January 12, 2021
Docket No. ER21-410-000
GLICK, Commissioner, and CLEMENTS, Commissioner, concurring:
Although we support today’s order accepting Tri-State’s proposed interconnection queue reform, we write separately to express our views on Tri-State’s revised timeline of 60 days to meet commercial readiness requirements for the Transitional Procedures. In particular, we remain concerned with whether this window “provides sufficient time for interconnection customers to meet the readiness requirements”[1] under the specific and unique circumstances present in Tri-State.
In Tri-State’s proposed queue reform, two of the three readiness requirements for the Transitional Procedures involve interconnection customers finding a buyer of either resource supply or the entire project within 60 days of this order. This window of time could prove to be challenging because Tri-State and its Members have been wrapped up in Tri-State’s jurisdictional change for more than a year,[2] with several related proceedings still pending before the Commission.[3] Consequently, Tri-State and its Members allegedly have put a hold on procuring additional resources in the region at this time.[4] Without obvious opportunities to secure buyers over the last year or in the near future, it is possible Tri-State’s window for readiness demonstration may not fully accommodate the current situation created by Tri-State’s pursuit of Commission jurisdiction. This is troubling because it may unnecessarily impede some interconnection customers from qualifying for the Transitional Procedures.
We understand the 60-day timeline accepted in today’s order is responsive to the guidance presented in the Commission’s October 2020 Order.[5] However, we will remain vigilant in monitoring the administration of this provision and whether it remains just and reasonable. In the meantime, aggrieved parties can pursue action under section 206 of the FPA if they believe the provision is no longer just and reasonable.
For these reasons, we respectfully concur.
Commissioner Richard Glick and Commissioner Allison Clements
[1] Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, 173 FERC ¶ 61,015, at P 71 (2020) (October 2020 Order) (“We find that Tri-State’s proposed 10-day period under the transitional processes to meet the readiness requirements and Site Control demonstration is not consistent with or superior to the pro forma LGIP. Consequently, we reject Tri-State’s proposed transitional process without prejudice to Tri-State submitting a proposal that provides sufficient time for interconnection customers to meet the readiness requirements and make the Site Control demonstration.”).
[2] See Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, Petition for Declaratory Order, Docket No. EL20-16-000 (filed Dec. 23, 2019); Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, 170 FERC ¶ 61,224, P 82 (2020) (finding Tri-State became jurisdictional in September 2019 upon acceptance of Mieco Inc. as a member).
[3] See Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, 171 FERC ¶ 61,207 (2020); Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, 172 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2020); Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, 174 FERC ¶ 61,009 (2021).
[4] Arevia Comments at 7-10.
[5] October 2020 Order, 173 FERC ¶ 61,015 at PP 71-72. Although Tri-State’s proposed window generally aligns with the overall window approved in Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo., 169 FERC ¶ 61,182 (2019) (PSCo), the specific challenges with securing offtake present in this proceeding were not at issue in the PSCo proceeding.