Discover key insights from the 2017 RPG meeting on load forecast review processes, including comparisons, level boundaries, and handling fast-growing load area concerns. Explore the determination process, load level justification, evidence acceptance, and more for effective load forecasting.
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Load Review Process Sandeep Borkar and Calvin Opheim August 2017 RPG Meeting
Agenda Background Process overview Schedule and timeline Next steps PUBLIC 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 Justified? RTP Load Level RTP Load Level Bound Bound 5% 5% SSWG Load Level SSWG Load Level ERCOT 90th percentile ERCOT 90th percentile ERCOT 90th percentile SSWG Load Level Forecast Forecast Forecast RTP: Loads compared by weather zone Tier 1 RPG review: Loads compared by TO (if necessary) PUBLIC 4
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 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 it s a new load delivery point, the kw listed is added to ERCOT s 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 ERCOT s 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 off posted Apr 2017 Aug 2017 2018 ALDR Updated TSP meetings with large load additionsOct 2017 Jun 2017 2018SSWG Cases created using 2018 ALDR Second update of 2018 SSWG cases Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1/1/2017 12/31/2017 January 2018 Mar 2018 Feb 2018 TO's in flagged Weather Zones provide justification for additional loads RTP Loads finalized Freeze RTP load levels ERCOT completes load review Feb Mar 1/1/2018 4/1/2018 Jan 2018 - Feb 2018 ERCOT load review PUBLIC 21
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 self- served loads Compare weather zone load levels WZ load from SSWG < ERCOT 90th Percentile Use ERCO 90th (add self-served) Y N Use ERCOT 90th + X% (add self- served and justified additions) ERCOT 90th percentile summer peak load forecast by Weather Zone Remove Losses and add any known differences WZ load from SSWG > ERCOT 90th + X% Y N Use SSWG Loads Load share for each TO within the weather zone is determined based on that TO s share of the most recent summer peak. Loads for TO s inside this WZ, but within the X% bounds would be retained from SSWG cases. PUBLIC 26
Load review process (Conceptual) Develop RTP start cases using the bounded higher-of load level TAC/Board approves the X% bound for RTP Load level Post preliminary RTP start cases for review Stakeholder review passed? RTP start case load levels finalized Y N ERCOT staff to review the rationale and update RPG on any changes to load levels Stakeholder provides rationale for valid differences 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
