MTS Working Group
San Francisco F2F Agenda
Jan. 7, 2015
Agenda
9:00-9:05a
Introductions
9:05-9:30a
Summary of Prior Discussions & Objectives for Meeting
9:30-12:00n
Optimal Locational Value & Methods
12:00-12:30n
Lunch break
12:30-2:00p
Optimal Location Value & Methods
2:00-3:00p
Distribution Process Planning Alignment
3:00-3:30p
Proposed WG Activity Scope 1H 2015
3:30-4:00p
Wrap-up & Next Steps
Morning & afternoon breaks as needed
2
2
Objectives for Mtg
• Identify DER Value Categories
• Identify Methodologies for Value Categories
• Focus on “What is possible today?”
• Identify Scope of Initial DRP Analysis
• Identify links to existing CA planning processes
• Finish discussion started at 12/9/14 F2F
• Define WG Activity Scope for 1H 2015
3
3
Optimal Location Values & Methodology
Facilitated Discussion
Context: AB327 Distribution Resources Plan
• Identifies optimal locations for the deployment of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs)
• DERs include distributed renewable generation, energy efficiency, energy storage, electric
vehicles, and demand response
• Evaluates locational benefits and costs of DERs based on reductions or increases in local
generation capacity needs, avoided or increased investments in distribution infrastructure,
safety benefits, reliability benefits, and any other savings DERs provide to the grid or costs
to ratepayers
• Proposes or identifies standard tariffs, contracts, or other mechanisms for deployment
of cost-effective DERs that satisfy distribution planning objectives
• Proposes cost-effective methods of effectively coordinating existing commissionapproved programs, incentives, and tariffs to maximize the locational benefits and
minimize the incremental costs of DERs
• Identifies additional utility spending necessary to integrate cost-effective DERs into
distribution planning
• Identifies barriers to the deployment of DERs, including, but not limited to, safety
standards related to technology or operation of the distribution circuit in a manner that
ensures reliable service
5
5
DRP Analysis Process (for discussion)
Perform Planning
Analyses
Rank Substations
by Value
Calculate Value
(Benefits & Avoided Costs)
$14
Potential Avoided Costs
$14
$12
$12
$10
$10
$8
$8
Millions
Millions
Identify DPA &
Substations
$6
$6
$4
$4
$2
$2
$-
Value/Substation
$-
Substation 1
6
6
Evolution of DRP Optimal Location Benefits Analysis
• What are the immediate benefit categories that can reasonably be evaluated
within the next 3 months for the first DRP?
No. of Benefit Categories &
Sophistication of Analysis
• What are the next logical set (incl. data and tools needed) for system-wide DRPs?
Run
Jog
Walk
2015-1H 2016
System-wide DRPs incl.
Locational Societal Benefits
System-wide DRP including LTPP
& TPP locational benefits
Visibility & Initial DPA Locational Benefits
2H 2016-2019
2020+
7
7
Scope of Value Analysis for Initial DRP?
(draft for discussion)
Societal
Distribution
Wholesale
Value Component
Initial
WECC System Benefits
No, since system-wide benefit
CA System Energy Price
No, since system-wide benefit
Generation Capacity
Yes, Use Identified Local RA for screening
Wholesale Ancillary Services
No, since system-wide benefit
RPS Generation & Interconnection Costs
No, since system-wide benefit
Transmission Capacity
Yes, Use TPP locations for screening
Transmission Congestion + Losses
Yes, Use estimate for screening
Sub-transmission Capacity
Yes,…
Distribution Substation + Feeder Capacity
Yes,..
Distribution Losses
Yes,…
Power Quality
Yes,…
Reliability
Yes,..
Resiliency
Yes,..
Safety
Yes,..
Customer Choice
No, since specific customer & public benefit
Emissions (CO2, Criteria Pollutants & Health Impacts)
Yes, use local air emission value for screening
Energy & Water Security
No, since public benefit
Water & Land Use
No, since system-wide benefit
Other Societal (Economy, Jobs, etc.)
No, since public benefit
8
8
DER Value Categories (1/2)
9
9
DER Value Categories (2/2)
10
10
DER Values & Methods (1 of 3)
11
11
DER Values & Methods (2 of 3)
12
12
DER Values & Methods (3 of 3)
13
13
Distribution Planning Process Alignment to
IOU GRC and State Planning Processes
Facilitated Discussion
Potential DPP Alignment Map for CPUC, CAISO, CEC
Refer to Lorenzo’s Handout
15
15
DPP Process Alignment for CPUC, CAISO, CEC
• The new DPP should align with the LTPP-TPP-IEPR timeline
• Main points to consider:
• When is it optimal to have a new DRP, i.e., the final result of the biennial DPP, to
feed into the other processes? That is, where on the alignment timeline do we
want the DPP to conclude?
• What are the key process steps of the DPP, what is the sequence in which they
must be performed, and what inputs do they require from other processes?
• Currently, first DRP due in July 2015. If July 2017 is the next deadline then:
• DRP would provide useful and timely input to the IEPR demand forecast, which is
planned to be released in draft form in September 2017 and finalized by
December 2017.
• Likely that July 2015 DPR will not be as informative for the 2015 IEPR, still we
should consider to what extent it will inform that forecast.
• CPUC, CECS, and CAISO will collaborate between September-December 2017 to
develop “assumptions and scenarios” for TPP and LTPP for cycles beginning in
January 2018.
Developed in consultation with Lorenzo Kristov (CAISO)
16
16
1H 2015 MTS WG Scope (proposed)
Facilitated Discussion
MTS WG Purpose & Objectives (based on July 2014 Workshop)
• Purpose:
• Provide an open, voluntary stakeholder forum to discuss core issues toward finding common
ground regarding the evolution of California’s distribution system and the seamless integration of
DER to meet customers’ needs and public policy. The results of the discussions will be for the
benefit of the participants and will be made public without specific participant attribution.
• Objectives:
 Define common parameters for the development of distribution planning scenarios for utilities
to properly stress test plans and to achieve a measure of comparability among the different
plans.
 Identify and define the integrated engineering-economic analysis required to conduct
distribution planning in the context of AB 327 requirements.
 Define the potential grid end-states in the context of existing plans/roadmaps and identify the
considerations regarding grid evolution to meet customers’ needs and California’s policy
objectives.
1H 2015
• Define the scope and parameters of an operational/DER market information
exchange to facilitate an open planning process and enable R&D efforts.
• Define distribution services associated with identified DER values including
performance requirements.
• Define new distribution operational functions (DSO) and related integration
technologies (vendor neutral) to create “node-friendly” open grid
18
18