1. Integrated Capacity Analysis Working Group
September 30, 2016
353 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA
drpwg.org

2. Agenda Time Topic 9:00-9:15 9:15-10:15 10:15-11:15 11:15-12:15
Introductions and Follow Up Items
9:15-10:15
1. ICA/LNBA schedule/process
Schedule of discussion topics and reports
Recap previous meetings
Other notes on process
10:15-11:15
2. ICA: Comparative analysis update
11:15-12:15
3. ICA: Computational efficiency and ICA profiles for analysis
12:15-12:45
Lunch
12:45-1:30
4. ICA: Demo A Status Update
1:30-2:15
5. LNBA: Demo B Status Update
2:15-3:15
6. ICA/LNBA: Data topic scope
IOU presentation of “Data Needs” template
Energy Division presentation of Track 1 scope
Stakeholder comments and discussion
3:15-4:00
Wrap up and summary

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 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. 1. ICA/LNBA schedule Schedule of discussion topics and reports
Recap previous meetings
Other notes on process

5. ICA Working Group Timeframe/deliverables

6. LNBA Working Group Timeframe/deliverables

7. 1. ICA/LNBA schedule ICA Meeting LNBA Meeting ST topics LT Topics
ICA Meeting
LNBA Meeting
ST topics
LT Topics
Other
ST Topics
other 1
Sep. 30
(one full Day)
Demo A Update[1 hour)
Comparative Analysis Follow-up [1 hour]
Computational efficiency [1 hour]
Data [0.5 hour]
Schedule for meetings and reports [0.5 hour]
Demo B status update [1 hour]
Schedule for meetings and reports [0.5 hour]; 2
Oct
2 full days (~75% is ICA work)
DER portfolios & CAISO (b.i) [1.5 hour]
Computational Efficiency (d) [ 1.5 hour]
Smart inverters (b.ii) [1.5 hour]
Format/structure of comparative analysis [1.5 hour]
Scope discussion of long-term topics [2 hours]
Map Format (a) [1.5 hour]
Review progress on long-term scope topics [1 hour]
*Last opportunity for discussion to be included in LNBA Interim Report
~Oct 26: Draft Interim LT report circulated 3a
Nov. 1
(One full Day)
*Prior to meeting, distribute summary of key topics and recommendations of all previously discussed topics
Review recommendations [2 hours]
Timelines for updates (g) [1 hour]
*Last opportunity for discussion to be included in ICA Interim Report
Review Recommendations [2 hours]
~Nov 3: Stakeholder comments due
~Nov 10: IOUs submit interim LT refinement report 3b
Nov
(1.5 days)
*Prior to meeting, distribute revised summary of all previous topics
Final discussion prior to Short Term Final Report: Final opportunity to present positions, analysis, etc. for inclusion in December report. [5 hours]
~Nov. 30: Draft WG report circulated
~Nov. 30: Draft interim LT refinement report circulated
Final discussion prior to Short Term Final Report Final opportunity to present positions, analysis, etc. for inclusion in December report. [2.5 hours]
~Nov. 30: Compete Draft WG report circulated 4
Dec. 9
(Conference Call)
~Dec: 8: Stakeholder comments due
~Dec 16: IOUs submit final WG report (Final Demo Report also submitted in Dec.)
~Dec 16: IOUs submit Interim LT Refinement 5a
Early Jan
(1 full day)
Review final results.
Discuss comparison analysis and related recommendations.
Final written submission TBD 5b
Jan-May
6-9 Full days
Single phase (a) [1 hr]
Data (b, d) [1 hour]
Follow-up on data [1.5 hour]
Load modifying resources (e) [1 hour]
Maps (c) [1 hour]
ICA Validation (f) [1 hr]
quality control (g) [1 hr]
Discuss Content for report [2.5-5]; Review Content for Report [2.5-5]
Smart inverters (b) [1 hour]
Operating in Concert (d) [1 hour]
Undefined future distribution needs (a) [2.5 hours]
DMC (c) [2.5 hours]
Discuss Content for report [2.5-5]
Review Content for Report [2.5-5]
Data [1 hour]
Follow-up on Data [1.5 hour]
1. ICA/LNBA schedule

