WEBVTT

1
00:17:09.964 --> 00:17:18.485
Okay, perfect Thank you. Even though they're still like 7 minutes to go, but it's a good time just to get started.

2
00:17:21.034 --> 00:17:21.484
And.

3
00:17:23.704 --> 00:17:26.043
Do we have PG E on the call now?

4
00:17:44.675 --> 00:17:50.075
All right, do any of the utilities I know, uh, who from PG and E is going to be joining.

5
00:17:54.635 --> 00:17:59.675
This is Michael bring in from I believe we're expecting Alex more from PG E at a minimum.

6
00:18:00.305 --> 00:18:01.745
Okay. All right. Thank you.

7
00:18:04.445 --> 00:18:10.115
And, uh, Brian seal I see you're on, uh, could you test your mic? Please?

8
00:18:10.655 --> 00:18:11.495
Yeah, can you hear me.

9
00:18:12.185 --> 00:18:14.195
Yes, we can. Thank you Brian.

10
00:18:20.584 --> 00:18:25.084
And is a main on the call from Cal advocate's office.

11
00:18:32.045 --> 00:18:32.315
Huh.

12
00:18:37.654 --> 00:18:42.004
Say, do you want me to pink somebody? Maybe.

13
00:18:44.105 --> 00:18:45.095
Ping.

14
00:18:46.745 --> 00:18:52.535
Yes, please, Frank. Oh, yeah. You you know what I mean? Right? Yes. Okay.

15
00:19:04.624 --> 00:19:20.344
Jose, I'm curious, uh, this is Michael, from when the, uh, previous calendar hold was set up for this meeting. I think it was from 12 to 4. was there Webex information on that? Invite cause? I'm curious if folks may be joined, or are joining that Webex.

16
00:19:20.704 --> 00:19:41.674
No, there wasn't and I changed. Well, so, Webex apparently did something weird cause I eliminate when I updated the invite, I eliminated the word hold and then have some Monday. I was still seeing the hold.

17
00:19:41.704 --> 00:19:57.784
Invite being forwarded, which is kind of odd saying that it was technically overwritten. So I'm not sure what happened there, but no, there was that was just a general hold to hold the time.

18
00:19:58.624 --> 00:19:59.644
Got it Thank you.

19
00:20:00.004 --> 00:20:00.454
Okay.

20
00:20:11.344 --> 00:20:14.764
And do we have anything from anyone from Iraq on the call?

21
00:20:28.834 --> 00:20:49.354
Hey, good afternoon, uh, caller from the phone in caller from the, uh, 408 area code. If you want to unmute your phone and click star 3 on your keypad, we will That'll raise your hand, get our attention. And then we'll go ahead and you can identify yourself and we can actually change your name and the Webex just. So we're just so.

22
00:20:49.385 --> 00:20:51.035
What do you can identify? Thank you.

23
00:23:55.564 --> 00:23:56.584
Yeah, I mean, how are you doing.

24
00:24:00.004 --> 00:24:07.534
Hey, Frank doing quite well we miss you on our team, but, you know, we're happy to see you doing good work with, for energy division.

25
00:24:09.579 --> 00:24:10.924
Nice thing to say, thanks.

26
00:24:14.374 --> 00:24:15.874
All right. Welcome. I mean.

27
00:24:20.824 --> 00:24:25.054
So, okay, I think we can get started.

28
00:24:29.164 --> 00:24:34.264
All right 408 is Cathy. Okay. All right.

29
00:24:36.515 --> 00:24:44.975
I think we get we can get started, um, just, uh, 1 more time, trying to see anybody from a PG E on the call.

30
00:24:52.354 --> 00:24:54.844
Okay, see, Matt is on the call.

31
00:24:56.135 --> 00:24:56.525
Matt.

32
00:24:57.905 --> 00:24:59.795
Yeah, I think Alice will be here in just a moment.

33
00:25:00.485 --> 00:25:17.045
Okay. All right. Okay well, he, he won't miss much. I'll get just get started, uh, on the intro. Uh, thank you everybody for joining. Uh, oh, can we move to the next slide? Please Francisco Thank you.

34
00:25:17.465 --> 00:25:38.375
Uh, thank you everybody for joining today's, uh, 1st, workshop per solution. Ea, 230. uh, we have a full agenda next slide Francisco yeah, just a few logistics and announcements. Safety reminder make a note of your surrounding an extra roots. Of course.

35
00:25:39.184 --> 00:25:50.644
If you need any help reach out to, you know, during that call or to an attendee, some workshop logistics, uh, the meeting is being recorded.

36
00:25:52.984 --> 00:25:59.554
Record materials and materials will be posted at the but.

37
00:26:00.664 --> 00:26:20.554
Um, participants are encouraged to ask questions anytime, um, please keep yourself muting were not speaking and do not put the call on hold. Uh, when you do speak, please identify yourself before speaking if.

38
00:26:20.824 --> 00:26:41.824
By phone, use the mute button or your handset and unmute yourself to speak muted by the host press star 6 to unmute to raise your hand press star 3 uh, if you were forwarded the invite and did not receive it directly from, uh, energy division and would like, to be added to.

39
00:26:41.860 --> 00:26:59.525
To the future workshop list uh, please email me. Um, future workshop. Invitees will include participants from the previous workshop. Um, next slide please.

40
00:27:01.774 --> 00:27:13.414
A quick reminder this is where you can find the link to that limited generation profile workshops, next slide. Please.

41
00:27:15.875 --> 00:27:36.395
Today's agenda, we're starting off with our quick intro here. Uh, followed. Oh, this is, um, Francisco. Do you have version 2? This is version 1. yesterday I updated the agenda with the version 2.

42
00:27:37.804 --> 00:27:41.164
But regardless, uh, the order here is, um.

43
00:27:42.755 --> 00:28:03.635
W, W, we're struggling with the introduction. We'll be then moving on to a means presentation followed by Gordon's presentation from, uh, Quito and then Brian seals presentation from every, uh, there should be in the invite, uh, version 2. Uh.

44
00:28:03.905 --> 00:28:14.495
That shows, uh, the new agenda, uh, then we'll take a quick break 10 minute break and then we'll follow up with the, uh, presentations.

45
00:28:18.635 --> 00:28:19.355
The next slide.

46
00:28:20.704 --> 00:28:21.304
Please.

47
00:28:29.975 --> 00:28:31.565
Francisco next slide please.

48
00:28:35.284 --> 00:28:54.304
Thank you so, just a quick background here. The resolution 85,230, uh, issued on December 9th last year identified issues that need further discussion. This is just.

49
00:28:54.424 --> 00:29:04.834
Overview, I will not go through all of them. Today. We are discussing sections of the resolution next slide.

50
00:29:07.474 --> 00:29:27.814
This is the, uh, agenda. Has we have the, uh, schedule? Has we have it now? We'll show 1 workshop. 2 will be on February 21st. I will be sending out invites, uh, by the end of the week workshop 3 on March, 14 and.

51
00:29:28.775 --> 00:29:49.385
Workshop or if needed, uh, TBD at the moment, the advice letters are due on May 1st, and I know that seems a long time away, but, uh, you know, time passes sized pretty fast. Um, additionally we are leveraging the smart board, a working group and.

52
00:29:49.390 --> 00:29:55.775
This is the list of the smarter board of working group, uh, meetings, uh, next slide Francisco please.

53
00:29:59.914 --> 00:30:16.174
So this is a, um, schedule on when the topics are gonna be, uh, discussed and on what dates, uh, tomorrow's smarter. We're working group meeting will kick off a discussion on top and.

54
00:30:16.624 --> 00:30:26.824
They tend to fight in the previous slide. Um, and, uh, you know, you could, uh, review this on your own, uh, next slide please.

55
00:30:29.194 --> 00:30:50.014
Uh, I will not read everything in here, but these are experts from the resolution section E, has to do with implementation of limited generation profiles, using current, smarter border functions. Um, next slide Francisco and.

56
00:30:50.020 --> 00:30:59.975
Section app has to do with implementing more than 12 limited generation profile dollars per year. So.

57
00:31:01.324 --> 00:31:01.894
Okay.

58
00:31:05.674 --> 00:31:25.264
And, um, next slide please, and basically after this workshop, uh, please email me any topics that you've based on today's workshop and the smart, and we're working group tomorrow. Please email me any topics that need addressing in the future.

59
00:31:25.295 --> 00:31:45.965
For discussions, uh, by February 8, that's just so we can plan for the 2nd workshop, uh, on the 21st right uh, having said that, uh, the next couple of slides are just the background materials on.

60
00:31:46.420 --> 00:32:04.415
15 and 51 of the decision and, uh, what the, uh, issue 9 and maybe we are, but I will not go through them. So, um, all right, so, let's, uh, bring up the 2nd, slide deck.

61
00:32:07.654 --> 00:32:20.584
Actually, uh, I'm sorry, uh, row Francisco. That would be a slight deck identified has number 3. I did not. I forgot to renumber to them.

62
00:32:21.670 --> 00:32:28.595
That would be the slide deck. 3 underscore.

63
00:32:47.644 --> 00:32:52.654
Thank you. And, uh, all right. Uh, I mean, I take it away.

64
00:32:53.854 --> 00:33:00.064
All right. Great. Hope everyone can hear me. Okay, thank you. Very much for giving me the time to present again.

65
00:33:01.174 --> 00:33:22.294
My name is the main unit I represent the utilities engineer at the public advocate's office, independent ratepayer organization rate pair, advocacy organization that is within the public utilities commission. I gave this presentation about a week ago or so, um, a little over a week ago, and the smart inverter working group and I was.

66
00:33:22.324 --> 00:33:43.444
To reiterate it again here, I'm going to go through some sections a little quicker and focus on the results since we've all many people. I'm sure have seen it before. I'll note that this presentation has been slightly updated in particular. The results are a little bit different. They're directionally almost exactly the same, but.

67
00:33:43.475 --> 00:33:53.345
Used, um, different data, slightly different data. I'll explain that subsequently as we get through it. So so without, let's go to the next slide, please.

68
00:33:55.894 --> 00:34:10.983
Sorry, I guess we should we can stay here, but I should have said on the last slide that the whole point of this presentation is somewhat to quantify the opportunity provided by using 288 values per year in limited generation profiles, relative to 12 values and relative to a single value.

69
00:34:13.084 --> 00:34:29.134
And I'll go through this slide extra quick. Uh, but the points in my view of, uh, this whole exercise, based on my, uh, interpretation of the, the relevant, uh, decisions is that, um, or, uh, I guess it's not a decision. It's a.

70
00:34:31.415 --> 00:34:48.425
Ruling, but in any case, the point is to interconnect more the ers well, avoiding grid upgrades to allow to export more energy, more power during peak hours again all well avoiding grid upgrades with that. We can, uh, go to the next slide.

71
00:34:51.874 --> 00:35:10.834
So, at a kind of theoretical level, the more opportunity that the has to vary throughout the hours of the hours of the day, and throughout the month of the year, the more energy you'd expect to be able to export over the course of the year with a single value as as in a static limit that's that's been used.

72
00:35:10.895 --> 00:35:31.985
For if February at noon limits you to to a certain level, that level has applied at all hours and then if you are allowed to break off and export more in March, that's incrementally helpful. If you're allowed to export more at 50 PM that's even more helpful. So, from a very theoretical level, we expect that going from 1 to 12 to 288.

73
00:35:32.044 --> 00:35:45.064
Are going to continue to show incremental benefits in terms of the energy exploited over the course of the year and in terms of the power that can be supplied to the grid during any period. But, you know, we mostly care about peak hours a 4 to 9. 0 PM.

74
00:35:46.685 --> 00:35:55.955
Reasonably easy to test out this theory, using data from the that are potentially other data sources that could be used, but the ICN data are some of the most readily available.

75
00:35:57.784 --> 00:36:18.544
That's exactly what I did. I looked at ACA data and I tested this theory for a relatively small sample of feeders and I think, you know, at risk of of spoiling the whole result of the presentation, of course, going to go into detail on. Exactly. Why I, uh, I'm going to justify this this conclusion subsequently, but in my view, the theory holds up pretty well, the potential.

76
00:36:18.549 --> 00:36:39.664
2 of 288 values relative to 12 values is quite significant. There's a lot more power and a lot more energy that could be utilized across the grid. And in the presentation at this Martin verdict working group I made the same 2 recommendations here. We should either do a more systematic study of feeder capacity something like a census of feeders, rather than a small sample here. I used.

77
00:36:39.725 --> 00:37:00.815
2 features based on the data I had available and another kind of option would be to simply and the conversation here and say, look, 288 values is so good that we want to just do it. Um, the feedback I got last time was more towards starting with a, and seeing if we want to go to be so.

78
00:37:00.904 --> 00:37:14.914
Barking upon a systematic study of fetal capacity I haven't yet received all of the data necessary to actually do that. Um, but the hope is that I can augment this work and perhaps write a follow up in subsequent meetings. I think that's enough on this slide. So, we'll go to the next slide.

79
00:37:16.360 --> 00:37:37.505
So I'm going to start before I get into the results I'm gonna just provide a graphic of icaay data so that we're all kind of on the same page about what I'm what I'm talking about here, starting with a graph on the bottom. You have them 12 months of the year on the X axis on the Y, axis. You have the integration capacity for generation as measured by the static grid value. That is.

80
00:37:37.534 --> 00:37:58.654
Kilowatts has shown here, so it's about 0 to 3 megawatts and megawatt being 1000 kilowatts and for each month of the year you show a single value. That's what's in the oh, sorry each month of the year, you show 2024 values a single day is represented by 1 value for each hour of the day. And you can see that in the in the solid.

81
00:37:58.684 --> 00:38:19.774
Black line here for January every day in January. It's kind of lower in the morning. It goes up around noon drops off a tiny bit in the early afternoon. Goes back up and then goes back down. Um, January 1st, January. 2nd, January. 3rd all are going to have the same values, but there's a significant difference between the value at say, whatever that is, say, 60 a m and 10 PM and then.

82
00:38:19.834 --> 00:38:40.954
February has its own set of values, March, April and so forth. So, as I said, right now we use a single value, the minimum value in the over the course of the year with a 10% buffer that's shown by the dashed red line, moving to the minimum monthly value, which is what's pretty much previously been discussed. It was discussed in the E50 to 11 workshops.

83
00:38:41.464 --> 00:39:02.104
You know, we, we kind of said that the question of 288 values is left for the 5,230 workshops. We're just gonna start with 12 at least. So, that's how the, how the discussion played out. That enables you to move from the, from the dash red line up to the dotted blue line. And then, as you see, you know, in in February, it's exactly the same because February is a limiting value with elimiting.

84
00:39:02.435 --> 00:39:23.255
But, in March and April, it's substantially higher in January. It's quite a bit higher too. And in many of these months, every hour of the day, every day of the month, you would be able to export more power than in February. Then the next step would be to move to the purple line, which is the dot dash combination and that's showing monthly hourly values. So you're moving from 1 value to 12.

85
00:39:23.259 --> 00:39:44.374
To 288 values, which is 24 times 1224 hours a day times, 12 months per year again, we're retaining the 10% buffer and you see that compared to the other 2 lines you have lots more capacity for exports, um, at many hours of the day. And this is, I should've said this is just 1 example feeder 1 that I selected at random that had a pretty a shape.

86
00:39:44.434 --> 00:40:04.864
Visualized pretty well, it's not it's not meant to represent everything and it's certainly not the extent of the data at which I looked. Um, but that said we're going to go through this examples. You can understand the methods a little bit better. Yeah. Sorry. This is at a single node on the feeder to clarify.

87
00:40:09.394 --> 00:40:13.594
So this is actually, this is, I think there's some slight differences, but yeah, between.

88
00:40:15.515 --> 00:40:25.955
The, and PG E, uh, label their their data at least, but this is a circuit section or a node. So let's go to the next slide. Please.

89
00:40:30.545 --> 00:40:49.265
So, under the 12 value, we see an increase in the amount of power. So, at this slide, I'm on this slide. I'm just looking at power from 49 0 PM. Subsequently we'll look at energy too. Um, we see that that power goes up an app from an average value of 1.4 megawatts over the course of the year to 1.9 megawatts over the course of.

90
00:40:49.294 --> 00:41:10.414
Year, but we can also see from the visualization that none of the hour 2 hour variation is captured. So there's just visually you can see that there's significant potential that's not captured moving to the 288 value profile. That's the purple dot dash line. We see that that value goes from 1.4 to 1.9 and ultimately to 2.7. so, on this particular.

91
00:41:10.445 --> 00:41:31.565
You're seeing a huge increase, almost twice the increase going from 12 to 288, as you saw going from, from 12 sorry? From 1 to 12. and, as I said, last time, in our view, there's potential for many different parties to benefit from this excess capacity. That could be used, depending on how policies are developed. There's certainly potential for ratepayers and developers.

92
00:41:31.594 --> 00:41:52.264
Homeowners, et cetera, to all be benefiting from this from the 288 values as compared to 12. I went through that pretty fast. Hopefully, everyone's already seen that before and kind of kind of knows what I'm talking about. I'm happy to go into, um, answer some questions on it subsequently, but let's go to the before we do that. Let's go to the last slide, which kind of sums everything up. I think this is the most critical side.

93
00:41:52.894 --> 00:42:13.864
So, the questions I'm trying to trying to answer here are are focused around energy and power. Um, so how much energy does the 12 value unlock over the course of the year? What's the average power? That 12 value is unlocking during the window of of peak demand or peak grid need, which is really 4 to 90 PM. You could really look at any window. You could look at a particular month like.

94
00:42:13.895 --> 00:42:35.015
In September, but for the purpose of this analysis, I was looking at 4 to 90 PM across the whole year, every month. And then how did these values compared to how do these amounts of energy and power that can be supplied compared to using a 288 value. And then, for reference, how do they compare to the single current limit? So, in order to do this, I used.

95
00:42:35.224 --> 00:42:56.164
40 sections, so here I have the right terminology down. Um, uh, actually, this slide is outdated. Um, unfortunately, but the data here do represent that result. There is a, a slightly better 1 that didn't, um, seems like it didn't get sent around. Uh, anyway, in in case, the data shown here represents.

96
00:42:56.825 --> 00:43:17.225
40, um, 40 seconds 20 from sdg 20 from PG E for PG. E. I had data for each whole feeder and I took this section of the feed of the highest capacity. The idea being that that, um, represents, is the closest representation of what could be interconnected across the whole feeder. If you.

97
00:43:17.344 --> 00:43:38.314
If you were choosing locations based on where that capacity ends up for it was just based on the availability. Um, and we see a significant number of Google ad hours that could be exported in all scenarios as well as a significant amount of of power. That could be hosted on these 40 lines. It could be exported.

98
00:43:38.764 --> 00:43:59.524
During critical hours, 49 PM, and that March is up for 120 megawatts to 190 megawatts to 240 megawatts with the current limit 12 value and 288 value respectively. When I showed this previously, I had a more heterogeneous sample. Um, and I emphasized that the actual values presented were not.

99
00:43:59.645 --> 00:44:20.555
Useful because it wasn't entirely clear what they represented and only the relative ratio is showing the right were useful since I've updated it now, it's pretty clear that we're looking at 40, you know, somewhat random feeders, not totally random sorry. Sections of meters and these average power values.

100
00:44:20.794 --> 00:44:26.524
A sense for what could be hosted on an average set of 40 feeders. If you divide those values by 40, you get, you know.

101
00:44:27.994 --> 00:44:48.184
3 megawatts per feeder at the current limited about 6 megawatts per feeder with 288 value during those peak peak hours, you can actually take a look at those and, um, and understand those roles. But, but it does make the most sense to focus on scale in my view, the energy and power ratios. That's what we focused on last time. And we see.

102
00:44:49.174 --> 00:45:10.114
Based on the data I had last time, it went up from a 100 to 150 to 200 using the different data set that I use. This time. We go from 100 to 160 to 200, um, using the data set. I had subsequently sent that did not make its way into the presentation right now. It goes from 100 to 150 to 190, um, slight differences.

103
00:45:10.145 --> 00:45:31.235
Between all these numbers, but but directionally very similarly you're seeing about 50% increase moving from 1 to 12 and about 100 increase moving from 1 to 288. that's the whole presentation since it in kind of the interest of having everything on the record I think, in my view what was discussed last time after I gave this presentation.

104
00:45:31.774 --> 00:45:51.484
No, 1 seemed to really find the result surprising. Everyone said yeah, this makes sense. We believe that there would be more hosting capacity or more ability to export energy and power under the more differentiated. Um, I specifically remember, you know, hearing feedback from some of the, that they were not surprised at all by these results.

105
00:45:52.420 --> 00:45:56.885
Please correct me if, uh, you know, I, I use please correct me if if you see things differently.

106
00:45:58.084 --> 00:46:08.974
And I, I think I also heard feedback from other parties to the proceeding that these results were reasonably compelling to them. Uh, so I, you know, that's not to say that.

107
00:46:10.774 --> 00:46:21.634
We should shut down the conversation here. People feel otherwise, but I, I do believe that the kind of started the conversation was that the results make sense and they are pretty compelling um, with that, I'm going to stop.

108
00:46:31.684 --> 00:46:50.134
I mean, this is Roger from, thank you for the presentation, I think is good. Um, I, I think 1 thing to consider, though, is that there's a balance between safety and what you can do with this. I was throwing in the log is, um, I'm gonna say.

109
00:46:50.254 --> 00:47:11.374
Discussion us, hey, you can drive a lot faster to get to a place faster and you reduce you reduce time. You spend driving which the benefit. But that isn't that needs to be balanced with the, with the safety of actually driving faster and seems to me that in this analysis here you have only looked at.

110
00:47:11.379 --> 00:47:16.264
1 side without looking at the other side, and both need to be taken into account.

111
00:47:17.494 --> 00:47:32.494
Yeah, that's right. The, the point of this analysis was was really to educate the benefit side of a cost benefit analysis. I don't really have the, the data or a, you know, a methodology in mind for how how I could estimate that cost. Um, so my thought was that we bring the benefit to the table and then we can.

112
00:47:32.554 --> 00:47:43.864
Look at that, and start looking at the cost, um, for comparison. I also saw I saw a question. I guess it's not really a question for me. So I'm not gonna I'm not gonna ask that right now.

113
00:47:46.264 --> 00:47:47.044
Or answer it, I mean.

