[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73239-73354]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28515]

Vol. 78

Thursday,

No. 234

December 5, 2013

Part II

Department of Energy

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

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

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

18 CFR Part 35

Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[RM13-2-000; Order No. 792]

Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) is amending the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures (SGIP) and pro forma Small Generator Interconnection
Agreement (SGIA) to: Incorporate provisions that 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; revise the 2 megawatt (MW) threshold for participation
in the Fast Track Process included in section 2 of the pro forma SGIP;
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; 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;
revise the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA to specifically
include energy storage devices; and clarify certain sections of the pro
forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA. The reforms should ensure
interconnection time and costs for Interconnection Customers and
Transmission Providers are just and reasonable and help remedy undue
discrimination, while continuing to ensure safety and reliability.

DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 2014.

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>Christopher Kempley (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

145 FERC ] 61,159

Before Commissioners: Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, Cheryl A.
LaFleur, and Tony Clark.

Final Rule

(Issued November 22, 2013)

                                                         Paragraph Nos.

I. Introduction......................................                  1
II. Background.......................................                  4
    A. Order No. 2006................................                  4
    B. Solar Energy Industries Association Petition                   10
     and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking...........
III. Need for Reform.................................                 15
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                 15
    B. Comments......................................                 16
    C. Commission Determination......................                 21
IV. Proposed Reforms.................................                 28
    A. Pre-Application Report........................                 28
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                 28
        2. Need for a Pre-Application Report.........                 31
            a. Comments..............................                 31
            b. Commission Determination..............                 37
        3. Pre-Application Report Fee................                 41
            a. Comments..............................                 41
            b. Commission Determination..............                 45
        4. Pre-Application Report Timeline...........                 47
            a. Comments..............................                 47
            b. Commission Determination..............                 51
        5. Pre-application Report Request Form.......                 53
            a. Comments..............................                 53
            b. Commission Determination..............                 56
        6. Readily Available Information.............                 57
            a. Comments..............................                 57
            b. Commission Determination..............                 63
        7. Other Issues..............................                 65
            a. Comments..............................                 65
            b. Commission Determination..............                 74
    B. Threshold for Participation in the Fast Track                  83
     Process.........................................
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                 83
        2. Comments..................................                 84
        3. Commission Determination..................                102
    C. Fast Track Customer Options Meeting and                       112
     Supplemental Review.............................
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                112
        2. General Comments on the Customer Options                  114
         Meeting and the Supplemental Review.........
            a. Comments..............................                114
            b. Commission Determination..............                118
        3. Minimum Load Screen (SGIP Section <IP_ADDRESS>)                119
            a. Comments..............................                119

            b. Commission Determination..............                142
        4. Voltage and Power Quality Screen and                      150
         Safety and Reliability Screen (SGIP Sections
         <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>)........................
            a. Comments..............................                150
            b. Commission Determination..............                157
        5. Supplemental Review Screen Order (SGIP                    163
         Section 2.4.2)..............................
            a. Comments..............................                163
            b. Commission Determination..............                165
        6. Supplemental Review Fee (SGIP Sections                    166
         2.4.1 and 2.4.3)............................
            a. Comments..............................                166
            b. Commission Determination..............                171
        7. Process Following Completion of the                       175
         Customer Options Meeting and the
         Supplemental Review (SGIP Sections 2.3.1,
         2.4.4 and 2.4.5)............................
            a. Comments..............................                175
            b. Commission Determination..............                182
    D. Review of Required Upgrades...................                190
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                190
        2. Comments..................................                191
        3. Commission Determination..................                204
    E. Revision to SGIA Section 1.5.4 Regarding Over                 211
     and Under-Frequency Events......................
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                211
        2. Comments..................................                212
        3. Commission Determination..................                221
    F. Interconnection of Storage Devices............                223
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                223
        2. Comments..................................                224
        3. Commission Determination..................                228
    G. Other Issues..................................                233
        1. Network Resource Interconnection Service..                233
            a. Commission Proposal...................                233
            b. Comments..............................                234
            c. Commission Determination..............                236
        2. Hosting Capacity..........................                238
            a. Comments..............................                238
            b. Commission Determination..............                244
        3. Jurisdiction..............................                245
            a. Comments..............................                245
            b. Commission Determination..............                247
        4. Miscellaneous.............................                250
            a. Commission Proposal...................                250
            b. Comments..............................                251
            c. Commission Determination..............                258
V. Compliance........................................                263
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                263
    B. Comments......................................                266
    C. Commission Determination......................                270
VI. Information Collection Statement.................                278
VII. Environmental Analysis..........................                283
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis............                284
IX. Document Availability............................                286
X. Effective Date and Congressional Notification.....                289
Appendix A: List of Short Names of Commenters on the
 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Appendix B: Flow Chart for Interconnecting a
 Certified Small Generating Facility Using the ``Fast
 Track Process''
Appendix C: Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIP
Appendix D: Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIA

I. Introduction

    1. In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) is amending the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures (SGIP) and pro forma Small Generator Interconnection
Agreement (SGIA) to: (1) Incorporate provisions that 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 megawatt (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; (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; (5) revise the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma
SGIA to specifically include energy storage devices; and (6) clarify
certain sections of the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA. The
reforms should ensure interconnection time and costs for
Interconnection Customers and Transmission Providers are just and
reasonable and help remedy undue discrimination, while continuing to
ensure safety and reliability.

    2. Originally adopted in Order No. 2006,\1\ the pro forma SGIP and
the pro forma 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 MW. Based on the record in
this proceeding, the Commission finds it necessary under section 206 of
the Federal Power Act \4\ (FPA) to revise the pro forma SGIP and the
pro forma SGIA to ensure that the rates, terms and conditions under
which public utilities provide interconnection service to Small
Generating Facilities remain just and reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory. The Commission believes that taking these actions at
this time is in the public interest. The Commission routinely evaluates
the effectiveness of its regulations and policies in light of changing
industry conditions to determine if reforms are necessary to satisfy
its statutory obligation of ensuring just and reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory rates, terms and conditions of service.\5\ As concerns
generator interconnection, regions of the country are experiencing
significant penetrations of small generation and increasing requests
for small generator interconnection. In Order No. 2006, the Commission
anticipated the need to revisit its small generator interconnection
regulations as the industry evolves, requesting stakeholders to convene
informal meetings ``to consider and recommend consensus proposals for
changes in the Commission's rules for small generator
interconnection.'' \6\ The time is ripe to promulgate such changes in
light of the increased penetration of small generator resources, the
continued focus by states and others on the development of distributed
resources,\7\ and the need for this Commission to have its regulations
and policies ensure just and reasonable rates, terms and conditions of
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \2\ For purposes of this Final 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 FPA. See 16 U.S.C. 824(e) (2012). 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 Final Rule have the meanings
specified in the Glossaries of Terms or the text of the pro forma
SGIP or SGIA. A Small Generating Facility is 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.
    \4\ 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012).
    \5\ See Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules,
Docket No. AD12-6-000, available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/retro-analysis/ferc-eo-13579.pdf. See also Integration of
Variable Energy Resources, Order No. 764, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,331 (2012).
    \6\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 118.
    \7\ Distributed resources are sources of electric power that are
not directly connected to a bulk power transmission system.
Distributed resources include both generators and energy storage
technologies. (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) Standard 1547 for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with
Electric Power Systems, p. 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The reforms we adopt largely track the proposals set forth in
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in this proceeding on January
17, 2013,\8\ with modifications to address suggestions and concerns
raised in comments. Among other things, the Commission has revised
aspects of the pre-application report requirement, the Fast Track
eligibility threshold, and the supplemental review requirement to
balance the interests of the Interconnection Customer with those of the
Transmission Provider. With these modifications, the Commission
concludes that the package of reforms adopted in this Final Rule 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 resources. This fulfills our statutory
obligation to ensure that rates, terms and conditions for Commission-
jurisdictional services are just and reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory, as sections 205 and 206 of the FPA require.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures,
78 FR 7524 (Feb. 1, 2013) (NOPR), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,697
(2013).
    \9\ 16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Order No. 2006

    4. In Order No. 2006, the Commission established a pro forma SGIP
and SGIA for the interconnection of generation resources no larger than
20 MW, continuing the process begun in Order No. 2003 \10\ of
standardizing the terms and conditions of Commission-jurisdictional
interconnection service. The Commission adopted the pro forma SGIA and
the pro forma SGIP to respond to business and technology changes in the
electric industry. Where the electric industry was once primarily the
domain of vertically integrated utilities generating power at large
centralized plants, the Commission noted in Order No. 2006 that
advances in technology had created a burgeoning market for small power
plants that may offer economic, reliability or environmental
benefits.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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).
    \11\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The pro forma SGIP describes how an Interconnection Customer's
interconnection request (application) should be evaluated, and includes
three alternative procedures for evaluating an interconnection request.
These procedures include the Study Process, which can be used by any
generating facility with a capacity no larger than 20 MW, and two
procedures that use certain technical screens to quickly identify any
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 kilowatt (kW) Inverter
Process for certified inverter-based \13\ Small Generating Facilities
no larger than 10 kW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Attachments 3 and 4 of the pro forma SGIP, which
specify the codes, standards, and certification requirements that
Small Generating Facilities must meet. Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,180.
    \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. Such inverters, particularly newer inverters, often
incorporate additional power electronics that can provide other
safety or power quality functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The Study Process in section 3 of the pro forma SGIP, which can
be used by any generating facility with a capacity no larger than 20
MW, 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 Large
Generator Interconnection Procedures (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 as
well as any equipment modifications that may be 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Fast Track Process eliminates the scoping meeting and three
interconnection studies and instead uses technical screens 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
nevertheless 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 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) that would allow interconnection 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, where such
supplemental review is paid for by the Interconnection Customer, and
provide a non-binding good faith estimate of the cost of that review;
\16\ 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 identified
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The purpose of the supplemental review is to determine if
the Small Generating Facility can be interconnected safely and
reliably, however, the pro forma SGIP does not include details
regarding how the Transmission Provider is to perform the
supplemental review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The ten technical screens used in the Fast Track and 10 kW
Inverter Processes are included in section 2.2.1 of the pro forma SGIP.
The screen in section <IP_ADDRESS> of the pro forma SGIP, which is referred
to in this Final Rule as the 15 Percent Screen, will be discussed at
some length below:

    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.

