[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 115 (Thursday, June 16, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34993-35011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11678]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM05-4-000--Order No. 661]


Interconnection for Wind Energy

June 2, 2005.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
amending its regulations to require public utilities to append to their 
standard large generator interconnection procedures and large generator 
interconnection agreements in their open access transmission tariffs 
(OATTs) standard procedures and technical requirements for the 
interconnection of large wind generation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will become effective August 15, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bruce A. Poole (Technical Information), Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426; (202) 502-8468.

G. Patrick Rooney (Technical Information), Office of Markets,

[[Page 34994]]

Tariffs and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426; (202) 502-6205.

P. Kumar Agarwal (Technical Information), Office of Markets, Tariffs 
and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426; (202) 502-8923.

LaChelle Brooks (Technical Information), Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426; (202) 502-6522.

Jeffery S. Dennis (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426; (202) 502-6027.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Discussion
    A. Low Voltage Ride-Through Capability
    1. Comments
    2. Commission Conclusion
    B. Power Factor Design Criteria (Reactive Power)
    1. Comments--Power Factor Range and General Application of 
Requirement
    2. Commission Conclusion--Power Factor Range and General 
Application of Requirement
    3. Comments--Point of Interconnection
    4. Commission Conclusion--Point of Interconnection
    5. Comments--Dynamic Reactive Power Capability
    6. Commission Conclusion--Dynamic Reactive Power Capability
    C. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Capability
    1. Comments
    2. Commission Conclusion
    D. Wind Plant Interconnection Modeling
    1. Comments
    2. Commission Conclusion
    E. Self-Study of Interconnection Feasibility
    1. Comments
    2. Commission Conclusion
    F. Applicability to Other Generating Technologies
    1. Comments
    2. Commission Conclusion
    G. Variations From the Final Rule
    1. Comments
    2. Commission Conclusion
    H. Transition Period
    1. Comments
    2. Commission Conclusion
    I. Miscellaneous Comments
    1. Commission Conclusion
    J. Compliance Issues
IV. Information Collection Statement
V. Environmental Analysis
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
VII. Document Availability
VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, 
Joseph T. Kelliher, and Suedeen G. Kelly.
    1. In this Final Rule, to meet our responsibility under sections 
205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) \1\ to remedy undue 
discrimination, the Commission adopts standard procedures and technical 
requirements for the interconnection of large wind plants. The 
Commission requires all public utilities that own, control, or operate 
facilities for transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce to 
append to the Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIPs) and 
Large Generator Interconnection Agreements (LGIAs) in their Open Access 
Transmission Tariffs (OATTs) the Final Rule Appendix G adopted here. 
These standard technical requirements provide just and reasonable terms 
for the interconnection of wind plants.\2\ The rule recognizes the 
technical differences of wind generating technology, and benefits 
customers by removing unnecessary obstacles to further development of 
wind generating resources while ensuring that reliability is protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824d-e (2000).
    \2\ As discussed in greater detail below, the Final Rule 
Appendix G applies only to wind plants, due to the unique 
characteristics of wind generating technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    2. In Order No. 2003,\3\ the Commission adopted standard procedures 
and a standard agreement for the interconnection of large generation 
facilities. The Commission required public utilities that own, control, 
or operate facilities for transmitting electric energy in interstate 
commerce to file revised OATTs containing these standard provisions, 
and use them to provide interconnection service to generating 
facilities having a capacity of more than 20 megawatts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and 
Procedures, Order No. 2003, 68 Fed. Reg. 49,845 (Aug. 19, 2003), 
FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles ] 31,146 (2003) (Order 
No. 2003), order on reh'g, 69 Fed. Reg. 15,932 (Mar. 24, 2004), FERC 
Stats & Regs., Regulations Preambles ] 31,160 (2004) (Order No. 
2003-A), order on reh'g, 70 Fed. Reg. 265 (January 4, 2005), FERC 
Stats & Regs., Regulations Preambles ] 31,171 (2004) (Order No. 
2003-B), reh'g pending; see also Notice Clarifying Compliance 
Procedures, 106 FERC ] 61,009 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Order No. 2003-A, on rehearing, the Commission noted that the 
standard interconnection procedures and agreement were based on the 
needs of traditional synchronous generation facilities and that a 
different approach might be more appropriate for generators relying on 
non-synchronous technologies,\4\ such as wind plants.\5\
    Accordingly, the Commission granted certain clarifications, and 
also added a blank Appendix G (Requirements of Generators Relying on 
Non-Synchronous Technologies) to the standard LGIA for future adoption 
of requirements specific to non-synchronous technologies.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A wind generator is considered non-synchronous because it 
does not run at the same speed as a traditional generator. A non-
synchronous generator possesses significantly different 
characteristics and responds differently to network disturbances.
    \5\ Order No. 2003-A at P 407, n. 85.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Therefore, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the 
Commission proposed technical standards applicable to the 
interconnection of large wind generating plants \7\ to be included in 
Appendix G of the LGIA.\8\ We proposed the standards in light of our 
findings in Order No. 2003-A noted above and in response to a petition 
submitted by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) on May 20, 
2004.\9\ The Commission proposed to adopt certain technical 
requirements that Transmission Providers would be required to apply to 
interconnection service for wind generation plants, which are different 
from those required of traditional synchronous generating plants. These 
standard technical requirements are now needed because of the increased 
presence of larger aggregated wind plants on many Transmission 
Providers' systems. The NOPR stated that, except for those articles of 
the LGIA for which wind plants have been exempted,\10\ these 
requirements would supplement the standard interconnection procedures 
and requirements adopted by the Commission in Order No. 2003. 
Additionally, the NOPR sought comments on certain specific issues, 
including whether there are other non-synchronous technologies, or 
other technologies in addition to wind, that should also be covered by 
the proposed Appendix G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Large wind generating plants are those with an output rated 
over 20 MW at the point of interconnection.
    \8\ See Interconnection for Wind Energy and Other Alternative 
Technologies, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 110 FERC ] 61,036 
(2004) (NOPR).
    \9\ See Petition for Rulemaking or, in the Alternative, Request 
for Clarification of Order No. 2003-A, and Request for Technical 
Conference of the American Wind Energy Association (May 20, 2004), 
filed in Docket Nos. RM02-1-005 and PL04-15-000.
    \10\ LGIA article 5.4 (Power System Stabilizers), LGIA article 
5.10.3 (Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities 
Construction), and LGIA article 9.6.1 (Power Factor Design 
Criteria).

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

[[Page 34995]]

II. Background

    5. In Order No. 2003, to meet our responsibility under sections 205 
and 206 of the FPA to remedy undue discrimination, the Commission 
required all public utilities that own, control, or operate facilities 
for transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce to append to 
their OATTs the LGIP and LGIA. To achieve greater standardization of 
interconnection terms and conditions, Order No. 2003 required such 
public utilities to file revised OATTs containing the LGIP and LGIA 
included in Order No. 2003.
    6. As explained above, because some of the technical requirements 
in the LGIA were inappropriate for non-synchronous technologies (such 
as wind generators), the Commission clarified in Order No. 2003-A that 
LGIA article 5.4 (Power System Stabilizers), LGIA article 5.10.3 
(Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities Construction) 
and LGIA article 9.6.1 (Power Factor Design Criteria) would not be 
applied to wind generators.\11\ Additionally, the Commission noted that 
``there may be other areas of the LGIP and LGIA that may call for a 
slightly different approach for a generator relying on newer technology 
because it may have unique electrical characteristics.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at P 407, n. 85.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. On May 20, 2004, in Docket No. RM02-1-005, AWEA submitted a 
petition for rulemaking or, in the alternative, request for 
clarification of Order No. 2003-A, and a request for a technical 
conference. AWEA asked the Commission to adopt in Appendix G certain 
standards for the interconnection of wind generation plants. 
Specifically, AWEA submitted a proposed Appendix G that it argues 
addresses the concerns of both Transmission Providers and the wind 
generation industry. AWEA's proposed Appendix G included a low voltage 
ride-through capability standard that would allow the Transmission 
Provider to require as a condition of interconnection that wind 
generation facilities have the ability to continue operating or ``ride 
through'' certain low voltage conditions on the transmission systems to 
which they are interconnected. AWEA's proposed Appendix G also included 
that as a condition of interconnection, wind plants would install 
equipment enabling remote supervisory control and data acquisition 
(SCADA) that would limit the maximum plant output during system 
emergency and system contingency events and telemetry communication 
between the system operator and the wind plant for automatic 
forecasting and scheduling. Additionally, AWEA proposed that the power 
factor design criteria of up to 0.95 leading/lagging (required in Order 
No. 2003) be applied to wind generation plants, with flexibility 
regarding whether the reactive support equipment would be located at 
the common point of interconnection of all the generators in the plant 
rather than at the high side of the wind plant substation transformers. 
Further, AWEA proposed that the Commission require Transmission 
Providers and wind generator manufacturers to participate in a formal 
process to develop, update, and improve the engineering models and 
specifications used in modeling wind plant interconnections. Finally, 
AWEA proposed to include language in Appendix G allowing the wind 
Interconnection Customer to ``self-study'' interconnection feasibility 
by entering the interconnection queue without providing certain power 
and load flow data required of other large generators, receiving 
certain information from the Transmission Provider, and conducting its 
own Feasibility Study.
    8. On September 24, 2004, the Commission held a Technical 
Conference to discuss the issues raised by AWEA's petition, including 
the technical requirements for the interconnection of wind plants and 
other such alternative technologies and the need for specific 
requirements for their interconnection. Additionally, the Technical 
Conference considered how wind and other alternative generator 
technologies may respond differently to transmission grid disturbances 
and have different effects on the transmission grid. The Commission 
also solicited and received post-Technical Conference comments from 
interested persons.
    9. As noted above, the Commission's NOPR proposed to adopt in 
Appendix G to the LGIA a somewhat modified version of the low voltage 
ride-through, SCADA and power factor design standards proposed by AWEA 
in its May 20, 2004 petition. Specifically, the NOPR proposed to 
establish uniform standards in Appendix G that would require large wind 
plants seeking to interconnect to the grid to (1) demonstrate low 
voltage ride-through capability; in other words, show that the plant 
can remain on line during voltage disturbances up to specified time 
periods and associated voltage levels; (2) possess SCADA capability to 
transmit data and receive instructions from the Transmission Provider; 
and (3) maintain a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 
0.95 lagging, measured at the high voltage side of the substation 
transformers. In the case of the low voltage ride-through requirement, 
the Commission proposed to permit the Transmission Provider to waive 
the requirement on a comparable and not unduly discriminatory basis for 
all wind plants. In the case of the power factor requirement, the 
Commission proposed to permit the Transmission Provider to waive or 
defer compliance with the requirement where it is not necessary. The 
Commission declined, however, to adopt AWEA's proposal to allow a wind 
generator to ``enter the interconnection queue and conduct its own 
Feasibility Study, having obtained the information necessary to do so 
upon paying the initial deposit and submitting its interconnection 
application.'' \13\ We asked for comments on how to balance the need of 
wind generators to obtain certain data from the Transmission Provider 
before completing their Interconnection Requests with the need to 
protect critical energy infrastructure information and commercially 
sensitive data against unwarranted disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See AWEA Petition at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    10. Based on AWEA's petition, the comments received during and 
after the Technical Conference, and the comments filed in response to 
the NOPR, the Commission is adopting certain standard procedures and 
technical requirements for the interconnection of wind generating 
plants, as discussed in greater detail below. These procedures and 
technical requirements will be appended, as Appendix G, to both the 
LGIP and the LGIA.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to include Appendix G 
as an attachment to the LGIA only. Upon further consideration, the 
Commission directs that the Final Rule Appendix G provisions related 
to completion of the Interconnection Request by a wind plant 
interconnection customer be appended to the LGIP, since they are 
procedural in nature, and that the remaining technical requirements 
be appended to the LGIA, to ensure that the provisions adopted here 
are applied throughout the interconnection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. These technical requirements for the interconnection of wind 
plants recognize the unique design and operating characteristics of 
wind plants,\15\ their increasing size and

