[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7523-7639]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01366]

Vol. 78

Friday,

No. 22

February 1, 2013

Part III

Department of Energy

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

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

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

18 CFR Part 35

Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures; Proposed
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM13-2-000]

Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
proposing to revise the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures (SGIP) and pro forma Small Generator Interconnection
Agreement (SGIA) originally set forth in Order No. 2006. The pro forma
SGIP and SGIA establish the terms and conditions under which public
utilities must provide interconnection service to Small Generating
Facilities of no more than 20 megawatts (MW). In this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission proposes to modify the pro
forma SGIP to: (1) Incorporate provisions that would provide an
Interconnection Customer with the option of requesting from the
Transmission Provider a pre-application report providing existing
information about system conditions at a possible Point of
Interconnection; (2) revise the 2 MW threshold for participation in the
Fast Track Process included in section 2 of the pro forma SGIP; (3)
revise the customer options meeting and the supplemental review
following failure of the Fast Track screens so that the supplemental
review is performed at the discretion of the Interconnection Customer
and includes minimum load and other screens to determine if a Small
Generating Facility may be interconnected safely and reliably; and (4)
revise the pro forma SGIP Facilities Study Agreement to allow the
Interconnection Customer the opportunity to provide written comments to
the Transmission Provider on the upgrades required for interconnection.
The Commission also proposes to clarify or correct certain sections of
the pro forma SGIP and SGIA. The proposed reforms are intended to
ensure that the time and cost to process small generator interconnect
requests will be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. To
facilitate discussion of the proposed reforms, the Commission intends
to hold a workshop at which stakeholders may discuss the proposals made
in this NOPR. The workshop is to be held before the end of the comment
period.

DATES: Comments are due June 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leslie Kerr (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Monica Taba (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Elizabeth Arnold (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Table of Contents

                                                         Paragraph Nos.

I. Introduction......................................                  1
II. Background.......................................                  6
    A. Order No. 2006................................                  6
    B. Solar Energy Industries Association Petition..                 12
III. Need for Reform.................................                 18
IV. Proposed Reforms.................................                 25
    A. Pre-Application Report........................                 26
    B. Threshold for Participation in the Fast Track                  30
     Process.........................................
    C. Customer Options Meeting and Supplemental                      33
     Review..........................................
    D. Review of Required Upgrades...................                 41
    E. Other Revisions...............................                 45
V. Workshop..........................................                 47
VI. Compliance Filings...............................                 50
VII. Procedural Matters..............................                 54
VIII. Information Collection Statement...............                 56
IX. Environmental Analysis...........................                 60
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act........................                 61
XI. Comment Procedures...............................                 63
XII. Document Availability...........................                 67

    Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the SEIA
Petition (Docket No. RM12-10-000) and the Technical Conference
(Docket No. AD12-17-000).
    Appendix B: Proposed Flow Chart for Interconnecting a Certified
Small Generating Facility Using the ``Fast Track Process.''
    Appendix C: Proposed Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIP.
    Appendix D: Proposed Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIA.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

January 17, 2013.

I. Introduction

    1. The Commission is proposing to revise the pro forma Small
Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) and pro forma Small
Generator

Interconnection Agreement (SGIA) originally set forth in Order No.
2006.\1\ The pro forma SGIP and SGIA establish the terms and conditions
under which public utilities \2\ must provide interconnection service
to Small Generating Facilities \3\ of no more than 20 megawatts
(MW).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection
Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,180, order on reh 'g, Order No. 2006-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,196 (2005), order on clarification, Order No. 2006-B, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,221 (2006) (Order No. 2006).
    \2\ For purposes of this Proposed Rule, a public utility is a
utility that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for
transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce, as defined by
the Federal Power Act (FPA). See 16 U.S.C. 824(e) (2006). A non-
public utility that seeks voluntary compliance with the reciprocity
condition of an Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) may satisfy
that condition by filing an OATT, which includes the pro forma SGIP
and the pro forma SGIA.
    \3\ Capitalized terms used in this NOPR have the meanings
specified in the Glossaries of Terms or the text of the SGIP or
SGIA. Small Generating Facility means the device for which the
Interconnection Customer has requested interconnection. The owner of
the Small Generating Facility is the Interconnection Customer. The
utility entity with which the Small Generating Facility is
interconnecting is the Transmission Provider. A Small Generating
Facility is a device used for the production of electricity having a
capacity of no more than 20 MW. The interconnection process formally
begins with the Interconnection Customer submitting an application
for interconnection, called an Interconnection Request, to the
Transmission Provider.
    \4\ The pro forma SGIP and SGIA are used by a public utility to
interconnect a Small Generating Facility with the utility's
transmission facilities or with its jurisdictional distribution
facilities for the purpose of selling electric energy at wholesale
in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Market changes, including the growth of small generator
interconnection requests and the growth in solar photovoltaic (PV)
installations, driven in part by state renewable energy goals and
policies, necessitate a reevaluation of the SGIP and SGIA to ensure
that they continue to facilitate Commission-jurisdictional
interconnections in a just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory
manner.\5\ We note that the Commission has previously reviewed the
Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP) after significant
increases in large generator interconnection requests, mainly from wind
generators, led to challenges in processing interconnection requests on
a timely basis.\6\ The Commission proposes the reforms herein in the
belief that failure to do so now could lead to unnecessary challenges
for Small Generating Facilities in the future.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although not controlling as to interconnections subject to
state jurisdiction, the Commission notes that one of the intended
purposes for the small generator interconnection regulations set
forth in Order No. 2006 was to serve as a guide for state
interconnection procedures. See Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,180 at P 4, 8.
    \6\ Docket No. AD08-2-000 explored methods to address then
current queue management challenges in a manner consistent with
Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and
Procedures, Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 (2003),
order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,160,
order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,171
(2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,190 (2005), aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util.
Comm'rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552
U.S. 1230 (2008) (Order No. 2003).
    \7\ The Commission routinely evaluates the effectiveness of its
regulations and policies in light of changing industry conditions to
determine if changes in these regulations and policies are
necessary. See, e.g., Integration of Variable Energy Resources,
Order No. 764, 77 FR 41482 (July 13, 2012) FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,331 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Specifically, the Commission proposes to modify the pro forma
SGIP to: (1) Incorporate provisions that would provide an
Interconnection Customer with the option of requesting from the
Transmission Provider a pre-application report providing existing
information about system conditions at a possible Point of
Interconnection; (2) revise the 2 MW threshold for participation in the
Fast Track Process included in section 2 of the pro forma SGIP; (3)
revise the customer options meeting and the supplemental review
following failure of the Fast Track screens so that the supplemental
review is performed at the discretion of the Interconnection Customer
and includes minimum load and other screens to determine if a Small
Generating Facility may be interconnected safely and reliably; and (4)
revise the pro forma SGIP Facilities Study Agreement to allow the
Interconnection Customer the opportunity to provide written comments on
the upgrades required for interconnection. The Commission also proposes
to clarify or correct certain sections of the pro forma SGIP and SGIA.
    4. The proposals set forth in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR) are intended to ensure that the time and cost to process small
generator interconnection requests will be just and reasonable and not
unduly discriminatory as sections 205 and 206 of the FPA require.\8\ We
expect the proposed reforms will reduce the time and cost to process
small generator interconnection requests for Interconnection Customers
and Transmission Providers, maintain reliability, increase energy
supply, and remove barriers to the development of new energy sources.
While the Commission proposes that all public utilities will be
required to amend \9\ their Open Access Transmission Tariffs (OATT) to
include a modified pro forma SGIP and SGIA,\10\ these reforms will
likely impact public utility Transmission Providers with a significant
penetration of distributed resources and a larger number of small
generator interconnection requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 16 U.S.C. 824a and 824b (2006).
    \9\ Compliance procedures are discussed in Part VI below.
    \10\ See proposed revisions to the pro forma SGIP in Appendix C
and proposed revisions to the pro forma SGIA in Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Commission believes there is sufficient justification for
proposing the reforms discussed below. In light of the technical nature
of these reforms, the Commission is directing its staff to hold a
workshop at which stakeholders may discuss possible refinements to the
proposals made in this NOPR before the end of the comment period.\11\
The Commission encourages interested stakeholders to participate
actively in the workshop to assist the Commission in developing any
appropriate improvements to the proposed reforms to the SGIP and SGIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Notice of the date and time of the workshop will be
published separately in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Order No. 2006

    6. In Order No. 2006, the Commission established a pro forma SGIP
and SGIA for the interconnection of generation resources no larger than
20 MW. The pro forma SGIP describes how an Interconnection Customer's
interconnection request (application) should be evaluated. The pro
forma SGIP includes three alternative procedures for evaluating an
interconnection request. They are the Study Process, which can be used
by any generating facility with a capacity no larger than 20 MW, and
two procedures that use ten technical screens to quickly identify
safety or reliability issues associated with proposed interconnections:
(1) The Fast Track Process for certified \12\ Small Generating
Facilities no larger than 2 MW; and (2) the 10 kW Inverter Process for
certified inverter-based \13\ Small

