Transcript slide deck - The California IDER and DRP Working Groups

Integrated Capacity Analysis
Working Group
January 20, 2017
In-person meeting
drpwg.org
1
Agenda
Time
9:00 – 9:10
9: 10 – 11:00
Topic
11:00 – 12:00
C. Discussion of Recommendations
Consider prioritization of ICA long-term refinement items
12:00
E. Lunch
A. Introduction, Review of Schedule
B. Follow-up discussion on ICA methodology
C. Review of ORA 12 success criteria
2
ICA and LNBA Working Group Background
ICA and LNBA WG Purpose - Pursuant to the May 2, 2016, Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling (ACR) in
DRP proceeding (R.14-08-013), the Joint Utilities are required to convene the ICA and LNBA WG to:
1. Refine ICA and LNBA Methodologies and Requirements
2. Authorize Demonstration Project A and Project B
CPUC Energy Division role
•
Oversight to ensure balance and achievement of State objective (ensure adequate stakeholder representation in
consensus statements, keeping WG activities on track with Commission expectations/needs, demonstration project
results review, quality control on deliverables)
•
Coordination with both related CPUC activities and activities in other agencies (IDER CSF WG, CEC and CAISO
interagency matters, interconnection/Rule 21/SIWG, other proceedings that may impact or be impacted by
locational value calculation such as AB 350/IRP and LTPP/TPP/RPS)
•
Steward WG agreements into CPUC decisions when necessary
More Than Smart role
•
Engaged by Joint Utilities to facilitate both the ICA & LBNA working groups. This leverages the previous work of MTS
facilitating stakeholder discussions on ICA and LBNA topics.
3
Schedule
Date
Short Term
February XX
WG Report filed
March
Long Term Refinements
IOU Implementation
Begin LT Refinement Discussions
May? June?
Estimate: PD Issued
July
Estimate: Decision
Begin implementation (12
months)
September
Begin drafting report
November
Final LT Refinement report filed
July 2018
First round
implementation complete
August 2018
Begin implementation of
LT refinements
4
Follow-up items from 1/17 meeting
• Written explanation of what other reasons a no-backflow screen might need to be used
beyond operational flexibility (Ex: for some voltage control devices, how the screen would
apply if it was used just for those cases) (priority for 1/20)
• Computing cost and time estimates: outline of IOU discussion strategy with CYME/SYNERGI
(priority for 1/20)
• Specific discussion on planning use case (ex: targeted grid modernization updates) (priority
for 1/20)
• More detail on operational flexibility alternatives (including for SCE - more detail on "planned
loading limit" described in GRC) (priority for 1/20)
• Development of common methodology table (priority for 1/20)
• Proposed options for hourly profiles (24, 48, 576, etc.) - benefits and trade-offs (priority for
1/20)
• PG&E specific: written explanation of policy on sharing KML file data
• Written explanation of current applications of preexisting conditions
• Written explanation of differences among IOUs with regarding to modeling common bus
• PG&E and SDG&E to finalize functional maps this week
5
ORA: proposed 12 success criteria
Background on ORA proposed figure for ICA WG report
The August 23 ACR states "ORA’s proposed twelve (12) criteria or metrics of success to evaluate IOU ICA tools,
methodologies and results are adopted and should be used as guiding principles for evaluating ICA." The
attached figure is the first ORA cut at a response to this direction for inclusion in the ICA WG report. The figure
is intended to show the status of the ICA tools based on the IOU Demo A reports, with the understanding that
Demo A was a major step in an evolutionary development process.
This figure is based on two important assumptions, which should be vetted by the WG before the figure itself is
discussed:
• The WG report will inform a PD or ACR that adopts a full scale ICA implementation plan,
• The longest lead time activity, SCE and SDG&E extraction and validation of circuit models, can be bifurcated
from other important developmental activities
The second assumption is the basis of differentiating yellow "go" issues from red "no-go" issues.