[[Page 34996]]

increasing level of penetration on some transmission systems (in terms 
of the wind generating capacity's percentage contribution to total 
system generating capacity), and the effects they have on the 
transmission system. In Order No. 2003, the Commission noted that in 
the past, requests for interconnection frequently resulted in complex 
and time-consuming disputes over technical matters such as feasibility, 
cost, and cost responsibility.\16\ That is true for wind 
interconnection as well as interconnection of more conventional 
generation. The special standard procedures we are adopting for the 
interconnection of large wind plants will minimize opportunities for 
undue discrimination by Transmission Providers and remove unnecessary 
obstacles to the development of wind generation, while protecting 
system reliability.\17\ Like the LGIP and LGIA in Order No. 2003, the 
Final Rule Appendix G is to be added to the OATT of each public utility 
that owns, controls, or operates facilities for transmitting electric 
energy in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As noted above, wind plants over 20 MW in total size are 
subject to the standard technical requirements in the Final Rule 
Appendix G. These wind plants are generally made up of several small 
induction wind generating turbines, laid out over a large area, and 
connected through a medium-voltage collector system. This collector 
system is connected to the low voltage side of the step-up 
transformer, which is then connected to the transmission system at a 
single Point of Interconnection.
    \16\ Order No. 2003 at P 11.
    \17\ See id. at P 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The Final Rule Appendix G we adopt here applies only to the 
interconnection of wind plants. As discussed further below, the 
Commission does not believe at this time that the standard procedures 
and technical requirements in this Final Rule are appropriate for other 
alternative generating technologies that may supply over 20 MW at one 
Point of Interconnection. The standard procedures and technical 
requirements adopted here recognize the unique characteristics of wind 
plants, including the fact that they use induction generators, consist 
of several or numerous small generators connected to a collector 
system, and do not respond to grid disturbances in the same manner as 
large conventional generators.
    13. The Appendix G procedures and technical requirements for the 
interconnection of wind generation plants are not the sole 
interconnection requirements for wind plants; large wind plants are 
subject to the other standard interconnection procedures and 
requirements adopted by the Commission in Order No. 2003, unless wind 
plants are exempted from such procedures and requirements by Order No. 
2003 and its rehearing orders, and this order.
    14. Additionally, as discussed further below, the Commission adopts 
a reasonable transition period for the technical requirements adopted 
in the Final Rule. Specifically, the standard technical requirements, 
if applicable, for low voltage ride-through capability, SCADA 
capability, and power factor design criteria apply only to LGIAs 
signed, filed with the Commission in unexecuted form, or filed as a 
non-conforming agreement, on or after January 1, 2006, or the date six 
months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register, 
whichever is later. The procedural requirements related to the 
completion of the Interconnection Request by a wind plant 
Interconnection Customer, however, apply when the Final Rule takes 
effect, which is 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal 
Register.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As discussed in greater detail below, in this Final Rule 
the Commission is adopting procedures that permit a wind plant 
Interconnection Customer to provide in the Interconnection Request a 
set of electrical design specifications that depict the wind plant 
as a single generator. These procedures recognize that the unique 
characteristics of wind plants do not permit them to submit a 
detailed electrical design in the initial Interconnection Request 
stage, and allow wind plants to enter the queue and receive the base 
case data necessary to provide a detailed design to the Transmission 
Provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Low Voltage Ride-Through Capability

    15. As the Commission stated in the NOPR, early wind generator 
technology would shut down the wind generating unit if there was a 
sudden change in voltage on the transmission system. With the 
increasing number and size of wind plants in the United States, there 
is a concern that wind plants tripping off-line during a low voltage 
situation could raise significant reliability concerns. As a result, 
Transmission Providers state that they need large wind plants to remain 
on-line during low voltage occurrences to maintain reliability. 
Further, in the past, Transmission Providers would often shut down wind 
units during a system disturbance. Wind generators would prefer to stay 
on-line, but they are concerned that having each Transmission Provider 
design its own low voltage ride-through requirement would greatly 
affect wind turbine manufacturing costs. As a result, both wind 
generators and most Transmission Providers support having a low voltage 
ride-through standard for large wind plants.
    16. The NOPR proposed to require that large wind plants seeking to 
interconnect to the transmission system demonstrate low voltage ride-
through capability, unless waived by the Transmission Provider on a 
comparable and not unduly discriminatory basis for all wind plants. 
Specifically, the NOPR Appendix G would require that wind generating 
plants demonstrate the ability to remain on-line during voltage 
disturbances up to the time periods and associated voltage levels set 
forth in Figure 1 of the NOPR. We proposed to measure voltage levels at 
the high voltage side of the wind plant substation transformer. The 
NOPR noted that while low voltage ride-through capability is needed for 
wind plants, it is less of a concern for large synchronous generating 
facilities because most of these facilities are equipped with automatic 
voltage control devices to increase output during low voltage events.
    17. The NOPR sought comments on the proposed low voltage ride-
through standard. In particular, the Commission was interested in 
comments addressing whether it should adopt a low voltage ride-through 
standard at all, whether the proposed standard or another standard is 
appropriate, and whether the proposed standard is specific enough. 
Specifically, the Commission sought comments on whether the required 
time periods and associated voltage levels proposed in Figure 1 of the 
NOPR Appendix G were appropriate or should be modified.
1. Comments
    18. Several commenters, including AWEA,\19\ Western, FirstEnergy, 
and the Midwest ISO, state that they support the low voltage ride-
through standard in Figure 1 of the NOPR. Midwest Reliability 
Organization suggests, however, that the standard could be in article 
9.6 of the LGIA. CenterPoint contends that the reliability concerns 
presented by the failure of a large wind plant to ride through a low 
voltage event also exist if other generators also fail to ride through 
such events, and thus would apply a low voltage ride-through 
requirement to all generators. Western supports the standard as 
proposed, with the understanding that it may need to be modified later 
if it causes unforeseen problems on the transmission system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See AWEA Reply Comments (April 1, 2005) at 10. 
Specifically, AWEA asks that the proposed low voltage ride-through 
standard be adopted, specifically the proposed standard of Figure 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Numerous other entities support the proposed low voltage ride-
through requirement with modifications. For instance, numerous 
commenters, including AWEA, PacifiCorp-PPM Energy, FPL Energy, Southern 
California Edison, AEP, Xcel, PJM, National Grid and Southern, believe 
that the required voltage should be measured at the point of 
interconnection, as opposed to the

[[Page 34997]]

high side of the wind plant substation transformer.
    20. Additionally, several entities dispute the specific time 
periods and associated voltage levels set forth in Figure 1 of the 
proposed Appendix G. American Superconductor states generally that the 
proposed low voltage ride-through curve in Figure 1 of the NOPR is 
unrealistic and does not resemble voltage situations that wind plants 
are likely to encounter. It also argues that the low voltage 
requirement proposed in the NOPR is not comparable to what is required 
of conventional generators. Midwest ISO TOs, CenterPoint and Xcel 
assert that requiring the low voltage ride-through capability to go 
only to 15 percent of the rated line voltage (as set out in Figure 1 of 
the NOPR) may be too high and may present reliability problems. They 
recommend that the Figure 1 low voltage ride-through profile require 
the wind turbine to ride through low voltage at zero percent of the 
rated line voltage for 150 milliseconds. NUSCo recommends that the 
Commission require wind generators to ride through a fault with zero 
percent of the rated line voltage at the point of interconnection for 
250 milliseconds (15 cycles). American Transmission argues that the low 
voltage ride-through curve of Figure 1 should show the voltage to be at 
0.90 per unit prior to time zero. ISO New England states that to the 
extent the Commission adopts a low voltage ride-through requirement, it 
should require wind plants to remain connected to the transmission 
system for a zero voltage level for the time period associated the 
typical time it takes to clear a normal design contingency fault.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NERC similarly states that to meet its general reliability 
standards for system performance, wind plants should remain online 
``through a normally cleared fault.'' NERC Comments at 3. Also, PJM 
states that wind plants should be required to operate during a zero 
voltage level at the Point of Interconnecton until the fault is 
cleared by primary protective devices on the Transmission System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Several of the commenters, including AWEA, Gamesa, and GE 
suggest that the low voltage ride-through standard should be clarified 
to apply only to three-phase faults. AWEA also asks that the 
requirement be clarified to state that a wind plant would not be 
expected to continue to operate in low voltage situations where the 
wind farm is tripped off-line following a fault if (a) this action is 
performed intentionally under a special protection scheme, or (b) if 
the fault is on the Transmission Provider's side of the Point of 
Interconnection and clearing the fault would effectively disconnect the 
wind plant from the system. Midwest ISO TOs and Montana-Dakota 
Utilities also seek clarification regarding application of the proposed 
standard to unbalanced phase voltages.
    22. Many commenters, while supportive of requiring wind plants to 
possess low voltage ride-through capability, argue that the specific 
standard should be permitted to vary based on reliability needs. For 
example, the New York PSC, while agreeing that large wind plants should 
possess low voltage ride-through capability, argues that the specific 
voltage-time standard should be developed on a case-by-case basis to 
reflect system needs. Midwest ISO TOs similarly contend that 
Transmission Providers should be able to establish different low 
voltage ride-through standards on a case-by-case basis. NYISO asserts 
that the low voltage ride-through standard proposed by the Commission 
should be a minimum performance requirement, and that Transmission 
Providers should have the flexibility to require a higher low voltage 
ride-through standard if the particular site location or wind plant 
design requires a higher standard to protect system reliability. 
Similarly, LIPA suggests that the Commission adopt a two-part low 
voltage ride-through standard; the first part would be the standard 
proposed in the NOPR, while the second part would apply a more 
stringent low voltage ride-through standard where the studies indicate 
that the NOPR requirements are inadequate, such as in locations with 
special reliability concerns. ISO New England recommends that the 
Commission not adopt a specific standard for low voltage ride-through 
capability, or alternatively, that the standard serve only as a 
guideline for wind turbine manufacturers. BPA and NERC contend that the 
development of low voltage ride-through standards should be left to the 
Western Electricity Coordinating Council, NERC, regional reliability 
councils, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 
and the American National Standards Institute.\21\ American 
Superconductor, Nevada Power, and NUSCo, among others, assert that the 
low voltage ride-through standard should be based on established 
regional reliability standards. Likewise, NorthWestern Energy asks that 
the standard be modified to allow the Transmission Provider to use the 
reliability council standard in effect when the LGIA is signed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Similarly, EEI suggests that the Commission adopt standards 
on an interim basis, until NERC, the regional reliability councils, 
or IEEE establish formal standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. FPL Energy asks that the proposed low voltage ride-through 
requirement be modified so that the determination of whether a wind 
plant must have low voltage ride-through capability is made on a case-
by case basis. According to FPL Energy, the NOPR would have the 
``unintended consequence'' of mandating costly low voltage ride-through 
technology for all wind plants because Transmission Providers will not 
be able to determine that the capability will never be needed.\22\ FPL 
Energy argues that the Commission's Final Rule should require the 
Transmission Provider to determine through the System Impact Study, on 
a case-by-case basis, whether the wind plant is required to possess low 
voltage ride-through capability. It notes that currently, Transmission 
Providers may not require an Interconnection Customer to be responsible 
for Network Upgrades that are not identified in the studies as 
necessary, and that a similar process should apply to the low voltage 
ride-through requirement. Finally, FPL Energy expresses concern that 
the use of the term ``demonstrate'' in the proposed requirement could 
be interpreted to require the wind plant to physically demonstrate the 
capability, risking harm to its electrical equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ FPL Energy estimates that for a 100 MW wind farm, the cost 
of low voltage ride-through exceeds $1.5 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. With regard to the Commission's proposal to permit the 
Transmission Provider to waive the low voltage ride-through 
requirement, NUSCo and Tucson Electric both argue that no waiver of the 
low voltage ride-through requirement should be permitted. NUSCo asserts 
that the reliability of one Transmission Provider's system may be 
affected by the grant of a waiver by a neighboring Transmission 
Provider.
    25. Xcel and LIPA believe there should also be a high voltage ride-
through standard for wind plants, comparable to the high voltage ride-
through standards for conventional generators.
2. Commission Conclusion
    26. As discussed further below, we adopt the low voltage ride-
through standard proposed in the NOPR, but will not require that it be 
met unless the System Impact Study shows that it is needed. 
Specifically, under the requirement we adopt in this Final Rule, a wind 
plant is required to satisfy the low voltage ride-through standard if 
the Transmission Provider shows, through the System Impact Study, that 
such

