avoid overburdening the transmission provider.330

We also propose revisions to the pro 

forma LGIP to prohibit transmission 

providers from delaying other 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39973 

331See id.; Xcel Energy Operating Cos., 109 FERC 

¶ 61,072 at P 26 (making clear that ‘‘XES must not 

disadvantage or delay other Interconnection 

Requests not involved in the solicitation’’). 

332Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 12. 

333See proposed pro forma LGIP section 1. 

334Although the Commission has indicated that 

the ‘‘flexibility’’ afforded by a resource solicitation 

cluster should be open to ‘‘any entity . . . 

conducting a solicitation for a Commissionjurisdictional interconnection,’’ see Xcel Energy 

Operating Cos., 109 FERC ¶ 61,072 at P 35, we note 

that we propose to limit the definition of Resource 

Planning Entity to entities ‘‘required to develop a 

Resource Plan or conduct a Resource Solicitation 

Process,’’ see proposed pro forma LGIP section 1 

(emphasis added); PSCo, Transmission and Service 

Agreements Tariff, attach. N, Standard LGIP (0.8.0) 

section 1 (same). Our proposed definition would 

include an LSE or ‘‘utility that develops a resource 

plan as authorized by its appropriate governing 

authority,’’ or ‘‘a local distribution cooperative that 

creates a resource plan under its governing body.’’ 

See Tri-State, 174 FERC ¶ 61,021 at P 65; see also 

id. P 64 (explaining that it was ‘‘Tri-State’s intent 

that the Resource Solicitation Cluster process be 

open to any load serving entity (or other load) that 

requires its use to comply with its resource 

procurement obligations’’). But as is the case under 

the PSCo and Tri-State LGIPs today, our proposed 

definition may not include every entity conducting 

a resource solicitation. 

335Currently, 42% (285 GW) of solar and eight 

percent (17 GW) of wind projects in the queue are 

proposed as hybrid resources that would include 

electric storage. Queued Up at 18. 

336See, e.g., Eric Hittinger et al., Compensating 

for Wind Variability Using Co-Located Natural Gas 

Generation and Energy Storage (Carnegie Mellon 

Elec. Indus. Ctr, Working Paper CEIC–10–01, 2010), 

https://www.cmu.edu/ceic/assets/docs/

publications/working-papers/ceic-10-01.pdf. 

337Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 9– 

10. 

338All RTOs/ISOs currently allow at least two 

resources to co-locate on a shared site behind the 

same point of interconnection and share a single 

interconnection request. CAISO, Post-Technical 

Conference Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 

5 (filed Sept. 24, 2020); ISO–NE, Post-Technical 

Conference Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 

4 (filed Sept. 24, 2020); MISO, Post-Technical 

Conference Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 

5 (filed Sept. 24, 2020); NYISO, Post-Technical 

Conference Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 

3–4 (filed Sept. 24, 2020); see also NYISO, 

Informational Report, AD20–9–000, at 5–6 (filed 

July 19, 2021); PJM, Post-Technical Conference 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 5 (filed Oct. 

1, 2020); SPP, Report on Hybrid Resources, Docket 

No. AD20–9–000, at 4–5 (filed July 19, 2021) (note 

SPP allows co-location but separately models the 

resources); AWEA, Post-Technical Conference 

Comments, Docket No, AD20–9–000, at 15–16 (filed 

Sept. 24, 2020). 

interconnection requests not involved in 

the qualifying resource solicitation.331

234. After the transmission provider 

completes the optional resource 

solicitation study for the identified 

interconnection requests, it will provide 

the results to the resource planning 

entity for use in the selection process in 

the form of a resource solicitation study 

report. The results will also be posted 

on the transmission provider’s OASIS 

consistent with the posting of other 

study results. Interconnection requests 

may proceed in the remainder of the 

transmission provider’s interconnection 

study process regardless of whether they 

are selected by the resource planning 

entity for inclusion in the resource plan. 

Interconnection requests that are 

selected by the resource planning entity 

for inclusion in the resource plan may 

choose to submit evidence of selection 

as part of the new requirement to 

demonstrate commercial readiness. 

Interconnection requests that are not 

selected by the resource planning entity 

for inclusion in the resource plan may 

remain in the interconnection queue by 

submitting other forms of commercial 

readiness or providing a commercial 

readiness deposit. 

235. Regarding withdrawal penalties, 

we propose that inclusion in an optional 

resource solicitation study does not 

exempt interconnection customers from 

withdrawal penalties under section 

3.7.1 of the pro forma LGIP. Unlike the 

exemptions approved in Tri-State, the 

withdrawal penalty here applies equally 

to those interconnection customers 

participating in the optional resource 

solicitation study if their withdrawal 

meets the criteria for imposing 

withdrawal penalties proposed 

above.332

236. We seek comment regarding our 

proposal to explicitly include state 

agencies that are required to develop a 

resource plan or conduct a resource 

solicitation process in the definition of 

a resource planning entity.333 We also 

seek comment regarding whether other 

entities should qualify as resource 

planning entities and therefore be able 

to request initiation of an optional 

resource solicitation study, and, if so, 

what impact, if any, their inclusion 

would have on the efficiency of the 

generator interconnection process and 

whether their inclusion would raise 

concerns of undue discrimination or 

preference.334

We also seek comment on whether the 

proposed optional resource solicitation 

study raises any confidentiality 

concerns, including whether the 

optional resource solicitation study 

report could be posted on the 

transmission provider’s OASIS before 

the qualifying solicitation process has 

concluded. 

237. We recognize that transmission 

providers operating across multiple 

states may need flexibility in 

implementing this optional resource 

solicitation study proposal. Thus, we 

seek comment on what, if any, 

challenges multistate transmission 

providers—in particular, those RTOs/ 

ISOs that serve large, multi-state areas— 

may face regarding study timing, 

multiple concurrent studies, or other 

issues in offering an optional resource 

solicitation study option, and any 

proposals to mitigate such challenges. 

C. Reforms To Incorporate 

Technological Advancements Into the 

Interconnection Process 

1. Increasing Flexibility in the Generator 

Interconnection Process 

a. Co-Located Generation Sites Behind 

One Point of Interconnection With 

Shared Interconnection Requests 

i. Background 

238. Historically, interconnection 

requests have been limited to a single 

generating facility seeking to 

interconnect to the transmission system. 

When the Commission adopted the pro 

forma LGIP in Order No. 2003, hybrid 

resources (which are co-located, share a 

point of interconnection, and proceed 

through the generator interconnection 

process with a single interconnection 

request) were not widely contemplated 

and therefore their needs were not 

considered when developing the 

requirements. However, recent studies 

demonstrate that large numbers of 

generating facilities currently in 

interconnection queues are seeking to 

co-locate on a shared site behind one 

point of interconnection and share an 

interconnection request.335 There are 

now a number of different types of 

generating facilities that may prove 

complementary, such as solar combined 

with electric storage, wind combined 

with solar, or natural gas combined with 

wind and electric storage,336 and that 

may seek to co-locate for various 

efficiency reasons. 

ii. Need for Reform 

239. In Order No. 2003, the 

Commission noted that interconnection 

is a critical component of open access 

transmission service, and that case-bycase approaches to solving 

interconnection issues is inadequate 

and inefficient.337 However, the current 

pro forma LGIP does not address 

interconnection requests made up of 

multiple generating facilities seeking to 

co-locate and to share a single point of 

interconnection.338 The lack of 

procedures in the pro forma LGIP for 

generating facilities seeking to co-locate 

behind a single point of interconnection 

and share an interconnection request 

may necessitate a case-by-case approach 

that the Commission cautioned against 

in Order No. 2003 and may serve as a 

barrier to entry for these types of 

configurations. The benefits of such 

configurations may include efficiency in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39974 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

339See Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l Lab’y, 

Generation, Storage, and Hybrid Capacity in 

Interconnection Queues, May 2021, https://

emp.lbl.gov/generation-storage-and-hybridcapacity. 

340See, e.g., SPP Manual 7250 (Generator 

Interconnection Service); NYISO Manual 23 

(Transmission Expansion and Interconnection), 

section 3 (Interconnection Process); CAISO BPM, 

Generator Interconnection Procedure, section 9.2 

(Types of Modification); PJM Manual 14G 

(Generation Interconnection Requests), section 4 

(Generator Interconnection Requirements, Rights 

and Obligations). 

341 ‘‘Generating Facility’’ shall mean 

‘‘Interconnection Customer’s device for the 

production and/or storage for later injection of 

electricity identified in the Interconnection 

Request, but shall not include the Interconnection 

Customer’s Interconnection Facilities’’ as defined in 

the pro forma LGIA. 

342PJM Manual 14G (Generation Interconnection 

Requests). 

343Edison Electric Institute Comments, Docket 

No. AD20–9–000, at 2 (filed Sept. 20, 2021); Hybrid 

Resources Coalition Comments, Docket No. AD20– 

9–000, at 1 (filed Sept. 20, 2021); Clean Grid 

managing the interconnection queue 

and increased reliability of the 

transmission system. For example, 

allowing electric storage resources to be 

combined with variable energy 

resources (such as wind and solar 

resources) can reduce their 

intermittency and prevent sudden 

changes in output. In addition, wind 

and solar resources can complement one 

another because they generally reach 

peak generation at different times 

throughout the day (wind in the early 

morning and late-night hours and solar 

in the afternoon). 

240. Therefore, we preliminarily find 

that that the lack of a process limits the 

interconnection of generating facilities, 

hindering competition and rendering 

the Commission’s existing pro forma 

LGIP unjust and unreasonable or unduly 

discriminatory or preferential. 

241. Because the pro forma LGIP does 

not specify how to approach such 

proposals, requests to co-locate at a 

single point of interconnection and 

share an interconnection request may be 

subject to differing generator 

interconnection processes depending on 

the transmission provider to which the 

resource is seeking to interconnect or 

may not be allowed at all in certain 

regions.339 We are concerned that this 

disparate treatment may be unjust and 

unreasonable or unduly discriminatory 

or preferential because multiple 

generating facilities seeking to co-locate 

behind a single point of interconnection 

and share an interconnection request are 

similarly situated no matter the region 

in which they propose to interconnect. 

iii. Proposal 

242. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA to 

require transmission providers to allow 

more than one resource to co-locate on 

a shared site behind a single point of 

interconnection and share a single 

interconnection request. This proposed 

reform would create a minimum 

standard that would remove barriers for 

co-located resources by creating a 

standardized procedure for these types 

of configurations to enable them to 

access the transmission system. 

243. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to: (1) define ‘‘Co-Located 

Resources’’ as more than one resource 

located behind the same point of 

interconnection; (2) state that co-located 

resources can share an interconnection 

request; and (3) modify the definition of 

site control such that it allows 

interconnection customers to 

demonstrate shared land-use for 

generating facilities that include more 

than one resource. 

244. We believe that requiring 

transmission providers to permit 

interconnection requests that represent 

more than one resource behind a single 

point of interconnection is required to 

ensure just and reasonable rates. We 

also believe that this requirement, by 

allowing a single interconnection 

request to represent a generating facility 

with more than one resource, would 

improve efficiency for transmission 

providers in the study process and may 

reduce study costs for developers 

because they would only submit a single 

set of deposits. Finally, this reform 

allows the assignment of more accurate 

queue positions, such that these types of 

generating facilities’ component 

resources are tied together in the 

generator interconnection process and 

not studied separately, which facilitates 

a more accurate study of the planned 

generating facilities’ actual electrical 

impact when connected to the 

transmission system. 

245. The pro forma LGIP requires that 

the transmission provider treat an 

interconnection request at one site with 

two different voltage levels as two 

interconnection requests. We recognize 

that this situation may occur with colocated generating facilities under this 

proposal. Therefore, we also propose 

revisions to the pro forma LGIP to 

require generating facilities that are colocating to have technology to address 

differences in terminal voltage between 

the co-located generating facilities to 

ensure that these generating facilities 

have the same voltage levels. This 

requirement will ensure that co-located 

resources with voltage differences are 

on notice of the need to address 

attendant challenges. 

b. Revisions to the Material 

Modification Process To Require 

Consideration of Generating Facility 

Additions 

i. Background 

246. It has become increasingly 

common for generating facilities already 

in the interconnection queue to seek to 

change their interconnection requests to 

add electric storage or other types of 

generating facilities without changing 

the interconnection service level and/or 

MW total in the interconnection request. 

Contributing factors to this increasingly 

common occurrence include reduction 

of costs for technologies such as electric 

storage and the long time that 

interconnection customers remain in the 

queue, which may result in technology 

changes while the generating facility is 

still in the interconnection queue. 

247. Under section 4.4 of the pro 

forma LGIP, an interconnection 

customer can modify its interconnection 

request and still retain its queue 

position if the modifications are either 

explicitly allowed under the pro forma 

LGIP or if the transmission provider 

determines that the modifications are 

not material. The pro forma LGIP and 

pro forma LGIA, as modified by the 

cluster reform above, will define 

material modifications to be 

‘‘modifications that have a material 

impact on the cost or timing of any 

Interconnection Request with a later or 

equal Queue Position.’’ 

248. If the transmission provider 

determines that a proposed modification 

is material, the interconnection 

customer can choose either to (1) 

abandon the proposed modification or 

(2) proceed but forfeit its queue position 

and reenter the interconnection queue. 

The requirements of such a review vary 

by transmission provider and the 

modifications requested are often not 

included in the tariff; rather, many such 

requirements are typically in the 

transmission provider’s business 

practice manuals.340 In some 

transmission provider tariffs or business 

practice manuals, the addition of a 

generating facility 341 to an existing 

interconnection request is automatically 

considered to be a material 

modification, even if that addition does 

not change the requested level of 

interconnection service.342

ii. Comments in Hybrid Resource 

Proceeding 

249. Commenters in the hybrid 

resources proceeding in Docket No. 

AD20–9–000 noted the nationwide 

growth of hybrid resources that are 

made up of at least one electric storage 

resource.343 Some commenters called 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39975 

Alliance Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 2 

(filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

344See Savion, Post-Technical Conference 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000 (filed Sept. 24, 

2020). 

345SEIA, Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 

6 (filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

346Pine Gate, Comments, Docket No. AD20–9– 

000, at 4 (filed Sept. 20, 2021); see PJM Manual 14G 

(Generation Interconnection Requests), section 4 

(Generator Interconnection Requirements, Rights 

and Obligations). 

347This flexible approach is possible, in part, 

because CAISO uses congestion management to 

mitigate the charging of an electric storage resource. 

See Hybrid Resources, Technical Conference 

Transcript, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at Tr. 66 (July 

23, 2020) (Deb Levine, California Indep. Sys. Op.) 

(filed Dec. 8, 2020) (‘‘Adding energy storage [to an 

existing interconnection request] is typically nonmaterial because we use congestion management to 

mitigate any overloads caused by charging the 

energy storage.’’). 

348CAISO, Informational Report, Docket No. 

AD20–9–000, at 8–9 (filed July 19, 2021). 

349See, e.g., Hybrid Resources Coalition, 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 14–16 (filed 

Sept. 20, 2021). 

350See, e.g., Pine Gate, Comments, Docket No. 

AD20–9–000, at 4 (filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

351Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 9– 

10. 

352SPP Hybrid Report, Docket No. AD20–9–000, 

at 4 (filed July 19, 2021); CAISO, CAISO eTariff, 

app. A, Definitions, Congestion (2.0.0), Congestion 

Management (0.0.0). Note that SPP and CAISO have 

similar approaches that utilize congestion 

management as a way to address concerns with any 

overloads caused by charging energy storage. 

353 Gorman et al., Motivations & Options for 

Deploying Hybrid Generator-Plus-Battery Projects 

within the Bulk Power System, Electricity J., at 2 

(June 2020). 

for uniformity in transmission 

providers’ material modification 

determinations when evaluating an 

addition to an interconnection request 

of a generating facility, such as electric 

storage, that does not change the 

interconnection service level of the 

existing interconnection request.344

They noted that developers may be 

hesitant to request that the transmission 

provider consider the addition of an 

electric storage resource or other 

generating facility that does not change 

the interconnection service level in an 

existing interconnection request where 

such addition could cause the loss of a 

queue position if the developer is 

unwilling to forgo the change.345 In 

PJM, for example, the addition of 

electric storage is automatically deemed 

to be a material modification even in 

instances where the addition does not 

increase the requested interconnection 

service level, regardless of both (1) the 

use case for the proposed generating 

facility and (2) the operational controls 

that could be applied to the generating 

facility’s output to limit fluctuation 

from the original injection limit at the 

point of interconnection.346

250. By contrast, in its informational 

report submitted as part of the hybrid 

resources proceeding, CAISO stated that 

it takes a more flexible approach to the 

material modification process that 

causes fewer interconnection customers 

to automatically lose their queue 

positions.347 Interconnection customers 

in CAISO may add an electric storage 

resource to an existing interconnection 

request or to a generating facility 

already in operation using the same 

process as all other modifications.348

Following the request, CAISO and the 

participating transmission owner study 

the modification to ensure there is no 

material change in electrical 

characteristics and that the proposed 

modification would not adversely affect 

the cost or timing of other 

interconnection requests. Even when an 

adverse impact is expected, however, 

CAISO allows the interconnection 

customer to mitigate the impact and 

revise the modification request. If the 

addition does not change the requested 

interconnection service level injection 

limit or the electrical characteristics, it 

is not considered a material 

modification and there is no loss in 

queue position. Under this approach, 

CAISO’s overall process allows for 

fewer resource additions to be 

determined a material modification, 

especially if it does not change the 

requested interconnection service level. 

251. In the absence of a flexible 

approach, commenters suggested that 

transmission providers should be 

required to provide a specific list of the 

criteria that would cause a requested 

modification to a generating facility to 

be considered material. Several 

commenters additionally suggested that 

interconnection customers should be 

permitted to propose to add electric 

storage to an interconnection request 

without automatically triggering a 

material modification, as long as the 

addition of electric storage does not 

alter the requested interconnection 

service level and there are no other 

reliability concerns.349 Commenters 

suggested that interconnection 

customers should also be permitted to 

propose to install and use pre-approved 

controls that limit the resource’s output 

to the requested interconnection service 

limit to prevent the addition of an 

electric storage resource being classified 

as a material modification by the 

transmission provider.350

iii. Need for Reform 

252. For the reasons explained below, 

we are concerned that, because certain 

requested modifications are often 

deemed material without an evaluation, 

the material modification process may 

result in unjust and unreasonable or 

unduly discriminatory or preferential 

outcomes. As explained in Order No. 

2003, it is inadequate and inefficient to 

solve interconnection issues on a caseby-case basis.351 In the case of material 

modification, without a standard set of 

procedures, transmission providers have 

adopted variable strategies for 

processing requests to add electric 

storage, or other generating facilities 

that do not change the requested 

interconnection service limit, to existing 

interconnection requests. This lack of 

uniformity leads to disparate outcomes 

across the country and leaves open the 

potential for undue discrimination. 

253. As explained above, the material 

modification provisions in the pro 

forma LGIP do not specify whether an 

interconnection customer can modify its 

interconnection request to add another 

generating facility at the same point of 

interconnection without increasing the 

requested interconnection service level. 

While in some regions, such as SPP, 

electric storage can be added to an 

interconnection request if it does not 

change the interconnection service 

limit,352 many transmission providers 

treat such a request automatically as a 

material modification because the pro 

forma LGIP does not clearly state 

whether transmission providers are 

obligated to evaluate such modification 

requests under section 4.4 of the pro 

forma LGIP. As such, the 

interconnection customer that wishes to 

make this type of change faces a loss of 

queue position regardless of the actual 

effect the addition of a generating 

facility to an interconnection request 

may have on the system. Yet, the 

addition of electric storage or other 

generating facilities—particularly for 

variable energy resources—will often 

have either a neutral or a net-positive 

impact on the reliability of the 

transmission system without changing 

the total interconnection service level 

requested. For example, the addition of 

electric storage can ensure that the 

output of variable energy resources 

becomes more predictable or provide 

other reliability support services to the 

transmission system.353

254. Because the pro forma LGIP 

material modification process does not 

evaluate the addition of an electric 

storage resource or other generating 

facility that does not change the 

interconnection service limit before 

deeming it a material modification, it is 

a significant barrier to interconnection 

customers that wish to make this type 

of change. We preliminarily find that 

such a barrier hinders access to the 

transmission system and may render the 

existing generator interconnection 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39976 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

354Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 453. 

355 Id. P 459. 

356 Id. P 468. 

357 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 177 

FERC ¶ 61,234, at P 13 (2021). 

358See id. 

359MISO, FERC Electric Tariff, attach. X, 

Generator Interconnection Procedures (GIP) 

(155.0.0), section 3.3.1.1.3.a. 

360Hybrid Resources Coalition, Comments, 

Docket No. AD20–9–000 (filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

processes unjust and unreasonable and 

unduly discriminatory or preferential. 

iv. Proposal 

255. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to require transmission 

providers to evaluate the proposed 

addition of a generating facility to an 

interconnection request as long as the 

interconnection customer does not 

request a change to the originally 

requested interconnection service level. 

The transmission provider cannot 

automatically consider such a request to 

be a material modification. Specifically, 

we propose to require that: (1) 

transmission providers evaluate the 

proposed addition of a generating 

facility to an interconnection request 

within 60 calendar days of receiving the 

request for modification if such addition 

does not change the requested 

interconnection service level; (2) the 

change cannot be considered an 

automatic material modification and an 

evaluation (including studying the 

configuration and necessary modeling) 

must occur prior to determining 

whether the proposed change 

constitutes a material modification of 

the interconnection request; and (3) if 

the proposed change does not have a 

material impact on the cost or timing of 

any interconnection request that is 

lower or equally queued, and does not 

cause any other reliability concerns, the 

addition will not be considered a 

material modification. The reliability 

concerns could include, for example, a 

material impact on the transmission 

system with regard to short circuit 

capability limits, steady-state thermal 

and voltage limits, or dynamic system 

stability and response. 

256. We seek comment on whether 

the addition of a generating facility that 

does not alter an interconnection 

customer’s interconnection service limit 

could nonetheless require a full 

interconnection service study. We also 

seek comment on how transmission 

providers should perform studies 

required to confirm that there is no 

adverse impact because of the addition 

of a generating facility to an 

interconnection request, such as 

confirmation that the electrical 

characteristics of the interconnection 

customer remain the same. 

257. In addition, we seek comment on 

whether and how interconnection 

customers in a later cluster, or 

interconnection customers that are in 

the same cluster, could be adversely 

impacted by such changes. We further 

seek comment on whether the addition 

of electric storage when in charging 

mode (in terms of resistance, 

inductance, and capacitance) may 

change the electrical characteristics of 

an interconnection request, and whether 

those changes may affect the reliable 

operation of the generating facility 

related to that interconnection request. 

We also seek comment on whether 

further specification is needed for the 

assessment of the electrical 

characteristics due to the addition of a 

complex load. 

c. Availability of Surplus 

Interconnection Service 

i. Background 

258. In Order No. 845, the 

Commission implemented a reform that 

established a surplus interconnection 

service. The requirement mandated that 

transmission providers provide an 

expedited process for interconnection 

customers to utilize or transfer surplus 

interconnection service at existing 

generating facilities.354 The Commission 

defined surplus interconnection service 

as ‘‘any unused portion of 

Interconnection Service established in a 

Large Generator Interconnection 

Agreement, such that if Surplus 

Interconnection Service is utilized the 

Interconnection Service limit at the 

Point of Interconnection would remain 

the same.’’ 355 The Commission 

explained that the ‘‘surplus 

interconnection service is created 

because generating facilities may not 

operate at full capacity at all times. 

Consistent with the requirements of 

Order No. 2003, transmission providers 

assume that each interconnection 

customer is fully utilizing its 

interconnection service when studying 

other requests for new 

interconnections.’’ 356 The surplus 

interconnection service process does not 

require an assessment from the 

transmission provider, nor does it 

require the approval of the transmission 

provider. 

259. The surplus interconnection 

service reform contemplated that the 

existing facilities would be in 

commercial operation at the time of the 

request to use the surplus 

interconnection service. However, the 

Commission has recognized that, once 

an interconnection customer is fully 

studied and has an executed LGIA or 

filed an unexecuted LGIA, it could be 

considered an existing facility for 

purposes of the surplus interconnection 

service process.357

260. MISO, in particular, has recently 

implemented changes that would allow 

interconnection customers to utilize the 

surplus interconnection service process 

prior to obtaining an executed LGIA or 

requesting the filing of an unexecuted 

LGIA.358 Previously, MISO allowed 

interconnection customers to request, 

and MISO to begin processing, 

interconnection requests for surplus 

interconnection service after an 

interconnection customer obtained an 

‘‘effective [GIA]’’ 359 for a generating 

facility. MISO now allows 

interconnection customers to request 

surplus interconnection service much 

earlier in the interconnection study 

process for a generating facility with a 

valid interconnection request from 

which such service will be obtained 

upon request. Specifically, such 

requests are now allowed after the 

completion of Decision Point II, which 

occurs after an interconnection 

customer receives certain study results 

for an interconnection request and 

which, according to MISO, is the point 

that interconnection requests remaining 

in the interconnection queue become 

more likely to successfully proceed to a 

GIA. MISO will begin processing and 

studying the surplus interconnection 

request, but no GIA will be tendered for 

the surplus interconnection service 

before the generating facility from 

which such service will come has an 

‘‘effective GIA.’’ 

ii. Comments 

261. In the hybrid resources 

proceeding in Docket No. AD20–9–000, 

the Hybrid Resources Coalition argued 

that MISO’s process should serve as the 

model for how transmission providers 

process requests to add an electric 

storage resource to an existing 

generating facility because it allows the 

surplus interconnection service process 

to be used earlier, as noted above. The 

Hybrid Resources Coalition further 

argued that owners of existing 

generating facilities should be able to 

add electric storage through the surplus 

interconnection service process or some 

other process.360

iii. Need for Reform 

262. As described above, Order No. 

845 established a surplus 

interconnection service process to 

enable a new interconnection customer 

to utilize the unused portion of an 

existing interconnection customer’s 

approved interconnection service 

through the inclusion of an additional 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39977 

361Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 467. 

362See, e.g., pro forma LGIP section 3.2.1.2 

(describing the study requirements for ERIS); id. 

section 3.2.2.2 (describing the study requirements 

for NRIS). 

363An electric storage resource is defined as a 

resource capable of receiving electric energy from 

the grid and storing it for later injection of electric 

energy back to the grid. See Electric Storage 

Participation in Markets Operated by Regional 

Transmission Organizations and Independent 

System Operators, Order No. 841, 162 FERC 

¶ 61,127 at n.1 (2018), order on reh’g, Order No. 

841–A, 167 FERC ¶ 61,154 (2019). Because the pro 

forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA address 

interconnection to the transmission system (See Pro 

Forma LGIP Section 1), we use the term electric 

storage resource in this NOPR in that context. 

364Hybrid Resources, Order Directing Reports, 

174 FERC ¶ 61,034 (Jan. 2021). Hybrid Resources 

White Paper: A Staff Paper: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. Docket No. AD20–9–000 

(May 2021). 

365See, e.g., Pac. Nw. Nat’l Lab’y, Energy Storage 

Technology and Cost Characterization Report, at 3.6 

(July 2019), https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/2019/07/f65/Storage%20Cost%20and%20

Performance%20Characterization%20Report_

Final.pdf; NERC, Energy Storage: Impacts of 

Electrochemical Utility-Scale Battery Energy 

Storage Systems on the Bulk Power System, at 15 

(Feb. 2021), https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/ 

Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/Master_ESAT_

Report.pdf. 

generating facility behind a single point 

of interconnection. Most transmission 

providers subsequently implemented 

additional requirements limiting 

requests for surplus interconnection 

service until after a facility reaches 

commercial operation. Even though the 

addition of a generating facility could be 

pursued as a material modification prior 

to the commercial operation date, that 

process is more burdensome because it 

requires an evaluation by the 

transmission provider and is subject to 

transmission provider approval. 

263. While the surplus 

interconnection service process was 

created for existing generating facilities, 

Order No. 845 does not specify when a 

generating facility is considered to be 

‘‘existing’’ for the purpose of Order No. 

845. Limiting the use of surplus 

interconnection service to only those 

interconnection customers that have 

achieved commercial operation may 

unduly restrict access to potentially 

available surplus interconnection 

capacity. We find that this restriction 

may therefore be unjust and 

unreasonable and unduly 

discriminatory or preferential because it 

limits the applicability of surplus 

interconnection service. 

iv. Proposal 

264. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to require transmission 

providers to allow interconnection 

customers to access the surplus 

interconnection service process once the 

original interconnection customer has 

an executed LGIA or requests the filing 

of an unexecuted LGIA. Allowing an 

interconnection customer to request 

surplus interconnection service after the 

original interconnection customer 

executes an LGIA or requests the filing 

of an unexecuted LGIA would enable 

interconnection customers with unused 

interconnection capacity to let other 

generating facilities use that capacity 

earlier than is currently allowed. We 

believe that doing so would increase the 

overall efficiency of the interconnection 

queue and ensure the efficient use of 

available interconnection capacity that 

has already been studied and granted to 

an interconnection customer. This is 

consistent with Order 845, in which we 

state: 

We affirm that requiring transmission 

providers to establish an expedited process, 

separate from the interconnection queue, for 

the use of surplus interconnection service 

could reduce costs for interconnection 

customers by increasing the utilization of 

existing interconnection facilities and 

network upgrades rather than requiring new 

ones, improve wholesale market competition 

by enabling more entities to compete through 

the more efficient use of surplus existing 

interconnection capacity, and remove 

economic barriers to the development of 

complementary technologies such as electric 

storage resources that may be able to easily 

tailor their use of interconnection service to 

adhere to the limitations of the surplus 

interconnection service that may exist. 

Further, we find that facilitating the use of 

surplus interconnection service could 

improve capabilities at existing generating 

facilities, prevent stranded costs, and 

improve access to the transmission 

system.361

d. Operating Assumptions for 

Interconnection Studies 

i. Background 

265. The pro forma LGIP includes 

only general requirements regarding the 

operating assumptions for generating 

facilities in interconnection studies.362

In particular, current operating 

assumptions for interconnection studies 

were developed prior to the large-scale 

adoption of variable energy resources, 

the advent of electric storage, and the 

adoption of co-located resources, 

including hybrid resources. In many 

instances, these operating assumptions 

may not reflect the real-world operation 

of electric storage resources,363 and colocated resources containing electric 

storage resources (including hybrid 

resources 364), among others, because 

they assume patterns of operation 

similar to traditional resources and firm 

end-use customer load. For example, 

some transmission providers assume 

that all generating facilities in a 

constrained area will seek to generate 

simultaneously during light load 

conditions or that all electric storage 

resources will seek to charge during 

peak load conditions. Similarly, some 

transmission providers may assume that 

resources will operate in a manner in 

which they are physically incapable of 

operating, such as assuming that solar 

resources will produce electricity after 

the sun sets, for example, or that wind 

will produce maximum output in a less 

windy season. In addition, other 

examples could include natural gas 

facilities that need adjusted operating 

assumptions based on the inability to 

procure fuel at certain times, or a 

pumped hydro plant that is limited in 

its ability to pump at night given voltage 

constraints. 

266. Further, for generating facilities 

that intend to inject energy onto the 

transmission system as well as 

withdraw energy from the transmission 

system, such as electric storage 

resources and co-located resources 

containing electric storage resources 

(including hybrid resources), 

transmission providers have expanded 

the traditional scope of interconnection 

studies to include the impact of energy 

withdrawals by the generating facility 

during the generator interconnection 

process to determine whether network 

upgrades are needed. Many 

transmission providers assume in their 

interconnection studies that these 

generating facilities withdraw the 

maximum amount of energy during 

peak load conditions, which is 

comparable to assuming that these 

generating facilities behave like firm 

end-use customer load that is 

unresponsive to transmission system 

conditions. However, during real-time 

operations, the controlled withdrawals 

of an electric storage resource or colocated resources containing an electric 

storage resource (including hybrid 

resources) for charging differ 

significantly from the behavior of 

largely uncontrollable end-use customer 

loads. Unlike most firm load, an electric 

storage resource, or co-located resource 

containing an electric storage resource 

(including hybrid resources), can choose 

when to withdraw energy based on realtime information from the transmission 

provider, and some electric storage 

resources or co-located resources 

containing an electric storage resource 

(including hybrid resources) can 

respond to signals from the transmission 

provider to reduce or stop charging 

(withdrawing energy from the 

transmission system) within seconds.365

267. By contrast, other transmission 

providers have used operating 

assumptions for interconnection studies 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39978 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

366See CAISO, Energy Storage Interconnection: 

Draft Final Proposal, at 15–17 (2014), http://

www.caiso.com/Documents/DraftFinalProposal_

EnergyStorageInterconnection.pdf. 

367Hybrid Resource Coalition, Comments, Docket 

No. AD20–9–000, at 11–12 (filed Sept. 20, 2021); 

City of New York, Comments, Docket No. AD20–9– 

000, at 3 (filed Sept. 20, 2021); Clean Grid Alliance, 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 3 (filed 

Sept. 20, 2021); Savion, Post-Technical Conference 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 7 (filed 

Sept. 24, 2020); Enel, Post-Technical Conference 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 2–3 (filed 

Sept. 24, 2020). 

368City of New York, Comments, Docket No. 

AD20–9–000, at 3 (filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

369Savion, Post-Technical Conference Comments, 

Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 4–5 (filed Sept. 24, 

2020). 

370City of New York, Comments, Docket No. 

AD20–9–000, at 3 (filed Sept. 20, 2021); Clean Grid 

Alliance, Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 3 

(filed Sept. 20, 2021); Hybrid Resources Coalition, 

Comments, Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 11–12, 16 

(filed Sept. 20, 2021). 371Pine Gate, Comments, Docket No. AD20–9– 

000, at 5–6 (filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

372 Id. 

373 Id. 

374NARUC, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17– 

000, at 9 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

375ACPA/ESA, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17– 

000, at 41–42 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

376Union of Concerned Scientists, Comments, 

Docket No. RM21–17–000, at 63–64 (filed Oct. 12, 

2021). 

377Enel, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, at 

16 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

that more closely match the expected 

operation of the generating facility 

seeking to interconnect. For instance, 

CAISO’s approach, in which electric 

storage resources are subject to CAISO’s 

congestion management practices,366

has helped to avoid some of the issues 

above. This difference allows CAISO to 

curtail an electric storage resource’s 

charging, if necessary, during a peak 

load period and remain confident that 

such curtailment will not adversely 

affect its system. 

ii. Comments 

268. Several commenters in the 

hybrid resources proceeding raised 

concerns with the operating 

assumptions for interconnection studies 

that transmission providers generally 

use to study co-located resources and 

hybrid resources, as well as for standalone electric storage resources. For 

instance, several commenters stated that 

multiple RTOs/ISOs rely on worst-case 

operating assumptions for 

interconnection studies, for example 

that the electric storage resources will 

charge during peak load periods and 

discharge when load is light.367

Commenters argued that such operating 

assumptions for interconnection studies 

can lead to projects being assigned 

unnecessary and expensive network 

upgrade costs that make projects 

uneconomic.368

269. In addition, commenters noted 

that interconnection studies often 

include inappropriate assumptions for 

electric storage resources regarding 

when the resource will charge to 

capture energy that would have been 

lost during curtailment.369 This can also 

include studying electric storage 

resources as if it were consistently using 

full charge and discharge cycles, even 

though that is often not how the 

resource would operate—in many cases 

the electric storage may be partially 

charging or discharging in response to 

market signals, such as responding to 

locational marginal prices in the RTO/ 

ISO context, or responding to dispatch 

instructions more generally. 

270. Some commenters argued that 

the increased network upgrade costs 

caused by unnecessary or redundant 

network upgrades for generating 

facilities can be avoided if the 

interconnection studies assume that the 

planned resource will respond to market 

signals,370 or assume a particular ‘‘use 

case,’’ such as avoiding charging during 

peak periods, scarcity periods, or other 

designated periods. Pine Gates states 

that operating assumptions for 

interconnection studies could also be 

based on the generating facility’s 

specific configuration and known 

operational constructs for electric 

storage projects.371 Pine Gates further 

states that this could also be applied to 

other generating facility types, such as 

solar, that currently may have erroneous 

assumptions made about their ability to 

operate at night, for instance. 

271. Resource developers advocated 

for a process under which transmission 

providers would specify, per the 

requirements of identified use cases, 

pre-determined conditions under which 

an electric storage resource would be 

permitted to operate as load or as a 

generating facility: for instance, that 

electric storage resources could only 

charge outside of peak load 

conditions.372 One commenter noted 

that this approach would enable the 

transmission provider to realistically 

study the electric storage resource, as 

opposed to studying it under scenarios 

where the resource acts as load and as 

a generating facility simultaneously.373

272. In addition, in response to the 

Commission’s recent ANOPR on 

transmission and interconnection 

reform, the National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

(NARUC) agreed that interconnection 

studies used to evaluate Electric Storage 

Resources should reflect reasonable 

operating assumptions, such as charging 

during off-peak hours.374 The American 

Clean Power Association and U.S. 

Energy Storage Association (ACPA/ESA) 

noted that the unrealistic assumption 

that storage will charge at full capacity 

during peak load incentivizes 

developers to site storage far from 

binding transmission elements to avoid 

costly network upgrades.375 ACPA/ESA 

argued that siting this way is inefficient 

because the expected dispatch of storage 

near a binding transmission element in 

response to wholesale market prices 

would most likely relieve the binding 

transmission element rather than 

exacerbate it. The Union of Concerned 

Scientists agreed that assuming electric 

storage resources will charge during 

peak load periods and exacerbate 

transmission constraints is unrealistic 

because electric storage resources are 

typically deployed with a specific 

operating strategy in mind to reduce or 

eliminate a transmission constraint.376

ACPA/ESA further argued that current 

operating assumptions in 

interconnection studies disregard the 

ability of storage to install software and 

hardware controls to prevent dispatch 

in response to predefined line loading 

criteria and/or predetermined time 

periods. 

273. Other commenters noted that the 

issue concerning inaccurate operating 

assumptions applies beyond the electric 

storage resource and co-located resource 

or hybrid resource context and argued 

that the requirement for accurate 

operating assumptions should apply to 

all generating facility types. Using the 

framework of fuel-based dispatch as a 

reference to accurate operating 

assumptions, Enel explains, ‘‘[t]he 

Commission should direct all 

Transmission Providers to implement 

fuel-based dispatch assumptions in 

studies to further reduce 

interdependency between 

interconnection requests.’’ 377 Enel 

further states, 

by studying new generators only in seasons 

and load profiles that match the likely 

generation profile of the fuel source, 

interconnection requests become less 

dependent on the results of interconnection 

studies for generators of different fuel types. 

For instance, a solar project may produce 

more during the summer, and a wind project 

may produce more during the winter. 

Studying the two projects as if they will 

achieve maximum output at the same time 

for several hours of the year could create the 

false impression that upgrades are necessary 

to integrate the two projects on the grid. This 

would create interdependence, such that one 

project dropping out would trigger a restudy 

for the other project and queue delays. With 

fuel-based dispatch [assumptions,] the two 

projects will not achieve maximum output at 

the same time for many hours of the year and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39979 

378 Id. 

379Pine Gate, Comments, Docket No. AD20–9– 

000, at 4 (filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

380Hybrid Resources Coalition, Comments, 

Docket No. AD20–9–000, at 12 (filed Sept. 20, 

2021). 

381 Id. at 10–11; Pine Gate, Comments, Docket No. 

AD20–9–000, at 6 (filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

382Clean Grid Alliance, Comments, Docket No. 

AD20–9–000, at 3 (filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

383Edison Electric Institute, Comments, Docket 

No. AD20–9–000, at 6 (filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

384NYISO, Reply Comments, Docket No. AD20– 

9–000, at 8 (filed Oct. 20, 2021). 

385 Id. at 8–9. 

386Review of Generator Interconnection 

Agreements and Procedures, Technical Conference 

Transcript, Docket No. RM16–12–000, at Tr. 239– 

240 (May 13, 2016); RES Americas, Comments, 

Docket No. RM16–12–000, at 3 (filed June 30, 2016). 

avoid the interdependence and need to 

restudy.378

Enel also noted that MISO and PJM 

already employ such an approach. 

274. Commenters in the hybrid 

resources proceeding also noted that 

modern control technology can limit an 

entire hybrid facility’s impact at the 

point of interconnection.379 This ability 

would apply to variable energy 

resources and stand-alone electric 

storage resources, as well as co-located 

resources containing electric storage 

resource (including hybrid resources). 

275. Commenters also suggested that 

transmission providers should provide 

guidance regarding required control 

equipment, such that developers can 

better plan for any additional costs of 

this equipment, because this may 

influence how a developer configures its 

project.380 Commenters further 

recommended that the Commission 

require transmission providers to use 

operating assumptions for 

interconnection studies that are based 

on a hybrid resource’s specific 

configuration.381 In one example, Clean 

Grid Alliance asserted that the MISO 

generator interconnection process does 

not account for all applications of 

electric storage resources because it 

studies storage at 100% dispatch in all 

planning scenarios.382 Clean Grid 

Alliance noted that this problem is 

particularly pronounced for hybrid 

resources, where each component is 

separately submitted to the MISO 

queue, because the electric storage 

component is assessed for impacts to 

the transmission system in operating 

scenarios that will never exist. 

276. Providing another perspective, 

EEI stated that transmission providers 

may need to gain more experience with 

the operation of hybrid resources before 

determining whether new study 

approaches are necessary. EEI 

contended that this could allow 

transmission providers the time needed 

to gain more experience with hybrid 

resources in order to inform the need for 

new study approaches in the future.383

277. In addition, commenters such as 

NYISO raised concerns that requiring 

transmission providers to change 

operating assumptions for 

interconnection studies could pose 

reliability and market concerns.384

NYISO argued that it needs to study the 

actual minimum and maximum 

capabilities of a proposed resource to 

consider potential market impacts of 

that resource. NYISO asserted that 

studying a proposed resource based on 

its planned operational parameters 

would limit the resources available to 

system operators to address system 

needs during real-time operation and 

could result in directing the operation 

or curtailment of other generating 

facilities out of economic merit order 

because the transmission system is not 

sufficiently robust.385

278. Some participants in and 

commenters to the Commission’s 2016 

technical conference on generator 

interconnection agreements identified 

CAISO’s approach as a best practice for 

modeling electric storage resources in 

interconnection studies during the 

conference and in post-technical 

conference comments.386

iii. Need for Reform 

279. We expect that, in many cases, 

the operating assumptions used for 

interconnection studies will be 

sufficient to accurately identify the 

network upgrades needed to reliably 

interconnect many generating facilities. 

However, as newer technologies with 

operating parameters that differ from 

traditional generation seek to 

interconnect, we preliminarily find that 

it is necessary for transmission 

providers to use assumptions that 

accurately reflect the operating 

parameters of electric storage resources 

and co-located resources containing 

electric storage resources (including 

hybrid resources), so that the unique 

operating characteristics of such 

resources are taken into account during 

the generator interconnection process. If 

the operating assumptions for 

interconnection studies do not reflect 

the operational pattern of the 

interconnecting generating facilities, it 

is possible that interconnection studies 

will overestimate the proposed 

generating facilities’ impact on the 

transmission system, thereby assigning 

network upgrades to the interconnection 

customer that would be unnecessary 

under planned operations. Because the 

pro forma LGIP includes only general 

requirements regarding the operating 

assumptions for generating facilities in 

interconnection studies, we are 

concerned that electric storage 

resources, and co-located resources 

containing electric storage resources 

(including hybrid resources), may be 

studied under inappropriate operating 

assumptions that result in assigning 

unnecessary network upgrades and 

increased costs to interconnection 

customers. We therefore preliminarily 

find that the lack of realistic operating 

assumptions used in interconnection 

studies for electric storage resources and 

co-located resources containing electric 

storage resources (including hybrid 

resources) can result in excessive and 

unnecessary network upgrades and may 

hinder the timely development of new 

generation, thereby stifling competition 

in the wholesale markets, and resulting 

in rates, terms, and conditions that are 

unjust and unreasonable. Further, we 

preliminarily find that the lack of 

appropriate operating assumptions used 

in interconnection studies may present 

an unduly discriminatory or preferential 

barrier to the interconnection of electric 

storage resources and co-located 

resources containing electric storage 

resources (including hybrid resources). 

iv. Proposal 

280. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP to require transmission 

providers, at the request of the 

interconnection customer, to use 

operating assumptions for 

interconnection studies that reflect the 

proposed operation of an electric storage 

resource or co-located resource 

containing an electric storage resource 

(including hybrid resources)—i.e., 

whether the interconnecting resource 

will or will not charge during peak load 

conditions, unless good utility practice, 

including applicable reliability 

standards, otherwise require the use of 

different operating assumptions. Such 

operating assumptions shall be 

proposed by the interconnection 

customer as part of its initial 

interconnection request. We believe this 

will ensure that the flexibility provided 

by this reform does not delay the cluster 

study process as proposed earlier in this 

NOPR, and does not delay 

interconnection studies, or otherwise 

harm other interconnection customers 

in the cluster because all operating 

assumptions for interconnection studies 

would be clarified prior to entering a 

cluster study process. Such operating 

assumptions must be reasonably 

representative of the likely behavior of 

an electric storage resource or co-located 

resource containing an electric storage 

resource (including hybrid resources) 

and, in cases where available, consistent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39980 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

387Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 343. 388This could include potential ancillary services 

any generating facility, including hybrid resources, 

could provide, such as contingency reserves, 

ramping or other operating reserves, which when 

dispatched or called upon, causes the electric 

storage device to be recharged in the peak period 

to meet its obligations later in the day. 389NYISO, Reply Comments, Docket No. AD20– 

9–000, at 8 (filed Oct. 20, 2021). 390See, e.g., AES Companies, Comments, Docket 

No. RM16–12–000, at 14–15 (filed June 21, 2016); 

Energy Storage Association, Comments, Docket No. 

RM16–12–000, at 2–3, 7–8 (filed June 30, 2016); 

Hybrid Resources Coalition, Comments, Docket No. 

AD20–9–000, at 16 (filed Sept. 20, 2021). 

with the historical performance of such 

resources in the relevant geographic 

area. Further, to help facilitate 

alignment between as-studied and realworld conditions, we propose to allow 

transmission providers to hold 

interconnection customers to the 

intended operation of their electric 

storage resource or co-located resource 

containing an electric storage resource 

(including hybrid resources) by: (1) 

memorializing these operating 

restrictions in the interconnection 

customer’s LGIA; (2) requiring control 

technologies (software and/or hardware) 

in cases where appropriate, such as for 

electric storage that wishes to limit its 

operations, with such protection devices 

included in Appendix C of the LGIA. If 

the interconnection customer fails to 

operate its electric storage resource or 

co-located resource containing an 

electric storage resource (including 

hybrid resources) in accordance with 

these conditions as memorialized in the 

LGIA, the interconnection customer 

may be considered in breach and the 

transmission provider may pursue 

termination pursuant to article 17 of the 

LGIA. 

Additionally, we propose to require 

that any transmission provider that 

requires electric storage resources or colocated resources containing an electric 

storage resource (including hybrid 

resources) to install control technologies 

to publicly post a list of acceptable 

control technologies. Furthermore, we 

propose revisions to the description of 

the ERIS and NRIS studies in sections 

3.2.1.2. and 3.2.2.2 of the pro forma 

LGIP to accommodate this proposed 

reform. 

281. We propose to require that 

interconnection customers clearly 

communicate to the transmission 

provider the expected operating patterns 

of the electric storage resource, or colocated resource containing an electric 

storage resource (including hybrid 

resources). In addition, for the electric 

storage resource or co-located resource 

containing an electric storage resource 

(including hybrid resources) to be 

studied, the interconnection customer 

must specify, as part of its initial 

interconnection request, the ancillary 

services that it would or would not 

provide so that the proper operating 

assumptions may be made in 

interconnection studies. Regardless of 

any changes to operating assumptions, 

all electric storage resources, or colocated resources containing an electric 

storage resource (including hybrid 

resources) must continue to meet all 

requirements in the pro forma LGIP and 

pro forma LGIA, as well as all 

applicable reliability standards. 

282. Under this proposed reform, 

studies based on operational use cases 

would reflect the planned operation of 

the electric storage resource, or colocated resource containing electric 

storage resource (including hybrid 

resources). Order No. 845 provides 

precedent for the Commission to require 

transmission providers to revise their 

interconnection study assumptions to 

ensure just and reasonable rates. In 

Order No. 845, the Commission revised 

the pro forma LGIP to require 

transmission providers to allow 

interconnection customers’ requests to 

be studied and modeled below their full 

generating capacity.387 Under this 

proposed reform, each transmission 

provider’s operating assumptions used 

in their interconnection studies would 

be required to take into consideration 

the services that the generating facility 

would provide and the timing of such 

services, as applicable.388 This could be 

done in a variety of ways, and the 

transmission provider would have 

flexibility to consider services as best 

fits its transmission system. 

283. We acknowledge the concern 

held by some entities that transmission 

providers should not be required to 

study electric storage resources, or colocated resources containing an electric 

storage resource (including hybrid 

resources) according to their intended 

operation because it is not possible to 

guarantee that those resources will not 

deviate from the intended operating 

assumptions.389 However, we 

preliminarily find that this concern can 

be addressed by requiring 

interconnection customers to utilize 

control technologies inherent to electric 

storage resources 390 to ensure that the 

operation does not deviate from the 

proposed operational pattern, consistent 

with the Commission’s requirements for 

requesting interconnection service 

below full generating capacity. We seek 

comment on the extent of the potential 

burden on transmission providers in 

tracking the usage of such operating 

limitations. 

284. As noted previously, when 

studying the charging of an electric 

storage resource or co-located resources 

containing an electric storage resource 

(including hybrid resources), assuming 

for purposes of operating assumptions 

in interconnection studies that all such 

resources will behave like firm load and 

add to peak demand without the ability 

to respond to signals from the 

transmission provider to curtail 

charging, is inaccurate and can lead to 

expensive and unnecessary network 

upgrades. 

