Thank you Francisco and just.
Uh, let's do a quick roll check to make sure the speakers are on.
Uh, do we have the utilities back Michael from on.
All right, thank you, Michael. Uh, do we have you back.
Alex,
do we have you back
anybody else back from the utilities?
Let's give it a couple more minutes.
We have you back.
Yeah, I'm here. Okay Thank you.
And Alex, do we have few back.
Right. Uh, John burger and sky. Do we have you back?
Here Brian, I think yeah, I'm here. All right. Thank you. Brian.
And I think John was South so crucial to this.
Conversation so John burger.
All right and I'd go back to Alex.
eugine
alright, let's give it a couple more minutes and then we'll start up again.
Let's do to get people a little bit more time to get back.
Is someone able to ping Alex or others from PG E if that's who we're waiting for?
This guy I'm on. Oh, you are? I thought that was what we were waiting for.
Oh, okay, Alex, you're back. Okay. And John.
Are you back burner? Okay. Were you talking to me?
Oh, yes, just making sure you were on the call yeah, I'm on.
All right. Okay so I think we have the, uh.
Um, major people that were discussing, uh, they were talking.
Before lunch breaks so I think we can resume.
All right, uh, my lunch break was filled up a meeting, so I kinda forgot where we were when we had a break. So.
Um, I think we were talking about.
The, I knew that you remember John had a good recommendation on continue to take advantage of the fuel testing option.
Till they send out the.
Like, equipment on site, once you request a fuel testing.
Fall like a lab, for example, and RTL to test to the PCs standard.
And that can kind of work from a testing perspective on site.
Is that what we left off? This is Brian. I think we, we left off, um, looking more at the relay option.
As, uh, as an alternative to certification.
And potentially seeing what I think the next question that Alex was kind of lining up is whether or not the I use, could support kind of.
Verifying or certifying I don't know exactly what the the term they uses.
The relay equipment, they could potentially affect a schedule using.
I took a call a reverse power relay and that reverse power. Bi, directional.
So, if a relay is going to be used.
And couple with the sub certified inverters and gateway.
Why can't that get a field testing like, testing.
To demonstrate that you meet the whatever requirements.
In the PCs standard to get.
You know, approve for integration.
Yeah, I think the idea would be that this would be.
As an alternative to feel certification.
No, no, I guess I'm hearing is that folks on the call believe that architecture can meet the requirement of.
Hence why it's a appropriate alternative, right?
If if it meets the requirement, how can, why can't it get the field testing?
Or a field listing, if you will. Yep this is John. I, I had proposed, um.
Using a directional relay.
In conjunction with an uncertified.
pcf, as a way to meet you totally requirements so.
You would essentially use the.
As a backstop or secondary eliminating function.
And then the customer would use the uncertified PCs.
As a way to avoid nuisance, stripping of the directional.
But the overcrowding related would meet utility requirement, um, for protection.
Um, um, the uncertified, um.
Couldn't meet the customer need to avoid nuisance training. So that's what I was proposing.
Um, I did look, uh, during the break, I looked at the, uh.
Uh, um, site, and they have a number of directional current relays that do have communication interfaces, including my bus and.
And, um, uh, I see 6,150.
I put a call in I haven't heard anything back yet.
But these based on the data sheets, I think it's worth exploring a bit further. It looks like it might be viable.
And you 2 questions, this is something that could be verified. Basically once seems like, you know, the, the equipment itself could be verified once, rather than requiring a listing for every single.
Site, so there may be, you know, certainly commissioning tests to make sure that that equipment is set up, but you wouldn't have to feel list the same equipment over and over. Again.
And, uh, I think since we've already established, if we look, I'm looking at this, uh, Matrix on the screen.
And essentially, I think it would combine, um, I think it's basically, um.
Uh, operation and option 2. uh, I believe the 1st, 1.
Where you have a server or a gateway.
That then is communicating with the.
Directional currently to provide the.
The guarantee of not exceeding the export, so it may be a.
Uh, message D item 2.
Um, it would seem to me, it could also be done, uh, method C.
Um, I wouldn't say the inverter terminals per say.
But maybe the combined, the output of multiple inverters.
Quick run through the relay.
And I was going to ask Alex.
It sounds like there's.
Ways that the utilities are certifying relays today.
I don't know if there's something in section Oliver all 21 that references how this would be done.
I haven't gone through there yet, but is there a standard process by which this would be done? Or is this more.
Utility internal testing that they do.
Yeah, I know that you can use that directional over current relay today.
For export limiting, or to do a non exporting system.
And they, they are approved, there's less for example, of the approve relates to approved to that function.
The unknown that I thought Alex raised that prior to the lunch break.
Was do we need to realize support, um, scheduling functionality.
And I didn't find that the relay itself supported scheduling functionality.
But they do appear to support the communication protocols.
That will allow them to be used with a gateway or a server.
To support that function. Yeah, that's correct John. So, what what we would need to investigate would be if the really that's being proposed is already approved then.
It's just this additional piece of equipment with used.
With the relay, but Brian, if you if the relay is being proposed is not approved there is a process, uh, at least the PG E follows to approve release. I think it's, it's called appendix T in the.
Pg E, connection handbook maybe let me let me double check real quick.
Yeah, I recall looking at that appendix, uh, maybe 9 months ago Alex, and.
The, uh, really inexpensive for, like a 751.
We're not approved, but the more feature code relates were.
So, there appeared at least from Schweitzer, there appeared to be a number.
Of options that at least on the data sheet looks like it could meet the functionality.
Yeah, yeah, it's appendix R, as in robot, but we will have to investigate this. This, uh, cause most of this really is I think the assumption is that it's a static static setting.
You know, it's controlling based on that 1 setting.
But if the, if the export limit or setting.
It's changing over time. That's the piece that I'm not 100. sure.
Sorry for just making sure we're clear. What is the.
Equipment apology were talking about here, is it.
Is it are we talking about expansion of option? 1?
Here where there's a C, Sup, certify server and then there's inverter that meets you l741. And then there's another relay.
Function alongside of all of that.
So, my, my understanding is that.
The equipment and whether it's method, eh.
Through g, well, 1 of the other methods does not approved. Right? It's using a gateway. It's using.
Some other control system that the customer chooses.
But for 1 reason or another, they cannot go through.
Uh, PCs, certification process so, in that case.
We would the proposal is that we accept and approved relay.
That can be said for export limitation using.
Different hourly values, so from the utility perspective.
It doesn't really matter what's going on with the PCs, whether it's approved or not.
For all that we know the customer could be using some load management system.
That they designed themselves, but the relay.
Because it really is approved limit. Export would ensure that.
No, more than what's approved can be exploited to the grids. So therefore would satisfy the requirements was my understanding.
Try not to so the relay is approved to what.
To limit the standards just there's just a release approved to limit export. This is an approve relay. There's no standard.
Yeah, the, um, the realize themselves are approved typically by utilities on a case by case basis.
For for specific functions, and as Alex said it's in for PG E, it's in the interconnection handbook and appendix are and there's a list of relays. Totally great protection relates.
By function, and which ones were approved for, which is going to be Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.
No, 1 is.
A time variant schedule, which I believe you should be able to get through that using an offsite server gateway.
Sorry, so what's being proposed right now is not listed on the screen. I think you would be another option.
So, it would be, it will be an option that will be using a relay.
With something like an, which is not.
I thought what you had in 1 of his examples, but it's not listed on here. So it's an additional proposal.
Which we have to vet amongst ourselves, but.
And essentially wouldn't have anything to do with the PCs or PCs standard.
Would it need an architect or sh, kinda gateway still? It's anyway using a protocol to send a command 6,950 or right?
I think that's a good point. So, I think Brian was mentioning our, but if the really is also capable of.
Being coupled with a gateway and and the system gateway would have to be satisfied right to succeed. And then.
The relay itself, there's no certification standard for the relay and then it could be filled.
Verified as far as the functionality of the 2 pieces of equipment.
Yeah, I think we'd have to verify whether a gateway could control the relay directly. Right?
Exactly, yeah, I just wanted to clarify that. This is a sort of like a new proposal that's being put on the table that wasn't included in sort of what we've discussed before and we still have to.
Sounds like it's doable. We start to read it amongst the. I used to see what it would take to make this a reality sort of thing.
Yeah, and I appreciate Alex, you willingness to this. I would say that this is the evolution of having understood.
What the limitations were, so it's great to hear that we've been able to think through this enough. So, um.
Trying to move us along here. What on the utility side needs to be considered? And then what can the, um.
Other stakeholders help with, in terms of what we need to verify Brian and John, it sounds like we need to.
Figure out if the relay can work with the.
Scheduling device how do we, what's the process to do that?
Hello.
Yeah, all I can certainly call twice. I already have a call in to them.
So, I just haven't heard back from them yet. So I'm happy to ask the question. You know, it doesn't support 2035, but it does support.
3 and ride bikes and 61 so it would mean at the gateway device.
Or server device that is setting the schedule.
We would need to be approved for 1 of those protocols.
Okay, so John's going to talk to Schweitzer.
And then, hopefully, if you could hear back from them, maybe we'd be able to report back on the.
See, 5 swans we want to call on Thursday. Is that doable?
And then the utilities that you guys are going to take this back internally, and give it some thought in terms of what that testing would be. I see allergy pointed to appendix. R.
So, it sounds like we need to everyone should probably take a look at that.
That's the PG E is specific, right? Yes. Appendix. rsp Jenny specific. It has to do with, uh, the process for proving relays.
That goes to the approval list, but if the project is proposing to use, really, that's already on the list. Then appendix will be irrelevant, but it's just for new release.
Okay, so it sounds like what we need you need to do is.
Figure out what do we need to write an additional? What what review do you guys need or want if they're using an existing relay that's on the list and this.
Combining it as not an attempt to distract myself. Um, what else is there other questions that essentially need to be answered on this?
Yeah, I, I assume there will be more questions. I just don't know which questions 1 thing that comes to mind is.
What does it really do? If you lose the communication between.
You know, our track or gateway, if it can be used with the relay, you know, like, is it capable.
Going back to a different value, or, uh.
Those are things, I don't know. So cause if you set a relay and you say, you know, get your schedule from.
And on our end, for some reason, fails or communication party is broken.
What happens in so, and then, you know, the time the time delay is there is there any.
What's the latency for communication? What does that add to the actual.
Trip times, you know, I, those are questions that we would need to ask, but.
You know, I'm, I'm assuming There'll be more questions, but, you know, for now, that is what I can think of.
Okay, it sounds like the exercise is to identify those questions.
So that we can get answers to those questions. Um.
In a timely manner. Yeah sky realistically we may have to think through and talk about it based on what we see at this.
Oh, sorry switch. Um, I don't know. I thought I got it, but no.
Um, yeah, cause I've to engage my team who has more expertise on the control system to come in let us know what they think.