6
ICA Working Group Meeting
January 20, 2017
DRAFT
No-backflow question beyond operational flexibility

Written explanation of what other reasons a no-backflow screen might need to be used beyond operational flexibility
(Ex: for some voltage control devices, how the screen would apply if it was used just for those cases) (priority for 1/20)
As shown on SCE’ ICA report page 30 figure 21, voltage regulators are programed with specific settings to properly
regulate voltage based on existing conditions (load only, load and DER,). In some cases, the VR may not be adequate
to regulate in both directions such that the control/VR may need to be replaced or in some cases, the settings
programmed in the control are specific to the existing condition and adding additional DER on the regulated side
would require changes to the control settings. Therefore, for voltage regulators (field or substation), it is necessary to
limit the ICA to reverse power because as not doing so may cause the VR to not regulate properly and create power
quality/voltage issues on the regulated side.
 Existing control/VR may not be adequate for reverse power flow
 Existing setting on the control are not adequate for increased level of DER
SCE’s ICA Report Figure 21
DRAFT
Computing Time outline of Requirement Spects
#
1
Task
Model Creation
Today’s State
Proposed State
Manually triggered in-house built
scripts gather data from GIS
System
Develop systems to automatically detect significant
distribution system changes and update models.
Further integrate other data sources, such as SCADA and
DMS data
Manual validation of distribution
circuit models
Develop enhanced algorithms to aid in the manual
validation of distribution circuit models
Requirement
1.
2.
3.
Engineers to guide development of solution
Dedicated servers to perform Extraction,
Transformation, and Loading (ETL) of datasets
Enterprise databases to manage data
1.
2.
3.
Distribution Engineers to perform validation
Develop systems to store and manage engineers’ work
Develop interfaces to aid in the validation process
2
Model
Validation
3
Implement ICA
Methodology
Python based scripts
Implement final methodology on an enterprise system
capable of handling large scale datasets
1.
Engineers and developers to guide the implementation
of the algorithm(s)
4*
Run ICA
Laptops and Desktops
Dedicated Servers
1.
Dedicated servers to perform ICA
1.
2.
3.
Engineers to perform validation of results and
troubleshoot problems (e.g., power flow divergence)
Engineers to guide development of automated validation
Development of automated validation
Full integration of DERiM to ICA process
1.
2.
Engineers and IT SMEs to guide development of solution
Enterprise friendly databases to store and manage data
Automated process encompassing Tasks 1-6, including:
identification circuitry changes requiring ICA update,
end-to-end integration of processes and data
1.
2.
Engineers and IT SMEs to guide development of solution
Personnel to oversee on-going process
5
QA and QC
6
Publication of
Results
7
Periodic
Updates
DRAFT
Engineers
Local files, manual
manual queries
Engineers + Validation Scripts
uploads,
Updates can be performed
manually on a limited dataset.
Current staffing and technology do
not support periodic updates
Use Cases For Planning (Preliminary – for discussion only)
Use case 1: SCE envisions the use of ICA results to determine the appropriate system upgrades required to integrate forecasted
DER. Combined with DER forecast, ICA can be used to identify limitations in the distribution system and take corrective actions
in advance to allow the continue integration of DER without delay.
Use Case 2: SCE envisions the use of ICA results to maintain or improve system performance with higher levels of
DER in the distribution system:
• Using ICA information to improve reactive power planning (placements and sizing of capacitor band)
by using the VAR profile information from ICA results to maintain adequate power quality
• Regulator Placement: ICA results (voltage limits) can be used by engineers determine the most
appropriate location for regulators and to optimize control settings to maintain adequate power
quality (good voltage control)
• Recloser Placement: ICA can be used to determine areas where the protection scheme, protection
settings, or location of protective devices need to be modified in order to to allow higher levels of DER
integration of DER.