Generating Facilities no larger than 10 kW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Attachments 3 and 4 of the Order No. 2006, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,180 pro forma SGIP, which specify the codes, standards,
and certification requirements that Small Generating Facilities must
meet.
    \13\ An inverter is a device that converts the direct current
(DC) voltage and current of a DC generator to alternating voltage
and current. For example, the output of a solar panel is DC. The
solar panel's output must be converted by an inverter to alternating
current (AC) before it can be interconnected with a utility's AC
electric system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Study Process in section 3 of the pro forma SGIP is used to
evaluate small generator interconnection requests that do not qualify
for either the Fast Track Process or the 10 kW Inverter Process. The
Study Process is similar to the process under the LGIP set forth in
Order No. 2003. The Study Process normally consists of a scoping
meeting, a feasibility study, a system impact study, and a facilities
study. These studies identify any adverse system impacts \14\ that must
be addressed before the Small Generating Facility may be interconnected
and any equipment modifications required to accommodate the
interconnection. Once the Interconnection Customer agrees to fund any
needed upgrades, an SGIA is executed that, among other things,
formalizes responsibility for construction and payment for
interconnection facilities and upgrades.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ An adverse system impact means that technical or
operational limits on conductors or equipment are exceeded under the
interconnection, which may compromise the safety or reliability of
the electric system.
    \15\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Under the current Fast Track Process, in place of the scoping
meeting and three interconnection studies performed under the Study
Process, technical screens are used to quickly identify reliability or
safety issues. If the proposed interconnection passes the screens, the
Transmission Provider offers the Interconnection Customer an SGIA
without further study. If the proposed interconnection fails the
screens, but the Transmission Provider determines that the Small
Generating Facility may be interconnected without affecting safety and
reliability, the Transmission Provider provides the Interconnection
Customer with an SGIA. However, if the Transmission Provider does not
or cannot determine that the Small Generating Facility may be
interconnected without affecting safety and reliability, the
Transmission Provider offers the Interconnection Customer the
opportunity to attend a customer options meeting to discuss how to
proceed. In that meeting, the Transmission Provider must: (1) Offer to
perform facility modifications or minor modifications to the
Transmission Provider's system (e.g., changing meters, fuses, relay
settings) and provide a non-binding good faith estimate of the cost to
make such modifications; (2) offer to perform a supplemental review if
the Transmission Provider concludes that the supplemental review might
determine that the Small Generating Facility could continue to qualify
for interconnection pursuant to the Fast Track Process, paid for by the
Interconnection Customer, and provide a non-binding good faith estimate
of the cost of that review; or (3) obtain the Interconnection
Customer's agreement to continue evaluating the interconnection request
under the Study Process. If the Transmission Provider determines in the
supplemental review that the Small Generating Facility can be
interconnected safely and reliably and the Interconnection Customer
agrees to pay for any upgrades called for in the supplemental review,
the Transmission Provider and the Interconnection Customer execute an
SGIA. If, after the supplemental review, the Transmission Provider
still is unable to determine that the proposed interconnection would
not degrade the safety and reliability of its electric system, the
Interconnection Request is evaluated using the Study Process.
    9. The 10 kW Inverter Process is available for the interconnection
of certified inverter-based generators no larger than 10 kW. The 10 kW
Inverter Process includes a simplified application form,
interconnection procedures, and a brief set of terms and conditions
(rather than a separate interconnection agreement). The 10 kW Inverter
Process uses the same technical screens as the Fast Track Process. If
the results of the analysis using the technical screens indicate that
the generator can be interconnected safely and reliably, the
interconnection application is approved. To simplify the 10 kW Inverter
Process, the Interconnection Customer agrees to the terms and
conditions of the interconnection at the time the interconnection
request is made.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. P 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The technical screens used in the current 10 kW Inverter
Process and the current Fast Track Process are included in section
2.2.1 of the pro forma SGIP. The following is section <IP_ADDRESS> of the
pro forma SGIP, which is referred to in this NOPR as the 15 Percent
Screen: \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The 15 Percent Screen was derived by using a ``rule of
thumb'' that minimum load is approximately 30 percent of peak load.
To assure minimum loads were not exceeded by generation on a given
line section, a 50 percent safety margin was applied. See Nat'l
Renewable Energy Lab, Updating Interconnection Screens for PV System
Integration 2 (Feb. 2012), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/54063.pdf.

    For interconnection of a proposed Small Generating Facility to a
radial distribution circuit, the aggregated generation, including
the proposed Small Generating Facility, on the circuit shall not
exceed 15 [percent] of the line section annual peak load as most
recently measured at the substation. A line section is that portion
of a Transmission Provider's electric system connected to a customer
bounded by automatic sectionalizing devices or the end of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
distribution line.

    11. The Commission anticipated potential changes to its small
generator interconnection regulations when it encouraged stakeholders
to convene an informal meeting ``biennially, beginning two years from
the issuance of this order, to consider and recommend consensus
proposals for changes in the Commission's rules for small generator
interconnection.'' \18\ The Commission is unaware of any such meetings
taking place to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Solar Energy Industries Association Petition

    12. On February 16, 2012, pursuant to sections 205 and 206 of the
FPA and Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\19\ and noting that the Commission encouraged stakeholders
to submit proposed revisions to the regulations set forth in Order No.
2006,\20\ the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) filed a
Petition to Initiate Rulemaking (Petition) requesting that the
Commission revise the pro forma SGIA and SGIP set forth in Order No.
2006. SEIA asserts that the pro forma SGIP and SGIA as applied to small
solar generation are no longer just and reasonable, have become unduly
discriminatory, and present unreasonable barriers to market entry.\21\
SEIA notes that its Petition applies exclusively to solar electric
generation due to its unique characteristics.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 18 CFR 385.207 (2012).
    \20\ SEIA Petition at 4 (citing Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,180 at P 118).
    \21\ SEIA Petition at 12.
    \22\ Id. at 4 (explaining that solar generation occurs only
during daylight hours when peak load typically occurs, and solar
photovoltaic technology utilizes inverters with built-in functions
that protect the safety and reliability of the electric system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. SEIA requests that the Commission modify the SGIP in three
ways. First, SEIA requests that the Commission maintain section <IP_ADDRESS>
of the pro forma SGIP (the 15 Percent Screen), but amend the pro forma
SGIP to include a well-defined supplemental review that Transmission
Providers must offer to provide Interconnection Customers in the event
that a Small Generating Facility fails the 15 Percent Screen.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ On May 8, 2012, SEIA filed supplemental comments in Docket
No. RM12-10-000, clarifying that it supports the supplemental review
screens included in the revision to California Electric Rule 21, the
California distribution level interconnection rules and regulations
(Rule 21). These screens create thresholds for distributed
generation penetration based on minimum load and establish criteria
for power quality, voltage, safety and reliability.

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

    14. Second, SEIA requests that the Commission eliminate the 2 MW
threshold for participation in the Fast Track Process or, in the
alternative, increase the threshold to 10 MW.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ SEIA Petition at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Finally, SEIA encourages the Commission to modify the SGIP to
provide, at the request and cost of the Interconnection Customer, an
expedited, independent third-party expert technical review of proposed
upgrades required for interconnection to evaluate whether there are
simpler, less costly options to insure a safe and reliable
interconnection. SEIA also encourages the Commission to clearly
articulate that Transmission Providers are required to give such
independent third-party reviews ``substantial weight'' or
consideration.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. On February 28, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of
Petition for Rulemaking in Docket No. RM12-10-000, seeking public
comment on SEIA's Petition. The Commission received twenty-three timely
comments, two protests, two out-of-time comments, and four answers and
reply comments.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the
SEIA Petition (Docket No. RM12-10-000) and the Technical Conference
(Docket No. AD12-17-000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. On June 13, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of Technical
Conference in Docket No. RM12-10-000 and in Docket No. AD12-17-000. On
July 17, 2012, the Commission convened a technical conference at its
headquarters. The Commission received nine post-technical conference
comments, including clarifying comments from SEIA.

