Meeting Notes
Committee
Leader:
Jamie Austin
Committee:
Data Work Group
From Date
10:30 – 10:35
10:35 – 10:45
10:45 – 11:10
11:10 – 11:25
November 24, 2015
To Date
December 1, 2015

Welcome and Introductions

WECC Anti–Trust Policy Summary

Developing Loads for the TEPPC Production Cost Database

Proposed adjustments to more accurately reflect expected EE savings
under current associated policies and program plans

Pumping Loads

Station Service Loads
Meeting Objectives
At the start of a new cycle for building the TEPPC 2026 databases, we find it
prudent to review with our stakeholders the TEPPC process for developing
loads. Dan Beckstead has kindly agreed to review how loads are developed
for production cost modeling.
11:25 – 11:35
11:35 – 12:00
The load forecasts are developed by starting with the L&R load forecasts and
then applying Energy Efficiency (“EE’s) adjustments to the forecasts for a
number of Balancing Authorities (“BA’s”); these different BA’s have a variety of
approaches for forecasting EE’s. Since it has been established that LBNL will
continue to serve as the technical lead for developing energy efficiency
adjustment numbers, we’ve asked Galen Barbose to provide background
information on developing adjustments that more accurately reflects current EE
policies and program plans.
Welcome and Introductions
Dan covered the WECC anti-trust policy. Jamie welcomed participants, and
explained that it is sensible to conduct a process review at the start of a new
planning cycle to discuss the assumptions behind the TEPPC loads, providing
orientation to new members, serve as refresher to existing members and
provide an opportunity to suggest enhancements as appropriate.
Developing Loads for the TEPPC Production Cost Database
Dan started by explaining the WECC process for developing loads with a
summary presentation:
Acrobat Document
1
Jamie commented that the staff will be using the WECC – LRS 2015 load in the
TEPPC 2026 Common Case and not the new 2016 loads because of timing
issues; the 2016 LRS loads become available March 31st, and the 2026 case is
scheduled to be finalized on the same date.
Xiaobo asked if it is typical for the LRS loads to be available at the end of
March? Jamie further explained that this is a persisting issue and that the
response from WECC been that accelerating the load schedule is not possible
as the load forecasts by LSEs are not made final until the end of the year.
Dan’s presentation provided a concise definition of how loads are treated in the
TEPPC process, once loads are acquired from LRS. Two major data
adjustments are made as follows:
1.
LBNL adjusts Energy Efficiency assumptions to comply with
legislated mandates as not all LSEs account similarly for EEs in their
respective loads forecasts.
2.
California’s major pumps are backed out from loads and are modeled
as independent of loads to capture their unique characteristics.
Dan explained, after we process the loads it is circled back through DWG for
validation. Using future forecasts and historic hourly shapes results may result
in excessive compression of these shapes. The consequence is that the
change in the loads between peak and off-peak hours is reduced which
decreases the amount of variation in the loads. Also, there may be excessive
expansion of the shape. Conversely, if the growth in peak is a lot greater than
the forecasted growth in energy for a particular month, the change in the loads
between peak and off-peak hours is increased which increases the amount of
variation in the loads.
Dan shared that GridView has added capability to develop the hourly forecast,
using monthly peak and energy and breaking it down to the hour by using
historic shapes. This functionality is useful and will also help BAAs to adjust
their forecasts should we discover anomalies in the data (e.g., PAC Wyoming
loads were of an issue last round).
Steven asked if loads used in the past have public shapes available. Dan
responded yes.
Next, Steven commented that PAC Wyoming had an anomaly last round do
you have actual hourly loads sub-divided for PACE? Also, how do you map
FERC 714 hourly to the TEPPC topology? Dan responded that LRS is now
submitting data to FERC using the TEPPC topology; 2009 was the first year
implementation of coordinated TEPPC topology.
