1025. We decline to adopt alternative proposals suggested by
various commenters. For example, we do not believe that imposing only a
reporting requirement on study delays is sufficient to resolve the
problem of interconnection queue backlogs and repeatedly delayed
interconnection studies. Similarly, we decline to condition study delay
penalties on the outcome of a show cause proceeding conducted by the
Commission, as suggested by MISO,\1976\ because it would be
administratively burdensome and may not create a sufficient incentive
for transmission providers to meet interconnection study deadlines. We
also decline to adopt suggestions such as creation of favorable rate
treatment for transmission providers that meet interconnection study
deadlines \1977\ or tying interconnection study performance to
executive compensation,\1978\ which we do not believe would ensure that
interconnection customers are able to interconnect in a reliable,
efficient, transparent, and timely manner as effectively as the study
delay penalty structure that we adopt instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1976\ MISO Initial Comments at 79-80.
    \1977\ Longroad Energy Reply Comments at 14-15; Shell Initial
Comments at 11.
    \1978\ Clean Energy States Initial Comments at 10-11; CREA and
NewSun Reply Comments at 57; TAPS Initial Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Affected Systems
a. Need for Reform
i. NOPR Proposal
    1026. In the NOPR, the Commission preliminarily found that the
affected system study process lacks consistency between transmission
providers.\1979\ The Commission stated that, without any requirement
for a timely cost determination, affected system operators may not
return study results in time for interconnection customers to make
informed decisions to facilitate interconnection of their generating
facilities. The Commission added that, due to this lack of information,
there may continue to be late-stage withdrawals resulting from
unexpected high costs for affected system network upgrades that create
restudies and delays.\1980\ The Commission also noted that
interconnection customers recommended standardization of the affected
system study process in both the technical conference in Docket No.
AD18-8-000 and in comments on the ANOPR in Docket No. RM21-17-000,
specifically asking for standardization of the timing of study results,
the amount of study costs, and modeling criteria used in affected
system studies.\1981\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1979\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,104 at P 179 (citing May Joint Task
Force Tr. 67:6-8 (Dan Scripps) (``Specifically, there may be an
opportunity to create a general framework that would be consistent
across RTO seams.''); id. 68:12-18 (Ted Thomas) (agreeing with Chair
Scripps that ``the most effective place that FERC can operate is in
the area where you have two RTOs and the real issue is getting them
on the same page'')).
    \1980\ Id. (citing May Joint Task Force Tr. 67:14-17 (Dan
Scripps) (``[W]e expect the affected systems study process to become
increasingly critical as more renewable resources come online in
renewable rich areas and transmission capacity becomes ever more
scarce.'')).
    \1981\ Id. P 180 (referencing May Joint Task Force Tr. 64:18-24
(Dan Scripps) (stating that ``FERC may have a larger role to play in
issues that cross RTO boundaries, particularly, around cross-RTO
affected system studies where individual RTOs have limited control''
and certainty ``around the timing of affected systems studies'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1027. The Commission noted that, currently, detailed information
about any two transmission providers' affected system study processes
is found in multiple transmission provider documents and is not
necessarily cohesive, which appears to create confusion and
uncertainty.\1982\ The Commission further preliminarily found that,
despite these documents, much of the affected system study process is
ad hoc and, therefore, unclear to interconnection customers. In
addition, the Commission explained that affected system study processes
are highly variable based on region and transmission provider, and they
may not be uniform even across a single transmission provider's
footprint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1982\ Id. P 181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1028. The Commission preliminarily found that the lack of an
affected system study process results in Commission-jurisdictional
rates that are unjust and unreasonable because an interconnection
customer cannot evaluate its costs in a timely manner, which increases
uncertainty and may result in late-stage withdrawals and subsequent
restudies, delays, and increased costs to the remaining interconnection
customers in the interconnection queue.\1983\ The Commission stated
that, without a transparent affected system study process, it appears
that neither an interconnection customer nor the Commission can
evaluate whether the affected system operator has acted in an unduly
discriminatory manner. The Commission further stated that reforms to
improve transparency and coordination, therefore, may be necessary to
establish a just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or
preferential affected system study process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1983\ Id. P 182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments
    1029. Multiple commenters generally support action to address the
Commission's identified need to reform affected system study
processes.\1984\ For example, AEE asserts that existing affected system
study processes are plagued by uncertainty and a lack of transparency,
which, in turn, create delays, interconnection queue withdrawals, and
cost increases.\1985\ Invenergy, Enel, and SEIA assert that current
misalignments in and lack of coordination of affected system study
processes can lead to uncertain, duplicative, or unexpected study
results.\1986\ Some commenters support synchronization and
harmonization of affected system study processes, with NextEra alleging
that study processes across several regions lack transparency,
consistency, coordination, and accountability, which results in errors
and delays.\1987\ Similarly, Google contends that current affected
system study processes lack deadlines or structure, which exacerbates
anticipating interconnection costs and, in turn, stifles
investments.\1988\ National Grid asserts that host transmission system
and affected system study processes can be significantly misaligned
with project development, investment, and financing timelines and
decision points, resulting in unmanageable risk for interconnection
customers.\1989\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1984\ ACE-NY Initial Comments at 8-9; AEE Initial Comments at
34-35; Enel Initial Comments at 58; Google Initial Comments at 5-6,
22; Invenergy Initial Comments at 40; Omaha Public Power Initial
Comments at 12; SEIA Initial Comments at 34-35; Shell Initial
Comments at 30.
    \1985\ AEE Initial Comments at 34-35; see also ELCON Initial
Comments at 7; SEIA Initial Comments at 34-35; Shell Initial
Comments at 30.
    \1986\ Enel Initial Comments at 58; Invenergy Initial Comments
at 40; SEIA Initial Comments at 34-35. Invenergy states that many
commenters acknowledge the need for improvements to current affected
system study processes. Invenergy Reply Comments at 7-8.
    \1987\ APS Initial Comments at 19; ELCON Initial Comments at 7;
NextEra Initial Comments at 31-32; NextEra Reply Comments at 4;
Omaha Public Power Initial Comments at 12.
    \1988\ Google Initial Comments at 5-6, 22; U.S. Chamber of
Commerce Initial Comments at 10-11.
    \1989\ National Grid Initial Comments at 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1030. Several commenters highlight the shortcomings of current pro
forma LGIP requirements and their contribution to affected system study
process problems.\1990\ ACE-NY emphasizes that nothing in the pro forma
LGIP binds the affected system

study process, and, as a result, interconnection customers are open to
significant impacts and unreasonable timelines.\1991\ OMS highlights
the limited control that RTOs/ISOs have regarding the timing of
affected system studies.\1992\ NYISO and Ameren assert that more
specific requirements regarding roles and responsibilities of parties
in the affected system study process are needed.\1993\ According to
Invenergy, the Commission has until now declined to impose any
organized structure around the affected system study process because
affected system network upgrades and associated costs were thought to
be a relatively rare occurrence.\1994\ Invenergy contends that this has
resulted in transmission providers conducting studies using variable
study assumptions and standards and assigning significant system
upgrade costs at any time, even after an interconnecting generating
facility is already in operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1990\ See, e.g., Clean Energy Associations Initial Comments at
47-48; UMPA Initial Comments at 5-6.
    \1991\ ACE-NY Initial Comments at 9.
    \1992\ OMS Initial Comments at 16; see also PJM Reply Comments
at 10 (arguing that an RTO/ISO has no authority to compel other
RTOs/ISOs to complete interconnection studies on its deadline).
    \1993\ Ameren Initial Comments at 22; NYISO Initial Comments at
44.
    \1994\ Invenergy Initial Comments at 39 (citing Order No. 2003,
104 FERC ] 61,103 at P 120).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1031. On the other hand, several commenters doubt whether
standardization of affected system study processes is warranted and
argue that adopting the NOPR proposal will cause timeline problems and
delays.\1995\ SDG&E contends that, based on its experience, affected
system studies infrequently trigger the need for construction of new
network upgrades, and thus it does not find the current process
deficient.\1996\ AECI states that its current coordination process is
not in need of reform because it effectively coordinates with several
affected systems and recognizes the unique situations presented at
different seams.\1997\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1995\ Dominion Initial Comments at 36-37; PJM Initial Comments
at 63; SPP Initial Comments at 17; WAPA Initial Comments at 10.
    \1996\ SDG&E Reply Comments at 3.
    \1997\ AECI Initial Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    1032. We affirm the Commission's preliminary findings in the NOPR
that there is a compelling need for affected system study process
reforms. The record demonstrates that, absent reforms, affected system
studies will likely remain ad hoc, continuing to create and increase
delays in the interconnection process, which leads to increased costs
for both interconnection customers and consumers, thereby failing to
ensure just and reasonable rates. As discussed by commenters, the
existing affected system study processes lack certainty and
transparency, which, in turn, create interconnection queue delays,
interconnection customer withdrawals, and cost increases.\1998\
Affected system study delays continue to be a major reason for
interconnection queue delays.\1999\ We concur with commenters that
better coordination and more specific requirements concerning the role
and responsibilities of affected system transmission providers are
required to address the lack of certainty and transparency.\2000\
Additionally, we agree with commenters that affected system study
process reforms will ensure that interconnection customers are able to
connect in a reliable, efficient, transparent, and timely manner.\2001\
We are unpersuaded by comments that standardizing the affected system
study process will result in timeline problems and delays; \2002\ we
find such claims to be speculative and contrary to the Commission's
experience with standardizing host transmission provider study
processes via the pro forma LGIP.\2003\ We discuss specific aspects of
the affected system-related NOPR proposals and final rule
determinations below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1998\ AEE Initial Comments at 34-35; ELCON Initial Comments at
7; SEIA Initial Comments at 34-35; Shell Initial Comments at 30.
    \1999\ See MISO, Informational Report Regarding Interconnection
Study Delay for 4th Quarter 2022, Docket No. ER19-1960-004, attach.
A at 8 (filed Feb. 14, 2023).
    \2000\ Ameren Initial Comments at 22; NYISO Initial Comments at
44.
    \2001\ MISO Initial Comments at 8 n.20, 12.
    \2002\ Dominion Initial Comments at 36-37; PJM Initial Comments
at 63; SPP Initial Comments at 17; WAPA Initial Comments at 10.
    \2003\ See Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ] 61,103 at PP 10-12; Order
No. 845, 163 FERC ] 61,043 at PP 4, 8, 39, 221, 239, 559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1033. In this final rule, an affected system transmission provider
refers to a public utility transmission provider as the Commission does
not have jurisdiction over the rates, terms, or conditions of service
of non-public utility transmission providers. Thus, the requirements
adopted in this final rule pertaining to affected system transmission
providers are limited to public utility transmission providers.
b. Affected System Study Process
i. NOPR Proposal
    1034. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise the pro forma
LGIP to include an affected system study process.\2004\ The proposed
process includes an initial notification, an affected system scoping
meeting, a study process, the establishment of interconnection queue
priority for the purposes of network upgrade cost allocation, the
presentation of study results and an assessment of those results, and
imposition of penalties if an affected system transmission provider
fails to meet a study deadline. The Commission also proposed to add
several definitions to the pro forma LGIP, including ``affected system
interconnection customer,'' ``affected system network upgrade,''
``affected system scoping meeting,'' and ``affected system study.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2004\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,194 at P 183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1035. The Commission proposed to require that the host transmission
provider notify the affected system operator of a potential affected
system impact caused by an interconnection request within 10 business
days after the close of the first event giving rise to the
identification of an affected system impact.\2005\ The Commission
explained that, for host transmission providers using a cluster study
process, this event could be (1) the cluster request window, (2) the
customer engagement window, (3) the cluster study, or (4) the cluster
restudy as part of the first-ready, first-served cluster study process.
At the same time that the host transmission provider notifies the
affected system operator, the Commission proposed to require the host
transmission provider to provide the interconnection customer with a
list of potential affected systems, along with relevant contact
information. The Commission also proposed to require the host
transmission provider to provide the affected system operator with data
on a monthly basis, or more frequently as needed, about its
transmission system and generation in its interconnection queue for the
duration of the affected system study process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2005\ Id. P 184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1036. The Commission proposed several requirements on transmission
providers acting as an affected system operator, whose transmission
systems may be impacted by the proposed interconnection of a generating
facility to a transmission system other than the transmission
provider's transmission system.\2006\ The Commission proposed to
require the affected system transmission provider, within 15 business
days of receiving notification from the host transmission provider of
an impact on its transmission system, to respond in writing indicating
whether it intends to perform an affected system study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2006\ Id. P 185.