[[Page 34998]]

capability is required to ensure safety or reliability. This differs 
from the NOPR, which proposed to require low voltage ride-through 
capability in all cases, except when the Transmission Provider waived 
the requirement on a comparable and not unduly discriminatory basis for 
all wind plants. Additionally, the Final Rule adopts the Point of 
Interconnection as the point of measurement for the low voltage ride-
through standard, instead of the proposed high side of the wind plant 
substation transformers, and replaces the term ``demonstrate'' with 
``possess.'' We also grant certain clarifications, as discussed further 
below.
    27. The Commission believes that establishing the achievable low 
voltage ride-through standard in this Final Rule if the Transmission 
Provider shows that it is necessary to maintain safety or reliability 
provides certainty to wind plant developers that their interconnection 
to the grid will not be frustrated, and limits opportunities for undue 
discrimination. A requirement based on a uniform standard ensures that 
wind developers are not faced with widely varying interconnection 
standards in different areas of the country, which would increase 
manufacturing costs needlessly. We believe that in the long run this is 
in the best interests of the wind industry and customers, as it helps 
provide a secure and reliable power supply, and will facilitate 
increased use of wind as a generation resource while ensuring that 
reliability is protected.
    28. As noted above, the Commission requires low voltage ride-though 
capability only if the Transmission Provider shows that it is needed on 
a case-by-case basis, as FPL Energy requests. Specifically, low voltage 
ride-through capability is required only if the Transmission Provider 
shows, through the System Impact Study, that it is required to ensure 
the safety or reliability of the Transmission Provider's transmission 
system. Given that Transmission Providers have responsibility for 
ensuring the reliable operation of their systems (pursuant to NERC and 
regional reliability council standards), the Commission believes that 
they are in the best position to establish whether low voltage ride-
through capability is needed in individual circumstances. The System 
Impact Study is the best vehicle for assessing the need for such 
capability, and this study should determine if there is a need for a 
wind plant to remain on-line during low voltage events to ensure the 
safety or reliability of the system. Requiring low voltage ride-through 
capability only if the System Impact Study shows it to be necessary 
ensures that the increased reliance on wind plants does not degrade 
system safety or reliability. It also ensures that the Transmission 
Provider does not require a wind plant to install costly equipment that 
is not needed for grid safety or reliability. This limits the 
opportunities for undue discrimination; a wind plant Interconnection 
Customer will not have its interconnection frustrated by unnecessary 
requirements to install costly equipment that is not needed for safety 
or reliability. Should the wind plant Interconnection Customer disagree 
with the Transmission Provider that the System Impact Study shows that 
low voltage ride-through capability is needed, it may challenge the 
Transmission Provider's conclusion through dispute resolution or appeal 
to the Commission.
    29. Given our decision to apply the low voltage ride-through 
capability standard only on a case-by-case basis if the Transmission 
Provider shows, through the System Impact Study, that it is needed to 
ensure safety or reliability, there is no need for the waiver provision 
in the NOPR. As a result, issues raised by commenters regarding the 
waiver provision are moot.
    30. As noted above, many entities representing a broad mix of 
market participants request that the low voltage ride-through 
requirement be modified to require that the voltage be measured at the 
Point of Interconnection, as opposed to the high voltage side of the 
wind plant substation transformer. Given the need to protect grid 
safety and reliability by having wind plants ride through low voltage 
events where necessary, and continue to provide output at the point 
where the plant and its associated interconnection facilities join the 
grid, we will do so. Use of this measurement point recognizes that the 
Point of Interconnection is the point at which the Interconnection 
Customer's responsibility ends and the Transmission Provider's 
responsibility begins. Additionally, this change to the NOPR is broadly 
supported, and simplifies the interconnection process by maintaining 
the same Point of Interconnection definition adopted in Order No. 2003.
    31. We also find convincing FPL Energy's argument that using the 
term ``demonstrate the ability'' could be interpreted to require the 
wind plant to physically demonstrate that it has low voltage ride-
through capability and thus could lead to unnecessary tests that could 
harm the wind plant electrical equipment. Accordingly, we replace the 
term ``demonstrate the ability'' with ``be able.''
    32. We also clarify certain portions of the low voltage ride-
through standard. First, we clarify that the low voltage ride-through 
requirement, and the time periods and associated voltage levels set 
forth in Appendix G, Figure 1, apply to three-phase faults.\23\ This is 
because three-phase faults are the most severe, whereas two-phase or 
single-phase faults drop the voltage to a level not as low as that 
specified in Figure 1. Further, in response to AWEA, we clarify that a 
wind plant is not required to satisfy the standard in Appendix G, 
Figure 1 if the wind plant is intentionally tripped off line following 
a fault under a ``special protection scheme'' \24\ agreed to by the 
Transmission Provider. These situations may include a fault on the 
Transmission Provider's side of the Point of Interconnection, as well 
as a fault other than a three-phase fault covered by the low voltage 
ride-through standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ A three-phase fault is an unintentional short circuit 
condition involving all three phases in an electric system. It is 
the most severe in its impact, but occurs least frequently. For 
complete reliability, it is virtually universal to design an 
electric system for three-phase faults. Other types of faults are: 
single line-to-ground fault, line-to-line fault, and double line-to-
ground fault.
    \24\ A special protection scheme is an automatic protection 
scheme designed to detect abnormal or predetermined system 
conditions and take corrective actions to maintain system 
reliability. Such actions may include changes in demand, generation, 
or system configuration to maintain acceptable voltage or power 
flows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. We reject the requests that the standards be only guidelines. 
The Commission sets forth in this Final Rule a low voltage ride-through 
standard that it believes, after consideration of the comments from all 
interested entities, including the wind industry, is achievable and 
will maintain grid safety and reliability while facilitating the 
increased use of wind resources. As noted above, the Commission is 
setting a standard for low voltage ride-through to provide certainty 
and diminish the opportunities for undue discrimination. Permitting 
Transmission Providers to set their own specific low voltage ride-
through standards would create too great a risk that this opportunity 
would be used to frustrate wind plant interconnections or to favor a 
Transmission Provider's wind generating affiliate.
    34. In response to comments suggesting that we should allow NERC 
and the regional reliability councils to establish low voltage ride-
through standards, we are aware of the work being done by these 
organizations to address wind plant interconnection standards. However, 
no such standards are available today, and Transmission

[[Page 34999]]

Providers and wind Interconnection Customers are looking for 
interconnection standards to apply now. If other entities develop an 
alternate standard, a Transmission Provider may seek to justify 
adopting them as variations from Appendix G, as discussed below. 
Additionally, the Commission would consider a future industry petition 
to revise Appendix G to conform to NERC developed standards.
    35. With respect to Midwest ISO TOs' concern that Appendix G, 
Figure 1 does not contain information on how the standard would apply 
to unbalanced voltages in close proximity to the point of 
interconnection,\25\ we note that it is impossible to identify all 
possible conditions and circumstances that may arise on the 
transmission system. The low voltage ride-through standard is a general 
one that will be adequate under most circumstances. We recognize that 
special circumstances may occur. These may be identified by the System 
Impact Study, which should identify any additional protection 
requirements in addition to this standard. We also note that, as 
discussed below, the Commission permits variations from the Final Rule 
Appendix G that are ``consistent with or superior to'' the standard 
provisions, that are based on regional reliability council 
requirements, or that are offered by independent entities such as 
Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) or Independent System 
Operators (ISOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Additionally, a number of commenters suggest low voltage 
ride-through levels and timing or cycling standards different from 
those reflected in the NOPR Appendix G, Figure 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Similarly, we are not persuaded to alter the specific time 
periods and associated voltage levels in Figure 1 of the NOPR Appendix 
G. The low voltage ride-through standard proposed in that figure and 
adopted here is close to the standard used in other countries and was 
presented to the Commission by representatives of the wind industry as 
an achievable requirement. Several commenters, including Transmission 
Providers, support the standard as one that would safeguard 
reliability. The Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), a 
regional reliability council, has approved a similar low voltage ride-
through standard. The standard we adopt in this Final Rule is an 
international standard that has been accepted for use by the Alberta 
Electric System Operator and Germany, and was developed following 
detailed study. We do not believe it would be appropriate to deviate 
from such a widely-accepted and achievable standard in this rulemaking.
    37. We are not convinced of a need for a separate high voltage 
ride-through standard for wind generators. The record developed here 
does not indicate that this is a general concern across the country. 
Parties that believe a high voltage ride-through standard is required 
should ask NERC or the regional reliability councils to address this 
need. A Transmission Provider may seek to justify variations from 
Appendix G to establish these requirements under the variation 
provisions of Order No. 2003 and its rehearing order, as briefly 
summarized below in section III.G, ``Variations from the Final Rule.''

B. Power Factor Design Criteria (Reactive Power)

    38. The Commission stated in the NOPR that until recently, 
Transmission Providers did not require wind generators to have the 
capability to provide reactive power because the generators were 
generally small and had little effect on the transmission grid. 
However, because of the larger size of many of the wind plants being 
built and the increased presence of wind energy on various transmission 
systems, the Commission proposed to require wind plants to operate 
within a specified power factor range to help balance the reactive 
power needs of the transmission system.
    39. Specifically, the NOPR proposed to require that large wind 
plants maintain a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 
lagging (as required by Order No. 2003), to be measured at the high 
voltage side of the wind plant substation transformer.\26\ In Appendix 
G of the NOPR, we further proposed to allow wind plants flexibility in 
how they meet the power factor requirement; for example, using either 
power electronics designed to supply this level of reactive capability, 
fixed and switched capacitors if agreed to by the Transmission 
Provider, or a combination of the two.\27\ Additionally, the NOPR 
proposed to allow the Transmission Provider to waive the power factor 
requirement for wind plants where it is not needed at that location or 
for a generating facility of that size, provided that such waiver is 
not unduly discriminatory ( that is, is offered on a comparable basis 
to similarly situated wind plants). The NOPR stated, however, that if 
the Transmission Provider waived the power factor requirement, the 
interconnection agreement would be considered a non-conforming 
agreement under section 11.3 of the LGIP and thus would have to be 
filed with the Commission. The NOPR also proposed to require that wind 
plants have the capability to provide sufficient dynamic (as opposed to 
static) voltage support to interconnect to the transmission system, if 
the System Impact Study shows that dynamic capability is necessary for 
system reliability.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ This proposed measurement point is different from Order No. 
2003, which measures the power factor at the Point of 
Interconnection.
    \27\ Conventional generators inherently provide reactive power, 
whereas most induction-type generators used by wind plants currently 
can only provide reactive power through the addition of external 
devices.
    \28\ NOPR at P 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. The NOPR sought comments about whether the proposed power 
factor range should be increased or decreased for wind generating 
plants. It also sought comments as to whether any dynamic (i.e., 
controllable) reactive capability should be required of wind plants, 
and if so, how much. Finally, the NOPR sought comments on the proposed 
waiver provision.
    41. The comments received fall into several categories, including 
the general application of a power factor requirement to wind plants 
and the waiver provisions, the power factor range and operation within 
that range, measurement of the power factor requirement at the point of 
interconnection, and whether dynamic reactive power capability should 
be a requirement. These subcategories are separately addressed below.
1. Comments--Power Factor Range and General Application of the 
Requirement
    42. Western, NERC, BPA and Great River support the proposed power 
factor range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging (hereinafter stated as +/-
0.95). Southern California Edison agrees that the proposed power factor 
range is appropriate unless it is waived by the Transmission Provider.
    43. Numerous other commenters state that they support the standard, 
but that the Transmission Provider should be allowed to impose a wider 
power factor range on a wind generating plant to maintain the 
reliability of the transmission system. American Superconductor, for 
instance, believes that the +/-0.95 power factor range should be 
adopted as a standard except in cases where the Transmission Provider's 
System Impact Study indicates that additional reactive support is 
needed. Similarly, EEI asserts that the wind plant should operate 
within the +/-0.95 power factor range unless the Transmission Provider 
has established a different standard that

