Load Shift Working Group

1. Load Shift Working Group November 14, 2018 10AM – 4:30PM PST CPUC Goldengate room https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

2. Agenda • 10:00AM-10:30AM: Intros, Updates, and Purpose • Reg Updates • Energy Division remarks on what happens after the report is finalized • MIDAS call recap • Proposal updates: anything that changed since last meeting • 10:30AM-11:00AM: Summary of comments received on outline • Discussion • 11:00AM-12:30PM: Exercise Comparing Products • Dispatch method (CAISO market dispatch <--> out of market dispatch) • Settlement level (aggregation <--> device) • Dispatch geographic granularity (DLAP/zone <--> circuit) • Dispatch time granularity (hourly <--> seconds) https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

3. Agenda • 12:30PM-1:30PM: Lunch •  1:30PM-3:00PM: Exercise Continued • Role of IOU (large <--> small) • Role of aggregator (large <--> small) • Role of customer (large <--> small) • 3:00PM-3:15PM: Break •  3:15PM-3:45PM: Exercise Continued • Launch viability (hard <--> hardest) •  3:45PM-4:30PM: Putting the Pieces Together • Discuss cross-cutting insights https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

4. Introduction and Purpose • Roll call • DR Regulatory Updates https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

5. ED Remarks D.16-09-056 • Goal for demand response programs: • Commission-regulated demand response programs shall assist the State in meeting its environmental objectives, cost‑effectively meet the needs of the grid, and enable customers to meet their energy needs at a reduced cost. • Principals for demand response programs: • Demand response shall be flexible and reliable to support renewable integration and emission reductions; • Demand response shall evolve to complement the continuous changing needs of the grid; • Demand response customers shall have the right to provide demand response through a service provider of their choice and Utilities shall support their choice by eliminating barriers to data access; • Demand response shall be implemented in coordination with rate design; • Demand response processes shall be transparent; and • Demand response shall be market‑driven leading to a competitive, technology‑neutral, open‑market in California with a preference for services provided by third‑parties through performance‑based contracts at competitively determined prices, and dispatched pursuant to wholesale or distribution market instructions, superseded only for emergency grid conditions. https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

6. ED Remarks D.17-10-017 • Commission must undertake several activities before launching new models of demand response. • Final report may inform a future rulemaking on new models of demand response. • Developing a proposal for a foundation that the Commission can use to inform the rulemaking to adopt policies and designs for new models of demand response. • The final report may be used to inform a new rulemaking to develop a foundation for new models of demand response. https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

7. MIDAS Call Recap • Webinar was held on 11.7 • Agenda included: • What would a pilot look like? • Who should bear the risk in such a pilot? • How could MIDAS interact with a Distribution System Operator (DSO)? • Are there any distribution level considerations for the MIDAS group? • How can avoided capacity payments be rolled into these products (estimating the capacity value of market informed products)? https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

8. Proposal Updates Product comparison matrix has been updated (11.6) Has anything that changed since last meeting? https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

9. Report Outline • Comments received from: • CAISO • CLECA • CPower • Peter Alstone (Schatz/LBNL) • PG&E • Public Advocates Office • SCE • Organizational comments • Put “why load shift” section ahead of “introduction” • Suggest including most of “why shift load” section as an appendix https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

10. Report Outline – Comments • Differences of perspective on RA section: • Current RA framework already reflects value of raising minimum load (albeit indirectly) • Curtailment works, too. • Gridworks Draft Recommendations: • Long-term commitment to Load Shift may be premature • Consider more detailed procedural recommendations (e.g., how to invite pilot proposals, give further consideration to demand charges) • Suggested additions: • More complete data access section • Load Shift relative to rates, EIM, XSP, DERMs • Consideration of whether pilots are scalable • GHG impact data form Shatz/LBNL • Consideration of how exporting resources create unique value and performance evaluation dynamics • Acknowledge potential costs and need for consideration of cost-effectiveness • Highlight differences between PDR-LSR and LSR 2.0 https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