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

    1037. The Commission proposed to require that the affected system
transmission provider schedule an affected system scoping meeting
within seven business days after providing written notification that it
intends to conduct an affected system study.\2007\ The Commission also
proposed to require that the affected system scoping meeting be held
within seven business days after it is scheduled. The Commission
further proposed to require that the affected system transmission
provider include the affected system interconnection customer in the
scoping meeting and use best efforts to include the transmission
provider with whom interconnection has been requested. The Commission
proposed to require the affected system transmission provider to share
the schedule to complete the affected system study with all scoping
meeting attendees within 15 business days after the close of the
scoping meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2007\ Id. P 186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1038. The Commission proposed to require that the affected system
transmission provider tender an affected system study agreement to the
affected system interconnection customer within five business days of
sharing the schedule for the affected system study.\2008\ The
Commission also proposed to require the affected system interconnection
customer to return the executed affected system study agreement within
10 business days of receipt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2008\ Id. P 188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1039. The Commission proposed to require the affected system
transmission provider to use what it referred to as a ``first-ready,
first-served interconnection queue priority approach,'' which would
also determine how affected system network upgrade costs will be
allocated by that transmission provider amongst interconnection
customers in separate transmission systems.\2009\ Specifically, the
Commission explained, in some situations, both affected system
interconnection customers and interconnection customers on the
transmission system of the affected system transmission provider cause
the need for affected system network upgrades; in this case, each
interconnection customer's relative interconnection queue priority must
be determined. The NOPR's proposed first-ready, first-served
interconnection queue priority approach would require the affected
system transmission provider to assign the affected system
interconnection customer a queue position in its interconnection queue
according to when the affected system interconnection customer executes
an affected system study agreement, rather than when the affected
system interconnection customer entered its host transmission
provider's interconnection queue. The Commission explained that such a
position would be equivalent to that of a transmission provider's own
interconnection customer that had just received its cluster study
report. The Commission also proposed to require the affected system
transmission provider to allocate network upgrade costs among equally
queued interconnection customers using a proportional impact method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2009\ Id. P 189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1040. The Commission proposed that the affected system transmission
provider must provide the affected system interconnection customer with
affected system study results within 90 calendar days after the receipt
of the executed affected system study agreement.\2010\ The Commission
proposed to require that the affected system transmission provider
include in the study results both the estimated costs for any network
upgrades identified in the study and the timing for the construction of
those network upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2010\ Id. P 190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1041. The Commission proposed to require that the affected system
transmission provider provide the affected system interconnection
customer with an affected system facilities construction agreement
within 30 calendar days after providing the affected system study
results.\2011\ The Commission proposed that the affected system
interconnection customer would then be required to notify the affected
system transmission provider within five business days of executing the
generator interconnection agreement with its host transmission provider
whether it would like to execute the affected system facilities
construction agreement or request that it be filed unexecuted with the
Commission. The Commission proposed that the affected system
transmission provider would then be required to execute, or file
unexecuted, the affected system facilities construction agreement
within five business days after receiving such direction from the
affected system interconnection customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2011\ Id. P 191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1042. The Commission proposed to impose financial penalties on
affected system transmission providers that fail to timely complete
affected system studies.\2012\ The Commission explained that a host
transmission provider would not be penalized for a late affected system
study and did not require a host transmission provider to wait on the
results of an affected system study to conduct its cluster study, so
that any affected system study delay would not delay such a cluster
study. The Commission clarified that the affected system transmission
provider was the only entity that would be penalized for failure to
timely complete an affected system study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2012\ Id. P 192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Comments
(a) Comments in Support
    1043. Multiple commenters support the NOPR proposal to create a
standardized affected system study process in the pro forma LGIP.\2013\
Consumers Energy asserts that standardization and better
synchronization of timelines and processes between transmission
providers will improve the interconnection process,\2014\ and in
ACORE's opinion, will help to prevent the use of potentially unjust,
unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential ad hoc
approaches.\2015\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2013\ ACE-NY Initial Comments at 8-9; AEE Initial Comments at
34-35; AEP Initial Comments at 31; AES Initial Comments at 21; APPA-
LPPC Initial Comments at 23; CREA and NewSun Initial Comments at 86;
Duke Southeast Utilities Initial Comments at 12; EDF Renewables
Initial Comments at 10; ELCON Initial Comments at 7; Enel Initial
Comments at 2, 57; ENGIE Initial Comments at 8; Fervo Energy Initial
Comments at 6; Google Initial Comments at 5-6; Idaho Power Initial
Comments at 11; NextEra Initial Comments at 31; Ohio Commission
Consumer Advocate Initial Comments at 13; PacifiCorp Initial
Comments at 36; Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 24; Pine Gate
Initial Comments at 41; PPL Initial Comments at 19; SEIA Initial
Comments at 34; Shell Initial Comments at 29.
    \2014\ Consumers Energy Initial Comments at 8; see also Clean
Energy Associations Initial Comments at 47-48; Illinois Commission
Initial Comments at 9; CREA and NewSun Initial Comments at 86-87;
ENGIE Initial Comments at 8; U.S. Chamber of Commerce Initial
Comments at 10-11.
    \2015\ ACORE Initial Comments at 4-5; see also EDF Renewables
Initial Comments at 11; Invenergy Initial Comments at 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1044. Multiple commenters support most or all of the proposed
reforms.\2016\ Pine Gate strongly supports the NOPR proposal's
definitive deadlines for affected system study completion and
associated incentives, arguing that consistent, published criteria will
help determine whether an affected system study is needed and will
provide interconnection customers with the opportunity to conduct their
own engineering analyses applying the criteria in order to better
determine suitable locations for prospective

generating facilities.\2017\ AEP supports the deadlines related to
initiating the affected system study process, stating that deadlines
would help to provide transparency and ensure that the process is
initiated in a timely fashion.\2018\ Interwest, National Grid, and
Invenergy support the proposal to standardize the affected system study
engagement and participation process, asserting that the reforms are a
significant improvement over the status quo.\2019\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2016\ ACE-NY Initial Comments at 9; Google Initial Comments at
23; Pine Gate Initial Comments at 42.
    \2017\ Pine Gate Initial Comments at 42-43; see also ENGIE
Initial Comments at 9-10.
    \2018\ AEP Initial Comments at 31.
    \2019\ Interwest Reply Comments at 16-17; Invenergy Initial
Comments at 40; National Grid Initial Comments at 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Comments in Opposition
    1045. Multiple commenters oppose the NOPR's affected system study
process proposal.\2020\ Some commenters assert that the proposed
process will impose arbitrary and strict deadlines and will be
unworkable.\2021\ Dominion and SDG&E assert that timing for affected
system studies should not be standardized because the necessary study
assumptions depend on timing of studies in the cluster study
process.\2022\ Dominion contends that, if an affected system study is
performed too early, modeling assumptions may not yield meaningful
results, resulting in incorrect cost estimates likely to cause
restudies and late-stage withdrawals.\2023\ PJM argues that studying
affected system interconnection requests before all studies have been
completed, or studying them for ERIS, could cause operational problems,
require curtailment, or lead to late-stage withdrawals after the full
scope of necessary network upgrades is known.\2024\ Similarly, SPP
states that, because the NOPR proposal does not prescribe any
particular level of precision for the cost and timing estimates
associated with affected system upgrades, the results received by the
interconnection customer could lack sufficient detail and lead to
higher-than-anticipated costs.\2025\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2020\ Dominion Initial Comments at 36-37; National Grid Initial
Comments at 37; NextEra Initial Comments at 32; NextEra Reply
Comments at 4; North Carolina Commission and Staff Initial Comments
at 24; Pacific Northwest Utilities Initial Comments at 15; PJM
Initial Comments at 63-64; SDG&E Reply Comments at 3; SPP Initial
Comments at 17; WAPA Initial Comments at 10-11.
    \2021\ Dominion Initial Comments at 37; NextEra Initial Comments
at 32; NextEra Reply Comments at 4; PJM Initial Comments at 63;
SDG&E Reply Comments at 3.
    \2022\ Dominion Initial Comments at 36-37; SDG&E Reply Comments
at 3.
    \2023\ Dominion Initial Comments at 37.
    \2024\ PJM Initial Comments at 64.
    \2025\ SPP Initial Comments at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1046. Several commenters argue that certain elements of the NOPR
proposal do not achieve the goal of increased efficiency.\2026\
Recognizing that affected system studies require separate case
preparations and a greater level of coordination between parties, SDG&E
agrees with CAISO that the proposal has the potential to increase the
number of affected system studies, with limited benefit.\2027\ National
Grid cautions that standardizing the affected system study process will
necessitate host and affected system transmission providers to devote
more resources to that process, which could cause delays.\2028\ PJM
contends that, although the NOPR proposal provides that transmission
providers conducting cluster studies are not required to delay those
studies by waiting for the results of affected system studies, such
delays will be inevitable under the proposed process due to the
additional steps and coordination required and the overlap in personnel
and deadlines.\2029\ PJM and National Grid both express concerns
regarding the justness and reasonableness of the NOPR's penalty regime
given the potential for additional delays in affected system
studies.\2030\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2026\ Id.; CAISO Initial Comments at 28; Dominion Initial
Comments at 36-37; National Grid Initial Comments at 37; PJM Initial
Comments at 63; SDG&E Reply Comments at 3; WAPA Initial Comments at
10.
    \2027\ SDG&E Reply Comments at 3.
    \2028\ National Grid Initial Comments at 37.
    \2029\ PJM Initial Comments at 63.
    \2030\ Id.; National Grid Initial Comments at 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1047. Other commenters argue that the NOPR proposal does not go far
enough to improve efficiency in the affected system study process.
North Carolina Commission and Staff call for more comprehensive
reforms, recognizing the need for coordination between transmission
providers to avoid unnecessary expense and system disruption.\2031\
WAPA recommends that the Commission consider an alternative strategy in
which the host transmission provider includes contingencies and
sensitivity scenarios involving potentially affected systems in its own
studies.\2032\ PJM suggests that, rather than the NOPR's ``overly
prescriptive'' approach, the Commission should require a stated
affected system coordination structure with defined steps and
checkpoints, similar to the process PJM has been working to implement
with neighboring systems through its joint operating agreements.\2033\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2031\ North Carolina Commission and Staff Initial Comments at
24.
    \2032\ WAPA Initial Comments at 10-11.
    \2033\ PJM Initial Comments at 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Comments on Specific Proposal
(1) Definitions
    1048. PPL argues that the proposed term ``affected system
interconnection customer'' is confusing and recommends that the
Commission either remove ``interconnection'' or consider the term
``direct connect system customer,'' asserting that the affected system
interconnection customers are not interconnection customers working
their way through the affected system transmission provider's
interconnection process.\2034\ PPL states that some transmission
providers combine interconnection and transmission and argues that
removing the word ``interconnection'' better accommodates such a
combined group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2034\ PPL Initial Comments at 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1049. Several commenters ask for clarification or modification of
the terms ``affected system'' or ``affected system operator.'' National
Grid asserts that the Commission should clarify whether an affected
system solely includes transmission owners in each region or also
includes neighboring RTOs/ISOs or transmission providers in neighboring
regions.\2035\ NRECA requests that the Commission clarify the scope of
several definitions so that transmission providers will not overlook a
proposed interconnection request's impact on an electric cooperative's
affected system.\2036\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2035\ National Grid Initial Comments at 35.
    \2036\ NRECA Initial Comments at 9, 36-39. More specifically,
NRECA contends that because some transmission providers interpret
the definition of ``Affected System'' to mean a Commission-
jurisdictional transmission system and refuse to recognize that
other electric systems may be affected systems, under the pro forma
LGIP and pro forma LGIA, the Commission should provide that an
``Affected System'' means any affected ``electric system,'' not just
an affected ``Transmission System,'' and that an ``Affected System
Operator'' means any ``entity that operates an Affected System,''
not just a transmission owner or transmission provider. Id. at 36-
37, 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Notification of Affected System Impacts
    1050. Regarding the proposed triggering event at the close of (1)
the cluster request window, (2) the customer engagement window, (3) the
cluster study, or (4) the cluster restudy for a host transmission
provider to notify an affected system operator, PacifiCorp argues that
the 10-business day notification obligation begins with an ill-defined
standard in the NOPR--the ``close of first event giving rise to the
identification of an affected system

