process, there will be fewer interconnection disputes and withdrawals.
Third, over the objection of transmission providers who commented that interconnection study delays occur for reasons
beyond their control, the rule imposes
new reporting requirements on transmission providers regarding their interconnection study performance. On a quarterly basis, transmission providers must post
numerous performance metrics on their
OASIS site or a public website, including,
for example, how much time it took them
to perform interconnection studies following receipt of executed study agreements from interconnection customers.
MORE POTENTIALLY LOWER-COST
INTERCONNECTION OPTIONS
Significantly, the rule also made several important changes to the FERC pro
forma LGIP that will give interconnection
customers more interconnection options
and methods to control network upgrade
costs. For example, the rule allows an interconnection customer to request a level
of interconnection service that is lower
than its generating facility capacity. The
rule also requires transmission providers
to establish an expedited process, separate and apart from the interconnection
queue, enabling an interconnection customer to use surplus interconnection capacity that is not being used fully by another existing interconnection customer.
Control equipment could be required by
the transmission provider to ensure the
maximum permitted level of interconnection service is not exceeded.
THE RULE IS VIEWED AS BENEFICIAL TO
CONTROLLABLE GENERATION RESOURCES,
SUCH AS ELECTRIC STORAGE OR CHP
RESOURCES, IN THE INTERCONNECTION
PROCESS.
These two changes – allowing inter-
connection customers to request below-
capacity service and enabling them to
use other customers’ surplus capacity
– are viewed as particularly beneficial to
controllable generation resources, such
as electric storage resources or combined
heat and power resources, in the inter-
connection process. Such changes also
are expected to facilitate the co-location
of battery energy storage devices with ex-
isting generating facilities.
ADDITIONAL RULE CHANGES
Other changes made in the rule
include: · removal of an existing restriction on an
interconnection customer’s option to
build a transmission provider’s inter-
connection facilities and standalone
network upgrades; · a requirement that transmission pro-
viders allow provisional interconnec-
tion agreements that provide for limit-
ed operation of a generating facility
prior to completion of the full intercon-
nection process; · a requirement that transmission pro-
viders set forth a procedure whereby
they would assess and, if necessary,
study an interconnection customer’s
technology changes without affecting
the interconnection customer’s
queued position; and · a requirement that transmission pro-
viders establish interconnection dis-
pute resolution procedures that allow
a disputing party to unilaterally seek
nonbinding dispute resolution.
Several parties filed requests for rehear-
ing asking FERC to reconsider some of
its rulings, but those requests are not ex-
pected to delay implementation.
Deborah A. Swanstrom
is a regulatory attorney
with Jennings, Strouss &
Salmon in Washington,
D.C. She advises compa-
nies on compliance with
federal rules affecting
electric transmission, generator intercon-
nections, and energy trading and represents
them in proceedings before the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and Com-
modity Futures Trading Commission. She
can be reached at dswanstrom@jsslaw.com.
Check us out today at
www.districtenergy.org
IDEA’s website offers a
wealth of information and
resources for members
including:
• Industry news and events
• Enhanced membership
visibility
• Fully searchable
membership directory
• Refreshed products and
services guide
• Webinars, case studies,
white papers
• Conference proceedings
• Online community:
IDEAConnect
Stay
connected.
FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
