[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73409-73412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Third Supplemental Notice for Staff-Led Workshop

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovations and Efficiencies in Generator   Docket No. AD24-9-000.
 Interconnection.
California Independent System Operator      Docket No. ER24-2671-000.
 Corporation.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator,   Docket Nos. ER24-2797-000,
 Inc.                                        ER24-2871-000.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.................  Docket Nos. ER24-2798-000,
                                             ER24-2825-000, ER24-2184-
                                             000, ER24-2185-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As first announced in the Notice of Staff-Led Workshop issued in 
this proceeding on May 13, 2024, as supplemented on June 27, 2024, and 
August 14, 2024, pursuant to 18 CFR 2.1(a), the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led workshop in 
Docket No. AD24-9-000 at Commission headquarters, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426 on Tuesday, September 10, 2024 and Wednesday, 
September 11, 2024 from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. Eastern 
time.
    Attached to this Third Supplemental Notice is a revised agenda for 
the workshop, which includes a final workshop program and expected 
speakers. The Commissioners may attend and participate in the workshop.
    The workshop agenda identifies a list of issues to be discussed 
during the workshop. Some of the issues to be discussed during the 
workshop overlap substantively with issues in proceedings currently 
pending before the Commission. While the intent of the workshop is not 
to focus on any specific matters before the Commission, because of the 
likelihood of discussion of these issues, those proceedings are 
included in the caption of this notice to ensure proper notice to all 
parties to those proceedings. This notice will be included in the 
docket of those proceedings.
    Additionally, some workshop discussions may involve issues raised 
in other proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. 
These proceedings include, but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain Belt Express LLC v. Midcontinent      Docket Nos. EL24-35-00 and
 Independent System Operator, Inc.           EL24-53-000.
Salsa Solar Energy, LLC and Towner Wind     Docket No. EL24-50-000.
 Energy III LLC v. Public Service Company
 of Colorado.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.................  Docket Nos. ER24-2860-000
                                             and ER24-2863-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussions at the workshop will not address compliance with 
Commission Order No. 2023 \1\ or any pending Order No. 2023 compliance 
filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procs. & 
Agreements, Order No. 2023, 184 FERC ] 61,054, order on reh'g, 185 
FERC ] 61,063 (2023), order on reh'g, Order No. 2023-A, 186 FERC ] 
61,199 (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The workshop will be open to the public to attend virtually or in 
person and there is no fee for attendance. Information will also be 
posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,\2\ prior 
to the event. The previous notice requested that attendees register 
through the Commission's website on or before August 26, 2024. That 
date has passed and, due to space limitations at Commission 
headquarters, we are no longer accepting registrations for in-person 
attendees, but registrations for virtual attendees are still being 
accepted. Registration will help ensure that Commission staff can 
provide sufficient virtual facilities and enable Commission staff to 
communicate with attendees in the case of unanticipated emergencies or 
other changes to the workshop schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events/innovations-and-efficiencies-generator-interconnection-workshop-docket-no-ad24-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The workshop will be transcribed, and transcripts will be available 
for a fee from Ace Reporting (202-347-3700). A link to the webcast of 
this event and its recording will be available in the Commission 
Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov. The Commission provides technical 
support for the free webcasts. Please call 202-502-8680 or email 
[email protected] if you have any questions.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an email to [email protected] or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 
with the required accommodations.

[[Page 73410]]

    For further information about this workshop, please contact:

Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs, 
202-502-8368, [email protected]
Michael G. Henry (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and 
Innovation, 202-502-8583, [email protected]
Lewis Taylor (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, 202-502-
8624, [email protected]

    Dated: September 3, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.

Staff-Led Workshop on Innovations and Efficiencies in Generator 
Interconnection

Docket No. AD24-9-000

September 10 and 11, 2024

Revised Agenda Sept. 3, 2024

September 10 Agenda: Innovations

9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m.: Welcome and Opening Remarks
9:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Innovations Panel 1: Integrated Transmission 
Planning and Generator Interconnection

    This panel will discuss the extent to which transmission planning 
and generator interconnection processes may be further integrated 
beyond the reforms adopted in Order No. 1920.\3\ This panel will 
explore ideas to more efficiently and proactively plan for and 
interconnect new generation with increased cost certainty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Building for the Future Through Electric Regional 
Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation, Order No. 1920, 187 FERC 
] 61,068 (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions

    1. Can efficiencies be gained through closer integration of 
generator interconnection processes with transmission planning 
processes? If so, how? What considerations need to be taken into 
account? What are the advantages/disadvantages, including impacts on 
consumers, to closer integration of these processes?
    2. How might transmission providers more proactively, rather than 
reactively, identify zones where new transmission capacity could most 
efficiently accommodate proposed generating facilities?
    3. What mechanisms may be appropriate for transmission providers to 
use to determine the cost responsibility for such proactively planned 
network upgrades? Is it appropriate for any such costs to be allocated 
to load and if so, why? If it is appropriate, how should such costs be 
allocated between load and interconnection customers both: (a) in 
regions that use participant funding, i.e., where interconnection 
customers are directly assigned network upgrade costs and (b) in 
regions that do not use participant funding, i.e., where load is 
assigned network upgrade costs? What are the advantages/disadvantages, 
including impacts on consumers, of varying approaches to cost 
responsibility?
    4. Where the costs exceed estimates for such proactively planned 
network upgrades, what are some approaches transmission providers could 
use to address concerns regarding ensuring adequate funding? For any 
given approaches proposed to ensure adequate funding, would these 
mechanisms increase or decrease the time and/or costs required to 
interconnect new resources, and how would this impact interconnection 
customers?

Panelists

 Beth Garza--Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
 Arash Ghodsian--Vice President, Transmission & Policy, 
Invenergy
 John Michael Hagerty--Principal, The Brattle Group
 Natasha Henderson--Senior Director of Grid Asset Utilization, 
Southwest Power Pool
 Aubrey Johnson--Vice President, System & Resource Planning, 
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
 David Mindham--Director of Regulatory and Market Affairs, EDP 
Renewables North America
 Zach Smith--Senior Vice President, System & Resource Planning, 
New York Independent System Operator
11:45 a.m.-12:45 p.m.: Lunch
12:45 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: Innovations Panel 2: Exploring Different 
Approaches to Processing and Studying Generator Interconnection 
Requests

    This panel will focus on the viability and utility of different 
approaches to organizing, processing, and studying generator 
interconnection requests. Examples include a ``connect and manage'' 
process where interconnection requests for Energy Resource 
Interconnection Service (ERIS) may be interconnected more quickly and 
at lower cost than interconnection requests for Network Resource 
Interconnection Service (NRIS), the use of competitive mechanisms (such 
as an auction process) to allocate scarce capacity or to resolve 
competition for the same point of interconnection, as well as other 
potential approaches.

Questions

    1. Please discuss the advantages and disadvantages of making ERIS, 
which requires the proposed generating facility to mitigate overloads 
through network upgrades to allow the generating facility to operate at 
full output (albeit without the deliverability analysis that NRIS 
entails), more like the approach used in the region managed by the 
Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), sometimes referred to 
as a ``connect and manage'' approach, which curtails the generating 
facility in the study model when needed to minimize network upgrades at 
the cost of risking real-time curtailments and subsequently identifies 
necessary network upgrades through the transmission planning process.
    2. How could elements of the ERCOT ``connect and manage'' approach 
be incorporated into the current structure of Commission-jurisdictional 
markets and pro forma generator interconnection procedures and 
agreements?
    a. Could customers interconnecting under this type of approach 
eventually increase their deliverability or reduce curtailments, such 
as by later converting to NRIS? How would this conversion be 
accomplished?
    b. In the context of RTO/ISO markets, how would an RTO/ISO account 
for resources' differing levels of interconnection service (e.g., 
``connect and manage'' versus NRIS or its equivalent) and any 
associated capacity rights when dispatching resources pursuant to 
security-constrained economic dispatch?
    3. What other approaches could build on the pro forma generator 
interconnection procedures and agreements adopted in Order No. 2023 to 
more efficiently organize interconnection queues and process 
interconnection requests?
    a. Should transmission providers proactively identify zones where 
there is currently available transmission capacity or new transmission 
capacity due to planned transmission facilities and provide information 
on these zones to interconnection customers? If so, how should 
transmission providers identify these zones and how should they 
communicate that information to interconnection customers?
    b. If transmission providers identify zones, as described in (a) 
above, should auctions be used to assign queue positions or allocate 
excess transmission capacity in those zones? What other approaches 
could be considered?
    c. How could such procedures ensure that generator interconnection 
service is consistent with open access principles

[[Page 73411]]

and is provided in a manner that is not unduly discriminatory or 
preferential?

Panelists

 Liz Delaney--Vice President of Utility-Scale Policy and 
Business Development, New Leaf Energy, Inc.
 Jennifer Galaway--Senior Manager of Regional Transmission 
Development & Interconnection Services, Portland General Electric
 Warren Lasher--President, Lasher Energy Consulting LLC
 Tyler H. Norris--James B. Duke Fellow & Ph.D. Student, Duke 
University
 Matt Picardi--Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Shell 
Energy North America
 Aaron Vander Vorst--Head of Growth Strategy and Transmission, 
Enel North America
 Andy Witmeier--Director of Resource Utilization, Midcontinent 
Independent System Operator, Inc.
2:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m.: Break
2:45 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: Innovations Panel 3: Prioritizing Certain 
Generator Interconnection Requests

    This panel will examine whether certain proposed generator 
interconnection requests may be prioritized in the interconnection 
queue without undue discrimination, building on the use of first-ready, 
first-served cluster window deadlines and readiness milestones as 
adopted by Order No. 2023.