B. Solar Energy Industries Association Petition and the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking

    10. 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,\18\ and noting that the Commission encouraged stakeholders
to submit proposed revisions to the regulations set forth in Order No.
2006, 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.\19\ In its
Petition, SEIA asserted 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.\20\ SEIA noted that its Petition applies exclusively to solar
electric generation due to its unique characteristics.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 18 CFR 385.207 (2013).
    \19\ SEIA Petition at 4 (citing Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,180 at P 118).
    \20\ Id. at 12.
    \21\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. 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 a number of
comments, protests, and answers in response.
    12. On July 17, 2012, the Commission convened a technical
conference in Docket Nos. RM12-10-000 and AD12-17-000 in order to
discuss issues related to SEIA's Petition. The Commission received nine
post-technical conference comments, including clarifying comments from
SEIA.
    13. On January 17, 2013, the Commission issued the NOPR in this
proceeding, proposing a package of reforms to the pro forma SGIA and
the pro forma SGIP.\22\ Commission staff held a workshop on March 27,
2013, at which stakeholders discussed the NOPR proposals. In addition
to the Commission staff workshop, some stakeholders formed a
stakeholder working group (SWG) to develop revisions to the NOPR
proposals.\23\ Comments on the NOPR as well as comments generated by
the Commission staff workshop were due June 3, 2013. The Commission
received thirty-three timely comments, four comments out of time and
two reply comments out of time.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,697. While SEIA's Petition
was specific to small solar generation, the NOPR included all Small
Generating Facilities.
    \23\ The SWG included EEI, NRECA, APPA, IREC, SEIA, NREL, and
other stakeholders.
    \24\ See Appendix A, List of Short Names of Commenters on the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The stakeholders that participated in the SWG indicated in
their comments

that the SWG came to agreement on certain revisions to the proposals
for the pre-application report and the threshold for participation in
the Fast Track Process. The National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association, Edison Electric Institute and the American Public Power
Association (NRECA, EEI & APPA), the Interstate Renewable Energy
Council (IREC), SEIA, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
submitted SWG proposed revisions with their comments.

III. Need for Reform

A. Commission Proposal

    15. In light of changes in the energy industry since the issuance
of Order No. 2006, and based on the comments submitted in response to
the SEIA Petition and the July 17, 2012 Technical Conference, the
Commission preliminarily found that proposed reforms were 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.\25\ In particular, the Commission cited
the growth in grid-connected solar photovoltaic (PV) generation since
the issuance of Order No. 2006 and the growth in small generator
interconnection requests driven by state renewable portfolio standards
as the impetus for re-examining the pro forma SGIP.\26\ The Commission
reasoned that if generation penetration levels are causing projects to
fail the 15 Percent Screen, the screen should be re-examined to
determine if revisions could be made to allow projects to continue to
participate in the less costly and time-consuming Fast Track Process
while maintaining the safety and reliability of the Transmission
Provider's system.\27\ Further, the Commission noted that in addition
to the proposed reforms applying to Commission-jurisdictional
interconnections, the Commission intended that the proposed reforms
serve as a model for state interconnection rules.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,697 at P 18.
    \26\ Id. P 20.
    \27\ Id. P 22.
    \28\ Id. P 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    16. Many commenters support the Commission's proposed reforms.\29\
Commenters state that the recent rapid growth in small generators and
expected significant growth in coming years, driven by public policies
such as state renewable portfolio standards, requires revising the SGIP
and SGIA.\30\ For example, Public Interest Organizations \31\ note that
state solar initiatives are resulting in penetrations of distributed
generation in excess of 15 percent on some line sections \32\ and that
the public policies driving the increase in Small Generating
Facilities, together with lower prices for solar panels, smart grid
enhancements and other factors, have ``given rise to barriers like
lengthy interconnection queues and a lack of transparency about system
conditions.'' \33\ Public Interest Organizations believe that these
facts clearly demonstrate the need to reconsider the SGIP and to enact
the proposed reforms to reduce the time and cost of processing the
increasing volume of distributed generation projects.\34\ IREC and SEIA
similarly assert that reforming the SGIP and SGIA is essential to
support the continued growth of the wholesale market for solar and
other distributed resources.\35\ Public Interest Organizations go on to
state that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) at 2-3;
Clean Coalition at 2; ClearEdge Power (CEP) at 1-2; ComRent
International (ComRent) at 1; Community Renewable Energy Association
(CREA) at 1-2; Office of the People's Counsel for the District of
Columbia (DCOPC) at 1; Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) at 1;
ELCON at 3; Electricity Storage Association (ESA) at 3; Fuel Cell &
Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) at 1-2; Max Hensley at 1-2;
Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) at 4; IREC at 2; NRG
at 2; Public Interest Organizations at 6-9; SEIA at 1; Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS) at 3, 8-9; and Lucia Villaran at 1-2.
    \30\ IREC at 3 (citing Solar Electric Power Association, 2012
SEPA Utility Solar Rankings Executive Summary 2 (2013)), available
at http://www.solarelectricpower.org/media/279520/sepa-top-10-executive-summary_final-v2.pdf); AWEA at 3; DCOPC at 3-4; ELCON at
5; NRG at 2; Public Interest Organizations at 3-4, 6-9; and UCS at
9.
    \31\ The Center for Rural Affairs, Climate + Energy Project,
Conservation Law Foundation, Energy Future Coalition, Environmental
Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environment
Northeast, Fresh Energy, Great Plains Institute, National Audubon
Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy
Coalition, Pace Energy and Climate Center, Piedmont Environmental
Council, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Southern
Environmental Law Center, Sustainable FERC Project, Union of
Concerned Scientists, Utah Clean Energy, Western Grid Group, Western
Resource Advocates, The Wilderness Society and Wind on the Wires are
referred to collectively as Public Interest Organizations in this
Final Rule.
    \32\ Public Interest Organizations at 4-5.
    \33\ Id. at 1.
    \34\ Id. at 5-9.
    \35\ IREC at 4 and SEIA at 1.

    The increased volume of applications along with the higher
penetration levels that will result from these policy changes
necessitate updating SGIP to enable providers to continue processing
applications efficiently and without imposing unnecessary financial
or regulatory hurdles to [distributed generation] development. Since
in some instances existing SGIP act as regulatory barriers to
further reliable deployment of [distributed generation] resources,
the SGIP have become unduly discriminatory and can no longer be
assumed to be just and reasonable.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Public Interest Organizations at 5.

    17. CREA and ESA support the effort to reform the SGIP and assert
that the current system results in delays and unnecessarily increases
project costs. AWEA and ELCON \37\ similarly state that the proposed
reforms ensure that small generator interconnection requests are
processed in a just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory
manner.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The Electricity Consumers Resource Council, American
Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American
Iron and Steel Institute, CHP Association and Council of Industrial
Boiler Owners are collectively referred to as ELCON in this Final
Rule.
    \38\ AWEA at 2 and ELCON at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. International Transmission Company (ITC) supports streamlining
the SGIP in ways that maintain safety and reliability.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ITC at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Independent System Operators (ISO) and Regional Transmission
Organizations (RTO) generally support the NOPR objectives,\40\ but
request, in recognition of regional differences and existing ISO/RTO
interconnection processes, that they be allowed to meet those
objectives under either the independent entity variation standard \41\
or the regional differences standard.\42\ Similarly, the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) supports the
Commission's efforts to update the pro forma SGIP and SGIA, but
requests flexibility in the revisions to account for regional
differences.\43\ NARUC also states that