impact.'' \2037\ PacifiCorp requests that the Commission clarify this
standard and further clarify that transmission providers will not be
penalized if affected system issues are not discovered until later in
the interconnection process, as such impacts may not always be readily
apparent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2037\ PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1051. Some commenters oppose the proposed requirement in section
3.6.1 of the pro forma LGIP that a host transmission provider, within
10 business days of the triggering event that identifies a potential
affected system impact, notify an affected system operator of such
potential impact.\2038\ WAPA states that the initial notification
requirement could unnecessarily increase costs because the notification
could be received before the system impact study on the host
transmission provider's transmission system is complete and thus before
any potential network upgrades are identified. Duke Southeast Utilities
assert that the notification time frame should be 15 business days
because: (1) the host transmission provider may need additional time to
notify multiple affected system operators of a potential impact within
the same prescribed time frame; and (2) the host transmission provider
may need additional time to gather all necessary information and
compile adequate notification packages, due to the need to include a
technical basis for the affected system impact.\2039\ CAISO states that
the Commission should require transmission providers to begin the
notification process shortly after interconnection customers receive
their initial study results and face higher financial requirements to
proceed in the interconnection queue.\2040\ CAISO explains that this is
when the majority of interconnection customers withdraw their
interconnection requests because they do not wish to put more money at
risk. CAISO argues that using this smaller pool of interconnection
requests will enable faster affected system studies due to decreased
volume and more realistic study assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2038\ Id.; CAISO Initial Comments at 27; Duke Southeast
Utilities Initial Comments at 12; PG&E Reply Comments at 5; WAPA
Initial Comments at 11.
    \2039\ Duke Southeast Utilities Initial Comments at 12.
    \2040\ CAISO Initial Comments at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1052. A few commenters provide suggestions on the content of the
notice that the host transmission provider sends to the affected system
operator. Specifically, APPA-LPPC propose that pro forma LGIP section
3.6.1 be revised to include the following: ``Along with notification to
Interconnection Customer of the list of potential Affected Systems,
Transmission Provider will notify Interconnection Customer and such
Affected Systems whether a single set of studies (Feasibility, System
Impact and Facilities Studies) may be sufficient to manage all related
impacts. A single set of studies may be undertaken upon agreement of
all parties.'' \2041\ Duke Southeast Utilities suggest that, in
addition to such notification, the host transmission provider should
provide evidence of the potential impact, which they assert will assist
the affected system operator in: (1) understanding the host
transmission provider's engineering analysis and assumptions that led
it to identify the potential impact; and (2) determining whether to
conduct an affected system study.\2042\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2041\ APPA-LPPC Initial Comments at 25-26.
    \2042\ Duke Southeast Utilities Initial Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1053. Regarding to whom the host transmission provider should send
the notification, NRECA argues that the notification requirement should
extend to all potential affected systems and any affected system
operators to allow electric cooperative affected system transmission
providers to coordinate with the transmission provider and
interconnection customer to timely address any affected system
impacts.\2043\ Tri-State states that pro forma LGIP section 3.6.1 needs
clarification as to whom the notice is to be directed.\2044\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2043\ NRECA Initial Comments at 38-39.
    \2044\ Tri-State Initial Comments at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1054. Other commenters oppose the proposed requirement in sections
3.6.2 and 9 of the pro forma LGIP that affected system transmission
providers must respond to the notification of affected system impacts
within 15 business days.\2045\ Bonneville advocates that the response
time be flexible and allow for reasonable extensions.\2046\ Bonneville
argues that, if affected system transmission providers only have 15
business days to respond, they will need to err on the side of caution,
which could lead to more affected system studies than necessary,
resulting in study delays. Duke Southeast Utilities assert that the
response time frame should be 20 business days, as the affected system
transmission provider may need additional time if: (1) it has received
multiple notifications within the same time frame; (2) it needs to
request additional data to determine if it intends to perform a study;
(3) its own staff is limited because of deadlines within its own
interconnection process; or (4) it wishes to perform a more detailed
review to ensure that performing a study does not become the default
approach.\2047\ Dominion asserts that a 15-business day requirement
could be reasonable if all affected system notifications were provided
at the same time.\2048\ Dominion contends that piecemeal notifications
make it difficult for an affected system transmission provider to know
if an affected system study is needed until all requests are received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2045\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 18; CAISO Initial Comments
at 27; PG&E Reply Comments at 5; WAPA Initial Comments at 11.
    \2046\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 18.
    \2047\ Duke Southeast Utilities Initial Comments at 13 (noting
that PJM often sends notice of multiple potential impacts from a
single cluster).
    \2048\ Dominion Initial Comments at 37-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1055. Additionally, a few commenters contend that the NOPR proposal
was unclear what would happen if an affected system operator fails to
respond within 15 business days. Enel and ENGIE contend that it is
unclear what the consequence is for an affected system transmission
provider's failure to meet the response deadline.\2049\ Enel encourages
the Commission to add language to the pro forma LGIP to provide that
the affected system transmission provider will forfeit its right to
perform an affected system study if it fails to meet the response
deadline, as a lack of incentive (and relevant penalty) to respond
could result in delayed study results.\2050\ ENGIE suggests that the
affected system transmission provider bear any financial
consequences.\2051\ Pacific Northwest Utilities note that the non-
jurisdictional affected system operator is not required to respond to
the requirements under proposed pro forma LGIP section 3.6.1 and may
not have the mechanisms in place to respond within 15 business
days.\2052\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2049\ Enel Initial Comments at 59-60; ENGIE Initial Comments at
8.
    \2050\ Enel Initial Comments at 59-60; see also Invenergy
Initial Comments at 42-44.
    \2051\ ENGIE Initial Comments at 8.
    \2052\ Pacific Northwest Utilities Initial Comments at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Timing of Affected System Studies
    1056. Several commenters argue that beginning affected system
studies too early may yield unreliable results that could lead to
restudies and late-stage withdrawals, among other problems.\2053\
NextEra asserts that it is unlikely that the host transmission provider
could provide useful information to the