8. Schedule of Reports ICA & Demo A LNBA & Demo B
Category
Report
Deadline
Lead Author
ICA & Demo A
Short-term
IOU Interim Status report on Demo A
Sep. 30
Each IOU, individually
(3 reports)
IOU Final Report for Demo A
Dec. 31*
WG Final Report on ICA / Demo A “short term” topics
IOUs/MTS on behalf of WG
Long-term Refinement
WG Interim Status Report on ICA “long-term refinement” topics
WG Final Report on ICA “long-term refinement” topics
Jun. 30
LNBA & Demo B
IOU Final Report for Demo B
WG Final Report on LNBA / Demo B “short term” topics
WG Interim Status Report on LNBA “long-term refinement” topics
Nov. 10
WG Final Report on LNBA “long-term refinement” topics
*Note: For all reports due December 31, the IOUs plan to submit around December 16 or December 23 to avoid the Holidays.

9. Schedule of Reports A note on the Final Demo Reports
There is some ambiguity regarding the Final Reports due in December. The schedule in the ACR has only one report each for Demo A and Demo B. However, there each IOU has its own demo, so there are in fact three Demo A projects and three Demo B projects, each with a unique set of results. It makes the most sense to have each IOU report the results of each demo. Beyond the demo results, there are also “short-term” topics that must be addressed in the Final Report for both ICA/Demo A and LNBA/ Demo B. However, for these topics, there should be a single WG report providing recommendations. Thus, reports will developed as follows:
IOU Reports on Demos.
The Demo reports are specific to each IOU’s individual demo.
Thus there will be three reports for Demo A and three for Demo B
Each IOU will provide its own report, providing status/results for its own demo
The IOUs will coordinate to have a consistent report format
Each IOU will file its own report
WG Reports
One report will be filed, capturing all recommendations (consensus and non-consensus) of the WG
Content will come from WG meetings
All content will be developed from notes from WG discussions, and/or materials presented in WG discussions.
All recommendations, positions, analysis, arguments are to be presented during WG discussions, prior to the drafting of reports.
The WG meeting schedule will allow plenty of time to discuss and review recommendations, positions, etc., to build the content for the Report and develop consensus wherever possible.
Reports will summarize WG meetings
The Draft Reports will summarize all recommendations, positions, analysis, arguments that were presented in WG meetings.
Draft Reports will be circulated to all stakeholders for review.
Edits to the Draft reports will be limited to correcting errors, omissions, etc. New arguments, recommendations, etc. are generally to be avoided unless they are consensus positions of the working group. (Basically, the time to bring in new recommendations, analysis, etc. is during the WG meetings, so all stakeholders have a chance to react and respond (and have their response documented). Once the WG meetings are complete, the reports simply capture what has been presented and discussed.)
IOUs/MTS will take the lead in drafting the report, circulating for edits, incorporating edits, and filing the final report on behalf of the working group.

10. ICA Working Group Meeting Joint IOU Slides
30 September 2016

11. Comparative Assessment
IOUs began aligning on methodologies from beginning of Demo
Sharing methods of streamlined and iterative approaches
Aligning on specific formulas and thresholds
Establishing hourly results
IOUs moved to comparative assessment as methodological alignment increased and new capabilities were developed
Began with IEEE 123 given its established data set of power flow results which provides a baseline for all utilities to align on
Unexpected challenges were faced while trying to achieve similar results
Modeling challenges from translating text and spreadsheet based models from IEEE
Various options and parameters for power and fault flows in the tools
Differences in proprietary vendor methods provide some differences in simulation (i.e. modeled regulator impedance and short circuit model fault contribution)
Continuing to reduce differences in models as much as possible
IOU suggestion is to evaluate multiple circuits after Demo A and use just the IEEE 123 feeder for Demo A comparative assessment

12. Computational Efficiency (CE)
Computational Efficiency (CE) methods will be required to accomplish ICA calculation on all the circuits.
Based on the current requirements, SCE projects that ICA values on the 78 circuits (both DPA areas) will result in a dataset greater then 10 billion data points
The equivalent set of data can be developed and provided by applying computational efficiency methods which would not reduction the quality of the data
The data can be provided in significantly reduced dataset
The data provided would be usable and not repeatable
CE Method 1: Loading on a circuit does not fluctuate significantly through the 24 hours (specially in the night). Thus performing ICA on every hour expands computational resources needs without much benefit
Equivalent level of data can be obtained by analyzing significantly fewer number of loading conditions. The equivalent level of ICA for 576 hours can be reconstructed by utilizing hours, depending on distribution circuit
Jan
Dec
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov

13. Computational Efficiency (CE) - Continue
CE Method 2: Equivalent level of data can be obtained by analyzing significantly fewer nodes
When the nodes are adjacent to each other, the nodes will have the same level of ICA and thus there is no need to perform ICA on every node across the distribution system.
For example; For SCE the average number of nodes per circuit is approximately 600 nodes.
From the results perspective, the equivalent level of ICA information along the circuit can be determined with significantly less number of nodes (such as 50 nodes)
CE Method 3: Some screens may not be necessary for some distribution circuits
Reduction of Reach (ROR) and Voltage Fluctuation (>3%) screens can be bypassed for feeder which with a strong source (high Short Circuit Duty)
For SCE, the Urban DPA is a strong system and these limits would not provide any value
Increasing DER to a level the triggers violation of these limits would result in impracticable and not executable levels of ICA
While the level of analysis may be attainable for the Demo A scope, it will likely present computational challenges for the service territory level analysis

14. DER Profile Evaluation
DER specific results can be obtained using agnostic profile ICA versus assuming specific DER profiles at the beginning. This allows for ICA to be run only once versus multiple times for each DER.
Main DER difference that has to be explicitly modeled separately is load versus generation
Allows for users to have more flexibility in using data for DER portfolio development and impact versus constraining to specific DERs used at beginning
Inputs
Inputs Adjusted for DER Type
ICA (x DER Types)
DER Specific Results
Inputs
ICA (1 analysis)
Agnostic Results
Results Adjusted for DER Type

15. SCE Demo A Project Status
Accomplishment:
Circuit Model Development and Validation
Load Shapes Development using SCADA and Smart Meter Data
Python Scripts for Streamlined and Iterative Method
Work in Progress
Perform ICA studies using Streamlined and Iterative Method
Comparative Assessment
Computational Efficiency
Smart Inverter
DER Portfolio
Online Map Development
Work to be Performed
Project Report
Future Roadmap

16. PG&E Demo A Gantt Chart/Status
2016
2017
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
Revised Plan
Status Report
Demo 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 Transmission ICA
(2) Select DPAs
(3) DER Portfolios
(3.1) Evaluate Base Portfolios
(3.2) Review Portfolio Analysis
(3.3) Smart Inverters
(4) Maps and Outputs
(4.1) Align Output
(4.2) Adjust Maps
(4.3) Feedback for Long Term Review
(5) Evaluation and Computational Efficiency
- Still adjusting scripts for further alignment
- Results analysis is difficult provided vast amounts of data
(5.1) Review ICA Scripts
(5.2)
(5.3) Iterative Evaluation
Adjust Scripts for Ruling Objectives
(5.4) Streamlined Evaluation
(5.5) Blended Evaluation
(5.6) Computational Efficiency
- Convergence on vendor simulation proved difficult
- IOUs finding much areas of alignment despite obstacles
(6) Comparative Analysis
(7) Smart Meter and SCADA Load Shapes
Legend
(8) Future Roadmap
Completed
(8.x) [Topics and Schedule to be refined]
In Progress
Delays
Not Yet Started

17. SDG&E Demo A Gantt Chart
Results will require post processing and validation
Finalizing modification to Synergi interface

18. Distribution Resources Plan
LNBA Working Group Meeting
September 30, 2016

19. Agenda LNBA Tool Demo B Map and Dataset Example IOU Status Update
Capital project deferral value calculation
System level avoided costs (e.g., energy, capacity, etc.)
Demo B Map and Dataset Example
IOU Status Update
PG&E
SCE
SDG&E

20. Demo B LNBA Tool: Project Deferral Value Calculation
Project deferral benefit module will be used in Demo B to calculate indicative ranges of avoided costs realized by deferring identified capital projects
User inputs: costs, discount rate, inflation, deferral duration, revenue requirement multiplier, etc.
Results are used in heat maps
IOUs’ inputs will be provided, to the extent possible
IOUs will strive to use public inputs
No confidential or market-sensitive inputs would be provided
Will be made publicly available as part of LNBA Tool

21. Demo B LNBA Tool: System-Level Avoided Cost Calculation
System-level Avoided Cost Module will be used in Demo B to estimate system-level avoided costs
User inputs: Hourly DER Profile, life
Results don’t vary within Demo B areas, and are NOT mapped
Borrows typical avoided costs from E updated DER Avoided Cost Model
Generation Capacity, Energy, etc.
In addition to DERAC, includes flexible capacity and renewable integration avoided costs
Will be made publicly available as part of LNBA Tool

22. Demo B Map Example DRAFT
Example of zoomed in view of project highlight area
Example of pop up window
Circuit Name 1
Line Segment
1_123456_UG
Voltage (kV) 12
Project Name
LNBA_1
Project Description
To offload circuit 1 and prevent overloads of existing infrastructure
Project In-Service Date
9/1/2019
DER Growth Scenario
Very High DER Growth Scenario
Timeframe
Short Term (0-3 yrs)
Project Deferral Results* $$
   Download Demo B Dataset
Link will route user to a downloadable file which will include detailed electric characteristics forecasts to meet the project need, DER growth forecasts, and detailed documentation on both deferral requirements and yearly deferral values.

23. Demo B Dataset Example DRAFT September DER EC required (Table View)
M - H
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
9-11
9-12
0.24
0.52
9-13
0.33
0.66
0.95
1.26
9-14
0.31
0.67
1.02
1.36
1.67
1.98
9-15
0.14
0.60
0.96
1.29
1.62
1.91
2.22
9-16
0.06
0.43
0.88
1.25
1.57
1.89
2.19
2.50
9-17
0.03
0.38
0.81
1.18
1.49
1.80
2.09
2.39
9-18
0.36
0.69
0.97
1.33
1.77
2.16
2.49
2.79
3.11
3.43
9-19
0.76
1.10
1.38
1.74
2.20
2.60
2.94
3.26
3.58
3.91
9-20
0.90
1.24
1.53
1.90
2.36
2.77
3.76
4.10
9-21
0.65
0.99
1.28
1.66
2.12
2.53
2.87
3.20
3.53
3.87
9-22
0.04
1.03
1.48
1.88
2.54
2.86
9-23
0.23
0.59
0.91
1.21
1.51
1.82
MWH
2.72
4.40
5.94
8.61
12.8
16.6
20.3
23.8
27.4
31.2

24. High-Level User Flow for Demo B Deliverables
DRAFT
High-Level User Flow for Demo B Deliverables
Access the LNBA mapping layer that identifies deferral opportunity locations
Select a section with a deferral opportunity to view project description
Download distribution deferral datasets for project
Construct a DER profile that meets the required electric characteristics, considering deferral requirements and ICA results
Upload DER profile in LNBA Tool to estimate system-level avoided costs

25. PG&E Demo B Status Update
Preliminary distribution deferral opportunities identified in both DPAs
Distribution deferral opportunities to be finalized after 2016 load forecasting complete in ~6 wks
2016 DER forecast complete and data compiled
Mapping schematics and design in development
Ongoing refinements to LNBA Tool with IOUs and E3 continues

26. SCE Demo B Status Update
SCE mapping software requirements are mostly complete. The mapping database architecture is currently being developed.
For the distribution planning DER growth scenario, all projects within the selected DPA have been reviewed and the deferrable projects were identified, including capacity, voltage related upgrades in distribution and sub-transmission. The very high DER growth scenario is currently being analyzed.
SCE has potential deferrable sub-transmission projects which are more difficult to analyze. SCE is exploring ways to address the complexity of the sub-transmission projects.
Continue coordination with PG&E and SDG&E on topics such as LNBA tool refinement and mapping format and dataset details

27. SDG&E Demo B Status Update
SDG&E mapping architecture is mostly complete, we have a web interface and standardized csv file formats to use to highlight project area and to link the appropriate data files.
SDG&E LNBA Demo B projects have been selected, and preliminary capital project cost estimates derived.
SDG&E LNBA preliminary Distribution deferral value has been calculated using the prelim cost estimates in existing deferral module.
Working with E3 and the other IOUs to continue to refine the system level avoided costs to ensure the greatest accuracy achievable

28. 6. ICA/LNBA: Data topic scope
Stakeholder Category
Function Requiring Data
Rationale for Function
Data Types Required
Rationale for Data Type
Confidentiality Issues
Availability of Data
Alternative Data Sources
Who wants the data?
What is the stakeholder trying to accomplish?
Why does the stakeholder need to perform this function?
What Data Types are necessary to perform the function?*
Why these Data Type(s) are required to perform the function?
For example: Customer confidential, Market Sensitive, Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII)
Is there high cost or burden to provide this data?
For example, anonymized data, aggregated data, public sources?
*This field can also address questions such as:
How frequently data must be updated (e.g., how close real time data)
Data Format considerations (e.g. access platform, data exchange, download format, security considerations, etc.)
(Rationale for above should also be included in next field )

29. CPUC Proposal for Rescoping Track 1 Data Access Issues
ICA/LNBA Working Group
September 30, 2016
Oakland, CA

30. Goal of DRP Track 1 Data Access
Make publicly available data more readily accessible and usable
Stakeholder-driven process to ID new data sources and increase quantity/quality of data that can be made publicly available, from both utilities  third parties
(from DRP Guidance Ruling)

31. DRP Applications Data sharing policy Data sharing process/procedures
Sharable data types; requirements for receiving data from DER owners
Data sharing process/procedures
How utilities, customers, and DER owners/operators can access data in as real-time as possible, reflecting all applicable confidentiality/privacy issues
AMI and grid conditions data
How to make feeder-level grid conditions data available, e.g., from sensor systems, SCADA systems, automation systems, and smart meters

32. April 29 ACR; May 23 Workshop
Types and granularity of data needed from other parties
Ways to improve access/availability of existing public data
The extent to which ID’d data would be provided through ICA/LNBA
Data WG needed?
Do IOUs have any updates to their DRP applications w/r/t data?

33. Proposed Scope of DRP Data Access Phase
Establishing an IOU Data Access Portal for existing data types relevant to DRP/IDER
E.g., circuit shapefiles, peak loads, and hosting capacity; existing DG; interconnection queue; DER growth; reliability reports; GRC filings; Green Button customer electric consumption
2. Establishing new data sources across DRP (i.e., data not specifically developed in individual DRP tracks)

34. Proposed tasks and schedule
Develop data access portals and standardized formats, consistent with data access goals and existing record on data access issues
by Q1 2017, or in Q3/Q after ICA/LNBA WG completes work on long-term issues?
Resolve outstanding issues with regards to data sources, data sharing, and confidentiality/privacy
Concurrently with Task 1, or after Task 1 completion?

35. 6. ICA/LNBA: Data topic scope
Stakeholder discussion

36. ICA Working Group Timeframe/deliverables

37. LNBA Working Group Timeframe/deliverables