2
In a subsequent email to the meeting on Tuesday, Steven wrote:
Today’s presentations and discussion relative to load data brought up several issues that have
to do with time and geography, and managing disparate data in our transmission planning
studies:
1. Load Areas:
a) In FERC Form 714 data, when a respondent provides hourly historical loads
for its ‘area’, what specific loads are included? How are loads in so-called
segregated areas accounted for? For example, PacifiCorp has loads that are
located within BPA’s control area in Washington, while BPA has loads located
within PacifiCorp’s control area in Southeast Idaho. What load-serving entities
are included in each area?
b) When WECC L&R data submittals are made, what geographical area do the
loads encompass? Is it the same as for Form 714? If not, how might they be
reconciled? Do they have the same treatment of segregated areas? The
same load-serving entities?
c) What governs the assignment of loads to buses in power flow cases? They
are denoted by Area, Zone and, generally, Owner. How are those loads to be
correctly associated to the load areas in the Form 714 data and the L&R
submittals? The load levels in these power flows are used to spread GridView
loads to buses – are they being spread to the correct buses?
d) How should load areas be defined in GridView?
I.
Match BAA boundaries?
II.
Match LSEs with load areas?
III.
Use Areas and Zones from power flow?
2. Time Zones:
a) WECC encompasses two time zones across its two provinces, eleven-plus
states, and a chunk of Mexico. Unfortunately, one state (Arizona) doesn’t
adjust for Daylight Savings Time and so spends about eight months aligned
with Pacific Prevailing Time and the rest on Mountain Time. Fortunately, all
states that do change do so on the same dates (though not the same dates
every year).
b) What time zone assumptions are used in each data source?
I.
FERC Form 714 historical loads (what if a respondent spans multiple
zones?)
II.
L&R forecasts (since monthly, is there any reason for concern?)
c) What happens on the day when an hour is missing or another present?
I.
Repeat hour two in the spring and drop hour three in the fall?
3. Calendars:
a. Different years start on different days of the week (e.g., 2001, 2009, 2011,
2014).
b. Different years have holidays on different days of the week.
c. Shouldn’t all shape files be shifted or otherwise fixed to preserve day-of-week
alignment?
d. Should the years start on the day of week for the target year (2026) or just set
to the same day all of the time (like Sunday, to aid initial commitment)?
e. One year out of four has too many days; messing with February 29th is painful.
i. Especially when keeping days of the week aligned
3
f)
If a study program is to be focused on every other year, why not make it the
odd-numbered ones?
 Misses leap years altogether (except historical shapes)
Thanks for the chance to comment,
Steven Wallace
Pumping Loads
Irina Green explained in Power Flow pumping loads appear as negative
generation. For the TEPPC 2022 case she extracted year 2005 PI data for
California pumps and that was also used in the 2024 case. For high and low,
we used data from 2001 and 2011(low and high – hydro years). Data for year
2001 wasn’t readily available as it superseded PI data. Irina added that
pumping load data from year 2009 should not be a problem.
Keith asked if pumping load data contributed to DSM data. Irina responded
that if we want to include DSM, the 2009 data will have to be modified.
Galen noted that he has to go back and check as some pumping loads may be
in DSM buckets.
Xiaobo asked about the handling of time zone differences when using PI data?
Are all PI data in alignment (e.g., PSC vs. PG&E data)?
Dan responded that all profiles are shifted to Mountain Time.
Jan asked how about daylight time changes (e.g., AZ vs. other states)?
Dan commented that GridView is set to account for all such variances.
Keith noted it would be useful to have the depicted time zone referenced on
graphics summarizing future study results.
Xiaobo added that time difference matters when building transmission in the
case of EIM to capture RPS benefits that comes with geographic diversification.
Also, Xiaobo noted PI data in California is in Pacific Time Zone.
Ben commented that FERC 714 data is a “mess”. Why not line everything to
MT going forward?
4
Proposed Adjustments to More Accurately Reflect Expected EE Savings
Under Current EE Policies and Program Plans
Galen Barbose from LBNL had been serving as the technical lead, helping
TEPPC account for expected impact of current energy efficiency (EE) policies
and utility programs.
