Analysis of 100 utility SGIP PV interconnection studies

Sena, Santiago S.; Quiroz, Jimmy Edward; Broderick, Robert Joseph

doi:10.1109/pvsc.2014.6925084

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another major area of concern is how the islanded and grid‐connected operation of wind turbine and PV penetration will impact the effectiveness of utility protection equipment, 53,54 and how inverter‐based distributed generations (IBDG) can impact the fault current seen by protective relays 55 that can adversely affect the protection zones as well as the time‐dependent coordination between primary and backup protective devices 56 . As indicated in the IEEE Std.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protection schemes used in North American microgrids

Piesciorovsky

Smith

Ollis

2020

Int Trans Electr Energ Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary This study reviewed existing conventional and nonconventional protection schemes for grid‐connected and islanded mode operations in North American microgrid projects. The microgrid projects investigated in this study used different types of distributed energy resources (DERs) and integrated hydropower/diesel generators, gas/steam/wind turbines, and photovoltaic systems with energy storage. In this work, conventional protection schemes were defined as those within the IEEE Standard C37.2‐2008, whereas nonconventional schemes were those not defined within this standard. The pros and cons of conventional and nonconventional protection schemes were discussed in detail. The overvoltage, undervoltage, and frequency elements were the most common conventional protection schemes applied in microgrid projects in North America. These protection elements were used to detect the islanded conditions and faults that could not be sensed by overcurrent relays because of small fault currents contributed by low‐inertia DERs and power‐electronic sources. Directional overcurrent elements were used to distinguish between external (grid) and internal (microgrid) faults. Adaptive protection was the most popular nonconventional protection scheme applied to the microgrid projects. In conclusion, different types of DERs and operational modes must be considered in order to address the protection and control challenges of each microgrid and to obtain the best technical and economical solution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protection schemes used in North American microgrids

Piesciorovsky

Smith

Ollis

2020

Int Trans Electr Energ Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An analysis of 100 completed PV SGIP studies was performed by Sena, Quiroz, and Broderick (2014) to identify the most common impacts for large DGPV system interconnections and the costs to mitigate adverse system impacts. The data for the study came from nine U.S. utilities for PV facility sizes ranging from 1-20 MW.…”

Section: When Fast Screens Fail: a Closer Look At In-depth Impact Stumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the last few years, several studies have been carried out to efficiently quantify the hosting capacity of a particular feeder (Navarro-Espinosa, Ochoa, and Randles 2013; Navarro-Espinosa and Ochoa 2015a; Kolenc, Papič, and Blažič 2015;Hoke et al 2013;Kevin P. Schneider et al 2008;Menniti et al 2012;EPRI 2012b;Sena, Quiroz, and Broderick 2014). Several papers have proposed using Monte Carlo techniques for determining hosting capacity owing to the innate uncertainties present in a distribution system that includes distributed generation (Navarro-Espinosa, Ochoa, and Randles 2013; Navarro-Espinosa and Ochoa 2015a; Kolenc, Papič, and Blažič 2015).…”

Section: Reactive Power (Var Kvar Mvar)mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Path to SunShot - Emerging Issues and Challenges with Integrating High Levels of Solar into the Distribution System

Palminitier¹,

Broderick²,

Mather³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. Department of Energy launched the SunShot Initiative in 2011 with the goal of making solar electricity cost-competitive with conventionally generated electricity by 2020. At the time this meant reducing photovoltaic and concentrating solar power prices by approximately 75%relative to 2010 costs-across the residential, commercial, and utility-scale sectors. To examine the implications of this ambitious goal, the Department of Energy's Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) published the SunShot Vision Study in 2012. The study projected that achieving the SunShot price-reduction targets could result in solar meeting roughly 14% of U.S. electricity demand by 2030 and 27% by 2050-while reducing fossil fuel use, cutting emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, creating solar-related jobs, and lowering consumer electricity bills. The SunShot Vision Study also acknowledged, however, that realizing the solar price and deployment targets would face a number of challenges. Both evolutionary and revolutionary technological changes would be required to hit the cost targets, as well as the capacity to manufacture these improved technologies at scale in the U.S. Additionally, operating the U.S. transmission and distribution grids with increasing quantities of solar energy would require advances in grid-integration technologies and techniques. Serious consideration would also have to be given to solar siting, regulation, and water use. Finally, substantial new financial resources and strategies would need to be directed toward solar deployment of this magnitude in a relatively short period of time. Still the study suggested that the resources required to overcome these challenges were well within the capabilities of the public and private sectors. SunShot-level price reductions, the study concluded, could accelerate the evolution toward a cleaner, more costeffective and more secure U.S. energy system. That was the assessment in 2012. Today, at the halfway mark to the SunShot Initiative's 2020 target date, it is a good time to take stock: How much progress has been made? What have we learned? What barriers and opportunities must still be addressed to ensure that solar technologies achieve cost parity in 2020 and realize their full potential in the decades beyond? To answer these questions, SETO launched the On the Path to SunShot series in early 2015 in collaboration with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and with contributions from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). The series of technical reports focuses on the areas of grid integration, technology improvements, finance and policy evolution, and environment impacts and benefits. The resulting reports examine key topics that must be addressed to achieve the SunShot Initiative's price-reduction and deployment goals. The On the Path to SunShot series includes the following reports: • Emerging Issues and Challenges with Integrating High Levels of Solar into the ...

show abstract

“…In addition, Tweedie and Doris (2011) identify key differences between the interconnection processes in California and Germany, while the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) uses a case study approach to identify areas for improved coordination between the PV processes for utility interconnection, local permitting, and incentive applications (IREC 2013b). Meanwhile, a small body of work has addressed the cost of interconnection directly (Sena et al 2014, Navigant Consulting 2013. Finally, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has produced several reports analyzing PV non-hardware balance-of -system ("soft") costs, including the average labor hours required to complete the permitting, inspection, and interconnection process (Ardani et al 2013, Friedman et al 2013, Ardani et al 2012.While these studies identify the interconnection process as a challenging aspect of project development and an important area for future research, they do not provide a data-driven, system-level examination of interconnection timelines across U.S. states.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%