285. For that reason, we propose to 

clarify that the proposed reform 

described in this section to study 

electric storage resources, or co-located 

resources containing an electric storage 

resource (including hybrid resources) 

according to their planned operating 

assumptions at the request of the 

interconnection customer as part of its 

initial interconnection request is 

intended to mean the operating 

assumptions for withdrawals of energy 

(e.g., the charging of an energy storage 

resource) in interconnection studies. In 

line with the proposed reform as 

described above, we propose to require 

that the interconnection customer 

include in its initial interconnection 

request any operating assumptions for 

withdrawals of energy to be used by the 

transmission provider in 

interconnection studies. 

286. We seek comment on whether 

the Commission should expand this 

reform to address operating assumptions 

for additional generating facility 

technologies that may currently be 

inaccurately modeled, such as variable 

energy resources. For example, we seek 

comment on whether the Commission 

should expand this proposal to specify 

only that, at the interconnection 

customer’s request, a transmission 

provider must not study generating 

facilities in ways that are not physically 

possible, for example studying a solar 

resource as producing energy at night, 

or a wind resource as producing 

maximum energy during low wind 

seasons, or other circumstances wherein 

any resource is studied in ways that are 

not physically possible, subject to the 

same proposed requirement that the 

generating facility be equipped with 

sufficient control technology, such as 

special protection systems, and/or 

subject to penalties for deviating from 

dispatch. We seek comment on whether 

other operating assumptions, in 

addition to the assumption that electric 

storage resources withdraw energy 

during peak load periods, should be 

considered as part of this proposed 

reform. 

287. We seek comment on how the 

Commission should define the study 

parameters (e.g., should the Commission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39981 

391See supra note 90. 

392See, e.g., Advanced Energy Economy, 

Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, at 21 (filed 

Oct. 12, 2021); EDF Renewables, Comments, Docket 

No. RM21–17–000, at 17–18 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

393See Elec. Transmission Incentives Pol’y Under 

Section 219 of the Fed. Power Act, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 85 FR 18784 (Apr. 2, 2020), 

170 FERC ¶ 61,204, at P 9, errata notice, 171 FERC 

¶ 61,072 (2020). 

394We do not use or define the term GETs for 

purposes of these reforms. However, for accuracy, 

we use the term GETs to summarize comments from 

the ANOPR because many of the technologies 

contemplated here are often considered GETs. In 

the ANOPR, the Commission referred to GETs as 

technologies that ‘‘increase the capacity, efficiency, 

or reliability of transmission facilities,’’ including 

‘‘(1) power flow control and transmission switching 

equipment; (2) storage technologies, and (3) 

advanced line rating management technologies.’’ 

ANOPR, 176 FERC ¶ 61,024 at n.68. See also, 

Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation NOPR, 

179 FERC ¶ 61,028 at P 270 (‘‘Advanced power flow 

control devices serve a transmission function. 

These devices can help the system operator control 

power flows over a given path and can include 

phase shifting transformers (also known as phase 

angle regulators) and devices or systems necessary 

for implementing optimal transmission switching. 

Advanced power flow control devices allow power 

to be pushed and pulled to alternate lines with 

spare capacity leading to maximum utilization of 

existing transmission capacity.’’) 

395ANOPR, 176 FERC ¶ 61,024 at P 158. 

396American Clean Power Association and 

Energy Storage Association (ACPA/ESA), 

Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, at 49 (filed 

Nov. 30, 2021); CAISO, Comments, Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, at 113–114 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); 

Clean Energy Coalition, Supplemental Comments, 

Docket No. RM21–17–000, at 7 (filed Nov. 30, 

2021); EDF Renewables, Comments, Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, at 16–17 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); 

Environmental Advocates, Comments, Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, at 23–25 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); 

Industrial Customers, Comments, Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, at 37 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); Potomac 

Economics, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, 

at 8–9 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); United States 

Department of Energy, Comments, Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, at 48 (filed Nov. 30, 2021). 

397Environmental Advocates, Comments, Docket 

No. RM21–17–000, at 23–25 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); 

Industrial Customers, Comments, Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, at 37 (filed Nov. 30, 2021). 

398ACPA/ESA, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17– 

000, at 49 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); Environmental 

Advocates, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, 

at 23–25 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); Industrial Customers, 

Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, at 36–37 

(filed Nov. 30, 2021); Potomac Economics, 

Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, at 8–9 (filed 

Nov. 30, 2021). 

399ACPA/ESA, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17– 

000, at 64–65 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); Environmental 

Advocates, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, 

at 23–25 (filed Nov. 30, 2021). 

400EDF Renewables, Comments, Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, at 16–17 (filed Nov. 30, 2021). 

401Environmental Advocates, Comments, Docket 

No. RM21–17–000, at 23–25 (filed Nov. 30, 2021). 

402ACPA/ESA, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17– 

000, at 64–65 (filed Nov. 30, 2021); EDF 

Renewables, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, 

at 16–17 (filed Nov. 30, 2021). 

403ACPA/ESA, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17– 

000, at 64–65 (filed Nov. 30, 2021) (citing Order 

845–A, 166 FERC ¶ 61,137 at P 2 n.5 (‘‘Stand alone 

network upgrades: shall mean Network Upgrades 

that an Interconnection Customer may construct 

without affecting day-to-day operations of the 

Transmission System during their construction. 

Both the Transmission Provider and the 

Continued 

define the ‘‘peak load period’’ and/or 

‘‘net peak load’’ during which 

transmission providers must not study a 

generating facility as withdrawing 

energy, and if so how). 

288. In addition to this proposed 

reform, we seek comment on whether, 

and if so how, the Commission should 

define firm and non-firm charging for 

electric storage resources and require 

transmission providers to define study 

criteria and possible ways to 

interconnect related to both firm and 

non-firm charging. We seek comment on 

whether providing such options would 

improve the effectiveness of this 

proposed reform and whether there 

would be other consequences of 

implementing such an approach. With 

respect to the definition of firm and 

non-firm charging, we seek comment on 

whether the Commission should, for 

example, (1) define firm charging 

service as interconnection service that 

allows the interconnection customer to 

be eligible to receive electric energy in 

a manner comparable to a transmission 

provider’s load, and (2) define non-firm 

charging service as interconnection 

service that allows the interconnection 

customer to be eligible to receive 

electric energy using the existing firm or 

non-firm capacity of the transmission 

system on an ‘‘as available’’ basis, 

noting that in an RTO/ISO with marketbased congestion management, a 

generating facility with non-firm 

charging service must respond to the 

RTO’s/ISO’s dispatch instructions, 

including curtailment to manage 

congestion. 

2. Incorporating Alternative 

Transmission Technologies Into the 

Generator Interconnection Process 

a. Background 

289. Under the pro forma LGIP and 

pro forma SGIP, transmission providers 

often do not consider newer 

technologies—such as dynamic line 

ratings or advanced power flow control 

devices—as they identify network 

upgrades, and instead tend toward 

solutions they have more experience 

with, such as reconductoring a line or 

upgrading a transformer at a 

transmission substation.391 For 

example, reconductoring a transmission 

line provides a certain MW capacity 

increase, while dynamic line ratings or 

advanced power flow control devices 

may increase capacity dependent on 

ambient or transmission system 

conditions. 

290. To date, the Commission has 

provided few requirements regarding 

how to consider dynamic line ratings 

and advanced power flow control 

devices in generator interconnection 

processes, and only a small number of 

such technologies have been deployed 

to address impacts that result from the 

potential addition of a generating 

facility.392 In the Commission’s 

transmission incentives proceedings, 

the Commission is considering reforms 

to encourage the deployment of 

‘‘transmission technologies that, as 

deployed in certain circumstances, 

enhance reliability, efficiency, and 

capacity, and improve the operation of 

new or existing transmission 

facilities,’’ 393 which includes the 

transmission technologies we discuss in 

this NOPR. In the ANOPR, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether there is the potential for gridenhancing technologies (GETs) 394— 

which also include the transmission 

technologies we discuss in this NOPR— 

not only to increase the capacity, 

efficiency, and reliability of 

transmission facilities, but in so doing, 

also to reduce the cost of 

interconnection-related network 

upgrades.395

291. In comments responding to the 

ANOPR, several commenters 396 support 

the consideration of GETs during the 

generator interconnection process, with 

some advocating for a requirement that 

GETs be considered in all 

interconnection studies.397 Several 

commenters note that GETs can reduce 

the cost of network upgrades 398 and the 

duration of time spent in 

interconnection queues.399 Commenters 

state that GETs are not currently 

considered in generator interconnection 

processes.400

292. Environmental Advocates state 

that the Commission should not simply 

allow transmission providers to 

independently decide on the viability of 

an alternative transmission technology; 

rather, the Commission should ensure 

that consideration of alternatives is 

open and transparent, and that 

interconnection customers should be 

able to determine if the analysis is 

sufficiently comprehensive.401

Similarly, EDF Renewables and ACPA/ 

ESA argue that interconnection 

customers should have the opportunity 

to request GETs as an alternative 

solution to a network upgrade.402

ACPA/ESA state that electric storage 

could be considered a GET for 

interconnection purposes and submit 

that electric storage (and potentially 

other GETs) should qualify as a 

standalone network upgrade and be 

included under the option to build.403


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39982 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Interconnection Customer must agree as to what 

constitutes Stand Alone Network Upgrades and 

identify them in Appendix A to the Standard Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement.’’)). 

404EEI, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, at 

39 (filed Nov. 30, 2021). 

405For purposes of these reforms, alternative 

transmission technologies are: advanced power 

flow control, transmission switching, dynamic line 

ratings, static synchronous compensators, and/or 

static VAR compensators. 

406See, e.g., State Agencies, Comments, Docket 

No. RM21–27–000, at 30–33 (filed Nov. 30, 2021). 

407See, e.g., TAPS, Comments, Docket No. RM21– 

27–000, at 21–22 (filed Nov. 30, 2021). 

408See, e.g., Department of Energy, Advanced 

Transmission Technologies, at 28–30 (Feb. 12, 

2020), https://www.energy.gov/oe/downloads/ 

advanced-transmission-technologies-report; 

Environmental Advocates, Comments, Docket No. 

RM21–17–000, at 20 (filed Oct. 12, 2021); R Street 

Institute, Comments, Docket No. RM21–17–000, at 

3–4 (filed Oct. 12, 2021). 

409Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation 

NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,028, at P 261 (citing T. Bruce 

Tsuchida et al., Brattle Unlocking the Queue with 

Grid-Enhancing Technologies, at 19–20 (Feb. 1, 

2021), https://watt-transmission.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2021/02/Brattle__Unlocking-the-Queuewith-Grid-Enhancing-Technologies__Final-Report_

Public-Version.pdf90.pdf). 

410T. Bruce Tscuchida & Rob Gramlich, 

Improving Transmission Operation with Advanced 

Technologies: A Review of Deployment Experience 

and Analysis of Incentives 12 (Sustainable FERC 

Project, WATT Coalition, White Paper, June 2019), 

https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/ 

05/16634_improving_transmission_operating_with_

advanced_technologies.pdf. 

411 Managing Transmission Line Ratings, Order 

No. 881, 87 FR 2244 (Jan. 13, 2022), 177 FERC 

¶ 61,179, at PP 235, 238 (2021). 

412A voltage source converter is a selfcommutated device that synthesizes a voltage 

waveform with variable magnitude with respect to 

the system voltage to control the reactive power 

production and consumption of the device. 

413NERC, Reliability Guideline: Reactive Power 

Planning, at 6 (Dec. 2016) https://www.nerc.com/ 

comm/PC_Reliability_Guidelines_DL/ 

Reliability%20Guideline%20- 

%20Reactive%20Power%20Planning.pdf. 

293. On the other hand, EEI states that 

there are significant risks involved with 

the deployment of new technologies, 

such as uncertainties regarding longterm effectiveness, rapidly evolving 

technology rendering formerly installed 

technology obsolete, and concerns 

regarding cost recovery for these new 

investments. Thus, EEI advocates 

flexibility, but not a requirement, to 

evaluate them in the generator 

interconnection process.404

b. Need for Reform 

294. Alternative transmission 

technologies 405 can provide substantial 

benefits to optimize the transmission 

system in specific scenarios. Namely, 

the below identified transmission 

technologies often can be deployed both 

more quickly and at lower costs than 

other network upgrades.406 As a result, 

selecting alternative transmission 

technologies as a network upgrade or inlieu of a network upgrade may reduce 

interconnection costs by providing 

lower cost transmission solutions to 

interconnect new generating facilities. 

These technologies also have the 

potential to be used as temporary 

solutions while new network upgrades 

are constructed or used in combination 

with other network upgrades in 

generator interconnection processes.407

295. Specific opportunities to use 

alternative transmission technologies 

include resolving thermal overloads 

and/or redirecting flows following 

contingencies so that the transmission 

system will be operated within system 

operating limits. This could be achieved 

with advanced power flow control or by 

switching transmission system or 

generation elements. Transmission 

switching can reduce local congestion 

and increase transfer capacity. Dynamic 

line ratings, along with other alternative 

transmission technologies, can be used 

to enable dynamic injection limits at the 

point of interconnection and 

accommodate additional energy or 

ancillary services from generating 

facilities behind the point of 

interconnection. Devices such as static 

synchronous compensators and static 

VAR compensators can support or 

maintain voltages to avoid voltage 

collapse situations by increasing load 

and generation transfer capability. 

296. Despite these potential benefits, 

alternative transmission technologies 

often do not receive the same 

consideration during generator 

interconnection processes as other 

network upgrades and have only been 

deployed in a small number of 

instances.408 Furthermore, the current 

LGIP does not require transmission 

providers to consider such technologies. 

Therefore, reforms to require their 

consideration may be necessary to 

achieve their benefits in generator 

interconnection processes. We 

preliminarily find that failing to 

consider alternative transmission 

technologies that can be deployed both 

more quickly and at lower costs than 

network upgrades may render 

Commission-jurisdictional rates unjust 

and unreasonable. 

c. Proposals 

i. Consideration of Alternative 

Transmission Technologies in 

Interconnection Studies Upon Request 

of the Interconnection Customer 

297. In order to ensure just and 

reasonable Commission-jurisdictional 

rates, we propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP and pro forma SGIP to 

require transmission providers, upon 

request of the interconnection customer, 

to evaluate the requested alternative 

transmission solution(s) during the LGIP 

cluster study and the SGIP system 

impact study and facilities study within 

the generator interconnection process. 

298. Here, to provide more certainty 

for evaluation purposes, and focus on 

technologies that serve a transmission 

function and thus are subject to 

Commission jurisdiction, we propose to 

specify the technologies that the 

interconnection customer may request 

to be evaluated. Specifically, we 

propose revisions to the LGIP and SGIP 

to require transmission providers to 

consider the following technologies 

within the cluster study of the LGIP and 

within the system impact study and 

facilities study of the SGIP upon request 

of the interconnection customer: 

advanced power flow control, 

transmission switching, dynamic line 

ratings, static synchronous 

compensators, and static VAR 

compensators. Advanced power flow 

control devices serve a transmission 

function. These devices can help the 

system operator control power flows 

over a given path and can include phase 

shifting transformers (also known as 

phase angle regulators) and devices or 

systems necessary for implementing 

optimal transmission switching. 

Advanced power flow control devices 

allow power to be pushed and pulled to 

alternate lines with spare capacity 

leading to maximum utilization of 

existing transmission capacity.409

Transmission switching, an application 

of transmission topology control, 

consists of strategically removing or 

inserting transmission elements into the 

transmission topology. Transmission 

switching can be used to route energy 

around areas with high congestion.410 A 

dynamic line rating is a transmission 

line rating that applies to a time period 

of not greater than one hour and reflects 

up-to-date forecasts of inputs such as 

(but not limited to) ambient air 

temperature, wind, solar heating, 

transmission line tension, or 

transmission line sag.411 Static 

synchronous compensators are voltage 

source converter 412 devices that 

consists of a direct current (DC) voltage 

source behind a power electronic 

interface connected to the alternating 

current (AC) transmission system 

through a transformer. This results in a 

controllable voltage source and hence 

reactive power output.413 Static VAR 

compensators are flexible alternating 

current transmission system (FACTS) 

devices that consist of thyristorcontrolled reactors (TCR), thyristorswitched capacitors (TSC), and fixed 

capacitors acting as a harmonic filter. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39983 

414 Id. at 7. 

415Provisional interconnection service is 

‘‘Interconnection Service provided by a 

Transmission Provider associated with 

interconnecting the Interconnection Customer’s 

Generating Facility to Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System and enabling that 

Transmission System to receive electric energy and 

capacity from the Generating Facility at the Point 

of Interconnection, pursuant to the terms of the 

Provisional Large Generator Interconnection 

Agreement and, if applicable, the Tariff.’’ Pro forma 

LGIP section 1, pro forma LGIA art. 1; see Order No. 

845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 438. 

416Order No. 845, 163 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 305 

(citing Grid Assurance LLC, 154 FERC ¶ 61,244, at 

n.106, order on clarification, 156 FERC ¶ 61,027 

(2016)). 

417See, e.g., U.S. Energy Info. Admin., Monthly 

Energy Review at section 10.1 (Mar. 2022), https:// 

www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf 

(EIA March Review). 

The TCR consists of reactors in series 

with thyristor valves that continuously 

control the reactive power output by 

varying the current flow through the 

reactor. A TSC consists of capacitors, 

reactors, and thyristor valves that 

simply switch the capacitor in and out 

of service. The fixed capacitor is part of 

the filter that absorbs the harmonics 

generated by the thyristor switching, 

supplying a fixed reactive power to the 

transmission system.414 We believe that 

the deployment of these transmission 

technologies may reduce 

interconnection costs by providing 

lower cost network upgrades to 

interconnect new generating facilities. 

299. Under this proposal, the 

interconnection customer may request, 

at the relevant scoping meeting, that the 

transmission provider consider a single, 

multiple, or all technologies on this list. 

The transmission provider would be 

required to evaluate the transmission 

technologies identified above for 

feasibility, cost, and time savings within 

the cluster study for the LGIP and the 

system impact study and facilities study 

for the SGIP, upon request of the 

interconnection customer. The 

transmission provider, upon this 

request, must evaluate the identified 

transmission technology and, if feasible, 

determine whether it should be used, 

consistent with good utility practice and 

other applicable regulatory standards. 

Transmission providers continue to 

retain discretion regarding whether to 

use the transmission technology. 

Potential applications of these 

transmission technologies include 

deployments either as an alternative to 

a network upgrade or to go into service 

on a temporary basis to enable 

provisional interconnection service 415

pending the completion of a network 

upgrade. The transmission provider 

must include evaluation of the 

requested transmissions technology or 

technologies in the cluster study report 

and interconnection facilities study 

report for the LGIP or the relevant 

feasibility study, system impact study 

and/or facilities study reports for the 

SGIP. 

300. We seek comment on whether 

the list of alternative transmission 

technologies is sufficient. In particular, 

we seek comment on whether storage 

that performs a transmission function, 

synchronous condensers, and voltage 

source converters should be included in 

the list of alternative transmission 

technologies. 

301. We seek comment on whether 

there are software, operational, or other 

barriers to the use of these transmission 

technologies as proposed herein. 

Additionally, we seek comment on 

whether the use of alternative 

transmission technologies as 

supplements for, in the place of, 

traditional network upgrades is 

sufficient to guarantee a level of service 

to accommodate an interconnection 

customer seeking NRIS, or whether such 

a network upgrade can only relate to 

ERIS. We seek comment on whether the 

existing study processes and models in 

the generator interconnection process 

remain suitable for considering 

alternative transmission technologies, 

whether additional processes or models 

are needed, and if so, which entity 

should be responsible for developing 

them. We seek comment on how costs 

incurred for evaluating alternative 

transmission technology study requests 

would be allocated among 

interconnection customers in the 

cluster. We also seek comment on what 

reasonable number of transmission 

technology study requests from each 

interconnection customer would be 

workable, the burden (in terms of both 

time and resources) on transmission 

providers required to evaluate such 

requests, and whether interconnection 

study deadlines may need to be 

extended to account for time needed to 

evaluate the alternative transmission 

technology study requests. Lastly, we 

seek comment on whether provisional 

interconnection service consideration 

for transmission technologies should be 

mandatory. 

ii. Annual Informational Report 

302. In order to add transparency to 

the evaluation process and deployment 

of alternative transmission technologies 

in generator interconnection processes, 

we propose to revise the pro forma LGIP 

and pro forma SGIP to require 

transmission providers to submit an 

annual informational report to the 

Commission that details whether, and if 

so how, advanced power flow control, 

transmission switching, dynamic line 

ratings, static synchronous 

compensators, and static VAR 

compensators were considered in 

interconnection requests over the last 

year. We propose to create a new docket 

to collect all annual informational 

report filings. Any informational reports 

that transmission providers file at the 

Commission would be for informational 

purposes and would neither be formally 

noticed nor require additional action by 

the Commission.416 In addition, we note 

that future interconnection customers, 

as well as transmission providers, may 

benefit from information as to why an 

alternative transmission technology that 

was considered was not deployed. 

Because identifying common obstacles 

to the use of these alternative 

transmission technologies would allow 

potential interconnection customers to 

submit more meaningful requests, we 

seek comment as to whether to require 

transmission providers to include such 

explanations in their annual reports. 

Additionally, we seek comment on the 

scope of the annual informational 

report, and whether additional 

information should be included. 

3. Modeling and Performance 

Requirements for Non-Synchronous 

Generating Facilities 

a. Background 

303. The transmission system is 

experiencing change driven by the 

differing characteristics of generating 

facilities seeking to interconnect and the 

increased penetration of nonsynchronous generating facilities.417 We 

are concerned that the pro forma LGIP 

and pro forma SGIP may be inadequate 

to address certain challenges associated 

with these changes, which is rendering 

Commission-jurisdictional rates unjust 

and unreasonable and unduly 

discriminatory or preferential through 

less specific or less strict modeling and 

performance requirements compared to 

synchronous generating facilities. We 

begin with background on: (1) prior 

Commission action relating to modeling 

and performance requirements for all 

interconnection customers; (2) the 

unique attributes of non-synchronous 

generating facilities; (3) NERCdocumented non-synchronous 

generation disturbance events; (4) NERC 

actions to address the impact of nonsynchronous generating facilities on the 

bulk-power system; and (5) initiatives 

by individual transmission providers to 

address the reliability challenges 

associated with non-synchronous 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39984 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

418Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 562, 

566. 419As discussed below, we also propose in this 

NOPR to update the term ‘‘Applicable Reliability 

Council’’ to ‘‘Electric Reliability Organization’’ to 

reflect current terminology. 420 Interconnection for Wind Energy, Order No. 

661, 70 FR 34993 (June 16, 2005), 111 FERC 

¶ 61,353, order on reh’g, Order No. 661–A, 70 FR 

75005 (Dec. 19, 2005), 113 FERC ¶ 61,254 (2005). 

421Requirements for Frequency & Voltage Ride 

Through Capability of Small Generating Facilities, 

Order No. 828, 81 FR 50290 (Aug. 1, 2016), 156 

FERC ¶ 61,062 (2016). 

422 Id. P 25. 

423 Id. P 2. 

424Essential Reliability Servs. & the Evolving 

Bulk-Power Sys.—Primary Frequency Response, 

Order No. 842, 83 FR 9639 (Mar. 6, 2018), 162 FERC 

¶ 61,128, order on clarification and reh’g, 164 FERC 

¶ 61,135 (2018). 

425See e.g., Paul Evans, Engineering Mindset, 

Power Inverters Explained (Apr. 25, 2020), https:// 

theengineeringmindset.com/power-invertersexplained/. 

426 Dinesh Pattabiraman et al., Comparison of 

Grid Following and Grid Forming Control for a High 

Inverter Penetration Power System, 2018 IEEE 

Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), 

at 1, PESGM 8586162 (citing Thomas Ackermann et 

al., Paving the Way: A Future Without Inertia Is 

Closer Than You Think, IEEE Power & Energy Mag., 

November/December 2017, at 61). 

427The controller governs the plant’s performance 

to achieve the desired aggregate real and reactive 

power production and performance characteristics. 

See Mills-Price, M., and Hao, K., The Importance 

of Coordinated Control Systems in Solar Generation 

Plants (May 2018), https://cms-cdn.selinc.com/ 

assets/Literature/Publications/Technical%20

Papers/6658_ImportanceCoordinated_KH_

20140729_Web3.pdf?v=20190325-150209. 

428See, e.g., NERC, San Fernando Disturbance, at 

vi (Nov. 2020), https://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/ea/ 

Documents/San_Fernando_Disturbance_Report.pdf 

(San Fernando Disturbance Report) (‘‘This event, as 

with past events, involved a significant number of 

solar PV reducing power output (either due to 

momentary cessation or inverter tripping) as a 

result of normally-cleared [bulk-power system] 

faults. The widespread nature of power reduction 

across many facilities poses risks to [bulk-power 

system] performance and reliability.’’). 

generating facilities during the generator 

interconnection process. 

i. Commission Precedent 

304. To ensure that transmission 

providers can model an interconnecting 

generating facility’s impact on the 

transmission system, Order Nos. 2003 

and 2006 established that 

interconnection customers must submit 

technical data specified in Attachment 

A to Appendix 1 of the pro forma LGIP 

or Attachment 2 of the pro forma SGIP 

along with their interconnection 

request. Order Nos. 2003 and 2006 also 

established section 4.4 (Modification) of 

the pro forma LGIP and section 1.4 

(Modification of the Interconnection 

Request) of the pro forma SGIP, which 

detail the process for any type of 

interconnection customer seeking to 

modify its interconnection request. 

305. Additionally, the Commission 

has imposed certain performance 

requirements on generating facilities 

through the generator interconnection 

process. Order No. 2003 required large 

generating facilities to ensure that they 

can ‘‘ride through’’ abnormal overfrequency and under-frequency 

deviations.418 Specifically, article 9.7.3 

of the pro forma LGIP requires an 

interconnection customer to implement 

under-frequency and over-frequency 

relay set points for a large generating 

facility as required by the applicable 

reliability council 419 to ensure ‘‘ride 

through’’ capability of the transmission 

system. Article 9.7.3 of the pro forma 

LGIP defines ‘‘ride through’’ as the 

ability of the large generating facility to 

stay connected to and synchronized 

with the transmission system during 

system disturbances within a range of 

under-frequency and over-frequency 

conditions. The pro forma LGIA does 

not define specific voltage ride through 

capability; rather, article 9.1 of the pro 

forma LGIP requires the interconnection 

customer to comply with the applicable 

reliability council requirements. 

306. The Commission later extended 

ride-through requirements in other 

contexts. In Order Nos. 661 and 661–A, 

the Commission established uniform 

standards in Appendix G of the pro 

forma LGIA that require large wind 

generating facilities to demonstrate low 

voltage ride through capability.420 In 

Order No. 828, the Commission required 

small generating facilities 

interconnecting pursuant to the pro 

forma SGIP to have ride through 

capability in a manner comparable to 

large generating facilities.421 In that 

order, the Commission added 

subsection 1.5.7 to the pro forma SGIA, 

which requires newly interconnecting 

small generating facilities to have and 

enable ride through capability so that 

they shall not disconnect during 

abnormal frequency and voltage 

events.422 The Commission did not 

establish generic ride through 

requirements, but required (1) each 

transmission provider to coordinate the 

protective equipment settings of small 

generating facilities with any automatic 

load shedding programs and (2) that the 

specific ride through settings be 

consistent with good utility practice and 

any standards and guidelines applied by 

the transmission provider to other 

generating facilities on a comparable 

basis.423

307. Relatedly, in Order No. 842, the 

Commission required newly 

interconnecting large and small 

generating facilities, both synchronous 

and non-synchronous, to install, 

maintain, and operate equipment 

capable of providing primary frequency 

response as a condition of 

interconnection.424

ii. Non-Synchronous Generating 

Facilities 

308. While synchronous generating 

facilities convert rotating mechanical 

energy into electrical energy, nonsynchronous generating facilities 

convert energy using solid-state 

switches.425 Examples of nonsynchronous generating facilities 

include but are not limited to solar 

photovoltaics (PV), wind, fuel cell, and 

battery storage. 

309. Present day non-synchronous 

generating facilities predominantly use 

grid-following inverters.426 This means 

that they rely on sensed information 

from the transmission system (e.g., 

voltage waveform) to achieve the 

desired AC active and reactive power 

output. For grid-following inverters, the 

transmission system state parameters 

(e.g., voltage angle) are tracked on the 

order of milliseconds, meaning that the 

inverters can react almost 

instantaneously to transmission system 

conditions. Consequently, nonsynchronous generating facilities are 

sensitive to even the smallest voltage 

and frequency changes. If nonsynchronous generating facilities are not 

properly configured or programmed to 

respond to transmission system 

frequency and voltage fluctuations, they 

may fail to ride through a system 

disturbance (e.g., a normally cleared 

transmission fault) by tripping or 

entering momentary cessation mode, as 

observed in several disturbances 

described below. Because nonsynchronous generating facilities often 

employ similar logic with respect to 

their response to transmission system 

disturbances and non-synchronous 

generating facility operators often do not 

set and coordinate their inverters and 

plant controllers 427 to ride through 

variations in system voltages during 

fault conditions, they are at greater risk 

of being lost en masse in response to a 

single fault on transmission or subtransmission systems.428 In areas of the 

transmission system where there is a 

high saturation of non-synchronous 

generating facilities, the en masse 

response could have an impact greater 

than the most severe single contingency 

identified by transmission providers. 

iii. Documented Non-Synchronous 

Generation Disturbance Events 

310. As described below, disturbances 

both on the bulk power system and on 

distribution systems have resulted in 

unexpected loss of solar PV nonsynchronous generating facilities 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39985 

429See, e.g., NERC, Potential Bulk System 

Reliability Impacts of Distributed Resources, at 24 

(Aug. 2011), https://www.nerc.com/files/IVGTF_TF1-8_Reliability-Impact-Distributed-Resources_FinalDraft_2011%20(2).pdf (noting NERC’s awareness of 

the practice of utilities in North America to set up 

distributed generation to trip during off-normal 

frequency and voltage conditions). 

430NERC, 1,200 MW Fault Induced Solar 

Photovoltaic Resource Interruption Disturbance 

Report, at 1 (June 2017), https://www.nerc.com/pa/ 

rrm/ea/1200_MW_Fault_Induced_Solar_

Photovoltaic_Resource_/1200_MW_Fault_Induced_

Solar_Photovoltaic_Resource_Interruption_

Final.pdf (Blue Cut Fire Event Report). 

431 Id. at 15–17. Momentary cessation occurs 

when inverters stop injecting current into the 

transmission system during high or low voltage/ 

frequency conditions that are outside the 

continuous operating range. Inverters stop 

producing power and stop supporting voltage and 

frequency, effectively shutting themselves down 

temporarily (typically for up to five minutes). See 

NERC, BPS-Connected Inverter-Based Resource 

Performance, at 11–16 (Sept. 2018), https://

www.nerc.com/comm/PC_Reliability_Guidelines_

DL/Inverter-Based_Resource_Performance_

Guideline.pdf (NERC IBR Performance Guideline). 

432Southern California Edison Company and 

CAISO identified seven other instances of solar 

inverter-based resources either tripping or entering 

momentary cessation. See Blue Cut Fire Event 

Report at 3. 

433NERC, 900 MW Fault Induced Solar 

Photovoltaic Resource Interruption Disturbance 

Report, at 1 (Feb. 2018) (Canyon 2 Fire Event 

Report). 

434NERC, April and May 2018 Fault Induced 

Solar Photovoltaic Resource Interruption 

Disturbances Report (Jan. 2019) (Angeles Forest and 

Palmdale Roost Events Report). 

435San Fernando Disturbance Report at vi. 

436See NERC, Odessa Disturbance (Sept. 2021) 

https://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/ea/Documents/ 

Odessa_Disturbance_Report.pdf (Odessa 

Disturbance Report); see also NERC and CAISO, 

Multiple Solar PV Disturbances in CAISO (Apr. 

2022), https://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/ea/

Documents/NERC_2021_California_Solar_PV_

Disturbances_Report.pdf (NERC/CAISO Joint 

Report). 

437The present-day SCADA recording resolution 

is unable to capture events that occur at less than 

the scan rate of one to four seconds. See NERC, 

Reliability Guideline: Improvements to 

Interconnection Requirements for BPS-Connected 

Inverter-Based Resources, at 56 (Sept. 2019), 

https://www.nerc.com/comm/PC_Reliability_

Guidelines_DL/Reliability_Guideline_IBR_

Interconnection_Requirements_Improvements.pdf 

(NERC IBR Interconnection Requirements 

Guideline). 

438See generally Blue Cut Fire Event Report; 

Canyon 2 Fire Event Report; Angeles Forest and 

Palmdale Roost Events Report; San Fernando 

Disturbance Report; Odessa Disturbance Report; 

and NERC/CAISO Joint Report. 

439NERC, Industry Recommendation Loss of 

Solar Resources during Transmission Disturbances 

due to Inverter Settings (June 2017) (June 2017 

NERC Alert); NERC, Industry Recommendation Loss 

of Solar Resources During Transmission 

Disturbances due to Inverter Settings—II (May 

2018) (May 2018 NERC Alert). 

440NERC, Technical Report (May 2020) (IRPTF 

Modeling Report); NERC, WECC Base Case Review: 

Inverter-Based Resources (Aug. 2020). 

441See NERC IBR Performance Guideline; NERC 

IBR Interconnection Requirements Guideline. 

442NERC, IRPTF Review of NERC Reliability 

Standards (Mar. 2020)https://www.nerc.com/ 

comm/PC/InverterBased%20Resource%20

Performance%20Task%20Force%20IRPT/Review_

of_NERC_Reliability_Standards_White_Paper.pdf; 

NERC, Odessa Disturbance Follow-Up (Oct. 2021), 

https://www.nerc.com/comm/RSTC_Reliability_

Guidelines/White_Paper_Odessa_Disturbance_

Follow-Up.pdf. 

443See, e.g., San Fernando Disturbance Report at 

vi (‘‘Many of the issues identified in this 

disturbance appear systemic and are not being 

widely addressed by the solar PV fleet.’’); NERC/ 

CAISO Joint Report at 30 (‘‘BPS reliability is a 

critical factor during the interconnection process 

and presently plants are being interconnected in an 

unreliable manner based on studies that 

inadequately identify possible reliability issues 

prior to commercial operation’’); Odessa 

Disturbance Report at 29 (‘‘While the IRPWG 

reliability guidelines are some of the most 

downloaded guidelines produced and most widely 

used across the industry, it is clear that industry is 

not adopting the recommendations contained 

within NERC reliability guidelines.’’). 

444The IRPTF became the IBR Performance 

Working Group in October 2020 and then the IBR 

Performance Subcommittee in March 2022. 

445NERC, IRPTF White Papers, Technical 

Reports, and Assessments, https://www.nerc.com/ 

comm/PC/Pages/Inverter-Based-ResourcePerformance-Task-Force.aspx (providing links to all 

IRPTF resources). 

446NERC IBR Interconnection Requirements 

Guideline at 1. 

following normally cleared transmission 

line faults. NERC and other relevant 

entities have analyzed these disturbance 

events to determine the causes. 

311. The first documented large-scale 

reliability event occurred in August 

2016 during the Blue Cut Fire Event in 

California. Until this event, the 

likelihood for non-synchronous 

generating facilities to trip or 

momentarily cease during faults on the 

bulk-power system was unclear.429 A 

NERC/Western Electricity Coordinating 

Council (WECC) joint task force 

examined the event and determined that 

a single 500 kV line-to-line fault, which 

was cleared normally by relay 

protection, caused a wide area loss of 

1,200 MW of solar PV non-synchronous 

generating facilities.430 The task force 

report explained that the loss of solar 

PV generation during the event was 

primarily due to inverter settings 

susceptible to unexpected tripping and 

unanticipated momentary cessation of 

the non-synchronous generating 

facilities.431 The report indicated that 

planning studies did not predict that the 

generating facilities would not ride 

through the disturbance and would fail 

to provide power during the event. Once 

aware of the potential for nonsynchronous generating facilities to trip 

or enter momentary cessation in 

response to faults, Southern California 

Edison Company and CAISO reviewed 

the Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition (SCADA) data and 

discovered that this was not an isolated 

incident.432

312. Subsequently, there have been 

other documented instances of 

momentary cessation of nonsynchronous generating facilities: the 

Canyon 2 Fire Event in 2017; 433 the 

Angeles Forest and Palmdale Roost 

Events in 2018; 434 the San Fernando 

Disturbance in 2020; 435 and multiple 

events in both ERCOT and CAISO 

during 2021.436 Because present-day 

SCADA systems are not able to capture 

the full extent of all disturbance events, 

some smaller-scale events are likely to 

remain undetected.437

iv. NERC Actions To Address NonSynchronous Generating Facility 

Impacts on the Bulk-Power System 

313. Since the large-scale reliability 

issues related to non-synchronous 

generating facilities during the Blue Cut 

Fire Event, NERC has: (1) published 

multiple disturbance reports 

documenting the events described 

above; 438 (2) issued two NERC 

Alerts; 439 (3) issued two technical 

reports; 440 (4) issued two reliability 

guidelines regarding non-synchronous 

generating facility data collection and 

performance; 441 and (5) published two 

white papers about the need to modify 

Reliability Standards to address this 

risk.442 Together, these documents 

indicate that transmission system 

planning and operations entities do not 

have adequate or accurate information 

about the actual behavior of nonsynchronous generating facilities within 

their areas under all operating 

conditions, and further that these same 

entities continue to experience issues 

that NERC-issued alerts were intended 

to address.443

314. NERC also formed the InverterBased Resources Performance Task 

Force (IRPTF) 444 in response to the 

findings and recommendations of the 

Blue Cut Fire Event Report, to explore 

the performance characteristics of bulkpower system connected nonsynchronous generating facilities. 

Among other activities, the IRPTF has 

published a variety of whitepapers and 

reliability guidelines.445

315. In September 2019, NERC issued 

a Reliability Guideline that recommends 

improvements to interconnection 

requirements for non-synchronous 

generating facilities connected to the 

bulk-power system.446 In that Guideline, 

NERC recommends that transmission 

owners improve their interconnection 

requirements for non-synchronous 

generating facilities that are connected 

to the bulk-power system. Specifically, 

NERC recommends that transmission 

owners ‘‘require that newly 

interconnecting [non-synchronous 

generating facilities] continuously inject 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39986 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

447 Id. The currently effective version of 

Reliability Standard PRC–24 establishes the ‘‘no 

trip zone’’ for frequency and voltage ride-through 

curves. 

448 Id. at 9. 

449Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 168 FERC 

¶ 61,003, at P 5 (2019). 

450While inverter-based resources are often 

technically ‘‘non’’ synchronous, CAISO uses the 

term ‘‘asynchronous’’ generally to apply to any 

resource that does not generate at 60 Hz. 

451Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 168 FERC 

¶ 61,003 at P 6. 

452 Id. P 7, n.11 (citing CAISO, CAISO Tariff, app. 

EE, app. H (3.0.0), proposed section A(vi). 

453 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 173 

FERC ¶ 61,014 (2020). 

454 Id. P 4. 

455See NERC/CAISO Joint Report at 9 (‘‘Multiple 

solar PV resources that exhibited momentary 

cessation . . . [have inverters that are no longer in 

production] . . . [N]ew inverters are able to provide 

current injection during low voltage ride-through 

events.’’). 

456See supra PP 309–312. 

457Pro forma LGIA art. 9.7.3; pro forma SGIA art. 

1.5.7. 

458See, e.g., EIA March Review at 176–177. 

459Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 at PP 562, 

566. 

current within the ‘[n]o [t]rip [z]one’ of 

the currently effective version of 

Reliability Standard PRC–024’’ to 

address issues with momentary 

cessation.447 NERC states that nonsynchronous generating facilities should 

be designed and configured to only use 

momentary cessation outside the ‘‘no 

trip zone’’ and only to ‘‘mitigate 

potential tripping conditions based on 

interconnection studies.’’ 448

v. Individual Transmission Providers’ 

Filings 

316. MISO and CAISO recently 

revised their pro forma generator 

interconnection agreements to account 

for momentary cessation of nonsynchronous generating facilities. The 

revisions proposed by CAISO (and 

accepted by the Commission) clarify 

that momentary cessation of inverters 

during transient transmission line faults 

violates the existing requirement in 

CAISO’s pro forma generator 

interconnection agreement to remain 

online unless transient high voltage 

conditions rise to 1.20 per unit or 

more.449 The CAISO revisions also 

clarify that asynchronous 450 generating 

facility inverters may not trip or cease 

to inject current for momentary loss of 

synchrony within the ‘‘no trip zone’’ 

specified in Reliability Standard PRC– 

024–2.451 Finally, the revisions require 

that when generating facilities trip or 

cease to inject current, they attempt to 

resynchronize promptly and 

consistently, going from no output to 

full output in one second or less.452

317. On October 5, 2020, the 

Commission accepted MISO’s proposed 

revisions to its pro forma generator 

interconnection agreement to adopt 

recommendations from the NERC 

Guideline with regard to momentary 

cessation, phase jump immunity, 

monitoring, and protection settings.453

As relevant here, MISO added a new 

subsection to Appendix G to its pro 

forma LGIA that states ‘‘[m]omentary 

cessation (ceasing to inject current into 

the transmission system during a fault 

without mechanical isolation) is 

prohibited in [NERC] reliability 

standard PRC–024 no trip zone.’’ 454

b. Need for Reform 

i. Modeling Requirements 

318. We preliminarily find that the 

pro forma LGIP and pro forma SGIP 

may be unduly discriminatory or 

preferential to the extent that they do 

not require non-synchronous generating 

facilities to provide accurate and 

validated models to transmission 

providers during the generator 

interconnection process. Specifically, 

while Attachment A to Appendix 1 of 

the pro forma LGIP and Attachment 2 to 

the pro forma SGIP require all 

generating facilities to submit certain 

types of information, the information 

required is only sufficient to accurately 

model the behavior of synchronous 

generating facilities. In contrast, given 

the electrical characteristics of the 

inverters used by non-synchronous 

generating facilities, additional 

information is required to achieve a 

comparable level of model fidelity. 

319. Additionally, we are concerned 

that, without a reform to require 

interconnection customers developing 

non-synchronous generating facilities to 

provide sufficiently accurate and 

validated models, interconnection 

studies may not identify the appropriate 

interconnection facilities and network 

upgrades needed for that 

interconnection request. If the 

interconnection studies are not able to 

identify the appropriate interconnection 

facilities and network upgrades, then 

the interconnection costs assigned to 

that interconnection customer may be 

skewed, resulting in unjust and 

unreasonable rates for interconnection 

service. 

ii. Ride-Through Requirements 

320. We preliminarily find that the 

pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA 

ride-through provisions may result in 

undue discrimination and preferential 

treatment. While synchronous and nonsynchronous generating facilities are 

different in many respects, both types of 

facilities are able to ‘‘ride through’’ 

system events and remain online and 

continue to provide real and reactive 

power following a disturbance.455

Moreover, given the increasing 

prevalence of non-synchronous 

generating facilities, it is also clear that 

the loss of real and reactive power from 

such generating facilities following a 

system disturbance can have significant 

reliability impacts just like the loss of 

synchronous generating facilities.456

Therefore, with respect to the issue of 

ride-through, both synchronous and 

non-synchronous generating facilities 

can be considered similarly situated. 

321. Nevertheless, the existing pro 

forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA 

currently impose differing ride-through 

requirements because these provisions 

fail to account for a non-synchronous 

generating facilities’ ability to engage in 

momentary cessation. As discussed 

above, the Blue Cut Fire and other 

disturbance events revealed that some 

non-synchronous generating facilities 

remained physically connected to the 

transmission system but, as designed or 

programmed, stopped or reduced their 

injection of real or reactive power onto 

the transmission system and entered 

into momentary cessation. Such 

performance by a non-synchronous 

generating facility can have the same 

impact on system reliability as would a 

similarly sized, synchronous generating 

facility prematurely tripping offline in 

response to a disturbance; however, this 

practice of momentary cessation is not 

expressly prohibited by the existing 

ride-through requirements because the 

generating facility still remains 

‘‘connected to and synchronized with 

the Transmission System’’ as required 

by the pro forma LGIA and SGIA.457

322. In establishing the current pro 

forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA, the 

Commission did not specifically 

consider the issue of momentary 

cessation. When Order No. 2003 was 

promulgated, non-synchronous 

generating facilities represented a small 

proportion of the nation’s installed 

generating capacity.458 As a result, the 

momentary cessation of nonsynchronous generating facilities was 

not a mode of operation that the 

Commission expressly addressed when 

it added article 9.7.3 to the pro forma 

LGIA and adopted the definition of ridethrough in Order No. 2003.459

323. While the Commission 

subsequently implemented separate 

low-voltage ride-through requirements 

for wind generating facilities in Order 

Nos. 661 and 661–A, that requirement 

also did not address the possibility of 

momentary cessation. In Order No. 661, 

the Commission adopted a low voltage 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39987 

460Order No. 661, 111 FERC ¶ 61,353 at P 26. 

461Order No. 661–A, 113 FERC ¶ 61,254 at P 31. 

462 Id. at app. B (‘‘A wind generating plant shall 

be able to remain online during voltage 

disturbances up to the time periods and associated 

voltage levels set forth in the standard below.’’). 

463Order No. 828, 156 FERC ¶ 61,062 at P 11. 

464See, e.g., Ran Fu, et al., Nat’l Renewable 

Energy Lab’y, U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost 

Benchmark: Q1 2018, at viii (Nov. 2018), https://

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72399.pdf. See also 

Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 168 FERC ¶ 61,003, 

at P 17. 

465NERC’s Commission-approved bulk electric 

system definition defines the scope of the 

Reliability Standards and the entities subject to 

NERC compliance. Revisions to Electric Reliability 

Organization Definition of Bulk Electric System and 

Rules of Procedure, Order No. 773, 78 FR 804 (Jan. 

4, 2013), 141 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2012). NERC’s bulk 

electric system definition includes transmission 

elements operated at 100 kV and above but does not 

include facilities used in the local distribution of 

electric energy. The bulk electric system definition 

also includes dispersed power producing resources 

(i.e., non-synchronous generation) that aggregate to 

a total capacity greater than 75 MVA. NERC, 

Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability 

Standards (Oct. 8, 2020), https://www.nerc.com/pa/ 

Stand/Glossary%20of%20Terms/Glossary_of_

Terms.pdf. 

466See Order No. 773, 141 FERC ¶ 61,236 at PP 

12, 38; see also NERC Registry Criteria, section I, 

at 4. 467See supra note 464. 

ride-through standard for wind 

generating facilities but explained that 

wind generating facilities would only be 

required to satisfy that ride-through 

requirement if the system impact study 

demonstrates that such capability is 

required to ensure safety or 

reliability.460 However, in Order No. 

661–A, the Commission granted 

rehearing and required all wind 

generating facilities to comply with the 

low-voltage ride-through provision 

without the case-by-case analysis.461

Therefore, pursuant to Order No. 661– 

A, all wind generating facilities ‘‘shall 

be able to remain online’’ during voltage 

disturbances up to certain time periods 

and associated voltage levels.462 This 

requirement to ‘‘remain online’’ does 

not appear to contemplate the 

possibility that a facility could remain 

physically connected to the 

transmission system but stop injecting 

real or reactive power. 

324. More recently, in Order No. 828, 

the Commission added article 1.5.7 to 

the pro forma SGIA to require small 

generating facilities to ensure the 

capability to ride through system 

disturbances comparable to large 

generating facilities.463 However, the 

Commission again did not specifically 

consider the issue of momentary 

cessation. As a result, neither article 

9.7.3 of the pro forma LGIA nor article 

1.5.7 of the pro forma SGIA expressly 

address whether the momentary 

cessation of non-synchronous 

generating facilities is permitted during 

system disturbances. 

325. Given advances in inverter 

technology, we are concerned that the 

lack of performance requirements 

regarding the use of momentary 

cessation by non-synchronous 

generating facilities may not be 

supportable on either a technical basis 

(as this is largely a control settings 

issue) or on a cost basis (as 

implementing the appropriate inverter 

settings may not be costly).464

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that 

the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA 

ride-through provisions may be unduly 

discriminatory or preferential. 

iii. Applicability of Ride-Through 

Requirements 

326. We preliminarily find that the 

pro forma LGIA may also result in 

undue discrimination or preferential 

treatment due to a gap in the 

applicability of ride-through 

requirements to different generating 

facilities. While article 1.5.7 of the pro 

forma SGIA requires newly 

interconnecting small generating 

facilities to ride through abnormal 

frequency and voltage events and not 

disconnect during such events, the 

comparable article 9.7.3 of the pro 

forma LGIA does not explicitly require 

newly interconnecting large generating 

facilities to ride through such 

disturbance events, instead referring to 

requirements of ‘‘the Applicable 

Reliability Council’’ to ensure ridethrough capability. By referencing the 

requirements of the ‘‘Applicable 

Reliability Council’’ rather than 

explicitly stating the ride-through 

requirements (as in article 1.5.7 of the 

pro forma SGIA), article 9.7.3 of the pro 

forma LGIA may create a gap in 

applicability because it would only 

apply to those generating facilities that 

are subject to the reliability standards, 

i.e., entities with facilities that meet the 

definition of ‘‘bulk electric system’’ 

facilities and are registered with 

NERC.465 While most generating 

facilities seeking to interconnect to the 

transmission system are subject to the 

pro forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA (i.e, 

generating facilities above 20 MW) are 

already subject to the reliability 

standards, some are not. Specifically, 

generating facilities are not required to 

comply with reliability standards unless 

they have a gross individual nameplate 

rating greater than 20 MVA or gross 

plant/facility aggregate nameplate rating 

of greater than 75 MVA.466 As a result, 

we are concerned that there does not 

appear to be any provision of the pro 

forma LGIA that explicitly requires 

generating facilities with a capacity 

above 20 MW but with a gross plant/ 

facility aggregate nameplate rating of 75 

MVA or less to ride through frequency 

or voltage disturbances. Similarly, 

generating facilities that do not 

explicitly possess an automatic voltage 

regulator, such as many nonsynchronous generating facilities, are 

not subject to the provisions of article 

9.6.2.1 of the pro forma LGIA, which are 

applicable only to generating facilities 

with speed governors and voltage 

regulators. 

