CAISO Proposes Queue Delay And Structural Changes To Interconnection Study Process

Mar 13, 2023

Reading Time : 5 min

On March 6, 2023, the California Independent System Operator Corp. (“CAISO”) released an Issue Paper and Straw Proposal outlining proposed modifications to its interconnection procedures in light of the significant volume of interconnection requests currently pending in its queue and that are expected in the coming years, including immediate adjustments to the study schedule for customers submitting requests as part of CAISO’s upcoming study cluster and long-term structural reforms that could have the effect of materially altering the landscape for companies seeking to develop resources within California.1

In the issue paper, the CAISO notes that it has been inundated in recent years with interconnection requests being developed to meet California’s decarbonization goals, with “[m]any of these requests . . . not located in areas considered optimal for additional transmission development, as determined by regulators and load-serving entities.”2 Although it has pursued several rounds of revisions to its interconnection rules over the past several years, the CAISO states that it has become clear that “more extreme measures are needed to make the [interconnection process] a viable process in light of the state’s vastly accelerated new resource procurement targets.”3

In order to address these issues, CAISO proposes to reimagine its interconnection process and pursue a two track reform:

  • Track 1 will focus on immediate adjustments to the schedule for the upcoming queue cluster that is scheduled to open on April 3, 2023—Queue Cluster 15 (“QC15”)—which it claims are necessary to allow CAISO to finish processing the requests currently being studied through Queue Cluster 14 (“QC14”).
  • Track 2 will focus on longer-term structural reforms to the interconnection process that would have the effect of prioritizing the processing of interconnection requests located in zones that have available transmission capacity or where transmission facilities are expected to be constructed through the regional planning process.

Track 1: Delaying QC15

CAISO states that “[s]imply layering a massive influx of new [QC15] interconnection requests,” on the existing QC14 projects being studied “is not an effective way to advance interconnection proposals.”4 At the same time, CAISO states that it would be inappropriate to delay the timeline for the submission of requests in QC15.  Accordingly, CAISO states that it will maintain the window for the submission of interconnection requests that is scheduled to open in April 2023.  However, CAISO plans to postpone the validation of QC15 interconnection requests until the QC14 phase II studies and results meetings have been completed.  Based on the current schedule, CAISO states that it does not anticipate resuming processing QC15 until approximately April 1, 2024.5

CAISO states that it intends to commence scoping and validation meetings once QC14 is complete, but that it will finalize the schedule for validation, studies, posting, and processing the requests as part of Track 2 of this initiative.6 CAISO also states that it anticipates providing customers in QC15 the opportunity to “refresh” their interconnection request (e.g., modify their original request) or withdraw for minimal or no cost at any time until study work begins.7

Although the issue paper does not fully detail the longer-term implications of a one-year delay in the validation of requests in QC15, CAISO acknowledges that its proposal could create timing challenges for developers.  CAISO singles out offshore wind resources as a class of developer that could be most impacted by the proposed delay given the long development timeline of these resources.  Accordingly, CAISO states that it plans to evaluate whether it may be possible to study offshore wind and certain other long-lead time resources through a separate process.8

Track 2: Structural Reforms

Track 2 of the initiative “will focus on the transformative changes to the interconnection process needed to achieve” the strategic objectives set out in a December 2022 Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) signed by CAISO, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), and the California Energy Commission that established a framework for greater coordination among the agencies on resource and transmission planning.9 In order to achieve these objectives, CAISO states that the interconnection process must be redesigned to:

  • prioritize interconnection customers that seek to utilize available capacity or that are located in zones with planned capacity additions that have been identified in the transmission planning process based on state resource planning;
  • limit the project capacity studied within these priority zones to reasonable amounts that support the state’s resource planning goals; and
  • ensure that the study results that are obtained through the interconnection process provide load-serving entities with information that supports their resource procurement functions.10

Although CAISO does not propose a definitive framework for the types of reforms that it plans to make, it does outline a number of potential design elements that CAISO believes have the potential to achieve the intended objectives:  

  • Accepting or processing only interconnection requests where the transmission system has available existing or planned capacity identified in the CAISO’s transmission plan based on CPUC portfolios;11
  • Limit the number of interconnection requests in a study area based on the transmission capacity being planned for that location;12
  • Require projects to have a power purchase agreement to be shortlisted to proceed to phase II studies;13 and
  • Only open a new interconnection request window when warranted as opposed to on an annual basis.14

Notably, CAISO states that it plans to pursue development and implementation of its proposal on a timeline that would allow it to apply these reforms to interconnection requests in QC15.

Next Steps

CAISO is holding a conference call to discuss the Issue Paper on March 13, 2023, with comments due by March 27, 2023.  After taking comments, CAISO plans on issuing a final proposal and draft tariff language for Track 1 by April 10, 2023, with the goal of presenting the proposal for approval by the CAISO Board of Governors on May 17, 2023.