Um, yeah, but basically summarize that we have some homework to do and.
Also, I'll have to discuss based on what John was able to find out from.
Okay, sounds like.
Plan is there anything more to discuss today about any of these other options then, or anything?
Oh, sorry go ahead. Yeah, it seems to me that this is very similar to option 1.
In terms of, you know, 1 is using certified devices without a PCs. And this is.
This is an option of using a trusted relay to basically do.
Something similar, but you could affect it at the PCC rather than right at the, uh.
Inverter terminals so, I mean, I'm.
I would think we'd still want to pursue that option 1 as well. And I think that would be very similar questions, but I'm.
Curious as to other other people think that would be.
The case that, you know, the questions that arise would be similar, or.
What we would need to do in terms of commissioning and testing and whatnot.
So, for a millionaire, I thought I understand it, but maybe not. I, I thought this new option on the table is kind of an enhanced version of option 1. so whatever Ops, and we have here.
Except the green, which the last option is kind of off the table.
But it doesn't sound like that's your understanding though. Brian.
So, can you clarify what's the difference between this option? 1 and this new option we're exploring.
Well, you're you're using different equipment to.
Different sets of trusted equipment in option 1, you're implementing it at the inverter terminals.
And then the relay option, you can allows you to do it at the, without the certified PCs, which is, but both of them allow you to do it without certified PCs. So.
I'm not 100 certain. We need both options if at least 1 is available and certainly the relay 1 would maybe be preferable for allowing load.
Um, to to serve load before exporting.
Um, but I just want to make sure that we.
Either do, or do not definitely do or do not want to pursue option 1 since it's similar. And it seems as though it would have similar hurdles in terms of getting it implemented.
Can I check my understanding.
This is Justin. Sorry I'm off camera. I'm not feeling well today, but.
What I'm understanding is the, the.
The fundamental problem we're trying to solve is that it can be expensive.
To get certification.
Or large inverters, so large, singular inverters because of the high power to higher power.
The test equipment that is required to do so.
And because of that, we're talking about potentially cobbling together different.
Sorts of smaller equipment for a large installation.
I'm using a relay as kind of a backstop protection because the certification of.
Of getting a bunch of smaller pieces of equipment together.
Doesn't doesn't track what we've got with the is that my understanding that right?
I would, I think the 2nd, part of.
What you said makes sense and the 1st 1 may or may not be the case.
Basically, but it's it's more.
From my perspective testing, uh, you, you always could use a direction over currently.
That's always been on the table however, they have been implemented with static settings.
So, what we're saying is we need to investigate.
How you would interface a schedule.
That is residing in a gateway or an offsite server.
With an on site relay.
And then, you know, Relay, normally you wouldn't want it to trip.
But you would want to have an uncertified PCs.
Sitting behind the relay, so that would be modulating generation load, whatever it needs to do.
To keep the experts within the limits.
But because it had never been evaluated, we are, we're going to propose using an approved.
Utility approved, you know, you totally great relay.
To enforce the limit if the and evaluated PCs doesn't work properly.
Does that make sense? Yeah, it.
I mean, it it sounds like a different option.
Then a, using a certified PCs to control hub.
Justin from my non engineering understanding, the reason why we're going spending all the time on this.
Is I think there are 2 reasons 1 is getting to the larger system size, which, as we've talked about a lot is like, the projects that are most likely that we use.
And get the roots benefit from the.
So that's 1 and then, 2, is that the other options a, through some of them, I guess, would the 1st,
I guess operation option number ones would be implemented in a way that would enable the customer to serve the on site mode.
Our control the onset the same way. So, those are the I think those are the 2 main.
Challenges we're trying to resolve that. This really option would help with.
Both of which are important to getting into the most likely use case for the.
So, I guess that does.
You know what Justin was saying those kind of trigger my question here.
If we're exploring these alternative as.
Opposed to the, the under testing.
Do we know these alternative methods are actually cheaper.
And less costly to go through, compared to just getting the testing.
That's a good question Brian I'm assuming that the testing is not just.
A cost as much as the time and logistics journal as well, though, right?
Yeah, we're talking about field testing.
No, it sounds like we are exploring, you know, using the relay, which potentially will involve, you know, fuel testing or lab testing whatever needs to validate the functionality.
But if if the issue for, like, the option 3, which is the green is not a.
Practical limitation is more, like, just worried about it's going to be too complicated or it too costly.
I guess I'm not, I'm not hearing, like, do we actually know going this? The attorney approach is going to make it easier and cheaper.
Because it does sound like a lot more moving parts. Like, you have to make sure the relay actually works.
Alongside PCs.
What not I'm not not a very technical aspect on that, but just.
Thinking out loud here. Yeah, this John, the relays are already approved.
For this application by the utilities.
There is a standard. This is the old way.
That things were done before we had PCs.
Um, and PCs is an alternative to the protective.
But what nobody's investigated yet is how.
To implement a schedule, using a protective relay.
So we know that the relay is already approved. They've already been tested by the utilities. It is a valid way.
To implement this functionality the only missing piece is we have to figure out.
How you can have a time variant behavior on the relay.
And that should be a relatively easy thing to figure out.
And your question, so again, I'm not an expert in this either, but my understanding is that realize are an affordable option. They're not going to be as cheap as a PCs, but they would be affordable an affordable option for projects above 1 megawatt.
That's the understanding that eric's been operating on a lot of.
Conversations about the larger scale systems.
So that I think that's why this is worth pursuing.
Is it gonna be cheaper than a PCs alone? No, but the piece, the logistics and the challenges of getting a whole, a whole system certified.
As a system, our probably makes us worth it is what we're guessing.
And it, it leaves the option up to the developer, whereas.
You know, if we only have the certified option, the, the options are only the options would be limited to whatever the manufacturers feel the need to support that level of.
Certification would be basically.
Yeah, that's fair point. I was just thinking out loud. Right? I don't want to be, you know, oscl and Pat down this past and not being a more complicated route.
Right. Good question. Yeah, I wasn't here, but last time I was asking him, he mentioned that some of the complex of, you know, testing in existing.
Equipment again, merging existing standards is the exact reason why we decide to go for the PCs route.
So, there's some reason why we decided this route I'm not to try to understand.
Yeah, and that's really important for small projects. For the reason we went the route was critical.
For residential and small projects that's exactly why the huge advantage of that as opposed to using a relay but now that we're talking about.
We're telling them several different set of challenges was just doing the scheduling and then for larger projects, that's the gap we're trying to fill as those above 1 megawatt whereas the really options always existed.
Under the flat export control and non export option. So we didn't, you know, that's kind of the niche that already filled before and we're trying to just expand that to the.
Scheduling capability, so for.
The next step here, um, for Thursday.
Why is it too much ask for you to? Maybe.
Like, bring a deck or bring a slide to draw out architecture.
So, we can kind of use styles discussing point for this really option.
Yeah, I think I could do that thanks so much.
And it sounds like the discussion where we're trending down.
Gives 2 pathways to.
Satisfying the utilities need to understand that a system is following it's limited generation profile, right?
So 1 is the certified PCs system.
Um, and that 1 doesn't seem to have any.
Any contention or any mystery. Really? But folks are are concerned that.
At a larger size may be either.
Cost or complexity prohibitive I mean, I don't know, John. Maybe you can answer if.
If you got a inverter system that was at 500 kilowatts or something.
Would there be a way of certifying it? So you could stack.
You know, over many 500 K W blocks you want to make a.
A modular system, so for a 3.5 megawatt would be 7 of these blocks.
I mean, that's that's 1 question.
Um, yeah, sorry, uh, the answer is, um.
Uh, yeah, I think the where the question.
It came up before the break was what if I have.
A site with different equipment from different suppliers.
And there's not really a, a cost effective or expedient way.
To get a, you are listing.
On a system like that can be done, but it's.
Time consuming and expensive for the same money or less. You could probably put a.
Protected really on site, and for larger systems that really may be present anyway.
So, it's just a matter of picking the right multi function relay from the approved list and you could also get.
The extra limiting capability.
Got it let me.
Sounds like the hurdles we need to clear on. This is.
Understanding so thank you, John.
It sounds like we're heading down 2 pathways for achieving utilities comfort with limited generation.
Profiles being honored at the, at the generating facility level.
1 is a single or some combination of systems that has achieved a.
Certification or SSP, as it will be.
And the 2nd is using a relay within our tech.
As a backstop for a similar control system that just doesn't have the certification.
And the open question, as I understand it is whether the, I are use.
Um, are comfortable with just having.
An architect bolted onto a relay and having that be something that is.
Is known trusted to prevent export in excess of the.
I'm not an expert on, but I'm not sure if it's right. You just say that it's to satisfy I use comfortable.
I I thought this new option on the table, the really option.
It's also there's still some validation. Uh, John, Brian, others is looking to validate to make sure Ashley can implement.
At the right cause the folks I think I mentioned earlier, right? There's also the benefit folks don't want to lose with going for option 1 where you don't have.
You know, the right it's going to have to be implemented as invert or terminal level.
So, it's not really just us being comfortable with it. It's.
There's some additional work that needs to be done to make sure this option actually works.
Yeah, and you mentioned that the relay would achieve.
I I think it wouldn't achieve so much as ensure. There's other equipment that's.
That's making it happen. The relay is just there to make sure that it happens and understanding of that.
Right, yeah, I mean, this is the, the.
We're suggesting to relay be there because it's a known.
But no, 1 item pay for utilities, basically, and we had all these similar conversations actually, for the National electrical code 2023 edition because the definition of power control systems was being used for multiple reasons.
And folks were coming to the table saying, well. the table saying well
We can't only allow for power for certified power control systems because sometimes here you have an entire building, automation system involved say, and, and you're creating the thing on site and so.
You know, actually allows for something to be failed certified in addition to, you know, certified through type tests or even be.
Approved under your engineering supervision, I believe, is the wording there. And so I doubt that that style would really be.
Palatable to the utilities, but having some sort of device on there, as John says, like, as a backstop for these systems that are.
They're, they're going to be engineers to fit the requirements of the but the relay is there as, like, the police to make sure that it does that thing.
So, I.
We're talking about an extra relay.
Right. Or or because there are going to be relays there, regardless.
I, I mean, the system has to be protected.
So that there, there will be relays all all around the.
Um, yeah.
The substation, the generating plant I I mean, every, every segment.
Is is going to be protected and double protected through zones of protection.
So, we're talking about an extra relay that's that's strictly devoted to the.
Generation output function is that is that.
Correct or are we thinking about repurposing.
1 of the other existing release, I would think you may have.
You certainly may have 6 without relays, like a commercial rooftop.
May not have any relays on it. It's using the inverter inherent protective functions.
And so that's a lot of states today, use just inverters for the protection.
