1、NEMA Standards PublicationNational Electrical Manufacturers AssociationNEMA MGRD R2-2018State Regulatory and Policy Considerations for Increased Microgrid DeploymentPublished by: National Electrical Manufacturers Association 1300 North 17thStreet, Suite 900 Rosslyn, Virginia 22209 www.nema.org The r
2、equirements or guidelines presented in this NEMA white paper are considered technically sound at the time they are approved for publication. They are not a substitute for a product sellers or users own judgment with respect to the particular product discussed, and NEMA does not undertake to guarante
3、e the performance of any individual manufacturers products by virtue of this document or guide. Thus, NEMA expressly disclaims any responsibility for damages arising from the use, application, or reliance by others on the information contained in this white paper. This report was developed by Christ
4、opher W. Gillespie and Emmanuel Taylor, PhD, of Energetics Incorporated under contract to NEMA. 2018 National Electrical Manufacturers Association. All rights, including translation into other languages, reserved under the Universal Copyright Convention, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Li
5、terary and Artistic Works, and the International and Pan American copyright conventions. State Regulatory and Policy Considerations for Increased Microgrid Deployment A Public Policy Primer January 2018 State Regulatory and Policy Considerations for Increased Microgrid Deployment NEMA MGRD R2-2018 P
6、age ii 2018 National Electrical Manufacturers Association NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER The information in this publication was considered technically sound by the consensus of persons engaged in the development and approval of the document at the time it was developed. Consensus does not necessarily mean t
7、hat there is unanimous agreement among every person participating in the development of this document. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standards and guideline publications, of which the document contained herein is one, are developed through a voluntary consensus standards d
8、evelopment process. This process brings together volunteers and/or seeks out the views of persons who have an interest in the topic covered by this publication. While NEMA administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in the development of consensus, it does not write the documen
9、t and it does not independently test, evaluate, or verify the accuracy or completeness of any information or the soundness of any judgments contained in its standards and guideline publications. NEMA disclaims liability for any personal injury, property, or other damages of any nature whatsoever, wh
10、ether special, indirect, consequential, or compensatory, directly or indirectly resulting from the publication, use of, application, or reliance on this document. NEMA disclaims and makes no guaranty or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of any information published her
11、ein, and disclaims and makes no warranty that the information in this document will fulfill any of your particular purposes or needs. NEMA does not undertake to guarantee the performance of any individual manufacturer or sellers products or services by virtue of this standard or guide. In publishing
12、 and making this document available, NEMA is not undertaking to render professional or other services for or on behalf of any person or entity, nor is NEMA undertaking to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to someone else. Anyone using this document should rely on his or her own independe
13、nt judgment or, as appropriate, seek the advice of a competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances. Information and other standards on the topic covered by this publication may be available from other sources, which the user may wish to consult for
14、additional views or information not covered by this publication. NEMA has no power, nor does it undertake to police or enforce compliance with the contents of this document. NEMA does not certify, test, or inspect products, designs, or installations for safety or health purposes. Any certification o
15、r other statement of compliance with any health or safetyrelated information in this document shall not be attributable to NEMA and is solely the responsibility of the certifier or maker of the statement. State Regulatory and Policy Considerations for Increased Microgrid Deployment NEMA MGRD R2-2018
16、 Page iii 2018 National Electrical Manufacturers Association Executive Summary Some of the most significant barriers to microgrid deployment are created by policy and regulatory environments that were not designed to enable microgrids. Microgrids are small electric distribution systems that utilize
17、distributed energy resources (DERs) to power a one or a small number of customers (Figure ES-1). Microgrids are usually connected to the local electric grid (or “macrogrid”) but can operate independently, as well. A variety of regulations do not anticipate the interaction of microgrids with the macr
18、ogrid and can have unanticipated effects on microgrid ownership, operation, and design. In general, barriers exist because existing policy regimes have not been efficiently adapted to make use of microgrid capabilities and to maximize the benefits of microgrids for all stakeholders. The resulting re
19、gulatory barriers inhibit microgrid deployment in three ways: by prohibiting the deployment of microgrid technologies, by imposing additional planning and design costs, and by preventing microgrids from operating in the most economically efficient way. Although various solutions to these barriers ex
20、ist, uncertainty about which solutions will be ultimately chosen inhibits microgrid planners from making choices and investments in specific technologies today. Underlying all microgrid policy barriers is the set of incumbent assumptions about how to account for and distribute the costs and benefits
21、 of electricity generation and distribution infrastructure. Microgrids entail new costs and also supply new benefits. Together, these changes challenge the assumptions underlying existing regulations and raise the question of how to fairly assign those costs and benefits to the various stakeholders.
