FERC OKs MISO Revision of Queue Termination Rules
FERC approved MISO's remedy to the discrepancy between the termination provisions in its generator interconnection procedures and GIA.

By Amanda Durish Cook

FERC ruled last week that inconsistencies between the termination provisions in MISO’s generator interconnection procedures (GIP) and pro forma generator interconnection agreement were unreasonable, but it simultaneously accepted the RTO’s proposed Tariff changes to remedy the discrepancy (EL18-17).

In an October 2017 order, FERC found that an interconnection customer’s ability to extend the commercial operation date (COD) of a project by up to three years without MISO seeking termination under its pro forma GIA conflicted with a provision in the RTO’s GIP stating that any extension required a material modification of the interconnection request, or the project risked removal from the queue.

MISO FERC Queue Termination Rules GIA
| © RTO Insider

FERC originally took issue with the differences in 2012, and MISO at the time contended that the two provisions did not conflict because its GIP applied before the execution of a GIA, with the GIA provisions taking precedence after an agreement is executed.

But the discrepancy arose again after MISO successfully sought to terminate a GIA with EDF Renewable Energy’s 150-MW Merricourt wind project in North Dakota. (See FERC Upholds MISO Cancellation of GIA.) While FERC sided with the RTO in the termination, it instituted an investigation over the inconsistency in late 2017.

As part of a paper hearing in the proceeding, MISO late last year submitted a proposal to clarify within the GIP section of its Tariff that the COD for a project that completes the definitive planning phase of the interconnection queue will be spelled out in a GIA.

“MISO states these proposed revisions also remove any ambiguity as to which Tariff provision determines the COD and any permissible extension beyond the COD, thereby providing greater certainty,” the commission noted.

FERC said that MISO’s approach addressed its concerns.

“We also agree with MISO that the GIP and pro forma GIA are intended to work together, and although the pro forma GIA ‘memorializes the arrangements reached in the GIP,’ the GIP does continue to apply even after execution of a GIA; therefore, specifically referring to the correct section of the GIP in the pro forma GIA is preferable to separating the two documents entirely in these circumstances,” the commission wrote.

FERC also directed MISO to make a further Tariff filing to make it more clear that an interconnection customer can extend its COD by up to three consecutive years before risking withdrawal from the queue.

GenerationMISO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *