1. MA DG Collaborative – Year 1
Tim Roughan
Director of Distributed Resources
June 17, 2005
Restructuring Roundtable

2. Background
Different interconnection polices among the four MA utilities
Perception that customers not getting assumed benefits of DG
MA DTE issued order in 2002
Authorized DG collaborative to standardize interconnection process
DTE approved statewide interim standard April 2004
Authorized two year collaborative
Further enhance interconnection policy
Review DG and distribution planning
Additional work regarding network interconnections
Meter ownership

3. Year 1 report 5/31/05 New interconnection process is working well
144 (18.5 MWs) applications from 4/1/04 to 3/31/05
In MECo 13 requests 2003, 32 in 2004
NStar had 62% of all requests
Extensive tracking of projects
Tracking timelines and costs
Have suggested some process changes to interconnection tariff
If the ISO has to study a project, timelines may be extended
Requirement for wiring inspection
P1547 is now IEEE Standard

4. Year 1 report 5/31/05 Network system interconnection Meter ownership
Multiple primary sources feeding one or more customers
Issue arose whether you can delay protective functions to allow DG breaker to trip, however MA Utilities will not delay network protectors because it violates basic protection strategies
Need to find another solution
Meter ownership
QFs already can own their meter
QFs under PURPA
Which policy can they use?

5. Year 1 report 5/31/05 DG and Distribution Planning
Distribution Planning reviews
MECo: 1,115 feeders, 295 substations
NSTAR: 1,300 feeders, 300 substations
WMECo: 271 feeders; 43 substations
FG&E: 44 feeders; 17 substations
Total: 2,730 feeders; 655 substations
Approximate allocation of capital budgets
Asset Replacement: 25-40%
Reliability: 25-35%
Capacity: 30-45%
To make the budget, projects typically have to resolve 2 or more of the above issues

6. Year 1 report 5/31/05
Beginning to work through some ‘paper’ pilots to determine value and costs of DG installations in certain areas
Value to DG customer is reduced energy costs, which is a cost to the utility
Value from the utility is typically only from deferral for capacity projects in low-growth areas
Unless real sustained capacity is realized non-DG ratepayers likely will not benefit from DG installations
This may involve utility control of the DG
Or, enough DG to use diversity on a feeder by feeder basis
Could result in cross-subsidization by non-DG customers

7. Year 2 work plan Any additional streamlining of tariff
Look at new FERC small gen process and how the ISO-NE will implement
Additional investigation of interconnecting to network systems
Are there other cost-effective solutions besides violating basic fault protection practices?
Continue working through the costs and benefits to all parties for DG on the distribution system

8. Year 2 work plan Utility Congestion Relief Pilot (UCRP)
MTC is interested in testing DG value
Looking to work within MECo’s Lowell area targeted load response project
MECo pays 50¢/kWh for load shed, plus $3/kW for summer months as a retainer
Must be customer > 200 kWs
Other possibilities being discussed for smaller customers including residential
MTC interested in projects with other utilities

9. Summary A lot more time required than was assumed
This is not a simple issue, and it takes time to do it right
Need involvement from real customers
Need perspective of people who are not in the industry
New FERC rules will affect us
LICAP: demand response customers can earn back their LICAP contribution
Small Generator rule: how will this interact?
Comments due 6/23 to MA DTE on report