Resource Adequacy Deliverability for Distributed Generation DG Deliverability Assessment Results

Similar documents
Resource Adequacy Deliverability for Distributed Generation DG Deliverability Assessment Results

Business Practice Manual for Distributed Generation Deliverability. Version

Deliverability for Distributed Generation. Proposal for Complying with 11/16/12 FERC Order

CAISO Resource Adequacy Deliverability for Distributed Generation

Generator Interconnection Driven Network Upgrade Cost Recovery. Draft Final Proposal

What You Need to Know Before Requesting Interconnection

California Independent System Operator Corporation Fifth Replacement Electronic Tariff

Water & Energy Consulting Lon W. House, Ph.D.

the most promising locations for new renewables in the Imperial CREZ.

Stakeholder Comments. 2012/2013 Transmission Planning Process. Presentations from December 11 and 12 meetings

Review TAC Structure Revised Straw Proposal Stakeholder Meeting

Addendum for Clusters 10 and 11

Stakeholder Comments Template

October 6, Submitted to: CAISO

SPP at a Glance. Located in Little Rock. Approximately 600 employees

TPP-GIP Integration Proposal November 30, 2011

Rule 21 Tariff / Process Overview 6/17/2015

California leads the nation in the transition to a reliable,

CAISO Generator Deliverability Assessment Methodology. On-Peak Deliverability Assessment Methodology (for Resource Adequacy Purposes)

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT SPARKS ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR CORPORATION

Modeling DER in Transmission Planning CAISO Experience

RDRP Stakeholder Initiative

Storage as a Transmission Asset:

Distributed Energy Resource Management System (DERMS)

Generator Interconnection Process. Wholesale Distribution Overview

Load Granularity Refinements Issue Paper

Jan Strack and Huang Lin March 14, 2017

Stakeholder Comments Template Review TAC Structure Straw Proposal

Imperial County Transmission Consultation Current Resource Deliverability Capabilities from Imperial Valley

Stakeholder Comments on Transmission Planning Process Stakeholder Meeting 11 February 2013

Load Granularity Refinements. Pricing Study Description and Implementation Costs Information Request

March 3, Submitted to: CAISO

California Independent System Operator Renewable Integration Study

Page 1

Transmission Cost Allocation in the Midwest

Agenda Unified Planning Assumptions & Study Plan

The State of Wind Energy in New England

Transmission Planning Process Unified Planning Assumptions and Study Plan March 31, 2017 FINAL

PG&E s WDT Interconnection Reform Principles Document

Memorandum. This memorandum requires Board action. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stakeholder Comments Transmission Planning Process Stakeholder Meeting Reliability Assessment September 20 & 21, 2018

Integrating Renewables and Distributed Energy Resources into California s Electricity Markets

A. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED RELIABILITY PROJECTS

This briefing provides the status of renewable generation in the ISO s generator interconnection queue as of August 1, Key highlights include:

Business Practice Manual for The Transmission Planning Process

California ISO Planning Standards

COMMENTS OF THE STAFF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Load Granularity Refinements. Pricing Study Results and Implementation Costs and Benefits Discussion

Renewable Energy in California Building Livable Communities: Creating Resilient and Sustainable Economies

Final Flexible Capacity Needs Assessment for 2018

Southern California Edison Preferred Resources Pilot Portfolio Design Report Revision 2

Reliability Demand Response Product

Interconnection Specialists ensure all projects are treated in accordance with the current applicable tariff provisions

Sierra Club Comments on the ISO Transmission Plan

Dynamic Transfers Final Proposal

Written comments with CAISO reply Submitted after the April 10 Stakeholder Meeting regarding the 2009 Local Capacity Requirement (LCR) Results

Stakeholder Comments Template. Generator Interconnection Procedures Phase 3 ( GIP 3 ) Issue Paper, posted March 1, 2012

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OPENING BRIEF OF THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR CORPORATION

Stakeholder Comments 2020 and 2024 Draft Local Capacity Technical Study Meeting Draft Results March 14, 2019

VALUING ROOFTOP SOLAR

ISO Transmission Plan February 1, 2016

The Superior Value of Distribution-interconnected Generation

California Independent System Operator Corporation Fifth Replacement Tariff

California Independent System Operator Corporation Fifth Replacement Tariff

Subject: Regional Resource Adequacy Initiative

Review Transmission Access Charge Structure. Straw Proposal

Final Scenario Assumptions

CAISO Generator Deliverability Assessment Methodology. On-Peak Deliverability Assessment Methodology (for Resource Adequacy Purposes)

