From: susan schneider [schneider@phoenix-co.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:15 PM
To: Hinman, Cynthia
Cc: 'Nancy Rader'; 'Joe Karp'
Subject: CalWEA comments on latest LCRIF proposal

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Purple
Hello, Cindy -
 
Here are a few short comments from the California Wind Energy Association (CalWEA) on the latest ISO Location-Constrained Resource Interconnection Facility (LCRIF) proposal.
 
We are encouraged, based on the conference call last Friday, that the ISO has apparently adopted many of our earlier suggestions, listed below, though we recommend that you state them more clearly and explicitly in the upcoming tariff-language proposal:
 
> Ability of parties to submit problems needing investigation, or more general solutions, in the transmission-planning Open Season process, rather then full-blown LCRIF proposals;
 
> Requirement that LCRIF proponents study transmission alternatives (at least 3 recommended);
 
> Provision that the ISO will include potential Network Upgrade alternatives in its assessment of LCRIF proposals, if the proponent has not thoroughly studied such altermatives; and
 
> Ability of projects in out-of-state areas (and in-state areas currently outside the ISO Control Area) to qualify for LCRIF treatment as long as their first interconnection point with the electricity grid is an ISO-controlled facility.
 
We also support your stated intention to examine all likely generation projectsin the area in sizing and designing LCRIFs; this will ensure that the most rational project is built and prevent location-constrained generation from being displaced by other local projects afterwards.  That requirement should also be reflected in proposed tariff language.
 
Finally, we encourage the ISO to preserve its ability to consider LCRIFs in areas outside state-designated ERAs that meet the other criteria and are found to be the optimal interconnection method, e.g., where an ISO cluster study indicates that this would be the least-cost interconnection and/or where one of the two state agencies favors an ERA designation but the other does not.  You could provide that Board approval would be required, as in the the pre-ERA interim methodology.  We understand that you would need to investigate why the area wasn't designated as an ERA in determining whether an LCRIF is warranted, but it does not seem wise to curtail the ISO's discretion where it believes that a project is otherwise worthy.
 
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments - please call me with any questions.
 
                                                                              - Susan Schneider
                                                                                Phoenix Consulting
                                                                                (916) 804-9514