327. There does not appear to be any 

clear basis for these distinctions, nor has 

the Commission previously addressed 

this potential gap. As discussed above, 

all generating facilities newly 

interconnecting under the pro forma 

LGIA are technically capable of riding 

through such disturbances.467 Given 

these facts, there does not appear to be 

any reason that generating facilities 

connecting under the pro forma LGIA 

that are subject to the reliability 

standards should be required to provide 

a higher level of performance than those 

that are not. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily find that the pro forma 

LGIA ride-through provisions may be 

unduly discriminatory or preferential. 

c. Proposal 

i. Modeling Requirements 

328. We propose to revise the pro 

forma LGIP and pro forma SGIP to 

ensure that all interconnection 

customers requesting to interconnect a 

non-synchronous generating facility 

must provide the transmission provider 

with the models needed for accurate 

interconnection studies, as discussed 

below. This reform is intended to 

promote a consistent approach among 

all generating facilities to reliability, 

such that all interconnection customers 

are required to submit information 

sufficient to accurately model the 

behavior of their proposed generating 

facility. Pursuant to this proposal, 

interconnection customers requesting to 

interconnect a non-synchronous 

generating facility would be required to 

provide models that contain the details 

necessary to accurately model the 

performance of the generating facility in 

response to system disturbances in 

accordance with the control system 

settings that would be used by the 

interconnection customer during the 

commissioning and operation of the 

generating facility. 

329. Specifically, we propose to revise 

Attachment A to Appendix 1 of the pro 

forma LGIP, and Attachment 2 of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39988 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

468See WECC, WECC Approved Dynamic Model 

Library (effective Jan. 28, 2022), https://

www.wecc.org/Reliability/Approved%20

Dynamic%20Models%20January%202022.pdf. 

469NERC IBR Interconnection Requirements 

Guideline at 27 (‘‘[T]he [transmission owner] 

should be clear in the types of models that are 

expected to be provided for the interconnection 

process. These models should, at a minimum, align 

with the list of acceptable models used for 

interconnection-wide modeling developed by NERC 

and the MOD–032 Designees.’’) (citing WECC 

Approved Dynamic Model Library). 

470NERC IBR Interconnection Requirements 

Guideline at 9. 

pro forma SGIP to require each 

interconnection customer requesting to 

interconnect a non-synchronous 

generating facility to submit to the 

transmission provider: (1) a validated 

user-defined root mean square (RMS) 

positive sequence dynamics model; (2) 

an appropriately parameterized, generic 

library RMS positive sequence 

dynamics model, including a model 

block diagram of the inverter control 

system and plant control system, that 

corresponds to a model listed in a new 

table of acceptable models or a model 

otherwise approved by WECC; and (3) a 

validated EMT model, if the 

transmission provider performs an EMT 

study as part of the interconnection 

study process. 

330. First, regarding the validated 

user-defined model, we propose to 

define a ‘‘user-defined model’’ as any 

set of programming code created by 

equipment manufacturers or developers 

that captures the latest features of 

controllers that are mainly software 

based and represents the entities’ 

control strategies but does not 

necessarily correspond to any particular 

generic library model. In order for this 

model to be ‘‘validated,’’ it must be 

confirmed that the equipment behavior 

is consistent with the model behavior. 

This can involve, for example, an 

attestation from the interconnection 

customer that the model accurately 

represents the entire generating facility, 

attestations from each equipment 

manufacturer that the user defined 

model accurately represents the 

component of the generating facilities, 

or test data. 

331. Second, regarding the table of 

acceptable generic library models, this 

table is based on the current WECC list 

of approved dynamic models for 

renewable energy generating 

facilities.468 WECC’s list of approved 

dynamic models has also been 

integrated into NERC Guidelines.469

These models represent the current state 

of the art with regard to dynamic 

modeling requirements for nonsynchronous generating facilities. 

332. We believe that these models 

represent the full spectrum of modeling 

data that transmission providers need to 

perform accurate interconnection 

studies for non-synchronous generating 

facilities. We recognize that the 

modeling data we propose to require 

from non-synchronous generating 

facilities may be more voluminous than 

that required of synchronous generating 

facilities; however, this data submission 

requirement is intended to result in a 

comparable level of modeling accuracy 

among all generating facilities. 

333. An interconnection customer’s 

failure to provide the above information 

within the deadlines established in the 

pro forma LGIP and pro forma SGIP 

would make the interconnection request 

incomplete and will be considered 

invalid in accordance with section 3.4.3 

of the pro forma LGIP and section 1.3 

of the pro forma SGIP. Pursuant to those 

provisions, if the interconnection 

customer does not cure the deficiency 

within the 10-day cure period, the 

interconnection request will be 

considered withdrawn pursuant to 

section 3.7 of the pro forma LGIP and 

section 1.3 of the pro forma SGIP. 

334. We also propose to modify 

subsection 4.4.4 of the pro forma LGIP 

and section 1.4 of the pro forma SGIP 

to require that any proposed 

modification of the interconnection 

request be accompanied by updated 

models of the proposed generating 

facility. This will ensure that the 

transmission provider will be able to 

accurately model the impact of the 

interconnection request throughout the 

interconnection process. 

335. We seek comment on whether 

these proposed reforms are necessary 

and/or sufficient to ensure that 

interconnection customers proposing 

non-synchronous generating facilities 

submit models during the generator 

interconnection process that accurately 

reflect the behavior of their proposed 

generating facility. Further, we seek 

comment on whether the inclusion of 

the table based on NERC Guidelines that 

cite WECC-approved models is 

appropriate. If not, we seek comment on 

how the Commission could require 

interconnection customers to submit 

models that are widely known in 

industry to be accurate without listing 

specific models. 

ii. Ride-Through Requirements 

336. We propose to require newly 

interconnecting non-synchronous 

generating facilities to continue current 

injection inside the ‘‘no trip zone’’ of 

the frequency and voltage ride-through 

curves of Reliability Standard PRC–024– 

3 or its successor standards, in 

accordance with NERC’s 

recommendation in the NERC IBR 

Guideline.470 Specifically, we propose 

to revise existing article 9.7.3 of the pro 

forma LGIA to require all newly 

interconnecting large generating 

facilities to ride through abnormal 

frequency and voltage conditions. The 

term ‘‘ride-through’’ is defined in article 

9.7.3 of the pro forma LGIA as the 

ability of the large generating facility to 

stay connected to and synchronized 

with the transmission system during 

system disturbances within a range of 

under-frequency and over-frequency 

conditions. We propose to expand the 

ride-through definition to include the 

ability of the large generating facility to 

stay connected to and synchronized 

with the transmission system during 

system disturbances within undervoltage and over-voltage conditions as 

well. 

337. In addition, we propose to revise 

article 9.7.3 of the pro forma LGIA and 

article 1.5.7 of the pro forma SGIA to 

require that any newly interconnecting 

non-synchronous generating facility 

must have the ability, during abnormal 

frequency conditions and voltage 

conditions within the ‘‘no trip zone’’ 

defined by Reliability Standard PRC– 

024–3 or its successor standards, to 

maintain power production at predisturbance levels unless providing 

primary frequency response or fast 

frequency response, and must have the 

ability to provide dynamic reactive 

power to maintain system voltage in 

accordance with the generating facility’s 

voltage schedule. We find such a 

limited exception to be appropriate 

given Order No. 842, which requires all 

newly interconnecting generating 

facilities to provide primary frequency 

response during frequency deviations 

outside of the dead band parameter, 

pursuant to article 9.6.4 of the pro forma 

LGIA and article 1.8.4 of the pro forma 

SGIA. 

338. We seek comment on whether 

adherence to these proposed 

requirements would be readily 

achievable through changes to control 

settings and whether such changes to 

control settings could be made at a 

relatively minor cost. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39989 

471Order No. 828, 156 FERC ¶ 61,062 at P 21. 

472See NERC, Glossary of Terms Used in NERC 

Reliability Standards (Oct. 8, 2020), https://

www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Glossary%20

of%20Terms/Glossary_of_Terms.pdf. 

473See, e.g., Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ¶ 61,103 

at PP 822–827; Order No. 2006, 111 FERC ¶ 61,220 

at PP 546–550; see also May Joint Task Force Tr. 

41:3–7, 42:23–43:2 (Gladys Brown Dutrieuille) 

(expressing support for regional flexibility but also 

for FERC ‘‘encourag[ing] interconnection 

efficiencies throughout the country by promoting 

best-in-class processes, such as variations in ways 

to cluster projects’’). 

474See May Joint Task Force Tr. 175:13–17 (Jason 

Stanek) (‘‘I think we heard here today that regional 

flexibility remains important, but so does having 

some at least minimal national baseline because 

many of these generators are not just building in 

PJM or ISO-New England, but across the country.’’); 

id. 22:22–25 (Riley Allen). (‘‘[U]ltimately, there 

needs to be some room for flexibility among the 

regions, but I think there’s some opportunities for 

more foundational aspects of reform to be common 

across regions as well.’’). 

475Promoting Wholesale Competition Through 

Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission on 

Servs. by Pub. Utils.; Recovery of Stranded Costs by 

Pub. Utils. & Transmitting Utils., Order No. 888, 61 

FR 21540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,036, at 31,760–763 (1996) (cross-referenced at 

75 FERC ¶ 61,080), order on reh’g, Order No. 888– 

A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 (cross-referenced at 

78 FERC ¶ 61,220), 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). 

476 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 

477 5 CFR 1320.11 (2021). 

478 18 CFR 35.28(f)(1) (2021). 

479 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 

iii. Applicability of Ride-Through 

Requirements 

339. We believe that adding clarity to 

the expectations for all generating 

facilities to provide ride-through 

capability through modifications to the 

pro forma LGIA would ensure that all 

future interconnection customers are 

subject to clear and consistent frequency 

and voltage ride-through requirements. 

At present, the absence of a clear 

requirement for all generating facilities 

to maintain ride-through capability may 

unfairly place the responsibility for 

maintaining system reliability on the 

subset of generating facilities that ride 

through the disturbance. Furthermore, 

we have identified no technical or 

economic basis to require small and 

large generating facilities to follow 

different voltage and frequency ridethrough requirements.471

340. Accordingly, we propose to 

revise article 9.7.3 of the pro forma 

LGIA to require that all newly 

interconnecting large generating 

facilities must provide ride-through 

capability consistent with any standards 

and guidelines that are applied to other 

generating facilities in the balancing 

authority area on a comparable basis. 

This proposed reform is intended to 

address the existing gap in the 

applicability of ride-through 

requirements for large generating 

facilities with a capacity above 20 MW 

and with a gross plant/facility aggregate 

nameplate rating 75 MVA or less. In 

addition, the proposed reform is 

consistent with existing language in 

article 1.5.7 of the pro forma SGIA that 

requires newly interconnecting small 

generating facilities to ride through 

abnormal frequency and voltage events 

and not disconnect during such events. 

341. In addition to the substantive 

changes discussed above, we propose to 

replace the term ‘‘Applicable Reliability 

Council’’ with ‘‘Electric Reliability 

Organization,’’ and replace the term 

‘‘control area’’ with ‘‘Balancing 

Authority Area’’ throughout the pro 

forma LGIP and pro forma LGIA. These 

proposed replacements reflect updated 

terminology.472

III. Proposed Compliance Procedures 

342. We propose to require each 

transmission provider to submit a 

compliance filing within 180 days of the 

effective date of the final rule in this 

proceeding revising its LGIP, LGIA, 

SGIP, and SGIA, as necessary, to 

demonstrate that it meets the 

requirements set forth in any final rule 

issued in this proceeding. The 

Commission also proposes to permit 

appropriate entities to seek ‘‘regional 

reliability variation’’ or ‘‘independent 

entity variations’’ from the proposed 

revisions to the pro forma.473 Some 

transmission providers may have 

provisions in their existing LGIPs, 

LGIAs, SGIPs, and SGIAs subject to the 

Commission’s jurisdiction that the 

Commission has previously deemed to 

be consistent with or superior to the pro 

forma LGIP, pro forma LGIA, pro forma 

SGIP, and/or pro forma SGIA or 

permissible under the independent 

entity variation standard or regional 

reliability standard. Where these 

provisions would be modified by the 

final rule, transmission providers must 

either comply with the final rule or 

demonstrate that these previouslyapproved variations continue to be 

consistent with or superior to the pro 

forma as modified by the final rule or 

continue to be permissible under the 

independent entity variation standard or 

regional reliability standard.474

343. The Commission will assess 

whether each compliance filing satisfies 

the proposed requirements stated above 

and issue additional orders as necessary 

to ensure that each public utility 

transmission provider meets the 

requirements of the subsequent final 

rule. 

344. We propose that transmission 

providers that are not public utilities 

will have to adopt the requirements of 

this Proposed Rule as a condition of 

maintaining the status of their safe 

harbor tariff or otherwise satisfying the 

reciprocity requirement of Order No. 

888.475

IV. Information Collection Statement 

345. The information collection 

requirements contained in this NOPR 

are subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995.476 OMB’s 

regulations require approval of certain 

information collection requirements 

imposed by agency rules.477 Upon 

approval of a collection 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. 

346. The reforms proposed in this 

NOPR would revise the Commission’s 

standard interconnection procedures 

and agreement (i.e., the pro forma LGIP 

and pro forma LGIA) and the standard 

small generator interconnection 

procedures and agreement (i.e., the pro 

forma SGIP and pro forma SGIA) that 

every public utility transmission 

provider is required to include in their 

non-discriminatory open access 

transmission tariff under § 35.28 of the 

Commission’s regulations.478 This 

NOPR proposes to require each 

transmission provider to amend the 

standard interconnection procedures 

and agreement and the standard small 

generator interconnection procedures 

and agreement in its open access 

transmission tariff to implement the 

reforms proposed in this NOPR, which 

are intended to ensure that the generator 

interconnection process is just and 

reasonable and not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential. We will 

submit the proposed reporting 

requirements to OMB for its review and 

approval under section 3507(d) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act.479 The 

proposed revisions included in this 

NOPR would affect the following 

collections of information: FERC–516, 

Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff 

Filings, and FERC–516A, 

Standardization of Small Generator 

Interconnection Agreements and 

Procedures. 

347. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39990 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

480 ‘‘Burden’’ is the total time, effort, or financial 

resources expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information 

to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation 

of what is included in the information collection 

burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3. 

481Commission staff estimates that respondents’ 

hourly wages plus benefits are comparable to those 

of FERC employees. Therefore, the hourly cost used 

in this analysis is $87.00 ($180,703 per year). 

482The ongoing burden estimated here reflects 

the estimated yearly average of the requirement to 

provide affected system operators with data 

monthly during the affected system study process. 

requirements by contacting Ellen 

Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 

20426, via email (DataClearance@

ferc.gov) or telephone (202) 502–8663. 

348. We solicit comments on the 

Commission’s need for this information; 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

burden and cost estimates; ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected or 

retained; and any suggested methods for 

minimizing respondents’ burden, 

including the use of automated 

information techniques. 

349. Please send comments 

concerning the collections of 

information and the associated burden 

estimates to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, through 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission Desk Officer. Please 

identify the OMB Control Numbers 

1902–0096 (FERC–516) and 1902–0203 

(FERC–516A) in the subject line of your 

comments. Comments should be sent 

within 60 days of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. 

350. Please submit a copy of your 

comments on the information 

collections to the Commission via the 

eFiling link on the Commission’s 

website at http://www.ferc.gov. 

Comments on the information collection 

that are sent to FERC should refer to 

Docket No. RM22–14–000. 

351. Title: Electric Rate Schedules and 

Tariff Filings (FERC–516) and 

Standardization of Small Generator 

Interconnection Agreements and 

Procedures (FERC–516A). 

352. Action: Proposed revisions of 

collections of information. 

353. OMB Control Nos.: 1902–0096 

(FERC–516) and 1902–0203 (FERC– 

516A). 

354. Respondents: Public utility 

transmission providers, including 

RTOs/ISOs. 

355. Frequency of Information 

Collection: One time during Year 1. 

Multiple times during subsequent years. 

356. Necessity of Information: We 

propose the reforms in this NOPR to 

address interconnection queue backlogs, 

improve certainty, prevent undue 

discrimination for new technologies, 

and ensure that the costs of network 

upgrades are allocated in a manner that 

is roughly commensurate with benefits. 

The reforms are intended to ensure that 

the generator interconnection process is 

just and reasonable and not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential. 

357. Internal Review: We have 

reviewed the proposed reforms that 

impose information collection burdens 

and have determined that such reforms 

are necessary. These proposed reforms 

conform to the Commission’s need for 

efficient information collection, 

communication, and management 

within the energy industry. We have 

specific, objective support for the 

burden estimates associated with the 

proposed information collection 

requirements. 

358. Public Reporting Burden: Our 

estimates are based on the number of 

transmission providers that submitted 

compliance filings in response to Order 

No. 845, which is the Commission’s 

most recent interconnection rulemaking 

that required transmission providers to 

revise their interconnection procedures 

and agreements. As such, we estimate 

that 45 transmission providers, 

including the RTOs/ISOs, will be 

subject to this rulemaking. The 

burden 480 and cost estimates below are 

based on (1) the initial need for 

transmission providers to file revised 

versions of the standard interconnection 

procedures and agreements in Year 1, 

and (2) ongoing information collection 

activities in connection with reporting 

and disclosure requirements in 

subsequent years. With regards to 

ongoing information collection 

activities, the NOPR proposes to add 

annual and quarterly information 

collection activities regarding the 

provision of public interconnection 

information, compilation and posting of 

metrics related to completion of cluster 

studies, compilation and posting of 

metrics related to penalties for late 

interconnection studies following the 

elimination of the reasonable efforts 

standard, and reporting related to the 

consideration of alternative technologies 

in interconnection requests. The NOPR 

also proposes an information collection 

requirement in which transmission 

providers will provide affected system 

operators with data monthly, or more 

frequently as needed, during the 

affected system study process. For other 

proposed reforms, we estimate no 

ongoing information collection burden 

because there is either no information 

collection aspect of the reform or the 

proposed requirements would merely 

supplant existing ones. We estimate that 

the reforms proposed in this NOPR 

would affect the burden and cost of 

FERC–516 and FERC–516A as follows. 

PROPOSED CHANGES DUE TO NOPR IN DOCKET NO. RM22–14–000 

Proposed requirements Number of 

respondents 

Annual number of 

responses per respondent 

Total number of responses 

(rounded) 

Average burden (hr.) & 

cost ($) per response 481

Total annual burden hours 

& total annual cost ($) 

(rounded) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) 

FERC–516: 

Informational Interconnection Study.45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Public Interconnection Information.45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 2 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 90 .... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 4 hr; $348.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 360 hr; 

$31,320. 

Cluster Study ...................... 45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 4 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 180 .. Year 1: 80 hr; $6,960 Ongoing: 4 hr; $348.Year 1: 3600 hr; $313,200 

Ongoing: 720 hr; 

$62,640. 

Allocation of Cluster Study 

Costs.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Allocation of Cluster Network Upgrades.45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39991 

PROPOSED CHANGES DUE TO NOPR IN DOCKET NO. RM22–14–000—Continued 

Proposed requirements Number of 

respondents 

Annual number of 

responses per respondent 

Total number of responses 

(rounded) 

Average burden (hr.) & 

cost ($) per response 481

Total annual burden hours 

& total annual cost ($) 

(rounded) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) 

Shared Network Upgrades 45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 80 hr; $6,960 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 3600 hr; $313,200 

Ongoing: 0. 

Increased Study Deposits 

and LGIA Deposit.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Demonstration of Site Control.45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 80 hr; $6,960 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 3600 hr; $313,200 

Ongoing: 0. 

Commercial Readiness ...... 45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Withdrawal Penalties .......... 45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Transition Process .............. 45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 80 hr; $6,960 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 3600 hr; $313,200 

Ongoing: 0. 

Elimination of Reasonable 

Efforts Standard.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 4 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 180 .. Year 1: 80 hr; $6,960 Ongoing: 4 hr; $348.Year 1: 3600 hr; $313,200 

Ongoing: 720 hr; 

$62,640. 

Affected Systems Study 

Process.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 5 Ongoing: 5 482 .. Year 1: 225 Ongoing: 225 Year 1: 80 hr; $6,960 Ongoing: 80 hr; $6960.

Year 1: 18,000 hr; 

$1,566,000 Ongoing: 

18,000 hr; $1,566,000. 

Affected Systems Pro 

Forma Agreements.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Affected Systems Modeling 

and Study Assumptions.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Optional Resource Solicitation Study.45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Co-Located Generation 

Sites Behind One Point 

of Interconnection with 

Shared Interconnection 

Requests.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Revisions to Material Modification to Require Consideration of Generating 

Facility Additions.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 80 hr; $6,960 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 3600 hr; $313,200 

Ongoing: 0. 

Availability of Surplus Interconnection Service.45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Operating Assumptions for 

Interconnection Studies.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 80 hr; $6,960 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 3600 hr; $313,200 

Ongoing: 0. 

Consideration of Alternative 

Transmission Technologies in Interconnection Studies Upon Request of Interconnection 

Customer.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 80 hr; $6,960 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 3600 hr; $313,200 

Ongoing: 0. 

Annual Informational Report 45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 1 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 45 .... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 4 hr; $348.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 180 hr; 

$15,660. 

Modeling Requirements ...... 45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Ride Through ...................... 45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Applicability of Ride 

Through.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Total for FERC–516 .... Year 1: 1305 Ongoing: 720 Year 1: 49,680 hr; $4,322,160 Ongoing: 19,980 hr; 

$1,738,260. 

FERC–516A: 

Consideration of Alternative 

Transmission Technologies in Interconnection Studies Upon Request of Interconnection 

Customer.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 80 hr; $6,960 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 3600 hr; $313,200 

Ongoing: 0. 

Modeling Requirements: 

Transmission Providers.

45 (TPs) Year 1: 1 Ongoing: 0 ........ Year 1: 45 Ongoing: 0 ...... Year 1: 4 hr; $348 Ongoing: 0.Year 1: 180 hr; $15,660 

Ongoing: 0. 

Total for FERC–516A .. Year 1: 90 Ongoing: 0 Year 1: 3780 hr; $328,860 Ongoing: 0 

Grand Total 

(FERC–516 plus 

FERC–516A, including all respondents).

Year 1: 1395 Ongoing: 0 Year 1: 53,460 hr; $4,651,020 Ongoing: 19,980 hr; 

$1,738,260. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39992 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

483Reguls. Implementing Nat’l Envt’l Pol’y Act of 

1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47,897 (Dec. 17, 1987), 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987) (crossreferenced at 41 FERC ¶ 61,284). 484 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15) (2021). 485 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 486 13 CFR 121.201. 487The RFA definition of ‘‘small entity’’ refers to 

the definition provided in the Small Business Act, 

which defines a ‘‘small business concern’’ as a 

business that is independently owned and operated 

and that is not dominant in its field of operation. 

The Small Business Administrations’ regulations at 

13 CFR 121.201 define the threshold for a small 

Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control 

entity (NAICS code 221121) to be 500 employees. 

See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (citing to Section 3 of the Small 

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). 488U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide 

for Government Agencies How to Comply with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 18 (Aug 2017), https:// 

cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/ 

06/21110349/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA.pdf. 

PROPOSED CHANGES DUE TO NOPR IN DOCKET NO. RM22–14–000—Continued 

Proposed requirements Number of 

respondents 

Annual number of 

responses per respondent 

Total number of responses 

(rounded) 

Average burden (hr.) & 

cost ($) per response 481

Total annual burden hours 

& total annual cost ($) 

(rounded) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) 

Grand Total Average Per Entity 

Cost (45 TPs).

Year 1: $103,356 Ongoing: $38,628. 

V. Environmental Analysis 

359. The Commission is required to 

prepare an Environmental Assessment 

or an Environmental Impact Statement 

for any action that may have a 

significant adverse effect on the human 

environment.483 We conclude that 

neither an Environmental Assessment 

nor an Environmental Impact Statement 

is required for this NOPR under 

§ 380.4(a)(15) of the Commission’s 

regulations, which provides a 

categorical exemption for approval of 

actions under sections 205 and 206 of 

the FPA relating to the filing of 

schedules containing all rates and 

charges for the transmission or sale of 

electric energy subject to the 

Commission’s jurisdiction, plus the 

classification, practices, contracts, and 

regulations that affect rates, charges, 

classification, and services.484

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

360. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 485 generally requires a description 

and analysis of proposed and final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) sets the threshold 

for what constitutes a small business. 

Under SBA’s size standards,486 the 

RTOs/ISOs all fall under the category of 

Electric Bulk Power Transmission and 

Control (NAICS code 221121), with a 

size threshold of 500 employees 

(including the entity and its 

associates).487 The six RTOs/ISOs (SPP, 

MISO, PJM, ISO–NE, NYISO, and 

CAISO) each employ more than 500 

employees and are not considered 

small. 

361. We estimate that 39 additional 

transmission providers (after removing 

RTO/ISOs) are affected by the reforms 

proposed in this NOPR. We estimate 

that 12 of the 39 transmission providers, 

approximately 31%, are small entities. 

362. We estimate that one-time costs 

(in Year 1) associated with the reforms 

proposed in this NOPR for one 

transmission provider (as shown in the 

table above) would be $103,356. 

Following Year 1, we estimate that the 

annual ongoing costs for one 

transmission provider would be 

$38,628. 

363. According to SBA guidance, the 

determination of significance of impact 

‘‘should be seen as relative to the size 

of the business, the size of the 

competitor’s business, and the impact 

the regulation has on larger 

competitors.’’ 488 We do not consider the 

estimated cost to be a significant 

economic impact. As a result, we certify 

that the reforms proposed in this NOPR 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

VII. Comment Procedures 

364. We invite interested persons to 

submit comments on the matters and 

issues proposed in this NOPR to be 

adopted, including any related matters 

or alternative proposals that 

commenters may wish to discuss. 

Comments are due October 13, 2022. 

Also, reply comments are due 

November 14, 2022. Comments must 

refer to Docket No. RM22–14–000, and 

must include the commenter’s name, 

the organization they represent, if 

applicable, and their address. 

365. The Commission encourages 

comments to be filed electronically via 

the eFiling link on the Commission’s 

web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The 

Commission accepts most standard 

word processing formats. Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format. 

Commenters filing electronically do not 

need to make a paper filing. 

366. Commenters that are not able to 

file comments electronically must send 

an original of their comments to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. 

367. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commenters 

on this NOPR are not required to serve 

copies of their comments on other 

commenters. 

VIII. Document Availability 

368. 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). At this time, the 

Commission has suspended access to 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room due to the President’s March 13, 

2020 proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19). 

369. 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39993 

489We do not include data from SPP in the table. 

SPP’s normal interconnection queue processing has 

been modified to address its large queue backlog 

and transition to a new interconnection study 

process, thus its data is not clearly comparable to 

the other regions. 

370. 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. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Commissioner Danly is concurring with a 

separate statement attached. 

Commissioner Christie is concurring with 

a separate statement attached. 

Issued: June 16, 2022. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

Note: The following appendices will not be 

published in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix A: Interconnection Study 

Metrics 

TABLE 1—RTOS/ISOS INTERCONNECTION STUDY METRICS 2021 489

Transmission 

provider 

Link Completed studies 

Studies 

completed past 

deadline 

Current 

delayed studies Withdrawals 

CAISO ...... http://oasis.caiso.com/mrioasis/logon.do .......... 179 116 0 88

ISO–NE .... https://www.oasis.oati.com/isne/ ....................... 44 31 19 25

MISO ........ https://cdn.misoenergy.org/MISO

%20Generator%20Interconnection%

%20Metrics444684.pdf.

778 754 385 204

NYISO ...... https://www.nyiso.com/interconnections ........... 16 13 48 46

PJM .......... https://www.pjm.com/-/media/planning/services-requests/interconnection-study-statistics.ashx.1,213 149 1,281 297

TABLE 2—NON-RTOS/ISOS INTERCONNECTION STUDY METRICS 2021 490

Transmission 

provider Link Completed studies 

Completed 

past deadline 

Current 

delayed studies Withdrawals 

Alabama Power Company 

(Southern Company).

https://www.oasis.oati.com/SOCO/ 

index.html.

157 ........................ ........................ 61 

Arizona Public Service ............... https://www.oasis.oati.com/azps/ ............ 22 20 198 18

Avista Corp. ................................ https://www.oasis.oati.com/avat/ ............. 20 19 35 3

Black Hills Colorado ................... https://www.blackhillscorp.com/utilitiesbusinesses/transmission/electric-transmission-services.3 ........................ 2 2 

Black Hills Power ....................... https://www.blackhillscorp.com/utilitiesbusinesses/transmission/electric-transmission-services.1 ........................ ........................ ........................

Dominion Energy South Carolina https://www.oasis.oati.com/SCEG/ ......... 3 3 70 4

Duke Energy Carolinas .............. http://www.oasis.oati.com/duk/index.html 6 6 16 12

El Paso Electric Co .................... https://www.oasis.oati.com/epe/ 

index.html.

1 ........................ ........................ 2 

Florida Power & Light ................ https://www.oasis.oati.com/FPL/ 

index.html.

71 42 140 4

Gulf Power Company ................. https://www.oasis.oati.com/gulf/ 

index.html.

24 15 37 ........................

Idaho Power ............................... https://www.oasis.oati.com/ipco/ ............. 42 2 45 9

Louisville Gas and Electric ......... https://www.oasis.oati.com/LGEE/ 

index.html.

21 13 39 12

Nevada Power ............................ http://www.oasis.oati.com/NEVP/ ............ 14 ........................ 7 5 

Northwestern Corp (Montana) ... http://www.oatioasis.com/NWMT/ ........... 35 19 8 10

PacifiCorp ................................... https://www.oasis.oati.com/PPW/ ........... 73 4 4 19

Portland General Electric Company.https://www.oasis.oati.com/PGE/ ............ 5 3 10 4

Public Service Company of Colorado.https://www.oasis.oati.com/psco/ 

index.html.

28 7 7 1

Public Service Company of New 

Mexico.

https://www.oasis.oati.com/PNM/ ............ 23 23 78 5

Puget Sound Energy .................. https://www.oasis.oati.com/psei/ 

index.html.

27 20 11 11

Tampa Electric Company ........... https://www.oasis.oati.com/TEC/ ............ 34 28 28 5

Tri-State Generation and Transmission.https://www.oasis.oati.com/tsgt/ 

index.html.

12 ........................ ........................ 36 

Tucson Electric Power Co. ........ https://www.oasis.oati.com/tepc/ ............. 24 18 6 2


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39994 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

490This table excludes the following non-RTO/ 

ISO transmission providers that have not reported 

interconnection study information for 2021: Basin 

Electric Power Coop., Cheyenne Light, Fuel, and 

Power Co., Cube Yadkin Transmission, LLC, 

Deseret Generation and Transmission Coop., 

Golden Spread Coop, MATL LLP, UNS Electric, 

Inc., and Versant Power. 

Appendix B: Compilation of proposed 

changes to the pro forma LGIP 

Note: Proposed deletions are in brackets 

and proposed additions are in italics. 

Section 1. Definitions 

* * * 

Affected System Facilities 

Construction Agreement shall mean the 

form of agreement contained in Appendix 16 

of this LGIP for facilitating the construction 

of necessary Affected System Network 

Upgrades on Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System. 

Affected System Interconnection 

Customer shall mean any entity that 

proposes interconnection of a device for the 

production and/or storage for later injection 

of electricity to a transmission system other 

than Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System. 

Affected System Network Upgrades 

shall mean the additions, modifications, and 

upgrades to Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System required to 

accommodate Affected System 

Interconnection Customer’s proposed 

interconnection to a transmission system 

other than Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System. 

* * * 

Affected System Scoping Meeting shall 

mean a meeting between representatives of 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

and Transmission Provider for the purpose of 

discussing the potential impacts on 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System and how they may be mitigated. 

Affected System Study shall mean the 

evaluation of Affected System 

Interconnection Customers’ proposed 

interconnection(s) to a transmission system 

other than Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System that have an impact on 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System, as described in more detail in 

Section 9 of this LGIP. 

Affected System Study Agreement shall 

mean the agreement contained in Appendix 

15 to this LGIP that is made between 

Transmission Provider and Affected System 

Interconnection Customer to conduct an 

Affected System Study pursuant to Section 9 

of this LGIP. 

Affected System Study Report shall 

mean the report issued following completion 

of an Affected System Study pursuant to 

Section 9.6 of this LGIP. 

* * * 

[Applicable Reliability Council shall mean 

the reliability council applicable to the 

Transmission System to which the 

Generating Facility is directly 

interconnected.] 

Applicable Reliability Standards shall 

mean the requirements and guidelines of 

[NERC,]the [Applicable Reliability 

Council]Electric Reliability Organization and 

the [Control Area]Balancing Authority Area 

of the Transmission System to which the 

Generating Facility is directly 

interconnected. 

Balancing Authority shall mean an 

entity that integrates resource plans ahead of 

time, maintains load interchange-generation 

balance within a Balancing Authority Area, 

and supports interconnection frequency in 

real time. 

Balancing Authority Area shall mean 

the collection of generation, transmission, 

and loads within the metered boundaries of 

the Balancing Authority. The Balancing 

Authority maintains load-resource balance 

within this area. 

* * * 

Cluster shall mean a group of one or more 

Interconnection Requests that are studied 

together for the purpose of conducting the 

Cluster Study or Optional Resource 

Solicitation Study. 

Cluster Request Window shall mean the 

time period set forth in Section 3.4.1 of this 

LGIP. 

Cluster Re-Study shall mean a re-study of 

a Cluster Study conducted pursuant to 

Section 7.5 of this LGIP. 

Cluster Re-Study Meeting shall mean 

the meeting held to discuss the results of a 

Cluster Re-Study pursuant to Section 7.5 of 

this LGIP. 

Cluster Re-Study Report shall mean the 

report issued following completion of a 

Cluster Re-Study pursuant to Section 7.5 of 

this LGIP. 

Cluster Study shall mean the evaluation 

of one or more Interconnection Requests 

within a Cluster as described in more detail 

in Section 7 of this LGIP. 

Cluster Study Agreement shall mean the 

form of agreement contained in Appendix 3 

to this LGIP for conducting the Cluster Study. 

Cluster Study Process shall mean the 

following processes, conducted in sequence: 

the Cluster Request Window; the Customer 

Engagement Window and Scoping Meetings 

therein; the Cluster Study; any needed 

Cluster Re-Studies; and the Interconnection 

Facilities Study. 

Cluster Study Report shall mean the 

report issued following completion of a 

Cluster Study pursuant to Section 7 of this 

LGIP. 

Cluster Study Report Meeting shall 

mean the meeting held to discuss the results 

of a Cluster Study pursuant to Section 7 of 

this LGIP. 

Clustering shall mean the process whereby 

one or more [a group of]Interconnection 

Requests [is]are studied together, instead of 

serially, [for the purpose of conducting the 

Interconnection System Impact Study]as 

described in more detail in Section 7 of this 

LGIP. 

Co-Located Resource shall mean 

multiple Generating Facilities located on the 

same site. 

* * * 

Commercial Readiness Demonstration 

shall have the meaning set forth in Sections 

3.4.2, 7.5, and 8.1 of this LGIP. 

Commercial Readiness Deposit shall 

mean a deposit paid in lieu of submitting a 

Commercial Readiness Demonstration, as set 

forth in Sections 3.4.2, 7.5, and 8.1 of this 

LGIP. 

* * * 

[Control Area shall mean an electrical 

system or systems bounded by 

interconnection metering and telemetry, 

capable of controlling generation to maintain 

its interchange schedule with other Control 

Areas and contributing to frequency 

regulation of the interconnection. A Control 

Area must be certified by an Applicable 

Reliability Council.] 

Customer Engagement Window shall 

mean the time period set forth in Section 

3.4.5 of this LGIP. 

* * * 

Electric Reliability Organization shall 

mean NERC. 

Electric Storage Resource shall mean a 

resource capable of receiving electric energy 

from the grid and storing it for later injection 

of electric energy back to the grid. 

***

Generating Facility shall mean 

Interconnection Customer’s device for the 

production and/or storage for later injection 

of electricity identified in the 

Interconnection Request, but shall not 

include [the]Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities. 

* * * 

Informational Interconnection Study 

shall mean a sensitivity analysis based on 

assumptions specified by the prospective 

Interconnection Customer in the 

Informational Interconnection Study 

Agreement and conducted pursuant to 

Section 6.1–6.3 of this LGIP. 

Informational Interconnection Study 

Agreement shall mean the form of 

agreement contained in Attachment A to 

Appendix 2 of this LGIP for conducting the 

Informational Interconnection Study. 

Informational Interconnection Study 

Request shall mean a prospective 

Interconnection Customer’s request in the 

form of Appendix 2 to this LGIP. 

* * * 

Interconnection Facilities shall mean 

[the]Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities and [the]Interconnection 

Customer’s Interconnection Facilities. 

Collectively, Interconnection Facilities 

include all facilities and equipment between 

the Generating Facility and the Point of 

Interconnection, including any modification, 

additions or upgrades that are necessary to 

physically and electrically interconnect the 

Generating Facility to [the]Transmission 

Provider’s Transmission System. 

Interconnection Facilities are sole use 

facilities by Interconnection Customer and 

shall not include Distribution Upgrades, 

Stand Alone Network Upgrades or Network 

Upgrades. Multiple Generating Facilities 

located on the same site of Interconnection 

Customer may use Interconnection Facilities. 

Interconnection Facilities Study shall 

mean a study conducted by 

[the]Transmission Provider or a third party 

consultant for [the]Interconnection Customer 

to determine a list of facilities (including 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities and Network Upgrades as 

identified in the [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study), the cost of those 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39995 

facilities, and the time required to 

interconnect the Generating Facility 

with[the] Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System. The scope of the study 

is defined in Section 8 of this LGIP[the 

Standard Large Generator Interconnection 

Procedures]. 

* * * 

[Interconnection Feasibility Study shall 

mean a preliminary evaluation of the system 

impact and cost of interconnecting the 

Generating Facility to Transmission 

Provider’s Transmission System, the scope of 

which is described in Section 6 of the 

Standard Large Generator Interconnection 

Procedures.] 

[Interconnection Feasibility Study 

Agreement shall mean the form of agreement 

contained in Appendix 2 of the Standard 

Large Generator Interconnection Procedures 

for conducting the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study.] 

* * * 

Interconnection Study shall mean any of 

the following studies: the Informational 

Interconnection [Feasibility]Study, the 

Cluster Study, [the Interconnection System 

Impact Study,] the Optional Resource 

Solicitation Study, the Surplus 

Interconnection Service System Impact 

Study, and the Interconnection Facilities 

Study, described in this LGIP. 

[Interconnection System Impact Study 

shall mean an engineering study that 

evaluates the impact of the proposed 

interconnection on the safety and reliability 

of Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System and, if applicable, an Affected 

System. The study shall identify and detail 

the system impacts that would result if the 

Generating Facility were interconnected 

without project modifications or system 

modifications, focusing on the Adverse 

System Impacts identified in the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study, or to study 

potential impacts, including but not limited 

to those identified in the Scoping Meeting as 

described in the Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Procedures.] 

[Interconnection System Impact Study 

Agreement shall mean the form of agreement 

contained in Appendix 3 of the Standard 

Large Generator Interconnection Procedures 

for conducting the Interconnection System 

Impact Study.] 

* * * 

Material Modification shall mean those 

modifications that have a material impact on 

the cost or timing of any Interconnection 

Request with a later or equal Queue 

Position[queue priority date]. 

* * * 

Optional Resource Solicitation Study 

shall mean the informational evaluation of 

one or more Interconnection Requests for a 

Resource Planning Entity as described in 

more detail in Section 4.2.2 of this LGIP. 

* * * 

Proportional Impact Method shall 

mean a technical analysis conducted by the 

transmission provider to determine the 

degree to which each generating facility in 

the cluster contributes to the need for a 

specific network upgrade. 

* * * 

Queue Position shall mean 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]that 

Interconnection[Request by the Transmission 

Provider] Customer satisfies all of the 

requirements of Section 3.4.2 of this LGIP to 

enter the Cluster Study. All Interconnection 

Requests within a Cluster are considered 

equally queued. 

* * * 

Resource Plan shall mean any process 

for, inter alia, the selection of Generating 

Facilities that is competitive, substantively 

state agency-reviewed and approved, or state 

agency-managed, and authorized or required 

by Applicable Laws and Regulations. 

Resource Planning Entity shall mean 

any entity required to develop a Resource 

Plan or conduct a Resource Solicitation 

Process, including a state entity or load 

serving entity. 

Resource Solicitation Process shall 

mean any process for the acquisition of 

Network Resources that is competitive, 

substantively state agency-reviewed and 

approved, or state agency-managed, and 

authorized or required by Applicable Laws 

and Regulations. 

Scoping Meeting shall mean the meeting 

between representatives of 

[the]Interconnection Customer(s) and 

Transmission Provider conducted for the 

purpose of discussing the proposed 

interconnection request and any alternative 

interconnection options, [to]exchang[e]ing 

information including any transmission data 

and earlier study evaluations that would be 

reasonably expected to [impact]affect such 

interconnection options, [to]analyz[e]ing 

such information, and [to]determin[e]ing the 

potential feasible Points of Interconnection. 

Shared Network Upgrade shall mean a 

Network Upgrade that has been assigned to 

an Interconnection Customer(s) and is 

subsequently identified as necessary to 

accommodate the interconnection of the 

Large Generating Facility of an 

Interconnection Customer(s) in a later Cluster 

and meets the requirements pursuant to the 

process outlined in Section 3.10 of this LGIP. 

Site Control shall mean [documentation 

reasonably demonstrating]the exclusive land 

right to develop, construct, operate, and 

maintain the Generating Facility over the 

term of expected operation of the Generating 

Facility. Site Control may be demonstrated by 

documentation establishing: (1) ownership 

of, a leasehold interest in, or a right to 

develop a site [for the purpose of 

constructing]of sufficient size to construct 

and operate the Generating Facility or 

multiple Generating Facilities on a shared 

site behind one Point of Interconnection; (2) 

an option to purchase or acquire a leasehold 

site for such purpose; [or](3) [an exclusivity 

or other business relationship between]site of 

sufficient size to construct and operate the 

Generating Facility; or (4) any other 

documentation that clearly demonstrates the 

right of Interconnection Customer[and the 

entity having the right to sell, lease or grant 

Interconnection Customer the right to possess 

or]to exclusively occupy a site [for such 

purpose.]of sufficient size to construct and 

operate the Generating Facility. Site Control 

for any Co-Located Resource is demonstrated 

by a contract or other agreement 

demonstrating shared land use for all CoLocated Resources that meet the 

aforementioned provisions of this Site 

Control definition. 

***

Stand Alone Network Upgrades shall 

mean Network Upgrades that are not part of 

an Affected System that an Interconnection 

Customer may construct without affecting 

day-to-day operations of the Transmission 

System during their construction and, as 

indicated under proportional impact 

analysis, are only required for a single 

Interconnection Request. Both 

[the]Transmission Provider and 

[the]Interconnection Customer must agree as 

to what constitutes Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades and identify them in Appendix A 

to the Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement. If 

[the]Transmission Provider and 

Interconnection Customer disagree about 

whether a particular Network Upgrade is a 

Stand Alone Network Upgrade, 

[the]Transmission Provider must provide 

[the]Interconnection Customer a written 

technical explanation outlining why 

[the]Transmission Provider does not consider 

the Network Upgrade to be a Stand Alone 

Network Upgrade within 15 days of its 

determination. 

* * * 

Transitional Cluster Study shall mean 

an Interconnection Study evaluating a 

Cluster of Interconnection Requests during 

the transition to the Cluster Study Process, as 

set forth in Section 5.1.1.2 of this LGIP. 

Transitional Cluster Study Report 

shall mean the report issued following 

completion of a Transitional Cluster Study 

pursuant to Section 5.1.1.2 of this LGIP. 

Transitional Serial Interconnection 

Facilities Study shall mean an 

Interconnection Facilities Study evaluating 

an Interconnection Request on a serial basis 

during the transition to the Cluster Study 

Process, as set forth in Section 5.1.1.1 of this 

LGIP. 

* * * 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities shall mean all facilities and 

equipment owned, controlled, or operated by 

[the]Transmission Provider from the Point of 

Change of Ownership to the Point of 

Interconnection as identified in Appendix A 

to the Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement, including any 

modifications, additions or upgrades to such 

facilities and equipment. Transmission 

Provider’s Interconnection Facilities are sole 

use facilities and shall not include 

Distribution Upgrades, Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades or Network Upgrades. 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities may be shared by more than one 

Generating Facility in a given Cluster Study 

or by Generating Facilities that are part of a 

Co-Located resource. 

* * * 

Withdrawal Penalty shall mean the 

penalty assessed by Transmission Provider to 

an Interconnection Customer that chooses to 

withdraw from the queue or does not 

otherwise reach Commercial Operation. The 

calculation of the Withdrawal Penalty is set 

forth in Section 3.7.1 of this LGIP. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39996 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

* * * 

Section 2. Scope and Application 

* * * 

2.2 Comparability 

Transmission Provider shall receive, 

process and analyze all Interconnection 

Requests in a timely manner as set forth in 

this LGIP. Transmission Provider [will use 

the same Reasonable Efforts]shall 

process[ing] and analyze[ing] Interconnection 

Requests from all Interconnection Customers 

comparably, regardless of whether the 

Generating Facilities are owned by 

Transmission Provider, its subsidiaries or 

Affiliates or others. 

* * * 

Section 3. Interconnection Requests 

3.1 [General.] Interconnection Requests 

3.1.1 Study Deposits 

3.1.1.1 Initial Study Deposit 

An Interconnection Customer shall submit 

to Transmission Provider, during a Cluster 

Request Window, an Interconnection Request 

in the form of Appendix 1 to this LGIP, an 

application fee of $5,000, and a refundable 

study deposit of[$10,000]: 

a. $35,000 plus $1,000 per MW for requests 

≥ 20 MW < 80 MW, or; 

b. $150,000 for requests ≥ 80 MW < 200 

MW; or 

c. $250,000 for requests ≥ 200 MW. 

Transmission Provider shall apply the 

initial study deposit toward the cost of the 

Cluster [an Interconnection Feasibility]Study 

Process. 

3.1.1.2 Additional Study Deposits 

Interconnection Customer is required to 

submit a study deposit of the same amount 

required in Section 3.1.1.1 of this LGIP at the 

following points in the interconnection study 

process: 

a. Within 20 calendar days after the Cluster 

Study Report Meeting, which Transmission 

Provider will use towards Cluster Re-Studies, 

if needed; and 

b. Simultaneously with the submission of 

an executed Interconnection Facilities Study 

Agreement, or with a request to Transmission 

Provider to file the LGIA unexecuted, which 

Transmission Provider will use towards the 

Interconnection Facilities Study. 

3.1.1.3 LGIA Deposit 

As also discussed in Section 11.3 of this 

LGIP, when returning the executed, or 

requested to be filed unexecuted, LGIA to 

Transmission Provider, Interconnection 

Customer is required to submit a deposit 

equal to nine times the amount required in 

Section 3.1.1.1 of this LGIP. 

An Interconnection Customer that does not 

provide the study deposit when returning the 

executed, or requested to be filed 

unexecuted, LGIA shall be deemed 

withdrawn from the interconnection queue 

pursuant to Section 3.7 of this LGIP. 

3.1.2 Submission 

Interconnection Customer shall submit a 

separate Interconnection Request for each 

site and may submit multiple 

Interconnection Requests for a single site. 

Interconnection Customer must submit a 

deposit with each Interconnection Request 

even when more than one request is 

submitted for a single site. If there are CoLocated Resources on the same site, 

Interconnection Customer may submit 

separate Interconnection Requests or a single 

Interconnection Request. An Interconnection 

Request to evaluate one site at two different 

voltage levels shall be treated as two 

Interconnection Requests unless the 

Generating Facility, as it proposes to 

interconnect, includes technology that 

Transmission Provider deems acceptable to 

ensure there is no voltage difference. 

Interconnection Customers evaluating 

different options (such as different sizes, 

sites, or voltages) are encouraged but not 

required to use the Informational 

Interconnection Study (Section 6.1 of this 

LGIP) before entering the Cluster Study. 

At Interconnection Customer’s option, 

Transmission Provider and Interconnection 

Customer will identify alternative Point(s) of 

Interconnection and configurations at [the]a 

Scoping Meeting within the Customer 

Engagement Window to evaluate in this 

process and attempt to eliminate alternatives 

in a reasonable fashion given resources and 

information available. Interconnection 

Customer will select the definitive Point[(s)] 

of Interconnection to be studied no later than 

the execution of the [Interconnection 

Feasibility Study Agreement.]Cluster Study 

Agreement. For purposes of clustering 

Interconnection Requests, Transmission 

Provider may make reasonable changes to 

the requested Point of Interconnection to 

facilitate efficient interconnection of 

Interconnection Customers at common 

Point(s) of Interconnection. Transmission 

Provider shall notify Interconnection 

Customers in writing of any intended 

changes to the requested Point of 

Interconnection and the Point of 

Interconnection shall only change upon 

mutual agreement. 

Transmission Provider shall have a process 

in place to consider requests for 

Interconnection Service below the Generating 

Facility Capacity. These requests for 

Interconnection Service shall be studied at 

the level of Interconnection Service 

requested for purposes of Interconnection 

Facilities, Network Upgrades, and associated 

costs, but may be subject to other studies at 

the full Generating Facility Capacity to 

ensure safety and reliability of the system, 

with the study costs borne by 

[the]Interconnection Customer. If after the 

additional studies are complete, 

Transmission Provider determines that 

additional Network Upgrades are necessary, 

then Transmission Provider must: (1) specify 

which additional Network Upgrade costs are 

based on which studies; and (2) provide a 

detailed explanation of why the additional 

Network Upgrades are necessary. Any 

Interconnection Facility and/or Network 

Upgrade costs required for safety and 

reliability also would be borne by 

[the]Interconnection Customer. 

