FERC’s Generator Interconnection Technical Conference Elicits Debate on Need for Interconnection Process Reforms

Jun 23, 2016

Reading Time : 6 min

By: Scott Daniel Johnson, Shawn Whites (paralegal)

During the daylong conference,1 representatives from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (RTOs/ISOs), generation project developers, investor-owned utilities, transmission owners and independent power producers (IPPs) covered topics including:  (1) generator interconnection queue management and performance metrics and the causes of, and mitigation options, for backlogs; (2) transparency and timing in interconnection study processes, including restudy triggers; (3) certainty in cost and construction time estimates; (4) queue coordination and management issues, including addressing project withdrawals; and (5) the interconnection of energy storage resources.2

Panelists generally agreed that reforms are needed to address delays in interconnection queue processing and uncertainties regarding interconnection costs and timelines. However, the discussions revealed clear preferences for, on one side, flexibility to account for regional differences (generally supported by RTOs, ISOs and transmission owners), and, on the other side, comprehensive reform and standardization across regions (generally supported by project developers and IPPs).

Comments on the issues addressed during the technical conference, and numerous specific questions set forth in a postconference notice inviting comments, are due June 30, 2016.

Panel 1 – The Current State of Generator Interconnection Queues

Panel 1 explored the causes of interconnection queue delays and potential methods of mitigating such delays. Panelists generally agreed that, across regions, interconnection queue processing is not as fast as it could be, due in part to restudies resulting from project withdrawals. In the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. region, for example, which “clusters” projects for system impact studies, withdrawals of higher-queued projects often trigger the need for restudies, increasing costs and extending processing times, which causes additional withdrawals, resulting in a cycle of withdrawals and restudies. To reduce withdrawals, panelists noted that several regions have set stringent queue entry requirements, including demonstration of site control and high financial security posting requirements, which can help keep nonviable projects out of the queues.

Panel 1 also focused on interconnection issues related to renewable energy projects, which sometimes face greater interconnection challenges than traditional energy projects, because they include newer technologies and may require more extensive modeling and data collection and additional time for initial studies or restudies. One panelist also noted that the geographic remoteness of some renewable projects from load sometimes requires significant network upgrades to reliably interconnect them. On this point, FERC staff asked whether broader transmission planning processes could be used to address such issues. While some panelists suggested that this could be effective, others noted that using broader transmission planning processes to address geographically remote renewable energy projects could lead to increased costs to load.

Panel 2 – Transparency and Timing in the Generator Interconnection Study Process

Panel 2 discussed the accuracy and transparency of information provided by transmission operators during the interconnection process, with some panelists arguing that certain regions are better than others in this area. One project developer noted that “some RTOs do not have adequate resources to administer their interconnection queues” and that interconnection processes can last anywhere from approximately a year to as long as six to seven years depending on the region, with a timeline of three years or more capable of “kill[ing]” even the most viable projects.

During this panel, Commissioner LaFleur asked whether a more uniform “best practices” approach should be considered to foster more consistent timelines across regions. Panelists’ responses highlighted the above-referenced divide, with RTOs, ISOs and transmission owners generally favoring flexible, regional solutions, such as those arising from stakeholder processes, while the project developers on the panel advocated for uniformity.

Commissioner Clark concluded the panel by expressing some skepticism regarding regional flexibility with regard to interconnection processes and asking for examples as to why different market constructs justify differences in interconnection process management. He also asked the panelists if there was “anything wrong” with ramping up interconnection requirements, in a “non-discriminatory way” so as to “weed out projects that realistically don’t have a chance [of] getting on.”  In response, some panelists noted that, while certain regions already have high financial bars, some projects initially expected to drop out of the queue have continued to invest deep into the process only to ultimately withdraw, triggering restudies. Others expressed concern that setting higher financial bars favors larger players, suggesting instead that the issue is not one of raising financial bars, but rather improving the quality and timeliness of transmission providers’ interconnection study analyses to enable better decisionmaking.

Panel 3 – Certainty in Cost Estimates and Construction Time

During Panel 3, FERC staff explored a wide range of issues regarding the accuracy of final interconnection costs and construction times compared to initial estimates provided by transmission providers. Panelists’ comments on this panel highlighted the “tension . . . between the desire for the study process to go faster versus the desire for more accurate information.”  On one hand, project developers want “accurate, stable results information . . . in the shortest time available to enable investment decisions.”  On the other hand, certain transmission providers countered that “the right balance . . . is key”; rushing through the study process just to give an interconnection customer something does not make sense, in part because not every project is ready to move through the interconnection process at the same pace. One transmission provider also noted the difficulty in hiring outside consultants with the technical expertise necessary to accurately perform interconnection studies for its system, which sometimes is necessary to process interconnection requests within tariff timelines.

Panel 4 – Other Interconnection Queue Coordination and Management Issues

Panel 4 focused on preventing nonviable projects from entering interconnection queues and coordinating interconnection requests with “affected systems.”3 Regarding nonviable projects, panelists suggested that more transparent, accurate information up front, such as access to transmission system models and more accurate network upgrade cost estimates, could better inform decisions about whether to remain in a queue. In addition, adding or enhancing “off-ramps”—pivotal points in the process when an interconnection customer has to decide whether to proceed or withdraw—could “reduc[e] the likelihood of Interconnection Customers dropping from the queue once the final Study to identify Network Upgrades has commenced,” which would reduce the need for lengthy, costly restudies at that late stage.

Regarding affected systems, many panelists agreed that better coordination is needed for interconnection requests “on the seams” between systems, especially where differences in study processes and timelines are not aligned and can cause significant delays and cost increases.