January 16, The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 Frist Street, NE Washington, DC 20426

Calculating a Dependable Solar. Generation Curve for. SCE s Preferred Resources Pilot

Final Flexible Capacity Needs Assessment for 2016

Transmission Planning Process Unified Planning Assumptions and Study Plan. February 22, Draft

Regional Resource Adequacy Draft Regional Framework Proposal. Stakeholder Meeting December 8, 2016

Financial Transmission Rights

Market Performance Report January 2014

Docket Nos. ER , and EL July 2015 Exceptional Dispatch Report (Chart 1 data)

November 15, The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 Frist Street, NE Washington, DC 20426

1 Market Structure and Design Changes

Recommendations on the TPP policy and economic assessment by TPP topic

Appendix 1 PRELIMINARY DELIVERABILITY BASELINE ANALYSIS STUDY REPORT

Full Network Model Scope for FNM DB67

Forward to the Revised Draft Transmission Plan

Docket Nos. ER and EL November 2018 Exceptional Dispatch Report (Chart 1 data)

Revised Transmission Planning Process. Complete Final Proposal

Journey in supporting important energy and environmental policies while maintaining reliability through a resilient power grid system

CRR Educational Material Overview

Load Distribution Factors (LDFs)

Docket Nos. ER and EL September 2018 Exceptional Dispatch Report (Chart 1 data)

Cluster Study Process

Overview of Congestion Revenue Rights In the New California Energy Market

Stakeholder Comments Template. Subject: Small and Large Generator Interconnection Procedures Draft Final Proposal and Meeting

Load Granularity Refinements Pricing Analysis Study

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Generator Interconnection Procedures Overview

Joint Workshop on Multiple-Use Applications and Station Power for Energy Storage CPUC Rulemaking and CAISO ESDER 2 Stakeholder Initiative

California ISO Planning Standards

Annual Interregional Information Transmission Planning Process. Annual Interregional Coordination Meeting Folsom, CA February 22, 2018

Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff (ReMAT) Feed-In Tariff (FIT)

Business Practice Manual for Reliability Requirements. Version 34

Rice Solar Energy Project

Transcription:

Resource Adequacy Deliverability for Distributed Generation 2017-2018 DG Deliverability Assessment Results February 21, 2018

Resource Adequacy Deliverability for Distributed Generation 1 Introduction In accordance with the ISO tariff section 40.4.6.3, the ISO performed the 2017-2018 Distributed Generation Deliverability (DGD) assessment to determine MW quantities of Potential DGD at specific nodes of the CAISO Controlled Grid for assigning deliverability status to Distributed Generation (DG) Facilities. Section 2 of this paper provides a high level summary of the study results for each participating transmission owner (PTO) service territory. The study model used by the ISO in conducting the annual DG deliverability assessment is described in section 3. Section 4 describes how the Potential DGD at each node is determined. Section 5 provides information intended to help make the detailed results easier to understand. The detailed results are contained in worksheets attached to this report. 2 DG deliverability assessment results summary The 2017-2018 DG deliverability assessment results indicate that a total of 2,426.69 megawatts of Potential DGD is available at nodes on the ISO grid for assignment of deliverability status to DG resources 1 connected or requesting interconnection below those nodes. The total Potential DGD for each PTO service territory is summarized in the following table. Of these total quantities, some amounts of Potential DGD at specific nodes will be available to municipal utility distribution companies (UDC) for assignment of deliverability status to DG resources on their distribution systems. 1 For purposes of this study, DG refers to generation resources connected to utility distribution systems. The ISO recognizes that, in some contexts, some parties use the term distributed generation to mean resources of certain technology types or below certain size thresholds, and may even include such categories of resources when they are connected to the transmission system. For purposes of this study, however, the term distributed generation refers to all generation resources connected to utility distribution systems, without regard to size or resource type. M&ID RT Page 1

