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

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

ICA Working Group Background ICA WG PURPOSE - Pursuant to the May 2, 2016, Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling (ACR) in DRP proceeding (R.14-08-013), 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

ICA Working Group Schedule To Date May 2nd, 2016 - 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

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

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

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 http://www.drpwg.org 3

Joint IOU Motion Status update

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

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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

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

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

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

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

EPRI study Jeff Smith presentation 3

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

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

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

Data Proposal 3

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

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

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

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

Next steps 3