DRAFT
More Detail on Operational Flexibility Options
IOU alternative
Given that there not feasible methodology to implement operational flexibility limits in an accurate and efficient
manner, the IOUs propose the following:
Map two values of ICA:
• Fast Track ICA Value: This value is one with lower risk of disconnection due to operational needs and applies current
Operational Limitation – Low risk of potential operational problems for IOUs.
• Can be used as to expedite the interconnection fast track process
• Replace “fast track” eligibility limit
• Increased in level of fast track capacity availability
• Significant reduction in applicable screens
• Removal of supplemental review process
• Replace removed screens with checks and balances
• Expedited SR Track ICA Value: This ICA value is one with higher risk of disconnection due to operational needs and does
NOT apply the Operational Flexibility limit (to low side bus – no backflow to transmission allowed). Higher risk of
operational problems for IOUs
• Reduction in screens
• Operational evaluation (Safety/reliability) screen still applied in the interconnection process (Supplemental
Review process, ISP, DGS)
DRAFT
SCE – Provide more detail on "planned loading limit" described in GRC
SCEs GRC work paper title “DER Driven Circuit Upgrades Methodologies” is consistent with SCE’s ICA report as outlined in
page 24, Section 4.4.1(Iterative method). In the ICA report, SCE indicates that the “practicable” level of ICA on a 12 KV feeder
is 12MW which is essentially the Planned Loading Limit of SCE’s 12KV distribution feeders.
The GRC work paper states that the “maximum DER at the feeder level” is the Plan Loading Limit. The GRC work paper does
provide an indication of the ICA value at the “NODE” and does not indicate that the feeder ICA can be apply to all the nodes.
Thus , the work paper intended to provide an indication that even if all various criteria (Thermal, protection, voltage, system
flexibility, etc.) are not violated at the node for DER values greater than PLL (greater then 12MW), then the maximum DER at
the feeder level is the PLL of the feeder.
For instance, near the substation, on a heavily loaded circuit:
• Protection criteria would be greater than 12MW
• Steady State Voltage would be greater than 12MW
• Thermal criteria would be over 12MW
• Voltage Fluctuation limit would be greater than 12MW
• If the circuit was a highly loaded, then system flexibility at node outside the substation would be greater then
12MW
The work papers intention is to indicate that the limit would be PLL if all the criteria values exceed 12MW,
DRAFT
Development of common methodology table
CYME/SYNERGY
Parameters
SCE
PGE
Source Voltage Input
SCADA
Simulated LTC
Source Voltage
Unbalanced
Balanced
Allocation Method
AMI (kW) or
Connected
KVA/SCADA
Load power factor
assumptions
Convergence Tolerance
Iterations
Loading Limits
Pre-Fault Voltage
Fault Impedance
Fault Types Analyzed
DRAFT
SDG&E
Affects to ICA
LTC will control the
voltage
Unbalanced
Affect to the Steady State Voltage ICA limit
Affect to the Steady State Voltage ICA limit
Hourly AMI to each AMI (kW) at peak hour
meter adjusted to or average demand from
Affects profile at the node level and thus may
SCADA at Breaker
billing data
affect the themal and voltage ICA values
RES: 95%
COM: 85%
0.95 PF
IND: 85%
SDG&E to update
AGR: 85%
May affect thermal and voltage ICA
Affects timing and convergence of network
0.1%
0.25%
0.1%
models
May afect timing of network power flow
60
500
20
solution
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Affects Thermal ICA
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Affects Protection ICA
R=X=0
R=X=0
R=X=0
Affects Protection ICA
3-Phase and Phase - 3-Phase and Phase 3-Phase and Phase Ground
- Ground
Ground
Affects Protection ICA
(Q7) Written explanation of current applications of preexisting conditions
SCE analyzed pre-existing conditions to determine if DER would worsen or help with
mitigation of preexisting condition.
