JU Stakeholder Engagement Conference

JU Stakeholder Engagement Conference
August 18, 2016

Agenda for August 18th Time Topic
9:00 – 9:15 Introductions & Stakeholder Engagement Process Overview Matt Robison (ICF) 9:15 – 9:45 Overview of Customer Data Dale Murdock (ICF) 9:45 – 10:15 Customer Data Q/A* Co-led by Angela Schorr (Direct Energy) & Sara Margaret Geissler (Con Edison / O&R) 10:15 – 10:45 Overview of Monitoring & Control Scott Graves (ICF) 10:45 – 11:15 Monitoring & Control Q/A* Co-led by Kelli Joseph (NRG Energy) & Joseph Farella (National Grid) 11:15 – 11:45 Overview of Hosting Capacity Jeff Smith (EPRI) & Laura Manz (ICF) 11:45 – 12:15 Hosting Capacity Q/A* Co-led by Mike Conway (Borrego Solar) & Tom Mimnagh (Con Edison / O&R) 12:15 – 12:30 Wrap-up

Joint Utilities Filed DSIP Stakeholder Engagement Plan
The Final DSIP Guidance envisions the Initial DSIPs and the jointly filed Supplemental DSIP as coordinated vehicles by which “improved future planning and operations will be defined and implemented.” The Joint Utilities’ filed a plan for stakeholder engagement on May 2 that is “following a coordinated pathway that addresses both the Initial DSIP and Supplemental DSIP, as well as ongoing engagement.” For the Initial DSIPs, each utility convened at least one workshop to engage stakeholders in the context of its specific Initial DSIP filing, and held an informational forum on February 29 focused on system planning. For the Supplemental DSIP, the Joint Utilities have developed and are implementing a multi- tiered approach to stakeholder engagement that allows detailed discussion on technical topics within the timeline for the development of the Supplemental DSIP filing on Nov. 1, 2016. It is anticipated that the stakeholder Advisory Group will continue to meet on an ongoing basis in support of future DSIP filings…membership will be reviewed on an annual basis and potentially rotated to ensure representation across the breadth of stakeholders. The Joint Utilities have retained ICF International to lead stakeholder engagement efforts. ICF brings experience advising prior working groups in NY and facilitating the related stakeholder working groups underway in California. Stakeholders specifically pointed to California as an example of a successful model of utility- stakeholder discussions.

DSIP Stakeholder Engagement Objectives
The DSIP stakeholder engagement process is intended to: Promote utility/stakeholder relations and provide for greater transparency with respect to utility operations and planning Allow for adequate vetting of DSIP topics Utilities/stakeholders expected to collaborate to determine the types, level, amount and format of data and information to be provided. Stakeholder engagement will continue into the future, beyond the first round of utility DSIP filings. Process for stakeholder comment on the DSIP filings will be set forth pursuant to public notice

Supplemental DSIP Engagement Structure
The Advisory Group, an ongoing group, comprised of approximately 15 organizations representative of the breadth of stakeholders that are a party to the proceeding created to guide the engagement process. Includes Commission staff, DER providers, public utilities, and organizations representing large customers, residential and small commercial customers, wholesale market and retailers and environmental advocates. Engagement Groups now through August are intended to foster shared understanding on the technical details and strive toward common ground through discussion and feedback. The Groups are organized around the topic categories included in the Final DSIP Guidance. Engagement groups are open to participation by all stakeholders through in- person and virtual meetings Engagement Conferences in July, August and September open to participation by all stakeholders for the JU to share updates on the various topics in development for the SDSIP and to solicit feedback from stakeholders.

Engagement Process Overview
Stakeholder Engagement Schedule Jan 2016 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 DSIP Final Guidance Initial DSIP Filings Supplemental DSIP Filing Advisory Group Mtgs Initial DSIP Stakeholder Engagement* Supplemental DSIP Engagement Groups Distribution Planning** Grid Operations Market Operations Stakeholder Conferences*** *Initial DSIP engagements dates based on individual JU workshop schedule during this period. **ITWG beginning in March, EG begins in May. *** Stakeholder engagement conferences to engage a wider set of participants to inform technical discussions and share Engagement Group results, as needed and in consultation with the Advisory Group Source: Updated plan for stakeholder engagement process as reflected in May 5th DSIP filing

Conference/Webinar Discussions and Inputs on SDSIP topics
Topic Areas Distribution System Planning Grid Operations Market Operations Interconnection Hosting Capacity System Data Monitoring & Control Granular Pricing Customer Data Demand Forecasting NWA Suitability Cyber Security ISO/DSP Roles, Responsibilities, Interaction DER Sourcing - Procurement Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Topics DER Forecasting Load Flow Analysis Probabilistic Planning Discussed in 7/27 Conference/Webinar Discussed in 8/18 Conference/Webinar To be discussed in 9/13 Conference/Webinar DPS discussion topic

Stakeholder Engagement Opportunities
There are many opportunities to get involved in the Joint Utilities Stakeholder Engagement Effort Conveniently participate in Engagement Group Meetings in person or through webinar access Engagement Group Schedules can be found at jointutilitiesofny.org/engagement-groups Attend a stakeholder engagement session in July, August and September Visit the Joint Utilities of New York website to learn more about the JU stakeholder engagement effort and potential opportunities for involvement: us at for additional information or with questions and concerns

Market Operations Engagement Group Customer Data Dale Murdock (ICF)

