United States of America Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

ISO New England Inc. ) Docket No. ER18-349-000

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER AND ANSWER OF ISO NEW ENGLAND INC.

Pursuant to Rules 212 and 213 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”),1 ISO New England

Inc. (“ISO-NE” or the “ISO”)2 moves for leave to answer, and submits its answer, to the protest of Clear River Energy Center LLC (“Clear River”) filed in this proceeding on

December 20, 2017.3 For the reasons explained below, the Commission should accept this answer, and should deny the Protest with respect to the issues addressed in this pleading. The ISO is informed that New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid

(“National Grid”) contemporaneously will file a separate answer addressing other portions of the Protest.

I. BACKGROUND

This proceeding relates to the unexecuted Large Generator Interconnection

Agreement (“LGIA”) filed by the ISO and National Grid (together, the “Filing Parties”)

1 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212, 385.213 (2017). 2 Capitalized terms not defined in this answer are intended to have the same meaning given to such terms in the ISO’s Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff (“ISO Tariff”). The ISO’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”) is Section II of the ISO Tariff. 3 See Motion to Intervene and Protest of Clear River Energy Center LLC, Docket No. ER18-349-000 (Dec. 20, 2017) (“Protest”).

on November 29, 2017 (“November 29 Filing”),4 pursuant to section 205 of the Federal

Power Act5 and at Clear River’s request.6 The LGIA is based on, and fully consistent with, the pro forma LGIA set forth in Appendix 6 to Schedule 22 of the OATT.

Clear River asks the Commission to order two specific changes to the LGIA and requests other relief through orders directed to National Grid. It also requests directives to the ISO to provide Clear River with more detailed data concerning the Capacity

Network Resource (“CNR”) Group Study the ISO conducted for Clear River’s proposed

Large Generating Facility to be located in Burrillville, Rhode Island (the “Clear River

Project”) and other new generators that sought to participate in the ISO’s tenth Forward

Capacity Auction (“FCA-10”),7 and to re-evaluate the upgrades required for the Clear

River Project in light of Clear River’s change of its planned Commercial Operation Date

(“COD”) from 2019 to 2021.

However, as the ISO explains below, (1) the ISO’s conduct of the CNR Group

Study, as well as the information provided to Clear River regarding the study methodology and results, conformed to the applicable provisions of the Tariff; (2) Clear

River establishes no valid basis for questioning its responsibility for the cost of replacing the two existing transformers at the West Farnum substation in order to mitigate overloads caused by the interconnection of the Clear River Project; and (3) Clear River’s

4 Filing of Unexecuted Original Service Agreement No. LGIA-ISONE/National Grid-17- 01 Under Schedule 22 of the ISO New England Inc. Open Access Transmission Tariff of ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Company, Docket No. ER18-349-000 (Nov. 29, 2017). 5 16 U.S.C. § 824d. 6 See November 29 Filing at 2; Protest at 1. 7 FCA-10 is associated with the Capacity Commitment Period 2019-2020.

demand for restudy of its responsibility for system upgrades because of its COD change has no foundation in the Tariff, and is contrary to Commission precedent.

II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER

Though Clear River styles its pleading only as a protest, in fact, it argues for the

Commission to provide certain affirmative relief. In particular, Clear River asks the

Commission to direct the ISO to re-evaluate Clear River’s responsibility for transmission upgrades and associated costs because of Clear River’s delay of its COD,8 and to order the ISO and National Grid to demonstrate that they considered alternative, potentially more cost-effective upgrades before determining the necessary transmission system changes to include in the Clear River LGIA.9 The ISO is entitled under the Commission’s

Rules to respond to the Protest to the extent of such requests for affirmative relief.10

However, to the extent that leave of the Commission may be required for the ISO to answer the Protest, the ISO, pursuant to Rules 212 and 213(a)(2),11 moves for such leave and asks the Commission to consider the answer presented below. The Commission may waive the prohibition against answers to protests for good cause.12 The Commission has exercised this discretion to permit answers where they are otherwise prohibited in various circumstances, including where a commenting party or protestor has provided an

8 Protest at 8. 9 Protest at 8-9. 10 See, e.g., Iroquois Gas Transmission Sys., L.P., 61 FERC ¶ 61,341, at 62,341 n.9 (1992) (stating that a party is entitled to respond to affirmative request in a pleading regardless of how that pleading is captioned); Seminole Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 53 FERC ¶ 61,026, at 61,101 (1990) (accepting answer to the extent it responded to a party’s requests for affirmative relief). 11 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212, 385.213(a)(2). 12 See 18 C.F.R. § 385.101(e).

inaccurate interpretation of the contents of a filing,13 and where the answer would assure a complete record in the proceeding;14 provide information helpful to the disposition of an issue;15 permit the issues to be narrowed or clarified;16 or aid the Commission in understanding and resolving issues.17

The ISO’s answer here fulfills these purposes. It will correct inaccurate portrayals of the November 29 Filing and the Clear River LGIA,18 will provide the Commission with a more complete record, will narrow, clarify, and lead to better understanding of the issues in this proceeding, and should aid the Commission in reaching its decision in this case. Accordingly, the ISO respectfully requests that the Commission permit and consider the following answer to the Protest.

III. ANSWER

A. The CNR Group Study that Included Clear River Was Conducted, and Complete Information Relating to that Study Was Provided to Clear River, in Accordance with the Governing Terms of the Tariff

Clear River claims that, despite multiple requests to the ISO, it has not received sufficient information to enable it to verify, replicate or even meaningfully review the

13 See, e.g., All. Cos., 91 FERC ¶ 61,152, at 61,577-78 (2000). 14 See, e.g., Pac. Interstate Transmission Co., 85 FERC ¶ 61,378, at 62,443 (1998), reh’g denied, 89 FERC ¶ 61,246 (1999). 15 See, e.g., CNG Transmission Corp., 89 FERC ¶ 61,100, at 61,287 n.11 (1999). 16 See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 84 FERC ¶ 61,224, at 62,078 (1998); New Energy Ventures, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 82 FERC ¶ 61,335, at 62,323 n.1 (1998). 17 See, e.g., Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 92 FERC ¶ 61,009, at 61,016 (2000). 18 For example, although the ISO suggested that Clear River relocate its proposed Point of Interconnection to National Grid’s Sherman Road Substation, contrary to Clear River’s assertions (Protest at 24, 25), it has never stated that the new 345 kV transmission line connecting the Clear River Project to the Sherman Road station should or must use National Grid’s existing right-of-way.

results of the ISO’s CNR Group Study.19 According to Clear River,20 the CNR Group

Study should be regarded as the equivalent of an Interconnection Study under the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (“LGIP”) established under Order No.

2003.21 Premised on this contention, Clear River further asserts that its purportedly limited access to data related to the CNR Group Study is inconsistent with Commission policy, as reflected in the Commission’s requirements relating to studies conducted under the regional transmission planning process prescribed by Order No. 89022 and provisions of Order No. 2003 relating to interconnection customers’ access to base case data under the pro forma LGIP.23 On this basis, Clear River asks that the Commission direct the

ISO to provide to Clear River the data necessary for Clear River to replicate the CNR

Group Study, so that it may verify the results of that study.24 The Commission should deny this request, because, as described later and in the Supplemental Testimony of Alan

19 Protest at 27-29. 20 Protest at 32. 21 Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, 2001–2005 FERC Stats. & Regs., Regs. Preambles ¶ 31,146 (2003), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-A, 2001–2005 FERC Stats. & Regs., Regs. Preambles ¶ 31,160, order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-B, 2001–2005 FERC Stats. & Regs., Regs. Preambles ¶ 31,171 (2004), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003-C, 2001–2005 FERC Stats. & Regs., Regs. Preambles ¶ 31,190 (2005), aff’d sub nom. Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 22 Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890, 2006–2007 FERC Stats. & Regs., Regs. Preambles ¶ 31,241, order on reh’g, Order No. 890-A, 2006–2007 FERC Stats. & Regs., Regs. Preambles ¶ 31,261 (2007), order on reh’g & clarification, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), order on reh’g & clarification, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ¶ 61,228, order on clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2009). 23 Protest at 31. 24 Protest at 32-33.

McBride,25 Clear River already has access to all of the data regarding the CNR Group

Study that the Tariff authorizes, and all that is necessary to confirm the study’s results.

