Interconnection Issues at Higher Penetrations
Sky C. Stanfield
1
2
Installed Grid-Connected Solar Capacity (MW)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Capa
city (M
W-‐dc)
U)lity
Non-‐Residen)al
Residen)al
1800 MW
3340 MW
3
Number of Annual Grid-Connected Installations
65,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
U)lity
Non-‐Residen)al
Residen)al
95,000
Most Interconnection Procedures Were Designed for a Different Era
• FERC adopted SGIP in 2005, subsequently many states adopted procedures modeled on SGIP or the original California Rule 21 – In 2005 the US installed 79 MW of grid connected
PV – In 2012 the US installed 3,300 MW of grid
connected PV • Until last year, few states had updated their
procedures to reflect this changing reality 4
Key Reasons for Updating Interconnection Procedures
• High volume of interconnection applications • Increased penetration on distribution circuits • Backlogged study queues • Unclear review requirements • Lack of transparency regarding system
conditions • Better procedures = lower costs for solar
customers and utilities/rate payers 5
Interconnection Rules Are Changing
• Both state and federally regulated procedures in California have been updated
• Hawaii, Massachusetts, Ohio and others have recently adopted or are considering changes
• FERC is currently considering significant updates to SGIP
6
A Few Principles for Efficient Interconnection
• Filter projects before applications are filed • Enable developers to select low-cost sites • Apply the appropriate amount of study to
each project • Ensure timelines are clear and complied
with • Allow opportunities for cost sharing
7
New and Noteworthy Approaches to Interconnection
• Pre-Application Reports and other tools • Fast Track size limits • Improved Supplemental Review • Differentiated Study Processes • Group/Cluster Studies • Up Next: Integrated Distribution Planning?
8
Pre-Application Report
• Report on system conditions at a particular point of interconnection
• Reduces number of speculative projects • Help developers strategically locate projects • Maximizes utilization of existing infrastructure • Can help manage expectations • Minimizes study queues, conserves utility
staff time
9
Fast Track Size Limits • Most common Fast Track limit is 2 MW • May result in studies being required where
not needed to protect safety and reliability • Goal should be to filter projects that are
unlikely to pass the Fast Track screens • Size is a key factor, but location on the circuit
is also a key determining factor • Couple of options on the table at FERC
10
Fast Track Eligibility Proposals
11
Line Capacity Fast Track Eligibility-regardless of location
Fast Track Eligibility- on > 600 amp line and < 2.5 miles from substation
< 4kV < 1MW < 2 MW 5kV – 14 kV < 2MW < 3 MW
15 kV – 30 kV < 3MW < 4 MW 31 kV – 60 kV < 4MW < 5 MW
Line Voltage Fast Track Eligibility Regardless of Location
Fast Track Eligibility on a Mainline* and <2.5 Miles**
from Substation < 5 kilovolt (kV) < 500 kW < 500 kW
≥ 5 kV and < 15 kV < 2 MW < 3 MW ≥ 15 kV and < 30 kV < 3 MW < 4 MW ≥ 30 kV and 69 kV < 4 MW < 5 MW
* For purposes of this table, a mainline will typically constitute lines with wire sizes of 4/0 AWG, 336.5 kcmil, 397.5 kcmil, 477 kcmil and 795 kcmil ** Electrical Line Miles *** An Interconnection Customer can determine this information in advanced by requesting a pre-application report pursuant to section 1.2.
Defined Supplemental Review • Retains the 10 existing initial review screens
– if any are failed options are: 1. Approve anyway with “minor modifications” 2. Offer to perform supplemental review, or 3. Get agreement to study
• Three supplemental review screens: 1. 100% of minimum load, daytime for PV; 2. Power quality and voltage, and 3. Safety and reliability
12
Differentiated Study Processes
• Pre-Application (± 10 days) • Fast Track (± 30 days) • Supplemental Review (± 60 days) • Independent Study (± 6 months) • Distribution Group Study (± one year) • Transmission Cluster Study (± two years)
13
Group/Cluster Studies
• Can be necessary to avoid serial-study queue clogging
• Have advantages in cost sharing for study fees as well as upgrades
• Longer study time per-project, but overall shorter wait time to be studied
• Still in the experiment stage in California
14
Integrated Distribution Planning
• Proactive instead of Reactive • Advanced determination of hosting capacity • Can shorten project specific study time • Could even result in upgrades not done on a
project-by-project basis • For more see 3iForum talks on IDP
15
What is FERC Doing with SGIP?
• Issued a NOPR in January 2013 post SEIA petition
• Workshops were held, Comments filed in June • Considering a rule similar to Rule 21 • Why does it matter?
– Model for state procedures – Could help facilitate greater penetration of DG at lower
cost to developers • Watch for decision later this year or early next
17
THANKS to our generous sponsors for the 2013 3iForum and 3iAwards