Customer Data Engagement Group Charter
Purpose: Explore the Joint Utilities' approaches for facilitating market mechanisms that effectively support and encourage the adoption of Distributed Energy Resources while meeting customers’ needs and complying with the DSIP Guidance Order Topics and Scope: Customer Data Customer Data Data Collection, Reporting Frequency and Availability of Usage Data Discuss how often usage data might be collected by the utility, how often it would be made available to customers/authorized agents, and at what quality level Discuss customer data platform-related sensitivities (e.g. AMI versus non-AMI systems) Aggregation of Usage Data Discuss standardized aggregated data offerings (e.g. kW and kWh by rate class, tax district, zip code) Discuss utility-sided aggregated data system automation efforts and reporting methods Discuss standards for anonymizing aggregated data to protect individual customer privacy (e.g. 15/15 rule) Additional Data Needs Explore and identify additional useful customer information beyond usage data Note: pricing for Basic and Value-Added data is a Track 2 matter Customer Data may identify the person or entity to which it applies Customer information may include usage data, account/profile data, end-use and other qualitative data, and results from customer-specific analyses Customer usage data is a subset of customer information and contains a customer's usage or production of energy The Commission’s REV Track 2 Order defined Basic Data as "the usage for each applicable rate element, including usage bands specified in the applicable tariff. This is the level of data necessary to render, reconstruct and understand the customer's bill" Usage data can be shared with authorized third parties, or aggregated by various groupings for use by third parties

Customer Data Definitions
Basic Data examples include: Non-interval - Cumulative kWh, net or accumulated kWh, max recorded kW (if a demand meter is present). If a customer is on a TOU rate, summed usage in TOU periods is also basic data. Interval - Energy use (kWh, net or accumulated kWh, kW, kVar) at program intervals specific to the customer's meter, as well as cumulative kWh, min/max kW, kVar. If a customer is on a TOU rate, summed usage in TOU periods is also basic data. To be deemed as Value-Added Data, one or more of the following criteria must be met: Is not routinely developed or shared Has been transformed or analyzed in a customized way Aggregated data falls into this bucket Is delivered more on an ad-hoc basis or more frequently than basic data Value-Added Data may be created and/or provided by the utility with a charge to the requestor. According to the Track 2 Order, bill-quality basic data should be made available to customers and third parties of their choosing within 24 hours, at no incremental cost.

Customer Usage Data Delivery Summary
All utilities plan to provide customer usage data via some combination of the utility bill, Green Button Download/Connect, EDI, and the utility's online customer engagement platform(s) The Joint Utilities are in different positions when it comes to implementing real-time interval data platforms Current data delivery mechanisms will be in place for the near-term Utilities implementing AMI: Basic usage data provided via Green Button Connect, EDI, or alternative platform Utilities not implementing AMI: Basic usage data will be provided via Green Button Download, EDI, or alternative platform The Utilities will work together to develop specifications for transmitting any additional data fields beyond what is provided through Green Button Connect, in future phases

Customer Data Collection & Reporting Summary
Current data collection and reporting practices will continue for the first few years of AMI deployment Utilities Implementing AMI: Basic and Value-Added Customer Usage Data from interval meters will be reported in increments of between five minutes to one hour, and will be made available for customer and authorized third party access within 24 hours of collection Customer Usage Data will be reported in bill-ready quality within 24 hours of collection Some utilities may choose to report this data in partially VEE'd* quality sooner than 24 hours after collection Utilities Not Implementing AMI: Customer usage data will be reported in bill-ready quality at the end of the billing cycle (e.g. monthly) Existing practices for interval-metered customer data sharing will continue

Discussion Themes – Customer Usage Data
Access to Customer Usage Data Stakeholders want easy access to customer meter data with low latency (i.e. 15 minute, 5 minute, less than 5 minutes, real-time) and higher granularity (e.g. 5 minute, real-time streaming) Usage data is needed for vendors to help customers manage their energy use in near- real time Usage data with low latency (i.e. 5 minute) could be useful for both settlement, which is different than telemetry-type data (e.g. 6 second) that may be needed for grid operations Stakeholders expressed concerns about cost and complexity of vendor-installed equipment (e.g. pulse output, local gateway device) currently needed to obtain the meter data Stakeholders would like AMI systems to be capable of supporting both premise (HAN/BAN/Other) and low latency cloud/system data delivery access (i.e. backhauled/processed) Some stakeholders would like to use customer data at the meter premise for local monitoring and control and would need near real-time or streaming data from the meter

Wholesale Market Participation & Grid Operations Stakeholders raised the possibility of using AMI systems to provide real-time information to participate in NYISO markets JU commented that AMI systems are not intended to provide real-time information for NYISO dispatch or operations JU also commented that coordination of DSP and NYISO for dispatch and coordination of the markets is being handled by Grid Operations in the monitoring and control topic area

Customer Data and Bill Reconstruction Stakeholders commented that customers often understand data better when it is expressed in dollars vs. kW or kWh Some Stakeholders noted that utility tariff information is a critical element of third party service providers' value propositions Stakeholders commented that utility tariffs should be available in a machine- readable format, for ease of access and updating, to support reconstructing a customer’s bill. The utilities should closely monitor efforts to develop national standards. Stakeholders commented that even simply determining a customer's service classification is not always straightforward JU commented that tariffs are generally available on the PSC and utilities’ websites

Aggregation of Customer Usage Data
All aggregated customer usage data is considered Value-Added The JU propose to define the Standard aggregated data offering as kW or ICAP and kWh data that is aggregated by zip code and/or tax district, and segmented by rate class For rate classes with TOU periods, kW and kWh data will be aggregated by TOU periods and total Standard aggregated data offerings will eventually be automated The JU will charge for standard aggregated data offerings Non-Standard aggregated data offerings may include kW or ICAP and kWh data that is aggregated by feeder, circuit, and other parameters, where applicable and available Non-Standard aggregated data offerings are typically delivered ad-hoc or are customized in response to specific requests Fees for Non-Standard aggregations may vary in each utility's tariff based on the data being requested and the requestor. The JU anticipate that some current as well as future Non-Standard aggregated data requests may become increasingly commonplace over time. It may be practical for the utilities to automate these requests and eventually reclassify them as Standard aggregated data offerings.

