Load Review Process Sandeep Borkar and Calvin Opheim
Load Review Process Sandeep Borkar and Calvin Opheim August 2017 RPG Meeting Agenda PUBLIC Background Process overview Schedule and timeline Next steps 2
Background PG section 3.1.7 specifies the process used for determining Load level used in start cases for RTP and Tier 1 independent review SSWG load forecast was compared to ERCOT 90th percentile forecast for all weather zones Load reviews performed for Coast and Far West weather zone for the 2017 RTP PUBLIC 3 Load Forecast Review Process RTP: Loads compared by weather zone
Tier 1 RPG review: Loads compared by TO (if necessary) PUBLIC 4 SSWG Load Level 5% Boun d SSWG Load Level ERCOT 90th percentile Forecast SSWG Load Level ERCOT 90th percentile Forecast
5% Boun d RTP Load Level ERCOT 90th percentile Forecast RTP Load Level Justified? PUBLIC 5 SSWG
SSWG Load Load Level Level ERCOT 90th percentile Forecast 5% Boun d 5% Boun d 5% Boun
Experience from 2017 Load Forecast Review What evidence is accepted? Is there a MW cutoff? Confidentiality How will the new loads be handled Fast growing load area concerns? Anything TOs can do ahead of time to make this easier PUBLIC
6 Load Forecast Review Process PUBLIC 7 Load Forecast Review Process Comparison of Load Forecasts Weather Zone TSP Required documentation to support the TSPs load forecast Additional review of load delivery points Example
PUBLIC 8 Load Forecast Comparison If Weather Zone SSWG forecast is higher than ERCOT 90th percentile forecast + 5% bound TSP can provide signed financially binding agreements from customers as evidence of increased load in their territory These agreements are kept confidential by ERCOT PUBLIC 10
Load Forecast Comparison Review TSP SSWG forecast If TSP forecast looks significantly larger than the overall growth in a weather zone TSP can provide signed financially binding agreements from customers as evidence of increased load in their territory These agreements are kept confidential by ERCOT PUBLIC 11 Load Forecast Comparison Review TSP SSWG forecast High growth but not from large customers
Supporting documentation of the forecast Includes: Growth driver Forecast model PUBLIC 13 Required Documentation Signed financially binding document is required No speculative load is included If there is no signed financially binding document, the load is not included PUBLIC
14 Review New Load Additions Compare the load from the financially binding document to its actual load If its a new load delivery point, the kw listed is added to ERCOTs forecast The kw value is not reduced at this time PUBLIC 15 Review New Load Additions Some documents were dated in the past Reviewed the current load level to the load level from historically signed documents time
Revealed differences between contracted load and actual load PUBLIC 16 Review New Load Additions Example Customer signed agreement indicates 100 MW of load effective 1/1/2016 Current load level is 10 MW TSP forecast is 100 MW in 2017 PUBLIC 17
Review New Load Additions Example Customer signed agreement indicates 100 MW of load effective 1/1/2016 Current load level is 10 MW TSP forecast is 100 MW in 2017 ERCOT forecast adjustment is 10 MW PUBLIC 18 Review New Load Additions Example continued ERCOTs proposal would be to contact the customer and receive an updated load forecast Also shows the difference between contracted
load and actual ERCOT will be gathering data to quantify actual load versus contracted load PUBLIC 19 Conclusion ERCOT has developed procedures that will be used to review load forecasts The goal is to ensure that ERCOT is comfortable with the load forecasts ERCOT is appreciative of the support provided by TSPs PUBLIC
20 Schedule and Timeline for RTP loads Dec 2017 ERCOT 90th percentile available Preliminary RTP cases with bounded higher offposted Apr 2017 2018 ALDR Updated Aug 2017 TSP meetings with large load additions Oct 2017 Second update of 2018 SSWG cases Jun 2017 2018SSWG Cases created using 2018 ALDR
1/1/2017 Feb Mar Apr May Jun January 2018 TO's in flagged Weather Zones provide justification for additional loads 1/1/2018
Jul Aug Oct Feb 2018 ERCOT completes load review Feb Mar Jan 2018 - Feb 2018 ERCOT load review PUBLIC Sep
21 Nov Dec 12/31/2017 Mar 2018 RTP Loads finalized Freeze RTP load levels 4/1/2018 Tier 1 related load reviews Any loads added in addition to those included in RTP cases will require load review
Timeline for this load review will be identified in the RPG Independent Review scope PUBLIC 22 Next steps Seek feedback about proposed changes Propose that 5% threshold be used per Section 3.1.7 at the following meetings September TAC October Board PUBLIC 23
Bounded higher-of methodology (Conceptual) SSWG Loads Calculated by Weather Zone Remove selfserved loads Compare weather zone load levels WZ load from SSWG < ERCOT 90th Percentile Y Use ERCO 90th (add self-served)
Y Use ERCOT 90th + X% (add selfserved and justified additions ) N ERCOT 90th percentile summer peak load forecast by Weather Zone Remove Losses and add any known differences
WZ load from SSWG > ERCOT 90th + X% N Use SSWG Loads Load share for each TO within the weather zone is determined based on that TOs share of the most recent summer peak. Loads for TOs inside this WZ, but within the X% bounds would be retained from SSWG cases. PUBLIC 26 Load review process (Conceptual) TAC/Board approves
the X% bound for RTP Load level Develop RTP start cases using the bounded higher-of load level Post preliminary RTP start cases for review Stakeholder review passed? Y RTP start case load levels finalized
N ERCOT staffto review the rationale and update RPG on any changes to load levels Stakeholder provides rationale for valid diffe rences Rationale: Historic load growth Committed load additions Forecast methodology Past forecast performance Special circumstances Other?