affected system transmission provider at an earlier stage.\2054\ CAISO
and Idaho Power argue that the proposal to begin the affected system
study process as soon as potential impacts are identified will slow
affected system studies or result in unnecessary work for the affected
system transmission provider because the impacts will be assessed based
on transmission providers' entire interconnection queues, even though
many interconnection customers will withdraw early in the
interconnection process.\2055\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2053\ CAISO Initial Comments at 28-29; Dominion Initial
Comments at 37; Enel Initial Comments at 59; Idaho Power Initial
Comments at 11; NextEra Initial Comments at 32-33; WAPA Initial
Comments at 11-12.
    \2054\ NextEra Initial Comments at 32-33.
    \2055\ CAISO Initial Comments at 28-29; Idaho Power Initial
Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1057. CAISO takes issue with the proposed deadlines for completing
affected system studies and claims that the size of modern
interconnection queues makes such quick deadlines impossible. According
to CAISO, such deadlines would result in all affected system
transmission providers exercising their rights to study every
interconnection customer because they have no time to determine whether
studies are necessary.\2056\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2056\ CAISO Initial Comments at 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1058. Invenergy argues that affected system transmission providers
should be subject to a deadline for participation in the process.\2057\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2057\ Invenergy Initial Comments at 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1059. Invenergy asserts that, although the NOPR clearly provides
that a host transmission provider is not required to pause its
interconnection process if an affected system transmission provider
does not timely complete its study, the reality is that this could
leave interconnection customers in the same position they are in now--
being forced under the host transmission provider's timeline to move
forward in the study process and to execute an LGIA (and put money at
risk) without the benefit of affected system study results. Invenergy
contends that the solution is to establish a clear deadline (e.g., LGIA
execution) by which time the affected system transmission provider must
have completed its studies and identified affected system network
upgrades; otherwise, it loses any right to assign affected system
network upgrades to an interconnection request in the future. Invenergy
states that, if the Commission does not impose such a deadline, it
should at least permit interconnection customers that have been forced
under host transmission provider's rules to execute LGIAs in the
absence of affected system study information to: (1) delay posting
security and funding network upgrades under that LGIA until the
affected system study results are received; and (2) have the
opportunity to withdraw without penalty after receiving affected system
study results if the interconnection customer's assigned costs
increased by more than 25% compared to costs allocated by the host
transmission provider.\2058\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2058\ Id. at 25, 43-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1060. Several commenters argue that an affected system study
timeline should be consistent with the cluster study process on the
host transmission provider's transmission system because it can impact
the host transmission provider's study.\2059\ APS requests additional
clarification on how the proposed affected system study process
correlates to the host system studies and aligns with the host system's
requirements.\2060\ Enel acknowledges that the 90-calendar day affected
system study deadline may be problematic for transmission providers
that have 150 calendar days to run the same scope of studies for their
own interconnection requests.\2061\ AEP stresses the need for
coordination between these studies, which it argues would provide the
interconnection customer with a more meaningful cost estimate, with
coordination resulting in affected system and host system study results
being presented around the same time.\2062\ Enel contends that the
affected system transmission provider should be required to complete
any affected system impact studies no later than the host transmission
provider's deadline to complete the cluster restudy.\2063\ Enel asserts
that this initial affected system study should be completed before the
interconnection customer must satisfy requirements to enter the
facilities study, at which point the interconnection customer faces a
higher withdrawal penalty. Enel contends that the NOPR proposal could
result in an affected system transmission provider being notified that
an affected system study is needed after final results of the cluster
restudy are complete, meaning that an affected system study may not be
completed until or even after the execution of an LGIA. Enel argues
that, after affected system studies are complete, an interconnection
customer could have its costs double just before (or even after) an
LGIA is executed, and penalty-free withdrawal under proposed pro forma
LGIP section 3.7.1 would only apply if assigned interconnection costs
increase by more than 100%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2059\ APPA-LPPC Initial Comments at 26; AEP Initial Comments at
31; Bonneville Initial Comments at 21; NV Energy Initial Comments at
11.
    \2060\ APS Initial Comments at 19-20.
    \2061\ Enel Initial Comments at 65.
    \2062\ AEP Initial Comments at 31-32.
    \2063\ Enel Initial Comments at 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1061. Several commenters argue that the timing of affected system
studies should be structured to reduce potential burdens. Idaho Power
suggests that affected system studies be performed after the initial
cluster study to minimize unnecessary work and ensure that only
interconnection requests moving into the cluster restudy have their
affected system impacts studied.\2064\ Dominion notes that PJM recently
sought to address timing issues by incorporating affected system
studies into later phases of its cluster studies.\2065\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2064\ Idaho Power Initial Comments at 11.
    \2065\ Dominion Initial Comments at 37 (citing PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., Tariff Revisions for Interconnection
Process Reform Transmittal Letter, Docket No. ER22-2110-000, at 55,
59-60 (filed June 14, 2022)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Affected System Scoping Meeting
    1062. Several commenters express concern about the proposed
requirement in section 3.6.2 of the pro forma LGIP that the affected
system transmission provider (1) schedule an affected system scoping
meeting within seven business days after providing written notification
that it intends to conduct an affected system study and (2) hold that
meeting within seven business days after it is scheduled.\2066\
Bonneville and Dominion assert that holding the scoping meeting within
this time frame might not be realistic because these meetings are
contingent upon the availability of multiple attendees.\2067\ CAISO
contends that the proposal to schedule affected system scoping meetings
within seven business days is impossible and that affected system
transmission providers would simply hold scoping meetings to comply,
having had no time to prepare anything meaningful for the
meeting.\2068\ MISO argues that the Commission should allow each pair
of transmission providers to develop their own schedule for the scoping
process rather than mandating a one-size-fits-all schedule.\2069\ MISO
asserts that this is particularly true for RTOs/ISOs with joint
operating and/or planning agreements, which MISO claims should

be able to justify their existing procedures on compliance via the
independent entity variation standard. Bonneville emphasizes
flexibility and proposes that the phrase ``unless otherwise agreed to''
be added to this requirement.\2070\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2066\ Id. at 38; Bonneville Initial Comments at 18-19; CAISO
Initial Comments at 28; MISO Initial Comments at 86. WAPA also
asserts that a meeting after the affected system study is completed
would be more beneficial than the proposed affected system scoping
meeting, as the proposed meeting would only provide speculative
impacts that might be caused by an interconnection request. WAPA
Initial Comments at 12.
    \2067\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 18-19; Dominion Initial
Comments at 38.
    \2068\ CAISO Initial Comments at 28.
    \2069\ MISO Initial Comments at 86.
    \2070\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1063. Pacific Northwest Utilities state that, provided that
regulated utilities properly invite the non-jurisdictional affected
system transmission provider to the affected system scoping meeting,
the Commission should clarify that such steps are sufficient to
demonstrate that the regulated transmission provider has met its
requirements under this section.\2071\ Further, Pacific Northwest
Utilities note that the non-jurisdictional affected system transmission
provider is not required to respond to the requirements under section
3.6.2 of the pro forma LGIP and may not be prepared to attend the
affected system scoping meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2071\ Pacific Northwest Utilities Initial Comments at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) Affected System Study Process
    1064. Multiple commenters advocate for changes to the proposed
requirement in section 3.6.3 of the pro forma LGIP that the
transmission provider provide data monthly, or more frequently as
needed, regarding the amount and location of generation in the
transmission provider's interconnection queue, as well as updated
information about the transmission provider's transmission system.
NRECA states that the proposed information sharing requirement is
essential but should not be limited to notifying or providing data to a
transmission provider acting as an affected system operator but should
extend to all potential affected systems and any affected system
operators to allow electric cooperative affected system operators to
perform studies and coordinate with the transmission provider and
interconnection customer to timely address any affected system
impact.\2072\ MISO argues that the Commission should not impose an
arbitrary time frame for data reports and suggests that such
information should be provided only at times when it changes.\2073\
MISO asserts that updates are not likely to be helpful to
interconnection customers until the next study stage has been
completed. NV Energy requests that the Commission move to quarterly
reporting because monthly updates would not be helpful and may provide
dramatic swings in study results, which could trigger the need for an
affected system study to start over.\2074\ NV Energy also requests that
assumptions for studies be coordinated between the host transmission
provider and affected system operator and that updates become quarterly
after the study has been issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2072\ NRECA Initial Comments at 38-39.
    \2073\ MISO Initial Comments at 86.
    \2074\ NV Energy Initial Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1065. LADWP requests clarification as to what specific data
``updated information about the transmission provider's transmission
system'' refers.\2075\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2075\ LADWP Initial Comments at 4 (citing NOPR, 179 FERC ]
61,194 at P 187).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1066. Bonneville and Dominion argue that the proposed information
sharing requirement is duplicative or unnecessary. Bonneville posits
that the requirement is duplicative of information that is already
available on OASIS.\2076\ Dominion argues that this requirement is
overly cumbersome given transmission providers' limited resources and
numerous obligations and may produce data that the affected system may
not even want or use.\2077\ Dominion asserts that it would be more
efficient to require the host transmission provider to provide such
information upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2076\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 19.
    \2077\ Dominion Initial Comments at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) Affected System Queue Position
    1067. Several commenters support the NOPR proposal's first-ready,
first-served interconnection queue priority approach in proposed
section 9.2 of the pro forma LGIP.\2078\ OMS and MISO argue that MISO
and SPP's recently approved changes to their joint operating agreement
to modify the queue priority and coordination rules for affected system
studies conform to the NOPR's proposed approach and are an equitable
means for sharing costs for network upgrades amongst interconnection
customers in different regions and encourages timely processing of
affected system impacts.\2079\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2078\ Alliant Energy Initial Comments at 7; EDF Renewables
Initial Comments at 11; Invenergy Initial Comments at 40; MISO
Initial Comments at 11-12; NextEra Reply Comments at 5; OMS Initial
Comments at 17.
    \2079\ MISO Initial Comments at 88; OMS Initial Comments at 17
(citing Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 179 FERC ] 61,148 (2022)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1068. However, Bonneville and NextEra assert that the NOPR does not
adequately address the important issue of queue priority
coordination.\2080\ NextEra argues that the notion of interconnection
customers racing to be the first (or perhaps the last) to sign an
affected system study agreement as a way of setting queue priority will
result in conflict.\2081\ NextEra contends that, instead, the goal
should be to ensure that transmission providers acting as affected
systems perform affected system studies on a timeline that is
consistent with the host transmission system's stated schedule so that
results are delivered in a timely manner and interconnection customers
can be well-informed in their decision making. NextEra recommends that
each pair of transmission providers whose interconnection customers
affect each other's system enter into agreements, to be filed with the
Commission, specifying how they will ensure appropriate queue priority
in affected system studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2080\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 20; NextEra Reply Comments
at 5.
    \2081\ NextEra Reply Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1069. Bonneville argues that the queue priority for affected system
interconnection requests should be determined by giving priority to an
interconnection request in an affected system study over any
interconnection request that has not yet started the cluster study on
the host transmission system.\2082\ Bonneville contends that if an
affected system interconnection request receives higher queue priority
relative to any interconnection requests for which the host
transmission provider has started the cluster study but has not yet
provided cluster study reports, then such a queue priority framework
would introduce uncertainty into the cluster study process, as an
affected system notification could be received during the cluster study
process and trigger a restudy, delays, and increased costs to the
participants of the cluster study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2082\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1070. Other commenters argue for different approaches to affected
system queue priority or allocation of affected system network upgrade
costs. ENGIE argues that, although assigning an affected system queue
position appears beneficial for assigning network upgrade costs, it
could also create delays for the interconnection customer because it
would be beholden to two separate interconnection queues.\2083\ ENGIE
recommends that the Commission allocate network upgrade costs outside
of the interconnection queue on an ex post basis to avoid the double-
queue situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2083\ ENGIE Initial Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1071. Enel asserts that the NOPR's proposed queue priority
determination method will result in additional uncertainty about timing
of affected system studies, incomplete and inaccurate cluster study
results, and the