Interconnection Customers may be subject to 

additional control technologies as well as 

testing and validation of those technologies 

consistent with Article 6 of the LGIA. The 

necessary control technologies and 

protection systems shall be established in 

Appendix C of that executed, or requested to 

be filed unexecuted, LGIA. 

Transmission Provider shall have a process 

in place to study Electric Storage Resources 

and Co-Located Resources containing 

Electric Storage Resources (including hybrid 

resources) using operating assumptions, 

including charge and discharge parameters, 

that reflect the proposed operation of the 

Generating Facility as requested by 

Interconnection Customer, unless Good 

Utility Practice, including applicable 

reliability standards, otherwise requires use 

of different operating assumptions. These 

requests for Interconnection Service shall be 

studied using the requested operating 

assumptions for purposes of Interconnection 

Facilities, Network Upgrades, and associated 

costs, but may be subject to other studies at 

the full Generating Facility Capacity to 

ensure safety and reliability of the system, 

with the study costs borne by Interconnection 

Customer. Interconnection Customers may be 

subject to additional control technologies as 

well as testing and validation of those 

technologies consistent with Article 6 of the 

LGIA. The necessary control technologies 

and protection systems shall be established 

in Appendix C of that executed, or requested 

to be filed unexecuted, LGIA. 

* * * 

3.2.1 Energy Resource Interconnection 

Service 

* * * 

3.2.1.2 The Study. The study consists of 

short circuit/fault duty, steady state (thermal 

and voltage) and stability analyses. The short 

circuit/fault duty analysis would identify 

direct Interconnection Facilities required and 

the Network Upgrades necessary to address 

short circuit issues associated with the 

Interconnection Facilities. The stability and 

steady state studies would identify necessary 

upgrades to allow full output of the proposed 

Large Generating Facility, except for Electric 

Storage Resources and Co-Located Resources 

containing Electric Storage Resources 

(including hybrid resources) that request to 

use operating assumptions pursuant to 

section 3.1.2, and would also identify the 

maximum allowed output, at the time the 

study is performed, of the interconnecting 

Large Generating Facility without requiring 

additional Network Upgrades.* * * 

3.2.2 Network Resource Interconnection 

Service 

***

3.2.2.2 The Study. The Interconnection 

Study for Network Resource Interconnection 

Service shall assure that Interconnection 

Customer’s Large Generating Facility meets 

the requirements for Network Resource 

Interconnection Service and as a general 

matter, that such Large Generating Facility’s 

interconnection is also studied with 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System at peak load, under a variety of 

severely stressed conditions, to determine 

whether, with the Large Generating Facility 

at full output, except for Electric Storage 

Resources and Co-Located Resources 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39997 

containing Electric Storage Resources 

(including hybrid resources) that request to 

use operating assumptions pursuant to 

section 3.1.2, the aggregate of generation in 

the local area can be delivered to the 

aggregate of load on Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System, consistent with 

Transmission Provider’s reliability criteria 

and procedures. This approach assumes that 

some portion of existing Network Resources 

are displaced by the output of 

Interconnection Customer’s Large Generating 

Facility. Network Resource Interconnection 

Service in and of itself does not convey any 

right to deliver electricity to any specific 

customer or Point of Delivery. The 

Transmission Provider may also study the 

Transmission System under non-peak load 

conditions. However, upon request by the 

Interconnection Customer, the Transmission 

Provider must explain in writing to the 

Interconnection Customer why the study of 

non-peak load conditions is required for 

reliability purposes. 

* * * 

3.3 Utilization of Surplus Interconnection 

Service 

3.3.1 Surplus Interconnection Service 

Request 

Surplus Interconnection Service requests 

may be made by the existing Interconnection 

Customer [whose Generating Facility is 

already interconnected]or one of its affiliates 

or may be submitted once Interconnection 

Customer has executed the LGIA or requested 

that the LGIA be filed unexecuted, even prior 

to Commercial Operation. Surplus 

Interconnection Service requests also may be 

made by another Interconnection Customer. 

Transmission Provider shall provide a 

process for evaluating Interconnection 

Requests for Surplus Interconnection Service. 

Studies for Surplus Interconnection Service 

shall consist of reactive power, short circuit/ 

fault duty, stability analyses, and any other 

appropriate studies. Steady-state (thermal/ 

voltage) analyses may be performed as 

necessary to ensure that all required 

reliability conditions are studied. If the 

Surplus Interconnection Service was not 

studied under off-peak conditions, off-peak 

steady state analyses shall be performed to 

the required level necessary to demonstrate 

reliable operation of the Surplus 

Interconnection Service. If the original 

System Impact Study report or Cluster Study 

Report is not available for the Surplus 

Interconnection Service, both off-peak and 

peak analysis may need to be performed for 

the existing Generating Facility associated 

with the request for Surplus Interconnection 

Service. The reactive power, short circuit/ 

fault duty, stability, and steady-state analyses 

for Surplus Interconnection Service will 

identify any additional Interconnection 

Facilities and/or Network Upgrades 

necessary. 

3.4 Valid Interconnection Request 

3.4.1 Cluster Request Window 

Transmission Provider shall accept 

Interconnection Requests during a forty-five 

(45) Calendar Day period (the Cluster 

Request Window). The initial Cluster Request 

Window shall open for Interconnection 

Requests beginning {Transmission Provider 

to provide Month and Day (e.g., January 1)} 

following commencement of the transition 

process set out in Section 5.1 of this LGIP 

and successive Cluster Request Windows 

shall open annually every {Transmission 

Provider to provide Month and Day (e.g., 

January 1)} thereafter. 

3.4.[1]2 Initiating an Interconnection 

Request 

An Interconnection Customer seeking to 

join a Cluster shall submit its Interconnection 

Request to Transmission Provider within, and 

no later than the close of, the Cluster Request 

Window. To initiate an Interconnection 

Request, Interconnection Customer must 

submit all of the following for its proposed 

Generating Facility: 

(i) [a $10,000 deposit,]applicable deposit 

amount, pursuant to Section 3.1.1.1 of this 

LGIP, 

(ii) a completed application in the form of 

Appendix 1 (including applicable technical 

information), [and] 

(iii) demonstration of Site Control [or a 

posting of an additional deposit of 

$10,000.]{Transmission Provider to insert 

acreage requirements for each Generating 

Facility technology type}. 

In the event that regulatory limitations 

prohibit Interconnection Customer from 

obtaining Site Control, Interconnection 

Customer may submit an initial deposit in 

lieu of Site Control of $10,000 per MW, 

subject to a floor of $500,000 and a ceiling 

of $2,000,000. Such deposits shall be applied 

toward any Interconnection Studies or 

Withdrawal Penalty, if applicable, pursuant 

to the Interconnection Request. If 

Interconnection Customer demonstrates Site 

Control within the cure period specified in 

Section [3.4.3]3.4.4 of this LGIP after 

submitting its Interconnection Request, the 

additional deposit shall be refundable; 

otherwise, all such deposit(s), additional and 

initial, become non-refundable. 

In order to demonstrate regulatory 

limitations, Interconnection Customer must 

provide: (1) a signed affidavit from an officer 

of the company indicating that Site Control 

is unobtainable due to regulatory 

requirements; and (2) documentation 

sufficiently describing and explaining the 

source and effects of such regulatory 

restrictions, including a description of any 

conditions that must be met to satisfy the 

regulatory restrictions and the anticipated 

time by which Interconnection Customer 

expects to satisfy the regulatory restrictions. 

An Interconnection Customer that submits 

a deposit in lieu of site control due to 

demonstrated regulatory limitations must 

demonstrate 100% Site Control for its 

Generating Facility prior to Transmission 

Provider commencing the Interconnection 

Facilities Study. If Interconnection Customer 

does not demonstrate 100% Site Control for 

its Generating Facility prior to Transmission 

Provider commencing the Interconnection 

Facilities Study, its Interconnection Request 

will be deemed withdrawn, pursuant to 

Section 3.7 of this LGIP. 

(iv) Generating Facility size (MW) (and 

requested Interconnection Service amount if 

the requested Interconnection Service is less 

than the Generating Facility Capacity); 

(v) If applicable, (1) the requested 

operating assumptions, such as charge and 

discharge parameters, to be used by 

Transmission Provider that reflect the 

proposed operation of the Electric Storage 

Resource or Co-Located Resource containing 

an Electric Storage Resource (including a 

hybrid resource), and (2) a description of any 

control technologies (software and/or 

hardware) that will limit the operation of the 

Electric Storage Resource or Co-Located 

Resource containing an Electric Storage 

Resource (including a hybrid resource) to its 

intended operation. 

(vi) One of the following Commercial 

Readiness Demonstration options totaling the 

entire Generating Facility Capacity (or 

requested Interconnection Service amount if 

the requested Interconnection Service is less 

than the Generating Facility Capacity), or in 

the alternative, a Commercial Readiness 

Deposit equal to two times the study deposit 

described in Section 3.1.1.1 of this LGIP in 

the form of an irrevocable letter of credit or 

cash in lieu of the Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration. The security is refunded to 

Interconnection Customer according to 

Section 3.7 of this LGIP. 

(a) Executed term sheet (or comparable 

evidence) related to a contract for sale of (1) 

the constructed Generating Facility to a loadserving entity or to a commercial, industrial, 

or other large end-use customer, (2) the 

Generating Facility’s energy or capacity 

where the term of sale is not less than five 

(5) years, or (3) the Generating Facility’s 

ancillary services where the term of sale is 

not less than five (5) years; 

(b) Reasonable evidence that the 

Generating Facility has been selected in a 

Resource Plan or Resource Solicitation 

Process by or for a load-serving entity, is 

being developed by a load-serving entity, or 

is being developed for purposes of a sale to 

a commercial, industrial, or other large enduse customer; 

(c) A Provisional LGIA that has been filed 

at the Commission executed, or requested to 

be filed unexecuted, which is not in 

suspension pursuant to Article 5.16 of the 

LGIA, and includes a commitment to 

construct the Generating Facility; or 

(vii) A Point of Interconnection; and 

(viii) Whether the Interconnection Request 

shall be studied as a Network Resource 

Interconnection Service or an Energy 

Resource Interconnection Service, consistent 

with Section 3.2 of this LGIP. 

Interconnection Customer shall promptly 

inform Transmission Provider of any 

material change to Interconnection 

Customer’s demonstration of Site Control 

under Section 3.4.2(iii) of this LGIP or its 

satisfaction of a Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration as selected under Section 

3.4.2(vi)(a)–(c) of this LGIP. If Transmission 

Provider determines, based on 

Interconnection Customer’s information, that 

Interconnection Customer no longer satisfies 

Site Control or a Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration, Transmission Provider shall 

give Interconnection Customer ten (10) 

Business Days to demonstrate the applicable 

requirement to Transmission Provider’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39998 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

satisfaction. If the material change is related 

to Interconnection Customer’s Commercial 

Readiness Demonstration, Interconnection 

Customer has the option to submit a 

Commercial Readiness Deposit pursuant to 

Section 3.4.2(vi)(d) of this LGIP before the 

end of the ten (10) Business Day cure period. 

Absent such, Transmission Provider will 

deem the subject Interconnection Request 

withdrawn pursuant to Section 3.7 of this 

LGIP. 

3.4.[2]3 Acknowledgment of 

Interconnection Request 

* * * 

3.4.[3]4 Deficiencies in Interconnection 

Request 

An Interconnection Request will not be 

considered to be a valid request until all 

items in Section [3.4.1]3.4.2 of this LGIP have 

been received by Transmission Provider. If 

an Interconnection Request fails to meet the 

requirements set forth in Section [3.4.1]3.4.2 

of this LGIP, Transmission Provider shall 

notify Interconnection Customer within five 

(5) Business Days of receipt of the initial 

Interconnection Request of the reasons for 

such failure and that the Interconnection 

Request does not constitute a valid request. 

Interconnection Customer shall provide 

Transmission Provider the additional 

requested information needed to constitute a 

valid request within ten (10) Business Days 

after receipt of such notice but no later than 

the close of the Cluster Request Window. At 

any time, if Transmission Provider identifies 

that the technical data provided by 

Interconnection Customer is incomplete or 

contains errors, Interconnection Customer 

and Transmission Provider shall work 

expeditiously and in good faith to remedy 

such issues. Failure by Interconnection 

Customer to comply with this Section 

3.4.[3]4 of this LGIP shall be treated in 

accordance with Section 3.7 of this LGIP. 

3.4.5 Customer Engagement Window 

Upon the close of each Cluster Request 

Window, Transmission Provider will open a 

thirty (30) Calendar Day period (Customer 

Engagement Window). During the Customer 

Engagement Window, Transmission Provider 

shall hold a Scoping Meeting with all 

interested Interconnection Customers. 

Notwithstanding the preceding requirements 

and upon written consent of all 

Interconnection Customers within a specific 

Cluster, Transmission Provider may shorten 

the Customer Engagement Window and begin 

the Cluster Study. Within the first ten (10) 

Business Days following the close of the 

Cluster Request Window, Transmission 

Provider shall post on its OASIS site a list of 

Interconnection Requests for that Cluster. 

The list shall identify, for each 

Interconnection Request: (1) the requested 

amount of Interconnection Service; (2) the 

location by county and state; (3) the station 

or transmission line or lines where the 

interconnection will be made; (4) the 

projected In-Service Date; (5) the type of 

Interconnection Service requested; and (6) 

the type of Generating Facility or Facilities to 

be constructed, including fuel types, such as 

wind, natural gas, coal, or solar. During the 

Customer Engagement Window, 

Transmission Provider will provide to 

Interconnection Customer a non-binding 

updated good faith estimate of the cost and 

timeframe for completing the Cluster Study 

and a Cluster Study Agreement to be 

executed prior to the close of the Customer 

Engagement Window. 

At the end of the Customer Engagement 

Window, all Interconnection Requests 

deemed valid that have executed a Cluster 

Study Agreement in the form of Appendix 3 

shall be included in that Cluster Study. Any 

Interconnection Requests not deemed valid at 

the close of the Customer Engagement 

Window shall not be included in that Cluster. 

Immediately following the Customer 

Engagement Window, Transmission Provider 

shall initiate the Cluster Study described in 

more detail in Section 7 of this LGIP. 

3.4.[4]6 Cluster Study Scoping Meetings 

[Within ten (10) Business Days after receipt 

of a valid Interconnection Request]During the 

Customer Engagement Window, 

Transmission Provider shall [establish a date 

agreeable to]hold a Scoping Meeting with all 

Interconnection Customers whose valid 

Interconnection Requests were received in 

that Cluster Request Window. If requested by 

an Interconnection Customer[for the Scoping 

Meeting, and such date shall be no later than 

thirty (30) Calendar], Transmission Provider 

shall also hold individual customer-specific 

Scoping Meetings, which must be requested 

no later than fifteen (15) Business Days [from 

receipt of the valid Interconnection Request, 

unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by 

the Parties.]after the close of the Cluster 

Request Window. 

The purpose of the Scoping Meeting shall 

be to discuss alternative interconnection 

options, to exchange information including 

any transmission data that would reasonably 

be expected to impact such interconnection 

options, to discuss the Cluster Study 

materials posted to OASIS pursuant to 

Section 3.5 of this LGIP, if applicable, and to 

analyze such information[and to determine 

the potential feasible Points of 

Interconnection]. In addition, 

Interconnection Customer’s request to 

evaluate whether advanced power flow 

control, transmission switching, dynamic line 

ratings, static synchronous compensators, 

static VAR compensators, and/or electric 

storage providing a transmission service 

could provide cost and/or time savings for 

Interconnection Customer must be submitted 

at the Cluster Study Scoping Meetings. 

Transmission Provider and Interconnection 

Customer will bring to the meeting such 

technical data, including, but not limited to: 

(i) general facility loadings, (ii) general 

instability issues, (iii) general short circuit 

issues, (iv) general voltage issues, and (v) 

general reliability issues as may be 

reasonably required to accomplish the 

purpose of the meeting. Transmission 

Provider and Interconnection Customer will 

also bring to the meeting personnel and other 

resources as may be reasonably required to 

accomplish the purpose of the meeting in the 

time allocated for the meeting. On the basis 

of the meeting, Interconnection Customer 

shall designate its Point of Interconnection.[, 

pursuant to Section 6.1,] and one or more 

available alternative Point(s) of 

Interconnection. The duration of the meeting 

shall be sufficient to accomplish its purpose. 

3.5 OASIS Posting 

3.5.1 OASIS Posting 

Transmission Provider will maintain on its 

OASIS a list of all Interconnection Requests. 

The list will identify, for each 

Interconnection Request: (i) the maximum 

summer and winter megawatt electrical 

output; (ii) the location by county and state; 

(iii) the station or transmission line or lines 

where the interconnection will be made; (iv) 

the projected In-Service Date; (v) the status 

of the Interconnection Request, including 

Queue Position; (vi) the type of 

Interconnection Service being requested; and 

(vii) the availability of any studies related to 

the Interconnection Request; (viii) the date of 

the Interconnection Request; (ix) the type of 

Generating Facility to be 

constructed[(combined cycle, base load or 

combustion turbine and fuel type)]; and (x) 

for Interconnection Requests that have not 

resulted in a completed interconnection, an 

explanation as to why it was not completed. 

Except in the case of an Affiliate, the list will 

not disclose the identity of Interconnection 

Customer until Interconnection Customer 

executes an LGIA or requests that 

Transmission Provider file an unexecuted 

LGIA with FERC. Before holding a Scoping 

Meeting with its Affiliate, Transmission 

Provider shall post on OASIS an advance 

notice of its intent to do so. Transmission 

Provider shall post to its OASIS site any 

deviations from the study timelines set forth 

herein. Interconnection Study reports and 

Optional Interconnection Study reports shall 

be posted to Transmission Provider’s OASIS 

site subsequent to the meeting between 

Interconnection Customer and Transmission 

Provider to discuss the applicable study 

results. Transmission Provider shall also post 

any known deviations in the 

[Large]Generating Facility’s In-Service Date. 

3.5.2 Requirement to Post Interconnection 

Study Metrics 

Transmission Provider will maintain on its 

OASIS or its website summary statistics 

related to processing Interconnection Studies 

pursuant to Interconnection Requests, 

updated quarterly. If Transmission Provider 

posts this information on its website, a link 

to the information must be provided on 

Transmission Provider’s OASIS site. For each 

calendar quarter, Transmission Providers 

must calculate and post the information 

detailed in [sections]Sections 3.5.2.1 through 

3.5.2.4 of this LGIP. 

3.5.2.1 Interconnection [Feasibility Studies] 

Cluster Study Processing Time 

(A) Number of Interconnection Requests 

that had [Interconnection Feasibility]Cluster 

Studies completed within Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter, 

(B) Number of Interconnection Requests 

that had [Interconnection Feasibility]Cluster 

Studies completed within Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter that were completed more 

than [[timeline as listed in Transmission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39999 

Provider’s LGIP]]one hundred fifty (150) 

Calendar Days after [receipt by Transmission 

Provider of the Interconnection Customer’s 

executed Interconnection Feasibility Study 

Agreement]the close of the Customer 

Engagement Window, 

(C) At the end of the reporting quarter, the 

number of active valid Interconnection 

Requests with ongoing incomplete 

[Interconnection Feasibility] Cluster Studies 

where such Interconnection Requests had 

executed [Interconnection Feasibility]a 

Cluster Study Agreement[s] received by 

Transmission Provider more than [[timeline 

as listed in Transmission Provider’s 

LGIP]]one hundred fifty (150) Calendar Days 

before the reporting quarter end, 

(D) Mean time (in days), [Interconnection 

Feasibility]Cluster Studies were completed 

within Transmission Provider’s coordinated 

region during the reporting quarter, from the 

[date when Transmission Provider received 

the executed Interconnection Feasibility 

Study Agreement]commencement of the 

Cluster Study to the date when Transmission 

Provider provided the completed 

[Interconnection Feasibility]Cluster Study 

Report to [the] Interconnection Customer, 

(E) Mean time (in days), Cluster Studies 

were completed within Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter, from the close of the 

Cluster Request Window to the date when 

Transmission Provider provided the 

completed Cluster Study Report to 

Interconnection Customer. 

[(E)](F) Percentage of [Interconnection 

Feasibility]Cluster Studies exceeding 

[[timeline as listed in Transmission 

Provider’s LGIP]]one hundred fifty (150) 

Calendar Days to complete this reporting 

quarter, calculated as the sum of 3.5.2.1(B) 

plus 3.5.2.1(C) divided by the sum of 

3.5.2.1(A) plus 3.5.2.1(C)). 

3.5.2.2 [Interconnection System Impact 

Studies]Cluster Re-Studies Processing 

Time 

(A) Number of Interconnection Requests 

that had [Interconnection System Impact 

Studies]Cluster Re-Studies completed within 

Transmission Provider’s coordinated region 

during the reporting quarter, 

(B) Number of Interconnection Requests 

that had [Interconnection System Impact 

Studies]Cluster Re-Studies completed within 

Transmission Provider’s coordinated region 

during the reporting quarter that were 

completed more than [[timeline as listed in 

Transmission Provider’s LGIP]]one hundred 

fifty (150) Calendar Days after receipt by 

Transmission Provider of 

[the]Interconnection Customer’s executed 

[Interconnection System Impact 

Study]Cluster Re-Study Agreement, 

(C) At the end of the reporting quarter, the 

number of active valid Interconnection 

Requests with ongoing incomplete [System 

Impact Studies]Cluster Re-Studies where 

such Interconnection Requests had executed 

[Interconnection System Impact 

Study]Cluster Re-Study Agreements received 

by Transmission Provider more than 

[[timeline as listed in Transmission 

Provider’s LGIP]]one hundred fifty (150) 

Calendar Days before the reporting quarter 

end, 

(D) Mean time (in days), [Interconnection 

System Impact Studies]Cluster Re-Studies 

were completed within Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter, from the date when 

Transmission Provider received the executed 

[Interconnection System Impact 

Study]Cluster Re-Study Agreement to the 

date when Transmission Provider provided 

the completed [Interconnection System 

Impact Study]Cluster Re-Study Report to 

[the]Interconnection Customer, 

(E) Mean time (in days), Cluster Re-Studies 

were completed within Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter, from the close of the 

Cluster Request Window to the date when 

Transmission Provider provided the 

completed Cluster Re-Study Report to 

Interconnection Customer. 

[(E)](F) Percentage of [Interconnection 

System Impact Studies]Cluster Re-Studies 

exceeding [[timeline as listed in 

Transmission Provider’s LGIP]]one hundred 

fifty (150) Calendar Days to complete this 

reporting quarter, calculated as the sum of 

3.5.2.2(B) plus 3.5.2.2(C) divided by the sum 

of 3.5.2.2(A) plus 3.5.2.2(C)). 

3.5.2.3 Interconnection Facilities Studies 

Processing Time 

***

(E) Mean time (in days), Cluster Re-Studies 

were completed within Transmission 

Provider’s coordinated region during the 

reporting quarter, from the close of the 

Cluster Request Window to the date when 

Transmission Provider provided the 

completed Cluster Re-Study Report to 

Interconnection Customer. 

[(E)](F) Percentage of delayed 

Interconnection Facilities Studies this 

reporting quarter, calculated as the sum of 

3.5.2.3(B) plus 3.5.2.3(C) divided by the sum 

of 3.5.2.3(A) plus 3.5.2.3(C)). 

3.5.2.4 Interconnection Service Requests 

Withdrawn from Interconnection Queue 

* * * 

(C) Number of Interconnection Requests 

withdrawn from Transmission Provider’s 

interconnection queue during the reporting 

quarter before completion of [an 

Interconnection System Impact]a Cluster 

Study, 

* * * 

3.5.4 

* * * 

(i) Transmission Provider must submit a 

report to the Commission describing the 

reason for each Cluster Study, Cluster ReStudy, or individual Interconnection 

Facilities S[s]tudy [or group of clustered 

studies]pursuant to[an] one or more 

Interconnection Request(s) that exceeded its 

deadline (i.e., [45,]150, 90 or 180 days) for 

completion [(excluding any allowance for 

Reasonable Efforts)]. Transmission Provider 

must describe the reasons for each study 

delay and any steps taken to remedy these 

specific issues and, if applicable, prevent 

such delays in the future. The report must be 

filed at the Commission within 45 days of the 

end of the calendar quarter. 

* * * 

3.6 Coordination with Affected Systems 

Transmission Provider will 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 in its applicable Interconnection 

Study within the time frame specified in this 

LGIP. Transmission Provider will include 

such Affected System Operators in all 

meetings held with Interconnection 

Customer as required by this LGIP]. 

Interconnection Customer will cooperate 

with Transmission Provider and Affected 

System Operator 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 

[T]transmission [P]provider with whom 

interconnection has been requested in all 

matters related to the conduct of studies and 

the determination of modifications to 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System[Affected Systems]. 

3.6.1 Initial Notification 

Transmission Provider must notify 

Affected System Operator of a potential 

Affected System impact caused by the 

Interconnection Request within ten (10) 

Business Days of the first event giving rise to 

the identification of the Affected System 

impact. Identification of an Affected System 

impact may occur at the close of the (1) 

Cluster Request Window, (2) Customer 

Engagement Window, (3) Cluster Study, or (4) 

Cluster Re-Study. 

Transmission Provider will provide 

Interconnection Customer with a list of 

potential Affected Systems, along with 

relevant contact information. 

When Transmission Provider acting as an 

Affected System receives notification of an 

impact on Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System, Transmission Provider 

must respond in writing within fifteen (15) 

Business Days whether it intends to conduct 

an Affected System Study. 

3.6.2 Affected System Scoping Meeting 

Within seven (7) Business Days of 

providing written notification that 

Transmission Provider acting as an Affected 

System intends to conduct an Affected 

System Study, Transmission Provider must 

schedule an Affected System Scoping 

Meeting with Affected System 

Interconnection Customer, using best efforts 

to include the transmission provider with 

whom interconnection has been requested. 

The purpose of the Affected System 

Scoping Meeting is to allow all attendees to 

discuss the potential impacts on 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System and how they may be mitigated. 

Attendees will bring to the meeting such 

technical data, personnel, and other 

resources as may be reasonably required to 

accomplish the purpose of the meeting. The 

Affected System Scoping Meeting must be 

held within seven (7) Business Days of being 

scheduled. Within fifteen (15) Business Days 

after the meeting, Transmission Provider 

acting as an Affected System must share with 

the attendees the schedule to complete the 

Affected System Study. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40000 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3.6.3 Affected System Study Process 

Transmission Provider must provide data 

monthly, or more frequently as needed, to 

any Affected System Operators regarding the 

amount and location of generation in 

Transmission Provider’s interconnection 

queue as well as updated information about 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System. 

3.7 Withdrawal 

Interconnection Customer may withdraw 

its Interconnection Request at any time by 

written notice of such withdrawal to 

Transmission Provider. In addition, if 

Interconnection Customer fails to adhere to 

all requirements of this LGIP, except as 

provided in Section 13.5 (Disputes), 

Transmission Provider shall deem the 

Interconnection Request to be withdrawn and 

shall provide written notice to 

Interconnection Customer of the deemed 

withdrawal and an explanation of the reasons 

for such deemed withdrawal. Upon receipt of 

such written notice, Interconnection 

Customer shall have fifteen (15) Business 

Days in which to either respond with 

information or actions that cures the 

deficiency or to notify Transmission Provider 

of its intent to pursue Dispute Resolution. 

Withdrawal shall result in the loss of 

Interconnection Customer’s Queue Position. 

If an Interconnection Customer disputes the 

withdrawal and loss of its Queue Position, 

then during Dispute Resolution, 

Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection 

Request is eliminated from the queue until 

such time that the outcome of Dispute 

Resolution would restore its Queue Position. 

An Interconnection Customer that withdraws 

or is deemed to have withdrawn its 

Interconnection Request shall pay to 

Transmission Provider all costs that 

Transmission Provider prudently incurs with 

respect to that Interconnection Request prior 

to Transmission Provider’s receipt of notice 

described above. Interconnection Customer 

must pay all monies due to Transmission 

Provider before it is allowed to obtain any 

Interconnection Study data or results. 

In case of withdrawal, Transmission 

Provider shall (i) update the OASIS Queue 

Position posting; (ii) impose the Withdrawal 

Penalty described in Section 3.7.1 of this 

LGIP; and (iii) refund to Interconnection 

Customer any portion of the refundable 

portion of Interconnection Customer’s study 

deposit or [study payments]Commercial 

Readiness Deposit that exceeds the costs that 

Transmission Provider has incurred and the 

cost of any penalties that Transmission 

Provider has assessed pursuant to Section 

3.7.1 of this LGIP, including interest 

calculated in accordance with section 

35.19a(a)(2) of FERC’s regulations. In the 

event of such withdrawal, Transmission 

Provider, subject to the confidentiality 

provisions of Section 13.1 of this LGIP, shall 

provide, at Interconnection Customer’s 

request, all information that Transmission 

Provider developed for any completed study 

conducted up to the date of withdrawal of 

the Interconnection Request. 

3.7.1 Withdrawal Penalty 

An Interconnection Customer shall be 

subject to a Withdrawal Penalty if it 

withdraws its Interconnection Request or the 

Generating Facility does not otherwise reach 

Commercial Operation unless: (1) the 

withdrawal does not delay the timing of other 

Generating Facilities within the same Cluster, 

as determined by Transmission Provider; (2) 

the withdrawal does not increase the cost of 

other Generating Facilities within the same 

Cluster, as determined by Transmission 

Provider; (3) Interconnection Customer 

withdraws after receiving the most recent 

Cluster Study Report and the costs assigned 

to the Interconnection Request identified in 

that report have increased by more than 

twenty-five percent (25%) compared to costs 

identified in the previous Cluster Study 

Report or Cluster Re-Study Report; or (4) 

Interconnection Customer withdraws after 

receiving the Interconnection Facilities Study 

report and the costs assigned to the 

Interconnection Request identified in that 

report have increased by more than one 

hundred percent (100%) compared to costs 

identified in the Cluster Study Report. 

3.7.1.1 Calculation of the Withdrawal 

Penalty 

If the withdrawing Interconnection 

Customer has demonstrated any of the 

Commercial Readiness Demonstration 

options in Sections 3.4.2(vi)(a)–(c) of this 

LGIP, and is withdrawing prior to executing, 

or requesting the unexecuted filing of, an 

LGIA and fully meeting the requirements of 

Section 11.3 of this LGIP, Interconnection 

Customer shall be charged one (1) times its 

actual allocated cost of all studies performed 

up until that point. If the withdrawing 

Interconnection Customer only submitted a 

Commercial Readiness Deposit, and is 

withdrawing at any point prior to executing, 

or requesting the unexecuted filing of, an 

LGIA and fully meeting the requirements of 

Section 11.3 of this LGIP, that 

Interconnection Customer’s Withdrawal 

Penalty will be as follows in (a)–(c): 

(a) If Interconnection Customer withdraws 

or is deemed withdrawn during the Cluster 

Study or after receipt of a Cluster Study 

Report, Interconnection Customer will be 

charged two (2) times its actual allocated cost 

of all studies performed for Interconnection 

Customers in the Cluster up until that point, 

regardless of any previous Withdrawal 

Penalty revenues received. This amount will 

be capped at one (1) million dollars. 

(b) If Interconnection Customer withdraws 

or is deemed withdrawn during the Cluster 

Re-Study or after receipt of any applicable restudy reports issued pursuant to Section 7.5 

of this LGIP, Interconnection Customer will 

be charged three (3) times its actual allocated 

cost of all studies performed for 

Interconnection Customers in the Cluster up 

until that point, regardless of any previous 

Withdrawal Penalty revenues received. This 

amount shall be capped at one and one half 

(1.5) million dollars. 

(c) If Interconnection Customer withdraws 

or is deemed withdrawn during the 

Interconnection Facilities Study, after receipt 

of the Interconnection Facilities Study report 

issued pursuant to Section 8.3 of this LGIP, 

or after receipt of the draft LGIA but before 

fully meeting requirements of Section 11.3 of 

this LGIP, Interconnection Customer shall be 

charged five (5) times its actual allocated cost 

of all studies performed for Interconnection 

Customers in the Cluster up until that point, 

regardless of any previous Withdrawal 

Penalty revenues received. This amount shall 

be capped at two (2) million dollars. 

The Withdrawal Penalty for any 

Interconnection Customer that, before 

achieving Commercial Operation, withdraws 

after executing an LGIA and meeting the 

requirements of Section 11.3 of this LGIP 

shall be nine (9) times its actual allocated 

cost of all studies performed for 

Interconnection Customers in the Cluster up 

until that point, regardless of any previous 

Withdrawal Penalty revenues received. In the 

event that Interconnection Customer 

suspends its LGIA, Interconnection Customer 

shall be obligated to pay for costs associated 

with any studies or re-studies required as a 

result of the suspension of the LGIA, 

including any re-studies associated with any 

affected Interconnection Customers with 

lower Queue Positions. 

3.7.1.2 Distribution of the Withdrawal 

Penalty 

Any Withdrawal Penalty revenues shall be 

used to fund studies conducted under the 

Cluster Study Process. Withdrawal Penalty 

revenues shall first be applied, in the form of 

a bill credit, to not-yet-invoiced study costs 

for other Interconnection Customers in the 

same Cluster, and to the extent that such 

studies are fully credited, shall be applied to 

study costs of future Clusters in order of 

Queue Position. Withdrawn Interconnection 

Customers shall not receive a bill credit 

associated with Withdrawal Penalty 

revenues. Distribution of Withdrawal Penalty 

revenues to a specific Cluster Study shall not 

exceed the total actual Cluster Study costs. 

Allocation of Withdrawal Penalty revenues 

within a Cluster to a specific Interconnection 

Customer shall be (1) ninety percent (90%) 

on a pro-rata basis based on requested 

megawatts included in the applicable 

Cluster; and (2) ten percent (10%) on a per 

capita basis based on the number of 

Interconnection Requests in the applicable 

Cluster. Withdrawal Penalty revenues 

associated with Section 3.7.1.1(c) of this LGIP 

shall not be distributed to the remaining 

Interconnection Customers in that Cluster 

until all Interconnection Customers in that 

Cluster have reached Commercial Operation 

and thereafter shall be distributed as 

described above. Transmission Provider shall 

post the balance of Withdrawal Penalty 

revenue held by transmission provider but 

not yet dispersed on its OASIS site and 

update this posting on a quarterly basis. 

3.8 Identification of Contingent Facilities 

Transmission Provider shall post in this 

section a method for identifying the 

Contingent Facilities to be provided to 

Interconnection Customer at the conclusion 

of the [System Impact]Cluster Study and 

included in Interconnection Customer’s 

Large Generator Interconnection Agreement. 

The method shall be sufficiently transparent 

to determine why a specific Contingent 

Facility was identified and how it relates to 

the Interconnection Request. Transmission 

Provider shall also provide, upon request of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40001 

[the]Interconnection Customer, the estimated 

Interconnection Facility and/or Network 

Upgrade costs and estimated in-service 

completion time of each identified 

Contingent Facility when this information is 

readily available and not commercially 

sensitive. 

3.9 Penalties for Failure to Meet Study 

Deadlines 

(1) Transmission Provider is subject to a 

penalty if it fails to complete a Cluster Study, 

Cluster Re-Study, Interconnection Facilities 

Study, or Affected Systems Study by the 

applicable deadline set forth in this LGIP. 

Transmission Provider must pay the penalty 

on a pro rata basis per Interconnection 

Customer to Interconnection Customer(s) in 

the delayed study on the last Business Day 

of each calendar quarter for which a penalty 

applies, starting with the calendar quarter 

immediately following the quarter that 

Transmission Provider exceeded the 

applicable study deadline. The penalty will 

continue to be paid the last Business Day of 

each quarter until Transmission Provider 

completes the study. 

(2) For penalties assessed in accordance 

with this Section, the penalty amount will be 

equal to $500 per Business Day Transmission 

Provider takes to complete that study after 

the applicable deadline set forth in this LGIP. 

The total amount of a penalty assessed under 

this Section will not exceed one hundred 

percent (100%) of the total deposits paid by 

Interconnection Customers for the applicable 

study. 

(3) No penalty will be assessed under this 

Section where a Transmission Provider’s 

failure to complete an Interconnection Study 

is caused by Force Majeure. 

(4) No penalty will be assessed under this 

Section where a study is delayed by 10 

Business Days or less. The penalty amount 

will be calculated from the first day the 

Transmission Provider exceeds the appliable 

study deadline. 

(5) If (a) the transmission provider needs to 

extend the deadline for a particular study 

subject to penalties under this section and (b) 

all interconnection customers in the relevant 

cluster mutually agree to such extension, the 

deadline for that study shall be extended 30 

business days from the original due date. In 

such a scenario, no penalty will be assessed 

for missing the original deadline. 

(6) No penalties shall be assessed until one 

Cluster Study cycle after Transmission 

Provider transitions to the Cluster Study 

Process. 

(7) Transmission Provider must maintain 

on its OASIS or its website summary 

statistics related to penalties assessed under 

this Section, updated quarterly. For each 

calendar quarter, Transmission Provider 

must calculate and post (1) the total amount 

of penalties assessed under this Section 

during the reporting quarter and (2) the 

highest amount of the penalties assessed 

under this Section paid to a single 

Interconnection Customer during the 

reporting quarter. Transmission Provider is 

required to post on its OASIS or its website 

these penalty amounts for each calendar 

quarter within 30 calendar days of the end 

of the calendar quarter. Transmission 

Provider must maintain the quarterly 

measures posted on its OASIS or its website 

for three calendar years with the first 

required report to be one Cluster Study cycle 

after Transmission Provider transitions to the 

Cluster Study Process. 

3.10 Identification of Shared Network 

Upgrades 

As part of the Cluster Study, Transmission 

Provider shall review the proposed 

configuration of the Generating Facility and 

perform a test, if required, to determine a 

Network Upgrade’s eligibility for cost 

sharing. The set of possible Shared Network 

Upgrades included in the test will be all 

Network Upgrades identified through 

Transmission Provider’s study process and 

In-Service for a period of less than five (5) 

years. If the Generating Facility directlyconnects to (1) a Network Upgrade(s) or (2) 

a substation where Network Upgrade(s) 

terminates, then the Network Upgrade(s) is a 

Shared Network Upgrade and 

Interconnection Customer shall share the 

cost of the Shared Network Upgrade. If the 

aforementioned criteria are not met, 

Transmission Provider shall perform a power 

flow analysis to calculate the impacts of the 

Generating Facility on Network Upgrade(s) 

under system-intact conditions and will 

apply the following two-part criteria to 

determine eligibility. First, Transmission 

Provider shall analyze if the impact of the 

Generating Facility on the Network 

Upgrade(s) is either greater than five (5) MW 

or greater than one percent (1%) of the 

transmission facility rating. If the criteria are 

met, Transmission Provider shall proceed to 

the second test. Transmission Provider shall 

analyze if the impact of the Generating 

Facility on Network Upgrade(s) is greater 

than five percent (5%) of the facility rating 

or the power transfer distribution factor is 

greater than twenty percent (20%). If the 

criteria listed in both (1) and (2) are met, the 

Network Upgrade shall be considered a 

Shared Network Upgrade(s) and 

Interconnection Customer shall share the 

cost of the Shared Network Upgrade(s), now 

designated as a Shared Network Upgrade(s). 

The Network Upgrade(s) shall be considered 

Shared Network Upgrade(s) only if they are 

in-service before the Generating Facility’s 

Commercial Operation Date. 

Section 4. Interconnection Request 

Evaluation Process [Queue Position] 

Once an Interconnection Customer has 

submitted a valid Interconnection Request 

pursuant to Section 3.4 of this LGIP, such 

Interconnection Request shall be admitted 

into Transmission Provider’s interconnection 

queue for further processing pursuant to the 

following procedures. 

4.1 Queue Position [General] 

4.1.1 Assignment of Queue Position 

Transmission Provider shall assign a 

Queue Position as follows: the Queue 

Position within the queue shall be assigned 

based upon the date and time of receipt of 

all items required pursuant to the provisions 

of Section 3.4 of this LGIP. All 

Interconnection Requests submitted and 

validated in a single Cluster Request Window 

shall be considered equally queued, but 

Clusters initiated earlier in time shall be 

considered to have a higher Queue Position 

than Clusters initiated later. [the valid 

Interconnection Request; provided that, if the 

sole reason an Interconnection Request is not 

valid is the lack of required information on 

the application form, and Interconnection 

Customer provides such information in 

accordance with Section 3.4.3, then 

Transmission Provider shall assign 

Interconnection Customer a Queue Position 

based on the date the application form was 

originally filed. Moving a Point of 

Interconnection shall result in a lowering of 

Queue Position if it is deemed a Material 

Modification under Section 4.4.3.] 

[The Queue Position of each 

Interconnection Request will be used to 

determine the order of performing the 

Interconnection Studies and determination of 

cost responsibility for the facilities necessary 

to accommodate the Interconnection Request. 

A higher queued] 

4.1.2 Higher Queue Position 

A higher Queue Position assigned to an 

Interconnection Request is one that has been 

placed ‘‘earlier’’ in the queue in relation to 

another Interconnection Request that is 

[lower queued. Transmission Provider may 

allocate the cost of the common upgrades for 

clustered Interconnection Requests without 

regard to Queue Position.]assigned a lower 

Queue Position. All requests studied in a 

single Cluster shall be considered equally 

queued, but Clusters initiated earlier in time 

shall be considered to have a higher Queue 

Position than Clusters initiated later. 

Interconnection Requests within the same 

Cluster shall be equally queued, and 

therefore Queue Position shall have no 

bearing on the allocation of the cost of the 

Network Upgrades identified in the 

applicable Cluster Study (such costs will be 

allocated among Interconnection Requests in 

accordance with Section 4.2.3 of this LGIP). 

[4.2 Clustering 

At Transmission Provider’s option, 

Interconnection Requests may be studied 

serially or in clusters for the purpose of the 

Interconnection System Impact Study. 

Clustering shall be implemented on the 

basis of Queue Position. If Transmission 

Provider elects to study Interconnection 

Requests using Clustering, all 

Interconnection Requests received within a 

period not to exceed one hundred and eighty 

(180) Calendar Days, hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Queue Cluster Window’’ shall be 

studied together without regard to the nature 

of the underlying Interconnection Service, 

whether Energy Resource Interconnection 

Service or Network Resource Interconnection 

Service. The deadline for completing all 

Interconnection System Impact Studies for 

which an Interconnection System Impact 

Study Agreement has been executed during 

a Queue Cluster Window shall be in 

accordance with Section 7.4 of this LGIP, for 

all Interconnection Requests assigned to the 

same Queue Cluster Window. Transmission 

Provider may study an Interconnection 

Request separately to the extent warranted by 

Good Utility Practice based upon the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40002 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

electrical remoteness of the proposed Large 

Generating Facility.] 

4.2. General Study Process 

[Clustering Interconnection System Impact 

Studies]Interconnection Studies performed 

within the Cluster Study Process shall be 

conducted in such a manner to ensure the 

efficient implementation of the applicable 

regional transmission expansion plan in light 

of the Transmission System’s capabilities at 

the time of each study. 

[The Queue Cluster Window shall have a 

fixed time interval based on fixed annual 

opening and closing dates. Any changes to 

the established Queue Cluster Window 

interval and opening or closing dates shall be 

announced with a posting on Transmission 

Provider’s OASIS beginning at least one 

hundred and eighty (180) Calendar Days in 

advance of the change and continuing 

thereafter through the end date of the first 

Queue Cluster Window that is to be 

modified.] 

4.2.2 Optional Resource Solicitation 

Study 

At any time during the Cluster Request 

Window, and upon request of a Resource 

Planning Entity, Transmission Provider may 

initiate an Optional Resource Solicitation 

Study. Such request shall demonstrate that 

the requesting entity meets the definition of 

a Resource Planning Entity and include all 

information necessary for Transmission 

Provider to verify that the requester qualifies 

as a Resource Planning Entity as defined in 

Section 1 of this LGIP. Such request shall 

include a list of Interconnection Requests, 

which have already been submitted to 

Transmission Provider in the current Cluster 

Request Window, that the Resource Planning 

Entity would like evaluated in the Optional 

Resource Solicitation Study. In its request, 

the Resource Planning Entity must group the 

Interconnection Requests into no more than 

five (5) combinations of Interconnection 

Requests for purposes of the Optional 

Resource Solicitation Study. There is no limit 

to how many Interconnection Requests may 

be included in each combination of 

Interconnection Requests. 

Resource Planning Entity may submit for 

inclusion in the Optional Resource 

Solicitation Study an Interconnection 

Request for a Generating Facility that already 

has a Queue Position pursuant to Section 4.1 

of this LGIP, or an Interconnection Request 

for a Generating Facility that is submitted by 

Interconnection Customer during the Cluster 

Request Window in which the Resource 

Planning Entity submits the request for the 

Optional Resource Solicitation Study. In any 

case, Interconnection Customer must meet all 

requirements associated with maintaining its 

Queue Position. 

Transmission Provider may not delay any 

Interconnection Study as a result of an 

Optional Resource Solicitation Study. 

Within ten (10) Business Days of receipt of 

a request to perform an Optional Resource 

Solicitation Study that includes valid 

Interconnection Requests as described in 

Section 3.4 of this LGIP, Transmission 

Provider and Resource Planning Entity shall 

meet to determine a mutually agreeable 

scope for the Optional Resource Solicitation 

Study. 

Transmission Provider shall conduct the 

Optional Resource Solicitation Study 

separate from the Cluster Study Process. In 

conducting the Optional Resource 

Solicitation Study, Transmission Provider 

shall evaluate each combination of 

Interconnection Requests submitted by the 

Resource Planning Entity as a single group, 

in the same manner it performs Cluster 

Studies under Section 7.3 of this LGIP. Such 

studies in connection with a Resource Plan 

or Resource Solicitation Process shall be 

implemented based upon Queue Position 

(relative to Clusters with higher or lower 

Queue Positions) and shall consider Resource 

Planning Entity’s interconnection needs 

identified in the Resource Plan or Resource 

Solicitation Process. The Resource Planning 

Entity must act as the point of contact for 

purposes of the Optional Resource 

Solicitation Study for all Interconnection 

Requests submitted to the Optional Resource 

Solicitation Study. Thereafter, the Optional 

Resource Solicitation Study shall proceed in 

parallel with the annual Cluster Study 

described in Section 7 of this LGIP. The 

Optional Resource Solicitation Study shall be 

completed within 135 days of 

commencement (15 days before the 

conclusion of the annual Cluster Study 

described in Section 7 of this LGIP). 

After Transmission Provider completes the 

Optional Resource Solicitation Study for the 

requested combinations, the results will be 

provided to the Resource Planning Entity in 

an Optional Resource Solicitation Study 

Report. The results will also be posted on 

Transmission Provider’s OASIS consistent 

with the posting of other study results. 

The provision of the Optional Resource 

Solicitation Study Report concludes 

Transmission Provider’s responsibilities with 

regard to the requested Optional Resource 

Solicitation Study. Interconnection Requests 

may proceed in the remainder of the Cluster 

Study Process either as part of the Resource 

Plan or as independent Interconnection 

Requests. It is the responsibility of 

Interconnection Customer to provide 

Transmission Provider with evidence of being 

selected in a Resource Plan or Resource 

Solicitation Process in a manner sufficient to 

demonstrate commercial readiness following 

Interconnection Customer’s receipt of the 

Cluster Study Report (pursuant to Section 7.3 

of this LGIP) and prior to entering the 

Interconnection Facilities Study (pursuant to 

Section 8.3 of this LGIP). Inclusion in an 

Optional Resource Solicitation Study in no 

way exempts Interconnection Customer from 

Withdrawal Penalties under Section 3.7.1 of 

this LGIP. 

4.2.3 Cost Allocation for Transmission 

Provider’s Interconnection Facilities 

and Network Upgrades 

(1) For Network Upgrades identified in 

Cluster Studies, Transmission Provider shall 

calculate each Interconnection Customer’s 

share of the costs based on the proportional 

impact of each individual Generating Facility 

in the Cluster Study on the Network Upgrade 

or Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities. {Transmission Provider shall 

include in this section the thresholds and 

metrics it uses for its proportional impact 

method.} An Interconnection Customer that 

funds Network Upgrades is entitled to 

transmission credits as provided in Article 

11.4 of the LGIA. 

(2) The costs of any required Transmission 

Provider’s Interconnection Facilities will be 

directly assigned to Interconnection 

Customer(s) using such facilities. The cost of 

such Transmission Provider’s 

Interconnection Facilities will be shared 

equally among all Interconnection Customers 

sharing use of Transmission Provider’s 

Interconnection Facilities. 

* * * 

4.4 Modifications 

Interconnection Customer shall submit to 

Transmission Provider, in writing, 

modifications to any information provided in 

the Interconnection Request. Interconnection 

Customer shall retain its Queue Position if 

the modifications are in accordance with 

Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, [or]4.4.5 or 4.4.7 of this 

LGIP, or are determined not to be Material 

Modifications pursuant to Section 4.4.3 of 

this LGIP. 

Notwithstanding the above, during the 

course of the Interconnection Studies, either 

Interconnection Customer or Transmission 

Provider may identify changes to the planned 

interconnection that may improve the costs 

and benefits (including reliability) of the 

interconnection, and the ability of the 

proposed change to accommodate the 

Interconnection Request. To the extent the 

identified changes are acceptable to 

Transmission Provider, Interconnection 

Customer and any impacted Interconnection 

Customer in the same Cluster, such 

acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld, 

Transmission Provider shall modify the Point 

of Interconnection prior to return of the 

executed Cluster Study Agreement, provided, 

however, such identified changes do not 

result in a Material Modification [and/or 

configuration in accordance with such 

changes and proceed with any re-studies 

necessary to do so in accordance with 

Section 6.4, Section 7.6 and Section 8.5 as 

applicable]and Interconnection Customer 

shall retain its Queue Position. 

