20130603IRP 2012 Wind Supplement.pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAINHdRiER - :'-::; ''
ADrvrsroNof RAoFrcoRP 201 south Main, suite 2300
?i ii Jlj;i - 3 i;ii g' 15 satt Lake city, Utah 84111
June 3,2013 LiTi:li i:::i r;.... ,,,,,i,._ ,.-i,.
YA OWRNIGHT DELIWRY
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472West Washington
Boise, lD 83702
Attention: Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
RE: PacifiCorp's 2013Integrated Resource Plan - Case No. PAC-E-13-05
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Rocky Mountain Power ("Company") hereby submits for filing an original and seven copies of
PacifiCorp's2}L2 Wind Integration Study as a supplement to PacifiCorp's 2013 Integrated
Resource Plan that was filed April 30, 2013 in the above reference docket.
All formal correspondence and data requests regarding this filing should be addressed to:
By E-mail (preferred): [e-mail]
[e-mail]
ted.weston@pacifi corp. com
[e-mail]
By regular mail: Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomatr St., Suite 2000
Portland, OR97232
With copies to: Ted Weston
Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, One Utatr Center, 23'd Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Yvonne Hogle
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, One Utah Center,23'd Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 841I I
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
June 3,2013
Page2
Informal inquiries, including requests to receive a copy of the 2013 IRP filing, may be directed
to Ted Weston, Idaho Regulatory Manager, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Wktu-rc;
Vice President, Regulation & Government Affairs
Enclosures
cc: Mike Louis, Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Terri Carlock, Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Rick Sterling, Idatro Public Utilities Commission
Randy Lobb, Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Neil Price,Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jim Yost, Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Mark Stokes, Idaho Power Company
Randall Budge, Monsanto
r t.lI ri I [,-1r *5
i.;...Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
May 10, 2013
PacifiCorp
2012 Wind lntegration Study Technical Review Committee (TRC)
PacifiCorp 2012 Wind lntegration Study Technical Memo
Background
The purpose of the PacifiCorp 2012 wind integration study as defined by PacifiCorp in the draft final
report is as follows:
The purpose of this study is to estimote the operoting reserves required to mointoin PacifiCorp's system
reliobility ond comply with North Americon Electric Corporotion (NERC) regionol reliobility stondards.
The Company must provide sufficient operoting reserves to allow the Boloncing Authority to meet NERC's
control performonce criterio (See BAL-002-L1) ot otl times, incrementol to contingency reserves which the
Compony mointoins to comply with NERC Standord BAL-OO2-f. These incrementol operoting reserves
ore necessory to mointoin oreo control errof within required parameters, oport from disturbonce events
that ore oddressed through contingency reserves, due to sources outside direct operotor control
including intra-hour changes in lood demond and wind generation. The study results in on estimote of
operating reserue volume ond estimoted cost of these operoting resentes required to monoge lood ond
wind generotion voriotion in PocifiCorp's Bolancing Authority Areas (BAAs).
PacifiCorp currently serves L.8 million customers across 135,000 square miles in six western states.
According to a company fact sheet available at
http://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pacificorp/doc/About Us/Companv Overview/PC FACTSHEE
T 2013 Fweb.pdf, PacifiCorp's generating plants have a net capacity of 70,579 MW, including about
' NERC Standard BAL-007-1:http://www.nerc.comldocs/standardslsar/BAl-007-011 clean last oostins 30-
dav Pre-ballot 06Feb07.pdf.
' NERC Standa rd BAL-002-0: http:1lwww. nerc.comlfi les/BAL-002-0. pdft "Area Control Error" is defined in the NERC glossary here: httpl/lwww.nerc.com/files/Glossarv l"2Feb08.pdf
1,400 MW of owned and contracted wind capacity, which provides approximately 8% of PacifiCorp's
annual energy. PacifiCorp operates two BAAs in WECC, referenced as PACE (PacifiCorp East) and PACW
(PacifiCorp West). The BAAs are interconnected by a limited amount of transmission, and the two BAAs
are operated independently at the present time, so wind generation in each BAA is balanced
independently. PacifiCorp has experienced continued wind growth in each BAA, and has been
requested to update its wind integration study as part of its lRP. The total amount of wind capacity in
PacifiCorp's BAAs, which was included in the 2012 wind integration study, was 2135 MW.