III. Need for Reform

    18. The Commission preliminarily finds that the reforms proposed in
this NOPR are needed to ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions of
interconnection service for Small Generating Facilities are just and
reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.
    19. Since the issuance of Order No. 2006, many aspects of the
energy industry have changed. For example, when Order No. 2006 was
issued in 2005, only 79 MW of grid-connected PV were installed.\27\ By
2011, grid-connected PV had reached approximately 4,000 MW.\28\
Similarly, installed wind generation with a capacity of 20 MW or less
has increased in the contiguous United States from 1,185 MW in 2005 to
2,961 MW in 2012.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Nat'l Renewable Energy Lab, Updating Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures for New Market Conditions 7 (Dec. 2012),
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56790.pdf.
    \28\ Id. at 8.
    \29\ SNL Financial, Power Plant Summary (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Recent Commission filings have referenced higher volumes of
small generator interconnection requests.\30\ Additionally, state
renewable portfolio standards are driving small generator
interconnection requests and influencing state policies. As of November
2012, 29 states and the District of Columbia had renewable portfolio
standards, with an additional eight states having renewable portfolio
goals.\31\ Some state renewable portfolio standards include increasing
the percentage of renewable energy resources over time, which will lead
to increasing penetrations of these energy resources. For example, the
California renewable portfolio standard is 20 percent by December 31,
2013, 25 percent by December 31, 2016, and 33 percent by 2020.\32\
Similarly, the Massachusetts renewable portfolio standard is 15 percent
by 2020 and an additional 1 percent each year thereafter.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, e.g., Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 133 FERC ]
61,223, at P 3 (2010) (stating that an increasing volume of small
generator Interconnection Requests had created inefficiencies);
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 135 FERC ] 61,094, at P 4 (2011) (stating
that increased small generator Interconnection Requests resulted in
a backlog of 170 requests over three years); PJM Interconnection,
LLC, 139 FERC ] 61,079, at P 12 (2012) (stating that smaller
projects comprised 66 percent of recent queue volume).
    \31\ See Dep't of Energy, Summary Maps, http://www.dsireusa.org/summarymaps/index.cfm?ee=1&RE=1.
    \32\ See Dep't of Energy, California Incentives/Policies for
Renewables & Efficiency: Renewables Portfolio Standard, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA25R&re=1ⅇ=1.
    \33\ See Dep't of Energy, Massachusetts Incentives/Policies for
Renewables & Efficiency: Renewables Portfolio Standard, http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=MA05R&re=1ⅇ=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Some states have also adopted goals and policies to promote
growth in distributed generation. For example, Arizona, Colorado, and
Illinois have implemented distributed generation ``carve-outs'' in
which a percentage of the total state renewable portfolio standard must
come from distributed generation.\34\ At the July 17, 2012 technical
conference, the increase in distributed generation since the issuance
of Order No. 2006 was noted.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Dep't of Energy, Summary Maps, http://www.dsireusa.org/summarymaps/index.cfm?ee=1&RE=1.
    \35\ July 17, 2012 Technical Conference Transcript at 26, lines
22-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. The growth in PV installations in particular has been cited by
SEIA and IREC as evidence that there is a need to reform certain
aspects of the SGIP,\36\ while the California Utilities, NRECA and APPA
state that this growth is evidence that Order No. 2006 has been and
continues to be successful at facilitating interconnection of Small
Generating Facilities.\37\ These positions are not mutually exclusive.
The success of Order No. 2006 in facilitating small generator
interconnections could be a factor in penetration levels reaching 15
percent on certain line sections, which causes subsequent projects to
fail the 15 Percent Screen. If this is the case, the 15 Percent Screen
should be re-examined to determine if revisions to the screen can be
made that will continue to allow projects to participate in the less
costly and time-consuming Fast Track Process while maintaining the
safety and reliability of the Transmission Provider's system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ SEIA Petition at 6; IREC March 27, 2012 Comments at 7-8.
    \37\ California Utilities Post-Technical Conference Comments at
3-4; NRECA and APPA March 27, 2012 Protest at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Moreover, the Commission intended the pro forma SGIP and SGIA
to apply to interconnections made subject to a jurisdictional OATT for
the purposes of jurisdictional wholesale sales while also serving as a
model for state interconnection rules.\38\ In its comments on the
Petition, the NJBPU stated support for keeping the pro forma SGIP
current with technological advances and newly developed solutions for
interconnecting small generators.\39\ The California PUC recommends
that the Commission consider adopting a supplemental review, including
a 100 percent of minimum load screen similar to the one in Rule 21, for
projects that fail the initial 15 Percent Screen and consider
increasing the 2 MW threshold for participation in the Fast Track
Process.\40\ Comments such as these indicate that the Commission's
actions to update its SGIP may assist states in their own efforts to
reevaluate state interconnection rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 8.
    \39\ NJBPU March 27, 2012 Comments at 2-3.
    \40\ California PUC April 9, 2012 Comments at 4, 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. The Commission acknowledges that the need for reform may not be
uniform across the country and is proposing reforms that, in

implementation, should balance the interests of Small Generating
Facilities and public utility Transmission Providers.

IV. Proposed Reforms

    25. The Commission is proposing four reforms that are designed to
address interconnection issues confronting Small Generating Facilities
and public utility Transmission Providers and that will allow for the
more efficient interconnection of small generation resources to the
benefit of customers. The Commission also proposes to clarify or
correct certain sections of the pro forma SGIP and SGIA. Together these
proposals would reform certain aspects of the SGIP and SGIA that may
present barriers to the interconnection of Small Generating Facilities
and keep the cost of interconnecting these resources from becoming
unjust, unreasonable or unduly discriminatory.

A. Pre-Application Report

    26. The Commission proposes to provide the Interconnection Customer
with the option of requesting a pre-application report from the
Transmission Provider for a fee of $300. The Commission believes the
pre-application report will promote transparency and efficiency in the
interconnection process. In most cases, a pre-application report would
increase the amount of information available to Interconnection
Customers regarding system conditions at a particular Point of
Interconnection and help the Interconnection Customer make a more
efficient decision on siting its generating facility. Currently, only
limited information is available to the Interconnection Customer under
section 1.2 of the pro forma SGIP (relevant system studies,
interconnection studies and other materials useful to an understanding
of an interconnection at a particular point on the system), often
leading developers to submit multiple requests for interconnection for
a single project to determine which Point of Interconnection is the
most advantageous. A pre-application report would enable
Interconnection Customers to better evaluate possible Points of
Interconnection before submitting a formal interconnection request,
reducing the volume of interconnection requests and increasing the
efficiency of the interconnection process for both the Transmission
Provider and the Interconnection Customer.
    27. The proposed revision includes new sections 1.2.2 through 1.2.4
of the SGIP and specifies the timeframes for providing the pre-
application report, the $300 payment requirement from the
Interconnection Customer to the Transmission Provider for producing the
pre-application report, and the information that the report should
contain. The pre-application report, as proposed, would only include
information already available to the Transmission Provider. The
proposed fee is the same as the amount required for the Rule 21 pre-
application report.
    28. To request a pre-application report, the developer must provide
sufficient information to clearly identify the proposed Point of
Interconnection. After a request is received, a utility must provide
the report within ten business days. The utility is only required to
provide existing information; the utility is not required to obtain new
information prior to preparing the pre-application report. To the
extent information is available, the Transmission Provider is required
to provide information regarding:
    a. Total capacity and available capacity of the facilities that
serve the Point of Interconnection;
    b. Existing and queued generation at the facilities likely serving
the Point of Interconnection;
    c. Voltage of the facilities that serve the Point of
Interconnection;
    d. Circuit distance between the proposed Point of Interconnection
and the substation likely to serve the Point of Interconnection
(Substation);
    e. Number and rating of protective devices and number and type of
voltage regulating devices between the proposed Point of
Interconnection and the Substation;
    f. Number of phases available at the proposed Point of
Interconnection;
    g. Limiting conductor ratings from the proposed Point of
Interconnection to the Substation;
    h. Peak and minimum load data; and
    i. Existing or known constraints associated with the Point of
Interconnection.
    29. Several commenters express support for this proposal as a way
to improve the interconnection process by making it less costly and
more transparent, timely, and predictable.\41\ The California Utilities
argue that this approach will provide more accurate information for
Interconnection Customers and will be less costly than publishing
minimum load data as originally proposed by SEIA.\42\ IREC notes that
in its experience, generation developers may submit multiple
interconnection requests in an effort to find the most cost effective
Point of Interconnection. IREC asserts that it is inefficient for
utilities to process interconnection requests that are unlikely to
result in interconnections and that this raises project development
costs for generators.\43\ IREC states that a pre-application report
would allow developers to request specific system information about a
proposed Point of Interconnection.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ California Utilities Post-Technical Conference Comments at
6-7; IREC Post-Technical Conference Comments at 4-8; and Clean
Coalition Post-Technical Conference Comments at 9.
    \42\ California Utilities Post-Technical Conference Comments at
6-7.
    \43\ IREC Post-Technical Conference Comments at 5.
    \44\ Id. at 7 (referencing IREC's Proposed SGIP Redline at Sec.
1.2.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Threshold for Participation in the Fast Track Process

    30. The Commission proposes to revise the 2 MW threshold for
participation in the Fast Track Process. The Commission proposes to
base Fast Track eligibility on individual system and generator
characteristics, up to a limit of 5 MW. These characteristics include
interconnection voltage level, the circuit distance of the
interconnection from the substation, and generator capacity as the
basis for determining whether an Interconnection Customer is eligible
to be evaluated under the Fast Track Process. This approach to base
Fast Track eligibility on individual system and generator
characteristics is similar to the proposal submitted by IREC,\45\ as
shown in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id. at 9-10.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Fast track     Fast track  eligibility
                                eligibility      on  >= 600 ampere line
        Line voltage           regardless of     and <= 2.5 miles  from
                                  location             substation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 5 kilovolt (kV)...........  <= 1 MW........  <= 2 MW
>= 5 kV and < 15 kV.........  <= 2 MW........  <= 3 MW