22、 These questions must be addressed by state legislatures and regulators, as they are best equipped to consider the desired balance of interests. Benefits of microgrids include improved reliability and resilience to disruption, reduced emissions and environmental costs, increased penetration of distr
23、ibuted renewables, and the ability of utilities to defer capacity upgrades to transmission and distribution infrastructure. Microgrids may also be able to offer ancillary services such as voltage/reactive power/frequency regulation support, load shedding, or a load increase, depending on how the mic
24、rogrid is interconnected and on the states market structure. Costs include the planning and engineering costs (including compliance costs), capital costs, and operating and maintenance costs (including fuel costs and purchased energy costs). This study evaluates the six most significant categories o
25、f barriers affecting microgrid deployment in four target states: California, Illinois, Tennessee, and Vermont. Table ES-1 outlines the barriers identified in this study, as well as the potential solutions identified in case studies and literature sources. Figure ES-1: Microgrids can exist in a varie
26、ty of configurations, but always include a generator and at least one load. Source: Sandia 2015. State Regulatory and Policy Considerations for Increased Microgrid Deployment NEMA MGRD R2-2018 Page iv 2018 National Electrical Manufacturers Association Table ES-1 Barriers to microgrid deployment and
27、solutions identified in case studies and in literature sources Barrier Description Solutions Lack of standardized definitions for microgrids Confusion regarding ownership schemes and customers, stakeholder incentives, cost allocation, and differences in associated regulatory barriers creates uncerta
28、inty for policymakers, utilities, and private planners that can stymie microgrid development. Standardize microgrid definitions that define divergent pathways for microgrid policy Pursue pioneer cases with public utilities commissions (PUCs) Public utility regulations, rights of way, and utility fra
29、nchises State regulations for public utilities can impose costly compliance burdens on small, non-utility microgrids. Exemptions for small generators in some states can help but are often limited to few customers or prevent efficient distribution infrastructure planning. Utility ownership and operat
30、ion of microgrids Split ownership/distribution leasing Expanded qualifying facility exemptions Disincentives and uncertainty for utilities in microgrid planning, operation, and ownership In deregulated states without proactive microgrid demonstration or deployment policies, utilities are unlikely ei
31、ther (1) to make initial risky investments in overcoming barriers to utility ownership of microgrids (i.e., pioneer rate cases) or (2) to take steps that would enable or encourage private microgrids (e.g., standard interconnection tariffs). Clear policy directives that establish parallel pathways fo
32、r utility and non-utility microgrids Demonstration programs that pioneer regulatory pathways System reliability and resilience as utility performance goals Restrictive information sharing and unknown grid constraints Microgrid planners do not have access to sufficient information about grid congesti
33、on and layout to make optimal design decisions or select the most promising sites for new microgrids. Utility planning of microgrids Voluntary data-sharing partnerships State/local rules requiring data sharing Comprehensive survey of grid congestion and potential microgrid sites Underleveraged incen
34、tive programs State programs that promote or mandate deployment of renewables also encourage microgrid deployment by incentivizing utilities and ratepayers to install (DERs such as solar photovoltaics (PV); however, some states with strong renewable deployment policies have very few microgrids. In-s
35、tate generation/DER mandates Comprehensive survey of grid congestion and potential microgrid sites Explicit incentives or requirements for reliability Unclear interconnection requirements, tariffs, and excessive exit fees The technical requirements for microgrids interconnecting to a distribution ut
