1. Integrated Capacity Analysis Working Group
January 20, 2017
In-person meeting
drpwg.org

2. Agenda Time Topic 9:00 – 9:10 9: 10 – 11:00 11:00 – 12:00 12:00
Introduction, Review of Schedule
9: 10 – 11:00
Follow-up discussion on ICA methodology
Review of ORA 12 success criteria
11:00 – 12:00
Discussion of Recommendations
Consider prioritization of ICA long-term refinement items
12:00
E. Lunch

3. 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 ), the Joint Utilities are required to convene the ICA and LNBA WG to:
Refine ICA and LNBA Methodologies and Requirements
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.

4. Schedule Date Short Term Long Term Refinements IOU Implementation
February XX
WG Report filed
March
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

5. 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 

6. 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.

7. ORA: proposed 12 success criteria
ORA Criteria
SCE
SDG&E
PG&E
Comments
1.Accurate and meaningful results
A. Meaningful scenarios
Reverse flow at substation bussbar? ACR scenarios best for use cases?
B.Reasonable technology assumptions
Need plan to incorparate smart inverter data
C.Accurate inputs (i.e. load and DER profiles)
Track 3
D.Reasonable tests (i.e. voltage flicker)
No concerns/alternatives from working group
E. Reasonable test criteria (i.e. 3% flicker allowed)
F.Tests and analysis performed consistently using proven tools, or vetted methodology
Tools being developed as part of Demo A and LT refinements
G. Meaningful result metrics provided in useful formats
See #5
Duplicative
2.Transparent methodology
IOUs have been open to information requests
3.Uniform process that is consistently applied
LT Item
QA/QC of custom Python scripts TBD
4.Complete coverage of service territory
Not required at this point
5.Useful formats for results
6.Consistent with industry, state, and federal standards
7.Accommodates portfolios of DER on one feeder
Uniform Gen map, plus DER translator
8.Reasonable resolution
–Spatial
Optimal (lower) resolution TBD; nodal reduction proposal
–Temporal
Optimal (lower) resolution TBD; 576 vs. 24 hours
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.)
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
11.Consistent methodologies across large IOUs
See #3
12.Methodology accommodates variations in local distribution system
Legend
Criteria met, OK to proceed
Additional work pending as long term refinement
Delay full scale circuit modeling until resolved
Is this the right go/nogo objective? If not, what?

8. List of ICA Long Term Refinement
Comprehensive ICA and LNBA data access (incorporating 3.2.b and 3.2.d)
From ACR:
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 easily accessible (data sharing);
Integration of the ICA with the growth scenarios in order to inform decision-making
Interactive ICA maps;
ICA that allows DERs to serve peak load conditions, while maintaining grid stability during low-load conditions
Market sensitive information (type and timing of the thermal, reactance, or protection limits associated with the hosting capacity on each line);
Potential coordination with national labs – “DER siting and 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 measures, including revision control for various software and databases, especially for customized or “in-house” software
Smart meter data
Deep dive – hourly components within ICA (general trend showed more significant changes with location than with hours)
As identified by Working Group in interim long-term refinement report:
Alternative operational flexibility methodologies
Ongoing discussion on short vs. long-term recommendations

9. Discussion

10. Locational Net Benefits Analysis Working Group
January 20, 2017
In-person meeting
drpwg.org

11. Agenda Time Topic 1:00 – 1:15 1:15 – 2:15 2:15 – 3:15 3:15 – 4:00
Introduction, Review of Schedule
1:15 – 2:15
Discussion of use cases
2:15 – 3:15
Review of stakeholder comments
3:15 – 4:00
D. Discussion of Recommendations

12. Stakeholder comments
We received stakeholder comments from the following people/organizations:
Tool:
Evaluate portfolios of DERs in multiple locations
Dependability factor
Karey Christ Janer (1/10)
Integration cost
TURN (1/13)
Metrics to indicate certainty of deferrable project
CALSEIA, SEIA, Clean Coalition, Vote Solar (1/18)
Hourly DER generation should not be input manually
Comments cover:
Use cases:
Methodology:
Adequate use in utility system planning
Incorporate local RA values
Use for tariffs
Avoided energy cost calculation
Additional values of DER services
Other:
Additional DER attributes beyond load reduction
Incorporate lessons learned from other DRP/IDER pilots
Value increased reliability
Proportional value assignment
Granular locational values using LMPs
All comments may be found online at
Avoided costs beyond 10 year time horizon
Avoided transmission cost value
DER growth scenarios

13. Discussion

14. 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

15. 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.)