Presentation by Sky Stanfield July 28, 2016 Planning for Full Utilization of Hosting Capacity Analyses New York REV Hosting Capacity Working Group Welcome new title suggestions – I want to use “Ringmaster” but haven’t quite figured out the right frame. Although I have fully embraced the circus theme, I don’t want to sound like we are calling the current proceedings circuses in a negative way Presentation by Sky Stanfield July 28, 2016

Overview Establish Uses for Hosting Capacity Select a Methodology Timeline and Phasing Maps and Data

Uses for Hosting Capacity Analyses Inform the interconnection process Process interconnection applications Inform locational valuation assessments Inform and guide the planning process (i.e. Integrated Distribution Planning) Identify areas where upgrades are needed to expand hosting capacity When we talk about Grid Modernization it is important to remember the huge universe of issues that fall under this tent. Each state has in the center ring a different set of issues, some are choosing to tackle them all together, others are taking more modest, or at least step-by-step approaches to them.

1 2 3 4 5 The 5 Steps of IDP Forecast DG Growth on the Circuit Establish the Hosting Capacity and Allowable Penetration Level Determine Available Capacity on the Distribution Circuit Plan Upgrades and Expedite Interconnection Procedures Based on IDP Publish the Results 1 2 3 4 5

Principles for Methodology Selection Common methodology across state Same/transparent power system criteria* Frequency for updates Data outputs and visual tools Published Verifiable Capable of accomplishing objectives *Separate methodology for networked systems may be necessary

Pros and Cons of Methodologies Simplified (EPRI) Pros Cons Potentially faster to deploy (?) May have accuracy limitations for use in interconnection process Computationally less intensive May not be as accurate for determining locational benefits/costs Lower cost (?) May rely on conservative assumptions Iterative Pros Cons More accurate interconnection results Computationally intense Increased hosting capacity results with fewer conservative assumptions (?) Updates may take longer or be less frequent Increased locational costs/benefits accuracy Longer deployment timeline (?)

Interconnection Needs to be Considered Now Methodology selected will effect the ability to utilize hosting capacity to streamline interconnection Hosting capacity is a critical tool to effectively managing high volumes of applications The lessons from CA and HI clearly demonstrate both the problems and the very do-able solutions Changing course later = more time and $$$

Building a Durable Tool Near term focus on queue congestion from community solar projects REV has a broader vision and ambitions Queue clearing and basic best practices in IC and tariff design can help address current crisis Hosting capacity has significant value for smaller/smarter DER projects that is being overlooked Immediate limitations (3V0) can be overcome, tool has utility for interconnection beyond this first hurdle

Publish Methodology and the Underlying Assumptions Use a transparent methodology that can be shared and assessed publicly Publish the technical criteria utilized in the methodology Demonstrate its application and results across various types of circuits

What is the Timeline? Selection of methodology may impact timeframe for providing certain outputs Desire for immediate results has to be balanced with the costs and timeframes associated with altering methodology later What is the timeline the JU’s envision for getting to full hosting capacity under either methodology?

Stage 1 Maps and Data Current variations: visual format, ease of access and use, granularity, frequency of updates Can Stage 1 maps be improved? Voltage of line Capacity: current, queued and available? Minimum and peak load? Publish explanation of how limitations were identified (seems to vary across the JUs)

SCE Preferred Location Map This set of maps includes the locations of SCE distribution circuits, substations, subtransmission systems, and areas of transmission constraints along with the associated circuit/substation/system voltage, available capacity, and current and queued DG interconnections amounts. SCE Preferred Location Map Purpose: to identify low-cost locations for participants in the Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM) program (< 20 MW) Current as of 9/4/14 PG&E and SDG&E maps are similar

SCE Preferred Location Map Shows distribution circuits, substations, subtransmission systems, and areas of transmission constraints along with the associated circuit/substation/system voltage, available capacity, and current and queued DG interconnections amounts.

Stage 2 and 3 Maps Maps use common platform and “legend” Information available: Hosting Capacity for multiple DERs Basic information from Stage 1 maps including voltage, capacity in queue, etc. Includes planned upgrades Load curve information

Potential Demo A ICA Map Display DPA and Substation Line Section/Circuit

Stage 2 and 3 Data Downloadable format Specific criteria violations identified Critical to helping projects right size/design Enables creation of additional capacity without traditional upgrades Encourages full utilization of DERs Load shape data Scenarios or other tools for assessing combined DER capability to avoid upgrades

Conclusions NY needs to balance the need for resolution of immediate issues with the need for a tool that has long term utility The vision of hosting capacity uses and functionality will expand over time Adopt a rational approach to phased deployment Ensure that the “outputs” can be used to achieve goals

Contact Information: Sky Stanfield Senior Special Counsel Shute Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP stanfield@smwlaw.com Sara Baldwin Auck IREC’s Regulatory Program Director sarab@irecusa.org www.irecusa.org