36、ility are not standardized, and excessive protection can increase microgrid costs; unknown tariffs and additional exit fees charged to microgrids can increase microgrid costs. Standardized interconnection requirements Development of model tariffs Exemption from standby charges and exit fees State Re
37、gulatory and Policy Considerations for Increased Microgrid Deployment NEMA MGRD R2-2018 Page v 2018 National Electrical Manufacturers Association Though this study does not attempt to assess the relationship between specific policies or regulations and microgrid deployment across all 50 states, some
38、 notable characteristics of microgrid deployment are highlighted below. First, the level of deployment of DERs in a state appears to have a significant influence on microgrid penetration. Policies that encourage DERs, such as renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) and energy efficiency resource standa
39、rds (EERSs), are important tools for microgrid deployment. This is especially true if they require solar PV or combined heat and power (CHP) sources, which are more likely to be DERs than other renewable or efficiency resources. Solar PV is the most common generating technology used in microgrids in
40、 the U.S. (Navigant 2017). In New York and California, strong RPS policies have encouraged significant DER deployment (CEC 2017, EIA 2017). Illinois also has an RPS policy, requiring that 75% of renewable energy under the RPS be sourced by wind, which is a less commonly represented technology within
41、 microgrids (DSIRE 2016). Tennessee, which has no RPS, has very little distributed generation and only one microgrid. Table ES-2 shows the solar penetration in each target state. Table ES-2 Installed nameplate solar capacity in each target state in 2016. Source: EIA 2017. All Solar (PV+Thermal) Depl
42、oyment Policy MW MW % California 76,840 9,789 12.7% RPS + EERS Illinois 44,843 33 0.1% RPS + EERS Tennessee 21,355 70 0.3% N/A Vermont 691 66 9.5% RPS + EERS The most common attribute among policy and regulatory barriers to microgrid deployment is the role of uncertainty in inhibiting microgrid plan
43、ning. In addressing any of the barriers identified in this paper, the goal of microgrid policy should be to establish clear pathways for microgrid planners, including establishing well-defined conceptual models of microgrid ownership, design, and compliance, and proceeding with statutory or regulato
44、ry reforms that address these needs. State Regulatory and Policy Considerations for Increased Microgrid Deployment NEMA MGRD R2-2018 Page vi 2018 National Electrical Manufacturers Association CONTENTS Executive Summary iii Background . 1 Status of Microgrid Deployment in the United States . 2 Method
45、ology 4 Identification of Target States . 4 Policy and Regulatory Barriers to Microgrid Planning and Deployment . 6 Lack of Standardized Definitions for Microgrids 6 Public Utility Regulations, Rights of Way, and Utility Franchises . 9 Cross-Incentives for Utilities in Microgrid Planning, Operation,
46、 and Ownership 12 Restrictive Information Sharing and Unknown Grid Constraints . 13 Underleveraged Incentive Programs 15 Unclear Interconnection Requirements, Tariffs, and Excessive Exit Fees . 17 Synthesis of Policy Barriers and Presence in Target States 19 Appendix 1 20 References 22 Codes and Pub
47、lic Utilities Commission Rules Cited . 26 State Regulatory and Policy Considerations for Increased Microgrid Deployment NEMA MGRD R2-2018 Page 1 2018 National Electrical Manufacturers Association Background This study evaluates the policy and regulatory barriers to and opportunities for increased mi
48、crogrid deployment. A microgrid is typically a small, geographically distinct electric network that utilizes distributed energy resources (DERs), local distribution infrastructure, and an integrated control system. During normal operation, microgrids are connected to the regional electric distributi
49、on grid (or “macrogrid”), sectioning off small groups of loads from the regional system, and operate in sync with the local distribution utility. However, during periods of disruption, microgrids can “island,” separating themselves from the macrogrid and providing self-supplied, uninterrupted power to microgrid customers.1These local systems can serve any type of load but often support critical facilities (such as hospitals, police/fire stations, and government buildings), commercial and industrial districts, institutional campuses, or re