You could have a relay onsite doing protection and if it's a multi function relay and maybe it.
As long as, you know, the PTs and whatnot, and the are on the same in the right place, then maybe you can utilize that function alongside of other protective functions.
Okay appreciate it. Thank you, Brian. I think I agree with you for largest systems.
Larger the system, the more likely there will already be.
Some protective relying on site.
And since most of the relays these days are multi function.
Directional time over current is certainly a standard function.
However, what no 1 on the call knows at the moment is, how would you implement a time variant setting.
On the directional or current relay, it seems that it will be an easy question to answer it. Just nobody here knows. And we haven't asked yet.
But I agree with you the relay. I'll probably be there for a big system.
Well, given given all that, it sounds like there's not any controversy around using a certified PCs.
Hold on a 2nd, and there's a.
There's some more information we need to gather to speak to the.
The 2nd method, which is using whatever equipment is on site and whatever configuration that.
We would reasonably expect to work in all circumstances, but doesn't have a certification certified that it'll do. So.
Maybe we should table this discussion until Thursday, and we've had a chance to do a bit of investigation as to what is.
Usable.
Yeah, and that's where I was thinking we were and that's why I was trying to just hammer out who was.
So these are going to take this back and John and Brian will coordinate on figuring out the relays. We're talking to Schweitzer about the relay.
Yeah, I I think, as Alex said, it would if if we imagine this table with another row at the bottom.
That's what we will probably come up with on Thursday.
Okay, um, I, I think we have a game plan for Thursday.
Um, this is both your mind is.
Bring it to the next slide there's actually no additional content. This is really just our recommendation based on what we know we.
Felt like, you know, options 3 is the best option and it doesn't seem there is any sort of.
Disagreement around that and the, to be discussed is this new option on the table and we'll further discuss it at this Thursday.
All right with that I think I'm actually done with topic EE.
All right Jose, anything else before we jump into the topic f here.
Know out of them from my end.
Go ahead, Michael, thank you. Good afternoon. Everyone Michael bring in with so on topic f, implementing more than 12 limited generation profile values per year.
Just want to provide a little bit of background on this topic before we jump into the next slide.
So, in workshop 2, which we had on February, 21st, the presented, um, the data analysis.
Which included comparison of low profiles and comparison of static grid profiles over 2 time periods.
And use that kind of as a proxy to estimate where unexpected criteria violations could occur on the system when you compare 12 or 288, unique values, unique values over the course of the of the profile.
the of the profile
On March, 2nd, we continue that discussion at the smarter virtual working group during that meeting,
presented a proposal for how to build upon the analysis to hopefully provide a better characterization of how risk may be related to the number of unique values.
So, today's slides will represent the analysis that the are planning to complete, um, hopefully in time or ideally, in time for limited generation profile workshop for, which is going to occur on April 5th.
Next slide please. So, here's our excerpt from 50 resolution. 5,230.
um, we've covered this a couple of different times, but the main takeaway here is that, um, we adopted to 88 hour format includes 24 values for each of the 12 months. of the twelve months
Of the year, essentially, this amounts to customers to being the same value 24 times a month on a monthly basis for a year when 1 value would suffice. And in the next paragraph.
The large IO user, therefore directed to discuss the 208 hour format, and how it may allow for more than 1 value per month.
Since kind of workshop 2, or along along this journey, there's been the topic of a middle ground profile. I think we're calling in now, which is somewhere between 12 unique values over the course of the year and 288 unique values over the course of the year.
So, that's kind of been a question on the table. How can we further analyze something like that to. something like that to
Ideally determine where there's, uh, you know, an intersection if you will between the benefit of additional power and energy delivered to the grid and the, you know,
the risk that the additional number of unique data points would potentially create.
Next slide please.
So, this is kind of the high level proposal, um, for additional LGB analysis again, following a lot of, I would say, good stakeholder discussion at the March. 2nd, smarter working group meeting.
Um, and then after this, you'll see a slide specific for and then a slide specific for PG. E. so in general, the scope and and again, this is consistent with analysis that was presented during workshop.
Do, and then it builds upon that.
So, the scope is to compare the IC static grid for 2 time periods.
For, at least 1 node on at least 5 different circuits, um, when doing that we will compare the frequency, um, the percent and the count of hours where the,
for any given hour in time period to is less than the, for the same hour in time period. 1, again, that's kind of a proxy to indicate where an unexpected criteria violation may occur on the system.
The severity or magnitude range so where those numbers are less in time period to than time period. 1, how different are they uh, what's the largest difference? What's the smallest difference?
And then also as a really helpful and insightful input from the March. 2nd, smarter order working group is.
What is the limiting criteria that's driving?
Um, that value that minimum value is from the, um, so recall that the ACA, static grid is, uh, the minimum of multiple limiting criteria, which includes steady state, voltage Volt, variation,
thermal and protection.
So where there is a difference, what is driving that minimum value so we can start to characterize, you know, 20% of the time the difference was due to voltage 30% of the time. It was due to thermal et cetera, et cetera.
So, that was really helpful. A recommendation that I provided during the March. 2nd, smarter working group.
Generally speaking around interpretation of results.
So, the initial position here is that if the number of.
Limited generation profile values increases.
If as the number of values increases the frequency or the maximum magnitude of violation increase, then the would maintain the position to utilize 12 unique values.
Timeline again, as I mentioned earlier is to be completed by workshop for.
Before I move past this slide, I just want to acknowledge that.
At least for, we're not portraying this as a perfect analysis. Um, you know, at least 1 node on, at least 5 different circuits. I think many would agree is far from what would be considered statistically significant.
Uh, based on, about 4,250 feeders, distribution feeders um, but it is additional analysis that will hopefully give us some, you know, further insight above and beyond what was presented at workshop too, and is analysis that with some, at least some.
with some at least some
Considerable workload re, prioritization is something that we believe we can get done by workshop for.
Next slide so this is plan limited generation profile analysis.
You'll see some consistency with PG E, but we'll go through and then I'll pass it over to Alex to go through PG. E. um, so we're going to start by selecting a circuit and any 3 phase node on that circuit.
Uh, following some feedback also from the smart order, working group on March, 2nd, was to be a little bit more definitive on how we select the circuits. So, instead of just.
Doing it completely random, which was our initial proposal um, I'm suggesting that we select a circuit from each of our kind of geographically unique areas.
So potentially the Silicon Valley, the metropolitan area coastal area, our valley and inland areas and primarily selecting.
We're actually exclusively selecting 12 or 16 KB circuits since those make up the largest portion of our overall distribution circuits at.
So once you select that 1st note on the 1st circuit, you'll define, or we will define the 17,676 circuit load profile for 2 different time periods. Uh, so, for example, calendar, year, 2020, January through December would be time period.
1, and then, uh, calendar year, 2021, January through December would be time period. 2. calendar year two thousand and twenty one january through december would be time period two
Number 3 is kind of, uh, not exactly in order, but number 3 is a gathering and additional parameter that we think is relevant and insightful to this analysis doesn't actually play a role in it. But we discussed that workshop too.
And I think the smarter we're working group to.
How much generation has actually connected to this circuit between time period 1 and time, period 2 to try to, you know.
Better contextualize the potential changes in between those 2 time periods. So for number 3, we'll we will just query the total nameplate amount of generation that's interconnected to each circuit that we're studying.
Um, and then kind of store that on the side for reference.
So, back into the sequence of once you've created the 576 circuit load profiles for both of those time periods and step 2.
In step 4, we're actually gonna run it says uniform gen, static grid but in order to actually compute that value, we'll have to obtain the for each of the limiting criteria steady state, voltage, full variation, thermal protection. So, on.
Um, and then use those individual criteria based results to generate the uniform gen, static grid profile.
So each of those profiles in number 4, are there actually going to be a 176 profile because we feed in a 176 circuit load profile for each time, period, and then produce a 176 result.
For the minimum and maximum 288. so 5 is where it gets fun. Um, so for each of the each of the 2 time periods will create the following profiles. There's 16 profiles total.
For again, for each node on each circuit, a minimum of 1 note on 5 different circuits.
And what you see on 5 a, through 5 H, is our attempt to explore this middle ground.
Um, the 208, I think we're all familiar with that's the highest resolution you can get for hourly minimums across the, uh, that's 5 a.
5 H, is what we've been talking about as the monthly minimums with 12 unique, uh, values over the course of the year.
And then for B, through g, we're talking about taking the minimum over.
A 2 hour window over a 3 hour window over 4 hour window, 6 hour window, 8 hour window and then 12 hour window, um, to try to figure out if there's, um, you know, we can better understand.
Uh, how that risk may be characterized over those different levels of granularity.
So, for step 6, once we've run each of those, or once we've generated each of those 16 profiles.
We will compare them for the 2 time periods and we'll start to count the number of hours where the hourly value per time period to is less than the hourly profile or value for time period. 1.
Calculate the percent and the magnitude difference for each of those hours.
And then identifying delivery the limiting criteria that drove the minimum value within each profile.
Number 7, I'm not sure where this came from. This was a an augmentation, um, to original proposal. I remember PG E talking about it, but I think this is probably also borrowing from.
Public advocate's offices analysis, and 7 is to calculate the actual energy and power that's delivered over the course of the year for each of the 8 different profile types.
So, if you go with 288, what's your energy in power delivered to the grid if you go with 144, what's your energy and power delivered to the grid and so on and so forth for profiles? 58 through 5 H. so forth for profiles five eight through five h
And then step is just, uh, go back to the top and start over for the next node on the next circuit.
So before I pass it over to PG E, let me pause here and see if there's any questions.
Scott yeah. Um, so I guess 1 question I have is just so I make sure I understand. Is there a reason why you guys have to recreate this as opposed to just using existing.
Data, just from an efficiency standpoint.
Yeah, so I'm hoping that for a time period, too, we can use the most recent run.
So, we don't necessarily have to rerun time period too, but we would have to go back and and regenerate time period. 1, because as far as I know, we don't have archived the, uh, input load, profiles and hourly results.
So, we have those, you gave them to us in March of last year it would be helpful. We could re, provide them to you. I'm just, you know, it's not a big deal for you to recreate it. That's fine. And I was just noting that.
We have archived them, um.
From last from the March 2022 data request, um, in case that's helpful.
And then, I guess the other observation I had, um.
Is I appreciate that this would be complicated to do it?
But my sense is that the way to make the.
The least impactful if we're doing.
A more limited.
Instead of 288 somewhere between 288 and 12 would be that the profile that the time window will be.
You say you could do every 4 hour Windows, but at the 4 hour window will be set based upon the actual.
Conditions on that feed are as opposed to a specific to our, for our profile. Like, it has to be between 9 and 1 or something.
I don't know that there's a way to simulate that, but I do think that that's the way to help minimize the impact because it would be more based on the project's actual or the nodes. Actuall profile.