TRC Process
The Utility Variable-Generation lntegration Group (UVIG) has encouraged the formation of a Technical
Review Committee (TRC)to offer constructive input and feedback on wind integration studies
conducted by industry partners for over 10 years. The TRC is generally formed from a group of people
who have some knowledge and expertise in these types of studies, can bring insights gained in previous
work, have an interest in seeing the studies conducted using the best available data and methods, and
who will stay actively engaged throughout the process. Over time, the UVIG has developed a set of
principles which is used to guide the work of the TRC. A modified version of these principles was used in
the conduct of this study, and is included as an attachment to this memo. The composition of the TRC
for the PacifiCorp study was as follows:
o Andrea Coon - Director, Western Renewable Energy Generation lnformation System
(WREGIS) for the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC)
r Randall Falkenberg - President, RFI Consulting, lnc.
o Matt Hunsaker - Manager, Renewable lntegration for the Western Electricity Coordinating
Council(WECC)
o Michael Milligan - Lead research for the Transmission and Grid lntegration Team at the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
o J. Charles Smith - Executive Director, Utility Variable-Generation lntegration Group (UVIG)
o Robert Zavadil - Executive Vice President of Power Systems Consulting, EnerNex
The TRC met in person for a kick-off meeting in early 2012, and met by teleconference on 5 occasions
throughout the course of the study, which was conducted during the period of January 2OL2 - March
2013. PacifiCorp provided presentations on the status and results of the work on the teleconferences
and engaged with the TRC in a robust discussion throughout the work. The teleconferences were
generally followed up with further clarifications and responses to requests for additional information.
lntroduction
The Company should be acknowledged for the improvements it made in development of the 2012 wind
integration study modeling and for engaging a Technical Review Committee with nationally recognized
experts, participants with experience in WECC, as well as in the Company's regulatory arena. The 2012
wind integration study has been positively received by stakeholders participating in the IRP process.
PacifiCorp eliminated some of the more controversial and problematical aspects of the 20L0 wind
integration study, specifically the use of "synthetic data" and "must run" modeling of thermal units in
the production cost study. lt performed analyses which sufficiently addressed the "load net wind" issue
as well, and conducted a number of useful sensitivity studies addressing improved PACE-PACW
integration, a 30 minute balancing market and provided the TRC with various tolerance scenarios.
Further, PacifiCorp eventually identified and corrected errors in the final workpapers and took steps to
analyze and improve the underlying data quality. The company has provided a massive set of
workpapers available for later review. The 2012 wind integration study report thoroughly documents
the company's analysis.
As mentioned in the report, there is a significant difference in the integration costs between the 2010
study and the 2012 study. The 2012 value of S1.89/MWh of wind generation is on the low end
compared to other North American wind integration studies, while the 20L0 value of $9.70/MWh is on
the upper end of the same studies. Much of this difference is attributed to the reduced gas price used in
the 2012 study, S4/MMBtu vs $8 in the 2010 study. However, there were a number of other important
changes in the production cost models used by PacifiCorp in the two studies, notably elimination of the
assumption from the 2010 study that wind integration resulted in an increase in must run requirements,
which was a controversial issue at the time.
Analytical Methodology
The approach for assessing the integration of variable generation into the bulk power system has
evolved considerably since the first studies about a decade ago. This trajectory of approximately 40
individual studies in North America has been characterized by a steady improvement in data, tools, and
overall methodology, while better capturing the important characteristics and operating nuances of the
system being studied. The following section is focused on the methodology used in the 20L2 study and
will identify the innovations made by PacifiCorp along with some criticisms based on the existing body of
wind integration study experience.
The general approach is to simulate the operational planning, scheduling, and real-time operation of the
bulk power system chronologically over an extended period of time, usually a year or more at hourly
time steps. Various chronological production costing programs have been adapted to provide the
framework for these simulations. ln nearly every study, however, the limitations of these tools, along
with the input data with which to drive them, have been clearly recognized, requiring that work-arounds
be developed. These limitations are not surprising given that the production simulation tools were not
developed to provide a high-fidelity mimic of power system scheduling and operations.
A major innovation in the 2012 study was the use of actual historical production data for the wind
generation fleet. PacifiCorp currently manages over 2100 MW of wind generation, and has high
resolution archival data for each plant in the fleet. Almost every previous study has had to rely on
synthesized wind production data of some sort, and while this data was of the highest fidelity possible
(e.9. NREL mesoscale simulation data), there were limitations in resolution(10 minute time steps,
aggregation of 10 to 20 turbines in each grid cell, etc.) and validation against actual operating plant.