The CNR Group Study, by definition, is “the study performed by the System

Operator under Section III.13.1.1.2.3 of the Tariff to determine which resources qualify to participate in a Forward Capacity Auction.”26 Contrary to Clear River’s claims, while the CNR Group Study is developed under different procedures and on a very strict timeline, it provides a fully equivalent level of transparency and consistency as the

Interconnection Studies under the ISO’s Interconnection Procedures.

The conduct of the CNR Group Study is governed by Section III.13.1.1.2.3 of the

Tariff and the detailed instructions set forth in the ISO’s Planning Procedure No. 10,27

Planning Procedure to Support the Forward Capacity Market (“PP-10”).28 Additional discussion of the origin and character of the CNR Group Study should be helpful in understanding the error of Clear River’s characterizations.

Under revisions to the ISO Tariff which the Commission approved in 2009, the interconnection process is coordinated with implementation of the Forward Capacity

Market (“FCM”) for the purpose of allocating capacity interconnection capability to the

25 The testimony is appended to this answer as Attachment A (“McBride Supp. Testimony”). 26 Tariff, Schedule 22 § 1 (Definitions). 27 ISO New England Planning Procedure No. 10 Planning Procedure to Support the Forward Capacity Market, ISO New England Inc., (Nov. 15, 2017), https://www.isone.com/static-assets/documents/rules_proceds/isone_plan/pp10/pp10.pdf. 28 See generally ISO New England Inc., 122 FERC ¶ 61,018, at P 48, et seq. (2008) (accepting original PP-10 provisions for coordinating the ISO’s interconnection queue with the Forward Capacity Market, outlining what is now the CNR Group Study).

system.29 Pursuant to those revisions, the Tariff continues to provide interconnecting resources the option to interconnect at the previously prevailing, single Interconnection

Service level—the Network Resource Interconnection Service (“NRIS”)—but provides that NRIS is not sufficient to participate in the capacity market. Participation in the capacity market instead is provided through Capacity Network Resource Interconnection

Service (“CNRIS”).

As the ISO’s witness Mr. McBride explained in his testimony included with the

November 29 Filing, a new resource obtains CNRIS through successful participation in the FCM and completion of the transmission upgrades the ISO determines to be necessary to accommodate the service. CNRIS permits an Interconnection Customer to interconnect under the intra-zonal deliverability standard, called the Capacity Capability

Interconnection Standard, for up to the associated resource’s CNR Capability. CNR

Capability is based, in turn, on the quantity of the Capacity Supply Obligation the customer obtains when it clears in a Forward Capacity Auction (“FCA”).30

Mr. McBride further explained in his testimony that this coordination with the

FCM has moved the New England region from a “first-come, first-served” to a “first- cleared, first-served” approach for resources that elect CNRIS. All Interconnection

Customers (i.e., those seeking CNRIS as well as those obtaining NRIS) complete the same steps under the serial, “first-come, first-served” queue process of the LGIP (i.e., participate in a Scoping Meeting, complete Interconnection Studies, and enter into an

Interconnection Agreement). However, to achieve CNRIS, an Interconnection Customer

29 See ISO New England Inc., 126 FERC ¶ 61,080 (2009) (“FCM/Queue Amendments Order”). 30 See FCM/Queue Amendments Order at P 14.

must also achieve several FCM-related milestones, including participating in an annual group study (i.e., the CNR Group Study) in which the ISO assesses each participating resource’s capacity deliverability as part of the FCM qualification process. In supplemental testimony accompanying this answer, Mr. McBride provides additional details about the CNR Group Study generally, as well as about the upgrades identified by the CNR Group Study that included the Clear River Project.

As Mr. McBride explains in his supplemental testimony, the CNR Group Study is a cluster study in which the participating Interconnection Requests are studied in queue order relative to all other Interconnection Requests that are seeking to qualify for the same FCA. Resources for which the ISO determines that needed transmission upgrades can be completed in time for the relevant FCA Capacity Commitment Period are qualified to participate in the FCA. A resource that clears in the ensuing FCA, and thus obtains a Capacity Supply Obligation, is assigned CNRIS (with associated cost responsibilities for required upgrades) even if the resource clears in the FCM before an earlier queued project—hence, the “first-cleared, first-served” construct. Thus, capacity interconnection service (with associated cost responsibilities and CSO) is allocated, based on market results, to the first cleared resource, and remaining resources must then decide whether to participate in a subsequent FCM auction or withdraw.

Mr. McBride’s supplemental testimony establishes that the CNR Group Study for

FCA-10, which included the Clear River Project, was conducted in accordance with the governing FCM Tariff rules and PP-10. In particular, Mr. McBride describes in detail how the upgrades which that study identified as necessary to accommodate Clear River’s participation in the FCM are consistent with well-known characteristics of the relevant

portions of the New England transmission system.31 He also points out that PP-10 states in detail the methodology of the CNR Group Study and the parameters used in it, including the applicable assumptions regarding the study period, transmission system topology, regional load, existing generation capacity, queued generation capacity, available demand resources, and contingencies.32 The ISO does not specifically communicate the elements of the base case of the CNR Group Study to participating interconnection customers (referred to as Project Sponsors in the FCM qualification process), Mr. McBride states, because that detailed information is available to them through PP-10.33

Mr. McBride’s supplemental testimony also shows that there is no foundation for

Clear River’s complaints that it has insufficient information to confirm the results of the

CNR Group Study with respect to its transmission system upgrade responsibilities. Mr.

McBride testifies that the base case and other instructions for the CNR Group Study stated in PP-10, along with the information provided in the ISO’s Qualification

Determination Notice to Clear River, are sufficient to enable Clear River to confirm the overloads caused by its project and the associated upgrades to address them.34 In any event, Mr. McBride states, through an email exchange after completion of the FCA-10

CNR Group Study, ISO personnel provided Clear River with a link to an online

31 See McBride Supp. Testimony at 7:10–17 (explaining that the Clear River Project will be located in electrical proximity to about 2,000 MW of existing generation capacity and will utilize the same 345 kV transmission facilities that already transmit the existing generators’ energy to the nearest load center). 32 McBride Supp. Testimony at 3:20 – 4:2. 33 McBride Supp. Testimony at 4:2–11. 34 McBride Supp. Testimony at 3:20 – 4:17.

description of the base case and explained to Clear River the overloads identified by the study that Clear River was assigned responsibility to resolve.35 To the extent Clear River seeks the detailed dispatches used in the CNR Group Study, data regarding the participation of other competing resources in the FCA is, and always has been confidential,36 and Clear River has offered no reasons why it alone should have access to such sensitive market data.

In short, the CNR Group Study for FCA-10 was correctly done in accordance with the Tariff and the planning procedures in effect at the time of the FCA-10 qualification review, and its results and related information have been properly made available to Clear River. The Commission therefore should deny Clear River’s Protest as it relates to the transmission upgrades included in the Clear River LGIA based on the

CNR Group Study, as confirmed by the post-FCA-10 CNR restudy.

B. Clear River Provides No Valid Reason to Question Its Responsibility for Replacing the Existing West Farnum Transformers

Clear River asks the Commission to require the ISO and National Grid to demonstrate that studies of the Clear River Project included consideration of potentially more cost effective upgrades, and that Clear River is not being required to fund upgrades beyond those necessary to accommodate interconnection of its facility. In particular,

Clear River asserts that, while replacing the existing 345/115 kV transformers at the West

Farnum Substation resolves the overloads of those facilities caused by the Clear River

Project, there are “other equally effective and far more cost-effective solutions,” such as

35 McBride Supp. Testimony at 5:11–19 (referring to Exhibit 1 attached to the testimony). 36 McBride Supp. Testimony at 5:19 – 6:6.

adding a third transformer instead of upgrading the existing ones.37 Clear River demands re-evaluation of this alternative, arguing that the ISO unjustifiably rejected it on the ground that installation of the additional transformer could not be completed prior to June

1, 2019, the start of the FCA-10 Capacity Commitment Period.38

Mr. McBride’s supplemental testimony demonstrates that Clear River’s claims regarding the West Farnum transformers are without merit. Mr. McBride explains that, after the ISO has identified overloads of transmission elements in the initial stages of the

CNR Group Study, it is the responsibility of the transmission owner whose facilities are affected (National Grid in the case of the Clear River Project) to: (1) determine whether there has been sufficient analysis to identify an upgrade to resolve each violation; and

(2) evaluate whether the upgrade(s) needed to resolve each overload can reasonably be completed prior to the start of the relevant Capacity Commitment Period.39 In the

Protest, Clear River completely overlooks these PP-10 criteria for the CNR Group Study.