Yeah, could you help me understand like, how, how you might go about defining that for, for a given node? Like, how you define the intervals.
Well, the way I was thinking about it is, um, if we had.
Settled on, like, okay, let's limit it to 4 hour windows that you the applicant would essentially decide which for our windows made sense for them.
Or for the feeder essentially so they would say, okay, I'm going to.
Reduce output at 3, because that's the time when this Peter's load profile or, you know, corresponding is actually does that change I'm not suggesting.
I don't know that you could do that for this analysis, but that's how I was thinking about instead of saying, everybody must follow these specific for our windows that that both the customer's project.
Considerations and the actual.
Profile of that particular node would make that more precise and make more sense. I guess.
Yeah, so maybe I can go ahead. Yeah.
After you Francis, so I was really just going to pick up on what sky was saying. Not necessarily having a.
Variable window, but using, um, the 288.
Uh, profile, and taking a look at that and seeing if there is, um, say, a particular hour or a particular 4 hour window that seems to be problematic.
So, it wouldn't be this even splitting of out of Windows. But let's say, as an example, um, you know, from 4 till 8, 0 P. M.
Seems to be the most problematic, uh, when you look at the 288. uh, and then you would simply have that as, let's say, the a 4 hour window and then the, the rest of the time, the 20 other hours.
Would be us, uh, maintained as a separate so it'd be a 420 hour.
Uh, split that would have to be customized for every feeder. Right? And, like, in the sense that we would, what I'm proposing is that the rule would set again. I'm not proposing to do anything until we understand whether that's even needed, but.
That you had set, like the rule and say can be.
You can do up to 4 hour windows a day for each month and then the customer would look at the profile and decide that versus having to do a.
Look at the profile back forth, can we you know, what's the right.
Window because you have to have the back yours data to figure that out and so on for each as opposed to just saying they can select any 4 hour combination for our windows or something.
Hey, I think that's like, the next level once we get this analysis, then I was mostly just noting that I think that that's a caveat to how we interpret the results. I think Brian also had his hand up a minute ago.
I don't know if he put it down.
Yeah, I'm still I was just.
Curious, I'm assuming the information is available, but I'm curious whether it could be provided along with the analysis just the circuit parameters.
Where are those locations that you select? Um.
And I guess I, especially be curious about the rating of the, the conductors.
Um, however I'm not certain that.
It would be easy to provide the radio the conductors at the, like, if there's a thermal overload.
But the rating is at the location of the thermal overload, I'm assuming that gets spit out in the analysis, but I don't know how easy it is to access that data.
Yeah, I'm not sure either I would have to ask the team and obviously the powerful model has to know where the thermal overload is occurring.
Um, but I'm concerned that it may require us to go back and re, simulate that hour to identify where the thermal overload occurred and then double click into the metadata for that conductor section or sections,
and then get the cable type and the capacity and the overload amount so I'm worried that part could be.
Labor intensive to go back for each hour, um, for each of these profile combinations and time periods.
But you could likely provide just some basic circuit parameters for that location right?
For the selected node yeah, we could likely provide or we can definitely provide the conductor type that it's connected to. Maybe the upstream conductor type the downstream conductor type and their sizes and capacities.
Yeah, that would be great. Whatever, whatever you can get there.
Let me take note of that before I forget.
I, I, I would think that, uh.
You could you could find some boundary conditions.
That wouldn't require a hour by hour evaluation. I.
I I think if you yeah, Michael, I, I, I think you don't.
Okay, so I'm not doing the work.
But I just don't think.
Our BI, our evaluation is is called for here. I, I, I think boundary conditions.
Are called for and and establishing some.
Boundary conditions Frank boundary conditions. Oh, sorry. Mike.
I was just going to clarify Frank. Are you referring to step 6 where we're doing the hour hour hour comparison.
Yeah, that's that's what I heard you just say, is that yeah, yeah. You're going to do hour by hour.
Did I misunderstand? Oh, let me see maybe not. So how I'm envisioning this in the simplest sense is you take the for time period 1, you line that up in the 1st column for time period to line that up and column 2.
and then you create a function and column 3 that says, calculate the magnitude difference between each of those coincident values. And then another column that calculates the percent difference between those hourly values, coincident hourly values.
And then you look across the range of the full range of that.
And you select the largest magnitude difference and the smallest magnitude difference. And that tells you what the.
Range of potential criteria violation could be.
Or it helps you characterize or better understand it maybe not exactly telling you the value, but it gives you a range of potential magnitude overload.
So, yeah, in my mind, if we don't compare our to our for each of the time periods, then we won't know what is the maximum magnitude difference that could have occurred for each of these different levels of granularity in the profiles. 5, 8, 3 5.
H.
I think Frank might be alluding to those the.
We're likely to have common loads in terms of violations.
Like, we're likely to run into trouble at the same time of the day.
There are some values of the 24 hours of the day.
The warrant close inspection and now there's the.
Are not likely to present an issue I don't know if that's what you mean. Frank.
I couldn't have said it better. Justin. Thank you. Uh, yeah, I I don't think.
I think you a human and and maybe a computer as well.
Would find some common modality is that.
That you can rule out a whole series of combinations.
I didn't mean to do that. I'm sorry. Um, but I think you could rule out a whole.
A whole set of conditions that that do not require.
Um, powerful evaluation, a powerful solution.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, well, power flow is which includes power flow is the only way for us to generate these results.
So, there's no way around that and, you know, to generate the static grid profile, we have to have the limiting criteria for all of the other.
Um, all the other criteria, thermal steady state, full variation, protection and so on. That's the only way we can recreate the profile for a past.
Time period, unless of course, we find that that data already exists in a prior data request we provided, and we can repurpose that.
Um, but, I mean, power flow is the core, the heart of so it's the only way we can actually performed this analysis and make the comparisons that we think are needed here.
Um, hopefully, if the analysis suggests that there are periods of the day where a comparison is not needed.
Um, I would be interested to see the, the findings of that, but I didn't want to structure the analysis in a way that, um, automatically excludes that without seeing it in the results.
Um, to some degree, that's why I was making that suggestion on using the 289th.
Uh, to take a look at, um, sort of a pattern that you might get.
And that might help you avoid, uh, the other assessments that you need to do.
So, can we explore that a little bit further so, uh, if we envision that we have.
5, a, and we presented this in workshop 2, the 288.
Profile values.
How could we inspect that profile and understand where the problems exist? Is it where all the zeros occur where all the values are lower values?
They are the values that are not meeting your.
Uh, 90% is it that value's where the load is changing from year to year most often that's where the where the issue is, right?
It's not where every hour is gonna be up to some limit. What we're trying to assess out is.
Are there are periods where the load fluctuations cause differences from your year more.
Yeah, that makes it a little bit more sense to me. Um, I guess yeah, what the only concern I have is.
To what extent would we be able to establish a trend when only comparing 2 years?
If I had, you know, like, 10 years, 7 years, 10 years of data.
For 10 years of IC results, then maybe I could establish a better trend for where those, those hours or month hours more specifically could be problematic.
And it's going to be Peter by feeder so how will we apply it to the role anyways? Yeah.
I mean, maybe I'm maybe I'm beating this 1 to death, but all models are wrong. Some models is useful.
Um, what we're trying to do is get an idea.
Of how these things trend I think I don't think anybody is suggesting that this is going to be statistically representative.
Or that we could without any doubt.
Apply it widely and say that it would be right in every instance, as opposed to.
Um, the reason I raise my hand is my question had a little bit to do.
Step number 1.
So, 2 things 1, is that I hope you'll take up.
Eric on their offer to provide historic data that saves you a whole bunch of processing time.
Cause fully wow, why wouldn't you? I mean, we're, we're time constraint and I know the.
The in particular needs a processor are as much as it can right now.
And the 2nd bit has to do with step 1. I don't know if there's going to be any space for stakeholder input on what particular.
No, it's get selected or if that's going to be publicized ahead of time and comment received or.
If we're just planning on, I don't know where you're at, in your selection process. I guess I'll leave it there.
Yeah, so definitely interested in taking up by wreck on that on that offer. Um.
We had not considered space for stakeholder input on the selection of circuits.
I need to check with the team. I got agreement on this analysis. I think it was mid week last week. So they may have already started.
But I can certainly check with them and see if there's any, any room for further influence on the selection of circuits.
I don't feel so strongly about this election of circuits as long as this also kind of captures the differences. The way Iraq had done. Their, our comparison that we've been talking with you separately on Mike is the.
Looking at urban roles, suburban or rural, et cetera, and the geographic diversity might get it that.
But again, I don't know, ultimately, it's the load changes that are the critical driver here. Probably.
And it's hard to be hard to pick those circuits where the load without doing them more statistical sampling.
Right.
Justin and I mean,
I think that in all for all circuits that's going to be the primary driver for this issue that we're trying to get at is what load changes and maybe how how sensitive the filtered regulators are or something to those little changes. But.
Thanks all for the questions and comments. I see. Um, Amin has hand up.
Yeah, 1 too. So I guess, I should say, I'm with Co advocates. I wanted to jump in on a couple of the topics 1st regarding the sample size. I mean, kind of tied to getting the data from Iraq.
I think this looks like it's something that can be highly automated, perhaps other than getting the that period 1 data.
So, if you get that period, 1 data from Eric, well, hope that this could really be automated and need to increase that sample size from, like, 5 to, like, 500 without, you know, without a significant amount of, of. of
Person hours of labor increase.
The 2nd, uh, which I think.
Well, I'm not sure if this ties into price come in and out, but on item 6.
I think those are going to be useful pieces of information, but 1 key thing to do there will be to figure out how to kind of summarize that information because.
You know, we're not going to be able to look through 288 hours of data for 5 circuits on a slide and make any conclusions from that. So I'll leave that up to you but sort of I'm assuming that sometime needs to be spent on.
On that, in terms of what Francis and sky we're talking about, with either having the Windows variable or variable in size I actually had the same thought as Francis. Um.
From looking at data, I think you often see, there's like, just a couple hours that are low, or there's a few hours maybe 4 to 90 P. M. where you really want to capture that value.
So perhaps instead of looking at it by set numbers of set hour, um.
Windows, it'd be by number of values, so you'd have.
Um, you know, 2 values, 3, values, core values over the course of each day, et cetera, and allow those to vary and then kind of tying that to the broader question how you'd actually do that.
I think that if, you know, as long as you're automating this, you could.
Put it in a 4 loop and have it just try every try every option for.
5 circuits or even 500 circuits. I don't think that would be, um.
Necessarily prohibitive in terms of how you actually implement this, it might end up being.
Difficult and I might not and then kind of, I guess you'd try every combination and pick the option that maximizes the amount.
I think the, probably the most straightforward thing is to pick the window option that maximizes the total energy export it over the course of the year.
It'd be looping through these things, like, potentially hundreds of times, but but again, as long as it's kind of automated, you could run that on a, on a laptop in a few hours. Probably. Um.
I got to keep going through these points and you can follow up afterwards, I think, on option or on step 7.
You say kilowatt hours of energy delivered that makes sense. That's what we did. A couple of hours is.
I think under defined there, uh, it either needs to be like the peak. What we did was the average over the 4 to 90 PM window.
Um, you know, if you just do the average kilowatts, it'll actually, I think, just correlate perfectly to kilowatt hours and not really be that useful. So we were pulling that 49 0 PM. I'm not really sure that's exactly the perfect window to look at. Could be 6 to 10 could be something else.
Just a note there and then kind of zooming out a little bit and what was presented on the previous slide. I, I think what.
You said you look for is no violations and no increases in magnitude.
I think maybe that is worth talking about a little bit because likely you will see 1 of those things. I mean, it's very unlikely in my mind that even if the.
G, you're not going to see 1 circuit among the 5 that has has.
You know, I mean, you're going to see probably more violations or more magnitude, even just statistically.
If you pick 5 circuits, and then 5 different circuits, you're going to see at least half the time you get.
Maybe it can't make such a strong statement, but, you know, likely half the time, you're going to just random chance. See more more.
Um, uh.
More violations and more or greater magnitude violation. So I think that's what we're talking through. Exactly.
Exactly, how strict that criteria would be to get get on board and supporting that anyway that was kind of a lot of things that I just rattled through some. I'm finished with my.
Uh, thoughts here, thank you, man for, uh.
Particular demonstrating why we record these things.
Yeah, thanks.
I I think we could also, so I'm, I'm just thinking out loud here. W, we could.
Approach this from, uh, strictly a thermal.
Evaluation, uh, voltage voltage violations are.
Easier to solve there there. There are more options to solve them. A lot of times. It's it's a matter of a.
Resetting a, uh, a tap change on a Transformers or something.
So, I mean, any, any way of narrowing the scope of what you're analysing Amin mentioned, uh, some key hours during the day.
Um, I'm throwing out there just just look at thermal, uh, where thermal issues might.
Might be the issue. Yeah. So, thanks for that. Frank, the set a grid profile is fundamentally constructed by taking the minimum of the IC thermal.
I say, steady state, voltage, full variation protection.
I think I got them all. I may have forgotten 1, but I don't know the way to.
Reconstruct the profile, excluding the voltage considerations and steady state voltage or voltage variation. And I think that it would be.
Risky to only base this on the IC thermal results and completely disregard the other parameters such as protection.
So, I mean, a process could certainly be built to construct an without voltage profile if you will.
Um, but I wonder how that could affect all of the work that's already been done in this proceeding that's based on the profile as it exists today.
Fair comments, Michael, I mean, you said you were going to run all the different criteria violations so we're going to see that either way Frank and take your point.
And then what you'll see anyways, is that, like, protection as we've seen is very, very rarely limiting criteria under the based on the aggregated data it's going to be thermal or voltage but we'll, we'll have that data.
We'll look through Frank That'll show us.
Whether how often it's a bolted versus a thermal.
Variation.
I agree. All right. I'm not completely caught up on the chat. I don't see any other hands up.
Um, I guess maybe I could ask if there were any unaddressed questions in the chat. If whoever asked the question could raise it.
I think the only things in the chat with my comments 1 was just to say that I have the data for all 3. I use that. And then my, I think the comment that, I mean, was making.
And the earlier slide, you guys have what you guys what you are going to keep, are going to conclude from the analysis in terms of the position. But I think ultimately we're here for the commission to decide.
What to take from this analysis? So I certainly for at least we're not agreeing that that no variation is the conclusion will be thus we just do a 1212 month profile, but I appreciate that. You guys were drawing your current.
Lying in the sand and hope you'll be more flexible.
As we look at the data, like, I mean, was suggesting.
Yes, I agree. It's ultimately the commissions decision here. Um, the statement on slide 24 is that the would maintain the position to utilize 12 unique values.
If that condition is met.
Hi, thanks for all the questions and input. Um, I'll go ahead and pass it over to Alex to describe. Pg. E is planned analysis. Justin had another question. We just wanted to chat.
To what extent do the autonomous Volt bar and Volt functions cure voltage issues encountered.
Any, uh, any experts want to weigh in on that question.
Brian, I think the var may be included in at least, um.
Aca calculations, and I think we discussed earlier that the other utilities would try to incorporate that.
And we would expect that to maybe have some.
Mitigating effects that would raise the.
Values, but in terms of what would actually happen in the field, you know, the isn't represented because.
I think the idea would go up to the range a.
Uh, the edge of range, a 4 dot 1 range.
And, you know, range B is allowed, and a lot would take effect after range B, uh, to try and keep things closer to range. B. and so.
You know, I think that I think it's a valuable question to ask once we see the results as, you know, what does it actually mean to have high voltage.
Um, when, you know, uh, most or many of the.
Have a whole lot it turned on and anything moving forward. We'll have it turned on.
Thanks, Brian.
Okay, I think we can go to slide 26.
Francisco, are you able to advance a slide for us? Thank you.
And then take it away. Alex. All right, thank you Michael. So.
The PG proposed analysis is is very similar to what I see, um, has already gone over. So.
May see some similarities in what we're proposing here, but.
For the, I'll go through the PG E1, and then take questions. If there are any, what we're proposing to do is look at 2 time periods.
Going to look at January of 2022 as period 1.
And January of 2023 s, period, number 2.
And then these specific periods will.
Compare the profiles as follows, um, we'll look at.
The 288 profile all hours so a, an, H, you know, pretty much stuff that we've talked about before. So we're gonna look at.
12 GP values as well as 288, uh, values.
And then the stuff in between is what's going to be the enhancement to the analysis. So.
Or B, we're going to pick 3 periods of time. Um.
So those will be our 8 to our 17.
Oh, 18 to 23 and then 0 to 7.
Um, just to see what the differences are within those hours.
And then for, uh, for us.
D, um, so these are so going to be.
You know, fixed a fixed value for all those hours. So, you know, for these 10 periods will have.
Sorry, so, for me.
Will be, they will pick the minimum values within those windows.
Then foresee would also be.
Fix minimum value for every window I mean, all the hours, except for this window for 16 to 21.
And then that would be the same analysis for D and E will have.
All other hours with a fixed minimum and then.
An increased value you will for.
The hours that are shown here, so for it would be 16.
16 to 21, and then it will be our 18 to 23.
And it would be our 16 to 23.
And then for f, it would be, um.
16 to 21 will be, uh, fixed minimum value or our 16 to 21. and then.
Then a fixed minimum for all out of hours and then g is similar too, but the hour range of hours changes from 18 to 21.
And what we're trying to do here is what we're trying to focus on.
The peak load periods, uh, since we feel like that this will be the time when.
It's extra export power would be most valuable to.
Hi developers and, uh, what we're trying to investigate is.
It does the increase loading on the system.
Minimize the risk of violations so that's the question that we're trying to answer as Michael mentioned. We're trying to find the intersection between.
Increased exports and re, uh, minimal risk from a grid perspective.
And then for item number 3.
What we're doing is trying to do an analysis for at least 5 locations or 5 feeders.
And then it's all going to run the analysis shown above.
In 24, at least 5 locations and we're gonna compare the results from edge.
Uh, for period, 1, compared to.
288, uh, of period, number 2.
Which is a, I mean, analysis number 2, which is.
The 1st, 1, uh, we, we will rank this slightly, uh, the difference between.
What will be doing or what piece will be doing is for these 5 locations will run an analysis for all the nodes on those 5 different locations.
So, we're going to compare the nodes between.
The 2 analysis that are in existence on the specific features that we're going to be looking at.
And then what we plan to do is calculate the magnitude and frequency of violations. Um.
So we will, we'll take the 28 of period number 2.
And then we will look at profiles improved number 1.
By 90%, uh, which is.
Meaning we're gonna consider the 10 buffer. We feel like this is gonna make it less cost more conservative, less conservative.
And then we will look at the frequency, which is the number of hours worth of GP of period. Number 2 is less than 90% of profile the number 1.
We'll also look at the, uh, magnitude, which is the difference between.
To idiot, period, number 290% of of pure number 1.
And then identify all the criteria violations.
Uh, based on the results that we get in 3, we will also.
I captured the amount of generation that was added.
Since January, 2022.
To January of 2023 as this is a question that came up before.
For information purposes, only.
And lastly, we will also calculate the.
Energy and kilowatt hours, um, and kilowatts delivered over the cost of the year for each of the 8 profile types.
So, meaning from to above, we will do that calculation for 8 through edge.
Like I said, these, these are, uh, what's the question from Justin?
I think, uh, we wanted to pick there was no, there's no rhyme or reason just we just want to pick 2 time periods and we have results published.
From January, 2022 and 2023, it could have been in February of 2022 2023.
And what's not shown on here is the 5 locations or the, at least 5 locations that we pick.
They're all going to be geographically diverse, so.
Along, uh, similar to what is doing, we're going to try to.
Peak locations that are not the same. So, an urban, maybe a rule. Maybe something else that, you know, it's going to represent the diversity of the distribution grid.
And the main has a question. Oh, sure. Wait. I mean.
Yeah, I guess it's more of a comment than a question. I I guess I could also reiterate some of the feedback for but I'll say to everyone the time and not do that.
And you can just imagine that a lot of that does the same kind of feedback applies beyond that and kind of thinking it in.
In the context of what I see, um, showed, I think there will be some.
You know, there will certainly be some benefit to.
Be able to directly compare your result to the greatest extent possible. I do like the.
I I think the hours that you chose are.
Um, good and interesting and and maybe it's worth having those stay as they are, where we're does that 1 way and you do the other. But at least, I think the H will be directly comparable.
So, you know, when you think about how to present these results, if if you can have.
The results for those, at least in a way that makes it easy for us to.
To compare the the reason I say that is actually, because I, you know, in the analysis that I did, and I have been doing on the energy and power, that can be delivered.
I found some pretty significant differences between, and PG E that I will will share in the next workshop. Um, but, you know, having your data able to make that comparison as well, would be very helpful. Um.
Additionally, I think it might be interesting.
Just kind of thinking about the ways to summarize all this data that would be helpful. It might be interesting to do something like a scatter plot where the X axis is the total energy over the course of the year for that profile summed across all the circuits.
So you'd have 1 for a 1 for B1, for et cetera. cetera
And then on the Y, axis, you'd have either the number of violations of the magnet, total magnitude of all violations or something like that. So you can kind of see that.
You know, oh, for for profile D we get way more energy, but we only see 1 more violation, whereas per profile.
You know, whatever it is. Uh, see, we get.
More energy, but we get way more violations or something like that.