Questions

    1. Are there any viable, not unduly discriminatory methods for 
further prioritization of interconnection requests to increase queue 
efficiency and ensure just and reasonable rates?
    2. Would prioritization of interconnection requests selected in 
open competitive resource solicitations over other interconnection 
requests that are not similarly selected add efficiency to the 
generator interconnection process? How would this type of 
prioritization affect the alignment of transmission planning, resource 
solicitation, and generator interconnection processes? Under such a 
prioritization, must an open competitive solicitation process meet 
certain requirements to avoid infringing on the Commission's open 
access transmission requirements?
    3. Should interconnection requests for new generating facilities 
submitted to replace existing generating facilities at existing points 
of interconnection (replacement generation) have priority in the 
transmission provider's processing of its interconnection queue over 
the interconnection of new generating facilities at new points of 
interconnection? If so, are there conditions that should be required 
for such prioritization of replacement generation, for example, a 
finding by the transmission provider that the replacement generation 
allows for a faster or lower-cost interconnection as compared to the 
interconnection of new generating facilities at new points of 
interconnection?
    4. Should interconnection requests from proposed new generating 
facilities that meet certain resource adequacy or reliability needs 
have priority over other interconnection requests for new generating 
facilities?

Panelists

 Ian Black--Chief Development Officer, ENGIE North America, 
Inc.
 Eric Blank--Chairman, Colorado Public Utilities Commission
 Joshua Burkholder--Managing Director of Integrated Resource 
Planning, American Electric Power Company, Inc.
 Jason Burwen--Vice President of Policy and Strategy, GridStor
 Mike Calviou--Senior Vice President of US Policy & Regulation, 
National Grid
 Adrien Ford--Wholesale Market Development Director, 
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
 Danielle Osborn Mills--Principal of Infrastructure Policy 
Development, California ISO
4:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Closing Remarks

September 11 Agenda

9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m.: Welcome and Opening Remarks
9:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Efficiencies Panel 1: Further Efficiencies in the 
Generator Interconnection Process

    This panel will evaluate the potential for increased efficiency 
throughout the generator interconnection process as revised in the 
Commission's Order No. 2023 \4\ (excluding topics covered in 
Efficiencies Panels 2 and 3), such as providing additional pre-
application data to interconnection customers to allow for more 
efficient decision-making or establishing fast-track processes for 
interconnection requests at points of interconnection with fewer 
transmission system constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procs. & 
Agreements, Order No. 2023, 184 FERC ] 61,054, order on reh'g, 185 
FERC ] 61,063 (2023), order on reh'g, Order No. 2023-A, 186 FERC ] 
61,199 (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions

    1. What specific types of additional pre-application data provided 
to interconnection customers would facilitate greater efficiencies in 
the application phase and the rest of the generator interconnection 
process?
    a. How would these types of data be helpful to interconnection 
customers?
    b. Are there inefficiencies or complications associated with 
providing these types of additional pre-application data?
    2. Regarding potential fast-track processes:
    a. Of the existing fast-track processes, such as California ISO's 
independent study process, which work well? What about them could be 
improved or emulated to achieve greater efficiencies?
    b. For interconnection requests that have little or minimal impact 
on existing transmission capacity, should there be a fast-track process 
or other prioritization method?
    3. What types of remedial or mitigation mechanisms could address 
instances where inadvertent oversights or technical difficulties result 
in milestone failures, and interconnection customers do not learn of 
these issues in time to file a waiver request? In such instances, where 
good faith and a significant consequence to not meeting the particular 
milestone are also present, how may transmission providers modify their 
tariffs to reach a balanced resolution that enhances the stability of 
the interconnection process while also ensuring that only viable 
generating facilities remain in the queue?
    4. What other opportunities exist to increase the efficiency of the 
existing generator interconnection procedures and agreements?

Panelists

 Chris Barker--Managing Director, Transmission & Grid 
Integration, Clearway Energy Group
 Donnie Bielak--Director, Interconnection Planning, PJM 
Interconnection, LLC
 Jonathan E. Canis--General Counsel, Oceti Sakowin Power 
Authority
 Brian Fitzsimons--CEO, GridUnity, Inc.
 Caitlin Marquis--Managing Director, Advanced Energy United
 Joe Rand--Energy Policy Researcher, Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory
 Martin Wyspianski--Vice President of Electric Engineering, 
Electric Asset Management, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
11:45 a.m.-12:45 p.m.: Lunch
12:45 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: Efficiencies Panel 2: Automation and Advanced 
Computing Technologies
    This panel will assess opportunities for greater efficiency in the 
processing