In this instance, as Clear River acknowledges,40 the potentially more cost effective solution of adding a third transformer at the West Farnum Substation was considered, but rejected. It was rejected, Mr. McBride explains, because adding a third transformer would be a more time-consuming upgrade to implement, requiring substation expansion as well as detailed short circuit and stability analyses to address the lower impedance that a third transformer would cause. Because of the need for this work, the third-transformer alternative would have been a Category “C” upgrade under PP-10, i.e.,

37 Protest at 36-37. 38 Protest at 36-37. 39 McBride Supp. Testimony at 9:11 – 10:22 (discussing Section 5.10 of PP-10). 40 Protest, Attachment C at 5:2–8 (Testimony of Kris Zadlo).

one that probably could not have been completed prior to the start of the applicable

Capacity Commitment Period. Thus, Mr. McBride testifies, adopting the third transformer alternative would have resulted in the Clear River Project’s failure to qualify for FCA-10.41

Clear River has established no basis for revisiting its responsibility for replacing the two existing transformers at West Farnum. The record shows that the third- transformer alternative Clear River advocates was, in fact, considered, and that rejection of the alternative not only was in accord with the Tariff, but also facilitated Clear River’s qualification for FCA-10.42 Therefore, the Protest clearly lacks merit insofar as it seeks reconsideration of the ISO’s determinations regarding the West Farnum transformer upgrade.

C. Clear River’s Request for a Restudy Based on Its Change to the COD of Its Project Finds No Support in the Tariff or Commission Policy

Clear River’s request that the Commission direct the ISO to restudy the Clear

River Project to “reevaluate the upgrades needed to interconnect the Project taking into

41 See McBride Supp. Testimony at 12:1–15. That Clear River has delayed the COD for the Clear River Project does not undo or modify the results of the responsibilities Clear River assumed through the FCA-10 qualification process. In FCA-10, Clear River accepted an obligation to be commercial for the associated Capacity Commitment Period, which starts June 1, 2019. Its unilateral decision to delay its COD does not change its obligations, including its upgrade responsibilities. The Tariff reflects these principles in its provisions that require a resource with a CSO that will not achieve commercial operation by the start of the Capacity Commitment Period to cover its obligation by participating in annual bilateral transactions and/or reconfiguration auctions. See Tariff, Section III.13.3.4. Unlike the result Clear River now advocates, these provisions are consistent with Clear River’s obligation under the Tariff to pursue diligently achievement of the COD associated with its CSO. 42 See McBride Supp. Testimony at 11:17–23, 12:1–15.

account the 2021 COD”43 is unsupported by the Tariff and Commission policy.

Accordingly, the Commission also should deny the Protest in this respect.

As the ISO pointed out in the November 29 Filing, Section 7.6 of the LGIP states the limited circumstances that trigger restudy of an Interconnection System Impact Study:

(i) a higher queued project dropping out of the queue, (ii) a modification of a higher queued project subject to Section 4.4, (iii) re-designation of the Point of Interconnection pursuant to Section 7.2, (iv) a re-assessment of the upgrade responsibilities of an Elective Transmission Upgrade associated with an Import Capacity Resource(s) or a Generating Facility after the Import Capacity Resource(s) or the Generating Facility receives a Capacity Supply Obligation in accordance with Section III.13 of the Tariff, or (v) a modification to a transmission project included in the Base Case.44

Section 8.5 of the LGIP states the same conditions regarding restudy of a Facilities

Study.45 Neither Section 7.6 nor Section 8.5 provides that a change in the COD of a

Large Generating Facility triggers a restudy.

Excluding a change in COD as a restudy trigger is appropriate and consistent with established Commission policy. In contrast, what Clear River proposes contradicts such policy, would enable and condone gaming, and would undermine the essential link between queue position and cost responsibility.

43 Protest at 34. 44 Tariff, Schedule 22 § 7.6; see id. § 3.2.1.3; McBride Supp. Testimony at 13:8–17. 45 Tariff, Schedule 22 § 8.5 states that: If restudy of the Interconnection Facilities Study is required due to (i) a higher queued project dropping out of the queue, (ii) a modification of a higher queued project subject to Section 4.4, (iii) a re-assessment of the upgrade responsibilities of a Generating Facility after it receives a Capacity Supply Obligation in accordance with Section III.13 of the Tariff, or (iv) a modification to a transmission project included in the Base Case, the System Operator shall so notify The interconnection customer and Interconnecting Transmission Owner in writing.

Clear River nevertheless argues that a restudy is required here because “given the

Project’s revised COD of 2021 certain previously identified contingencies will by that date have been resolved through other means and therefore at least some related upgrades identified through the study process will, in all likelihood, be unnecessary,”46 and “it would be unjust and unreasonable to require Clear River to fund the cost of such facilities that have with the passage of time become unnecessary.”47 Clear River’s arguments turn

Commission precedent regarding restudies on its head.

In Neptune48 and subsequent orders,49 the Commission stated its policy that “an interconnection customer’s upgrade cost responsibility is based on its queue position,”50 and that “[e]ach customer knows that cost allocations will be determined by the interconnection provider’s studies based upon circumstances existing as of the queue date.”51 This means that an interconnection customer’s cost responsibility for upgrades must be based on the system configuration at the time the customer joins the queue—not the project’s COD. Moreover, permitting restudies each time a project extends its COD

46 Protest at 33. 47 Protest at 34. 48 Neptune Reg’l Transmission Sys., LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 110 FERC ¶ 61,098 (“Neptune”), order on reh’g, 111 FERC ¶ 61,455 (2005) (“Neptune Rehearing”), aff’d sub nom. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. v. FERC, 485 F.3d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 49 See, e.g., Midwest Indep. Transmission Operator, Inc., 143 FERC ¶ 61,050, at P 39 (2013) (“MISO 2013 Order”) (stating Commission policy from Neptune that “an interconnection customer’s cost responsibility for upgrades must be based on the ‘system configuration’ at the time the customer joins the queue, i.e. the baseline”); see also Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 132 FERC ¶ 61,020, at P 32 (2010) (stating that in Neptune “the Commission prohibited a transmission provider from restudying an interconnection customer’s request due to generator retirements that occurred subsequent to the customer’s initial system impact study because such events were not listed in the transmission provider’s tariff as permitting re-studies”). 50 MISO 2013 Order (citing Neptune at P 23). 51 Neptune Rehearing at P 19.

would provide an incentive for interconnection customers to delay the CODs of their projects in hopes that a regional solution may be developed sometime in the future that could alleviate upgrades that the original interconnection studies identified as necessary for their projects.52 The resulting uncertainty, however, would cut both ways, as there may be circumstances where the required upgrades could increase because of changed conditions since the original study.53 What Clear River seeks not only is contrary to

Commission policy, but would wreak havoc on the interconnection process, resulting in inappropriate and unfair cost allocations.

Clear River’s attempt to distinguish Neptune is unavailing. According to Clear

River, Neptune is inapposite because in that case the “Commission interpreted an ambiguity in PJM’s tariff and found that PJM could not restudy the Neptune interconnection where it was not authorized under its tariff to do so.” Purportedly in contrast, Clear River asserts, here the ISO’s “Tariff specifically provides that projects can be restudied when, among other things, there has been “a modification to a transmission project included in the Base Case.”54

Clear River misplaces its reliance on LGIP Section 8.5. The language in Section

8.5 that provides for restudy based on “modification to a transmission project included in

52 Restudies for a delay in a COD would be akin to restudies for other subsequent events, such as retirements, that are announced and occur after an interconnection customer’s queue date, which are not permitted. Neptune at P 24. The prohibition against conducting restudies based on subsequent events is appropriate, as the outcome of a restudy may go in either direction relative to the original analysis. The ISO does not perform a restudy on the basis of changes in load, retirements or other subsequent events that take place after the customer’s queue date is established, as that could result in additional (as opposed to fewer) upgrades for the project. 53 McBride Supp. Testimony at 15:14 – 16:6. 54 Protest at 34-35 (quoting Tariff, Schedule 22 § 8.5).

the Base Case” refers to changes to approved transmission projects that already are included in the Base Case created for an interconnection study (in this case the Clear

River Interconnection Studies).55 There have been no such changes here.

