Integration of DER Program: Utility Economics & Practices P174D Tech Transfer

Transcription

1 Integration of DER Program: Utility Economics & Practices P174D Tech Transfer Nadav Enbar, Steven Coley, Jeff Roark EPRI PDU Fall Advisory Meeting September 20, 2016

2 Agenda / Objectives P174D research activities Meter-based Connecters for DER Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Locational PV Deployment Time and Locational Value of DER: Methods & Applications Examining Utility Fixed and Variable Cost Pathways with Increasing DER A Look Ahead: Proposed 2017 Portfolio Member Exchange & Discussion 2

3 Total Initial Costs ($/W) PS174D: Business Impacts and Practices Objective Examine economic and business implications of PV adoption; Explore utility strategies, use cases, applications, that support DER. Value Better understand DER markets in the context of utility distribution Access lessons learned and analysis of innovative solar business models Acquire case study results on PV technical and economic performance Discern high penetration PV contexts and mitigation techniques from multiple stakeholder perspectives $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 Payback Period Less Economic More Econmic Energy Value ($/kwh) 20 years 15 years 10 years 5 years Leverage & Coordination 2045 Energy Storage (P94), Technology Assessment/Integrated Portfolio Planning (P178), Renewable Generation (P193); NREL, SEPA and RMI; EPRI Integrated Grid initiative 3

4 2016 PS174D Deliverables Utility Practices, Markets, and Use Cases Jointly-published with: 1 SEPA 2 P193 3 P174A + P178B 4 P174A 5 P174A + P94 Deliverable Title Report Type / Delivery Product ID Utility DER Business Practices White Paper x 2 - Meter-based Connecters for DER - Structures that Maximize the Potential of Microgrids 1 Delivery: Q3, Q Solar PV Market Update Volumes 17 & Frontline Solar Industry Analyses Understanding PV Market Potential for Distribution Planning 3 Newsletter / Alerts Delivery: Q2, Q4 White Paper Delivery: Q Economic Analysis of Business Impacts and Opportunities Comparing the Cost-Benefit of Guided vs. Unguided PV Deployment on Distribution 4 Examining the Effects of Customer-Sited Solar + Storage on Distribution 5 Examining Utility Fixed and Variable Cost Pathways with Increasing DER Growth Tech Update Delivery: Q3 Tech Update (PPT+Webcast) Delivery: Q4 White paper Delivery: Q

5 Meter-based Connecters for DER Nadav Enbar Principal Project Manager

6 Meter-based Connecters for DER Objective: Examine meter adapters as utility strategy for safely/cost effectively interconnecting DER systems while laying groundwork for future opportunities. Behind-the-meter PV challenges the traditional utility business model Revenue erosion, cross-subsidization/equity issues, customer satisfaction Increased complexity and cost of utility planning and grid balancing efforts o Inability to see variable production of distributed PV presents grid reliability concerns Meter collars for PV as a contributing solution Provide a standardized method for interconnecting DER at reduced cost by eliminating BOS components and wiring upgrades Offer visibility into PV system performance across a distributed fleet With smarts (and regulatory approval), enable remote command/control Potentially facilitate development of a utility solar services model that supports more economic PV deployment and enhanced grid reliability 6

7 What Is a Meter Collar for DER? A device inserted between residential utility electrical meter and the meter socket that creates a new interface between the meter and socket Additional space created by extending the meter connection further away from the socket can be used to install other devices for the utility benefit Remote disconnect Receive power line carrier signals Facilitate distributed generation Example Meter Adapter Installations Sources: Global Power Products and ConnectDER Appropriate for 1. New construction 2. Upgrade from 100/150a to 200a panel 7

8 Upfront Cost Savings 8 Meter collars bypass a home s distribution panel, reduce wiring/materials of service panel upgrade, eliminate AC disconnect o Lowers overall cost of residential PV system install by ~5-10% Only commercially available smart adapter also eliminates need for production meter, transfer switches, communications boxes Typical Residential Solar PV Installation Source: ConnectDER Conventional Meter Collar Panel Upgrade ~$2,500 Underground Service Upgrade ~$10,000 $400-1,300, plus ITC rebate Labor Multiple people Single person Install Time 4-6 weeks 1 week Avg. Customer Outage 6 hours 10 minutes