[[Page 35000]]

applies to all generators in its control area. New York PSC agrees with 
the NOPR power factor range, but argues that the Transmission Provider 
should be able to require a power factor of 0.90 lagging if the System 
Impact Study indicates it is needed for system reliability. FirstEnergy 
and American Transmission believe that to ensure a greater level of 
reliability, the Commission should adopt a power factor range of 0.90 
lagging to 0.95 leading. NRECA-APPA maintains that while most 
Transmission Providers impose the +/-0.95 power factor requirement on 
conventional generators, some impose a larger range, such as 0.90 
lagging to 0.95 leading, to meet reliability criteria. In that 
situation, they contend that the Transmission Provider should be 
allowed to impose that same wider power factor range on wind generating 
plants. In similar comments, NYISO urges the Commission to (1) consider 
the power factor standard a minimum requirement, as opposed to a 
maximum, and (2) find that the large wind farms should not be able to 
depend on the transmission system interconnection for the plants' 
excitation power.
    44. NRECA-APPA and Xcel also state that the standard is unclear 
about whether the wind generator can operate anywhere in the +/-0.95 
range. Xcel asks that the Commission clarify whether the wind generator 
is expected to operate over the entire +/-0.95 power factor range or at 
a specified point within that range.
    45. Several commenters assert that the adherence to the 
Transmission Provider's voltage schedule is more important than merely 
maintaining a power factor within the specified range. NRECA-APPA asks 
that the wind plant be required to comply with the Transmission 
Provider's voltage schedule directives. PacifiCorp/PPM Energy asks the 
Commission to revise the proposed power factor standard to require the 
Transmission provider to specify a power factor or voltage control set 
point within the 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging range. PacifCorp/PPM 
Energy also contends that the parenthetical in the proposed Appendix G 
(stating ``taking into account any limitations due to voltage level, 
real power output, etc.'') is ambiguous and should be eliminated.
    46. AWEA argues that we should specify the minimum real power 
output of the wind facility at which the +/-0.95 power factor range 
would apply. It states that to be clear about the limits of this 
standard, the reactive power output criteria should use a minimum real 
power output set at greater than 10 percent of the rated output of the 
generator. FPL Energy states that General Electric wind turbines cannot 
meet the proposed power factor standard over the full range of real 
power output, and that dynamic VAR control (DVAR) banks or static 
capacitors would have to be installed at an additional expense to meet 
the proposed power factor over the entire range. FPL Energy asserts 
that such costs would provide limited reliability benefits.
    47. Zilkha, FirstEnergy, NorthWestern Energy, and BPA indicate that 
the Transmission Provider should be allowed to waive the power factor 
requirement where it is not required. NUSCo, ISO New England and 
Midwest ISO TOs oppose allowing such a waiver. Midwest ISO TOs argue 
that if the Commission allows waiver, it should require that, where the 
Transmission Provider granting the waiver is not also the owner, the 
Transmission Owner approve the waiver. AWEA asserts that the proposed 
requirement that an interconnection agreement be filed with the 
Commission as a non-conforming agreement if the Transmission Provider 
has waived the reactive power requirement is inappropriate and 
inconsistent with Order No. 2003-A.
    48. AWEA and FPL Energy ask that the +/-0.95 power factor standard 
not be required of a wind plant unless the Transmission Provider shows 
that it is needed for system safety or reliability. FPL Energy states 
that the Transmission Provider should have the burden of demonstrating 
that the reactive power standard is needed. It suggests that the 
Commission use the same test it used in the NOPR for dynamic voltage 
support, which requires that the Transmission Provider, before 
requiring such capability, must show that it is necessary for system 
reliability. The CPUC recommends a ``least cost, best fit'' approach to 
dealing with the reactive power requirement needs of wind farms.
    49. Southern California Edison states that because reactive power 
at wind generating plants may be produced from devices external to the 
generator, a time delay may be necessary to allow for switching of 
reactive resources to enable the wind generator to operate at the 
appropriate power factor within the +/-0.95 power factor range. It 
states, however, that exempting the wind generating plant altogether 
from the power factor requirement is inappropriate.
2. Commission Conclusion--Power Factor Range and General Application of 
the Requirement
    50. We adopt the power factor range of +/-0.95 for large wind 
generating plants. We modify other parts of the proposed requirements. 
First, this Final Rule requires the wind plant to maintain the required 
power factor range only if the Transmission Provider shows, through the 
System Impact Study, that such capability is required of that plant to 
ensure safety or reliability. This differs from the NOPR, which 
required the wind plant to maintain the required power factor in all 
cases, except if the Transmission Provider waived or deferred 
compliance with the reactive power standard. Establishing an achievable 
reactive power standard if it is needed for safety or reliability 
provides assurance to wind plant developers that their interconnection 
to the grid will not be frustrated or face uncertainty due to a lack of 
standards, and thus will limit opportunities for undue discrimination. 
This uniform standard ensures that wind developers, when they seek to 
interconnect, are not faced with widely varying standards in different 
areas, or for different wind technologies, manufacturers, or plant 
owners. This should remove unnecessary obstacles to the increased 
growth of wind generation. Furthermore, ensuring that a large wind 
plant provides reactive support to the transmission grid if needed will 
ensure that safety and reliability is protected.
    51. Specifically, the Commission revises the proposed power factor 
standard to require that the wind plant maintain the required power 
factor only on a case-by-case basis if the Transmission Provider, in 
the System Impact Study, shows that it is necessary to ensure safety or 
reliability. The reactive power standard adopted here properly requires 
the Transmission Provider to show that reactive power capability is 
needed for each wind plant Interconnection Customer. As we noted with 
regard to low voltage ride-through capability, because the Transmission 
Provider is responsible for the safe and reliable operation of its 
transmission system (pursuant to NERC and regional reliability council 
standards), it is in the best position to establish if reactive power 
is needed in individual circumstances. The System Impact Study is the 
appropriate study for assessing the need for reactive power capability, 
and this study should determine if there is a need for a wind plant to 
have reactive power capability to ensure that the safety or reliability 
of

[[Page 35001]]

the system is maintained. Also, as we reasoned above with regard to low 
voltage ride-through, requiring wind plants to maintain the required 
power factor only if the System Impact Study shows it to be necessary 
ensures that the increased reliance on wind plants does not degrade 
system safety or reliability. It also ensures that the Transmission 
Provider does not require a wind plant to install costly equipment that 
is not needed for grid safety or reliability. Furthermore, requiring 
that the System Impact Study find a need for reactive power will limit 
the opportunities for undue discrimination; a wind plant 
Interconnection Customer will not have its interconnection frustrated 
by unnecessary requirements that are not necessary to maintain safety 
or reliability. Should a wind plant Interconnection Customer disagree 
with the Transmission Provider that the System Impact Study shows that 
the power factor requirement is needed, it may challenge the 
Transmission Provider's conclusion through dispute resolution or appeal 
to the Commission.
    52. Given our decision to require that a wind plant maintain the 
power factor standard only on a case-by-case basis where the 
Transmission Provider shows, through the System Impact Study, that 
reactive power is needed to ensure reliability, there is no need to 
retain the waiver provisions proposed in the NOPR. As a result, issues 
raised by commenters regarding the waiver provisions are moot.
    53. We clarify that the wind generating plant, if required to 
provide reactive power capability as described above, should be able to 
operate anywhere in the +/-0.95 power factor range.
    54. We reject proposals to change the power factor range standard 
in Appendix G to 0.90 lagging to 0.95 leading. Adopting such a standard 
would make the power factor requirement more onerous for wind plants 
than for conventional generators. Concerning NYISO's request that the 
Commission consider the standard as a minimum requirement as opposed to 
a maximum, as we declined to do so in Order No. 2003, we decline to do 
so here for the same reasons.
    55. In response to those who assert that adherence to the voltage 
schedule is more important than merely maintaining a power factor 
within the specified range, we note that article 9.6.2 of the LGIA 
already requires that the ``Interconnection Customer * * * operate the 
Large Generating Facility to maintain the specified output voltage or 
power factor at the Point of Interconnection.'' This language applies 
to wind plants and addresses this concern.
    56. We disagree with PacifiCorp/PPM Energy that the parenthetical 
statement in the NOPR, ``taking into account any limitations due to 
voltage level, real power output * * *,'' is ambiguous and unnecessary. 
AWEA explains that the stated power factor range cannot be accomplished 
by all equipment vendors at all levels of output, and asks that the 
wind plant be held to the +/-0.95 power factor range only when it is 
generating above 10 percent of its rated output. The parenthetical 
statement is necessary due to the technical differences of wind plants, 
which cannot meet the power factor standard below certain levels of 
output, and addresses the concern raised by the wind industry.
    57. We disagree with the CPUC's recommendation of a ``least cost, 
best fit'' approach. Such a ``standard'' is not a standard at all. 
Adopting such a least cost approach would result in widely varying 
``standards'' for wind turbines and related equipment. This would not 
only open the door further for the undue discrimination that this rule 
is designed to eliminate, but also would lead to high cost 
individualized generator designs by equipment manufacturers that would 
not serve the long-term needs of the wind industry.
3. Comments--Point of Interconnection
    58. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to measure the required 
power factor at the high side of the wind plant substation 
transformers, as opposed to the Point of Interconnection measurement 
point used in Order No. 2003. Numerous commenters, including NUSCo, 
Southern, National Grid, PacifiCorp/PPM Energy, and Southern California 
Edison request that the power factor be measured at the Point of 
Interconnection, as opposed to at the high voltage side of the wind 
plant substation transformer. FPL Energy notes that while meeting the 
power factor requirement at the Point of Interconnection may be more 
costly for wind plants that have long generation tie lines, reliability 
requirements will not be met by measuring the power factor at a 
different point. AWEA states that the appropriate point of measurement 
is either at the Point of Interconnection or at the high side of the 
wind plant's transformer, depending upon the particular electrical 
circumstances. It adds that the point of measurement should be 
determined based on the Transmission Provider's System Impact Study.
4. Commission Conclusion--Point of Interconnection
    59. We adopt the Point of Interconnection as the appropriate 
measurement point for the power factor standard. We agree that adopting 
the Point of Interconnection as the measurement point will better 
protect system reliability because it is closer to the bulk electrical 
power system, and will be consistent with Order No. 2003. In addition, 
numerous Transmission Providers and wind energy developers including 
PPM Energy and FPL Energy endorse establishing the point of measurement 
at the Point of Interconnection, instead of the high side of the 
substation transformers, as proposed in the NOPR. Moreover, FPL Energy 
supports this measurement point, even though it may be more costly for 
plants with long generation tie lines, because it is necessary for 
system safety and reliability.
5. Comments--Dynamic Reactive Power Capability
    60. The Commission proposed in the NOPR to require wind plants to 
be able to provide sufficient dynamic voltage support if the System 
Impact Study shows that it is needed to maintain system reliability. 
Several commenters assert that wind generators should have dynamic 
reactive capability for the entire power factor range, and that dynamic 
reactive capability must be required in every instance. Midwest ISO TOs 
assert that the System Impact Study may show that no such capability is 
needed at the time of the study, but the need may arise later. They 
contend that at a minimum, a wind plant should not degrade the 
transient under-voltage performance of the transmission system at the 
Point of Interconnection.
    61. Midwest ISO points to language from NERC standards \29\ and 
argues that the need for dynamic reactive power capability cannot be 
determined by the System Impact Study because it is almost impossible 
to conceive of every possible disturbance scenario ahead of time. AEP 
argues that dynamic reactive capability must be required and that the 
specific level of dynamic capability should be determined on a need 
basis. ISO New England states that the wind