The reliability upgrades that Clear River asserts “should eliminate the need for upgrades . . . that Clear River is currently being required to fund”56 were not included in the Base Case for the Clear River interconnection studies. As explained later, it is actually the other way around: the transmission system upgrades for interconnection of the Clear River Project are inputs into the planning process studies.

As Mr. McBride states in his supplemental testimony, the regional planning process upgrades identified by Clear River are solutions identified for the region as part of the Southeast Massachusetts/Rhode Island (“SEMA/RI”) studies conducted under the

Regional System Planning process set out in Attachment K of the ISO’s OATT.57 Those upgrades had not been identified, and had not met the threshold criteria to be included in the respective base cases, at the time the System Impact Study, the FCA qualification review, or the post-FCA CNR restudy for the Clear River Project were performed.58

Thus, there were no SEMA/RI reliability upgrades in the base cases for the Clear River

Interconnection Studies, the CNR Group Study, or the post-FCA restudy. Therefore, subsection (v) of Section 8.5 of the LGIP is irrelevant to Clear River’s upgrade

55 Tariff, Schedule 22 §§ 2.3, 7.3. 56 Protest at 34. 57 McBride Supp. Testimony at 14:1–7. 58 McBride Supp. Testimony at 14:7–10; see Tariff, Schedule 22 § 2.3, Section III § 12.6.2; PP-10 at 5 (Section 2).

responsibilities.59 Simply put, because the SEMA/RI reliability upgrades were not in the base case for the Clear River studies, LGIP Section 8.5 does not permit restudy of the

Clear River Project.

In contrast, because Clear River previously had acquired a Capacity Supply

Obligation in FCA-10, the Tariff60 required the ISO to include Clear River’s generating facility and its associated upgrades in the base case for the SEMA/RI studies. Thus, the

SEMA/RI studies reflected the Clear River Project capacity that cleared in FCA-10, and the system solutions developed in SEMA/RI studies “assumed that the Clear River

Project’s 485 MW capacity that cleared in FCA-10 were in place.”61 Moreover, Mr.

McBride notes that several other transmission planning studies and interconnection studies completed after the Clear River Interconnection Studies have relied upon the same assumptions regarding Clear River and its associated transmission upgrades.62

Changes to Clear River’s upgrade responsibilities would undercut all of the studies performed subsequent to the Clear River Project’s successful participation in FCA-10.

Stripped of its unavailing arguments, what Clear River really seems to want is a later Queue Position, which it presumably believes would allow it to benefit from the

SEMA/RI reliability upgrades that it lists in its Protest. The Tariff provides an avenue for

Clear River to achieve this goal: it may withdraw its 2014 Interconnection Request and submit a new request.

59 McBride Supp. Testimony at 14:11–13. 60 Tariff, Attachment K § 4.1(f). 61 McBride Supp. Testimony _14:18–19 (emphasis added). 62 McBride Supp. Testimony at 14:19 – 15:2.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated in this answer and in the November 29 Filing, the ISO respectfully requests that the Commission grant the ISO’s motion for leave to answer, deny the Protest, and accept the Clear River LGIA, as filed, without suspension, hearing or condition.

Respectfully submitted,

ISO NEW ENGLAND INC.

/s/ Monica Gonzalez Michael J. Thompson Monica Gonzalez Carrie L. Bumgarner Senior Regulatory Counsel Wright & Talisman, P.C. ISO New England Inc. 1200 G Street, N.W., One Sullivan Road Suite 600 Holyoke, MA 01040-2841 Washington, D.C. 20005 (413) 535-4000 (202) 393-1200 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Counsel for ISO New England Inc. January 4, 2018

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

ISO New England Inc. ) Docket No. ER18-349-000

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF ALAN MCBRIDE ON BEHALF OF ISO NEW ENGLAND INC.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

ISO New England Inc. ) Docket No. ER18-349-000

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF ALAN MCBRIDE ON BEHALF OF ISO NEW ENGLAND INC.

1 I. BACKGROUND

2 Q: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CURRENT EMPLOYMENT.

3 A: My name is Alan McBride. I am employed by ISO New England Inc. (the “ISO”)

4 as the Director of Transmission Strategy and Services.

5 Q: ARE YOU THE SAME ALAN MCBRIDE WHO PROVIDED TESTIMONY 6 ON BEHALF OF THE ISO IN THIS PROCEEDING ON NOVEMBER 29, 7 2017?

8 A: Yes.

9 Q: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY YOU 10 ARE SUBMITTING TODAY?

11 A: This supplemental testimony relates to the same subject matter as my earlier

12 testimony submitted in support of the filing by the ISO and New England Power

13 Company d/b/a National Grid (“National Grid”) of an unexecuted Large Generator

14 Interconnection Agreement (“LGIA”) among the ISO as the System Operator,

15 National Grid as the Interconnecting Transmission Owner (“ITO”), and Clear River

16 Energy LLC (“Clear River”) as the Interconnection Customer (“Clear River

17 LGIA”). However, this testimony responds to Clear River’s arguments, including

1 the related testimony of Mr. Kris Zadlo on Clear River’s behalf,1 regarding the

2 ISO’s Capacity Network Resource (“CNR”) Group Study associated with the tenth

3 Forward Capacity Auction (“FCA-10”) and its contention that Clear River’s

4 responsibility for transmission upgrades should be re-studied because of

5 transmission upgrades included in the ISO’s current Regional System Plan.

6 II. THE CNR GROUP STUDY PROCESS

7 Q: WHAT IS THE CNR GROUP STUDY?

8 A: The CNR Group Study is a study performed by the ISO under Section III.13.1.1.2.3

9 of the ISO’s Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff (“Tariff”) as part of its

10 determination of which resources qualify to participate in a Forward Capacity

11 Auction (“FCA”). It is performed during the Forward Capacity Market

12 qualification process, and includes overlapping interconnection impacts analysis

13 using the intra-zonal deliverability test under the Capacity Capability

14 Interconnection Standard that must be met to achieve Capacity Network Resource

15 Interconnection Service (“CNRIS”) under the ISO’s Interconnection Procedures set

16 out in Section II of the Tariff, the Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”).

17 As described in my earlier testimony in this proceeding, the interconnection process

18 and the Forward Capacity Market are coordinated for the purpose of allocating

19 capacity interconnection capability. To achieve CNRIS, in addition to completing

20 the Interconnection Studies (Feasibility Study, System Impact Study and/or

21 Facilities Study) under the OATT’s Large Generator Interconnection Procedures

1 Motion to Intervene and Protest of Clear River Energy Center LLC, Docket No. ER18-349-000 (Dec. 20, 2017) (“Protest”). Mr. Zadlo’s testimony is appended to the Protest as Attachment C (“Zadlo Testimony”).

1 (“LGIP”), an Interconnection Customer must also complete additional Forward

2 Capacity Market-related milestones. Participating in the CNR Group Study

3 conducted as part of the qualification process for a given FCA is one of the Forward

4 Capacity Market-related milestones.

5 Q: PLEASE DESCRIBE THE ISO’S PROCESS FOR COMPLETING THE 6 CNR GROUP STUDY.

7 A: The conduct of the CNR Group Study is governed by Section III.13.1.1.2.3 of the

8 Tariff, as well as the detailed instructions set forth in ISO New England Planning

9 Procedure No. 10, Planning Procedure to Support the Forward Capacity Market

10 (“PP-10”).2

11 The CNR Group Study includes all Interconnection Requests for CNRIS that have

12 submitted a New Capacity Show of Interest Form for the purpose of qualifying for

13 the same FCA under Section III.13.1 of the Tariff. As described in Tariff

14 Section III.13.1.1.2.3(f) and as detailed in PP-10, Section 5.8.1, all resources

15 seeking to qualify for the FCA are included in the CNR Group Study in accordance

16 with their assigned Queue Positions, on a first-come, first-served basis, relative to

17 the other resources that have also submitted a Show of Interest Form for the same

18 FCA. In other words, the CNR Group Study includes a subset of the requests in

19 the interconnection queue.

