forma LGIP to require transmission providers to post metrics for
cluster study processing time and cluster restudy processing time,
including the number of cluster studies completed within 150 calendar
days of the close of the customer engagement window. We modify section
<IP_ADDRESS> of the pro forma LGIP as proposed in the NOPR to be consistent
with the new requirement adopted in section 7.5 of the pro forma LGIP
that cluster restudies should be completed within 150 calendar days of
the transmission provider notifying interconnection customers in the
cluster and that a cluster restudy is required. The requirement to post
these metrics replaces the existing requirement to post metrics for
interconnection feasibility study processing time and system impact
study processing time, which were relevant for the serial study process
but are no longer relevant for the cluster study process required by
this final rule. We therefore believe that these revisions are
necessary to implement the change from a serial study process to the
cluster study process.
    260. As for the point at which to begin measuring the metrics,
several commenters argue against using the date on which the
transmission provider received the interconnection requests. We clarify
that sections <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> of the pro forma LGIP adopted in this
final rule establish that these metrics must be measured from the close
of the customer engagement window for the cluster study processing time
metric and from when transmission provider notifies interconnection
customers in the cluster that a cluster restudy is needed for the
cluster restudy processing time metric. We find that these are
appropriate start dates from which to calculate the metrics because
they reflect when the respective studies are to actually commence.\615\
We decline to grant additional flexibility to maintain metrics and
associated timelines for those metrics, as urged by MISO.\616\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \615\ APS Initial Comments at 9; MISO Initial Comments at 37-38.
    \616\ MISO Initial Comments at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    261. Regarding Clean Energy Associations' suggestion that the
metrics also identify the level of accuracy of studies relative to
final costs,\617\ we decline to adopt this suggestion. For one, it is
unclear to what final costs Clean Energy Associations is referring to.
Additionally, the metrics that we require transmission providers to
post as part of this final rule focus on the timing of interconnection
studies and not on the accuracy of cost estimates. The metrics are
intended, as described in Order No. 845, to provide needed transparency
``to allow interconnection customers to develop informed expectations
about how long the

interconnection study portion of the process actually takes.'' \618\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \617\ Clean Energy Associations Initial Comments at 21.
    \618\ Order No. 845, 163 FERC ] 61,043 at P 307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    262. We decline to adopt Ameren's suggestion to base the 150-
calendar day cluster study deadline on the RTO/ISO's completion of the
cluster study rather than the transmission owner's completion because
the deadlines are applicable to the transmission provider and such a
clarification is unnecessary to be added to the pro forma LGIP.
    263. We agree with Enel's suggestion to modify proposed pro forma
LGIP section 6.4--now pro forma LGIP section 6.1--by deleting
``period'' because, as Enel explains, this would more concisely convey
that the metrics should be updated following the completion of the
studies themselves.\619\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \619\ Enel Initial Comments at 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Interconnection Request Evaluation Process
i. NOPR Proposal
    264. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed several changes to pro
forma LGIP section 4, renamed ``interconnection request evaluation
process'' from ``queue position.'' First, the Commission proposed to
rename and revise section 4.1 of the pro forma LGIP as ``queue
position'' and added two new proposed sections: (1) section 4.1.1
(Assignment of Queue Position), which provides 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; and (2) section 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 in time.\620\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \620\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    265. The Commission also proposed to remove from section 4.2 of the
pro forma LGIP the provisions allowing transmission providers to study
interconnection requests serially and the requirement for transmission
providers to provide 180 calendar days' advance notice before opening a
cluster window.\621\ The Commission also proposed to rename section 4.2
of the pro forma LGIP ``general study process,'' and revise it to
require transmission providers to perform interconnection studies
within the cluster study process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \621\ Id. P 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    266. In the NOPR, the Commission also proposed 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. Additionally,
proposed additions to pro forma LGIP section 4.4 require that any
identified changes to a planned interconnection, proposed by an
interconnection customer or the transmission provider, must be
acceptable to any impacted interconnection customer in the same
cluster, and such acceptance is not to be unreasonably withheld.\622\
The Commission noted that the interconnection customer may decide to
forego the requested change that constitutes a material modification
and retain its existing queue position.\623\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \622\ Proposed pro forma LGIP section 4.4.
    \623\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    267. Further, the Commission proposed to revise section 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 generating plant increases, the
incremental increase will be studied with the next cluster study for
purposes of cost allocation and study analysis.\624\ Pro forma LGIP
section 4.4.1 also explicitly permits specific modifications prior to
the interconnection customer's return of the executed cluster study
agreement to the transmission provider, including: (a) a decrease of up
to 60 percent of electrical output (MW) of the proposed project,
through either a decrease in plant size or a decrease in
interconnection service level; (b) modifying the technical parameters
associated with the generating facility technology or step up
transformer; and (c) modifying the interconnection configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \624\ Id. P 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments
    268. With regards to the proposed changes to section 4.1 (Queue
Position), Tri-State questions whether the proposed definition of queue
position includes surplus interconnection requests.\625\ Xcel argues,
and EEI agrees, that the Commission should modify the proposal to
clarify that queue position or queue priority is based on
interconnection request readiness and not on the date and time the
interconnection request is submitted.\626\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \625\ Tri-State Initial Comments at 25.
    \626\ EEI Reply Comments at 5; Xcel Initial Comments at 9 n.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    269. CAISO asserts that it is unclear what losing a queue position
means in a cluster-based study (e.g., being withdrawn from the
interconnection queue or moving to a lower interconnection queue
position), but also contends that no specification or reform is
necessary because interconnection customers will simply withdraw the
modification every time if it is found to be material.\627\ CAISO
argues that the Commission should either remove the ``option'' to lose
an interconnection queue position when a proposed modification is found
to be material, or clarify what replaces the interconnection queue
position when it is lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \627\ CAISO Initial Comments at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    270. Clean Energy States argue that, in addition to the ``signs of
commercial progress'' proposed by the Commission, clusters should be
prioritized for study based on a number of other transparent and
quantifiable factors, such as alignment with state policy (e.g.,
participation in procurement actions), and benefits to low-income,
environmentally impacted, and ``energy communities'' as defined under
the Inflation Reduction Act, state policies, and the Justice40
Initiative.\628\ Clean Energy States assert that clusters could further
be prioritized for development by how well the combined cluster meets
transmission system needs, with preference for interconnection
agreements given to those that result in the lowest cost upgrades, have
the most attractive operational profile, or deliver the best
reliability improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \628\ Clean Energy States Initial Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    271. Regarding the proposed changes to pro forma LGIP section 4.4
(Modifications), Enel argues that the Commission should remove the
proposed language requiring the acceptance of ``any impacted
Interconnection Customer in the same Cluster'' to modify an
interconnection request.\629\ Enel asserts that this requirement not
only will be challenging to facilitate (especially in large clusters)
but is also a redundant and unnecessary hurdle that could result in
anticompetitive behavior. If the Commission keeps this language, to
avoid uncertainty regarding the application of this provision, Enel
proposes to replace this language with ``any Interconnection Customer
in the same Cluster whose interconnection would be delayed or whose

interconnection-related costs would be increased as a result of the
identified changes.'' \630\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \629\ Enel Initial Comments at 19-20.
    \630\ Id. at 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    272. A few commenters argue that the Commission should consider
changes to the material modification process such that only certain
modifications trigger a restudy.\631\ Clean Energy Associations
recommend that the Commission modify the current material modification
definition to clearly state that certain changes are presumptively
immaterial, such as changing solar modules or turbines, adding storage
capacity, or making minor adjustments to inverter performance. Clean
Energy Associations argue that this presumption should be in place so
long as planned export and import capacity remains the same.\632\ Clean
Energy Associations also support the concept of expedited, limited
studies for project modifications, provided that: (1) an expedited
approach does not change the level of interconnection service; (2)
there is no impact on cost or timing of an interconnection request that
is lower- or equally queued; and (3) it does not cause any reliability
concern. Additionally, Pattern Energy asserts that, in its experience,
transmission providers apply widely disparate standards where even de
minimis impacts--timing or financial--can be determined to be material,
which Pattern Energy believes is unreasonable and unduly discriminatory
in light of the dynamic nature of the generator interconnection
processes.\633\ Pattern Energy argues that, absent severe delay, timing
delay should not be factored into materiality. Pattern Energy suggests
instead that materiality be tied to financial impact on a proposed
generating facility (or group of proposed generating facilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \631\ AEP Initial Comments at 18; Clean Energy Associations
Initial Comments at 42; Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 17; PPL
Initial Comments at 11.
    \632\ Clean Energy Associations Initial Comments at 42.
    \633\ Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    273. With regard to modifications under proposed pro forma LGIP
section 4.4.1, MISO supports the proposed revisions to avoid proposed
project service level increasing \634\ and other changes disrupting
cluster studies that are in progress or delaying the negotiation and
execution timelines for the LGIA.\635\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \634\ We understand MISO to be referring to the NOPR proposal
that clarified that for plant increases, the incremental increase
will be studied with the next cluster study for purposes of cost
allocation and study analysis.
    \635\ MISO Initial Comments at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    274. Enel recommends that the Commission modify the proposed pro
forma LGIP section 4.4.1 language to give interconnection customers
flexibility in the initial stages of interconnection studies,
otherwise, it argues that, interconnection customers are more likely to
work around the rules by submitting multiple smaller interconnection
requests to retain size flexibility after seeing their initial results,
which is more administratively burdensome for transmission providers
and leads to its own form of inefficiency as size reductions come in
the form of withdrawals at any point in the process rather than being
limited to partial reductions prior to entering the cluster
restudy.\636\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \636\ Enel Initial Comments at 16-17 (proposing the section be
revised to read: ``Prior to the deadline to return the milestones
listed in Section 7.5 of this LGIP to proceed into the initial
Cluster Re-study, modifications permitted. . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    275. CREA and NewSun argue that the Commission should explicitly
permit interconnection customers to modify their interconnection
requests to reduce or eliminate the assignment of network upgrade or
stand alone network upgrade costs associated with a proposed generating
facility after receipt of the first cluster-level interconnection
study.\637\ CREA and NewSun argue that interconnection customers should
be permitted to modify their proposed generating facilities to avoid
impacts on the transmission system that trigger network upgrades by,
for example, reducing their capacity or installing devices that will
limit their output during critical periods.\638\ CREA and NewSun state
that the existing pro forma LGIP allows an interconnection customer to
downsize its interconnection capacity up to 60% upon receipt of the
first interconnection study (i.e., the feasibility study) and before
progressing to the second study (i.e., the system impact study).\639\
CREA and NewSun state that, in contrast, the NOPR proposes to only
allow downsizing to occur before receipt of the first cluster system
impact study and, as a result, the opportunity to downsize the
interconnection request to tailor the facility to the available
capacity identified in the first useful interconnection study would be
lost. Therefore, CREA and NewSun argue that the Commission should
revise the NOPR proposal to ensure that a reasonable amount of
downsizing (e.g., 60%) is permitted after receipt of the first cluster-
level interconnection study.\640\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \637\ CREA and NewSun Initial Comments at 45-47.
    \638\ Id. at 46.
    \639\ Id. (citing NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at app. B (proposed
pro forma LGIP section 4.4.1)).
    \640\ Id. at 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    276. We adopt the proposed revisions to pro forma LGIP section 4.1
(Queue Position), section 4.2 (General Study Process), and section
4.4.1, and we modify the proposed definition of queue position and the
proposed revisions to the material modification provisions in section
4.4 (Modification). These are discussed below.
    277. First, we adopt the proposed revisions to section 4.1 of the
pro forma LGIP (Queue Position), which reflect the impact of the
adoption of the proposed cluster study process in this final rule on
queue position assignments. These revisions provide that transmission
providers must assign queue positions based on the date and time of
receipt of a valid interconnection request, but all interconnection
customers that submit interconnection requests within a cluster request
window must be considered equally queued. Clusters initiated earlier in
time must have a higher queue position than clusters initiated later in
time. Under the existing serial study process in the pro forma LGIP,
queue position had a greater effect on an interconnection customer, for
instance, in the allocation of network upgrade costs. By contrast,
network upgrade costs within a cluster will not be allocated by queue
position; rather, as discussed below, network upgrade costs within a
cluster must be allocated generally through a proportional impact
method among the interconnection customers in the cluster. Given the
nature of the cluster study process, including the nature of the cost
allocation for network upgrades, it is appropriate for all
interconnection customers in a cluster to be considered equally queued.
    278. Second, we adopt the proposal to remove from section 4.2 of
the pro forma LGIP the provisions allowing transmission providers to
study interconnection requests serially and the requirement for
transmission providers to provide 180 days' advance notice before
opening a cluster window. We also adopt the proposal to rename section
4.2 of the pro forma LGIP ``General Study Process'' and revise it to
require transmission providers to perform interconnection studies
within the cluster study process. These revisions are necessary to
implement the cluster study process required by this final rule.
    279. As requested by Tri-State, we clarify that the definition of
queue

