Rule 21 Working Group 2

Transcription

1 Rule 21 Working Group 2 Issue 8 Discussion PG&E 16 May 2018 READ AND DELETE For best results with this template, use PowerPoint 2003

2 Presentation Overview Presentation Outline 1. ICA and Automation 2. What is not covered in ICA 3. ICA High Level Roadmap 4. Update on Screens F,G,L,M 5. Screen M and ICA 6. Fast Track Eligibility Discussion Presentation Objectives Understand what ICA does and does not cover in the interconnection process Discuss paths to cover more of ICA in the interconnection process [long term refinement] Awareness of continuing efforts to improve interconnection screening and ICA Screen M enhancements when using ICA

3 Integration Capacity Analysis and Automation Goal of ICA is to inform DER siting and improve interconnection process The first and most developed use case for the ICA is to improve interconnection, which includes a more automated and transparent interconnection process and the publication of data that helps customers design systems that do not exceed grid limitations The ICA values identified at a point of interconnection are expected to replace and/or supplement the size limitations in the Fast Track eligibility criteria and will be able to address and/or improve the technical screens in the Rule 21 Fast Track process which are part of the ICA methodology Efforts around Automating Interconnection Process: ENOS has been used over many years to assist in NEM application processing CYME DG Screening Tool was developed to help partially automate larger projects (i.e. Expanded NEM, Rule 21 Export, etc.) Recent efforts look to migrate ENOS to the main interconnection SAP tool ICA is on target for rollout in Work is ongoing to integrate ICA with existing tools to further streamline the interconnection process. CYME Gateway Internal ENOS Processing System CYME DG Screening Tool ENOS SNEM Automation SAP EGI Full Migration EDGIS to CYME Migration ICA Integrate Platforms (SAP / CYME / LoadSEER / GridUnity)

4 ICA Application Project Dependent System Dependent Other Projects In Queue Non Inverter CAISO Queue Service Transformer Configuration Anti Islanding Degradation >40% of aggregate DER is synchronous Aggregate gen > 50% min load Transmission Over Voltage Ungrounded high substation Aggregate gen > 50% min load Single Phase Radials Secondary Systems & Networks Substation & Transmission Interconnections Substation & Transmission Limitations Time: ICA values are posted monthly and there are many non Utility controlled factors (major configuration change, queue update, new interconnection requests) that affects the ICA value given the grid and interconnection queue is dynamic. Quality Control: ICA leverages lots of data and algorithms to build projections and the values to be posted. Many of the databases that are utilized depend on manual processes to populate them. Many controls are in place and are being built to QC/QA the databases.

5 ICA Roadmap ICA Map July 2018 Post ICA Values QA/QC Alignment with Interconnection Projects 4 th Q 2018 for WG2 Decision WG2 Decision Allow projects below ICA and above Screen M s 15% Peak Load to avoid Supplemental Flag for Certain Supplemental Review Screens that are not captured in ICA (Islanding & HV) Supplement Fast Track Eligibility Limit Continued engineering verification of ICA Additional potential calculated flags on map? (i.e. SCCR, etc) 4 th Q 2018 and 2019 Long Term Issue 18 in Rule 21 OIR on Anti-Islanding Screen* Others ideas in the works around integrating interconnection tools Continue with ICA long term refinements Developing new techniques for better ICA and validation approaches * Issue 18 - Should the Commission adopt changes to anti-islanding screen parameters to reflect research on islanding risks when using UL 1741-certified inverters in order to avoid unnecessary mitigations? If yes, what should those changes entail?

6 Update on Screen F, G, L, & M Screen Technical Components Public Map Related ICA Automation Additional Notes F Short-Circuit Contribution Ratio Potential to publish whether existing assets on the system exceed 10% SCCR. Could post substation level, but not trivial to batch analyze by line section as analyzed by the screening tool. ICA captures some reduction of protection sensitivity but does not capture substation/transmissio n protection. Already partially automated with DG Screening Tool. Would require additional time and resources to repurpose screening tool to calculate system wide. G Short Circuit Interrupting Capability Potential to publish whether existing assets on the system exceed 87.5% SCIC. Could post substation level, but not trivial to batch analyze by line section as analyzed by the screening tool. ICA does not capture Already partially automated with DG Screening Tool. Would require additional time and resources to repurpose screening tool to calculate system wide. L Transmission Dependency & Stability Test PG&E could potentially flag substations with known transmission concerns. ICA does not capture Not covered in DG Screening Tool PG&E can post link to CAISO queue as well. M 15% peak load screen to filter projects that should move to supplemental review (screens N,O,P) ICA produced value (DER projects on certain flagged feeders, may be required to move to supplemental review if greater than 50% of ICA produced value) See Next Slide Thermal, Voltage, Protection, Op Flex (100% minimum load calculations only) Already partially automated with DG Screening tool. 50% of minimum load is required to screen for two components of SR TX Anti-islanding degradation addressed with this screen. See later slide for proposal on how to address. TX Voltage stabilization on transmission with ungrounded HV

7 Screen M & ICA How is Screen M utilized today? Screen M is used to determine which projects proceed to Supplemental Review. Not all aspects of Supplemental Review is covered in ICA Screen M is nameplate generation >15% of Peak Load? 15% of Peak Load approximates 50% of minimum load Generally projects that are less than 50% of minimum load do not require Supplemental Review (Screens N, O, and P) While most issues are associated with conditions where aggregate generation matches load (thus evaluate 100% minimum load), some protection issues can be seen even below 100% minimum load Traditional Anti-Islanding (Issue 18 in OIR) schemes may not be effective in the presence of machine based generation (~7% of circuits) Transmission Overvoltage when a transmission breaker opens on a substation that has ungrounded high side (~19% of substations) What does ICA value show? The ICA Value is complicated and provides values based on different ICA analyses. The ICA value however is closer to 100% min load vs. 50% min load. It is important to note that this value indicates that projects sized below the ICA value will likely not require Supplemental Review except for certain feeders and substations where 50% of min load is the appropriate filter.

8 Potential Screen M Modifications Potential Modifications to Screen M Create a separate ICA Eligibility Screens and/or exceptions include these flags/rules Create sub-screens and/or exceptions under Screen M Add Notes to Screen M The intent is to flag: (1)Where machine based generators are more than 40% of the total generator nameplate on substation banks (2)Feeders with fused ungrounded high side on the feeder transformer Unintentional Islanding TX Voltage Stabilization DRAFT MOCKUP FOR DISCUSSION M.1 M.2 Is project below ICA YES NO Total Nameplate <50% of minimum load on bank NO Go to Supplemental Review Machine Nameplate <40% of NO M.3 YES total DG nameplate on bank YES Substation transformer high M.4 side is not fused/ungrounded NO Pass Screen M YES