>= 15 kV and < 30 kV........  <= 3 MW........  <= 4 MW
>= 30 kV....................  <= 4 MW........  <= 5 MW
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. The Commission has designed this proposal in recognition that,
as IREC comments,\46\ a fixed size limit for the Fast Track may be
unduly conservative in some cases and not conservative enough in others
due to variations in distribution line voltage. Commenters point to
voltage at the Point of Interconnection as a possible determinant of
Fast Track eligibility.\47\ Other factors mentioned by commenters
include the size of the generator and the location of the
interconnection on the circuit.\48\ Voltage and generator size were
factors in the different Fast Track thresholds that were agreed upon in
the Rule 21 settlement process.\49\ Pacific Gas and Electric states
that it has eliminated the 2 MW limit entirely within its systems, and
instead utilizes soft cap guidelines specific to the voltage of the
Point of Interconnection. Pacific Gas and Electric asserts that it
chose the advisory caps because they represent rough estimates of the
MW size that would violate the 15 Percent Screen on a fully loaded
circuit if no other projects interconnect to that circuit.\50\ San
Diego Gas & Electric supports the varied Rule 21 Fast Track eligibility
limits, which it claims ``recognize the variability among electrical
systems.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id. at 9.
    \47\ See July 17, 2012 Technical Conference Transcript at 35,
lines 8-11 (San Diego Gas & Electric stating that higher voltages
may allow for higher penetrations of distributed generation); see
also id. at 105, lines 14-16 (EEI commenting that a Fast Track
threshold based on voltage would be more accurate than the current 2
MW threshold).
    \48\ See id. at 35, lines 1-4 (San Diego Gas & Electric
asserting that size and location of the Small Generating Facility
may impact the amount of generation that may be interconnected
safely and reliably); id. at 59 lines 10-16 (same). See also id. at
38, lines 19-21 (IREC stating that locations within 2.5 miles of the
relevant substation on 600 Ampere line allow for higher penetrations
of distributed generation).
    \49\ See California PUC Motion to Lodge, Attachment B ``Revised
Rule 21 Tariff'' at 26.
    \50\ Pacific Gas and Electric March 27, 2012 Comments at 4
(citing Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 135 FERC ] 61,094 (2011)).
    \51\ San Diego Gas & Electric March 27, 2012 Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. The Commission notes that CAISO has a 5 MW threshold for
participation in its Fast Track Process.\52\ In its proposal to
increase its Fast Track threshold from 2 MW to 5 MW, CAISO stated that,
from an engineering standpoint, the increase is relatively small and
would cause no greater impact on the safety and reliability of the
CAISO-controlled transmission grid.\53\ The Commission acknowledges,
however, that there are a wide range of operating practices and
electric system configurations. The Commission believes that in the
instant proceeding, the proposed revision to the Fast Track threshold
is appropriately based on individual system and generator
characteristics that allow it to accommodate a variety of operating
practices and electric system configurations while also maintaining
safety and reliability. Thus, this proposal attempts to balance
Interconnection Customers' need for a faster, less costly
interconnection process with Transmission Providers' need to ensure the
safety and reliability of their systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 133 FERC ] 61,223 (2010).
    \53\ Id. P 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Customer Options Meeting and Supplemental Review

    33. The Commission proposes to revise the customer options meeting
and the supplemental review for those Interconnection Customers whose
projects fail any of the ten Fast Track screens, including the 15
Percent Screen.\54\ As noted in the Background section above, if the
proposed Small Generating Facility passes the initial review screens in
section 2.2.1 of the pro forma SGIP, the Transmission Provider will
offer the Interconnection Customer an SGIA without requiring any
supplemental review. If the proposed Small Generating Facility fails
any of the screens, but the Transmission Provider determines that the
Small Generating Facility may be interconnected without affecting
safety and reliability, the Transmission Provider provides the
Interconnection Customer with an SGIA. If the Transmission Provider
cannot determine that the Small Generating Facility may be
interconnected without affecting safety and reliability, the
Transmission Provider must offer the Interconnection Customer the
opportunity to attend a customer options meeting as set forth in
section 2.3 of the pro forma SGIP to discuss how to proceed. The
Commission proposes that, in that meeting, the Transmission Provider
must: (1) Offer to perform facility modifications or minor
modifications to the Transmission Provider's system (e.g., changing
meters, fuses, relay settings) and provide a non-binding good faith
estimate of the cost to make such modifications, and if the
Interconnection Customer agrees to pay for those minor modifications,
the Transmission Provider will provide the Interconnection Customer an
SGIA within 5 business days of the customer options meeting; (2) offer
to perform a supplemental review of the proposed interconnection, paid
for by the Interconnection Customer in the amount of $2,500; \55\ or
(3) obtain the Interconnection Customer's agreement to continue
evaluating the interconnection request under the Study Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The current and proposed supplemental review is available
to Interconnection Customers whose projects are being evaluated
under the Fast Track Process. If a project is being evaluated under
the 10 kW Inverter Process and it fails the screens in section 2.2.1
of the pro forma SGIP, it may then be evaluated under the Fast Track
Process or the Study Process. If it is evaluated under the Fast
Track Process, the supplemental review would be available to the
project. (See Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 Appendix
D, ``Flow Chart for Interconnecting a Certified Inverter-Based Small
Generating Facility No Larger than 10 kW Using the ``10 kW Inverter
Process''.)
    \55\ The proposed $2,500 fee for the supplemental review is the
same as the amount required for the Rule 21 supplemental review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. In order to clarify the outcome of the customer options
meeting, the Commission proposes to modify section 2.3.1 of the pro
forma SGIP to require the Transmission Provider to provide an
interconnection agreement to the Interconnection Customer within 5
business days of the customer options meeting if the Interconnection
Customer agrees to pay for minor modifications on the Transmission
Provider's system. In addition, the Commission proposes to modify
section 2.3.2 of the pro forma SGIP so that the supplemental review is
performed at the discretion of the Interconnection Customer.
    35. Further, the Commission proposes that the supplemental review
consist of three additional screens: (1) The 100 percent of minimum
load screen (using