position is not relevant to surplus interconnection requests, which are
processed outside of the normal interconnection queue, as further
discussed in section III.A.2.n below.
    280. We also maintain the language in the pro forma LGIP that
moving a point of interconnection in a way that is deemed a material
modification will impact an interconnection customer's queue position,
but we clarify the meaning of this in the context of the cluster study
process. Specifically, if moving a point of interconnection is deemed
by the transmission provider to be a material modification to the
interconnection request, and the interconnection customer chooses to
proceed with the proposed modification, the interconnection request
will be deemed withdrawn and the interconnection customer must re-enter
the interconnection queue with a new interconnection request, if it
desires to proceed to interconnect. To avoid being deemed withdrawn,
the interconnection customer may choose not to move its point of
interconnection and to instead remain in the same cluster with the
original interconnection request, and, thus, in the same queue
position.
    281. In response to CREA and NewSun, we do not opine on whether
moving a point of interconnection within a cluster will be a material
modification. Instead, we leave the determination as to whether it is
deemed a material modification to the transmission provider, as in the
existing process for determining whether a proposed modification is
material.
    282. We decline to adopt Clean Energy States' suggestion that, in
addition to the ``signs of commercial progress'' proposed by the
Commission, clusters should be prioritized for study based on other
transparent and quantifiable factors.\641\ Clean Energy States neither
provides sufficient rationale or detail regarding such factors by which
clusters would be prioritized by transmission providers, nor explains
how such prioritization criteria would be determined. We note that the
Commission did not propose alternative factors for consideration.
Additionally, we note that the record lacks adequate discussion in
favor of such prioritization mechanisms or such ``factors'' for the
Commission to consider adopting in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \641\ Clean Energy States Initial Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    283. Third, we modify the proposed definition of queue position in
the pro forma LGIP and LGIA to provide that queue position is
established pursuant to section 4.1 of the pro forma LGIP. Fourth, we
modify the proposed revisions to the material modification provisions
in section 4.4 (Modification) of the pro forma LGIP. We adopt the
language that provides that moving a point of interconnection shall
result in a loss of queue position if it is deemed a material
modification by the transmission provider, for the reasons discussed
above. At the same time, we modify the proposed revisions to remove the
requirement to obtain the approval of ``any impacted Interconnection
Customer in the same Cluster.'' \642\ We are persuaded by Enel's
argument that this proposed language in pro forma LGIP section 4.4
should be struck for two reasons. First, we find this language
unnecessary because the point of interconnection could be changed only
if the transmission provider had deemed it to not be a material
modification to the interconnection request. Through this requirement,
the transmission provider's analysis ensures that the change will not
have a material impact on the cost or timing of another interconnection
request in the cluster. Second, although the proposal included the
language ``such acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld,'' we are
still concerned about the potential for anticompetitive behavior to the
extent that other interconnection customers in the cluster could refuse
to accept the point of interconnection change to limit competition. The
interconnection customers within a cluster will be competitors in the
wholesale markets in many, if not all, respects. To ensure competitive
market outcomes, they should not be provided an undue opportunity to
affect the advancement or the costs for a proposed generating facility
of one of their competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \642\ Proposed pro forma LGIP section 4.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    284. A number of commenters argue that the Commission should
consider changes to the material modification process such that only
certain modifications trigger a restudy.\643\ We decline to adopt any
of the suggested revisions to the material modification provisions and
restudy triggers in the pro forma LGIP. We did not propose changes
suggested by commenters and do not find the need to adopt such changes
to the material modification provisions to ensure just and reasonable
rates. We believe that the list of permitted modifications in section
4.4 of the pro forma LGIP is appropriate because they allow
interconnection customers a degree of flexibility with respect to
generating facility size, interconnection service level, and specific
generating facility technology that appropriately balances the high
burden to enter the interconnection queue and the lengthy duration of
the interconnection queue, during which external factors may change,
including the introduction of new technology that interconnection
customers may wish to incorporate into their generating facility
design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \643\ AEP Initial Comments at 18; Clean Energy Associations
Initial Comments at 42; Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 17; PPL
Initial Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    285. Finally, we adopt the proposed revisions to section 4.4.1 of
the pro forma LGIP to make clear that: (1) the modifications previously
permitted prior to the 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. We believe that these revisions are
needed to implement the cluster study process adopted to ensure that
interconnection customers are able to interconnect to the transmission
system in a reliable, efficient, transparent, and timely manner.
Notably, we believe that prior to the return of the executed cluster
study agreement is the appropriate time to permit the modifications
previously permitted prior to the return of the executed system impact
study agreement because these represent approximately the same point of
the interconnection process in a serial study process versus a cluster
study process. For plant increases, we find that it is appropriate to
exclude increases to proposed generating facility size from the cluster
study that is ongoing as any increase to size may create the need for
restudies. By moving the increase to the subsequent cluster, the
interconnection customer can still pursue its requested addition,
albeit on a delayed schedule.
    286. We decline to adopt Enel's alternative proposed language that
would allow the same modifications permitted to be made prior to the
executed cluster study agreement to also be permitted before a cluster
restudy. This would not only represent a significant change from the
existing modification language in pro forma LGIP section 4.4.1, but
allowing such modifications at the cluster restudy stage could
negatively affect the integrity of the cluster and cause further
restudies, which would not ensure that interconnection customers are
able to interconnect to the transmission system in a reliable,
efficient, transparent, and timely manner.

    287. We also decline to adopt the revisions suggested by CREA and
NewSun that would explicitly permit interconnection customers to modify
their interconnection requests to reduce or eliminate the assignment of
network upgrade or stand alone network upgrade costs associated with a
proposed generating facility after receipt of the first cluster-level
interconnection study. The ``loss'' of the opportunity for
interconnection customers to downsize the interconnection request to
tailor the facility to the available capacity identified in the first
useful interconnection study \644\ reflects the nature of moving from a
serial study process, with an initial, high-level feasibility study, to
a cluster study process, with the benefit of a customer engagement
window, potential for shared cost allocation, and lower likelihood of
cascading restudies. Moreover, providing interconnection customers an
opportunity to reduce the size of their proposed generating facilities
after the cluster study would undercut the increased certainty and
efficiency that are key benefits of the shift to a cluster study
process. With the adoption of clusters, a reduction in size that may
eliminate one interconnection customer's cost responsibility for a
network upgrade could affect other interconnection customers in the
cluster, either by increasing their costs or requiring a different
network upgrade. This type of uncertainty could lead to further
reductions, withdrawals, and restudies, and would be insufficient to
ensure that interconnection customers are able to interconnect to the
transmission system in a reliable, efficient, transparent, and timely
manner. We note, however, that interconnection customers may request a
material modification assessment under section 4.4 of the pro forma
LGIP for reductions and that if those reductions are found to not be
material, the interconnection customer may proceed with them without a
loss of queue position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \644\ CREA and NewSun Initial Comments at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

h. Fewer Than Three Year Extension to Commercial Operation Date
i. NOPR Proposal
    288. Currently, if an interconnection customer's generating
facility is delayed by fewer than three years, the pro forma LGIP
states that such extensions are not material and shall be handled
through construction sequencing. However, the pro forma LGIP does not
state the starting point for this fewer than three-year period. In the
NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise section 4.4.5 of the pro forma
LGIP, which currently allows an extension of less than three cumulative
years of the generating facility's commercial operation date, to
require that the commercial operation date reflected in the initial
interconnection request be used in calculating the permissible fewer
than three-year extension.\645\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \645\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments
    289. Several commenters contend that the commercial operation dates
set out in the executed LGIA, rather than the date in the initial
interconnection request, are generally more accurate \646\ and provide
more certainty when established at the end of the interconnection study
process as they would include the schedule estimates for network
upgrades,\647\ and the interconnection customer may have greater
control over pursuing its development timeline.\648\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \646\ Invenergy Initial Comments at 34; [Oslash]rsted Initial
Comments at 8; Pine Gate Initial Comments at 65.
    \647\ [Oslash]rsted Initial Comments at 8.
    \648\ Invenergy Initial Comments at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    290. Invenergy argues that, because assigned upgrades necessary for
interconnection can require more than three years for construction, it
would be reasonable to permit a greater extension right of five years
from the date set out in the LGIA.\649\ Enel also argues that the
Commission should grant a longer extension of time if the transmission
provider's studies are delayed or if more time is required to build
network upgrades because these circumstances are beyond the
interconnection customer's control.\650\ Enel also recommends requiring
the transmission provider to grant a day-for-day delay to the
originally requested commercial operation date for any delays in the
study process relative to the LGIP deadlines as well as due
consideration for network upgrades that require more than 18 months to
design, procure, and construct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \649\ Id.
    \650\ Enel Initial Comments at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    291. Ameren and PPL assert that continuing to provide a three-year
extension of the commercial operation date would allow projects to move
forward when they are not ready or viable.\651\ APS believes that
limiting the ability to suspend interconnection requests or extend the
commercial operation date to instances of force majeure, including
where a customer demonstrates specific timeline obstructions such as
permit issuance or supply chain delays, is more in line with the
proposals in the NOPR.\652\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \651\ Ameren Initial Comments at 10; PPL Initial Comments at 11.
    \652\ APS Initial Comments at 7-8 (citing Midcontinent Indep.
Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 120 FERC ] 61,293, at PP 23, 27
(2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    292. NV Energy seeks clarification on how long an interconnection
customer may extend its commercial operation date because the pro forma
LGIP allows seven to 10 years from the initial interconnection request
to construct.\653\ NV Energy requests clarification on how the three-
year suspension clause in the pro forma LGIA plays into the timeline
for the commercial operation date. Pine Gate argues that any extension
period from the commercial operation date be subject to the overall
seven-year time period for achieving commercial operation.\654\
Invenergy argues that the Commission should also make clear that the
limits on the initial proposed in-service date that can be specified in
an interconnection request to no more than seven years beyond the
interconnection request date, does not limit the ability to take
advantage of commercial operation date extensions that are otherwise
provided under the pro forma LGIP or an LGIA.\655\ For example, some
transmission owners have taken the position that, when exercising a
suspension right, if the suspension would result in an in-service date
greater than seven years after the date specified in the
interconnection request, the interconnection customer cannot use its
full suspension period. Invenergy asserts that the Commission has
already clarified that the interconnection request limitation on
proposed in-service dates is applicable only for the purpose of
limiting the date requested at the application stage, and does not
limit in-service dates that extend beyond that period as a result of
other factors, which would include transmission owner delay, exercise
of suspension, and here, additional commercial operation date
extensions.\656\ Invenergy also states that the Commission should
clarify that its revisions to pro forma LGIP section

