CPUC Track III Resource Adequacy Workshop March 12-13, 2019
Day 1 Load Forecasting Proposals and Discussion
Timeline MID MAR LSEs report hourly usage from previous year to CEC LATE APR LSEs submit initial year-ahead load forecasts to CEC and CPUC MAR-JUL CEC, CAISO, CPUC coordinate on finalizing total year-ahead load forecast as well as adjustments to each LSE’s submission JUL/AUG CPUC releases initial year-ahead requirements and allocations to all LSEs LATE AUG LSEs submit final year-ahead load forecasts to CEC and CPUC LATE SEPT CPUC releases final year-ahead requirements and allocations to all LSEs OCT 31 Year-ahead LSE compliance deadline
Coordinating the Forecasting Process More Effective Coordination of the Forecasting Process Would Benefit All Stakeholders Use the Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA) process (in year n-1 • for year n) to come to an agreement on forecast service territory load before the initial LSE load forecast is due in April. CEC should alert an LSE if they disagree with its load forecast. They • should meet to work out any differences, providing the LSE an opportunity to defend its forecast before any plausibility adjustment is added to the LSE’s obligation. Timing: issues among the LSEs and the CEC should be resolved before • June to inform the Commission’s July allocation. There should be no further update to an LSE’s allocation after this point. Load Forecasting Proposals and Discussion
Incentivizing Accurate Forecasts • CEC should assess and publish the results of its own high level forecasts v actuals true up each year • CEC should create a process to true up LSE forecasts annually, with penalties for LSEs who grossly under- forecast load. • To the extent an LSE’s gross under-forecasting results in a pro-rata adjustment by the CEC that increases the obligations of other LSEs, the LSE causing the issue should be required to compensate affected LSEs. Load Forecasting Proposals and Discussion
Day 2 System and Local RA Requirements and Allocations
Align local obligation with monthly shape of load that is served Recommendation: modify the allocation of local RA requirements to reflect each LSE’s actual month-to-month load forecasts Each LSE’s year-ahead load forecast shows monthly variability; the monthly load shape should be used in setting the monthly local RA obligation. This would better align an LSE’s local RA compliance obligation with the LSE’s actual monthly load served. Today’s inability to tailor RA purchases to actual forecast load: (i) increases costs for customers of all LSEs, particularly CCAs launching new services, (ii) inflates demand unnecessarily for local RA by requiring two LSEs to procure capacity for the same customer load within the same compliance year during years where customers migrate from one LSE to another, and (iii) shifts costs among LSEs. System and Local RA Requirements and Allocations
Recommend
More recommend