Because it was the best available, the synthesized data was generally assumed to be the best reflection
of reality, although questions were raised along the way which could not be answered definitively.
PacifiCorp's use of real data (bad data fixes aside) precludes such questions and uncertainty.
Other critical data for the study was extracted from historical archives. This included load data at high
resolution along with various forecasts for both load and wind generation. As a whole, the baseline data
set used for this study was of higher fidelity than that used for any previous PacifiCorp study to date.
Comprehensive analysis of this high quality data formed the basis for methods to estimate impacts of
variable generation on various operating reserves. The mathematicalformulations developed to
quantify regulation and ramping reserve requirements mapped reasonably well to the current state of
the art. However, by using 10-minute intervals as the basis for these formulations, PacifiCorp did miss
an opportunity to clear up some remaining questions regarding aggregate wind and load variability at
higher temporal resolution that would be directly used in the computation of area control area (ACE) by
the Energy Management System (EMS). This likely has no impact on the study results, but may have
limited the insights available from the study, and would have been helpful for the industry as a whole.
Combined with knowledge regarding PacifiCorp's participation in the BAAL/RBC field trials, this high
resolution data would have potentially provided insights on the impact of BAAL/RBC on the needs for
AGC, which would then have an impact on the regulation results from the study.
The application of the short-term load and wind variability, along with short-term uncertainty, was also
consistent with the state-of-the-art for integration studies. A significant missing component was the
calibration of the calculation method with current PacifiCorp operating practice. Since the study
focused on the current situation (i.e. not some future scenario), some attempt to validate the
calculations with PacifiCorp operator practice would have substantially increased the validity of the
findings. ln a sense, this could be characterized as developing mathematical formulations for operator
heuristics. As the study was structured, this could have been an innovative and valuable contribution,
rather than a missed opportunity.
Another comment concerns the use of the operating reserve estimates in the production simulations.
As mentioned earlier, most of the production simulation tools were not designed to mimic power
system operations in a level of detail consistent with the different types of reserve categories developed
by PacifiCorp. However, some programs do allow for some higher fidelity in this aspect, and the tool
employed by PacifiCorp, PaR (Planning and Risk) appears to be one of those. At hourly time steps, the
operating reserve requirements are modeled as constraints on the unit commitment and economic
dispatch. Table L4 in the report describes the operating reserve categories available in the PaR model,
and reveals that this model has more flexibility for applying reserve constraints than many of the other
tools used for this type of analysis. Unfortunately, PacifiCorp's use of PaR reserve categories did not
exploit th is flexi bility.
The consequence of this modeling choice was that the intra-hour regulation and ramping reserves had
to be combined outside of the program, and while the approach taken by PacifiCorp to mathematically
combine these requirements was reasonable, much discussion and many questions were raised at TRC
and stakeholder meetings. Effective use of the features offered by PaR would have increased
confidence in the study results and provided for a better simulation of actual system operations.
Following are some additional detailed points which should be noted:
Use of Average vs. Chronological Hourly Reserve Constraints: Recent integration studies have
recognized that incremental operating reserves for managing the additional variability and short-term
uncertainty due to renewables have time- and situation-dependent properties. The best example
actually comes from solar PV, where it is obvious to anyone that such incremental reserves would not be
needed at night. Wind is the same general case, and the statistics generated by PacifiCorp in their
analysis bears this out. At low levels of wind production, the additional variability is small because
aggregate production is small. When the aggregate wind fleet is producing near nameplate capacity,
winds are high over a large area and most turbines are actually operating at wind speeds well above
rated. This tends to smooth the aggregate output significantly, leading to a lower incremental reserve
requirement.
Since the objective of the production modeling was to quantify the cost of the incremental reserves, the
use of a monthly average incremental reserve constraint in the model is potentially misleading,
especially when the hourly chronological value was already calculated in the study. This is due to the
fact that the cost "function" being exercised here (empirically, through comparison of two annual
production simulations) is very complicated and non-linear. While wind can effectively free up
conventional capacity to provide the needed additional reserve, renewable forecast errors (both day-
ahead and hours ahead) can lead to shortages due to de-commitment. Other factors, such as the
availability of quick-start resources, also come into play. ln some earlier studies, the differential
production cost was analyzed on a daily basis, and found to be very "lumpy"; i.e. on many days, the cost
of the incremental reserve was very small, but on others, where the factors mentioned above combined
unfavorably, the cost was quite high. lt is unreasonable to expect that a differential production cost
value using an average incremental reserve each hour would accumulate over the year to the same
value as one derived from a highly variable hourly profile.