[[Page 35002]]

plant's rate of response for dynamic voltage control should be 
comparable to that provided by a conventional synchronous generator 
using an automatic voltage regulator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Specifically, Midwest ISO cites the following language: 
``Dynamic reactive power support and voltage control are essential 
during power system disturbances. Synchronous generators, 
synchronous condensers, and static var compensators (SVCs and 
STATCOMs) can provide dynamic support.'' See Comments of Midwest ISO 
at 5-6, citing NERC Planning Standard I. D., System Adequacy and 
Security--Voltage Support and Reactive Power, approved by the NERC 
Board of Trustees on September 16, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. FirstEnergy and FPL Energy ask the Commission to clarify what 
it meant by the term ``sufficient dynamic voltage support.'' It claims 
that the term ``sufficient'' is vague and requires clarification. 
Similarly, FPL Energy contends that the term ``sufficient'' is 
ambiguous, and should be clarified or removed from the Final Rule.
    63. Further, FPL Energy notes that only one wind turbine 
manufacturer currently holds the patent for the variable speed wind 
turbine electronics that allow the turbine to produce dynamic reactive 
power. According to FPL Energy, the Commission, as a matter of public 
policy, should consider whether it is appropriate to set a power factor 
standard that will give one turbine manufacturer a significant 
competitive advantage.
    64. American Superconductor argues that based on its experience of 
integrating wind generating plants into transmission systems, it is not 
always necessary to install dynamic capability for all of the reactive 
compensation required at a wind generating plant. It reports that all 
eight of the reactive compensation systems it has provided to wind 
generating plants used a combination of dynamic and static reactive 
capability. These hybrid systems consist of a small STATCOM device 
(with full dynamic capability) \30\ that controls a number of switched 
shunt capacitors or reactors. They have proven to be very sound 
technically, as well as good economic choices, according to American 
Superconductor. It asks the Commission to recognize that the benefits 
of dynamic reactive capability can be achieved, often at substantially 
lower cost, by such systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ A Static Compensator (STATCOM) provides voltage support to 
the electric system in a manner similar to a synchronous condenser 
and therefore is superior to Static VAR compensators or switched 
capacitor banks. Hybrid systems consist of a small STATCOM device 
and a number of switched capacitors or reactors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. NorthWestern Energy argues that dynamic reactive capability 
should not be required if the wind developer demonstrates that the wind 
generating plant will not cause voltage fluctuations greater than the 
``Border Line of Irritation,'' as identified in Section 10.5.1 of the 
IEEE's Standard 519, measured at the Point of Interconnection. The wind 
developer should also demonstrate that its addition will not diminish 
the rating of an existing transmission line by reducing reactive 
voltage support, according to NorthWestern Energy. It agrees that wind 
generators should be allowed to use a combination of fixed and/or 
switched capacitors and reactors in combination with dynamic capability 
to control the voltage. It states that dynamic capability would allow 
for the smooth switching of these devices, as well as the energizing 
and de-energizing of the wind turbines, without affecting the quality 
of power delivered to customers.
6. Commission Conclusion--Dynamic Reactive Power Capability
    66. The Commission adopts the language in the NOPR regarding 
dynamic reactive power capability. The Final Rule Appendix G, as 
explained above, requires that a wind plant have reactive power 
capability if the Transmission Provider shows, in the System Impact 
Study, that it is needed for safety or reliability. The Final Rule does 
not require that the reactive power capability installed by the wind 
plant be dynamic unless the System Impact Study also shows that this 
type of capability is needed for system reliability. We are not 
convinced that dynamic reactive capability is needed in every case, and 
we permit the Transmission Provider to make that determination on a 
case-by-case basis through the System Impact Study. We believe that the 
Transmission Provider is best situated to determine in the first 
instance whether dynamic reactive capability is needed, and what level 
of dynamic capability is necessary. We emphasize, however, that 
Transmission Providers must assess the need for dynamic reactive power 
capability on a comparable and not unduly discriminatory basis.
    67. We reject requests that the Final Rule require that the 
reactive capability possessed by the wind plant be dynamic in every 
case. We conclude that the Transmission Provider's System Impact Study 
should show that dynamic reactive capability is needed in a particular 
case. If the wind plant Interconnection Customer disagrees with the 
Transmission Provider that the System Impact Study shows that dynamic 
reactive power capability is needed, it may challenge the Transmission 
Provider's conclusion through dispute resolution or appeal to the 
Commission. We disagree with Midwest ISO TOs that a System Impact Study 
can account only for the need of the dynamic reactive capability on the 
day of the study; the study should be able to make reasonable 
assumptions about future days.
    68. We disagree with FirstEnergy and FPL Energy that the term 
``sufficient'' requires clarification. The Final Rule allows the 
Transmission Provider to determine the sufficient level of dynamic 
reactive capability on a case-by-case basis through the System Impact 
Study. As noted above, if the wind plant Interconnection Customer 
disagrees with the Transmission Provider's determination, it may 
challenge the Transmission Provider's conclusion through dispute 
resolution or appeal to the Commission.
    69. We acknowledge that dynamic reactive capability can be 
achieved, often at substantially lower cost, by systems with a 
combination of true dynamic capability plus switched shunt capacitors 
and reactors. The Final Rule Appendix G gives wind plants the 
flexibility to use a variety of combinations to provide the reactive 
capability necessary.
    70. In response to FPL Energy's concern regarding wind turbine 
supply competition, we note that the wind turbine industry is highly 
competitive and that manufacturers are continually improving their 
designs. Although one manufacturer may have a competitive advantage 
right now, other manufacturers have indicated that they can rapidly 
improve their designs as required. Also, no manufacturer took exception 
to the Commission's proposed requirements. Furthermore, as described in 
detail below, there will be a transition period before the Appendix G 
standards will apply.

C. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Capability

    71. We noted in the NOPR that in the past, Transmission Providers 
generally did not require wind generators to have remote supervisory 
control and data acquisition (SCADA) capability because of their small 
size and minimal effects on the transmission system. Many Transmission 
Providers now argue that with the increasing number of large wind 
plants connecting to transmission systems, SCADA capability is needed 
to acquire wind facility operating data and ensure the safety and 
reliability of the transmission system during normal, system emergency, 
and system contingency conditions.
    72. The NOPR proposed to require that a large wind plant seeking to 
interconnect to the transmission grid possess SCADA capability to 
transmit data and receive instructions from the Transmission Provider. 
Additionally, Appendix G would have required that the Transmission 
Provider and the wind plant owner determine the type of SCADA 
information and equipment that

[[Page 35003]]

is essential for the proposed wind plant, taking into account the size 
of the plant, its characteristics, its location, and its importance in 
maintaining generation resource adequacy and transmission system 
reliability.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Unlike synchronous generating plants, which generally have 
SCADA capability, can respond to automatic generation control 
signals from the control center and are often staffed, wind 
generating plants consist of numerous induction generators connected 
through a medium-voltage collector system, and are often remote, 
unmanned, and characterized by an unpredictable rate of change of 
output, thus making it difficult for the Transmission Provider to 
limit the output of the wind plant when necessary for system 
reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    73. The NOPR sought comments regarding the proposed SCADA 
capability requirements, specifically on whether there is any essential 
SCADA information that large wind plants should be required to provide, 
such as information needed to determine how the plant's maximum 
megawatt output and megawatt ramp rate vary over time with changes in 
the wind speed or information needed to forecast the megawatt output of 
the plant.
1. Comments
    74. Great River, Midwest ISO, First Energy and Southern California 
Edison support the SCADA requirement in the NOPR. Ohio Consumer's 
Council, while also supportive, suggests that the Commission clarify 
the SCADA requirement so that future disputes regarding interpretation 
of it are minimized.
    75. Numerous other commenters support the requirement with certain 
modifications. For example, EEI states that the requirement should 
require the parties to adhere to good utility practice, as that term is 
refined over time. It also asserts that the Commission should recognize 
that NERC and other regional reliability councils are the appropriate 
entities to determine how to support real-time operations associated 
with data acquisition and data exchange. Western and Gamesa, among 
others, believe that SCADA capability, at a minimum, should include 
real-time and hourly real power output and reactive power output 
information and interconnection facility status information. Gamesa and 
NorthWestern Energy also argue that third parties who have experience 
with wind energy forecasting, not the Transmission Provider or the 
control area operator, should develop wind forecasting models and 
paradigms. NorthWestern Energy further asserts that the wind plant 
should be manned at all times. Similarly, Xcel supports a requirement 
that wind plants provide a leased voice line from the Transmission 
Control Center to a manned wind plant control center for voltage 
support.
    76. Xcel, New York PSC, AEP, NERC and LIPA, among others, support a 
SCADA requirement, but generally contend that the type of SCADA 
capability required should be determined between the individual 
Transmission Provider and the wind plant, based on local system 
requirements. LIPA, New York PSC and Southern assert that the right to 
determine what SCADA capability is required should not be delegated in 
whole or part to the wind plant developer. Southern is also concerned 
that limiting SCADA information requirements to only what is 
``essential'' for the wind plant may be interpreted to jeopardize 
reliability. It suggests eliminating the term ``essential'' and 
replacing it with ``required'' to ensure that reliability is not 
jeopardized.
    77. NRECA-APPA generally support the Commission's proposed SCADA 
requirement, but they question the Commission's statement in footnote 
13 of the NOPR that it is difficult for the Transmission Provider to 
limit the output of a wind plant when necessary for reliability. They 
state that according to General Electric, wind farms in Europe are 
installing communications and control equipment (including turbine 
blades that can be adjusted to reduce the output of the wind generator 
at various wind speeds) to allow this to be done. They note that while 
not all wind plants need this capability, it may be needed at some 
plants, depending on the size of the plant or the number of wind plants 
on a transmission system, or other system characteristics.
    78. AWEA and FPL Energy both express concern that the requirement 
in the NOPR that wind plants have the capability to ``receive 
instructions'' through SCADA could be interpreted to require control of 
the wind plant by the Transmission Provider, for example, to curtail 
the wind plant remotely at any time. FPL Energy asks the Commission to 
revise the requirement that the wind plant be able to ``receive 
instructions'' through SCADA to apply only during Emergency Conditions, 
as defined in the LGIA. AWEA asks that the Commission clarify that the 
proposed SCADA requirement does not establish a presumption that output 
controls are part of the standard, and that it state clearly that the 
terms and conditions for use of SCADA capability is a separate 
transmission service issue, not an interconnection issue, and must be 
resolved by contract or Commission-approved transmission tariff. 
Conversely, BPA asserts that direct SCADA control by the Transmission 
Provider is preferable and that the final SCADA requirement should 
permit a Transmission Provider to exercise supervisory control over a 
wind plant.
    79. Southern, Nevada Power and American Transmission maintain that 
the SCADA requirement for wind generators should be the same as that 
for synchronous generators.
2. Commission Conclusion
    80. We adopt the SCADA requirement proposed in the NOPR. In 
response to AWEA and FPL Energy, however, we clarify that Appendix G 
requires the wind plant to have only the capability to receive 
instructions. Nothing in this Final Rule authorizes a Transmission 
Provider to control a wind plant. Any such authorization would be 
subject to separate negotiation and agreement between the 
Interconnection Customer and the Transmission Provider.
    81. Under the SCADA requirement adopted here, the wind 
Interconnection Customer will provide SCADA capability, with the 
specific SCADA information and control capability required to be agreed 
to by the wind plant Interconnection Customer and the Transmission 
Provider. This flexible requirement ensures that wind plants have SCADA 
capability, which we believe is necessary to ensure that system 
reliability is protected, and permits the wind plant Interconnection 
Customer and the Transmission Provider to negotiate the specific SCADA 
capability that meets the needs of the transmission system at the 
specific location of the wind plant. We expect Transmission Providers 
to be reasonable in these negotiations and not to use their control 
over the Transmission System to unnecessarily burden wind plants. 
Should the wind plant Interconnection Customer disagree with the 
Transmission Provider about the level of SCADA capability required, it 
may challenge the Transmission Provider's conclusion through dispute 
resolution or appeal to the Commission.
    82. In response to EEI's request, the SCADA requirement does not 
need to be revised explicitly to require adherence to good utility 
practice. We note that Appendix G is a component of the LGIA, and the 
LGIA itself already requires the parties to adhere to good utility 
practice.
    83. With respect to comments concerning the type of SCADA 
information needed for wind plants, the SCADA requirement in the NOPR 
allows the Parties to decide what information should be provided and 
the equipment to be installed at the site. We adopt this policy in this 
Final Rule. We are not deciding such issues as whether

[[Page 35004]]

third parties should be used to develop wind forecasting models and 
paradigms. We simply require that some SCADA capability be installed 
for operation and reliability purposes. The flexible nature of the 
requirement we adopt here recognizes, as NERC states, that other 
entities are more appropriate to determine how best to support real-
time operation with data acquisition and exchange. We agree with AWEA 
and others that this Final Rule only requires that SCADA capability be 
provided by the wind plant, and that the type of SCADA information 
supplied and control exercised can be negotiated and set forth in a 
separate agreement between the wind plant Interconnection Customer and 
the Transmission Provider.
    84. Similarly, we deny requests that the Transmission Provider have 
the sole authority to determine the type of SCADA equipment to be 
installed at the wind plant. To ensure that unnecessary SCADA equipment 
is not required of the wind plant, the parties must determine together 
the SCADA capability and equipment needed, taking into account the 
size, location and characteristics of the wind plant and the safety and 
reliability of the transmission system. Southern has not shown that 
replacing the term ``essential'' with ``required'' would add any 
clarity to the requirement.
    85. We are not convinced by arguments that the SCADA requirements 
for wind plants should be the same as for conventional generators. 
Since wind is different from conventional generators (as discussed 
above), information exchanged between the Transmission Provider and the 
wind plant may be of a different nature. As a result, it is appropriate 
to have different, more flexible SCADA requirements for wind plants.

