(NOT CONSOLIDATED) And Related Matters. Application Application

Transcription

1 MP1/RIM/jt2 3/29/18 FILED 03/29/18 03:16 PM BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Policies, Procedures and Rules for Development of Distribution Resources Plans Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 769. Rulemaking And Related Matters. Application Application Application (NOT CONSOLIDATED) In the Matter of the Application of PacifiCorp (U901E) Setting Forth its Distribution Resource Plan Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 769. Application And Related Matters. Application Application JOINT RULING OF THE COMMISSIONER AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS AND SCHEDULE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION FORECASTING WORKING GROUP Summary This ruling establishes the parameters and schedule for the Distribution Forecasting Working Group

2 1. Introduction Decision (D.) established the process for incorporation of DER forecasts into Distribution Resource Planning, determining that the IOUs shall use the DER forecasts developed by CEC in the Integrated Energy Policy Report as the basis for their distribution forecasts. The decision identified forecasting issues that required further consideration and directed Energy Division to develop a scope, schedule to vet these issues Distribution Forecasting Working Group (DFWG). These issues include the disaggregation of the forecast to the circuit level, the application of alternate DER scenarios, coordination with CEC and CAISO on forecasting issues, and to define necessary outcomes and deliverables for the Working Group. The decision requested party comments to recommend scoping issues in the DFWG. The following parties filed and served comments on March 1, 2018: Natural Resources Defense Council, Solar Energy Industries Association/Vote Solar, Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc. (IREC), and the Joint Utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company). The Joint Utilities recommended a list of scoping issues and a schedule that prioritized discussion topics. We generally agree their list of issues and proposed agenda, but will make modifications in order to incorporate issues and recommendations from other parties. IREC requested that the DFWG be kept open and flexible in terms of its scope. It is not the Commission s intent to keep the working group process running indefinitely, but rather, to create a focused and efficient process to clarify the IOUs forecasting methods, and provide inputs on best practices and evaluating future results. We expect DFWG to inform the investor-owned - 2 -

3 utilities (IOUs) 2018/19 distribution planning cycle. To do so, IOUs will need Commission guidance by July 2018 in order to begin their annual distribution planning process in Q3. To meet this schedule, the DFWG will require a defined agenda, in which parties provide recommendations and inputs one week prior to the meeting for which the topic is discussed. 2. DFWG Objectives The objective of this working group will be to vet the disaggregation methods and data sources and operational profiles, ensure that the circuit level forecasts apply the best data sources available and incorporate evaluation feedback in future forecasts. The DFWG in 2018 will answer the following questions: What is the estimated magnitude of uncertainty in circuit level forecasts and what are the implications for distribution planning and capacity for evaluation and feedback to mitigate uncertainties? Are there data sets that could improve the IOUs disaggregation of Distributed Energy Resources (DER) growth to the circuit level? What are the disaggregation methods of system level load and DER forecasts to the circuit level, what are the shortcomings and possible improvements? What are the best data sources for disaggregation of load and DER adoption, as well as DER operational profiles? What dispersion methods should be used to allocate circuit-level forecasts along a circuit? How will the IOUs modify future forecasts based on evaluation of actual results in forecasts? Does the DER disaggregation align with California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Independent System Operator s forecasting assumptions

4 D also included the development of high and low DER growth scenarios within the scope of this working group. While the DFWG will need to complete a progress report to support the 2018/19 distribution planning cycle; the alternative forecast scenarios is a component of the broader issue raised in in comments to the January 24, 2018 Amended Scoping Memo on the development a policy scenario use case. This topic area will need to be considered with the context of coordination with IRP on the development of inputs into future cycles of the Reference System Plan. For this reason, we will bifurcate the issue of DER growth scenarios to address in a forthcoming ruling as part of the policy scenario use case. IREC requested that the progress report should include points of consensus and non-consensus. We find the request reasonable for the facilitator to maintain a record of party non-consensus positions to include in the final progress report. In consideration of the scope and agenda, we will extend the deadline of the progress report to July 1, Based on the outcomes the progress report we may provide additional guidance to the IOUs on disaggregation, evaluation, or the application of DER operational profiles as a result of the working group process via ruling. SEIA requested that the working group develop the process for updated DER and load forecasts for the years in which the IEPR does not develop a full forecast update. This process was defined in , which allows the IOUs to propose modifications via Tier 2 Advice Letter. The Joint IOUs provided additional comments on the DER forecasting process in their comments on the - 4 -

5 Proposed Decision on Track 3 Policy Issues, Sub-Track 2 (Grid Modernization). 1 The Joint IOUs raised the concern regarding the alignment of the IEPR update schedule and the IOUs planning schedule for General Rate Cases, and the IOUs ability to apply the most recent policy updates in developing their grid modernization proposals. We acknowledge this concern, however, this issue shall be considered within the general scope of R , and will not be within the scope of the DFWG in Working Group Meeting Scope Given the aggressive schedule, working group members should begin working prior to initial working group meetings. Seven days prior to each meeting, parties may provide comments, source documents or presentations on any of the issues to be discussed during meeting, as well informal positions on any of the issues that were discussed in the previous meeting, to maintain records on consensus and non-consensus issues. Meeting materials should be maintained in a publicly accessible location. As ordered in D , the IOUs shall contract a facilitator to manage the working group meetings, and submit a joint progress report at the conclusion of the working group meetings. The progress report shall summarize the recommendations of the working group pertaining to the objectives above. The facilitator shall finalize the meeting agendas, collect and distribute materials. Energy Division staff will provide management oversight to the facilitator. 1 Joint Opening Comments Of Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas And Electric Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Regarding Proposed Decision On Track 3 Policy Issues, Sub-Track 2 (Grid Modernization) filed on March 12,