20 PP-10 provides detailed instructions regarding the conduct of the CNR Group

21 Study. The assumptions for the study period, transmission topology, load level,

2 ISO New England Planning Procedure No. 10 Planning Procedure to Support the Forward Capacity Market, ISO New England Inc., (Nov. 15, 2017), https://www.iso-ne.com/static- assets/documents/rules_proceds/isone_plan/pp10/pp10.pdf.

1 existing generation, queued generation, demand resources and contingencies are all

2 specified in Section 5.3 of PP-10. These assumptions are all reflected in the

3 qualification base case, which, as I described in my previous testimony in this case,

4 is made available to Project Sponsors, such as Clear River, stakeholders and

5 participants. The same base case, the same assumptions, and the same methodology

6 are used for analysis of all of the resources that seek to qualify for the FCA. This

7 approach ensures the same level of transparency and consistency that exists for

8 Interconnection Studies, while also enabling multiple applicants to be evaluated for

9 overlapping impacts within the relatively short and fixed timeframe of FCA

10 qualification. Descriptions of the individual elements of the CNR Group Study are

11 not delivered to each Project Sponsor because they are stated in PP-10.

12 At the end of each FCA qualification review cycle, in accordance with Section

13 III.13.1.1.2.8, the ISO provides a Qualification Determination Notification

14 (“QDN”) to the Project Sponsor. Section III.13.1.1.2.8 describes the required

15 contents of the QDN. The QDN provided to Clear River on September 25, 2015,

16 following the completion of the FCA-10 CNR Group Study met the Tariff’s

17 requirements.

18 Finally, if the Interconnection Customer’s proposed resource clears in the FCA and

19 thus obtains a Capacity Supply Obligation, the Interconnection Customer’s cleared

20 capacity must complete a post-auction restudy, performed in accordance with the

21 restudy provisions of the Interconnection Procedures. The restudy establishes the

22 customer’s responsibility for required transmission upgrades and associated costs,

23 based on its Queue Position relative to the other new resources that also obtained a

24 Capacity Supply Obligation through the same FCA. The level of information

1 provided with the restudy results is consistent with the level of information

2 provided in the QDN.

3 Q: WAS THIS PROCESS FOLLOWED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE CNR 4 GROUP STUDY ASSOCIATED WITH FCA-10 THAT INCLUDED THE 5 CLEAR RIVER PROJECT?

6 A: Yes, as I explained in my previous testimony in this proceeding.

7 Q: WAS ALL OF THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CNR GROUP STUDY 8 THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED AVAILABLE TO CLEAR RIVER 9 REGARDING THE FCA-10 STUDY THAT INCLUDED THE CLEAR 10 RIVER PROJECT?

11 A: Yes. In fact, through an exchange of emails3 with Clear River, ISO personnel

12 directed Clear River to all of the information about the FCA-10 CNR Group Study

13 that I have described. Specifically, on December 16, 2016, Clear River requested

14 “the details of the base case and contingency scenarios that result in the overload[s]

15 o[f] the T174 and T175 transformers.”4 Clear River clarified this request on

16 January 25, 2017.5 On February 1, 2017, the ISO provided Clear River: (1) the

17 base case used for the FCA-10 CNR Group Study overlapping interconnection

18 impacts analysis; and (2) the contingencies associated with the transformer

19 overloads.6 The ISO did not provide the detailed dispatches that Clear River

20 requested, because “they contain sensitive market information.”7 The detailed

21 dispatches are market sensitive because they include information about other

3 These emails are appended to this testimony as Exhibit 1.

4 Exhibit 1 at 5.

5 Id. at 1-2.

6 Id. at 1.

7 Id.

1 resources that submitted a Show of Interest Form seeking to participate in the same

2 FCA. Such information is designated as non-public in the ISO’s informational

3 filings reporting its qualification determinations for each FCA. However, the ISO

4 pointed out to Clear River that it should be able to recreate the dispatches, and thus

5 the results of the CNR Group Study, by using the methodology detailed in Section

6 5.8 of PP-10.

7 III. IDENTIFICATION OF OVERLOADS AND UPGRADES UNDER THE 8 CNR GROUP STUDY

9 Q: THE CNR GROUP STUDY FOR FCA-10, WHICH INCLUDED THE 10 CLEAR RIVER PROJECT, IDENTIFIED SYSTEM UPGRADES 11 NECESSARY FOR THE INTERCONNECTION OF THE CLEAR RIVER 12 PROJECT. WHY WERE THESE UPGRADES ASSIGNED TO CLEAR 13 RIVER?

14 A: The upgrades listed in Section 6 of Appendix A of the Clear River LGIA were

15 identified in the FCA-10 CNR Group Study and confirmed in the post-FCA restudy

16 for the portion of Clear River Project’s capacity (485 MW) that cleared in the

17 auction. These upgrades are required to address the overloads caused by the

18 addition of the portion of the Clear River Project’s capacity that cleared in FCA-10.

19 Q: PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE UPGRADES 20 REQUIRED FOR CLEAR RIVER TO ACHIEVE CNRIS WERE 21 IDENTIFIED.

22 A: The process used in the identification of the upgrades to achieve CNRIS is

23 described in detail in Section 5.8 of PP-10. As I explained above, Section 5.8.1

24 describes the order in which resources seeking to qualify for the same FCA are

25 reviewed. Next, for each resource seeking to qualify, reference dispatches are

26 created by turning up certain generators and turning down others, as described in

27 Section 5.8.1.1, while modeling internal and external transfers that reasonably

1 stress the system, as described in Section 5.8.1.2. The essence of this approach is

2 to ensure that, once added to the system, the new generator seeking to provide

3 capacity to the region will be able to run at its requested capability without turning

4 down existing capacity resources. This ensures that the new resource will be

5 incrementally useful in the delivery of its requested capacity and will not be

6 constrained down when it may be needed.

7 As described in Section 5.8.1.1 of PP-10, reference dispatches are obtained by

8 completing a transfer from a source of all “harmer” generation (i.e., generation that

9 contributes to an overload when it is turned on) with a distribution factor (“DFAX”)

10 of 3% or greater to a sink of all other generators. In the case of Clear River, the

11 project proposes to locate in the northwest corner of the Load Zone of Rhode Island.

12 It so happens that there are a large number (>2,000 MW) of existing and potential

13 new capacity resources in this electrical vicinity, also connected to the 345 kV

14 system in the area. Because all of these generators are electrically close to each

15 other, they will tend to be part of the same harmer population to be turned on in the

16 reference dispatches of interest (again because we are testing that the new generator

17 can run with all of the existing generators also running).

18 On the other hand, most of the load in Rhode Island is in the southeastern part of

19 the state, in the Providence area. The Providence area is fed by a 115 kV portion

20 of the network with relatively little generation. One of the key supplies to this 115

21 kV network is the pair of 345 to 115 kV autotransformers at the West Farnum

22 Substation. From West Farnum, 115 kV circuits continue to the Providence area.

23 After the addition of the Clear River Project, the autotransformers at the West

24 Farnum Substation and some of the 115 kV lines that continue from West Farnum

1 to the Providence area are overloaded. The Clear River Project causes additional

2 stress in the flow of electricity from the generation-heavy northwestern part of the

3 state to the load in the Providence area.

4 Section 5.8.1.2 of PP-10 describes the area transfers that must be used in the test.

5 The Southeast Massachusetts/Rhode Island (“SEMA/RI”) area is a potentially

6 import-constrained part of the system, and loadings in the SEMA/RI area are

7 impacted by heavy west to east transfers. As such, this part of the system is

8 modeled with higher transfer conditions in the overlapping impact test. These

9 transfers further add to the stress described above.

10 The stresses used in the analysis are developed as described above. In all scenarios,

11 the pre-project case is stressed until a transmission line, element, or interface is at

12 its established loading limit (pre- or post-contingency), but not above its limit.

13 Next, the study project is added to the case.

14 Finally, as described in Section 5.8.1.3 of PP-10, each resource seeking FCA

15 qualification will be responsible for resolving any overloads within the Load Zone

16 to which it is electrically interconnecting and any overloads within a neighboring

17 Load Zone that result from the addition of the resource. However, a resource will

18 not be responsible for increasing the transfer capabilities of interfaces that form the

19 boundaries between existing Load Zones. For FCA-10, resources were identified

20 as responsible for addressing such impacts where the study resource’s DFAX or

1 impact on an overloaded element was 3% or greater,8 or where the addition of the

2 study resource resulted in a transfer above the interface transfer capability of the

3 modeled intra-zonal stability or voltage limited interface.

