1. Integrated Capacity Analysis Working Group
June 9, 2016
9 am – 12 pm
CPUC Golden Gate Hearing Room
drpwg.org

2. Agenda Time Topic Purpose 9:00 – 9:30 Introductions & Overview
Purpose of Meeting
Proposed schedule for WG participation
Joint IOU Motion Status
9:30 – 10:30
Review Draft Outlines of ICA Implementation Plans
Overview of IOU plans (SCE, PG&E, SDG&E)
Pilot project locations
Questions for WG Participants
10:30 – 10:45
Break
10:45 – 11:00
Next Steps & Questions regarding ICA plans
Discuss next steps for IOU’s and WG
11:00 – 11:20
Presentation by EPRI on Comparative Study
Provide input on existing assessment done on PG&E Territory
11:20-11:35
Joint IOU Comparative Analysis proposal
Joint IOU presentation
11:35-11:50
Proposed Calendar for addressing data issues in WG meetings
Brief review of DRP data issues to date
Proposed schedule for addressing data
11:50-12:00
Next steps
Outline of next steps for WG 2

3. ICA Working Group Background
ICA 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 WG to:
Refine Integration Capacity Analysis Methodologies and Requirements
Authorize Demonstration Project A
CPUC Energy Division role
Oversight to ensure balance and achievement of State objective
Coordination with both related CPUC activities and activities in other agencies (CEC, CAISO)
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

4. ICA Working Group Schedule To Date
May 2nd, Assigned Commissioner Ruling on ICA
May 12th, 2016 – First Joint Utility meeting on ICA and LNBA
May 18th, 2016 – Joint Utility meeting seeking input on (1) use of abstraction analysis or power flow analysis, and (2) level of granularity desired
June 1, 2016 – First in person meeting to get input on: proposed Joint WG Recommendation for Demonstration A; input into ICA Implementation plans; discuss Comparative Analysis
June 9, 2016 (today) – In person meeting to discuss ICA Plans before submittal
June 16, 2016 – Joint Utilities file 3 separate ICA plans to CPUC
July, 2016 – Q2, 2017 – Monthly ICA WG meetings re/ICA implementation
Q4, 2016 – Final Demo A report due
Q4, 2016 – Long-term ICA refinement intermediate status report due
Q2, 2017 – Utilities submit long-term ICA refinement final report 3

5. ICA WG Schedule - May 2nd CPUC ruling
Short Term: May 2nd–end of Q4 2016
Update schedule for Demo A Results
Recommend methods for evaluation of hosting capacity for 1) DER bundles or portfolios, responding to CAISO dispatch; and 2) Facilities using smart inverters
Recommend format for ICA maps to be consistent and readable to all CA stakeholders
Evaluate and recommend new methods that may improve computational efficiency of ICA tools and process
Evaluate ORA’s recommendation to require establishment of reference circuits and reference use cases for comparative analyses of Demo Project A results
Establish method for use of customer load data to develop more localized load shapes
Establish definite timelines for future achievement of ICA milestones
Long Term: May 2nd-end of Q2 2017
Suggested topics include, but are not limited to: expansion to single phase feeders; data sharing; interactive ICA maps; market sensitive information; method for reflecting effect of load modifying resources; independent verification of ICA results; quality assurance and control measures
Ongoing discussion in parallel with short term WG activities 3

6. Proposed schedule for ICA WG topics
Proposed WG Discussion Topics
June
ICA Plans submitted to CPUC June 16th
July
ICA Maps: Discussion on Output Format
August
Review Portfolios for Demo A
September
Uses of ICA analysis (streamlined Rule 21, etc.)
October
Review Demo Project A and data discussion
November
Comparative Analysis Discussion
December
Report Submitted/Demo A Lessons Learned and Future Roadmap
Q4: 2016
FINAL ICA REPORT DUE
INTERMEDIATE METHODOLOGY REFINEMENT REPORT DUE
Q2: 2017
FINAL METHODOLOGY REFINEMENT REPORT DUE
Ongoing monthly discussion on continued refinement of ICA methodology 3

7. ICA Working Group Participation
How will the Working Group provide ongoing input into Demo Project A development and ICA methodology?
IOU ongoing solicitation and incorporation of feedback
Stakeholder submitted comments
Consensus recommendations to CPUC
How should Working Group participants continue to stay engaged between monthly meetings?
Do you have comments/suggestions on proposed schedule of monthly ICA WG topics for discussion?
Today’s attendance list will be available online at 3

8. Joint IOU Motion
Status update

9. PG&E Demonstration A Dynamic Integration Capacity
Revised Plan Overview ICAWG Meeting 9 June 2016

10. Demo A Requirements Requirements as described by May 2nd ACR
Demonstration A Learning Objectives
ICA Baseline Requirements and Conformance
Tools Used to Prepare ICA
Schedule/Gantt Chart
Additional Resources
Monitoring and Reporting Progress and Results
Availability of Project Files
Comparative Evaluation and Benchmarking
ORA Success Metrics for ICA Evaluation

11. (A) Demo A Objectives Study reverse flow at T&D interface
DER Capacity with and without limiting reverse power beyond substation busbar
Diverse Locations
Evaluate two DPAs (one urban and one rural) covering broad range of electrical characteristics
Incorporate Portfolios and New Technology
Methods for evaluating DER portfolios, CAISO dispatch, and Smart Inverters
Consistent Maps and Outputs
Consistent and readable maps to the public with similar data and visual aspects
Computational Efficiency
Evaluate methods for faster and more accurate update process that works for entire service territory
Comparative Analysis
Benchmark for consistency and validation across techniques and IOUs
Locational Load Shapes
Utilize Smart Meters for localized load shapes
Future Roadmap
Determine roadmap and timelines for future ICA achievements based on demonstration learnings

12. (B) ICA Baseline Requirements and Conformance
Below is simplified chart similar to what ORA displayed in ICA Workshop
The goal is to explore and determine best approach for ICA calculations by exploring both iterative and streamlined techniques
Simplified ICA Process Diagram
Substation Limit
Geospatial Results
ICA Calculations
Thermal
Protection
Power Quality
Reliability/Safety
AMI/ SCADA
Feeder Limit
Data Sources
Parse and Compile Data
Perform Baseline Power Flows
Line Section Limits
Tabular Results
Circuit Data
Node Limits
Iterative Power Flow Approach
Streamlined Approach
Thermal Algorithms
Violation of Criteria?
Initialize DER
Set DER Size
Perform Power Flow
Record Values
Power Flow Data
Protection Algorithms
Minimum
Record Values
Power Quality Algorithms
Adjust DER Size
Reliability Algorithms

13. (B) ICA Baseline Requirements and Conformance (cont.)
For PG&E, most of the requirements are met already since ACR used PG&E methodology as “baseline” for Demos
Goal is to meet objectives of ACR while exploring best approach to do so
Modifications and enhancements in “baseline” methodology to be explored in Demo
Expanded hours of analysis past the 288 hours in initial filing
Expanding interdependence of feeders in analysis
Expanding analysis to “load modifying” resources (i.e. EE and DR)
Expanded portfolio analysis (i.e. load control/EV combined with solar and storage)
Expanding reach of analysis to single phase line sections
Expanding criteria evaluated as listed in Table 2-4 of PG&E’s DRP
Breaking out ICA values by criteria and hour

14. (C) Tools Utilized
PG&E moved away from in house distribution planning tools in 2011
Enhanced Load Forecasting with hourly shapes and geospatial forecasting
Load profiles for every distribution feeder
LoadSEER developed by Integral Analytics
Geospatial Distribution Feeder Models
Simulate power flow effects on distribution lines granular down to final line transformers
CYMDIST by CYME International
Current development in EPIC 2.23 to more tightly integrate the two tools for more robust and efficient analyses

15. (D) Schedule/Gantt Chart
2016
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Revised Plan
Status Report
Final Report
(1) Reverse Flow at T&D Interface
(1.1) Initial Tx Hosting Capacity Discussions
(1.3) Reverse Flow Evaluation
(1.4) Discussion on Tx ICA
(2) Select DPAs
(3) DER Portfolios
(3.1) Evaluate Base Portfolios
(3.2) Other Portfolios / Tech.
(4) Maps and Outputs
(4.1) Align on Output
(4.2) Adjust Maps
(5) Evaluation and Computational Efficiency
(5.1) Review ICA Scripts
(5.2)
(5.3) Iterative Evaluation
(5.6)
Adjust Scripts for Ruling Objectives
(5.4) Streamlined Evaluation
Computational Efficiency Analysis
(5.5) Blended Evaluation
(6) Comparative Analysis
(7) Smart Meter and SCADA Load Shapes
(8) Future Roadmap

16. (E-H) Additional Requirements
(e) Resources
Utilizing and coordinating with EPIC 2.23 which was intended to enhance PG&E distribution planning tools for DER planning
Additional Resources may be needed depending on scope of map publication since PG&E does not currently have similar ESRI online portal as other IOUs
(f) Monitoring and Reporting Progress and Results
Monthly ICAWG meetings
June revised filing
Q3 status report
Q3 technical assumptions report
Q4 final report
(g) Availability of Project Files
Open to discussion, but needs to involve NDAs if specific IOU circuit and/or granular load data is desired
(h) Comparative Evaluation and Benchmarking
Details to be covered later with ICAWG in this meeting

17. (I) ORA Success Metrics for ICA Evaluation
Accurate and meaningful results
Transparent methodology
Uniform process that is consistently applied
Complete coverage of service territory
Useful formats for results
Consistent with industry, state, and federal standards
Accommodates portfolios of DER on one feeder
Reasonable resolution (a) spatial, (b) temporal
Easy to update based on improved and approved changes in methodology
Easy to update based on changes in inputs (loads, DER portfolio, DER penetration, circuit changes, assumptions, etc.)
Consistent methodologies across large IOUs
Methodology accommodates variations in local distribution system, such that case by case or distribution planning area (DPA) specific modifications are not needed

