MA DG Collaborative

1
MA DG Collaborative Year 1

• Tim Roughan
• Director of Distributed Resources
• Timothy.Roughan_at_us.ngrid.com
• June 17, 2005
• Restructuring Roundtable

2
Background

• Different interconnection polices among the four
  MA utilities
• Perception that customers not getting assumed
  benefits of DG
• MA DTE issued 02-38 order in 2002
• Authorized DG collaborative to standardize
  interconnection process
• DTE approved statewide interim standard April
  2004
• Authorized two year collaborative
• Further enhance interconnection policy
• Review DG and distribution planning
• Additional work regarding network
  interconnections
• Meter ownership

3
Year 1 report 5/31/05

• New interconnection process is working well
• 144 (18.5 MWs) applications from 4/1/04 to
  3/31/05
• In MECo 13 requests 2003, 32 in 2004
• NStar had 62 of all requests
• Extensive tracking of projects
• Tracking timelines and costs
• Have suggested some process changes to
  interconnection tariff
• If the ISO has to study a project, timelines may
  be extended
• Requirement for wiring inspection
• P1547 is now IEEE Standard 1547-2003

4
Year 1 report 5/31/05

• Network system interconnection
• Multiple primary sources feeding one or more
  customers
• Issue arose whether you can delay protective
  functions to allow DG breaker to trip, however MA
  Utilities will not delay network protectors
  because it violates basic protection strategies
• Need to find another solution
• Meter ownership
• QFs already can own their meter
• QFs under PURPA
• Which policy can they use?

5
Year 1 report 5/31/05

• DG and Distribution Planning
• Distribution Planning reviews
• MECo 1,115 feeders, 295 substations
• NSTAR 1,300 feeders, 300 substations
• WMECo 271 feeders 43 substations
• FGE 44 feeders 17 substations
• Total 2,730 feeders 655 substations
• Approximate allocation of capital budgets
• Asset Replacement 25-40
• Reliability 25-35
• Capacity 30-45
• To make the budget, projects typically have to
  resolve 2 or more of the above issues

6
Year 1 report 5/31/05

• Beginning to work through some paper pilots to
  determine value and costs of DG installations in
  certain areas
• Value to DG customer is reduced energy costs,
  which is a cost to the utility
• Value from the utility is typically only from
  deferral for capacity projects in low-growth
  areas
• Unless real sustained capacity is realized non-DG
  ratepayers likely will not benefit from DG
  installations
• This may involve utility control of the DG
• Or, enough DG to use diversity on a feeder by
  feeder basis
• Could result in cross-subsidization by non-DG
  customers

7
Year 2 work plan

• Any additional streamlining of tariff
• Look at new FERC small gen process and how the
  ISO-NE will implement
• Additional investigation of interconnecting to
  network systems
• Are there other cost-effective solutions besides
  violating basic fault protection practices?
• Continue working through the costs and benefits
  to all parties for DG on the distribution system

8
Year 2 work plan

• Utility Congestion Relief Pilot (UCRP)
• MTC is interested in testing DG value
• Looking to work within MECos Lowell area
  targeted load response project
• MECo pays 50/kWh for load shed, plus 3/kW for
  summer months as a retainer
• Must be customer gt 200 kWs
• Other possibilities being discussed for smaller
  customers including residential
• MTC interested in projects with other utilities

9
Summary

• A lot more time required than was assumed
• This is not a simple issue, and it takes time to
  do it right
• Need involvement from real customers
• Need perspective of people who are not in the
  industry
• New FERC rules will affect us
• LICAP demand response customers can earn back
  their LICAP contribution
• Small Generator rule how will this interact?
• Comments due 6/23 to MA DTE on report
• http//www.mtpc.org/renewableenergy/public_policy/
  DG/2005_annualreport.htm