Hopefully, hopefully that kind of makes sense. And with that, I will conclude my remarks.
So this is, um.
I had a question and a comment so, questions specific to well, this is for both really.
Of the 2 different utility analysis is there um.
So, the utilities preference as stated so far, at least, is that.
There just be a single hour for every or a single.
Limited for every month.
Um, is there a reason why it.
Might be beneficial to do an analysis. That's just.
The same 24 hour profile all year round, or a 12.
Point profile all year round so instead of.
We're trying to capture the seasonal differences, but actually this peak hour difference might be kind of consistent across the.
Year the magnitude might vary a little bit. Um.
But I'm wondering if we want to test that out to 1 of these, as opposed to a 12 month profile, just a 24 hour profile. That's the same all 12 months.
I'm not sure if I'm thinking about this. Right but it seems to me, like, they're.
Especially when we're trying to capture energy storage, I think the 12 month thing is basically not going to make.
This very viable for using interview storage and capturing its benefits, whereas the 24 hour profile.
Would even if it isn't as perfect for each month.
So that's a question. So I want to make sure I understand. So, you asking where the.
We can use, like, 1 minute basically will be. Let me see, uh.
Like, see fixed minimum for all hours, except for, like.
16 to 21 hours, like the peak time.
Well, I guess I was thinking of 24 hour profile.
For each again, it would have to be based on individual theaters. Aca.
Like, the Max profile that is the same 24 hours throughout the whole year, as opposed to a different 20 of our profile for each month.
Um, and again, it may not have to be a full 24 hours. It could be 12 hours or something or 12 different points and it's not ours. Exactly.
And again, I think, because of what I'm, what I'm thinking is that the utilities concern is that the more variations you have so 288 versus 12.
Is the is the concern another way of thinking about it is if you just have 12 or 24, but they're based upon the hours of the day, as opposed to the seasons.
That might be a more useful use case for the customer.
Um, because of the value of energy storage and what we know the peak load throughout the day.
Sorry, if I'm not explaining that do you mean, like, looking at the total value for each month across, like, the 12 months, and take 1 value to chose that for example, for our or 1.
Is that what you're saying? So I'm, what I'm envisioning is that a customer would would look at the values and pick 124 hour profile or 1.
12 hour profile for the day, if we want to do it in 2 hour, chunks, 3 hour chunks or what but that would be the same limit every month, as opposed to 1.
Limit for January 1 limit for February. So on I feel like I've explained this is why can't anybody else understand that? The part that's not clear meet to me is the picking.
Like, is it the minimal value across the 12 months, or a customer can just pick whatever 12 out 24 hour they're comfortable with.
Which what happens to those moms that the, the value's actually less than the value they pick.
That make sense, they would essentially have to pick the most limiting, not exceed any of the most limiting values for them for those months. But you able to capture where.
For each month, it goes up during those different, you know, peak load hours for example.
I feel like this would be more disadvantages to the customer right?
That's what I'm getting at is that it may be more advantageous to the customer. You said, also address the utilities.
Concern so there will be fewer variations and values.
But it's just a different way of thinking about instead of 1212, monthly values. You're doing the same daily profile all across the 12 months.
What I'm saying, guys, I think I think this will be less advantageous to the customer.
Because they would, they will be limited to a lower icaay hosting capacity than.
Because remember before for they are use, we're actually proposing a seasonal limit right? So be for.
Limits for the year, and then we settled on this variation of the proposal to allow monthly limits, which provides more flexibility. But I think if I understand you correctly, you.
You're saying they should be limited to 1 months. Basically it's like.
Going back, I think from my perspective, I think semi supportive, but I don't know if it would be beneficial to customers.
I think what sky is saying is that there would be.
Every hour instead of instead of right now it's being a.
A value for January value for February value. For March there's a value for 1 to 20 P. M. every month of the year of value for 2 to 30 PM every month, a year and so on and so forth.
Yeah, yeah, same answer because then.
Your your value, let's say, for example, you're using the minimum value, right? And I minimum value happens in January.
Then you'll be limited to that hourly value for the rest of the year.
Well, in February, you can have a higher limit, then you'd be able to export more in February and so forth and so on. So.
I think we need to kind of look at some numbers about. I think that could be true. That was my question is but I also think it could it may not be true kind of been thinking about it right? Because if in every.
Afternoon there, even when you're using the most limiting 1, you're capturing.
That difference and you're able to use the technology capable and the customer flexibility.
It may be a more practical use case, but again, I, you might be right? Or like, maybe it just reduces the total amount of capacity throughout the whole year. If you use that limiting hour.
If it's, you know, for if, for example, april's going to be really limiting.
I think, but maybe we should look at it, but that's that's my immediate reaction also. Micro noting, I don't know, Mike, if you agree or if you feel otherwise.
I just wanted to Laura how you'd construct.
In my mind, get the.
I see yeah, Jenny.
Minimum for 100, February.
Through December, so you have to well, for 1 0. A. M.
Michael, you're breaking up from me a little bit. I'm not sure if just me I can't hear you.
Any better now? Yes. Yes.
It was, it still seems like you're through, like, electrical wave or something like that makes sense.
Let me try to stop the video and see if that improves the audio at all.
How about now seems better. Okay let me give it another shot then. So you take the, the value for 10 am for January for 1 am for every month. So you have 12 values.
values
1, for each month, January through December, and then you take the minimum of that, or I guess maybe 1 could argue you take the medium or you take the average or some percentile.
And then you set that as the maximum output for 10 a M, for every single month.
And then you do that same you take that same approach for.
20 am 30 am until you have a singular 24 hour profile.
Which is represented every month to create a 208 if you will 12 multiplied by 24 for 280.
Is that what we're talking about? Yes, I think that's what we're talking about. And again, I have no idea if that would end up being way too conservative or if it would ultimately capture enough variation.
Throughout the day, that would may be potentially align more closely with rates, for example, is what I was thinking.
Got it so, maybe 2 thoughts, um, if I get them before they escaped me 1 is the like, if we take the minimum, if we use the minimum function, not the average, not some percentile of those 12 values.
Uh, for each hour, then we're absolutely definitely going to have less energy production over the course of the year because you're taking the minimum of 1 month and applying it to the other 11 months or to all 12 months.
Well, I guess what I'm saying, I, I, I think that's right, but I'm not sure that that means that it's less value for the customer. I don't want to drag this out too much if I'm totally off base, but I think.
So, there may be if you can produce more in 1 month, that may not have value. If.
You're cutting the what you have to do to build it out.
To capture that 1 month, it may be that if you have a profile that can be utilized every day, even if the Max at any 1 hour is lower, that may have greater value based on the way we think about monetizing the value of the energy.
But I, it could be totally wrong. What it's worth. I agree with you.
So, it's kind of, I think, I think what you're suggesting. Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry.
Alex, I, I think I, I see your point, you're, you're saying that, even though the early value is going to go down.
We're not limiting each day to this minimum for the day. There is going to be variations.
Uh, I'll in any given day, right? If you assume that the, the variations generally are still going to follow a a similar curve throughout the year during the day and because of the way we're getting.
Very little value for energy storage if you're doing a 12 month profile, because we don't, we don't have long duration storage in consideration here as far as I the way I think about the way the systems should be designed.
Um, most of them are going to be capturing more value from a 24 hour profile. profile
Then they would be from a 12 month profile, at least for storage. Now, maybe a solar customer can afford to build out that extra solar, only capacity that just doesn't get used at all during parts of the year.
Let's digest that a little bit again, but I, I have 1 of their just comment I wanted to make about all of this, which is.
I appreciate this is what we have to work with the.
Continuing limitation is that the way the 24 hour profiles themselves are the 288 profile is constructed based upon the load.
The load curve essential that's established for each of the 24 hour profiles, I think is still.
Is this hypothetical we still aren't getting at whether it was actually going to be any real system conditions we're just looking at this.
Theoretical load profile that's been aggregated over time.
That is, I'm just noting that as a limitation we need to keep in mind, even though I don't think there's a way to get around that, without you guys going out in the field, and actually doing using your data data to tell them what's the voltage doing today,
compared to what it did last year with the new system.
I think that this is a really good thing that we can potentially.
Look at through.
Some of the results at least put some of these results in a lens.
That, you know, it's not that we're like.
A system that implements a 208 is going to pump right up against that line every single time, right? They might have, you know, specifically say system and they do want to take advantage of that afternoon or evening peak. And so.
You know, they might just simply replicate that throughout the entire year.
Rather than trying to increase their output by, you know, an extra.
Megawatt in the summer months or whatever so.
Yeah, just noting that hopefully at least like, with data where they're going to be showing that you're.
Um, we can think about maybe how how a.
24, a single, 24 hour profile for every month. I mean, 1, single, 24 hour profiles for the entire year. Would.
With kind of comply with, uh.
Results there. Yeah, we could have run this based on a couple of the theatres. We already have just looking at 1 year and see. Is there any value captured there?
If we can do that, maybe we should do that and put a pin in this discussion until the next time.
I think that it's worth exploring, but if we've got a vehicle to explore it.
It doesn't require us to wait for all of these returns.
Um, well, yeah, I guess the reason I was asking you originally, you, Justin was I was asking, was trying to get at whether the 1 of the utility is that we should run that scenario.
Because that would help them understand if it's more or less risky than just a phase called 12 ltp.
Option H, here is just a single 24 hour profile for each each.
So that's, uh, uh, before just this bug that's what I was gonna we now so Ooh.
Um, will be taking on is.
A new scenario that Skype proposed and sorry I didn't jump in earlier. Skype took me a little bit to a.
Visualize what you were trying to say, but, you know, I do agree that even though you're taking the most limited limiting value.
At each hour, or at each point.
In the within a month.
The summation may be more advantageous designation for that year may be more advantageous.
To the customer so, um.
Scott, you also mentioned that, uh, a few seconds ago that you.
Would have someone run it on your end, or look at it.
I think I can have our, our consulting.
Who has the existing data from last year?
Just look at whether.
There's more sort of, I mean, it's hard without putting prices on. It actually took really figure it out, but whether there'd be value to doing that 24 hour approach, it wouldn't be this.
I mean, they could do what their, what the utilities are doing here essentially from year to year, but just looking at a single year to figure out whether there's.
Is any value to that 24 hour every month versus 12 single values?
I can look ask, ask Katie if they can do that for us but I guess I was proposing that a utility do that in the simulation.
Um, looking at your year. Yeah.
Okay, yeah, um, I think that you totally should add that as an option.
I, you know, uh, based on our, um, skies.
Uh, discussion now, um, I'm assuming the utilities understood what sky was trying to refer to it.
The scenario yeah, this is Alex. I, I understand.
Okay all right, so let's add that. And, uh.
It's an option I.
And see what the results are.
So, Jose, at least for, I understand the proposal, but the team that's doing this analysis that cannot support the addition of any scope.
