Experts envision large-scale fast interconnection in Texas nationwide

National large-scale interconnection goals for the rest of the country are already being met in the ERCOT Texas grid region, which uses a “connect and manage” approach, said Mario Hayden, transmission director at Enel North America, at the Transmission and Interconnection Summit held outside Washington, DC.

It only takes a year, Hayden said, for a solar or storage developer that has filed an interconnection application with ERCOT to progress through the entire interconnection study process and reach an interconnection agreement.

Noting a major drawback of the “connect and manage” approach, namely the risk of curtailment if transmission capacity is inadequate, Mike Tabrizi, founder and president of Zero Emission Grid, said that while a project developer in the ERCOT region can interconnect to transmission at their own risk, and are not responsible for transmission costs up front, once the project becomes operational, “then you are fully exposed to what’s going to happen with transmission.”

According to ERCOT, it takes three to six years to energize transmission lines in Texas, panel moderator Tom Kleckner said in his introductory statement. Mr. Kleckner, ERCOT/SPP correspondent for RTO Insider, reported that ERCOT says it takes seven to 13 years to energize transmission lines elsewhere in the United States. As a single-state entity, ERCOT is not subject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules, Kleckner said, “saving it approximately four years of federal compliance and two years of signature and construction”.

Regan Fink, transmission and interconnection policy manager for Pine Gate Renewables, described two issues with managing the need for more transmission, which she called the “manage” aspect of “connect and manage.” . First, ERCOT lacks proactive transmission planning, she said, adding that while “it’s really hard” to do, “some things need to be done.”

Second, she said that as a generator, “there is no formal process to sponsor your own upgrades. If you have a lot of restrictions and congestion, but it’s not enough” for ERCOT as a system to decide whether to build upgrades, “then we could get stuck with that. While ERCOT has told us we can coordinate with transmission service providers” in the grid region to sponsor upgrades, “we would like to see a more formal process.”

Pranay Reminisetty, a team leader for resource integration at consulting firm DNV, said that because of “ERCOT’s big transmission backlog,” interconnecting a project to ERCOT’s grid without knowing how much generation will be curtailed poses a financial risk to developers. “So we need more transmission to get into pure-energy resources,” he said.

Yet in other parts of the country, he said financial risks come from uncertainty over what grid upgrade costs will be allocated to an interconnection project and the cost of system study affected by the network operator for a project, which he described as a “surprise”. cost” for the developer.

Tyler Norris, a former Cypress Creek Renewables executive and current Ph.D. candidate, said it’s “no secret” that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff “is very interested in the topic of flexible interconnection options,” like ERCOT’s approach.

“Flexible interconnection was really at the heart of the U.S. Department of Energy’s interconnection roadmap,” he said, “and I think that really got the attention of the staff at FERC. » FERC will host a workshop on generator interconnection innovations and efficiencies on September 10 and 11, he noted.

As electric loads are expected to increase, creating “more pressure to increase generation on the system,” Norris predicted that “we’re going to see a significant increase in demand for more flexible interconnection options in the years ahead, including energy-only interconnection,” such as ERCOT’s approach, as well as “interim service and potentially other accelerated options.”

Popular content

Norris said his team’s ongoing analysis of 3,500 interconnection studies for solar projects shows that upgrade costs for an energy-only interconnection have been nearly equivalent to upgrade costs for the energy-only interconnection. network resources. The lack of cost savings for power-only interconnection, he suggested, shows that power-only interconnection “does not live up to (FERC’s) original intent,” when the FERC created this service option in its 2003 order as “a credible alternative to energy-only interconnection.” network resource interconnection service which would be faster and cheaper.

“We can do a lot to improve energy-only interconnection service and interim service,” he said.

Regan said during question period that “we don’t expect a large order” from FERC following its September workshop.

Morgan Putnam, principal consultant at DNV, said in a comment posted on the question ranking app that “our collective desire for a 0% reduction has greatly misled the industry.” »

The theme of the roundtable was “Can ERCOT’s ‘Connect and Manage’ Approach Lead to Faster, Less Costly Grid Interconnection Nationwide?” »

The conference was produced by Infocast and supported by 15 sponsors.