Treatment of Ramping Reserve: The ramping reserve estimated by PacifiCorp through statistical and
mathematical analysis was lumped in with total regulation and spinning contingency reserve in the
production simulations. Spinning reserve is the most expensive category of operating reserve (with its
subset, Regulation, being the most expensive of all). From an operational perspective, a certain portion
of the ramping reserve each hour could actually be represented as a requirement for non-spinning
reserve, since significant and persistent changes in aggregate wind generation play out over time
periods long enough for operators to take action - i.e. deploy quick-start generation, as was done in the
EWITS study.
Double-Counting of Reserve Costs: As mentioned previously, the production simulation programs used
for wind integration analysis were actually not designed for such a purpose, which puts the onus on the
user to insure that the modeling is proper, and also to recognize the limitations of the program.
The reserve requirements for a given operating hour, as described in the PacifiCorp report, are
estimated on the basis of information available some time previous to that hour. Because the forecast
technique used for aggregate wind generation is based on persistence, and change in wind generation
from that value in the next hour will either consume some of the delegated operating reserve (if wind
production decreases) or effectively add to the amount available to meet that constraint (if wind
generation is more than anticipated and other operating units are backed down). ln the first case,
assuming average hourly values of load and generation, deploying reserves set aside previously to
compensate for reductions in wind generation would actually, as far as the production simulation
program knows, reduce the amount of reserves that needed to be held. This has been considered in
previous studies by actually reducing the appropriate portion of the hourly reserve constraint a priori,
since wind generation changes are known before the production simulation is run. Reducing the reserve
constraint will only reduce production costs, and avoids what has been previously termed a "double-
counting" of certain reserves costs associated with managing wind generation.
One additional methodology development was identified as follows. The ramping component in the
2012 wind integration study is a new addition for PacifiCorp. This is an important element of integration
cost when applied to the System Optimizer Model (used for the IRP), which does not model reserve
allocations or unit schedules in a detailed manner. While the ramping component should not be ignored
in the wind integration cost study, as it does contribute a small increment to the required reserves, it is
important that it also be considered in the $/tvtWh total wind integration cost input to the System
Optimizer Model. lts applicability in other settings and other types of models has not been established
or discussed by PacifiCorp in the 2012 wind integration study, nor has the TRC reviewed this matter.
Assumptions
Results, as in any study, are sensitive to assumptions and inputs. PacifiCorp has done a good job
scrubbing and analyzing input data, and much of the analysis appears to be well done. On page 12 there
is discussion regarding the percentage exceedence that is used for the reserve calculation. ln a footnote,
PacifiCorp says that they have not been operating to CPS2 since March 2010 because it is participating in
the Balancing Area ACE Limit (BAAL or RBC, Reliability Based Control) field trial. While they insist that the
reserve exceedence should be 99.7o/o, their effective CPS2 performance during RBC is probably closer to
65-70%. Additionally, there is no discussion that links the 99.7% level to CPS2 performance prior to the
BAAL field trials. That type of discussion could help build a case for the exceedence level PacifiCorp has
chosen, and yet no evidence is offered that99.7% is appropriate. The report claims that operators will
always have sufficient reserves, and that 99.7% (with the 110 adjustment) represents a reduction in
performance. That would seem to imply L00% CPS2 performance. lnstead, PacifiCorp claims that since
they don't know when they will be on the "right" side of frequency with BAAL, they must plan to run so
that they are compliant with existing CPS2 rules. ln fact, there appears to be evidence that their CPS2
performance under the BAAL trial is much less, leading to a reserve requirement and a wind integration
cost that are too high. Although PacifiCorp stated that they don't know when they would need to
provide for increasing or decreasing generation to help frequency under BAAL, characterization of actual
behavior and CPS2 performance under BAAL is appropriate. lt is never known in what minute
AGC/regulation will move up or down, yet statistical characterization that matches CPS2 performance is
a common method.