6 The following topics provide a preliminary scope for the working group meetings in 2018, but are subject to change at the discretion of the IOUs, recommendation of parties, and in consultation with Energy Division staff Meeting 1: Objectives of DER Disaggregation Methodologies and Current Approaches Review list of DERs being disaggregated, to confirm the list is appropriate. Description of each IOUs disaggregation and dispersion forecasting methodology. Identify the varying uncertainties associated with disaggregating each DER Meeting 2: Best Practices in Disaggregation Methodologies Discussion of lessons learned by IOUs in last round and proposals to improve methods in 2018/19 planning cycle through incorporation of actual data. Presentation from stakeholders of additional models or best practices for development of disaggregation models. Discussion on ranges of uncertainty and degree to which evaluation can mitigate uncertainty Meeting 3: Coordination with CEC Forecasting on Disaggregation and Evaluation Discussion of the CEC s target level of disaggregation, timing of rollout, availability of granular DER forecasts, and process for sharing CEC s granular forecast data. Discussion of the potential role of calibration at the system or circuit level, and how evaluation feedback should be incorporated into future iterations of the forecast Disaggregation of load forecasting: Accounting for local area knowledge within the distribution load forecasting methodology

7 Ability for IOUs to update load growth forecasts based on specific area knowledge if required to deviate from Integrated Energy Policy Report Meeting 4: DER Operational Profiles and Review of Evaluation and Feedback Define assumptions around DER operational characteristics. Define standard operational characteristics for each DER type including supply and demand profiles and related uncertainty. Align on common methodology to develop DER operational characteristics. Reason for different operational profiles for traditional planning or Integrated Capacity Analysis/interconnection studies. Follow up discussion on unresolved issues from previous meetings Meeting 5: Distribution Forecasting Working Group Wrap-up Evaluation of the proposed methodologies and data sets. Conclusions from working group to include in progress report. 4. Evaluation Framework for Proposed Methods and Data Sources The IOUs recommend that the following evaluation framework be applied to the consideration of proposed data sets and methodologies. We find this framework to be a reasonable basis for evaluation; parties may propose modifications in the working group, if necessary

8 Figure 1: Evaluation Framework for Disaggregation Methods Category Criteria Description Verification Degree to which a model has been successfully deployed and validated for some similar purposes (e.g., academic or industry applications); and/or Degree to which the analytic approach is capable of producing expected outcomes across a range of scenarios and stress tests Appropriate Level of Analytical Rigor Degree to which the level of analytic rigor reflects the existing data and adoption (e.g., less benefit from a complex model for technologies with low adoption rates like storage) Persuasiveness Flexibility Degree to which the model can be adapted across IOU planning tools and to address different DERs; degree to which the model can be easily customized with each IOU s grid topology or electric system. Level of Effort Data Availability Uncertainty Use Case Validation Resource Intensity Degree to which recent and accurate sources of input data are available; Degree of comprehensiveness of the input data in terms of capturing the most important or significant drivers identified Degree to which the allocation method accounts for uncertainty or degree to which the allocation method can be easily adapted to reflect the variations in outcomes Degree to which the model output satisfies the current and foreseeable use case Method has been validated using historical actual adoption data and demonstrated reasonable results. Resource intensiveness of the proposed methodology (i.e., labor) - 8 -

9 Platform upgrade costs Cost to purchase of data sets and studies Degree to which the proposed model requires additional hardware/software costs Degree to which the proposed model requires additional data sets or studies to be purchased 5. Schedule We anticipate the DFWG to meet on biweekly on the following schedule. Schedule is subject to change, to add, cancel or modify meeting dates at the IOU s discretion, in consultation with Energy Division. A working group announcement will be sent to the service list, with registration information for stakeholders interested in participating in the working group. Preliminary Meeting Schedule Meeting Topic Date 1 Objectives of DER Disaggregation Methodologies and Current Approaches 4/18 2 Best Practices in Disaggregation Methodologies 5/2 3 Coordination with CEC Forecasting on Disaggregation and Evaluation 5/16 4 DER Operational Profiles (Webinar) 5/30 5 Distribution Forecasting Working Group Wrap up 6/13 Working Group Progress Report Filed 7/1 Ruling Providing Guidance on Distribution Forecasting Late July - 9 -

10 Powered by TCPDF ( R et al., A et al. MP1/RIM/jt2 Therefore, IT IS RULED that the Distribution Forecasting Working Group shall conduct their work in accordance with the parameters and schedule set forth above in this ruling. Dated March 29, 2018, at San Francisco, California. /s/ MICHAEL PICKER Michael Picker Assigned Commissioner /s/ ROBERT M. MASON III Robert M. Mason III Administrative Law Judge