The State of Grid Interconnection in the Northeast

The State of Grid Interconnection in the Northeast

This article is crossposted on the Northeast Solar Energy Market Coalition website.

The Pace Energy and Climate Center is a non-profit energy and environmental research and advocacy organization based at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law in White Plains, New York.

The Northeast Solar Energy Market Coalition (NESEMC) brings together solar energy business associations and other solar stakeholders in the Northeast to harmonize regional solar energy policies and advance the solar energy market.

Connecting distributed generation (DG) like solar photovoltaic (PV) systems to the grid is not the most straightforward thing in the world. The electric grid is a complex system, and electric distribution companies (EDC) must ensure that it is operated safely and reliably at all times. For this reason, EDCs are very cautious when it comes to interconnecting DG systems to the grid. Safe interconnection requires adherence to certain rules and procedures and the screening of projects for potential negative impacts to the overall grid. For project developers, these rules can be confusing and prohibitively expensive both in terms of dollars and time, especially when the rules differ from state to state, or even from EDC to EDC within a state.

To address concerns for both maintaining grid safety and reliability without unduly hindering DG deployment, many states have developed standard interconnection guidelines and procedures. These procedures often delineate technical requirements, fees and cost responsibility, and the application process steps for EDCs and developers.

In the Northeast, every state has some form of standard interconnection requirements. These procedures are graded in a report by Vote Solar and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) called Freeing the Grid. In the most recent edition of Freeing the Grid, the Northeast scored well with Massachusetts leading the pack with an “A” for interconnection policy, and the rest of the region scoring above average with a “B.”

States are cognizant of the need to revisit standard interconnection procedures on a regular basis. With rapidly advancing technology and best practices, there is almost always room for improving interconnection standards, and IREC maintains highly regarded model interconnection procedures that are updated periodically. Ideally, procedures would be standard in design and application across the Northeast.

In the Northeast, New York and Massachusetts have completed significant revisions to their interconnection standards within the last two years. Three more states—Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont—are in the process of considering revisions to their standards as well. In addition to making formal improvements to interconnection standards, states are also beginning to form working groups consisting of developers, utilities, and other stakeholders to explore interconnection issues on a regular basis. Both Massachusetts and New York have initiated such groups, and other states like Connecticut are considering the same. We see these standing work groups as a best practice for staying on top of interconnection problems and issues.

The Northeast Solar Energy Market Coalition (NESEMC) maintains an inventory of state interconnection guidelines. The remainder of this post provides a roundup of current affairs regarding interconnection in the Northeast in each of the Coalition’s nine member states.


Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) has established interconnection standards for distributed generation less than 20 MW. The last major revisions to the standards occurred in 2010. Separate streamlined guidelines exist for certified inverter based systems less than 10 kW, while systems larger than 10 kW and less than 2 MW may qualify for a fast track process if they pass certain screening criteria.

In September 2016, the state’s two major EDCs jointly petitioned to increase the threshold for the streamlined guidelines to systems less than 20 kW. The move to 20kW was one of a number of proposed changes offered by the state’s solar industry group, SolarConnecticut (a NESEMC member). The utilities agreed that expanding the threshold will help alleviate administrative burdens caused by increasing numbers of residential solar PV projects between 10 and 20 kW. In addition to increasing the threshold to 20 kW, the proposal lightens insurance requirements and loosens capacity screens—two other suggestions made by SolarConnecticut. SolarConnecticut is urging PURA to also establish a method to more fairly distribute the cost of equipment upgrades, modernize the application payment method, and lift the external disconnect switch requirement. A docket is currently still open, and a final decision is expected in March.


The Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has established standard interconnection procedures for small generators not subject to federal rules (i.e. anything connected to the distribution grid as opposed to the transmission system). The last major revision to the interconnection standards occurred in 2009 and were based on the 2009 IREC model standards.

In April 2016, the PUC opened a docket to consider revisions to their standard interconnection procedures, specifically addressing whether, and to what extent, the rules should be updated to reflect the most recent IREC model standards. Stakeholders provided comment in May 2016. No additional actions have occurred since.


In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) maintains a model interconnection tariff that applies to all distributed generation. The last major revisions to the tariff occurred in May 2015 as the result of a multi-year effort by a DG working group convened by the DPU to explore interconnection issues. In addition to updated standards, the process also ended with the creation of the Massachusetts Technical Standards Review Group (TSRG).

