ABSTRACT
The popular conception of power system planning is that its goal is always to compare objectively the various alternatives being studied, including Distributed generators (DG) and other power system approaches, with respect to their abilities to perform as needed in a particular situation. Such a planning study produces a comparison, usually given in tables or diagrams, of the alternatives on the basis of salient characteristics like cost, reliability, and so forth, and identifies the best alternative for the particular situation. A good proponent study’s report can give every appearance of being thorough and objective, and provide just as much detail than reports from objective studies. Determining if the study being reported was biased, and if so, how, and what difference it makes with respect to a particular DG owner’s needs can be a challenge for the uninitiated reader. One way of predisposing a planning study in favor of one alternative is simply to apply different rules and standards to the different alternatives.