4.4.1 Prior to the return of the executed 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study Agreement to Transmission Provider, 

modifications permitted under this Section 

shall include specifically: (a) a decrease of up 

to 60 percent of electrical output (MW) of the 

proposed project, through either (1) a 

decrease in plant size or (2) a decrease in 

Interconnection Service level (consistent 

with the process described in Section 3.1 of 

this LGIP) accomplished by applying 

Transmission Provider-approved injectionlimiting equipment; (b) modifying the 

technical parameters associated with 

the[Large] Generating Facility technology or 

the [Large]Generating Facility step-up 

transformer impedance characteristics; and 

(c) modifying the interconnection 

configuration. For plant increases, the 

incremental increase in plant output will go 

[to]in the [end of the queue]next Cluster 

Study Window for the purposes of cost 

allocation and study analysis. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40003 

* * * 

4.4.3 Prior to making any modification 

other than those specifically permitted by 

Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.5 of this LGIP, 

Interconnection Customer may first request 

that Transmission Provider evaluate whether 

such modification is a Material Modification. 

In response to Interconnection Customer’s 

request, Transmission Provider shall evaluate 

the proposed modifications prior to making 

them and inform Interconnection Customer 

in writing of whether the modifications 

would constitute a Material Modification. 

Interconnection Customer may request, and 

Transmission Provider shall evaluate within 

sixty (60) calendar days, the addition of a 

Generating Facility with the same Point of 

Interconnection as indicated in the 

Interconnection Request to the 

Interconnection Request if the addition of the 

Generating Facility does not increase the 

requested Interconnection Service level. Any 

change to the Point of Interconnection, 

except those deemed acceptable under 

Sections 3.1.2 or 4.4 of this LGIP[.1, 6.1, 7.2] 

or so allowed elsewhere, shall constitute a 

Material Modification. Interconnection 

Customer may then withdraw the proposed 

modification or proceed with a new 

Interconnection Request for such 

modification. 

4.4.4 Upon receipt of Interconnection 

Customer’s request for modification 

permitted under this Section 4.4, 

Transmission Provider shall commence and 

perform any necessary additional studies as 

soon as practicable, but in no event shall 

Transmission Provider commence such 

studies later than thirty (30) Calendar Days 

after receiving notice of Interconnection 

Customer’s request. Any additional studies 

resulting from such modification shall be 

done at Interconnection Customer’s cost. Any 

such modification of the Interconnection 

Request must be accompanied by any 

resulting updates to the models described in 

Attachment A to Appendix 1 of this LGIP. 

4.4.5 Extensions of less than three (3) 

cumulative years in the Commercial 

Operation Date of the [Large]Generating 

Facility to which the Interconnection Request 

relates are not material and should be 

handled through construction sequencing. 

For purposes of this Section, the Commercial 

Operation Date reflected in the initial 

Interconnection Request shall be used to 

calculate the permissible extension. Such 

cumulative extensions include extensions 

requested after execution of the, or the filing 

of an unexecuted, LGIA by Interconnection 

Customer. 

* * * 

4.4.7 Prior to determining whether the 

addition of a Generating Facility with the 

same Point of Interconnection as indicated in 

the Interconnection Request to an 

Interconnection Request constitutes a 

Material Modification, Transmission Provider 

shall evaluate within sixty (60) Calendar 

Days the proposed addition of such a 

Generating Facility if it does not increase the 

requested Interconnection Service level. 

Section 5. Procedures for Interconnection 

Requests Submitted Prior to Effective Date of 

the Cluster Study Revisions [Standard 

Large Generator Interconnection 

Procedures] 

5.1 Procedures for Transitioning to the 

Cluster Study Process [Queue Position for 

Pending Requests.] 

5.1.1 

[Any Interconnection Customer assigned a 

Queue Position prior to the effective date of 

this LGIP shall retain that Queue Position.] 

Any Interconnection Customer assigned a 

Queue Position prior to the effective date of 

this LGIP shall retain that Queue Position 

subject to the requirements in Sections 

5.1.1.1 and 5.1.1.2 of this LGIP. Any 

Interconnection Customer that fails to meet 

these requirements shall have its 

Interconnection Request deemed withdrawn 

without penalty. In such case, all other 

aspects of Section 3.7 of this LGIP remain 

applicable. Any unused deposit amounts of 

withdrawn Interconnection Requests shall be 

returned to Interconnection Customer 

pursuant to Section 3.7 of this LGIP. If an 

Interconnection Customer elects to continue 

with a Transitional Serial Interconnection 

Facilities Study or a Transitional Cluster 

Study, as described below, Transmission 

Provider shall retain the current study 

deposits, and Interconnection Customer shall 

be responsible for the entire cost of all 

studies pursuant to Sections 4.2.3 and 13.3 

of this LGIP. 

5.1.1.1 Transitional Serial Study 

[If an Interconnection Study Agreement 

has not been executed as of the effective date 

of this LGIP, then such Interconnection 

Study, and any subsequent Interconnection 

Studies, shall be processed in accordance 

with this LGIP.] 

An Interconnection Customer that has (a) 

a final System Impact Study Report that 

identifies facilities required to feasibly 

interconnect and (b) an Interconnection 

Facilities Study Agreement that was executed 

before the effective date of this LGIP, may opt 

to continue with the Interconnection 

Facilities Study process if Interconnection 

Customer: (1) meets each of the following 

requirements that demonstrate commercial 

readiness; and (2) executes a Transitional 

Serial Interconnection Facilities Study 

Agreement in the form of Appendix 14 of this 

LGIP within sixty (60) Calendar Days of the 

effective date of this LGIP. All of the 

following are required: 

(1) A deposit equal to one hundred percent 

(100%) of the costs identified for 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities and Network Upgrades in the final 

System Impact Study Report. This deposit 

will be trued up to reflect actual costs after 

the associated facilities are in-service. If 

Interconnection Customer does not withdraw, 

the deposit shall be trued up to actual costs 

and applied to future construction costs 

described in Interconnection Customer’s 

eventual LGIA. If Interconnection Customer 

withdraws or otherwise does not reach 

Commercial Operation, Transmission 

Provider shall refund the deposit after the 

final invoice for study costs and Withdrawal 

Penalty is settled. The deposit shall be in the 

form of an irrevocable letter of credit upon 

which Transmission Provider may draw or 

cash where cash deposits will be treated 

according to Section 3.7 of this LGIP. 

(2) Exclusive Site Control for the entire 

Generating Facility and any Interconnection 

Customer’s Interconnection Facilities 

pursuant to Section 3.4.2 of this LGIP. 

(3) One of the following Commercial 

Readiness Demonstration options totaling the 

entire Generating Facility Capacity (or 

requested Interconnection Service amount if 

the requested Interconnection Service is less 

than the Generating Facility Capacity): 

(a) Executed term sheet (or comparable 

evidence as determined by Transmission 

Provider) related to a contract for sale of (1) 

the constructed Generating Facility to a loadserving entity or to a commercial, industrial, 

or other large end-use customer, (2) the 

Generating Facility’s energy or capacity 

where the term of sale is not less than five 

(5) years, or (3) the Generating Facility’s 

ancillary services where the term of sale is 

not less than five (5) years; 

(b) Reasonable evidence that the 

Generating Facility has been selected in a 

Resource Plan or Resource Solicitation 

Process by or for a load-serving entity, is 

being developed by a load-serving entity, or 

is being developed for purposes of a sale to 

a commercial, industrial, or other large enduse customer; 

(c) A Provisional LGIA that has been filed 

at the Commission executed, or requested to 

be filed unexecuted, and which is not in 

suspension pursuant to Article 5.16 of the 

LGIA, includes a commitment to construct 

the Generating Facility, and has a 

Commercial Operation Date no later than 

December 31, 2027. 

Transmission Provider shall conduct each 

Transitional Interconnection Facilities Study 

and issue the associated Transitional 

Interconnection Facilities Study Report 

within one hundred fifty (150) Calendar Days 

of the effective date of this LGIP. 

After Transmission Provider issues each 

Transitional Interconnection Facilities Study 

Report, the remaining process shall proceed 

according to Section 11 of this LGIP. All 

LGIA negotiations shall be completed and the 

LGIA executed (or filed unexecuted) within 

sixty (60) Calendar Days of the tender of the 

draft LGIA or the Interconnection Request 

shall be deemed withdrawn pursuant to 

Section 3.7 of this LGIP unless extended by 

mutual agreement of Transmission Provider 

and Interconnection Customer. During LGIA 

negotiation, Transmission Provider shall not 

grant a request to change the previouslyindicated Commercial Operation Date and to 

delay the construction of Network Upgrades 

and/or Interconnection Facilities if such 

delay would negatively affect Interconnection 

Customers with lower or equal Queue 

Positions. If Interconnection Customer 

withdraws or otherwise does not reach 

Commercial Operation, a Withdrawal Penalty 

equal to nine (9) times Interconnection 

Customer’s actual allocated cost of all 

studies performed for the Transitional 

Cluster Study up until that point will be 

imposed on Interconnection Customer. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40004 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5.1.1.2 Transitional Cluster Study 

[If an Interconnection Study Agreement 

has been executed prior to the effective date 

of this LGIP, such Interconnection Study 

shall be completed in accordance with the 

terms of such agreement. With respect to any 

remaining studies for which an 

Interconnection Customer has not signed an 

Interconnection Study Agreement prior to the 

effective date of the LGIP, Transmission 

Provider must offer Interconnection 

Customer the option of either continuing 

under Transmission Provider’s existing 

interconnection study process or going 

forward with the completion of the necessary 

Interconnection Studies (for which it does 

not have a signed Interconnection Studies 

Agreement) in accordance with this LGIP.] 

An Interconnection Customer with an 

assigned Queue Position as of the effective 

date of this LGIP may opt to enter the 

combined system impact and interconnection 

facilities Transitional Cluster Study if 

Interconnection Customer: (1) meets each of 

the following requirements listed as (1)–(4) in 

this section that demonstrate commercial 

readiness; and (2) executes a Transitional 

Cluster Study Agreement in the form of 

Appendix 13 to this LGIP within sixty (60) 

Calendar Days of the effective date of this 

LGIP. All Interconnection Requests that enter 

the Transitional Cluster Study shall be 

considered to have an equal Queue Position. 

All identified Network Upgrade costs shall be 

allocated according to Section 4.2.3 of this 

LGIP. Transitional Cluster Study costs shall 

be allocated according to the method 

described in Section 4.2.3 of this LGIP. 

Interconnection Customer may make a 

one-time extension to its requested 

Commercial Operation Date upon entry into 

the Transitional Cluster Study, any such 

extension not to exceed until the date of 

December 31, 2027. 

All of the following must be included in a 

request to opt into a Transitional Cluster 

Study: 

(1) A selection of either Energy Resource 

Interconnection Service or Network Resource 

Interconnection Service. 

(2) A deposit on Transmission Provider’s 

Interconnection Facilities and Network 

Upgrades expected to be identified in the 

Transitional Cluster Study. The deposit shall 

be equal to five million dollars ($5,000,000) 

and be in the form of an irrevocable letter of 

credit upon which Transmission Provider 

may draw or cash where cash deposits will 

be treated according to Section 3.7 of this 

LGIP. If Interconnection Customer does not 

withdraw, the deposit shall be reconciled 

with and applied towards future construction 

costs described in the LGIA. Any amounts in 

excess of the actual construction costs shall 

be returned to Interconnection Customer 

within thirty (30) days of the date of 

Commercial Operation. If Interconnection 

Customer withdraws or otherwise does not 

reach Commercial Operation, Transmission 

Provider must refund the deposit once the 

final invoice for study costs and Withdrawal 

Penalty is settled. 

(3) Exclusive Site Control for the entire 

Generating Facility. 

(4) One of the following Commercial 

Readiness Demonstration options totaling the 

entire Generating Facility Capacity (or 

requested Interconnection Service amount if 

the requested Interconnection Service is less 

than the Generating Facility Capacity): 

(a) Executed term sheet (or comparable 

evidence as determined by Transmission 

Provider) related to a contract for sale of (1) 

the constructed Generating Facility to a loadserving entity or to a commercial, industrial, 

or other large end-use customer, (2) the 

Generating Facility’s energy or capacity 

where the term of sale is not less than five 

(5) years, or (3) the Generating Facility’s 

ancillary services where the term of sale is 

not less than five (5) years; 

(b) Reasonable evidence that the 

Generating Facility has been selected in a 

Resource Plan or Resource Solicitation 

Process by or for a load-serving entity, is 

being developed by a load-serving entity, or 

is being developed for purposes of a sale to 

a commercial, industrial, or other large enduse customer; 

(c) A Provisional LGIA that has been filed 

at the Commission executed, or requested to 

be filed unexecuted, and which is not in 

suspension pursuant to Article 5.16 of the 

LGIA, includes a commitment to construct 

the Generating Facility, and has a 

Commercial Operation Date no later than 

December 31, 2027. 

Transmission Provider shall conduct the 

Transitional Cluster Study and issue both an 

associated interim Transitional Serial Study 

Report and an associated final Transitional 

Serial Study Report. The interim Transitional 

Cluster Study report shall provide the 

following information: 

—identification of any circuit breaker short 

circuit capability limits exceeded as a 

result of the interconnection; 

—identification of any thermal overload or 

voltage limit violations resulting from the 

interconnection; 

—identification of any instability or 

inadequately damped response to system 

disturbances resulting from the 

interconnection; and 

—Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities and Network Upgrades that are 

expected to be required as a result of the 

Interconnection Request(s) and a nonbinding, good faith estimate of cost 

responsibility and a non-binding, good 

faith estimated time to construct. 

In addition to the information provided in 

the interim Transitional Cluster Study report, 

the final Transitional Cluster Study Report 

shall: (1) provide a description of, estimated 

cost of, and schedule for required facilities to 

interconnect the Generating Facility to the 

Transmission System; and (2) address the 

short circuit, instability, and power flow 

issues identified in the interim Transitional 

Cluster Study report. 

The interim and final Transitional Cluster 

Study Reports shall be issued within three 

hundred (300) and three hundred sixty (360) 

Calendar Days of the effective date of this 

LGIP, respectively, and shall be posted on 

Transmission Provider’s OASIS consistent 

with the posting of other study results. 

Interconnection customers included in the 

Transitional Cluster Study shall have thirty 

(30) days to comment on the interim 

Transitional Cluster Study, once it has been 

issued. 

After Transmission Provider issues the 

final Transitional Cluster Study Report, the 

remaining process shall proceed according to 

Section 11 of this LGIP. All LGIA negotiations 

shall be completed and the LGIA executed 

(or filed unexecuted) within sixty (60) 

Calendar Days of the tender of the draft LGIA 

or the Interconnection Request is deemed 

withdrawn unless extended by mutual 

agreement of Transmission Provider and 

Interconnection Customer. During LGIA 

negotiations, Transmission Provider shall not 

grant any request to change the previouslyindicated Commercial Operation Date and to 

delay the construction of Transmission 

Provider’s Interconnection Facilities or 

Network Upgrades if such delay would 

negatively affect Interconnection Customers 

with lower or equal Queue Positions. 

If Interconnection Customer withdraws or 

otherwise does not reach Commercial 

Operation, a Withdrawal Penalty equal to 

nine (9) times Interconnection Customer’s 

total study cost will be imposed. 

[5.1.1.3 If an LGIA has been submitted to 

FERC for approval before the effective date of 

the LGIP, then the LGIA would be 

grandfathered. 

5.1.2 Transition Period 

To the extent necessary, Transmission 

Provider and Interconnection Customers with 

an outstanding request (i.e., an 

Interconnection Request for which an LGIA 

has not been submitted to FERC for approval 

as of the effective date of this LGIP) shall 

transition to this LGIP within a reasonable 

period of time not to exceed sixty (60) 

Calendar Days. The use of the term 

‘‘outstanding request’’ herein shall mean any 

Interconnection Request, on the effective date 

of this LGIP: (i) that has been submitted but 

not yet accepted by Transmission Provider; 

(ii) where the related interconnection 

agreement has not yet been submitted to 

FERC for approval in executed or unexecuted 

form, (iii) where the relevant Interconnection 

Study Agreements have not yet been 

executed, or (iv) where any of the relevant 

Interconnection Studies are in process but 

not yet completed. Any Interconnection 

Customer with an outstanding request as of 

the effective date of this LGIP may request a 

reasonable extension of any deadline, 

otherwise applicable, if necessary to avoid 

undue hardship or prejudice to its 

Interconnection Request. A reasonable 

extension shall be granted by Transmission 

Provider to the extent consistent with the 

intent and process provided for under this 

LGIP.] 

* * * 

Section 6. Interconnection Information 

Access [Feasibility Study] 

6.1 Informational Interconnection 

[Feasibility]Study Agreement 

At any time, any prospective 

Interconnection Customer may 

request,[Simultaneously with the 

acknowledgement of a valid Interconnection 

Request]and Transmission Provider shall 

perform, one or more Informational 

Interconnection Studies. [provide to 

Interconnection Customer an Interconnection 

Feasibility Study Agreement in the form of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40005 

Appendix 2.]Any prospective 

Interconnection Customer (including 

affiliates) shall have no more than five (5) 

requests for Informational Interconnection 

Studies pending at one time. The requesting 

party shall submit a separate Informational 

Interconnection Study Request for each site 

and may submit multiple Informational 

Interconnection Study Requests for a single 

site. The requesting party must submit a 

$10,000 deposit with each Informational 

Interconnection Study Request even when 

more than one request is submitted for a 

single site. An Informational Interconnection 

Study Request to evaluate one site at two 

different voltage levels shall be treated as two 

Informational Interconnection Study 

Requests. At the time the Informational 

Interconnection Study Request is submitted, 

the requesting party must request either 

Energy Resource Interconnection Service or 

Network Resource Interconnection Service, 

as described in Section 3.2 of this LGIP; 

provided, however, any prospective 

Interconnection Customer requesting an 

Informational Interconnection Study for 

Network Resource Interconnection Service 

may also request that it be concurrently 

studied for Energy Resource Interconnection 

Service. The request shall use the 

Informational Interconnection Study Request 

form in Appendix 2 of this LGIP and shall 

describe the assumptions to be used in the 

Informational Interconnection Study within 

the scope described in Section 6.2 of this 

LGIP. 

Within seven (7) Business Days after 

receipt of an Informational Interconnection 

Study Request, Transmission Provider shall 

provide to the requesting party an 

Informational Interconnection Study 

Agreement in the form of Attachment A to 

Appendix 2. The Informational 

Interconnection [Feasibility]Study 

Agreement shall: (1) specify the scope of 

work for the Informational Interconnection 

Study, subject to other requirements in 

Section 6.2 of this LGIP, (2) specify the 

technical data that the requesting party must 

provide, and (3) Transmission Provider’s 

estimate of the cost of the Informational 

Interconnection Study. To the extent known 

by Transmission Provider, such estimate 

shall include any study costs expected to be 

incurred by any Affected System whose 

participation may be necessary to complete 

the Informational Interconnection Study. The 

requesting party shall execute the 

Informational Interconnection Study 

Agreement within ten (10) Business Days of 

receipt and deliver the Informational 

Interconnection Study Agreement, all 

required technical data, and a $10,000 

deposit to Transmission Provider. [that 

Interconnection Customer is responsible for 

the actual cost of the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study. Within five (5) Business 

Days following the Scoping Meeting 

Interconnection Customer shall specify for 

inclusion in the attachment to the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study Agreement 

the Point(s) of Interconnection and any 

reasonable alternative Point(s) of 

Interconnection. Within five (5) Business 

Days following Transmission Provider’s 

receipt of such designation, Transmission 

Provider shall tender to Interconnection 

Customer the Interconnection Feasibility 

Study Agreement signed by Transmission 

Provider, which includes a good faith 

estimate of the cost for completing the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study. 

Interconnection Customer shall execute and 

deliver to Transmission Provider the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study Agreement 

along with a $10,000 deposit no later than 

thirty (30) Calendar Days after its receipt.] 

[On or before the return of the executed 

Feasibility Study Agreement to Transmission 

Provider, Interconnection Customer shall 

provide the technical data called for in 

Appendix 1, Attachment A. 

If the Interconnection Feasibility Study 

uncovers any unexpected result(s) not 

contemplated during the Scoping Meeting, a 

substitute Point of Interconnection identified 

by either Interconnection Customer or 

Transmission Provider, and acceptable to the 

other, such acceptance not to be 

unreasonably withheld, will be substituted 

for the designated Point of Interconnection 

specified above without loss of Queue 

Position, and Re-studies shall be completed 

pursuant to Section 6.4 as applicable. For the 

purpose of this Section 6.1, if Transmission 

Provider and Interconnection Customer 

cannot agree on the substituted Point of 

Interconnection, then Interconnection 

Customer may direct that one of the 

alternatives as specified in the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study Agreement, 

as specified pursuant to Section 3.4.4, shall 

be the substitute. 

If Interconnection Customer and 

Transmission Provider agree to forgo the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study, 

Transmission Provider will initiate an 

Interconnection System Impact Study under 

Section 7 of this LGIP and apply the $10,000 

deposit towards the Interconnection System 

Impact Study.] 

6.2 Scope of Informational 

Interconnection [Feasibility]Study 

The Informational Interconnection 

[Feasibility]Study shall preliminarily 

evaluate the feasibility of the proposed 

interconnection to the Transmission System. 

The Informational Interconnection 

[Feasibility]Study will consist of a sensitivity 

analysis based on the assumptions specified 

by the requesting party in the Informational 

Interconnection Study Agreement. The 

Informational Interconnection Study will 

identify the prospective Transmission 

Provider’s Interconnection Facilities and the 

Network Upgrades, and the estimated cost 

thereof, that may be required to provide 

transmission service or Interconnection 

Service based upon the results of the 

Informational Interconnection Study. The 

Informational Interconnection Study shall be 

performed solely for informational purposes. 

Transmission Provider shall coordinate the 

study with any Affected Systems that may be 

affected by the types of Interconnection 

Services that are being studied. Transmission 

Provider shall utilize existing studies to the 

extent practicable in conducting the 

Informational Interconnection Study. The 

Informational Interconnection Study will 

consider the Base Case as well as all 

generating facilities (and with respect to (iii), 

any identified Network Upgrades) that, on 

the date the Interconnection Feasibility 

Study is commenced: (i) are directly 

interconnected to the Transmission System; 

(ii) are interconnected to Affected Systems 

and may have an impact on the 

Interconnection Request; (iii) have a pending 

higher queued Interconnection Request to 

interconnect to the Transmission System; 

and (iv) have no Queue Position but have 

executed an LGIA or requested that an 

unexecuted LGIA be filed with FERC. The 

Informational Interconnection [Feasibility] 

Study will consist of a power flow and short 

circuit analysis. [The Interconnection 

Feasibility Study will provide a list of 

facilities and a non-binding good faith 

estimate of cost responsibility and a nonbinding good faith estimated time to 

construct.] 

6.3 Informational Interconnection 

Feasibility Study Procedures 

[Transmission Provider shall utilize 

existing studies to the extent practicable 

when it performs the study.] Transmission 

Provider shall [use Reasonable Efforts 

to]complete the Informational 

Interconnection [Feasibility]Study no later 

than forty-five (45) Calendar Days after 

Transmission Provider receives the fully 

executed Informational Interconnection 

[Feasibility]Study Agreement. If 

Transmission Provider is unable to complete 

the Informational Interconnection Study 

within such time period, it will notify the 

requesting party and provide an estimated 

completion date and an explanation of the 

reasons why additional time is required. [At 

the request of Interconnection Customer or at 

any time Transmission Provider determines 

that it will not meet the required time frame 

for completing the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study, Transmission Provider 

shall notify Interconnection Customer as to 

the schedule status of the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study. If Transmission Provider is 

unable to complete the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study within that time period, it 

shall notify Interconnection Customer and 

provide an estimated completion date with 

an explanation of the reasons why additional 

time is required. Upon request, Transmission 

Provider shall provide Interconnection 

Customer supporting documentation, 

workpapers and relevant power flow, short 

circuit and stability databases for the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study, subject to 

confidentiality arrangements consistent with 

Section 13.1. 

Transmission Provider shall study the 

Interconnection Request at the level of 

service requested by the Interconnection 

Customer, unless otherwise required to study 

the full Generating Facility Capacity due to 

safety or reliability concerns. 

6.3.1 Meeting with Transmission Provider 

Within ten (10) Business Days of providing 

an Interconnection Feasibility Study report to 

Interconnection Customer, Transmission 

Provider and Interconnection Customer shall 

meet to discuss the results of the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study.] 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40006 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6.4 Publicly Posted Interconnection 

Information. [Re-Study.] 

[If Re-Study of the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study is required due to a higher 

queued project dropping out of the queue, or 

a modification of a higher queued project 

subject to Section 4.4, or re-designation of the 

Point of Interconnection pursuant to Section 

6.1 Transmission Provider shall notify 

Interconnection Customer in writing. Such 

Re-Study shall take not longer than forty-five 

(45) Calendar Days from the date of the 

notice. Any cost of Re-Study shall be borne 

by [the] Interconnection Customer being restudied.] Transmission Provider shall 

maintain and make available on its public 

website: (1) an interactive visual 

representation of the estimated incremental 

injection capacity (in megawatts) available at 

each bus in Transmission Provider’s footprint 

under N-1 conditions, and (2) a table of 

metrics concerning the estimated impact of a 

potential generating facility on Transmission 

Provider’s Transmission System based on a 

user-specified addition of a particular 

number of megawatts at a particular voltage 

level at a particular point of interconnection. 

At a minimum, for each monitored facility 

impacted by the user-specified generation 

addition, the following information will be 

provided in the table: (1) the distribution 

factor; (2) the megawatt impact (based on the 

proposed project size and the distribution 

factor); (3) the percentage impact on the 

monitored facility (based on the megawatt 

values of the proposed project and the 

monitored facility rating); (4) the percentage 

of power flow on the monitored facility before 

the proposed project; (5) the percentage 

power flow on the monitored facility after the 

injection of the proposed project. These 

metrics must be calculated based on the 

power flow model of the Transmission 

System with the transfer simulated from each 

bus to the whole Transmission Provider’s 

footprint (to approximate Network Resource 

Interconnection Service), and with the 

incremental capacity at each bus 

decremented by the existing and queued 

generation (based on the existing or 

requested interconnection service limit of the 

generation). These metrics must be updated 

within 30 days after the completion of each 

Cluster Study and Cluster Re-Study period. 

This information must be made available on 

Transmission Provider’s public website, 

without a password or a fee. The website will 

define all underlying assumptions, including 

the name of the most recent Cluster Study or 

Re-Study used in the base case and 

disclaimers for any interconnection 

constraints not included or considered. 

Section 7. [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study 

7.1 [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study Agreement 

[Unless otherwise agreed, pursuant to the 

Scoping Meeting provided in Section 3.4.4, 

simultaneously with the delivery of the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study to 

Interconnection Customer]No later than five 

(5) Business Days after the close of a Cluster 

Request Window, Transmission Provider 

shall [provide ]tender to each 

Interconnection Customer [an]that submitted 

a valid Interconnection [System Impact] 

Request a Cluster Study Agreement in the 

form of Appendix 3 to this LGIP. The 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study Agreement shall [provide that ]require 

Interconnection Customer [shall]to 

compensate Transmission Provider for the 

actual cost of the [Interconnection System 

Impact Study.]Cluster Study pursuant to 

Section 13.3 of this LGIP. The specifications, 

assumptions, or other provisions in the 

appendices of the Cluster Study Agreement 

provided pursuant to Section 7.1 of this LGIP 

shall be subject to change by Transmission 

Provider following the conclusion of the 

Scoping Meeting. [Within three (3) Business 

Days following the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study results meeting, 

Transmission Provider shall provide to 

Interconnection Customer a non-binding 

good faith estimate of the cost and timeframe 

for completing the Interconnection System 

Impact Study.] 

7.2 Execution of [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study Agreement 

Interconnection Customer shall execute the 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study Agreement and deliver the executed 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study Agreement to Transmission Provider 

no later than [thirty (30) Calendar Days after 

its receipt along with demonstration of Site 

Control, and a $50,000 deposit]the close of 

the Customer Engagement Window. 

If Interconnection Customer does not 

provide all such technical data when it 

delivers the [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study Agreement, 

Transmission Provider shall notify 

Interconnection Customer of the deficiency 

within five (5) Business Days of the receipt 

of the executed [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study Agreement and 

Interconnection Customer shall cure the 

deficiency within ten (10) Business Days of 

receipt of the notice, provided, however, 

such deficiency does not include failure to 

deliver the executed [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study Agreement or deposit. 

[If the Interconnection System Impact 

Study uncovers any unexpected result(s) not 

contemplated during the Scoping Meeting 

and the Interconnection Feasibility Study, a 

substitute Point of Interconnection identified 

by either Interconnection Customer or 

Transmission Provider, and acceptable to the 

other, such acceptance not to be 

unreasonably withheld, will be substituted 

for the designated Point of Interconnection 

specified above without loss of Queue 

Position, and restudies shall be completed 

pursuant to Section 7.6 as applicable. For the 

purpose of this Section 7.2, if Transmission 

Provider and Interconnection Customer 

cannot agree on the substituted Point of 

Interconnection, then Interconnection 

Customer may direct that one of the 

alternatives as specified in the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study Agreement, 

as specified pursuant to Section 3.4.4, shall 

be the substitute.] 

7.3 Scope of [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study 

The [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study shall evaluate the 

impact of the proposed interconnection on 

the reliability of the Transmission System. 

The [Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study will consider the Base Case as well as 

all generating facilities (and with respect to 

(iii) below, any identified Network Upgrades 

associated with such higher queued 

interconnection) that, on the date the 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study is commenced: (i) are directly 

interconnected to the Transmission System; 

(ii) are interconnected to Affected Systems 

and may have an impact on the 

Interconnection Request; (iii) have a pending 

higher queued Interconnection Request to 

interconnect to the Transmission System; 

and (iv) have no Queue Position but have 

executed an LGIA or requested that an 

unexecuted LGIA be filed with FERC. 

For purposes of determining necessary 

Interconnection Facilities and Network 

Upgrades, the Cluster Study shall consider 

the level of Interconnection Service requested 

by Interconnection Customers in the Cluster, 

unless otherwise required to study the full 

Generating Facility Capacity due to safety or 

reliability concerns. 

The [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study will consist of [a short 

circuit analysis, a]power flow, stability 

[analysis, and a power flow analysis. The 

Interconnection System Impact Study],and 

short circuit analyses, the results of which 

are documented in a single Cluster Study 

Report, or Cluster Re-Study Report, as 

applicable. At the conclusion of the Cluster 

Study, Transmission Provider will issue a 

Cluster Study Report. The Cluster Study 

Report will state the assumptions upon 

which it is based; state the results of the 

analyses; and provide the requirements or 

potential impediments to providing the 

requested interconnection service, including 

a preliminary indication of the cost and 

length of time that would be necessary to 

correct any problems identified in those 

analyses and implement the interconnection. 

[For purposes of determining necessary]The 

Cluster Study Report shall identify 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities and Network Upgrades [, the 

System Impact Study shall consider the level 

of Interconnection Service requested by the 

Interconnection Customer, unless otherwise 

required to study the full Generating Facility 

Capacity due to safety or reliability 

concerns.]expected to be required to reliably 

interconnect the Generating Facilities in that 

Cluster Study at the requested 

Interconnection Service level and shall 

provide non-binding estimates for required 

Network Upgrades. The Cluster Study Report 

shall identify each Interconnection 

Customer’s estimated allocated costs for 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities and Network Upgrades pursuant to 

the method in Section 4.2.3 of this LGIP. 

Transmission Provider shall hold an open 

stakeholder meeting pursuant to Section 7.4 

of this LGIP. 

For purposes of determining necessary 

Interconnection Facilities and Network 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40007 

Upgrades, the Cluster Study shall use 

operating assumptions, including charge and 

discharge parameters, that reflect the 

proposed operation of the Electric Storage 

Resource or Co-Located Resource containing 

an Electric Storage Resource (including a 

hybrid resource) as requested by 

Interconnection Customer, unless Good 

Utility Practice, including applicable 

reliability standards, otherwise require the 

use of different operating assumptions. If 

Interconnection Customer makes this 

request, Transmission Provider may (1) 

require that Interconnection Customer 

specify the intended operation of the 

resource in the LGIA, (2) require that 

Interconnection Customer demonstrate that 

the resource has control technologies 

sufficient to limit its operation as intended 

and to respond to dispatch instructions by 

Transmission Provider, and/or (3) pursue 

termination of the LGIA pursuant to Article 

17 of the LGIA if Interconnection Customer 

fails to operate the Electric Storage Resource 

or Co-Located Resource containing an 

Electric Storage Resource (including a hybrid 

resource) in accordance with its intended 

operation as specified in the LGIA. 

[The Interconnection System Impact 

Study]The Cluster Study Report will provide 

a list of facilities that are required as a result 

of the Interconnection [Request]Requests 

within the cluster and a non-binding good 

faith estimate of cost responsibility and a 

non-binding good faith estimated time to 

construct. 

Upon issuance of a Cluster Study Report, 

or Cluster Re-Study Report, if any, 

Transmission Provider shall simultaneously 

tender a draft Facilities Study Agreement to 

each Interconnection Customer within the 

Cluster, subject to the conditions in Section 

8.1 of this LGIP. 

At the request of any Interconnection 

Customer within the Cluster, the Cluster 

Study will evaluate advanced power flow 

control, transmission switching, dynamic line 

ratings, static synchronous compensators, 

static VAR compensators, and/or electric 

storage resource that provides a transmission 

service for feasibility, cost, and time savings 

as either an alternative to the Network 

Upgrade(s) identified by the Cluster Study or 

to provide Provisional Interconnection 

Service. Transmission Provider shall include 

the evaluation in the Cluster Study Report. 

7.4 [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study Procedures 

Transmission Provider shall coordinate the 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study with any Affected System that is 

affected by the Interconnection Request 

pursuant to Section 3.6 [above]of this LGIP. 

Transmission Provider shall utilize existing 

studies to the extent practicable when it 

performs the [study]Cluster Study. 

Interconnection Requests for a Cluster Study 

may be submitted only within the Cluster 

Request Window and Transmission Provider 

shall [use Reasonable Efforts to complete the 

Interconnection System Impact Study within 

ninety (90) Calendar Days after the receipt of 

the Interconnection System Impact Study 

Agreement or notification to proceed, study 

payment, and technical data. If Transmission 

Provider uses Clustering, Transmission 

Provider shall use Reasonable Efforts to 

deliver a completed Interconnection System 

Impact Study within ninety (90) Calendar 

Days after the close of the Queue Cluster 

Window.]initiate the Cluster Study process 

pursuant to Section 7 of this LGIP. 

Unless re-studies are required pursuant to 

Section 7.5 of this LGIP, Transmission 

Provider shall complete the Cluster Study 

within one hundred fifty (150) Calendar Days 

of the close of the Customer Engagement 

Window. 

Within ten (10) Business Days of 

simultaneously furnishing a Cluster Study 

Report (or, as applicable, Cluster Re-Study 

Report) and a draft Interconnection Facilities 

Study Agreement to each Interconnection 

Customer within the Cluster and posting such 

report on OASIS, Transmission Provider 

shall convene an open meeting to discuss the 

study results (a Cluster Study Report Meeting 

or Cluster Re-Study Report Meeting). 

Transmission Provider shall, upon request, 

also make itself available to meet with 

individual Interconnection Customers after 

the report is provided. 

At the request of Interconnection Customer 

or at any time Transmission Provider 

determines that it will not meet the required 

time frame for completing the 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study, Transmission Provider shall notify 

Interconnection Customers as to the schedule 

status of the [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study. If Transmission 

Provider is unable to complete the 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study within the time period, it shall notify 

Interconnection Customers and provide an 

estimated completion date with an 

explanation of the reasons why additional 

time is required. Upon request, Transmission 

Provider shall provide to Interconnection 

Customers all supporting documentation, 

workpapers and relevant pre-Interconnection 

Request and post-Interconnection Request 

power flow, short circuit and stability 

databases for the [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study, subject to 

confidentiality arrangements consistent with 

Section 13.1 of this LGIP. 

7.5 Cluster Study Re-Studies 

(1) Within twenty (20) Calendar Days after 

the Cluster Study Report Meeting, 

Interconnection Customer must provide the 

following: 

(a) Study deposit pursuant to Section 

3.1.1.1 of this LGIP; 

(b) Demonstration of Site Control pursuant 

to Section 3.4.2(iii) of this LGIP; and 

(c) One of the Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration options in Section 

3.4.2(vi)(a)–(c) of this LGIP totaling the entire 

Generating Facility Capacity (or requested 

Interconnection Service amount if the 

requested Interconnection Service is less than 

the Generating Facility Capacity), or, in the 

alternative, a Commercial Readiness Deposit 

equal to five (5) times the study deposit 

described in Section 3.1.1.1 of this LGIP in 

the form of an irrevocable letter of credit or 

cash in lieu of the Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration. Transmission Provider shall 

refund the security to Interconnection 

Customer upon withdrawal in accordance 

with Section 3.7 of this LGIP. 

Interconnection Customer shall promptly 

inform Transmission Provider of any 

material change to Interconnection 

Customer’s demonstration of Site Control 

under Section 3.4.2(iii) of this LGIP or its 

satisfaction of a Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration as selected under Section 

3.4.2(vi)(a)–(c) of this LGIP. Upon 

Transmission Provider determining 

separately that Interconnection Customer no 

longer satisfies Site Control or a Commercial 

Readiness Demonstration, Transmission 

Provider shall notify Interconnection 

Customer. Within ten (10) Business Days of 

such notification, Interconnection Customer 

must demonstrate satisfaction with the 

applicable requirement subject to 

Transmission Provider’s approval, not to be 

unreasonably withheld. If the material 

change is related to Interconnection 

Customer’s Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration, Interconnection Customer 

has the option to submit a Commercial 

Readiness Deposit pursuant to Section 

7.5(1)(c) of this LGIP before the end of the ten 

(10) Business Day cure period. Absent such 

demonstration, Transmission Provider will 

deem the subject Interconnection Request 

withdrawn. 

(2) If no Interconnection Customer 

withdraws from the Cluster after completion 

of the Cluster Study or Cluster Re-Study or 

is deemed withdrawn pursuant to Section 3.7 

of this LGIP after completion of the Cluster 

Study or Cluster Re-Study, Transmission 

Provider shall electronically notify 

Interconnection Customers in the Cluster that 

a Cluster Re-Study is not required. 

(3) If one or more Interconnection 

Customers withdraws from the Cluster, 

Transmission Provider shall determine if a 

Cluster Re-Study is necessary. If 

Transmission Provider determines a Cluster 

Re-Study is not necessary, Transmission 

Provider shall provide an updated Cluster 

Study Report within thirty (30) Calendar 

Days of such determination. When the 

updated Cluster Study Report is issued, 

Transmission Provider shall electronically 

notify Interconnection Customers in the 

Cluster that a Cluster Re-Study is not 

required. 

(4) If one or more Interconnection 

Customers withdraws from the Cluster and 

Transmission Provider determines a Cluster 

Re-Study is necessary as a result, 

Transmission Provider will continue with 

such re-studies until Transmission Provider 

determines that no further re-studies are 

required. If an Interconnection Customer 

withdraws during the Interconnection 

Facilities Study, or after other 

Interconnection Customers in the same 

Cluster have executed LGIAs, or requested 

that unexecuted LGIAs be filed with FERC, 

and Transmission Provider determines a 

Cluster Re-Study is necessary, the Cluster 

shall be re-studied. Transmission Provider 

shall electronically notify Interconnection 

Customers in the Cluster and post on OASIS 

that a Cluster Re-Study is required. 

(5) The scope of any Cluster Re-study shall 

be consistent with the scope of an initial 

Cluster Study pursuant to Section 7.3 of this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40008 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

LGIP. Transmission Provider shall complete 

the Cluster Re-Study within one hundred fifty 

(150) Calendar Days of the commencement of 

the first Cluster Re-Study. The results of the 

Cluster Re-Study shall be combined into a 

single report (Cluster Re-Study Report). 

Transmission Provider shall hold an open 

stakeholder meeting (Cluster Re-Study Report 

Meeting) within ten (10) Business Days of 

publishing the Cluster Re-Study Report on 

OASIS. 

If additional re-studies are required, 

Interconnection Customer and Transmission 

Provider shall follow the procedures of this 

Section 7.5 of this LGIP until such time that 

Transmission Provider determines that no 

further re-studies are required. Transmission 

Provider shall electronically notify each 

Interconnection Customer within the Cluster 

when no further re-studies are required. 

[Meeting with Transmission Provider. 

Within ten (10) Business Days of providing 

an Interconnection System Impact Study 

report to Interconnection Customer, 

Transmission Provider and Interconnection 

Customer shall meet to discuss the results of 

the Interconnection System Impact Study. 

7.6 Re-Study.](6) If Re-Study of the 

[Interconnection System Impact 

Study]Cluster Study other than the Re-Study 

described in Section 7.5(1)–(5) of this LGIP is 

required due to a higher or equal priority 

queued project [dropping out of]withdrawing 

from the queue, or a modification of a higher 

or equal priority queued project subject to 

Section 4.4 of this LGIP, [or re-designation of 

the Point of Interconnection pursuant to 

Section 7.2]Transmission Provider shall 

notify Interconnection Customer(s) in 

writing. [Such]Transmission Provider shall 

complete such Re-Study [shall]within [sixty 

(60]one hundred fifty (150) Calendar Days 

from the date of notice. [Any]Except as 

provided in Section 3.7 of this LGIP in the 

case of withdrawing Interconnection 

Customers, any cost of Re-Study shall be 

borne by [the]Interconnection Customer(s) 

being re-studied. 

Section 8. Interconnection Facilities Study 

8.1 Interconnection Facilities Study 

Agreement 

Simultaneously with the delivery of the 

[Interconnection System Impact Study to 

Interconnection Customer]final Cluster Study 

Report, or Cluster Re-Study Report if 

applicable, Transmission Provider shall 

provide to Interconnection Customer an 

Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement 

in the form of Appendix 4 to this LGIP. The 

Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement 

shall provide that Interconnection Customer 

shall compensate Transmission Provider for 

the actual cost of the Interconnection 

Facilities Study. [Within three (3) Business 

Days following the Interconnection System 

Impact Study results meeting,]Transmission 

Provider shall provide to Interconnection 

Customer a non-binding good faith estimate 

of the cost and timeframe for completing the 

Interconnection Facilities Study. 

Interconnection Customer shall execute the 

Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement 

and deliver the executed Interconnection 

Facilities Study Agreement to Transmission 

Provider within thirty (30) Calendar Days 

after its receipt, together with[the]: 

(1) any required technical data[and the 

greater of $100,000 or Interconnection 

Customer’s portion of the estimated monthly 

cost of conducting the Interconnection 

Facilities Study.]; 

(2) Study deposit pursuant to Section 

3.1.1.1 of this LGIP; 

(3) Demonstration of Site Control pursuant 

to Section 3.4.2(iii) of this LGIP; and 

(4) One of the following Commercial 

Readiness Demonstration options totaling the 

entire capacity of the Generating Facility (or 

requested Interconnection Service amount if 

the requested Interconnection Service is less 

than the Generating Facility Capacity), or a 

Commercial Readiness Deposit security equal 

to seven (7) times the study deposit described 

in Section 3.1.1.1 of this LGIP in the form of 

an irrevocable letter of credit or cash in lieu 

of the Commercial Readiness Demonstration. 

Transmission Provider shall refund the 

security to Interconnection Customer 

according to Section 3.7 of this LGIP. 

(a) Executed contract binding on the 

parties for sale of (1) the constructed 

Generating Facility to a load-serving entity or 

to a commercial, industrial, or other large 

end-use customer, (2) the Generating 

Facility’s energy or capacity where the term 

of sale is not less than five (5) years, or (3) 

the Generating Facility’s ancillary services 

where the term of sale is not less than five 

(5) years; 

(b) Reasonable evidence that the 

Generating Facility has been selected in an 

Resource Plan or Resource Solicitation 

Process by or for a load-serving entity, is 

being developed by a load-serving entity, or 

is being developed for purposes of a sale to 

a commercial, industrial, or other large enduse customer; or 

(c) A Provisional LGIA that has been filed 

at the Commission executed, or requested to 

be filed unexecuted, which is not in 

suspension pursuant to Article 5.16 of the 

LGIA, and includes a commitment to 

construct the Generating Facility. 

Interconnection Customer shall promptly 

inform Transmission Provider of any 

material change to Interconnection 

Customer’s demonstration of Site Control 

under Section 3.4.2(iii) of this LGIP or its 

satisfaction of a Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration. 

Upon Transmission Provider determining 

separately that Interconnection Customer no 

longer satisfies Site Control or a Commercial 

Readiness Option, Transmission Provider 

shall give Interconnection Customer ten (10) 

Business Days to demonstrate satisfaction 

with the applicable requirement subject to 

Transmission Provider’s approval, not to be 

unreasonably withheld. If the material 

change is related to Interconnection 

Customer’s Commercial Readiness 

Demonstration, Interconnection Customer 

has the option to submit a Commercial 

Readiness Deposit pursuant before the end of 

the ten (10) Business Day cure period. Absent 

such demonstration, Transmission Provider 

will deem the subject Interconnection 

Request withdrawn. 

[8.1.1 Transmission Provider shall 

invoice Interconnection Customer on a 

monthly basis for the work to be conducted 

on the Interconnection Facilities Study each 

month. Interconnection Customer shall pay 

invoiced amounts within thirty (30) Calendar 

Days of receipt of invoice. Transmission 

Provider shall continue to hold the amounts 

on deposit until settlement of the final 

invoice.] 

8.2 Scope of Interconnection Facilities 

Study 

The Interconnection Facilities Study shall 

be specific to each Interconnection Request 

and performed on an individual, i.e., nonclustered, basis. The Interconnection 

Facilities Study shall specify and provide a 

non-binding estimate of the cost of the 

equipment, engineering, procurement and 

construction work needed to implement the 

conclusions of the [Interconnection System 

Impact Study]Cluster Study Report (and any 

associated re-studies) in accordance with 

Good Utility Practice to physically and 

electrically connect the Interconnection 

[Facility]Facilities to the Transmission 

System. The Interconnection Facilities Study 

shall also identify the electrical switching 

configuration of the connection equipment, 

including, without limitation: the 

transformer, switchgear, meters, and other 

station equipment; the nature and estimated 

cost of any Transmission Provider’s 

Interconnection Facilities and Network 

Upgrades necessary to accomplish the 

interconnection; and an estimate of the time 

required to complete the construction and 

installation of such facilities. The 

Interconnection Facilities Study will also 

identify any potential control equipment for 

[requests for](1) requests for Interconnection 

Service that are lower than the Generating 

Facility Capacity[.], and/or (2) requests to 

model an Electric Storage Resource or CoLocated Resource containing an Electric 

Storage Resource (including a hybrid 

resource) using operating assumptions that 

reflect its proposed operation, as requested 

by Interconnection Customer, unless Good 

Utility Practice, including applicable 

reliability standards, otherwise require the 

use of different operating assumptions. At 

the request of any Interconnection Customer, 

the Interconnection Facilities Study will 

evaluate advanced power flow control, 

transmission switching, dynamic line ratings, 

static synchronous compensators, and/or 

static VAR compensators, for feasibility, cost, 

and time savings as either an alternative to 

the Network Upgrade(s) identified by the 

Cluster Study or to provide Provisional 

Interconnection Service. Transmission 

Provider shall include the evaluation in the 

Interconnection Facilities Study report. 

8.3 Interconnection Facilities Study 

Procedures 

Transmission Provider shall coordinate the 

Interconnection Facilities Study with any 

Affected System pursuant to Section 3.6 of 

this LGIP. Transmission Provider shall utilize 

existing studies to the extent practicable in 

performing the Interconnection Facilities 

Study. Transmission Provider shall [use 

Reasonable Efforts to]complete the study and 

issue a draft Interconnection Facilities Study 

report to Interconnection Customer within 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40009 

the following number of days after receipt of 

an executed Interconnection Facilities Study 

Agreement: ninety (90) Calendar Days after 

receipt of an executed Interconnection 

Facilities Study Agreement, with no more 

than a +/¥20 percent cost estimate contained 

in the report; or one hundred eighty (180) 

Calendar Days, if Interconnection Customer 

requests a +/¥10 percent cost estimate. 

* * * 

Interconnection Customer may, within 

thirty (30) Calendar Days after receipt of the 

draft Interconnection Facilities Study report, 

provide written comments to Transmission 

Provider, which Transmission Provider shall 

include in completing the final 

Interconnection Facilities Study report. 

Transmission Provider shall issue the final 

Interconnection Facilities Study report 

within fifteen (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] (15) 

Business Day period upon notice to 

Interconnection Customer if Interconnection 

Customer’s comments require Transmission 

Provider to perform additional analyses or 

make other significant modifications prior to 

the issuance of the final Interconnection 

Facilities Study 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 13.1 of this LGIP. 

* * * 

8.5 Re-Study 

If Re-Study of the Interconnection 

Facilities Study is required due to a higher 

or equal priority queued project dropping out 

of the queue or a modification of a higher or 

equal priority queued project pursuant to 

Section 4.4 of this LGIP, Transmission 

Provider shall so notify Interconnection 

Customer in writing. [Such]Transmission 

Provider shall ensure that such Re-Study 

[shall]takes no longer than sixty (60) 

Calendar Days from the date of notice. Except 

as provided in Section 3.7 of this LGIP in the 

case of withdrawing Interconnection 

Customers, any cost of Re-Study shall be 

borne by [the]Interconnection Customer 

being re-studied. 

Section 9 [Engineering & Procurement 

(‘E&P’) Agreement] Affected System Study 

9.1 Applicability 

This section 9 applies to Transmission 

Provider when acting as an Affected System. 

9.2 Affected System Queue Position 

Transmission Provider must assign a 

Queue Position to Affected System 

Interconnection Customer(s) that require(s) 

an Affected System Study. This Queue 

Position shall be higher-queued than any 

Cluster that has not yet received its Cluster 

Study results and shall be lower-queued than 

any Cluster that has already received its 

Cluster Study results. 

