Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. Interconnection Activity around the U.S. IREC Interconnection Workshop Wichita, Kansas October 1, 2003 Chris Larsen.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. Interconnection Activity around the U.S. IREC Interconnection Workshop Wichita, Kansas October 1, 2003 Chris Larsen."— Presentation transcript:

1 Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. Interconnection Activity around the U.S. IREC Interconnection Workshop Wichita, Kansas October 1, 2003 Chris Larsen Larsen Consulting Solutions, Inc.

2 Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. Outline & Goals Outline ºWhere states are in the process (timeline) ºContent of rules developed or being developed ºProcedures – how are states getting it done ºResources & References Goals ºUnderstand which states serve as the best models and develop a sense of whos already done what before we discuss federal (FERC) processes and the IREC model interconnection documents.

3 Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. Scope: What are states trying to do Interconnection vs. net metering. ºNet metering is simply a billing arrangement ºInterconnection is everything else (and our focus) Technical vs. legal vs. procedural ºIEEE 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? ºIndustry push (CA) ºConcern over summer peaks (CA) ºJust part of restructuring (OH) ºIEEE 1547 and FERC taking too long to develop

4 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.

5 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

6 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.

7 Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. California Screening process Networked Secondary System? Equipment Certified? Starting Voltage Drop Screen Met? 11 kVA Or Less? Meets Short Circuit Current Contribution Screen? Meets Line Configuration Screen? Qualifies for Simplified Interconnection Yes No Yes No Yes Power Exported? No Aggregate Capacity < 15% of Line Section Peak Load? Yes Supplemental Review No Qualifies for Interconnection Yes Utility Provides Cost & Schedule for Interconnection Study $800 for initial screening/review $600 or

8 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

9 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.

10 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.

11 Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. In addition to its screening process NY Standard Interconnection Requirements (SIR) employ type testing: ºSurge Testing ºVerification Test Procedure ºNon-Volatile Memory Test ºVoltage and Frequency Waveform Tests ºFive-Minute Reconnect Test List of approved equipment on NY DPS website : NY type testing (pre-certification)

12 Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. Standard agreements/contracts

13 Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. Addressing other DG issues States are addressing emissions, siting, rates, and economic benefits.

14 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 ºManaged by state staffs ºManaged by 3 rd party Strictly regulatory process What is the best way to assure DG representatives are at the table?

15 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 3 rd party

16 Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. Sign up for monthly interconnection newsletter.

17 Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.

18 Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003.

Download ppt "Larsen Consulting Solutions, 2003. Interconnection Activity around the U.S. IREC Interconnection Workshop Wichita, Kansas October 1, 2003 Chris Larsen."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google