NOTE: This is a draft outline of the draft WG final report on ICA. The purpose of this draft outline is to provide WG members with direction on structure, organization, and content of the final report. This includes outlining discussion of key issues, potential alternatives, areas for consensus, next steps, and recommendations for the future.

Note: By “Super Outline” we mean the following:

  • An initial written document that provides stakeholders with clear direction on what the final report will look like in terms of structure, organization, and content.
  • For each of the short-term topics, include the following:
  • Identify key issues that were discussed
  • For each issue, summarize the conversation and main discussion points, including alternatives that were considered (if applicable)
  • Summarize areas of consensus: things the IOUs will do for Demo A and/or recommendations for the future
  • Summarize any next steps / areas for future study and analysis

Acronyms

Summary

Introduction and Background

In accordance with a May 2, 2016 ACR in the DRP proceeding[1] (R-14-08-013), the ICA Working Group was established to monitor and provide consultation to the IOUs on the execution of Demonstration Project A and further refinements to ICA methods. Energy Division staff has oversight responsibility of the working group, but it is currently managed by the utilities and interested stakeholders on an interim basis. The utilities have jointly engaged More Than Smart for this function. The Energy Division may at its discretion assume direct management of the working group or appoint a working group manager[2].

Short-term work is to be related to the Demonstration Project A and improvements to ICA that could be adopted in a Q1 2017 ICA Decision.

The ACR identifies the following two short-term activities related to Demonstration Project A (ACR pg. A20):

  1. Update schedule for Demo A results.
  2. Recommend methods for evaluation of hosting capacity for the following resource types:
  1. DER bundles or portfolios, responding to CAISO dispatch;
  2. Facilities using smart inverters.
  1. Recommend a format for the ICA maps to be consistent and readable to all California stakeholders across the utilities’ service territories with similar data and visual aspects (color coding, mapping tools etc).
  2. Evaluate and recommend new methods that may improve the computational efficiency of the ICA tools and process in order to calculate and update ICA values across all circuits in each utility’s service territory in updated ICAs more frequently and accurately.
  3. Evaluate ORA’s recommendation to require establishment of reference circuits and reference use cases for comparative analyses of Demonstration Project A results.28
  4. Establish a method for use of Smart Meter and other customer load data to develop more localized load shapes to the extent that is not currently being done
  5. Establish definite timelines for future achievement of ICA milestones including frequency and process of ICA updates

Overview of ACR, Working Group, WG process and agreed upon method for drafting report

Schedule

All materials (meeting summary notes, participant lists, slide decks, and audio/webinar links when available) can be found at:

Meeting Date / Topic(s)
May 12 – 1:00pm-3:00pm
Webinar (combined ICA/LNBA WG webinar) / Opening meeting
June 1- 9:00am-3:00pm
In person (combined ICA/LNBA WG meeting) / First discussion of demonstration implementation plan before June 16th submission
June 9 – 9:00am-3:30pm
In person (combined ICA/LNBA WG meeting) / Second discussion of demonstration implementation plan before June 16th submission
Comparative analysis
July 5 – 2:00pm-4:00pm
Conference call, combined ICA/LNBA WG call) / Call to discuss submission of demonstration implementation plan
July 25 – 9:00am-4:00pm
In person / Use cases
Discussion of submitted stakeholder comments to demo implementation plans
Data and maps
Portfolio analysis
August 31 – 9:00am – 4:15pm
In person (combined ICA/LNBA WG meeting) / Use cases
3.1.b.ii
3.1.f
September 30 – 9:00am-4:00pm
In person (combined ICA/LNBA WG meeting) / Comparative analysis
Computational efficiency and ICA profiles
Demo A update
Data topic scoping
October 17 – 9:00am-4:00pm
In person / Demo A update in response to submitted interim report
DER porfolios responding to caiso
Computational efficiency
Smart inverters
Comparative analysis
Long-term scoping

Discussion Topics, Points of Consensus, Proposed Alternatives if Any, Recommendations, Next Steps