D. Wind Plant Interconnection Modeling

    86. In its May 20, 2004 petition, AWEA proposed that Transmission 
Providers be required to ``participate in a formal process for 
updating, improving, and validating the engineering models used for 
modeling the interconnection impacts of wind turbines.'' \32\ The 
Commission did not propose such a requirement in the NOPR, because such 
a process should take place outside the Commission, through industry 
technical groups or the regional reliability councils. The Commission 
recognized, however, that improvements in the way that wind 
interconnections are modeled would be beneficial, and encouraged the 
industry to address this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Petition of AWEA at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Comments
    87. Those submitting comments regarding wind plant interconnection 
modeling generally support the Commission's conclusion that the issue 
is best addressed through industry technical groups, NERC, and regional 
reliability councils.
2. Commission Conclusion
    88. As we stated in the NOPR, we recommend that wind developers, 
wind turbine manufacturers, Transmission Providers and affected parties 
form technical groups and participate in a formal process to address, 
update, improve and validate wind turbine engineering models. We remain 
convinced, however, that the Commission is not the appropriate forum 
for such a process.

E. Self-Study of Interconnection Feasibility

    89. In the NOPR, the Commission rejected a proposal by AWEA that 
would permit a wind plant Interconnection Customer to enter the 
interconnection queue and receive the base case data to ``self-study'' 
the feasibility of its proposed interconnection without having first 
submitted an Interconnection Request that includes power and load flow 
data and fully completed plant electric design specifications, as 
required under Order No. 2003.\33\ The Commission noted that Order No. 
2003 requires that a valid and complete Interconnection Request be on 
file with the Transmission Provider before the Interconnection Customer 
may receive Base Case data.\34\ We further noted, however, that Section 
2.3 of the LGIP did not address situations where the Interconnection 
Customer might need access to the Base Case data before it could 
complete its Interconnection Request. The Commission therefore sought 
comments on how to balance the need of wind generators to receive the 
base case data and ``self-study'' before filing a completed 
Interconnection Request with the need to protect this critical energy 
infrastructure information and commercially sensitive data against 
unwarranted disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See id. at 13-14.
    \34\ See NOPR at P 22, citing LGIP, section 2.3; see also Order 
No. 2003 at P 77-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Comments
    90. Several entities, including Tucson Electric, Midwest 
Reliability Organization, Montana-Dakota Utilities, New York PSC, 
Nevada Power, Great River, LIPA, BPA, American Transmission, NUSCo, 
Xcel, and Midwest ISO TOs oppose AWEA's proposal to allow wind 
generators to be placed in the queue, receive the base case data and 
``self-study'' before filing completed electric design specifications 
and other related technical data. They generally argue that wind plants 
should be treated no differently from other generating plants. Montana-
Dakota Utilities suggests that wind plant developers use generic power 
flow network models before filing Interconnection Requests, since these 
models would not likely reveal commercially sensitive data or critical 
energy infrastructure information. BPA does state, however, that while 
it supports the Commission's decision not to alter the LGIA timelines, 
the requirement that wind plants provide detailed project 
specifications could be relaxed at the Feasibility Study stage, and 
that it is willing to work with wind developers to ensure that they 
have the information necessary to develop their Interconnection 
Requests. It asserts that the Commission should allow Transmission 
Providers the flexibility to determine when wind developers should 
submit turbine specifications and detailed electrical design data. LIPA 
argues that all generators should have comparable access to base case 
data, subject to their willingness to sign a confidentiality agreement, 
and that discussion of how to accommodate alternative plant designs 
(such as wind plants) in the interconnection process should be left to 
the Transmission Provider and the generator.
    91. NRECA-APPA state that while they are willing to accept AWEA's 
proposal, they do not object to the NOPR proposal. Numerous other 
commenters, including Western, PacifiCorp/PPM Energy, FPL Energy, and 
the Ohio Consumer's Council indicate that they generally support the 
AWEA ``self-study'' proposal, or offer suggestions to balance the need 
of wind plants to obtain base case data with the need to protect such 
data from unwarranted release. Western has no objection to allowing 
wind generators to self-study if the Transmission Provider is given 
final approval before the Interconnection Request is completed. It 
asserts that wind plants should request base case data directly from 
the regional reliability council, execute a confidentiality agreement 
and pay a fee. PJM similarly contends that allowing wind plants to 
obtain base case data from the regional reliability councils will allow 
sufficient self-study by the

[[Page 35005]]

developer while also limiting the need for multiple restudies by the 
Transmission Provider. Western contends that self-study and base case 
information should be available to all prospective Interconnection 
Customers.
    92. Ohio Consumer's Council asks that the Commission seriously 
consider AWEA's proposal that wind projects not be required to provide 
some detailed design data as a condition of obtaining a place in the 
interconnection queue. It states that large wind projects are based on 
complex and variable site work compared to the more traditional 
generating plants that are studied for selected locations based on 
transportation needs and access to water for cooling purposes. It 
stresses that the Commission's requirements regarding the submission of 
design data for entry in the interconnection queue should reflect these 
differences in technologies.
    93. AWEA and PacifiCorp/PPM Energy ask the Commission to reconsider 
its proposal not to adopt AWEA's self-study proposal. PacifiCorp/PPM 
Energy state that wind turbine performance varies significantly by 
manufacturer and that wind plant developers necessarily typically 
negotiate turbine selection and evaluate the configuration of the 
facility throughout the interconnection study period. AWEA similarly 
notes the complexities involved in laying out the medium voltage 
collector systems used by wind plants, and states the layout cannot be 
finalized until the Point of Interconnection is firmly established. It 
states that consequently, the detailed design and data for the 
collector system, which many Transmission Providers assert is required 
by the Interconnection Request, cannot be available when the 
Interconnection Request is submitted. AWEA suggests that, rather than 
requiring that the generating plant design be ``substantially 
completed'' at the time the Interconnection Request is submitted, the 
Commission should allow a wind plant to file an Interconnection Request 
with the generating plant design data and other related data depicting 
the wind plant as ``a single generating unit connected through step-up 
transformation, with the equivalent power output characteristics (MW 
output and MVAR range) as the total net MW output of the wind 
generating facility in question.'' \35\ Under this proposal, the wind 
plant developer would be required to provide a ``substantially 
completed'' generating plant design before the System Impact Study, 
along with either the power system load flow data sheets or the newly 
developed machine models with substantially complete input data to 
those models. AWEA states that many, but not all, Transmission 
Providers now accept such data as satisfying the requirements of the 
Interconnection Request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Comments of AWEA at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Conclusion
    94. In this Final Rule, we allow a wind plant Interconnection 
Customer to satisfy the requirements of the Interconnection Request by 
providing a set of preliminary electric design specifications depicting 
the wind plant as a single equivalent generator, as explained below. 
Once completing the Interconnection Request in this manner, the wind 
plant may enter the queue and receive the base case data as provided 
for in Order No. 2003. The Commission directs that these provisions be 
attached as Appendix G to the LGIP in the OATTs of all public utilities 
that own, control, or operate facilities for transmitting electric 
energy in interstate commerce.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Commission requires that these procedural provisions be 
separately appended as Appendix G to the LGIP, because they are 
procedural in nature, and to ensure that they are in force during 
the initial stages of the interconnection process. We are retaining 
the Appendix G moniker to ensure that these procedural provisions 
are recognized as applicable only to the interconnection of large 
wind plants, the subject of this Final Rule. The remaining technical 
requirements adopted in this Final Rule must be appended as Appendix 
G to the LGIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    95. In the NOPR, we noted that Section 2.3 of the LGIP did not 
address situations in which the Interconnection Customer needs the Base 
Case data before it can complete its Interconnection Request. We sought 
comments on how to balance the need of wind generators to have this 
information before filing a completed Interconnection Request with the 
need to protect this critical energy infrastructure information and 
commercially sensitive data against unwarranted disclosure. In 
addition, we sought to ensure that one class of customers was not being 
given undue preferential treatment.
    96. We note that many Transmission Providers, non-wind generators, 
and a state regulatory commission oppose allowing wind generators to 
file Interconnection Requests, and hence be given a place in the queue, 
before submitting their final plant designs and related technical data. 
However, some trade organizations, wind developers, and Transmission 
Providers with substantial experience interconnecting wind plants, 
including AWEA, FPL Energy, PacifiCorp/PPM Energy, Western and Ohio 
Consumer's Council, support the AWEA proposal or some accommodation of 
wind's special needs.
    97. We are persuaded that wind projects are not the same as 
conventional generators with regard to Interconnection Requests. Large 
conventional generators are generally standard in design, and their 
design specifications and configurations do not necessarily change as a 
result of where they are located on the Transmission Provider's 
transmission system. Large wind plants, on the other hand, are located 
on sites made up of several acres of land. Their physical layout often 
consists of hundreds of wind turbines in the more remote areas of a 
Transmission Provider's system, and that layout can extend for several 
miles. The physical placement of the turbines, transformers and voltage 
support devices that affect the electrical characteristics created by 
the medium voltage collector system depend on the size and location of 
the wind plant and the location of other generators on the Transmission 
Provider's system. For these reasons, wind plant developers are unable 
to submit completed design specifications for individual wind turbines 
until much later in the interconnection process, in comparison with 
other developers.
    98. However, a wind plant developer can provide at the time the 
Interconnection Request is submitted design specifications for the wind 
generating plant based on its aggregate output, though perhaps not for 
the individual wind turbines. As we stated in Order No. 2003-A and in 
the NOPR, the Appendix G we adopt in this rule is designed to account 
for these unique technical characteristics of wind plants. Recognizing 
these unique characteristics is not favoring one form of generation 
over others; it simply removes barriers to wind plant development that 
are not necessary to protect safety or reliability.
    99. In short, we are persuaded that the technical characteristics 
of wind plants prevent them from providing certain detailed design 
specifications and other information at the time of the Interconnection 
Request. Therefore, the Commission adopts provisions in the Final Rule 
Appendix G permitting the wind developer to satisfy the requirements of 
the Interconnection Request by providing a set of preliminary 
electrical design specifications depicting the wind plant as a single 
equivalent generator.\37\ Upon satisfying these and other applicable 
Interconnection Request requirements

[[Page 35006]]

in Order No. 2003, the wind plant may enter the queue and receive the 
base case data as provided for all large generators in Order No. 2003. 
However, no more than six months later, the wind plant must submit 
completed detailed design specifications and other data (including 
collector system layout data) needed to allow the Transmission Provider 
to complete its System Impact Study. This information must be provided 
before the System Impact Study can begin. This deadline provides a date 
certain regarding when the final design specifications must be 
submitted to the Transmission Provider to avoid having uncertain 
projects in the queue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ ``Single equivalent generator'' information is design data 
that represents the aggregate electrical characteristics of the 
individual wind generators as a single generator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    100. Permitting wind plants to provide single-generator-equivalent 
specifications at the Interconnection Request stage appropriately 
balances the need of a Transmission Provider to have adequate data in 
the Interconnection Request and the difficulty that a wind plant 
developer has in completing its detailed design before entering the 
queue and receiving access to the base case data. This provision also 
protects critical energy infrastructure information by making none of 
it available to anyone who has not made a satisfactory Interconnection 
Request. Wind plants will follow all other requirements of the queue 
and study processes set forth in Order No. 2003, including the 
timelines and confidentiality provisions.

