FERC Filings

MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PROTEST OF EPSA, SOUTHWEST POWER POOL

II. PROTEST

EPSA supports SPP's filing to the extent that it appropriately recognizes the need for standardized interconnection procedures. However, the mere filing of interconnection procedures, while a necessary step in the right direction, is insufficient to facilitate generation interconnection. In previous cases, EPSA has urged the Commission to provide comprehensive guidance to the electricity industry on issues relating to interconnection by adopting a comprehensive policy statement that would address, among other issues, the rights, obligations and expectations of interconnecting generators and interconnection service/Transmission Providers. EPSA has requested that any such policy statement reflect the principles set forth in EPSA's recently filed position paper and proposed Model Interconnection Agreement.3 In addition, EPSA has called for an industry dialogue for the purpose of developing comprehensive interconnection procedures and a Commission-approved model interconnection agreement.4

To date, the Commission has declined to do so, stating in the recent Entergy case that "no additional standardized procedures are necessary at this time."5 EPSA is concerned that, in fact, the Commission is developing standardized procedures, one case at a time. This filing by SPP is the fifth interconnection filing made in recent weeks following those of Entergy, Commonwealth Edison, AEP and Central Illinois Light Co. While all the filings are substantially similar, there are variations among them. Each separate filing includes a slightly shorter or longer period for: (1) reviewing interconnection applications; (2) completing necessary studies; (3) determining the scope of the studies; and, (4) the establishment or retention of queue priorities. These distinctions are not insignificant, imposing a burden on generation developers to monitor tariff compliance for each Transmission Provider under different rules.

Uniform business practices would allow generation developers, many of whom are national companies, to develop more streamlined procedures for their project developments. All interconnection procedures should include the same time frames, deposit requirements and scope. There is no rational reason for these requirements to vary from Transmission Provider to Transmission Provider.

The case-by-case approach also requires that generators intervene in what is likely to become a flood of interconnection cases. The Commission, in Entergy and ComEd,6 has urged Transmission Providers to revise their OATTs to include interconnection procedures. Generators will be required to review each of these separate filings to determine whether seemingly insignificant differences from prior filings will in fact adversely effect their project development. Litigation of these proceedings is likely to lead to substantially similar tariff procedures, but at a cost that far outweighs the development of standard procedures.

While the Commission has declined to address interconnection procedures generically, we remain concerned that enormous resources, both from the industry and from the Commission, will be required to implement a case-by-case approach.

In addition, there are several specific concerns about the SPP filing which require modification and/or clarification to be consistent with the Commission's decision in Tennessee Power.7 In Tennessee Power the Commission clarified that:

Interconnection is an element of transmission service and is already required to be provided under our pro forma tariff. This is true whether the interconnection request is tendered concurrently with the request for transmission service or in advance of a request for a specific transmission service. . . . We recognize that the pro forma tariff generally envisions a process in which both the interconnection and delivery components of a transmission service request are made at the same time. Accordingly, all of the transmission request procedures (application process, information exchange process, preparation of system studies and facilities studies, notification by transmission provider as to the disposition of the request and the cost of any necessary system upgrades, and the execution of a service agreement) accommodate situations in which both interconnection and delivery are requested at the same time. However, customers also have the right under the pro forma tariff to request the interconnection component of transmission service separately from the delivery component, and when this occurs, the pro forma tariff procedures continue to apply. These procedures include, but are not necessarily limited to, procedures for arranging service, customer responsibilities, study procedures, compensation for new facilities, and service agreements.

(slip op. at page 4-5).

First, the OATT requires that the System Impact Study (SIS) be completed within 60 days. In Section 1.4.1, SPP seeks 60 to 90 days for completion of the SIS. FERC should require SPP to complete SISs within the 60-day timeframe or provide a timely written explanation to the interconnection customer of when the SIS will be completed and reasons for any delays.

Second, Section 1.10.2(a) suggests that parties may have as little as 15 days to negotiate an interconnection agreement. While EPSA has previously recommended a model Interconnection Agreement (IA), no such document is in standard use within the industry. Given the number of issues potentially "on the table," this time limit is simply unreasonable and may force generators to sign unacceptable IAs merely to retain their place in the queue.

Third, Section 1.10.4 severely penalizes a generator for exercising its option to seek dispute resolution or filing an unexecuted agreement by unilaterally giving SPP the option of stopping construction of facilities and upgrades if the generator exercises either option. Clearly, this is a one-sided bargaining tactic, giving SPP the leverage to force generators to sign unacceptable IAs to ensure work is completed on schedule.

EPSA continues to believe that the industry would benefit from a more comprehensive review of the rights and responsibilities of both generators and transmission providers with respect to interconnection and associated procedures and agreements. EPSA, therefore, renews its request that the Commission issue a comprehensive policy statement with respect to these issues. While EPSA supports the use of the Commission's pro forma OATT procedures to process requests for interconnection, the pro forma procedures do not address all of the interconnection-specific procedures that are relevant and necessary to processing requests for interconnection service. In addition, a model interconnection agreement could serve as the starting point for negotiations between Transmission Providers and interconnecting generators. It also could serve as a benchmark to which company-specific interconnection agreements could be compared once they are filed with the Commission. The terms of the model agreement could also function as an unexecuted agreement to be filed in the event the parties are unable to reach agreement.

3. See Motion to Intervene and Protest of Electric Power Supply Association, filed March 22, 2000, Docket No. ER00-1743-000, Attachment No. 1 (Bill of Rights for New Generation Interconnection) and Attachment No. 2 (Model Interconnection Agreement) thereto.

4. See id. at 12.

5. Entergy Services, Inc., Docket No. ER00-1743-000, issued May 17, 2000, slip op. at p. 10 ("Entergy").

6. Commonwealth Edison Company, 91 FERC 61,083 (2000), slip op at p. 9 ("ComEd").

7. Tennessee Power Company, 90 FERC 61,238, mimeo at 4-5 (2000) ("Tennessee Power"). See also Central Maine Power Company, 90 FERC 61,214, mimeo at 6