4 Clear River is required to upgrade those transmission elements where the addition

5 of its capacity that cleared in FCA-10 resulted in an overload that meets these

6 criteria. These are the upgrades identified in Section 6 of Appendix A of the Clear

7 River LGIA.

8 Q: WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE INTERCONNECTING TRANSMISSION 9 OWNER IN THE ASSESSMENT OF UPGRADES TO RESOLVE 10 OVERLOADS IDENTIFIED IN A CNR GROUP STUDY?

11 A: The role of the ITO in the assessment of identified upgrades is described in Section

12 5.10 of PP-10. Briefly, the ISO provides the ITO with any violations identified

13 using the Section 5.8 study methodology, as described in my previous answer.

14 Upon receipt of the violations, in accordance with PP-10, the ITO reviews the list

15 and performs an implementation assessment to: (1) identify whether sufficient

16 transmission planning analysis has taken place to identify an upgrade that addresses

17 a given violation, and (2) if an upgrade has been identified, whether or not that

18 upgrade could or could not be achieved in time for the relevant Capacity

8 Subsequent to FCA-10, and with stakeholder input, the last paragraph of Section 5.8.1.3 of PP-10 was revised to state:

The study resource will be responsible for addressing impacts where the addition of the study resource results in an overload that is either greater than 10 MVA above the applicable thermal rating or the overload is greater than or equal to 2% above the applicable thermal rating, or where the addition of the study resource results in a transfer above the interface transfer capability of the modeled intrazonal stability or voltage limited interface.

1 Commitment Period. Note that this evaluation must be completed in the relatively

2 short, fixed timeframe that the Tariff prescribes for the FCA qualification process.

3 After receiving the ITO’s response regarding the identification and feasibility of

4 completing upgrades, the ISO reviews the ITO’s implementation assessments and

5 associated confirmations to determine whether the identified upgrades can be

6 implemented by the start of the relevant Capacity Commitment Period. In making

7 this determination, the ISO considers several factors listed in Section 5.10 of PP-

8 10, such as:

9  Complexity of the transmission planning analysis (review of 10 different transmission alternatives and I.3.9 review process); 11  Ease of siting and permitting; 12  Ease of land and easement acquisition; 13  Equipment procurement time; 14  Ease of construction and characteristics of the required new 15 facilities (for example, length of new overhead line or underground 16 cable); 17  Construction sequencing and time requirement; 18  Need for significant outage scheduling; and 19  The extent to which issues such as those described in this list have 20 already been addressed, implemented or completed and/or the extent 21 to which there are plans in place to address issues such as those 22 described in this list.

23 Section 5.8 of PP-10 groups identified upgrades required for projects proposing to

24 participate in a FCA into three categories: Group “A,” Group “B,” and Group “C.”

25 The probability of completing upgrades in time for the Capacity Commitment

26 Period is, in general, highest for the types of projects in Group “A,” relatively lower

27 for projects in Group “B,” and lower still for projects in Group “C.”

1 Q: WHY WERE THE UPGRADES OF THE EXISTING TRANSFORMERS AT 2 NATIONAL GRID’S WEST FARNUM SUBSTATION IDENTIFIED AS 3 APPROPRIATE TO MITIGATE THE OVERLOADS?

4 A: The post-FCA-10 restudy confirmed that the two existing 345/115 kV

5 autotransformers at West Farnum were overloaded after the addition of the portion

6 of the Clear River Project capacity that cleared in FCA-10. Replacement of both

7 autotransformers was identified as appropriate to mitigate the overloads. Section

8 5.8 of PP-10 identifies upgrading an existing transformer as a Group A project,

9 whereas the addition of a new autotransformer is identified as a Group C project.

10 The reason for this difference is that adding a new transformer in parallel with

11 existing transformers requires an expansion of the substation and lowers the

12 impedance of the system, which in turn requires detailed short circuit and stability

13 analysis that is not necessary for replacement with similar equipment.

14 Q: WERE OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED TO ADDRESS THE 15 OVERLOADS OF THE EXISTING AUTOTRANSFORMER AT WEST 16 FARNUM?

17 A: Yes. The installation of a third transformer at West Farnum was considered as an

18 alternative to replacing the existing transformers. However, adding a third

19 transformer would have resulted in a Group C project, instead of a Group A

20 upgrade. One of the significant drivers for this classification of the addition of a

21 third autotransformer is the complexity of the necessary substation expansion and

22 transmission planning analysis, including the need for short circuit and stability

23 analysis, as noted above.

1 Q: WHY IS THE REPLACEMENT OF THE WEST FARNUM 2 AUTOTRANSFORMERS MORE APPROPRIATE THAN THE ADDITION 3 OF A THIRD TRANSFORMER?

4 A: National Grid, the ITO in the case of the Clear River Project, determined, for the

5 reasons described above, that the option of adding a third transformer would likely

6 not have been feasible to complete by the start of the applicable Capacity

7 Commitment Period. Indeed, pursuing that solution would have resulted in Clear

8 River failing to qualify for FCA-10 on the basis that the upgrades necessary to

9 enable the project’s interconnection to provide capacity could not be implemented

10 before the start of the Capacity Commitment Period. Replacement of the existing

11 transformers facilitated the project’s ability to qualify for the FCA. The fact that

12 Clear River since has chosen to delay the project’s Commercial Operation Date

13 such that it will not be built by the start of the Capacity Commitment Period for

14 which Clear River obtained a Capacity Supply Obligation is not a basis for re-

15 evaluating the CNR-related upgrades.

16 IV. IMPACT OF CLEAR RIVER’S COMMERCIAL OPERATION DATE 17 DELAYS ON ITS UPGRADE RESPONSIBILITIES

18 Q: WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, DOES CLEAR RIVER’S CHANGE TO ITS 19 COMMERCIAL OPERATION DATE HAVE ON CLEAR RIVER’S 20 RESPONSIBILITY FOR SYSTEM UPGRADES REQUIRED FOR ITS 21 INTERCONNECTION?

22 A: None. Clear River’s change in its Commercial Operation Date does not affect its

23 responsibility for completing the upgrades necessary for interconnection of the

24 Clear River Project, as identified in the ISO’s System Impact Study, Facilities

25 Study, and the post-FCA-10 CNR Group restudy.

1 Q: DOES CLEAR RIVER’S CHANGE IN ITS COMMERCIAL OPERATION 2 DATE TRIGGER A RESTUDY OF THE ISO’S POST-FCA-10 RESTUDY?

3 A: No. Clear River’s change in Commercial Operation Date does not trigger a restudy

4 because it is not one of the restudy triggers described in the ISO Tariff.

5 Q: IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES DOES THE ISO CONDUCT A RESTUDY 6 OF AN INTERCONNECTION REQUEST AFTER THE COMPLETION OF 7 THE POST-FCA RESTUDY?

8 A: Sections 3.2.1.3, 7.6, and 8.5 of the LGIP in Schedule 22 of the ISO OATT provide

9 that a restudy may occur due to: (i) a higher queued project dropping out of the

10 queue; (ii) a modification of a higher queued project subject to Section 4.4 of the

11 LGIP; (iii) re-designation of the Point of Interconnection pursuant to Section 7.2 of

12 the LGIP; (iv) a re-assessment of the upgrade responsibilities of an Elective

13 Transmission Upgrade associated with an Import Capacity Resource(s) or a

14 Generating Facility after the Import Capacity Resource(s) or the Generating

15 Facility receives a Capacity Supply Obligation in accordance with Section III.13 of

16 the OATT (i.e., the post-FCA restudy); or (v) a modification to a transmission

17 project included in the Base Case. Clear River’s change in its Commercial

18 Operation Date presents none of the circumstances in which the results of an

19 Interconnection Study or a post-FCA restudy may be revisited.

20 Q: IN ITS PROTEST, CLEAR RIVER REFERENCES THREE 21 TRANSMISSION PROJECTS THAT IT CLAIMS TRIGGER A RESTUDY 22 UNDER SUBSECTION (V) ABOVE, AS “MODIFICATIONS TO A 23 TRANSMISSION PROJECT INCLUDED IN THE BASE CASE.” DO THE 24 TRANSMISSION PROJECTS IDENTIFIED BY CLEAR RIVER TRIGGER 25 A RESTUDY OF THE UPGRADES CONFIRMED IN THE POST-FCA 26 RESTUDY?

