Transcript Interconnection and Net Metering Update

Interconnection Activity
around the U.S.
IREC Interconnection Workshop
Wichita, Kansas
October 1, 2003
Chris Larsen
Larsen Consulting Solutions, Inc.
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Outline & Goals
• Outline
º
º
º
º
Where states are in the process (timeline)
Content of rules developed or being developed
Procedures – how are states getting it done
Resources & References
• Goals
º Understand which states serve as the best models
and develop a sense of who’s already done what
before we discuss federal (FERC) processes and
the IREC model interconnection documents.
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Scope: What are states trying to do
• Interconnection vs. net metering.
º Net metering is simply a billing arrangement
º “Interconnection” is everything else (and our focus)
• Technical vs. legal vs. procedural
º IEEE 1547 and UL 1741 deal with technical details, so state
rules primarily concerned with legal and procedural issues.
• Distribution level vs. transmission level
• Why are states moving ahead?
º
º
º
º
Industry push (CA)
Concern over summer peaks (CA)
Just part of restructuring (OH)
IEEE 1547 and FERC taking too long to develop
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Standards Adoption & Implementation
•
Failure to adopt standards perpetuates problems:
•
•
•
•
Customers are hurt - utilities may require customized
engineering review of every component in every system
Equipment manufacturers are hurt - they are unable to
develop standard components for sale in all 50 states
Utilities are hurt - lack of standardization results in greater
potential for defects in design, manufacturing or
installation
Implementation of interconnection rules is an
entirely separate step with its challenges.
•
CA and NY illustrate the importance of testing and
revisiting procedural rules.
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Status of DG interconnection rules
Completed interconnection rules
Existing interconnection rules
for RE/DG being modified
New interconnection rules
for RE/DG under
development
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
States with screening processes
California provides a
good model.
• Clear logic and clear
fee structure
• Systems “passing” all
screens qualify for
simplified interconnect
• Otherwise, supplemental review
determines whether a
full interconnection
study is necessary.
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
California Screening process
$800 for initial
screening/review
Networked Secondary System?
Yes
No
Power Exported?
Yes
No
Equipment Certified?
Yes
Aggregate Capacity < 15% of
Line Section Peak Load?
No
No
$600
Yes
Starting Voltage Drop
Screen Met?
Qualifies for
Simplified
Interconnection
Yes
No
Yes
11 kVA Or Less?
No
Meets Short Circuit Current
Contribution Screen?
No
“or”
No
Yes
Yes
Supplemental
Review
Meets Line
Configuration Screen?
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Qualifies
for
Interconnection
Utility Provides
Cost &
Schedule for
Interconnection
Study
OH Screening process
• Ohio screening
process has very
similar logic and
requirements as
California.
• But does explicitly
cap simplified
interconnection at
300 kW
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Interconnection Studies: NY vs. TX
Texas
• Utilities may conduct studies on
any system but cannot charge for
it if certain conditions met:
•
•
•
•
Systems no exporting power.
1-φ systems exporting <50kW.
3- φ systems exporting <150kW.
Pre-certified systems up to
500kW exporting <15% of min.
load on radial feeder and
contributing <25% of max short
circuit current.
• Study can take no more than 4
weeks.
• DG benefits must be considered.
New York
• No study allowed for systems
meeting conditions:
• Facilities <10kW
• Facilities <50kW connected on
1- φ line.
• Facilities <150kW connected
on 3- φ line.
• Otherwise, a study is required,
and full cost of borne by
customer.
• Less discretion for either party.
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Pre-certified equipment
• Five states (CA, MA,
NY, OH, TX) have
provisions for precertified equipment.
• Texas provides a
good model with
comprehensive
guide book.
• NY DPS lists precertified equipment
on their website.
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
NY type testing (pre-certification)
• In addition to its screening process NY Standard
Interconnection Requirements (SIR) employ type testing:
º
º
º
º
º
Surge Testing
Verification Test Procedure
Non-Volatile Memory Test
Voltage and Frequency Waveform Tests
Five-Minute Reconnect Test
• List of approved equipment on NY DPS website :
http://www.dps.state.ny.us/SIRDevices.PDF.
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Standard agreements/contracts
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Addressing other DG issues
• States are addressing emissions, siting, rates, and
economic benefits.
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Process: How are states proceeding?
• So you want new interconnection standards
or need to modify existing rules . . . .
Process matters.
Collaborative processes
º Managed by state staffs
º Managed by 3rd party
Strictly regulatory process
• What is the best way to assure DG
representatives are at the table?
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Process: Who is using which model
Collaborative process led
by state staff
No collaborative process; strictly
regulatory proceeding
Collaborative process led by 3rd party
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
 www.irecusa.org/connect.html
Sign up for monthly
interconnection
newsletter.
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.

www.dsireusa.org
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.
Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.