Presentation to the Massachusetts DG Collaborative

1
Comparison of State and Federal Standard
Distributed Generation Interconnection Agreements
Presentation to the Massachusetts DG
Collaborative Gene Shlatz
November12, 2002
2
Presentation Overview

• Summarize Interconnection Standards for States
  Where Enacted or Proposed
• Includes FERC and NARUC Model Agreement
• Compare These Standards to Those Proposed by
  Mass. Utilities
• Identify Potential Best Practices

3
Standards and Procedures Reviewed

• DG Classification
• Thresholds
• Expedited Application Review
• Radial Network Systems
• Cost Responsibility
• Dispute Resolution
• Interconnection Requirements

4
Interconnection Standards Reviewed

• Texas PUCT Distributed Generation
  Interconnection Manual (May 2002) Co-Funded by
  DOE Office of Energy Efficiency Renewable
  Energy
• New York PSC Standardized Interconnection
  Requirements, Application Process . . . For New
  DG 300kVA and Less (November 2000)
• California PUCT Rulemaking, Rule 21 Model Tariff
  Language (Decision Issued December 2000)
• FERC ANOPR Standardization of Small Generator
  Interconnection Agreements and Procedures (August
  2002)
• NARUC Model Distributed Generation
  Interconnection Procedures and Agreement (July
  2002)
• Specific Ratings and Thresholds Not Provided in
  Model Agreement
• IEEE P1547 Draft Standard for Interconnecting
  Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems
  (Draft 10, Issued August 2002)

5
DG Classification

• Massachusetts 5 Levels
• Up to 10kW, 10kW to 60kW, 60kW to 300kW, 300kW to
  1 MW, 1MW and Greater
• Texas PUCT 2 Levels
• Up to 300kW, 300kW to 10MW
• No Provision for DG gt 10MW
• New York PSC 1 Level
• Up to 300kW
• Standard Agreement Does Not Address DG gt300kW or
  Networks
• California PUCT 2 Levels
• Small Up to 11kVA Large Above 11kVA
• FERC ANOPR 2 Levels
• Small Up to 2MW Large 2MW to 20MW

6
Application Fees

• Application Fees

7
Thresholds and Timeframes for Expedited
Processing of Applications

• Radial Systems

8
Thresholds and Timeframes for Expedited
Processing of Applications

• Network Systems

9
Cost Responsibility

• Application Fees Some States Require Fees
  Others do Not Indicate if Fees Apply (See Prior
  Slides)
• Study Fees Most States Impose Fees for DGs
  That do Not Meet Fast Track or Expedited Review
  Criteria
• Texas Waives Fees if Certain Criteria Are Met
• Several States Waive Fee Where Net Metering
  Applies
• California Has 3-Level Fee Structure Initial
  Supplemental Detailed.
• Initial and Supplemental Review Fees (Calif.) Are
  Capped (800 600)
• Upgrades/Credits Not Addressed in Most States
• California Cost Allocation Issues Will be
  Addressed in Next Phase Total Cost Borne by
  Applicant should be Reduced by Distribution Cost
  Allocation
• Texas Utility Must Assess DG Benefits to System
  if Upgrades Required
• FERC Transmission Rates Includes Credit for
  Reflect Network Upgrades
• Operation Maintenance Not Addressed in Most
  States
• California Places Obligation for Future OM on DG
  Customer

10
Dispute Resolution
11
Interconnection Requirements