27 A: No. Subsection (v) triggers a restudy to account for modifications made to a

28 transmission project included in the base case of an Interconnection Study

1 associated with a proposed Large Generating Facility. The transmission projects

2 Clear River identifies in its Protest—i.e., “NGrid’s Reliability upgrades #1635

3 (rebuilding the Somerset Substation), #1714 (New Grand Army Switching station)

4 and #1717 (separate and reconductor X3 and W4 lines)”9—do not fall within this

5 provision. Instead, all of the cited projects are reliability upgrades identified as part

6 of the SEMA/RI studies conducted under the Regional System Planning process set

7 out in Attachment K of the ISO’s OATT. The SEMA/RI reliability upgrades had

8 not even been identified, let alone met the threshold criteria to be included in the

9 respective base cases, at the time the System Impact Study, the FCA qualification

10 review, or the post-FCA CNR restudy for the Clear River Project were performed.

11 Therefore, there were no SEMA/RI reliability upgrades in the base cases for the

12 Clear River System Impact Study, the FCA-10 CNR Group Study, or the post-FCA-

13 10 CNR restudy. Thus, subsection (v) is not triggered.

14 To the contrary, in the Regional System Planning process, the ISO is required by

15 Attachment K to include resources that clear in a FCA. As such, the Clear River

16 Project capacity that cleared in FCA-10 (i.e., 485 MW) was reflected in the

17 SEMA/RI reliability study process. In other words, the development of regional

18 system solutions in those studies assumed that the Clear River Project’s 485 MW

19 that cleared in FCA-10, and the associated upgrades, were in place. In addition,

20 several other Interconnection Studies have proceeded, in accordance with the

21 Tariff, using the same assumption. Any change to Clear River’s upgrade

9 Zadlo Testimony at 5:19 – 6:1.

1 responsibilities would affect all of the ISO’s subsequent planning studies that have

2 assumed completion of the Clear River Project and its associated upgrades.

3 Q: DOES THE LGIA BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN THIS PROCEEDING 4 REQUIRE CLEAR RIVER TO FUND ANY TRANSMISSION UPGRADES 5 OTHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE THE 6 INTERCONNECTION SERVICE CLEAR RIVER HAS REQUESTED?

7 A: No. The upgrades for which Clear River is responsible under the LGIA filed with

8 the Commission in this docket comprise the facilities the ISO has determined, in

9 accordance with the Tariff, to be necessary to provide the Interconnection Service

10 Clear River has requested. The LGIA includes no upgrades beyond those which

11 the ISO’s studies show to be required for Clear River’s interconnection. Under the

12 Tariff, Clear River alone bears responsibility for the costs of the upgrades thus

13 identified in the LGIA.

14 Q: ARE THERE ANY CONSEQUENCES TO CONDUCTING RESTUDIES ON 15 THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS, SUCH AS THE FUTURE 16 IDENTIFICATION OF RELIABILITY UPGRADES, THAT WERE 17 UNKNOWN AND THEREFORE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR AT THE TIME 18 THE STUDIES OF THE CLEAR RIVER PROJECT WERE COMPLETED?

19 A: The existing procedures are necessary to provide certainty to all Interconnection

20 Customers and to the regional planning process. This certainty also applies to Clear

21 River itself. Clear River will not be subject to a restudy except for the specific

22 circumstances provided for in the OATT. Clear River appears to perceive that a

23 restudy that includes newly identified regional upgrades would be beneficial to it

24 by reducing the number of required upgrades. However, the process that Clear

25 River advocates could just as easily result in unexpected increases in upgrade

26 requirements. More importantly, if the SEMA/RI upgrades developed after the

27 base cases for the Clear River studies were locked down are a basis for re-studying

1 Clear River, they logically also should be a basis for re-studying every other

2 interconnection request prior to Clear River which might be affected by the same

3 SEMA/RI upgrades. The disruptive effects on the queue of this approach are self-

4 evident. In short, the result Clear River seeks would undermine the certainty for

5 completed and subsequent projects that Order No. 2003 intended the

6 interconnection queue and related study procedures to provide.

7 Q: DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY?

8 A: Yes.

16 Exhibit 1

2016-2017 ISO New England-Clear River Email Exchange Regarding CNR Group Study

From: Perben, Marianne Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:17 PM To: Liu, Jenny Cc: Ma, Alex; Sedlacek, Carissa Subject: RE: EXT || RE: [EXT] Update on QP 489 Interconnection Facilities Attachments: FW: FCA #10 Qualification: Preliminary Violation Summary - DRAFT - Burrillville Energy Center (Market Sensitive & Confidential)

Hi Jenny,

The base case used for the FCA #10 overlapping impact analyses is available at https://smd.iso‐ne.com/markets‐ administration/ceii/fcm/2019_2020_fca_ol_v32.zip. The contingencies associated with the transformer overloads are listed in the preliminary violations summary report, which was sent by Dwarakesh Nallan back in September 2015 (see attached email). As far as the detailed dispatches go, we can’t provide them to you, since they contain sensitive market information, however, you may be able to recreate them by using the methodology described in section 5.8 of PP‐10 ‐ Planning Procedure to Support the Forward Capacity Market (specifically, section 5.8.1.1). PP‐10 is available at https://www.iso‐ ne.com/static‐assets/documents/rules_proceds/isone_plan/pp10/pp10.pdf.

I hope this will help,

Thank you, Marianne

ISO-NE CONFIDENTIAL The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and may be privileged.

It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please delete the message and notify the sender. Unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

From: Liu, Jenny Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 5:26 PM To: Perben, Marianne Cc: Ma, Alexander Subject: RE: EXT || RE: [EXT] Update on QP 489 Interconnection Facilities

*** EXTERNAL email. Please be cautious and evaluate before you click on links, open attachments, or provide credentials. ***

1 Marianne, I was just thinking of replying you before you sent me a follow‐up email. Thanks for the follow‐up!

What we are trying to request are the base cases used for this overlapping study for the QP489 project. The overlapping study report does not document the details for the case dispatch. We are trying to understand what the study case is and the contingency associated with the transformer overloads. Is it possible to provide us with the study case? Thanks! Jenny

From: Perben, Marianne [mailto:MPerben@iso‐ne.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:17 PM To: Liu, Jenny Cc: Ma, Alexander Subject: RE: EXT || RE: [EXT] Update on QP 489 Interconnection Facilities

Hi Jenny,

I haven’t heard from you, are you all set?

Thank you!

ISO-NE CONFIDENTIAL The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and may be privileged.

From: Perben, Marianne Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:28 PM To: Liu, Jenny Subject: RE: EXT || RE: [EXT] Update on QP 489 Interconnection Facilities

Hi Jenny,

2 I am looking forward to working with you as well. It was a little unclear from the email chain below whether you were looking for some action on my group’s part. Are you still looking for information related to your FCA 10 upgrades (specifically T174 and T175 overloads)?

Let me know, Thank you!

ISO-NE CONFIDENTIAL The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and may be privileged.

From: Liu, Jenny Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:15 AM To: Winkler, Mariah; Perben, Marianne Cc: Parkhill, Kenneth; Zadlo, Kris Subject: RE: EXT || RE: [EXT] Update on QP 489 Interconnection Facilities

*** EXTERNAL email. Please be cautious and evaluate before you click on links, open attachments, or provide credentials. ***

Mariah, Thanks for forwarding our email to Marianne! Congratulation on your new role in the Committees and wish you all the best!

Marianne, Congratulation on your new role as well! We are looking forward to working with you on FCM matters! Thanks! Jenny

From: Winkler, Mariah [mailto:mwinkler@iso‐ne.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:08 AM To: Liu, Jenny ; dnallanchakravartula@iso‐ne.com; Perben, Marianne Cc: Parkhill, Kenneth ; Zadlo, Kris Subject: RE: EXT || RE: [EXT] Update on QP 489 Interconnection Facilities

Hi Jenny,

Hope all is well. Dwarakesh recently left the ISO to work for a consulting firm and I have also switched roles within the ISO and am now in NEPOOL Relations acting as the Chair of the Reliability Committee and Transmission Committee.

