Opinion ID: 187082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Generation Interconnection Customers

Text: Petitioners also claim that Section 37.2 does not apply to them because they are not ordinary Generation Interconnection Customers (GICs). Request for Rehearing of CED Rock Springs, LLC, at 13-14, Docket No. ER06-491-001 (Apr. 14, 2006); see also Request for Rehearing of Old Dominion Elec. Coop., at 12-13, Docket No. ER06-497-000 (Apr. 17, 2006). A GIC is defined as [a]n entity that submits an Interconnection Request to interconnect a new generation facility . . . with the Transmission System in the PJM Region. Tariff § 1.13B. Petitioners do not contest that they submitted an Interconnection Request as required under the Tariff. PJM Filing of Interconnection Service Agreement with Rock Springs, Old Dominion and Rock Springs Generation and the FOA, at 3, Docket No. ER02-1726 (May 6, 2002). Nor do they contest that instead of waiting for PJM to construct the interconnection facilities, Petitioners and PJM entered into an Interconnection Agreement and a FOA that referred to Petitioners' substation as an Interconnection Substation and their 1,800 feet of 500 kV transmission line as interconnection facilities. Id. at 5-6; FOA § 1.1. Instead, Petitioners argue that they cannot be GICs because they are TOs, and, according to Petitioners, TOs cannot also be GICs. For support, they present an excerpt from a transmittal letter PECO sent to FERC upon filing its Interconnection Agreement: The subject Interconnection Agreement establishes the requirements, terms, and conditions for the interconnection of Rock Springs/CED's Transmission Facilities with PECO's Transmission Facilities, and defines the continuing responsibilities and obligations of the parties as transmission owners of interconnected transmission facilities. . . . The Interconnection Agreement differs from other interconnection agreements recently filed by PECO because it is between two transmission owners, as opposed to between a transmission owner and a generator. . . . PJM's standardized tariff for generation interconnection is also designed to address the interconnection of new generation stations to transmission facilities, and does not address the unique situation presented here. PECO Energy Co., Filing of Interconnection Agreement with PECO, Old Dominion and Rock Springs, at 3, Docket No. ER02-1779 (May 9, 2002). FERC adequately responded to Petitioners' attempt to dichotomize TOs and GICs by relying on the definition of a GIC and examining it in light of the policy underlying Section 37.2. The Commission found that GIC is defined without limitation and applies regardless of whether the interconnection customer is also a transmission owner. Order Rejecting Rate Filings, 114 FERC at 61,962. FERC noted that the policy underlying Section 37.2, which is to promote efficient interconnection and enhance overall economic efficiency . . . would be undermined by requiring generators initially to pay their interconnection costs and allowing generators then to allocate those costs to transmission service customers. Id.; see also Order Denying Rehearing, 116 FERC at 61,702 (Allocation of cost responsibility under section 37.2 does not depend on which party chose to build facilities, but rather on whether the facilities would have been built `but for' the generation interconnection project.). In response to the excerpted letter, FERC reasonably noted that creating an Interconnection Agreement when parties rearrange ownership and operational arrangements is both expected, and under the [Tariff], irrelevant. Order Denying Rehearing, 116 FERC at 61,701 n. 10. We find that FERC's reasoning adequately explains why Petitioners are classified as GICs.