need for restudies.\2084\ Although Enel agrees that establishing queue
priority between host and affected system interconnection requests is
essential, Enel disagrees with the NOPR proposal to establish the
affected system interconnection request's queue priority according to
when the affected system interconnection customer executes an
``affected system study.'' \2085\ Enel states that this must be a typo
that should say ``affected system study agreement.'' Enel also notes
that proposed pro forma LGIP section 9.2 does not clearly state which
event establishes the date by which an affected system interconnection
request receives its queue priority relative to host system
interconnection requests and requests clarification on this
point.\2086\ Enel further states that, if affected system queue
priority is established based on an individual date, transmission
providers would need to process affected system interconnection
requests serially rather than by cluster and recommends that the
Commission adopt a queue priority framework in which affected system
interconnection requests would be studied in the same cluster grouping
that the host transmission provider uses.\2087\ Enel also recommends
that queue priority be assigned based on the deadline for entry into
the host transmission provider's interconnection queue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2084\ Enel Initial Comments at 62-63.
    \2085\ Id. at 61.
    \2086\ Id. at 61-62.
    \2087\ Id. at 62-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1072. Several commenters request or propose specific clarifications
regarding proposed pro forma LGIP section 9.2, including how the
proposed first-ready, first-served interconnection queue priority
approach interacts with cluster studies.\2088\ EDF Renewables
recommends that, to better synchronize the host and affected system
study processes, the affected system operator should establish queue
priority between the host and affected system based on the
interconnection request achieving a certain stage in the host system's
study process, rather than the date the interconnection request was
submitted.\2089\ APPA-LPPC ask that the Commission clarify proposed pro
forma LGIP section 9.2 and the related obligations under pro forma LGIP
sections 9.8 and 4.2.3.\2090\ APPA-LPPC state that, as drafted,
proposed pro forma LGIP section 9.2 suggests a queue position for an
interconnection customer independent of ongoing and pending cluster
studies while pro forma LGIP section 9.8 and cross-referenced pro forma
LGIP section 4.2.3 contemplate the allocation of associated costs
incurred by affected systems in the context of a cluster study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2088\ APPA-LPPC Initial Comments at 26; Idaho Power Initial
Comments at 11; NextEra Initial Comments at 33.
    \2089\ EDF Renewables Initial Comments at 11.
    \2090\ APPA-LPPC Initial Comments at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1073. Additionally, MISO recommends that the final rule clarify an
enforcement mechanism, such as loss of relative queue priority used
under the MISO-SPP joint operating agreement, for the proposed first-
ready, first-served interconnection queue priority approach.\2091\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2091\ MISO Initial Comments at 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(7) Affected System Study Agreement
    1074. Dominion and Duke Southeast Utilities suggest doubling the
amount of time that transmission providers would have under proposed
pro forma LGIP section 9.3 to tender an affected system study agreement
after sharing the schedule for the affected system study.\2092\ Duke
Southeast Utilities assert that it usually takes more than five
business days to receive all needed interconnection request information
to draft an affected system study agreement (an often iterative
process).\2093\ Duke Southeast Utilities state that more time will help
affected system transmission providers that may need to draft numerous
affected system study agreements within the same time frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2092\ Dominion Initial Comments at 38; Duke Southeast Utilities
Initial Comments at 14.
    \2093\ Duke Southeast Utilities Initial Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1075. Bonneville requests clarification as to whether the failure
to execute the affected system study agreement, execute the affected
system facilities construction agreement, or provide the affected
system study deposit would be grounds for removal from the host
transmission provider's interconnection queue.\2094\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2094\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(8) Affected System Study Scope and Timeline
    1076. Many commenters, including transmission providers, argue that
the Commission should clarify the scope of required affected system
studies by addressing whether an affected system facilities study will
be required under section 9 of the pro forma LGIP.\2095\ For example,
Duke Southeast Utilities state that the NOPR proposal is unclear on
whether ``affected system study results'' is intended to reflect the
results of a system impact study, a facilities study, or a combination
thereof.\2096\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2095\ APPA-LPPC Initial Comments at 26; Duke Southeast
Utilities Initial Comments at 15; Enel Initial Comments at 65;
Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 24.
    \2096\ Duke Southeast Utilities Initial Comments at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1077. Several commenters request that the Commission explicitly
include a facilities study in the affected system study process.\2097\
Duke Southeast Utilities, Enel, NV Energy, and SPP assert that
explicitly including a facilities study in the affected system study
process would provide both affected system transmission provider and
affected system interconnection customer with more refined estimated
costs and construction timelines.\2098\ Pattern Energy argues that a
facilities study is a useful tool for scoping and pricing network
upgrades and other facilities necessary to mitigate transmission-
related contingencies,\2099\ and LADWP argues that a facilities study
would improve the efficiency of the overall process by minimizing
discrepancies discovered after execution of a construction
agreement.\2100\ APPA-LPPC request that the Commission confirm that it
does not intend to foreclose the possibility of affected system
facilities studies being conducted, as a facilities study is needed to
ascertain the precise nature of any network upgrades that an
interconnection customer may cause.\2101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2097\ Id.; APPA-LPPC Initial Comments at 26; Enel Initial
Comments at 65; LADWP Initial Comments at 4; NV Energy Initial
Comments at 11; Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 25; SPP Initial
Comments at 16-17.
    \2098\ Duke Southeast Utilities Initial Comments at 15; Enel
Initial Comments at 65; NV Energy Initial Comments at 11; SPP
Initial Comments at 16-17.
    \2099\ LADWP Initial Comments at 4; Pattern Energy Initial
Comments at 24-25.
    \2100\ LADWP Initial Comments at 4.
    \2101\ APPA-LPPC Initial Comments at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1078. Shell argues for including further information regarding
local transmission planning from neighboring transmission providers in
affected system study results because early identification of all
transmission-related mitigation will ensure that interconnection
customers can anticipate affected system network upgrades as early as
possible.\2102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2102\ Shell Initial Comments at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1079. Several commenters, including transmission providers, argue
that the 90-calendar day time frame for completion of the affected
system study, from the date an affected system transmission provider
receives an executed affected system study agreement from the affected
system interconnection customer to the date the affected system
transmission provider presents the affected system study report to the
affected system

interconnection customer, as proposed in pro forma LGIP section 9.6,
does not provide affected system transmission providers sufficient time
to complete the study.\2103\ Bonneville requests that the Commission
clarify whether the schedule to complete the affected system study
could include a due date that is in excess of the 90-calendar day
timeline.\2104\ Tri-State requests the addition of ``and deposit'' to
proposed pro forma LGIP section 9.6, such that the 90-calendar day
period would begin after the receipt of the executed affected system
study agreement and deposit.\2105\ MISO requests that the Commission
clarify that the study clock would commence only after all necessary
data has been received.\2106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2103\ AEP Initial Comments at 31; WAPA Initial Comments at 13.
    \2104\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 19.
    \2105\ Tri-State Initial Comments at 19.
    \2106\ MISO Initial Comments at 93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1080. Other commenters support the NOPR proposal or argue that
affected system interconnection customers should be given the results
of affected system studies as early as possible. Interwest states that
it agrees with commenters that the proposed 90-calendar day time limit,
combined with monetary penalties, will help instill discipline and
support investments needed to meet the timelines.\2107\ Shell asserts
that affected system study results must be provided before or in
conjunction with system impact study results on the host transmission
system, or at the latest, before interconnection customers are required
to proceed to the facilities study on the host transmission system, as
interconnection customers typically pursue financing after receiving
system impact study results and before advancing to the facilities
study and doing so will avoid last minute network upgrade costs that
undermine project viability and cause interconnection queue
withdrawals.\2108\ Shell supports an option for interconnection
customers to pause the interconnection study process on the host
transmission system for an affected system study to ``catch-up'' if
such an option lowers the risk of receiving late affected system study
results. Similarly, Interwest asserts that affected system
interconnection customers should be permitted to delay posting security
and funding network upgrades, if there are delays in affected system
studies, which Interwest contends is a reasonable accommodation that
allows such affected system interconnection customers to reduce
risks.\2109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2107\ Interwest Reply Comments at 17.
    \2108\ Shell Initial Comments at 30-31.
    \2109\ Interwest Reply Comments at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1081. Additionally, WAPA expresses concern about its ability to
tender an affected system facilities construction agreement to an
interconnection customer within 30 calendar days of providing the
affected system study report, as proposed in pro forma LGIP section
9.9.\2110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2110\ WAPA Initial Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1082. Several commenters oppose, ask for clarification, or propose
alternatives regarding the scope and applicability of the financial
penalties that would apply if a transmission provider does not meet the
study completion deadlines set forth in proposed pro forma LGIP section
9.6. AECI asserts that, so long as affected system transmission
providers are using good utility practice and appropriate due diligence
to complete affected system studies, there is no benefit of imposing
additional penalties on affected system transmission providers.\2111\
ENGIE states that it is unclear who bears the financial penalties for
late affected system studies.\2112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2111\ AECI Initial Comments at 7.
    \2112\ ENGIE Initial Comments at 9. Additionally, ENGIE states
that transmission owners typically have responsibilities for
affected system studies and, therefore, argues that the Commission
should consider language that distributes financial risk and
penalties to both transmission owners and transmission providers,
including an ability for transmission providers to recover costs
from transmission owners. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1083. MISO, in contrast, interprets the NOPR proposal as applying
penalties only to the affected system transmission provider, and
recommends that the Commission recognize that some delays may be beyond
the control of the affected system transmission provider and not
penalize affected system transmission providers for third-party
delays.\2113\ Similarly, Duke Southeast Utilities express concern that
penalties could be levied against affected system transmission
providers for delays beyond their control, and further argue that the
Commission should consider imposing multilateral penalties on all
entities in accordance with their individual obligations set forth in
the proposed process.\2114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2113\ MISO Initial Comments at 92. WAPA also is generally
concerned about the imposition of monetary penalties for failure to
meet deadlines and questions whether Federal agencies like WAPA
should, or even can be, subject to monetary penalties. See WAPA
Initial Comments at 10, 14.
    \2114\ Duke Southeast Utilities Initial Comments at 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1084. Several commenters state that the cost estimates provided in
affected system study results should be non-binding, or that certain
types of cost increases related to affected system study results should
allow interconnection customers to withdraw their interconnection
requests without penalty.\2115\ Similarly, Shell asserts that the
Commission should allow penalty-free withdrawals in the event of late
affected system network upgrade costs that surpass a certain threshold,
arguing that such circumstances are beyond the interconnection
customer's control.\2116\ PacifiCorp states that any cost estimates
identified by affected system operators should be non-binding, given
that they could be subject to change.\2117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2115\ Invenergy Initial Comments at 25; Shell Initial Comments
at 31; PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 36.
    \2116\ Shell Initial Comments at 31.
    \2117\ PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1085. Pattern Energy believes that the Commission should provide
incentives for transmission providers to provide more reasonable and
accurate cost estimates for network upgrades and related facilities,
even for affected system studies.\2118\ Pattern Energy claims that the
Commission should not adopt ``good faith'' to be the standard on which
cost estimates are provided in affected system studies, asserting that
reasonable cost estimates based on defined metrics should be the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2118\ Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(9) Affected System Network Upgrade Cost Allocation
    1086. SEIA supports the NOPR proposal to allocate affected system
network upgrade costs using a proportional impact method, arguing that
this method should help to reduce individual interconnection customer
network upgrade costs by allowing interconnection customers to share
the cost and, in doing so, reduce the likelihood of cascading
withdrawals.\2119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2119\ SEIA Initial Comments at 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1087. Other commenters stress the importance of certainty and
fairness in cost allocation rules. For example, National Grid contends
that cost allocation rules should provide certainty to interconnection
customers at a reasonable point in the interconnection process, while
also having appropriate rules to allocate changes in cost allocations
that arise after the date that network upgrade costs are
finalized.\2120\ National Grid suggests that this could be achieved by
finalizing network upgrade cost allocations at the facilities study
phase of the host transmission provider's interconnection study
process, subject to risk sharing cost allocation rules, whereby later
changes due to the identification of additional required facilities
could be