9 Future Potential: Smart Functionality Smart functionality adds metering, monitoring, and management capabilities for the local utility With regulatory approval potentially enables greater grid reliability and other utility business opportunities o Remote disconnect and control, altered inverter settings, tariff-based signals, etc. o PV, stationary storage, EVs, load mgmt., etc. SMART ConnectDER Scheme Source: ConnectDER 9

10 Case Studies Company ConnectDER SDG&E Global Power Products SolarCity Product(s) Simple ConnectDER Renewable Meter Meter Socket GenerLink Smart ConnectDER Adapter Adapter Price Point $400 - SIMPLE $850 - SMART* $1,326 $ < $400 Voltage 120/240 Volts** 120/240 Volts 120/240 Volts 120/240 Volts Max Power 15 kw 11.5 kw 10 kw TBD 15-45A, 5A increments Over Current increments; Rating 50A-80A, 10A 48A 40A TBD Parallel DER Operation Yes Yes No Yes UL Approved Yes Yes Yes Yes Auto Transfer Switch No No Yes No Warranty 10 years Lifetime 1-15 years TBD Cum Installs 4,500 3,800 40,000 0 Notes: * A "gen 2" Smart ConnectDER, scheduled for release in 2H16, is anticipated to have a cheaper, as yet undisclosed, price point. **The Smart ConnectDER will support 208 V service drops by the latter half of

11 Utility Business Model Examples / Options SDG&E s Renewable Meter Adapter (RMA) Developed to help manage PV customers Sells to developers/customers as contractual option during application process Provides lifetime warranty (SDG&E owns device) Benefits Improved customer relations Streamlined interconnection Supported CA enviro goals Enhanced grid safety Avoided costs May seek CPUC approval to license/sell device May add smarts ; RMA a proof-of-concept RMA Installation Source: SDG&E 11

12 Utility Business Model Examples / Options ConnectDER Sells Simple and Smart ConnectDER devices to utilities and installers o Utilities can install equipment themselves or resell to certified installers. o Meter collars can be used as source for additional revenue (Green Mtn Power) Smarts provide utilities with a dedicated beachhead into managing DER assets o Short-term: roll out tied exclusive to utilityowned PV o Longer-term: with permission, alter settings of customer-owned PV assets ConnectDER Installation Source: ConnectDER 12

13 A Look Ahead: Potential Utility Meter Adapter Deployment Models Model Authorize Definition Allow 3rd parties to sell direct to customers or installers; coordinate installations required. Optionally retain rights to data access. Resell Purchase direct from manufacturer, resell to customers as service or asset. Optionally retain ownership of asset, rights to data access. Hybrid Rate Base Offer for service fee; with regulatory approval, rate-base the balance. Retain ownership and data, optionally provide 3rd party data access. With regulatory approval, mandate deployment and rate-base full cost. Retain ownership and data, optionally provide 3rd party data access. Sources: ConnectDER, EPRI 13

14 Challenges Regulatory o Approval for utility visibility into customer-owned PV production profile, remote control and altered settings of distributed PV assets, etc. Design hurdles form factor constraints that come with added functionality UL certification/listing Non-proprietary communication pathways Utility metering approval 14

15 Questions, Comments, Feedback? 15

16 Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Guided vs. Unguided Solar Deployment on Distribution Feeders Steven Coley Senior Project Engineer

17 Why is understanding the locational value of PV important? Reduce system integration costs Utilize existing investment in grid infrastructure Reduce (or defer) future infrastructure investments Inform locational guidance strategies What deployment types are optimal? (Location? Concentration?) Are the costs of a guidance program worth the potential benefits of guided deployment? Inform regulation and legal considerations Whose costs and whose benefits? Focus research on most promising areas 17

18 Learning Objectives 1. Identify the monetary impacts of PV to the distribution system 2. Determine KEY considerations that drive PV s locational value 3. Recognize actionable steps to quantify the locational value of PV in your territory 18

19 A case study approach to assessing the costs and benefits of guided vs unguided PV deployment Studies show PV hosting capacity is location specific Model case study scenarios portraying two general outlooks: guided vs. unguided PV deployment on 4 feeders (2 Southern, 2 TVA) Outcomes inform guidance programs (i.e. community solar & tailored incentives) Convert technical impacts into economic impacts Difference in net value between guided and unguided scenarios informs locational guidance strategies Hosting capacity is defined as the amount of DER that can be accommodated without adversely impacting power quality or reliability beyond acceptable limits. 19