[[Page 73412]]

and study of interconnection requests by automating different steps in 
the process and using advanced computing technologies, such as 
artificial intelligence, to shorten the timeline from interconnection 
request to generator interconnection agreement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Artificial intelligence (AI) is a broad term for a spectrum 
of tools ranging from simple data validation to more sophisticated 
machine learning and statistical modeling, to advanced deep learning 
and generative AI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions

    1. Please describe the different steps in the generator 
interconnection process that may be automated and your experience 
automating these steps, including data entry, base case model building, 
running power flow studies, and identifying solutions. How can 
automation reduce errors, improve study repeatability and transparency, 
or address workforce needs?
    2. Are you using AI tools in your generator interconnection 
processes? Are these AI tools part of or separate from your work on 
automation? What have been the advantages and disadvantages of adopting 
these AI tools? Looking across the electric power industry, how common 
is the use of AI tools?
    3. Looking across the electric power industry, how common is 
automation in the different steps of the generator interconnection 
process (e.g., model building) today? What do you think are the main 
challenges to broader adoption of automation? Do the Commission's 
existing regulatory frameworks and/or utility processes present any 
impediments in these areas? If so, what are the impediments? What role 
can the Commission play in supporting the adoption of automation in the 
generator interconnection process? What reforms, if any, would you 
recommend that the Commission consider pursuing to facilitate greater 
automation in the processing and study of interconnection requests?
    4. Recognizing that a lack of standardized data inputs and outputs 
can create challenges, how can automation reduce variability between 
studies done by a given transmission provider or reduce variability of 
studies between transmission providers?
    5. In developing the base case model, what role can automation play 
to address rapidly changing load forecasts or to improve the 
coordination of generator interconnection and transmission planning?

Panelists

 Clayton Barrows--Senior Researcher and Manager of the Grid 
Operations Planning Group, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
 David Bromberg--Co-Founder and CEO, Pearl Street Technologies
 Cody Doll--Sr. Manager of Transmission Business Management, at 
NextEra Energy Resources
 Andrew Martin--Co-Founder and Transmission Lead, Nira Energy
 Anton Ptak--Director of Transmission and Interconnection, EDF 
Renewables
 Jennifer Swierczek--Manager Generator Interconnection, 
Southwest Power Pool
2:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m.: Break
2:45 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: Efficiencies Panel 3: Post-Generator 
Interconnection Agreement Construction Phase
    This panel will focus on the time period after execution of a 
generator interconnection agreement (GIA), or its filing unexecuted, 
through the commercial operation date (COD). Topics include 
opportunities for greater efficiency, transparency, and accountability 
in cost and time estimates for interconnection facilities and network 
upgrades, as well as identifying other problems that contribute to 
delays, such as supply chain issues, which may benefit from organized 
cooperation among stakeholders.

Questions

    1. What are the primary cost and timing concerns arising during the 
period between execution, or unexecuted filing, of a GIA and the COD? 
To the extent that cost increases and delays for interconnection 
facilities and network upgrades are becoming more frequent, what are 
the primary drivers of those issues?
    2. Are there productive ways to increase transparency around 
construction plans and progress of interconnection facilities and 
network upgrades, such as CAISO's quarterly forum to track the status 
of network upgrades, SPP's quarterly transmission project tracking 
report, or California's newly instated metrics for tracking 
distribution-level interconnection timeframes? What construction 
metrics for interconnection facilities and network upgrades would be 
most informative? How much documentation is reasonable and not unduly 
burdensome?
    3. Are there new approaches to sourcing equipment for 
interconnection facilities and network upgrades that could be more 
efficient? What safeguards would need to be in place for engineering, 
procurement, and construction work for such facilities to begin 
earlier? Is there a way to pool equipment purchasing or risk? Are there 
efficiencies that may be achieved by standardizing engineering, 
procurement, or construction of interconnection facilities and network 
upgrades? Would pooling procurement of equipment provide manufacturers 
with the certainty needed to increase their manufacturing capacity 
thereby reducing lead times?
    4. Are there efficiencies that may be gained by enhancing internal 
transmission owner or RTO/ISO procedure, increasing staffing, or by 
opening up interconnection facility studies and/or interconnection 
facility construction work to contractors? How can the interconnection 
study process be better aligned with interconnection customer-initiated 
processes, such as permitting for the generating facility and generator 
equipment procurement?

Panelists

 Lionel Chailleux--Senior VP, Market Development North America, 
Hitachi Energy
 Matthew Crosby--Senior Director, Grid Integration, Cypress 
Creek Renewables
 Neil Millar--Vice President of Infrastructure and Operations 
Planning, California ISO
 Jing Shi--Managing Director of Renewable Integration, Duke 
Energy
 Carrie Zalewski--Vice President of Transmission and 
Electricity Markets, American Clean Power Association
4:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Closing Remarks

[FR Doc. 2024-20306 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P