the reforms should not impinge on successful state interconnection
procedures.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ CAISO at 1, 9; IRC at 1; ISO-NE at 8, 15; MISO at 4-5;
NYISO & NYTO at 2; and PJM at 1, 3-4.
    \41\ CAISO at 2 and 7 and NYISO & NYTO at 4, 24-25. The
independent entity variation is a balanced approach that provides
RTOs and ISOs greater flexibility to customize their interconnection
procedures and agreements to accommodate regional needs. It
recognizes that an RTO or ISO has differing operating
characteristics depending on its size and location and is less
likely to act in an unduly discriminatory manner than a Transmission
Provider that is also a market participant. See Order No. 2003, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 at PP 822-827.
    \42\ ISO-NE at 2, 5-7; PJM at 4; and IRC at 1, 3-6. A regional
differences standard would allow variations based on regional
differences resulting from regional interconnection standards or
reliability requirements. For non-independent Transmission
Providers, Order No. 2006 recognizes regional reliability variations
based on established regional reliability requirements when
supported by reference to established regional reliability
requirements and including the text of the reliability requirement.
See Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 546.
    \43\ NARUC at 10.
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. NRECA, EEI & APPA believe that the pro forma SGIP and SGIA
adopted in Order No. 2006 continue to be just and reasonable and strike
a fair balance between the competing goals of uniformity and
flexibility while ensuring safety and reliability.\45\ NRECA, EEI &
APPA further assert that the current record cannot support a finding
that existing Order No. 2006 procedures are unjust, unreasonable or
unduly preferential, nor can the record support a finding that the
Commission's proposals are just and reasonable, not unduly
preferential, or would not impair reliability or safety.\46\
Specifically, NRECA, EEI & APPA contend that before modifications to
the Fast Track Process are considered, there must be evidence to
suggest that the 15 Percent Screen no longer serves to adequately
reduce interconnection costs and time compared to the full Study
Process. They further argue that there also must be evidence showing
that higher penetrations of generation can be safely and reliably
accommodated without the need for the Study Process.\47\ They also
believe, however, that the pro forma SGIP and SGIA can be revised to
enable the growth of renewable energy while continuing to facilitate
jurisdictional interconnections in a just and reasonable manner and to
benefit consumers and other stakeholders.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 9.
    \46\ Id. at 10.
    \47\ Id. at 11.
    \48\ Id. at 1, 10. Duquesne Light supports the comments
submitted by NRECA, EEI & APPA. (Duquesne Light at 3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    21. The Commission is persuaded to adopt its proposed revisions to
the pro forma SGIP and the pro forma SGIA, as modified herein.\49\
Without these reforms, the continued growth in Small Generating
Facilities could cause inefficient interconnection queue backlogs and
require some Small Generating Facilities to undergo the more costly
Study Process when they could be interconnected under the Fast Track
Process safely and reliably. Costs resulting from such inefficiencies
in the interconnection process would ultimately be borne by consumers.
The record in this proceeding does not refute the nature of the changes
now occurring and expected to continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The Commission concludes that the revisions to the pro
forma SGIP and pro forma SGIA adopted herein were reasonably
foreseeable based on the NOPR, the March 2013 workshop and the
comments received on the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. For example, approximately 3,300 MW of grid-connected PV
capacity were installed in the U.S. in 2012,\50\ compared to 79 MW in
2005, the year Order No. 2006 was issued.\51\ The cumulative capacity
of U.S. distributed PV is projected to double from mid-2013 to the end
of 2015.\52\ 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.\53\ The growth in Small Generating
Facilities is leading to an increase in small generator interconnection
requests. In the NOPR, the Commission cited Commission filings that
referenced higher volumes of small generator interconnection
requests.\54\ In its comments, IREC cited an unprecedented level of
small solar interconnections.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Sherwood, Larry, U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012 at 4,
available at http://www.irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Solar-Report-Final-July-2013-1.pdf.
    \51\ U.S. Solar Market Insight Report, 2012 Year in Review,
Executive Summary Table 2.1, available at http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight-2012-year-in-review.
    \52\ See Lacey, Stephen, Chart: 2/3rds of Global Solar PV Has
Been Installed in the Last 2.5 Years, available at http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/chart-2-3rds-of-global-solar-pv-has-been-connected-in-the-last-2.5-years.
    \53\ SNL Financial, Power Plant Summary (2013).
    \54\ 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).
    \55\ IREC at 3 (citing Becky Campbell & Mike Taylor, 2011 Solar
Electric Power Association Utility Solar Rankings at 7 (May 2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. As noted by some commenters \56\ and as the Commission noted in
the NOPR, state renewable portfolio standards are driving small
generator interconnection requests.\57\ As of March 2013, 29 states and
the District of Columbia had renewable portfolio standards, and an
additional eight states had renewable portfolio goals.\58\ Some state
renewable portfolio standards include increasing percentages of
renewable energy resources over time, which will lead to increasing
penetrations of these resources. Some states have also adopted goals
and policies to promote distributed generation.\59\ Commenters also
attribute the increase in PV to a decline in capital costs.\60\
Installed costs for distributed PV installations fell by approximately
12 percent from 2011 to 2012, and have fallen 33 percent since
2009.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Public Interest Organizations at 3-5; IREC at 2; UCS at 3;
and DCOPC at 3.
    \57\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,697 at P 20.
    \58\ See Dep't of Energy, IREC & North Carolina Solar Center,
Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies (2013), available at http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/RPS_map.pdf.
    \59\ See Dep't of Energy, IREC & North Carolina Solar Center,
Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies with Solar/Distributed
Generation Provisions (2013), available at http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/Solar_DG_RPS_map.pdf.
    \60\ VSI at 1-2 and Public Interest Organizations at 1.
    \61\ Sherwood, Larry, U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012 at 2,
available at http://www.irecusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Solar-Report-Final-July-2013-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. The needs of Small Generating Facility developers, however,
must be balanced against the concerns of the Transmission Providers,
and the Commission has taken these concerns into consideration in
developing this Final Rule. For example, the Commission notes that this
Final Rule does not modify the 15 Percent Screen or any of the existing
Fast Track screens. Rather, the Commission modifies the optional
supplemental review process following failure of any of the Fast Track
screens to include three supplemental review screens. In regions of the
country where penetration levels are not high enough to cause
Interconnection Customers to fail the 15 Percent Screen, Transmission
Providers will generally continue to evaluate the penetration level of
generation based on the 15 Percent Screen. However, in regions of the
country where the 15 Percent Screen is causing Interconnection
Customers to fail the Fast Track screens, the revised supplemental
review will offer an opportunity to continue to be evaluated under the
Fast Track Process.
    25. The Commission therefore finds that our actions in this Final
Rule are consistent with the standards that the court set forth in
National Fuel v. FERC \62\ and therefore disagrees with EEI, NRECA, and
APPA that the existing record does not support the finding that the
current SGIP and SGIA are unjust, unreasonable and unduly
discriminatory. In the terminology of National Fuel, we find that a
theoretical threat exists and we show herein how this threat justifies
the costs that this Final Rule would create.\63\ We conclude that, in
light of the increasing small generator interconnection requests
referenced in Commission filings \64\ and

in this proceeding,\65\ the state renewable portfolio standards driving
these requests,\66\ and the growth in solar PV installations,\67\ the
reforms adopted herein are necessary to correct operational practices
that can unnecessarily limit, and increase the cost of,\68\ Commission-
jurisdictional interconnections under the SGIP and SGIA. The Commission
believes that adopting the reforms in this Final Rule will reduce the
time and cost to process small generator interconnection requests for
Interconnection Customers and Transmission Providers alike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 468 F.3d 831, 839-44 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (National Fuel).
    \63\ Id. at 844.
    \64\ 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).
    \65\ IREC at 3, citing Becky Campbell & Mike Taylor, 2011 Solar
Electric Power Association Utility Solar Rankings at 7 (May 2012).
    \66\ As noted above, as of March 2013, 29 states and the
District of Columbia had renewable portfolio standards, and an
additional eight states had renewable portfolio goals. See supra P
0.
    \67\ As noted above, approximately 3,300 MW of grid-connected PV
capacity were installed in the U.S. in 2012 compared to 79 MW in
2005. Further, the cumulative capacity of U.S. distributed PV is
projected to double from mid-2013 to the end of 2015. See supra P 0.
    \68\ E.g., some of the reforms adopted herein are intended to
increase the number of Small Generating Facilities that may be
interconnected under the Fast Track Process rather than the Study
Process. The cost to be evaluated under the pro forma SGIP Fast
Track Process (without supplemental review) is $500. Under the pro
forma SGIP Study Process, the Interconnection Customer must pay a
deposit not to exceed $1,000 toward the cost of the feasibility
study with its interconnection request and pay the actual cost of
any required studies (normally a feasibility study, a system impact
study, and a facilities study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Specifically, as discussed above, the Commission believes that
the current SGIP and SGIA inhibit the continued growth in Small
Generating Facilities and cause unnecessary costs to be passed on to
consumers. We agree with commenters that assert that the proposed
reforms are necessary to avoid delays and unnecessary project costs
(e.g., under the SGIP originally adopted in Order No. 2006, generators
that could be interconnected safely and reliably under the Fast Track
Process are required to undergo the more costly and time-consuming
Study Process).\69\ Hence, we conclude that such delays and increased
project costs are likely without the reforms proposed herein and that
this threat is significant enough to justify the reforms imposed by
this Final Rule. The threat is not one that can be addressed adequately
or efficiently through the adjudication of individual complaints.\70\
The remedy we adopt is justified sufficiently by the theoretical threat
identified herein and based on the comments received, the identified
theoretical threat represents a reasonable prediction of future market
conditions.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See supra P 0.
    \70\ Individual adjudications by their nature focus on discrete
questions of a specific case. Rules setting forth general principles
are necessary to ensure that adequate processes are in place.
    \71\ See, e.g., Black Oak Energy, LLC v. FERC, Nos. 08-1386, 11-
1275, 12-1286, 2013 WL 3988709, at *8 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 6, 2013)
(stating ``[W]e defer to reasonable and cogent explanations of
predictable economic outcomes, even in the absence of retrospective
data''); Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. v. FERC, 616 F.3d 520, 542
(D.C. Cir. 2010); Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FERC, 551 F.3d
1042, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Envtl. Action, Inc. v. FERC, 939 F.2d
1057, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (stating, ``[I]t is within the scope of
the agency's expertise to make . . . a prediction about the market
it regulates, and a reasonable prediction deserves . . . deference
notwithstanding that there might also be another reasonable view'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. As acknowledged in the NOPR, the need for implementation of the
reforms may not be uniform across the country.\72\ The reforms adopted
in this Final Rule will likely have a greater impact on Transmission
Providers in areas with a significant penetration of distributed
resources and a larger number of small generator interconnection
requests.\73\
    The Commission believes that this Final Rule balances the needs of
Small Generating Facilities and public utility Transmission Providers,
while providing flexibility to different regions of the country.
Moreover, to further accommodate regional differences and in response
to the comments submitted by RTOs and ISOs, the Commission is allowing
independent Transmission Providers to comply with this Final Rule under
the independent entity variation standard or the regional differences
standard, consistent with the approach adopted in Order No. 2006.\74\
Finally, we affirm that it is not our intent in this Final Rule to
interfere with state interconnection procedures and agreements in any
way. Similar to our approach in Order No. 2006,\75\ our hope is that
states may find this rule helpful in formulating or updating their own
interconnection rules, but states are under no obligation to adopt the
provisions of this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,697 at P 24.
    \73\ Id. at P 4.
    \74\ See infra section V.
    \75\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,380 at P 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Reforms