20 An Integrated Grid Cost Benefit Framework Contains both bulk system and distribution system elements Focus of today s presentation Distribution System Hosting Energy Scenario Definition Market Conditions System Assumptions DER Adoption Capacity Resource Adequacy Bulk System Reliability Transmission Performance System Cost Changes Benefit-Cost Societal Costs/Benefits Customer or Owner Cost/Benefits Flexibility Transmission Expansion Operational Practices & Simulation 20

21 Cost-Benefit Analysis Considerations Learning Objective 1: Monetary impacts of PV to the distribution system Modeling & Analysis Outputs Economic Analysis Outputs Combine Using Common Metrics (i.e. Normalize to PV Energy Production & Levelize over 20 yrs) Capacity requirement (load shape changes) Capacity upgrade deferral ($) Investment Deferral ( /kwh gen ) Voltage regulation Capacity upgrades Protection Operations of regulators, switched capacitors, & tap changers Capital costs for integration ($) Change in O&M expenses and shortened asset life($) Mitigation ( /kwh gen ) Distribution ( /kwh gen ) Distribution Losses & Energy Consumption (kwh) Energy Purchases (marginal - /kwh) Energy ( /kwh gen ) 21

22 Sensitivity Factors Considered 22

23 Group Discussion (2 or 3 people) Take 2 minutes to discuss the following questions In this study, which factor do you think will have the most significant impact on distribution system value? Feeder Characteristic (Feeder CC, R, MV, or HM) Location (Guided vs. Unguided Deployment) PV Penetration (High vs. Low) Scale (Rooftop vs. Centralized) I don t know (It depends is the real answer and I just don t like to pick ) What other factors/considerations would have a significant impact on the distribution system value? 23

24 Example Total Net Distribution Value Feeder HM: Moderate PV, Unguided, Rooftop vs. Base Case (no PV) Note: The full distribution cost would also include an assessment of the value of transformer deferral due to peak demand reduction. 24

25 Comparison Between Guided and Unguided Cases Use Case Description Comparison Roof vs. Roof (RvR) Centralized vs. Roof (CvR) Simulated use case in which guides distributed rooftop PV deployment to optimal areas on a distribution feeder, compared to unguided deployment of distributed rooftop PV. Simulated use case in which distributed PV is directed to optimal rooftop locations on a distribution feeder, compared to unguided deployment of centralized PV systems. Unguided rooftop vs. Guided rooftop Unguided centralized vs. Guided rooftop Roof vs. Centralized (RvC) Centralized vs. Centralized (CvC) Simulated use case in which the deployment of centralized PV system(s) is directed in optimal areas of a distribution feeder, compared to deployment of randomly distributed rooftop PV. Simulated use case in which the deployment of centralized PV system(s) is directed in optimal areas, rather than compared to the deployment of randomly located centralized PV systems. Unguided rooftop Vs. Guided centralized Unguided centralized Vs. Guided centralized 25

26 Net Distribution System Cost (+) and Benefit (-) by PV Penetration for 4 Guidance Use Cases on 4 Feeders 26

27 Insights from Results Learning Objective 2: KEY considerations that drive PV s locational value Guided vs. Unguided Deployment Few scenarios result in significant savings. Feeder characteristic appears to be a major factor. Guiding strategies could be ineffective. Centralized vs. Distributed Deployment PV concentration was not observed to be a major factor High vs. Low PV Growth The impact of PV penetration on distribution value is case specific 27

28 Conclusions Learning Objective 3: Steps to quantify the locational value of PV Identify feeder-specific issues that can be solved with solar This is likely to be the most effective way to develop a locational deployment strategy that can increase the net distribution system value of distributed solar PV Determine feeder-specific PV hosting capacity To increase the locational value of PV, focus on areas with mid-day peak loads and limited remaining head room Additional research is needed to study the capacity contribution that PV provides to the distribution system Detailed energy analysis at the distribution system is not a high priority 28

29 Questions, Comments, Feedback? 29

30 Time and Locational Value of Distributed Energy Resources: Methods & Applications Jeffrey D. Roark Technical Executive