Panel 5 – Interconnection of Electric Storage Resources

The final panel of the day explored whether FERC’s current pro forma interconnection procedures and agreement adequately account for interconnections of energy storage resources. Panelists seemed generally satisfied, but highlighted certain challenges arising from the relative infancy of, and “learning curve” related to, energy storage resources. One such challenge relates to modeling practices for energy storage resources, with panelists noting that storage must be modeled in a way that accurately accounts for such resources’ flexible operational characteristics, including whether to model storage as load when charging.

Commissioner LaFleur concluded the panel by asking panelists to envision the characteristics of an ideal system “built from scratch” that could accommodate energy storage resources, and whether or not such an “ideal system” would treat storage as another form of generation. Certain panelists noted that it is difficult to adequately value the operational flexibility of energy storage resources in markets designed for the physics of traditional generation, with one panelist opining that the Commission must act quickly to create separate rules for energy storage resources and avoid placing it into “existing constructs,” since “storage is very much its own asset class that touches just about every other asset class that hits the grid.”


 1 A transcript of the technical conference is available here, and a webcast recording is available here (until August 13, 2016). Prefiled comments from the panelists are available here.

2The final agenda for the technical conference includes a detailed list of all of the discussion topics addressed.

3 “Affected systems” are electric systems other than the transmission provider’s transmission system that may be affected by a proposed interconnection.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

October 9, 2025

On October 1, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued Order No. 914 amending certain Commission regulations to incorporate a conditional sunset date in compliance with the Trump administration’s April 2025 Executive Order, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy” (the EO).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

October 8, 2025

Akin is pleased to serve as a gold sponsor for Infocast’s Energy Independence Summit in Houston, October 21-23. Energy partner Charlie Ofner will moderate the Macroeconomics of Domestic Energy Independence panel, projects & energy transition partner Shariff Barakat will lead Opportunities in US Manufacturing: How Big, How Fast, How FEOC?, and counsel Taha Qureshi will guide the discussion on Cornerstones for Energy Independence: Investing in Grid Security & Cybersecurity.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

October 6, 2025

As of October 6, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) continues to operate despite the lapse in appropriations that resulted in a government shutdown on October 1, 2025. While FERC receives appropriations from Congress, it primarily is self-funded through fees and charges obtained from the industries it regulates, offsetting its total costs. Hence, during prior government shutdowns in 2018 and 2013, the agency was able to continue operations. However, FERC published a plan for operating in the event of a lapse in appropriations on September 30, 2025, available here

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

September 8, 2025

On September 4, 2025, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee convened a hearing to consider the nominations of Laura Swett and David LaCerte to serve as commissioners at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission). Swett is a former FERC Staff that served as legal and policy advisor to former FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre and Commission Bernard McNamee. LaCerte is an attorney in private practice that previously held positions at the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and the Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

September 9, 2025

On August 29, 2025, Christopher Wright, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (DOE Organization Act), asking that FERC terminate its long-running proceeding in Docket No. PL18-1, which addresses proposed updates to its policy statement on the Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities. The docket resulted in a draft policy statement that has never been finalized, nor relied upon by FERC in a published order, but would require FERC to consider environmental impacts and potential mitigation prior to making a public interest determination under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The Secretary asks FERC to rescind the draft policy statement in its entirety to remove any uncertainty in gas infrastructure development. Rescission would require FERC to initiate a new docket and develop a new record should it want to reinitiate similar policy changes in the future.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 15, 2025

On August 8, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an enforcement order in Skye MS, LLC (Skye) and levied a $45,000 civil penalty on an intrastate pipeline operator in Mississippi, resolving an investigation into the operator’s violations of section 311 (Section 311) of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA). FERC faulted the operator for providing a Section 311 transportation service without timely filing a Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) and obtaining FERC’s approval for the transportation rates. Section 311 permits intrastate pipelines to transport interstate gas “on behalf of” interstate pipelines without becoming subject to FERC’s more extensive Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdiction, but requires the intrastate pipeline to have an SOC stating the rates and terms and conditions of service on file with FERC within 30 days of providing the interstate service. Under the NGPA, Section 311 rates must be “fair and equitable” and approved by FERC. In Skye, FERC stated that the operator began providing Section 311 service on certain pipeline segments in Mississippi in May 2023, following their acquisition from another Section 311 operator, but did not file an SOC with FERC until April 2025. The order ties the penalty to the approximately two-year delay between commencement of the Section 311 service and the SOC filing date. The pipeline operator was also ordered to provide an annual compliance report and to abide by additional verification requirements related to the filing of its FERC Form No. 549D, the Quarterly Transportation & Storage Report for Intrastate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 6, 2025

In Sierra Club v. FERC, No. 24-1199 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of a 1,000-foot natural gas pipeline segment crossing the United States-Mexico border (the Border Pipeline) under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), rejecting environmental groups’ challenges that FERC improperly limited its analysis under both the NGA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as related to a 155-mile intrastate “Connector Pipeline” constructed upstream of the Border Pipeline in Texas.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 17, 2025

On July 15, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued an order1 proposing to eliminate the soft price cap of $1,000 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for bilateral spot sales in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) that was implemented following the California energy crisis. If adopted, the Commission’s proposal would eliminate the requirement that sellers make a filing with FERC cost justifying spot market sales in excess of the soft price cap, which have become increasingly common in recent years as market conditions have continued to tighten throughout the West. Eliminating the WECC soft price cap would provide sellers that make sales during periods when prices exceed the cap greater certainty that their sales will not be second guessed after the fact.

...

Read More

© 2025 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.