9.3 Affected System Study Agreement 

Unless otherwise agreed, pursuant to the 

Affected System Scoping Meeting provided in 

Section 3.6.2, Transmission Provider shall 

provide to Affected System Interconnection 

Customer an Affected System Study 

Agreement in the form of Appendix 15 to this 

LGIP within five (5) Business Days of 

Transmission Provider sharing the schedule 

for the Affected System Study. The Affected 

System Study Agreement shall provide that 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

shall compensate Transmission Provider for 

the actual cost of the Affected System Study. 

Within fifteen (15) Business Days after the 

Affected System Scoping Meeting, 

Transmission Provider shall provide to 

Affected System Interconnection Customer a 

non-binding good faith estimate of the cost 

and timeframe for completing the Affected 

System Study. 

9.4 Execution of Affected System Study 

Agreement 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

shall execute the Affected System Study 

Agreement and deliver the executed Affected 

System Study Agreement to Transmission 

Provider within ten (10) Business Days of 

receipt. 

If Affected System Interconnection 

Customer does not provide all required 

technical data when it delivers the Affected 

System Study Agreement, Transmission 

Provider shall notify Affected System 

Interconnection Customer of the deficiency 

within five (5) Business Days of the receipt 

of the executed Affected System Study 

Agreement and Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall cure the 

deficiency within ten (10) Business Days of 

receipt of the notice, provided, however, that 

such deficiency does not include failure to 

deliver the executed Affected System Study 

Agreement or deposit. 

9.5 Scope of Affected System Study 

The Affected System Study shall evaluate 

the impact of the Affected System 

Interconnection Customer’s proposed 

interconnection on the reliability of 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System. The Affected System Study will 

consider the Base Case as well as all 

generating facilities (and with respect to (iii) 

below, any identified Affected System 

Network Upgrades associated with such 

higher-queued interconnection) that, on the 

date the Affected System Study is 

commenced: (i) are directly interconnected to 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System; (ii) are interconnected to Affected 

Systems and may have an impact on Affected 

System Interconnection Customer’s 

interconnection request; (iii) have a pending 

higher-queued Interconnection Request to 

interconnect to Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System; and (iv) have no 

Queue Position but have executed an LGIA 

or requested that an unexecuted LGIA be 

filed with FERC. 

The Affected System Study will consist of 

a short circuit analysis, thermal overload or 

voltage limit identification, a stability 

analysis, and a power flow analysis. The 

Affected System Study will state the 

assumptions upon which it is based; state the 

results of the analyses; and provide the 

requirements or potential impediments to 

providing the requested interconnection 

service, including a preliminary indication of 

the cost and length of time that would be 

necessary to correct any problems identified 

in those analyses and implement the 

interconnection. For purposes of determining 

necessary Affected System Network 

Upgrades, the Affected System Study shall 

consider the level of interconnection service 

requested in megawatts by Affected System 

Interconnection Customer, unless otherwise 

required to study the full generating facility 

capacity due to safety or reliability concerns. 

The Affected System Study will provide a list 

of facilities that are required as a result of 

Affected System Interconnection Customer’s 

proposed interconnection and a non-binding 

good faith estimate of cost responsibility and 

a non-binding good faith estimated time to 

construct. 

9.6 Affected System Study Procedures 

Transmission Provider shall utilize existing 

studies to the extent practicable when it 

performs the Affected System Study. 

Transmission Provider will use the same 

Energy Resource Interconnection Service 

modeling standard used for Interconnection 

Customers on its own Transmission System. 

Transmission Provider shall complete the 

Affected System Study and provide the 

Affected System Study Report to Affected 

System Interconnection Customer within 

ninety (90) Calendar Days after the receipt of 

the Affected System Study Agreement. 

At the request of Affected System 

Interconnection Customer, or at any time 

Transmission Provider determines that it will 

not meet the required time frame for 

completing the Affected System Study, 

Transmission Provider shall notify Affected 

System Interconnection Customer as to the 

schedule status of the Affected System Study. 

If Transmission Provider is unable to 

complete the Affected System Study within 

the requisite time period, it shall notify 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

and provide an estimated completion date 

with an explanation of the reasons why 

additional time is required. If Transmission 

Provider does not meet the deadlines in this 

section, Transmission Provider will be 

subject to the financial penalties as described 

in Section 3.9 of this LGIP. Upon request, 

Transmission Provider shall provide Affected 

System Interconnection Customer all 

supporting documentation, workpapers and 

relevant power flow, short circuit and 

stability databases for the Affected System 

Study, subject to confidentiality 

arrangements consistent with Section 13.1 of 

this LGIP. 

Transmission Provider must study an 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

using an Energy Resource Interconnection 

Service modeling standard, regardless of the 

level of service that Affected System 

Interconnection Customer is seeking from the 

transmission provider with whom 

interconnection has been requested. In the 

event Transmission Provider believes that it 

is necessary to study an Affected System 

Interconnection Customer that is requesting 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40010 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Network Resource Interconnection Service 

using Network Resource Interconnection 

Service modeling standards, Transmission 

Provider may make such a request to the 

Commission by filing under section 205 of 

the Federal Power Act. 

9.7 Meeting with Transmission 

Provider 

Within ten (10) Business Days of providing 

the Affected System Study Report to Affected 

System Interconnection Customer, 

Transmission Provider and Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall meet to 

discuss the results of the Affected System 

Study. 

9.8 Affected System Cost Allocation 

Transmission Provider will allocate 

Affected System Network Upgrade costs 

identified during the Affected System Study 

to Affected System Interconnection 

Customer(s) using a proportional impact as 

described in Section 4.2.3 of this LGIP. 

9.9 Tender of Affected Systems 

Facilities Construction Agreement 

Transmission Provider will tender to 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

an Affected System Facilities Construction 

Agreement within thirty (30) Calendar Days 

of providing the Affected System Study 

Report. Affected System Interconnection 

Customer must notify Transmission Provider 

within five (5) Business Days of executing 

Affected System Interconnection Customer’s 

LGIA whether it would like to execute the 

agreement or if it requests the agreement to 

be filed unexecuted with FERC. Transmission 

Provider will execute the agreement or file 

the agreement unexecuted within five (5) 

Business Days after receiving direction from 

Affected System Interconnection Customer. 

9.10 Re-Study 

If Re-Study of the Affected System Study is 

required, Transmission Provider shall notify 

Affected System Interconnection Customer in 

writing. Such Re-Study shall take no longer 

than sixty (60) Calendar Days from the date 

of notice. Any cost of Re-Study shall be borne 

by the Affected System Interconnection 

Customer being re-studied. 

[Prior to executing an LGIA, an 

Interconnection Customer may, in order to 

advance the implementation of its 

interconnection, request and Transmission 

Provider shall offer the Interconnection 

Customer, an E&P Agreement that authorizes 

Transmission Provider to begin engineering 

and procurement of long lead-time items 

necessary for the establishment of the 

interconnection. However, Transmission 

Provider shall not be obligated to offer an 

E&P Agreement if Interconnection Customer 

is in Dispute Resolution as a result of an 

allegation that Interconnection Customer has 

failed to meet any milestones or comply with 

any prerequisites specified in other parts of 

the LGIP. The E&P Agreement is an optional 

procedure and it will not alter the 

Interconnection Customer’s Queue Position 

or In-Service Date. The E&P Agreement shall 

provide for Interconnection Customer to pay 

the cost of all activities authorized by 

Interconnection Customer and to make 

advance payments or provide other 

satisfactory security for such costs. 

Interconnection Customer shall pay the 

cost of such authorized activities and any 

cancellation costs for equipment that is 

already ordered for its interconnection, 

which cannot be mitigated as hereafter 

described, whether or not such items or 

equipment later become unnecessary. If 

Interconnection Customer withdraws its 

application for interconnection or either 

Party terminates the E&P Agreement, to the 

extent the equipment ordered can be 

canceled under reasonable terms, 

Interconnection Customer shall be obligated 

to pay the associated cancellation costs. To 

the extent that the equipment cannot be 

reasonably canceled, Transmission Provider 

may elect: (i) to take title to the equipment, 

in which event Transmission Provider shall 

refund Interconnection Customer any 

amounts paid by Interconnection Customer 

for such equipment and shall pay the cost of 

delivery of such equipment, or (ii) to transfer 

title to and deliver such equipment to 

Interconnection Customer, in which event 

Interconnection Customer shall pay any 

unpaid balance and cost of delivery of such 

equipment.] 

* * * 

Section 11. Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) 

11.1 Tender 

Interconnection Customer shall tender 

comments on the draft Interconnection 

Facilities Study Report within thirty (30) 

Calendar Days of receipt of the report. Within 

thirty (30) Calendar Days after the comments 

are submitted or after Interconnection 

Customer notifies Transmission Provider that 

it will not provide comments, Transmission 

Provider shall tender a draft LGIA, together 

with draft appendices. The draft LGIA shall 

be in the form of Transmission Provider’s 

FERC-approved standard form LGIA, which 

is in Appendix 6. Interconnection Customer 

shall execute and return the completed draft 

appendices within thirty (30) Calendar Days, 

unless the (60) Calendar Day negotiation 

period under Section 11.2 of this LGIP has 

commenced. 

* * * 

11.3 Execution and Filing 

Simultaneously with submitting the 

executed LGIA to Transmission Provider, 

[Within fifteen (15) Business Days after 

receipt of the final executed 

LGIA,]Interconnection Customer shall 

provide Transmission Provider with [(A) 

reasonable evidence that continued Site 

Control or (B) posting of $250,000, nonrefundable additional security, which shall 

be applied toward future construction 

costs](1) demonstration of continued Site 

Control pursuant to Section 3.4.2(iii) of this 

LGIP; and (2) per Section 3.1.1.3 of this LGIP, 

a deposit equal to nine (9) times the amount 

required in Section 3.1.1.1 of this LGIP. If 

Interconnection Customer reaches 

Commercial Operation, this deposit will be 

refunded to Interconnection Customer, 

including any accumulated interest. 

Transmission Provider must not suspend the 

LGIA under LGIA Article 5.16 until 

Interconnection Customer has provided 1 

and 2 to Transmission Provider. If 

Interconnection Customer fails to provide 1 

and 2 to Transmission Provider with fifteen 

(15) Business Days, the Interconnection 

Request will be deemed withdrawn, subject to 

Withdrawal Penalties per Section 3.7.1 of this 

LGIP. 

At the same time, Interconnection 

Customer also shall provide reasonable 

evidence that one or more of the following 

milestones, unless such milestone is 

inapplicable due to the characteristics of the 

Generating Facility, in the development of 

the [Large]Generating Facility, at 

Interconnection Customer election, has been 

achieved: (i) the execution of a contract for 

the supply or transportation of fuel to the 

[Large]Generating Facility ; (ii) the execution 

of a contract for the supply of cooling water 

to the [Large]Generating Facility; (iii) 

execution of a contract for the engineering 

for, procurement of major equipment for, or 

construction of, the [Large]Generating 

Facility; (iv) execution of a contract (or 

comparable evidence) for the sale of electric 

energy or capacity from the [Large]Generating 

Facility; [or] (v) application for an air, water, 

or land use permit[.]; or (vi) Commercial 

Readiness Demonstration pursuant to 

Section 8.1 of this LGIP (Commercial 

Readiness Deposit is not allowed). 

* * * 

Section 12. Construction of Transmission 

Provider’s Interconnection Facilities and 

Network Upgrades 

* * * 

12.2.4 Amended Interconnection [System 

Impact]Cluster Study Report 

An Interconnection [System Impact]Cluster 

Study Report will be amended to determine 

the facilities necessary to support the 

requested In-Service Date. This amended 

study report will include those transmission 

and [Large]Generating Facilities that are 

expected to be in service on or before the 

requested In-Service Date. 

* * * 

Section 13. Miscellaneous 

13.1 Confidentiality 

* * * 

13.1.9 Subject to the exception in Section 

13.1.8 of this LGIP, any information that a 

Party claims is competitively sensitive, 

commercial or financial information 

(‘‘Confidential Information‘‘) shall not be 

disclosed by the other Party to any person 

not employed or retained by the other Party, 

except to the extent disclosure is (i) required 

by law; (ii) reasonably deemed by the 

disclosing Party to be required to be 

disclosed in connection with a dispute 

between or among the Parties, or the defense 

of litigation or dispute; (iii) otherwise 

permitted by consent of the other Party, such 

consent not to be unreasonably withheld; or 

(iv) necessary to fulfill its obligations under 

this LGIP or as a transmission service 

provider or a [Control Area]Balancing 

Authority Area operator including disclosing 

the Confidential Information to an RTO or 

ISO or to a subregional, regional or national 

reliability organization or planning group. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40011 

The Party asserting confidentiality shall 

notify the other Party in writing of the 

information it claims is confidential. Prior to 

any disclosures of the other Party’s 

Confidential Information under this 

subparagraph, or if any third party or 

Governmental Authority makes any request 

or demand for any of the information 

described in this subparagraph, the 

disclosing Party agrees to promptly notify the 

other Party in writing and agrees to assert 

confidentiality and cooperate with the other 

Party in seeking to protect the Confidential 

Information from public disclosure by 

confidentiality agreement, protective order or 

other reasonable measures. 

* * * 

13.3 Obligation for Study Costs 

In the event an Interconnection Customer 

withdraws its Interconnection Request prior 

to the commencement of the Cluster Study, 

Interconnection Customer must pay 

Transmission Provider the actual costs of 

processing its Interconnection Request. 

Interconnection Customer will not be 

assessed a Withdrawal Penalty in this case. 

Transmission Provider shall charge and 

Interconnection Customer shall pay the 

actual costs of the Interconnection Studies. 

The costs of Cluster Studies and Cluster ReStudies shall be allocated among each 

Interconnection Customer within the Cluster 

as follows: (1) ninety percent (90%) of the 

applicable study costs on a pro-rata basis 

based on requested megawatts included in 

the applicable Cluster; and (2) ten percent 

(10%) of the applicable study costs on a per 

capita basis based on the number of 

Interconnection Requests included in the 

applicable Cluster. 

Any difference between the study deposit 

and the actual cost of the applicable 

Interconnection Study shall be paid by or 

refunded, except as otherwise provided 

herein, to Interconnection 

[Customer]Customers or offset against the 

cost of any future Interconnection Studies 

associated with the applicable 

[Interconnection Request]Cluster prior to 

beginning of any such future Interconnection 

Studies. Any invoices for Interconnection 

Studies shall include a detailed and itemized 

accounting of the cost of each 

Interconnection Study. Interconnection 

[Customer]Customers shall pay any such 

undisputed costs within thirty (30) Calendar 

Days of receipt of an invoice therefor. Any 

Interconnection Customer that fails to pay 

such undisputed costs within the time 

allotted shall be deemed withdrawn from the 

Cluster Study and will be subject to 

Withdrawal Penalties pursuant to Section 

3.7.1 of this LGIP. [Transmission Provider 

shall not be obligated to perform or continue 

to perform any studies unless 

Interconnection Customer has paid all 

undisputed amounts in compliance 

herewith.] 

* * * 

Section [9]13.7 Engineering & Procurement 

(‘E&P’) Agreement 

Prior to executing an LGIA, an 

Interconnection Customer may, in order to 

advance the implementation of its 

interconnection, request and Transmission 

Provider shall offer Interconnection 

Customer, an E&P Agreement that authorizes 

Transmission Provider to begin engineering 

and procurement of long lead-time items 

necessary for the establishment of the 

interconnection. However, Transmission 

Provider shall not be obligated to offer an 

E&P Agreement if Interconnection Customer 

is in Dispute Resolution as a result of an 

allegation that Interconnection Customer has 

failed to meet any milestones or comply with 

any prerequisites specified in other parts of 

the LGIP. The E&P Agreement is an optional 

procedure and it will not alter 

Interconnection Customer’s Queue Position 

or In-Service Date. The E&P Agreement shall 

provide for Interconnection Customer to pay 

the cost of all activities authorized by 

Interconnection Customer and to make 

advance payments or provide other 

satisfactory security for such costs. 

Interconnection Customer shall pay the 

cost of such authorized activities and any 

cancellation costs for equipment that is 

already ordered for its interconnection, 

which cannot be mitigated as hereafter 

described, whether or not such items or 

equipment later become unnecessary. If 

Interconnection Customer withdraws its 

application for interconnection or either 

Party terminates the E&P Agreement, to the 

extent the equipment ordered can be 

canceled under reasonable terms, 

Interconnection Customer shall be obligated 

to pay the associated cancellation costs. To 

the extent that the equipment cannot be 

reasonably canceled, Transmission Provider 

may elect: (i) to take title to the equipment, 

in which event Transmission Provider shall 

refund Interconnection Customer any 

amounts paid by Interconnection Customer 

for such equipment and shall pay the cost of 

delivery of such equipment, or (ii) to transfer 

title to and deliver such equipment to 

Interconnection Customer, in which event 

Interconnection Customer shall pay any 

unpaid balance and cost of delivery of such 

equipment. 

* * * 

13.8 Alternative Transmission 

Technologies Annual Report 

Each Transmission Provider shall submit 

an annual informational report to the 

Commission that details whether, and if so 

how, advanced power flow control, 

transmission switching, dynamic line ratings, 

static synchronous compensators, and/or 

static VAR compensators were considered in 

interconnection requests over the last year. 

The report must be submitted by the last 

calendar day of December annually. 

Appendix 1 to LGIP 

Interconnection Request for a Large 

Generating Facility 

* * * 

5. Interconnection Customer provides the 

following information: 

a. Address or location or the proposed new 

[Large]Generating Facility site (to the extent 

known) or, in the case of an existing 

Generating Facility, the name and specific 

location of the existing Generating Facility; 

b. Maximum summer at ll degrees C and 

winter at ll degrees C megawatt electrical 

output of the proposed new 

[Large]Generating Facility or the amount of 

megawatt increase in the generating capacity 

of an existing Generating Facility; 

c. General description of the equipment 

configuration; 

d. Commercial Operation Date (Day, 

Month, and Year); 

e. Name, address, telephone number, and 

e-mail address of Interconnection Customer’s 

contact person; 

f. Approximate location of the proposed 

Point of Interconnection (optional); 

g. Interconnection Customer Data (set forth 

in Attachment A); 

h. Primary frequency response operating 

range for electric storage resources; 

i. Requested capacity (in MW) of 

Interconnection Service (if lower than the 

Generating Facility Capacity)[.]; 

j. If applicable, (1) the requested operating 

assumptions, such as charge and discharge 

parameters, to be used by Transmission 

Provider that reflect the proposed operation 

of the Electric Storage Resource or CoLocated Resource containing an Electric 

Storage Resource (including a hybrid 

resource), and (2) a description of any control 

technologies (software and/or hardware) that 

will limit the operation of the Electric Storage 

Resource or Co-Located Resource containing 

an Electric Storage Resource (including a 

hybrid resource) to its intended operation. 

* * * 

Attachment A to Appendix 1 

Interconnection Request 

Large Generating Facility Data 

* * * 

For a non-synchronous Generating Facility, 

Interconnection Customer must provide (1) a 

validated user-defined root mean squared 

(RMS) positive sequence dynamics model; (2) 

an appropriately parameterized generic 

library RMS positive sequence dynamics 

model, including model block diagram of the 

inverter control and plant control systems, as 

defined by the selection in Table 1 or a model 

otherwise approved by the Western Electricity 

Coordinating Council, that corresponds to 

Interconnection Customer’s Generating 

Facility; and (3) an electromagnetic transient 

model if Transmission Provider performs an 

electromagnetic transient study as part of the 

interconnection study process. Transmission 

Provider to insert whether they perform an 

electromagnetic transient study. A userdefined model is a set of programming code 

created by equipment manufacturers or 

developers that captures the latest features of 

controllers that are mainly software based 

and represents the entities’ control strategies 

but does not necessarily correspond to any 

generic library model. For a model to be 

validated, there must be confirmation by 

Interconnection Customer that the equipment 

behavior is consistent with the model 

behavior (e.g., an attestation from 

Interconnection Customer that the model 

accurately represents the entire Generating 

Facility; attestations from each equipment 

manufacturer that the user defined model 

accurately represents the component of the 

Generating Facility; or test data). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40012 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Table 1 

GE PSLF Siemens PSS/E * PowerWorld simulator Description 

pvd1 ............. ........................................ PVD1 ............................. Distributed PV system model 

der_a ............ DERAU1 ........................ DER_A ........................... Distributed energy resource model 

regc_a .......... REGCAU1, REGCA1 .... REGC_A ........................ Generator/converter model 

regc_b .......... REGCBU1 ..................... REGC_B ........................ Generator/converter model 

wt1g ............. WT1G1 .......................... WT1G and WT1G1 ....... Wind turbine model for Type-1 wind turbines (conventional directly connected induction generator) 

wt2g ............. WT2G1 .......................... WT2G and WT2G1 ....... Generator model for generic Type-2 wind turbines 

wt2e ............. WT2E1 ........................... WT2E and WT2E1 ........ Rotor resistance control model for wound-rotor induction wind-turbine generator wt2g 

reec_a .......... REECAU1, REECA1 ..... REEClA ....................... Renewable energy electrical control model 

reec_c .......... REECCU1 ..................... REEC_C ........................ Electrical control model for battery energy storage System 

reec_d .......... REECDU1 ..................... REEC_D ........................ Renewable energy electrical control model 

wt1t .............. WT12T1 ......................... WT1T and WT12T1 ....... Wind turbine model for Type-1 wind turbines (conventional directly connected induction generator) 

wt1p_b .......... wt1p_b ........................... WT12A1U_B .................. Generic wind turbine pitch controller for WTGs of Type 1 and 2 

wt2t .............. WT12T1 ......................... WT2T ............................. Wind turbine model for Type-2 wind turbines (directly connected induction 

generator wind turbines with an external rotor resistance) 

wtgt_a ........... WTDTAU1, WTDTA1 .... WTGT_A ........................ Wind turbine drive train model 

wtga_a .......... WTARAU1, WTARA1 .... WTGA_A ........................ Simple aerodynamic model 

wtgp_a .......... WTPTAU1, WTPTA1 ..... WTGPT_A ..................... Wind Turbine Generator Pitch controller 

wtgq_a .......... WTTQAU1, WTTQA1 .... WTGTRQ_A .................. Wind Turbine Generator Torque controller 

wtgwgo_a ..... WTGWGOAU ................ WTGWGO_A ................. Supplementary control model for Weak Grids 

wtgibffr_a ...... WTGIBFFRA ................. WTGIBFFR_A ................ Inertial-base fast frequency response control 

wtgp_b .......... WTPTBU1 ..................... WTGPT_B ..................... Wind Turbine Generator Pitch controller 

wtgt_b ........... WTDTBU1 ..................... WTGT_B ........................ Drive train model 

repc_a .......... Type 4: REPCAU1 

(v33), REPCA1 (v34).

Type 3: REPCTAU1 

(v33), REPCTA1 (v34).

REPC_A ........................ Power Plant Controller 

repc_b .......... PLNTBU1 ...................... REPC_B ........................ Power Plant Level Controller for controlling several plants/devices 

In regards to Siemens PSS/E: * 

Names of other models for interface with other devices: 

REA3XBU1, REAX4BU1—for interface with Type 3 and 4 renewable machines 

SWSAXBU1—for interface with SVC (modeled as switched shunt in 

powerflow) 

SYNAXBU1—for interface with synchronous condenser 

FCTAXBU1—for interface with FACTS device 

repc_c .......... REPCCU ....................... REPC_C ........................ Power plant controller 

Appendix 2 to LGIP 

[Interconnection Feasibility Study 

Agreement] 

Informational Interconnection Study 

Request 

1. The undersigned prospective 

Interconnection Customer submits this 

request for an Informational Interconnection 

Study to evaluate the interconnection of its 

Generating Facility with Transmission 

Provider’s Transmission System pursuant to 

Section 6.1 of this LGIP, to be performed in 

accordance with Transmission Provider’s 

Tariff. 

2. The type of interconnection service to be 

evaluated (check one): 

____ Energy Resource Interconnection Service 

____ Network Resource Interconnection 

Service 

____ Both 

3. Prospective Interconnection Customer 

provides the following information: 

a. Address or location of the proposed new 

Generating Facility site to be studied or, in 

the case of an existing Generating Facility, 

the name and specific location of the existing 

Generating Facility; 

b. Maximum summer at __ degrees C and 

winter at __ degrees C megawatt electrical 

output of the proposed new Generating 

Facility or the amount of megawatt increase 

in the generating capacity of an existing 

Generating Facility; 

c. General description of the equipment 

configuration; 

d. Commercial Operation Date to be 

studied (Day, Month, and Year); 

e. Name, address, telephone number, and 

e-mail address of prospective Interconnection 

Customer’s contact person; 

f. Approximate location of the proposed 

Point of Interconnection and any alternate 

Point(s) of Interconnection; 

g. Prospective Interconnection Customer 

Data (set forth in Attachment A to Appendix 

1, Generating Facility Data); 

h. Primary frequency response operating 

range for electric storage resources; 

i. Requested capacity (in MW) of 

Interconnection Service to be studied (if 

lower than the Generating Facility Capacity); 

j. A Scope of Work including any 

additional information that may be 

reasonably required; 

k. $10,000 study deposit; and 

l. If applicable, requested operating 

assumptions to be studied, such as charge 

and discharge parameters, that reflect the 

proposed operation of the Electric Storage 

Resource or Co-Located Resource containing 

an Electric Storage Resource (including a 

hybrid resource). 

6. This Informational Interconnection 

Study Request shall be submitted to the 

representative indicated below: 

{To be completed by Transmission 

Provider} 

7. Representative of prospective 

Interconnection Customer to contact: 

{To be completed by prospective 

Interconnection Customer} 

8. This Informational Interconnection 

Request is submitted by: 

Name of prospective Interconnection Customer: lllllllllllllllll

By (signature): llllllllllllll

Name (type or print): lllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Attachment A to Appendix 2 

Informational Interconnection Study 

Agreement 

This Agreement is made and entered into 

this __ day of ____, 20 __ by and between 

____, a ______ organized and existing under 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40013 

the laws of the State of ______ (‘‘Prospective 

Interconnection Customer’’), and ______, a 

______ existing under the laws of the State of 

______ (‘‘Transmission Provider’’). 

Prospective Interconnection Customer and 

Transmission Provider each may be referred 

to as a ‘‘Party,’’ or collectively as the 

‘‘Parties.’’ 

Recitals 

Whereas, Prospective Interconnection 

Customer is proposing to develop a 

[Large]Generating Facility or generating 

capacity addition to an existing Generating 

Facility [consistent with the Interconnection 

Request submitted by Interconnection 

customer dated ______]; and 

[Whereas, Interconnection Customer 

desires to interconnect the Large Generating 

Facility with the Transmission System; and] 

[Whereas, Interconnection Customer has 

requested Transmission Provider to perform 

an Interconnection Feasibility Study to assess 

the feasibility of interconnecting the 

proposed Large Generating Facility to the 

Transmission System, and of any Affected 

Systems;] 

Whereas, Prospective Interconnection 

Customer is proposing to evaluate an 

interconnection with Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System; and 

Whereas, Prospective Interconnection 

Customer has submitted to Transmission 

Provider an Informational Interconnection 

Study Request; 

Now, therefore, in consideration of and 

subject to the mutual covenants contained 

herein the Parties agree as follows: 

1.0 When used in this Agreement, with 

initial capitalization, the terms specified 

shall have the meanings indicated in 

[Transmission Provider’s FERC-approved 

LGIP]this LGIP. 

2.0 Prospective Interconnection Customer 

elects and Transmission Provider shall cause 

to be performed an Informational 

Interconnection [Feasibility]Study consistent 

with Section 6.[0]1 of this LGIP[in 

accordance with the Tariff]. 

3.0 The scope of the Informational 

Interconnection [Feasibility]Study shall be 

subject to the assumptions set forth in 

Attachment [A]B to this Agreement. 

4.0 [The Interconnection Feasibility 

Study shall be based on the technical 

information provided by Interconnection 

Customer in the Interconnection Request, as 

may be modified as the result of the Scoping 

Meeting. Transmission Provider reserves the 

right to request additional technical 

information from Interconnection Customer 

as may reasonably become necessary 

consistent with Good Utility Practice during 

the course of the Interconnection Feasibility 

Study and as designated in accordance with 

Section 3.4.4 of the LGIP. If, after the 

designation of the Point of Interconnection 

pursuant to Section 3.4.4 of the LGIP, 

Interconnection Customer modifies its 

Interconnection Request pursuant to Section 

4.4, the time to complete the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study may be extended.] The 

Informational Interconnection Study shall be 

performed solely for informational purposes 

and is not binding on either Party. 

5.0 The Informational Interconnection 

Study report shall provide a sensitivity 

analysis based on the assumptions specified 

by prospective Interconnection Customer in 

this Agreement and the technical information 

provided by prospective Interconnection 

Customer.Transmission Provider reserves the 

right to request additional technical 

information from prospective Interconnection 

Customer as may reasonably become 

necessary consistent with Good Utility 

Practice during the course of the 

Informational Interconnection Study. If 

prospective Interconnection Customer 

modifies its Informational Interconnection 

Study Request, the time to complete the 

Informational Interconnection Study may be 

extended. 

The Informational Interconnection 

[Feasibility]Study report shall provide the 

following information: 

—preliminary identification of any circuit 

breaker short circuit capability limits 

exceeded as a result of the interconnection; 

—preliminary identification of any thermal 

overload or voltage limit violations 

resulting from the interconnection; and 

—[preliminary description and non-bonding 

estimated cost of facilities required to 

interconnect the Large Generating Facility 

to the Transmission System and to address 

the identified short circuit and power flow 

issues.]Transmission Provider’s 

Interconnection Facilities and Network 

Upgrades, and the estimated cost thereof, 

that may be required to provide 

transmission service or Interconnection 

Service based upon the assumptions 

specified by prospective Interconnection 

Customer in this agreement. 

6.0 Prospective Interconnection Customer 

shall provide a deposit of $10,000 for the 

performance of the 

InformationalInterconnection [Feasibility] 

Study. Transmission Provider’s good faith 

estimate for the time of completion of the 

Informational Interconnection Study is 

{insert date}. 

Upon [receipt of]providing the 

Informational Interconnection 

[Feasibility]Study report to prospective 

Interconnection Customer, Transmission 

Provider shall charge and prospective 

Interconnection Customer shall pay the 

actual costs of the Informational 

Interconnection [Feasibility]Study. 

Any difference between the [deposit]initial 

payment and the actual cost of the study 

shall be paid by or refunded to prospective 

Interconnection Customer, as appropriate. 

7.0 Miscellaneous. The Informational 

Interconnection [Feasibility]Study 

Agreement shall include standard 

miscellaneous terms including, but not 

limited to, indemnities, representations, 

disclaimers, warranties, governing law, 

amendment, execution, waiver, 

enforceability and assignment, that reflect 

best practices in the electric industry, and 

that are consistent with regional practices, 

Applicable Laws and Regulations, and the 

organizational nature of each Party. All of 

these provisions, to the extent practicable, 

shall be consistent with the provisions of this 

LGIP and the LGIA. 

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 or 

Transmission Owner, if applicable} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

{Insert name of prospective Interconnection 

Customer} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Attachment [A]B to Appendix 2 

Informational Interconnection[Feasibility] 

Study Agreement 

Assumptions Used In Conducting The 

Informational Interconnection [Feasibility] 

Study 

The Informational Interconnection 

[Feasibility]Study will be based upon the 

information set forth in the Interconnection 

Request and agreed upon in the Scoping 

Meeting held on 

____: 

Designation of Point of Interconnection 

and configuration to be studied. 

Designation of alternative Point(s) of 

Interconnection and configuration. 

{Above assumptions to be completed by 

Interconnection Customer and other 

assumptions to be provided by 

Interconnection Customer and Transmission 

Provider} 

Appendix 3 to LGIP 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

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 ____ organized and 

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 [Large]Generating 

Facility or generating capacity addition to an 

existing Generating Facility consistent with 

the Interconnection Request submitted by 

Interconnection Customer dated ____; and 

Whereas, Interconnection Customer desires 

to interconnect the[Large] Generating Facility 

with the Transmission System; 

Whereas, Transmission Provider has 

completed an Informational Interconnection 

[Feasibility]Study (the ‘‘[Feasibility] 

Informational Study’’) and provided the 

results of said study to Interconnection 

Customer (This recital to be omitted if 

Transmission Provider [does not require] did 

not conduct the Informational 

Interconnection [Feasibility]Study.); and 

Whereas, Interconnection Customer has 

requested Transmission Provider to perform 

[an Interconnection System Impact]a Cluster 

Study to assess the impact of interconnecting 

the [Large]Generating Facility to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40014 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 in this 

LGIP. 

2.0 Interconnection Customer elects and 

Transmission Provider shall cause to be 

performed [an Interconnection System 

Impact]a Cluster Study consistent with 

Section 7.0 of this LGIP in accordance with 

the Tariff. 

3.0 The scope of the [Interconnection 

System Impact]Cluster Study shall be subject 

to the assumptions set forth in Attachment A 

to this Agreement. 

4.0 The [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study will be based upon the 

results of the Informational Interconnection 

[Feasibility]Study and the technical 

information provided by Interconnection 

Customer in the Interconnection Request, 

subject to any modifications in accordance 

with Section 4.4 of this LGIP. Transmission 

Provider reserves the right to request 

additional technical information from 

Interconnection Customer as may reasonably 

become necessary consistent with Good 

Utility Practice during the course of the 

[Interconnection Customer System 

Impact]Cluster Study. If Interconnection 

Customer modifies its designated Point of 

Interconnection, Interconnection Request, or 

the technical information provided therein, 

the time to complete the[Interconnection 

System Impact] Cluster Study may be 

extended. 

5.0 The [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study [report]Report shall 

provide the following information: 

—identification of any circuit breaker short 

circuit capability limits exceeded as a 

result of the interconnection; 

—identification of any thermal overload or 

voltage limit violations resulting from the 

interconnection; 

—identification of any instability or 

inadequately damped response to system 

disturbances resulting from the 

interconnection; and 

—description and non-binding, good faith 

estimated cost of facilities required to 

interconnect the [Large]Generating Facility 

to the Transmission System and to address 

the identified short circuit, instability, and 

power flow issues. 

6.0 [Interconnection Customer shall 

provide a deposit of $50,000 for the 

performance of the Interconnection System 

Impact Study.]Transmission Provider’s good 

faith estimate for the time of completion of 

the [Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study is {insert date}. 

Upon receipt of the [Interconnection 

System Impact]Cluster Study, Transmission 

Provider shall charge and Interconnection 

Customer shall pay its share of the actual 

costs of the [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study, consistent with Section 

13.3 of this LGIP. 

Any difference between the deposit and 

the actual cost of the study shall be paid by 

or refunded to Interconnection Customer, as 

appropriate. 

7.0 Miscellaneous. The [Interconnection 

System Impact]Cluster Study Agreement 

shall include standard miscellaneous terms 

including, but not limited to, indemnities, 

representations, disclaimers, warranties, 

governing law, amendment, execution, 

waiver, enforceability and assignment, that 

reflect best practices in the electric industry, 

that are consistent with regional practices, 

Applicable Laws and Regulations and the 

organizational nature of each Party. All of 

these provisions, to the extent practicable, 

shall be consistent with the provisions of this 

LGIP and LGIA. 

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 or 

Transmission Owner, if applicable} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

{Insert name of Interconnection Customer} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Attachment A to Appendix 3 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study Agreement 

Assumptions Used In Conducting The 

[Interconnection System Impact]Cluster 

Study 

The [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study will be based upon the 

results of the Informational Interconnection 

[Feasibility] Study, subject to any 

modifications in accordance with Section 4.4 

of this[e] LGIP, and the following 

assumptions: 

Designation of Point of Interconnection 

and configuration to be studied. 

Designation of alternative Point(s) of 

Interconnection and configuration. 

{Above assumptions to be completed by 

Interconnection Customer and other 

assumptions to be provided by 

Interconnection Customer and Transmission 

Provider} 

Appendix 4 to LGIP 

Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement 

***

Whereas, Transmission Provider has 

completed an Interconnection [System 

Impact] Cluster Study (the ‘‘[System 

Impact]Cluster Study’’) and provided the 

results of said study to Interconnection 

Customer; and 

Whereas, Interconnection Customer has 

requested Transmission Provider to perform 

an Interconnection Facilities Study to specify 

and estimate the cost of the equipment, 

engineering, procurement and construction 

work needed to implement the conclusions 

of the Interconnection [System 

Impact]Cluster Study in accordance with 

Good Utility Practice to physically and 

electrically connect the [Large]Generating 

Facility to the Transmission System. 

* * * 

4.0 The Interconnection Facilities Study 

report (i) shall provide a description, 

estimated cost of (consistent with 

Attachment A), schedule for required 

facilities to interconnect the [Large] 

Generating Facility to the Transmission 

System and (ii) shall address the short 

circuit, instability, and power flow issues 

identified in the Interconnection [System 

Impact]Cluster Study. 

* * * 

Attachment A to Appendix 4 

Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement 

Interconnection Customer Schedule Election 

For Conducting The Interconnection 

Facilities Study 

Transmission Provider shall [use 

Reasonable Efforts to]complete the study and 

issue a draft Interconnection Facilities Study 

report to Interconnection Customer within 

the following number of days after [of]receipt 

of an executed copy of this Interconnection 

Facilities Study Agreement. 

* * * 

Appendix 13 to LGIP 

Transitional Cluster 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 ____ organized and 

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 Generating Facility or 

generating capacity addition to an existing 

Generating Facility consistent with the 

Interconnection Request submitted by 

Interconnection Customer dated____; 

Whereas, Interconnection Customer desires 

to interconnect the Generating Facility with 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System; and 

Whereas, Interconnection Customer has 

requested Transmission Provider to perform 

a ‘‘Transitional Cluster Study,’’ which is a 

combined system impact and facility Cluster 

Study to specify and estimate the cost of the 

equipment, engineering, procurement, and 

construction work needed to physically and 

electrically connect the Generating Facility to 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System; and 

Whereas, Interconnection Customer has a 

valid Queue Position as of the effective date 

of this LGIP. 

Now, Therefore, in consideration of and 

subject to the mutual covenants contained 

herein, the Parties agree as follows: 

1.0 When used in this Agreement, with 

initial capitalization, the terms specified 

shall have the meanings indicated in this 

LGIP. 

2.0 Interconnection Customer elects, and 

Transmission Provider shall cause to be 

performed, a Transitional Cluster Study. 

3.0 The Transitional Cluster Study shall 

be based upon the technical information 

provided by Interconnection Customer in the 

Interconnection Request. Transmission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40015 

Provider reserves the right to request 

additional technical information from 

Interconnection Customer as may reasonably 

become necessary consistent with Good 

Utility Practice during the course of the 

Transitional Cluster Study and 

Interconnection Customer shall provide such 

data as quickly as reasonable. 

4.0 Pursuant to Section 5.1.1.2 of this 

LGIP, the interim Transitional Cluster Study 

report shall provide the information below: 

—identification of any circuit breaker short 

circuit capability limits exceeded as a 

result of the interconnection; 

—identification of any thermal overload or 

voltage limit violations resulting from the 

interconnection; 

—identification of any instability or 

inadequately damped response to system 

disturbances resulting from the 

interconnection; and 

—Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities and Network Upgrades that are 

expected to be required as a result of the 

Interconnection Request(s) and a nonbinding, good faith estimate of cost 

responsibility and a non-binding, good 

faith estimated time to construct. 

5.0 Pursuant to Section 5.1.1.2 of this 

LGIP, the final Transitional Cluster Study 

Report shall: (1) provide all the information 

included in the interim Transitional Cluster 

Study report; (2) provide a description of, 

estimated cost of, and schedule for required 

facilities to interconnect the Generating 

Facility to the Transmission System; and (3) 

address the short circuit, instability, and 

power flow issues identified in the interim 

Transitional Cluster Study report. 

6.0 Interconnection Customer has met 

certain requirements described in Section 

5.1.1.2 of this LGIP. 

7.0 Interconnection Customer previously 

provided a deposit for the performance of 

Interconnection Studies. Upon receipt of the 

final Transitional Cluster Study Report, 

Transmission Provider shall charge and 

Interconnection Customer shall pay the 

actual costs of the Transitional Cluster 

Study. Any difference between the study 

deposit and the actual cost of the study shall 

be paid by or refunded to Interconnection 

Customer, in accordance with the provisions 

of Section 13.3 of this LGIP. 

8.0 Miscellaneous. The Transitional 

Cluster Study Agreement shall include 

standard miscellaneous terms including, but 

not limited to, indemnities, representations, 

disclaimers, warranties, governing law, 

amendment, execution, waiver, enforceability 

and assignment, that reflect best practices in 

the electric industry, and that are consistent 

with regional practices, Applicable Laws and 

Regulations, and the organizational nature of 

each Party. All of these provisions, to the 

extent practicable, shall be consistent with 

the provisions of this LGIP and the LGIA. 

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 or 

Transmission Owner, if applicable} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

{Insert name of Interconnection Customer} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Appendix 14 to LGIP 

Transitional Serial Interconnection 

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 ____ organized and 

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 Generating Facility or 

generating capacity addition to an existing 

Generating Facility consistent with the 

Interconnection Request submitted by 

Interconnection Customer dated __; and 

Whereas, Interconnection Customer desires 

to interconnect the Generating Facility with 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System; and 

Whereas, Interconnection Customer has 

requested Transmission Provider to continue 

processing its Interconnection Facilities 

Study to specify and estimate the cost of the 

equipment, engineering, procurement, and 

construction work needed to implement the 

conclusions of the final Interconnection 

System Impact Study in accordance with 

Good Utility Practice to physically and 

electrically connect the Generating Facility to 

the Transmission System; and 

Whereas, Interconnection Customer has 

executed, and Transmission Provider has 

accepted an Interconnection Facilities Study 

Agreement on or before the effective date of 

this LGIP. 

Now, Therefore, in consideration of and 

subject to the mutual covenants contained 

herein, the Parties agree as follows: 

1.0 When used in this Agreement, with 

initial capitalization, the terms specified 

shall have the meanings indicated in this 

LGIP. 

2.0 Interconnection Customer elects and 

Transmission Provider shall cause to be 

performed an Interconnection Facilities 

Study consistent with Section 8 of this LGIP. 

3.0 The scope of the Interconnection 

Facilities Study shall be subject to the 

assumptions set forth in Attachment A to this 

Agreement, which shall be the same 

assumptions as the previous Interconnection 

Facilities Study Agreement. 

4.0 The Interconnection Facilities Study 

report shall: (1) provide a description, 

estimated cost of (consistent with Attachment 

A), and schedule for required facilities to 

interconnect the Generating Facility to the 

Transmission System; and (2) address the 

short circuit, instability, and power flow 

issues identified in the most recently 

published Cluster Study Report. 

5.0 Interconnection Customer has met 

certain requirements described in Section 

5.1.1.1 of this LGIP. The time for completion 

of the Interconnection Facilities Study is 

specified in Attachment A. 

6.0 Interconnection Customer previously 

provided a deposit of ______dollars ($)__ for 

the performance of the Interconnection 

Facilities Study. 

7.0 Upon receipt of the Interconnection 

Facilities Study results, Transmission 

Provider shall charge and Interconnection 

Customer shall pay the actual costs of the 

Interconnection Facilities Study. 

8.0 Any difference between the study 

deposit and the actual cost of the study shall 

be paid by or refunded to Interconnection 

Customer, as appropriate. 

9.0 Miscellaneous. The Interconnection 

Facilities Study Agreement shall include 

standard miscellaneous terms including, but 

not limited to, indemnities, representations, 

disclaimers, warranties, governing law, 

amendment, execution, waiver, enforceability 

and assignment, that reflect best practices in 

the electric industry, and that are consistent 

with regional practices, Applicable Laws and 

Regulations, and the organizational nature of 

each Party. All of these provisions, to the 

extent practicable, shall be consistent with 

the provisions of this LGIP and this LGIA. 

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 or 

Transmission Owner, if applicable} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

{Insert name of Interconnection Customer} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Attachment A to Appendix 14— 

Transitional Serial Interconnection 

Facilities Study Agreement 

Assumptions Used in Conducting the 

Transitional Serial Interconnection 

Facilities Study 

{Assumptions to be completed by 

Interconnection Customer and Transmission 

Provider} 

Appendix 15 to LGIP—Affected System 

Study Agreement 

This Agreement is made and entered into 

this __ day of______ , 20 __, by and among 

______, a ______ organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of______ (Affected 

System Interconnection Customer) and 

______,a______ organized and existing under 

the laws of the State of______ (Transmission 

Provider acting as Affected System). Affected 

System Interconnection Customer and 

Transmission Provider each may be referred 

to as a ‘‘Party,’’ or collectively as the 

‘‘Parties.’’ 

Recitals 

Whereas, Affected System Interconnection 

Customer is proposing to develop a 

{description of generating facility or 

generating capacity addition to an existing 

generating facility} consistent with the 

interconnection request submitted by 

Affected System Interconnection Customer to 

{name of transmission provider}, dated 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40016 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

______, for which {name of transmission 

provider} found impacts on Transmission 

Provider’s Transmission System; and 

Whereas, Affected System Interconnection 

Customer desires to interconnect the 

{description of generating facility} with 

{name of transmission provider}’s 

transmission system; 

Now, therefore, in consideration of and 

subject to the mutual covenants contained 

herein, the Parties agree as follows: 

1.0 When used in this Agreement, with 

initial capitalization, the terms specified 

shall have the meanings indicated in this 

LGIP. 

2.0 Transmission Provider shall 

coordinate with Affected System 

Interconnection Customer to perform an 

Affected System Study consistent with 

Section 9 of this LGIP. 

3.0 The scope of the Affected System 

Study shall be subject to the assumptions set 

forth in Attachment A to this Agreement. 

4.0 The Affected System Study will be 

based upon the technical information 

provided by Affected System Interconnection 

Customer and {name of transmission 

provider}. Transmission Provider reserves 

the right to request additional technical 

information from Affected System 

Interconnection Customer as may reasonably 

become necessary consistent with Good 

Utility Practice during the course of the 

Affected System Study. If Affected System 

Interconnection Customer modifies its 

designated point of interconnection, 

interconnection request, or the technical 

information provided therein is modified, the 

time to complete the Affected System Study 

may be extended by Transmission Provider. 

5.0 The Affected System Study shall 

provide the following information: 

—identification of any circuit breaker short 

circuit capability limits exceeded as a 

result of the interconnection; 

—identification of any thermal overload or 

voltage limit violations resulting from the 

interconnection; 

—identification of any instability or 

inadequately damped response to system 

disturbances resulting from the 

interconnection; 

—non-binding, good faith estimated cost of 

facilities required to interconnect the 

{description of generating facility} to the 

transmission provider with whom 

interconnection has been requested; and 

—description of how such facilities will 

address the identified short circuit, 

instability, and power flow issues. 

6.0 Upon receipt of this Agreement, 

Transmission Provider shall charge, and 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

shall pay, an initial Affected System Study 

deposit. Any difference between the deposit 

and the actual cost of the Study shall be paid 

by or refunded to Affected System 

Interconnection Customer, as appropriate, 

including interest calculated in accordance 

with section 35.19a(a)(2) of FERC’s 

regulations. 

7.0 This Agreement shall include 

standard miscellaneous terms including, but 

not limited to, indemnities, representations, 

disclaimers, warranties, governing law, 

amendment, execution, waiver, enforceability 

and assignment, which reflect best practices 

in the electric industry, that are consistent 

with regional practices, Applicable Laws and 

Regulations and the organizational nature of 

each Party. All of these provisions, to the 

extent practicable, shall be consistent with 

the provisions of this LGIP and this LGIA. 

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 acting 

as Affected Systemb} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

{Insert name of Affected System 

Interconnection Customer} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Attachment A to the Affected System 

Study Agreement 

Assumptions Used in Conducting the 

Affected System Study 

The Affected System Study will be based 

upon the following assumptions: 

{Assumptions to be completed by Affected 

System Interconnection Customer and 

Transmission Provider acting as Affected 

System} 

Appendix 16 to LGIP—Affected Systems 

Facilities Construction Agreement 

This Agreement is made and entered into 

this __ day of ______, 20__, by and among 

______, organized and existing under the 

laws 20__, of the State of ______ (Affected 

System Interconnection Customer) and 

______, an entity organized under the laws of 

the State of ______ (Transmission Provider 

acting as Affected System). Affected System 

Interconnection Customer and Transmission 

Provider each may be referred to as a ‘‘Party’’ 

or collectively as the ‘‘Parties.’’ 

Recitals 

Whereas, Affected System Interconnection 

Customer is proposing to develop a 

{description of generating facility or 

generating capacity addition to an existing 

generating facility} consistent with the 

interconnection request submitted by 

Affected System Interconnection Customer to 

{name of transmission provider}, 

dated______, for which {name of 

transmission provider} found impacts on 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System; and 

Whereas, Affected System Interconnection 

Customer desires to interconnect the 

{description of generating facility} with 

{name of transmission provider}’s 

transmission system; and 

Whereas, additions, modifications, and 

upgrades must be made to certain existing 

facilities of Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System to accommodate such 

interconnection; and 

Whereas, Affected System Interconnection 

Customer has requested, and Transmission 

Provider has agreed, to enter into this 

Agreement for the purpose of facilitating the 

construction of necessary Affected System 

Network Upgrades; 

Now, Therefore, in consideration of and 

subject to the mutual covenants contained 

herein, the Parties agree as follows: 

Article 1—Definitions 

When used in this Agreement, with initial 

capitalization, the terms specified shall have 

the meanings indicated in this LGIP. 

Article 2—Term of Agreement 

2.1 Effective Date. This Agreement shall 

become effective upon execution by the 

Parties subject to acceptance by FERC (if 

applicable), or if filed unexecuted, upon the 

date specified by FERC. 