The TSRG held its inaugural meeting in March 2013 and has since been credited with successfully addressing several interconnection issues that were driving costs up for installers and prohibiting many projects from being completed. The group brings together utility and developer engineers in a non-adversarial environment to openly discuss common and utility-specific interconnection technical standards. It provides non-utility stakeholders a formal process to provide input on interconnection practices within the state. The success of the TSRG has driven the creation of similar groups in states like New York.

Again, NESEMC considers the TSRG process a best practice that should be emulated and replicated throughout the region. Ideally, state TSRG groups would meet once or twice a year to address regional issues as well.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s interconnection standards are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission as part of the state’s net metering provisions. The standards only apply to net metered systems less than 1 MW—all other systems must abide by separate tariffs filed by each utility. The last major revisions to these provisions occurred in 2011.

New Jersey

New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities has designed standard interconnection guidelines (note: the official rule is only accessible on at N.J.A.C. 14:8-7). The rule applies to all forms of net metered distributed generation, which has no specified maximum capacity but must not exceed the customer’s annual on-site energy consumption. The last major revisions made to the standard rules occurred in 2012.

New York

New York’s Public Service Commission (PSC) has developed Standardized Interconnection Requirements (SIR) that govern procedures for all distributed generation less than 5 MW. The last major revisions to New York’s SIR occurred in March 2016, which increased eligible projects from 2 MW to 5 MW and included a pre-application report process, improved screening procedures, and other changes.

In addition to these changes, the revision process spawned two new groups to address other outstanding technical and non-technical interconnection issues on a continuing basis—the Interconnection Policy Work Group (IPWG) and Interconnection Technical Working Group (ITWG), respectively. One of the first tasks undertaken by the IPWG was to address the large backlog of projects waiting for interconnection approval. The group issued a joint proposal in September 2016, which includes provisions such as requiring demonstration of property owner consent and site control and binding timelines for developer decisions. Stakeholders provided formal comments on the proposal in December 2016.


The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has established standard interconnection guidelines for distributed generation less than 2 MW. The last major revisions to the standards occurred in February 2009.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s Legislature has defined a set of standard interconnection rules for all net metered DG. The rules do not cover a lot of issues defined by standardized procedures in other states. However, the state’s predominant utility—National Grid—maintains fairly comprehensive interconnection procedures that include many of the important standards seen in other states including a pre-application report, tiered and streamlined project review pathways, and specific timelines.


In Vermont, the Public Service Board (PSB) has adopted interconnection standards for any distributed generation not subject to federal rules (i.e. anything connected to the distribution grid as opposed to the transmission system). For net metered systems less than 150 kW, these standards can be found in Board Rule 5.100. For all other systems, standards are found in Board Rule 5.500.

Over the past year, Vermont’s PSB has considered several changes to their interconnection standards.

First, in a proceeding to consider changes to Rule 5.100, which primarily deals with net metering policy, the most recently proposed changes remove any rules governing interconnection for net metered systems less than 150 kW. Instead, all net-metered systems would be governed by Rule 5.500. The revised net-metering rule has been filed with the Vermont Secretary of State. Stakeholders provided formal comments in early December 2016. The changes have not yet been formally adopted.

Second, the Vermont PSB is also in the process of revising Rule 5.500. The rule has been through several rounds of revisions, with the most recent one issued in September 2016 in a collaboration with the Vermont Department of Public Service, Green Mountain Power, and Renewable Energy Vermont. The changes include provisions for net-metered systems to reflect the proposed changes to Rule 5.100. Additionally, the proposal recommends the following provisions:

·         Specific information to be included in a formal pre-application report,

·         Requirement to provide interconnection queue information upon request, and encourages the utility to increase information accessibility in general

·         A supplemental review process for applications failing fast track screening criteria

·         Shorter and more defined timelines among other changes.

The rules are also written under the assumption that the PSB will maintain a new electronic interconnection application submission system funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. With a proposal on the table, the next step in this process requires the PSB to issue a revised rule for public comment.

Cuomo Delivers on Promise to Shut Down Indian Point, Supports New York’s Clean Energy Future

Cuomo Delivers on Promise to Shut Down Indian Point, Supports New York’s Clean Energy Future

  • The plant will close 14 years earlier than expected, without busting New York’s carbon budget.
  • The agreement between the State and Entergy includes support for displaced employees and $15 million fund for community and environmental benefit.
  • Indian Point’s closure is supported by the clean energy foundation laid by Governor Cuomo through the Reforming the Energy Vision process and other energy efficiency and renewables programs and investments.
  • The closure is aligned with New York’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative commitments. Governor Cuomo proposed the nine states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) reduce their RGGI carbon cap by 30%, providing further assurance that Indian Point’s retirement won’t result in increased emissions.