114
00:47:50.134 --> 00:47:52.324
So, uh, before we go on, uh.

115
00:47:52.324 --> 00:47:53.734
I have my hand up. I'm sorry.

116
00:47:54.274 --> 00:48:10.594
Oh, yeah uh, there were a couple questions in the chat box and, um, 1 was from Ronnie maheia Edison. I mean, you refer to the theater profile, but our understanding is the.

117
00:48:10.599 --> 00:48:27.454
Performed at the 3 phase note level, can you clarify? And the next 1 was from Alex? What we also asked was how do rate pairs benefit question mark.

118
00:48:27.694 --> 00:48:31.714
Yeah, so I think I asked answered ronnie's question, but I'll, I'll just reiterate it again.

119
00:48:31.749 --> 00:48:40.684
Here, so so, make sure we got it, which is that I erroneously refer to the fetus. These are looking at section samples on different feeders um, are node values on different Peters.

120
00:48:41.584 --> 00:48:52.894
And, uh, then I know, uh, Tam also had his hand up and then sky and Tim also, uh, wrote a comment from perspective right? Parish.

121
00:48:52.924 --> 00:49:03.814
Benefit from higher set no extra distribution cost and that could be quite a substantial benefit but, uh, go ahead. Tam, and then Skype.

122
00:49:04.984 --> 00:49:13.564
Thank you. Good morning, Tam. Um, we're diving in a bit late on this technical discussion so I've got a few questions.

123
00:49:14.074 --> 00:49:34.834
Hopefully, you don't mind, um, you know, at 1st, blush, this looks pretty exciting, because, you know, it's clear this is a lot more potential, uh, at no or limited extra costs to rate pairs. Um, if all parties agree and that's of course, a big if, but let me just ask. So, I mean, you mentioned your view.

124
00:49:35.224 --> 00:49:55.984
This new analysis is that the 40 circuits are are nodes are line sections in this case are more representative of the, and PG E systems. What would it take to firm that up to make those utilities, you know, comfortable with this being a good sample and then.

125
00:49:56.374 --> 00:50:00.694
2nd, why did you not do an, uh, analysis also?

126
00:50:01.774 --> 00:50:17.434
Yeah, so, um, I just did it based on the IC data that I had on hand and that will happen to be and PG E data I, at at the last, um, time I talked about this. I, I think kind of at the end we discussed that. I.

127
00:50:18.304 --> 00:50:38.584
I'm planning to do a, basically a census get as much line data or ideally all of the line data from all of the utilities and repeat the analysis. Whether or not that will actually be possible is still to be determined. Um, but, you know, 40 is not a great sample size. It's relatively small. Um, and this is not not say, it's not gonna be statistically significant.

128
00:50:38.649 --> 00:50:49.084
It's not a representative sample, so you can't really assume that these will hold across PG E sdg and certainly territory, but they are at least more representative than what we had last time.

129
00:50:49.894 --> 00:50:59.734
Yeah, I guess a quick follow up. So, in terms of doing the, the full, um, grids analysis, um, do you have the resources to do that? And it's so, what's your timeframe?

130
00:51:02.044 --> 00:51:20.344
Yeah, so resource wise is not particularly challenging. The question is, uh, data availability from the, um, I'm very much hoping to have that by the 3rd workshop. Um, ideally, it would be even even sooner. Um, uh, so, hopefully somewhere between, uh, 2 weeks in 4 weeks, say.

131
00:51:21.274 --> 00:51:31.114
I mean, you won't be able to just to stephanie's point, you won't be able to run the Edison values for current. You are you using the March data?

132
00:51:33.664 --> 00:51:34.384
You're gonna run those.

133
00:51:34.804 --> 00:51:51.304
I haven't gotten data from medicine yet, so I'm hoping that I can get, uh, I think what, what they've suggested is perhaps, um, giving me data for a sample of 570 circuits. The data they've rerun. Sorry? 570 s, something like a 6 but a 6 is a pretty good sampling. Yeah.

134
00:51:57.155 --> 00:51:58.475
So, Tim are you done.

135
00:51:58.475 --> 00:51:59.855
Yeah, I'm done. Yeah, thank you. Go ahead.

136
00:52:00.155 --> 00:52:00.545
Awesome.

137
00:52:02.344 --> 00:52:03.634
Francis.

138
00:52:05.134 --> 00:52:22.984
So, I have, um, thank you for putting these together and I don't have, um, questions about the analysis so far, but I have 2 additional comments that go into this and at 1st I want to acknowledge Roger, that we obviously do need to talk about, you know, the safety.

139
00:52:23.015 --> 00:52:44.135
You've identified them, we're going to get into that with your presentation. Um, but the, I think there's 2 things to 2 that are additionally important to take into account. When we look at the comparison between doing 12 versus 24 or 12 weeks, is 288, depending on how you think about it. And that is that the 1st piece is that I don't.

140
00:52:44.164 --> 00:53:05.134
Think we need to think about what's actually doable from the D, our applicants perspective from a system design and finance standpoint and what technologies will be used. I think it's going to be again. I don't have enough market data or rates data to verify this. So, I want to say that upfront.

141
00:53:05.854 --> 00:53:24.004
Doing a 12 value month to month profile seems to me to be a lot more of an investment, um, of building capacity that essentially won't be utilized for other parts of the year. And we'll probably be on a PV only scenario essentially.

142
00:53:25.174 --> 00:53:46.024
Well, maybe the ability to capture the value of energy storage since it's, it's not long duration that we're talking about. Here I think, makes the, the likelihood potentially makes the likelihood that 12 the 12 month profiles will actually be developers will seek to do that.

143
00:53:46.205 --> 00:54:07.265
Could be less again, we'd need numbers to really verify that, whereas the 24 hour profiles, when they're likely to line up with incentives are already in existence, especially now with the new 3.0, and it will to take advantage of energy storage capabilities to curtail.

144
00:54:07.954 --> 00:54:28.474
Or essentially charge the storage during the low, um, capacity hours, and then discharged during the high value hours. Um, so, in addition to just looking at the potential for additional power, energy and power, I think we also need to keep in mind that there's different sort of economic.

145
00:54:28.504 --> 00:54:49.624
Scenarios on what would be actually feasible to do, depending on whether you're looking at a 24 hour or a 12 month. So that's my 1st comment. And I'd be interested to hear if others have thoughts on whether that's right or wrong, or how we would kind of capture the difference in terms of actual system design for those 2 different.

146
00:54:49.655 --> 00:55:10.715
Types of scenarios and then the last comment I had was just there was a question about how do we get to ratepayer benefits so this is potential additional capacity. But whether rate pairs are going to benefit is a question, and I, I want to emphasize that the there isn't a.

147
00:55:10.804 --> 00:55:31.894
A whole economic analysis that could go into whether it pairs are benefiting based on either current rate schedules, or those, that haven't yet been structured, but there will be no repair of benefit at all possible. If we don't allow this to happen. Rule 21 doesn't set the rates.

148
00:55:31.930 --> 00:55:53.015
it does is enable the ability of a project to do this while avoiding the upgrades and it will be impossible to do this unless we allow it three hundred and twenty one to avoid those upgrade costs so the ability to capture for rate pairs to capture the benefits may come through the different rate structures that are set up but they won't be able to capture 

149
00:55:53.079 --> 00:55:57.184
Any benefit if we don't actually enable it through the interconnection process.

150
00:56:02.555 --> 00:56:04.505
Thank you Scott.

151
00:56:05.914 --> 00:56:26.434
People branches. Oh, sorry. I just wanted to read some of the chat comments. Uh, Francis, you said, what are the utility costs related to only to implementation, but possibly put pen damage and for improving safety, if 288 values are used.

152
00:56:27.244 --> 00:56:45.034
And then, uh, Steven, uh, barson, uh, just wanted to note that se is updating the maps on a rolling basis. So please make sure you use only segments that have been updated and sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. Francis.

153
00:56:45.454 --> 00:56:48.064
Okay, yeah, I'm picking up actually, on what I've.

154
00:56:48.094 --> 00:57:09.214
Put into the chat if we do a cost benefit analysis, uh, not including at this point, right? Payers or rates or tariffs, or anything like that. Um, we would need to know the other side of the equation. Uh, and I'm, I don't know.

155
00:57:09.274 --> 00:57:30.184
If you would do this kind of analysis, or whether it would have to be up to the, but I think we would need the costs. Um, not only for sort of implementing 288, which wouldn't need to have a little more technology.

156
00:57:30.395 --> 00:57:51.215
Capabilities, but also, the possible equipment damage, you know, risk of equipment damage as well as the cost for improving safety. Uh, it just coming back to Rogers example if we want it to be a 100.

157
00:57:51.724 --> 00:58:01.264
Safe we would probably either not have cars at all, or require them to drive no faster than 5 miles per hour.

158
00:58:02.945 --> 00:58:23.945
But what we've done instead is said, yeah, we've got some play, you know, areas where we can drive faster some areas where we can drive slower. We put in safety measures. Uh, we have training programs no, no. Drunk driving, you know, et cetera. So, it's not like it's match.

159
00:58:23.974 --> 00:58:45.064
That somehow 12 is the perfect solution. 12 values per year is a perfect solution. I don't even think 288 is a perfect solution. It would be ultimately, on a much more real time basis. You know, here's what it actually we need, you know, in the next 10 minutes.

160
00:58:45.099 --> 00:59:02.884
2 hours, 2 days, whatever, uh, but I think that just having everyone drive at 5 miles per hour is not the answer. So I'm just wondering if anyone is going to do, or can do the cost side analysis.

161
00:59:08.494 --> 00:59:23.374
I'll just briefly respond to that since you said my name that I'm not planning to and don't really have an idea of how I would even begin with the cost side analysis. I think that requires a lot more of the expertise that the utilities have in terms of, uh, you know, their their equipment and safety and and so forth.

162
00:59:25.954 --> 00:59:41.494
so then maybe my question and maybe it would be worthwhile for later presentation but i'll i have to leave for an meeting soon uh so maybe it's more to roger and pg e and and 

163
00:59:42.214 --> 00:59:48.064
Uh, can you come up with an equivalent cost side of the equation?

164
00:59:51.785 --> 01:00:12.455
Can I chime in very quickly on this? Um, just to make sure I understand was being presented here. I thought the, the premise was of a means presentation was that go into this different algorithm, um, for calculating that you'd get essentially an unlocking of higher.

165
01:00:12.519 --> 01:00:24.004
Ltv potential without as additional safety risks. So I know that's not established yet but isn't that the premise? So there wouldn't be additional costs if the calculations are, in fact, correct?

166
01:00:25.744 --> 01:00:33.664
I can jump in and then pass it to the I think the premises that no upgrades are required. Um, but the have kind of stated many.

167
01:00:33.694 --> 01:00:54.484
Times in previous workshops that they view the profiles is higher risk that you're kind of pushing away, more of that margin. So they might expect or they have kind of said they would expect to see more potentially more equipment, damage, more safety issues. So, I think that's what we're talking about, and it's not something that, you know, that I have anywhere near the data to quantify, but I'll, I'll hand it over to the utilities at this point.

168
01:00:55.114 --> 01:01:15.874
Can I follow up on that then? So, and so, in terms of going to 208 values, um, you know, we could use different algorithms right? And get different numbers. But if the premise isn't unlocking more potential with the same level of risk, um, how much benefit are we actually unlocking? Right? Because if the utilities come back and say, well, it's gonna cost you 10 times more.

169
01:01:16.144 --> 01:01:20.614
To ensure safety at this higher level. What's the actual net benefit? Right?

170
01:01:22.084 --> 01:01:30.544
Yeah, that's why I'm asking about the cost side because I think that's what we're missing. We're, we're missing the ability to compare the 2.

171
01:01:44.224 --> 01:01:45.754
Maybe utilities can chime in on that.

172
01:01:48.065 --> 01:01:50.825
I think, uh, it might have been speaking.

173
01:01:56.254 --> 01:02:15.184
Sorry, I was on mute here. Sorry. Yeah, I mean, I think there's there needs to be a better understanding. This is Roger uh, as to what needs to be, um, evaluated. Um, it it's, I mean, the, the issue here is, is that, uh, we're trying to mitigate or or.

174
01:02:15.305 --> 01:02:36.065
Not, you know, if everything worked, I ideally write everything lined up perfectly there will be no increase cost right? Because we just basically follow the IC profile. Um, you know, I think as proposed here. And in that premise, there will be no need for, you know, system upgrades, um, and things like that.

175
01:02:37.504 --> 01:02:57.454
However, you know, the, the issue that we're having, is that in reality not not not. Everything's perfect as, as, you know, propose here and in our grid is gonna change changes on changes in an hourly basis. What happened today is another is that a guarantee? What's going to happen tomorrow? Um, there's, there's some.

176
01:02:57.515 --> 01:03:17.585
Much flexibility and flexibility in our grid that things change and so, um, so so that's really the issue. Is that how do you, you know, how what is how is that? We are going to ensure that go into more granular level. It still is still mean guarantees that we have a safety.

177
01:03:18.814 --> 01:03:38.974
The safety of the grid stays in other words, things like, if some, some, some, you know, customer decide to to, to do something for that particular day, like, shut down, for instance, or reduce operations load went down. How do we prevent that? These limited generation profile for that hour, or for that day. So I want to create safety problems.

178
01:03:39.814 --> 01:03:43.894
There's a lot of variables here and I think that's what's making us up very nervous.

179
01:03:46.054 --> 01:04:00.484
And I think that's what I, I think we need to get a better handle on or we're just going to be talking in circles, uh, because there may be other requirements, for instance, um, monitor the, the.

180
01:04:01.265 --> 01:04:21.575
At least the voltage levels, or get information for particularly the larger systems, more situational awareness, and then modify settings based on situational awareness whether it's local or utility instigated.

181
01:04:22.174 --> 01:04:43.234
Um, you know, none of it is going to be implemented, you know, today, or tomorrow, but maybe, you know, in a year or so but we need to get an understanding of what is needed in order to mitigate any safety or the increased safety risks. You know, should we have everyone.

182
01:04:43.265 --> 01:04:48.335
Continue to drive at 55 miles per hour, rather than 65 or 75.

183
01:04:50.614 --> 01:05:11.434
Yeah, that's right and I think, in the presentation will have a slide that sort of hopefully takes us through that roadmap and I think we we want to get there, but I think we want to get there with the right technology. So that we can ensure great safety at the same time, maximize the benefits, but ensure safety. I suppose that she's looking.

184
01:05:11.465 --> 01:05:12.125
The.

185
01:05:12.755 --> 01:05:21.125
So time based, you're saying, over time, you will be able to reach 288 without a decrease in safety. So.

186
01:05:21.665 --> 01:05:32.135
That's the goal, right? I mean, the goal is to maximize, you know, I think with the tricks are fully on board to maximize these systems, but we have to do it.

187
01:05:32.589 --> 01:05:45.814
Without increased compromise safety, and we were proposing a roadmap in our deck. Hopefully we can have good discussions there because we want to get to the same place. We just want to do it safely.

188
01:05:52.264 --> 01:05:53.314
Thank you.

189
01:05:53.314 --> 01:05:54.244
That discussion.

190
01:05:56.224 --> 01:06:08.014
I just wanted to note that, uh, Gary, um, has had his hands up for a while. And then Robert, I mean, has his hand up and then Frank.

191
01:06:09.904 --> 01:06:30.394
Thanks, so I apologize. My video doesn't seem to be working. Otherwise I would have it on. Um, this is not to this is to kind of build on the benefits to rate pairs point, made earlier by a few people in clay sky and I think, I mean, and not to diminish anything in there. I don't necessarily dispute that there are benefits there.

192
01:06:31.264 --> 01:06:50.524
But if we're talking about, you know, potentially doubling the amount of available energy that can be essentially used by, uh, you know, the operators of these facilities to either increase the revenue stream or to.

193
01:06:51.965 --> 01:07:12.515
Load otherwise, it would not be offset, you know, there is a revenue component here and we may be I may be talking at a turn just because I'm not a procurement person. But it seems to me that either the programs or may, or may not allow for or pay for.

194
01:07:12.814 --> 01:07:32.974
Additional energy or power, if they, if they do, then that's probably a benefit to developers as well but or operators of the units. But if they don't, it seems like there's some uncapped benefits there that could be occurring to the operators of these units. Just a thought.

195
01:07:35.434 --> 01:07:35.914
Thank you.

196
01:07:43.264 --> 01:07:49.204
Thank you for waiting uh, Gary, um, next up, uh, Robert.

197
01:07:50.824 --> 01:07:59.224
Yeah, hi, um, my question is kind of related to the costs, but, uh, getting down to the details of how the was calculated.

198
01:07:59.254 --> 01:08:20.374
My understanding is, there's mainly 2 parts of the, you don't want currents to get too high so that it damages cables and Transformers. And the other is that Power's not allowed to float backwards through a substation Transformer. And, uh, I think from.

199
01:08:20.404 --> 01:08:40.775
I've heard if, uh, if a transformer or fire is over current, a small fraction of the time, it doesn't just immediately fail. So if you were overhead a few hours a year, that wouldn't damage anything. And I've never really understood the reverse power flow.

200
01:08:41.528 --> 01:08:49.653
Strength is reverse power flow impossible or is reverse power flow a disaster or is it a mild inconvenience?

201
01:08:59.104 --> 01:09:19.534
I, I can speak a little bit on that. Robert, that that is actually another way is calculated. Um, at a, at a very high level there's 4 values of I see that are calculated based on thermal limits, based on steady state, voltage, uh, power quality.

202
01:09:19.600 --> 01:09:40.654
And in voltage fluctuations and protection, um, and the minimum of those is is what's determined to be the, the IC value uh, there's an element or reverse powerful, but that's only from the substation low site to high side baskets. We don't want.

203
01:09:40.774 --> 01:10:01.804
Or, to the guy, so, grid, or to the higher level of voltages. Um, but, um, the way you describe it uh, it's, it's, it's not mostly not us. Not necessarily. The way I see is calculated. I see. I say it doesn't look at, uh, service Transformers or primary or excuse me a secondary is primary is only done in the primary.

204
01:10:02.014 --> 01:10:04.714
Side of the distribution rate, so just a little bit about.

205
01:10:06.215 --> 01:10:07.085
Okay, thanks Roger.

206
01:10:17.104 --> 01:10:20.794
This is Alex, uh, from PG E just to add on that.

207
01:10:24.305 --> 01:10:43.625
The 1 issue that happens is when you when you're using to analyze mainly screen. M, the idea is that these projects can go through what's called a simplified interconnection, which is, which is a fast tracked process initial review a segment review. Mostly initial review. Once you start having power flow.

208
01:10:45.874 --> 01:10:48.994
So, we're coming up to speed. Can you tell us what screen.

209
01:10:50.584 --> 01:10:51.274
Screen Emma.

210
01:10:54.214 --> 01:10:57.034
Yes, you, you just referred to a screen can you articulate what this.

211
01:10:57.034 --> 01:11:05.284
Yeah, this is a this is a screen on initial review. So initial review has screen air through M and M is 1 of the.

212
01:11:05.350 --> 01:11:26.495
Screening, uh, usually used to be a screen, the checks 15% so basically aggregate generation against peak load. And if the threshold, which was 15% before was exceeded, then it meant that the project may need to go through further study. And, uh, recently that screen started using when I see is available. So.

213
01:11:27.244 --> 01:11:30.724
It's currently using or.

214
01:11:30.729 --> 01:11:51.694
The values, so, if your project does not exceed those 2 values, then you pass screen name and it implies that the project could interconnect through the process of simplify interconnection process. Granted, that all the other screens also pass. Uh, so guess what I'm pointing out here is that when you have powerful.

215
01:11:52.205 --> 01:12:12.035
From the low side bus to the high side bus, it means that, you know, you potentially have impacts on the high side of the and the transmission side and that most cases implies that you need to go through additional study. Because those impacts are not analyzed through process doesn't mean you can't have.

216
01:12:13.054 --> 01:12:18.364
From the low side back to the high side, but it just means that the impacts of those that powerful needs to be studied.

217
01:12:19.054 --> 01:12:23.434
And used to be clear Alex, by I just want to study that can be stepping on a review right?

218
01:12:23.434 --> 01:12:33.934
Can be supplement, or you typically is going to be detailed study, because based on our current study process, we don't have an opportunity for transmission protection and transition planning folks to look at projects during the.

219
01:12:34.295 --> 01:12:46.145
Process because the timing is, uh, is is quite tight so whenever these reverse float to the transmission system, it usually triggers a detailed into connection steady process.

220
01:12:47.255 --> 01:12:55.295
It isn't screen endow designed for that for most fast track processes where it can be used to study the, uh, additional issues that.

221
01:12:55.354 --> 01:12:57.064
Make them up if he fails train, em.

222
01:12:58.084 --> 01:13:08.644
So, for the power flow to the transmission screen N, is designed to identify the potential of that powerful but it's not designed currently to study the impacts of that.

223
01:13:13.264 --> 01:13:15.034
I'm going to reach out to you offline on that. Thank you.

224
01:13:15.364 --> 01:13:16.414
Okay, sounds good.

225
01:13:22.805 --> 01:13:31.145
Oh, right. Um, I mean, still had his hands up, but I'm not sure if that's just leftover or whether, I mean, you wanted to say something more.

226
01:13:31.535 --> 01:13:31.775
Yeah.

227
01:13:32.225 --> 01:13:32.405
We.

228
01:13:32.765 --> 01:13:33.335
To Frank.

229
01:13:34.115 --> 01:13:38.015
It is not just left over. I wanted to respond to something previously said not.

230
01:13:39.844 --> 01:13:57.634
Well, in any case, I'll just jump into it, but following from what what sky was saying about great peer benefit, what Alex asked and then I think Gary had talked about that as well. I just wanted to kind of state or expand upon what I, what I meant with that. It's Cal advocate's perspective that repairs stand to benefit.

231
01:13:58.779 --> 01:14:19.924
Is pretty much sky said perfectly it depends on rate structure and that's that's really outside the scope of this proceeding, whether or not repairs do benefit, but I'll just add a little bit to how we kind of conceptualize that benefit. So, if you imagine that, we have a say, a 2 megawatt storage system on the distribute storage unit on the distribution system has a reasonably low margins.

232
01:14:19.985 --> 01:14:41.075
Cost of operations say, 70 dollars per megawatt hour that's limited to 1 megawatt based on values. It can only export 1 megawatt, but clearing that 2nd megawatt could reduce demand or it could be. And then that could result in a lower market wholesale price in an hour.