2.2 Term. 

2.2.1 General. This Agreement shall 

become effective as provided in Article 2.1 

and shall continue in full force and effect 

until the earlier of (1) the final repayment, 

where applicable, by Transmission Provider 

of the amount funded by Affected System 

Interconnection Customer for Transmission 

Provider’s design, procurement, construction 

and installation of the Affected System 

Network Upgrades provided in Appendix A; 

(2) the Parties agree to mutually terminate 

this Agreement; (3) earlier termination is 

permitted or provided for under Appendix A 

of this Agreement; or (4) Affected System 

Interconnection Customer terminates this 

Agreement after providing Transmission 

Provider with written notice at least sixty (60) 

Calendar Days prior to the proposed 

termination date, provided that Affected 

System Interconnection Customer has no 

outstanding contractual obligations to 

Transmission Provider under this Agreement. 

No termination of this Agreement shall be 

effective until the Parties have complied with 

all Applicable Laws and Regulations 

applicable to such termination. The term of 

this Agreement may be adjusted upon mutual 

agreement of the Parties if the commercial 

operation date for the {description of 

generating facility} or the In-Service Date for 

the Affected System Network Upgrades is 

adjusted in accordance with the rules and 

procedures established by Transmission 

Provider. 

2.2.2 Termination Upon Default. In 

the event of a Default by a Party, the NonBreaching Party shall have the termination 

rights described in Articles 5 and 6; provided, 

however, if the Default does not pose a threat 

to the reliability of Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System, Transmission Provider 

may not terminate this Agreement if Affected 

System Interconnection Customer is the 

Breaching Party and Affected System 

Interconnection Customer (1) has 

undertaken, in accordance with Article 5.2, 

to cure the Breach that led to the Default and 

has failed to cure the Breach for reasons 

other than Affected System Interconnection 

Customer’s failure to diligently commence 

reasonable and appropriate steps to cure the 

Breach within the thirty (30) Calendar Days 

allowed by Article 5.2, and (2) compensates 

Transmission Provider within thirty (30) 

Calendar Days for the amount of damage 

billed to Affected System Interconnection 

Customer by Transmission Provider for any 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40017 

damages, including costs and expenses, 

incurred by Transmission Provider as a result 

of such Default. 

2.2.3 Consequences of Termination. In 

the event of a termination by either Party, 

other than a termination by Affected System 

Interconnection Customer due to a Breach by 

Transmission Provider, Affected System 

Interconnection Customer must pay 

Transmission Provider all amounts still due 

and payable for construction and installation 

of the Affected System Network Upgrades 

(including, without limitation, any 

equipment ordered related to such 

construction), plus all out-of-pocket expenses 

incurred by Transmission Provider in 

connection with the construction and 

installation of the Affected System Network 

Upgrades, through the date of termination, 

plus any actual costs which Transmission 

Provider reasonably incurs in (1) winding up 

work and construction demobilization and 

(2) ensuring the safety of persons and 

property and the integrity and safe and 

reliable operation of Transmission Provider’s 

Transmission System. Transmission Provider 

must minimize such costs. 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

is responsible for the cost of additional 

facilities that is caused to another 

Interconnection Customer due to the 

termination of this Agreement, Affected 

System Interconnection Customer’s LGIA, or 

any of Affected System Interconnection 

Customer’s other Affected System Facilities 

Construction Agreement(s). 

2.2.4 Reservation of Rights. 

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 Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall have the 

right to make a unilateral filing with FERC to 

modify this Agreement pursuant to section 

206 or any other applicable provision of the 

Federal Power Act and FERC’s rules and 

regulations thereunder; 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 thereunder, 

except to the extent that the Parties otherwise 

mutually agree as provided herein. 

2.3 Filing. Transmission Provider shall 

file this Agreement (and any amendment 

hereto) with the appropriate Governmental 

Authority, if required. Affected System 

Interconnection Customer may request that 

any information so provided be subject to the 

confidentiality provisions of Article 8. If 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

has executed this Agreement, or any 

amendment thereto, Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall reasonably 

cooperate with Transmission Provider with 

respect to such filing and to provide any 

information reasonably requested by 

Transmission Provider needed to comply 

with applicable regulatory requirements. 

2.4 Survival. This Agreement shall 

continue in effect after termination to the 

extent necessary to provide for final billings 

and payments and for costs incurred 

hereunder, including billings and payments 

pursuant to this Agreement; to permit the 

determination and enforcement of liability 

and indemnification obligations arising from 

acts or events that occurred while this 

Agreement was in effect; and to permit each 

Party to have access to the lands of the other 

Party pursuant to this Agreement or other 

applicable agreements, to disconnect, remove 

or salvage its own facilities and equipment. 

2.5 Termination Obligations. Upon 

any termination pursuant to this Agreement, 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

shall be responsible for the payment of all 

costs or other contractual obligations 

incurred prior to the termination date 

including previously incurred capital costs, 

penalties for early termination, costs of 

removal and site restoration. 

Article 3—Construction of Network 

Upgrades 

3.1 Construction 

3.1.1 Transmission Provider 

Obligations. Transmission Provider will (or 

will cause such action to) design, procure, 

construct and install, and Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall pay, 

consistent with Article 3.2, the cost of all 

Affected System Network Upgrades identified 

in Appendix A. All Affected System Network 

Upgrades designed, procured, constructed 

and installed by Transmission Provider 

pursuant to this Agreement shall satisfy all 

requirements of applicable safety and/or 

engineering codes and comply with Good 

Utility Practice, and further, shall satisfy all 

Applicable Laws and Regulations. 

3.1.2 Suspension of Work 

3.1.2.1 Right to Suspend for Force 

Majeure Event. Provided that such 

suspension is permissible under the 

authorizations, permits or approvals granted 

for the construction of the Affected System 

Network Upgrades, Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall not suspend 

unless a Force Majeure event occurs. Affected 

System Interconnection Customer must 

provide to Transmission Provider (1) written 

notice of its request for suspension and (2) 

a sufficient description, as determined by 

Transmission Provider, of the Force Majeure 

event. Only the Affected System 

Interconnection Customer milestones 

described in the Appendices of this 

Agreement are subject to suspension under 

this Article 3.1.2. Prior to suspension, 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

must also provide security acceptable to 

Transmission Provider, equivalent to the 

higher of five million dollars ($5,000,000) or 

the total cost of all Affected System Network 

Upgrades listed in Appendix A of this 

Agreement. Affected System Network 

Upgrades will be constructed on the schedule 

described in the Appendices of this 

Agreement unless: (1) construction is 

prevented by the order of a Governmental 

Authority; (2) the Affected System Network 

Upgrades are not needed by any other 

Interconnection Customer; or (3) 

Transmission Provider determines that a 

Force Majeure event prevents construction. In 

the event of (1), (2), or (3), security shall be 

released by Transmission Provider upon the 

determination by Transmission Provider that 

the Network Upgrades will no longer be 

constructed. If suspension occurs, Affected 

System Interconnection Customer shall be 

responsible for the costs which Transmission 

Provider incurs (i) in accordance with this 

Agreement prior to the suspension, (ii) in 

suspending such work, including any costs 

incurred to perform such work as may be 

necessary to ensure the safety of persons and 

property and the integrity of Transmission 

Provider’s Transmission System and, if 

applicable, any costs incurred in connection 

with the cancellation of contracts and orders 

for material which Transmission Provider 

cannot reasonably avoid, and (iii) reasonably 

incurs in winding up work and construction 

demobilization; provided, however, that, 

prior to canceling any such contracts or 

orders, Transmission Provider shall obtain 

Affected System Interconnection Customer’s 

authorization. Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall be 

responsible for all costs incurred in 

connection with Affected System 

Interconnection Customer’s failure to 

authorize cancellation of such contracts or 

orders. 

Interest on amounts paid by Affected 

System Interconnection Customer to 

Transmission Provider for the design, 

procurement, construction, and installation 

of the Affected System Network Upgrades, 

shall not accrue during periods in which 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

has suspended construction under this 

Article 3.1.2. Transmission Provider shall 

invoice Affected System Interconnection 

Customer pursuant to Article 4 and will use 

reasonable efforts to minimize its costs. In 

the event that Affected System 

Interconnection Customer suspends work 

pursuant to this Article, no construction 

duration, timelines and schedules set forth in 

Appendix A shall be suspended during the 

period of suspension unless ordered by a 

Governmental Authority, with such order 

being the Force Majeure event causing the 

suspension. 

3.1.2.2 Recommencing of Work. If 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

requests that Transmission Provider 

recommence such work, Transmission 

Provider shall have no obligation to afford 

such work the priority it would have had but 

for the prior actions of Affected System 

Interconnection Customer to suspend the 

work. In such event, Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall be 

responsible for any costs incurred in 

recommencing the work. All recommenced 

work shall be completed pursuant to an 

amended schedule for the interconnection 

agreed to by the Parties. Transmission 

Provider has the right to conduct a Re-Study 

of the Affected System Study if conditions 

have materially changed subsequent to the 

request to suspend. Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall be 

responsible for the costs of any studies 

required. 

3.1.2.3 Right to Suspend Due to 

Default. Transmission Provider reserves the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40018 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

right, upon written notice to Affected System 

Interconnection Customer, to suspend, at any 

time, work by Transmission Provider due to 

an Event of Default by Affected System 

Interconnection Customer. The incurrence of 

additional expenses associated with the 

construction and installation of the Affected 

System Network Upgrades upon the 

occurrence of either a Breach that Affected 

System Interconnection Customer is unable 

to cure pursuant to Article 5 or an Event of 

Default pursuant to Article 5. Any form of 

suspension by Transmission Provider shall 

not be barred by Articles 2.2.2, 2.2.3 or 5.2.2, 

nor shall it affect Transmission Provider’s 

right to terminate the work or this Agreement 

pursuant to Article 6. In such events, 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

shall be responsible for costs which 

Transmission Provider incurs as set forth in 

Article 2.2.3. 

3.1.3 Construction Status. 

Transmission Provider shall keep Affected 

System Interconnection Customer advised 

periodically as to the progress of its 

respective design, procurement and 

construction efforts as described in Appendix 

A. Affected System Interconnection Customer 

may, at any time and reasonably, request a 

progress report from Transmission Provider. 

If, at any time, Affected System 

Interconnection Customer determines that 

the completion of the Affected System 

Network Upgrades will not be required until 

after the specified In-Service Date, Affected 

System Interconnection Customer will 

provide written notice to Transmission 

Provider of such later date upon which the 

completion of the Affected System Network 

Upgrades would be required. Transmission 

Provider may delay the In-Service Date of the 

Affected System Network Upgrades 

accordingly. 

3.1.4 Timely Completion. Transmission 

Provider shall use reasonable efforts to 

design, procure, construct, install, and test 

the Affected System Network Upgrades in 

accordance with the schedule set forth in 

Appendix A, which schedule may be revised 

from time to time by mutual agreement of the 

Parties. If any event occurs that will affect the 

time or ability to complete the Affected 

System Network Upgrades, Transmission 

Provider shall promptly notify Affected 

System Interconnection Customer. In such 

circumstances, Transmission Provider shall, 

within fifteen (15) Calendar Days of such 

notice, convene a meeting with Affected 

System Interconnection Customer to evaluate 

the alternatives available to Affected System 

Interconnection Customer. Transmission 

Provider shall also make available to 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

all studies and work papers related to the 

event and corresponding delay, including all 

information that is in the possession of 

Transmission Provider that is reasonably 

needed by Affected System Interconnection 

Customer to evaluate alternatives. 

Transmission Provider shall, at Affected 

System Interconnection Customer’s request 

and expense, use reasonable efforts to 

accelerate its work under this Agreement to 

meet the schedule set forth in Appendix A, 

provided that Affected System 

Interconnection Customer authorizes such 

actions and the costs associated therewith in 

advance. 

3.2 Interconnection Costs. 

3.2.1 Costs. Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall pay to 

Transmission Provider costs (including taxes 

and financing costs) associated with seeking 

and obtaining all necessary approvals and of 

designing, engineering, constructing, and 

testing the Affected System Network 

Upgrades, as identified in Appendix A, in 

accordance with the cost recovery method 

provided herein. Unless Transmission 

Provider elects to fund the Affected System 

Network Upgrades, they shall be initially 

funded by Affected System Interconnection 

Customer. 

3.2.1.1 Lands of Other Property 

Owners. If any part of the Affected System 

Network Upgrades is to be installed on 

property owned by persons other than 

Affected System Interconnection Customer or 

Transmission Provider, Transmission 

Provider shall, at Affected System 

Interconnection Customer’s expense, use 

efforts similar in nature and extent to those 

that it typically undertakes on its own behalf 

or on behalf of its Affiliates, including use of 

its eminent domain authority to the extent 

permitted and consistent with Applicable 

Laws and Regulations and, to the extent 

consistent with such Applicable Laws and 

Regulations, to procure from such persons 

any rights of use, licenses, rights of way and 

easements that are necessary to construct, 

operate, maintain, test, inspect, replace or 

remove the Affected System Network 

Upgrades upon such property. 

3.2.2 Repayment. 

3.2.2.1 Repayment. Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall be entitled to 

a cash repayment by Transmission 

Provider(s) that owns the Affected System 

Network Upgrades, of the amount paid 

respectively to Transmission Provider, if any, 

for the Affected System Network Upgrades, 

and including any tax gross-up or other taxrelated payments associated with the 

repayable portion of the Affected System 

Network Upgrades, and not refunded to 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

pursuant to Article 3.3.1 or otherwise. The 

Parties may mutually agree to a repayment 

schedule, to be outlined in Appendix A, not 

to exceed twenty (20) years from the 

Commercial Operation Date of the Affected 

System Network Upgrades, for the complete 

repayment for all applicable costs associated 

with the Affected System Network Upgrades. 

Any repayment shall include interest 

calculated in accordance with the 

methodology set forth in FERC’s regulations 

at 18 CFR 35.19 a(a)(2)(iii) from the date of 

any payment for Affected System Network 

Upgrades through the date on which Affected 

System Interconnection Customer receives a 

repayment of such payment pursuant to this 

subparagraph. Interest shall not accrue 

during periods in which Affected System 

Interconnection Customer has suspended 

construction pursuant to Article 3.1.2.1 or 

the Affected System Network Upgrades have 

been determined not to be needed pursuant 

to this Article 3.2.2.1. Affected System 

Interconnection Customer may assign such 

repayment rights to any person. 

3.2.2.2 Impact of Failure to Achieve 

Commercial Operation. If the {description 

of generating facility} fails to achieve 

commercial operation, but it or another 

generating facility is later constructed and 

makes use of the Affected System Network 

Upgrades, Transmission Provider shall at 

that time reimburse Affected System 

Interconnection Customer. Before any such 

reimbursement can occur, Affected System 

Interconnection Customer (or the entity that 

ultimately constructs the {description of 

generating facility}), if different, is 

responsible for identifying the entity to which 

the reimbursement must be made. 

3.3 Taxes. 

3.3.1 Indemnification for 

Contributions in Aid of Construction. 

With regard only to payments made by 

Affected System Interconnection Customer to 

Transmission Provider for the installation of 

the Affected System Network Upgrades, 

Transmission Provider shall not include a 

gross-up for income taxes in the amounts it 

charges Affected System Interconnection 

Customer for the installation of the Affected 

System Network Upgrades unless (1) 

Transmission Provider has determined, in 

good faith, that the payments or property 

transfers made by Affected System 

Interconnection Customer to Transmission 

Provider should be reported as income 

subject to taxation or (2) any Governmental 

Authority directs Transmission Provider to 

report payments or property as income 

subject to taxation. Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall reimburse 

Transmission Provider for such costs on a 

fully grossed-up basis, in accordance with 

this Article, within thirty (30) Calendar Days 

of receiving written notification from 

Transmission Provider of the amount due, 

including detail about how the amount was 

calculated. 

The indemnification obligation shall 

terminate at the earlier of (1) the expiration 

of the ten (10)-year testing period and the 

applicable statute of limitation, as it may be 

extended by Transmission Provider upon 

request of the Internal Revenue Service, to 

keep these years open for audit or 

adjustment, or (2) the occurrence of a 

subsequent taxable event and the payment of 

any related indemnification obligations as 

contemplated by this Article. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of 

this Article 3.3.1, and to the extent permitted 

by law, to the extent that the receipt of such 

payments by Transmission Provider is 

determined by any Governmental Authority 

to constitute income by Transmission 

Provider subject to taxation, Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall protect, 

indemnify and hold harmless Transmission 

Provider and its Affiliates, from all claims by 

any such Governmental Authority for any 

tax, interest and/or penalties associated with 

such determination. Upon receiving written 

notification of such determination from the 

Governmental Authority, Transmission 

Provider shall provide Affected System 

Interconnection Customer with written 

notification within thirty (30) Calendar Days 

of such determination and notification. 

Transmission Provider, upon the timely 

written request by Affected System 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40019 

Interconnection Customer and at Affected 

System Interconnection Customer’s expense, 

shall appeal, protest, seek abatement of, or 

otherwise oppose such determination. 

Transmission Provider reserves the right to 

make all decisions with regard to the 

prosecution of such appeal, protest, 

abatement or other contest, including the 

compromise or settlement of the claim; 

provided that Transmission Provider shall 

cooperate and consult in good faith with 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

regarding the conduct of such contest. 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

shall not be required to pay Transmission 

Provider for the tax, interest and/or penalties 

prior to the seventh (7th) Calendar Day 

before the date on which Transmission 

Provider (1) is required to pay the tax, 

interest and/or penalties or other amount in 

lieu thereof pursuant to a compromise or 

settlement of the appeal, protest, abatement 

or other contest; (2) is required to pay the tax, 

interest and/or penalties as the result of a 

final, non-appealable order by a 

Governmental Authority; or (3) is required to 

pay the tax, interest and/or penalties as a 

prerequisite to an appeal, protest, abatement 

or other contest. In the event such appeal, 

protest, abatement or other contest results in 

a determination that Transmission Provider 

is not liable for any portion of any tax, 

interest and/or penalties for which Affected 

System Interconnection Customer has 

already made payment to Transmission 

Provider, Transmission Provider shall 

promptly refund to Affected System 

Interconnection Customer any payment 

attributable to the amount determined to be 

non-taxable, plus any interest or other 

payments Transmission Provider receives or 

which Transmission Provider may be entitled 

with respect to such payment. Affected 

System Interconnection Customer shall 

provide Transmission Provider with credit 

assurances sufficient to meet Affected System 

Interconnection Customer’s estimated 

liability for reimbursement of Transmission 

Provider for taxes, interest and/or penalties 

under this Article 3.3.1. Such estimated 

liability shall be stated in Appendix A. 

To the extent that Transmission Provider is 

a limited liability company and not a 

corporation, and has elected to be taxed as 

a partnership, then the following shall apply: 

Transmission Provider represents, and the 

Parties acknowledge, that Transmission 

Provider is a limited liability company and 

is treated as a partnership for federal income 

tax purposes. Any payment made by Affected 

System Interconnection Customer to 

Transmission Provider for Affected System 

Network Upgrades is to be treated as an 

upfront payment. It is anticipated by the 

Parties that any amounts paid by Affected 

System Interconnection Customer to 

Transmission Provider for Affected System 

Network Upgrades will be reimbursed to 

Affected System Interconnection Customer in 

accordance with the terms of this Agreement, 

provided Affected System Interconnection 

Customer fulfills its obligations under this 

Agreement. 

3.3.2 Private Letter Ruling. At 

Affected System Interconnection Customer’s 

request and expense, Transmission Provider 

shall file with the Internal Revenue Service 

a request for a private letter ruling as to 

whether any property transferred or sums 

paid, or to be paid, by Affected System 

Interconnection Customer to Transmission 

Provider under this Agreement are subject to 

federal income taxation. Affected System 

Interconnection Customer will prepare the 

initial draft of the request for a private letter 

ruling and will certify under penalties of 

perjury that all facts represented in such 

request are true and accurate to the best of 

Affected System Interconnection Customer’s 

knowledge. Transmission Provider and 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

shall cooperate in good faith with respect to 

the submission of such request. 

3.3.3 Other Taxes. Upon the timely 

request by Affected System Interconnection 

Customer, and at Affected System 

Interconnection Customer’s sole expense, 

Transmission Provider shall appeal, protest, 

seek abatement of, or otherwise contest any 

tax (other than federal or state income tax) 

asserted or assessed against Transmission 

Provider for which Affected System 

Interconnection Customer may be required to 

reimburse Transmission Provider under the 

terms of this Agreement. Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall pay to 

Transmission Provider on a periodic basis, as 

invoiced by Transmission Provider, 

Transmission Provider’s documented 

reasonable costs of prosecuting such appeal, 

protest, abatement, or other contest. Affected 

System Interconnection Customer and 

Transmission Provider shall cooperate in 

good faith with respect to any such contest. 

Unless the payment of such taxes is a 

prerequisite to an appeal or abatement or 

cannot be deferred, no amount shall be 

payable by Affected System Interconnection 

Customer to Transmission Provider for such 

taxes until they are assessed by a final, nonappealable order by any court or agency of 

competent jurisdiction. In the event that a tax 

payment is withheld and ultimately due and 

payable after appeal, Affected System 

Interconnection Customer will be responsible 

for all taxes, interest and penalties, other 

than penalties attributable to any delay 

caused by Transmission Provider. Each Party 

shall cooperate with the other Party to 

maintain each Party’s tax status. Nothing in 

this Agreement is intended to adversely affect 

any Party’s tax-exempt status with respect to 

the issuance of bonds including, but not 

limited to, local furnishing bonds, as 

described in section 142(f) of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

Article 4—Security, Billing and 

Payments 

4.1 Provision of Security. By the earlier 

of (1) thirty (30) Calendar Days prior to the 

due date for Affected System Interconnection 

Customer’s first payment under the payment 

schedule specified in Appendix A or (2) the 

first date specified in Appendix A for the 

ordering of equipment by Transmission 

Provider for installing the Affected System 

Network Upgrades, Affected System 

Interconnection Customer shall provide 

Transmission Provider, at Affected System 

Interconnection Customer’s option, a 

guarantee, a surety bond, letter of credit or 

other form of security that is reasonably 

acceptable to Transmission Provider. Such 

security for payment shall be in an amount 

sufficient to cover the costs for constructing, 

procuring and installing the applicable 

portion of Affected System Network 

Upgrades and shall be reduced on a dollarfor-dollar basis for payments made to 

Transmission Provider for these purposes. 

The guarantee must be made by an entity 

that meets the creditworthiness requirements 

of Transmission Provider and contain terms 

and conditions that guarantee payment of 

any amount that may be due from Affected 

System Interconnection Customer, up to an 

agreed-to maximum amount. The letter of 

credit must be issued by a financial 

institution reasonably acceptable to 

Transmission Provider and must specify a 

reasonable expiration date. The surety bond 

must be issued by an insurer reasonably 

acceptable to Transmission Provider and 

must specify a reasonable expiration date. 

4.2 Invoice. Each Party shall submit to 

the other Party, on a monthly basis, invoices 

of amounts due, if any, for the preceding 

month. Each invoice shall state the month to 

which the invoice applies and fully describe 

the services and equipment provided. The 

Parties may discharge mutual debts and 

payment obligations due and owing to each 

other on the same date through netting, in 

which case all amounts a Party owes to the 

other Party under this Agreement, including 

interest payments, shall be netted so that 

only the net amount remaining due shall be 

paid by the owing Party. 

4.3 Payment. Invoices shall be rendered 

to the paying Party at the address specified 

by the Parties. The Party receiving the invoice 

shall pay the invoice within thirty (30) 

Calendar Days of receipt. All payments shall 

be made in immediately available funds 

payable to the other Party, or by wire transfer 

to a bank named and account designated by 

the invoicing Party. Payment of invoices by 

a Party will not constitute a waiver of any 

rights or claims that Party may have under 

this Agreement. 

4.4 Final Invoice. Within six (6) months 

after completion of the construction of the 

Affected System Network Upgrades, 

Transmission Provider shall provide an 

invoice of the final cost of the construction 

of the Affected System Network Upgrades 

and shall set forth such costs in sufficient 

detail to enable Affected System 

Interconnection Customer to compare the 

actual costs with the estimates and to 

ascertain deviations, if any, from the cost 

estimates. Transmission Provider shall 

refund, with interest (calculated in 

accordance with 18 CFR 35.19a(a)(2)(iii)), to 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

any amount by which the actual payment by 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

for estimated costs exceeds the actual costs 

of construction within thirty (30) Calendar 

Days of the issuance of such final 

construction invoice. 

4.5 Interest. Interest on any unpaid 

amounts shall be calculated in accordance 

with 18 CFR 35.19a(a)(2)(iii). 

4.6 Payment During Dispute. In the 

event of a billing dispute among the Parties, 

Transmission Provider shall continue to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40020 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

construct the Affected System Network 

Upgrades under this Agreement as long as 

Affected System Interconnection Customer: 

(1) continues to make all payments not in 

dispute; and (2) pays to Transmission 

Provider or into an independent escrow 

account the portion of the invoice in dispute, 

pending resolution of such dispute. If 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

fails to meet these two requirements, then 

Transmission Provider may provide notice to 

Affected System Interconnection Customer of 

a Default pursuant to Article 5. Within thirty 

(30) Calendar Days after the resolution of the 

dispute, the Party that owes money to 

another Party shall pay the amount due with 

interest calculated in accord with the 

methodology set forth in 18 CFR 

35.19a(a)(2)(iii). 

Article 5—Breach, Cure and Default 

5.1 Events of Breach. A Breach of this 

Agreement shall include: 

(a) The failure to pay any amount when 

due; 

(b) The failure to comply with any material 

term or condition of this Agreement, 

including but not limited to any material 

Breach of a representation, warranty or 

covenant made in this Agreement; 

(c) Failure of a Party to provide such access 

rights, or a Party’s attempt to revoke access 

or terminate such access rights, as provided 

under this Agreement; or 

(d) Failure of a Party to provide 

information or data to another Party as 

required under this Agreement, provided the 

Party entitled to the information or data 

under this Agreement requires such 

information or data to satisfy its obligations 

under this Agreement. 

5.2 Notice of Breach, Cure and 

Default. Upon the occurrence of an event of 

Breach, the Party not in Breach, when it 

becomes aware of the Breach, shall give 

written notice of the Breach to the Breaching 

Party and to any other person representing a 

Party to this Agreement identified in writing 

to the other Party in advance. Such notice 

shall set forth, in reasonable detail, the 

nature of the Breach, and where known and 

applicable, the steps necessary to cure such 

Breach. 

5.2.1 Upon receiving written notice of the 

Breach hereunder, the Breaching Party shall 

have a period to cure such Breach 

(sometimes hereinafter referred as ‘‘Cure 

Period’’) which shall be thirty (30) Calendar 

Days unless such Breach is due to an 

occurrence under Article 5.1(a) in which case 

the cure period will be five (5) Business Days. 

5.2.2 If the Breach is such that it cannot 

be cured within the Cure Period, the 

Breaching Party will commence in good faith 

all steps as are reasonable and appropriate 

to cure the Breach within such Cure Period 

and thereafter diligently pursue such action 

to completion. In the event the Breaching 

Party fails to: (1) cure the Breach, or to 

commence reasonable and appropriate steps 

to cure the Breach, within the Cure Period; 

or (2) completely cure the Breach within sixty 

(60) Calendar Days if the Breach occurs 

pursuant to Article 5.1(b), (c), or (d), the 

Breaching Party will be in Default of this 

Agreement and the non-Breaching Party may 

terminate this Agreement for cause by 

notifying the other Party in writing or take 

whatever action at law or in equity as may 

appear necessary or desirable to enforce the 

performance or observance of any rights, 

remedies, obligations, agreement, or 

covenants under this Agreement. 

5.3 Rights in the Event of Default. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon the 

occurrence of an event of Default, the nonDefaulting Party shall be entitled to exercise 

all rights and remedies it may have in equity 

or at law. 

Article 6—Termination of Agreement 

6.1 Expiration of Term. Except as 

otherwise specified in this Article 6, the 

Parties’ obligations under this Agreement 

shall terminate at the conclusion of the term 

of this Agreement. 

6.2 Termination. In addition to the 

termination provisions set forth in Article 

2.2, a Party may terminate this Agreement 

upon the Default of the other Party in 

accordance with this Agreement. Subject to 

the limitations set forth in Article 6.3, in the 

event of a Default, the non-Defaulting Party 

may terminate this Agreement only upon the 

later of (1) its giving of written notice of 

termination to the other Party; and (2) unless 

no longer required by FERC, the filing at 

FERC of a notice of termination for this 

Agreement, which filing must be accepted for 

filing by FERC. 

6.3 Disposition of Facilities Upon 

Termination of Agreement. 

6.3.1 Transmission Provider 

Obligations. Upon termination of this 

Agreement, unless otherwise agreed by the 

Parties in writing, Transmission Provider: 

(a) shall, prior to the construction and 

installation of any portion of the Affected 

System Network Upgrades and to the extent 

possible, cancel any pending orders of, or 

return, such equipment or material for such 

Affected System Network Upgrades; 

(b) may keep in place any portion of the 

Affected System Network Upgrades already 

constructed and installed; and, 

(c) shall perform such work as may be 

necessary to ensure the safety of persons and 

property and to preserve the integrity of 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System (e.g., construction demobilization to 

return the system to its original state, windup work). 

6.3.2 Customer Obligations. Upon 

billing by Transmission Provider, Affected 

System Interconnection Customer shall 

reimburse Transmission Provider for any 

costs incurred by Transmission Provider in 

performance of the actions required or 

permitted by Article 6.3.1 and for the cost of 

any Affected System Network Upgrades 

described in Appendix A. Transmission 

Provider shall use reasonable efforts to 

minimize costs and shall offset the amounts 

owed by any salvage value of facilities, if 

applicable. Affected System Interconnection 

Customer shall pay these costs pursuant to 

Article 4.3 of this Agreement. 

6.3.3 Pre-construction or Installation. 

Upon termination of this Agreement and 

prior to the construction and installation of 

any portion of the Affected System Network 

Upgrades, Transmission Provider may, at its 

option, retain any portion of such Affected 

System Network Upgrades not cancelled or 

returned in accordance with Article 6.3.1(a), 

in which case Transmission Provider shall be 

responsible for all costs associated with 

procuring such Affected System Network 

Upgrades. To the extent that Affected System 

Interconnection Customer has already paid 

Transmission Provider for any or all of such 

costs, Transmission Provider shall refund 

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

for those payments. If Transmission Provider 

elects to not retain any portion of such 

facilities, Transmission Provider shall convey 

and make available to Affected System 

Interconnection Customer such facilities as 

soon as practicable after Affected System 

Interconnection Customer’s payment for such 

facilities. 

6.4 Survival of Rights. Termination or 

expiration of this Agreement shall not relieve 

either Party of any of its liabilities and 

obligations arising hereunder prior to the 

date termination becomes effective, and each 

Party may take whatever judicial or 

administrative actions as appear necessary 

or desirable to enforce its rights hereunder. 

The applicable provisions of this Agreement 

will continue in effect after expiration, or 

early termination hereof to the extent 

necessary to provide for (1) final billings, 

billing adjustments and other billing 

procedures set forth in this Agreement; (2) 

the determination and enforcement of 

liability and indemnification obligations 

arising from acts or events that occurred 

while this Agreement was in effect; and (3) 

the confidentiality provisions set forth in 

Article 8. 

Article 7—Subcontractors 

7.1 Subcontractors. Nothing in this 

Agreement shall prevent a Party from 

utilizing the services of subcontractors, 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. 

7.1.1 Responsibility of Principal. The 

creation of any subcontract relationship shall 

not relieve the hiring Party of any of its 

obligations under this Agreement. In 

accordance with the provisions of this 

Agreement, each Party shall be fully 

responsible to the other Party for the acts or 

omissions of any subcontractor it hires as if 

no subcontract had been made. Any 

applicable obligation imposed by this 

Agreement upon a Party shall be equally 

binding upon, and shall be construed as 

having application to, any subcontractor of 

such Party. 

7.1.2 No Third-Party Beneficiary. 

Except as may be specifically set forth to the 

contrary herein, no subcontractor or any 

other party is intended to be, nor will it be 

deemed to be, a third-party beneficiary of this 

Agreement. 

7.1.3 No Limitation by Insurance. The 

obligations under this Article 7 will not be 

limited in any way by any limitation of any 

insurance policies or coverages, including 

any subcontractor’s insurance. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40021 

Article 8—Confidentiality 

8.1 Confidentiality. Confidential 

Information shall include, without limitation, 

all information relating to a Party’s 

technology, research and development, 

business affairs, and pricing, and any 

information supplied to the other Party prior 

to the execution of this Agreement. 

Information is Confidential Information 

only if it is clearly designated or marked in 

writing as confidential on the face of the 

document, or, if the information is conveyed 

orally or by inspection, if the Party providing 

the information orally informs the Party 

receiving the information that the 

information is confidential. The Parties shall 

maintain as confidential any information 

that is provided and identified by a Party as 

Critical Energy Infrastructure Information 

(CEII), as that term is defined in 18 CFR 

388.113(c). 

Such confidentiality will be maintained in 

accordance with this Article 8. If requested 

by the receiving Party, the disclosing Party 

shall provide in writing, the basis for 

asserting that the information referred to in 

this Article warrants confidential treatment, 

and the requesting Party may disclose such 

writing to the appropriate Governmental 

Authority. Each Party shall be responsible for 

the costs associated with affording 

confidential treatment to its information. 

8.1.1 Term. During the term of this 

Agreement, and for a period of three (3) years 

after the expiration or termination of this 

Agreement, except as otherwise provided in 

this Article 8 or with regard to CEII, each 

Party shall hold in confidence and shall not 

disclose to any person Confidential 

Information. CEII shall be treated in 

accordance with FERC policies and 

regulations. 

8.1.2 Scope. Confidential Information 

shall not include information that the 

receiving Party can demonstrate: (1) is 

generally available to the public other than 

as a result of a disclosure by the receiving 

Party; (2) was in the lawful possession of the 

receiving Party on a non-confidential basis 

before receiving it from the disclosing Party; 

(3) was supplied to the receiving Party 

without restriction by a non-Party, who, to 

the knowledge of the receiving Party after due 

inquiry, was under no obligation to the 

disclosing Party to keep such information 

confidential; (4) was independently 

developed by the receiving Party without 

reference to Confidential Information of the 

disclosing Party; (5) is, or becomes, publicly 

known, through no wrongful act or omission 

of the receiving Party or Breach of this 

Agreement; or (6) is required, in accordance 

with Article 8.1.6 of this Agreement, to be 

disclosed by any Governmental Authority or 

is otherwise required to be disclosed by law 

or subpoena, or is necessary in any legal 

proceeding establishing rights and 

obligations under this Agreement. 

Information designated as Confidential 

Information will no longer be deemed 

confidential if the Party that designated the 

information as confidential notifies the 

receiving Party that it no longer is 

confidential. 

8.1.3 Release of Confidential 

Information. No Party shall release or 

disclose Confidential Information to any 

other person, except to its Affiliates (limited 

by the Standards of Conduct requirements), 

subcontractors, employees, agents, 

consultants, or to non-Parties that may be or 

are considering providing financing to or 

equity participation with Affected System 

Interconnection Customer, or to potential 

purchasers or assignees of Affected System 

Interconnection Customer, on a need-to-know 

basis in connection with this Agreement, 

unless such person has first been advised of 

the confidentiality provisions of this Article 

8 and has agreed to comply with such 

provisions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a 

Party providing Confidential Information to 

any person shall remain primarily 

responsible for any release of Confidential 

Information in contravention of this Article 8. 

8.1.4 Rights. Each Party shall retain all 

rights, title, and interest in the Confidential 

Information that it discloses to the receiving 

Party. The disclosure by a Party to the 

receiving Party of Confidential Information 

shall not be deemed a waiver by the 

disclosing Party or any other person or entity 

of the right to protect the Confidential 

Information from public disclosure. 

8.1.5 Standard of Care. Each Party 

shall use at least the same standard of care 

to protect Confidential Information it receives 

as it uses to protect its own Confidential 

Information from unauthorized disclosure, 

publication or dissemination. Each Party 

may use Confidential Information solely to 

fulfill its obligations to the other Party under 

this Agreement or its regulatory 

requirements. 

8.1.6 Order of Disclosure. If a court or 

a Government Authority or entity with the 

right, power, and apparent authority to do so 

requests or requires either Party, by 

subpoena, oral deposition, interrogatories, 

requests for production of documents, 

administrative order, or otherwise, to disclose 

Confidential Information, that Party shall 

provide the disclosing Party with prompt 

notice of such request(s) or requirement(s) so 

that the disclosing Party may seek an 

appropriate protective order or waive 

compliance with the terms of this Agreement. 

Notwithstanding the absence of a protective 

order or waiver, the Party may disclose such 

Confidential Information which, in the 

opinion of its counsel, the Party is legally 

compelled to disclose. Each Party will use 

reasonable efforts to obtain reliable 

assurance that confidential treatment will be 

accorded any Confidential Information so 

furnished. 

8.1.7 Termination of Agreement. Upon 

termination of this Agreement for any reason, 

each Party shall, within ten (10) Business 

Days of receipt of a written request from the 

other Party, use reasonable efforts to destroy, 

erase, or delete (with such destruction, 

erasure, and deletion certified in writing to 

the requesting Party) or return to the 

requesting Party any and all written or 

electronic Confidential Information received 

from the requesting Party, except that each 

Party may keep one copy for archival 

purposes, provided that the obligation to 

treat it as Confidential Information in 

accordance with this Article 8 shall survive 

such termination. 

8.1.8 Remedies. The Parties agree that 

monetary damages would be inadequate to 

compensate a Party for the other Party’s 

Breach of its obligations under this Article 8. 

Each Party accordingly agrees that the 

disclosing Party shall be entitled to equitable 

relief, by way of injunction or otherwise, if 

the receiving Party Breaches or threatens to 

Breach its obligations under this Article 8, 

which equitable relief shall be granted 

without bond or proof of damages, and the 

breaching Party shall not plead in defense 

that there would be an adequate remedy at 

law. Such remedy shall not be deemed an 

exclusive remedy for the Breach of this 

Article 8, but it shall be in addition to all 

other remedies available at law or in equity. 

The Parties further acknowledge and agree 

that the covenants contained herein are 

necessary for the protection of legitimate 

business interests and are reasonable in 

scope. Neither Party, however, shall be liable 

for indirect, incidental, or consequential or 

punitive damages of any nature or kind 

resulting from or arising in connection with 

this Article 8. 

8.1.9 Disclosure to FERC, its Staff or 

a State. Notwithstanding anything in this 

Article 8 to the contrary, and pursuant to 18 

CFR 1b.20, if FERC or its staff, during the 

course of an investigation or otherwise, 

requests information from a Party that is 

otherwise required to be maintained in 

confidence pursuant to this Agreement, the 

Party shall provide the requested information 

to FERC or its staff, within the time provided 

for in the request for information. In 

providing the information to FERC or its staff, 

the Party must, consistent with 18 CFR 

388.112, request that the information be 

treated as confidential and non-public by 

FERC and its staff and that the information 

be withheld from public disclosure. Parties 

are prohibited from notifying the other Party 

to this Agreement prior to the release of the 

Confidential Information to FERC or its staff. 

The Party shall notify the other Party to the 

Agreement when it is notified by FERC or its 

staff 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. 

8.1.10 Subject to the exception in Article 

8.1.9, any information that a disclosing Party 

claims is competitively sensitive, commercial 

or financial information under this 

Agreement shall not be disclosed by the 

receiving Party to any person not employed 

or retained by the receiving Party, except to 

the extent disclosure is (1) required by law; 

(2) reasonably deemed by the disclosing 

Party to be required to be disclosed in 

connection with a dispute between or among 

the Parties, or the defense of litigation or 

dispute; (3) otherwise permitted by consent of 

the disclosing Party, such consent not to be 

unreasonably withheld; or (4) necessary to 

fulfill its obligations under this Agreement or 

as the Regional Transmission Organization 

or a Local Balancing Authority operator 

including disclosing the Confidential 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40022 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Information to a regional or national 

reliability organization. The Party asserting 

confidentiality shall notify the receiving Party 

in writing of the information that Party 

claims is confidential. Prior to any 

disclosures of that Party’s Confidential 

Information under this subparagraph, or if 

any non-Party or Governmental Authority 

makes any request or demand for any of the 

information described in this subparagraph, 

the Party that received the Confidential 

Information from the disclosing Party agrees 

to promptly notify the disclosing Party in 

writing and agrees to assert confidentiality 

and cooperate with the disclosing Party in 

seeking to protect the Confidential 

Information from public disclosure by 

confidentiality agreement, protective order or 

other reasonable measures. 

Article 9—Information Access and Audit 

Rights 

9.1 Information Access. Each Party 

shall make available to the other Party 

information necessary to verify the costs 

incurred by the other Party for which the 

requesting Party is responsible under this 

Agreement and carry out obligations and 

responsibilities under this Agreement, 

provided that the Parties shall not use such 

information for purposes other than those set 

forth in this Article 9.1 and to enforce their 

rights under this Agreement. 

9.2 Audit Rights. Subject to the 

requirements of confidentiality under Article 

8 of this Agreement, the accounts and 

records related to the design, engineering, 

procurement, and construction of the 

Affected System Network Upgrades shall be 

subject to audit during the period of this 

Agreement and for a period of twenty-four 

(24) months following Transmission 

Provider’s issuance of a final invoice in 

accordance with Article 4.4. Affected System 

Interconnection Customer at its expense shall 

have the right, during normal business hours, 

and upon prior reasonable notice to 

Transmission Provider, to audit such 

accounts and records. Any audit authorized 

by this Article 9.2 shall be performed at the 

offices where such accounts and records are 

maintained and shall be limited to those 

portions of such accounts and records that 

relate to obligations under this Agreement. 

Article 10—Notices 

10.1 General. Any notice, demand or 

request required or permitted to be given by 

a Party to the other Party and any instrument 

required or permitted to be tendered or 

delivered by a Party in writing to another 

Party may be so given, tendered or delivered, 

as the case may be, by depositing the same 

with the United States Postal Service with 

postage prepaid, for transmission by certified 

or registered mail, addressed to the Parties, 

or personally delivered to the Parties, at the 

address set out below: 

To Transmission Provider: 

To Affected System Interconnection 

Customer: 

10.2 Billings and Payments. Billings 

and payments shall be sent to the addresses 

shown in Article 10.1 unless otherwise agreed 

to by the Parties. 

10.3 Alternative Forms of Notice. Any 

notice or request required or permitted to be 

given by a Party to the other Party and not 

required by this Agreement to be given in 

writing may be so given by telephone, 

facsimile or email to the telephone numbers 

and email addresses set out below: 

To Transmission Provider: 

To Affected System Interconnection 

Customer: 

Article 11—Miscellaneous 

11.1 This Agreement shall include 

standard miscellaneous terms including, but 

not limited to, indemnities, representations, 

disclaimers, warranties, governing law, 

amendment, execution, waiver, enforceability 

and assignment, which reflect best practices 

in the electric industry, that are consistent 

with regional practices, Applicable Laws and 

Regulations and the organizational nature of 

each Party. All of these provisions, to the 

extent practicable, shall be consistent with 

the provisions of this LGIP and this LGIA. 

In witness whereof, the Parties have 

executed this Agreement in multiple 

originals, each of which shall constitute and 

be an original Agreement among the Parties. 

Transmission Provider 

{Transmission Provider Acting As Affected 

System} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Name: lllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Affected System Interconnection Customer 

{Affected System Interconnection Customer} 

By: lllllllllllllllllll

Name: lllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Project No. lllllllllllllll

Appendix A to the Affected Systems 

Facilities Construction Agreement 

Affected System Network Upgrades, Cost 

Estimates And Responsibility, 

Construction Schedule and Monthly 

Payment Schedule 

This Appendix A is a part of the Affected 

Systems Facilities Construction Agreement 

between Affected System Interconnection 

Customer and Transmission Provider. 

1.1 Affected System Network 

Upgrades to be installed by 

Transmission Provider. 

1.2 First Equipment Order (including 

permitting). 

1.2.1. Permitting and Land Rights— 

Transmission Provider Affected System 

Network Upgrades 

1.3 Construction Schedule. Where 

applicable, construction of the Affected 

System Network Upgrades is scheduled as 

follows and will be periodically updated as 

necessary: 

Table 1—Transmission Provider Construction Activities 

Milestone number Description Start 

date 

End 

date 

Initial Synchronization Date.

Commercial Operation Date.

Note: Construction schedule assumes that 

Transmission Provider has obtained final 

authorizations and security from Affected 

System Interconnection Customer and all 

necessary permits from Governmental 

Authorities as necessary prerequisites to 

commence construction of any of the 

Affected System Network Upgrades. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40023 

1.4 Payment Schedule. 

1.4.1 Timing of and Adjustments to 

Affected System Interconnection 

Customer’s Payments and Security. 

1.4.2 Monthly Payment Schedule. 

Affected System Interconnection 

Customer’s payment schedule is as 

follows. 

Table 2—Affected System Interconnection Customer’s Payment/ 

Security Obligations for Affected 

System Network Upgrades 

Milestone 

number Description Date 

* 

Initial Synchronization Date.

Commercial 

Operation 

Date.

Note: Affected System Interconnection 

Customer’s payment or provision of security 

as provided in this Agreement operates as a 

condition precedent to Transmission 

Provider’s obligations to construct any 

Affected System Network Upgrades, and 

failure to meet this schedule will constitute 

a Breach pursuant to Article 5.1 of this 

Agreement. 

1.5 Permits, Licenses, and 

Authorizations. 

Appendix B to the Affected Systems 

Facilities Construction Agreement 

Notification of Completed Construction 

This Appendix B is a part of the Affected 

Systems Facilities Construction Agreement 

among Affected System Interconnection 

Customer and Transmission Provider. Where 

applicable, when Transmission Provider has 

completed construction of the Affected 

System Network Upgrades, Transmission 

Provider shall send notice to Affected System 

Interconnection Customer in substantially 

the form following: 

{Date} 

{Affected System Interconnection Customer 

Address} 

Re: Completion of Affected System Network 

Upgrade 

Dear {Name or Title}: 

This letter is sent pursuant to the Affected 

Systems Facilities Construction Agreement 

among {Transmission Provider} and 

{Affected System Interconnection Customer}, 

dated ______, 20__. 

On {Date}, Transmission Provider 

completed to its satisfaction all work on the 

Affected System Network Upgrades required 

to facilitate the safe and reliable 

interconnection and operation of Affected 

System Interconnection Customer’s 

{description of generating facility}. 

Transmission Provider confirms that the 

Affected System Network Upgrades are in 

place. 

Thank you. 

{Signature} 

{Transmission Provider acting as Affected 

System Representative} 

Appendix C to the Affected Systems 

Facilities Construction Agreement 

Exhibits 

This Appendix C is a part of the Affected 

Systems Facilities Construction Agreement 

among Affected System Interconnection 

Customer and Transmission Provider. 

Exhibit A1—Transmission Provider Site 

Map 

Exhibit A2—Site Plan 

Exhibit A3—Affected System Network 

Upgrades Plan & PROFILE

Exhibit A4—Estimated Cost of Affected 

System Network Upgrades 

Location 

Facilities to be 

constructed by 

transmission 

provider 

Estimate in 

dollars 

Total: ........................

Appendix 17 to LGIP—Shared Network 

Upgrades Payment Schedule 

Interconnection Customer is required to 

contribute to the cost of Shared Network 

Upgrades, as identified pursuant to LGIP 

Section 3.10, that are funded by another 

Interconnection Customer pursuant to the 

LGIP. Each Interconnection Customer with 

one or more Shared Network Upgrade(s) 

identified in Appendix A of its Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement shall 

make a one-time payment under this 

Appendix 17 to the LGIP to Transmission 

Provider in accordance with the terms in the 

Large Generator Interconnection Agreement. 

The one-time payment will reflect the cost of 

the Shared Network Upgrade(s) assigned to 

Interconnection Customer as determined by 

Transmission Provider. All revenue collected 

by Transmission Provider through this 

Appendix shall be distributed to the 

appropriate Interconnection Customer(s). 

When applicable, the transmission credit 

requirement under Article 11.4 of the Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement applies 

to Interconnection Customer’s contribution to 

the cost of Shared Network Upgrades. 

Project 

number Funding interconnection customer NERC ID Amount of shared network upgrade being funded 

Project 

number Recipient interconnection customer NERC ID Amount of shared network upgrade being refunded 

Appendix C: Compilation of proposed 

changes to the pro forma SGIP 

Note: Proposed deletions are in brackets 

and proposed additions are in italics. 

Section 1. Application 

* * * * * 

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. Any such 

modification of the Interconnection Request 

must be accompanied by any resulting 

updates to the models described in 

Attachment 2 of this SGIP. 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40024 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Section 3. Study 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 nonbinding good faith estimate of the cost to 

perform the study. In addition, 

Interconnection Customer’s request to 

evaluate whether advanced power flow 

control, transmission switching, dynamic line 

ratings, static synchronous compensators, 

and/or static VAR compensators are feasible 

alternatives that could provide cost and/or 

time savings for Interconnection Customer 

must be submitted at the scoping meeting. 

3.2.3 The scoping meeting may be 

omitted by mutual agreement. In order to 

remain in consideration for interconnection, 

an Interconnection Customer [who]that 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, a nonbinding good faith estimate of the cost to 

perform the study, and whether 

Interconnection Customer requested an 

evaluation of whether advanced power flow 

control, transmission switching, dynamic line 

ratings, static synchronous compensators, 

and/or static VAR compensators are feasible 

alternatives that could provide cost and/or 

time savings for Interconnection Customer. 

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. 

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 non-binding 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). 

3.3.6 At the request of any 

Interconnection Customer, the feasibility 

study will evaluate advanced power flow 

control, transmission switching, dynamic line 

ratings, static synchronous compensators, 

and/or static VAR compensators for 

feasibility, cost, and time savings as either an 

alternative to the Network Upgrade(s) or to 

provide Provisional Interconnection Service. 

Transmission Provider shall include the 

evaluation in the feasibility study report. 

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. 

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 non-binding 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 transmissiondependent 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. 

3.4.10 At the request of Interconnection 

Customer, the system impact study will 

evaluate advanced power flow control, 

transmission switching, dynamic line ratings, 

static synchronous compensators, and/or 

static VAR compensators for feasibility, cost, 

and time savings as either an alternative to 

the Network Upgrade(s) or to provide 

Provisional Interconnection Service. 