For example, if a low voltage pre-existing condition existed on a feeder, then a DER(gen)
may improve or eliminate the low voltage condition. Therefore, ICA for generation was not
restricted on such feeder. This can be more complex problem in the presence of LTCs,
where the addition of DER(gen) on one feeder can cause the LTC to reduce voltage on the
bus further worsening an existing low voltage on adjacent feeder. Since none of the
substation transformers in the demo A DPAs had LTC, all such violations would not be
worsening by the addition of DER(gen) and thus SCE did not limit ICA for those
conditions.
From SCE’s perspective, each pre-existing condition must be looked at to determine proper
action in relation to ICA and to not reduce ICA unless DER worsen the pre-existing
condition.
DRAFT
(Q8) Written explanation of differences among IOUs with regarding to modeling common
bus
SCE modeled a common bus for each substation in the Demo. However, two of the
substation were experiencing convergence issue and had to be run one feeder at a time. Those
issues persisted even when the tolerance and number of iterations was increased. Prior to the
overall system rollout, SCE plan to consult with CYME to determine whether anything else
can be done to ensure all models converge in the common bus configuration. This will be
critical to achieve, especially for substations with LTCs.
While common bus simulation may be required for substation which have LTCs, it may not
provide any additional accuracy, limitations or increases to ICA and thus may be increasing
the complexity of the simulation without any additional benefit.
DRAFT
ORA: proposed 12 success criteria
ORA Criteria
1.Accurate and meaningful results
A. Meaningful scenarios
B.Reasonable technology assumptions
C.Accurate inputs (i.e. load and DER profiles)
D.Reasonable tests (i.e. voltage flicker)
E. Reasonable test criteria (i.e. 3% flicker allowed)
SCE
SDG&E
Reverse flow at substation bussbar? ACR scenarios best for use cases?
Need plan to incorparate smart inverter data
Track 3
Track 3
See #5
LT Item
See #5
See #5 Duplicative
LT Item
IOUs have been open to information requests
LT Item QA/QC of custom Python scripts TBD
Not required at this point
No concerns/alternatives from working group
6.Consistent with industry, state, and federal standards
Uniform Gen map, plus DER translator
7.Accommodates portfolios of DER on one feeder
8.Reasonable resolution
–Spatial
–Temporal
Optimal (lower) resolution TBD; nodal reduction proposal
Optimal (lower) resolution TBD; 576 vs. 24 hours
QA/QC of custom Python scripts TBD
9.Easy to update based on improved and approved changes in methodology
10.Easy to update based on changes in inputs (loads, DER portfolio, DER penetration, circuit
changes, assumptions, etc.)
11.Consistent methodologies across large IOUs
Track 3
No concerns/alternatives from working group
No concerns/alternatives from working group
Tools being developed as part of Demo A and LT refinements
F.Tests and analysis performed consistently using proven tools, or vetted methodology
G. Meaningful result metrics provided in useful formats
2.Transparent methodology
3.Uniform process that is consistently applied
4.Complete coverage of service territory
5.Useful formats for results
PG&E Comments
See #3
See #3
Tweaks to circuit models in CYME/Synergi required for convergence are currently
lost when new data from GIS and other data sources is incorporated into power
flow circuit model
See #3 Duplicative
12.Methodology accommodates variations in local distribution system
16
List of ICA Long Term Refinement
3.2.b and 3.2.d)
From ACR:
1.Automated data analysis
•Expansion of the ICA to single- phase feeders[1];
•Integration into streamlined interconnection
•Ways to make ICA information more user-friendly and
•Integration of the ICA with the growth scenarios in order to
easily accessible (data sharing);
inform decision-making
•ICA that allows DERs to serve peak load conditions, while
•Interactive ICA maps;
•Market sensitive information (type and timing of the
maintaining grid stability during low-load conditions
thermal, reactance, or protection limits associated with the •Potential coordination with national labs – “DER siting and
hosting capacity on each line);
optimization tool for California”
•Method for reflecting the effect of potential load modifying
resources on integration capacity;