18. Area Selection Chico Chowchilla
Two main factors are considered for areas
Diversity in characteristics with one urban and one rural
Overlap with other Demo Areas for coordinated learnings
Urban DPA
Chico
Location
Butte County (Urban/Suburban)
Substations 10
Feeders 43
Customers
57,000
Recent Historical Peak
235 MW
Customer Type
~80% Residential/ 5% Agricultural / 15% Commercial & Industrial
Rural DPA
Chowchilla
Location
Madera County (Rural)
Substations 4
Feeders 20
Customers
13,000
Recent Historical Peak
155 MW
Customer Type
~60% Residential/ 30% Agricultural / 10% Commercial & Industrial

19. Characteristic Variation of Circuits within DPAs
Charts are statistical variation of different circuits characteristics between both Chowchilla and Chico DPAs
Across these general key characteristics Chico and Chowchilla have a good spread compared to the system set

20. Chico DPA (Aggregate) Demand Profile
Charts are statistical aggregate profiles from analyzing Smart Meter data and aggregating to DPA
Profile shows larger degree in profile variation in summer versus smaller variation in winter
Characteristic of residential evening peak driven by hot temperatures
Load Profile Probability Chart
January
May
July
October

21. Chowchilla DPA (Aggregate) Demand Profile
Charts are statistical aggregate profiles from analyzing Smart Meter data and aggregating to DPA
Profile shows larger degree in profile variation in throughout year with biggest in summer
Has really low daytime loading around 10%
Load Profile Probability Chart
January
May
July
October

22. EPRI study
Jeff Smith presentation 3

23. Joint IOU Comparative Analysis Proposal
ICA Working Group
June 9, 2016

24. Comparative Analysis Proposal
Comparative analysis of consistency between IOUs
Complete analysis on one IEEE Distribution System Test Feeder using the streamlined and iterative power flow methodologies
Compare results on a node-by-node basis, utilizing metrics similar to the EPRI Hosting Capacity study as a starting point
Comparative analysis of capability and accuracy between calculation techniques utilized in each IOU Demo A
Complete streamlined and iterative power flow studies on feeders within each IOU demo plan
Compare processing times between techniques

25. Comparative Analysis Considerations
Processing capabilities of methods to meet identified use cases and requirements of ACR
Accuracy of limitation criteria between streamlined and iterative power flow methods
e.g. Streamlined method’s calculated value vs iterative power flow method-determined voltage
Evaluation of both methods as a possible enhancement to the Rule 21 “fast track” process
Sample generation projects in queue tested for fast track using both methods
Other technical considerations in methodology
Impact of Phase Imbalance (voltage and current)
Impact of line capacitance and charging current
Determining the impact of voltage regulation devices
Determining the impact of capacitor banks

26. Data Proposal 3

27. Data needs for statutory compliance
769(a) [Applies to] distributed renewable generation resources, energy efficiency, energy storage, electric vehicles, and demand response technologies.
769(b) [DRP's shall] identify optimal locations for the deployment of distributed resources [by evaluating] locational benefits and costs of distributed resources [...] 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 [...] to ratepayers [...].
769(c) The commission shall review each distribution resources plan proposal submitted by an electrical corporation and approve, or modify and approve, a distribution resources plan for the corporation.
The commission may modify any plan as appropriate to minimize overall system costs and maximize ratepayer benefit from investments in distributed resources.
769(d) Any electrical corporation spending on distribution infrastructure necessary to accomplish the distribution resources plan shall be proposed and considered as part of the next general rate case for the corporation.
The commission may approve proposed spending if it concludes that ratepayers would realize net benefits and the associated costs are just and reasonable.
The commission may also adopt criteria, benchmarks, and accountability mechanisms to evaluate the success of any investment authorized pursuant to a distribution resources plan. 3

28. Data needs for DRP market transactions
applies to all distributed renewable generation resources, energy efficiency, energy storage, electric vehicles, and demand response technologies.
Identifies optimal locations for the deployment of distributed resources by evaluating locational benefits and costs of distributed resources 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 to ratepayers.
Clear visibility into an individual project’s ability to realize net benefits.
The ability to propose criteria, benchmarks, and accountability mechanisms to evaluate the success of any investment authorized pursuant to a distribution resources plan to the Commission. 3

29. Data needs to improve DER integration
From utilities: identification of proposed methodologies’ limitations
Foundation for broader conversation on best practices
Blue sky for “perfect data”
Survey of alternatives from other markets
Initial assessment of market solutions for increased data integration
From market participants:
Neutral as to type of technology solution
Full spectrum of possible data for improving DER integration
Market mechanisms for data from other jurisdictions 3

30. Data needs - next steps
Ongoing stakeholder coordination on data needs (working groups, draft filings)
July MTS working paper on data needs
Proposed path to operationalization of data requirements 3

31. Next steps 3