Acrobat Document
Galen explained that the Common Case is intended to reflect current policies
and utility plans. The motivation is to create consistency across all BAAs.
Based on previous work, we have learned that the BA load forecasts may vary
in the manner/extent to which they account for planned EE; some may not
include any EE impacts while others do. In prior cycles, LBNL has assisted
DWG with making adjustments to the firm and non-firm forecasts.
Keith commented that the last time we had issues reconciling EE assumptions
as we were working forecasts with different timestamps; we should try to avoid
that this round.
Galen described the process used in the last study cycle (2024 CC):
 Focused only on utility rate payer-funded programs
 Focused only on BAs that, through prior study cycles, were known
systematically “under-count” EE impacts in the load forecast: CISO, IPC,
PNM and TEP.
Galen proposed this year’s cycle:
 Replicate process used last time, pending responses from BA staff
 Reach out to regional EE experts to confirm appropriate basis for EE
savings assumptions
 Reach out to load forecasting staff with each BA to validate if EE is
captured in their firm load forecast
Relative to adjusting Demand Response, Galen explained this is more
complex. How many forecast of curtailable load are available?
 Firm
 Non-Firm
 Interruptible
Cross check info from
 FERC DR survey results
 IRPs
5
Dan noted that WECC is working with ABB on getting DR modeling
incorporated in GridView.
Ben asked what the root cause was for some areas underestimating their EE –
it would be good to know why?
Root Causes may include:
 Do not understand how BAs prepare their forecast
 Do all forecasts include uncommitted EE? Some may not.
 Much the focus maybe on the next three year programs. Should the
same assumptions be used beyond?
 CA loads submitted to LRS reflect CEC Mid-loads; what is the
translation of EE in the forecast given to LRS?
Ben commented on two issues:
1. Timing may not coincide with EE assumptions vs. 6 months down the
road
2. Inconsistency and ambiguity of language in the LRS survey
Keith stated that there is a need to validate the forecast with what is used by
BAs to get what is planned on being used.
Ben – WECC may facilitate an answer but that should come from the BAs (e.g.,
CAISO). We do not know what CEC forecast the ISO is using or what it
constitutes?
Galen – institutionalization should come through LRS.
For next steps, Galen commented:
 We need a green light from DWG and WECC on the approach
 Assemble initial set of BA load forecasts
 Assemble list of contacts
 Begin initial outreach efforts, enlisting help from DWG members
 Develop draft adjustments to both firm and non-firm
Relative to Galen’s question on timing, Jamie indicated that EE, DSM, DR
and pumping load data should be finalized by mid-January.
A clarification on timing was also requested by Tom Carr, expressing concern
to initiate “Gap Analysis” by SWG.
6
Jamie noted that working in parallel with the staff in a coordinated matter is
necessary to meet the stringent time lines that call on producing a final TEPPC
2026 CC by March 31, 2016.
Station Service Loads
Jamie noted that we’ve run out of time today to cover Station Service Loads.
Jamie thanked participants for their contribution and adjourned the meeting.