A. Pre-Application Report

1. Commission Proposal
    28. According to the reforms included in the NOPR, Transmission
Providers would be required to provide Interconnection Customers the
option to request a pre-application report that would contain readily
available information about system conditions at a Point of
Interconnection in order to help that customer select the best site for
its Small Generating Facility. The Commission proposed the pre-
application report to promote transparency and efficiency in the
interconnection process and to provide information to Interconnection
Customers about system conditions at a particular Point of
Interconnection.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,697 at P 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. To the extent available, the proposed pre-application report
would include the following items:
    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.
    30. The Commission proposed a non-refundable $300 fee for the pre-
application report and required that the report be provided within 10
business days of the initial request.\77\ The Commission proposed that
the pre-application report would only include information already
available to the Transmission Provider.\78\ Additionally, the proposed
revisions to the pro forma SGIP, which were attached to the NOPR, state
that ``The pre-application report request does not obligate the
Transmission Provider to conduct a

study or other analysis of the proposed generator in the event that
data is not readily available.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Id. at P 28 and proposed pro forma SGIP at section 1.2.2.
    \78\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,697 at P 27.
    \79\ Id., Appendix C, SGIP section 1.2.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Need for a Pre-Application Report
a. Comments
    31. Many commenters support the concept of a pre-application
report.\80\ The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) supports
the pre-application report and states that it will increase
transparency and efficiency, reduce costs, and provide necessary
information to Interconnection Customers.\81\ Other commenters assert
that the pre-application report is critical for developers to determine
the best Points of Interconnection because it will eliminate some of
the uncertainties involved in the interconnection process and thus
reduce developer costs and schedule delays.\82\ FCHEA states that the
pre-application report will alert a project developer to potential
issues at a Point of Interconnection prior to making a significant
financial commitment.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ NREL at 2; Clean Coalition at 3; CPUC at 4; CREA at 2;
DCOPC at 4; Duke Energy at 3; ELCON at 4; FCHEA at 1; IECA at 4; LES
at 1; NRECA, EEI & APPA at 6; and NRG at 5.
    \81\ CPUC at 5.
    \82\ CEP at 1; CREA at 2; DCOPC at 4; Duke Energy at 3; IREC at
9; NRG at 4; and Public Interest Organizations at 9.
    \83\ FCHEA at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. A number of commenters state that the pre-application report
will likely reduce the number of interconnection requests submitted to
Transmission Providers because developers frequently submit multiple
interconnection requests for a single project in an effort to determine
the most advantageous Point of Interconnection.\84\ Similarly, IREC and
SEIA contend that a pre-application report would benefit Transmission
Providers by reducing the volume of interconnection requests that are
either non-viable or difficult to accommodate.\85\ Finally, Sandia
National Laboratories (Sandia) and SEIA state that the pre-application
report will foster communication between developers and Transmission
Providers and will improve the interconnection process.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ AWEA at 3-4; CREA at 2; IREC at 9; ITC at 8; and NRG at 5.
    \85\ IREC at 9 and SEIA at 10.
    \86\ Sandia at 2 and SEIA at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Several RTOs and ISOs,\87\ however, contend that they already
offer various opportunities for Interconnection Customers to ask
questions and request information that is similar to the information in
the pre-application report. These commenters state that information
related to the type, amount and location of interconnected and pending
projects and studies is readily available by phone, on their Web sites,
or through their Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII)
process.\88\ ISO New England (ISO-NE) asserts that there is no
indication that the information it currently makes available to
Interconnection Customers is insufficient.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ ISO-NE., MISO, PJM, and NYISO.
    \88\ ISO-NE at 8; MISO at 5-6; NYISO & NYTO at 13-14; and PJM at
5.
    \89\ ISO-NE at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) states that its
existing procedures, including a pre-application meeting, may be more
effective than the proposed pre-application report procedures.\90\ MISO
asserts that a pre-application meeting achieves the same goals of
transparency and data sharing without the cost and inefficient
expenditure of resources that a pre-application report would
require.\91\ MISO further asserts that requiring the Transmission
Provider to contact the Transmission Owner to collect information may
be inefficient and that permitting the Interconnection Customer to
directly contact the Transmission Owner may be more efficient.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ MISO at 4 (referencing section 6.1 of MISO's Generator
Interconnection Procedure).
    \91\ Id. at 5.
    \92\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. The California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO)
states that it supports the provision of a pre-application report, but
in some cases the pre-application report information is only available
from the participating Transmission Owner and in other cases it does
not exist for networked transmission systems. CAISO requests that the
Commission allow ISOs and RTOs to provide a pre-application report that
is appropriate to interconnecting to a networked transmission system,
such as existing and queued generation not at the same Point of
Interconnection but affected by the same transmission constraints.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ CAISO at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison
Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (California Utilities)
state that larger interconnection projects should be required to obtain
a pre-application report because it will increase the likelihood that
these projects will select Points of Interconnection that qualify for
Fast Track evaluation.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ California Utilities at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    37. The Commission concludes that providing the Interconnection
Customer with the opportunity to request the pre-application report
will benefit the interconnection process by helping Interconnection
Customers make more informed siting decisions and may diminish the
practice of requesting multiple interconnection requests for a single
project, which benefits both Transmission Providers and Interconnection
Customers. As such, the Commission adopts its proposal to require the
Transmission Provider to provide Interconnection Customers with the
opportunity to request a pre-application report, as modified herein.
    38. While the Commission appreciates that some Transmission
Providers may already make available some of the information in the
pre-application report, commenters suggest that this information may
not be available from all Transmission Providers. Therefore, the
Commission finds it just and reasonable to include the pre-application
report in the pro forma SGIP.
    39. With regard to MISO's assertion that requiring the Transmission
Provider to contact the Transmission Owner to collect information may
be less efficient than permitting the Interconnection Customer to
directly contact the Transmission Owner, we note that the Transmission
Provider is generally the point of contact for the Interconnection
Customer that coordinates the various SGIP processes (e.g.,
interconnection requests and the studies in the section 3 Study
Process). As such, the Transmission Provider is expected to coordinate
with the Transmission Owner and the Interconnection Customer, so we are
not persuaded that we should adopt SGIP language requiring the
Interconnection Customer to contact the Transmission Owner directly in
the case of the pre-application report.
    40. Finally, with regard to MISO's comment that its existing pre-
application procedures may be more effective than the pre-application
report proposed in the NOPR, as discussed below, in cases where
provisions in public utility Transmission Providers' existing
interconnection procedures would be modified by the Final Rule, public
utility Transmission Providers must either comply with the Final Rule
or demonstrate that previously approved variations meet one of the
standards for variance provided for in this Final Rule.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See infra section V.

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

3. Pre-Application Report Fee
a. Comments
    41. Several commenters support the proposed $300 fee for the pre-
application report.\96\ IREC asserts that the $300 fee is appropriate
for the effort required to provide the report, noting that there is
currently no fee for the provision of similar system information under
section 1.2.1 of the SGIP.\97\ NREL states that the proposed $300 fee
only allows the Transmission Provider to provide information that is
quickly accessible.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ CPUC at 4; CREA at 2; IREC at 12; MISO at 3-4; NRG at 5;
and Public Interest Organizations at 9.
    \97\ IREC at 12. Under section 1.2 of the pro forma SGIP, the
Interconnection Customer may request from the Transmission Provider
``relevant system studies, interconnection studies, and other
materials useful to an understanding of an interconnection'' at a
specific proposed Point of Interconnection.
    \98\ NREL at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. Several commenters, including many Transmission Providers,
recommend that the Commission set the cost of the pre-application
report equal to the Transmission Provider's actual incurred cost rather
than a fixed $300 fee.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ ISO-NE at 13-14; ITC at 7-8; NARUC at 5; NRECA, EEI & APPA
at 16; and NREL at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. PJM Interconnection (PJM) estimates that the processing and
preparation of a single report will take ten to twelve hours in
administration, preparation, and final review and cost at least
$1,500.\100\ NRECA, EEI & APPA similarly state that, on average, the
processing and preparation of a single report will likely require at
least eight hours of an engineer's time, at a cost of $150 per hour,
resulting in a minimum initial pre-application report fee of $1,200,
not including time spent coordinating with the distribution utility to
gather system information.\101\ IREC, on the other hand, contends that
the coordination between the Transmission Provider and the utility
should not be overly burdensome for either party, and it is not
significantly different from the coordination required during the SGIP
Study Process.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ PJM at 8.
    \101\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 16.
    \102\ IREC at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. NRECA, EEI & APPA also request that the $300 fee be adjusted
annually based on an inflation index, such as the Consumer Price or
Handy-Whitman index, so that fees charged reflect the actual cost to
prepare the pre-application report.\103\ ITC proposes a ``deposit/not-
to-exceed'' fee structure for the pre-application report whereby the
Interconnection Customer submits a $300 deposit and designates a dollar
amount that the Transmission Provider is not to exceed when preparing
the report.\104\ ITC proposes that the cost of the pre-application
report be trued-up upon completion based on the Transmission Provider's
actual incurred costs.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 16.
    \104\ ITC at 8.
    \105\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    45. The Commission finds that a fixed pre-application report fee
will both provide cost certainty to Interconnection Customers and
result in lower administrative costs than other fee structures. The
Commission notes that this approach is similar to Commission treatment
of other fixed processing fees in Order No. 2006.\106\ Thus, the
Commission will not adopt NRECA, EEI & APPA's proposal to index the
pre-application report fee because Transmission Providers will have the
opportunity to propose revisions to the fixed pre-application report
fee in the compliance filing and in any subsequent FPA section 205
filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. While the Commission believes that the $300 fee often will be
adequate to recover Transmission Providers' costs of preparing the pre-
application report given that Transmission Providers are only asked to
provide ``readily available'' information, the Commission finds it
would be unjust and unreasonable for Transmission Providers not to
recover their actual pre-application report preparation costs.
Accordingly, the Commission will adopt the $300 fee as the default fee
in the pro forma SGIP and give Transmission Providers the opportunity
to propose a different fixed cost-based fee for preparing pre-
application reports supported by a cost justification as part of the
compliance filing required by this Final Rule. The Commission notes
that the Transmission Provider already provides information to the
Interconnection Customer under section 1.2 of the pro forma SGIP.
Therefore the pre-application report fee should only include the cost
of providing the incremental information required under this Final
Rule.
4. Pre-Application Report Timeline
a. Comments
    47. The Commission received multiple comments about the ten-
business-day timeline for providing the proposed pre-application
report. MISO and Public Interest Organizations support the proposed
ten-business-day timeframe for the pre-application report.\107\ SEIA
contends that a predictable date certain for the pre-application report
is crucial for developers.\108\ SEIA finds the proposed timeline
reasonable, but requests that if the Commission extends the timeline,
it allow Transmission Providers to request a one-time ten-day extension
if necessary.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ MISO Comments at 3-4; Public Interest Organizations at 9.
    \108\ SEIA Reply Comments at 6.
    \109\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that SEIA's ten-day extension proposal
would lead to inefficient use of Commission and utility resources, and
that ten additional days would likely be insufficient in many
circumstances.\110\ Instead, NRECA, EEI & APPA request that the
Commission clarify that section 4.1 of the current pro forma SGIP
(``Reasonable Efforts'') provides the Transmission Provider with the
option of promptly communicating to the Interconnection Customer the
nature of any delays, including force majeure events,\111\ in preparing
a pre-application report and allows for both parties to agree on the
Transmission Provider delivering the pre-application report on a
different date.\112\ NRECA, EEI & APPA state that this arrangement will
give the developer some degree of certainty as to when it can expect to
see a pre-application report, while allowing the utility reasonable
flexibility given the realities of staffing and work load.\113\ ISO-
NE., PJM and the ISO/RTO Council (IRC) also ask the Commission to
affirmatively state that section 4.1 of the SGIP applies to the pre-
application report timeline.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 13-14.
    \111\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 18, Appendix C (requesting that the
Commission include language in the SGIP to cover delays related to
force majeure events).
    \112\ Id. at 18-19.
    \113\ Id. at 19.
    \114\ IRC at 9-10; ISO-NE at 12; and PJM at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. Duke Energy proposes that when a Transmission Provider has
reached its maximum ability to process pre-application requests within
the prescribed ten-business-day deadline, any subsequent requests
received during that heavy volume period would be placed in a queue.
Under Duke Energy's proposal, Interconnection Customers would be
notified of the likely timing of the Transmission Provider's processing
of their requests. Once the backlog of requests has been processed, the
Transmission Provider would resume

