The rule is consistent with broad stakeholder consensus on the need to revise procedures. Prior to the implementation of the rules and through the public comment phase, both liaison customers and transportation service providers expressed doubts about the status quo. Transportation providers noted that interconnection customers often submit interconnection service requests for new production facilities that have little commercial opportunity. Liaison customers cited delays in the interconnection process, lack of transparency and consistency of information in the process, and the time it takes to connect new production facilities to the network. It is thought that changing market forces and the emergence of new technologies such as energy storage have exacerbated the inefficiencies of the existing interconnection process. 6. Articulation of Processes and Assumptions The College requires transmission providers to identify the invocations and assumptions used in their interconnection studies. Transmission providers should include network models and assumptions used in their interconnection studies to assess the impact of connection requirements in the LGIP and on its websites (providing a link to the location of the information on OASIS). The deviation from the requirement that information be placed exclusively on OASIS was intended to “find the right balance by increasing transparency while limiting the burden on transmission providers.” (Section IV.B.2). This reform could be important for energy storage, as it would make it easier to link energy storage resources to renewable energy production, which generally do not use all their badges at any time of the day. Previously, a 50 MW wind farm, combined with a 25 MW reservoir, would have been examined as a 75 MW facility and would have had to pay for the necessary development to connect a 75 MW facility to the grid. Under the new provisions of Decision 845, the facility may accept a capacity limit of 50 MW and would therefore only have to pay for the construction required to connect a 50 MW facility to the grid.

[1] As a result, energy storage resources will be able to connect to the same site as the next generation of resources, resulting in minimal increases in interconnection costs. Ferc also stated that, in determining whether a facility falls under the LGIA or SGIA, the definitions of “large production facility” and “small production plant” would continue to be based on the total capacity of the production facility and not on a restrictive agreement. (section IV.C.1). [1] The pro forma generator interconnection procedures and the generator interconnection agreement were concluded in 2003 with the adoption of Regulation No. 2003. [4] The final rule states that interim interconnection agreements “stop after the construction of connection and network development facilities.” Id. to 257. 10. Dispute Settlement Order 845 requires transmission providers to put in place dispute resolution procedures that allow a party to the dispute to unilaterally seek a non-binding settlement of disputes. Existing dispute resolution provisions, which require NGOs and ISOs to act as neutral decision-makers in the event of separate disputes, will be revised. FERC considered that existing dispute resolution procedures were disproportionate and inappropriate, requiring “general reform both within and outside the TCRs/ISOs”.

That`s order number one.