31 California and New York Taking Progressive Actions The IOUs are required to define locational benefits and optimal locations for DER, moving the IOUs towards a more full integration of DER into their distribution system planning, operations, and investment. CA PUC Code 769, Aug 2014 The more efficient system will be designed and operated to make optimal use of cleaner and more efficient generation technologies and will encourage substantial increases in deployment of these technologies... DER will become integral tools in the planning, management and operation of the electric system. NY REV, Feb

32 EPRI s Study: Time and Locational Value of DER: Methods and Applications Used the EPRI Benefit-Cost Framework Objective, reproducible Assesses impacts of interconnected DER Estimates value/cost to society Two DER Interconnection Scenarios DER only to meet all load growth DER at customer discretion Actual Systems Studied 10-year period to align with distribution planning timeframe Actual performance data for baseline Asks whether DER can economically replace or avoid investments otherwise needed to accommodate growth. Note: Companion study conducted by Sue Tierney, The Analysis Group. The Value of DER to D : The Role of Distributed Energy Resources in Supporting Local Electric Distribution Reliability. 32

33 The Scenarios: Mesh Network vs. Radial Topologies Mesh Network System (Con Edison) Flexible Radial System (SCE) Two very different systems demonstrate the methodology. 33

34 Time and Locational Value of Distributed Energy Resources Thanks to Con Edison for the use of the following materials. 34

35 Con Edison Electric Distribution System 87% network 13% radial NYC Metro Area 40% of the NY State electric peak 35

36 Time T&D deferral with DER Considering peak-day load profiles Traditional Approach kw Network Capacity Expansion Current Network Capacity Current Demand Forecasted Demand Hours Expand infrastructure to keep up with load growth 36

37 Time T&D deferral with DER Considering peak day load profiles The Brooklyn-Queens Demand Management Program (BQDM) is securing 41 MW of customer-sited DER to defer T&D investment beyond DER Portfolio Approach kw Thousands of customer-sited solutions Queens Current Demand Current Network Capacity Forecasted Demand Hours Assemble a portfolio of DER technologies to shave peak. Peak load duration matters. Brooklyn BQDM Area 37

38 Time Study assembled DER portfolio based on technology, customer, and system load-curve characteristics Con Edison Case Study Portfolio CHP PV Storage Fuel Cell DR Energy Efficiency Hour Ending 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 A 6 A 7 A 8 A 9 A 10 A 11 A 12 P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P 10 P 11 P 12 A Peak-Load Risk Expected/Typical Hourly Profile Energy Energy Solar PV Efficiency Storage Illustrative BQDM Example 38

39 Location Network systems present challenges when targeting DER to address specific distribution violations Flow Overloaded Transformer DER energy directly reduces transformer flow whether at A, B, or C. Locational Sensitivity Effectiveness degrades with distance. Overloaded Transformer Distance A Neighboring transformer DER energy disperses from point A. B A C C B Radial System: Unidirectional Power Flows Network System: Multi-directional Power Flows Neighboring transformer 39

40 DER capacity (kw) Location EPRI modeling reveals significant locational sensitivity in the local distribution system NYC a b Overload 63 kva Network Transformer b 340 kw In the network, DER portfolios must be tightly situated near distribution asset to be effective a 153 kw Overload 63 kva 40

41 Benefit/Cost Analysis Considerations: Normalizing Modeling and Analysis Outputs Capacity requirement (load shape changes) Economic Analysis Outputs Capacity upgrade deferral ($) Cost Normalized to DER Energy Production Capacity Deferral ($/kwh gen ) Voltage regulation Capacity upgrades Protection Switched capacitor, tap changer and regulator operations Capital costs for integration ($) Change in O&M expenses ($) and shortened asset life Mitigation ($/kwh gen ) Distribution ($/kwh gen ) Distribution energy losses (kw, kwh) Distribution losses (marginal $/kwh) System Losses ($/kwh gen ) Earlier studies of the cost of DER accommodation normalized cost over DER Energy Production. 41

42 Evaluating alternative distribution plans w/der Modeling Assumptions and Outputs Economic Analysis Outputs Cost Normalized to Load Energy Growth Bulk-system characteristics LMP & Carbon cost rates Capacity cost rates Cost of serving load growth: Energy cost (load and losses) Capacity cost Load Cost ($/kwh grth ) Distribution-system/feeder Energy growth Load shape One of: 10-year distribution upgrade plans to satisfy voltage, capacity, and protection constraints Carbon cost Cost of distribution upgrades: Asset ownership costs (revenue requirements) O&M costs Cost and value of DER: Equipment cost (Utility procurement) Accommodation ($/kwh grth ) Incremental Cost to Serve Growth in Load ($/kwh grth ) 10-year DER plans to satisfy voltage, capacity, and protection constraints Net energy value Loss-reduction value Carbon-reduction value Avoided capacity value In this study we estimated the cost to serve growth. 42