PTO service territory Total MW of Potential DGD SCE 1,457.77 SDG&E 31.79 PG&E 937.13 GWT/VEA 0 Total 2,426.69 The detailed nodal amounts of Potential DGD within each PTO service territory are provided in worksheets attached to this report. The following three sections provide a summary of the results for each PTO service territory. 2.1 SCE service territory There were 36 nodes studied for Potential DGD in the SCE service territory. 2 The study determined that a total of 1457.77 megawatts of Potential DGD is available at the 36 nodes including the Potential DGD that was identified but not assigned in the previous DGD cycle. In the SCE service territory, there are two ISO grid nodes with Potential DGD where municipal utility load is served off of their respective distribution systems. 3 These two nodes are Mira Loma with 15.99 MW of Potential DGD (shared between SCE and City of Corona) Vista with 42.62 MW of Potential DGD (shared between SCE, Riverside and City of Colton) The Potential DGD (PDGD) is allocated to each load serving entity in proportional to their load share at the node. Node PDGD LSE-1 LSE-2 LSE-3 Name % PDGD Name % PDGD Name % PDGD MIRA LOMA 15.99 SCE 96.64% 15.45 City of Corona 3.36% 0.54 VISTA 42.62 SCE 42.94% 18.30 Riverside Public Utility 47.81% 20.38 City of Colton 6.89% 3.94 In the SCE service territory, there are five nodes where the distributed generators contribute to overloads that trigger Remedial Action Scheme (RAS) action. Assuming the participation of the 2 These are the nodes at which DG is designated in any of the resource portfolios used in the ISO s 2017-2018 Transmission Planning Process. This is a subset of the total nodes represented in the power flow model in the SCE service territory. This same situation also applies in the case of PG&E and SDG&E. 3 The load represented is based on the CEC s 2021 coincident peak demand forecast. M&ID RT Page 2

generators at the node for the proposed or existing RAS, the deliverable Megawatt for these generators was determined by the next constraint identified in the studies. Assignment of the conditional Potential DGD subject to verification from PTO for whether or not any DG at that node needs to be included in the RAS from a reliability perspective and if it is feasible. Kramer with 10.20 MW of Potential DGD conditional on participation in the existing Mojave Desert RAS and High Desert Power Plant RAS. Rector with 80.96 MW Potential DGD conditional on participation in the existing Big Creek/San Joaquin Valley RAS. Springville with 46.20 MW of Potential DGD conditional on participation in the existing Big Creek/San Joaquin Valley RAS. Vestal with 173.94 MW of Potential DGD conditional on participation in the existing Big Creek/San Joaquin Valley RAS. Victor with 144.49 MW of Potential DGD conditional on participation in the existing High Desert Power Plant RAS. 2.2 SDG&E service territory There were 43 nodes studied for Potential DGD in the SDG&E service territory (see footnote 2). The study determined that a total of 31.79 megawatts of Potential DGD is available at the studied nodes including the Potential DGD that was identified but not assigned in the previous DGD cycle. 2.3 PG&E service territory There were 524 nodes studied for Potential DGD in the PG&E service territory (see footnote 2). A total of 937.13 megawatts of Potential DGD is available for assignment of deliverability status to DG resources at 199 of the 524 nodes. There is none available at the remaining 325 nodes, either because (i) there was no DG designated at these nodes in the base portfolio utilized in the ISO s annual transmission planning process and there was no energy-only interconnection requests in a WDAT/Rule 21 queue, or (ii) because of deliverability constraints. In the PG&E service territory, there was one node with Potential DGD where only municipal utility load is served. There were no ISO grid nodes with Potential DGD at which both PG&E and municipal utility load is served. 2.4 GWT/VEA service territory There was 1 DG node in GWT/VEA service territory. The node is behind known transmission constraints. No Potential DGD is available in VEA area. M&ID RT Page 3

