Authors: Nimaful N Samuel, Hanyabui Augustine
Abstract: Distributed energy resources (DERs)—including distributed photovoltaics, behind-the-meter storage, flexible demand, and electrified end uses—are transforming U.S. distribution systems while exposing a persistent planning and interconnection constraint: hosting capacity. Hosting capacity is commonly defined as the amount of DER that can be accommodated without adversely impacting power quality or reliability under specified control configurations and without requiring infrastructure upgrades. Yet hosting capacity is not an immutable feeder attribute; it is strongly sensitive to analytical methods (snapshot vs. time-series; deterministic vs. probabilistic), modeling assumptions (e.g., inverter settings), data quality, and governance choices regarding what constitutes an acceptable violation or mitigation. This article provides a secondary analysis synthesizing peer-reviewed research, national laboratory reports, interconnection standards resources (IEEE 1547 family implementation guidance), and public regulatory/utility records to develop an integrated technical–economic–regulatory framework for expanding hosting capacity through complementary strategies: targeted grid reinforcement and non-wires alternatives (NWAs). Comparative case evidence from New York’s Brooklyn-Queens Demand Management program, California’s integration capacity analysis ecosystem, and Hawaii’s hosting-capacity mapping and inverter experience is used to extract transferable mechanisms and failure modes. Synthesized findings indicate that hosting capacity should be communicated as a scenario-dependent range; that advanced inverter functionality and flexible demand can expand feasible DER penetration but require validated settings, telemetry, and verification; and that integrated distribution planning linking hosting capacity analytics to locational value and benefit-cost screening improves comparability between wires and non-wires portfolios while strengthening transparency for interconnection stakeholders. (Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI], 2018; Jain et al., 2020; Narang et al., 2021).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19235202