processing pre-application requests within the ten-business-day
period.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Duke Energy at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. ISO-NE also requests that the Commission allow for additional
time for providing the pre-application report.\116\ New York
Independent System Operator and New York Transmission Owners (NYISO &
NYTO) and PJM recommend that the Commission extend the proposed time
period for processing the pre-application report to 20 business
days.\117\ IRC also states that ten business days is not enough time to
produce the pre-application report and therefore asks the Commission to
provide each region with the flexibility to propose its own time
frame.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ ISO-NE at 12-13.
    \117\ NYISO & NYTO at 16; and PJM at 10.
    \118\ IRC at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    51. The Commission is persuaded by Transmission Provider comments
that certain circumstances could make the ten-business-day timeline
difficult to meet. The Commission will therefore modify its proposal
and extend the pre-application report due date from 10 to 20 business
days, as proposed by NYISO & NYTO and PJM.\119\ We find that this
deadline balances Transmission Provider concerns about having adequate
time to prepare the report with Interconnection Customer concerns
regarding the importance of knowing when they will receive the report.
As such, Transmission Providers will be required to provide the pre-
application report within 20 business days of the initial request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ NYISO & NYTO at 16; and PJM at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. With regard to the request of ISO-NE., IRC, PJM, and NRECA, EEI
& APPA for clarification about whether section 4.1 (``Reasonable
Efforts'') of the existing pro forma SGIP will apply to the pre-
application report timeline,\120\ we affirm that section 4.1 of the pro
forma SGIP applies to the pre-application report. To not do so would
mean that the Reasonable Efforts section would apply to some items in
the SGIP and not others. As such, the Commission declines to adopt Duke
Energy's proposal to establish a pre-application queue when a
Transmission Provider experiences heavy volumes of pre-application
report requests and is unable to meet the pre-application report
timeline because such situations may be addressed under section 4.1 of
the pro forma SGIP in a comparable, not unduly discriminatory manner.
Nonetheless, the Commission notes that the pre-application report
contains only readily available information, so we expect that the
Transmission Provider should be able to produce a pre-application
report within 20 business days in most circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ IRC at 10; ISO-NE at 12; NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments
at 14; and PJM at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Pre-Application Report Request Form
a. Comments
    53. Several commenters recommend that Interconnection Customers
complete a pre-application report request form to facilitate report
preparation.\121\ ITC offers as a basis for such a form that
Interconnection Customers could designate broad geographic areas as
proposed Points of Interconnection when requesting a pre-application
report, thus requiring the Transmission Provider to select the exact
Point of Interconnection for the Interconnection Customer.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ IREC at 10; ISO-NE at 11; ITC at 10; NRECA, EEI and APPA
at 13; NYISO & NYTO at 16; SEIA at 2; NREL at 2; and PJM at 9.
    \122\ ITC at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. Such a form is also supported by the SWG \123\ and PJM.\124\
They suggest that the proposed pre-application request form seeks the
following information from Interconnection Customers: (1) Project
contact information; (2) project location, including street address
with nearby cross streets and town; (3) meter number, pole number, or
other equivalent information identifying the proposed Point of
Interconnection; (4) type of generator; (5) size of generator; (6)
single or three-phase generator configuration; (7) whether the
generator is stand-alone or serves on-site load; and (8) whether the
project requires new service or is an expansion of existing
service.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See supra note 23. The group drafted proposed revisions to
the pre-application report proposal that were submitted by several
commenters.
    \124\ IREC at 10 and PJM at 9.
    \125\ PJM at 9; IREC, Attachment A, Sec. Sec.  <IP_ADDRESS>-<IP_ADDRESS>;
NRECA, EEI & APPA, Attachment A, Sec. Sec.  <IP_ADDRESS>-<IP_ADDRESS>; NREL,
attachment to comments, Sec. Sec.  <IP_ADDRESS>-<IP_ADDRESS>; and SEIA,
Attachment B, Sec. Sec.  <IP_ADDRESS>-<IP_ADDRESS>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. ITC, IRC and NYISO & NYTO also support a standardized pre-
application report request form.\126\ IRC states that, although it
supports including a standard request form in each Transmission
Provider's tariff, the Final Rule should allow the request form to vary
by region if needed.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ ITC at 10; IRC at 9; NRECA, EEI & APPA at 13; and NYISO &
NYTO at 16.
    \127\ IRC at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    56. In response to commenter requests, the Commission adopts the
standardized pre-application report request form as proposed by the SWG
in section 1.2.2 of the pro forma SGIP, as modified herein \128\ and
with certain minor clarifying modifications, to use when requesting a
pre-application report. The Commission believes the request form will
resolve uncertainty about the precise location of the Point of
Interconnection and expedite the pre-application report process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See, e.g., supra P 0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Readily Available Information
a. Comments
    57. SEIA and DCOPC state that the proposed pre-application report
will not burden Transmission Providers because it will be compiled from
existing material.\129\ IREC claims that utilities have made
significant investments in smart grid infrastructure, SCADA and other
methods of gathering system information so that minimum and peak load
data will be available in the future, and the SGIP should encourage the
collection of such information.\130\ Sandia and UCS raise similar
arguments about the availability of this data.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ DCOPC at 4 and SEIA at 11.
    \130\ IREC at 10.
    \131\ Sandia at 2 and UCS at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. Several commenters request that the Commission affirm that
Transmission Providers are only required to provide existing
information that is readily available in the pre-application
report.\132\ Additionally, multiple commenters request that the
Commission define the terms ``already available'' and/or ``readily
available'' as they relate to information provided in the pre-
application report.\133\ MISO suggests it means providing existing data
in its existing form.\134\ IRC further requests that the Commission
clearly state in section 1.2.4 or add a new section 1.2.5 stating that
``[a]ny further analysis related to the proposed generator or in
follow-up to the information contained in the report shall be conducted
pursuant to an interconnection request.'' \135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Bonneville at 2-3; Duke Energy at 4; ISO-NE at 14; and
MISO at 6.
    \133\ Clean Coalition at 3; Duke Energy at 4; IRC at 10; and
MISO at 6.
    \134\ MISO at 6.
    \135\ IRC at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. ISO-NE and NYISO & NYTO state that notwithstanding the caveat
in section 1.2.4, the pre-application report only need include existing
data and note that the inclusion of all of the categories of data
listed in section 1.2.3 of the pro forma SGIP could create an
unreasonable expectation regarding the information to be included in
the pre-