  1. Update schedule for Demo A Results (3.1.a)
  2. Summary
  3. Points of Consensus
  4. Recommendations and Next Steps
  1. Recommend methods for evaluation of hosting capacity for i) DER bundles or portfolios, responding to CAISO dispatch; ii) facilities using smart inverters (3.1.b)
  2. Summary: The WG discussed hosting capacity in regards to DER portfolios responding to CAISO dispatch and facilities using smart inverters in the July, August, September, and October meetings ICA WG meetings.
  3. 3.1.b.i: It was discussed that DER-specific results can be obtained using an agnostic profile ICA, rather than assuming specific DER profiles at the beginning of the analysis. The modified proposal uses hourly results to create an hourly agnostic ICA profile, and then compares this profile to the specific DER profiles outlined in the ACR. This improves computational efficiency by reducing the need to run ICA multiple times for each DER. Understanding typical profiles allows for further computation efficiency.
  4. 3.1.b.ii: It was discussed that SIWG Phase 1 autonomous functions should be evaluated for inclusion into the ICA methodology. Due to the added layer of complex analysis that modifying inverter behavior adds to the ICA calculations, it was recommended that smart inverter integration be considered a long-term refinement issue.
  5. Points of Consensus
  6. 3.1.b.i:The WG agrees that the IOUs may use 576 hourly ICA results for Demo A analysis.
  7. 3.1.b.ii: IOUs agree to run one version of ICA using smart inverters to display impact of voltVAR function on ICA results. The WG agrees to delve into further detail on this topic as a long-term refinement issue.
  8. Proposed Alternatives and Discussion Questions:
  9. Mapping:Should joint IOUs still conduct analysis on generic DER profiles and make available on maps?
  10. It was recommended that the ICA could potentially show two values (agnostic hourly profile and typical PV profile) and include other profiles in a downloadable file. IOUs could also include an application within the map interface to assist users in translating data to fit any profile, or allow users to make their own profile.
  11. Use cases:Should CAISO dispatch or response to signals be considered a separate use case?
  12. Should we also consider different operational profiles that may not necessarily follow CAISO dispatch?
  13. Recommendations and Next Steps
  14. 3.1.b.i:
  15. Long term: It is proposed that the following be revisited as long-term refinement topics:
  16. Weather assumptions within the methodology
  17. Applications to Rule 21 interconnection process
  18. Further discussion on publishing standard profiles and downloadable data sets
  19. Better understanding distinctions between gross and net load profiles
  20. Considering applications for closed-loop calculations(Ask Eric W for clarification)
  21. Inclusion of planned projects on identified substations
  22. The EV-Residential (TOU rate) profile outlined in the ACR should be revised to a Solar+EV profile.
  23. It is agreed that CAISO dispatch should not be used as an input to ICA due to artificial constraint issues
  24. 3.1.b.ii:
  25. It is recommended that SIWG Phase 1 autonomous functions should be evaluated for inclusion into the ICA methodology. Further smart inverter technology integration should be considered a long-term refinement issue, building upon Demo A findings and WG recommendations.
  26. WG members would like additional analysis on the methodology to incorporate inverters with connected PV systems.
  27. It was agreed that IOUs would select one circuit to evaluate the impact on hosting capacity with respect to smart inverters, under predefined settings.
  1. Recommend a format for the ICA maps to be consistent and readable to all California stakeholders across the utilities’ service territories with similar data and visual aspects (color coding, mapping tools, etc.) (3.1.c)
  2. Summary: The Working Group discussed ICA map formats in the July and October ICA WG meetings. The ACR specifies requirements for how ICA results shall be available via utility maps. To reach common fundamental principles guiding the formation of the ICA maps, the joint IOUs presented a proposal for displaying ICA results within the Demo A map that details which information will be directly viewable on the online map, and what information will be included in the downloadable format. These efforts incorporate stakeholder comment and feedback from the July Working Group meeting. The proposal also details how the mapping layers (showing DPA area, substations, circuits, and line segments) will be structured. The joint IOUs also included a sample spreadsheet identifying what information would be available in the downloadable file, for comment by the WG.
  3. Points of Consensus:
  4. It was agreed that two values will be shown on the ICA maps: a uniform generation/agnostic profile ICA and a typical PV profile.
  5. The downloadable data set will include values to assist third parties in creating their own profiles.
  6. Recommendations and Next Steps:
  1. Evaluate and recommend new methods that may improve the computational efficiency of the ICA tools and process in order to calculate and update ICA values across all circuits in each utility’s service territory in updated ICAs more frequently and accurately. (3.1.d)
  2. Summary: The Working Group discussed computational efficiency in the September and October ICA WG meetings. The joint IOUs have proposed three methods for improving computational efficiency that reduces the number of data points needed to calculate ICA, without reducing the quality of information:
  3. 1) hour reduction and mapping; 2) node filtering; and 3) criteria bounding.
  4. Points of Consensus: The Working Group supports the above three conceptual methods, and seek additional details on implementation and specific criteria as long-term refinement issues.
  5. Recommendations and Next Steps:
  6. Demo A: Working Group is in consensus to use these computational efficiency methods in demo projects
  7. Demo A report: Utilities agree to include a cross-utility summary of methodological differences within a “final IOU common report”, with explanation of why those differences exist and their estimated impact, so that third parties can quickly evaluate those differences.
  8. Long term: It is proposed that the following be revisited as long-term refinement topics:
  9. Understanding the underlying drivers for loading condition profiles
  10. Examining impedance thresholds and amount of deviance from original values