4.4.5 are in addition to, and do not limit, an interconnection
customer's suspension rights under its interconnection agreement.\657\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \653\ NV Energy Initial Comments at 5-6. NV Energy states that
it currently has several customers that requested to move well
beyond the three-year time frame and that most of its
interconnection customers use the full seven to 10-year window. Id.
at 6.
    \654\ Pine Gate Initial Comments at 65. Pine Gate also
reiterates its comments on the ANOPR, stating that the Commission
should expand the interconnection customer's option to build. Id. at
63 (citing Comments of Pine Gate, Docket No. RM21-17-000, at 9-10
(filed Oct. 12, 2021) (citing Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ] 61,103 at
PP 85, 353)).
    \655\ Invenergy Initial Comments at 35 (citing pro forma LGIP
section 3.4.1 and pro forma LGIA art. 5.16).
    \656\ Id. (citing Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 150
FERC ] 61,180, at P 23 (2015)).
    \657\ Id. at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    293. We adopt the proposed revisions to section 4.4.5 of the pro
forma LGIP that require that interconnection customers receive an
extension of fewer than three cumulative years of the generating
facility's commercial operation date without requiring them to request
such an extension from the transmission provider. In response to
commenters' concerns, however, we modify our proposal to clarify that
the commercial operation date reflected in the initial interconnection
request shall be used in calculating the permissible fewer than three-
year extension until the interconnection customer executes, or requests
the unexecuted filing of, an LGIA. Once the interconnection customer
has executed an LGIA or requested that the LGIA be filed unexecuted,
the commercial operation date established in the LGIA shall be the date
from which the up to three cumulative years is calculated.
    294. At the time the pro forma LGIP was adopted, the
interconnection process was considerably shorter than it is now; the
delays and sizeable interconnection queues facing transmission
providers create a situation where many interconnection customers use
this up to three-year period to ensure that their proposed generating
facilities reach commercial operation. Furthermore, the length of the
interconnection queues is such that at the time an interconnection
customer enters the queue, it may have little idea of how long it will
spend in the interconnection queue before commencement of the
construction of its generating facility and required interconnection
facilities and network upgrades. Thus, we agree with Invenergy,
[Oslash]rsted, and Pine Gate, and we modify our proposal to require the
up to three-year period to commence from the commercial operation date
established in the interconnection customer's LGIA once the LGIA is
executed or the interconnection customer has requested that it be filed
unexecuted with the Commission.
    295. We decline commenters' requests to revise the actual length of
the permissible extension of a proposed generating facility's
commercial operation date. The Commission did not propose to change the
length of the permissible extension in the NOPR, and we lack an
adequate record that the existing up to three-year extension is unjust
and unreasonable.
    296. Commenters request clarification \658\ of how the changes to
pro forma LGIP section 4.4.5 adopted in this final rule affect other
provisions such as pro forma LGIP section 3.4.2 and pro forma LGIA
article 5.16, which provide for extensions of the in-service date or
suspension of construction.\659\ We reiterate that the revisions to
section 4.4.5 of the pro forma LGIP adopted in this final rule
establish only the starting point for the less than three-year
extension to the commercial operation date. The Commission did not
propose in the NOPR, and we do not adopt in this final rule, changes to
the extension of in-service date provisions in pro forma LGIP section
3.4.2, or to the suspension provision in pro forma LGIA article 5.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \658\ Invenergy Initial Comments at 35; NV Energy Initial
Comments at 5-6.
    \659\ Specifically, pro forma LGIP section 3.4.2 (previously pro
forma LGIP section 3.4.1) provides that the expected in-service date
of the new generating facility or increase in capacity of the
existing generating facility shall not exceed seven years, but may
be extended up to 10 years upon mutual agreement of the transmission
provider and interconnection customer. Pro forma LGIA article 5.16
provides the interconnection customer the right to suspend work by
the transmission provider associated with the construction and
installation of transmission provider's interconnection facilities
and/or network upgrades for up to three years, at which time the
LGIA would be deemed terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Cluster Study Provisions (Pro Forma LGIP Sections 6, 7)
i. NOPR Proposal
    297. As part of the proposed revisions to the pro forma LGIP, the
NOPR proposed to replace section 6 (Interconnection Feasibility Study)
with the new requirements to publicly post interconnection information,
i.e., the ``heatmap'' as discussed above in section III.A.1.c, thereby
removing the entirety of the feasibility study from the pro forma
LGIP.\660\ Furthermore, in the NOPR, the Commission proposed to rename
pro forma LGIP section 7 from ``interconnection system impact study''
to ``cluster study.'' \661\ The Commission proposed revisions to pro
forma LGIP section 7.1 (Cluster Study Agreement) to state that the
transmission provider must tender to each interconnection customer that
submitted a valid interconnection request a cluster study agreement no
later than five business days after the close of the cluster request
window.\662\ The Commission proposed revisions to pro forma LGIP
section 7.2 (Execution of Cluster Study Agreement) to state that if the
interconnection customer does not provide technical data when it
delivers the cluster study agreement, the transmission provider must
notify the interconnection customer of the deficiency within five
business days, and the interconnection customer must cure the
deficiency within 10 business days of receipt of the notice.\663\ The
Commission proposed revisions to pro forma LGIP section 7.3 (Scope of
Cluster Study Agreement) to make clear that the stability analysis,
power flow analysis, and short circuit analysis previously conducted
under the feasibility and system impact studies would be conducted on a
clustered basis.\664\ The Commission also proposed changes to pro forma
LGIP section 7.3 to make clear that, for purposes of determining
necessary interconnection facilities and network upgrades, the cluster
study shall use the level of interconnection service requested by
interconnection customers in the cluster, except where the transmission
provider otherwise determines that it must study the full generating
facility capacity due to safety or reliability concerns. The Commission
proposed revisions to pro forma LGIP section 7.4 (Cluster Study
Procedures) to state that, within 10 business days of simultaneously
furnishing a cluster study report and a draft facilities study
agreement to each interconnection customer within the cluster and
posting such report on OASIS, the transmission provider shall convene
an open meeting to discuss the study results and shall, upon request,
make itself available to meet with individual interconnection customers
after the report is provided.\665\ Pro forma LGIP section 7.4 also
states that the transmission provider must complete the cluster study
within 150 calendar days. The Commission proposed revisions to pro
forma LGIP section 7.5 (Cluster Study Restudies) to state that the
interconnection customer must provide, within 20 calendar days after
the cluster study report meeting, a study deposit, demonstration of
site control, and a commercial readiness demonstration. Pro forma LGIP
section 7.5 also states that the transmission provider must complete
the cluster restudy within 150 calendar days and delineates the steps
the transmission provider must take when a restudy is required or not
required.\666\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \660\ Proposed pro forma LGIP section 6.
    \661\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 74.
    \662\ Proposed pro forma LGIP section 7.1.
    \663\ Id. at section 7.2.
    \664\ Id. at section 7.3.
    \665\ Id. at section 7.4.
    \666\ Id. at section 7.5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments
    298. MISO supports the deletion of section 6 of the pro forma LGIP
and the removal of the feasibility study from the pro forma LGIP.\667\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \667\ MISO Initial Comments at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    299. In reference to the proposed revisions to section 7.1 (Cluster
Study Agreement) of the pro forma LGIP, Tri-State stresses that five
business days is a tight time frame to tender a valid cluster study
agreement to each interconnection customer that submitted a valid
interconnection request and argues that this timeline is not feasible
for transmission providers with greater than 50 interconnection
requests submitted in a cluster request window.\668\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \668\ Tri-State Initial Comments at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    300. In reference to the proposed revisions to section 7.2 of the
pro forma LGIP, Tri-State asserts that the Commission needs to confirm
or reiterate that the interconnection request is considered withdrawn
if the interconnection customer does not cure a deficiency identified
by the transmission provider.\669\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \669\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    301. In reference to the proposed revisions to section 7.3 (Scope
of Cluster Study) of the pro forma LGIP, Tri-State asks the Commission
to add language to address situations with studies pending completion
of higher-queued project cluster studies.\670\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \670\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    302. Enel proposes an alternative method for performing the cluster
study and restudy to the NOPR proposal.\671\ Enel states that if the
Commission wants to retain the full scope of analyses in the cluster
study, the Commission could require draft power flow analyses to be
provided to interconnection customers part way through the cluster
study. Enel explains that interconnection customers could be granted
the right to reduce interconnection service amounts and make other
changes pursuant to pro forma LGIP section 4.4.1 following receipt of
these results. Enel states that the transmission provider would repeat
the power flow analyses until the queue stabilized, with the motivation
for interconnection customers to make changes in a timely way being
driven by knowledge that once the latter portion of the studies
started, the interconnection customer would lose this flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \671\ Enel Initial Comments at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    303. In the list of requirements to proceed to the cluster restudy
in proposed revisions to section 7.5 of the pro forma LGIP, Enel
proposes to add ``(d) election of project changes as permitted by LGIP
section 4.4.1.'' \672\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \672\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    304. In the proposed revisions to section 7.5 of the pro forma
LGIP, Enel suggests removing item (2), which states that if there are
no changes to the composition of the cluster, a cluster restudy is not
required, because it claims that the cluster restudy would always be
required, at least in part, to add short circuit and stability
analyses.
    305. With regard to the 150-day cluster study deadline, some
commenters generally support the proposed 150-day deadline to complete
the cluster study.\673\ Enel recommends a reduction in the scope and
schedule of the cluster study to only include power flow analysis and a
short circuit ratio test (to test grid strength and flag potential
inverter instability issues) and suggests that this initial cluster
study be completed in 90 days instead of 150 days.\674\ Enel contends
that, the availability of some information from this first study,
interconnection customers retain more flexibility up to the point of
committing to the initial cluster restudy, which allows interconnection
customers to optimize the characteristics of their proposed generating
facilities, most notably the amount of ERIS and NRIS interconnection
service requested, in response to the results of the study. Enel argues
that early flexibility for optimization of proposed generating
facilities is better than forcing interconnection customers to withdraw
and re-enter the interconnection queue, is less disruptive, and does
not add a year of delay to an interconnection customer completing the
interconnection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \673\ AEE Initial Comments at 33; Clean Energy Associations
Initial Comments at 20-21; Consumers Energy Initial Comments at 4.
    \674\ Enel Initial Comments at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    306. A number of commenters argue that the proposed 150-day
deadline to complete the initial cluster study may be, or is, too short
and recommend a longer study window.\675\ A few commenters also argue
that the study timelines are too short, given the proposal to eliminate
the reasonable efforts standard and impose penalties on transmission
providers that miss those deadlines.\676\ National Grid asserts that
the proposed 150-day deadline may be ``unreasonably condensed'' and
could result in a decline in the quality of the studies, which could
lead to delays.\677\ Specifically, National Grid claims that rushing
the issuance of the cluster study could lead to later amendments or
corrections to certain engineering requirements or cost estimates, that
in turn may lead to later-stage interconnection request withdrawals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \675\ APS Initial Comments at 8; AES Initial Comments at 9; ISO-
NE Initial Comments at 23; National Grid Initial Comments at 13-14;
Tri-State Initial Comments at 10.
    \676\ Dominion Initial Comments at 18; Tri-State Initial
Comments at 4.
    \677\ National Grid Initial Comments at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    307. Tri-State notes that it currently implements a 270-day system
impact study period, specifically 150 days for phase 1 (power flow,
short circuit, reactive capability) and 120 days for phase 2 (short
circuit, transient stability), and has yet to miss a study
deadline.\678\ Tri-State argues that this time frame allows for a
thorough study process, including coordination with neighboring systems
and the correction of errors found in interconnection customers'
modeling data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \678\ Tri-State Initial Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    308. AES contends that cluster study timelines should be tailored
to the types of studies being completed at each stage of the respective
cluster.\679\ For example, AES states that steady state analysis takes
less time to complete than dynamic analysis, meaning that a longer time
frame should be afforded for dynamic analysis in the cluster study
process. Accordingly, AES recommends that the Commission adopt a 150-
day general study timeline for cluster studies and restudies (system
impact study-steady state, and short-circuit analysis performed) and a
200-day timeline for facilities studies (dynamic analysis performed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \679\ AES Initial Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    309. APS requests that the Commission extend the initial study time
frame to 180 days to provide meaningful studies identifying feasible
proposed generating facilities, explaining that the APS transmission
system is situated in such a way that many interconnections are at
jointly owned facilities that require reviews and sign-off from
multiple owners, including non-jurisdictional entities.\680\ APS argues
that 180 days is more prudent for initial studies, with the exception
of specific criteria such as jointly owned facilities, Western
Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) rated paths, and federally
owned and Tribal lands, for which studies take significantly longer
despite good faith efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \680\ APS Initial Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    310. NYTOs and National Grid argue that the proposal is not clear
on which specific steps would be included in the 150-day time frame for
the initial cluster study and argue that certain additional special
studies that a transmission