PacifiCorp has not persuasively justified the 99.7-L1e tolerance level. The entire analysis consisting of
millions of calculations and hundreds of megabytes of spreadsheets rests upon this one assumption.
Deciding this single input strongly influences the final answer. There is no path from the actual
reliability requirements to the input assumption used, nor is there even an intuitive guideline. ln this
respect, the 2010 wind integration study was superior because the tolerance target used was loosely
driven by CPS2. Concurrent studies performed by other entities in the region were cited as some
justification, but this is simply not persuasive, as some of the same entities were using different
numbers in the past.
Further, owing to the bin structure in the PacifiCorp model, it is unlikely that setting the input to a99.7
tolerance level will actually result in the corresponding level of reliability. The 20 bin structure used to
model the "following" reserve components results in development of about 35 monthly "erro/'
observations in each of the 20 bins. Excel is used to find the 99.7th percentile errors for each bin (for
each month). At best, this allows one to find a 1in 35 error (more likely a97o/o tolerance) not a 1 in 600
error (which is required for achieving a99.7%tolerance). The results of the 20 monthly 99.7th percentile
bin errors were then averaged. The averaging of reserves likely has a significant impact on the implicit
CPS score that is inherent in the modeling because the number of times 110 is exceeded will be very
different with an average reserve level. ln the end, there is little correlation between the tolerance level
assumption and the actual number of reserve shortages that might occur were these results actually
applied. For planning applications where the difference between scenarios (using the same underlying
reserve levels) is compared, this may not be very significant. However, this is not the case for
applications where the overall level of reserves is important. Certainly, this study should not be used a
guide for operational purposes, and we understand this is not the intention.
Results
There is considerable discussion showing the extensive calculations to determine the chronological
reserve requirements for wind energy. This discussion and the method used to calculate these reserves
appear to be reasonable. On the last TRC call, we discovered (to our surprise) that the simulations used
only the monthly average reserve, not the chronological reserve that so much effort went into
calculating. However, on page 39, the use of the average reserve is not mentioned. On page 47, the
report states The PoR model distinguishes reserue types by the priority order for unit commitment
scheduling, and optimizes them to minimize cost in response to demand changes ond the quantity of
reserve required on an hour-to-hour basis. Based on what we heard on the TRC call relative to the use of
the average reserve, this statement is misleading. The report does not mention that the chronological
reserves are not used in the simulations. There are two issues here: (L) the report should make
prominent mention of this and (2) the results of the study are rendered less accurate by this approach. lt
is not obvious whether the results for reserves and integration cost would be too high, or too low, given
the many non-linearities in the modeling. lt depends on system marginal cost relative to the reserve
carried, i.e. when reserve is higher or lowerthan average.
Discussion and Conclusions
Overall there are a number of quite positive aspects about this study. PacifiCorp has generally been
responsive to TRC questions and requests. The study is much improved compared to the prior one that
was completed a few years ago. The general approach for calculating wind-induced reserve appears
reasonable. However, the results depend on the adoptions of the relatively arbitrary 99.7o/o exceedence
level, and the use of an average monthly reserve level instead of the hourly reserve levels calculated.
The 99.7o/o exceedence level does not reflect the way the system is currently being operated or will likely
be operated in the future, and likely increases reserves and costs, while the effect of the use of the
average monthly reserve is uncertain.
Regulators should be aware that the modeling contains various resources that may or not be reflected in
regulated rates and contains loads from the entire PACE and PACW control areas, not simply PacifiCorp's
native customers. For example, the Oregon PUC denied cost recovery of one of the company's wind
plants in a prior case, while other states have denied recovery of integration costs related to certain
non-owned wind plants that are transmission service customers. The TRC should not be viewed as
endorsing this aspect ofthe study for any purposes beyond the intended planning applications, and
does not believe that its involvement with PacifiCorp is a substitute for the normal regulatory process.
ln summary, during the past 12 months, we have attended a number of meetings of the Technical
Review Committee, one in person and six via telephone. The goal of this Committee was to engage with
PacifiCorp in determining a reasonable methodology for estimating wind integration costs for the
PacifiCorp system. We have actively participated in these meetings, as well as engaged in extensive
discussion with PacifiCorp staff via telephone about the study and the data presented. We have also
examined the data and analysis provided by PacifiCorp as part of this study. PacifiCorp has generally
been cooperative and forthcoming in answering questions and providing data requested by the TRC.
While we do not agree with all of the decisions that were made by PacifiCorp for the reasons stated, it is
our opinion that while the proposed methodology is not perfect, it is adequate for the intended purpose
and produced a reasonable result. We believe the 2012 wind integration study merits a qualified
endorsement by the TRC. With additional time and money, a better result could be achieved.
Recommendations for Future Work
Wind lntegration modeling is continuing to develop and more useful data is becoming available. There
are various matters that should be improved upon in future work.
Reserve requirements should be modeled on an hourly rather than a monthly average basis
in the production cost models.
PacifiCorp has not been operating to CPS2 since March 2010. Their effective CPS2
performance during the RBC field trial is probably closerto 65-70%than99.7%.The99.7%
exceedence level should be studied parametrically in future work, or a better method to
create a path between the actual reliability requirements and the tolerance level driving
reserve requirements should be developed.
The distinction between three different types of reserve requirements ("regulating",
"following" and "ramping") is blurred under the heading of "regulating margins" using the
root-sum-square (RSS) formula. Regulating margin implies reserve capacity available on
very short notice (ten minute or less). Such responsiveness is not necessarily required for all
three types of reserves modeled. The ramping and following categories certainly do not all
require such immediate availability. Future work should treat these categories differently
by making better use of the capabilities already in PaR and comparing the results to use of
the RSS formula.
Given the vast amount of data used, and the dozens of very large spreadsheets employed,
just correcting an error or changing a tolerance level was very time consuming for the
10
company. Spreadsheets may not be the best toolfor this sort of analysis. Rather a
dedicated, but flexible computer program incorporating advanced statistical packages to
facilitate betterstatisticalanalysis, or better use of existing programs like PaR, should be
considered. At least one member of the TRC who performs analysis with Gretl suggests that
a simpler, more transparent analysis could be performed using a flexible statistics package.
While part of the reason behind the large shift in integration cost calculations is described in
the report (lower forecasted natural gas and power market prices), it would be interesting
to see how the integration costs calculations would compare using the same gas and power
market prices used in the 2010 study. ln addition, a sensitivity analysis with carbon tax
assumptions would also provide some useful results.
The PACE-PACW integration analysis is useful, and should be expanded to consider the
benefits obtainable from the current system, as some reserves are transferrable between
BAAs already, though integration is far from complete, Further to this point, PacifiCorp and
CAISO recently announce the creation of a two-pafi energy imbalance market (ElM). This
announcement came after the current study draft was completed. While it is not reasonable
to expect that the study should be re-done, it should be noted that based on the analysis
performed for the EIM to date, as well as on the sensitivity studies done during the course
of the project, it would be reasonableto conclude thatthe EIM would decrease reserve and
integration cost. The most recent results for the cost of carrying reserves due to wind
integration in the ERCOT five-minute energy market (10 GW wind capacity in a 65 GW peak
load system) , as presented at the 2013 UVIG Variable Generation Forecasting Workshop in
Salt Lake City in February, and the UVIG Spring Workshop in Charleston in April, was about
s.solMWh.
Concurrence:
Andrea Coon - Director of WREGIS, WECC d.
Randall Falkenberg - President, RFI Consultin g, tnr. ffi
Matt Hunsaker - Manager, Renewable lntegration, WECC /,{.li
Michael Milligan - Lead researcher, Transmission and Grid lntegration Team, NREL#f !j"
J. Charles Smith - Executive Director, UVIG
Robert Zavadil - Executive Vice President, EnerNex T?
11
Principles for Technica! Review Committee (TRC) lnvolvement in Studies of Wind !ntegration
A properly constituted TRC will assist the project sponsors in ensuring that the quality of the technical
work and the accuracy of results will be as high as possible. TRC participation will also enhance the
credibility and acceptance of the study results throughout the affected stakeholder communities. TRC
members will be qualified to carry the key messages of the study to their respective sectors.
Endorsement by the TRC is not intended to replace regulatory review and approval.
TRC Membership
TRC membership should include individuals that collectively provide expertise in all of the technical
disciplines relevant to the study. A TRC facilitator should be selected from among the TRC members.
Sponsorship and facilitation of the TRC should be independent from, but closely coordinated with, the
project sponsors and the team conducting the work.
Functions and Requirements of TRC Members
The TRC will
Review study objectives and approach, and offer suggestions when appropriate to strengthen
the study.
Help ensure that the study:
a. Builds upon prior peer-reviewed wind integration studies and related technicalwork;
b. Receives the benefit of findings from recent and current wind integration study work;
c. lncorporates broadly supported best practices for wind integration studies;
d. ls accurately portrayed to broader stakeholder groups.
Engage actively in the project throughout its duration. ln general, project review meetings
should be held nominally on a quarterly basis; some meetings can be held telephonically, but
some should also occur face to face. A face to face kickoff meting to establish and agree on the
general direction of the work is preferred, but not required.
Engender a discussion of methods and results among TRC members, the study team, project
sponsors and other interested parties. The aim of these discussions is to improve accuracy,
clarity and understanding of the work, and reach consensus resolution on issues that arise.
Avoid public disclosure of meeting discussions and preliminary results. ln general, findings
should not be released until accepted and generally agreed upon by project sponsors, the study
team and the TRC. When advisable, possible, and agreed to by all project participants, interim
progress reports can be provided to a broader stakeholder group.
Ensure that findings are based entirely on facts and accurate engineering and science. Project
sponsors need to embrace this aim so that the results and findings are objectively developed
and not skewed to support any desired outcome.
Document results of TRC meetings and distribute meeting presentation and minutes.
L.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
12
TRC requirements
To cany out these functions the TRC requires:
L. Access to all relevant information needed to properly evaluate the work and the results. When
required, TRC members will enter into confidentiality agreements to pmtect this information. lf
specific information is determined to be needed by the TRC, lt cannot be declared "off limits."
2. Assurance that the study results Mll be made public through published documentation or other
suitable means, with the understanding that business-sensitive information will be maintained
as confidentialand not be made public,
3. Assurance that project sponsors will describe the project as having the benefit of expert review
by the TRC only if the TRC has clearly expressed its acceptance of and agreement with the
results or methodology of the study. To the extent the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptance of and agreement with specific aspects of the study, the project sponsors will
describe that only those aspects ofthe study as having the benefit of expert review bythe TRC.
4. Assurance that, in the event agreernent is not reached by the TRC and other project
participants, any reference to the TRC will be removed from the final report and any associated
documentation or publicity, To the extent that the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptance of and agreement with specific aspects of the study, any reference to the TRC in
connection with those aspects of the study in which the TRC has not expressed agreement will
be rernoved from the final report and any associated documentation or publicity.
lf you agree with the above principles please sign below.
For Project Sponsors{s)For Technical Review Committee
13
TRCreguirements
To carry out these functions the TRC requlres:
2.
3.
Access to all relevant information needed to properly evaluate the work and the results. When
required, TRC members will enter into confidentiality agreements to protect this information. lf
specific information is determined to be needed by the TRC, it cannot be declared "off limits."
Assurance that the study results will be made public through published documentation or other
suitable means, wlth the understanding that business-sensitive information will be maintained
as confidential and not be made public.
Assurance that project sponsors will describe the project as having the benefit of expert review
by the TRC only if the TRC has clearly expressed its acceptance of and agreement with the
results or methodology of the study. To the extent the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptanc€ of and agreement with specific aspects of the study, the project sponsors witl
describe that only those aspects ofthe study as having the benefit of expert review by the TRC.
Assurance that, in the event agreement is not reached by the TRC and other project
participants, any reference to the TRC will be removed from the final report and any associated
documentation or publicity. To the extent that the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptance of and agreement with specific aspects of the study, any reference to the TRC in
connection with those aspects of the study in which the TRc has not expressed agreement will
be removed from the final report and any associated documentation or publicity.
lf you agree with the above principles phase sign below.
/,-<*_:<L*_
For Project Sponsors(s)
4.
14
TRC requirements
To carry out these functlons the TRC requires:
1. Access to all relevant lnformation needed to properly evaluate the work and the results. When
requlred, TRC members wlll enter into confidentiallty agreements to protect this information. lf
speclfic Information is determined to be needed by the TRC, it cannot be declared "off limits."
Z. Assurance that the study results will be rnade public through published documentation or other
suitable means, wlth the understandlng that buslness-sensltive informatlon will be maintalned
as confldential and not be made public,
3. Assurance that project sponsors wlll descrlbe the project as having the beneflt of expert review
by the TRC only lf the TRC has clearly expressed lts acceptance of and agreement with the
resuhs or methodology of the study. To the extent the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptance of and agreement with speclfic aspects of the study, the project sponsors will
describe that only those aspects of the study as having the beneflt of expert review by the fRC.