daytime minimum load for small solar generators (20 MW or less) and
absolute minimum load for all other Small Generating Facilities)
(Minimum Load Screen); (2) the power quality and voltage screen; and
(3) the safety and reliability screen.\56\ If the proposed
interconnection fails any of the supplemental review screens, the
Transmission Provider will notify the Interconnection Customer that a
Study Process under section 3 of the pro forma SGIP is required.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ These screens are similar to the California Rule 21 screens
or tests. See California PUC Motion to Lodge, Attachment B ``Revised
Rule 21 Tariff,'' Section G.2 ``Supplemental Review Screens''
detailing the following screens:
    (1) Penetration Test: ``Where 12 months of line section minimum
load data is available, can be calculated, can be estimated from
existing data, or determined from a power flow model, is the
aggregate Generating Facility capacity on the Line Section less than
100 [percent] of the minimum load for all line sections bounded by
automatic sectionalizing devices upstream of the Generating
Facility?'' Note that the ``type of generation will be taken into
account when calculating, estimating or determining circuit or Line
Section minimum load relevant for the application of this screen.
Solar generation systems with no battery storage use daytime minimum
load (i.e. 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. for fixed panel systems and 8 a.m. to 6
p.m. for PV systems utilizing tracking systems), while all other
generation uses absolute minimum load.''
    (2) Power Quality and Voltage Tests: (a) ``Can it be determined
within the Supplemental Review that the voltage regulation on the
line section can be maintained in compliance with Commission Rule 2
and/or Conservation Voltage Regulation voltage requirements under
all system conditions?'' (b) ``Can it be determined within the
Supplemental Review that the voltage fluctuation is within
acceptable limits as defined by [Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers] IEEE 1453 or utility practice similar to IEEE
1453?'' (c) ``Can it be determined within the Supplemental Review
that the harmonic levels meet IEEE 519 limits at the Point of Common
Coupling (PCC)?''
    (3) Safety and Reliability Tests: ``Does the location of the
proposed Generating Facility or the aggregate generation capacity on
the Line Section create impacts to safety or reliability that cannot
be adequately addressed without Detailed Study?''
    \57\ See supra P 7 for a description of the Study Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. The Minimum Load Screen is designed to ensure that power flow
from the circuit into the substation and its impact on equipment
loading, operation, and protection systems is minimal. The Minimum Load
Screen asks whether the aggregate generation facility capacity on a
line section is less than 100 percent of the minimum load measured
during the period relevant for the generator type for all line sections
bounded by automatic sectionalizing devices upstream of the generation
facility. If minimum load data are not readily available,\58\ however,
the screen allows Transmission Providers the flexibility to calculate,
estimate, or otherwise determine minimum load. The Commission proposes
that, if this is not possible, the Transmission Provider must notify
the Interconnection Customer of this in writing and include the
reason(s) it is not possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Commenters express concern that minimum load data are not
commonly tracked by utilities. See July 17, 2012 Technical
Conference Transcript at 127, lines 16-19; EEI Post-Technical
Conference Comments at 15; SEIA Post-Technical Conference Comments
at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. The second screen, related to voltage and power quality, is
designed to ensure that voltage regulation, fluctuation, and harmonic
levels are kept within their limits in compliance with reliability
standards, IEEE standards, and other applicable standards. The third
screen, related to safety and reliability, ensures that a Small
Generating Facility would not negatively impact safety and reliability.
This screen is intended to provide Transmission Providers with the
flexibility to identify some of the specific issues that may arise due
to a Small Generating Facility's unique variations.
    38. This proposed reform is intended to decrease interconnection
costs in areas where the penetration of Small Generating Facilities is
causing Interconnection Customers to fail the 15 Percent Screen.
Moreover, the additional screens proposed to be included in the
supplemental review are designed to protect the safety and reliability
of the Transmission Provider's system while allowing those Small
Generating Facilities that pass the proposed supplemental review to
interconnect more efficiently and cost-effectively.
    39. Some commenters argue that that 15 Percent Screen continues to
be effective.\59\ Others suggest revisions to the pro forma
supplemental review in the event a project fails the Fast Track
screens, similar to California Rule 21.\60\ The Commission believes
that the Rule 21 approach, after which our proposal is modeled, is a
reasonable middle ground and proposes to leave the 15 Percent Screen in
place while providing an alternative to the 15 Percent Screen as part
of the supplemental review that enables penetration levels to exceed 15
percent on a case-by-case basis if the Transmission Provider determines
that doing so will not create safety or reliability problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See SoCal Edison March 27, 2012 Comments at 6; EEI Post-
Technical Conference Comments at 11-13.
    \60\ Clean Coalition Post-Technical Conference Comments at 3-4;
IREC Post-Technical Conference Comments at 14; SEIA May 8, 2012
Comments at 1; California PUC April 9, 2012 Comments at 4; EEI Post-
Technical Conference Comments at 11, fn. 10 (``Whereas the 100
percent minimum load threshold may be appropriate in the context of
a supplemental review process such as the California Rule 21
proceeding.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. While SoCal Edison argues that the existing pro forma SGIP
supplemental review offers utilities the flexibility to reevaluate
projects that fail the Fast Track screens, including accounting for the
unique characteristics of solar generation,\61\ we note that section
2.4 of the current pro forma SGIP does not define the parameters or the
timeline and provides little guidance for conducting the supplemental
review if a Small Generating Facility fails the Fast Track screens in
section 2 of the SGIP. The Commission believes that this lack of
definition and transparency could negatively impact the interconnection
process. A well-defined supplemental review will provide greater
transparency with regard to what transpires in the supplemental review,
as well as mitigate confusion and delays in the interconnection
timeline. It will also allow interconnection requests to be more
expeditiously reviewed while maintaining safety, reliability, and power
quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ SoCal Edison March 27, 2012 Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Review of Required Upgrades

    41. The Commission proposes to revise the pro forma SGIP to give
the Interconnection Customer an opportunity to review and comment on
the upgrades required for interconnection proposed by the Transmission
Provider, similar to the opportunity for review and comment afforded
the Interconnection Customer under the LGIP.
    42. The Commission believes that, because the Transmission Provider
is responsible for the safety and reliability of its system, the
Transmission Provider should make the final decision regarding required
upgrades for interconnection. However, the Commission is concerned that
the pro forma SGIP (including the pro forma Facilities Study Agreement)
may result in unjust and unreasonable interconnection costs as a result
of failing to provide an opportunity for the Interconnection Customer
to review and comment on the required upgrades. Therefore, the
Commission proposes to revise the pro forma SGIP to include provisions
similar to those in sections 8.3 and 8.4 of the pro forma LGIP.
    43. In the LGIP, the Interconnection Customer has the opportunity
to provide written comments on the draft facilities study report, which
includes the proposed upgrades required for interconnection. The
Transmission Provider must include these comments

in the final report and may alter the study based on the comments. In
addition, upon request of the Interconnection Customer, the
Transmission Provider must provide the Interconnection Customer with
``supporting documentation, workpapers, and databases or data''
developed in the preparation of the facilities study. The LGIP also
provides for a meeting between the Interconnection Customer and the
Transmission Provider within ten business days of the Interconnection
Customer receiving the draft facilities study report.
    44. The Commission believes that incorporating these pro forma LGIP
provisions into the pro forma SGIP will encourage a dialogue between
the Transmission Provider and the Interconnection Customer about
required interconnection upgrades and will provide Interconnection
Customers (or a third party designated by the Interconnection Customer)
with a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on interconnection
upgrade requirements.

E. Other Revisions

    45. The Commission proposes to clarify or correct certain sections
of the pro forma SGIP and SGIA. First, in section 3.3.5 of the pro
forma SGIA, we propose to replace the first word of the section
(``This'') with ``The.'' Second, the Commission proposes to revise
section 1.1.1 of the pro forma SGIP to require that if an
Interconnection Customer wishes to interconnect its Small Generating
Facility using Network Resource Interconnection Service, it must do so
under the LGIP and execute the Large Generator Interconnection
Agreement. This requirement was included in Order No. 2003 \62\ but was
not made clear in the pro forma SGIP. To facilitate this clarification,
we propose to add the definitions of Network Resource and Network
Resource Interconnection Service to Attachment 1, Glossary of Terms, of
the pro forma SGIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 at P 140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. The Commission also proposes to modify section 1.5.4 of the pro
forma SGIA to address a reliability concern resulting from recently
identified issues in Germany and the United States (U.S.). The German
issue is related to over-frequency resulting from imbalances between
generation and load.\63\ The specific cause of over-frequency in
Germany is not yet an issue in the U.S., although over-frequency events
have occurred in the U.S.\64\ The North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) has identified a related bulk electric system
reliability concern as part of its Frequency Response Initiative \65\
where residential and commercial scale PV systems could trip during
under-frequency conditions. This could become a matter of concern at
high penetrations of PV resources. While the German government has
ordered the retrofit of thousands of PV systems at significant cost to
address its frequency issue,\66\ the Commission proposes to prevent
such problems with frequency now to mitigate this risk. The proposed
revisions to section 1.5.4 of the pro forma SGIA will require the
Interconnection Customer to design, install, maintain, and operate its
Small Generating Facility, in accordance with the latest version of the
applicable standards,\67\ to prevent automatic disconnection during an
over- or under-frequency event and to ensure that rates remain just and
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ In Germany, large amounts of distributed PV installations
are set to trip at frequency 50.2 Hz or higher. An over-frequency
(50.2 Hz and higher) event can cause the PV generation equipment
connected to the low-voltage network to shut down. Such a sudden
drop in generation could seriously disrupt the system.
    \64\ See FERC & NERC, Arizona-Southern California Outages on
September 8, 2011: Causes and Recommendations (2011), http://www.nerc.com/files/AZOutage_Report_01MAY12.pdf.
    \65\ NERC, Frequency Response Initiative Report: The Reliability
Role of Frequency Response 52 (2012), http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/dt/FRI_Report_w-appendices_10-15-12.pdf.
    \66\ See VDE, Study on the 50.2 Hz Problem (2012), http://www.vde.com/en/fnn/Documents/FNN_50-2-Hz_Praesentation_2011-09_engl.pdf.
    \67\ See, e.g., IEEE Standard 1547 for Interconnecting
Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems and Underwriters
Laboratories Inc. Standard 1741 for Safety for Inverters,
Converters, and Controllers for Use in Independent Power Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Workshop

    47. Commenters \68\ suggest that the Commission convene a
stakeholder working group or similar process as contemplated in Order
No. 2006 \69\ to review and make recommendations on the proposals in
the SEIA Petition and issues raised at the July 17, 2012 technical
conference. In light of the technical nature of the reforms proposed
above, the Commission agrees that the rulemaking process could benefit
from stakeholder discussions of the NOPR proposals and other related
issues. Therefore, during the comment period, the Commission will hold
a workshop so that members of the public, electric industry
participants, and federal and state agencies may discuss the proposals
in this NOPR and possible refinements to these proposals before the end
of the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ NRECA Post-Technical Conference Comments at 2; EEI Post-
Technical Conference Comments at 1-2; and California Utilities Post-
Technical Conference Comments at 7.
    \69\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. The workshop will be facilitated by Commission staff and will
focus on the technical details of the NOPR proposals and other related
issues. Some of the specific items that Commission staff anticipates
addressing include:
    a. Whether the characteristics proposed for Fast Track Process
eligibility should be modified to protect system safety and
reliability.
    b. The specific content of the proposed supplemental review
screens. For example,
    i. Whether twelve months of minimum load data is appropriate for
use in the Minimum Load Screen, or whether additional data, if
available, should be required to be considered.
    ii. The reasons that minimum load data are not available to
Transmission Providers and what the Commission could do to encourage
data availability where appropriate.
    c. The content of the pre-application report.
    d. Whether the fees proposed in the NOPR ($300 for the pre-
application report and $2,500 for the supplemental review) are
appropriate.
    e. Whether storage devices could fall within the definition of
Small Generating Facility included in Attachment 1 to the SGIP and
Attachment 1 to the SGIA as devices that produce electricity.
    We will schedule the workshop so that comments on this Proposed
Rule may reflect any reactions to the workshop discussions.
    49. Within April 2, 2013 the Commission will announce the workshop
in a separate notice. Comments related to the workshop will be due at
the same time as comments on this NOPR (see the Comment Procedures
section below).

