Disclosure rules vs data quality

New York and California run substantial hosting capacity disclosure programs. As a result, half of the highest-tier sources in the utility roster are New York utilities.

California's Integration Capacity Analysis (ICA) program has a documented, ongoing process for improving data quality. The CPUC directed improvements to ICA maps back in 2021, and Decision D.24-10-030 went further, ordering biannual reporting and quarterly remediation workshops starting in 2025. Data maintenance is foundational to the regulatory process in the state.

New York's utilities created their hosting capacity maps through a staged roadmap instead, and what's published now includes sub-feeder analysis, local constraint information, and separate storage displays for load and generation. This is useful detail, but every piece of it still needs its own methodology read before one can trust them.

These disclosure frameworks don’t require that the underlying data has to be good, accurate, and up-to-date. That’s why source dates, definitions, coverage, and the calculation behind each number need to be checked to ensure data quality.

	California (PG&E/SCE/SDG&E)	New York (Joint Utilities)	New Jersey (PSE&G/ACE/JCP&L)
Regulatory driver	CPUC Decision D.24-10-030 (Oct 2024)	Joint Utilities of NY hosting capacity roadmap	No dedicated accuracy mandate found
Update cadence	Biannual ICA reports, quarterly remediation workshops	ConEd: DG >500kW every October, PV/storage every April, queued/connected DG monthly	Revised periodically via stakeholder meetings, no fixed schedule
Independent review	Utilities required to retain an outside technical expert to review data validation	Bi-annual multi-utility stakeholder working group	None found

Both states have a lot of work to do on requiring disclosure of the demand side. California ran a Load ICA refinements workshop in March 2023. ConEd only added electrification maps in January 2024, including winter capacity numbers relevant to heat pumps specifically.

Despite how unevenly maintained these maps are, they exist to decrease costs for the utility. Each developer who self-screens using a public map and rules a location out on their own is an interconnection study the utility doesn’t have to run. A rough map that filters out obviously bad candidates is cheaper for the utility than an open invitation to apply anywhere. But existence and maintenance are two different budget lines.

The people doing the work to create these maps sit inside each utility's distribution planning group. ConEd's own public materials on hosting capacity are presented by engineering staff with titles such as Specialist, Distribution Planning. In New York, that work also runs through the Joint Utilities of New York's shared working group, so updates to National Grid's or ConEd's maps get some cross-utility visibility even though each utility owns its own numbers. In California, the process now formally includes an outside reviewer.