Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.

Interconnection Activity around the U.S.

IREC Interconnection WorkshopWichita, Kansas October 1, 2003

Chris LarsenLarsen Consulting Solutions, Inc.

Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.

Outline & Goals

• Outlineº Where states are in the process (timeline)º Content of rules developed or being developedº Procedures – how are states getting it doneº Resources & References

• Goalsº 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 arrangementº “Interconnection” is everything else (and our focus)

• Technical vs. legal vs. proceduralº 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 Industry push (CA)º Concern over summer peaks (CA)º Just part of restructuring (OH)º 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.

New interconnection rules for RE/DG under development

Existing interconnection rules for RE/DG being modified

Status of DG interconnection rules

Completed interconnection rules

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, supple-mental review determines whether a full interconnection study is necessary.

Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.

California Screening processNetworked Secondary System?

Equipment Certified?

Starting Voltage Drop Screen Met?

11 kVA Or Less?

Meets Short Circuit Current Contribution Screen?

Meets LineConfiguration Screen?

Qualifies for Simplified

Interconnection

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Power Exported?

No

Aggregate Capacity < 15% ofLine Section Peak Load?

Yes

SupplementalReview

No

No

No

No

No

Qualifiesfor

Interconnection

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Utility ProvidesCost &

Schedule forInterconnection

Study

$800 for initial screening/review

$600

“or”

Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.

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. TXTexas• 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 pre-certified equipment.

• Texas provides a good model with comprehensive guide book.

• NY DPS lists pre-certified equipment on their website.

Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.

• In addition to its screening process NY Standard Interconnection Requirements (SIR) employ type testing:

º Surge Testing

º Verification Test Procedure

º Non-Volatile Memory Test

º Voltage and Frequency Waveform Tests

º Five-Minute Reconnect Test

• List of approved equipment on NY DPS website : http://www.dps.state.ny.us/SIRDevices.PDF.

NY type testing (pre-certification)

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 processesº 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

No collaborative process; strictly regulatory proceeding

Collaborative process led by state staff

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.