provider may need to perform should not be subject to a 150-day time
frame.\681\ NYTOs state that it is unclear when the clock starts for
the proposed 150-day cluster study deadline and how the scope of the
work can be reasonably limited to comply with the 150-day
deadline.\682\ NYTOs argue that transmission providers and transmission
owners should be afforded the flexibility to provide clarifications and
supporting details on compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \681\ National Grid Initial Comments at 15; NYTOs Initial
Comments at 15.
    \682\ NYTOs Initial Comments at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    311. Similarly, National Grid notes that certain RTO/ISO
interconnection processes require special supplemental studies in
addition to general system impact studies and that, while the NOPR
recognizes that these studies may be required to ensure reliable
interconnection of new generating facilities, it does not address
whether such studies must be conducted within the proposed 150-day
cluster study window or could be conducted outside of this window.\683\
National Grid argues that the time to complete such special studies
should not be included in the NOPR's proposed 150-day cluster study
window and that the final rule should allow regions to adjust their
overall interconnection timelines to accommodate such region-specific
studies and take into consideration the time required to develop system
models. Finally, National Grid states that the NOPR does not address
whether the 150-day cluster study window includes the time required to
develop system models and base case data for the cluster study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \683\ National Grid Initial Comments at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    312. Several commenters recommend that the Commission provide
transmission providers with flexibility to specify study
timelines.\684\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \684\ AEP Initial Comments at 17-18; APPA-LPPC Initial Comments
at 21; Avangrid Initial Comments at 13; Bonneville Initial Comments
at 16; CAISO Initial Comments at 11; Dominion Initial Comments at
16-17; Indicated PJM TOs Reply Comments at 39; ISO-NE Initial
Comments at 35-37; NYISO Initial Comments at 29, 33; NY Commission
and NYSERDA Initial Comments at 5; NYTOs Initial Comments at 14;
SEIA Reply Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    313. Regarding the 150-day cluster restudy deadline, several
commenters agree that the 150-day deadline is reasonable for a cluster
restudy.\685\ Other commenters oppose the 150-day deadline. Bonneville
argues that the proposed requirement to conduct a cluster restudy
within 150 days is unworkable because the complexity of the cluster
restudy would vary and directly impact the completion timeline.\686\
Therefore, Bonneville seeks a longer time frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \685\ AES Initial Comment at 11; APS Initial Comments at 8; ISO-
NE Initial Comments at 23.
    \686\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    314. On the other hand, several commenters argue that the deadline
to conduct a cluster restudy should be shorter.\687\ AES recommends
that the Commission instead require transmission providers to include
restudies and model rebuilds between cluster study phases, and to
require that the timeline for such model rebuilds and restudies cannot
be greater than 90 days.\688\ Enel similarly asserts that if the
Commission leaves the cluster study timeline at 150 days and does not
change the study scope, the timeline for cluster restudies should be 90
days.\689\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \687\ AEE Initial Comments at 33; Clean Energy Associations
Initial Comments at 42; Cypress Creek Initial Comments at 18.
    \688\ AES Initial Comments at 11.
    \689\ Enel Initial Comments at 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    315. A few commenters argue that a 30-day window per restudy is
more reasonable because network models are already built, and therefore
substantially fewer staff resources should be required than for the
initial study.\690\ Cypress Creek adds that a shorter restudy window
will also help avoid potential delays in a cluster study process in
which multiple restudies are required.\691\ AEE also recommends that
the Commission limit interconnection restudy timelines to 30 days,
arguing that this will encourage transmission providers to treat
customers in interconnection restudy with the same urgency as customers
in the initial interconnection study, eliminating the possibility of
asymmetric treatment of interconnection customers and alleviating
interconnection queue congestion by moving those interconnection
customers that have been in the interconnection queue the longest to
study completion.\692\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \690\ AEE Reply Comments at 11-12; Clean Energy Associations
Initial Comments at 42; Cypress Creek Initial Comments at 18; SEIA
Initial Comments at 8.
    \691\ Cypress Creek Initial Comments at 18.
    \692\ AEE Initial Comments at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    316. We adopt the proposed deletion of the feasibility study as
effectuated by the replacement of the current section 6
(Interconnection Feasibility Study) of the pro forma LGIP with the new
heatmap requirements, as discussed in section III.A.1.c. The move from
a serial interconnection process to the new cluster study process,
coupled with the Commission's heatmap requirements, render the
feasibility study redundant at best and an unnecessary burden on
transmission provider resources. As discussed in section III.A.1.c,
above, we find that the publicly available information required by this
final rule will provide the appropriate level of pre-interconnection
queue information for interconnection customers to make informed
choices.
    317. We also adopt, with one modification, the proposed revisions
to section 7 of the pro forma LGIP that rename it ``cluster study''
instead of ``interconnection system impact study,'' which set out the
requirements and scope of the cluster study agreement, as well as the
cluster study and restudy procedures. These revisions reflect the
adoption of the cluster study process set forth in this final rule by
making clear that the interconnection studies that transmission
providers previously performed as part of the serial system impact
studies (i.e., stability analysis, power flow analysis, and short
circuit analysis) must now be conducted on a clustered basis. As
discussed further in section III.A.6 of this final rule, pro forma LGIP
section 7.5 is modified to remove the requirement to provide an initial
study deposit that would have been applied towards the cost of the
cluster study process.
    318. We are not persuaded by Tri-State's concern that five business
days after the close of the cluster request window is too short a time
frame for a transmission provider to tender a cluster study agreement
to each interconnection customer. Transmission providers may start to
prepare cluster study agreements before the close of the cluster
request window, as the overall terms and conditions of the cluster
study agreement are standardized so that a transmission provider need
not engage in rewriting each agreement before tendering a draft to the
interconnection customer.
    319. In response to Tri-State's comments concerning section 7.2 of
the pro forma LGIP, we confirm that an interconnection request is
considered withdrawn if the interconnection customer does not cure
deficiencies identified by the transmission provider. We note that
under new section 3.4.4 of the pro forma LGIP, if a transmission
provider identifies that an interconnection customer's technical data
are incomplete or contain errors, both parties must ``work
expeditiously and in good faith to remedy such issues,'' but the
failure by the interconnection customer to provide the missing data or
correct data errors will be treated as a withdrawal and dealt with
under pro forma LGIP section 3.7 (Withdrawal).
    320. In reference to Tri-State's comments on the proposed revisions
to