application report.\136\ ISO-NE and NYISO & NYTO therefore ask the
Commission to clarify that the items proposed to be included in the
pre-application report are examples that may be amended by the
Transmission Provider based on readily available information.\137\ IRC
asks that the Commission allow each region to specify what information
is actually available in a pre-application process to assist
prospective Interconnection Customers.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ ISO-NE at 9 and NYISO & NYTO at 15.
    \137\ NYISO & NYTO at 14.
    \138\ IRC at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. NREL comments that the proposed SGIP states that minimum
daytime load information will be provided in the pre-application report
``when available'' and that this should be modified to state that load
information ``will be measured or calculated.'' \139\ FCHEA and CEP
assert that one of the key pieces of information that should be
included in the pre-application report is whether the 15 Percent Screen
has been exceeded or is close to being exceeded on a particular line
segment.\140\ NRECA, EEI & APPA submitted proposed revisions to the
information included in the pre-application report, including removing
some items from the report.\141\ IREC states that striking relevant
pieces of information, such as minimum or peak load data, from the
report because it may not be currently available would be inconsistent
with policy goals and fails to recognize that grid investments may make
the information possible to collect in the future.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ NREL at 3.
    \140\ CEP at 2 and FCHEA at 2.
    \141\ NRECA, EEI & APPA, Appendix B at 1-2.
    \142\ IREC at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. NRECA, EEI & APPA state that they are particularly concerned
with the Commission's proposal to require that utilities provide
minimum load and available capacity in the pre-application report when
such data are not currently available.\143\ They assert that collection
of minimum load data is burdensome to most utilities because it is not
a critical system operating criteria and is difficult to determine
accurately.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 14.
    \144\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. Duke Energy states that although daytime minimum load data may
be available where there are electronic meters and communication
equipment, in many instances the data are available only at the
substation circuit breaker and not by line section. Duke Energy
therefore asserts that in some cases it would have to estimate the
minimum load.\145\ ITC suggests that the Commission explain how
Transmission Providers should calculate minimum load for the purposes
of the pre-application report.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Duke Energy at 5.
    \146\ ITC at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    63. The Commission appreciates Transmission Provider concerns about
the burden associated with creating new information (either form or
substance) for the purposes of the pre-application report. We reaffirm
that Transmission Providers are only required to provide the items in
the pro forma SGIP section 1.2.3 if they are readily available, in
accordance with section 1.2.4 of the SGIP. Accordingly, in response to
NRECA, EEI & APPA and Duke Energy, the provision of actual or estimated
minimum load data is not required unless it is readily available. To
address concerns with the definition of ``readily available,'' we
clarify that ``readily available'' means information that the
Transmission Provider currently has on hand. That is, the Transmission
Provider is not required to create new data.\147\ However, the
Transmission Provider is required to compile, gather, and summarize the
information that it has readily available to it in a format that
presents useful information.\148\ The costs associated with that effort
should be commensurate with the fee the Transmission Provider charges
for the pre-application report. If providing some of the items in the
pre-application report would require the Transmission Provider to
undertake studies or analysis beyond gathering and presenting existing
information, then the information is not readily available and the
Transmission Provider is not obligated to include this information in
the report. We note, however, that performing simple calculations with
existing information, such as calculating available capacity as
described below, falls within the meaning of readily available
information.\149\ The Commission finds that requiring Transmission
Providers to provide information in pre-application reports beyond what
is readily available would increase Transmission Provider costs and
likely result in the under-recovery of report preparation costs. The
Commission believes the default $300 fixed fee is consistent with the
readily available standard, which limits the effort required by
Transmission Providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ The Commission declines to prescribe a methodology for
calculating minimum load for the purpose of the pre-application
report, as requested by ITC, because such a calculation is not
required for the sole purpose of the pre-application report. The
provision of minimum load data in the pre-application report,
whether actual or estimated, is only required if this information is
readily available. Further, to the extent such a calculation is made
under section <IP_ADDRESS> of the SGIP adopted herein, the Commission
leaves the methodology to the discretion of the Transmission
Provider.
    \148\ See supra P 0. The Commission clarifies that the
Transmission Provider shall be the point of contact for the
Interconnection Customer and may be required to coordinate with the
Transmission Owner to execute the requirements of the SGIP adopted
herein, including the pre-application report. Accordingly, we find
that information that is readily available to the Transmission Owner
shall be deemed readily available to the Transmission Provider as
well.
    \149\ See infra P 0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. The Commission is also persuaded by IREC's comments that pre-
application report items should not be struck from the report due to
current unavailability because the items may become available in the
future. Thus, the Commission finds that the default pre-application
report should include the items listed from section 1.2.3 of the
proposed SGIP while at the same time reaffirming that Transmission
Providers are not obligated to provide information that is not readily
available.
7. Other Issues
a. Comments
    65. IREC, Pepco \150\ and SEIA propose adding a new section <IP_ADDRESS>
to the pro forma SGIP stating that the Transmission Provider will
identify the substation/area bus, bank or circuit likely to serve the
proposed Point of Interconnection and clarifying how the Transmission
Provider will select which circuit to include as the Point of
Interconnection in the pre-application report if there is more than one
circuit to which the Interconnection Customer could connect.\151\ The
commenters also propose to clarify in section <IP_ADDRESS> that the
Transmission Provider will not be liable if the selected circuit is not
the most cost-effective option and explains that customers who want
information on all options must request multiple pre-application
reports.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Pepco Holdings Inc., Atlantic City Electric Company,
Delmarva Power & Light Company, and Potomac Electric Power Company
are referred to collectively as Pepco in this Final Rule.
    \151\ IREC at 10; Pepco, Appendix to comment at section <IP_ADDRESS>;
SEIA at Attachment A section <IP_ADDRESS>.
    \152\ IREC at 10-11; Pepco at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66. Several commenters,\153\ including the SWG, note that the
electric system is constantly changing and the information provided in
the pre-application report might quickly become out of date. As a
result, they request that the SGIP and each pre-application report that
a utility

produces include a disclaimer indicating that the pre-application
report is for informational purposes, is non-binding, and does not
convey any rights in the interconnection process.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Duke Energy at 6; IREC Attachment A, section 1.2.2
presenting the SWG recommendations; and NRECA, EEI & APPA at 12.
    \154\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 12-13, and NYISO & NYTO at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. ITC argues that given its dynamic nature, Transmission
Providers may not be able to accurately predict the available capacity
of the substation/area bus or bank circuit most likely to serve the
proposed Point of Interconnection at every point in time.\155\ ITC
proposes that the Commission specify that the Transmission Provider's
base-case estimate of available capacity is sufficient for the pre-
application report.\156\ Duke Energy states that Interconnection
Customers can calculate this available capacity from the information
provided in sections <IP_ADDRESS> through <IP_ADDRESS> of the SGIP; therefore,
the Transmission Provider should not be required to provide available
capacity in the pre-application report.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ ITC at 9.
    \156\ Id. at 9.
    \157\ Duke Energy at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. Various commenters request that the pre-application report
contain information that the Commission did not include in the NOPR.
For example, several commenters propose to add the following items to
the pre-application report: (1) Distance from a three-phase circuit if
the Point of Interconnection is on a single-phase circuit; and (2)
whether the Point of Interconnection is located on an area network,
spot network, grid network, or radial supply.\158\ IREC asserts that
this approach will provide relevant system information to
developers.\159\ SEIA also proposes to include the substation/area bus,
bank or circuit most likely to serve the Point of Interconnection.\160\
NARUC states that the pre-application report should include a simple
``yes'' or ``no'' question as to whether minimum load data would be
readily available should it be needed to help a developer remain in the
Fast Track Process.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ IREC at 11-12; NRECA, EEI & APPA Appendix B at 1; Pepco at
11; and SEIA at 11.
    \159\ IREC at 11.
    \160\ SEIA at 11.
    \161\ NARUC at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. Landfill Energy Systems (LES) state that the pre-application
report should identify the type of existing relays that are currently
being utilized and any known, or likely, need to replace those
relays.\162\ LES states that if, for example, the Transmission Owner is
likely to require the Interconnection Customer to replace and/or
upgrade existing equipment, such as a relay system, a reclosing system,
or a breaker failure protection system, or to install fiber optic
cable, it should be noted in the pre-application report.\163\ LES also
requests that the pre-application report include a map that shows the
Transmission Provider's lines in the area for the Interconnection
Customer to consider as alternative Points of Interconnection.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ LES at 2.
    \163\ Id. at 2-3.
    \164\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. Clean Coalition recommends that the Commission require that
Transmission Providers maintain information about all distribution
interconnection applications in a public spreadsheet/database for easy
review and tracking by developers, advocates, and policymakers.\165\
Clean Coalition further asserts that, where warranted by demand,
existing grid information should be made available in map and
spreadsheet formats on the utility's Web site.\166\ NRECA, EEI & APPA
claim that the Clean Coalition's proposal is unduly burdensome,
overbroad, ambiguous, may result in the release of CEII, and would
constitute jurisdictional overreach by the Commission.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Clean Coalition at 5-6.
    \166\ Id. at 6.
    \167\ NRECA, EEI & APPA Reply Comments at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. NRECA, EEI & APPA state that any information that is required
to be included in the pre-application report must be consistent with
existing safeguards against the public disclosure of non-public
transmission system information, confidential information, or
CEII.\168\ CAISO similarly notes that some of the information may be
proprietary to participating Transmission Owners or might be CEII,
which could require a non-disclosure and limited use agreement.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 14.
    \169\ CAISO at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. PJM asks the Commission to clarify that although there may be
some limited follow-up on the pre-application report (e.g., questions
about the report from the Interconnection Customer), more detailed
inquiries would need to be addressed through the submission of an
interconnection request by the Interconnection Customer.\170\ Duke
Energy requests that the Commission clarify that any transmission
information provided in the report would not be required to be posted
on the OASIS.\171\ NRECA, EEI & APPA state that each request related to
a particular Point of Interconnection should be treated as a request
for a separate pre-application report and the Transmission Provider
must be able to collect a fee for each report it prepares.\172\ NRECA,
EEI & APPA assert that this is appropriate because requests for
multiple interconnection points may require companies to gather
information from various sources for each Point of
Interconnection.\173\ IREC and Pepco also propose SGIP language which
states that customers who want information on multiple circuits at a
single Point of Interconnection must request a separate pre-application
report for each circuit.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ PJM at 10.
    \171\ Duke Energy at 6.
    \172\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 17.
    \173\ Id.
    \174\ IREC at 10-11; Pepco at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    73. CAISO suggests that the Commission may want to provide greater
flexibility for Transmission Providers to fashion a pre-application
process to exchange information with developers following issuance of a
pre-application report if developers have any follow-up questions.\175\
NYISO & NYTO suggest that Transmission Providers might provide the
Interconnection Customer the option of a follow-up meeting to discuss
the pre-application report.\176\ Finally, ISO-NE proposes to refer to
entities that request pre-application reports as ``potential
Interconnection Customers'' rather than ``Interconnection Customers''
in section 1.2 of the SGIP, which outlines the pre-application
report.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ CAISO at 4.
    \176\ NYISO & NYTO at 16.
    \177\ ISO-NE at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    74. The Commission agrees with commenters that the information
provided in pre-application reports should be for informational
purposes only given the dynamic nature of system conditions.
Accordingly, the Commission will include a disclaimer in the pro forma
SGIP and pre-application report stating that the information provided
in the pre-application report is non-binding and that the Transmission
Provider will not be held liable if information in the report is no
longer accurate. The Commission notes that similar pre-application
report disclaimers are proposed in SGIP proceedings in Ohio and
Massachusetts.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ Pub. Utilis. Comm'n of Ohio, In the Matter of the Comm'n's
Review of Chapter 4901:1-22, Ohio Admin. Code, Regarding
Interconnection Servs., Case No. 12-2051-EL-ORD, at 7 (2013),
available at http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/Ohio-Supplemental-Entry.pdf; Mass. Dep't of Pub. Utils., Order on the
Distributed Generation Working Group's Redlined Tariff and Non-
Tariff Recommendations, Docket No. D.P.U. 11-75-E, at 14 (2013).