Preliminary RTP start cases will be shared to allow TDSPs to review the impact of load distribution on pockets within the weather zones. PUBLIC 27 Planning Guide 3.17 Reference [PGRR042: Insert Section 3.1.7 below on January 1, 2018:] 3.1.7 Steady State Transmission Planning Load Forecast (1) ERCOT shall use the following process for determining the Load level to be used in the starting base cases for the Regional Transmission Plan and in the steady-state evaluation of a Tier 1 project pursuant to Protocol Section 3.11.4, Regional Planning Group Project Review Process: (a) ERCOT will compare the ERCOT 90/10 Load forecast with the summed SSWG
bus-level Load forecast for each Weather Zone. (b) If the ERCOT 90/10 Load forecast is higher, ERCOT will use this forecast for the Weather Zone. (c) If the SSWG Load forecast is higher than or equal to the ERCOT 90/10 Load forecast, but below the ERCOT 90/10 Load forecast plus a boundary threshold determined in accordance with paragraph (f) below, ERCOT will use the SSWG Load forecast for the Weather Zone. (d) If the SSWG Load forecast is higher than or equal to the ERCOT 90/10 Load forecast plus the boundary threshold, ERCOT will use the ERCOT 90/10 Load forecast plus the boundary threshold for the Weather Zone. PUBLIC 28 Planning Guide 3.17 Reference (Cont.) (e) If a TSP(s) believes that the ERCOT 90/10 Load forecast plus the boundary threshold does not adequately represent the Weather Zone or an area within the Weather Zone, the TSP(s) may present ERCOT with additional information to justify using a higher Load forecast, including the
SSWG Load forecast, for that Weather Zone. ERCOT, in its sole discretion, may choose to use a higher Load forecast than indicated in paragraph (d) above if it reasonably determines that the Load forecast indicated in paragraph (d) above does not adequately represent the Weather Zone or an area within the Weather Zone. If ERCOT uses a Load forecast higher than the ERCOT 90/10 Load forecast plus the boundary threshold in the evaluation of a Tier 1 project, ERCOT must explain and document the basis for that choice, using aggregated information as needed to shield Protected Information, in its independent review. (f) ERCOT-proposed revisions to the boundary threshold used to implement the requirements of this section will be recommended by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and approved by the ERCOT Board. PUBLIC 29
It delivers more channels It delivers better pictures There is more interaction For marketers, this means better targeting and immediate opportunities to sell, to collect data and to develop relationships More chanel means a huge selection There is a channel...
Emotions, feelings and moods invoked through skillful use of figurative language (i.e. similes, metaphors, hyperbole, personification, etc.) ... Read through the poem and try and identify/match the following vocabulary terms with the what's in the poem and answer the questions.
The predicate is something that is being told about the subject (property, mode of existence of the subject, etc.) When we examine the predicate in context of the subject we can determine the truth value of the proposition. Aristotle gave...
The navigator, Frank Worsley, said that he was in London and had a dream that he was going down Burlington Street in a ship, navigating around blocks of ice. The dream was so vivid, he went there the next day...
Helium Conservation ModuleSeamlessly integrated onto 7890 GC hardware and software. To Inlet EPCs. Purge. He in. N 2. inFlow channel inside . the bridge block. Std. Aux EPC. Built on 5th generation EPC. Fully controlled by Agilent data systems ....
Unapproved Mission Provide a comprehensive and integrated set of electronic products and service offerings that meet the current needs of IEEE Members, Customers, Volunteers, Staff and other stakeholders, and positions IEEE for continued full participation in the professional communities of...