section 7.3 of the pro forma LGIP, we decline to add language to
address situations with studies pending completion of higher-queued
project cluster studies because Tri-State's comments are unclear as to
what additional language may be needed.
    321. We decline to adopt the alternative methods to perform cluster
studies and restudies suggested by Enel. The current pro forma LGIP
does not prescribe particular study methods and instead provides
discretion to transmission providers to determine the particular
methods of study appropriate for their transmission systems. We do not,
based on the record in this proceeding, find a basis to determine that
existing study methods are unjust, unreasonable, and unduly
discriminatory or preferential. We also decline to add Enel's suggested
section (d) to section 7.5 of the pro forma LGIP. Pro forma LGIP
section 4.4.1 contains the modifications permitted to an
interconnection request prior to the return of an executed cluster
study agreement, which predates any potential cluster restudy. We
further note that the record does not support Enel's modification
request.
    322. We decline to adopt the provision requiring transmission
providers to hold cluster study report meetings with individual
customers as proposed in section 7.4 of the pro forma LGIP. We find
that the individual meetings would be unnecessary, and that individual
customers should utilize the group cluster study report meeting as a
more efficient forum in which to address any questions or concerns
pertaining to the cluster study report. We also find that requiring
transmission providers to conduct individual meetings would impose
unnecessarily burdensome additional requirements on transmission
providers and would be insufficient to ensure that interconnection
customers are able to interconnect to the transmission system in a
reliable, efficient, transparent, and timely manner.
    323. Also, we decline to remove proposed section 7.5(2) of the pro
forma LGIP, as suggested by Enel. Contrary to Enel's claim, pro forma
LGIP section 7.3 establishes that the cluster study will consist of
short circuit and stability analyses; therefore, we disagree with Enel
that a cluster restudy will be needed in all cases to perform the short
circuit and stability analyses. Section 7.5(2) states that if there are
no changes to the composition of the cluster, a cluster restudy is not
required. We find that this is appropriate as it prevents the
transmission provider from performing an unnecessary restudy if no
conditions have changed after the first cluster study. This will
increase efficiency, free up the transmission provider's resources to
perform other studies, and increase the speed of interconnection,
ensuring that interconnection customers are able to interconnect to the
transmission system in a reliable, efficient, transparent, and timely
manner.
    324. Based on the record, we find that a 150-calendar day cluster
study deadline provides a sufficient time to allow transmission
providers to perform the stability analyses, power flow analyses, and
short circuit analyses required in the cluster study process for
complex clusters consisting of numerous interconnection requests. We
find that the 150-calendar day time frame balances providing
transmission providers with sufficient time to perform these technical
cluster studies while providing certainty about the timeline for the
interconnection process and ensuring that cluster studies progress in a
timely manner. We note that depending on the cluster size, cluster
studies may not always consume the entire 150 calendar days, and if a
cluster study is complete prior to this deadline, transmission
providers have flexibility to provide the cluster study report at that
time prior to the deadline indicated in its LGIP and commence any
necessary restudies or move to the facilities study phase. We also note
that if a transmission provider progresses to the next study phase
prior to the deadline indicated in its LGIP, the transmission provider
must post any changes on its website or OASIS.
    325. We disagree with Enel's suggestion to reduce the scope and
schedule of the cluster study in the proposed pro forma LGIP. The
cluster study represents the first time the interconnection customer
will obtain information about its potential interconnection costs. At
this point, interconnection customers will have to make significant
financial decisions about whether to remain in the interconnection
queue. The information provided in the cluster study report will likely
dictate that decision, and we find that the scope of the study is
appropriate to allow interconnection customers to make these types of
decisions and evaluate whether they will face significant risk. Given
that we decline to reduce the scope of the study, we find Enel's
request to reduce the timeline overly restrictive. Enel's proposal
would create significant burden on transmission providers to perform
complex studies in an even shorter timeline, and we therefore decline
to adopt it.
    326. We also disagree with commenters that argue that the 150-
calendar day time frame to complete the cluster study is too short. As
discussed above, numerous commenters agree with the Commission's
conclusion that the significant interconnection queue backlogs create
uncertainty and risk in bringing new generating facilities online,
rendering Commission-jurisdictional rates unjust and unreasonable.
While we have extended the timeline from that provided in the
individual serial study process, we believe that 150 calendar days is a
reasonable extension to account for the more complex study. We also
note that transmission providers will be conducting only one
interconnection study, or at most a small number of interconnection
studies, at a time, allowing them to devote more resources to
completing the studies in a timely manner. Thus, on balance, we believe
that 150 calendar days represents an appropriate and reasonable
timeline on which transmission providers must complete initial cluster
studies.
    327. We disagree with NYTOs that it is not clear as to when the
clock starts for the proposed 150-calendar day cluster study deadline,
as proposed pro forma LGIP section 7.3 contains this information (150
calendar days from the close of the customer engagement window). We
also disagree with NYTOs' statement that it is not clear how the scope
of the work can be reasonably limited to comply with the 150-calendar
day deadline, as we are not proposing to limit the scope of work
necessary to effectively run a cluster study. As discussed above, we
find that the 150-calendar day cluster study deadline, combined with
the fewer necessary studies, provides a reasonable amount of time to
allow transmission providers to perform the required studies.
    328. In response to National Grid's concern that some RTO/ISO
interconnection processes require supplemental studies and that these
studies should not be required to be conducted within the 150-calendar
day cluster study window, we decline to modify the pro forma LGIP to
provide for more time for such studies. We also clarify for National
Grid that the 150-calendar day deadline includes the time required to
develop system models and base case data for the cluster study.
    329. Regarding the 150-calendar day cluster restudy deadline, we
agree with commenters that the proposed 150-calendar day deadline is
reasonable for a cluster restudy. We acknowledge that some commenters
argue that 150 calendar days is too short, while others argue that it
is too long. On balance, we

find that 150 calendar days is a just and reasonable time frame for
purposes of the pro forma LGIP that allows transmission providers to
conduct potentially complex restudies for instances in which larger
clusters experience multiple withdrawals and/or modifications.
    330. In response to commenters' arguments that a 150-calendar day
restudy deadline is too long, we note that if transmission providers
complete the cluster restudy prior to the full 150-calendar day period
elapsing, transmission providers may move to the facilities study stage
at that time. As such, the adopted 150-calendar day cluster restudy
time frame accommodates more complex instances of cluster restudies
while still allowing flexibility for transmission providers to move
forward without waiting for the deadline to pass if the restudy does
not take the full 150 calendar days.
    331. Additionally, we decline to adopt suggestions to allow
transmission providers flexibility to set their own study
deadlines,\693\ which would undermine the purpose of ensuring that
transmission providers complete interconnection studies by standard
deadlines prescribed by their tariffs and would thus be insufficient to
ensure that interconnection customers are able to interconnect to the
transmission system in a reliable, efficient, transparent, and timely
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \693\ AEP Initial Comments at 17-18; APPA-LPPC Initial Comments
at 21; Avangrid Initial Comments at 13; Bonneville Initial Comments
at 16; CAISO Initial Comments at 11; Dominion Initial Comments at
16-17; Indicated PJM TOs Reply Comments at 39; ISO-NE Initial
Comments at 35-37; NYISO Initial Comments at 29, 33; NY Commission
and NYSERDA at 5; NYTOs Initial Comments at 14; SEIA Reply Comments
at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

j. Restudies Triggered by Higher- or Equally Queued Generating Facility
i. NOPR Proposal
    332. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise section 8.5
(Restudy) of the pro forma LGIP to make clear that restudies can be
triggered by a higher- or equally queued interconnection request
withdrawing from the interconnection queue or modification of a higher-
or equally queued interconnection request pursuant to section 4.4
(Modifications) of the pro forma LGIP.\694\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \694\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments
    333. Shell argues the withdrawal of an interconnection request
should not automatically trigger a cluster restudy, and instead the
Commission should consider a process and cost allocation method that
creates a ``secondary market'' to replace a proposed generating
facility that withdraws with another generating facility in the same
location or nearby.\695\ CREA and NewSun agree with Shell's suggestion
to allow interconnection customers to step in and assume the rights of
any interconnection customer that withdraws its interconnection
request.\696\ Similarly, R Street argues that the cluster study process
should not impede the transfer of interconnection request
``ownership,'' as, according to R Street, allowing parties to trade
will help ensure an efficient balance between generation additions and
transmission interconnection costs.\697\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \695\ Shell Initial Comments, app. A at i.
    \696\ CREA and NewSun Reply Comments at 10.
    \697\ R Street Initial Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    334. MISO seeks clarification on the trigger for restudies. MISO
states that its understanding is that any modification during its study
process that is found to be material would not be allowed.\698\
Further, MISO contends that allowing a material modification to impact
an equally queued interconnection customer seems to be inconsistent
with the Commission's proposal to modify the definition of material
modification.\699\ Therefore, MISO argues that there should not be a
need for a restudy due to such modification. MISO asserts that the
Commission should not allow modifications during the study process that
materially impact other interconnection customers and may require
restudies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \698\ MISO Initial Comments at 40.
    \699\ Id. (referencing NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    335. We adopt the proposed revisions to section 8.5 of the pro
forma LGIP to make clear that restudies can be triggered by a
withdrawal or modification by a higher- or equally queued
interconnection request. First, we clarify that the ``modification'' we
refer to in this section must be explicitly permitted under pro forma
LGIP section 4.4. Any other modification that triggered a restudy would
be found to be material and would not be allowed, as it would affect
the cost and/or timing of the other customers in the interconnection
queue by necessitating a restudy. Next, we find that restudies may be
triggered if there is either a withdrawal or a modification explicitly
permitted under pro forma LGIP section 4.4. Changes to the composition
of the cluster often require the transmission provider to restudy the
entire cluster to ensure that all network upgrades and the associated
costs are still needed. Finally, we find that stating that restudy may
be required due to the withdrawal or modification of a higher- or
equally queued interconnection request, rather than requiring that a
restudy must occur, provides the transmission provider with flexibility
to assess whether the restudy is necessary. If the transmission
provider is able to move forward without performing a full restudy,
that is a preferable outcome in terms of interconnection queue
efficiency, as the transmission provider can maintain the study
milestones already achieved and maintain progress towards completion
and operation for generating facilities in the cluster, as opposed to
dedicating significant additional time required to restart and conduct
the study process over again when it may not be necessary or beneficial
to do so.
    336. In response to Shell, CREA and NewSun, and R Street, we
decline to consider modifications to the pro forma LGIP to create a
``secondary market'' process that would allow one generating facility
to replace a similarly situated one that withdraws from the
interconnection queue, where that withdrawal would otherwise trigger a
restudy. The Commission did not propose such a process in the NOPR, and
we do not have a sufficient record to consider adopting such a process
in this final rule.
    337. In response to MISO, we clarify that material modifications
are defined in section 1 of the pro forma LGIP as modifications that
have a material impact on the cost or timing of any interconnection
request with an equal or later queue position. Under section 4.4.3 of
the pro forma LGIP, if an interconnection customer chooses to move
forward with the modification that has been deemed material by the
transmission provider, the interconnection customer will lose its queue
position and must proceed with a new interconnection request if
desired. However, we note that certain modifications as listed in pro
forma LGIP sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.5 are permitted regardless of
their impact on other interconnection customers.
k. Timing of LGIA Tender, Execution, and Filing
i. NOPR Proposal
    338. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise sections 11.1
(Tender) and 11.3 (Execution and Filing) of the pro forma LGIP, which
include provisions related to the tender, execution, and filing of the
LGIA, to incorporate a 60 calendar-day