233
01:14:41.314 --> 01:15:01.894
With a very high marginal costs, you know, we see prices of we've seen 2000 dollars, I think, as a cap we've seen that a few times certainly up in the much more than 770 dollars per megawatt hour and that benefit will accrued to potentially accrue to rate parents as as lower procurement costs for the energy from the utilities flows down to the rate pairs. And of course, that's a benefit to the storage owner.

234
01:15:03.454 --> 01:15:15.754
Who can sell that energy to whoever it is they're selling it for, uh, at, you know, at more than it costs them to operate it. And, um, that is, that is the benefit they would get. So I'll stop there.

235
01:15:16.654 --> 01:15:23.344
All right, thank you, man. Uh, just wanted to read a few before we move out to Frank comment from.

236
01:15:23.405 --> 01:15:44.525
Sam white, uh, these results are very encouraging. Can you confirm whether the current limit we use reflected the PB profile 10 0 am to 40 PM min, used for interconnection. If not, what would be appropriate to add has an analysis. Uh, I mean, you.

237
01:15:44.529 --> 01:16:05.674
Good question it did not include the PV profile. I said, so it's a smarter way of working group or forgot to reiterate that here that would impact the energy comparison, but likely not the power comparison since PB would not generate much during.

238
01:16:05.825 --> 01:16:19.775
4 to 90 PM, accounting for profile would be a bit challenging, but maybe feasible. Uh, Sam white responded couldn't be.

239
01:16:19.804 --> 01:16:30.004
Safety functions of smart inverters mitigate the risk of excess export. If the line profile doesn't match reality at any time.

240
01:16:33.274 --> 01:16:51.544
Michael berrigan from, uh, responded to Sam. No, the smart burgers would only be aware of the voltage and current at their location while criteria violations could be caused on upstream or downstream equipment and or lines.

241
01:16:52.594 --> 01:17:12.964
Um, you Lee, uh, I'll just go in order, uh, France's, uh, road, situational awareness, including meter data. Exclamation could be used to transmit more real time data whenever a safety issue, or.

242
01:17:13.474 --> 01:17:34.204
Uh, at Sam, to my knowledge, uh, smarter burger has the ability to monitor the output of the generation. Not the export um, Francis, uh, comment in the smart inverter operationally operationalisation working group.

243
01:17:34.805 --> 01:17:52.835
We're focusing on situational awareness at the PCC. This may require a longer timeframe, but I still contend that data could be used for some data right away uh, from my, uh, uh, CE.

244
01:17:52.864 --> 01:17:55.654
Frances, uh, se.

245
01:17:55.895 --> 01:18:16.805
Hey, my system takes reads at 15 to 60 minute intervals. The data's stored, and then upload it to back end systems and batches during the evening. So, even though rates are taken has passed as every 15 minutes, our systems don't receive the data more than 1.

246
01:18:16.834 --> 01:18:37.954
A day, and my data is meant for billing and is currently far from a real time operational tune tool. Uh, Sam, white, uh, regarding ratepayer benefits says there are 2 primary avoided costs 1, substantial reduced capacity, upgrade.

247
01:18:38.014 --> 01:18:59.074
Required to serve load 2, marginally reduced generation cause where Jen facility output can be optimized. Uh, Brian at Michael. I think we should go back to this discussion to join. The presentation is real time.

248
01:18:59.109 --> 01:19:13.444
Necessary to catch whether short term violations have occurred and take action. Maybe not. Uh, Sam did you have any further questions, or your questions answered?

249
01:19:16.384 --> 01:19:17.584
You're still on the line.

250
01:19:17.944 --> 01:19:23.044
Hi, thank you. Um, they were partially answered. I, I think that the.

251
01:19:24.605 --> 01:19:45.635
Smart inverter, um, capabilities being able to mitigate, um, uh, the risk is, you know, it is still open. Um, my recollection is the smarter vendors are already capable, uh, of, you know, monitoring, uh, uh, voltage excursions or, or, uh, current.

252
01:19:45.665 --> 01:20:06.035
Uh, on the grid, so that if they're contributing to that, you know, along with anything else, which is, uh, you know, on the line section at the same time, um, uh, then they would automatically, uh, uh, connect to modify what they're doing. And we're actively working on operationalize and the.

253
01:20:06.814 --> 01:20:23.434
Additional functions, which would add to that. That doesn't mean that that it's not under would in any way, be able to eliminate no all risks but it could, um, uh, play a significant role in reducing, um, uh, the degree or nature of some of the risks that that might be imposed.

254
01:20:27.664 --> 01:20:33.514
I apologize, I would need to hop off for a different working group in Frances, uh, in a few minutes.

255
01:20:45.155 --> 01:20:46.175
Okay, thank you. Sam.

256
01:20:49.594 --> 01:20:57.694
All right, we have 2 more questions, and then we should, uh, proceed to the next topic. Uh, Frank, and then, uh, Brian lyric from Eric.

257
01:20:59.284 --> 01:21:09.094
Thanks, Jose. Uh, so I, I wanted to go back to robert's export question and the export question has its roots in in safety.

258
01:21:10.295 --> 01:21:31.385
Partially because energizing a circuit from the distribution side can put workers at risk, but any, any will will energize that circuit. So, uh, the, the question then becomes well, you have to change the, the protection devices.

259
01:21:32.165 --> 01:21:52.535
So that they could withstand, they can recognize when Power's flowing the other way and to protect the circuit the correct way when Power's flowing in the reverse direction. And that costs money, uh, to do that. Uh, so, for me, the question comes.

260
01:21:52.564 --> 01:22:05.374
Down to well, what what is that investment? I think, you know, we have to look at a culture change if we're going to meet resource adequacy requirements in California.

261
01:22:07.115 --> 01:22:27.785
And so we need to look at the possibility. Well, what what is it going to take for the protection systems that we have on the distribution system to be able to allow reverse power flow versus the, uh, the offset uh.

262
01:22:27.814 --> 01:22:47.734
Costs and, uh, additional resource costs and that's a big ask. And so we have to make some simplifying assumptions to, to kind of get our hands around that kind of thing. To me, that's where the ultimate question comes comes down to, uh, to this whole thing.

263
01:22:58.504 --> 01:22:59.644
You you said that.

264
01:23:04.324 --> 01:23:05.884
Personnel working on.

265
01:23:10.624 --> 01:23:14.734
I can barely hear you. I did not catch your question. What was that for me?

266
01:23:17.705 --> 01:23:23.165
How the export causes risks to personnel that you started off mentioning.

267
01:23:25.655 --> 01:23:46.625
The, the original paradigm for a worker out in the field was that if he saw he or she saw an open circuit from the source side that they knew the circuit was de, energized the introduction of.

268
01:23:47.764 --> 01:24:05.524
On on what used to be just the load side, causes that circuit to possibly still be energized. You you have to see a 2nd open circuit a 2nd open device to know that that the circuit that you're working on is de energized.

269
01:24:06.394 --> 01:24:07.264
So.

270
01:24:08.494 --> 01:24:28.924
For years have had mandatory requirements for protection for open phase detection for frequency, traps, voltage trips. There is also a general requirement that they are not to energize a de energized circuits. So I think.

271
01:24:29.824 --> 01:24:48.814
I would disagree with your promise also, you know, in all the 547 discussions that I've had with utilities, they say that their, uh, alignment are trained when they're working on line, they ground both sides of whatever they're working on. So.

272
01:24:48.844 --> 01:24:49.894
John John.

273
01:24:50.704 --> 01:25:02.944
Again, I don't, I would disagree that, um, represents an issue unless it's, uh, participating in an intentional island.

274
01:25:04.114 --> 01:25:11.344
John, I hear ya. I, I think I, I, I miss, I took you down the wrong way. Um.

275
01:25:12.215 --> 01:25:32.075
I'm saying that the whole culture of exporting power, that culture needs to be reworked and and we have to be more open to actually allowing reverse power to, to go out.

276
01:25:32.674 --> 01:25:53.644
I'm supportive of of that device, but it, it has a culture in safety that has to be undone. Uh, and and it goes back to that. So, I, I, I agree with with you it, that part is no longer an issue, but there is a cost to, uh, uh.

277
01:25:53.674 --> 01:25:55.774
Dating protection devices.

278
01:25:58.115 --> 01:26:19.025
We, we have discussed that, and 1 of the things would be adding intelligence to re, closers, for example. So that they're not just doing voltage blocking, but they're doing synchronized recording that has been discussed. Um, and in general people said it's too expensive. So, until.

279
01:26:19.054 --> 01:26:40.174
Microgrids intentional islands become commonplace. The general thinking has been well, when that happens, then we will look at adding intelligence to the re, closers in terms of, um, desensitizing protection equipment that that was discussed. It was.

280
01:26:40.180 --> 01:27:01.325
Controlled by the I use in the 547 requirement and is exactly why there is a C, standardized requirement below point 5 per unit. It is to an event of a distribution fault. It is to cause all the to stop supplying current. So.

281
01:27:01.714 --> 01:27:19.984
The protection equipment can respond, instead of your desensitizing, the overtime protection. So we have to be a little bit careful about a lot of this stuff has been discussed in detail, um, within 147 and I think.

282
01:27:21.124 --> 01:27:37.294
Some good stop gap solutions, you know, down the road. Yes, we can do more. And I would agree with you have to probably look fundamentally fundamentally how we're doing protection on the distribution system, and maybe do it differently. I would agree with that.

283
01:27:39.844 --> 01:28:00.394
Well, John, I, I think there's tremendous benefit for what I mean has proposed and, uh, ultimately, I think that's where, where the state needs to go to to have enough resources to, uh, to serve all of the energy in in the state. I.

284
01:28:01.834 --> 01:28:06.454
I think we're more in agreement then then I, I communicated to, you.

285
01:28:10.295 --> 01:28:25.355
All right, uh, thank you, Frank and thank you, John. Um, I think, uh, we need to move on here to the next presentation, uh, by, uh, systems, uh, by, uh, presented by Gordon Gordon.

286
01:28:26.975 --> 01:28:28.745
Yeah, hi, everybody can you all hear me.

287
01:28:28.894 --> 01:28:29.284
Okay.

288
01:28:30.034 --> 01:28:31.204
Loud and clear.

289
01:28:32.134 --> 01:28:49.894
All right. Hi, I'm Gordon. I'm the CEO of systems, and I, uh, authored, uh, on behalf, or with assistance of the, uh, utilities, the, uh, common smart inverter, uh, profile, which is a, um.

290
01:28:49.899 --> 01:29:11.044
Document that maps out how you use 2030.5 to meet California rule 21 requirements. So I am very familiar with, um, I am very new to this working group to limit limited generation profiles, work group and the e5230.

291
01:29:11.074 --> 01:29:32.134
On Sunday to this today, when i1st read the 288 value requirement, I misinterpreted what that represented. I had thought that the 24 values per month represented 24 different distinct values that changed roughly once.

292
01:29:32.199 --> 01:29:53.344
Per day, I did not realize that it represents 24 hour day. He's changing every hour that's repeated for every day in that month. So I think my conclusions that I have on my presentation doesn't change, but some of my scheduling recommendation.

293
01:29:53.350 --> 01:30:09.095
Patients and examples may need to change based on the correct understanding of what the 24 hour 288 value requirements actually mean with that, let's go on to the next slide.

294
01:30:12.784 --> 01:30:31.414
Okay, the main purpose of my presentation is to answer the 1st question. Do you see sub certified devices already support the e5230 requirements? And my short answer is yes and even though I misinterpreted what, the 24 hour 208 values mean.

295
01:30:31.444 --> 01:30:52.564
I think the answer is still, yes, certified devices should be able to support the 830 requirements and the rest of this presentation will go into some of the details and subtleties about those requirements. So, what are the basic requirements of 5,230 as a.

296
01:30:52.594 --> 01:31:13.534
2, I triple 823.5 basically, it's to support 2 functions. The phase 3 function 3, which is the limit, maximum active power mode and this function maps to 2035, controlled call, maximum.

297
01:31:15.154 --> 01:31:34.864
The 2nd, function that needs to be implemented is phase 3 function, 8, scheduling of power values and, uh, and modes. And this is this, uh, in order to do this, we will be using the inherent scheduling method of 23.5 and how.

298
01:31:34.870 --> 01:31:43.475
28 hour formats 24 is per month, uh, feeds into that next slide.

299
01:31:47.165 --> 01:32:05.885
So, what are the relevant requirements related to e5230 right now? Um, all devices that are certified must support the, this function maximum W, function and all devices must.

300
01:32:07.025 --> 01:32:25.925
Support I truly 20 30.5 rules or event handling and scheduling and devices must be able to store at least 24 events. So, those are the requirements that pertain to the 1930. Uh.

301
01:32:27.484 --> 01:32:48.064
What is actually tested during certification is slightly different. See, sub certification does test that the upward maximum W, function is communicated from the server to the device and a device responds accordingly. Um, however.

302
01:32:48.189 --> 01:33:09.334
As far as the storage is concerned, the testing actually only tests at the device stores. 7 events, not the required 24 events and these tests are mainly a test of communications. There's also a separate functional test that is conducted.

303
01:33:09.484 --> 01:33:30.454
The noodles that uses you all 741 essay essay, 18 test to verify the functionality. So the combination of the communications tests, and the functional test, I believe covers what is required to implement the 5,230.

304
01:33:30.515 --> 01:33:31.175
Environments.

305
01:33:33.634 --> 01:33:35.404
Okay, um, next slide.

306
01:33:39.604 --> 01:33:58.684
So, is the certification sufficient for, uh, testing sufficient for satisfying the 5,230 requirements? As I mentioned earlier? I think the answer is yes the only complication is supporting, whether that's the testing actually can support.

307
01:33:59.404 --> 01:34:19.834
288 hour, 24 values per month requirements and my answer is yes, the storage requirements is basically not really, um, doesn't have a direct impact on your ability to schedule 280.

308
01:34:19.924 --> 01:34:40.984
It's separate, uh, events, it's mainly used as a buffer such that if the inverter loses communications with the server, that the inverter has buffer enough buffer up enough events, such that it can ride through a communications outage.

309
01:34:42.155 --> 01:34:45.605
Um, because the, um.

310
01:34:47.585 --> 01:35:02.975
Requires that the, um, be able to support and store 24 events essentially means that the should be able to right through, uh, communication outage of 24 hours.

311
01:35:06.004 --> 01:35:06.754
Based on that.

312
01:35:07.924 --> 01:35:10.564
Um, let's see.

313
01:35:12.335 --> 01:35:13.385
Questions about that.

314
01:35:17.554 --> 01:35:19.564
Okay, I think we can move on.

315
01:35:25.805 --> 01:35:42.935
I think you go to the next slide. I think I pretty much covered the, the details of that slide. Um, so the rest of this presentation is more on, um, how scheduling and events work in 20, 35, it's more of the.

316
01:35:43.114 --> 01:36:04.054
What goes on under the hood in order to schedule an event and this is more informative than anything else. So I'll probably try to go through this quicker since it seems like the topics aren't on the low level details, but it's more on, you know, more.

317
01:36:04.205 --> 01:36:25.175
Discussions like you were having earlier so basically, how is scheduling done in 23.5 or 23 or 5 schedule is based on a series of PR control events. An event is basically a, a.

318
01:36:25.414 --> 01:36:45.874
Checked that contains the function in this case, the limit real power output function of value. Yeah. What is the limit of that? What is the current value that you want to schedule and a start time and duration? 1 thing to note that the start time.

319
01:36:46.594 --> 01:37:07.594
Store time in 2035 is based on basically the number of seconds since 972032.5 does not have a concept of a calendar. So it doesn't know anything about years months dates anything like that. So.

320
01:37:07.630 --> 01:37:28.625
In order to schedule something on a daily basis, or on a weekly basis, you would have to schedule individual events with the proper times accordingly. So you can't just say I'm going to create a single schedule that a single.

321
01:37:29.014 --> 01:37:49.894
That represents, uh, the value at between 90 am and 10 am, uh, every day, um, you would have to every day, create a new event with the value that corresponds to that exact time. So, uh, this will add more burden.

322
01:37:50.105 --> 01:38:11.015
To the, the server that is scheduling these events to schedule them according to your time instead of scheduling them based on calendar time. And the reason why this was done is that there are lots of subtle difficulties for device.

323
01:38:11.194 --> 01:38:32.194
Proper calendar time, the device has to know about time zones and daylight savings times and lead years and leap seconds. And these are complications that are difficult for a device to implement. And so.

324
01:38:32.404 --> 01:38:41.674
Point 5 chose to use a simple, ambiguous represents representation of time using.

325
01:38:46.295 --> 01:38:48.095
W. B. K.

326
01:38:51.634 --> 01:38:52.324
Was your question.

327
01:38:59.464 --> 01:39:03.934
Okay, um, I think we could move on to the next slide.

328
01:39:07.774 --> 01:39:08.974
So.

329
01:39:11.554 --> 01:39:30.874
I was scheduling done in, um, she uses the concept of a program and a D. our program is basically a container of, um, schedules and events and the program can be assigned to any node.

330
01:39:31.774 --> 01:39:52.594
The, uh, electrical to topology models, the electric grid as a tree structure, and each node in the grid can represent the different point in the, uh, electrical, uh, system. Uh, there's a note representing the entire system.

331
01:39:52.715 --> 01:40:13.715
Uh, the system node, there's nodes representing feeder nodes. Uh, there's nodes representing Transformers, there's nodes representing the service point and so a control can be targeted to any particular node. And that control will affect every device downstream from that node.

332
01:40:14.224 --> 01:40:28.054
So, if I want to schedule an event that affects every device on a particular Transformer, I just have to create that event in the program that represents that.

333
01:40:32.104 --> 01:40:33.244
Any questions about that.

334
01:40:36.394 --> 01:40:38.464
Okay, let's move on to the next slide.

335
01:40:41.554 --> 01:41:01.684
So, how does, uh, scheduling scheduling basically work utility server periodically creates a series of control events. These events are added to the program, the, our control list for that particular node.

336
01:41:01.714 --> 01:41:22.774
Each event completes a server, removes the Dr control from that list. So it's a very simple operation to schedule events and then clear those events after they've been completed from the client side from the client side the Dr polls, the server.

337
01:41:22.839 --> 01:41:29.854
Minimum of every 10 minutes for any changes or additions to the event.

338
01:41:31.714 --> 01:41:52.414
If a new event is found the, the DVR scheduled that event for activation, and sends the appropriate, uh, responses to the server to the server, knows that the event was received started completed, canceled or superseded. And when the event completes, the client removes.

339
01:41:52.624 --> 01:41:58.654
That events from its list. Okay next slide.

340
01:42:03.544 --> 01:42:22.054
So, um, 20, 35 presents a many different ways in order to schedule an event. And, uh, how, uh, which method to use is basically up to the server, um, based on complexity.

341
01:42:22.059 --> 01:42:42.274
The resources and how it fits into their into their existing operations the remaining slides I present for options based on my misunderstanding of the 24 hour. 208 value requirement.

342
01:42:43.594 --> 01:42:52.024
But, uh, we can go through them anyway, uh, with the caveat that this may no longer apply. So, let's go to the next slide.

343
01:42:55.684 --> 01:43:14.224
So the 1st option is basically scheduling a whole bunch of events to be executed in the future. So, in this example, um, basically, uh, you schedule all 288 events at once and, uh, and.

344
01:43:14.254 --> 01:43:22.834
Put them on the list and the, uh, will download the entire 288 and act on them accordingly.

345
01:43:24.485 --> 01:43:45.245
This can be done, but it requires a lot of resources in order to do this. And if any of those values change or need to be modified, there's a cost to changing and modify already scheduled events. So, yes, you are able to preschedule a large number.

346
01:43:45.275 --> 01:44:00.035
In the future, but the risk is that it may be very inefficient if you need to modify those events that have already been scheduled. So, this is scheduling option. 1 let's move on to the next slide.

347
01:44:02.884 --> 01:44:12.874
So, scheduling option 2 is to not to schedule so far ahead of schedule head in a schedule events.

348
01:44:14.914 --> 01:44:35.374
Shorter timeframe, maybe, you know, daily or weekly or monthly, and basically allows you the flexibility to use your resources as if you need to change something that is already scheduled, has less impact on resources.

349
01:44:36.275 --> 01:44:43.925
Future resources that are needed in order to do that. But the disadvantage is that you have to schedule these events much more often.

350
01:44:47.855 --> 01:45:06.695
Okay, let's move on to the, uh, the next option. Um, you can also schedule, uh, events on change. Uh, this means that you just schedule 1 event and that event is good until, um, it needs to be updated to a different value.

351
01:45:07.445 --> 01:45:25.625
So, this simplifies the amount of resources there's that as needed. Um, and, uh, the drawback is that, uh, if you have, uh, many changes over short period of time, you have to do more work in order to schedule them accordingly.

352
01:45:27.664 --> 01:45:47.434
And let's go on to the final slide, which is a 4th option. 4th, 4 option is similar to the production, and that you are scheduling events or changing the event scheduling a new event, only on a change of value.

353
01:45:47.974 --> 01:46:09.064
And so this allows you to this method, uh, instead of using events, but just changing their default values is a way of, um, changing values as needed. Um, but the disadvantage is that, since these are not.

354
01:46:09.094 --> 01:46:29.974
Events but static values that you cannot reschedule them when you change a default value, you cannot schedule that change you change and if you change the value and the value takes place, right away. And so if a client is pulling for these changes.

355
01:46:30.245 --> 01:46:51.245
There will be at least a 10 minute delay before when he realizes that the value has changed before he can implement that. And another disadvantage of this method is that there's no active acknowledgement back to the server that the Dr has actually implemented or recognized the.

356
01:46:51.394 --> 01:47:02.464
Ancient values, there's no associated responses when using option 4. so these are the 4 options that I've presented.

357
01:47:04.084 --> 01:47:24.604
I think if I had more time, I would have, uh, created a different type of options based on my new understanding of how the 24 hour schedule works. Um, but I think this doesn't change my overall conclusion that existing certified devices.

358
01:47:25.209 --> 01:47:37.594
To be able to support the requirements of 24 hours per day and 288 values per year.

359
01:47:41.705 --> 01:47:48.545
So, I think that ends my presentation or any questions. Are there any questions.