11. Report Outline – Requests for Clarifications • SCE to CLECA: clarify what customer receives/pays when real time prices swing • SCE to CLECA: DA clearing price, not forecast, right? What notification time needed to make this possible… 2pm or 4pm? • CLECA on CCP: Suggest 3-4pm, “This would allow 2 hours after CAISO’s IFM, but early enough so customers can plan on changes for the next day.” • PG&E on LSR 2.0: bidding at positive prices allowed under proposal, correct? • CAISO on LSR 2.0: clarify existing performance evaluation methodologies are for curtailment only. • CPower on LSR 2.0: Yes, but they are being used for consumption in XSP and seem to be working. • CAISO on MIDAS: need a suggested performance evaluation methodology before asserting market revenues • CAISO on Sunrun Integrated: clarify the difference b/w this proposal and LSR 2.0 + whether it’s supply-side bid (PDR) or load bid. • CLECA on CCP: underlying ratemaking has complexities not captured in the summary and needing further review https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

12. Product Comparison https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

13. Objectives & Assumptions Objectives: • Draw out key similarities and differences between products • Show the diversity of products and how they complement other programs/initiatives • Enable the Commission to weigh relative strengths of the products • Postpone premature determinations on 'good' or 'bad' in favor of relative advantages • Begin evaluating the viability of products • Gridworks assumptions: • Proposals lie on a spectrum • Deciding between them isn't required at this time • Funding determinations will require more detail but we have enough info to  decide whether to take the appropriate next steps • A portfolio of approaches hedges risk https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

14. Key Questions • Where do the proposals sit on the spectrum? • Why is this a key criteria? What’s important about it? • Does a product’s capabilities relative to this criterion impact its ability to meet certain grid needs? If so, which ones? • Are there barriers associated with this criterion that need to be reported? https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

15. Evaluation Criteria • Dispatch method (CAISO market dispatch <--> out of market dispatch) • Settlement level (aggregation <--> device) • Dispatch geo-granularity (zone <--> circuit) • Dispatch time granularity (hourly <--> seconds) • Role of IOU (large <--> small) • Role of aggregator (large <--> small) • Role of customer (large <--> small) • Launch viability (hard <--> hardest) https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

16. Comparing Products Evaluation Criteria: • Dispatch method (CAISO market dispatch <--> out of market dispatch) • Settlement level (aggregation <--> device) • Dispatch geo-granularity (zone <--> circuit) • Dispatch time granularity (hourly <--> seconds) • Role of IOU (large <--> small) • Role of aggregator (large <--> small) • Role of customer (large <--> small) • Launch viability (hard <--> hardest) Key Questions: • Where do the proposals sit on the spectrum? • Why is this a key criteria? What’s important about it? • Does a product’s capabilities relative to this criterion impact its ability to meet certain grid needs? If so, which ones? • Are there barriers associated with this criterion that need to be reported? https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

17. Cross-cutting Considerations • What does the whole analysis say about the relative merits of product proposals? • What does this evaluation tell us about the main recommendations the group would make to the Commission? • Are there examples where these proposal are already implemented? https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

18. Next Steps • Final Report Timeline • Update on Future Sessions https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

19. Next Steps https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

20. Appendices

21. https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/

22. Primary Identified Barriers • LSR 2.0 • Approval by CAISO and FERC following a subsequent stakeholder initiative considering how technological neutrality. • CCP • Mitigation for an increase in a customer maximum non-coincident demand charge caused by increased load from a CCP event. • MIDAS • More granular/accurate grid state indicators. • Sunrun Integrated • CPUC needs to expand RA beyond peak load and enable alignment with capacity planning needs within all time and grid domains. • Sunrun Informed • CPUC would need to expand RA beyond peak load and enable alignment with capacity planning needs within all time and grid domains. • P4LS • Developing load shape schedules and measuring performance. https://gridworks.org/initiatives/load-shift-working-group/