3 DG deliverability assessment study model The study model used by the ISO in the assessment was developed from the most recent ISO generation interconnection deliverability assessment base case. The first step was to model the transmission systems and prior commitment of deliverability that generally included: i. Generators that are operational and have obtained Full Capacity Deliverability Status (FCDS) or Partial Capacity Deliverability Status (PCDS) 4, including the ones obtained FCDS or PCDS in the previous DGD cycles; ii. Active generation interconnection requests in the ISO s and Participating TOs generation interconnection queues that requested Full Capacity Deliverability Status or Partial Capacity Deliverability Status in Queue Cluster 10 window or earlier; iii. Generation projects that have obtained deliverability using the annual full capacity deliverability option; iv. Generation projects that have obtained deliverability in the previous deliverability status assignment; v. The MW amount of Potential DGD that was identified but not assigned in 2016-2017 DGD cycle, i.e. 2017 unassigned PDGD; vi. Transmission upgrades that have been approved in ISO Transmission Planning Process; vii. Network Upgrades required for any generation interconnection requests that are under construction or have received regulatory permits. Next, target DG amounts were determined and added to the study model following the steps described below. i. Identify all DG nodes that have non-zero distributed generation MW in one of 2017-2018 Transmission Plan renewable portfolios. ii. At each DG node, determine the target additional DG amount. The target additional DG amount at each node was initially set to {total existing Energy Only DG 5 + the greatest of the (a) and (b) below}: a. Maximum DG MW at the node among all renewable portfolios b. Total MW amount of non-nem WDAT or Rule 21 requests The target amount was set to 0 at a node if the following condition was true: If the node is within an electrical area for which the Queue Cluster 10 Phase I interconnection studies have showed a need for a Delivery Network Upgrade; 4 These generators may not have achieved FCDS or PCDS due to required Network Upgrades not in service yet. 5 For the purpose of this study, Energy Only DG includes any DG that has requested Energy Only Deliverability Status and not previously obtained Full Capacity Deliverability Status or Partial Capacity Deliverability Status, as well as the portion of a DG that would bring the DG from Partial Capacity Deliverability Status to Full Capacity Deliverability Status. M&ID RT Page 4

The total MW modeled at a node is equal to {max (target MW, 2017 unassigned PDGD)}. iii. If a DG node is found to be behind a constraint for which there is an SPS/RAS, the node may be identified to have conditional PDGD: a. If the constraint is behind a future SPS/RAS, the DG node behind such constraint will be identified to have no PDGD. b. If the constraint is behind an existing load-dropping SPS/RAS, the DG node behind such constraint will be identified to have no PDGD if the SPS/RAS requires modification in terms of increasing required amount of load drop. If the SPS/RAS doesn t require modification in terms of increasing required amount of load drop, the DG node behind such constraint will be identified to have PDGD. c. If the constraint is behind an existing gen-dropping SPS/RAS, the DG node behind such constraint will be identified to have conditional PDGD subject to verification from PTO for whether or not any DG at that node needs to be included in the SPS/RAS from a reliability perspective and if it is feasible. 4 DGD determination This ISO performed deliverability assessment determined the amount of deliverable MW at each node. Part or all of the deliverable MW amount determined was then identified as Potential DGD for assigning Deliverability Status to Distributed Generation Facilities. In general, the Potential DGD is the deliverable MW amount, minus any prior commitments, that does not exceed the sum of existing Energy Only DG and future Energy Only DG. If the initially identified Potential DGD is lower than the 2017 unassigned Potential DGD, the 2017 unassigned Potential DGD is preserved. Potential DGD = max {2017 unassigned PDGD, min {deliverable MW, existing EO + max {base portfolio, EO interconnection requests} } } 5 Detailed DG deliverability assessment results The detailed results are attached to this report. There is one worksheet for each PTO service territory. The following is a listing of the column headings used in the worksheet along with a brief explanation of each. A. DG Node Substation Name. Name of the substation representing the DG node. B. DG Node Transmission Level kv. The transmission level voltage at the transmission/distribution interface. C. DG in Base Portfolio. The megawatts of DG at the node in the base portfolio utilized in the ISO s 2017-2018 Transmission Planning Process. M&ID RT Page 5

D. WDAT/Rule 21 non-nem DG EO. The total megawatts of non-nem DG at the node in the WDAT queue that have requested Energy Only Deliverability Status and not obtained deliverability previously. E. WDAT/Rule 21 non-nem DG FC. The total megawatts of non-nem DG at the node in the WDAT or Rule 21 queue that have requested or obtained deliverability. F. Existing non-nem DG EO. The total megawatts of non-nem DG at the node already in commercial operation that have not obtained deliverability. G. Existing non-nem DG FC. The total megawatts of non-nem DG at the node already in commercial operation that have obtained deliverability. H. 2017 Unassigned PDGD. The total megawatts of Potential DGD identified but not assigned in the 2016-2017 DG deliverability cycle. I. Target DG Modeled. The total megawatts of DG modeled at the node in the DG deliverability assessment. J. DG Deliverable. The total megawatts of DG determined to be deliverable at the node. K. Potential DGD. The total megawatt amount of Potential DGD at the node available for assignment of deliverability status to DG resources. Potential DGD is calculated as Max (Column H, Min (Column J, Column F + Max (Column C, Column D))). L. Notes. Comments to help understand the results. M&ID RT Page 6