360
01:47:49.025 --> 01:48:01.865
Alright, thank you. Gordon. Uh, we do have a couple of hands up, but before we do that, I'd like to, uh, read what's on the chat. I think you may have already addressed some of the.

361
01:48:01.869 --> 01:48:22.684
Uh, from Francis, I agree that 235 can meet the scheduling requirements if we are discussing near real times, 15 of scheduled values but 2035 cannot handle 288 events for a whole year from Brian.

362
01:48:23.944 --> 01:48:39.814
I haven't been on smart about a working group calls for a while, so probably missed it. Last time I asked it was not a requirement in California that the, our support at 2035, or it's scheduling features at the local site level.

363
01:48:41.405 --> 01:48:50.075
John, you seen to do this would require uploading a 24 value schedule from the cloud every day.

364
01:48:51.220 --> 01:49:12.155
Is over reliance on communication networks is exactly why the task group develop the concepts of an autonomous recurring schedule under a PCs. 288 dollars schedule could be 8 to under a 288 value. Schedule could be loaded once and would include.

365
01:49:12.394 --> 01:49:33.514
Current on a monthly type of day we can't week day or daily basis uh, from Francis at Brian CEO. Yes, I know communications are required with you use if they are greater than 1 megawatt they may communicate with aggregators.

366
01:49:34.654 --> 01:49:54.364
And may, or may not use 2035, uh, from Alex, uh, our certified gateway in burgers, capable of measuring or talking an export PCCC level value and command.

367
01:49:55.504 --> 01:50:15.784
A different in burger output to maintain a separate scheduled export. Uh, that was a question, but we, before we get to that, I'll finish leaving the chat window, um, from Francis, uh, again and right now the proposal is.

368
01:50:15.819 --> 01:50:32.554
You have the scheduled part of the interconnection agreement, not through any communications, uh, Brian seal at France's things point to that detail. And I'll read up, um.

369
01:50:35.074 --> 01:50:48.904
Brian analytic at Brian and Francis, but also are not leveraging 2030 dot 5 or greater than 1 megawatt systems yet on the some have started. Since last we checked in.

370
01:50:53.404 --> 01:51:13.624
I think had the most accelerated plans to do. So, uh, from Frances are only required to communicate a power control system may or may not be included to manage PC export and import as well as individual.

371
01:51:13.685 --> 01:51:34.385
Are, uh, from prances the Dr system I am most familiar with or greater than 1 megawatt and use 3 for communicating with utilities if so required, uh, from John actually only supports exports limited from all sources.

372
01:51:34.895 --> 01:51:55.925
Or from USS, only for name integrity, uh, from Francis at John, from your perspective PC, as is only expert limited, but the real systems too far more from John. I triple E50 47 this not contemplate the are calling utility.

373
01:51:55.954 --> 01:52:04.864
Servers need to push commands to not the other way around from Brian. Thanks for the updates.

374
01:52:08.674 --> 01:52:28.354
Probably misunderstood what Gordon said earlier. I thought he was saying that e5230 required at scheduling 2030.5 and at the from rustam side, Brian analytic PG E has an active program using 2030.

375
01:52:28.594 --> 01:52:47.824
5 for telemetry, only for greater than 1 megabyte distribution, connected system from Frances, the are polling is less appropriate then publish subscribe and may not be what 1547 we're requiring the new version.

376
01:52:50.765 --> 01:53:10.655
From Justin, there is no procedure path. I'm aware for to command rule. 21 resource or telemetry. Infrastructures will only be contemplated for information at this point. Owner operators are computers are free to use the functionality more broadly.

377
01:53:10.685 --> 01:53:14.525
The owner upgrade the assets, um.

378
01:53:16.384 --> 01:53:21.604
Let's see, uh, from Frances, um.

379
01:53:24.760 --> 01:53:45.665
Okay, I'm almost done from Francis at Justin. I believe requests are allowed, but I'm not sure anyone has implemented them, but they will need to be in the future from John and Justin similar D or is not required to do polling by 547. so, by and large, it does not exist at the level from Alex.

380
01:53:46.175 --> 01:54:02.105
Gordon can answer my question if he likes, but it has been answered within the comments. All right so, 1st thing before we move to the raised questions, uh, Alex, so your question has been answered.

381
01:54:08.914 --> 01:54:10.114
Believe San Jose? Yeah.

382
01:54:10.744 --> 01:54:17.194
Yeah, let me, um, take a stab at answering some of those comments that you just mentioned.

383
01:54:17.764 --> 01:54:19.474
Okay, and then we'll move on to.

384
01:54:20.314 --> 01:54:25.384
1st of all 23.5 is capable of scheduling way more than.

385
01:54:25.390 --> 01:54:45.185
And 288 events, basically a schedule is a list of events on the server somewhere and that the list can be unlimited. So technically, yes, it can schedule greater than 288 events and.

386
01:54:46.539 --> 01:55:07.654
Response to John partner, you are correct the requires communications and because communications may be spotty and it could go down. That is a problem with using to control to distribute these values in that reliable communications.

387
01:55:07.714 --> 01:55:28.774
And not be guaranteed, and maybe a static method of loading these values into the system is desired. So, I agree with you on that point regarding 23.5 is not a requirement for in. That is correct if you go through an aggregator, the path between the aggregator.

388
01:55:28.864 --> 01:55:49.984
And the can be, um, anything, but the path between the utility, and the aggregator is 20, 35 and 23.5 has the ability to convey these schedules to the aggregator and how the aggregator decides to.

389
01:55:50.284 --> 01:56:10.864
Those scheduled values down to the is up to the aggregate. It could be 205. it could be proprietary. It could be anything at that point. Um, so those are some of the comments I have some of the questions. I'm sure that there are other questions that were that you had listed in a chat that I have forgotten, but if they're important, I could.

390
01:56:11.765 --> 01:56:12.155
As well.

391
01:56:16.174 --> 01:56:21.094
Thank you Gordon. All right, so, let's go to you leave Roger and then Brian lyric.

392
01:56:23.734 --> 01:56:35.104
Hi, this is, uh, thanks for us presentation. Very, very helpful. And I, I want to kind of just confirm my understanding based. I think maybe your 1st.

393
01:56:35.314 --> 01:56:56.194
There was a comment about, you believe, does allow imitation of what was anticipated for 20 5,230 but based on what I'm hearing in your later slide, it seems like implementation of that would require a C sub certify server plus a certified.

394
01:56:57.695 --> 01:57:00.995
Install at the level. Is that correct?

395
01:57:06.544 --> 01:57:13.594
Contemplates multiple ways of connecting, uh, devices, um, when I say.

396
01:57:19.205 --> 01:57:19.625
Oh.

397
01:57:24.635 --> 01:57:42.785
We see some architecture contemplate a utility server communicates 20 30.5 to other devices. So yes, there's a 23.5 requirement for the utility server to implement 2035.

398
01:57:44.194 --> 01:58:03.244
the connection to the utility server is either directly to or if they choose that path then the dvr client must implement two thousand and thirty five if they choose uh the other alternative 

399
01:58:03.994 --> 01:58:25.084
To communicate to an aggregator, and then that aggregator communicates to the, um, in that case, the aggregator must use 23.5 to communicate to the server. The aggregator is free to use any protocol. It chooses to communicate from itself. The aggregator.

400
01:58:25.089 --> 01:58:45.784
The devices, so the requirements for the D are at the client to implement 2025 is only true if you're if that device is directly connecting to the utility server is connecting through the aggregator. Then.

401
01:58:46.954 --> 01:58:59.434
It doesn't need to implement 23.5. it's the aggregator that is going to be implementing the 23 and 5 connection to the utility server. I'm not sure if I directly answer your question, but.

402
01:58:59.494 --> 01:59:07.384
I think you did, um, I guess another question I have is that 1, uh, the scenario where it's kind of discussing for.

403
01:59:07.390 --> 01:59:27.695
He is mostly talking about the export at the point of PCC back to the system. Right? We're not we're essentially not talking about just the output of generating facility or in the scenario, like a system. So effectively, because there's onsite load.

404
01:59:28.804 --> 01:59:49.654
That's why we've been discussing the PCs system we'll have to monitor, sort of the load, like, export across the and calculate, you know, the schedule or profile you will for the actual generator and send it over to the generator to implement. Can you describing this kind of, uh.

405
01:59:49.954 --> 01:59:52.324
Approach you are thinking about how that can be achieved.

406
01:59:57.214 --> 01:59:57.784
Um.

407
02:00:02.135 --> 02:00:22.115
I believe that 11 possible model for communications using, is that at the site, there's a 20, 39, 5, Gateway device that represents, uh, the sum total of the. So there could be.

408
02:00:22.119 --> 02:00:43.234
Their devices behind it, but that's at the, uh, there's a single device representing what's happening at the point of calling coupling and I believe that is allowed under. That's like the gateway model. So, instead of having a 2003.

409
02:00:43.324 --> 02:00:54.394
5. D. R. the aggregator you haven't at the gateway that represents the PCC for that site.

410
02:00:57.904 --> 02:00:59.134
That's helpful Thank you.

411
02:01:03.154 --> 02:01:21.334
Yeah, yeah so Gordon, just following the same mode. Exactly. That's exactly 11 thing to discuss here. The concept here is that Gateway you just mentioned, I think he's not going to have any communications back to the utility. Um, and so it's really chess at the journey facility itself.

412
02:01:21.339 --> 02:01:42.484
And that Gateway would have a schedule what is 12 288 or something else that says you, your gateway you must monitor the PCCC and don't allow more than X amount of.

413
02:01:44.104 --> 02:02:02.404
Megawatts to export the, as an example, we'd be like, just take 1 hour. Let's say 1 hour. The value is 3 megawatts. You can only allow 3 megawatts going not to the grid for that hour. The, the, the gateway must measure continuously measure the PCCC.

414
02:02:03.665 --> 02:02:21.185
Went up when the values, so so basically through to space or some other measurement, and when the gateway senses that export to the greatest more than 3 megawatts, it needs to go tell the inverters like, hey, you need to reduce because you're going too much.

415
02:02:21.635 --> 02:02:21.965
Yes.

416
02:02:21.965 --> 02:02:24.755
Exactly, and then then he needs to verify that.

417
02:02:24.789 --> 02:02:36.424
Staying within 3 megawatts and 1 of the biggest questions that we had in our slide, we spend a lot of time discussing. This is whether or not this is a gateway could do that.

418
02:02:37.744 --> 02:02:39.064
So, maybe you can, you.

419
02:02:40.299 --> 02:02:40.834
I want to make sure.

420
02:02:43.354 --> 02:03:04.264
Yeah, from the communications point of view, I believe. Yes. Uh, CC gateway can do that, but, uh, from a functional point of view, whether that it can, uh, successfully monitor all the outputs of the behind it, and successfully control them to extend such that it meets all the.

421
02:03:04.269 --> 02:03:25.414
Locations at the that I do not know I'm more of a communications engineer and not a power engineer. So I believe from a sub communications point of view it is supported but from an actual physical parent electronics behind the gateway, I don't have any.

422
02:03:25.444 --> 02:03:26.044
Parents on that.

423
02:03:27.034 --> 02:03:36.694
Do you know, the gateway takes inputs from the BCC such as from CDs and BTS and that's his own calculation to determine powerful.

424
02:03:37.054 --> 02:03:44.824
I think at 10, um, I've seen where locally it has a separate meter, and it will take, uh, input from that measures.

425
02:03:46.984 --> 02:03:58.984
Values at the and take separate measurements, reported values from the and behind it and then they can do that type of management.

426
02:03:59.914 --> 02:04:04.684
Do you know that functionality has been certified or certified? Anyway?

427
02:04:04.714 --> 02:04:06.064
Yeah, personally I doubt it.

428
02:04:08.045 --> 02:04:08.375
I don't.

429
02:04:10.805 --> 02:04:28.835
Thank you for that, I think, you know, hang around for our discussion and I'll use, cause we have 1 slide for this. And and so we had a lot of questions as to whether certification capabilities was even possible with a, with a gateway device at the generic facility. So, but anyway.

430
02:04:28.894 --> 02:04:30.184
Thank you for your clarification.

431
02:04:36.905 --> 02:04:54.245
Hey, Roger, this is John. Maybe we'll cover it, uh, in your presentation, but I think we're confusing. Gateways and plant controllers. Gateway is essentially a communication.

432
02:04:57.515 --> 02:05:13.355
For example, local Dr, communication interface and we're really talking about communications from that device to some other server utility server, for example. Mm. Hmm. And that is different than a plant control.

433
02:05:13.955 --> 02:05:14.375
Mm, hmm.

434
02:05:14.615 --> 02:05:15.365
That is not.

435
02:05:15.424 --> 02:05:34.024
Say that a given gateway device can't do other control functions, but from a pure C requirement, they're not really required to do the functions. They're required to be able to receive the commands and pass those commands along.

436
02:05:34.534 --> 02:05:34.834
Yeah.

437
02:05:34.924 --> 02:05:36.484
The end of the individual.

438
02:05:37.114 --> 02:05:38.344
Or to a plant controller.

439
02:05:38.884 --> 02:05:55.984
Yep, yeah, that was our thought as well gentlemen we thought that the combination of and function 8 were more designed for communications between aggregator to the facilities or from the utilities to to the facilities and, and.

440
02:05:57.724 --> 02:06:17.524
I mean, very difficult time trying to figure out whether we could accomplish the, because I think that's 1 of the questions, utilizing a gateway device or plant controller. I mean, we, we thought that we were more aligning. So, like, with your comments, like, we need something like the to be able to achieve that.

441
02:06:18.905 --> 02:06:39.905
Right, I think the requirements are, as Gordon said, they're around the communication side and getting the commands to the site, or, you know, through the cloud based gateway or or not tight gateway. But the actual certification of export limiting.

442
02:06:40.000 --> 02:07:01.115
For example, would be part of the or part of a plant controller, and within the 547 construct, there isn't really a test to show that, um, can be load following. And that was part of the emphasis impetus behind developing.

443
02:07:01.504 --> 02:07:19.324
The work was to have a certification method to certify that with its associated gateways and pack controllers can be load power but doesn't really do that.

444
02:07:27.425 --> 02:07:28.505
Thanks John appreciate it.

445
02:07:34.805 --> 02:07:35.315
Okay.

446
02:07:35.345 --> 02:07:35.765
I'm just.

447
02:07:37.955 --> 02:07:39.335
Yeah, Brian yes.

448
02:07:40.745 --> 02:07:51.905
I'm just curious and I don't know if this is a question for Gordon or maybe more for the CPC, but I'm just curious what the impetus was for exploring this idea of leveraging but it may have.

449
02:07:51.935 --> 02:08:12.995
75,230 in terms of exploring what could be done before certified devices are available, but I don't think this necessarily relieves us of having some sort of certification for the export control. Because basically, if we had a local controlling system on site.

450
02:08:13.059 --> 02:08:34.174
You'd have to have the storage of a schedule, communicating these via these 2030.5 commands to the inverters and that package needs to be trusted and there's probably additional verification. That needs to be done in terms of the package. That contains the schedule and does the export control. Which I think then just points.

451
02:08:34.234 --> 02:08:46.354
Back to the power control systems certification, which I believe was basically what we were intending to rely on all the way back to the working group report and the resolution. So I'm just curious as to.

452
02:08:48.484 --> 02:09:05.404
Are we trying to go down an alternative path PCs with this path? Just lead us right back to TCs certification anyways. And do we need to look at this further? I just also want to raise. Probably doesn't need to be said in terms of this.

453
02:09:06.725 --> 02:09:27.755
Discussion exactly, but just wanted to note that rule 21 does not require scheduling of power power values so it may be a C tested thing, but it's actually not required by real 20 ones, and it seems to be a point of clarification that's needed from time to time, so I just wanted to mention that.

454
02:09:29.584 --> 02:09:31.624
Okay, thank you for Ron and.

455
02:09:31.624 --> 02:09:48.664
Liberal comments, I think how we got here in terms of potentially contemplating you seeing function Nate. If I say 3 would a system gateway device. I think it just goes back to really early in the process back.

456
02:09:48.939 --> 02:10:10.024
2018 or so, even before I would even save him before initiation of the development of original PCs standard. And so at that point, I think we, we just had kind of an idea. Like, hey, well, we have a 503 that can limit power. And then we have a bunch of data, it looks silly. So you combine them both and maybe you can achieve this.

457
02:10:10.624 --> 02:10:31.234
We were not, you know, so I think that's where that idea. So looking for, but nothing really was gonna say, put together to make sure that you worked the way it was intended eventually after the other PCs working group through region study going along. And I think that's, that's where we are.

458
02:10:31.534 --> 02:10:39.964
But I think we're sort of in alignment that in a way, we need a PCs to make this work. But I think it's part of the decision and that's why we needed to discuss it.

459
02:10:42.514 --> 02:11:02.254
Yes, roger's correct. This goes back to the actual working group where there is no mention of the PCs system. It just discusses the functions. Roger mentioned. So this is where this whole topic comes in, whether we are ready now to implement, or whether.

460
02:11:02.315 --> 02:11:10.235
We need the PCs and I think Justin, how do you stand up and then.

461
02:11:16.354 --> 02:11:22.384
Um, yeah, I think that, uh, John raised many of the points and other folks have the.

462
02:11:24.844 --> 02:11:45.364
Presentation was intended to clarify whether or not the functionality that we already have in place is sufficient to get the message to whatever device on site is controlling the output. Gordon is done a good job of establishing that the information payload can get there whether that's for 1 value at 12 values.

463
02:11:46.595 --> 02:11:59.465
Ada values I think John was established that, uh, we'll have to have a PCs in order to be able to do limited generation profile. And I think that's kind of been the, the case all along. Um.

464
02:12:01.564 --> 02:12:04.324
In short, I don't think I've got anything additional Dan. So please go ahead.

465
02:12:08.464 --> 02:12:26.554
Um, I guess what I was gonna follow on that with Justin. I think what Brian was trying to build to is just in light of the enormous amount of additional things that we still need to cover. Um, how are we going to focus in this discussion? Um, or make a decision about what to spend more time on in that in that.

466
02:12:35.015 --> 02:12:35.465
I guess.

467
02:12:36.729 --> 02:12:41.914
Is anybody still advocating for doing this approach? And if so should we spend more time on it? And if not.

468
02:12:42.664 --> 02:12:48.034
We move on, um, because I'm not I wasn't hearing that anybody really is taking that that angle.

469
02:12:49.024 --> 02:12:57.394
Yeah, I mean, you'll, you'll hear in our slight sky that that's really what we want to do and just, I mean, we, we put it there just for discussion purposes, which I think we can always.

470
02:12:57.905 --> 02:13:19.025
Almost already admit that slide because we are having a discussion and this presentation from order, which is great but our conclusion there was that that really, we believe that we need a BCS standard to make this work. And while we can continue to explore these functions through any combination, it just seems to.

471
02:13:19.055 --> 02:13:38.225
Complicated, you know, and we don't we have no idea whether it's gonna work on that. So, our view is that, let's just wait for the PCs. We're not that far along as us as John. Knows. I mean, John's doing a great job leading that team. So really, I think it's best just to wait for that as is really not that far away. Um.

472
02:13:39.215 --> 02:13:40.115
And thanks for.

473
02:13:40.324 --> 02:14:01.264
And Jose is that, um, like, procedurally, in terms of where you are, in terms of what was in the original decision. And I do remember that, you know, this is articulated in the decision. But if it seems like that's not where anybody is, do we need is there anything we need to do to satisfy your process? If we just decide to move on to focus on the PCs is dead.

474
02:14:03.934 --> 02:14:18.634
I think, and I'll let Justin also a chime in, but I think, uh, hearing what everybody has said, you know, uh, and seeing how long it's taking us to be, where we are right now.

475
02:14:21.814 --> 02:14:24.004
If the PTs is going to take.

476
02:14:25.324 --> 02:14:30.724
Years, you know, I, I guess it would be a timing issue.

477
02:14:30.874 --> 02:14:46.234
Yeah, let me clarify a little bit, because not, everybody's got the inside baseball. So right now there is a certification a, that is out there that is functional. That many converters have John.

478
02:14:46.804 --> 02:15:07.594
John Gardner of the on this call is working on updating that to include a greater level of scheduling capability as well as a whole bunch of other enhancements. And my understanding is that effort is we're looking at a quarter or 2 until that is that is ready for prime time. The discussion.

479
02:15:07.655 --> 02:15:28.745
Here, and I'm going to push a little bit back on what Roger was saying is intended to evaluate whether, or not what we already have is sufficient to go ahead and implement limited generation profile. And I think the folks from what I'm hearing on the call are agreed that there are 2 elements that need.

480
02:15:28.775 --> 02:15:49.895
To be in place, at least 1, is to get the information to the site and the 2nd is to be able to use that information to control the output of the site such that the export value has never exceeded. And the point I think we're trying to evaluate here is, okay, do we have the 1st part.

481
02:15:50.374 --> 02:16:11.044
335, and I think we do and I think that's the, what Gordon's final takeaway is I think we run the risk getting bogged down in every possible permutation that could go whether it's 20, 30 dot 5 to whatever.

482
02:16:11.074 --> 02:16:16.804
Back net, whatever you want to use so maybe we can avoid that conversation and just.

483
02:16:18.995 --> 02:16:37.025
Understand that an inverter that can make it 321 has to be able through some set of communications to get this message from the origin to the site through 2030.5 and that that infrastructure is in place. So.

484
02:16:46.894 --> 02:17:05.075
And I think, you know, given that 23.5 is there, maybe that's a task to I don't know if it would ease certification of the systems. But the PCs working group could maybe, I don't know if you've discussed this before John, but maybe you could consider whether.

485
02:17:06.094 --> 02:17:27.183
Voters have standardized communications and a gateway slash PCs has standardized communications, or doesn't really have to be a gateway, but just the PCs head ends whatever's measuring export can output standardized communications then maybe those 2 certifications can basically be.

486
02:17:27.214 --> 02:17:48.004
Together, but that's more of an internal testing protocol issue, I think, as to whether we can leverage this inside. I don't see us getting around still having to certify that export control method and the scheduling aspect of it, which, you know, again just would basically just lead us back to the.

487
02:17:48.393 --> 02:17:49.864
Our control system certification.

488
02:17:51.124 --> 02:17:58.624
Yeah, and I think I would agree, except I don't think we need to certify the communications part of it because we've already got that through.

489
02:18:01.803 --> 02:18:02.134
Yeah.

490
02:18:05.405 --> 02:18:24.304
We deliberately, uh, said that the communication of the schedule was out of scope. Um, partially because, uh, 2030.5 doesn't support a recurring schedule today. So it could, but it would have to be revised.

491
02:18:25.115 --> 02:18:46.115
Because if if you look at the way, the world 21 process occurs the, um, it doesn't consider basically exchanging schedules electronically. Basically says the utility gives the, um, you know.

492
02:18:46.174 --> 02:19:06.064
Or the owner, the, and then the owner proposal to schedule, and then utility approves or rejects that schedule. So, there really wasn't a way that we could see to automate this today. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It just.

493
02:19:07.744 --> 02:19:27.723
All the pieces aren't there to do it today using 2035 and exchanging schedules so we defined a format so we can exchange schedules and agree on what the schedules mean, but we didn't take the next step obtain and we defined a protocol to transmit those schedules.

494
02:19:29.464 --> 02:19:49.384
And that would maybe just add a little bit onto that. John we can't say for sure that every implementation of 2039.5 can do this, because there's only a certain number of values that are tested in the, um, regime. It may well be that a particular piece of hardware has.

495
02:19:50.375 --> 02:20:10.565
You know, dozens, hundreds of register values and then you're fine. Um, but in any case, I think we're, we're silent on how the owner operator aggregator. Whoever it is, is controlling the asset actually controls.

496
02:20:11.915 --> 02:20:30.935
They are committing to controlling the asset within a certain bound of export, whether that's somebody standing there punching in a new value every hour. Or whether that's something that can automate through an online platform is is not something that little 21 concerns itself with. We're just.

497
02:20:31.954 --> 02:20:36.724
Demonstrating in this, that there is, in fact, a digital pathway should be able to be prepared to take that.

498
02:20:45.604 --> 02:21:05.734
Okay, uh, thank you. Everyone. Uh, I think we need to move ahead, uh, to the next presentation by, uh, and, uh, we will take into consideration everything that was said regarding the timing and whether we need continue to.

499
02:21:05.739 --> 02:21:26.434
Question on this issue or not. So, uh, look for emails on regarding further feedback. So, Francisco can we bring in to underscore a Pre slides? All right and Brian, you're still with us.

500
02:21:27.695 --> 02:21:29.855
You are so, take it away.

501
02:21:31.834 --> 02:21:34.084
Okay, I'm going to leave. Can you hear me? Okay.

502
02:21:34.924 --> 02:21:35.764
Yes, we can.

503
02:21:36.514 --> 02:21:52.264
Bandwidth limited where I am, so I'm going to leave the leave, the audio off, or the video off rather. So I'll go quickly through this. I think this is a much simpler thing than what we've been talking about, but it may be something that fewer people.

504
02:21:52.294 --> 02:21:55.804
Have been following, or or are aware of so next slide.

505
02:21:58.985 --> 02:22:19.055
So so, 1st, just the context of it, this is about a file format for exchange of these profiles, these schedules and the work has been driven by the work in the of the 741 PCs working group.

506
02:22:19.503 --> 02:22:40.203
John has been mentioning a lot of the folks that are on the call here today are part of that working group and have been directly involved in this but I think the interest there, and I just pulled this out of the 1 of the CPC documents. I know time has passed and the numbers have changed and things like that but just the idea that, that we're all discussing here, that customers.

507
02:22:40.209 --> 02:23:00.814
Will be able to interconnect using a scheduled export limit, or a time bearing short limit. And then, in particular, I highlighted here this idea that is up for, I guess, discussion or discussion within California of whether the use of a standard format is interesting for that or not. But the next slide.

508
02:23:03.844 --> 02:23:22.024
So this is actually a build slide, but to stop here for a moment. So I really think it's neat to have this discussion right? Follow right after Gordon just to make the point that we're, we're talking about 2 completely different places in the in the sort of data.

509
02:23:22.565 --> 02:23:43.655
Chain, so all the colored arrows near the center of this of this diagram are the places where the use of a schedule file format might be useful. On the other hand, the, if you look to the far, right you see these examples of a PCs in the inverter or a.

510
02:23:43.685 --> 02:24:04.085
On PTs and this sort of visual of a communication cable where you're actually using a communication protocol, and you have to have things like interoperability because you're trying to talk to a device to, for example, give it a schedule. And it has to understand what you're talking about and for that, all of that discussion that Gordon was leading is relevant.

511
02:24:04.833 --> 02:24:25.953
How you actually do it, we're not overlapping with that at all or even talking about that. What we're talking about is a file format that could, for example, be attached to an email. You could save it. A developer could save hundreds of them in a folder on their hard disk you could upload or download.

512
02:24:25.984 --> 02:24:47.104
To a website, it could be linked or tied to a contract things of that nature. So it's a file format. So, some of the things that where it could be used obviously the green arrow pointing to the. Right? So, here again, the utility is on the left and everything to the right here is developer.

513
02:24:47.134 --> 02:25:08.254
So the utility could make known the time varying constraint in a, in a uniform way most directly in the California discussion. The orange arrow pointing back the data that's submitted with an application. So, the idea that a developer could submit a profile.

514
02:25:08.285 --> 02:25:29.315
With their application, there might be something involved in the approval. I E, something that gets locked in as part of the agreement or the contract for future reference between both the parties and finally the proof slash evidence that utilities often require for other types of.

515
02:25:29.465 --> 02:25:50.525
Pr settings to say, hey, something doesn't look right at this site. Could you go do a read or something and send me what you see at the site? So that I can do some comparison and verify that it is operating with the correct schedule. So all of this is sort of at or soon following interconnection if you could just click just to complete the story here.

516
02:25:50.583 --> 02:25:52.803
Where we're coming from at the.

517
02:25:56.284 --> 02:26:15.514
I did not see that. Fill in. Is there a, can you do a slide advance? Yeah, there we go. So, similarly, at the at the test lab, the these same files could be used to support testing.

518
02:26:16.024 --> 02:26:37.084
And, uh, the idea here is simply that the, the test agency provides the, the sequence of schedules that are become the approved test schedules that that's a tough thing. By the way, it's the idea that if you if I give you these schedules and you do them properly, that we believe you will then.

519
02:26:37.114 --> 02:26:56.794
So all possible schedules correctly, and keeping that to a bare minimum. So that scheduling testing cost doesn't get too large, is a challenge, but the group is working on that. But, anyway, this is the format by which the test agency could hand the sequence of test schedules to.

520
02:26:58.894 --> 02:26:59.494
Justin.

521
02:27:03.515 --> 02:27:03.785
This is.

522
02:27:04.175 --> 02:27:04.715
Your questions.

523
02:27:11.554 --> 02:27:13.354
Can you hear me okay did someone verify.

524
02:27:14.284 --> 02:27:17.134
I guess Brian and I can hear you there were some background noise.

525
02:27:17.524 --> 02:27:29.014
Okay, no problem. Yeah. So, in this case, it's the vendor provided tools and here. Well, and then, of course, in the reverse direction, the other black arrow at the bottom, you verify.

526
02:27:29.735 --> 02:27:50.255
That the behavior was correct this is the measured power behavior so you're closing the loop between the schedule provided and the behavior and what you're not doing in this picture is looking at what's happening over there on the blue Ethernet cable, in terms of how that vendor is getting their their device or their site program that's.

527
02:27:50.525 --> 02:28:11.555
Out of scope for the moment, at least in this particular discussion. So this is not uncommon. Right? This happens in a lot of types of tests where you will turn to the vendor and say, hey, disable your island detection and they say, okay, it's disabled. And then they run a particular test and now re, enabled.

528
02:28:11.643 --> 02:28:26.433
And they run another test how they're doing that is really out of scope of the test but the result of behavior is in scope. So something similar here where the schedules get handed across. So, this is why this is all being documented in that process next slide.

529
02:28:29.704 --> 02:28:49.504
So just a quick summary of that again, it has been a moving target it was initiated by that working group requirements in California of course, Hawaii and more. Recently, Massachusetts have all been on the, on the table and influencing the work to some extent or another the technical approach that we took. And that's what I'm going to show in just.

530
02:28:49.655 --> 02:29:10.775
Is to keep with a very simple human, readable CSB file format. It's not high tech, but it is consistent with what was done and I triple e147 in terms of the results reporting file and it's subsequently been followed for the standard file formats for settings. That defines a way that utility.

531
02:29:10.804 --> 02:29:31.864
Could publicize, or document their required settings in a way that all developers are familiar with and could even automate. So, that time is reduced cost is reduced at human error that could hold up in our connection is removed settings, whether they're actually, I'm sorry schedule settings, whether they're actually executed in.

532
02:29:31.930 --> 02:29:53.075
Pcs, or wherever that becomes done is, in a way, it's just an extension of the other settings for the site things like the Volt Parkers and things like that. So, since we already have this momentum moving forward for a CSB file format for the remainder of the site settings, it seems natural to define it for the schedule export limit.

533
02:29:53.104 --> 02:30:02.944
The same way basic principle was to keep it simple not to let engineers do what engineers do and go wild with, you know.

534
02:30:03.484 --> 02:30:24.094
Extreme expandability and capability, and yet try to very elegantly cover. This sort of diverse, initial set of needs that we see from from the States and things and not to paint too tight. A corner. Where, literally, the slightest change is needed going from 12 entries per year to 24 and.

535
02:30:24.100 --> 02:30:30.125
The whole format falls apart, so we try to avoid that. So the next slide, I think will make all that clear.

536
02:30:31.444 --> 02:30:52.264
And again, please, please interrupt me just jump in if you have questions or Jose, if you see things coming in and chat just called into my attention. So, in a nutshell, here is what the schedule looks like again, all the colorization, and the things are not saved in CSB file because it's just a.

537
02:30:52.324 --> 02:31:13.444
Text file, but we colorized them here just for clarity. So the 1st, 2 sections at the top are optional. So the 1st is, we called it metadata. And so what is metadata? It's just data that's beyond the schedule itself that 1 might want to include in a file for example, to identify who published this file where did it come from?

538
02:31:13.449 --> 02:31:34.594
From, which which Dr. site is it intended to be used for when was this file created you imagine looking on your hard disc, and you've got 100 of these files there unless you've labeled them very carefully how would you know, which 1 came from? Where? And so forth, so this metadata provides a way for files, whether they are sent out from a utility.

539
02:31:34.625 --> 02:31:50.315
To a developer, or sent to a utility as part of an application, or whatever provides a way for content to be put in there. And so quite a few of these labels these metadata labels have been identified so that you can actually have.

540
02:31:51.934 --> 02:32:12.664
If you chose to use them, you could have interoperability around those. So we say optional here. Now, what do we mean by that? We're not trying to speak for the state of California. We're trying to say, just in terms of this file format, standard, this content could either be there or not adopters like the state of California should they use.

541
02:32:12.905 --> 02:32:32.645
Could say, for example, here there shall be 3 metadata at the top and it shall be this 1 this 1 and this 1 for all schedule files. Something like that. So optional in terms of the standard format. But not for you. The next section is even more open ended, it's called comments and this is just.

542
02:32:33.819 --> 02:32:54.964
unparsable by any machine, but it's just human readable notes that you can add in. So, again, that's the green and the orange sections when you get to the blue, it's the actual schedule. So, the simplest schedule file would only have the part that you see in blue here and it has 5 columns and each column is labeled as a schedule entry. And that's only 2.

543
02:32:54.995 --> 02:33:12.275
Differentiate it from the parts above and so for each entry there is a start date a start time and an export limit. And then there's this 1 other field, which is an effective day type and I'll talk more about that in just a moment. That's not not relevant in California at the moment.

544
02:33:13.324 --> 02:33:34.444
So, if you look down that column, the effective day type, you'll see the word all, which means this row this entry applies to all day types. Whether it's a week day, Monday through Friday, Saturday, Sunday, it doesn't matter, applies to all of them. And so that that's the way to just basically ignore that that entry. So that sort of.

545
02:33:34.449 --> 02:33:55.564
1, I said, we were trying to balance simplicity with with not painting ourselves into a corner too quickly. That center column there is really the 1 field that is put in that. We don't think anyone is going to use any time soon. Everything else is immediately relevant. So, yeah, the start date.

546
02:33:55.625 --> 02:34:16.745
And start time, and in the right most column what the values are in the column we actually allowed for either absolute wants or percent of nameplate plots, there were sort of 2 different use cases on the table for discussion and certain stakeholders required both. I think the absolute, what value is the.

547
02:34:16.775 --> 02:34:37.865
1, that I understand is more interesting in California, so that label that identifiers at the top of the column to the right and then the values underneath are just the export limit in. So so, this one's colorized just to show the sections. But if you go to the next slide, Jose.

548
02:34:38.494 --> 02:34:59.044
Our Francisco, it's a shorter schedule so this 1 is more directly what we are hearing a California schedule might look like. So it has exactly 12 entries. If you want to just do a, you know, a monthly export limit, then you have 12 rows, each start date.

549
02:34:59.074 --> 02:35:20.194
Is the 1st of the month? Each start time is the 1st hour and minute of the day. So those are quite straightforward. The flexibility is there to deviate from that standpoint. But but here it's just very tightly held to the front of each month. And then you get an export limit, the 1 thing we would point out or I would point out here is that in this.

550
02:35:20.199 --> 02:35:41.344
Particular example, if you look at the export limits to the lot to the right they're all the same until you get down towards the bottom. So, in fact, you don't even have to have 12 entries. If if the export limit doesn't change between 1 month, and the next, you would just whatever you enter the way this framework.

551
02:35:41.350 --> 02:36:02.495
It stays in effect until until the next time slot comes. So, everything is not the way this speck is written is perhaps not obvious in this picture, but it is obvious in the document in the specification document. It's subscribed very clearly. And so there's inherent.

552
02:36:02.500 --> 02:36:22.835
Here, so, for any schedule file, it loops from top to bottom it loops indefinitely. So, schedule specifies a year, that year is going to play year after year after year until such time as a new schedule is sent, or this one's deleted or whatever within a given start date.

553
02:36:24.394 --> 02:36:44.764
It's going to loop whatever is the the daily schedule if you have hourly entries, like, in Hawaii, where you have 24 hours of the day, those are going to repeat on a daily basis again until a new start date arrives. And then, likewise, even if you ever move to this week.

554
02:36:44.799 --> 02:37:05.224
For effective date type feature. Same thing there right? Like up a Monday through Friday entry repeats until it's no longer that Monday through Friday, and it would hit the Saturday to Sunday and then loop back. So you have weekly looping that's specified if used hourly or daily daily looping and then.

555
02:37:05.949 --> 02:37:26.914
Calendar date looping. Bottom line is it's compresses very nicely. So the simpler your use case is the shorter of the file is in California case, 12 entries, 1 more slide and then we can just pause for discussion. Someone had raised the question about verification or whatever.

556
02:37:28.385 --> 02:37:48.215
1 of the neat things about a standard file format is people can automate settings are complicated, getting it right. Is difficult. So, even with the best of intentions, it's very easy to to set things incorrectly and either hold up the approval process or the commission.

557
02:37:48.275 --> 02:38:09.395
Testing things of that nature costs everyone time and money. So having the ability to, for example, have site tools designed by developers that receive these schedule files or and ingest them and apply them electronically really takes the human loop and saves time and money but for.

558
02:38:09.424 --> 02:38:30.484
Developers to invest in such automation, they have to see uniformity. Right they can't go from 1 state to the next, or from 1 utility to the next and the way they're being fed the schedule requirements is different. Everywhere they turn. And so our goal, our interest here is in having a uniformly adopted.

559
02:38:31.324 --> 02:38:50.944
Means of conveying these schedules and then allow those 2 tools and things that would be here. The laptop icon that's shown at the top row. The developer tools would notionally be able to receive a file during the interconnection process. For example, as a download from the.

560
02:38:51.964 --> 02:39:12.754
From the application management system, and then apply those at the site with correct checks and things to make sure you're at the right site and so forth and do an error free and likewise every is, as we've worked on this file format, we've created tools that help create a file syntax free or.

561
02:39:12.875 --> 02:39:22.655
Free and doing all the quality checks, and as an extension of that, we're also working on the ability to compare files. So if you feed it.

562
02:39:24.185 --> 02:39:34.265
Bound file and an outbound file it could just check and say this, this is the same schedule or it isn't. And I think that's the last slide.

563
02:39:37.054 --> 02:39:40.354
Yeah, there you go. So open for questions or comments.

564
02:39:43.264 --> 02:39:59.944
Okay, uh, thank you, Brian for that update. Um, which Brian mentioned. Uh, eh, that's what's, uh, the working groups are working on. So I'll, if anybody has questions nice now. Sure. Time to, uh, chime in.

565
02:40:13.174 --> 02:40:17.494
Yeah, while they're thinking if you could just go back up to the slide that showed all the colored arrows.

566
02:40:21.034 --> 02:40:41.374
Just want to emphasize that that the sort of link between the top half of the side. And the bottom half of this slide is an important 1, because when you're receiving interconnection applications, and they're sending you schedule, you're sending them schedules and things to know that it's going to work properly.

567
02:40:42.095 --> 02:41:02.795
Having the, the, the mechanism that you're using to exchange that schedule with 1 another to be the same mechanism that was used during certification at the noodle is a very powerful thing. Right? If there's already been this validation that you can give this developer, the sort of widely varying sequence of.

568
02:41:02.829 --> 02:41:19.984
Test schedules, and they will, they are able to take those and operate correctly with them. So then the notion would be that subsequently in the field where it matters most when you're using that same approach to exchanging schedules, it should work correctly there as well.

569
02:41:22.025 --> 02:41:29.525
So, the question for the utilities would be, uh, are they planning on using a standard file format cross all 3, utilities.

570
02:41:32.974 --> 02:41:53.584
Because it is Roger, I mean, I think I, I think more research needs to be done on that because if this is related to communication between utilities, for instance, to the aggregator, or directly to the engineering facility, um, that I think we need, at least for we need to I'm not familiar with.

571
02:41:53.614 --> 02:42:13.444
What we're doing in that space so it would be good to figure out what we're doing there. And I think, you know, what brian's presenting here could be, uh, something that we can align them for that type of work. But I think the word the word that we're talking about today is more of a schedules that are not being sent by the utility or an aggregator is more about.

572
02:42:14.854 --> 02:42:35.884
Hallway schedule could be uploaded to a PCs or to some, some other device of the generic facility to control the output of the general facility at the point of common coupling. So, I wonder whether whether, you know, maybe a question to Brian is whether, you know, the, uh, that this.

573
02:42:35.975 --> 02:42:55.475
It could be adapted only for a localized facility, as opposed to coming in from the, uh, from from the utility or from an oh, yeah. Coming from the utility directly, whether this can be done locally, or whether you see this format to apply locally as well as opposed to that coming from the utility.

574
02:42:56.375 --> 02:42:56.975
Yeah.

575
02:42:57.124 --> 02:43:18.124
Well, thanks, for the question, Roger, and it shows me how unclear I guess I was to try to clarify the, in a type scenario where you're talking to the you're sending schedules and things so you actually have a network from central out to the site, this file format has no place in that world.

576
02:43:18.214 --> 02:43:38.794
At all, that's a world where we would the discussion earlier in systems is a lot more relevant. So so this, these arrows up the middle of of this diagram here are just hand offs of a file that happened during the application process. So it's.

577
02:43:39.544 --> 02:44:00.484
It's a way that a developer can, as the document, the policy documents in California said to submit a with their application. So this is a file format by which they could submit the proposed schedule. And again, that's just between them and the utility as part.

578
02:44:00.514 --> 02:44:21.604
For the interconnection process, and similarly, you know, the approval or the agreed file can be stored and things of that nature but once you arrive and so what would happen with that file what this is saying is that is that utilities and developers would agree on what the export.

579
02:44:21.640 --> 02:44:41.915
It is foresight, they would have this electronic file format that they could use between the 2 of them to, to understand and agree on what that what that profile is. And then how that developer actually programs the equipment at the site, what protocol they used to do that is, is undefined in this body of work.

580
02:44:43.024 --> 02:45:03.934
It's it's out of scope it's both at the noodle, and during the interconnection process, we're not speaking to that at all. But to your point. Absolutely. The expectation here is that, however, they accomplish that. Let's say, for example, they just use a vendor of vendor proprietary means or protocol. Yeah. The full expectation here is.

581
02:45:03.964 --> 02:45:07.954
That that site now, knows that schedule and execute it.

582
02:45:09.579 --> 02:45:11.014
An ongoing basis reliably.

583
02:45:13.833 --> 02:45:34.953
Right. So you have to do that and then and it'll say to your comment I think we actually have a slide in our deck that talks about the file format or template. Maybe that's an area that Brian you hang around. We can have more discussions there. I think the challenges are going to be.

584
02:45:34.984 --> 02:45:56.104
For the utilities is going to be like, for instance, the headers and things like that, that may have different terminology into within the internal utilities systems. Right? So, you know, the, it's very important that not only the file. It's, uh, it's it's, I guess it's very important that the form the.

585
02:45:56.224 --> 02:46:17.254
If he comes into utility that we can then upload it to our systems and our systems recognize what things are in each utility has, you know, different internal nomenclature of saying like, headers. Then, you know, it may be difficult to standardize a template. But but I think we have that discussion as part of our.

586
02:46:17.735 --> 02:46:18.125
As well.

587
02:46:21.244 --> 02:46:23.404
Got it yeah, that would be interesting. Thanks.

588
02:46:23.764 --> 02:46:32.194
All right, thank you, Roger. Uh, so we expect more discussion there come the, uh, utility, uh, presentation. Um.

589
02:46:32.769 --> 02:46:34.294
Any other comments or questions.

590
02:46:40.564 --> 02:46:45.364
Okay, so it's 222 we're a bit, um.

591
02:46:46.984 --> 02:46:48.214
For a bit 20 minutes.

592
02:46:51.335 --> 02:46:55.415
Schedule so, do people need a 5 minute break.

593
02:46:59.764 --> 02:47:01.564
Raise your hand so.

594
02:47:03.814 --> 02:47:08.644
Majority rule otherwise I think we can jump into the utility presentation.

595
02:47:13.294 --> 02:47:27.454
So, going once going twice. Okay. So, uh, let's, uh, jump in, uh, Francisco. Could you bring up slide? 6 underscore.