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

    75. NRECA, EEI & APPA, Pepco, SEIA, and IREC propose adding the
following two items to the pre-application report: (1) For single-phase
circuits, the distance of the Point of Interconnection from the three-
phase circuit; and (2) whether the Point of Interconnection is located
on an area network, spot network, grid network, or radial supply.\179\
The Commission is persuaded that this additional information will be
useful to assess whether a project will qualify for the Fast Track
Process at a given Point of Interconnection. Furthermore, the
information should be readily available to Transmission Providers
because it relates to basic system configuration. Accordingly, sections
<IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> of the SGIP are revised to include these items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See supra note 158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    76. In order to clarify Interconnection Customer expectations with
respect to the pre-application report, the Commission adopts IREC, SEIA
and Pepco's proposed disclaimer that the bank or circuit selected by
the Transmission Provider in the pre-application report does not
necessarily indicate the circuit to which the Interconnection Customer
may ultimately connect. The disclaimer is added to section 1.2.3 of the
SGIP. However, the Commission declines to adopt IREC, SEIA and Pepco's
request to clarify how the Transmission Provider will select which
circuit to include in the pre-application report if there is more than
one circuit to which the Interconnection Customer could interconnect
because methodologies for selecting a circuit may be differ depending
on the circumstances of the proposed interconnection and may differ
among Transmission Providers. If Transmission Providers wish to provide
this information to Interconnection Customers, they may do so in
business practices.
    77. In response to Duke Energy's inquiry, the Commission affirms
that information Transmission Providers provide in the pre-application
will have no bearing on OASIS reporting requirements. The Commission
also affirms that the pre-application report only applies to a single
Point of Interconnection and that Interconnection Customers must submit
payment and separate pre-application request forms if they are
requesting information about multiple Points of Interconnection,
including multiple circuits at a single Point of Interconnection. The
Commission also finds that it would be unjust and unreasonable to
expect the Transmission Provider to bear the cost of any follow-up
studies resulting from the pre-application report. Therefore, apart
from reasonable clarification of items in the pre-application report,
the Transmission Provider is not required as part of this Final Rule to
conduct any studies or analysis after furnishing the pre-application
report unless the Interconnection Customer proceeds with a formal
interconnection request.
    78. The Commission expects Transmission Providers to continue to
abide by the recommendations outlined in section 1.1.5 of the pro forma
SGIP and with section 1.2.1 of the pro forma SGIP, which states that
information may be provided ``to the extent such provision does not
violate confidentiality provisions of prior agreements or critical
infrastructure requirements'' and that ``[t]he Transmission Provider
shall comply with reasonable requests for such information.''
    79. The Commission rejects ISO-NE's request to refer to entities
requesting pre-application reports as ``potential Interconnection
Customers'' within the pro forma SGIP because we are not aware that use
of the term ``Interconnection Customer'' in the pre-application section
1.2 of the pro forma SGIP adopted under Order No. 2006 caused confusion
or set incorrect expectations for Interconnection Customers or
Transmission Providers.
    80. The Commission rejects LES's request that Transmission
Providers indicate what upgrades, if any, will be required at a Point
of Interconnection when preparing a pre-application report for that
Point of Interconnection. This information may not be readily available
to a Transmission Provider.
    81. The Commission is not persuaded by Duke Energy's assertion that
it is unreasonable to ask Transmission Providers to provide available
capacity, or an estimate of available capacity. Providing available
capacity will not burden the Transmission Provider because doing so
only requires Transmission Providers to subtract aggregate existing and
queued capacity from total capacity, and will provide additional
clarity to the interconnection customer.
    82. The Commission finds Clean Coalition and LES's proposal to make
certain small generator interconnection data publicly available as
beyond the scope of the NOPR. However, we encourage Transmission
Providers to look for ways to streamline the provision of and make
transparent relevant public information in order to facilitate small
generator interconnections.

B. Threshold for Participation in the Fast Track Process

1. Commission Proposal
    83. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise the 2 MW
threshold for participation in the Fast Track Process to be based
instead on individual system and generator characteristics up to a
limit of 5 MW, as shown in Table 1 below.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05DE13.000

2. Comments
    84. Many commenters support increasing the Fast Track threshold
from 2 MW to 5 MW.\181\ IREC states that the purpose of eligibility
limits to the Fast Track Process should be to filter out projects that
are highly unlikely to pass the Fast Track screens in order to save
time and set clear customer expectations. However, IREC states that the
eligibility limits do not need to duplicate or go beyond the Fast Track
screens themselves.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,697 at P 30.
    \181\ AWEA at 4; CREA at 2; IECA at 4-5; NRG at 5; SEIA at 13-
14; Clean Coalition at 7; CEP at 1; ELCON at 4-5; ESA at 3-4; FCHEA
at 1; IECA at 4-5; IREC at 13; LES at 2; Sandia at 2; and Public
Interest Organizations at 10.
    \182\ IREC at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    85. DCOPC states that it has no objections to the new Fast Track
eligibility table proposed for section 2.1 of the SGIP or to raising
the maximum eligibility size from 2 MW to 5 MW, as long as this change
does not compromise system safety and grid reliability.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ DCOPC at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    86. Sandia supports the new Fast Track eligibility proposal in the
NOPR, as it more accurately differentiates interconnection requests
that do not cause impacts from those that could need further study and
states that the characteristics in the proposal for Fast Track
eligibility are technically reasonable.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Sandia at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    87. Clean Coalition states that it prefers no Fast Track
eligibility threshold because the Fast Track screens themselves
eliminate projects that are not appropriate for the Fast Track
Process.\185\ However, Clean Coalition states that because of utility
concerns about eliminating the threshold, it supports the Commission's
proposal for increasing the threshold.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Clean Coalition at 7.
    \186\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    88. Max Hensley states that the Commission should allow facilities
of up to 10 MW to qualify for the Fast Track Process. Mr. Hensley
believes this would increase the market for distributed solar power
generation and lower prices for residential customers.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ Max Hensley at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    89. ITC generally supports increasing the upper bound of the Fast
Track proposal based on line voltage, line amperage and proximity to
the substation but is concerned that Interconnection Customers will
abuse the 5 MW limit by submitting multiple interconnection requests
for the same project in an effort to circumvent the Study Process, to
the detriment of system reliability (e.g., a 20 MW wind farm comprised
of five 4-MW wind turbines might submit five separate interconnection
requests rather than a single 20 MW interconnection request). ITC
recommends that the Commission allow individual ISOs or RTOs to
coordinate Fast Track interconnections through their existing
interconnection queue process to ensure Interconnection Customers are
not able to circumvent the required studies necessary to protect safety
and reliability.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ ITC at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    90. ISO-NE requests that the Final Rule allow flexibility to
account for eligibility limits that may be unique to the region. For
example, ISO-NE states that eligibility for the Fast Track Process in
New England is limited to interconnections to distribution facilities
and does not apply to facilities rated 69 kV or higher that are used
for regional transmission service.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ ISO-NE at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    91. NYISO & NYTO do not believe the Commission's proposed expansion
of the Fast Track eligibility to 5 MW and the introduction of minimum
load and other screens for the supplemental review process are likely
to improve the time and cost to process the interconnection requests of
small facilities in New York at this time.\190\ NYISO & NYTO state that
most of the very small generating facilities in New York seek to
interconnect to distribution facilities that are not subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction and are generally able to skip most, if not
all, of the time and expense of the full study process due to their
limited system impacts.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ NYISO & NYTO at 16.
    \191\ Id. at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    92. Duke Energy states that the proposed values in the Fast Track
threshold table are not realistic for distribution systems. Duke Energy
asserts that, based on its experience, a 1 MW generator proposing to
interconnect to its distribution facilities