VI. Compliance Filings

    50. To comply with the requirements of this Proposed Rule, the
Commission proposes to require each public utility Transmission
Provider to submit a compliance filing within six months of the
effective date of the Final Rule in this proceeding revising its SGIP
and SGIA or other document(s) subject to the Commission's jurisdiction
as necessary to demonstrate that it meets

the requirements set forth in this Proposed Rule.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Appendix C and Appendix D for the proposed pro forma
SGIP and SGIA provisions consistent with this Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. In some cases, public utility Transmission Providers may have
provisions in their existing SGIPs and SGIAs that the Commission has
deemed to be consistent with or superior to the pro forma SGIP and
SGIA. Where these provisions are being modified by the Final Rule,
public utility Transmission Providers must either comply with the Final
Rule or demonstrate that these previously-approved variations continue
to be consistent with or superior to the pro forma SGIP and SGIA as
modified by the Final Rule.
    52. The Commission will assess whether each compliance filing
satisfies the proposed requirements and principles stated above and
issue additional orders as necessary to ensure that each public utility
Transmission Provider meets the requirements of this Proposed Rule.
    53. The Commission proposes that Transmission Providers that are
not public utilities will have to adopt the requirements of this
Proposed Rule as a condition of maintaining the status of their safe
harbor tariff or otherwise satisfying the reciprocity requirement of
Order No. 888.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission on Services by Public Utilities;
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting
Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036, at 31,760-
763 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Procedural Matters

    54. On October 8, 2012, the California PUC submitted a motion to
lodge California PUC Decision (D.) 12-09-018, the revised Rule 21, and
the Assigned Commissioner's Amended Scoping memo and Ruling Requesting
Comments (Amended Scoping Memo).\72\ In its motion, the California PUC
states that its recently approved Rule 21 reforms are central to the
issues raised in SEIA's Petition and should be lodged into the record
of this proceeding.\73\ No comments were filed in response to the
motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ California PUC Motion to Lodge at 1.
    \73\ Id. at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. We will grant the California PUC's motion to lodge California
PUC Decision (D.) 12-09-018, revised Rule 21, and the Amended Scoping
Memo into the record of this proceeding because the documents have
provided information that assisted us in our decision-making process.

VIII. Information Collection Statement

    56. The following collections of information contained in this
Proposed Rule are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.\74\ OMB's regulations require approval of certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rules.\75\ Upon approval of a
collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and
expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this
rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections
of information unless the collections of information display a valid
OMB control number. The Commission solicits comments on the
Commission's need for this information, whether the information will
have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondents' burden, including the use of automated information
techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
    \75\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2012).
    \76\ The number of responses represents the average number of
responses per respondent.
    \77\ We assume each request for a pre-application report
corresponds with one Interconnection Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. Additionally, the Commission encourages comments regarding the
time burden expected to be required to comply with the proposed rule.
    Burden Estimate: The additional estimated public reporting burdens
for the proposed reporting requirements in this rule are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Hours per     Total annual
           Data collection              Number of  respondents    responses \76\     response          hours
FERC 516A                             [1].......................             [2]             [3]     [1 x 2 x 3]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conforming SGIP and SGIA changes to   142 Transmission Providers               1               6             852
 incorporate proposed revisions.
 First year only.
(18 CFR 35.28(f) (2012))............
Pre-Application Report (18 CFR        800 Interconnection                      1             0.5             400
 35.28(f) (2012)).                     Customers \77\.
                                      142 Transmission Providers            5.63               2            1600
Supplemental Review (18 CFR 35.28(f)  500 Interconnection                      1             0.5             250
 (2012)).                              Customers.
                                      142 Transmission Providers            3.52              20          10,000
Review of Required Upgrades (18 CFR   250 Interconnection                      1               1             250
 35.28(f) (2012)).                     Customers.
                                      142 Transmission Providers            1.76               2             500
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:
    First Year......................  ..........................  ..............  ..............          13,852
    Year Two and Ongoing............  ..........................  ..............  ..............          13,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks comment on the change in the existing burden
that would result from the following three proposed revisions that are
not included in the table above. First, the Commission believes that
the proposed revision of the 2 MW threshold for participation in the
Fast Track Process will result in a net decrease in the public
reporting burden because some Small Generating Facilities will be
evaluated under the Fast Track Process rather than the Study Process.
The Commission estimates that 100 Interconnection Customers annually
may be able to participate in the Fast Track Process rather than the
Study Process under the proposed rule. Second, the Commission proposes
to revise section 2.3.2 so that the Transmission Provider is no longer
required to provide a good faith estimate of the cost of performing the
supplemental review to the Interconnection Customer. The Commission
believes that this may result in a reduction in burden for the

Transmission Provider. Third, the Commission proposes to revise section
1.1.1 of the pro forma SGIP to require that if an Interconnection
Customer wishes to interconnect its Small Generating Facility using
Network Resource Interconnection Service, it must do so under the LGIP
and execute the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement. While this
addition to the pro forma SGIP should prevent Interconnection Customers
from following the SGIP where not appropriate, thereby reducing the
amount of work, the Commission is unsure if it will lead to any
substantive burden reduction.
    Cost to Comply: The Commission has projected the cost of compliance
to be $817,268 in the initial year and $767,000 in subsequent years.
    Total Annual Hours for Collection in initial year (13,852 hours) @
$59/hour \78\ = $817,268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ This figure is the average of the salary plus benefits for
an attorney, consultant (engineer), engineer, and administrative
staff. The wages are derived from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics
at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm and the benefits
figure from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collection in subsequent years (13,000
hours) @ $59/hour = $767,000.
    Title: FERC-516A, Standardization of Small Generator
Interconnection Agreements and Procedures.
    Action: Revision of Currently Approved Collection of Information.
    OMB Control No. 1902-0203.
    Respondents for this Rulemaking: Businesses or other for profit
and/or not-for-profit institutions.
    Frequency of Information: As indicated in the table.
    Necessity of Information: The Commission is proposing changes to
the pro forma SGIP and SGIA in order to more efficiently and cost-
effectively interconnect generators no larger than 20 MW (small
generators) to Commission-jurisdictional transmission systems. The
purpose of this Proposed Rule is to revise the pro forma SGIP and SGIA
so small generators can be reliably and efficiently integrated into the
electric grid and to ensure that Commission-jurisdictional services are
provided at rates, terms and conditions that are just and reasonable
and not unduly discriminatory. This Proposed Rule seeks to achieve this
goal by amending the pro forma SGIP and SGIA to: (1) Incorporate
provisions that would provide an Interconnection Customer with the
option of requesting from the Transmission Provider a pre-application
report providing existing information about system conditions at a
possible Point of Interconnection; (2) revise the 2 MW threshold for
participation in the Fast Track Process included in section 2 of the
pro forma SGIP; (3) revise the customer options meeting and the
supplemental review following failure of the Fast Track screens so that
the supplemental review is performed at the discretion of the
Interconnection Customer and includes minimum load and other screens to
determine if a Small Generating Facility may be interconnected safely
and reliably; and (4) revise the pro forma SGIP Facilities Study
Agreement to allow the Interconnection Customer the opportunity to
provide written comments to the Transmission Provider on the upgrades
required for interconnection. The Commission also proposes to clarify
or correct certain sections of the pro forma SGIP and SGIA.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes
and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy industry. The
Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there
is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information collection requirements.
    58. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    59. Comments on the collections of information and the associated
burden estimates in the proposed rule should be sent to the Commission
in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission], at the following email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference OMB Control No. 1902-0203 and
the docket number of this proposed rulemaking in your submission.

