1. LNBA Subgroup: Avoided Transmission Value
July 19, 2017
Webinar
drpwg.org

2. Overview
Long-Term Refinement (June 7 ACR) and Decision (September 8)
IOUs are to serve proposals for modeling and/or methodological approaches to achieve the third use case (use of LNBA in cost-effectiveness evaluation) within 60 days of the Decision (Dec.6)
LNBA WG would like to avoid parallel discussion and overlapping comments between the Final Long-Term Refinement Report (due Jan. 8) and comments on the IOUs’ methodology filings (separate Energy Division-led process). The WG submitted proposals and discussion that has been held here may inform the ED-process.
This WG final report will also summarize discussion to date for the LNBA deferral use case; however, given upcoming projects and overlapping discussions (e.g., Oakland Chinatown case study), this is not meant to be the primary focus.

3. Overview Next Steps Written proposals are due Dec. 6.
MTS will summarize discussion to date within the WG, and include all written proposals into the Final LTR report in full
Opportunities for comments and written responses to proposals on the avoided transmission topic, including comments on the utilities’ proposals due 12/6, will be shifted to the upcoming regulatory process focused on the Track 1 Decision (rather than in the Working Group report comment process), which envisions comment periods and workshops on this LNBA topic. This avoids the need to submit overlapping sets of comments on similar issues

4. Incorporation of LNBA Avoided Transmission Costs into DERAC
LNBA Working Group

5. Understanding SCE’s Transmission System
Mira Loma
Lugo
Victor
Kramer
Antelope
Magunden
Inyokern
Vincent
Control
Rector
Big Creek
Mead
Gene
Palo Verde
Midway
J. Hinds
Eagle Mt
Alamitos
Eldorado
ARIZONA
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
Eastern 20%
Metro
51%
Devers
Valley 7%
Whirlwind
Ventura 7%
Red Bluff
Colorado River
Big Creek 12%
Outer Rural 3%

6. Impact and Value of DERs on SCE’s Transmission System
Category
Regions
Load and Generation Characteristics
Effect of Net Peak Load Reduction
Value of Net Peak Load Reduction
Import
Metro
Major load center with limited generation
Reduce transmission constraints through reduced imports
Positive Value
Ventura
Isolated load center with limited generation
Export/Transfer
Outer Rural
Limited load and extensive renewable energy development
Exacerbate transmission constraints through increased exports
Negative Value
Ambiguous
Big Creek
Load and generation both extremely whether dependent
Highly varied from year to year
Neutral
Valley
Limited growth, moderate renewables development
Uncertain
Eastern

7. Estimated Avoided Cost Value
Regional granularity
Locational granularity cannot be specified within a region. Therefore, assume needs, and associated avoided costs, are averaged across region
Estimating avoided cost of deferred projects
Cannot develop “hypothetical” needs projects based on counterfactual analysis without extensive transmission planning analysis
Therefore, use MTC to estimate avoided cost per kW
Estimating needs
Earlier years: limited deferral opportunity
Planned capital dollars are primarily to completed existing projects
Fewer anticipated grid needs
Later years: More deferral opportunities
More needs anticipated throughout the grid
Calculating value: Escalating fraction
Earlier years: Few needs to be deferred  small average value
Assume average avoided cost to be fraction of MTC
Later years: Assume needs increase over time. Eventually assume deferrable projects in all locations  larger average value
Assume average avoided cost to be full MTC
Apply RECC methodology to calculate present value of estimated avoided costs