shared between the interconnection customer and load in a transmission
provider's footprint based on the principle of beneficiary pays,
through various particular methodologies, including those used for
transmission planning upgrades or those based on geography.\2121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2120\ National Grid Initial Comments at 35.
    \2121\ Interwest Reply Comments at 17; National Grid Initial
Comments at 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1088. Finally, several commenters raise other issues regarding
affected system cost allocation. Enel seeks clarity regarding whether
shared network upgrades would apply between host system interconnection
requests and affected system interconnection requests.\2122\ NV Energy
asserts that, since the affected system interconnection request is
queued, if the affected system interconnection customer is allocated
affected system network upgrade costs based on the proportional impact
method and subsequentially withdraws, then a restudy could potentially
be required for a lower-queued cluster, which would result in a
misalignment with the timeline and withdrawal penalties in the
transmission provider's cluster study for native interconnection
requests.\2123\ ACE-NY argues that no project should be assigned
affected system network upgrade costs after it executes its LGIA and/or
after the interconnection customer has accepted its cost allocation in
the class year process in NYISO.\2124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2122\ Enel Initial Comments at 67 (citing proposed pro forma
LGIP sections 9.8 and 3.10).
    \2123\ NV Energy Initial Comments at 11.
    \2124\ ACE-NY Initial Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(10) Tender of Affected System Facilities Construction Agreement
    1089. Several commenters argue that the proposed time frame for the
affected system transmission provider to tender an affected system
facilities construction agreement to the affected system
interconnection customer--within 30 calendar days of providing the
affected system study results to the interconnection customer, as
proposed in section 9.9 of the pro forma LGIP--should be extended or
modified. Duke Southeast Utilities argue that this deadline should be
60 calendar days for various administrative reasons.\2125\ Idaho Power
suggests that the affected system transmission provider tender the
affected system facilities construction agreement either within 60
calendar days after the interconnection customers executes a facilities
construction agreement with the host transmission provider or within 30
calendar days after providing the affected system study results to the
affected system interconnection customer, if the affected system study
is performed during the interconnection facilities study.\2126\ Idaho
Power explains that information required in the facilities construction
agreement is comparable to the information provided by the host
transmission provider in the interconnection facilities study report,
which, according to Idaho Power, provides a reasonably accurate timing
and cost estimate and requires considerable coordination to develop.
WAPA highlights other constraints, stating that it contracts out many
of its facilities study tasks, which can take significant time, that it
must work within the budgetary constraints of its annual appropriation,
and that it is impractical to have a construction agreement ready for
any interconnection customer within 30 calendar days.\2127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2125\ Duke Southeast Utilities Initial Comments at 15-16
(citing the possibility of multiple individual agreements, the need
to refine previously provided cost estimates and necessary
construction schedule, and the potential for more information and
updates from the host transmission provider).
    \2126\ Idaho Power Initial Comments at 11.
    \2127\ WAPA Initial Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1090. MISO cautions that providing detailed affected system network
upgrade cost estimates and construction timelines within 30 calendar
days of providing the affected system study results may not be feasible
given that MISO currently only gives high-level cost estimates after
its affected system study and construction timelines and detailed cost
estimates are provided in the affected system network upgrade
facilities study, which is performed by transmission owners.\2128\ MISO
further argues that it should not be responsible for actions that are
beyond its control, such as the transmission owner-prepared affected
system network upgrade facilities study, which it claims would not be
feasible to include in each affected system study report if it is
attempting to meet the 90-calendar day study timeline, and thus the
affected system study and the affected system facilities study should
be kept separate. MISO further argues that it is unlikely that
transmission owners could provide cost/schedule detail with +/-20%
accuracy within 30 calendar days of determination of affected system
network upgrade obligations, with 90 calendar days being a more
reasonable time frame.\2129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2128\ MISO Initial Comments at 90-91.
    \2129\ Id. at 91-92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(11) Restudy
    1091. Bonneville expresses concern with the restudy timeline
proposed in pro forma LGIP section 9.10, which would require that a
restudy of the affected system study take no longer than 60 calendar
days from the date of notice. Bonneville argues that flexibility is
warranted due to the complexity of restudies.\2130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2130\ Bonneville Initial Comments at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Requests for Alternatives
(1) Clustering of Affected System Studies
    1092. Several commenters argue that transmission providers should
process affected system studies using a clustering approach.\2131\
Several commenters argue that mandating use of serial studies for all
variously situated transmission providers would adversely impact the
efficiency of the study process and place a significant administrative
burden on transmission providers that is disproportionate to the
contemplated benefits.\2132\ NextEra urges the Commission to not
mandate serial affected system study processing when cluster studies of
affected system impacts will be more expeditious and efficient,
contending that this would particularly be the case when
interconnection requests in large cluster studies impact an adjacent
system.\2133\ North Carolina Commission and Staff claim that serial
studies come with substantial costs in the form of network upgrades
that may not be sufficient to meet future demand.\2134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2131\ AECI Initial Comments at 6; Indicated PJM TOs Initial
Comments at 47; NextEra Reply Comments at 4; North Carolina
Commission and Staff Initial Comments at 25; PPL Initial Comments at
19-20; SPP Initial Comments at 15; WAPA Initial Comments at 11.
    \2132\ AECI Initial Comments at 6-7; Indicated PJM TOs Initial
Comments at 47; NextEra Reply Comments at 4; North Carolina
Commission and Staff Initial Comments at 24-25 (citing Gajda Aff. ]]
21-22, 27); SPP Initial Comments at 15-16.
    \2133\ NextEra Reply Comments at 4-5.
    \2134\ North Carolina Commission and Staff Initial Comments at
25 (noting that Duke Energy Progress, LLC constructed $711,805 in
affected system network upgrades in 2017 to accommodate a PJM
cluster and that a current, planned upgrade of the same transmission
line will eliminate the need for all or some of those affected
system network upgrades, which should have lasted at least 40 years
and were paid for by Duke Energy Progress, LLC's customers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1093. Indicated PJM TOs argue that, for efficiency and consistency,
affected system studies should be integrated into the cluster study
process.\2135\ Indicated PJM TOs argue that PJM's proposed approach,
whereby an affected system study identified by one region would be
integrated into the cluster study of another region, would be more
efficient

and less disruptive than the approach identified in the NOPR.\2136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2135\ Indicated PJM TOs Initial Comments at 47-48; Indicated
PJM TOs Reply Comments at 41.
    \2136\ Indicated PJM TOs Initial Comments at 47 (noting that the
2022 PJM filing provides that PJM will determine the need for an
affected system analysis in phase 1 of a study cycle, and when PJM
is identified by another region as needing to complete an affected
system analysis, it will place the affected system interconnection
request in phase 2 of an ongoing study cycle) (referencing PJM,
Filing, Docket No. ER22-2110-000, Sims Aff. ] 10 (filed June 14,
2022)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1094. Some commenters also call for flexibility. AECI argues that
the Commission should not limit the flexibility yielded by its existing
process of studying each yearly cluster to determine impacts and
potential affected system network upgrades, when it is acting as the
affected system operator coordinating studies with a neighboring RTO/
ISO.\2137\ PPL argues that affected system transmission providers
should have the option to enter into a study agreement with either an
individual affected system interconnection customer, a group of
affected system interconnection customers from the same cluster (that
share cost and other responsibilities), or the ``direct connect
system.'' \2138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2137\ AECI Initial Comments at 6.
    \2138\ PPL Initial Comments at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Coordination Between Host Transmission Provider and Affected System
Transmission Provider
    1095. NextEra contends that the NOPR proposal gives too little
attention to complex issues, such as potential interconnection queue
coordination issues between transmission providers that could arise
after implementation of the proposed reforms.\2139\ Several commenters
argue that, for efficiency reasons, host transmission providers--and
not individual affected system interconnection customers--should be
required to coordinate affected system study activities with the
affected system transmission providers.\2140\ Some commenters recommend
that the Commission adopt the coordination approach used by MISO and
certain of its neighboring systems, whereby the host transmission
provider coordinates all technical data, study deposits, and studies
with the affected system transmission provider rather than the proposed
direct communication and coordination between interconnection customer
and affected system transmission provider.\2141\ Enel asserts that this
would reduce administrative burden, ensure timely compliance with the
tariff, reduce interconnection costs, and increase accountability. Enel
also argues that using the host transmission provider's study agreement
to require the interconnection customer to comply with the affected
system transmission provider's study process ensures that the
interconnection customer must meet tariff deadlines and cannot delay
the affected system transmission provider's studies. In addition, Shell
states that that the Commission should develop guidance for situations
in which neighboring transmission providers disagree on the scope and/
or timing of an affected system study.\2142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2139\ NextEra Reply Comments at 4.
    \2140\ Enel Initial Comments at 60-61; North Carolina Commission
and Staff Initial Comments at 25-26; Shell Initial Comments at 30.
    \2141\ Enel Initial Comments at 60-61. Enel further argues that
affected system studies should be invoiced to the host transmission
provider and paid out of the interconnection customer's study
deposits, subject to total study cost true-up, and that host
transmission providers should be required to share the
interconnection customer's technical data as needed. Enel reasons
that through direct connections, host and affected system
transmission providers would be better able to compare constraints
and proposed upgrades to coordinate where a single upgrade may
address constraints on both transmission systems. Id.
    \2142\ Shell Initial Comments at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1096. Several commenters argue that the NOPR proposal should be
reevaluated or modified regarding whether and when transmission
providers conducting cluster studies would be required to delay those
studies to wait for the results of affected system studies. Pattern
Energy contends that the Commission should consider an approach in
which host transmission providers are not required to wait for affected
system studies to be completed, if such delayed action would result in
a study milestone being missed.\2143\ Pattern Energy seeks to avoid an
unintentional ``delay loop,'' whereby the affected system is not
diligently processing an affected system study because the host
transmission provider is waiting for it.\2144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2143\ Pattern Energy Initial Comments at 25.
    \2144\ Id. at 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1097. In contrast, PacifiCorp requests that the Commission clarify
that, although host transmission providers performing cluster studies
are not required to delay those studies by waiting for the results of
affected system studies, transmission providers will not be prohibited
from delaying the cluster study process to account for affected system
study issues if the host transmission provider determines that the
cluster study cannot progress without the results of the affected
system studies.\2145\ MISO raises similar concerns about a transmission
provider proceeding with its cluster studies without affected system
data, which it asserts is critical information for an interconnection
customer.\2146\ MISO further asserts that the NOPR proposal will not
provide useful information to the interconnection customer sooner and
will increase uncertainty, opportunities for late-stage withdrawals,
cost shifts, and unscheduled restudies and cascading withdrawals.\2147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2145\ PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 36-37.
    \2146\ MISO Initial Comments at 93-94.
    \2147\ Id. at 94-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1098. Xcel strongly supports improving affected system study
interactions, arguing that with common models and processes, in many
instances, host transmission provider study results can be used to
identify affected system network upgrades, leaving the affected system
transmission provider to only identify mitigation solutions.\2148\
Noting that many RTO/ISO regions have operating agreements that address
interface capacity rights and processes to relieve congestion near and
across seams, Xcel argues that host and affected system transmission
providers should take those operating agreements into account when
considering any interconnection-related requirements from the affected
system transmission provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2148\ Xcel Initial Comments at 38-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1099. APPA-LPPC request that transmission providers be able to
forego a formal affected system study when studies by the host
transmission provider may be sufficient.\2149\ APPA-LPPC ask the
Commission to recognize in the pro forma LGIP that there may be
instances in which separate affected system studies may not be
necessary or useful because, in their members' experience, particularly
in the Western Interconnection, feasibility, system impact, and
facilities studies undertaken by a directly interconnecting
transmission provider may be adequate in scope to encompass impacts on
and any necessary upgrades to an affected system.\2150\ In such a case,
APPA-LPPC state, a unitary study would be less expensive for all
parties and avoid a complex administrative task of sequencing and
integrating separate system studies.\2151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2149\ APPA-LPPC Initial Comments at 25.
    \2150\ Id. at 23-25.
    \2151\ Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1100. Another alternative proposed by WAPA and Enel is the use of
an affected system screening process to identify instances where
affected system studies will be needed.\2152\ WAPA suggests that this
screening process could be a feasibility-level study, completed for an
entire cluster, to narrow down which interconnection requests within
the cluster potentially have impacts on an