IX. Environmental Analysis

    60. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\79\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\80\ The actions proposed here fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and
transportation of natural gas that requires no construction of
facilities.\81\ Therefore, an environmental assessment is unnecessary
and has not been prepared as part of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \80\ 18 CFR 380.4 (2012).
    \81\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    61. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \82\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's Office of Size Standards
develops the numerical definition of a small business.\83\ The Small
Business Administration has established a size standard for electric
utilities, stating that a firm is small if, including its affiliates,
it is primarily engaged in the transmission, generation and/or
distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output
for the preceding twelve months did not exceed four million megawatt
hours (MWh).\84\ The Commission estimates that the total number of
Transmission Providers that, absent waiver, would have to modify their
current SGIPs and SGIAs is 142. Of these, an estimated 11 Transmission
Providers dispose of 4 million MWh or less per year. The Commission
estimates that the average total cost for each of these entities is
$5,381.\85\ The Commission does not consider this to be a significant
economic impact. The estimated total number of Interconnection
Customers that may be subject to the requirements of this proposed rule
is 800.\86\ Of these, all are

considered small. The Commission estimates that the total annual cost
for each entity is $1,984.\87\ The Commission does not consider this to
be a significant economic impact. Further, the Commission expects that
Interconnection Customers that are able to participate in the Fast
Track Process rather than the Study Process will benefit from the
proposed revisions to the pro forma SGIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2006).
    \83\ 13 CFR 121.101 (2012).
    \84\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
    \85\ This number is derived by multiplying the hourly figure for
Transmission Providers in the Burden Estimate table (12,952) by the
cost per hour ($59) divided by the number of Transmission Providers.
12,952 hrs * $59/hr/142 = $5,381.
    \86\ We assume that 800 Commission-jurisdictional
interconnection requests will be made annually. For the purposes of
this proposed rule, each of these requests is assumed to be made by
a separate Interconnection Customer.
    \87\ This number is derived by multiplying the hourly figure for
Interconnection Customers in the Burden Estimate table (900) plus an
additional 750 hours associated with reviewing the draft facilities
study report by the cost per hour ($59); plus the $300 fee per pre-
application report multiplied by 800 Interconnection Customers; plus
the $2,500 fee per supplemental review multiplied by 500
Interconnection Customers; all divided by the total number of
Interconnection Customers (800). ((1,650 hrs * $59/hr) + ($300 *
800) + ($2,500 * 500))/800 = $1,984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. Based on the above, the Commission certifies that the new or
revised requirements set forth in the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

XI. Comment Procedures

    63. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due June 3, 2013. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM13-2-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    64. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    65. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    66. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

XII. Document Availability

    67. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    68. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    69. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission. Chairman Wellinghoff is not
participating. Commissioner Clark is recused.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to
revise Part 35, Chapter I, Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations
as follows.

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.
0
2. Revise Sec.  35.28(f) to read as follows:

Sec.  35.28  Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Every public utility that is required to have on file a non-
discriminatory open access transmission tariff under this section must
amend such tariff by adding the standard interconnection procedures and
agreement contained in Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146
(Final Rule on Generator Interconnection), as amended by the Commission
in Order No. 661, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,186 (Final Rule on
Interconnection for Wind Energy), and the standard small generator
interconnection procedures and agreement contained in Order No. 2006,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 (Final Rule on Small Generator
Interconnection), as amended by the Commission in Order No. ----, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] ---- (Final Rule on Small Generator Interconnection
Agreements and Procedures), or such other interconnection procedures
and agreements as may be approved by the Commission consistent with
Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 (Final Rule on Generator
Interconnection), Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 (Final
Rule on Small Generator Interconnection), and Order No. ----, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] ---- (Final Rule on Small Generator Interconnection
Agreements and Procedures).
    (i) The amendment to implement the Final Rule on Generator
Interconnection required by the preceding subsection must be filed no
later than January 20, 2004.
    (ii) The amendment to implement the Final Rule on Small Generator
Interconnection required by the preceding subsection must be filed no
later than August 12, 2005.
    (iii) The amendment to implement the Final Rule on Interconnection
for Wind Energy required by the preceding subsection must be filed no
later than December 30, 2005.
    (iv) The amendment to implement the Final Rule on Small Generator
Interconnection Procedures required by the preceding subsection must be
filed no later than April 2, 2013.
    (v) Any public utility that seeks a deviation from the standard
interconnection procedures and agreement contained in Order No. 2003,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 (Final Rule on Generator Interconnection),
as amended by the Commission in Order No. 661, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,186 (Final Rule on Interconnection for Wind Energy), or the standard
small generator interconnection procedures and agreement contained in
Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 (Final Rule on Small
Generator Interconnection), as amended by the Commission in Order No.
----, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] ---- (Final Rule on Small Generator
Interconnection Agreements and Procedures), must demonstrate that the

deviation is consistent with the principles of either Order No. 2003,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 (Final Rule on Generator Interconnection)
or Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 (Final Rule on Small
Generator Interconnection).
* * * * *

    Note: Appendix A will not be published in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the SEIA Petition
(Docket No. RM12-10-000) and the Technical Conference (Docket No. AD12-
17-000)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Short name or acronym                                          Commenter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEP.....................................................  American Electric Power Service Corporation.
Amonix..................................................  Amonix.
Borrego.................................................  Borrego Solar Systems.
California ISO..........................................  California Independent System Operator Corporation.
California PUC..........................................  California Public Utilities Commission.
California Utilities....................................  Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas &
                                                           Electric Company, and Southern California Edison
                                                           Company.
Clean Coalition.........................................  Clean Coalition.
Detroit Edison..........................................  Detroit Edison Company.
Duke....................................................  Duke Energy Corporation.
EEI.....................................................  Edison Electric Institute.
Environmental Defense Fund..............................  Environmental Defense Fund.
enXco...................................................  enXco Development Corporation.
IREC....................................................  Interstate Renewable Energy Council.
NARUC...................................................  National Association of Regulatory Utility
                                                           Commissioners.
NRECA and APPA..........................................  National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and
                                                           American Public Power Association.
NV Energy...............................................  Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company.
NJBPU...................................................  New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
NRG.....................................................  NRG Companies.
Pacific Gas and Electric................................  Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Pepco...................................................  Pepco Holdings Inc., Atlantic City Electric Company,
                                                           Delmarva Power & Light Company, and Potomac Electric
                                                           Power Company.
PJM.....................................................  PJM Interconnection, LLC.
Public Interest Organizations...........................  Center for Rural Affairs, Climate + Energy Project,
                                                           Conservation Law Foundation, Energy Future Coalition,
                                                           Environmental Law & Policy Center, Fresh Energy,
                                                           National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense
                                                           Council, Northwest Energy Coalition, Pace Energy and
                                                           Climate Center, Southern Environmental Law Center,
                                                           Sustainable FERC Project, Sierra Club, Union of
                                                           Concerned Scientists, and the Wilderness Society.
Recurrent Energy........................................  Recurrent Energy.
San Diego Gas & Electric................................  San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
SEIA....................................................  Solar Energy Industries Association.
SolarCity...............................................  SolarCity Corporation.
SoCal Edison............................................  Southern California Edison Company.
SunEdison...............................................  SunEdison LLC.
SunPower................................................  SunPower Corporation.
Suntech.................................................  Suntech America.
USCHPA..................................................  United States Clean Heat & Power Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: Appendix B will not be published in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

Appendix B
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.002

    Note: Appendix C will not be published in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

Appendix C to the Proposed Small Generator Interconnection Rule
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.005

                                     - ii -

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.028

Attachment 1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.031

Attachment 2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.038

Attachment 3

Certification Codes and Standards

IEEE1547 Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with
Electric Power Systems (including use of IEEE 1547.1 testing
protocols to establish conformity)
UL 1741 Inverters, Converters, and Controllers for Use in
Independent Power Systems
IEEE Std 929-2000 IEEE Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of
Photovoltaic (PV) Systems
NFPA 70 (2002), National Electrical Code
IEEE Std C37.90.1-1989 (R1994), IEEE Standard Surge Withstand
Capability (SWC) Tests for Protective Relays and Relay Systems
IEEE Std C37.90.2 (1995), IEEE Standard Withstand Capability of
Relay Systems to Radiated Electromagnetic Interference from
Transceivers
IEEE Std C37.108-1989 (R2002), IEEE Guide for the Protection of
Network Transformers
IEEE Std C57.12.44-2000, IEEE Standard Requirements for Secondary
Network Protectors
IEEE Std C62.41.2-2002, IEEE Recommended Practice on
Characterization of Surges in Low Voltage (1000V and Less) AC Power
Circuits
IEEE Std C62.45-1992 (R2002), IEEE Recommended Practice on Surge
Testing for Equipment Connected to Low-Voltage (1000V and Less) AC
Power Circuits
ANSI C84.1-1995 Electric Power Systems and Equipment--Voltage
Ratings (60 Hertz)
IEEE Std 100-2000, IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
Electronic Terms
NEMA MG 1-1998, Motors and Small Resources, Revision 3
IEEE Std 519-1992, IEEE Recommended Practices and Requirements for
Harmonic Control in Electrical Power Systems
NEMA MG 1-2003 (Rev 2004), Motors and Generators, Revision 1