negotiation period and to incorporate the site control demonstrations
and LGIA deposit provisions included in proposed section 3 of the pro
forma LGIP.\700\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \700\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments
    339. Enel states that many transmission providers and
interconnection customers are confused as to how to interpret pro forma
LGIP sections 11.1 and 11.2 in relation to each other, and Enel thus
recommends that the Commission revise and simplify sections 11.1 and
11.2 of the pro forma LGIP to provide more clarity.\701\ Enel argues
that additional changes are needed to address common delays in
completion of the final facilities study report; delays in a
transmission provider issuing the draft LGIA; and delays in the
transmission provider executing the LGIA after receiving the
interconnection customer's signature and milestones, and subsequently
proposes targeted revisions to pro forma LGIP sections 11.1 and 11.2 to
provide additional time for interconnection customers to review and
negotiate LGIAs.\702\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \701\ Enel Initial Comments at 13-14.
    \702\ Id. at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    340. Tri-State notes that section 11.3 of the pro forma LGIP is
unclear when it states that the ``Transmission Provider must not
suspend the LGIA'' until the interconnection customer meets the tariff
requirements because it is the interconnection customer that has the
ability to suspend a proposed generating facility.\703\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \703\ Tri-State Initial Comments at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    341. APS requests that the Commission be more prescriptive on what
is considered reasonable evidence of achieving development milestones
when executing an LGIA in the same manner that the Commission defines
commercial readiness milestones in order to avoid subjectivity and
potential disagreements regarding what is considered ``reasonable.''
\704\ APS also asserts that the reference to simultaneous submission of
the interconnection customer-executed LGIA and the continued
demonstration of site control is duplicative and unnecessary if an
interconnection customer demonstrates site control at the time an
interconnection request is made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \704\ ASP Initial Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    342. Hydropower Commenters contend that the Commission should
provide additional time for payment of interconnection costs after the
interconnection process is complete.\705\ Hydropower Commenters assert
that once a transmission provider delivers the interconnection
agreement and construction agreement to the interconnection customer,
the interconnection customer has only 60 days to execute the agreements
and 15 business days after receipt of the signed agreements to
demonstrate site control or post a non-refundable additional security
deposit to cover the interconnection costs. Hydropower Commenters argue
that, because the end of the study process may occur long before a
proposed generating facility is fully funded, and the interconnection
customer risks losing its queue position if it does not execute the
agreements, the Commission should extend this period to at least one
year so the interconnection customer has time to secure funding and
avoids having to restart the interconnection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \705\ Hydropower Commenters Initial Comments at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    343. NV Energy similarly suggests changes to the NOPR proposal to
allow interconnection customers that request a transmission provider to
file an unexecuted LGIA to satisfy these requirements within 15 days of
the Commission issuing an order. NV Energy states that the proposed
extra time between receiving a draft LGIA and having to satisfy these
requirements creates an undue preferential advantage for those
interconnection customers that request unexecuted LGIAs to be filed at
the Commission and could delay the interconnection process for
others.\706\ To address this issue, NV Energy suggests that
interconnection customers who choose to have their unexecuted LGIAs
filed with the Commission should be required to submit their data to
the transmission provider by the day after the filing of the LGIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \706\ NV Energy Initial Comments at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    344. We adopt, in part, and modify, in part, the proposal to revise
sections 11.1 and 11.3 of the pro forma LGIP, regarding the tendering,
execution, and filing of the LGIA, to incorporate a 60-calendar day
negotiation period and to incorporate the site control demonstrations
and LGIA deposit provisions included in proposed section 3 of the pro
forma LGIP. We find that the revisions to section 11.1 of the pro forma
LGIP that we adopt herein clarify the process of tendering an LGIA and
the revisions to section 11.3 of the pro forma LGIP that we adopt
herein incorporate the site control and LGIA deposit provisions adopted
elsewhere in this final rule.
    345. We do not adopt the proposed revisions to pro forma LGIP
section 11.3 that reference the commercial readiness demonstration
provisions of proposed section 8.1 of the pro forma LGIP because we are
not adopting those provisions, as discussed below in section III.A.6.
    346. We modify the proposed revisions to pro forma LGIP section
11.3, as requested by Tri-State, because we agree that the proposal was
unclear when it stated that ``Transmission Provider must not suspend
the LGIA under LGIA article 5.16'' until the interconnection customer
meets certain tariff requirements. We modify pro forma LGIP section
11.3 to instead state: ``Interconnection Customer may not request to
suspend its LGIA under LGIA Article 5.16 until Interconnection
Customer'' meets certain tariff requirements. This reflects the fact
that it is the interconnection customer, not the transmission provider,
that has the right to suspend the LGIA.
    347. We also modify proposed section 11.3 of the pro forma LGIP in
response to NV Energy's concerns about favoring interconnection
customers that request a transmission provider to file an unexecuted
LGIA. We agree that the proposal has the potential to encourage more
filings of unexecuted LGIAs simply to delay the due date for submission
of deposits, evidence of site control, and milestone progress data. We
therefore modify the proposal such that interconnection customers that
request a transmission provider to file an unexecuted LGIA must satisfy
these submission requirements within 10 business days after the date of
the filing of the unexecuted LGIA with the Commission.
    348. We decline to make further modifications to the proposal
beyond those discussed above. Enel has neither explained why pro forma
LGIP sections 11.1, as revised by this final rule, and 11.2, cause an
unjust and unreasonable result for interconnection customers, nor has
it explained why changes to the negotiation process between
transmission providers and interconnection customers are needed at this
time.
    349. Similarly, we decline APS' request that the Commission be
``more prescriptive'' on what is considered reasonable evidence of
achieving development milestones when executing an LGIA. We believe
that the requirement that interconnection customers provide reasonable
evidence is sufficient to ensure just and reasonable rates without
imposing detailed requirements surrounding the meaning of
``reasonable.'' There is inadequate record to demonstrate a more
prescriptive approach is needed.

For example, development milestones generally involve the execution of
contracts or applications for permits.
    350. We also decline to adopt Hydropower Commenters' request to
modify the pro forma LGIP to provide additional time for payment of
interconnection costs after the conclusion of the interconnection study
process. The pro forma LGIP, as modified by this final rule, requires
transmission providers to give interconnection customers ample notice
of costs and the timing that costs are due as part of the
interconnection process so that interconnection customers can secure
funding for a proposed generating facility. We are unpersuaded that
interconnection customers should have additional time beyond that
already provided, especially given the number of generating facilities
that have been developed using the existing process and the added
transparency that we adopt in this final rule that will only serve to
improve the ability of interconnection customers to secure financing.
l. Cluster Subgroups
i. NOPR Proposal
    351. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on whether to
require transmission providers to conduct cluster studies on subgroups
of interconnection customers based on areas of geographic and electric
relevance, and, if so, whether to adopt provisions governing how
cluster areas should be formed to ensure that cluster areas are formed
in a transparent and not unduly discriminatory manner.\707\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \707\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments
    352. A number of commenters support permitting transmission
providers to study clusters in subgroups based on geographic or
electrical relevance,\708\ but some argue that clustering projects in
subgroups should not be required.\709\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \708\ APS Initial Comments at 9; ClearPath Initial Comments at
7; NARUC Initial Comments at 6; NextEra Initial Comments at 14-15;
[Oslash]rsted Initial Comments at 8; PacifiCorp Initial Comments at
17; Pennsylvania Commission Initial Comments at 8.
    \709\ APS Initial Comments at 9; Indicated PJM TOs Initial
Comments at 18; NextEra Initial Comments at 15; PJM Initial Comments
at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    353. Several entities argue that clustering around subgroups of
geographic or electrical relevance is a reasonable approach,
particularly for transmission providers with a large or fragmented
footprint.\710\ Some commenters argue that creating sub-clusters may
not make sense for transmission providers with small footprints.\711\
Several commenters argue that transmission providers should have
flexibility in deciding whether to form subgroups of interconnection
customers because geographic and electric relevance will vary with each
cluster study.\712\ Similarly, some commenters contend that the
Commission should not mandate studying subgroups based on geographic
and electric relevance, and that the efficacy of this approach should
instead first be evaluated through experience.\713\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \710\ Illinois Commission Initial Comments at 5; NextEra Initial
Comments at 14-15; PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 18; Pennsylvania
Commission Initial Comments at 8.
    \711\ NRECA Initial Comments at 19; Tri-State Initial Comments
at 11.
    \712\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 8-9; ClearPath Initial
Comments at 8; ENGIE Reply Comments at 2; Fervo Energy Reply Comment
at 4; Indicated PJM TOs Initial Comments at 18; SEIA Reply Comments
at 6.
    \713\ AES Initial Comments at 10; PJM Initial Comments at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    354. PacifiCorp notes that using cluster study areas allows it to
assess and more efficiently allocate the costs of network upgrades to
requesters triggering the improvements and protect interconnection
customers in different clusters from bearing the cost of network
upgrades triggered by interconnection customers in different parts of
PacifiCorp's system, thereby facilitating more expedient processing of
all the cluster studies.\714\ PacifiCorp asserts that its ability to
create cluster areas where appropriate is a critical feature of its
cluster study process, adding that cluster areas can facilitate
expedient processing of interconnection requests that might otherwise
be delayed due to restudies or other study complications.\715\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \714\ PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 18-19.
    \715\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    355. On the other hand, Pattern Energy asserts that designating
subregions may result in separate geographic regions bearing a
disproportionate share of network upgrade costs that provide regional
benefits and should be subject to regional cost allocations.\716\
Pattern Energy notes that it is also important for the transmission
provider to review subregional cluster study results and determine
whether inter-cluster network upgrades would better serve the needs of
the subregional clusters during each planning cycle. Illinois
Commission asserts that interconnection requests that are near one
another might have a greater impact on each other, and subgroups could
ease the study process, but any subgroup process should not compromise
cost or timing efficiency gains that the clustering process is meant to
address.\717\ OPSI argues that to reduce the ``first mover
disadvantage'' most effectively, the Commission should continue to
analyze and further explain in any final rule whether a region-wide,
annual cluster in a large region like PJM could benefit from better
defined subclusters.\718\ OPSI asserts that the Commission should
further evaluate methods to ensure that clusters facilitate
identification of shared network upgrades by grouping generating
facilities based on areas of geographic and electrical relevance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \716\ Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 16.
    \717\ Illinois Commission Initial Comments at 5.
    \718\ OPSI Initial Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    356. Avangrid contends that the open call cluster request window
should have geographic distinctions, but that if the open call results
in only one interconnection request in a particular area of the system
electrically, this interconnection should be able to undergo a process
reminiscent of current serial study processes in a parallel track if it
will influence, or be influenced by, the broader cluster study
process.\719\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \719\ Avangrid Initial Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    357. Some commenters argue that the Commission should set forth
specific mandates to transmission providers on how cluster areas should
be formed.\720\ CREA and NewSun argue that clear mandates would prevent
transmission providers from subgrouping as a means to engage in anti-
competitive conduct (e.g., assigning the utility's own generation to
subgroups with lower congestion or network upgrade costs).\721\
Similarly, Fervo Energy contends that the Commission should adopt
provisions governing how cluster areas should be formed to ensure that
clusters are formed in a transparent and not unduly discriminatory
manner.\722\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \720\ CREA and NewSun Initial Comments at 48-49; Environmental
Defense Fund Reply Comments at 7-8; Fervo Energy Initial Comments at
3.
    \721\ CREA and NewSun Initial Comments at 48-49.
    \722\ Fervo Energy Initial Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    358. Other commenters argue that the Commission should provide
flexibility by creating a general framework for defining cluster study
subgroups appropriate for their own regions, rather than a specific set
of requirements.\723\