596
02:47:41.794 --> 02:47:45.814
Okay, uh, so who is kicking this off from the utilities?

597
02:47:52.055 --> 02:47:53.165
Alex from PG E.

598
02:47:53.915 --> 02:47:55.265
Okay, Alex go ahead.

599
02:47:57.784 --> 02:48:18.484
Okay, so I'm really excited about the presentations we've had so far, especially the 1 from, from a key to, from Gordon, because it's, it's answered some of the so many of the questions that we had while we were trying to prepare these slides for presentation, especially for the option 3.

600
02:48:18.519 --> 02:48:25.054
8 use case for so, I think with the presentation begins on slide number.

601
02:48:28.655 --> 02:48:30.095
So next slide please.

602
02:48:31.804 --> 02:48:48.754
So, I'm going to be going over the, uh, topic E, uh, which is we were asked to go over the implementation of limited generation profiles, using current smart inviter functions. Um, which are the option 3 sorry function 3 and function 8 next slide please.

603
02:48:52.684 --> 02:48:53.434
Next please.

604
02:48:55.835 --> 02:49:16.115
So this slide is going over the background on topic. E. um, like I said, most of these, uh, issues have been discussed at length, uh, in previous discussions. Um, so I'm not going to go over every little detail. But the 1st, part of this slide is a summary of what was included in resolution of 5,230.

605
02:49:17.134 --> 02:49:23.074
And specifically, this, this, this topic E, and we're going to focus on.

606
02:49:24.814 --> 02:49:45.934
Number 3, which is asking the utilities to determine which function functional elements are already present in commercially valuable providers, and which are not to establish functionality prior to the approval of the standards. So, as many of pointed out, uh, previous discussions, there are many challenges in trying to.

607
02:49:45.939 --> 02:50:07.084
Do this without a PCs or an approved PCs that satisfied to the standard? So, I don't know how much time we really want to spend going over these issues, but since we have a deck prepared, I'll go over really quickly. So, on this slide, we defined the function 3 functional, which most people in this call already.

608
02:50:07.114 --> 02:50:28.204
And we attempted to show a graphic that was intended to show the challenges with implementation of using function 3 and functioning. Essentially what this graphic was trying to show was that if you're trying to control export level at the for.

609
02:50:28.444 --> 02:50:49.204
That have both load and generation, this will be a challenge without having a PCs type of device. Um, so, uh, PCs and will be located on the utility side if you will, where the load and the generation is connected and so, you know, again has been discussed before this is not a clear path.

610
02:50:50.105 --> 02:51:10.445
How this, uh, uh, certified gateways, certified inviters are able to measure the expert level the, and then control the environment output to maintain expert levels within the. So, um, again, I don't know if there's much I can add to that discussion. I think we've already established that this is a challenge and it's probably.

611
02:51:10.804 --> 02:51:19.054
Everyone to just wait for BCS standards to be completed and just developed. So we can test.

612
02:51:20.675 --> 02:51:23.765
Pcs is for use with any questions on this.

613
02:51:23.855 --> 02:51:29.225
Questions on this. Hey, Alex is Justin. Not a question, but a comment.

614
02:51:29.705 --> 02:51:29.975
Okay.

615
02:51:30.125 --> 02:51:30.605
Um.

616
02:51:33.244 --> 02:51:43.774
If we can get on the record here, so PCs does exist. It's in the process of being updated.

617
02:51:44.404 --> 02:51:44.734
That's.

618
02:51:44.764 --> 02:51:47.104
There is a functional PCs out there.

619
02:51:47.764 --> 02:51:48.244
Yes.

620
02:51:49.474 --> 02:51:52.774
And it sounds like everybody has come to consensus.

621
02:51:53.164 --> 02:52:13.984
We can't do limited generation profile unless we have a PCs that's set up to control the output at the point of common company. So the utility customer interface um, so just 2 comments 1 is the PCs does exist and is being utilized in.

622
02:52:13.989 --> 02:52:15.124
The real world today.

623
02:52:15.574 --> 02:52:15.994
Yes.

624
02:52:16.084 --> 02:52:34.324
And the 2nd is just a question to the group if, if we can just come to consensus on that. And or if we can, we can verify that. That is a consensus and go from there. So, we don't because we've, we've had that that discussion several times in this yeah, in this workshop.

625
02:52:35.140 --> 02:52:56.285
I'll make a comment and I'll make a comment and I'll invite probably Brian too. So does exist. We are using devices to control PCCC level ex, uh, export, uh, put limits on, I guess, power, uh, power flow, whether it's.

626
02:52:56.344 --> 02:53:15.364
You know, import only export only no exchange or unrestricted, but this, this restrictions are based on a single value. So, I think what's being developed is the ability of the existing or new PCs to control export based on a schedule.

627
02:53:17.464 --> 02:53:19.024
Brian, you want to chime in or anybody else.

628
02:53:24.545 --> 02:53:26.405
Yeah, this is John. Can you hear me.

629
02:53:26.495 --> 02:53:28.115
Sorry, I'm in John. Sorry. Sorry, John.

630
02:53:28.655 --> 02:53:41.165
Yeah, no problem. Um, I agree with what you said. Uh, and with, with Justin said PCs today, the existing the support expert remaining at the.

631
02:53:42.125 --> 02:53:51.125
As well as, um, export or import limiting from specifically you you're correct.

632
02:53:52.894 --> 02:54:13.414
It supports it around a single fixed value of export limiting what we're working on in the revision, which again, we're hoping to have out. I keep saying the next quarter. It keeps being more longer than that, but we're really making a concerted effort to get it out in the next quarter. 2.

633
02:54:14.104 --> 02:54:34.984
Would be to add the scheduling functionality that, uh, Brian presented, he's leading the scheduling working group. And so what we're now doing the thing, we would have a standardized file format to have a recurring schedule that would run locally.

634
02:54:35.014 --> 02:54:56.104
In the PCs controller without communication, once it's loaded, it just keeps doing what it what, uh, what you've told it to do repeats the loop over and over. So that's what we're adding. And again that should give us the functionality we need for limited.

635
02:54:56.375 --> 02:55:04.775
Profile, but we don't have scheduling of an export limit at the Today within the theory.

636
02:55:12.395 --> 02:55:14.675
Understood and and I think the.

637
02:55:17.734 --> 02:55:33.034
Much of what we're doing much of what we're doing in the effort is building on expanding that functionality. That's a part of 2035 and wrapping it into 1 certification as opposed to 2. sorry I don't mean to hijack. Please. Go ahead.

638
02:55:36.784 --> 02:55:37.204
Um.

639
02:55:37.264 --> 02:55:37.864
Sorry, go ahead.

640
02:55:38.824 --> 02:55:55.354
Yeah, cause I just mentioned 1 thing I, I think we had chatted about it in the smart inverter working group and I just wanted to put a footnote on it that relays and other devices like our tech real time.

641
02:55:55.444 --> 02:56:16.234
Automation controller could be leveraged to do the same thing, but aren't certified. And so, if we wanted to create other pathways to do this, we could potentially do it with other equipment, and maybe additional commissioning steps to ensure compatibility. But we haven't really been going down that pathway. But I just wanted to.

642
02:56:23.194 --> 02:56:43.294
So, Justin, it was no problem Thank you for chiming in and then to brian's point, I think if, if we were to go down exploring an option to use a relay for a scheduled, um, export limit. Um, this is, this is not something that I think speaking for PG E were prepared to accept obviously we would have.

643
02:56:43.324 --> 02:57:04.444
To have discussions this time in white tap testing needs to go it. What what sort of felt safe we need to have to make to ensure that as was pointed out before by John. It's not just the ability for certified equipment to accept the schedule. It's how do they how do they maintain that?

644
02:57:04.474 --> 02:57:25.564
How do they treat, uh, you know, different times of the year different hours, you know, holidays, weekends, that kind of stuff? So it would have to be, you'd have to, at the minimum have the same capability. I'm not sure what test protocol would be used. Uh, this time would probably be the same as a certified equipment, but again, this is just speaking.

645
02:57:26.615 --> 02:57:31.775
Off the top of my mind, there would have to be some serious discussion that we're going to making that sort of determination.

646
02:57:34.953 --> 02:57:35.973
Next slide please.

647
02:57:39.214 --> 02:57:59.434
So, again, my presentation section is pretty easy, because we've already gone over most of these items. Uh, this slide was intended, uh, was a question that was asked of the, and the idea was for us to again, determine which function elements are already present in commercially irrelevant. Buyers, which would be.

648
02:57:59.824 --> 02:58:20.584
It would have to be functions 3 and 8, and again, it's been pointed out what sort of challenges we would have with such an implementation. So I don't think it's really good use of our time to go over every single bullet point on here. But essentially what we pointed out was there might be a pathway in.

649
02:58:21.184 --> 02:58:41.734
Using functions, 3 functions 8 to implement and it would be we split it up into 2 different sections. 1 of them would be applicable to sites that only have generation. And then the 2nd piece will be sites that have generation and onset loads. And this mainly has to do with that ability.

650
02:58:41.764 --> 02:58:56.554
Juanita PCCC level, export exports and make a decision for the invited to reduce its output to maintain that scheduled, uh, export value. So, most of the challenges I've been pointed out already so I don't want to spend too much time on here unless somebody has a question.

651
02:59:01.955 --> 02:59:19.805
Um, Alex is John. I had 1 question about your, um, 1st, bullet. Um, uh, we do have certified PCs that can limit the net export at the, um, by modulating.

652
02:59:20.193 --> 02:59:35.163
Inverter output, um, up or down, or, uh, energy storage, charge discharge so that does exist, but we don't have a way to schedule it yet. You just have 1 fixed bag so just to clarify that.

653
02:59:35.523 --> 02:59:40.923
Good point, and I think this was actually pointing out that there's no ability to schedule it. So we can.

654
02:59:40.984 --> 02:59:57.154
Achieve level for an use case so I understood that we have a, but this bullet point was intended to show that limitation of a piece PCs, uh, implementing, uh, schedule scheduled export.

655
02:59:58.324 --> 03:00:02.104
And, uh, Alex, we do have a comment from Skype to check 1.

656
03:00:02.109 --> 03:00:23.254
Option on, that could be could be for us to proceed with PCs approach. Uh, but allow you for other options with agreement with the utility. And then this could be discussed further in the smarter working group to further define the relay or.

657
03:00:25.055 --> 03:00:38.315
That was just a comment, but, uh, I think it would be worthwhile to pursue in 1 of the smart inverted working group calls dedicated to, uh, this discussion but go ahead.

658
03:00:38.945 --> 03:00:40.235
Yeah, point taken.

659
03:00:40.265 --> 03:00:44.405
Can I interrupt there real quick? Just to what I meant is I'm not actually.

660
03:00:44.435 --> 03:01:04.355
Suggesting that we do that in this current 4 months that we have, but more that we can build into April, 21 the option for using other approaches. And then, as those sort of gain interest, there could be more discussion in this week versus trying to squeeze those in in this limited timeframe. We have.

661
03:01:06.063 --> 03:01:26.703
Yeah, Alex, this is Roger. Uh, I guess what I want to make sure that I think this is, I'm gonna say, there's been indications in this discussion, but I want to make sure we're in agreement. Are we are there? I'm going to say anybody that in this team that does not agree that we.

662
03:01:26.734 --> 03:01:33.394
Need a way for the PCs to be able to develop the schedules. Now, the, the work that.

663
03:01:33.394 --> 03:01:34.624
That Jenny is working.

664
03:01:36.724 --> 03:01:53.284
Yeah, I don't agree. I think that the, the scheduling piece and the PCs piece, it would be best if they were integrated into the same testing machine, but both elements can work independently.

665
03:01:57.634 --> 03:02:17.464
Yeah, this John, I, I would agree today we have a way to get a scheduled, uh, export limit to this to the using and we also have a way to, um, to limit that.

666
03:02:17.495 --> 03:02:38.375
At the BCC, 1 is with the gateway the other is with, um, the in the future we want to combine both functions into 1 and that would be supported by the PCs with the scheduling function that Brian.

667
03:02:38.824 --> 03:02:39.634
Everybody early.

668
03:02:45.125 --> 03:03:03.995
So, if that's the case, then I wonder whether we can, we don't need to skip through this. I mean, when you go through this slide, right? Cause you like, if that's not the case, then I think we really need to get into the details as to, like, okay, how are we gonna do it? Cause at this point, I'm not sure that at least myself.

669
03:03:04.024 --> 03:03:11.164
Not sure how that can actually happen besides using the, the BCS that the, the giant team are working on.

670
03:03:12.004 --> 03:03:25.144
Yeah, no, I agree. So, and I think, you know, this slide doesn't really say how we're going to do how we're going to use function data or function 3 to achieve.

671
03:03:25.504 --> 03:03:44.884
It's more pointing to the limitations of those functions right? And the challenges of those functions. Um, so, I mean, I could go guess I, so, Justin, are you saying that you, you think it's beneficial to pursue an option other than the.

672
03:03:45.575 --> 03:03:49.565
To implement to be clear.

673
03:03:50.075 --> 03:03:50.435
Yeah.

674
03:03:51.994 --> 03:04:04.834
I think the, the, the operating question we're trying to ask, and maybe if you go back a slide, we can read it off of what was in the resolution and, you know, what is the.

675
03:04:08.734 --> 03:04:28.594
you know which functions elements that are already present commercially available inverters to establish functionality so i think the presentation by gordon discuss the functional element around communication we've got john on the line and we think a better understanding 

676
03:04:29.165 --> 03:04:49.745
Throughout the group of the functional element, whereby a piece of equipment can be certified under the PCs to control the power output at the point of common coupling. So, I mean, we're, we're the functional elements that are required are to be able to schedule.

677
03:04:49.774 --> 03:04:54.934
To be able to limit maximum, active paramount um.

678
03:04:57.065 --> 03:05:10.535
It would seem that those functional elements are already present. I think we're getting wrapped a little bit around the axle in terms of whether the can implement them. I don't think the I.

679
03:05:10.924 --> 03:05:31.984
Have to implement them. I think the the integration work will will fall to the customer. The are not doing a command and control implementation and more of an germs framework in the discussion we've had around limited generation profile.

680
03:05:32.674 --> 03:05:53.194
Yeah, user determining the maximum safe limits for a particular time, and the actual work of implementing that would fall to the customer the question before us in terms of procedural basis and ability to, um, decide how.

681
03:05:53.199 --> 03:06:13.774
And when to move forward is whether those function elements are already present, commercially available in burgers. So, I mean, I don't think that having all of the elements within a single tested certification is anywhere in there. If the functional elements.

682
03:06:14.375 --> 03:06:27.995
1 of the functional limits is certified in 1 place and another of the functional wants is certified on another. Then we do have functional elements that are certified that are present and commercially available.

683
03:06:29.645 --> 03:06:35.495
Just, I guess we'll come in and I heard earlier the.

684
03:06:35.499 --> 03:06:56.644
The that the, um, the gateway device using function 3 and 8, while it was not fully certified to be able to respond to up with, from a BCC. I mean, he could receive scheduled, could deliver schedules, but you could not.

685
03:06:56.649 --> 03:06:58.714
Monitor PCCC.

686
03:07:01.295 --> 03:07:02.135
That is not sort of.

687
03:07:02.315 --> 03:07:03.245
That is now sort of.

688
03:07:06.244 --> 03:07:18.454
So, there's, there's a ton of different permutations that are allowable, whether that's direct communication, whether that's aggregate or mediated output, whether that's onsite gateway. Um.

689
03:07:21.034 --> 03:07:41.764
What they all share in common is that they've gotta be certified to be able to take the information payload from a 2035 server under and get it to the device that will ultimately control the output at the. So, I think trying to go down.

690
03:07:41.794 --> 03:07:47.374
Any 1 of the particular examples, you can always find a red herring, or an example of where it might not work.

691
03:07:48.214 --> 03:07:48.394
Right.

692
03:07:48.424 --> 03:08:02.344
But what all of these elements have in common to my understanding as the certified, that the information payload can get there. And the PCs is certified that the device can control the output.

693
03:08:03.965 --> 03:08:23.615
How those 2 devices are bridged, I don't think is in the regime of the utility, the utilities role in this to my understanding as to specify what a safe and to ensure that the interconnection agreement.

694
03:08:24.214 --> 03:08:25.234
It is not violated.

695
03:08:28.714 --> 03:08:29.044
I mean.

696
03:08:29.974 --> 03:08:30.214
This is.

697
03:08:30.214 --> 03:08:30.514
And.

698
03:08:31.864 --> 03:08:33.034
Kind of follow up.

699
03:08:33.034 --> 03:08:34.654
Follow up on your company.

700
03:08:34.744 --> 03:08:36.034
I, I think what I.

701
03:08:36.034 --> 03:08:36.904
I think I.

702
03:08:36.904 --> 03:08:42.664
It was really a presentation that shows that the function is 3 3.

703
03:08:43.624 --> 03:08:44.194
Bye.

704
03:08:44.284 --> 03:08:45.424
The, the gateway.

705
03:08:45.784 --> 03:08:46.504
Okay.

706
03:08:46.534 --> 03:08:47.404
In a scenario.

707
03:08:47.644 --> 03:08:48.274
Scenario.

708
03:08:49.684 --> 03:08:50.194
Gateway.

709
03:08:50.224 --> 03:08:50.794
Right.

710
03:08:52.414 --> 03:08:53.434
Directly.

711
03:08:53.434 --> 03:08:54.514
The smart verdict.

712
03:08:54.514 --> 03:08:54.994
Smart.

713
03:08:54.994 --> 03:08:56.794
Vertical perspective it's not.

714
03:08:56.974 --> 03:08:57.784
It's not.

715
03:08:57.784 --> 03:08:59.134
Scheduling a function is.

716
03:08:59.134 --> 03:09:01.114
There are there.

717
03:09:01.744 --> 03:09:02.854
So, I don't know what you mean.

718
03:09:02.974 --> 03:09:03.904
I don't know what you mean.

719
03:09:06.424 --> 03:09:07.564
Echo going on.

720
03:09:08.794 --> 03:09:12.304
Yeah, I think just the may have to mute. Yeah. Sorry.

721
03:09:12.814 --> 03:09:15.634
Sorry, I wasn't muted. Somebody else might not from me.

722
03:09:18.424 --> 03:09:38.794
Okay, uh, I don't think I hear an echo now. Maybe we're good. Anyhow. Um, that's just my 1st question and my 2nd, question is, do we all collectively agree that in order to implement, we wouldn't require a the functional element to be available, be the.

723
03:09:38.854 --> 03:09:45.424
The standard to be available and certification to be available. Do we have agreement on that point?

724
03:09:48.455 --> 03:09:49.985
They're both available today.

725
03:09:51.574 --> 03:09:52.444
That's properly.

726
03:09:52.834 --> 03:09:53.374
Properly.

727
03:09:53.734 --> 03:09:59.464
What John was just saying that they're still working on the scheduling portion. The standard is still.

728
03:09:59.464 --> 03:10:06.424
They're available within different certification regimes. They're working at integrating the 2 into 1.

729
03:10:10.445 --> 03:10:11.255
Joe, can you.

730
03:10:12.875 --> 03:10:19.445
Understanding, I'm not hearing the same from what Justin was describing versus what you described earlier.

731
03:10:21.515 --> 03:10:33.785
Yeah, um, I think part of the confusion here is and I, I apologize for making it even more confusing, but there are actually 3 things we're talking about. 1.

732
03:10:34.234 --> 03:10:36.694
Is a schedule.

733
03:10:38.404 --> 03:10:59.164
2 is being able to control the export, uh, level at the PCCC, and essentially make it load following. So that changes in load or changes in generation at the site wouldn't exceed the export limit. That's the 2nd function. The 3rd thing that we're talking about is a way.

734
03:10:59.555 --> 03:11:20.315
Of communicating, um, that schedule, using a standardized protocol, such as 2030.5. so we have a way to control the export at the today to we have a way to schedule it using 2030.

735
03:11:20.404 --> 03:11:39.874
And to send a scheduled export limit to the D, your, at where PCs would pick it up and then, um, uh, use that value as a static value until the gateway received another scheduled.

736
03:11:41.764 --> 03:12:02.614
Those 2 pieces exist. What, uh, what, uh, is, uh, kind of missing here is a way to send a recurring schedule using 2030 dot 5 and having a PCs run the recurring schedule. So, 20, 30, 35.

737
03:12:02.644 --> 03:12:23.734
Scheduling doesn't work that way the concept of recurrence is not there as Gordon says, it's based on number of seconds since whatever date and when that time arrives, then it will execute that scheduled event. But once the event is executed, you can't say, do the exact same thing tomorrow. You have to send it another.

738
03:12:23.769 --> 03:12:40.684
Event, so there's a concurrence of 3 different things that we're trying to get to happen. Uh, today we have 2 of the things 1 and and 1 in, in the where we're going with the.

739
03:12:40.744 --> 03:13:01.804
D, is to add a recurring schedule, um, so that you could say, you know, every day in February at this time, do that at this time, do something else that's the next level of functionality. The 3rd thing to tackle, which is not currently being contemplated in.

740
03:13:01.839 --> 03:13:22.594
He says is a way to communicate that schedule using a standardized protocol like, 2032.5, it would require a revision of 2035 to support the concept of recurrence. So that we have 22 of the 3 legs.

741
03:13:23.224 --> 03:13:26.734
Stool but we don't have all 3 legs.

742
03:13:28.804 --> 03:13:29.824
Hey, John made.

743
03:13:34.384 --> 03:13:37.114
Oh, yeah, so.

744
03:13:38.704 --> 03:13:59.554
I appreciate that insight from John, and I know that we're tasking the of determining which functional elements are already present. It may make sense for the and manufacturers to collaborate to describe what are already present, commercial available and murders because the, the.

745
03:13:59.704 --> 03:14:19.474
Work that jumps into people's minds on here is a gateway or an aggregator mediated communication because that that kind of provides a scheduling function and gives the commands to the, the devices that source the power of the smarter and groups of smart converters.

746
03:14:21.274 --> 03:14:41.554
Without, depending on having to send it out real time, um, it, it may make sense for the I used to work with manufacturers to understand whether that functionality is already commonly a part of the, the equipment that's out in the field.