F. Applicability to Other Generating Technologies

    101. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comments as to whether 
there are other alternative technologies that should be covered by 
Appendix G.
1. Comments
    102. Numerous entities state that other alternative technologies 
should be made subject to Appendix G.\38\ Southern California Edison 
asserts that all non-synchronous generators should be subject to 
Appendix G. Tucson Electric submits that solar generators without 
fueled backup should be included in Appendix G. Other commenters, 
including Midwest Reliability Organization, National Grid, Xcel, the 
CPUC and Great River generally state that they do not necessarily 
support including other alternative technologies within the coverage of 
Appendix G. The CPUC, for example, does not believe that Appendix G 
should be expanded to apply to ``renewable'' technologies other than 
those that are intermittent or geographically constrained. National 
Grid states that these proceedings have focused exclusively on wind 
generation and thus does not support applying Appendix G more broadly. 
Xcel states that other non-synchronous technologies have not matured 
sufficiently to operate on a scale greater than 20 MW, and therefore 
should not be able to use Appendix G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ These entities include PJM, BPA, ISO New England, NYISO, 
Southern California Edison, CenterPoint, the NARUC, LIPA, New York 
PSC, Nevada Power, NUSCo and Tucson Electric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    103. American Transmission asserts that the Commission should adopt 
the Alberta Electric System Operator definition of asynchronous 
generation, which is ``a type of generator that produces alternating 
electric current that matches the frequency of an interconnected power 
system and the mechanical rotor of the generator does not rotate in 
synchronism with the system frequency.'' It argues that the Alberta 
Electric System Operator definition is superior because it is used in 
the electric power technical community to refer to the type of 
generator to which the NOPR is directed and because it compares the 
speed of an asynchronous generator to that of a traditional generator.
2. Commission Conclusion
    104. The Commission concludes that the Final Rule Appendix G 
exceptions to the LGIP and LGIA apply only to large wind plants. As 
discussed above, the Appendix G was designed around the special needs 
and design characteristics of wind generators. The NOPR asked whether 
there were other generators that have similar characters and require 
similar technical requirements to those contained in Appendix G. 
Although numerous commenters suggested that other generators may have 
special needs and suggested that they should be made subject to 
Appendix G, none other than Tucson (who suggested solar generators 
without fueled backup) offered a specific induction generator 
technology with similar characteristics to wind as an Appendix G 
candidate. The Appendix G provisions adopted here focuses on the 
special characteristics of large wind plants, particularly the fact 
that they utilize many induction generators connected to the 
transmission system at a single point through a medium-voltage 
collector system. The Commission has not found at this time that any 
other technologies, including the solar generators without fueled 
backup offered by Tucson, have similar characteristics.
    105. The Commission does not adopt American Transmission's proposed 
definition of ``asynchronous generation'' in the Final Rule. The 
Commission is not relying on the concept of asynchronous generation in 
this Final Rule, and we do not believe that this characteristic 
appropriately identifies the interconnection needs of large wind plants 
addressed by the Final Rule Appendix G. Accordingly, we do not make any 
definitional changes.
    106. While we are not applying the Final Rule Appendix G to non-
wind technologies, we may do this in the future, or take other generic 
or case-specific actions, if another technology emerges for which a 
different set of interconnection requirements is necessary.

G. Variations From the Final Rule

    107. The NOPR proposed to permit Transmission Providers to justify 
variations from the Final Rule Appendix G using the same three 
variation standards in Order No. 2003. First, public utilities may seek 
variations from the Final Rule Appendix G based on regional reliability 
council requirements.\39\ Second, we proposed that public utilities may 
argue that proposed variations are ``consistent with or superior to'' 
the Final Rule Appendix G.\40\ Third, we proposed to permit independent 
public utility Transmission Providers, such as Regional Transmission 
Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs), greater 
flexibility in adopting Appendix G (the ``independent entity 
variation'').\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See NOPR at P 25, citing Order No. 2003 at P 823-24.
    \40\ See NOPR at P 25, citing Order No. 2003 at P 816.
    \41\ See NOPR at P 25, citing Order No. 2003 at P 822-27 and 
Order No. 2003-A at P 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Comments
    108. Numerous entities request that they be permitted to justify 
variations from the Appendix G requirements. Several ask the Commission 
to clarify that the Appendix G performance standards are minimum 
requirements, as noted elsewhere.\42\ Some commenters encourage the 
Commission to use NERC or regional reliability councils to develop 
necessary technical standards and requirements applicable to wind 
generation and its effect on reliability, including the incorporation 
of NERC's American National Standards Institute-approved standards, 
field tests and other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ These entities include Midwest ISO TOs, FirstEnergy, NYISO, 
LADWP, NorthWestern Energy, CPUC and Southern, among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Conclusion
    109. As we proposed in the NOPR, we apply here all three of the 
variation standards in Order No. 2003. If a

[[Page 35007]]

Transmission Provider seeks to justify variations from Appendix G, it 
may do so in its compliance filing. A Transmission Provider may propose 
to include standards developed by NERC or a regional reliability 
council in its own Appendix G. The Commission is mindful of the work 
being done by these organizations in developing standards for the 
interconnection of wind plants, and we strongly encourage all 
interested parties, including Transmission Providers, wind plant 
developers and wind turbine manufacturers, to continue to participate 
in developing these standards. The Commission will consider them in any 
request for a variation from the Final Rule Appendix G by an individual 
Transmission Provider, or a request by many to revise Appendix G.

H. Transition Period

    110. In the NOPR, the Commission did not propose a transition 
period before the technical requirements in Appendix G would take 
effect.
1. Comments
    111. AWEA, FPL Energy, and PacifiCorp/PPM Energy ask that there be 
a transition period so Appendix G would apply only to LGIAs signed or 
unexecuted LGIAs filed with the Commission after January 1, 2006, or 
six months after the issuance of this Final Rule, whichever is later. 
FPL Energy asserts that a transition period is needed to prevent added 
costs and delays to protect previously executed wind equipment purchase 
agreements and power purchase arrangements. PacifiCorp/PPM Energy add 
that wind turbines are already in the process of being manufactured 
that would require substantial changes to their electronics to meet the 
proposed requirements. AWEA asserts that the Commission has 
historically provided a transition period in similar circumstances, 
including in Order No. 2003.
    112. AWEA also asks that all wind plants that are interconnected to 
the transmission system when Appendix G is adopted, or that have 
executed an LGIA or filed an unexecuted LGIA with the Commission before 
January 1, 2006 or six months after the issuance of this Final Rule, 
whichever is later, be exempted from the Appendix G requirements for 
the remaining life of the existing wind generator equipment. Likewise, 
Ohio Consumer's Council, LIPA and Xcel support a transition period and 
state that existing wind projects or those in advanced planning should 
be exempt from the Appendix G requirements.
    113. BPA and American Transmission are opposed to any transition 
period. American Transmission states that once Appendix G is adopted, 
no deviations should be permitted unless otherwise agreed to by the 
Transmission Provider. BPA states that installing outdated or inferior 
wind equipment that is incapable of complying with reliability criteria 
is contrary to the intent of this proceeding. American Transmission 
also maintains that existing interconnection agreements with wind 
plants must be amended to conform to the requirements adopted in this 
proceeding. It argues that technical requirements for similar 
generating facilities should not be based merely on the timing of the 
interconnection.
2. Commission Conclusion
    114. For the low voltage ride-through, SCADA, and power factor 
design criteria requirements adopted in the Final Rule Appendix G, 
which are substantive technical requirements, the Commission adopts the 
transition period requested by AWEA and others. Accordingly, these 
technical requirements in the Final Rule Appendix G, if applicable, 
apply only to LGIAs signed, filed with the Commission in unexecuted 
form, or filed as non-conforming agreements, on or after January 1, 
2006, or the date six months after publication of the Final Rule in the 
Federal Register, whichever is later. The procedures permitting the 
wind plant Interconnection Customer to complete the Interconnection 
Request with single-generator equivalent design specifications apply 
immediately when the Final Rule becomes effective, 60 days after its 
publication in the Federal Register. This effective date also applies 
for purposes of public utilities making compliance filings to meet this 
Final Rule, as discussed further below.
    115. It would be unfair and unreasonable to apply the low voltage 
ride-through, SCADA and power factor requirements in the Final Rule 
immediately or retroactively. The reasonable transition period we 
establish in this Final Rule allows wind equipment currently in the 
process of being manufactured to be completed without delay or added 
expense. This ensures that the Final Rule does not interrupt the supply 
of wind turbines. Further, we disagree with BPA that the transition 
period will undermine the reliability of a Transmission Provider's 
system. We note that during the transition period, our large generator 
interconnection rule applies to wind plants. Even though article 9.6.1 
(Power Factor Design Criteria) of the LGIA does not apply to wind 
plants, the other provisions of that rule are adequate to prevent an 
interconnection that would undermine reliability of a Transmission 
Provider's system.
    116. Consistent with our action grandfathering existing 
interconnection agreements in Order No. 2003,\43\ the Commission is not 
requiring modifications to existing interconnection agreements, and is 
not requiring that interconnection agreements signed, filed with the 
Commission in unexecuted form, or filed as a non-conforming agreement 
before January 1, 2006, or the date six months after publication of the 
Final Rule in the Federal Register, whichever is later, comply with the 
low voltage ride-through, SCADA and power factor requirements of the 
Final Rule Appendix G, if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Order No. 2003 at P 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Miscellaneous Comments
    117. The Fertilizer Institute notes that wind generators and 
generators that use waste heat have several things in common; for 
example, both produce electricity without any fuel consumption or air 
emissions. It states that through no fault of their own, neither wind 
generators nor fertilizer-fired generators can meet the rigorous 
balancing and scheduling requirements imposed by Transmission 
Provider's. It urges the Commission to exempt both from any requirement 
to balance their power deliveries and power receipts during any time 
period shorter than the peak and non-peak periods of a given day.
    118. Also, American Transmission contends that Transmission Owners 
who are part of an RTO/ISO should be allowed to pursue ADR before an 
LGIA is filed with the Commission on an unexecuted basis.
1. Commission Conclusion
    119. In response to the comments of the Fertilizer Institute, we 
note that the Commission recently issued a NOPR in Docket No. RM05-10-
000 to address generator imbalance penalties assessed to intermittent 
generating resources.\44\ We will consider the Fertilizer Institute's 
comments in that proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Imbalance Provisions for Intermittent Resources Assessing 
the State of Wind Energy in Wholesale Electricity Markets, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 70 Fed. Reg. 21,349 (Apr. 26, 2005), 111 FERC ] 
61,026 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    120. Further, in response to American Transmission's request that 
ADR be permitted before an unexecuted LGIA is filed, we note that the 
LGIP already provides dispute resolution procedures

[[Page 35008]]

that apply to wind plant interconnections.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See LGIP Sec.  13.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Compliance Issues

    121. As in Order No. 2003,\46\ the Commission is requiring all 
public utilities that own, control, or operate transmission facilities 
in interstate commerce to adopt the Final Rule Appendix G as amendments 
(as discussed above) to the LGIP and LGIA in their OATTs 60 days after 
publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. Public utilities 
subject to this Final Rule are directed to adopt the low voltage ride-
through, SCADA, and power factor design criteria requirements of the 
Final Rule Appendix G as amendments to their LGIAs, and to adopt the 
procedural provisions in the Final Rule Appendix G concerning 
completion of the Interconnection Request by the wind plant 
Interconnection Customer as amendments to their LGIPs. Further, 
consistent with our approach in Order No. 2003 and as discussed 
above,\47\ we are not requiring retroactive changes to wind plant 
interconnection agreements that are already in effect. Also, as noted 
above, the low voltage ride-through, SCADA and power factor 
requirements adopted in the Final Rule Appendix G, if applicable, do 
not apply to LGIAs signed, filed with the Commission in unexecuted 
form, or filed as a non-conforming agreement, on or before January 1, 
2006 or six months after the publication of this Final Rule in the 
Federal Register, whichever is later. As we state above, however, the 
procedures adopted in the Final Rule Appendix G regarding completion of 
the Interconnection Request by a wind plant Interconnection Customer 
apply beginning on the effective date of this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Order No. 2003 at P 910.
    \47\ Id. at P 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Information Collection Statement

    122. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB 
to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by 
agency rule.\48\ The Commission solicited comments on the Commission's 
need for this information, whether the information would have practical 
use, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the 
quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected, and 
any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the 
use of automated information techniques. With the exception of BPA, 
which supported the objectives of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 
Commission did not receive any comments concerning its burden or cost 
estimates. Therefore, the Commission retains the estimates proposed in 
the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    123. Public Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   No. of           No. of         Hours per       Total annual
               Data collection                  respondents       responses         response          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-516....................................             238                1               18            4,284
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-516, Electric Rate Schedule Filings.
    Action: Proposed Information Collection.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0096.
    The applicant shall not be penalized for failure to respond to this 
collection of information unless the collection of information displays 
a valid OMB control number.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of Information: The regulations revise the requirements 
contained in 18 CFR part 35. The Commission is revising its 
standardized interconnection procedures and agreements to adopt 
standard technical requirements and procedures specifically applicable 
to wind generating plants. In particular, the Commission requires that 
public utilities add to their standard interconnection procedures and 
agreements standard technical requirements and procedures for the 
interconnection of wind generation plants. The Final Rule requires that 
each public utility that owns, operates, or controls transmission 
facilities make filings incorporating these technical requirements into 
its open access transmission tariff.
    Internal Review: The Commission has assured itself, by means of 
internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the 
burden estimates associated with the information collection 
requirements. The Commission's Office of Market, Tariffs and Rates uses 
the data included in filings under section 203 and 205 of the Federal 
Power to evaluate efforts for interconnection and coordination of the 
U.S. electric transmission system as well as for general industry 
oversight. These information requirements conform to the Commission's 
plan for efficient information collection, communication, and 
management within the electric power industry. Interested persons may 
obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the 
Executive Director, phone: (202) 502-8415, fax: (202) 273-0873, e-mail: 
[email protected]. Comments on the requirements of the subject 
rule may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, 
Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
phone: (202) 395-4650.

