content top

Issue of Coordination with Affected Systems Rises to Forefront at FERC


By: Deborah Swanstrom*

The issue of coordination with Affected Systems has long been a proverbial “elephant in the room” when generation project developers request interconnection service from a Transmission Provider and the interconnection may impact neighboring systems. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) largely side-stepped the issue when it originally promulgated its pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP) and Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) in Order No. 2003.  The pro forma LGIP, for example, includes loose concepts of “coordination” and “cooperation,” without specific details or deadlines.  A Transmission Provider generally is required to coordinate studies with Affected System Operators to determine the impact of an interconnection request, but the Transmission Provider must include the results of the Affected System Operators’ studies in the Transmission Provider’s own studies only “if possible” and “if available.” The Interconnection Customer and Affected System Operator generally are required to cooperate with the Transmission Provider in matters related to the conduct of studies. There is no language, however, that specifically compels an Interconnection Customer to execute a study agreement with an Affected System Operator by a set deadline nor is there any language requiring an Affected System Operator to complete a study by a set deadline after the execution of such a study agreement.  This may change, however, following a technical conference scheduled by FERC to occur on April 3-4, 2018.

The technical conference will address issues raised in a complaint filed recently by EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. (EDF) against the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) as well as in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements (NOPR) released by FERC in 2016.  In EDF’s complaint, it argued that the PJM, SPP, and MISO tariffs and joint operating agreements do not contain sufficient detail on Affected Systems coordination, which unjustly and unreasonably hinders proposed generation developers from assessing the commercial viability of projects.  The NOPR proposed reforms to the pro forma LGIP and LGIA with the aim of improving certainty and transparency in the interconnection process, including with respect to coordination with Affected Systems.


Topics to be addressed at the technical conference include:

  • Allocation of Affected System Costs among MISO, SPP, and PJM;
  • Timing of Affected System Coordination among MISO, SPP, and PJM;
  • Modeling and Study Procedures Used for Affected Systems Information between MISO, SPP, and PJM;
  • General Affected Systems Coordination Processes;
  • Affected Systems Studies & System Reliability; and
  • Affected Systems Coordination Best Practices and Guidelines.


Often, after a technical conference, FERC will provide an opportunity for the submission of written comments. Thus, if these issues are of concern to your company, it will be important to watch for a notice setting a comment deadline.

* The author thanks Ms. Hanna Burt for her assistance with the preparation of this blog.


For more information on this topic or other energy matters, please contact any of the following attorneys at Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C.

Debbie Swanstrom, Member –

Debra Roby, Chair –

Joel Greene, Member –

Gerit Hull, Member –

Gary Newell, Member –

Alan Robbins, Member –

Andrea Sarmentero Garzon, Member –

Omar Bustami, Associate –

Legal Disclaimer

Please note that the materials contained within this web site have been prepared by Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C. for informational purposes only so that readers may learn more about the firm, the services it provides the background of its attorneys, and recent developments in the law. These materials do not constitute, and should not be considered, legal advice, and you are urged to consult with an attorney on your own specific legal matters. Transmission of the information contained in the Jennings, Strouss & Salmon web site is not intended to create, and receipt by the reader does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Jennings, Strouss & Salmon or any of its individual attorneys. While we would certainly like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Please do not send us any information about a matter that may involve you until you receive written authorization to do so from one of our attorneys. Unless otherwise indicated in individual attorney biographies, attorneys resident in the firm's various offices are not certified by the Board of Legal Specialization or a similar body of any State. This site may contain hyperlinks to Web sites operated by parties' independent from Jennings, Strouss & Salmon. Such hyperlinks are provided for your reference only. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon does not control such Web sites, and is not responsible for their content. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon's inclusion of hyperlinks to such Web sites does not imply any endorsement of the material on such Web sites or any association with their content. Your access and use of such sites, including information, material, products, and services therein, shall be solely at your own risk. Further, because the privacy policy of this Site is applicable only when you are on this Site, once linked to another Web site, you should read that site's privacy policy before disclosing any personal information.