under 5 kV, which are lightly loaded and have small conductor sizes,
would not pass the Fast Track screens because it would likely exceed
the minimum load of the line section and might exceed the rating of the
conductor.\192\ Duke Energy therefore urges the Commission to consider
lowering the proposed threshold levels to values that are more
realistic for a distribution system.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ Duke Energy at 7.
    \193\ Id. at 9-10. See Duke Energy at 9 for its proposed Fast
Track eligibility table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    93. NRECA, EEI & APPA support basing Fast Track eligibility on
individual system and generator characteristics.\194\ They state that
it is difficult to use the size of the generator as a threshold to
determine whether the Small Generating Facility should go through the
Fast Track Process and that the location of the point of common
coupling and the interconnecting feeder and loading characteristics
should be major factors for determining Fast Track eligibility.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 19.
    \195\ Id. at 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    94. NRECA, EEI & APPA assert that there is no standard definition
of distribution system voltages in the United States and that there
needs to be an upper bound voltage class limit that captures voltages
of up to 69 kV. They state that the Commission should continue to
follow its own precedent of taking into account the differences in
utilities' distribution systems by building a degree of flexibility
into the Final Rule with respect to the criteria for determining Fast
Track eligibility.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    95. NRECA, EEI & APPA note that in Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
the Fast Track Process does not include a 2 MW limit, but instead
inverter-based equipment that has been ``listed'' using the UL1741
testing procedure is eligible for an expedited process.\197\ They state
that multiple inverter projects may or may not be considered ``listed''
in the proposed configuration, which means that some projects may not
be eligible for the Fast Track Process.\198\ According to NRECA, EEI &
APPA, on a regional level, the capacity of solar projects that tend to
pass the screen tests is typically in the 2 MW range. They therefore
urge the Commission to keep this factor in mind when considering
raising the limit to 5 MW.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ Id.
    \198\ Id. at 20-21.
    \199\ Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    96. NRECA, EEI & APPA state that they are concerned that the third
column of the Fast Track eligibility table in the NOPR, which refers to
the location of a distributed generation facility on the feeder system
relative to the distance from the source substation, would raise
expectations from developers that they may be eligible for the Fast
Track Process when they may not be.\200\ The SWG agreed on proposed
revised language to be inserted in section 2.1 of the SGIP to clarify
the intent of the Fast Track eligibility limits and to address concerns
regarding the role of the eligibility limits in setting customer
expectations.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ Id.
    \201\ IREC at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    97. Several commenters \202\ submitted the table for Fast Track
eligibility proposed by the SWG as shown in Table 2 below. The SWG
proposes revising the Fast Track eligibility threshold applicable to
inverter-based generators. The SWG also proposes the following changes
to Fast Track Process eligibility: (1) Making all projects
interconnecting to lines greater than 69-kV ineligible for the Fast
Track Process (inverter-based projects interconnecting to lines up to
and including 69 kV would be eligible for the Fast Track Process based
on Table 2 below); (2) maintaining the current 2 MW limit for Fast
Track eligibility for synchronous and induction machines (as opposed to
inverter-based generators); (3) for lines below 5 kV, changing the Fast
Track eligibility regardless of location to 500 kW for inverter-based
projects; and (4) in the third column of the table, replacing ``>= 600
Ampere Line'' with ``a Mainline'' and a footnote defining ``Mainline.''
203 204 205
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ NRECA, EEI & APPA Appendix A; IREC Attachment A; NREL
Attachment; and SEIA Attachment B. The Commission notes that there
were minor differences among the tables submitted by NRECA, EEI &
APPA, IREC, SEIA and NREL.
    \203\ IREC at 14-15.
    \204\ NRECA, EEI & APPA, Appendix A.
    \205\ AWG is American wire gauge, a standardized system used for
the diameters of round conducting wires to help determine its
current-carrying capacity and electrical resistance.

  Table 2--Fast Track Eligibility for Listed Inverter-Based Systems as
                      Proposed by NRECA, EEI & APPA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fast Track
                                      Fast Track       eligibility on a
          Line voltage                eligibility       mainline * and
                                     regardless of      <=2.5 miles **
                                       location         from substation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<5 kilovolt (kV)................            <=500 kW            <=500 kW
>=5 kV and <15 kV...............              <=2 MW              <=3 MW
>=15 kV and <30 kV..............              <=3 MW              <=4 MW
>=30 kV and <70 kV..............              <=4 MW              <=5 MW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For purposes of this table, a mainline will typically constitute lines
  with wire sizes of 4/0 AWG, 336.4 kcmil, 397.5 kcmil, 477 kcmil and
  795 kcmil.
** Electrical Circuit Miles.
*** An Interconnection Customer can determine this information in
  advanced [sic] by requesting a Pre-Application Report pursuant to
  section 1.2 [of the SGIP].

    98. IREC believes the proposed revisions to the Fast Track
eligibility table agreed to by the SWG are reasonable and reflect a
technically justified approach to Fast Track eligibility. It recommends
that the Commission adopt the proposed revisions.\206\ Further, IREC
states that some projects connecting to lines greater than 69 kV should
go through the Study Process because the cost of interconnecting to
larger lines is likely to be significant enough that generators may
benefit from a more thorough cost estimate.\207\ Regarding the 2 MW
Fast Track eligibility limit for synchronous, induction machines, IREC
notes that there are important technical differences between these
generators and inverter-based systems that may require further
consideration, so the SWG agreed that the Commission should maintain
the current limit for these generators.\208\ Finally, IREC states that
although it believes that the MW limits proposed by the Commission in
the NOPR are sufficiently conservative, it supports the

SWG proposal because it provides comfort to utilities interconnecting
generators on lines below 5 kV.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ IREC at 14.
    \207\ Id. at 15.
    \208\ Id.
    \209\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. While SEIA would prefer to eliminate the threshold for
participation in the Fast Track Process, it views the Commission's
proposal as a reasonable and appropriate balance between a developer's
need for an efficient interconnection process and the safety and
reliability concerns raised with respect to broadening the Fast Track
screens.\210\ SEIA supports the agreement reached by the SWG on
revisions to the Commission's proposal, which primarily narrows the
scope of projects that would be eligible for the Fast Track Process at
either end of the voltage spectrum, while maintaining Fast Track
eligibility for the vast majority of distributed solar projects.\211\
SEIA believes the Commission's proposal as modified by the SWG
represents a reasonable compromise between developers and Transmission
Providers and therefore recommends that the Commission adopt the SWG's
proposal on Fast Track Process eligibility.\212\ Public Interest
Organizations and NREL also support the SWG's proposed changes to Fast
Track eligibility.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ SEIA at 13-14.
    \211\ Id. at 14.
    \212\ Id.
    \213\ NREL at 3 and Public Interest Organizations at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    100. NYISO & NYTO support the SWG's revised Fast Track eligibility
table, but state that the upper voltage limit for a very small
generating facility's eligibility in the Fast Track Process should be
limited to 50 kV.\214\ They note that the system modifications and
costs associated with a Small Generating Facility interconnecting to 69
kV facilities in New York will require careful evaluation to ensure
safety and reliability and should therefore remain within the Study
Process.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ NYISO & NYTO at 17.
    \215\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    101. AWEA opposes limiting Fast Track eligibility to 2 MW for
synchronous and induction machines. AWEA states that it understands the
reason for this limit is due to concerns about the fault current
contribution of different types of wind turbine generators. It states
that these concerns are unfounded and that wind turbines up to 5 MW
should be allowed to participate in the Fast Track Process.
Alternatively, AWEA states that screens that identify the type of wind
turbine and the fault current contribution of that type could be used
to allow wind turbines to participate in the Fast Track Process up to 5
MW.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ AWEA Supplemental Comments at 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    102. The Commission concludes that it is just and reasonable to
adopt the Fast Track eligibility thresholds proposed by the SWG, with
modifications as discussed below.
    103. The Commission agrees with the following reforms proposed by
the SWG: (1) Modifying Fast Track eligibility for inverter-based
machines to be based on individual system and generator
characteristics; (2) for lines below 5 kV, limiting Fast Track
eligibility to generators less than 500 kW for a conductor less than 5
kV regardless of location; and (3) making all projects interconnecting
to lines greater than 69-kV ineligible for the Fast Track Process. The
Commission finds that the modifications to Fast Track eligibility
proposed by the SWG, reflected in Table 3 below, are just and
reasonable and strike a balance between allowing larger projects to use
the Fast Track Process while ensuring safety and reliability.

 Table 3--Fast Track Eligibility for Inverter-Based Systems, as Adopted
                           in This Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fast Track
                                      Fast Track       eligibility on a
                                      eligibility      mainline \1\ and
          Line voltage               regardless of     <=2.5 electrical
                                       location       circuit miles from
                                                        substation \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<5 kilovolt (kV)................            <=500 kW            <=500 kW
>=5 kV and <15 kV...............              <=2 MW              <=3 MW
>=15 kV and <30 kV..............              <=3 MW              <=4 MW
>=30 kV and <=69 kV.............              <=4 MW              <=5 MW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this table, a mainline is the three-phase backbone
  of a circuit. It will typically constitute lines with wire sizes of 4/
  0 American wire gauge, 336.4 kcmil, 397.5 kcmil, 477 kcmil and 795
  kcmil.
\2\ An Interconnection Customer can determine this information about its
  proposed interconnection location in advance by requesting a pre-
  application report pursuant to section 1.2 of the SGIP.

    104. The SWG's proposed Fast Track eligibility table indicates that
it is applicable to ``listed'' (see Table 2 above) inverter-based
systems. However, section 2.1 of the SGIP states that a Small
Generating Facility must meet the ``codes, standards, and certification
requirements of Attachments 3 and 4'' of the SGIP, ``or the
Transmission Provider has to have reviewed the design or tested the
proposed Small Generating Facility and is satisfied that it is safe to
operate.'' In order to eliminate potential confusion regarding the
applicability of the Fast Track Process and to eliminate potential
conflicts between the language of section 2.1 of the SGIP and the Fast
Track eligibility table (Table 3 above), the Commission does not adopt
the references to listing or certification in the title of the table
submitted by the SWG. In doing so, the text of the Fast Track
eligibility table will be consistent with section 2.1, which allows
that Small Generating Facilities either be certified or have been
reviewed or tested by the Transmission Provider and determined to be
safe to operate. We also note that in section 2.1 of the SGIP, we only
refer to ``certified inverter-based systems'' rather than ``listed or
certified inverter-based systems'' as proposed by the SWG because
listing is a type of certification under Attachments 3 and 4 of the
SGIP.
    105. The Commission acknowledges comments stating that voltages
below 5 kV are being phased out. Nonetheless, such facilities can still
be found in parts of the country and, therefore, our reforms must
address reliability concerns with this voltage class. We conclude that
imposing lower limits on lower voltage lines is reasonable. As Duke
Energy notes in its comments, a request to interconnect to distribution
facilities under 5 kV, which are typically lightly loaded and have
small conductor sizes, would likely exceed the minimum load of the line
section and the conductor rating.
    106. The Commission will maintain the 2 MW Fast Track threshold for

synchronous and induction machines as suggested by the SWG because
there are important technical differences between these generators and
inverter-based generators. The Commission notes that, in general, the
technical characteristics of synchronous and induction machines, such
as higher fault current capabilities, may require further study to