Name
Austin, Jamie
Amjadi, Amir
Alvarado, Al
Anderson, Grace
Baack, Jim
Bailey, Michael
Barbose, Galen
Brathwaite, Leon
Brownlee, Ben
Beckstead, Dan
Belval, Ron
In attendance at the 120815 Meeting:
Company
Name
PAC
x
Lau, Elaine
Larsen, Peter
Le, David
CEC
Lee, Peter
CEC
x
Lehr, Ron
VoteSolar
Lindsay, Jimmy
WECC
Linvill, Carl
LBNL
x
Mao, Megan
CEC
Energy Strategies
WECC
TEP
x
x
Broad, Diane
Brathwaite, Leon
Brinkman, Gregory
Brooks, Donald
Brown, Elise
Brush, Ray
Burner, Bob
Carr, Tom
Carvallo, Juan Pablo
Charles, Gillian
Chhajed, Pushkar
Colburn, Mitch
Coe, Scott
Cole, Brian
Corum, Ken
Darth
Deaver, Paul
Decker, Megan
Denker, Brendan
Depenbrock, Fred
Delleney, Mike
Donnohoo, Pearl
Didsayabutra, Paul
CEC
NREL
CPUC
SPSG
Western
Duke Energy
WIEB
IID
x
NPCC
LCG Consulting
IPC
x
NWPCC
CEC
SRP
Nevada Hydro
CAISO
NREL
COGRID
Company
CPUC
LBNL
CAISO
BPA
AWEA
RAP
SCE
Maracas, Kate
Martinez, Esteban
Marxen, Chris
McLean, Christopher
McCann, Richard
WWND
IID
CEC
CEC
McIntosh, Henry
Mejia, Roni
Minter, Vaughn
Miller, Tom
Milligan, Michael
Moore, Jack
Moussa, Effat
Moyer, Keegan
SDG&E
SCE
PG&E
NREL
E3
SDG&E
WECC
Newman, Raymond
Nail, George
Nothstein, Greg
Pacheco, Ezquiel
Pacini, Heidi
Papic, Milorad
Pascoe, Bill
Perez, Army
Piper, David
IID
ICF
IPC
TREL
WECC
SCE
Prochnik, Julia
Pryor, Mark
Puglia, Peter
Quick, Kirha
Raub, Jenika
NRDC
CEC
CEC
WECC
SRP
x
x
PN&M
7
Elkins, Mat
Eaton, Pam
Evans, Mike
Ezequiel
Filippi, Jim
Fisher, Emily
Freeman, Bryce
Gazewood, Jim
Green, Irina
Griffin, Karen
WECC
SPSG
Shell Energy
IID
First Solar
NREL
WYOC
BLM
CAISO
x
CEC
Grau, Judy
Gutierrez, Noe
Hagman, Chris
Hands, Betsey
Harner, Patrick
Harris, Gerald
Harris, Kevin
Henery, E. Nick
Hein, Jeff
Heutte, Fred
Hodge, Bri-Mathias
Holland, Stan
Hosie, Bill
Huang, Wenxiong
Jenka, Raub
Jensen, Richard
Johnson, Anders
Johnson, Colby
Jourabchi, Massoud
Kates, David
Kelly, Nancy
Klapka, Paul
Klein, Joel
Knudsen, Steve
Kujala, Ben
Kravchuk, Luba
IID
ATC
MT
IID
Reos
COGRID
Xcel
NWEC
NREL
WECC
Duke Energy
PLEX
SRP
CEC
BPA
WECC
NWPCC
Nevada Hydro
SCE
CEC
BPA
NWPCC
CAISO
x
x
x
x
x
Richard, J
Rowe, Sarah
Rucker, Magdalena
Samaan, Nader
Satchwell, Andy
Schlag, Nick
Schanahan, Patrick
Schellberg, Ron
Schilmoeller, Michael
CEC
OPUC
NWNL
LBNL
E3
IPC
NWPCC
Schmidt, Jason
Xcel Energy
Simmons, Steve
NWPCC
Singh, Harliv
Spears, Michael
Satyal, Vijay
Strack, Jan
Stefan
Stokes, Mark
Tanghetti, Angela
Trinh, Lan
Vaughn
Voisin, Nathalie
Von Reis Baron, Kate
Wang, Xiaobo
Wallace, Steven
Wheeler, Dan
Williams, Stan
White, Keith
White, Stephen
Weiss, Steve
Woertz, Byron
Wong, Lana
Zhang, Yi
Zhu, Jin
Zhang, Hui
Zichella, Carl
Xcel Energy
x
WECC
SDG&E
OPUC
x
CEC
ABB
x
x
NWNL
PGE
CAISO
CPS
Gaelectric
BPA
CPUC
BPA
BPA
WECC
CEC
CAISO
ABB
x
x
x
x
x
NRDC
8