affected system.\2153\ WAPA contends that, without a screening process,
transmission providers under the NOPR proposal will require affected
system studies by default. Enel suggests that the affected system
transmission provider should conduct the screening process during the
host transmission provider's cluster study so that the affected system
transmission provider is prepared to perform its affected system study
during the host transmission provider's initial cluster restudy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2152\ Enel Initial Comments at 57-58; WAPA Initial Comments at
12-13.
    \2153\ WAPA Initial Comments at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Interregional Transmission Planning
    1101. A few commenters urge the Commission to address affected
system impacts as a systematic phenomenon and a matter of interregional
transmission planning, rather than one-off events to be handled
serially.\2154\ EDF Renewables argues that better interregional
transmission planning should reduce the frequency and severity of
affected system impacts, asserting that a system-wide approach is more
efficient than a piecemeal one.\2155\ NextEra cautions that one issue
absent from the affected system proposals in the NOPR is that the costs
for alleviating an existing system condition should not rest with a new
generating facility interconnecting on an adjacent system that did not
create the problem.\2156\ NextEra argues that preexisting reliability
issues should instead be identified and solved through the transmission
planning processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2154\ EDF Renewables Initial Comments at 11; NextEra Initial
Comments at 31; North Carolina Commission and Staff Initial Comments
at 3.
    \2155\ EDF Renewables Initial Comments at 11.
    \2156\ NextEra Initial Comments at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(e) Requests for Clarification and Flexibility
    1102. Idaho Power requests clarification regarding whether the
affected system study process would be required for entities that
already use the first-ready, first served cluster study process.\2157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2157\ Idaho Power Initial Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1103. Regarding timing, Invenergy argues that although many of the
NOPR's proposed requirements should apply prospectively to new
interconnection requests, immediate action from the Commission is
needed to resolve affected system issues. Invenergy requests that the
Commission clarify that the proposed reforms should apply to all
pending interconnection requests and active studies.\2158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2158\ Invenergy Initial Comments at 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1104. Several commenters request clarification regarding how the
proposed affected system reforms would affect RTO/ISO transmission
providers and transmission owners in their regions.\2159\ Eversource
requests that the Commission clarify that the proposed affected system
reforms are not applicable to intra-RTO/ISO system upgrades.\2160\
Similarly, NYTOs request that the Commission clarify that the proposed
affected system reforms would not apply to neighboring transmission
owners within a single RTO/ISO, or at least allow such transmission
owners to demonstrate on compliance that their existing processes
already address such intra-RTO/ISO issues.\2161\ AEP requests that the
Commission address what it terms the four primary types of affected
system scenarios: neighboring transmission owner systems within one
RTO/ISO; neighboring transmission owner systems in two separate RTOs/
ISOs; a transmission owner system in an RTO/ISO neighboring a non-RTO/
ISO transmission provider; and neighboring transmission providers both
outside of an RTO/ISO.\2162\ AEP contends that the Commission appears
to conflate all possible affected system scenarios in the NOPR, even
though the nature of any affected system study can be impacted by the
type of scenario.\2163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2159\ Eversource Initial Comments at 31-32; NYTOs Initial
Comments at 29.
    \2160\ Eversource Initial Comments at 31-32.
    \2161\ NYTOs Initial Comments at 29 (citing NYISO, NYISO
Tariffs, attach. X, section 30.3.5 (16.0.0)).
    \2162\ AEP Initial Comments at 32-33; NextEra Reply Comments at
4.
    \2163\ AEP Initial Comments at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1105. CREA and NewSun seek clarification on whether the proposed
affected system reforms apply where QF interconnections under PURPA are
subject to state jurisdiction.\2164\ CREA and NewSun explain that,
under existing precedent, the Commission has allowed states to retain
their historic interconnection jurisdiction under PURPA where the QF
sells its entire net output to the interconnecting utility.\2165\ CREA
and NewSun argue, though, that where affected system issues are
involved, the state's jurisdiction over the sale of the QF's energy to
a utility regulated by that state would not extend to affected system
issues with a third-party transmission provider that is not purchasing
the QF's net output.\2166\ CREA and NewSun urge the Commission to
clarify that a QF interconnection customer has the option to opt into
use of the Commission's interconnection procedures, in cases where the
interconnection requires studies or network upgrades on an affected
system without loss of queue position. CREA and NewSun also argue that
the QF should retain the right to elect to proceed through the state
process in case the QF concludes that it would be less disruptive to do
so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2164\ CREA and NewSun Initial Comments at 86.
    \2165\ Id. at 87 (citing Order No. 2003, 104 FERC ] 61,103 at PP
813-815; Prior Notice & Filing Requirements Under Part II of the
Fed. Power Act, 64 FERC ] 61,139, at 61,991-92, order on reh'g, 65
FERC ] 61,081 (1993)).
    \2166\ Id. at 87-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1106. Several commenters request clarification on whether the
proposed affected system reforms apply to non-Commission-jurisdictional
transmission providers.\2167\ Invenergy and Interwest state that, if an
affected system is not a Commission-jurisdictional utility, the
Commission would be unable to enforce the process or any penalties
proposed in the NOPR, which would leave the interconnection customer in
the same bind that currently exists.\2168\ Invenergy, Interwest, Xcel,
and EEI assert that the Commission should prevent non-jurisdictional
entities from interfering with completion of jurisdictional
transmission providers' interconnection processes.\2169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2167\ Interwest Reply Comments at 18; Invenergy Initial
Comments at 42; Pacific Northwest Utilities Initial Comments at 17;
Puget Sound Initial Comments at 7; Tri-State Initial Comments at 20.
    \2168\ Interwest Reply Comments at 18; Invenergy Initial
Comments at 42.
    \2169\ EEI Initial Comments at 19; Interwest Reply Comments at
18; Invenergy Initial Comments at 43; Invenergy Reply Comments at 9;
Xcel Initial Comments at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1107. Several commenters call for the Commission to explain how
jurisdictional transmission providers should respond to potential
delays or inaction by non-jurisdictional transmission providers not
subject to the affected system study process reforms.\2170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2170\ EEI Initial Comments at 19; NextEra Initial Comments at
34; Pacific Northwest Utilities Initial Comments at 15-16; Xcel
Initial Comments at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1108. Other commenters argue that the Commission should hold
jurisdictional transmission providers harmless for delays induced by or
notifications not sent by non-jurisdictional affected system
transmission providers.\2171\ Pacific Northwest Utilities and Puget
Sound ask the Commission to clarify that transmission providers have
met their obligations in dealing with non-jurisdictional entities if
the host transmission provider notifies a non-jurisdictional affected
system transmission provider within 10 business days of identifying a
potential impact to the transmission system of the non-jurisdictional
entity, pursuant to pro forma LGIP section 3.6.1, and invites the non-
jurisdictional entity to an affected system scoping meeting,

pursuant to pro forma LGIP section 3.6.2.\2172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2171\ Pacific Northwest Utilities Initial Comments at 16-17;
Puget Sound Initial Comments at 7.
    \2172\ Puget Sound Initial Comments at 8; Pacific Northwest
Utilities Initial Comments at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1109. Many commenters emphasize the importance of flexibility for
transmission providers and argue in favor of granting transmission
providers compliance flexibility in implementing affected system study
process reforms.\2173\ Some commenters contend that the Commission
should allow transmission providers to demonstrate that their existing
affected system study processes or planned revisions to those processes
are adequate to address the Commission's concerns.\2174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2173\ AEP Initial Comments at 5; Dominion Initial Comments at
39; National Grid Initial Comments at 37-38; NYISO Initial Comments
at 44; PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 36; PJM Reply Comments at 10.
    \2174\ AEP Initial Comments at 32; Alliant Energy Initial
Comments at 7; MISO Initial Comments at 7, 12-13, 83-85, 95; NYISO
Initial Comments at 44; Omaha Public Power Initial Comments at 12;
OMS Initial Comments at 17; SPP Initial Comments at 16-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    1110. We adopt, with modifications, the NOPR proposal to establish
an affected system study process in, and add several related
definitions to, the pro forma LGIP. As explained in the NOPR, a
detailed affected system study process in the pro forma LGIP will
prevent the use of ad hoc approaches that may give rise to
interconnection customers being treated in an unjust, unreasonable, and
unduly discriminatory or preferential manner. We agree with commenters
that it will also provide interconnection customers greater certainty
regarding expectations throughout the interconnection process,
including greater cost certainty, which will lead to fewer late-stage
withdrawals and fewer delays. The firm affected system study deadlines
will also ensure that the affected system study process moves along
expediently, providing clarity, cost certainty, and increased
transparency throughout the study process, which will minimize
opportunities for undue discrimination. For these reasons, we find that
the affected system study process reforms adopted herein are just,
reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential and that they
remedy the unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or
preferential rates resulting from the status quo with regard to
affected systems. We further find that such reforms will ensure that
interconnection customers are able to interconnect to the transmission
system in a reliable, efficient, transparent, and timely manner.
    1111. We disagree with commenters' concerns that a broadly applied,
prescriptive affected system study process may not be helpful or may be
unworkable.\2175\ Instead, we agree with National Grid that the current
status quo is not working and will likely worsen absent
intervention.\2176\ Although some transmission providers may already
have working affected system study processes in place, many do not,
creating uncertainty and unreasonable delay in the interconnection
process. Further, as discussed below with regard to specific reforms,
we adopt several revisions to the NOPR proposal in response to comments
to ensure the affected system study process deadlines are reasonable
and support efficient processing of interconnection requests. We
disagree with commenters who argue that the NOPR proposal does not
increase efficiency and note that certain modifications will further
increase efficiency.\2177\ While certain required steps in the affected
system study process may increase the need for communication and
coordination between affected system transmission providers, affected
system interconnection customers, and/or host transmission providers,
we find that the potential burden of such discrete efforts are
outweighed by the efficiencies of a standardized and more predictable
affected system study process. We further find that defining an
affected system study process in the pro forma LGIP is necessary to
ensure that affected system interconnection customers are not being
treated in an unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or
preferential manner, and to ensure that they can evaluate their costs
and make decisions regarding the viability of their generation
facilities in a timely manner during the interconnection study process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2175\ Dominion Initial Comments at 37; Pacific Northwest
Utilities Initial Comments at 15; PJM Initial Comments at 63; SDG&E
Reply Comments at 3.
    \2176\ National Grid Initial Comments at 35.
    \2177\ Dominion Initial Comments at 36-37; SDG&E Reply Comments
at 3; SPP Initial Comments at 17; WAPA Initial Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Definitions and Applicability (Pro Forma LGIP Sections 1 and 9.1)
    1112. We adopt the NOPR proposal, with modification, to include
several definitions in section 1 of the pro forma LGIP related to the
affected system reforms, specifically, ``affected system facilities
construction agreement,'' ``affected system interconnection customer,''
``affected system network upgrades,'' ``affected system study,''
``affected system study agreement,'' and ``affected system study
report.'' We find these terms to be necessary to enumerate the affected
system transmission provider's responsibilities in the affected system
study process.\2178\ We also add the terms ``multiparty affected system
study agreement'' and ``multiparty affected system facilities
construction agreement'' to section 1 of the pro forma LGIP in light of
our adoption of such agreements as part of this final rule, as
discussed below. We also add the term ``affected system queue
position'' to the pro forma LGIP because we find it helpful to
distinguish between an interconnection customer's queue position on the
host system versus its queue position on an affected system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2178\ We note that, in the affected system context, there are
certain instances in which we intentionally use lowercase versions
of defined terms to deviate from their definitions in section 1 of
the pro forma LGIP. For example, ``generating facility'' is, in pro
forma LGIP section 1, part of the definition of ``affected system
interconnection customer.'' In the affected system context, we are
referring to a generating facility governed by another transmission
provider's LGIP rather than the affected system transmission
provider's generating facility as defined in its own LGIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1113. We adopt, with modification, the NOPR proposal to add section
9.1 to the pro forma LGIP, titled ``Applicability.'' We find that pro
forma LGIP section 9.1 clarifies that the transmission provider's
obligations in section 9 apply when it is acting as an affected system
transmission provider, and we have added clarifying language to resolve
ambiguity therein.\2179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2179\ We note that former pro forma LGIP section 9, titled
``Engineering and Procurement (`E&P') Agreement,'' is now pro forma
LGIP section 13.7 to accommodate the new affected system study
process section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1114. In response to PPL's argument that the term ``affected system
interconnection customer'' is confusing and that either another term
should be used or ``interconnection'' should be deleted from the term,
we reiterate that the pro forma LGIP is written to apply to all
transmission providers on a generic basis, meaning transmission
providers studying proposed interconnections to their transmission
systems (host transmission providers) as well as transmission providers
studying the impacts on their own transmission system of proposed
interconnections to other transmission providers' transmission systems
(affected system transmission providers). In other words, when a
transmission provider's transmission system is an affected system, the
interconnection customer creating the affected system impact is
different from that particular affected system transmission provider's
own interconnection customers (i.e., those