747
03:14:48.964 --> 03:15:08.344
Justin, I think for that, and I think that was kind of the intent of having this slide because we had a lot of questions. And I think this discussion is bringing a little more clarity. So so, I don't know. I mean, maybe, you know, I don't want to I don't want to offer you up John, but it'd be good if.

748
03:15:08.764 --> 03:15:29.884
Maybe we can work together to figure out how better understanding as to, what is possible with the technology that's out there cause I'm, I'm hearing sometimes. Yes sometimes no. Uh, we're ready. We're not ready. So maybe be a good idea to take this topic, uh, out of the discussion and and today and maybe we'll coordinate.

749
03:15:29.915 --> 03:15:39.935
John in in another industry members that would want to join us and let's just figure out how to figure out what is available today and whether or not can be done.

750
03:15:41.735 --> 03:16:02.315
So, I'd be glad to to help, um, I'd also kind of volunteer Brian, uh, uh, because he hosts, uh, industry forum meeting on Fridays that is pretty well attended by all the manufacturers. So that could be another good forum to have that.

751
03:16:02.344 --> 03:16:02.914
Discussion.

752
03:16:06.065 --> 03:16:16.745
So, just to be, uh, can you hear me? Oh, so so I think I think we can move on to the next slide. But again, I.

753
03:16:18.064 --> 03:16:38.164
This slide is pointing to the challenges and, you know, to Roger point, we've learned quite a bit from this discussion. Today. The question I have is what's the end goal if we explore these other options? And if they all have to, like, John, as described, it all comes down to being able to tie back to the PCs.

754
03:16:38.979 --> 03:17:00.124
Pcs standard, as far as scheduling is being developed, as we speak, um, John mentioned, maybe next quarter might be valuable. So, is the intent here to offer another pathway for implementing with, you know, functions 38, uh, certified equipment plus a.

755
03:17:00.605 --> 03:17:20.825
Or are we trying to see if we can get ahead of the standards and use something that's already available? Cause it doesn't sound like what John's describing is available today. So, is the is the idea to use a, a process to come up with an alternative to.

756
03:17:21.364 --> 03:17:31.984
You're already existing PCs with the new schedule function approved, or to come up with something that can be used. In the meantime as this PCs standard is being developed.

757
03:17:35.495 --> 03:17:52.775
Alex, I wouldn't, I don't think John was saying that it's not available today and I think there was a discussion that he just had in terms of having Brian speak to his manufacturers to find out whether it's actually available in equivalent that you can buy today.

758
03:17:53.405 --> 03:17:54.095
I believe.

759
03:17:54.095 --> 03:17:55.595
Resolution and.

760
03:17:57.064 --> 03:18:02.824
So, the resolution requested the, I use to find out whether it was or not. So I think we're, we're in that process.

761
03:18:05.554 --> 03:18:25.714
Describing was that for this chair we have 2 legs and Jones and others are actively working on making that the last leg available for those 2 work in live Alice comment. I'm I'm just wondering, like, for oh, you are we still trying to verify if this is actually missing or.

762
03:18:26.465 --> 03:18:32.435
Are we trying to fast track the creation of, like, 3 or are we trying to, like, create an artificial leg and make it work?

763
03:18:36.095 --> 03:18:50.525
Thanks tiana. Maybe maybe John should clarify. I believe Justin, to your point, he did say that what is not currently currently available is the ability to send a schedule to a using 2030 dot 5 join. Is that a correct statement?

764
03:18:56.795 --> 03:19:14.015
Where, to use a scheduled, uh, um, to transmit a schedule to a, which would then go into the PCs. And that would be the limit. What isn't available today.

765
03:19:14.079 --> 03:19:34.444
Is a way to load a, um, recurring schedule into the, and have it just automatically, you know, do the same thing. So, if you, if you were to say, well, I have a schedule with 24 values, uh, for February 1st.

766
03:19:35.254 --> 03:19:55.654
You would need to then send another 24 values on February 2nd, and another 24 values on, on, uh, you know, the 3rd and so on. So what what, what doesn't exist as a way to transmit? Because she said remember is limited to 24 values today.

767
03:19:56.525 --> 03:20:17.495
That doesn't mean, it couldn't be a higher number of of scheduled events that are supported, but you only get 24. so if you were to say, I want a, our, you know, a daily schedule, 24 values for each day under. You'd have to transmit that same schedule. Every day, and then the PCs could follow it today.

768
03:20:20.704 --> 03:20:38.674
That maybe Gordon can clarify I think that's the extent to which it's tested, but manufacturers may have a greater number of values within their, within their system. And I think the, to the 3rd leg discussion, what we're talking about is whether it can do.

769
03:20:38.705 --> 03:20:44.615
Autonomous autonomously not, and as long as there's a network connection, it can do it. Um.

770
03:20:46.024 --> 03:21:06.874
Correct and the, the, so the, the autonomy where you send the schedule once, and the says great, I've got it. I'll keep doing the same thing over and over and over again until you tell me to do something different. That's the piece that's missing. So, within the our approach.

771
03:21:06.905 --> 03:21:28.025
To say we're going to not define how the schedule gets loaded into the because 2030 dot py doesn't support a recurring autonomous schedule. So we just said, we're gonna say it magically appeared in there, um, ideal you know, it will probably.

772
03:21:28.054 --> 03:21:49.174
Come from the installer and the manufacturers having a tool to load a schedule into the deal. But in the future, I would anticipate a revision of 2030.5 and perhaps the MP 3, and maybe 547 to support the concept of a.

773
03:21:49.180 --> 03:21:57.005
Autonomous recurring schedule, so it's not just within the URL.

774
03:21:57.725 --> 03:22:17.255
If you want to define the utilities will transmit it electronically to the, that the will say, yes, I have it. And and then start running it. That's kind of where that's the 3rd leg of the stool that's missing. So we have it in. We.

775
03:22:17.915 --> 03:22:18.665
Transmit it.

776
03:22:18.904 --> 03:22:19.354
Right now.

777
03:22:22.474 --> 03:22:42.424
I would just note that when PG E is talking about the, the numbers of the inverters that were getting certified to communications, the direct communication between whatever the 2030.5 head was.

778
03:22:42.785 --> 03:23:01.835
Straight to the inverter is is rare. The vast majority of of the folks are getting certified with some device in the middle that are that is mediating the communication that device may also serve as scheduling function. We just don't know not that we're trying to find out.

779
03:23:03.515 --> 03:23:03.815
Yeah.

780
03:23:04.175 --> 03:23:25.055
I do want to just add and I put it in the chat, um, using the Mesa, uh, NEC, uh, capabilities, or naming conventions has all of that scheduling capability. It's about to become I triple.

781
03:23:25.083 --> 03:23:37.743
115.2, so it's about to become an standard, uh, granted, it's not 2030.5, but for the larger.

782
03:23:38.374 --> 03:23:49.324
Uh, I think to the PCs is a viable option and is being used in a number of cases.

783
03:23:56.855 --> 03:24:11.945
All right, thank you. So, I think, uh, to Rogers point, we probably need to get the and, uh, manufacturers on the same page, probably, uh, and add us to have a discussion of.

784
03:24:13.024 --> 03:24:27.154
How we can make this function made function 3+uh, certified equipment plus the commercially available, uh, BCS today implement. I think that's the task.

785
03:24:28.834 --> 03:24:34.114
Okay, so that sounds like an action item. I know. Uh, John, you volunteer, Brian, but.

786
03:24:34.174 --> 03:24:37.624
Did not hear Brian, uh, speak up.

787
03:24:41.854 --> 03:24:42.334
And.

788
03:24:42.334 --> 03:24:43.384
Need to take that back.

789
03:24:45.485 --> 03:24:55.385
The piggy group, I'm not entirely clear on what the direction is, but, yeah, if we can create an action item to try and address within the next few weeks, be happy.

790
03:24:56.255 --> 03:24:56.825
Discussed it.

791
03:24:58.294 --> 03:25:00.784
Can you tell us what the acronym is? Because it's a cool 1.

792
03:25:02.615 --> 03:25:05.645
The forum inverter grid, integration issues.

793
03:25:09.094 --> 03:25:28.954
And, uh, 1 request, uh, who will be taking point in setting up these meetings uh, basically, uh, energy division, Justin and myself. And, uh, possibly Frank, uh, may, uh, want to be involved in, in.

794
03:25:29.194 --> 03:25:35.914
Who from the utility will be taking pointing coordinating with John and Brian lyric and anybody else that's interested.

795
03:25:39.214 --> 03:25:41.134
I can take that. I shouldn't say this is Roger.

796
03:25:41.584 --> 03:25:48.184
Okay, Roger, thank you. Make sure you include Justin myself and our new team member. Uh, Frank Calvin.

797
03:25:49.294 --> 03:25:53.884
Yeah, if you can send me if you can send me those email address to whom you want to be added, that'd be great.

798
03:25:54.544 --> 03:25:55.684
Okay, we'll do.

799
03:25:59.795 --> 03:26:07.835
So, what did you agree that, in light of, uh, discussion today and the additional information that this slide would probably need to be revised anyway as far as, like.

800
03:26:08.195 --> 03:26:18.455
That's Ryan and ultimately, I think that was our intent. I mean, I think the utilities, we always thought that we will have a really good conversation on these lights. So that was achieved.

801
03:26:18.514 --> 03:26:22.984
Yeah, I think we'll, we'll come back once we have the output of that that are the working group.

802
03:26:24.154 --> 03:26:39.574
And then the, the last point on this slide, I use Labs do not provide certification services for the year was the direct response to a comment that was provided by Jose I think he had mentioned from the CPC. I don't I'm not sure if you.

803
03:26:39.639 --> 03:26:58.444
Say that at the comment, but it had to do with why why don't we satisfy or test equipment in our Labs. Right? So, I think this point was just trying to get send. We're trying to make a point that we don't actually satisfied the, our equipment in our respective lab. So.

804
03:27:00.484 --> 03:27:00.784
I was.

805
03:27:00.814 --> 03:27:06.214
Probably guilty on that 1 and my intent was more of the.

806
03:27:06.485 --> 03:27:13.985
Point out that the have the means at their disposal to understand the safety and the functionality of equipment not to certified.

807
03:27:17.524 --> 03:27:18.334
Okay, understood.

808
03:27:20.674 --> 03:27:22.264
Are there any other questions on this slide?

809
03:27:28.954 --> 03:27:30.754
If not, we can move on to the next slide.

810
03:27:37.834 --> 03:27:38.704
Next slide please.

811
03:27:41.224 --> 03:27:43.864
Restaurant from PG E will go over this slide.

812
03:27:46.445 --> 03:27:48.125
Yes, hi, this. Can you hear me.

813
03:27:52.474 --> 03:27:53.044
Yes.

814
03:27:53.104 --> 03:28:11.284
Okay, great. Um, so there was a question around discussing terms project, um, and findings and how it affects the discuss, how that information will be leveraged. And if not, why not and what for the research is needed. So, uh, kind of the high level.

815
03:28:11.314 --> 03:28:32.434
Points here, you know, our terms project epic 303 we weren't able to test the full profile. Um, I think we've discussed the challenges we had, and just implementing the basic telemetry functions for 23.5 and getting that rolled out the door. That kind of ate up. Most of that.

816
03:28:32.464 --> 03:28:36.094
Projects time and budget.

817
03:28:37.055 --> 03:28:57.815
But we did test some limited control functionality, um, but not to the full extent of trying to do an profile. So, what we did prove out was that we could implement, uh, a single constraint fire communications, but not a full profile. So, um, like Gordon described.

818
03:28:57.843 --> 03:29:18.963
Said you set, like, a start time and a duration so we were able to set a start time and a duration for, um, basically Ahmad fixed watt, which is actually mapped to the Max what function in that inverter and show that that worked. So, again, this is just a single.

819
03:29:19.175 --> 03:29:40.115
Scheduled constant, um, Max, what type schedule so that was able to work, but, you know, our certified server um, even though it certified in the user interface for us, didn't have a way to schedule more.

820
03:29:40.119 --> 03:30:01.264
More than 1 schedule at a time. So, like we talked about today, we would have to be able to schedule basically, 24 different events to be able to implement some type of profile. Um, so we're not able to do that in that setup with the current vendor based on the.

821
03:30:01.294 --> 03:30:12.724
Face, even though it did pass, sees it testing, um, maybe I'll stop there if there's any questions on the 1st part.

822
03:30:22.054 --> 03:30:27.064
Okay, so, in terms of further research needed, um.

823
03:30:29.495 --> 03:30:44.585
You know, there's more testing needed to confirm or develop this methods to schedule multiple limits if not using a PCs certification. I think you've already heard that, you know, our preference would be PCs certification but if, you know, there's questions about not using the.

824
03:31:05.495 --> 03:31:25.865
Um, versus our communicating type, uh, type device, um, we're also mentioning that, you know, it should probably done be done for a specific inverter and Gateway combination. Um, just because of kind of the issues we've seen.

825
03:31:26.284 --> 03:31:47.014
Of, um, kind of interoperability, so just making sure that whatever the customer is applying for, that that kind of setup is actually tested if they're not using, like, a PTs certificate. And then also, I think, like, we've talked about if we're not if there's.

826
03:31:47.134 --> 03:31:56.854
Other loads at the site, and we need to do something at the in terms of, um, curtailing the load or cortona degeneration. You know.

827
03:31:56.914 --> 03:32:18.034
This would also need to be tested, um, specifically for that set up. If we're not using a PCs. Uh, I think the overall thought here is, you know, is kind of the way forward, but if, if that's not being done, you'd have to do these other types of tests to be able to either do something by.

828
03:32:18.064 --> 03:32:25.414
Mutual agreement, like, was discussed before or this other way for a utility to verify that this is working properly.

829
03:32:26.884 --> 03:32:34.294
But, like we talked about earlier, I think we think the most efficient way forward is is using PCs and going through that process.

830
03:32:39.364 --> 03:32:41.194
Any any questions.

831
03:32:59.194 --> 03:33:01.744
Okay um, Alex, I'll hand it back to you then.

832
03:33:02.794 --> 03:33:04.774
Okay, thank you. Uh, next slide please.

833
03:33:08.134 --> 03:33:26.524
So, for this slide, I use attempted to go over the implementation process. Uh, so this is for projects. The question is, uh, I, you shall also establish a mechanism for validating proposed profiles if the implementation of this mechanism is not feasible.

834
03:33:27.664 --> 03:33:48.274
You shall clearly articulate the reasons. So step number 1, the customer will submit the profile using an agreed upon template that I use will show what the proposal is in slides that are coming up. But at some point, we'll.

835
03:33:48.304 --> 03:34:07.654
Have an agreement on a template that we'll use. And the idea is that the customers will be able to get this template either by downloading it from, you know, the, or from the application portal or somewhere but it will be. They'll, they'll have access to it. They'll fill in their profile and then they'll submit that to the.

836
03:34:09.605 --> 03:34:30.305
Will verify that the profile that the customer has submitted, uh, essentially meets is using the most updated results if it's not, we'll be able to update the IC results. Uh, this is allowed and the working group 2 and 3 once we.

837
03:34:30.633 --> 03:34:51.723
Have the most up to date I see. Uh, values will verify that the customer profile is below 90% of the profile. And if so then the customer can prove it can proceed to the connection using if the customer is not, uh, the customer.

838
03:34:51.754 --> 03:35:12.874
Profiles not compliant, meaning that it's not below the 90% of the ACA profile then we will give a customer an ability to rectify that issue. And if they do not, and I will proceed with the application, assuming that it's using, rather than use.

839
03:35:12.904 --> 03:35:13.774
Being a profile.

840
03:35:17.374 --> 03:35:18.274
Any questions.

841
03:35:22.415 --> 03:35:40.775
I have a question, Alex, um, going back to my earlier comments or question, um, given the use of now in the screening process. A project can, as we discussed earlier, opt to use instead of the 15% limit on the screen.

842
03:35:41.733 --> 03:36:02.223
Traditionally, if a project failed fast track because of it would then be given an option to go to something a review and on a screen N, there's a much broader or flexible analysis done by the utility. And in many cases, even if you fail screen and you can still pass screen and under the more.

843
03:36:02.229 --> 03:36:09.124
Approach, can you explain how the use of the limit has affected that process if at all.

844
03:36:10.804 --> 03:36:31.834
So so, so today there's 3 ways that projects can be analyzed in the screen name. 1st 1 is using a typical PV profile. 2nd 1 is using which with a single value using the or and the operation of flexibility. I see a value.

845
03:36:31.840 --> 03:36:52.985
90% of that number or 90% of, uh, static grid. And if I see is not available, then the customer would default to the 15 Central. So if you're using 15%, it will follow the same process as before if is available. And the customer fails screen am using.

846
03:36:53.014 --> 03:37:13.834
So, in the example, where they're using a single value for, or if if the file screen name, it will then proceed to supplemental review in supplemental review under screening. There's a specific criteria that we would follow. So, if the project I believe is not above 100 of then you can still pass.

847
03:37:15.514 --> 03:37:26.854
We would still do a lot for if it's above 100 or up to 100. I forget the exact wording but this, you know, if they these, uh, uh, just above 90%, but less than 100%.

848
03:37:29.765 --> 03:37:50.795
Established criteria in the terror on how screen, and will be analyzed if the project is using and I don't know that off the top of my head, but there is a process that you would follow what's not in there is projects because obviously we have not developed cherry language that apply to projects, but my guess is.

849
03:37:50.799 --> 03:37:58.234
That you probably follow the same process for projects that are using or screen M analysis.

850
03:37:59.434 --> 03:38:11.824
Thanks for that. And I'll make a comment then we can go offline on this. Um, because of course fast track is historical used not only for projects, not requiring upgrades. It does allow some upgrades.

851
03:38:12.154 --> 03:38:33.094
So, typically, when you go through the study process, even when it's fast tracked, you get back the results, you're given the, uh, cost breakdown to what it would cost to interconnect and includes some upgrades. And it sounds like what you're saying here is that is being used in a way where is preventing any project that uses the IC limit to get through fast track if any upgrades are needed is that correct? Or is that not.

852
03:38:33.125 --> 03:38:33.425
Saying.

853
03:38:34.145 --> 03:38:54.155
Uh, don't believe that's what I'm saying. So, if you, if a project uses and goes to is the project applies to fast track then we would use whatever screens were studied as part of would be applicable. The screens that are not would not be applicable. So, if any other screen, if they pass screen, em, they fail.

854
03:38:54.249 --> 03:39:15.394
Any other screen that is not part of voicea. They may still need to go through, like, a supplemental review, but if they pass all the screens on the screen, they fail is the screen. Em, you could go to supplemental review. And again, I don't have the language in front of me, but there's a way to analyze screen and specifically for projects that are with the.

855
03:39:15.485 --> 03:39:18.215
100% of the.

856
03:39:18.905 --> 03:39:39.365
Values, but you can still provide mitigations even at the initial review level, right? If you can determine because what happens is if you look at the tariff, you only go to supplemental review if you cannot determine what the mitigations are. Once you determine, you can either connect a project for fast track if it's a simplified interconnection or if you can determine what.

857
03:39:39.394 --> 03:39:40.384
The mitigations are.

858
03:39:43.775 --> 03:39:45.725
Yeah, I'll follow up with you offline on that. Thank you.

859
03:39:46.715 --> 03:39:50.255
Yeah, this feel free to jump in with the other items. If you have anything to add.

860
03:40:03.124 --> 03:40:04.984
Okay, any other questions.

861
03:40:14.554 --> 03:40:18.964
And time I'll find the language from the Terry from pasted in the chat, um, for screen.

862
03:40:19.744 --> 03:40:20.194
Thank you.

863
03:40:23.045 --> 03:40:26.645
Okay, if there's no other questions, this concludes my portion of the presentation. Thank you.

864
03:40:34.235 --> 03:40:49.865
All right thanks, Alex. Uh, this is Michael bring in from. I believe I'm up next if we can advance the slide. Please and while we're doing that, uh, since I am new to this form and likely to many on this group, just want to take a minute to introduce myself again. This is Michael. I'm with.

865
03:40:50.704 --> 03:41:10.984
We recently went through a reorganization that has placed me as a senior engineering manager of a newly formed team. It's called distribution policy and implementation. So, once we're able to build out our staffing and transition work, my team, um, is going to be involved in. So this rule 21 proceeding, micro grid IDR successor.

866
03:41:11.019 --> 03:41:22.624
And demand, flexibility proceedings, um, and perhaps others, um, so looking forward to the conversation here and in working with many of you in this. So, with that, I'll jump into topic f.

867
03:41:26.404 --> 03:41:46.264
If you could have, please, thank you. So, this slide is just an 85,230 to kind of set the stage for what we're addressing in the following slides. Um, so key kind of takeaways from this is that the decision did not specify that the monthly profile was limited to only 1 value. However, the bolded.

868
03:41:46.269 --> 03:42:07.414
Uh, you know, states that the adopted 288 hour format includes 24 values for each of the 12 months of the year essentially, this amounts to customers submitting the same value 24 times a month on a monthly basis for a year when 1 value would suffice the IO user directed to discuss this 208 hour format, which we will in subsequent slides and how it may allow for more than.

869
03:42:07.420 --> 03:42:28.535
1 value per month, there is an expectation that since 4 years have passed since the working group 2 report was filed that the would have more information and experience available for how to allow this. And we are directed to discuss our learnings and best practices in these workshops and propose how we could potentially implement more than 1 value per month.

870
03:42:30.243 --> 03:42:30.873
Excellent.

871
03:42:34.744 --> 03:42:53.944
So, this is really kind of a tee up for what we're gonna cover, but in summary, the position is to maintain that we will implement in a way that was consistent with the decision. The bolded statement that we, we just covered on the last slide. And that is the adopted 208 hour format includes 24 values per month for each 12 months.

872
03:42:53.949 --> 03:42:59.074
That's essentially the same value 24 times a month on a monthly basis to cover the year.

873
03:43:01.744 --> 03:43:19.624
Discuss why we feel this is appropriate at this time talk about necessary elements needed to allow more than 1 unique value per month. And then we will present, um, on some data analysis that we've completed in response to the discussion at the smart, uh, recent smarter working group meeting next slide.

874
03:43:24.124 --> 03:43:41.884
All right, so to level set, uh, the 1st bullet is really just to re, emphasize that the, uh, have responsibility for and commitment to safety and reliability of our system. Um, safety expanded to include our customers and our personnel and that the.