43 Incremental Cost (cents/kwh) Incremental Cost (cents/kwh) Location EPRI study compared costs to meet load growth using BCA criteria: Traditional T&D vs DER portfolio Cost to Meet Load Growth Traditional Utility Solution Cost to Meet Load Growth DER Solution Systematic application to DER value leads to comparable results for supporting policy and operations planning. 43

44 Time and Location Value of DER: Conclusions from Study Comprehensive, consistent, and transparent methods are necessary. It is hard to generalize the net benefits of DER as an alternative to conventional grid. Time and locational impacts are key determinants in valuing DER. It takes a portfolio of DER to meet system and customer needs and defer traditional assets costeffectively. 44

45 Examining Utility Fixed and Variable Cost Pathways with Increasing DER Growth Jeff Roark Technical Executive Steven Coley Sr. Project Engineer

46 Examining Utility Fixed and Variable Cost Pathways with Increasing DER Growth Assessment of utility fixed and variable costs, the factors which affect those costs, changes in utility costs over time, and observations about avoidable cost differences among different types of utilities. Scope Illustrate the range in fixed and variable cost components for a variety of U.S. utilities using publicly available data. Discuss impacts of market structures on cost characteristics that affect DER benefit-cost studies. Value Perspective on the economics of DER adoption that can inform grid integration benefit-cost studies. Utility 24 Utility 23 Utility 22 Utility 21 Utility 20 Utility 19 Utility 18 Utility 17 Utility 16 Utility 15 Utility 14 Utility 13 Utility 12 Utility 11 Utility 10 Utility 9 Utility 8 Utility 7 Utility 6 Utility 5 Utility 4 Utility 3 Utility 2 Utility 1 Dist Xmsn Components of Fixed and Variable Cost, ȼ/kwh Fixed Costs Fixed Gen A&G Variable Cost Delivery Type / Date White paper, Q3 Variable Costs Illustrative Results Distribution Transmission A&G Fixed Generation Variable Production Cost Source: FERC Form 1 filings 46

47 Research Questions How have capital expenditures on G, T, & D changed over time in the U.S. relative to growth in sales and demand? What factors influence a utility s fixed vs. variable cost mix? What types of costs are fixed? What types of costs are variable? What types of costs are avoidable? How does this change by utility type? Illustrative Results What is the range of utility fixed costs as a percent of total costs for different U.S. utilities and how has this changed over time? 47

48 48 Factors Affecting a Utility s Fixed vs. Variable Cost Mix Definition: Variable cost = varies with output Under this cost-accounting definition, Variable cost for a utility is almost totally fuel cost or purchased power. This is not opex versus capex. * Generation/supply decisions directly tradeoff fixed and variable costs; other decisions don t. By this definition, everything that is not variable is fixed cost. Utilities had different paths through history: Planning alternatives and economics varied from region to region: Fuel Costs (affected by availability, transportation) Load shape: Peak Demand and Load Factor Terrain, environmental sensitivity/constraints In reality, economic landscapes shift: optimal mix is a moving target. Each utility s composition of cost is a legacy of decisions past and world/industry events, such as market restructuring. * capex = capital expenditures, opex = operating cost, or O&M

49 How fixed is fixed cost? Revenue requirements for existing assets are fixed, but decline in time by depreciation. Other utility costs are subject to change in time. Revenue requirements for planned assets can be altered by changing plans. Avoidable Cost: Cost that a utility or its customers can avoid paying Deferrable Cost: Cost that can be temporary avoided In benefit/cost analysis, avoided and deferred costs are often important sources of value. Avoided energy costs are often a valuable component, but what energy cost includes depends on the kind of utility and the market structure under study. 49

