Subject: Interconnection questions
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 04:04:00 -0800 (PST)

SOCO filed interconnection procedures at FERC.  VEPCO and CP&L have protested 
SOCO's filing stating that they perform interconnection studies differently 
than SOCO in this aspect:

VEPCO and CP&L state that they perform studies by modeling the transmission 
system with the loads in the base case unchanged and the output of existing 
and higher queued planned generators that serve load ratched down to allow 
the grid to accept the full output of the new generator "at the point of 
receipt."

SOCO performs the studies using the "extension cord" method -- models the 
transmission system with load ratched up in an amount equal to the output of 
the new generator.

While a generator customer is still not assured that it will get 
"transmission" until it makes a separate OASIS request, VEPCO and CP&L state 
that their method provides some "assurance" (ie, no guarantee) that the 
customer would not be denied transmission later due to no ATC at the point of 
receipt (generator).  I think that their method might also possibly result in 
higher "network" upgrades to be charged to generator.

EPMI has not protested SOCO's interconnection filing for other reasons.  
However, this may be something of concern to us in these regions and others.  
Let me know any concerns.  I think FERC will address this issue when it 
issues an order on SOCO's filing (which could be this month or several 
months--most likely before summer).  Thanks.