that propose to interconnect directly to the transmission provider's
transmission system) and must be distinguished accordingly in the pro
forma LGIP. The term ``affected system interconnection customer''
achieves this goal by distinguishing between the interconnection
customer's dual roles in the host transmission provider's study process
and the affected system transmission provider's study process.
    1115. Further, we disagree with PPL's assertion that some
transmission providers combine interconnection and transmission
processes, making ``interconnection'' an unnecessary distinction.\2180\
This proceeding involves generic generator interconnection procedures,
pursuant to which transmission service request studies are performed
independently from interconnection studies.\2181\ However, we modify
the definition of ``affected system interconnection customer'' and use
other defined terms in the pro forma LGIP for additional clarity and
consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2180\ PPL Initial Comments at 19-20.
    \2181\ See Tenn. Power Co., 90 FERC ] at 61,761 (finding that
interconnection is an element of transmission service but that the
interconnection component of transmission service may be requested
separately from the delivery component (i.e., interconnection is
distinct from transmission service)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1116. As explained below, we do not adopt the NOPR proposal to
require an affected system scoping meeting and therefore also do not
adopt the proposed term ``affected system scoping meeting'' in section
1 of the pro forma LGIP.
    1117. We clarify that the terms ``affected system'' and ``affected
system operator'' retain their existing definitions in pro forma LGIP
section 1.\2182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2182\ An affected system is an electric system other than the
transmission provider's transmission system that may be affected by
the proposed interconnection. An affected system operator is the
entity that operates an affected system. Pro forma LGIP section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1118. In response to NRECA's request for clarification, we
reiterate that the final rule applies to transmission providers and, in
the affected system context, to transmission providers that are acting
as affected systems per the pro forma LGIP definition. Therefore, we
decline to expand the scope of several affected systems-related
definitions as requested by NRECA because we find NRECA's request to be
outside the scope of this proceeding.\2183\ In response to National
Grid's request for clarification regarding whether an affected system
solely includes transmission owners in each region or also includes
neighboring RTOs/ISOs or transmission providers in neighboring regions,
we reiterate that an affected system is defined in section 1 of the pro
forma LGIP as an electric system other than the transmission provider's
transmission system that may be affected by the proposed
interconnection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2183\ See NRECA Initial Comments at 9, 36-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Identification and Notification of Affected Systems (Pro Forma LGIP
Sections 3.6.1, 9.2, and 11.2.1)
    1119. We adopt, with modification, proposed section 3.6.1 of the
pro forma LGIP, which sets forth the trigger events for identification
of an affected system impact to begin the affected system study
process. We modify that section to retain as trigger events the
completion of the cluster study and cluster restudy but eliminate the
earlier trigger events--the close of the cluster request window and the
close of the customer engagement window. While we would expect
identification of potential affected system impacts to occur upon the
completion of the cluster study, we recognize that an affected system
impact may not be identified until a restudy occurs, and we adopt
language in pro forma LGIP section 3.6.1 to account for such a
scenario. Thus, as adopted in pro forma LGIP section 3.6.1, we require
the transmission provider to notify the affected system operator at the
first instance of an identified potential affected system impact, which
may occur at the completion of the (1) cluster study or (2) cluster
restudy. We also move the affected system transmission provider's
obligations to respond to the initial notification under proposed pro
forma LGIP section 3.6.1 to a new pro forma LGIP section 9.2. We find
this bifurcation of duties with respect to initial affected system
notification for the transmission provider, when acting as host
transmission provider and affected system transmission provider,
appropriately sets forth the responsibilities of the transmission
provider in the sections describing the conditions for each action.
    1120. We also adopt the provision proposed in pro forma LGIP
section 3.6.1 that provides for the transmission provider to notify an
affected system operator of a potential affected system impact caused
by the interconnection request within 10 business days of the first
trigger event giving rise to the identification of the affected system
impact. We modify the provision in proposed pro forma LGIP section
3.6.1 for the affected system transmission provider to respond to such
notification in writing within 15 business days indicating whether it
intends to conduct an affected system study to 20 business days, which
we move to pro forma LGIP section 9.2, as noted above. We further move
to pro forma LGIP section 9.2 the requirement that, within 15 business
days of the affected system transmission provider's affirmative
response of its intent to conduct an affected system study, the
affected system transmission provider must share a non-binding good
faith estimate of the cost and schedule to complete the affected system
study.
    1121. As adopted, the identification and notification process is
tied to the completion of the cluster study or the cluster restudy. At
that point, the host transmission provider will have a stronger basis
for deciding whether an interconnection request will potentially impact
an affected system. Further, the initiation of the affected system
study process after the initial study costs are received should lead to
affected system study results that provide greater cost certainty, as
the largest number of interconnection request withdrawals will most
likely occur after receipt of the initial cluster study results, a
point noted by commenters.\2184\ After receipt of the initial cluster
study results, those interconnection requests remaining in the host
system's interconnection queue are more likely to complete the
interconnection study process. We agree with CAISO that this smaller
pool of affected system interconnection customers will enable faster
affected system studies due to a decreased volume of affected system
interconnection customers and more realistic study assumptions.\2185\
Accordingly, we find that beginning the affected system study process
after the adopted trigger events provides greater certainty to
interconnection customers regarding affected system network upgrade
costs while ensuring a faster affected system study process. This is
because the affected system transmission provider will be using more
realistic study assumptions and studying a more realistic number of
affected system interconnection customers, reducing the need for
restudy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2184\ CAISO Initial Comments at 28; Idaho Power Initial
Comments at 11; NextEra Initial Comments at 32.
    \2185\ CAISO Initial Comments at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1122. We find that notification to an affected system operator of a
potential impact prior to receipt of cluster study results would be
administratively burdensome and inefficient and could potentially slow
the interconnection process because such notification would include
numerous interconnection

requests that ultimately do not reach commercial operation.\2186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2186\ Id. at 28-29; Enel Initial Comments at 59; Idaho Power
Initial Comments at 11; NextEra Initial Comments at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1123. In eliminating the first two notification triggers, we
recognize that the affected system study process will start later and,
as a result, the interconnection customer could be required to execute,
or request to be filed unexecuted, its LGIA before it has received its
affected system study results and cost estimates for any affected
system network upgrades. To avoid this result and in response to
commenters' requests that transmission providers should be given the
option to wait for affected system study results when conducting
cluster studies,\2187\ we modify the NOPR proposal and add a new
section 11.2.1 to the pro forma LGIP. Under this section, if the
interconnection customer does not receive its affected system study
results pursuant to pro forma LGIP section 9.7, discussed below, before
the deadline for LGIA execution, or the deadline to request that the
LGIA be filed unexecuted, in its host system, the host transmission
provider must, at the interconnection customer's request, delay the
deadline for the interconnection customer to finalize its LGIA.\2188\
The interconnection customer will have 30 calendar days after receipt
of the affected system study report to execute the LGIA, or request
that the LGIA be filed unexecuted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2187\ PacifiCorp Initial Comments at 36-37; Pattern Energy
Initial Comments at 25; Shell Initial Comments at 30-31.
    \2188\ Any interconnection customer that is not awaiting the
results of an affected system study must proceed under the timelines
set forth in pro forma LGIP section 11.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1124. As noted above, we find that by adopting pro forma LGIP
section 11.2.1, we ensure that interconnection customers have adequate
time to evaluate their costs prior to committing to the cost estimates
contained in an LGIA. Additionally, if the interconnection customer
prefers to proceed to the execution of its LGIA, or request that the
LGIA be filed unexecuted, before it has received its affected system
study results, it may notify the host transmission provider of its
intent to proceed with the execution of the LGIA, or request that the
LGIA be filed unexecuted. If the host transmission provider determines
that further delay to the LGIA execution date would cause a material
impact on the cost or timing of an equal- or lower-queued
interconnection customer, the transmission provider must notify the
interconnection customer whose deadline to execute the LGIA, or request
that the LGIA be filed unexecuted, is delayed of such impact and
establish that the new deadline is 30 calendar days after such notice
is provided.
    1125. In response to ACE-NY's argument that no interconnection
customer should be assigned affected system network upgrade costs after
it executes its LGIA and/or after the interconnection customer has
accepted its cost allocation in the class year process in NYISO,\2189\
we decline to rule on specific transmission provider processes in this
final rule. We note, however, that, under new pro forma LGIP section
11.2.1, interconnection customers may negotiate LGIA execution to await
an affected system study report for greater certainty at the time of
LGIA execution, or requesting the LGIA to be filed unexecuted, if that
further delay to the LGIA execution date would not cause a material
impact on the cost or timing of an equal- or lower-queued
interconnection customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2189\ ACE-NY Initial Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------