3 Going forward you will want to work with Marianne Perben (copied on this email) regarding your FCM questions. She is the new Manager of the Technical Studies department.

Best,

Mariah Winkler

The information in this message and in any attachments is intended solely for the addressee(s) listed above. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

ISO‐NE PUBLIC

From: Liu, Jenny Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:53 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Winkler, Mariah; Parkhill, Kenneth; Zadlo, Kris Subject: FW: EXT || RE: [EXT] Update on QP 489 Interconnection Facilities

*** EXTERNAL email. Please be cautious and evaluate before you click on links, open attachments, or provide credentials. ***

Dwarakesh, We are directed by Ngrid to you concerning our comment regarding FCA‐10 upgrades (specifically T174 and T175 overloads) for Q489. Could you please address our comment highlighted below? Thanks! Jenny

From: Reardon, Kevin C. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 1:17 PM To: McBride, Alan ; Beron, David Cc: Hayduk, Brian ; Stevens, Mark A. ; Cox, Kathryn (US‐WAL) ; Perez‐Perez, Carlos ; Legrow, Philip ; Niland, John ; Zadlo, Kris ; Liu, Jenny ; Nadkarni, Amit ; Bianco, David ; Batstone, Geoffrey ; Deschene, Natasha L. ; Ruell, Cheryl Subject: RE: EXT || RE: [EXT] Update on QP 489 Interconnection Facilities

Hi Al,

Concerning the Network Upgrades for QP489, I’m providing a brief overview of where we are in terms of the development of the Facilities Study Report, consistent with the timelines of the tariff, for your reference:

 National Grid issued the Facility Study Report (V1) on 9/30/2016;  Invenergy responded with questions and comments to the report on 10/25/2016;  National Grid provided responses to Invenergy’s questions and comments on 11/16/2016.

We recently received additional questions from the Invenergy team (12/14), which we are currently following up on in order to provide a timely response. Please note that I directed the Invenergy team to work with ISO’s FCM department in order to address one of the additional questions (listed below):

“Please provide the details of the base case and contingency scenarios that result in the overload on the T174 and T175 transformers”

Attached is V2 of the Facilities Study Report; the only changes being the addition of page numbers to the document.

We will provide you with further updates, as Invenergy and National Grid work together to address all of the concerns and issue the final report. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Kevin Reardon Account Manager, FERC Jurisdiction nationalgrid (M) 781-795-2672 (W) 781-907-2411 [email protected]

From: McBride, Alan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 11:56 AM To: Beron, David Cc: Reardon, Kevin C.; Hayduk, Brian; Stevens, Mark A.; Cox, Kathryn (US-WAL); Perez-Perez, Carlos; Legrow, Philip; Niland, John ([email protected]); [email protected]; Liu, Jenny; Nadkarni, Amit ([email protected]); Bianco, David; Batstone, Geoffrey; Deschene, Natasha L.; Ruell, Cheryl Subject: EXT || RE: [EXT] Update on QP 489 Interconnection Facilities

Hi David,

Has the study described below been completed? If so, can you please provide a copy?

Thanks, Al McBride Director | Transmission Strategy & Services (413) 540-4223 (office) [email protected]

ISO‐NE CONFIDENTIAL

The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and may be privledged. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please delete the message and notify the sender. Unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is strickly prohibited and may be unlawful.

From: Beron, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 5:00 PM To: McBride, Alan Cc: Reardon, Kevin; Hayduk, Brian; Stevens, Mark; Cox, Kathryn (US-WAL); Perez-Perez, Carlos; Legrow, Philip; Niland, John ([email protected]); [email protected]; Liu, Jenny; Nadkarni, Amit ([email protected]); Bianco, David; Batstone, Geoffrey; Deschene, Natasha L. Subject: [EXT] Update on QP 489 Interconnection Facilities

*** EXTERNAL email. Please be cautious and evaluate before you click on links, open attachments, or provide credentials. ***

Alan and All

During our conference call on Tuesday 9/20 to discuss the status of the QP489 Facilities Study Report, a request was made that we provide an update on the status of the QP489 Interconnection Facilities. As was clarified during the conference call, the Interconnection Facilities are being separately progressed, outside the framework of the Network Upgrades and Facilities Study Report. After consulting with POWER Engineers and other team members, I can report the following with regards to the Interconnection Facilities:

Bay Addition at Sherman Road Switching Station

 Conceptual Engineering Report (CER) targeted for completion on or about 11/1/2016

 Content of the CER will include:

 Scope Summary

 Site Work

 Civil / Structural Work

 Primary Electrical Work

 Secondary Electrical Work

 High‐Level Summary of Required Outages

 Associated Information (Environmental Considerations, Safety Considerations, Risk Assessment, etc.)

 Conceptual Grade Estimate (‐25% / +50% Tolerance)

 Anticipated Cash Flows by Year

 High‐Level Schedule (Tasks and Durations)

 Miscellaneous Drawings (One Line Operating Diagram, Site Plan, etc.)

New 345 kV Interconnection Line (3052 Line)

 Conceptual Engineering Report (CER) targeted for completion on or about 11/10/2016

 Content of the CER will include:

 Scope Summary

 High‐Level Summary of Required Outages

6  Conceptual Grade Estimate (‐25% / +50% Tolerance)

 Anticipated Cash Flows by Year

 High‐Level Schedule (Tasks and Durations)

 Associated Information (Environmental Considerations, Safety Considerations, Risk Assessment, etc.)

 Summary of Anticipated Licensing and Permitting Requirements (Federal, State, Local, Other)

 Structure Work List

 Right‐of‐Way Maps

Apart from the Conceptual Engineering Reports described above, the team has been meeting regularly to advance numerous issues, including:

 Siting Requirements

 Licensing & Permitting Requirements

 Project Management Issues

 Commercial Issues

 Land and Land Rights Issues

 Constructability Considerations and Field Reviews

 Divisions of Responsibility

 Stakeholder Management and Outreach Issues

Please let me know if you have any questions on this update. Thanks very much, Dave B

David J. Beron, PE, PMP Principal Project Manager National Grid 40 Sylvan Road Waltham, MA 02451 Waltham Office (781) 907-2558 Mobile (401) 486-9143 NEEWS Project Office (774) 643-1803 [email protected]

-----Original Appointment----- From: Reardon, Kevin C. Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 4:39 PM To: Reardon, Kevin C.; Beron, David; Hayduk, Brian; Stevens, Mark A.; Cox, Kathryn (US-WAL); Perez-Perez, Carlos; 7 Legrow, Philip; McBride, Alan ([email protected]); Niland, John ([email protected]); [email protected]; [email protected]; Nadkarni, Amit ([email protected]) Subject: QP 489 Clear River Project Facilities Study Discussion #2 When: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:30 PM-4:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: DIAL: 866-844-9417_PASSCODE: 75876631

Joint meeting between National Grid, ISO New England and Invenergy to discuss the status of the QP489 Facilities Study Report.

Please respond with your availability.

*Note that this meeting will follow the ‘Weekly Progress Meeting’ held by Power Engineering.

Call-in Information

DIAL: (866) 844-9417

PASS CODE: 7.5.8.7.6.6.3.1

Kevin Reardon Account Manager, FERC Jurisdiction nationalgrid (M) 781-795-2672 (W) 781-907-2411 [email protected]

This e-mail, and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. The content may also contain legal, professional or other privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the e-mail and any attachments. You should not disclose, copy or take any action in reliance on this transmission.

You may report the matter by contacting us via our UK Contacts Page or our US Contacts Page (accessed by clicking on the appropriate link)

Please ensure you have adequate virus protection before you open or detach any documents from this transmission. National Grid plc and its affiliates do not accept any liability for viruses. An e-mail reply to this address may be subject to monitoring for operational reasons or lawful business practices.

For the registered information on the UK operating companies within the National Grid group please use the attached link: http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/legal/registeredoffices.htm

You may report the matter by contacting us via our UK Contacts Page or our US Contacts Page (accessed by clicking on the appropriate link)

For the registered information on the UK operating companies within the National Grid group please use the attached link: http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/legal/registeredoffices.htm

This electronic message and all contents contain information which may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The information is intended to be for the addressee(s) only. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender by reply e‐mail and destroy the original message and all copies.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 4th day of January, 2018.

/s/ Michael J. Thompson Wright & Talisman, P.C. 1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 393-1200