Distributed Generation Workgroup

Meeting Summary

January 21, 1999

To:         NWCC Distributed Wind Power Workgroup
From:     Abby Arnold and Gabe Petlin, RESOLVE
Date:      February 9, 1999

Re: Draft Summary of 1.21.99 Workgroup Meeting

This is a brief summary of the discussion and key outcomes resulting from the Distributed Workgroup meeting on January 21, 1999.

*Current List of Reviewers of Specific Sections of Assessment Document

We need to know if there are volunteers to review specific sections of the report. (Contact Abby or Gabe.)

We need to know if there are others who could review these appendices. Any volunteers?

Part One: Overview of Meeting

Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda Review

Facilitator Abby Arnold welcomed participants and reviewed the purpose of the meeting: to provide general comments (not to wordsmith) and give guidance for the authors of the Distributed Wind Power Assessment Summary Report to modify and complete a draft of the report.

Overview of Draft Report

Joe Cohen of PERI gave an overview presentation of the Distributed Wind Power Assessment Summary Report, including a handout copy of his overhead presentation. He discussed the primary objectives of the report, which are:

• Develop information that serves as a common foundation of knowledge for the NWCC and others to understand and discuss issues associated with furthering the adoption of distributed wind power;
• Develop a description of the benefits, costs, and technical requirements associated with developing wind projects in a distributed model;
• Describe past and current European Policy drivers, and market, industrial, and social characteristics that encouraged and are encouraging European distributed wind models and contrast these to the current U.S. market and policy climate; and
• Describe where wind is constrained or encouraged by market, institutional, or regulatory factors.

The structure of the report is designed for each section to present:

• Objectives
• Key Questions
• Findings
• More Detail

Brief Remarks by Dan Adamson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Power Technologies, Department of Energy

Dan Adamson was unable to attend the entire meeting, so he asked to make some introductory remarks regarding DOE’s outlook on distributed power development. Mr. Adamson introduced the newly renamed Office of Power Technologies (OPT), formerly the Office of Utility Technologies, and made the following points:

• The OPT’s top policy priority is to advance distributed wind power.
• The OPT has a small $18 million distributed wind power program request in to the President.
• Distributed wind power is welcomed by the Secretary and Assistant Secretary of Energy, and Mr. Adamson is "bullish" on distributed wind power.
• The interconnection requirements can be a big obstacle to distributed power; the OPT’s vision is of an electric system where local power simply plugs in.

Mr. Adamson thanked the group for the opportunity to offer his remarks and departed.

Group Comments and Review of Summary Report

The bulk of the meeting was devoted to a review, clarification, praise, and critique of the assessment report. Generally, the Workgroup’s overall assessment of the report was that it contained a lot of useful material. Participants offered constructive comments towards improving, refining, and making the report more useful. The toughest issue was whether the report was sufficiently neutral or leaned toward policy advocacy. The most critical comments were sent via e-mail by members not in attendance. These comments expressed concern that the report did not sufficiently highlight information related to European policies that helped to develop distributed wind generation. They also expressed concern regarding internal contradictions and several themes in Section 1. These concerns will be addressed in a phone conference between the report authors and selected members of the Distributed Workgroup in balance with other comments made at the meeting. The meeting participants discussed a few points where tone would need to be modified and provided a few suggestions for specific changes to help the report be seen as neutral by all parties. Several Workgroup members provided formatting comments aimed at improving the readability of the report.

Arnold summarized the general and chapter-by-chapter comments on the report, listed below. The group identified next steps and a timeline for review and completion of the draft report, listed in the Key Outcomes section at the front of this memorandum.

• Define the audience up front as the NWCC Distributed Workgroup.
• Document should have a neutral tone and not advocate about the feasibility of distributed wind energy; this requires that all assumptions are explicitly stated.
• Clarify that references in the report are not necessarily endorsed by the report authors or NWCC.
• Once the summary document is approved and posted on NWCC’s website, consider hyper text links to the larger document.
• Create a text box highlighting regulatory challenges/barriers.
• Challenges: how collaboration challenges should be addressed.
• Format: needs to improve so the document is readable; better packaging.
• Write executive summary: 4-6 pp.
• Try to limit length to 40 pp.
• Create table of contents.
• Policy discussion should reflect state policy options document.
• Create a glossary of terms.
• Be clear about the definition of distributed wind generation. (The one on lines 5-12 of page 1 will be used)

• Further address the affect of restructuring [i.e. disparity between types of utilities to obtain financing].
• Section 1 should be condensed.
  • e.g. exhaustive discussion on 1-14 re: double metering.
  • Condense summary to bullets.
• Economic thresholds (middle of pp. 1-19 – top pp. 1-22) move to section 3 (pp. 2-17). Place reference to it in Section 1.
• Pp. 1-27/1-28 challenges:

1. Distinguish associated challenges between states where restructuring has occurred or is likely to, and those where it is not.
2. How do you regulate the distribution business to provide access for distributed power generation in both restructured and traditional utility markets. What are the similarities and differences?
3. What is the least cost investment approach for distribution utilities?
4. New Economics: need to take a closer look at avoided costs. How do you meet customer’s needs in the most cost effective way?
5. New Accounting

• Address in more detail the concern of utilities that intermittent resource can reliably address transmission match to range.
• Comment: Crystallize/provide a range of possible benefits; quantified.
• State in case study that Iowa distribution system characteristics and wind resources may not be representative of other areas of the U.S.; therefore results may not be transferable.
• Include table 2.2 from pg. 2-47 in Section 2 of Summary

• Finish "Findings" subsection with a box of key conclusions
• Change "Best Approaches for Deployment" to "Deployment Factors that Impact Cost" or some other title and locate the best place in the section for it (perhaps the end). Either make neutral or be clear that a recommendation is being made.
• Question: Is sample size is an issue in the U.S. which may affect the uniqueness of the numbers?
• Additional deployment factor: How the resource will prove out on the farm/resource assessment certainty cost of wind resource assessment.

• Update justification for economic/job data with Enron Data that Tom Wind has.
• Pp. 4-2 line #8 should be O&M jobs per turbine, not per MW.

• Should include broad conclusions that can be drawn from all four sections:
  • difference between large wind farms/distributed power
  • resource assessment
  • 3 phase lines
  • feasibility
  • financing/different economic measures
  • ownership style
  • differences between U.S./Europe

Part Three: List of Participants

• Abby Arnold, NWCC Senior Coordinator/Senior Mediator, RESOLVE
• Joseph Cohen, Vice President, PERI
• Tom Schweizer, Senior Vice President, PERI
• Lisa Daniels, Wind Energy Program Manager, Sustainable Resource Center
• Ed DeMeo, EPRI
• Peter Goldman, Wind Energy Program, U.S. DOE
• Roger Hamilton, Oregon Public Utilities Commission
• Ron Lehr, Attorney, NARUC
• Chuck Linderman, EDI
• Brian Parsons, Project Manager, Wind Applications, NREL
• Mike Pendleton, PERI
• Gabe Petlin, Wind Energy and Environmental Dispute Resolution Associate, RESOLVE
• Heather Rhodes, Project Manager, Global Energy Futures
• John Saintcross, Green Mountain Power Corp
• Adam Serchuk, Research Director, Renewable Energy Policy Project
• Thomas Wind, Wind Utility Consulting
• Richard Curry
• Alan Barak, Pennsylvania Energy Project