Unless we want to extend past workshop for.
Unfortunately, what have we kept 1, like your other scenarios.
That was going to be my next thought, um.
I would have to you again, there's a possibility that the team has already has this analysis underway.
So, in the event that they've already kind of started going through these different granularities of profiles for.
Uh, for at least 1 node, then I'd have to check to see, but.
We've gone through to great extents to re, prioritize work both on the I. T, infrastructure side and on the business side, to be able to accommodate the scope that we presented on the last slide. I know it's not an ideal answer. Um, but just want to be realistic with where we're at.
All right, thank you, Michael. And, uh, I mean, you had your hand up.
Yeah, yeah, so I.
The 1st thought, I guess, is that it might also be worth considering, including the typical PD profile in this analysis because that ends up being.
Could end up being a relatively kind of aggressive use case for the.
Um, put it under existing policy, um, that might end up having more violations in some of these. So, I think that's worth considering.
Um, and I guess I just wanted to respond to that kind of broad discussion about.
The hourly profiles not very month to month.
I agree with sky that there could be value there.
And likely would be on some circuit, I think, kind of looking through a handful of circuits. Myself some circuits you see a lot of month to month variations some circuits. You see a lot of hour to hour variation.
And on a circuit that has relatively similar shapes, they're very throughout the day, but not so much month to month, you know, the daily profile.
It's probably better that provide a Skype been talking about. So so, you.
My intuition is that you'd see some circuits, or that would be a better option. Um.
I guess, and then I have 2 more broad thoughts about that, which is that.
I would be curious how the would just be would respond to our.
A request to broaden the 12 values to be.
Something like any 12 values, the customer want so it could be like, 4 times, 3 or 6 times, 26 months to our periods or 2 months, 6 hour periods or, I guess 2 seasons or 4 seasons with 3 periods or 3 seasons with 4 periods.
So, you'd still be seeing the same number of of changes sort of that you'd potentially be letting the customers customize their profiles more. Uh, I wouldn't necessarily include that in this analysis. Cause I think that'd be a whole new can of worms.
Um, but, but on that topic, and, and also on the proposal that sky just talked about, I'm also curious. I think that those don't quite.
Align with kind of a prior commission direction, which was to have monthly variation allowed and look at further variation within a month.
I don't really have the experience on this side of things to know whether the commission would be inclined to revisit that or whether we were kind of should be instead, assuming that that.
There is variation month to month in all of these considerations, because that's what the commission has decided. I leave that to the, you know, to other people to answer but I think it's worth at least considering.
So, uh, my initial reaction, I mean, is I am not tracking how the.
Typical preview profile comes into play here. I I don't I don't think that.
We should add typical people profile because it has nothing to do with the, um, so I would.
I would, I mean, unless there's a, there's a reason why we should be, including it. I think we should stay away from it.
Well, I think the reason to include it is that it sort of is an, and it's an, that's that exists today.
It's a way that customers can interconnect today that uses more capacity on the grid than this than a single value of potentially, than even the 12 value option H, that we're talking about.
So, when we're talking about does 208 at risk, we should be talking relative to the riskiest option available today in my mind. in my mind
And that could well be a difficult PD profile. So I definitely think we should.
At least consider looking at that. Yeah, so typical PV profile is.
It's not an, in the case, that is not, it's not a it's not something that's being controlled.
Meaning that the system is not capable you know, I'm putting more.
Then, you know, they.
Installation or the irradiance, you know, would allow it to.
Uh, project is capability of it actually uploading. Oh, it's just there's a physical device. It's limiting the export.
Additionally, um, for the typical PV profile, we actually looking at the output of the project, rather than the export of the project.
The projects are way less conservative because you're looking at the actual exploited value versus the typical be.
The profile is looking at the potential output of the project compared to the and profiles.
I thought that goes against my interpretation of the of how that would be set up.
I would have thought that onsite consumption would be included in that, but, you know, projects include onsite consumption because it's looking at the export value across the PC.
Typical PV profiles do not do profile. You're looking at the.
Profile the typical preview project, and you're comparing that to the and or if it does not take into account.
The loading on site, you wanna,
you need to be looking at the net of what the PD profile is minus the site load to get what the expected export profile is.
I have a different kind of take on this, um.
Not necessarily this this issue, but 2 slides back.
Um, the.
Yeah, users saying I think the use of being.
Uh, maybe inappropriately stringent.
Under their interpretation of results.
If we can get back to the last slide and an interpretation of results if the number of values increases.
And the frequency or maximum magnitude of violation, increase, use, maintain a position to utilize 12 unique values.
I think Alex, you've already shown that under the 12 we've got potentially an increase on some theaters. I believe you have that in 1 of the.
1 of the presentations in 1 of our earlier workshops.
Throw out there the.
What we need to be looking at is is a kind of a risk reward trade off and understanding where the sweet spot is.
Um, drawing a hard line that is if there's any.
Well, 1st off, I think we've beaten to death the fact that this is not a statistically significant or necessarily representative in every case.
Drawing the hard line that if we've got something.
That is indicative that if this were representative, we might have an issue.
We're not going to budge on our position dollars is not necessarily.
Um, necessarily hard for lack of a better word.
I would, I would encourage the I used to.
This guy was saying, look at.
Whether whether something is likely to cause them.
An actual issue in the real world, as opposed to.
Just mathematically if, you know.
I mean, it feels a bit like a setup because.
Cause we've noted, Alex, we've already run across this. We already know what the output it's going to be.
We're, we're fairly certain that we will find.
In some case somewhere that there's a violation increase.
But to say that, because we find that.
We're not going to change our position. Doesn't doesn't seem.
Is that we're working together to find a solution.
I would I would challenge that framing and I would encourage the I used to.
To look at whether they can come to consensus on something that.
Allows for the realization of more benefit with less risk, you know.
The sweet spot
and Gary, you have your handout.
Thanks, um, I also.
I hear you Justin, but I'm also being taking it back by your.
Your allegations that we're trying to set this up.
I think you have folks that are.
I, I really want to hear what you're saying, but you, Mike, this is cutting out of it.
For me anyway. All right well, I can't do anything much about that.
Other than talk louder. Um.
How's that? Anything? Yeah, I think being closer to your Mike is what? Fix it? Thanks. Okay.
We're not trying to set anything up here. We're trying to find a.
Common ground, or, you know, you need.
Things that might work. Well, we can't accomplish though is.
You know, pushing expeditions and.
You know, we have to what the, what we were saying that the folks that are.
The cat to do this type of analysis have.
You know, only only so much and bandwidth between.
1, this is too, so.
Things like, we're setting this up.
That makes me very, uh, I have a very.
Strong reaction to that, so we're not doing that.
But I certainly didn't mean for my language to run a counter to.
Um, all of us working together to find a solution.
Correct me? If I'm wrong Alex.
Did you have you already found us to be the case.
Just to clarify are you asking in the previous analysis? Did we find.
There to be violations between the 12 values, and the 208.
To values.
My recollection is when you looked at it, just with the 12 values from here on your Alex, you found on your circuit that there was a violation.
For, uh, uh.
An issue just from year to year at a 12 value level.
There is the results that I need to go back to a distance so I don't speak. Let me pull up the.
Yeah, I think, what does it saying?
We know you guys showed results some of which were based in some way to load profile based, but your previous curve show that there were, depending on the utility there was at least a little segment where I see it was different from your year,
based on just a 12 month profile.
Yes, that is a correct statement. Yes. Yep. So I think what he's saying is, is that.
If you're and again, if we could go back to the earlier slide, um, Francisco, 2 slides before if the criteria you guys are setting, is that any difference? We've already.
We've already met that was just the 12 month profile. Um, so I think what we're trying to be speaking for you, Justin. I think he was encouraged saying, what's the point of doing this analysis if.
You've already set that position it's not going to shift anything, um, because we know that that might be the case on any 1 feed, or even using a 12 month profile.
I see and then I wanted to just say back to Garry, I appreciate what you were saying to Justin separately, but I, I wanted to clarify that.
This is what we're discussing here is on a fishing expedition. It's a.
Effort to fight to meet you guys's concerns.
Um, about not having a lot of variation year to year in the way that's most feasible and viable for the customer. So thinking about different, what segments and what structure.
Works for to identify your safety reliability concerns, but also the viability of using an economically.
And from a system benefit standpoint, for the customer, and.
It's obviously complicated and we need to think through it together. So I wouldn't say that any of us are trying to do a fishing expedition as much as we're trying to use analysis.
To get to the safest, but most constructive result.
Right I hear that. You Skype what.
What I'm what I'm saying is the, you have.
So, these stats that we're willing to do it.
Name.
You're you're clear Gary, right up until the utilities are saying.
Sir, can you, uh.
I'm pleasure to bike. Please, I am standing on it, so I don't know what to do with.
So, I'm just going to just say, you know, utilities have put forth these proposals.
Uh, I mean, seem to be.
Getting some feedback from the can you see that.
We weren't doing it and I was reacting to that so.
So, it sounds like.
Edison was going to go find out if they could swap out 1 of these options, or whether their team would has already started to conduct this to see if adding that 24 hour. What I was.
You know, I think what would be ideal would be to think about a 24 hour or a similar over a seasonal variation, as opposed to just a fixed hours. Every.
Year and then PG E, I don't know if you guys have that same limitation that Edison had.
Of having already started, or not being able to add 1 more scenario, cause it seems like Jenny could do it instead.
Alex said that the good but Alex, where you confirm.
Yeah, I think what I said earlier was that I understood the ask, um.
But I found out is we can add this analysis.
So, PG PG can can add this in.
And the analysis that we're going to be doing, thank you.
And then just to to, uh, Justin to.
Go back to your question from before.
I think in workshop number 2, when we presented the analysis results.
The analysis that did.
Is the 1 that showed, um, sort of like a.
Intersection between the 12 values, um.
So, there was like a profile for.
288 2 profiles for 282 profiles for 12.
And in the profile 12 in 2021 and 2022.
They sort of intersected I think the PG E, analysis was only for.
The graph showed 2 profiles for 208 for the 2 periods of time and then.
Wine for 12 and so there was no intersection between 12 hours because we only showed 1 profile for the 12.
So hope hopefully, that clarifies what you are asking, but.
Thank you Alex. Um, yeah look.
I guess what I would say, it's just that I would appreciate whatever reference can be made to.
To focus on risk versus reward, as opposed to hard limitations. Um.
Thank you for the clarification. Sure.
I'm still kind of stuck on this previous topic of how the, how the different from other interconnection.
I mean, it's I, I've, you know, most of what I've been focused on is the number of values so I have not.
Been as involved in these other discussions about, I think the gross versus.
The gross nameplate conversation is more to the point, but.
I think this is really important, so hopefully can spend a couple of minutes on it, but it would be very confusing to me that you just look at the exports.