50 Integrated Systems vs. Competitive Market Systems In the1990s and 2000s, structured competitive markets formed. Generation was divested. Now we have: Vertically integrated utilities T&D, distribution companies Hybrid utilities (in markets, but retaining some generation) Independent power producers Fixed costs in competitive markets Independent power producers have fixed and variable costs, too. Plants compete with each other for contributions to their fixed cost. Market energy prices include these contributions to fixed costs. To consumers, these are variable and avoidable costs. This affects the economics of DER in these areas. FIXED Cost VARIABLE Cost Fixed and variable cost breakdown for 10 utilities Source: IOU FERC Form 1 and EIA filings 50

51 Comparison of Fixed Cost Treatment by Utility Type What costs are avoidable? Conditions / Obligations Capital investment Recovery of investment Treatment if stranded (cost not recoverable) Treatment in customer / societal economic analysis Integrated Utility Generation Invested for Obligation to Serve Investment affected with the public interest Expected, arguably a right Regulators may allow stranded-cost recovery. Often a negotiated result. Unavoidable fixed cost, including return at cost of capital Independent Power Producer Invested without obligations unless contractual. Obligations may be short term Capital risked in hope of investor returns Expected, but fully at risk Stressed assets are either sold at a loss (and recapitalized) or plant is shuttered. May get going-forward cost* if needed for reliability (RMR) Avoidable to customers, if not contracted. May be included in societal analysis. 51

52 Questions? 52

53 A Look Ahead: Proposed 2017 Portfolio Nadav Enbar Principal Project Manager

54 A Look Back: Research Roadmap Utility Solar Business Models USBM Framework Case studies Utility-TPO partnership PV ownership NEM reform Smart inverter roll out & readiness PV Market Trends / Analysis PV Mkt Update PV CAPEX / OPEX Policy / Regulatory analysis Standards Q&A Hi Pen PV Definition & framework Case studies Integrated Grid CBA Feeder Systemwide PV Grid Integration Market Adoption Econ adoption tool Adoption primer PV O&M White paper strategies Case studies PVROM To P193 PV Plant Performance PV Plant Monitoring & Analysis Variability & performance 1-10MW 10-20MW 20MW+ Economics of PV variability Tech spotlight PV price parity To P193 54

55 The Way Forward Utility DER Business Models Conceptual, Predominately Qualitative, Case Studies PV Market Trends / Analysis Data Driven, Qual/Quant Analyses, Perspectives DER Grid Integration Value Impact Analyses (CBA), Forecasting, Strategic Planning 2016 Beyond 55

56 2017 PS174D Deliverables Proposed Deliverable Title (Official) Report Type Utility DER Business Practices Topics TBD White Paper x 2 Solar PV Market Update Volumes 19 & 20 CBA Guidebook for an Integrated Grid Long-term Forecasting of DER Adoption and Application of Distribution Planning Costs & Benefits of Distributed vs. Centralized PV Costs & Benefits of Smart Inverter on the Distribution System Changing Marginal Value of PV as Deployment Increases Newsletter / Alerts Technical Update Technical Update Technical Update Technical Update Technical Update PV Adoption Forecasting Tool (software) Is There a Reduced Risk Threshold for PV? DER price parity analysis under rate reform scenarios The Grid Impacts of End-Use DER Case Study: Incorporating PV Adoption Forecasting into Distribution Plananing Valuation and strategic adoption of mid-life PV assets 56

57 Thank You Together Shaping the Future of Electricity Steven Coley Sr. Project Engineer Nadav Enbar Principal Project Manager Jeff Roark Principal Technical Leader

58 Appendix 58

59 DER Proceedings are Proliferating in More Than 20 States 59

60 Example: Selected Studies of Average Net Solar Value New Jersey/ Pennsylvania (2012) Austin Energy (2012) California (2012) Colorado (2013) Methodologies and results vary significantly. Source: e-lab 2013 Solar Study (a collection of several studies by others). 60

61 Overview of Distribution Planning Process Develop Forecast Establish baseline assumptions: Future load growth and loading profiles DER growth Distribution deployment plans Determine Capacity Requirements Assess distribution requirements: Meet projected load and DER growth Maintain safety and reliability for end users Evaluate Alternatives Address grid needs: Traditional utility solutions DER solutions Process identifies projected distribution capacity deficiencies and plans to address projected deficiencies. 61

62 Immediate applications for the insights and methodologies Formulating Distributed System Implementation Plans (DSIP) future Non-wires Alternatives projects Value of DER proceeding NY PSC Case 15-E-0751 DER compensation reform LMP+D, where D varies by location 62