Customer Data Anonymization
Today there are two leading standards for anonymizing aggregated customer usage data: 15/15: requires aggregated data to include a minimum of 15 customers, with no one customer’s load exceeding 15% of the aggregated group’s energy consumption Adopted in Colorado, Minnesota; adopted in California for Direct Access programs and also used by Southern California Edison 4/80: requires aggregated data to include a minimum of 4 customers, with no one customer's load exceeding 80% of the aggregated group’s energy consumption Adopted in Illinois, Texas The JU is considering adopting the 15/15 standard for anonymization Exceptions may be needed in order to share aggregated data for the purpose of compliance with federal, state and/or local laws The JU will monitor exception requests and may evolve the standard over time Each of the utilities will continue to follow their current internal policies for aggregation anonymization per the CCA Order and the Track Two Order, pending the adoption of a JU standard

Discussion Themes – Customer Data Aggregation
Benchmarking and Customer Data Aggregation Stakeholders commented that they would like the JU to make whole-building aggregated usage data available state-wide, with support for automated request and uploading to Energy Star Portfolio Manager Whole building benchmarking is currently only required in NYC by Local Law 84 As part of its AMI proceeding, Con Ed is looking at ways to reduce transaction costs associated with compliance with Local Law 84. Final report to be submitted July 29 Current aggregation process is manually intensive and potential to automate is being considered

Charging for Aggregated Customer Usage Data Stakeholders expressed concern regarding the JU proposal that third parties would have to pay for aggregated data, even when used for the purpose of complying with existing laws and/or supporting public interest projects Stakeholders identified compliance with Local Law 84 and supporting GHG inventories as two important use cases Stakeholders noted that whole-building aggregated data is provided without additional charge by utilities elsewhere in the country Stakeholders commented that fees for aggregated whole-building data will be especially problematic for small building owners and may be a barrier for compliance Stakeholders inquired if customers with buildings in multiple utility service territories would be subject to paying fees to each utility JU responded that fees by individual utilities would likely be appropriate The JU will address pricing in individual tariff filings. The JU note that charging for aggregated data is consistent with REV objectives and principles. The utilities create value by providing aggregated data, and will assess fees, platform-based or otherwise, for their services to capture a share of that value. Ultimately the revenues earned may be shared with customers to offset the costs associated with providing the data; this will allow all customers to benefit from the expansion of the REV-driven marketplace.

Customer Data and System Data Stakeholders noted that the Standard aggregated data set would likely be useful or necessary to include in NWA solicitations The JU commented that there will likely be a standard set of system data included in NWA solicitations. The Market Operations working group is capturing and coordinating Stakeholder feedback on this issue with the Grid Operations working group Stakeholders commented that some of the elements in the Non-standard aggregated data set, e.g. circuit-level peak load data, may be useful for DER developers responding to NWA solicitation opportunities or evaluating other DER deployment opportunities The JU commented that circuit-level data would be considered a Non-standard request, and that this working group is focused on aggregated customer meter data, rather than data measured at the system level. The JU also noted that some custom aggregations may be limited by the capability of each utility’s information systems and related data. For example, customer accounts may not be tied to a specific feeder identifier for some utilities. Stakeholders observed that DER providers may eventually be able to obtain data access authorizations from individual customers in a given area and create their own aggregations The JU appreciate this feedback and are jointly taking it under consideration with the Grid Operations working group

The JU presented three use cases for data aggregation Stakeholders identified several additional use cases for aggregated data Basic metrics for water and energy consumption used by policymakers and academics Building energy use metrics Helps tenants evaluate building efficiency as part of a rental decision Supports decision-making for commercial real estate purchases or other transactions Enables targeted Energy Efficiency program opportunities Developing dynamic GHG inventories, progress assessment and target-setting Support for correlating and quantifying weather impacts on GHG emissions Whole-building or other aggregations in support of Master Plans developed by other New York cities The JU appreciate Stakeholder comments and suggestions for using aggregated usage data. The proposed Standard and Non-Standard aggregation approaches appear to be capable of supporting these additional use cases

Aggregation Request Process and Tracking Stakeholders suggested a standard portal for a third-party aggregator, rather than going to each utility separately Stakeholders inquired if a program exists or is planned that lays out a procedure for tracking requests for aggregated data, as well as standards for who may seek information about these requests Staff commented that this is being addressed in the DER Oversight proceeding. The utilities internally track this data to varying degrees. The JU appreciates Stakeholder comments and suggestions in this area. As the market evolves, the JU will consider developing new processes and/or systems to manage and respond to requests for aggregated data. Some solutions and timing may be utility-specific and are dependent upon current system capabilities, along with the plans for evolving these systems and processes

Discussion Themes – Anonymization
Stakeholders strongly urged the JU against adopting the 15/15 standard on the grounds that it is overly-restrictive and will prevent many entities, particularly small building owners, from complying with existing laws Stakeholders cited two recent studies that indicate relatively few buildings today meet the 15/15 threshold: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study: ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager study: Stakeholders offered an alternative two-to-five meter threshold approach One Stakeholder offered a very strong endorsement of the JU’s proposed use of the 15/15 standard as appropriate in protecting customer privacy, particularly for those customers that consider energy use data as proprietary, confidential and competitive information. Some stakeholders inquired if the utilities had done any preliminary analysis to determine how many circuits would not meet the 15/15 anonymity threshold for aggregated data The JU responded that circuit-level anonymization analysis had not been performed. If circuit- level data is segmented (i.e., by rate class), some circuits may not pass the 15/15 standard. There is less likelihood of anonymization failure if the data is provided at a system level.

Additional Data – Green Button Connect
Green Button Download (existing) Green Button Connect (new) Customers manually download usage data from utility website AMI Customers can authorize third parties and providers to receive direct access to the customer usage data Green Button Connect My Data planned functionality includes: Automated delivery of metered usage data Standardized data format, adopted nationwide Transfer of anonymized usage data Customer authorization for third party data access Third party application process for access to customer usage data

Additional Data Green Button Connect does not share bill cost data, tariff data, account information, bill component data, or customer information The UCAIug OpenADE working group is in the process of adding elements for billing and transaction data to the Green Button Connect standard. To understand how other utilities are addressing third party requests, the JU has initiated benchmarking with PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, ComEd, and the Green Button Alliance Benchmarking revealed that a phased approach to implementing additional datasets is preferable for two main reasons: Providing multiple datasets requires the synchronization of many systems Can be taxing and complicated Implementing a phased approach alleviates complications with making multiple data sets available, and Allows for usage data to be available at a sooner date, satisfying third party needs more quickly The Green Button standard is still evolving By implementing many data sets at once, the Joint Utilities and third parties risk building out data sharing capabilities that may be inconsistent with future functionality of the Green Button standard

Additional Data Evaluation Process
Requested Data: Bill cost data Tariff data Account info Bill component data Customer info Collaboration Results Key Considerations Implementation Plan Next Steps Monitor Green Button Alliance capabilities Engagement with stakeholders in DSIP process NYS standard Governance Data privacy Liability Technical Cost NYS Standard: Create a common data sharing standard for New York State Governance: Define governance structure for additional data sharing Privacy: Balance privacy risk and added value Liability: Increase liability for parties handling more sensitive data and utility indemnification Technology Development: New data sets will require new systems to gather, store, and transmit the additional data Cost: Fund expanded capabilities Aim to implement additional data sets Include bill cost data as a starting point Work w/ Joint Utilities to develop a standard approach

Discussion Themes – Additional Data
Customer Experience and Enrollment Processes Stakeholders expressed support for expanded data access and delivery capabilities that may be delivered via Green Button Connect. Stakeholders also expressed interest in and support for an enrollment process that would support a positive customer experience through open authorization and a guided setup/enrollment process that keeps customers informed about what services and programs they are signing up for or authorizing third party access to. Stakeholders commented that current authorization and enrollment processes are unnecessarily complicated and require information that often seems obscure to customers For example, some stakeholders commented that Green Button Connect is not very helpful for enrolling customers because it requires customers to provide their utility account numbers The JU are in different places in terms of implementing GBC and the JU appreciates and will take into consideration stakeholder suggestions as utility-specific GBC or similar capabilities are developed.

Stakeholder Presentations on Customer Data
EnerNOC MISSION: DATA SolarCity Advanced Microgrid Solutions EnergyHub NYSERDA Urban Green/NRDC Utility Intervention Unit – NY DOS

Customer Data Q&A Co-led by Angela Schorr (Direct Energy) & Sara Margaret Geissler (Con Edison / O&R)

Grid Operations Engagement Group Monitoring & Control Scott Graves (ICF)

Grid Operations Engagement Group Charter
Purpose: Explore JU common approaches for continued secure, safe and reliable operation of the distribution system under increased penetration of Distributed Energy Resources (DER) while enhancing DER participation opportunities and move towards a future utility role as Distributed System Platform (DSP). Topics and Scope: System Data; NYISO/DSP Interaction and Coordination, Monitoring and Control System Data Discuss the type of system data that the stakeholders would require to make investment decisions on the NY grid Identify the highest value information for DER providers to make effective decisions Identify the granularity of the information required for specific planning and analysis purposes Identify the frequency of the information required Discuss methods for overcoming limitations related to security and confidentiality Discuss the process for providing value added information to stakeholders Monitoring and Control Determine monitoring requirement of DERs Explore the impact of DERs on real- time operations of the grid that include scheduling, operation and dispatch Explore potential control signals to align NYISO and DSP generation or needs for load reduction. Discuss standards and protocols for DER aggregation Discuss DER response to emergency and contingency events. NYISO/DSP Interaction and Coordination Describe the extent to which retail and wholesale operations are currently coordinated within existing programs. Explore the evolution in assumptions necessary to align ISO and DSP operations. Determine whether further analysis of DER is necessary for more accurate estimation of DER contribution to serving grid needs for planning and operations. Explore the visibility required for DER on the distribution system for the ISO to accurately reflect and align their forecasts

Monitoring & Control – Overview
Two Engagement Group sessions focused on Monitoring and Control Addressed topics highlighted on the Engagement Group Charter (previous slide) JU presented initial positions for discussion Based on feedback, JU revised positions Stakeholder presentations on a range of monitoring and control topics

DER Monitoring & Control Topics
NY JU Position DER Size DERs will require standard Monitoring and Control above a certain size threshold. Monitoring and Control may also be required for DERs below the size threshold. The size threshold for Control (like a recloser) is set at 1 MW and above However, the level of Monitoring and Control for DER’s below the threshold will be decided by each utility, based on system, locational and other constraints. DERs will be expected to comply with evolving monitoring and control standards, which will be applied retroactively. This size threshold will be determined based on prior and future utility experiences so that the safety and reliability of the distribution system is maintained. For aggregated DER systems, visibility of individual DERs monitoring data in the aggregate will be required at the primary feeder level. Note - Further discussion on policy/ how this will be enforced is warranted, for the SDSIP filing. Polling Frequency Real time monitoring is required for individual DERs – standalone or part of an aggregate. However, the sampling rate for DER performance can range from 2 seconds – 1 minute, depending upon the technical capabilities of the DSP system (for e.g.: SCADA scan rate), DER size and the type of grid service provided by the DER. Communication Protocols Standalone DERs and DERs comprising of an aggregate, will communicate with utility systems by means of generally accepted, industry-established communication protocols such as DNP, Modbus, IEC etc. However, the exact protocols specified may differ depending on the utility's technology infrastructure.

NY JU Position Parameters For the safety and reliability of the distribution system, utilities will require information on DER/circuit parameters such as, but not limited to - power factor, real power, reactive power, phase current and voltage, hot line tags, device status (open, close or lock-down) that can aid monitoring, control and verification for future potential market settlements. The JU may also request information from DER aggregators on parameters of individual DERs that form a part of aggregated DER systems. As markets and technologies evolve, the JU may require a size threshold (minimum and maximum) for the size of an aggregated DER system. VAR Support The utility is currently providing and will continue to provide reactive power or VAR support to the distribution grid. In the future, as technology and market evolution occurs, DERs may also provide VAR support as requested by the DSP. For advanced technologies such as Smart Inverters that can provide VAR support, the JU will implement programs (such as demonstration projects) to vet the technology and fully understand its functionality to ascertain monitoring and control requirements, prior to its wider application for VAR support. This would also entail a discussion on co-ordination between the DSP and DER provider/operator and their respective roles, responsibilities and performance metrics required going forward.

NY JU Position Curtailment For DERs (standalone or part of an aggregate) 50 kW or above enrolled in a NYISO Tariff, the DSP may limit the operation or disconnect or require the disconnection of the DER from a utility's distribution or transmission system at any time, with or without notice, in the event of real or predicted abnormal operating conditions, so that safety and reliability of the system is preserved. For planned and scheduled maintenance events, prior notice (typically, 48-hours in advance) may be provided. For DERs (standalone or part of an aggregate) not enrolled in a NYISO Tariff, irrespective of size, the DSP may limit the operation or disconnect or require the disconnection of DER from a utility's distribution or transmission system at any time, with or without notice, in the event of real or predicted abnormal operating conditions, so that safety and reliability of the system is preserved. For planned and scheduled maintenance events, prior notice may or may not be provided. The DSP will follow non-discriminatory practices when curtailing DERs for safety, reliability or maintaining the DSP’s system operating parameters. It should be noted that curtailment will not be undertaken for hindering market participation of DERs. Note – A policy/ approach to effectively do this will be required for the SDSIP.

NY JU Position DER Notification The following requirements are driven by the understanding that the DSP has the responsibility to maintain a safe and reliable system, the DSP needs to be informed of the current and forecasted operating status of a DER. DERs (standalone or part of an aggregate) sized 50 kW or greater enrolled in a NYISO Tariff shall notify the DSP when disconnecting/reconnecting to the distribution system. DERs (standalone or part of an aggregate) sized 50 kW or greater not enrolled in a NYISO Tariff, shall notify the DSP whenever a DER is disconnecting/reconnecting to the distribution system. As the system evolves, each individual DSP will refine the connect/disconnect notification requirements based on DER size and impact on local reliability. The notification requirements may vary by DSP. Communications with DERs / DSP regarding status or any other matter will continue to utilize existing procedures and protocols. E.g. the DER will provide information in a timely manner via telephone communication with the DEP. Note – Further input needed from a NYISO SME on this topic. DER Performance Forecasting Utilities have the right to require a short term (e.g. week ahead / day ahead / real time) forecast for individual facilities expected output. Such forecasts may be required for use as input to the day ahead planning process to secure the distribution systems for local reliability. A breakdown of aggregated forecasts may be required for the DSP to determine impacts on local reliability, where local reliability issues are not effected an aggregated forecast may be acceptable.

NY JU Position Advanced Function Support The utility will support advanced DER functions such as smart inverter functionality, electricity market participation in the future. The utility reserves the right to set monitoring and control standards and requirements for enabling such advanced functionality. For technologies that can carry out advanced functions, the JU will implement plans, roadmaps for demonstration projects to adequately test and verify the technology prior to any deployment within their service territory. Crew and Worker Safety The utility and worker crews shall have the option to take a DER offline with or without notice to the DER provider, to establish clearances and to prevent backfeeding or inadvertent energization of elements being maintained or repaired. The decision to take a DER offline will be made on a case by case basis, with consideration for worker safety and system reliability.

Stakeholder Presentations Summary
Key summary points Many possibly beneficial technologies are becoming available and current conditions should not limit future outcomes The JU is committed to providing and expanding over time opportunities for DER providers to connect resources to the grid DER Providers presented on a range of topics aligned with monitoring and control issues PACE – multiple presenters speaking to role that CHP may be able to play as well as challenges to tying into the grid Enbala – aggregation software that incorporates market rules for decisionmaking EnergyHub – DER communication protocols, especially OpenADR Schneider – ability to model monitoring and control of resources on the grid (example: NREL Integrate)

August 25 NYISO/DSP Coordination
Topics from Grid Ops Charter Describe the extent to which retail and wholesale operations are currently coordinated within existing programs. Explore the evolution in assumptions necessary to align ISO and DSP operations. Determine whether further analysis of DER is necessary for more accurate estimation of DER contribution to serving grid needs for planning and operations. Explore the visibility required for DER on the distribution system for the ISO to accurately reflect and align their forecasts

Grid Operations Near Term Schedule
5/16 5/23 5/30 6/6 6/13 6/20 6/27 7/4 7/11 7/18 8/1 8/8 8/15 8/22 Advisory Group 6/1 Albany 7/12 NYC 8/10 NYC Grid Operations Engagement Group 5/23 (By Phone) Kick-off Meeting 6/2 Albany (afternoon) System Data: Types of information most useful to stakeholders 6/16 NYC System Data: Providing useful information, what and how 6/30 NYC System Data: Addressing security concerns 7/14 NYC Monitoring & Control 7/28 Albany Monitoring & Control 8/25 Albany ISO/DSP Roles, Responsibilities, and Interactions

Monitoring & Control Q&A Co-led by Kelli Joseph (NRG Energy) & Joseph Farella (National Grid)

Distribution System Planning Engagement Group Hosting Capacity Co-led by Jeff Smith (EPRI) & Laura Manz (ICF)

Distribution System Planning Engagement Group Charter (updated draft 05/23/2016)
Purpose: Explore common ground in approaches regarding the evolution in planning the distribution system in New York as Distributed Energy Resource (DER) penetration increases and as the market evolves, in order meet customers’ needs and public policy goals. Will include a uniform methodology for calculating hosting capacity and to increase hosting capability, a move toward probabilistic planning, a plan for optimization improvements that will result in a more efficient interconnection process. Topics and Scope: Suitability Criteria for Non-Wires Alternatives (NWAs); Hosting Capacity Suitability Criteria for Non-Wires Alternatives Determine a set of appropriate criteria for project applicability including risk and design standards Discuss which types of needs (examples: load relief, reliability) can best be met through NWA solutions, and which may present less opportunity for DER-led solutions. Understand the what and why of grid needs Describe how these factors, project characteristics and timelines to completion affect NWA suitability. Explore the dimensions of projects, including traditional and alternative cost and fit parameters, and whether there are threshold levels that indicate NWA suitability. Hosting Capacity Discuss methodological approaches and data inputs for determining hosting capacity, and which are appropriate for which systems in New York. Describe how these answers differ for radial and network systems. Discuss the potential evolution of methodology in terms of modeling and data requirements, the outputs that can be derived from the analysis, and the uses of those outputs. Review different models and approaches to calculate and publish hosting capacity Discuss potential solutions to increasing hosting capacity (e.g. storage) Develop timeline to implement.

Hosting Capacity Schedule
7/11 7/18 7/25 8/1 8/8 8/15 Distribution System Planning 8/18 Stakeholder Engagement Webinar 7/27 on NWA Suitability and System Data Hosting Capacity 7/14 Initial Meeting 7/28 Face to Face Albany 8/11 Final Face-to-Face 7/21 Webinar 8/4 Phone / Webinar Invitation-only Roundtable 7/29

Hosting Capacity Presentations on hosting capacity received from:
Advanced Microgrid Solutions Borrego Solar Enbala EPRI IREC NY-BEST Smarter Grid Solutions

Hosting Capacity Stakeholder Discussion
Develop an understanding of: Who will utilize hosting capacity information and how the information will be applied For planning For facilitating construction of DERs What hosting capacity data is needed Inputs: Utility data – metering data, asset information, etc. Outputs: Data and format to be published for developers Near term vs. longer term requirements (Roadmap) How often information requires updating Considerations for increasing hosting capacity innovative solutions include smart inverters, storage, analytics, and bilateral arrangements

Scope of Hosting Capacity
Interconnection Policy Working Group (IPWG) and Ombudsman Group “Near Term Policy and Process Issues” Hosting Capacity Supplemental DSIP “Hosting Capacity: Definition, Use Cases, and Expansion” Interconnection Technical Working Group (ITWG) “Near-Term Technical Issues” Queue management Dispute resolution Cost/cost allocations Process issues within the Standardized Interconnection Requirements (SIR) Common definition and roadmap Methodologies to increase hosting capacity Developer and utility use cases Transparency and consistency related to utility system upgrades Technical whitepapers and matrix Technical issues within the Standardized Interconnection Requirements (SIR) In-depth Engineering studies

Hosting Capacity Themes
Continue to develop interconnection process (out of scope for Distribution Planning) Continue to improve tools that communicate hosting capacity Expand capabilities to increase hosting capacity as experience is gained and technology evolves Develop timeline and roadmap

Hosting Capacity Implementation Roadmap
*Efforts to increase hosting capacity completed in parallel with Hosting Capacity Evaluations Increasing effectiveness, complexity, and data requirements Stage 1 – Distribution Indicators Stage 2 – Hosting Capacity Evaluations Stage 3 – Advanced Hosting Capacity Evaluations Stage 4 – Fully Integrated DER Value Assessments

Defining a Roadmap for Successful Implementation of a Hosting Capacity Method for NY
Jeff Smith, Manager Power System Studies, Lindsey Rogers, Technical Lead Distributed Renewables Joint Utility Workshop, Distribution System Planning – Hosting Capacity Thursday, August 18, 2016 Defining a Roadmap for Successful Implementation of a Hosting Capacity Method for New York State, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:

What is Hosting Capacity and Why is it So Important?
Definition: Hosting Capacity is the amount of DER that can be accommodated without adversely impacting power quality or reliability under current configurations and without requiring infrastructure upgrades. Hosting Capacity is Location dependent Feeder-specific Time-varying Hosting capacity considers DER interconnection without allowing Voltage/flicker violations Protection mis-operation Thermal overloads Decreased safety/reliability/power quality Hosting capacity evaluations require precise models of entire distribution system Hosting Capacity can be used to inform utility interconnection processes and to support DG developer understanding of more favorable locations for interconnection A feeder’s hosting capacity is not a single value, but a range of values

Comprehensive Criteria for Hosting Capacity Evaluations
Power System Criteria Thermal Substation transformer Primary conductor Service Transformer Secondary Conductor Power Quality/Voltage Sudden (fast) voltage change Steady-state voltage Line regulator or substation LTC Capacitor switching Protection Relay reduction of reach Sympathetic tripping Element fault current Reverse power flow (backfeed) Reliability/Safety Unintentional islanding Operational flexibility

Detailed Implementation of Hosting Capacity Assessments
Method Overview Select specific locations for DER “Iterate” through each case Solve 1000’s of load flows Findings Results similar to detailed impact studies Accurate Time-consuming/data intensive Applicable to specific scenarios Difficult to consider range of possible DER scenarios All locations (three-phase and single-phase) Feeder reconfigurations DER types Not easily replicable across entire system Typically have to limit the cases/locations/scenarios considered Can take hours to days to simulate a single feeder depending upon feeder complexity Analysis of High-Penetration Solar PV Impacts for Distribution Planning: Stochastic and Time-Series Methods for Determining Feeder Hosting Capacity. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:

Challenge: Distribution Area-Wide Models are “Immense” in Scale
Typical Distribution Utility Count Distribution Service Territory 1 Distribution Planning Area 1’s - 10’s Distribution Substations 10’s - 100’s Distribution Feeders 100’s -1000’s Distribution Transformers 1000s - 1,000,000’s Distribution Customers 100,000’s - 1,000,000’s Distribution diagrams courtesy of Salt River Project

Key Components of an Effective Hosting Capacity Method

Streamlined Implementation of Hosting Capacity Assessments
Method Overview Solve base load flow/short- circuit cases Increase DER at each location on feeder Apply advanced algorithms to calculate hosting capacity at each location Findings Close approximation of DER impact Less time/data intensive Not a replacement for detailed studies Full range of possible DER scenarios can be considered All locations (three-phase and single- phase), feeder configurations, DER technologies and types (centralized vs distributed) Easily replicable across entire system Typically 3-5 minutes per feeder when automated Integration of Hosting Capacity Analysis into Distribution Planning Tools. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:

Modeling data and assumptions have impact on hosting capacity
Example Case Study Hosting capacity is calculated on each feeder node Evaluations consider Local constraints Upstream constraints Substation Substation LTC: 123V Modeling data and assumptions have impact on hosting capacity Substation LTC: 125V *Illustration of DER (PV) hosting capacity based on evaluating overvoltage

Distribution Modeling Requirements for Hosting Capacity Evaluations
Model Depth – Individual Feeder Requirements Medium-voltage assets modeled Peak-load models represented (current capability for most utilities) Off-peak models of distribution system To consider different times of day/load levels Typically not available, requires additional considerations Model Breadth - Distribution models of entire service territory All feeders/network systems modeled Distribution Modeling Guidelines: Executive Summary - Recommendations for System and Asset Modeling for Distributed Energy Resource Assessments, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:

Additional Considerations for Hosting Capacity Implementation
Hosting Capacity on Meshed Low- Voltage Systems Differs from radial modeling and analysis No extensive studies exist to represent impacts Must model to low voltage assets Existing DER and Interconnection Queue Should consider existing DER Requires significant amount of data upkeep Modeling of existing and approved DER required

Existing Distribution Planning Tools (CYME, Milsoft, Synergi, DEW)
Tools for Hosting Capacity Analysis Implementing hosting capacity methods using existing planning tools Required capabilities reside within existing planning tools Distribution models Analysis mechanics (load flow, short- circuit) Alleviates unnecessary model translation to other software platforms Improving data management/upkeep efficiency Captures changes in distribution system One platform for all planning functions and models Traditional distribution planning Hosting capacity evaluations Grid modernization assessments EPRI and it’s utility members are working with major software vendors to incorporate hosting capacity method (CYME: 2016, Milsoft/Synergi: 2016/17) Incorporating hosting capacity methods into existing utility planning tools – no need to re-invent the wheel Existing Distribution Planning Tools (CYME, Milsoft, Synergi, DEW) Hosting Capacity Module

Methods for Increasing Distribution Hosting Capacity
Methods for increasing hosting capacity depend upon many factors Limiting power system criteria Distribution system design and operating characteristics DER capabilities A single solution/technology does not resolve all issues Voltage Thermal Protection Solutions can be situation-specific E.g., smart inverters and reconductoring can help with voltage issues but not protection Solutions for increasing hosting capacity can have other benefits as well Reconductoring and voltage uprating can reduce losses and increase load-serving capability Comm/control of DER coordinated with existing controls can help regulate voltage Grid-Side Enhancements/Changes Reconductoring Voltage uprating Transformer replacement Additional voltage regulator Comm/control (curtailment) Additional relaying Storage Operational Changes Voltage regulation changes (LTC setpoint adjustment, etc.) Relay setting modification Technology Solutions Smart inverters Distributed var control Energy storage PV panel orientation DSM

Summary Hosting capacity is a complex analysis requiring models of entire distribution area Most utilities have modeled a portion of the system – still work to be done Distribution metering data must be more granular Roadmap to implementation Provides staged approach for development Delivers near and long-term solutions Allows for refinement of models and methods over time Leverages EPRI work regarding use of existing planning tools for hosting capacity assessments Defining a Roadmap for Successful Implementation of a Hosting Capacity Method for New York State, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:

Additional References
Detailed Hosting Capacity Method Impact of High-Penetration PV on Distribution System Performance: Example Cases and Analysis Approach. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: Analysis of High-Penetration Solar PV Impacts for Distribution Planning: Stochastic and Time-Series Methods for Determining Feeder Hosting Capacity. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: Rylander, M., Smith, J., “Comprehensive Approach for Determining Distribution Network Hosting Capacity for Solar PV”, 2nd International Workshop on Integration of Solar Power Into Power Systems, Lisbon, Portugal, Nov 2012. Rylander, M., Smith, J., "Stochastic Approach for Distribution Planning with Distributed Energy Resources", 2012 CIGRE Grid of the Future Symposium, Kansas City, MO, 2012 Rylander, M., Smith, J., "Comprehensive Approach for Determining Distribution Network Hosting Capacity for Solar PV", 2nd International Workshop on Integration of Solar Power Into Distribution Systems, November, 2012 Distributed Photovoltaic Feeder Analysis: Preliminary Findings from Hosting Capacity Analysis of 18 Distribution Feeders. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: Alternatives to the 15% Rule: Modeling and Hosting Capacity Analysis of 16 Feeders. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: Streamlined Hosting Capacity Method Integration of Hosting Capacity Analysis into Distribution Planning Tools. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: A New Method for Characterizing Distribution System Hosting Capacity for Distributed Energy Resources: A Streamlined Approach for Solar Photovoltaics. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: Rylander, M., Smith, J., Sunderman, W., “Streamlined Method For Determining Distribution System Hosting Capacity”, 23rd International Conference on Electricity Distribution, CIRED, Lyon, France, 2015 Rylander, M., Smith, J., Sunderman, W., “Streamlined Method For Determining Distribution System Hosting Capacity”, Rural Electric Power Conference, Asheville, NC, 2015 (accepted for IAS Transactions) Distribution Feeder Hosting Capacity: What Matters When Planning for DER?. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: Smith, J., Rylander, M., Rogers, L., Dugan, R., “It’s All in the Plans: Maximizing the Benefits and Minimizing the Impacts of DERs in an Integrated Grid”, Power and Energy Magazine, March/April 2015.

Hosting Capacity – What We’ve Heard
Top priorities to focus on in the immediate term Identify the outputs that are required and how they will be used Develop Hosting Capacity indicator tools / maps Increase hosting capacity through the System Planning process Explore Hosting Capacity’s relationship with the Interconnection process Identify a balance between time, costs, and accuracy of hosting capacity assessment Additional considerations Using hosting capacity as tool to identify where upgrades are needed to relieve constraints Improve granularity and accuracy of the Hosting Capacity maps Understand what data is going to be shared regardless of methodology Full integration into the interconnection process

Hosting Capacity – What We’ve Heard
Timeline and Roadmap Support for a evolutionary roadmap with early action to provide value; doesn’t need to be perfect Clarify steps from the current state to a future state Steps toward moving from the current state to future state should be clear Don’t lose sight of the goal, in terms of both timeline and resources to implement Ability to evolve to include additional technologies beyond solar PV Distribution Indicators Utilities currently provide ‘red zone maps’ to help developers interconnect There may be opportunity to improve the consistency of these maps across utilities prior to Hosting Capacity development Hosting Capacity Common approach that leverages existing work Understanding best practices, both national and international Searchable maps are useful – both load based and generation based A Hosting Capacity map is an important complement to a ‘pre-application report’ Increasing Hosting Capacity There are technologies and processes that the group has reviewed that can help increase hosting capacity Policy goals are supported by increasing hosting capacity

Supplemental DSIP Topics
Topic Areas Distribution System Planning Grid Operations Market Operations Interconnection Hosting Capacity System Data Monitoring & Control Granular Pricing Customer Data Demand Forecasting NWA Suitability Cyber Security ISO/DSP Roles, Responsibilities, Interaction DER Sourcing - Procurement Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Topics DER Forecasting Load Flow Analysis Probabilistic Planning Discussed in 7/27 Conference/Webinar Discussed in 8/18 Conference/Webinar To be discussed in 9/13 Conference/Webinar DPS discussion topic

Appendix & Reference Materials

Reference Guide Distribution Modeling Guidelines: Executive Summary - Recommendations for System and Asset Modeling for Distributed Energy Resource Assessments. EPRI. Palo Alto, CA: 2016, Whitepapers and stakeholder presentations located on the website and includes information from: For more Information please access the Department of Public Service (DPS) website of the New York State - For more Information on the Red Zone Maps of Joint Utilities of New York, please access the link below from the Department of Public Service (DPS) website of the New York State –

Hosting Capacity Q&A Co-led by Michael Conway (Borrego Solar) & Tom Mimnagh (Con Edison / O&R)

Wrap-up

Stakeholder Engagement Conference – September 13th
WHEN: Tuesday, September 13th 9:00a – 3:00p EDT WHAT: Joint Utilities of New York Stakeholder Engagement Conference WHERE: Empire State Plaza Convention Center 270 State St. Albany, NY 12210 If you are unable to attend the conference in-person, please register here or through jointutilitiesofny.org RSVP: Please or as soon as possible if you will be attending the conference in person. Agenda for September 13th 9:00 – 9:15 Introductions 9:15 – 9:45 Granular Pricing* 9:45 – 10: Cyber Security* 10:45 – 12: Demand & DER Forecasting & Q/A* 12:15 – 1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 2: ISO/DSP Coordination & Q/A* 2:30 – 3:00 Stakeholder Engagement Wrap-up & Next Steps *The Q/A portion of the conference will address the questions received in advance plus those received during the session. If you have questions to pose now or additional questions that are not covered during the conference, please

Thank you for joining us!
Please contact or visit our website for more information

JU Stakeholder Engagement Conference

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "JU Stakeholder Engagement Conference"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

JU Stakeholder Engagement Conference

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "JU Stakeholder Engagement Conference"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback