analysis of demand response modeling in gridview andy satchwell and sarah smith modeling work group...
DESCRIPTION
DSM Inputs to Western Regional Planning LBNL has worked with WECC staff and the State and Provincial Steering Committee (SPSC) over the past four years to develop DSM-related assumptions and modeling inputs for WECC’s regional transmission planning studies Two types of DR modeling assumptions required for each study case: –DR resource quantities: How much DR is available to be dispatched in any given hour for each load zone? –DR dispatch mechanics: When is the DR dispatched and how does it affect hourly loads and peak demand? DR resource quantities are based on non-firm load forecasts reported by balancing authorities to WECC 3TRANSCRIPT
Analysis of Demand Response Modeling in
GridViewAndy Satchwell and Sarah Smith
Modeling Work GroupDecember 21, 2015
The work described in this presentation was funded by the National Electricity Delivery Division of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability under Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
2
Purpose of today’s presentation
• Present analysis of GridView’s DR modeling capabilities
• Comparison of GridView and LBNL modeling approaches
• Provide recommendation for DR modeling in TEPPC studies
DSM Inputs to Western Regional Planning
• LBNL has worked with WECC staff and the State and Provincial Steering Committee (SPSC) over the past four years to develop DSM-related assumptions and modeling inputs for WECC’s regional transmission planning studies
• Two types of DR modeling assumptions required for each study case:– DR resource quantities: How much DR is available to be
dispatched in any given hour for each load zone?– DR dispatch mechanics: When is the DR dispatched and
how does it affect hourly loads and peak demand?• DR resource quantities are based on non-firm load
forecasts reported by balancing authorities to WECC3
2,213
639 527
400 370 355 243 197 119 116 54 54 52 52 45 32 25 19
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500DR
Load
Impa
ct (M
W)
Price Responsive
Direct Load Control
Interruptible
Load as a Capacity Resource
2024 Common Case DR Capacity by BA and Program Type
• DR resource is growing in size and importance in the West for maintaining system reliability with generating plant retirements and for renewables integration
5
Context for analysis and recommendation
• LBNL previously implemented a modeling approach using its Demand Response Dispatch Tool (DRDT) premised on PROMOD’s then limitations for realistically modeling DR
• WECC transitioned to a new production cost modeling tool (GridView) and we need to revisit endogenous modeling capabilities to select most realistic and appropriate modeling approach
• DRDT requires iteration with modeling runs and may not be most efficient from process standpoint– Question is whether gain in efficiency from endogenous
approach comes at too much of a cost in terms of reduced accuracy of how DR is modeled
6
What do we mean by “realistic” dispatch?
• DR programs are used for reliability and economic purposes– Several program types are utilized during high
price periods (e.g., critical peak pricing)• DR program dispatch is limited by tariff
provisions specifying maximum number of events per month or year
• DR program tariffs also specify multiple, sequential blocks (e.g., 4 to 6 hours) for events
7
Brief background on LBNL’s DRDTInputs• Hourly
Load• Hourly
LMPs• Maxim
um Available Monthly DR
• Program constraints
Resource Availability• Calcul
ate “hourly shaping factors” to scale maximum available DR to hourly load
Simulated Dispatch• Identif
y top-LMP hours to act as dispatch trigger
• Dispatch DR over top-LMP hours, subject to program constraints
Output• 8760
load-modifying profile of DR used in production cost model as static profile
8
Overview of GridView’s DR modeling approaches
• Discussions with GridView revealed there was no standard approach to modeling DR
• Most common approach was to use an energy limited hydro proxy with a pre-established trigger price (e.g., $150/MWh)
9
Summary of approach
Compared LBNL
and GridVie
w modelin
g approac
hes based
on GridView’s pre-existing capabili
ties
Worked with ABB staff
to improve DR modeling in GridVi
ew
Conducted
a separ
ate comparison based
on chang
es
Developed a recommended
approach
10
Summary of approach
Compared LBNL
and GridVie
w modelin
g approac
hes based
on GridView’s pre-existing capabili
ties
Worked with ABB staff
to improve DR modeling in GridVi
ew
Conducted
a separ
ate comparison based
on chang
es
Developed a recommended
approach
11
Comparative analysis of GridView Hydro approach versus LBNL DRDT approach
How was the hydro proxy constructed?• Used LBNL DRDT profiles to set monthly
energy amounts and used 2024 Common Case maximum DR capacities
• Approach did not distinguish between DR program types and did not use program constraints (e.g., expected hours of dispatch)
• Dispatch was triggered in high load periods
12
Comparative analysis of GridView Hydro approach versus LBNL DRDT approach
How similar are the two approaches?
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
AVA
AZPS
BAN
CBP
ACI
PBCI
PVCI
SCCI
SD EPE IID IP
FEIP
MV
IPTV
LDW
PN
EVP
PAID
PAU
TPG
EPN
MPS
CO PSEI
SPPC SR
PTE
PCAver
age
load
redu
ction
from
DR
in 2
024
Com
mon
Cas
e (M
W)
LBNL Profile Avg Load Reduction Gridview Profile Avg Load Reduction• Both approaches
dispatched same maximum amount of DR
• In some cases, LBNL approach had higher average load reductions, and opposite was true in other cases
• GridView hydro approach minimum dispatched amounts were much lower than LBNL DRDT approach in several cases
161 46
-
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
AVA
AZPS
BAN
CBP
ACI
PBCI
PVCI
SC
CISD EP
EIID IPFE
IPM
VIP
TVLD
WP
NEV
PPA
IDPA
UT
PGE
PNM
PSCO PS
EISP
PC SRP
TEPC
Min
imum
Am
ount
DR
Disp
atch
ed (M
W)
Min Dispatch LBNL DRDT (MW) Min Dispatch GridView Hydro (MW)
13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Cum
ulati
ve P
erce
nt o
f DR
Disp
atch
Hou
rs (%
)
Amount of DR Dispatched (MW)
GridView Hydro Approach LBNL DRDT Approach
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
20
40
60
80
100
120
Event Duration (hours)
Num
ber o
f Eve
nts
Comparative analysis of GridView Hydro approach versus LBNL DRDT approach
How realistic is the GridView hydro approach?• Almost half the dispatch
events (196 out of 401) were for 1 to 2 hour blocks which differs from typical DR program utilization of blocks greater than 2 hours
• GridView hydro approach had more, smaller dispatch events than LBNL approach, and more dispatch amounts <1 MW
14
Summary of approach
Compared LBNL
and GridVie
w modelin
g approac
hes based
on GridView’s pre-existing capabili
ties
Worked with ABB staff
to improve DR modeling in GridVi
ew
Conducted
a separ
ate comparison based
on chang
es
Developed a recommended
approach
15
Building DRDT in GridView
• GridView’s hydro approach did not appear to be an improvement over LBNL DRDT approach
• With LBNL’s direction, GridView modelers developed a new algorithm that built DRDT approach into GridView and reflecting typical program dispatch behavior
• We also enhanced the core dispatch approach in order to allow programs to be dispatched based on load or price, depending on whether they are typically used for system reliability or economic purposes
16
Summary of approach
Compared LBNL
and GridVie
w modelin
g approac
hes based
on GridView’s pre-existing capabili
ties
Worked with ABB staff
to improve DR modeling in GridVi
ew
Conducted
a separ
ate comparison based
on chang
es
Developed a recommended
approach
17
DRDT Test Cases
Case DR Capacities Program Dispatch Constraints Dispatch Trigger
LBNL DRDT 2024 Common Case
• Interruptible: 2-hour blocks, 10 times per year
• Direct load control (DLC): 4-hour blocks, 10 times per year
• Pricing: 5-hour blocks, 10 times per year
• Load as a capacity resource (LCR): 6-hour blocks, 10 times per year
• All programs dispatched on highest average price periods
GridView DRDT #1
Same • Same as LBNL DRDT and minimum dispatch set at 1MW
• All programs dispatched on highest average load periods
GridView DRDT #2
Same • Same as GridView DRDT #1 • Interruptible and DLC programs – highest average load periods and load is “resorted” after each dispatch event
• Pricing and LCR programs – highest average price periods
18
Comparative analysis of DRDT Test Cases (1)
• All three test cases showed similar distributions of event durations
• GridView DRDT test cases had larger DR amounts and somewhat more frequent dispatch events – likely due to high load hour dispatch trigger and coincidence with hourly shaping factors
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Num
ber o
f Eve
nts
Event Duration (hours)
LBNL DRDT GridView DRDT #1 GridView DRDT #2
Represent back-to-back dispatches
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Cum
ulati
ve P
erce
nt o
f DR
Disp
atch
Hou
rs (%
)
Amount of DR Dispatched (MW)
LBNL DRDT GridView DRDT #1 GridView DRDT #2
19
Comparative analysis of DRDT Test Cases (2)
• GridView test cases have hourly shapes that better match seasonal system load due to load dispatch trigger and, thus, increased shaping factor
• GridView case #1 dispatch was most coincident with system load but does not reflect economic dispatch of some DR program types (e.g., pricing and LCR)
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230
100
200
300
400
500
600Winter Months Summer Months Shoulder Months
Hour of Day
Aver
age
Disp
atch
(MW
)
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230
100
200
300
400
500
600
Hour of Day
LBNL DRDT Case GridView DRDT #1 Case GridView DRDT #2 Case
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 230
100
200
300
400
500
600
Hour of Day
20
Summary of approach
Compared LBNL
and GridVie
w modelin
g approac
hes based
on GridView’s pre-existing capabili
ties
Worked with ABB staff
to improve DR modeling in GridVi
ew
Conducted
a separ
ate comparison based
on chang
es
Developed a recommended
approach
21
Recommendation
• We recommend implementing the DRDT approach used in GridView Case #2 for the 2026 TEPPC study cases
• Use same program constraints as in 2024 TEPPC study cases and use highest average load periods as dispatch trigger for Interruptible and DLC program types
Questions?
Project Team:
Andy Satchwell | [email protected] | 510-486-6544
Sarah Smith| [email protected] | 510-486-6142
Publications:
https://emp.lbl.gov/reports/resp
22