4. Assurance that, ln the event agreement is not reached by the TRC and other proJect
participants, any reference to the TRC will be removed from the final report and any associated
documentatlon or publlclty. To the extent that the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptance of and atreement with speciflc aspects of the study, any reference to the TRC in
connection wlth those aspects of the study ln whlch the TRC has not expressed agreement will
be removed from the flnal report and any associated documentation or publicity.
lf you agree with the above prlnciples please sign below.
/<,.-:<(.--
For ProJect Sponsors(s)
fr*rk ,b-
For Technical Revlew Committee
15
TRC requlrements
To carry out these functions the TRC requires:
1. Access to all relevant lnformation needed to properly evaluate the work and the results. When
requlred, TRC members will enter into confidentiality agreements to protect thls information. lf
specific information is determined to be needed by the TRC, it cannot be declared "off limlts."
2. Assurance that the study results will be made public through published documentation or other
suitable means, with the understanding that business-sensitive lnformation will be maintained
as confidentialand not be made publlc.
3. Assurance that project sponsors wlll describe the project as having the benefit of expert revlew
by the TRC only if the TRC has clearly expressed its acceptance of and agreement wlth the
results or methodology of the study. To the extent the TRC has only clearly expressed lts
acceptance of and agreement with specific aspects of the study, the project sponsors will
descrlbe that only those aspects of the study as having the benefit of expert review by the TRC.
4. Assurance that, in the event agreement is not reached by the TRC and other project
participants, any reference to the TRC will be removed from the final report and any assoclated
documentation or publicity. To the extent that the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptance of and agreement with speclfic aspects of the study, any reference to the TRC In
connection with those aspects of the study in which the TRC has not expressed agreement will
be removed from the final report and any associated documentation or publicity.
lf you agree with the above principles please sign below.
/-<^- l-S L-
For Project Sponsors{s)
TRC requirements
To carry out these functions the TRC requires:
1. Access to all relevant information needed to properly evaluate the work and the results. When
required, TRC members will enter into confidentiality agreements to protect this information. lf
specific information is determined to be needed by the TRC, it cannot be declared "off limits."
2. Assurance that the study results will be made public through published documentation or other
suitable means, with the understanding that business-sensitive information will be maintained
as confidential and not be made public.
3. Assurance that project sponsors will describe the project as having the benefit of expert review
by the TRC only if the TRC has clearly expressed its acceptance of and agreement with the
results or methodology of the study. To the extent the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptance of and agreement with specific aspects of the study, the project sponsors will
describe that only those aspects ofthe study as having the benefit of expert review by the TRC.
4. Assurance that, in the event agreement is not reached by the TRC and other proiect
participants, any reference to the TRC wil! be removed from the final report and any associated
documentation or publicity. To the extent that the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptance of and agreement with specific aspects of the study, any reference to the TRC in
connection with those aspects of the study in which the TRC has not expressed agreement will
be removed from the final report and any associated documentation or publicity.
lf you agree with the above principles please sign below.
For Proiect Sponsors(s)
17
TRC requirements
To carry out these functions the TRC requires:
L. Access to all relevant information needed to properly evaluate the work and the results. When
required, TRC members will enter into confidentiality agreements to protect this information. lf
specific information is determined to be needed by the TRC, it cannot be declared "off limits."
2. Assurance that the study results will be made public through published documentation or other
suitable means, with the understanding that business-sensitive information will be maintained
as confidential and not be made public.
fusurance that project sponsors will describe the project as having the benefit of expert review
by the TRC only if the TRC has clearly expressed its acceptance of and agreement with the
results or methodology of the study. To the extent the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptance of and agreement with specific aspects of the study, the project sponsors will
describe that only those aspects of the study as having the benefit of expert review by the TRC,
Assurance that, in the event agreement is not reached by the TRC and other project
participants, any reference to the TRC will be removed from the final report and any associated
documentation or publicity. To the eKent that the TRC has only clearly expressed its
acceptance of and agreement with specific aspects of the study, any reference to the TRC in
connection with those aspects of the study in which the TRC has not expressed agreement will
be removed from the final report and any associated documentation or publicity.
lf you agree with the above principles please sign below.
3.
4.
For Project Sponsors(s)
18