[Federal Register: June 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 115)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34993-35011]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jn05-4]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
michael.miller@ferc.gov. 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 FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov), or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659 (e-mail at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov).
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