FERC Final Rules Establish New Interconnection Requirements for Distributed Energy Resources and Wind Generators

Aug 12, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Shawn Whites (Paralegal)

Taken together, the two orders recognize both the increased penetration of renewable and distributed energy resources on the grid and advancements in cost-effective technologies that allow those resources to provide reliability services.

For example, the Commission noted in Order No. 827 that wind generators were previously exempted from reactive power requirements due to the “costs to design and build a wind generator that could provide reactive power,” which “could have created an obstacle to the development of wind generation.”  The Commission expressed concern, however, that the continued growth of wind plants and other nonsynchronous generators could lead to a deficiency in available reactive power supplies and result in reliability problems. This concern, combined with the Commission’s finding that advancements in wind turbine design allowed for more cost-effective provision of reactive power by wind plants, led the Commission to conclude that the previous exemption had become unjust and unreasonable.

Similarly, in Order No. 828, the Commission stressed that, due to the increased presence of small-scale distributed energy resources on the grid, a ride-through requirement for small generating facilities is necessary to prevent the risk of an initial voltage or frequency disturbance from tripping small facilities, thus cascading the initial disturbance and threatening the reliability of the entire system.1 The Commission also noted that technology advancements, such as the availability of “smart inverters,” make it more economically feasible for small generators to meet ride-through requirements.     

The Commission’s actions in these final rules demonstrate its continued focus on ensuring that reliability services previously supplied by large fossil-fuel generators remain available to the transmission grid as the generating resource mix changes. Order Nos. 827 and 828 follow the Commission’s issuance in February of a notice of inquiry regarding the continued availability of “essential reliability services” — specifically primary frequency response — as the resource mix evolves.

Orders Nos. 827 and 828 require each public utility transmission provider to submit a joint compliance filing proposing revisions to its pro forma interconnection agreements to address the requirements of both final rules. The Commission recently extended the deadline for compliance filings to October 14, 2016.


1 The Commission’s final rule recognizes the work of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) to develop revisions to IEEE Standard 1547a, the interconnection standard for distributed energy resources. The Commission notes that, while IEEE 1547a now “provides wider trip settings that allow small generating facilities more leeway to ride through disturbances,” it does not mandate ride-through requirements, necessitating the requirements adopted in Order No. 828.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.