In a landmark moment for clean, sustainable energy in New York, Governor Cuomo announced today that the Indian Point nuclear power plant will close by 2021, a full 14 years earlier than anticipated, without breaking New York’s carbon budget. The closure is made possible by the groundwork laid over the past several years by the Governor, Consolidated Edison, and the New York State Research and Development Authority, through programs and investments in renewables, energy efficiency, and distributed energy resources.

“This is exactly how you realize a transition to clean and sustainable energy—firm commitments built on years of groundwork along with strong support from the utility sector and well-aligned policy leaders,” said Karl R. Rábago, Pace Energy and Climate Center’s Executive Director.

Under the agreement reached between the State and Indian Point’s owner and operator, Entergy, Unit Reactor 2 will shut down as early as April 2020, and Unit Reactor 3 by April 2021. The deal includes vital support for local communities and the environment: as part of the package, Entergy will help displaced employees relocate to other opportunities within the company’s system, while the state, through NYSERDA, will provide workers with training in renewable technologies. Entergy will also contribute $15 million toward community benefits and the environmental health of the surrounding area.

The Governor has fought for years to close Indian Point in light of numerous safety and environmental concerns and the plant’s proximity to New York City. But the plant’s closure wasn’t contemplated in a vacuum. As part of New York’s Reforming the Energy Vision proceeding and the State Energy Plan, Governor Cuomo has made it a priority to increase New York’s energy efficiency and renewables supply, decrease carbon emissions, and remove barriers to distributed energy resources (DERs). Under the Governor’s leadership, the state’s Clean Energy Standard mandates that New York source 50% of its energy from renewables by 2030. The Governor has also been a strong proponent of providing support to communities and workers impacted by the closures of dirty, aging power plants that are replaced by clean generation.

Indian Point’s closure is also aligned with New York’s carbon policy. Governor Cuomo’s concurrent announcement today committing to strengthening the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s role in reducing carbon emissions from the power sector is a vital component of the Indian Point closure plan. The Governor’s proposal calls on the nine RGGI states to reduce the cap by an additional 30% below 2020 levels by 2030—from 78.2 million tons of CO2 in 2020 to 54.6 million tons in 2030. This equates to an approximately three percent annual cap decrease between 2020 and 2030. While analysis supported by Pace has shown that the least cost pathway to the Northeast states’ climate goals requires a five percent annual cap decline, the Governor’s commitment still represents an ambitious power sector carbon pollution reduction trajectory.

A meaningful and strong RGGI cap such as the one proposed by Governor Cuomo will be a vital component of the Governor’s promise that the closure of Indian Point will not cause a net increase in emissions. It will serve as an important backstop to carbon reduction initiatives as New York radically reshapes how electricity is produced and consumed within the state.

With the plant’s closure, New York will reap benefits beyond carbon reduction, including the growth of jobs in the renewable energy sector and a more resilient electric grid. While the energy transition details still have to be worked out, energy efficiency and demand response programs, local distributed energy resources, and large-scale renewables can step in to make the grid less vulnerable than it would be if it were to continue to draw power from the aging and unsafe Indian Point generating units. New York already has 700MW of transmission upgrades and energy efficiency ready to go, and Con Edison has been preparing for Indian Point’s closure for several years through ramped-up energy efficiency programs and innovative “non-wires alternatives” initiatives like the Brooklyn-Queens Demand Management project, which can all contribute to meeting the Governor’s 2021 timeline.

“While nuclear power can offer New York a clean-air alternative as we move toward a major expansion of renewable power, the trade-offs and the dangers posed by the reactors at Indian Point are not worth these risks,” Rábago said. “We believe the deadline of this plant’s closure will motivate utilities and clean energy providers to organize themselves around the transition to distributed generation and renewables, which can only be good for New Yorkers. I thank Governor Cuomo for putting an end to Indian Point’s operations and ensuring a healthier New York community. This news, combined with the Governor’s call to reduce the RGGI cap 30% by 2030, will result in a more rapid acceleration to an economy powered by clean, renewable energy.”

Indian Point’s closure represents a delivery on Governor Cuomo’s commitment to move New York toward a more sustainable and resilient energy future.