Conclusion

The merits of CAISO’s proposal undoubtedly will be the subject of debate in its stakeholder process.  It is worth noting, however, that CAISO’s proposal to prioritize processing interconnection requests in designated regions within its footprint and to limit the submission of interconnection requests represents a departure from the current manner in which interconnection requests are ordered and studied.  Currently, transmission providers generally prioritize interconnection requests based on the order in which they received or based on a “first-ready, first-served” approach that prioritizes interconnection customers that demonstrate that they are making progress towards the development of their projects.  Additionally, interconnection customers generally are free to request interconnection service at any point on the grid without any impact on the relative queue priority of their projects.  In contrast, CAISO’s proposal would prioritize requests based on location and potentially limit the ability of project developers to obtain interconnection service at other locations or even in more favored locations.  CAISO’s proposal illustrates the challenges that grid operators and market participants are facing as the energy transition strains existing regulatory paradigms and processes.


1 California Independent System Operator, 2023 Interconnection Process Enhancements (March 6, 2023), http://www.caiso.com/InitiativeDocuments/Issue-Paper-and-Straw-Proposal-Interconnecton-Process-Enhancements-2023-Mar132023.pdf (“Issue Paper”).

2 Issue Paper at 3.

3 Id. at 4.

4 Id. at 6.

5 Id. at 9.

6 Id. at 9-10.

7 Id. at 9.

8 Id. at 11.

9 Id.

10 Id. at 12.

11 Id. at 12-13.

12 Id. at 13-14.

13 Id. at 14.

14 Id. at 14-15.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

December 5, 2024

On November 27, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC,1 an order that sets aside, in part, the Commission’s prior authorization of the CP2 LNG Terminal and CP Express Pipeline Project (collectively, the CP2 Project) under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). In anticipation of future appellate challenges to its authorization of the CP2 Project, FERC ordered the initiation of a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess the CP2 Project’s contribution to cumulative air impacts for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). Accordingly, FERC stated that it would not allow construction to commence on the CP2 Project’s proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and related feed gas pipeline until the SEIS process concluded and a subsequent order was issued. Concurrent with its Venture Global order, FERC issued a projected schedule for the NEPA process that does not conclude until July 24, 2025. Construction on the CP2 Project had been expected to be imminent, with the project sponsor seeking a partial authorization to proceed with construction only hours prior to Venture Global’s issuance.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 5, 2024

On November 27, 2024, in Venture Global, CP2 LNG, LLC,1 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) explicitly overruled precedent set in Northern Natural Gas Co.,2 a 2021 decision in which FERC made an affirmative finding that an interstate natural gas pipeline project it was certificating under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) would not make a “significant” contribution to global climate change. Northern Natural is the only FERC decision in which a so-called significance determination was made with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) arising from a FERC-regulated natural gas infrastructure project. In Venture Global, FERC rejected arguments that it needed to follow Northern Natural and assess the significance of GHG emissions in all NGA certificate proceedings to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies, including FERC, that perform “major federal actions,” which include issuing NGA section 7 certificates, to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) if the action will “significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment.”3 FERC has been under pressure to fully explain why it has chosen not to apply Northern Natural’s significance analysis in subsequent cases, and that issue is currently before FERC on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) in Healthy Gulf et al. v. FERC, which reviewed FERC’s approval of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal under NGA section 3.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 4, 2024

On November 21, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued Order No. 1920-A1 addressing requests for rehearing and clarification of FERC’s landmark final rule on transmission planning and cost allocation issued in May 2024. While the Commission largely affirmed the final rule, the order grants rehearing of some of the more controversial aspects of Order No. 1920.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 7, 2024

*Thank you to JaKell Larson, 2024 Akin Summer Associate, for her valuable collaboration on this article.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 31, 2024

Interstate oil, liquid and refined products pipelines regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will soon be able to raise their transportation rates (provided they were set using FERC’s popular Index rate methodology) in the wake of a significant new decision by the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC (LEPA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security hearing to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. Members of the Subcommittee had the opportunity to hear testimony from all five Commissioners, including FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and Commissioner Mark Christie, as well as the three recently confirmed commissioners, David Rosner, Lindsay See and Judy Chang. In addition to their prepared remarks, the five commissioners answered questions on FERC’s mandate to provide affordable and reliable electricity and natural gas services nationwide, while also ensuring it fulfills its primary mission of maintaining just and reasonable rates.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) erred in ordering refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the $1,000/megawatt-hour (MWh) “soft” price cap for such sales.1 Finding FERC failed to conduct a “Mobile-Sierra public-interest analysis” before “altering” those contracts by ordering refunds, the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2024

On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. The Court ended “Chevron deference” and held that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In doing so, the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.