Some commenters further contend that transmission providers have
extensive knowledge of their own transmission systems,\724\ and the
particular interconnection requests that should and should not be
included within a cluster based on their system's geography, electric
configuration, or other relevant factors.\725\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \723\ APS Initial Comments at 9; Clean Energy Associations
Initial Comments at 20; ClearPath Initial Comments at 8; EEI Initial
Comments at 5; Eversource Initial Comments at 13-14; LADWP Initial
Comments at 3; Longroad Energy Initial Comments at 10; MISO Initial
Comments at 41-42; New York State Department Initial Comments at 5-
6; Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 15; PacifiCorp Initial
Comments at 18; PPL Initial Comments at 10; R Street Initial
Comments at 11; Tri-State Initial Comments at 11; U.S. Chamber of
Commerce Initial Comments at 7; Xcel Initial Comments at 23.
    \724\ Shell Initial Comments, app. A at i; Tri-State Initial
Comments at 11.
    \725\ U.S. Chamber of Commerce Initial Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters suggest that transmission providers develop
subgroup criteria with stakeholder input.\726\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \726\ Interwest Initial Comments at 14; MISO Initial Comments at
42; Northwest and Intermountain Initial Comments at 7; Pattern
Energy Initial Comments at 15-16; PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 18
(citing PacifiCorp, Transmission OATT and Service Agmts, Part
IV.42.4(a) (5.0.0)); Shell Initial Comments, app. A at i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    359. Other commenters argue that the Commission should allow
variation in how transmission providers form clusters. For example, R
Street argues that the Commission should refrain from being too
prescriptive regarding how cluster areas are defined, and instead
require that transmission providers publish their cluster definitions
well in advance of the request window for interconnection
requests.\727\ Clean Energy States believe that allowing
interconnection customers to create their own clusters would result in
an internal vetting of proposed generating facilities in the cluster
and negotiation about how costs and penalties will be managed.\728\
Regarding how clusters should be defined, several commenters provide
suggestions for subgroup criteria beyond geographic proximity or
electrical relevance.\729\ PPL suggests cluster formation be based on
geographic or electrical proximity only and that interconnection
customers should not be separated based on fuel type.\730\ Energy
Keepers asserts that, when utilities are considering cluster studies on
subgroups of interconnection customers, those clusters should be based
on location.\731\ Clean Energy Associations, Vistra, and ENGIE assert
that cluster studies should evaluate subgroups of projects based on
electric proximity to one another.\732\ Further, ENGIE agrees that
distribution factors should not be the sole indicator of electrical
proximity as there are other factors around which subgroups might
appropriately be grouped.\733\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \727\ R Street Initial Comments at 11.
    \728\ Clean Energy States Initial Comments at 10.
    \729\ Id. at 5; Fervo Energy Initial Comments at 3; Interwest
Initial Comments at 13-14; Longroad Energy Initial Comments at 10;
Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 15-16; Pennsylvania Commission
Initial Comments at 6.
    \730\ PPL Initial Comments at 10.
    \731\ Energy Keepers Initial Comments at 4.
    \732\ Clean Energy Associations Initial Comments at 20; ENGIE
Reply Comments at 2; Vistra Initial Comments at 2.
    \733\ ENGIE Reply Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    360. Xcel argues that it is not necessary to create ``separate''
clusters for electrically distinct regions, noting that PSCo separates
interconnection requests into ``study pockets'' based on geographic/
electrical separation but studies all the interconnection requests in a
single cluster.\734\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \734\ Xcel Initial Comments at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    361. Clean Energy Associations assert that the Commission should
make clear whether a cluster study must identify the upgrades required
in order to interconnect every interconnection request in whole, or
whether it might identify upgrades that would be sufficient for only a
subset of the interconnection requests; if the latter, Clean Energy
Associations continue, the Commission should establish a pro forma
process for determining which requests might proceed with those initial
upgrades.\735\ Clean Energy Associations claim that transmission
development is a ``lumpy'' process, and in some cases there can be
``breakpoints'' where adding one more generating facility can result in
a significant per-unit cost increase compared to the interconnection
costs that could have been achieved for a subset of the interconnection
requests up to that point. Clean Energy Associations state that, in the
current ISO-NE cluster study process, ISO-NE attempts to identify such
breakpoints and fills each cluster up to that level, with remaining
requests able to either withdraw or proceed into the next cluster
study. Some commenters contend that studies should include or consider
including breakpoints, which can provide helpful information to inform
interconnection customers' next steps.\736\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \735\ Clean Energy Associations Initial Comments at 26.
    \736\ Id. at 26-27; SEIA Reply Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    362. Finally, several commenters encourage transparency and request
that any subgrouping criteria be publicly posted or filed by
transmission providers or RTOs/ISOs.\737\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \737\ ENGIE Reply Comments at 2; Fervo Energy Initial Comments
at 3; Fervo Energy Reply Comments at 4; [Oslash]rsted Initial
Comments at 8; R Street Initial Comments at 11; Tri-State Initial
Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    363. We will neither require transmission providers to conduct
cluster studies on subgroups of interconnection customers based on
areas of geographic and electric relevance, nor adopt provisions
governing how cluster subgroup areas should be formed. However, we
adopt revisions to section 7.4 of the pro forma LGIP to permit
transmission providers to use subgroups in their cluster study process
if they so choose. To the extent a transmission provider chooses to use
subgroups, it must include provisions in its pro forma LGIP in its
tariff that state that it will use subgroups. We further modify section
7.4 of the pro forma LGIP to require that the criteria used to define
subgroups be publicly posted on a publicly accessible website. We
believe that publicly sharing these criteria is important to ensure
adequate transparency and to safeguard against the potential for undue
discrimination in the design and implementation of cluster subgroups.
    364. We agree with commenters that support permitting transmission
providers to study clusters in subgroups based on geographic or
electrical relevance but argue that clustering projects in subgroups
should not be required. We believe that there may be benefits to
studying clusters in subgroups in certain circumstances, and therefore
we do not want to preclude transmission providers from proposing such a
process on compliance. At the same time, based on the record, we do not
believe that requiring subgroups for all transmission providers is
appropriate. In some instances, the administrative burden of defining
and separately studying subgroups may not outweigh the benefits.
    365. Consistent with our decision to not require transmission
providers to conduct cluster studies on subgroups of interconnection
customers, we decline to adopt provisions governing how clusters should
be formed. Rather, we believe it more appropriate to allow transmission
providers to determine how to define subclusters appropriate for their
regions, taking into consideration their system geography, electrical
configuration, and other relevant factors.\738\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \738\ Clean Energy Associations Initial Comments at 20;
ClearPath Initial Comments at 8; EEI Initial Comments at 5;
Eversource Initial Comments at 13-14; LADWP Initial Comments at 3;
Longroad Energy Initial Comments at 10; MISO Initial Comments at 41-
42; New York State Department Initial Comments at 5-6; PacifiCorp
Initial Comments at 18; Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 15; PPL
Initial Comments at 10; Shell Initial Comments, app. A at i; Tri-
State Initial Comments at 11; U.S. Chamber of Commerce Initial
Comments at 7.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    366. Regarding concerns raised by Pattern Energy and others about
the use of subgroups resulting in a disproportionate allocation of
network upgrade costs, we note that if a transmission provider opts to
study in subgroups, it cannot change how it allocates network upgrade
costs. That is, it must follow the requirement adopted in this final
rule to use a proportional impact method to allocate system network
upgrade costs among all interconnection customers in the cluster
regardless of subgroup, as discussed further below. Because
transmission providers will be using a proportional impact method to
allocate system network upgrade costs, regardless of whether
interconnection customers are studied in subgroups, we believe
subgroups would not change an interconnection customer's potential cost
allocation. An interconnection customer with an impact on a network
upgrade would be allocated its portion of the cost of that network
upgrade regardless of whether its request was studied in a subgroup
with another interconnection customer allocated a different portion of
that network upgrade.
m. Restudy
i. NOPR Proposal
    367. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on whether to
specify in the pro forma LGIP 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 restudy process, such as
preventing excessive restudy by limiting the transmission provider to
two restudies per month within the 150-calendar day cluster restudy
period.\739\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \739\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments
    368. Eversource recommends that the Commission adopt detailed
restudy rules.\740\ Pine Gate suggests that the Commission provide
guidance on when the need for a restudy is triggered, as even minimal
changes can trigger long and costly restudies.\741\ Pine Gate
recommends that the Commission: (1) furnish criteria to be used by
transmission providers in determining whether a restudy is required;
(2) require transmission providers to limit the scope of restudies if
only a local impact is anticipated; (3) require transmission providers
to publish restudy criteria, determinations, and scoping as resources
for interconnection customers; (4) permit interconnection customers to
send engineering analyses applying the transmission provider's
published criteria, which could be used by the transmission provider to
help decide whether to conduct a restudy, thereby reducing the
transmission providers' burden; and (5) not require every cluster
participant to submit additional study deposits until the transmission
provider determines the need for and scope of any restudy and affected
cluster participants are notified. Pattern Energy believes that
transmission providers should be required to develop expedited modeling
processes to evaluate whether the withdrawal of an interconnection
request or other allowed modification may cause a full restudy.\742\
Pattern Energy argues that such a requirement would allow
interconnection customers to make better informed decisions about
withdrawing or modifying interconnection requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \740\ Eversource Initial Comments at 14.
    \741\ Pine Gate Initial Comments at 62-63.
    \742\ Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    369. Conversely, a number of commenters recommend that the
Commission provide flexibility to transmission providers and not adopt
overly prescriptive requirements specifying how cluster studies must be
rerun after a restudy is triggered.\743\ MISO encourages the Commission
to grant maximum flexibility to transmission providers regarding the
necessity of restudies and the scope of restudies as the situations
that give rise to restudies are varied and unique.\744\ PJM states that
it finds acceptable the NOPR's proposal requiring transmission
providers to specify in their tariffs how cluster studies must be
rerun, but suggests the Commission avoid being overly prescriptive
regarding restudies.\745\ Xcel recommends that the Commission not
propose additional prescriptive requirements on how restudies must be
performed, but suggests that if there are multiple clusters impacted,
where each cluster only has ``ready'' projects, the transmission
provider may combine the clusters into a single cluster for a single
restudy instead of restudying multiple clusters.\746\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \743\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 9; EEI Initial Comments at
5; Idaho Power Initial Comments at 4; MISO Initial Comments at 43;
NYISO Initial Comments at 12; PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 19; PJM
Initial Comments at 22-23; Xcel Initial Comments at 24.
    \744\ MISO Initial Comments at 43.
    \745\ PJM Initial Comments at 22-23.
    \746\ Xcel Initial Comments at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    370. Some commenters support limiting the number of restudies a
transmission provider may perform within a restudy period.\747\ Ameren
states that limiting the number of restudies to two within the 150-day
cluster restudy period seems reasonable, given the size of the many
interconnection queues and the reported uncertainty of interconnection
customers in the queue.\748\ Ohio Commission Consumer Advocate concurs
that conducting a single cluster study and cluster restudy annually may
reduce the risk of cascading restudies occurring if an interconnection
customer withdraws from the interconnection queue.\749\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \747\ Ameren Initial Comments at 8; Clean Energy Associations
Initial Comments at 42; Cypress Creek Initial Comments at 18; Ohio
Commission Consumer Advocate Initial Comments at 8; Southern Initial
Comments at 24.
    \748\ Ameren Initial Comments at 8.
    \749\ Ohio Commission Consumer Advocate Initial Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    371. A few commenters argue that the Commission should address the
lack of any limit on restudy requests, stating that this issue is a
known shortcoming that results in essentially unlimited time and
resource obligations for interconnection customers.\750\ Southern
expresses concern that the proposed pro forma LGIP language allows for
multiple restudies, which would interfere with a one-year timeline
maximum.\751\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \750\ Clean Energy Associations Initial Comments at 42; Cypress
Creek Initial Comments at 18 (citing PJM Manual 14A at 26).
    \751\ Southern Initial Comments at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    372. A number of commenters do not support a set limit on the
number of restudies a transmission provider may perform.\752\
Bonneville asserts that efforts to prevent excessive restudies (e.g.,
limit of two per month) could be overly prescriptive.\753\ Bonneville
argues that transmission providers should be afforded the flexibility
to determine and publish the timing of any restudy, and limits thereto,
on their OASIS sites to help to facilitate transparency and ensure
timelines are attainable. NextEra states that experience has shown that
having a defined and limited number of restudies, such as in MISO's
three-phase process, can help limit the duration of the study
process.\754\ However, NextEra contends that it would be too
restrictive for the Commission to dictate exactly how transmission
providers should limit the number of restudies, and argues that the
final rule should instead require that each transmission provider