Attachment 4

Certification of Small Generator Equipment Packages

    1.0 Small Generating Facility equipment proposed for use
separately or packaged with other equipment in an interconnection
system shall be considered certified for interconnected operation if
(1) it has been tested in accordance with industry standards for
continuous utility interactive operation in compliance with the
appropriate codes and standards referenced below by any Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) recognized by the United States
Occupational Safety and Health Administration to test and certify
interconnection equipment pursuant to the relevant codes and
standards listed in SGIP Attachment 3, (2) it has been labeled and
is publicly listed by such NRTL at the time of the interconnection
application, and (3) such NRTL makes readily available for
verification all test standards and procedures it utilized in
performing such equipment certification, and, with consumer
approval, the test data itself. The NRTL may make such information
available on its Web site and by encouraging such information to be
included in the manufacturer's literature accompanying the
equipment.
    2.0 The Interconnection Customer must verify that the intended
use of the equipment falls within the use or uses for which the
equipment was tested, labeled, and listed by the NRTL.
    3.0 Certified equipment shall not require further type-test
review, testing, or additional equipment to meet the requirements of
this interconnection procedure; however, nothing herein shall
preclude the need for an on-site commissioning test by the parties
to the interconnection nor follow-up production testing by the NRTL.
    4.0 If the certified equipment package includes only interface
components (switchgear, inverters, or other interface devices), then
an Interconnection Customer must show that the generator or other
electric source being utilized with the equipment package is
compatible with the equipment package and is consistent with the
testing and listing specified for this type of interconnection
equipment.
    5.0 Provided the generator or electric source, when combined
with the equipment package, is within the range of capabilities for
which it was tested by the NRTL, and does not violate the interface
components' labeling and listing performed by the NRTL, no further
design review, testing or additional equipment on the customer side
of the point of common coupling shall be required to meet the
requirements of this interconnection procedure.
    6.0 An equipment package does not include equipment provided by
the utility.
    7.0 Any equipment package approved and listed in a state by that
state's regulatory body for interconnected operation in that state
prior to the effective date of these small generator interconnection
procedures shall be considered certified under these procedures for
use in that state.

ATTACHMENT 5

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.048

Attachment 6
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.054

Attachment A to Feasibility Study Agreement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.061

Attachment A to System Impact Study Agreement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.062

Attachment 8
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.068

Attachment A to Facilities Study Agreement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.071

    Note: Appendix D will not be published in the Code of Federal

Appendix D to the Proposed Small Generator Interconnection Rule
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.085

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.086

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.087

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.089

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.090

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.092

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.093

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.094

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.096

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.097

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.098

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.099

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.100

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.101

Attachment 1

Glossary of Terms

    Affected System--An electric system other than the Transmission
Provider's Transmission System that may be affected by the proposed
interconnection.
    Applicable Laws and Regulations--All duly promulgated applicable
federal, state and local laws, regulations, rules, ordinances,
codes, decrees, judgments, directives, or judicial or administrative
orders, permits and other duly authorized actions of any
Governmental Authority.
    Business Day--Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Holidays.
    Default--The failure of a breaching Party to cure its breach
under the Small Generator Interconnection Agreement.
    Distribution System--The Transmission Provider's facilities and
equipment used to transmit electricity to ultimate usage points such
as homes and industries directly from nearby generators or from
interchanges with higher voltage transmission networks which
transport bulk power over longer distances. The voltage levels at
which Distribution Systems operate differ among areas.
    Distribution Upgrades--The additions, modifications, and
upgrades to the Transmission Provider's Distribution System at or
beyond the Point of Interconnection to facilitate interconnection of
the Small Generating Facility and render the transmission service
necessary to effect the Interconnection Customer's wholesale sale of
electricity in interstate commerce. Distribution Upgrades do not
include Interconnection Facilities.
    Good Utility Practice--Any of the practices, methods and acts
engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the electric
industry during the relevant time period, or any of the practices,
methods and acts which, in the exercise of reasonable judgment in
light of the facts known at the time the decision was made, could
have been expected to accomplish the desired result at a reasonable
cost consistent with good business practices, reliability, safety
and expedition. Good Utility Practice is not intended to be limited
to the optimum practice, method, or act to the exclusion of all
others, but rather to be acceptable practices, methods, or acts
generally accepted in the region.
    Governmental Authority--Any federal, state, local or other
governmental regulatory or administrative agency, court, commission,
department, board, or other governmental subdivision, legislature,
rulemaking board, tribunal, or other governmental authority having
jurisdiction over the Parties, their respective facilities, or the
respective services they provide, and exercising or entitled to
exercise any administrative, executive, police, or taxing authority
or power; provided, however, that such term does not include the
Interconnection Customer, the Interconnection Provider, or any
Affiliate thereof.
    Interconnection Customer--Any entity, including the Transmission
Provider, the Transmission Owner or any of the affiliates or
subsidiaries of either, that proposes to interconnect its Small
Generating Facility with the Transmission Provider's Transmission
System.
    Interconnection Facilities--The Transmission Provider's
Interconnection Facilities and the Interconnection Customer's
Interconnection Facilities. Collectively, Interconnection Facilities
include all facilities and equipment between the Small Generating
Facility and the Point of Interconnection, including any
modification, additions or upgrades that are necessary to physically
and electrically interconnect the Small Generating Facility to the
Transmission Provider's Transmission System. Interconnection
Facilities are sole use facilities and shall not include
Distribution Upgrades or Network Upgrades.
    Interconnection Request--The Interconnection Customer's request,
in accordance with the Tariff, to interconnect a new Small
Generating Facility, or to increase the capacity of, or make a
Material Modification to the operating characteristics of, an
existing Small Generating Facility that is interconnected with the
Transmission Provider's Transmission System.
    Material Modification--A modification that has a material impact
on the cost or timing of any Interconnection Request with a later
queue priority date.
    Network Upgrades--Additions, modifications, and upgrades to the
Transmission Provider's Transmission System required at or beyond
the point at which the Small Generating Facility interconnects with
the Transmission Provider's Transmission System to accommodate the
interconnection of the Small Generating Facility with the
Transmission Provider's Transmission System. Network Upgrades do not
include Distribution Upgrades.
    Operating Requirements--Any operating and technical requirements
that may be applicable due to Regional Transmission Organization,
Independent System Operator, control area, or the Transmission
Provider's requirements, including those set forth in the Small
Generator Interconnection Agreement.
    Party or Parties--The Transmission Provider, Transmission Owner,
Interconnection Customer or any combination of the above.
    Point of Interconnection--The point where the Interconnection
Facilities connect with the Transmission Provider's Transmission
System.
    Reasonable Efforts--With respect to an action required to be
attempted or taken by a Party under the Small Generator
Interconnection Agreement, efforts that are timely and consistent
with Good Utility Practice and are otherwise substantially
equivalent to those a Party would use to protect its own interests.
    Small Generating Facility--The Interconnection Customer's device
for the production of electricity identified in the Interconnection
Request, but shall not include the Interconnection Customer's
Interconnection Facilities.
    Tariff--The Transmission Provider or Affected System's Tariff
through which open access transmission service and Interconnection
Service are offered, as filed with the FERC, and as amended or
supplemented from time to time, or any successor tariff.
    Transmission Owner--The entity that owns, leases or otherwise
possesses an interest in the portion of the Transmission System at
the Point of Interconnection and may be a Party to the Small
Generator Interconnection Agreement to the extent necessary.
    Transmission Provider--The public utility (or its designated
agent) that owns, controls, or operates transmission or distribution
facilities used for the transmission of electricity in interstate
commerce and provides transmission service under the Tariff. The
term Transmission Provider should be read to include the
Transmission Owner when the Transmission Owner is separate from the
Transmission Provider.
    Transmission System--The facilities owned, controlled or
operated by the Transmission Provider or the Transmission Owner that
are used to provide transmission service under the Tariff.
    Upgrades--The required additions and modifications to the
Transmission Provider's Transmission System at or beyond the Point
of Interconnection. Upgrades may be Network Upgrades or Distribution
Upgrades. Upgrades do not include Interconnection Facilities.

Attachment 2

Description and Costs of the Small Generating Facility, Interconnection
Facilities, and Metering Equipment

    Equipment, including the Small Generating Facility,
Interconnection Facilities, and metering equipment shall be itemized
and identified as being owned by the Interconnection Customer, the
Transmission Provider, or the Transmission Owner. The Transmission
Provider will provide a best estimate itemized cost, including
overheads, of its Interconnection Facilities and metering equipment,
and a best estimate itemized cost of the annual operation and
maintenance expenses associated with its Interconnection Facilities
and metering equipment.

Attachment 3

One-line Diagram Depicting the Small Generating Facility,
Interconnection Facilities, Metering Equipment, and Upgrades

Attachment 4

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01FE13.102

Attachment 5

Additional Operating Requirements for the Transmission Provider's
Transmission System and Affected Systems Needed to Support the
Interconnection Customer's Needs

    The Transmission Provider shall also provide requirements that
must be met by the Interconnection Customer prior to initiating
parallel operation with the Transmission Provider's Transmission
System.

Attachment 6

Transmission Provider's Description of its Upgrades and Best Estimate
of Upgrade Costs

    The Transmission Provider shall describe Upgrades and provide an
itemized best estimate of the cost, including overheads, of the
Upgrades and annual operation and

maintenance expenses associated with such Upgrades. The Transmission
Provider shall functionalize Upgrade costs and annual expenses as
either transmission or distribution related.

[FR Doc. 2013-01366 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P