Transmission Provider shall include the 

evaluation in the system impact study report. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40025 

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. 

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. 

3.5.8 At the request of Interconnection 

Customer, the facilities study will evaluate 

advanced power flow control, transmission 

switching, dynamic line ratings, static 

synchronous compensators, and/or static 

VAR compensators for feasibility, cost, and 

time savings as either an alternative to the 

Network Upgrade(s) or to provide Provisional 

Interconnection Service. Transmission 

Provider shall include the evaluation in the 

facilities study report. 

Section 4. Provisions That Apply to All 

Interconnection Requests 

* * * 

4.11 Alternative Transmission 

Technologies Annual Report 

Each Transmission Provider shall submit 

an annual informational report to the 

Commission that details whether, and if so 

how, advanced power flow control, 

transmission switching, dynamic line ratings, 

static synchronous compensators, and/or 

static VAR compensators were considered in 

interconnection requests over the last year. 

The report must be submitted by the last 

calendar day of December annually. 

* * * 

Attachment 2—Small Generator 

Interconnection Request 

(Application Form) 

* * * 

Models for Non-Synchronous Generators 

Interconnection Customer shall provide (1) 

a validated user-defined root mean squared 

(RMS) positive sequence dynamics model; (2) 

an appropriately parameterized generic 

library RMS positive sequence dynamics 

model, including model block diagram of the 

inverter control and plant control systems, as 

defined by the selection in Table 1 or a model 

otherwise approved by the Western Electricity 

Coordinating Council, that corresponds to 

Interconnection Customer’s Generating 

Facility; and (3) an electromagnetic transient 

model if Transmission Provider performs an 

electromagnetic transient study as part of the 

interconnection study process. 

{Transmission Provider to insert whether 

they perform an electromagnetic transient 

study.} A user-defined model is a set of 

programming code created by equipment 

manufacturers or developers that captures 

the latest features of controllers that are 

mainly software based and represents the 

entities’ control strategies but does not 

necessarily correspond to any generic library 

model. For a model to be validated, there 

must be confirmation that the equipment 

behavior is consistent with the model 

behavior (e.g., an attestation from 

Interconnection Customer that the model 

accurately represents the entire plant; 

attestations from each equipment 

manufacturer that the user defined model 

accurately represents the component of the 

plant; or test data). 

Table 1 

GE PSLF Siemens PSS/E * PowerWorld 

simulator Description 

pvd1 .............. ................................. PVD1 ...................... Distributed PV system model. 

derla ........... DERAU1 ................. DERlA .................. Distributed energy resource model. 

regcla ......... REGCAU1, 

REGCA1.

REGClA ............... Generator/converter model. 

regclb ......... REGCBU1 .............. REGClB ............... Generator/converter model. 

wt1g .............. WT1G1 ................... WT1G and WT1G1 Wind turbine model for Type-1 wind turbines (conventional directly connected induction generator). 

wt2g .............. WT2G1 ................... WT2G and WT2G1 Generator model for generic Type-2 wind turbines. 

wt2e .............. WT2E1 .................... WT2E and WT2E1 Rotor resistance control model for wound-rotor induction wind-turbine generator 

wt2g. 

reecla ......... REECAU1, 

REECA1.

REEClA ................ Renewable energy electrical control model. 

reeclc ......... REECCU1 ............... REEClC ................ Electrical control model for battery energy storage system. 

reecld ......... REECDU1 ............... REEClD ................ Renewable energy electrical control model. 

wt1t ............... WT12T1 .................. WT1T and WT12T1 Wind turbine model for Type-1 wind turbines (conventional directly connected induction generator). 

wt1plb ........ wt1plb ................... WT12A1UlB ......... Generic wind turbine pitch controller for WTGs of Type 1 and 2. 

wt2t ............... WT12T1 .................. WT2T ...................... Wind turbine model for Type-2 wind turbines (directly connected induction generator wind turbines with an external rotor resistance). 

wtgtla ......... WTDTAU1, 

WTDTA1.

WTGTlA ............... Wind turbine drive train model. 

wtgala ........ WTARAU1, 

WTARA1.

WTGAlA ............... Simple aerodynamic model. 

wtgpla ........ WTPTAU1, 

WTPTA1.

WTGPTlA ............. Wind Turbine Generator Pitch controller. 

wtgqla ........ WTTQAU1, 

WTTQA1.

WTGTRQlA .......... Wind Turbine Generator Torque controller. 

wtgwgola .... WTGWGOAU ......... WTGWGOlA ........ Supplementary control model for Weak Grids. 

wtgibffrla .... WTGIBFFRA ........... WTGIBFFRlA ....... Inertial-base fast frequency response control. 

wtgplb ........ WTPTBU1 ............... WTGPTlB ............. Wind Turbine Generator Pitch controller. 

wtgtlb ......... WTDTBU1 .............. WTGTlB ............... Drive train model. 

repcla ......... Type 4: REPCAU1 

(v33), REPCA1 

(v34).

REPClA ................ Power Plant Controller. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40026 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Table 1—Continued 

GE PSLF Siemens PSS/E * PowerWorld 

simulator Description 

Type 3: REPCTAU1 

(v33), REPCTA1 

(v34).

repclb ......... PLNTBU1 ................ REPClB ................ Power Plant Level Controller for controlling several plants/devices. 

In regards to Siemens PSS/E: * 

Names of other models for interface with other devices: REA3XBU1, 

REAX4BU1—for interface with Type 3 and 4 renewable machines. 

SWSAXBU1—for interface with SVC (modeled as switched shunt in powerflow). 

SYNAXBU1—for interface with synchronous condenser. 

FCTAXBU1— for interface with FACTS device. 

repclc ......... REPCCU ................. REPClC ................ Power plant controller. 

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? llYes llNo 

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)llllllllllll 

Enclose copy of any site documentation 

that describes and details the operation of the 

protection and control schemes. Is Available 

Documentation Enclosed? llYes llNo 

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? llYes 

llNo 

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: llllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Appendix D—Compilation of proposed 

changes to the pro forma LGIA 

Note: Proposed deletions are in brackets 

and proposed additions are in italics. 

Article 1. Definitions 

* * * 

[Applicable Reliability Council shall mean 

the reliability council applicable to the 

Transmission System to which the 

Generating Facility is directly 

interconnected.] 

Applicable Reliability Standards shall 

mean the requirements and guidelines of 

[NERC,]the [Applicable Reliability 

Council]Electric Reliability Organization and 

the [Control Area]Balancing Authority Area 

of the Transmission System to which the 

Generating Facility is directly 

interconnected. 

Balancing Authority shall mean an 

entity that integrates resource plans ahead of 

time, maintains load interchange-generation 

balance within a Balancing Authority Area, 

and supports interconnection frequency in 

real time. 

Balancing Authority Area shall mean 

the collection of generation, transmission, 

and loads within the metered boundaries of 

the Balancing Authority. The Balancing 

Authority maintains load-resource balance 

within this area. 

* * * 

Cluster shall mean a group of one or more 

Interconnection Requests that are studied 

together for the purpose of conducting the 

Cluster Study. 

Cluster Study shall mean the evaluation 

of one or more Interconnection Requests 

within a Cluster as described in more detail 

in Section 7 of the LGIP. 

Clustering shall mean the process whereby 

one or more [a group of]Interconnection 

Requests [is] are studied together, instead of 

serially, [for the purpose of conducting the 

Interconnection System Impact Study]as 

described in more detail in Section 7 of the 

LGIP. 

Co-Located Resource shall mean 

multiple Generating Facilities located on the 

same site. 

* * * 

[Control Area shall mean an electrical 

system or systems bounded by 

interconnection metering and telemetry, 

capable of controlling generation to maintain 

its interchange schedule with other Control 

Areas and contributing to frequency 

regulation of the interconnection. A Control 

Area must be certified by an Applicable 

Reliability Council.] 

* * * 

Electric Reliability Organization shall 

mean NERC. 

* * * 

Generating Facility shall mean 

Interconnection Customer’s device for the 

production and/or storage for later injection 

of electricity identified in the 

Interconnection Request, but shall not 

include [the]Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities. 

* * * 

Interconnection Facilities shall mean 

[the]Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities and [the]Interconnection 

Customer’s Interconnection Facilities. 

Collectively, Interconnection Facilities 

include all facilities and equipment between 

the Generating Facility and the Point of 

Interconnection, including any modification, 

additions or upgrades that are necessary to 

physically and electrically interconnect the 

Generating Facility to [the]Transmission 

Provider’s Transmission System. 

Interconnection Facilities are sole use 

facilities by Interconnection Customer and 

shall not include Distribution Upgrades, 

Stand Alone Network Upgrades or Network 

Upgrades. Multiple Generating Facilities 

located on the same site of Interconnection 

Customer may share Interconnection 

Facilities. 

Interconnection Facilities Study shall 

mean a study conducted by 

[the]Transmission Provider or a third party 

consultant for [the]Interconnection Customer 

to determine a list of facilities (including 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities and Network Upgrades as 

identified in the [Interconnection System 

Impact]Cluster Study), the cost of those 

facilities, and the time required to 

interconnect the Generating Facility with 

[the] Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System. The scope of the study is defined in 

Section 8 of the LGIP[Standard Large 

Generator Interconnection Procedures]. 

***

[Interconnection Feasibility Study shall 

mean a preliminary evaluation of the system 

impact and cost of interconnecting the 

Generating Facility to the Transmission 

Provider’s Transmission System, the scope of 

which is described in Section 6 of the 

Standard Large Generator Interconnection 

Procedures.] 

[Interconnection Feasibility Study 

Agreement shall mean the form of agreement 

contained in Appendix 2 of the Standard 

Large Generator Interconnection Procedures 

for conducting the Interconnection 

Feasibility Study.] 

* * * 

Interconnection Study shall mean any of 

the following studies: the Informational 

Interconnection [Feasibility]Study, the 

Cluster Study, [the Interconnection System 

Impact Study,]the Surplus Interconnection 

Service System Impact Study, and the 

Interconnection Facilities Study described in 

the Standard Large Generator Interconnection 

Procedures. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40027 

[Interconnection System Impact Study 

shall mean an engineering study that 

evaluates the impact of the proposed 

interconnection on the safety and reliability 

of Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System and, if applicable, an Affected 

System. The study shall identify and detail 

the system impacts that would result if the 

Generating Facility were interconnected 

without project modifications or system 

modifications, focusing on the Adverse 

System Impacts identified in the 

Interconnection Feasibility Study, or to study 

potential impacts, including but not limited 

to those identified in the Scoping Meeting as 

described in the Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Procedures.] 

[Interconnection System Impact Study 

Agreement shall mean the form of agreement 

contained in Appendix 3 of the Standard 

Large Generator Interconnection Procedures 

for conducting the Interconnection System 

Impact Study.] 

* * * 

Material Modification shall mean those 

modifications that have a material impact on 

the cost or timing of any Interconnection 

Request with a later or equal Queue 

Position[queue priority date]. 

* * * 

Queue Position shall mean 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] that 

Interconnection[Request by the Transmission 

Provider] Customer satisfies all of the 

requirements of Sections 3.4 of the LGIP to 

enter the Cluster Study. All Interconnection 

Requests within a Cluster are considered 

equally queued. 

* * * 

Scoping Meeting shall mean the meeting 

between representatives of[the] 

Interconnection Customer(s) and 

Transmission Provider conducted for the 

purpose of discussing the proposed 

interconnection request, alternative 

interconnection options, to exchange 

information including any transmission data 

and earlier study evaluations that would be 

reasonably expected to [impact] affect such 

interconnection options, to analyze such 

information, and to determine the potential 

feasible Points of Interconnection. 

Shared Network Upgrade shall mean a 

Network Upgrade that has been assigned to 

an Interconnection Customer(s) and is 

subsequently identified as necessary to 

accommodate the interconnection of the 

Large Generating Facility of an 

Interconnection Customer(s) in a later Cluster 

and meets the requirements pursuant to the 

process outlined in Section 3.10 of the LGIP. 

Site Control shall mean [documentation 

reasonably demonstrating]the exclusive land 

right to develop, construct, operate, and 

maintain the Generating Facility over the 

term of expected operation of the Generating 

Facility. Site Control may be demonstrated by 

documentation establishing: (1) ownership 

of, a leasehold interest in, or a right to 

develop a site [for the purpose of 

constructing]of sufficient size to construct 

and operate the Generating Facility or 

multiple Generating Facilities on a shared 

site behind one Point of Interconnection; (2) 

an option to purchase or acquire a 

leasehold[site for such purpose; or (3) an 

exclusivity or other business relationship 

between] site of sufficient size to construct 

and operate the Generating Facility; or (3) 

any other documentation that clearly 

demonstrates the right of Interconnection 

Customer[and the entity having the right to 

sell, lease or grant Interconnection Customer 

the right to possess or] to exclusively occupy 

a site [for such purpose.]of sufficient size to 

construct and operate the Generating 

Facility. Site Control for any Co-Located 

Resource is demonstrated by a contract or 

other agreement demonstrating shared land 

use for all Co-Located Resources that meet 

the aforementioned provisions of this Site 

Control definition. 

* * * 

Stand Alone Network Upgrades shall 

mean Network Upgrades that are not part of 

an Affected System that an Interconnection 

Customer may construct without affecting 

day-to-day operations of the Transmission 

System during their construction and, as 

indicated under proportional impact 

analysis, are only required for a single 

Interconnection Request. Both 

[the]Transmission Provider and 

[the]Interconnection Customer must agree as 

to what constitutes Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades and identify them in Appendix A 

to the Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement. If[the] 

Transmission Provider and Interconnection 

Customer disagree about whether a particular 

Network Upgrade is a Stand Alone Network 

Upgrade, [the]Transmission Provider must 

provide [the]Interconnection Customer a 

written technical explanation outlining why 

[the]Transmission Provider does not consider 

the Network Upgrade to be a Stand Alone 

Network Upgrade within 15 days of its 

determination. 

* * * 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities shall mean all facilities and 

equipment owned, controlled, or operated by 

[the]Transmission Provider from the Point of 

Change of Ownership to the Point of 

Interconnection as identified in Appendix A 

to the Standard Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement, including any 

modifications, additions or upgrades to such 

facilities and equipment. Transmission 

Provider’s Interconnection Facilities are sole 

use facilities and shall not include 

Distribution Upgrades, Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades or Network Upgrades. 

Transmission Provider’s Interconnection 

Facilities may be shared by more than one 

Generating Facility in a given Cluster Study 

or by Generating Facilities that are part of a 

Co-Located resource. 

* * * 

Article 5. Interconnection Facilities 

Engineering, Procurement, & Construction 

* * * 

5.4 Power System Stabilizers. 

[The]Interconnection Customer shall procure, 

install, maintain and operate Power System 

Stabilizers in accordance with the guidelines 

and procedures established by the 

[Applicable Reliability Council]Electric 

Reliability Organization. Transmission 

Provider reserves the right to reasonably 

establish minimum acceptable settings for 

any installed Power System Stabilizers, 

subject to the design and operating 

limitations of the [Large]Generating Facility. 

If the [Large]Generating Facility’s Power 

System Stabilizers are removed from service 

or not capable of automatic operation, 

Interconnection Customer shall immediately 

notify Transmission Provider’s system 

operator, or its designated representative. 

The requirements of this paragraph shall not 

apply to wind generators. 

* * * 

Article 7. Metering 

7.1 General. Each Party shall comply 

with the[Applicable Reliability Council] 

Electric Reliability Organization 

requirements. Unless otherwise agreed by the 

Parties, Transmission Provider shall install 

Metering Equipment at the Point of 

Interconnection prior to any operation of the 

[Large]Generating Facility and shall own, 

operate, test and maintain such Metering 

Equipment. Power flows to and from the 

[Large]Generating Facility shall be measured 

at or, at Transmission Provider’s option, 

compensated to, the Point of Interconnection. 

Transmission Provider shall provide 

metering quantities, in analog and/or digital 

form, to Interconnection Customer upon 

request. Interconnection Customer shall bear 

all reasonable documented costs associated 

with the purchase, installation, operation, 

testing and maintenance of the Metering 

Equipment. 

* * * 

Article 9. Operations 

9.1 General. Each Party shall comply 

with the[Applicable Reliability Council] 

Electric Reliability Organization 

requirements. Each Party shall provide to the 

other Party all information that may 

reasonably be required by the other Party to 

comply with Applicable Laws and 

Regulations and Applicable Reliability 

Standards. 

9.2 [Control Area]Balancing Authority 

Area Notification. At least three months 

before Initial Synchronization Date, 

Interconnection Customer shall notify 

Transmission Provider in writing of the 

[Control Area]Balancing Authority Area in 

which the [Large]Generating Facility will be 

located. If Interconnection Customer elects to 

locate the [Large]Generating Facility in 

a[Control Area] Balancing Authority Area 

other than the [Control Area]Balancing 

Authority Area in which the 

[Large]Generating Facility is physically 

located, and if permitted to do so by the 

relevant transmission tariffs, all necessary 

arrangements, including but not limited to 

those set forth in Article 7 and Article 8 of 

this LGIA, and remote [Control 

Area]Balancing Authority Area generator 

interchange agreements, if applicable, and 

the appropriate measures under such 

agreements, shall be executed and 

implemented prior to the placement of 

the[Large] Generating Facility in the other 

[Control Area]Balancing Authority Area. 

***


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40028 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

9.4 Interconnection Customer 

Obligations. Interconnection Customer shall 

at its own expense operate, maintain and 

control the [Large]Generating Facility and 

Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection 

Facilities in a safe and reliable manner and 

in accordance with this LGIA. 

Interconnection Customer shall operate the 

[Large]Generating Facility and 

Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection 

Facilities in accordance with all applicable 

requirements of the [Control Area]Balancing 

Authority Area of which it is part, as such 

requirements are set forth in Appendix C, 

Interconnection Details, of this LGIA. 

Appendix C, Interconnection Details, will be 

modified to reflect changes to the 

requirements as they may change from time 

to time. Either Party may request that the 

other Party provide copies of the 

requirements set forth in Appendix C, 

Interconnection Details, of this LGIA. 

* * * 

9.6 Reactive Power and Primary Frequency 

Response 

9.6.1 Power Factor Design Criteria 

9.6.1.1 Synchronous Generation. 

Interconnection Customer shall design the 

[Large]Generating Facility to maintain a 

composite power delivery at continuous 

rated power output at the Point of 

Interconnection at a power factor within the 

range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, unless 

[the]Transmission Provider has established 

different requirements that apply to all 

synchronous generators in the [Control 

Area]Balancing Authority Area on a 

comparable basis. 

9.6.1.2 Non-Synchronous Generation. 

Interconnection Customer shall design the 

[Large]Generating Facility to maintain a 

composite power delivery at continuous 

rated power output at the high-side of the 

generator substation at a power factor within 

the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, 

unless[the] Transmission Provider has 

established a different power factor range 

that applies to all non-synchronous 

generators in the [Control Area]Balancing 

Authority Area on a comparable basis. This 

power factor range standard shall be dynamic 

and can be met using, for example, power 

electronics designed to supply this level of 

reactive capability (taking into account any 

limitations due to voltage level, real power 

output, etc.) or fixed and switched 

capacitors, or a combination of the two. This 

requirement shall only apply to newly 

interconnecting non-synchronous generators 

that have not yet executed a Facilities Study 

Agreement as of the effective date of the 

Final Rule establishing this requirement 

(Order No. 827). 

9.6.2 Voltage Schedules. Once 

Interconnection Customer has synchronized 

the [Large]Generating Facility with the 

Transmission System, Transmission Provider 

shall require Interconnection Customer to 

operate the[Large] Generating Facility to 

produce or absorb reactive power within the 

design limitations of the [Large]Generating 

Facility set forth in Article 9.6.1 (Power 

Factor Design Criteria). Transmission 

Provider’s voltage schedules shall treat all 

sources of reactive power in the [Control 

Area]Balancing Authority Area in an 

equitable and not unduly discriminatory 

manner. Transmission Provider shall exercise 

Reasonable Efforts to provide Interconnection 

Customer with such schedules at least one (1) 

day in advance, and may make changes to 

such schedules as necessary to maintain the 

reliability of the Transmission System. 

Interconnection Customer shall operate the 

[Large]Generating Facility to maintain the 

specified output voltage or power factor at 

the Point of Interconnection within the 

design limitations of the [Large]Generating 

Facility set forth in Article 9.6.1 (Power 

Factor Design Criteria). If Interconnection 

Customer is unable to maintain the specified 

voltage or power factor, it shall promptly 

notify the System Operator. 

9.6.2.1 Voltage Regulators. Whenever the 

[Large]Generating Facility is operated in 

parallel with the Transmission System and 

voltage regulators are capable of operation, 

Interconnection Customer shall operate 

the[Large] Generating Facility with its voltage 

regulators in automatic operation. If the 

[Large]Generating Facility’s voltage 

regulators are not capable of such automatic 

operation, Interconnection Customer shall 

immediately notify Transmission Provider’s 

system operator, or its designated 

representative, and ensure that such 

[Large]Generating Facility’s reactive power 

production or absorption (measured in 

MVARs) are within the design capability of 

the [Large]Generating Facility’s generating 

unit(s) and steady state stability limits. 

Interconnection Customer shall not cause 

its[Large] Generating Facility to disconnect 

automatically or instantaneously from the 

Transmission System or trip any generating 

unit comprising the [Large]Generating 

Facility for an under or over frequency 

condition unless the abnormal frequency 

condition persists for a time period beyond 

the limits set forth in ANSI/IEEE Standard 

C37.106, or such other standard as applied to 

other generators in the [Control 

Area]Balancing Authority Area on a 

comparable basis. 

* * * 

9.7.3 [Under-Frequency and Over 

Frequency Conditions]Ride Through 

Capability and Performance. The 

Transmission System is designed to 

automatically activate a load-shed program as 

required by the [Applicable Reliability 

Council]Electric Reliability Organization in 

the event of an underfrequency system 

disturbance. Interconnection Customer shall 

implement under-frequency and overfrequency relay set points for the 

[Large]Generating Facility as required by 

the[Applicable Reliability Council] Electric 

Reliability Organization to ensure frequency 

‘‘ride through’’ capability of the 

Transmission System. [Large]Generating 

Facility response to frequency deviations of 

pre-determined magnitudes, both underfrequency and over-frequency deviations, 

shall be studied and coordinated with 

Transmission Provider in accordance with 

Good Utility Practice. Interconnection 

Customer shall also implement under-voltage 

and over-voltage relay set points, or 

equivalent electronic controls, to ensure 

voltage ‘‘ride through’’ capability of the 

Transmission System. The term ‘‘ride 

through’’ as used herein shall mean the 

ability of a Generating Facility to stay 

connected to and synchronized with the 

Transmission System during system 

disturbances within a range of underfrequency, [and]over-frequency, undervoltage, and over-voltage conditions, in 

accordance with Good Utility Practice and 

consistent with any standards and guidelines 

that are applied to other Generating Facilities 

in the Balancing Authority Area on a 

comparable basis. During abnormal 

frequency conditions and voltage conditions 

within the ‘‘no trip zone’’ defined by 

Reliability Standard PRC-024–2 or its 

successor standards, non-synchronous 

Generating Facilities must maintain real 

power production at pre-disturbance levels 

unless providing primary frequency response 

or fast frequency response and must provide 

dynamic reactive power to maintain system 

voltage in accordance with the Generating 

Facility’s voltage schedule. 

* * * 

Article 11. Performance Obligation 

11.3 Network Upgrades and Distribution 

Upgrades. Transmission Provider or 

Transmission Owner shall design, procure, 

construct, install, and own the Network 

Upgrades and Distribution Upgrades 

described in Appendix A, Interconnection 

Facilities, Network Upgrades and 

Distribution Upgrades. [The]Interconnection 

Customer shall be responsible for all costs 

related to Distribution Upgrades. Unless 

Transmission Provider or Transmission 

Owner elects to fund the capital for the 

Network Upgrades, they shall be solely 

funded by Interconnection Customer. 

11.3.1 Shared Network Upgrades. 

Interconnection Customer shall pay 

Transmission Provider or Transmission 

Owner in a one-time lump sum payment for 

Shared Network Upgrade(s) identified 

pursuant to section 3.10 of the LGIP and 

memorialized in Appendix A of the LGIA. 

Transmission Provider or Transmission 

Owner subsequently shall disburse the onetime lump sum payment to appropriate 

Interconnection Customer(s) from an earlier 

Cluster(s) with previously assigned costs 

associated with the Shared Network 

Upgrade(s) in accordance with Appendix 17 

to the LGIP. Where applicable, 

Interconnection Customer(s) from an earlier 

Cluster with previously assigned costs 

associated with the Shared Network 

Upgrades shall assign any transmission 

credits associated with the portion of the 

Shared Network Upgrade that new 

Interconnection Customer reimbursed to the 

new Interconnection Customer, pursuant to 

Article 11.4.1 of the LGIA. If the Shared 

Network Upgrade is not in service, 

Interconnection Customer shall not be 

required to make a payment under Appendix 

17 to the LGIP until the Shared Network 

Upgrade is in service. In the event that 

Interconnection Customer fails to meet its 

obligation to fund Shared Network Upgrades, 

Transmission Provider or Transmission 

Owner shall not be responsible for 

Interconnection Customer’s funding 

obligation. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40029 

* * * 

Article 13. Emergencies 

* * * 

13.2 Obligations. Each Party shall comply 

with the Emergency Condition procedures of 

the applicable ISO/RTO, NERC, the 

[Applicable Reliability Council]Electric 

Reliability Organization, Applicable Laws 

and Regulations, and any emergency 

procedures agreed to by the Joint Operating 

Committee. 

* * * 

Article 22. Confidentiality 

* * * 

22.1.11 Subject to the exception in 

Article 22.1.10, any information that a Party 

claims is competitively sensitive, commercial 

or financial information under this LGIA 

(‘‘Confidential Information‘‘) shall not be 

disclosed by the other Party to any person 

not employed or retained by the other Party, 

except to the extent disclosure is (i) required 

by law; (ii) reasonably deemed by the 

disclosing Party to be required to be 

disclosed in connection with a dispute 

between or among the Parties, or the defense 

of litigation or dispute; (iii) otherwise 

permitted by consent of the other Party, such 

consent not to be unreasonably withheld; or 

(iv) necessary to fulfill its obligations under 

this LGIA or as a transmission service 

provider or a [Control Area] Balancing 

Authority Area operator including disclosing 

the Confidential Information to an RTO or 

ISO or to a regional or national reliability 

organization. The Party asserting 

confidentiality shall notify the other Party in 

writing of the information it claims is 

confidential. Prior to any disclosures of the 

other Party’s Confidential Information under 

this subparagraph, or if any third party or 

Governmental Authority makes any request 

or demand for any of the information 

described in this subparagraph, the 

disclosing Party agrees to promptly notify the 

other Party in writing and agrees to assert 

confidentiality and cooperate with the other 

Party in seeking to protect the Confidential 

Information from public disclosure by 

confidentiality agreement, protective order or 

other reasonable measures. 

* * * 

Article 24. Information Requirements 

* * * 

24.3 Updated Information Submission by 

Interconnection Customer. The updated 

information submission by Interconnection 

Customer, including manufacturer 

information, shall occur no later than one 

hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to 

the Trial Operation. Interconnection 

Customer shall submit a completed copy of 

the [Large]Generating Facility data 

requirements contained in Appendix 1 to the 

LGIP. It shall also include any additional 

information provided to Transmission 

Provider for the [Feasibility]Cluster Study 

and Facilities Study. Information in this 

submission shall be the most current 

[Large]Generating Facility design or expected 

performance data. Information submitted for 

stability models shall be compatible with 

Transmission Provider standard models. If 

there is no compatible model, 

Interconnection Customer will work with a 

consultant mutually agreed to by the Parties 

to develop and supply a standard model and 

associated information. 

If Interconnection Customer’s data is 

materially different from what was originally 

provided to Transmission Provider pursuant 

to the Interconnection Study Agreement 

between Transmission Provider and 

Interconnection Customer, then 

Transmission Provider will conduct 

appropriate studies to determine the impact 

on Transmission Provider Transmission 

System based on the actual data submitted 

pursuant to this Article 24.3. 

[The]Interconnection Customer shall not 

begin Trial Operation until such studies are 

completed. 

* * * 

Appendix A to LGIA—Interconnection 

Facilities, Network Upgrades and 

Distribution Upgrades 

1. Interconnection Facilities: 

(a) {insert Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities}: 

(b) {insert Transmission Provider’s 

Interconnection Facilities}: 

2. Network Upgrades: 

(a) {insert Stand Alone Network 

Upgrades}: 

(b) {insert Other Network Upgrades}: 

(c) {Insert Shared Network Upgrades}: 

* * * 

Appendix E—Compilation of Proposed 

Changes to the pro forma SGIA 

Note: Proposed deletions are in brackets 

and proposed additions are in italics. 

Article 1. Scope and Limitations of 

Agreement 

* * * 

1.5 Responsibilities of the Parties 

* * * 

1.5.7 [The]Interconnection Customer 

shall ensure ‘‘frequency ride through’’ 

capability and ‘‘voltage ride through’’ 

capability of its Small Generating Facility. 

[The]Interconnection Customer shall enable 

these capabilities such that its Small 

Generating Facility shall not disconnect 

automatically or instantaneously from the 

system or equipment of [the]Transmission 

Provider and any Affected Systems for a 

defined under-frequency or over-frequency 

condition, or an under-voltage or overvoltage condition, as tested pursuant to 

section 2.1 of this agreement. The defined 

conditions shall be in accordance with Good 

Utility Practice and consistent with any 

standards and guidelines that are applied to 

other generating facilities in the Balancing 

Authority Area on a comparable basis. The 

Small Generating Facility’s protective 

equipment settings shall comply with[the] 

Transmission Provider’s automatic load-shed 

program. [The]Transmission Provider shall 

review the protective equipment settings to 

confirm compliance with the automatic loadshed program. The term ‘‘ride through’’ as 

used herein shall mean the ability of a Small 

Generating Facility to stay connected to and 

synchronized with the system or equipment 

of [the]Transmission Provider and any 

Affected Systems during system disturbances 

within a range of conditions, in accordance 

with Good Utility Practice and consistent 

with any standards and guidelines that are 

applied to other generating facilities in the 

Balancing Authority Area on a comparable 

basis. The term ‘‘frequency ride through’’ as 

used herein shall mean the ability of a Small 

Generating Facility to stay connected to and 

synchronized with the system or equipment 

of [the]Transmission Provider and any 

Affected Systems during system disturbances 

within a range of under-frequency and overfrequency conditions, in accordance with 

Good Utility Practice and consistent with any 

standards and guidelines that are applied to 

other generating facilities in the Balancing 

Authority Area on a comparable basis. The 

term ‘‘voltage ride through’’ as used herein 

shall mean the ability of a Small Generating 

Facility to stay connected to and 

synchronized with the system or equipment 

of [the]Transmission Provider and any 

Affected Systems during system disturbances 

within a range of under-voltage and overvoltage conditions, in accordance with Good 

Utility Practice and consistent with any 

standards and guidelines that are applied to 

other generating facilities in the Balancing 

Authority Area on a comparable basis. 

During abnormal frequency conditions and 

voltage conditions within the ‘‘no trip zone’’ 

defined by Reliability Standard PRC–024–2 

or its successor standards, non-synchronous 

Small Generating Facilities must maintain 

real power production at pre-disturbance 

levels unless providing primary frequency 

response or fast frequency response and must 

provide dynamic reactive power to maintain 

system voltage in accordance with the Small 

Generating Facility’s voltage schedule. 

1.6 Parallel Operation Obligations. Once 

the Small Generating Facility has been 

authorized to commence parallel operation, 

[the]Interconnection Customer shall abide by 

all rules and procedures pertaining to the 

parallel operation of the Small Generating 

Facility in the applicable [control 

area]Balancing Authority Area, including, 

but not limited to; 1) the rules and 

procedures concerning the operation of 

generation set forth in the Tariff or by the 

applicable system operator(s) for [the] 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System and; 2) the Operating Requirements 

set forth in Attachment 5 of this Agreement. 

* * * 

1.8 Reactive Power and Primary 

Frequency Response 

1.8.1 Power Factor Design Criteria 

1.8.1.1 Synchronous Generation. 

[The]Interconnection Customer shall design 

its Small Generating Facility to maintain a 

composite power delivery at continuous 

rated power output at the Point of 

Interconnection at a power factor within the 

range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, unless 

[the]Transmission Provider has established 

different requirements that apply to all 

similarly situated synchronous generators in 

the [control area]Balancing Authority Area 

on a comparable basis. 

1.8.1.2 Non-Synchronous Generation. 

[The]Interconnection Customer shall design 

its Small Generating Facility to maintain a 

composite power delivery at continuous 

rated power output at the high-side of the 

generator substation at a power factor within 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40030 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1 16 U.S.C. § 824d. 

2See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Filing, 

Docket No. ER22–2110 (filed June 14, 2022). 

3See Building for the Future Through Elec. Reg’l 

Transmission Planning & Cost Allocation & 

Generator Interconnection, 179 FERC ¶ 61,028 

(2022) (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting). 

4See id. (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting). 

5 Id. (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting at P 3). 

6 Improvements to Generator Interconnection 

Procedures & Agreements, 179 FERC ¶ 61,194 

(2022). 

7 16 U.S.C. § 824e. 

the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, 

unless [the]Transmission Provider has 

established a different power factor range 

that applies to all similarly situated nonsynchronous generators in the [control 

area]Balancing Authority Area on a 

comparable basis. This power factor range 

standard shall be dynamic and can be met 

using, for example, power electronics 

designed to supply this level of reactive 

capability (taking into account any 

limitations due to voltage level, real power 

output, etc.) or fixed and switched 

capacitors, or a combination of the two. This 

requirement shall only apply to newly 

interconnecting non-synchronous generators 

that have not yet executed a Facilities Study 

Agreement as of the effective date of the 

Final Rule establishing this requirement 

(Order No. 827). 

* * * 

1.8.4.1 Governor or Equivalent Controls. 

Whenever the Small Generating Facility is 

operated in parallel with the Transmission 

System, Interconnection Customer shall 

operate the Small Generating Facility with its 

governor or equivalent controls in service 

and responsive to frequency. Interconnection 

Customer shall: (1) in coordination with 

Transmission Provider and/or the relevant 

[b]Balancing [a]Authority, set the deadband 

parameter to: (1) a maximum of ±0.036 Hz 

and set the droop parameter to a maximum 

of 5 percent; or (2) implement the relevant 

droop and deadband settings from an 

approved NERC Reliability Standard that 

provides for equivalent or more stringent 

parameters. Interconnection Customer shall 

be required to provide the status and settings 

of the governor or equivalent controls to 

Transmission Provider and/or the relevant 

[b]Balancing [a]Authority upon request. If 

Interconnection Customer needs to operate 

the Small Generating Facility with its 

governor or equivalent controls not in 

service, Interconnection Customer shall 

immediately notify Transmission Provider 

and the relevant [b]Balancing [a]Authority, 

and provide both with the following 

information: (1) the operating status of the 

governor or equivalent controls (i.e., whether 

it is currently out of service or when it will 

be taken out of service); (2) the reasons for 

removing the governor or equivalent controls 

from service; and (3) a reasonable estimate of 

when the governor or equivalent controls 

will be returned to service. Interconnection 

Customer shall make Reasonable Efforts to 

return its governor or equivalent controls into 

service as soon as practicable. 

Interconnection Customer shall make 

Reasonable Efforts to keep outages of the 

Small Generating Facility’s governor or 

equivalent controls to a minimum whenever 

the Small Generating Facility is operated in 

parallel with the Transmission System. 

* * * 

1.8.4.4 Electric Storage Resources. 

Interconnection Customer interconnecting an 

electric storage resource shall establish an 

operating range in Attachment 5 of its SGIA 

that specifies a minimum state of charge and 

a maximum state of charge between which 

the electric storage resource will be required 

to provide primary frequency response 

consistent with the conditions set forth in 

Sections 1.8.4, 1.8.4.1, 1.8.4.2 and 1.8.4.3 of 

this Agreement. Attachment 5 shall specify 

whether the operating range is static or 

dynamic, and shall consider: (1) the expected 

magnitude of frequency deviations in the 

interconnection; (2) the expected duration 

that system frequency will remain outside of 

the deadband parameter in the 

interconnection; (3) the expected incidence 

of frequency deviations outside of the 

deadband parameter in the interconnection; 

(4) the physical capabilities of the electric 

storage resource; (5) operational limitations 

of the electric storage resource due to 

manufacturer specifications; and (6) any 

other relevant factors agreed to by 

Transmission Provider and Interconnection 

Customer, and in consultation with the 

relevant transmission owner or [b]Balancing 

[a]Authority as appropriate. If the operating 

range is dynamic, then Attachment 5 must 

establish how frequently the operating range 

will be reevaluated and the factors that may 

be considered during its reevaluation. 

* * * 

Attachment 1 

Glossary of Terms 

* * * 

Balancing Authority shall mean an 

entity that integrates resource plans ahead of 

time, maintains load interchange-generation 

balance within a Balancing Authority Area, 

and supports interconnection frequency in 

real time. 

Balancing Authority Area shall mean 

the collection of generation, transmission, 

and loads within the metered boundaries of 

the Balancing Authority. The Balancing 

Authority maintains load-resource balance 

within this area. 

* * * 

Operating Requirements—Any operating 

and technical requirements that may be 

applicable due to Regional Transmission 

Organization, Independent System Operator, 

[control area]Balancing Authority Area, or 

[the]Transmission Providers requirements, 

including those set forth in the Small 

Generator Interconnection Agreement. 

United States of America—Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission 

Improvements to Generator Interconnection 

Procedures and Agreements 

Docket No. RM22–14–000 

(Issued June 16, 2022) 

DANLY, Commissioner, concurring: 

1. I welcome improvements to existing 

generator interconnection procedures. I 

would prefer that Regional Transmission 

Organizations (RTOs) and other interested 

public utilities simply file their own 

proposals under section 205 of the Federal 

Power Act (FPA).1 They are fully capable of 

proposing rate changes and reforms on their 

own.2

2. If this sounds familiar, it is because I 

wrote the same thing in response to the 

Commission’s recent Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NOPR) on transmission 

planning.3 There, however, I dissented from 

the NOPR because I think it highly unlikely 

that the Commission can make the required 

section 206 finding that existing transmission 

planning regimes across the United States— 

in RTO and non-RTO regions alike—are so 

comprehensively unjust and unreasonable as 

to justify scrapping them, and I likewise 

strongly doubt that the Commission can 

justify the pervasive, micro-managing 

‘‘reforms’’ we propose to make mandatory.4

That entire exercise appears to be primarily 

an effort to socialize the massive costs of the 

transmission network build-out required to 

rush the development of renewable 

generation.5 We await the record evidence in 

that proceeding and we shall see what the 

record supports. 

3. In contrast to the transmission planning 

NOPR, I concur with the issuance of this 

NOPR6 because I think it is far more likely 

that the record evidence will support a 

section 206 7 step-one finding that at least 

some aspects of current interconnection rules 

are unjust and unreasonable. The hallmarks 

of the current regime are easy access and 

lengthy, unmanageable queues—particularly 

in RTOs. Meanwhile, the Commission 

regularly grants unlawful retroactive waivers 

when favored resources miss binding tariff 

deadlines. This undermines the RTOs’ ability 

to manage their queues. Reforms (and greater 

Commission self-discipline) are desperately 

needed. 

4. I would prefer RTOs and transmission 

providers come up with their own reforms 

through section 205 filings, rather than have 

the Commission issue omnibus proposals 

covering lists of every little thing 

commissioners would like to see done 

differently. Proposals have a propensity to 

turn into rules. The FPA, however, only 

allows the Commission to impose its own 

rates when the requisite section 206 

showings have been made: that each existing 

interconnection tariff subject to revision in 

this NOPR is unjust and unreasonable, and 

that each aspect of the proposed replacement 

rate is just and reasonable. I am suspicious 

whether the record will support such 

showings in every region of the country, 

including in non-RTO regions, particularly 

when it comes to imposing the extremely 

broad replacement rates contemplated by this 

NOPR. I welcome detailed evidence on these 

points from all parties: identify the aspects of 

the existing rates that are unjust and 

unreasonable, or not, with supporting, or 

opposing, legal argument and factual 

evidence, and identify the aspects of the 

proposed replacement rates that are unjust 

and unreasonable, or not, with supporting, or 

opposing, legal argument and factual 

evidence. In each case, the more specific the 

arguments and evidence submitted, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40031 

8See Building for the Future Through Elec. Reg’l 

Transmission Planning & Cost Allocation & 

Generator Interconnection, 179 FERC ¶ 61,028 

(Danly, Comm’r, dissenting at PP 22–26). 

9 Improvements to Generator Interconnection 

Procedures & Agreements, 179 FERC ¶ 61,194 at PP 

90, 97. 

10See id. P 88. 

11 Id. P 221. 

12 Id. P 300. 

13 16 U.S.C. § 824(a). 

14See Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 

172 FERC ¶ 61,132 (2020) (Danly, Comm’r, 

dissenting) (outlining jurisdictional arguments 

against treating storage as transmission). 

15See Improvements to Generator 

Interconnection Procedures & Agreements, 179 

FERC ¶ 61,194 at P 298. 

16See id. P 5. 

1NOPR at PP 64–79. 

2 Id. PP 42–52. 

3 Id. PP 98–101. 

4 Id. PP 115–123, 128–137, and 140–148. 

5 Id. PP 183–193 and 197–204. 

6 Id. PP 242–245 and 264. 

7 Id. PP 280–288. 

8 Id. P 286 (seeking comment ‘‘on whether the 

Commission should expand this reform to address 

operating assumptions for additional generating 

facility technologies that may currently be 

inaccurately modeled, such as variable energy 

resources’’). 

9 Id. P 172 (seeking comment on ‘‘whether there 

is a more appropriate method for assigning [] 

penalties in RTOs/ISOs’’ and ‘‘whether monetary 

penalties may have adverse consequences [such as] 

incenting timeliness over accuracy’’). 

better. In the transmission planning NOPR, I 

detailed the types of specific arguments and 

evidence that I wished to see, and I solicit the 

same here.8 This information is crucial to 

determine whether the Commission’s 

exercise of its remedial rate making authority 

under section 206 is warranted. 

5. My preliminary view is that while some 

elements of the proposed replacement rates 

could be justified, others very likely might 

not. I suspect we might be able to require 

first-ready, first-served clustering, more 

robust milestone deposits and showings (site 

control and commercial readiness), more 

binding RTO and transmission provider 

deadlines, and elimination of the 

Commission’s routine practice of granting 

unlawful retroactive waivers to every favored 

resource that misses a deadline. If we did 

this, we could be well on our way to solving 

existing interconnection problems. This 

NOPR includes what I think are likely 

reasonable proposals in many of these areas, 

subject to the actual evidence submitted in 

the record. 

6. In other areas, I think the NOPR goes too 

far. Like the transmission expansion 

planning NOPR, many of the ideas floated in 

this NOPR seem intended to further prop up 

renewable resources and may be unduly 

discriminatory. I specifically seek comment 

on the following aspects of the proposal: 

7. First, does the ‘‘shared network 

upgrade’’ cost proposal, where subsequent 

interconnecting resources pay a share of 

earlier interconnecting resources’ previously 

allocated network upgrade costs, eliminate a 

true ‘‘barrier to entry’’ for all types of 

resources or only for favored, small, 

renewable resources? 9 Is it effective to 

reduce existing incentives to submit multiple 

speculative requests? 10

8. Second, does the proposed ‘‘resource 

solicitation study’’ process, which grants 

state-favored resources a ‘‘dedicated studies’’ 

process, give renewable resources undue 

preference in the development or queue 

process? 11 Would it be less unduly 

discriminatory if it were resource neutral, 

meaning that it would apply if a state adopts 

any portfolio standard, regardless of the type 

of resource supported? 

9. Third, the NOPR blurs the lines between 

generation and transmission facilities, 

proposing to require study of several 

‘‘alternative transmission technologies,’’ and 

‘‘seek[ing] comment on whether storage that 

performs a transmission function, 

synchronous condensers, and voltage source 

converters should be included in the list.’’ 12

The FPA, however, distinguishes between 

‘‘Federal regulation of matters relating to 

generation’’ and ‘‘that part of such [utility] 

business which consists of the transmission 

of electric energy in interstate commerce.’’ 13

As I have previously explained with respect 

to storage that performs a transmission 

function, I disagree that the Commission can 

mix and mingle the two different types of 

facilities, and the different regulatory regimes 

associated with each, according to the most 

favorable treatment for a preferred resource, 

because the FPA does not contemplate such 

treatment and it likely is unduly 

discriminatory.14

10. Other than storage that can serve a 

transmission function, what equipment on 

our list also blurs the lines? 15 Is a traditional 

‘‘generation’’ resource unduly discriminated 

against when it is denied full cost-of-service 

treatment if it can also perform a 

‘‘transmission’’ function? I seek legal 

argument regarding these statutory 

distinctions, and factual evidence on when a 

facility is ‘‘generation,’’ or ‘‘transmission,’’ 

and how to (and whether we must) 

distinguish between the two. 

11. Fourth, which of the interconnection 

and queue problems described in this NOPR, 

if any, apply to small generator 

interconnection procedures? 16 Are any of the 

proposed reforms outlined in the NOPR for 

large generator interconnection procedures 

required to ensure just and reasonable rates 

for small generators? I think the answer likely 

is no. 

12. I look forward to reviewing the record 

evidence. 

For these reasons, I respectfully concur. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

James P. Danly, 

Commissioner. 

United States of America—Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission 

Improvements to Generator Interconnection 

Procedures and Agreements 

Docket No. RM22–14–000 

(Issued June 16, 2022) 

CHRISTIE, Commissioner, concurring: 

1. Today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NOPR) includes a number of significant 

revisions to the Commission’s pro forma 

interconnection queue requirements that 

appear to be based on robust evidence and 

to address real problems ailing the 

interconnection queues. I have long favored 

many of these proposals, which have been 

discussed in various technical conferences 

and in the Joint NARUC-FERC Task Force. 

These include (to name a few): (i) requiring 

transmission providers to adopt generally a 

‘‘first-ready, first served’’ process for 

managing their interconnection queues; 1 (ii) 

requiring transmission providers to provide 

more information to potential 

interconnecting generators earlier in the 

process to facilitate greater cost certainty; 2

(iii) requiring generators in a later cluster to 

share the costs of previously identified 

network upgrades to the extent they directly 

benefit from them; 3 (iv) requiring stricter 

showings of readiness to enter into and stay 

in the queue; 4 (v) requiring an affected 

system study process and related pro forma 

study and construction agreements; 5 and (vi) 

requiring greater flexibility for co-located 

resources and for the use of surplus 

interconnection service.6

2. While I concur in issuing this NOPR and 

I support the queue reform provisions noted 

above, I also have to note that there are a few 

additional proposals in this NOPR that are 

not yet ready for prime time, either because 

they are potentially good ideas that have 

simply not been fully developed, or may not 

be a good ideas at all. I am willing, however, 

to put this NOPR out for comment on them. 

I thus encourage all interested parties to use 

the comment period to identify areas in 

which these proposals either need additional 

detail or may simply not be well-conceived, 

particularly those that may raise reliability 

concerns or engage in unhelpful or 

unnecessary micromanagement. 

3. For example, I am wary of any 

Commission requirement that would replace 

the operating assumptions developed and 

used by transmission providers, whose 

primary job it is to ensure system reliability, 

with those requested by self-interested 

generators or resources seeking to 

interconnect to the grid.7 So, to the extent 

allowing storage (or hybrid) resources to elect 

whether to be studied as charging at peak 

load (and/or extending greater flexibility to 

the operating assumptions used to other 

variable resources) would come at the risk of 

system reliability,8 I want to hear those 

concerns. There are also a number of 

unanswered questions regarding the NOPR’s 

monetary penalty proposal, such as how it 

will work (or not work) in RTO/ISO regions, 

and whether or not it will actually 

incentivize timelier completion of 

interconnection studies.9 I am conceptually 

in favor of imposing guidelines for 

completion of studies, but the penalty 

provisions do not answer definitively the 

most important question of all: Who will pay 

these penalties in an RTO or ISO which has 

no stockholders? Consumers certainly should 

not pay, directly or indirectly. Also, while I 

am in favor of requiring transmission 

providers to consider seriously alternative 

solutions to new transmission build that 

could be less costly, I could have supported 

a simple requirement to do so without 

proposing a mandatory list of specific 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
40032 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 5, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

10 Id. PP 298–301. Much of this NOPR’s long 

descriptions of the various specific proposed 

mandatory alternative technologies read more like 

a college seminar term paper than a serious exercise 

of this Commission’s legal authority. See, e.g., id. 

P 298. Engineers and planners who work in the 

field every day know well what these technologies 

are and which ones may be feasible or not. 11 Id. P 6. 

technologies or commercial products and, in 

doing so, replacing the judgment and 

expertise of grid experts with our own.10

4. Finally, with regard to the queue reforms 

described in P 1 above, while I support them, 

I also caution strongly that we should avoid 

undermining through this NOPR what the 

RTOs/ISOs, working through their 

stakeholder processes, are already doing to 

fix their own queue problems. We should 

recognize that each RTO/ISO is different and 

faces unique local challenges and needs. The 

queue reforms proposed in today’s NOPR 

should be seen more as guideposts or general 

standards rather than unyielding mandates 

that refuse to take local solutions into 

consideration. I would allow RTOs/ISOs the 

opportunity to demonstrate that if their own 

efforts to enact queue reforms achieve the 

same goals in a different, but equally 

effective manner, their individual reform 

may be acceptable in complying with any 

final rule. While this NOPR currently 

recognizes the potential for regional 

flexibility,11 I hope the need for such 

flexibility is explicitly memorialized in any 

final rule. 

5. I look forward to reading the comments 

submitted in this proceeding and greatly 

appreciate the time and effort taken by all to 

provide the Commission with this important 

feedback. 

For these reasons, I respectfully concur. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Mark C. Christie, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13470 Filed 7–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2