propose to the Commission on compliance what rules or processes it will
use to ensure there is not an undefined and unpredictable number of
restudies, e.g., whether it will have a fixed number of scheduled
restudies or some other method to limit the number of restudies and
associated potential delays. PacifiCorp notes that, because restudies
are typically triggered through a withdrawal or modification of an
interconnection request, the transmission provider is responding to
changes, typically outside of its control, that warrant a restudy and
undertaking efforts to complete the restudy as efficiently as
possible.\755\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \752\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 9; MISO Initial Comments at
42, 43; NextEra Initial Comments at 15; PacifiCorp Initial Comments
at 20; PJM Initial Comments at 23; Tri-State Initial Comments at 11.
    \753\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 9.
    \754\ NextEra Initial Comments at 15.
    \755\ PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    373. Idaho Power requests clarification surrounding the single
cluster and cluster restudy process and the suggested limitation of
allowing only two restudies per month within the 150-day cluster
restudy period.\756\ Idaho Power states, for example, an entity may
have three cluster areas requiring three cluster studies, and
withdrawals from those studies may require more than two simultaneous
cluster restudies in the same month to prevent delay of any one cluster
restudy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \756\ Idaho Power Initial Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    374. We decline to modify the pro forma LGIP to specify how a
transmission provider conducts cluster restudies and when it must
conduct a cluster restudy. We find persuasive the arguments of several
commenters that the Commission allow transmission providers flexibility
on how and whether to conduct a restudy and the scope and frequency of
any restudies. The transmission provider is best positioned to
determine when and how to conduct a restudy, including the scope and
frequency of restudies, because it determines the need for the
restudies to maintain the reliability of the transmission system.\757\
We agree with commenters like MISO and Xcel that different events can
trigger restudies, and transmission providers are in the best position
to determine whether an event warrants a restudy, and if so, what the
scope of that restudy should be (for example, whether a new study is
required, or whether only a modification as to certain model data and a
reanalysis is required).\758\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \757\ National Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability
Standards, https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Glossary%20of%20Terms/Glossary_of_Terms.pdf.
    \758\ MISO Initial Comments at 43; Xcel Initial Comments at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    375. As to frequency of restudies, we also agree with PacifiCorp
that because restudies are typically triggered through a withdrawal of
an interconnection request, the transmission provider is responding to
changes, typically outside of its control, that warrant a restudy, and
thus limiting the number of restudies could hinder the ability of a
transmission provider to undertake efforts to complete a restudy as
efficiently as possible.\759\ Because we are not modifying the pro
forma LGIP to specify how cluster studies must be rerun after restudy
is triggered, we will also not limit the transmission provider to two
restudies per month within the 150-calendar day cluster restudy period.
We agree with commenters like Bonneville, NextEra, and PacifiCorp that
it would be too restrictive for the Commission to dictate exactly how
transmission providers should limit the number of restudies.\760\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \759\ PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 19.
    \760\ Id.; Bonneville Initial Comments at 9; NextEra Initial
Comments at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    376. Regarding Idaho Power's request for clarification on the
suggested limitation of allowing only two restudies per month within
the 150-calendar day cluster restudy period,\761\ because we are not
adopting a limit of two restudies per month within the restudy period,
Idaho Power's clarification request is moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \761\ Idaho Power Initial Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

n. Exceptions to the Cluster Study Process
i. NOPR Proposal
    377. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on whether there
should be an option in the pro forma LGIP for transmission providers to
process some interconnection requests outside of the annual cluster
study process, and if so, in what circumstances and on what time frame
(for completion of the study), and on what priority compared to any
active clusters.\762\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \762\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments
    378. Several parties generally support an option in the pro forma
LGIP for some interconnection requests to be processed outside of the
annual cluster study process,\763\ with some commenters supporting such
an option only under specific circumstances.\764\ For example,
[Oslash]rsted argues that such an option could be beneficial in the
case of a stand alone network upgrade built to serve a single
interconnection customer that will not impact the cluster.\765\ Some
commenters suggest establishing a separate process outside of the
cluster study process to expedite certain interconnection
requests.\766\ Several commenters contend that an option to study
interconnection requests outside of clusters would be particularly
beneficial as more renewable generating facilities are added to the
resource mix.\767\ Two commenters support exceptions for replacement
resources specifically.\768\ A few commenters argue that the Commission
should allow transmission providers to separately or individually study
certain interconnection requests that are not geographically or
electrically relevant to other interconnection requests in the
interconnection queue.\769\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \763\ AES Initial Comments at 10; Fervo Energy Initial Comments
at 3; [Oslash]rsted Initial Comments at 9; Tri-State Initial
Comments at 11.
    \764\ AEP Initial Comments at 19, 42; APPA-LPPC Initial Comments
at 15; Clean Energy Associations Initial Comments at 21; CREA and
NewSun Initial Comments at 49; Energy Keepers Initial Comments at 4-
5; Eversource Initial Comments at 14; Iowa Commission Initial
Comments at 3; Northwest and Intermountain Initial Comments at 7;
UMPA Initial Comments at 3-4; Xcel Initial Comments at 24.
    \765\ [Oslash]rsted Initial Comments at 9.
    \766\ Clean Energy Associations Initial Comments at 21; Iowa
Commission Initial Comments at 4; Navajo Utility Initial Comments at
13; UMPA Initial Comments at 4.
    \767\ AEP Initial Comments at 19-20; Clean Energy Associations
Initial Comments at 21; ENGIE Reply Comments at 2; Iowa Commission
Initial Comments at 4.
    \768\ AEP Initial Comments at 19; Clean Energy Associations
Initial Comments at 21.
    \769\ Energy Keepers Initial Comments at 4-5; Eversource Initial
Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    379. Additionally, APPA-LPPC request that the Commission recognize
that there are transmission providers, principally in rural communities
or where the transmission system provides limited opportunities for
advantageous interconnections, where there are too few interconnection
requests to justify a cluster study approach.\770\ In these cases,
APPA-LPPC recommend that the Commission provide for a self-executing
``opt out,'' permitting the transmission providers to continue to study
interconnection requests on a serial basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \770\ APPA-LPPC Initial Comments at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    380. Northwest and Intermountain recommend a limited exception to
the cluster study process requirement to allow existing interconnection
customers seeking to make changes to their proposed generating
facilities to be processed outside of the cluster study process where
the proposed change had no demonstrable incremental impact on the
transmission system.\771\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \771\ Northwest and Intermountain Initial Comments at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    381. Xcel argues that proposed generating facilities needed to
serve load should be allowed to be processed

outside of the annual cluster study process.\772\ AEP argues that
transmission providers with a reserve margin obligation must have the
ability to prioritize the interconnection of needed capacity in the
interconnection process.\773\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \772\ Xcel Initial Comments at 24.
    \773\ AEP Initial Comments at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    382. Iowa Commission argues that state commissions should have the
ability to require studies outside of annual cluster studies, which
would help increase the availability of needed generation for resource
adequacy and maintain local reliability needs, particularly as large
intermittent generating facilities are interconnecting to the system at
a rapid pace.\774\ Iowa Commission explains that such studies could
potentially address increased transmission system stability and also
minimize future transmission costs because of the ``transient nature''
of some load and resource changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \774\ Iowa Commission Initial Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    383. Similarly, UMPA contends that the Commission should require a
process outside of the annual cluster study process to expedite
interconnection requests that are beyond the exploration phase and
ready for development.\775\ UMPA explains that some load serving
entities search for potential resources to meet their integrated
resource plan based on a request for proposal or certain competitive
criteria, but are then confronted with a choice among proposed
generating facilities that meet the criteria but are lower in the
interconnection queue, or proposed generating facilities that do not
satisfy the criteria, but are higher in the interconnection queue.
Therefore, UMPA argues that it would be helpful to a load serving
entity with a development-ready generating facility to be able to enter
into a parallel process outside of the annual cluster study process in
order to expedite an interconnection request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \775\ UMPA Initial Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    384. AEP also suggests that RTOs/ISOs that have consolidated their
small and large generator interconnection procedures into a single
generator interconnection procedure should be permitted to propose that
all or some smaller-sized generating facilities, such as 20 MW or
smaller generating facilities, would be ``too small'' to need to be
included in the cluster.\776\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \776\ AEP Initial Comments at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    385. Other commenters believe that any exceptions to the cluster
study process requirement should be very limited.\777\ NRECA asserts
that if the final rule provides for any interconnection requests to be
processed outside the annual cluster study process, it should be
limited to a narrow category of interconnection requests, such as
emergency replacements of failed equipment driven by near-term
reliability needs.\778\ MISO asserts that there should be very limited
exceptions, explaining that it has limited its non-queue
interconnection requests to those that are associated with existing
generating facilities that do not seek to add new or additional
interconnection service, or small interconnection requests.\779\
Outside of those limited exceptions, MISO states that it does not
support processing any other interconnection requests outside of the
interconnection queue.\780\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \777\ ENGIE Initial Comments at 3; MISO Initial Comments at 44;
NRECA Initial Comments at 19-20.
    \778\ NRECA Initial Comments at 20.
    \779\ MISO Initial Comments at 44. MISO states that these
limited exceptions are Surplus Interconnection Requests (MISO, FERC
Electric Tariff, attach. X, section 3.2.3 (158.0.0)), a request for
Generating Facility Replacement (MISO, FERC Electric Tariff, attach.
X, section 3.7 (158.0.0)), and Fast Track Processing that is
available to Small Generating Facilities under 5 MW (MISO, FERC
Electric Tariff, attach. X, art. 14 (158.0.0)). Id. n.100.
    \780\ Id. at 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    386. ENGIE recommends that exceptions be limited to requests that
``need[ ] to be studied outside of the cluster process, e.g.,
transmission planning and state or public policy issues.'' \781\ ENGIE
states that it is possible that there may be other exceptions made in
emergency situations, in which case, the granting of exceptions should
be very limited in scope, subject to transparent criteria, and the
rationale made publicly available. ENGIE further recommends that every