V. Environmental Analysis

    124. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may 
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\49\ As we 
stated in the NOPR, the Commission has categorically excluded certain 
actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the 
human environment. Included in this categorical exclusion are rules 
that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, or that do not 
substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.\50\ 
The categorical exclusion also includes information gathering, 
analysis, and dissemination.\51\ This Final Rule updates and clarifies 
the application of the Commission's standard interconnection 
requirements to wind generating plants. Further, this Final Rule 
involves information gathering, analysis, and dissemination regarding 
the interconnection of wind

[[Page 35009]]

generators. Therefore, the rule falls within the categorical exemptions 
provided in the Commission's Regulations, and as a result neither an 
environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is 
required. Additionally, we note that this rule removes unnecessary 
obstacles to the development and interconnection of wind plants, 
eliminating the airborne and other emissions that would otherwise 
result from the construction of fossil fuel generating plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & 
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (Dec. 10, 1987).
    \50\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2004).
    \51\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5) (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    125. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \52\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of final rules that have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.\53\ The Commission is not required to make such analyses if a 
rule would not have such an effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2000).
    \53\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the 
definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a 
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned 
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. 15 
U.S.C. 632 (2000). The Small Business Size Standards component of 
the North American Industry Classification System defines a small 
electric utility as one that, including its affiliates, is primarily 
engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of 
electric energy for sale and whose total electric output for the 
preceding fiscal years did not exceed 4 million MWh. 13 CFR 121.201 
(Section 22, Utilities, North American Industry Classification 
System, NAICS) (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    126. The Commission does not believe that this Final Rule will have 
such an impact on small entities. Most filing companies subject to the 
Commission's jurisdiction do not fall within the RFA's definition of a 
small entity. Further, the filing requirements contain standard 
generator interconnection procedures and agreement for interconnecting 
wind plants larger than 20 MW, which exceeds the threshold of the Small 
Business Size Standard of NAICS. Therefore, the Commission certifies 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

VII. Document Availability

    127. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in 
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's 
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    128. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this 
information is available in the Commission's document management 
system, eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on 
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or 
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket 
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket 
number field.
    129. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web 
site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact FERC 
Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or (202) 502-6652 (e-mail 
at [email protected]), or the Public Reference Room at (202) 
502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659 (e-mail at [email protected]).

VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    130. This Final Rule will take effect August 15, 2005. However, as 
noted above (under ``Transition Period''), the technical requirements 
in the Final Rule LGIA Appendix G will apply only to LGIAs signed, or 
agreements filed with the Commission in unexecuted form, on or after 
January 1, 2006, or the date six months from the date of publication of 
this Final Rule in the Federal Register, whichever is later. The 
Commission has determined with the concurrence of the Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, that this rule is not a major rule within the meaning of 
section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
of 1996.\54\ The Commission will submit the Final Rule to both houses 
of Congress and the General Accountability Office.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 5 U.S.C. 804(2) (2000).
    \55\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates; Electric utilities.

    By the Commission.
Linda Mitry,
Deputy Secretary.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission revises part 35, 
Chapter I, Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 35 B--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, Sec. Sec.  2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 
9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.


0
2. In Sec.  35.28, paragraph (f)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  35.28  Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff.

* * * * *
    (f) Standard generator interconnection procedures and agreements.
    (1) Every public utility that is required to have on file a non-
discriminatory open access transmission tariff under this section must 
amend such tariff by adding the standard interconnection procedures and 
agreement contained in Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 
(Final Rule on Generator Interconnection), as amended by the Commission 
in Order No. 661, (Final Rule on Interconnection for Wind Energy), and 
the standard small generator interconnection procedures and agreement 
contained in Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 (Final Rule 
on Small Generator Interconnection), or such other interconnection 
procedures and agreements as may be approved by the Commission 
consistent with Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 (Final 
Rule on Generator Interconnection) and Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & 
Regs. ] 31,180 (Final Rule on Small Generator Interconnection).
    (i) The amendment to implement the Final Rule on Generator 
Interconnection required by the preceding subsection must be filed no 
later than January 20, 2004.
    (ii) The amendment to implement the Final Rule on Small Generator 
Interconnection required by the preceding subsection must be filed no 
later than August 15, 2005.
    (iii) The amendment to implement the Final Rule on Interconnection 
for Wind Energy required by the preceding subsection must be filed no 
later than August 15, 2005.
    (iv) Any public utility that seeks a deviation from the standard 
interconnection procedures and agreement contained in Order No. 2003, 
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 (Final Rule on Generator Interconnection), 
as amended by the Commission in Order No. 661 (Final Rule on 
Interconnection for Wind Energy), or the standard small generator 
interconnection procedures and agreement contained in Order No. 2006, 
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 (Final Rule on Small Generator 
Interconnection), must demonstrate that the deviation is consistent 
with the principles of either Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 
31,146 (Final Rule on Generator Interconnection) or Order No. 2006, 
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180

[[Page 35010]]

(Final Rule on Small Generator Interconnection).

    Note: The following atttachments will not be published in the 
Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix A--List of Commenter Acronyms

AEP--American Electric Power System
American Superconductor--American Superconductor Corporation
American Transmission--American Transmission Company, LLC
AWEA--American Wind Energy Association
BPA--Bonneville Power Administration
CenterPoint--CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC
CPUC--California Public Utilities Commission
EEI--Edison Electric Institute
Exelon--Exelon Corporation
FirstEnergy--FirstEnergy Companies
Fertilizer Institute--The Fertilizer Institute
FPL Energy--FPL Energy, LLC
Gamesa--Gamesa Energy USA, Inc.
GE--General Electric
Great River--Great River Energy
Innovation--Innovation Investments, LLC
ISO New England--ISO New England Inc.
LADWP--Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
LIPA--Long Island Power Authority and LIPA
Midwest ISO--Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Midwest ISO TOs--Midwest ISO Transmission Owners
Midwest Reliability Organization--Midwest Reliability Organization
Montana-Dakota Utilities--Montana-Dakota Utilities
NARUC--National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
National Grid--National Grid USA
NERC--North America Electric Reliability Council
Nevada Power--Nevada Power Company/Sierra Pacific Power Company
New York PSC--New York State Public Service Commission
NRECA/APPA--National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the 
American Public Power Association
NYISO--New York Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
NUSCo--Northeast Utilities Service Company
NorthWestern Energy--NorthWestern Energy
Ohio Consumers' Council--The Office of the Ohio Consumers' Council
PacifiCorp/PPM Energy--PacifiCorp and PPM Energy, Inc.
PJM--PJM Interconnection, LLC
SoCal Edison--Southern California Edison Company
Southern--Southern Company Services, Inc.
Tucson Electric--Tucson Electric Power
Western--Western Area Power Administration
Xcel--Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
Zilkha--Zilkha Renewable Energy, LLC

Appendix B

    Note:
    These provisions to be adopted as Appendix G to the LGIA.

Appendix G--Interconnection Requirements for a Wind Generating Plant

    Appendix G sets forth requirements and provisions specific to a 
wind generating plant. All other requirements of this LGIA continue 
to apply to wind generating plant interconnections.

A. Technical Standards Applicable to a Wind Generating Plant

i. Low Voltage Ride-Through (LVRT) Capability

    A wind generating plant shall be able to remain online during 
voltage disturbances up to the time periods and associated voltage 
levels set forth in the standard in Figure 1, below, if the 
Transmission Provider's System Impact Study shows that low voltage 
ride-through capability is required to ensure safety or reliability.
    The standard applies to voltage measured at the Point of 
Interconnection as defined in this LGIA. The figure shows the ratio 
of actual to nominal voltage (on the vertical axis) over time (on 
the horizontal axis). Before time 0.0, the voltage at the 
transformer is the nominal voltage. At time 0.0, the voltage drops. 
If the voltage remains at a level greater than 15 percent of the 
nominal voltage for a period that does not exceed 0.625 seconds, the 
plant must stay online. Further, if the voltage returns to 90 
percent of the nominal voltage within 3 seconds of the beginning of 
the voltage drop (with the voltage at any given time never falling 
below the minimum voltage indicated by the solid line in Figure 1), 
the plant must stay online. The Interconnection Customer may not 
disable low voltage ride-through equipment while the wind plant is 
in operation. Two key features of this regulation are:
    1. A wind generating plant must have low voltage ride-through 
capability down to 15 percent of the rated line voltage for 0.625 
seconds;
    2. A wind generating plant must be able to operate continuously 
at 90 percent of the rated line voltage, measured at the high 
voltage side of the wind plant substation transformer(s).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JN05.008


[[Page 35011]]



ii. Power Factor Design Criteria (Reactive Power)

    A wind generating plant shall maintain a power factor within the 
range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, measured at the Point of 
Interconnection as defined in this LGIA, if the Transmission 
Provider's System Impact Study shows that such a requirement is 
necessary to ensure safety or reliability. The power factor range 
standard can be met by using, for example, power electronics 
designed to supply this level of reactive capability (taking into 
account any limitations due to voltage level, real power output, 
etc.) or fixed and switched capacitors if agreed to by the 
Transmission Provider, or a combination of the two. The 
Interconnection Customer shall not disable power factor equipment 
while the wind plant is in operation. Wind plants shall also be able 
to provide sufficient dynamic voltage support in lieu of the power 
system stabilizer and automatic voltage regulation at the generator 
excitation system if the System Impact Study shows this to be 
required for system safety or reliability.

iii. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Capability

    The wind plant shall provide SCADA capability to transmit data 
and receive instructions from the Transmission Provider to protect 
system reliability. The Transmission Provider and the wind plant 
Interconnection Customer shall determine what SCADA information is 
essential for the proposed wind plant, taking into account the size 
of the plant and its characteristics, location, and importance in 
maintaining generation resource adequacy and transmission system 
reliability in its area.

Appendix C

    Note: These provisions to be adopted as Appendix G to the LGIP.

Appendix G--Interconnection Procedures for a Wind Generating Plant

    Appendix G sets forth procedures specific to a wind generating 
plant. All other requirements of this LGIP continue to apply to wind 
generating plant interconnections.

A. Special Procedures Applicable to Wind Generators

    The wind plant Interconnection Customer, in completing the 
Interconnection Request required by section 3.3 of this LGIP, may 
provide to the Transmission Provider a set of preliminary electrical 
design specifications depicting the wind plant as a single 
equivalent generator. Upon satisfying these and other applicable 
Interconnection Request conditions, the wind plant may enter the 
queue and receive the base case data as provided for in this LGIP.
    No later than six months after submitting an Interconnection 
Request completed in this manner, the wind plant Interconnection 
Customer must submit completed detailed electrical design 
specifications and other data (including collector system layout 
data) needed to allow the Transmission Provider to complete the 
System Impact Study.

[FR Doc. 05-11678 Filed 6-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P