Further identified by WG in January:
•Development of ICA validation plans, describing how ICA
results can be independently verified; and
•Smart inverter capabilities
•Definition of quality assurance and quality control
•Smart meter data
measures, including revision control for various software and •Deep dive – hourly components within ICA (general trend
databases, especially for customized or “in-house” software showed more significant changes with location than with
hours)
As identified by Working Group in interim long-term
•Alternative operational flexibility methodologies
•Ongoing discussion on short vs. long-term
refinement report:
•Comprehensive ICA and LNBA data access (incorporating recommendations
17
Discussion
18
Locational Net Benefits
Analysis
Working Group
January 20, 2017
In-person meeting
drpwg.org
19
Agenda
Time
1:00 – 1:15
1:15 – 2:15
2:15 – 3:15
Topic
3:15 – 4:00
D. Discussion of Recommendations
A. Introduction, Review of Schedule
B. Discussion of use cases
C. Review of stakeholder comments
20
Stakeholder comments
We received stakeholder comments from the following
people/organizations:
• Karey Christ Janer (1/10)
• TURN (1/13)
• CALSEIA, SEIA, Clean Coalition, Vote Solar (1/18)
Comments cover:
Methodology:
- Incorporate local RA values
- Avoided energy cost calculation
- Additional values of DER services
- Additional DER attributes beyond load reduction
- Value increased reliability
- Proportional value assignment
- Granular locational values using LMPs
- Avoided costs beyond 10 year time horizon
- Proportional value assignment
- Avoided transmission cost value
- DER growth scenarios
Tool:
- Evaluate portfolios of DERs in multiple locations
- Dependability factor
- Integration cost
- Metrics to indicate certainty of deferrable project
- Hourly DER generation should not be input manually
Use cases:
- Adequate use in utility system planning
- Use for tariffs
Other:
- Incorporate lessons learned from other DRP/IDER
pilots
- All comments may be found online at
http://www.drpwg.org.
21
Discussion
Please refer to the LNBA draft outline and draft
consolidated recommendations online at
drpwg.org (dated 1/26)
22
Options for WG report schedule
At 1/6 meeting, it was mentioned that this Working Group may request an extension of
the final report deadline.
If extension request – refer to proposed schedule in ICA WG slide deck.
If the WG would still like to submit a final report by 1/31, proposed schedule:
• All Recommendations must be submitted by COB Monday 1/23. (No new
recommendations may be added after this date)
• MTS will consolidate and circulate by 1/25
• Parties may submit reactions / comments / support and opposition statements by
1/29 (No new recommendations will be added, only comments to recommendations
previously submitted Monday)
• MTS will consolidate comments into single document and provide to IOUs on 1/30.
• IOUs will file on 1/31
23
Suggestions for framing WG recommendations
IOU’s suggest stakeholders organize recommendations into the following two main categories:
1. Response to DEMO B Implementation and Recommendations for LNBA Refinements:
Based on what was done in Demo B per 5/2 ACR, what refinements to methodology should be implemented and how prioritized?
We already have a number of topics in scope for long-term refinements; based on review of Demo B, how should this scope be
modified?
2. Next Steps and Regulatory Process:
What are the necessary next steps to refine and implement LNBA?
What is the appropriate regulatory process within the DRP?
What are processes or decisions in related proceedings are necessary to inform LNBA implementation?
Some potential next steps to occur prior to future LNBA implementation:
• CPUC Adopted deferral framework to inform which grid needs are fed into LNBA (note: adoption of screens for deferral
framework is critical step to drive the scope of LNBA and ensure efficient use of resources.)
• Discuss and implement high priority refinements to methodology (e.g. improve on system-level components)
• Gather key inputs / insights from IDER
• Identify lessons-learned from first round of DER sourcing pilots to inform implementation of LNBA (IDER Pilots; DRP Demo
C Pilots)
• IOUS submit budget, scope, and schedule proposal for further implementation of refined LNBA. (IOUs suggest stakeholders
have an opportunity to review and comment prior to implementation.)
24