  11. Understand whether methodologies reduce visibility of limitation criteria
  1. Evaluate ORA’s recommendation to require establishment of reference circuits and reference use cases for comparative analyses of Demonstration Project A results (3.1.e)
  2. Summary:
  3. Reference circuits for comparative analysis: The WG discussed comparative analysis and selection of reference circuits in the June, July, August, September, and October ICA WG meetings.
  4. Reference circuits:
  5. The WG have fully engaged in discussion regarding reference circuit selection. The joint IOUs have proposed using the IEEE 123 test circuit as the reference circuit for comparative analysis in the context of Demo Project A.
  6. There was discussion around whether the modeled circuits would be indicative of a typical feeder in California.
  7. Comparative analysis:
  8. The WG has discussed how utilities will be aligning power flow and short circuit models. Currently there is still work to be done on iterative ICA alignment to refine voltage, thermal, and protection limits. Overall, utilities have reported alignment on both their methods and model inputs.
  9. Additional in-depth analysis comparing the two methods later will occur as a long-term refinement, which will assist the WG in understanding and determining when it is preferred to use each model.
  10. Use cases: The WG discussed use cases at the July, August, and September ICA WG meetings. The three proposed ICA use cases are:
  11. Distribution annual planning: using ICA to determine where and when future hosting capacity may and may not be needed, guiding procurement and solution development (~3-10 year time frame)
  12. Interconnection: customers and third parties can use ICA information to understand locations and amounts of DER capacity that can be interconnected without extensive upgrade costs or time, benefitting near-term decision making (~1-3 year time frame)
  13. It is understood that the interconnection use case will be developed with consideration of the Rule 21 proceeding, and may also support Rule 15 and Rule 16.
  14. Presentation of data: How to best understand how much DER can be integrated onto the grid without triggering other necessary upgrades, in both map format and downloadable data sets
  15. Points of Consensus:
  16. Use cases:
  17. The WG is in consensus with the three use cases, pending refinements within the context of location, frequency and granularity.
  18. The joint IOUs agreed to include a joint filing on differences between utilities on inputs for the iterative and streamlined analyses, to be included in the final Demo A report.
  19. Points of Non-Consensus:
  20. Comparative analysis: There is majority consensus on the methodology to align IOU models and move forward with the proposed process to conduct comparative analysis. One party expresses concern on the proposed process, as final results from the demonstration project detailing results of comparative analysis will not be known until the final Demo A report is published. Another party would like further explanation of why differences between the analyses exist and their causes in the final report.
  21. Proposed Alternatives:
  22. Reference circuits for comparative analysis:
  23. Some WG members suggested that it may be more useful to select reference circuits that allow WG members to access the formal modeling methodology/results of studies.
  24. The WG discussed the existence of other models outside of the IEEE circuits, including a DOE/Stanford funded model and a private platform model built by Kevala Analytics.
  25. WG members suggested additional means of improving comparative analysis, such as including some of the computational efficiency methodologies, if feasible.
  26. Use cases:
  27. Members of the WG suggested that the use cases also be used as a starting point for the data access discussion
  28. There was a suggestion that ICA may have additional applications that should be considered, such as fast tracking projects and avoidance of arbitrary peak load
  29. Recommendations and Next Steps
  30. The final Demo report should include IOU evaluation of any potential shortcomings of testing only one circuit for comparative analysis.
  31. Long term: It is proposed that the following be revisited as long-term refinement topics:
  32. The WG would like to continue discussing the planning use case and its potential changes given different growth scenarios and DER adoption patterns.
  33. Discussions on load growth should also include discussion on additional planned upgrades within the next two years.
  34. Discussion on how to modify both types of analyses, include analysis of multiple circuits, and understanding when it is preferred to use streamlined methodology versus iterative methodology will occur as a long-term refinement discussion item.
  1. Establish a method for use of Smart Meter and other customer load data to develop more localized load shapes to the extent that is not currently being done (3.1.f)
  2. Summary: The Working Group discussed this topic at the August and October ICA WG meetings. The joint IOUs presented on how customer level information will be aggregated up to the distribution transformer level, and information at this level will be used to disaggregate circuit level loading profiles.
  3. Points of Consensus:
  4. There is consensus to review the final Demo A report, before determining what issues should continue to be considered as long-term refinement in 2017.
  5. It was agreed that historic smart meter load data will be used for existing customers, while an agnostic profile will be used for new incoming customers.
  6. Recommendations and Next Steps:
  7. WG members are interested in incorporating additional customer load data (such as demographics and income levels) in further refinements of the ICA
  1. Establish definite timelines for future achievement of ICA milestones including frequency and process of ICA updates (3.1.g)
  2. Summary: The Working Group discussed this topic at the November ICA WG meeting.
  3. Frequency of ICA updates is dependent on the use case (likely the planning use case would include an annual ICA update in alignment with IOU planning processes, the interconnection use case would likely include more frequent updates).
  4. Points of Consensus:
  5. Recommendations and Next Steps:
  6. The WG will make recommendations on how often ICA should be updated after reviewing Demo A final results.

[1] A modified ACR was granted on August 23 to modify specific portions of the May 2, 2016 ACR.

[2] ACR R-14-08-013 Section 6: “LNBA Working Group”