FERC Finds an Interconnection Facility Requires an OATT
Update by Sara Bergan and Jason Johns
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently issued an order rejecting a Common Facilities Agreement (CFA) under section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and related request for waiver from open access requirements. The CFA between Sky River and Windstar Energy involved a 9-mile, 230 kV generator tie-line in California known as the Wilderness Line. Sky River owns and operates a 77 MW wind facility and has an interest in the Wilderness Line along with several other Qualifying Facilities (QFs).
Windstar is developing a 60 MW wind facility for which it already has a generator interconnection agreement with SoCal Edison and the California ISO. Sky River entered into the CFA with Windstar to license a portion of Sky River’s interest in the Wilderness Line to enable the output from Windstar’s wind facility to reach the point of interconnection with SoCal Edison. In other words, the CFA served to support Windstar’s interconnection with SoCal Edison. Sky River sought approval of the CFA and the open access waivers on the basis that the gen-tie line is not an integrated component of the grid and was designed solely as an interconnection line.
FERC did not accept the CFA or the waiver from the open access transmission tariff (OATT) filing requirement. FERC determined that the CFA was an “attempt to govern transmission service for an unaffiliated third party over the Wilderness Line outside the context of an OATT, with all its attendant rights and obligations.” Further FERC noted that waiver of obligation to file an OATT applies only until such time as a request for transmission service is made and that any transmission over the Wilderness Line for non-owners must be made pursuant to an OATT.
FERC Comments on Electric Storage Technologies Due August 9
Just a friendly reminder that the deadline to submit comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) on electric storage technologies is just around the corner. In its Request for Comments Regarding Rates, Accounting and Financial Reporting for New Electric Storage Technologies, FERC’s Office of Energy Policy and Innovation seeks comments on the following issues:
- The use of and rate treatment for storage facilities, including when it is appropriate to classify a storage facility as a transmission asset.
- The mechanisms by which a storage project that is used for multiple purposes may be compensated. Specifically, FERC seeks comment on whether a storage project may be compensated as transmission (e.g. for supporting unbundled transmission service by supplying reactive power) and also be compensated for providing ancillary services or for enhancing the value of merchant generation (e.g. by shifting output from an off-peak period to an on-peak period).
- The possibility of creating a stand-alone contract storage service and whether the storage provider would provide the service of electricity storage, enabling its customers to determine how to use their contracted share of the storage.
- Whether new accounting and reporting requirements should be created in order to facilitate cost of service or other rate policies for new storage technologies, such as chemical batteries and flywheels.
In addition to the issues outlined above and other specific questions posed by FERC in its Request for Comments, FERC invites comments on other related aspects of the storage issues not specifically addressed by FERC in the above-referenced document. Comments are due on Monday, August 9, 2010 and should reference Docket No. AD10-13-000.