I see a capacity is the capability, you know, the capacity for integration because if you have say a 3 megawatt customer with 1 megawatt of capacity, are you really going to allow them to install a 4 megawatt system and use for megawatts? It seems like you would cause a huge overload.
And I recall conversations about subtracting out.
That customer's load when determining the, but I think kind of amounts to the same thing of.
Or it amounts to line it up with the typical PD profile. I don't want to believe at this point, because.
Yeah, I know this is kind of off topic, but if I still think that the using the difficult profile as part of the basis for this analysis is valuable. And if this is kind of.
What's preventing us from doing that? I'd like to understand.
Where I'm going wrong here.
So are you asking.
How a project with a PV profile today is.
Screen essentially under screen, for example.
I'm asking if there's like, a fundamental difference between how that project would be screened and how an project would be screened.
I mean, the, I think.
No, essentially, I mean, other than the fact that the.
Project has to have actual controls and so on you're looking at the PB profile as an export limit for each, uh, for the day.
I'm trying to find the actual terrible language for screen where we integrated the PD profile. I think it says.
Is the generating facility.
Generation profile, based on PV watts or less than or equal to 90% of the 267 value in any hour. So it's essentially the same.
Kind of analysis in terms of comparing the, the.
Every hour of the of the, but just based on a assumed PD profile versus a customer designated limited export profile.
Yeah, that that matches my intuition and then.
That so I think that seems like that would be.
Kind of a a use case that bears comparing comparing intelligence because, you know, if we're saying is the utilities are talking about how risky as well, if it's less risky or similarly or equally risky to the typical profile,
but more risky. But they're both more risky than the static profile. I mean, that that I think is really important to look at. Right?
Yeah, so they're, they're way different. It's not the same thing. And so the typical preview profile.
Is looking at how much the system can output.
Compared to 90% of and 90% of or.
So, the typical PD profile has to be below.
90% of and also be below 90% of well, the past screen. Em, but again you look at the.
100, yeah, but but if you're looking at screen names, so you're assuming that the project has failed screen him in which case if the project fell screen name.
As an project, it can go to supplemental review so.
Can compete unless I've been to review, right we can only compare the initial review. So, for initial review.
If you have a typical if you have a project, that's a typical PV project.
It would have the profile would have to be.
Below 90% of and 90% of.
For an L GP project, you would look at.
The exported kilowatts the profile based on how much part can be exported compared to only not.
And for the typical preview profile, let's say you have a, you know, say the customer has a, you know, 1, megawatt of low on side load. You would say, okay, typical preview profile is.
You know, 1 megawatt at that same hour, it would be 1 megawatt compared to the, or but for project will be 1 Mega -1 Meg with 0, compared to only.
When does issues so what, what's your referencing? I mean, before is something that we brought up to during the previous workshops, right?
It's, uh, it's a gap that we identified and say, I think you had a graphic that explained it. We said this is.
It's not ideal if we just look at exports and we're actually considering the onsite loading and how much power the reads cause we might be taking capacity from the system. Right?
You're not considering if we're not considering for the typical previous day.
Sorry the typical preview profile of the, we have to be able to to consider how much loading is connected because if a customer.
Subs onsite Lord, and that onsite load was used in calculating the hosting capacity, and they were allowing them to export above and beyond that, we could be causing issues on the grid.
So, what we're going to do is under.
We would take the opportunity to rerun and then based on that, and I think we were proposing something like, if it's above a mega or something.
I don't know if you, you're still on and you remember that discussion if you want to chime in, but.
Yeah, I do I mean, it's 1 of the 5 to 11 workshop 2. I can see if I can find the slide and send it over to you. We did have the conversation.
About this issue, um, the hope is that a lot of these application, what I really have that big kind of on site load.
Uh, prior to them to connect, so it's not going to cause a lot of issues, but to the extent it does, we do, may have to take on the profiles was describing.
As we are updating icaay just to make sure that it's not going to cause any issue right? That has.
For example, if that's 2 megawatt load, and you have to add the additional amount to a generation, it makes the because you're not comparing apples to apples in that scenario.
Right. And then 1, so I guess I maybe we should just move on, but.
Thank you.
Alright. Are there any other comments or questions regarding.
This section of the presentation, and that was a lot, um.
1, quick comment that hopefully doesn't reopen the can of worms, but.
I wonder if it's worth for step 7 when you're calculating energy.
Also looking at energy during.
Usual TV production hours.
Cause right now we're using an energy metric that is 24 7.
That I'm not going to be able to support.
And then energy storage systems, like, we're going to discharge for.
Whatever the the peak hours they're getting paid for is so.
I'm not sure, um, you know, that is the most pressing issue, but just want to, um, turn it out there and make people aware of.
And, uh, this is Michael in the event that we're able to look at that. How would you define the hours for typical production? Is it like 7 0 A. M to.
40 P. M, I think something like what I would.
Do is, you know, take the.
Your monthly PD profile that is used for the.
Tv generation shape from.
It goes that is like the default TV watch 1.
And, you know, take when you have, you know.
Basically, when you have production during that period, because it's got a very, somewhat during the year.
Ideally, you'd further go in to, you know, integrating that with what the customer load tape is. But that gets insanely complicated. And I think is.
Not a meaningful thanks.
All right, so hearing nothing else I think we do have our next steps are ready for a workshop for.
Uh, at least for PG E, to add.
Not screen I, but to add a.
5 point I, in that scenario.
And I believe, uh, Eric.
I think it was Brian who's setting chat they'd be able to.
Um, run it.
Some of their data too. Yeah. Uh.
Brian from Eric to everybody at 3, 2003. 0. P. M.
In Chad said, I think we can recreate that analysis just based on the output of that to 80 study.
Uh, we just take the hourly profile, so, like, the lowest value over the year for each hour, it wouldn't be can be easier, though, would just be looking at the value right brand for.
Well, there's value in that kind of.
Profile overall. Is that right? Right?
We could, yeah, so I think could do.
Based on the data for 2022 that we have, but I was also actually, my comment was in relation to once we get these results, even if the utilities aren't able to add.
That analysis, we could extract that analysis from the total 288 results.
Yeah, what I was really going to have to say was, depending on when you told you're able to get this done 1st of all providing being.
Providing the service list, or whatever the list is for this workshop at least.
With the underlying CSP files or something.
So that we can all look at the data because I think that essentially the comparison between the 2 theaters.
Anybody should be able to slice and those different options from it. Um.
That's right so making sure that they're provided to the stakeholders to take a look at it.
You know, manipulable form.
So, okay, so that would be a request for the utilities. I do think, uh, you know, getting some of the data of the workshop would be great for the stakeholders to, uh.
Uh, you know, start taking a look at, I do not know how the utilities run.
Their batches where there old results coming at once, or whether, you know, 1 scenario is gonna come in before the other.
But I think that.
If, you know, a handful of scenarios.
You know, or a couple of scenarios come in, uh, before.
The rest then, you know, it'd be great to circulate that ahead of time. So people can start digestion.
Digesting the information and, uh, you know, I can coordinate with the utilities on that.
Okay, um, I'll take this back to the team, but can we also ask for the same from Eric? Uh, once you guys are done.
With the analysis you're performing, can you provide us with this same information as well?
Yeah, I guess if we I haven't talked to Katie about what we'd be able to do here, but I think.
Yeah, we're not comparing if we're not comparing your year.
And we're just going to look at a 24 hour profile same thing instead of IC values, what you guys have, but.
We can let me let me see what we can do. And then what the best way to provide it is so that you guys can.
Um, make sense of it as well. Okay. Any email with changes please.
Cc me, so I know what's going on.
And, like I said, I'll ask the team to see what we can and they cannot provide. I'm not sure if there's any.
Data privacy issues, um, because we're dealing with IC information, so.
I'll have to see what what we can or cannot provide.
Just don't pick a feature that has the nodes.
Connected already in terms of the ones you're picking, because I think you should know that from the way I see it was published already. If there's gonna be a data privacy issue.
All right, so it looks like we have next steps here for topic f.
Um, we do.
And before I continue any more.
Comments or questions on topic f. all right. Hearing none.
Topic eve will be continued on the smart and we're working group.
Um, early on before topic E.
We had discussions on.
And, uh, section M, and.
Topics on s topic.
Uh, I wanted to know whether we should continue. I mean, uh, it's 5 minutes for.
We can definitely go on until 430, but I wanted to see whether we were ready to continue those discussions, or whether we should, uh.
Maybe, uh, next steps.
You know, or sometime during, uh, this Thursday's smart, inverted working group call.
To kinda touch base on those, uh, outstanding issues.
I will be re, circle, uh, for anybody that needs to review what was said.
Uh, you know, I normally get the recording within an hour, so.
That will happen faster than posting it.
On the web page, so once they get the recording, I will distribute it to the attendees.
Uh, in, uh, from the list here from today's workshop, so you'll have it sooner than.
The webpage update so any thoughts on that, or what should we just?
Uh, I might have missed it which followup items were you referring to specific? There was section M.
That you and Brian wanted to, uh.
Talk about, but you didn't know if you'd be able to, uh.
I think it was the, uh.
Let me go back on the slide.
Um, I believe we had to do with.
The language, like, you had mentioned sky that you wanted to confer with Brian.
On it. All right. Okay. So, um.
I think.
I had to think about the, the there were a couple of different things, the 5 business days and then also, whether we were thinking.
Um, just sort of digesting the.
Process for whether projects can go through screening, but I think the 5 business days was 1 of the items to think about further. Um.
That's why I, uh, yeah.
That's why I was asking whether we want it to.
You know, call it a day, because it's been a long day already.
And, you know, we could go back and listen to everything that was said in the recording. Well, I don't have the time to go back and listen to the recording. This was all day constructed.
Well, that was that's why there's 1.5 replay. five replay
What was that? Oh, he said, that's why there's.
1.5 replay option yeah.
That's what I do. I think we should, we should maybe on this call, we can follow up on. I think it's on me to follow up items. I had other questions on so I can take it.
And what I'll do is send a bunch of recordings.
I will circulate, uh, my notes.
To everybody on the on the who attended while everybody who was it.
We've got the invite today. Um.
With the highlights on what was left out for discussion.
So, I would try my best to capture.
The time within the recording, so.
You don't have to listen to the entire thing. You could just fast forward to that time frame.
Okay, That'll be my, uh.
In place of Netflix.
All right.
So, unless there are any other outstanding, uh, questions, I think we could call it a day at 4. 0.
Yes, sharp, uh, any other, uh, thoughts or comments.
Thank you everyone.
All right, thank you. Everybody and, uh, check your E mail sometime later today and you'll get the recording information.
Yeah, thank you. Take care. Thanks. Everyone.
Thanks everyone and Francisco, I think we can stop recording now.