875
03:43:41.889 --> 03:44:03.034
The advent of a limited generation profile interconnection option does not change that commitment and responsibility. There was some, uh, I perceived some confusion on what exactly. Goes into the generation. So, the 2nd bullet here clarifies that the generation uses a circuit load profile, um, at least in the case of.

876
03:44:03.039 --> 03:44:24.184
E, that's based on 12 months of historical circuit loading data and when the is performed, it utilizes the topology of the circuit at the time that those calculations are performed. So that that topology could change, um, in the next day in the next week. Uh, which would then per process, trigger the circuit to be refreshed for.

877
03:44:24.189 --> 03:44:45.334
The ca, results, the key takeaway that I want to emphasize on bullet 2. here is something I hope we can all agree on here. Is that these historical circuit load profiles that are fed into are not accurate predictors of what? The real time grid conditions will be at a granular level 100% of the time and to.

878
03:44:45.365 --> 03:45:06.455
By what I mean, by that the hourly loading that was used for just assume it was performed today the hourly loading that was observed on January 15th at 30 PM 2023 is not, or should not be expected to be 100% accurate. The circuit loading that's going to be observed on the same date in the following year.

879
03:45:06.514 --> 03:45:27.604
For the years that follow, so, where the risk kind of emerges is, if that real time circuit loaded loading during a given month, an hour is less than the circuit loading that was used for that month, an hour, um, when calculating the static grid IC values when the.

880
03:45:27.664 --> 03:45:48.394
The is interconnecting the values that the is basing the proposed schedule on. There's an increase likelihood that the system could experience voltage or thermal criteria violations. Um, and the bigger the difference. So, the bigger the difference, uh, between the real time circuit loading that's experienced once the circuit, once the is connected to the system.

881
03:45:48.814 --> 03:46:09.934
And the, when compared to the circuit loading that was used to produce the values on which the was based on, um, they'll higher the likelihood that you're gonna see an unexpected criteria violation occur. Uh, there was some discussion in the smart order working group about, you know, Ken circuit load actually declined, does it actually declined.

882
03:46:09.964 --> 03:46:30.664
Year over year, um, it does, it candidate does and the analysis that we've completed demonstrates that that, in in many cases that the load can go down, um, adding nodal level and again, remembering that I see is performed at the 3 phase circuit note here. So, some examples of that, I mean, there's the gradual lower impact, you know.

883
03:46:31.235 --> 03:46:52.235
Change which could be adoption of more energy, efficient appliances. There's the sudden and severe impact of say, a business changing or completely ceasing operation. So, a manufacturing facility that, uh, shuts down and and vacated a building. And maybe that building turns into a warehouse. It doesn't use nearly as much energy, um, or just real time customer operations.

884
03:46:52.264 --> 03:47:12.754
So, um, a piece of equipment for a large commercial customer goes down, and they need to do some emergency maintenance until they can bring it back online. So those are just some examples of changes that could occur on a circuit that result in the real time circuit loading, being less than the load that was used to compute the static grid values.

885
03:47:13.714 --> 03:47:34.534
And the reason that's important, the low decreasing is because generally, speaking, the lowest static grid value that occurs in each month is driven by the lowest circuit circuit loading for each month. So, if you look at the circular profile that you feed into, I would say there's a high problem that the lowest.

886
03:47:34.564 --> 03:47:55.654
Ics value is going to occur at the same time that the lowest circuit load occurs. So, um, you know, the, the takeaway here as it relates to 12 versus 208 profiles for, is that, you know, the probability of the real time circuit loading.

887
03:47:55.714 --> 03:48:15.514
Falling below the historic lowest circuit loading value for each month is, we believe significantly less than the real time circuit loading, being below the historic lowest circuit loading value for 24 hours each month. So that's where the risk, uh, kind of comes from here and, uh, question.

888
03:48:16.024 --> 03:48:16.684
Yes.

889
03:48:16.840 --> 03:48:37.985
Jose energy division, so I know the decision adopted a 10%, but back in 920, no parties had really done an analysis. Like it's been presented today and in your case will be presented later on.

890
03:48:37.989 --> 03:48:59.104
So, my question is, would a higher buffer. Would that alleviate any of the problems? Because now we're talking about whether a higher buffer, instead of just 1015 or 20% would that make things.

891
03:48:59.164 --> 03:49:06.934
Better, and, you know, would it make utilization of the capacity, you know, more viable.

892
03:49:09.184 --> 03:49:11.194
Yeah, totally sending me such analysis.

893
03:49:12.004 --> 03:49:30.154
Yeah, thanks for that that question, Jose so at least on side, we haven't done a sensitivity analysis around what is the increased risk, or likelihood of an unexpected criteria violation based on varying, uh, buffers. The only analysis we've done is assuming the 10%, but in theory, I would agree that the larger.

894
03:49:30.185 --> 03:49:38.825
To the buffer, um, the lower the likelihood of experience, a, an unexpected criteria violation, and invite the other I'll use to chime in if they have thoughts on this as well.

895
03:49:46.595 --> 03:49:47.855
I see a question from Justin.

896
03:49:51.725 --> 03:50:03.845
Yeah, the benefit of getting the slides early, so looked ahead and it sounds like each of the use analysis is looking at a single randomly selected circuit. Is that correct?

897
03:50:04.475 --> 03:50:05.525
Yeah, so that's the case.

898
03:50:05.525 --> 03:50:07.055
For that's the case for.

899
03:50:14.854 --> 03:50:15.544
This is the same.

900
03:50:15.544 --> 03:50:16.714
It's difficult.

901
03:50:19.925 --> 03:50:22.085
Pg E, the as well.

902
03:50:22.385 --> 03:50:23.045
Yep.

903
03:50:24.395 --> 03:50:26.585
Right. So we looked at 1 circuit.

904
03:50:29.375 --> 03:50:30.425
We looked at 1.

905
03:50:30.635 --> 03:50:37.385
1 note on 1 node on 1 circuit we look at 1 note on 1 circuit.

906
03:50:39.694 --> 03:50:43.444
I would assert that maybe that's not enough to call.

907
03:50:44.914 --> 03:50:57.304
To make statements, or about the probabilities being significantly less. I mean, probability is a very specific word in terms of art that involves statistics.

908
03:51:00.845 --> 03:51:01.565
Um.

909
03:51:02.765 --> 03:51:05.585
Ronnie please.

910
03:51:05.615 --> 03:51:06.995
Yeah, we actually have a.

911
03:51:07.025 --> 03:51:08.645
We actually have a slide.

912
03:51:08.795 --> 03:51:11.705
Which shows a.

913
03:51:12.095 --> 03:51:12.605
Why.

914
03:51:12.635 --> 03:51:21.545
This is beyond the 1 circuit that we presented as an example, which shows, uh, I think to, to assess point with regards to.

915
03:51:21.574 --> 03:51:41.254
Circuits across the, the, uh, the entire territory that, uh, have a had a, uh, a circuit decrease of 10% or more. So so we can touch on that. Once we get to that slide, but just wanted to, uh, just wanted to point that out.

916
03:51:43.024 --> 03:52:00.754
Right. Did you correlate that 10% reduction with the actual timeframe in which that reduction happened to establish that that creates a higher probability that going with the more granular profile would result in an overload condition.

917
03:52:08.255 --> 03:52:09.515
Ronnie, I think you're muted.

918
03:52:15.993 --> 03:52:33.273
Yeah, we actually have an example that shows that correlation to 288 versus the, uh, the 12 values, but it actually didn't make it to this slide because we had a, a, a timeframe that we needed to submit the, uh, uh, the, the slides to you. So.

919
03:52:33.635 --> 03:52:38.885
Uh, but we do have and, uh, be happy to, uh, to show the, uh, the team here.

920
03:52:39.305 --> 03:52:39.635
Yeah.

921
03:52:39.695 --> 03:52:40.265
They have time.

922
03:52:40.325 --> 03:52:54.575
So, hold any further comment that I've got until you guys have gone through all of your your folks have gone through all of your slides. But I would caution you that you are on the record right now and that. You should be careful in your language that the.

923
03:52:54.609 --> 03:53:07.324
Literal interpretation of your language holds up to scrutiny. If you're talking about probabilities. I would hope that you would have some kind of probabilistic analysis beside that. So.

924
03:53:10.534 --> 03:53:15.754
Understood Thank you, Justin and thank you. Ronnie. All right. So that was.

925
03:53:15.784 --> 03:53:24.964
Much the wrap on this slide we can go to the next slide. Please. And I think actually with this 1, I'm going to pass it over to, you.

926
03:53:26.014 --> 03:53:27.034
Yeah, thanks, Michael.

927
03:53:32.584 --> 03:53:51.004
Uh, sorry about this, uh, head situation I promise I do not look like this in real life. Uh, so we put together the structure of the slide to meet requirements from the 52 sorry resolution, but also intended.

928
03:53:51.034 --> 03:54:12.124
Address from the question that we've received finance division 1 question we received was that we had a slide talking about some of the challenges that we have for implementing more granularity in the schedule. We talked about the equipment risks when we implement more granular schedule. So we hear by just kind of providing.

929
03:54:12.215 --> 03:54:20.675
More detailed by what we meant in that description. So, do you have a heads up on this? Do you have a question? Where was that from earlier?

930
03:54:21.335 --> 03:54:21.665
Yeah.

931
03:54:21.905 --> 03:54:22.265
All right.

932
03:54:23.494 --> 03:54:44.044
Gotcha. All right so, um, just to summarize as we kind of talked about a lot during today's meeting, uh, PCs I received multiple value profiles, utilize, functioning 3 and 8 in combination also in conjunction with the scheduling ability. So far hasn't been deployed in the field. So, we were asked about.

933
03:54:44.645 --> 03:55:05.735
The working group to report was from a few years ago, why don't we have more knowledge and experience with that? But the reality is that we just do not have the operational experience with such use case in the field on the reliability of the equipment of this type of use case is unknown to us. And the risks that, when you consider design the scenario that, uh.

934
03:55:05.739 --> 03:55:26.884
He asked fields to correctly implement this profile, uh, for our distribution system operation group. They'll have to identify address any resulting issue that's caused by that. And some of the emergency measures we have to take will have their own reliability risk and may not be sustainable for a long period of time. It can be costly and should be.

935
03:55:26.914 --> 03:55:43.714
Way to when possible for example, if we have to turn off the circuit, you know, have to ask the generators, including those re, customer on the line to go completely off in order for us to investigate what's happening. And what caused the issue all that, you know, the risk that we do not want to be.

936
03:55:45.245 --> 03:56:06.365
Go through, if we don't have to and going from Intel values to 288 values, there's more points. There's just more likelihood for that to happen. And to the extent that emerges measure may be necessary. So, just to clarify what we meant by the PCs equipment failure, and why we believe 288, there's some more value of that happening.

937
03:56:07.954 --> 03:56:08.914
Any question.

938
03:56:10.745 --> 03:56:14.075
Oh, I see a hands up from Tim. Go ahead.

939
03:56:14.345 --> 03:56:31.385
Yeah, hi Tam on. Um, so looking at your your comment that gone from 12 values at 28 values, amplifies the possibility that emergency measures are required. Um, how, how do we get more clarity on what that means in terms of.

940
03:56:32.434 --> 03:56:52.744
You know, cost and time frames and it's more generally how do we get from from here to the point where if the commission and parties agree they're going to 28 values makes sense. How do we get enough information from and other utilities to make that determination? And what's the timeframe for doing that?

941
03:56:53.795 --> 03:56:57.995
Yeah, we actually have a slide on that I believe in maybe the next slide.

942
03:56:58.175 --> 03:56:58.655
Okay.

943
03:56:58.895 --> 03:57:01.415
Yeah, if we want to just want to talk about it, when we get there.

944
03:57:04.234 --> 03:57:06.664
Uh, is there, Justin can you.

945
03:57:08.764 --> 03:57:23.914
I do, um, so in this scenario, we're talking about where the PCs fails to correctly implemented, designated profile is this due to a network failure or? I guess I'm trying to understand what the.

946
03:57:23.945 --> 03:57:29.075
Scenario we're talking about here that we're asserting that there is an amplification of possibility resulting from.

947
03:57:30.545 --> 03:57:31.055
Uh.

948
03:57:35.224 --> 03:57:54.274
Because of the power system control system, right? It's a control failure for most likely, because we're not anticipating that we're requiring a network in order to implement at this point. Right? It's just a localized control equipment. That's controlling folders. There's obviously interaction between the PCs and inverters. So, reliability of that.

949
03:57:55.054 --> 03:58:15.514
Fours is also in question here, but just to give you an example, um, you know, a lot of times, even a really can fail so that has happened. Right that's a very robust piece of physical equipment uh, that could happen and not follow the, you know, really profile that has been inputted into the relay. So.

950
03:58:17.045 --> 03:58:23.225
I don't know if that answers your question, but that's kind of 1 example of what we consider that could be possible happening with a physical equipment.

951
03:58:26.044 --> 03:58:33.394
I'm just trying to understand how you go from that scenario to an assertion that the amp, there's an amplified.

952
03:58:36.843 --> 03:58:46.083
I guess possible I, I don't know how possibilities getting amplified new probabilities. I don't I guess I'm just not following what you're trying to say.

953
03:58:47.884 --> 03:59:08.254
I mean, maybe like, think of a random like analogy, and, uh, it may not be the best 1, right? If you're if you're, like, asking a human to, like, retail numbers, versus you're asking a human to recite 280 numbers, it's more likelihood for someone to make a mistake. It's the same thing when it comes to physical equipment, right? You're.

954
03:59:08.284 --> 03:59:26.914
Putting more schedules and more settings into equipment, expecting the equipment you follow that the likelihood of this thing happening is not following the schedule can happen. I I don't know. Like, I also don't think that's a insertion by utility is just reality of how the equipment works.

955
03:59:32.285 --> 03:59:33.995
This is sky. Can I jump in?

956
03:59:35.049 --> 03:59:35.529
Course.

957
03:59:35.734 --> 03:59:36.754
Yeah, so.

958
03:59:37.984 --> 03:59:58.984
I I think there are a couple of things that and maybe just as justin's getting to live a little bit. Uh, I think, you know, we need to get through you guys as rest the presentation, which, I think helps play out what you guys are concerned about better than these early slides do. But the, um, we, you know, we've gone around about this issue with like, not trusting, sort of, by.

959
03:59:59.044 --> 04:00:20.164
Prices for many years now, and in the initial PCs conversations we had as well. I think there are 2 things to remember here. 1 is, is that if you did a 12 month profile only, if it failed at any point, it could still be. It doesn't necessarily mean if, if it's the same device we're talking about doing the 12 months as as.

960
04:00:20.170 --> 04:00:40.835
The 24 hour, +12 months profile, I'm not sure that it actually increases or is more dangerous to do the to mitigate profile because the 12 month profiles are setting the same value every day. And if it fails, you're still exposed to that same risk. Every day of that month necessarily, depending on how it.

961
04:00:42.003 --> 04:01:02.463
That said separately, I think the other, I think that we need to recognize and deal with, rather than always building in actions that we won't take, because we're not sure about the devices is the utilities have the capability to simply turn the system off. If it's not complying with its interconnection agreement and you.

962
04:01:02.470 --> 04:01:23.615
A method of doing reporting that will help you capture that and I think that we all agree that if a system fails that they'll need to be a remedy for it. And I think the better way to get at whether this is a greater risk is to analyze whether if it fails, or is actually a safety reliability risk, because I don't know that that's really what we're depending.

963
04:01:23.644 --> 04:01:44.704
From the system, whether that's happening, but I do think we should all agree if the system does fail. The utilities have the ability already in row 21 to deal with that scenario. And I'm not sure that we're going going from 12 to 28 288 values actually increases that because it could fail at 12 values as well.

964
04:01:46.473 --> 04:02:05.643
No, I just so, Scott, I don't disagree that we currently do have the ability to turn off the system. Right? We are describing that as 1 of the emergency measure we may implement. But what we're saying is that again, like, going from value. I think you mentioned that you don't believe that it's the same equipment. It's more it's more risk, but that's not true, right? Cause we, if.

965
04:02:06.005 --> 04:02:27.035
If properly implementing, like, for example, multiple schedule versus, like, multiple value versus 1 value is the same function. We wouldn't even need to work on this, you know, certification right cause there's additional function involved in that scheduling to implement more values. And I'm not convinced that going to 280 value is essentially the same risk. And when it.

966
04:02:27.068 --> 04:02:48.033
Comes to, like, the emergency shutdown. I would say that. You told me really from our perspective. We really want to avoid that. Right. That's why we're having this conversation. Right? If we have to shut down and you mentioned like reporting. Right? All. That is investigation afterwards. Right? If we have to go that route, you have to shut down everybody on the system, including.

967
04:02:48.425 --> 04:03:09.035
All the other generating customer and we'll have to pull him. I meet her afterwards to do the investigation all that's going to take time and that's not the optimal outcome that we like to utilize. Right? We have the ability to do it in rule 21 tariff, but we don't like to do it often and we want to avoid it wherever possible.

968
04:03:09.394 --> 04:03:30.424
I think there's yeah, I think there's space in between what both of us are saying. So, I'm not disagreeing with you that there's obviously a difference between 12 and 2288 values. I think the consequences that follow from, that could need to be thought through about what really we're saying is actually going to happen if that scenario comes to play and how you would approach the.

969
04:03:30.603 --> 04:03:51.423
And if you're actually gonna have to shut the whole feeder down and so on, I'm not sure that that's the case either. But I think, like Justin was saying earlier, I think, like, let's not make huge leaps from a reasonable basic statement, which I think you guys have a basic statement. But we're making a lot of conclusions from there about what the safety reliability impacts could be. And in terms of optimal.

970
04:03:51.965 --> 04:04:12.755
Wh, what you're saying is we want the optimal thing is to not allow us to capture all of that additional value. So, if there are trade offs, and we need to be super careful about the safety reliability tradeoffs, which is what you're most concerned about. And I appreciate that. But it's not like what you're saying is we're still going to allow people to capture that full value. So, what's.

971
04:04:12.843 --> 04:04:15.483
Optimal is it depends on which side you're looking at it.

972
04:04:16.413 --> 04:04:20.133
Yes, I think it would really be helpful for us to, like, move on to the next following slides.

973
04:04:20.163 --> 04:04:20.733
Yeah, I agree.

974
04:04:20.853 --> 04:04:33.963
Yeah, we're not I think Roger mentioned earlier, we're not trying to stop people from recapping that benefits. Right? We're actually mostly just we, we just want to start with tall. That's what we're saying. So, maybe let's let me just double check.

975
04:04:33.995 --> 04:04:38.375
Are there any further question before we move on.

976
04:04:40.534 --> 04:04:43.954
I don't think so. Um, can we move on to the next slide?

977
04:04:50.974 --> 04:05:12.034
All right, so on, you know, I, I think we've been hearing on a lot of questions, starting with the, uh, workshops. Right? We, we understand that parties wants to know that. What are the elements necessary to allow more granularity? Cause we, we understand we want to support, you know, eventually to, to allow more granularity in the future. Once we have the technology and ability.

978
04:05:12.064 --> 04:05:33.184
And experience to do that, so we put together among the with this kind of a plan that we want to kind of just talk through with you to see if that makes sense. And we can have a concrete conversation like we're having in today's workshop. So, what we're proposing here is that to start with the phase 1, which is sort of the initial implementation.

979
04:05:33.784 --> 04:05:54.034
Uh, of what was initially approved in the decision right is to start with 1 unique value per month but using a 208 profile format, which means that 24 Valley essentially the same for each month and as we kind of kick off. And I think it's certainly our big best interest to kind of implement.

980
04:05:54.340 --> 04:06:15.455
Again, 3, years of operating experience with which allows, you know, collectively, utilities to, uh, document any operational challenges, we may have any States, your ability challenges due to the highly flexible and changing distribution grid. It also allows us to get more experience through the interconnection process. And I expect that to be.

981
04:06:15.514 --> 04:06:36.634
Kind of like, both ways. Right? It also helps the developers to get familiarity with the discussion process and also kind of capture utilization net levels of the implementation of GP. And after that, we fully expect we'll have a phase 2 where we will evaluate all the learnings from the phase 1 and determine what the.

982
04:06:36.664 --> 04:06:57.784
Training and best practice and based on the safety vulnerability challenges we capture and what actually occurred we can kind of evaluate and determine if mitigation can be implemented. And at the same time, you know, customer technology is also 1 consideration. Like, I was just presenting, we want to kind of kick that into consideration something. We can get get additional data.

983
04:06:57.814 --> 04:07:18.904
Point on is on how customer technology adherence to the performance requirements and, you know, it's also going to be a learning experience for all of us to decide if any changes are enhancement to the standards are required. How can we make it better? And, you know, support the grand goal that we're all going after here. And that will practically let us determine if we can.

984
04:07:18.964 --> 04:07:40.084
Increase the frequency based on the learning and get you a more granularity based on the learning. We're gathering from phase 1 and after that. Uh, it's going to be the final phase. Um, if we're limited by phase 2 to go straight to the 280 hours full limitation, which again, we really have to.

985
04:07:40.385 --> 04:08:01.235
The learning from phase 1 to make that determination and phase 2. we may decide that we need our technology should be operational, which could be germs and other operational system and needs communication issues, addressed, including cyber security considerations. I think there's a lot of efforts undergoing on that, and also need customer equipment to.

986
04:08:01.264 --> 04:08:22.384
Human terms operational commands this is another area that we understand the technology is evolving, but for the testing may be required. Uh, I think Alex and, you know, PG E, has to hear some experience on that even earlier slide they last, but not least there may be regulatory rules and chairs to be updated to require us to respond in the quarter.

987
04:08:22.504 --> 04:08:43.534
Terms commands in order for to go to a fully 208 hour limit invitation again, all these when it comes to the final phase, right a lot of that, we kind of hope for us to work together to determine that in phase 2, based on the learning phase 1, so not, you know, this is not set in stone and what may be absolutely.

988
04:08:43.564 --> 04:08:52.804
Sorry for this to be implemented. So I imagine there'd be a lot of questions. I'll pause right there to see if you have any question, we can help address.

989
04:08:53.554 --> 04:08:59.344
There was a question in chat from sky. Uh, we'll dermis be in place.

990
04:09:00.605 --> 04:09:02.255
In alignment with the schedule.

991
04:09:04.714 --> 04:09:25.744
That's our, that's our hope, right for speaking for here, we are waiting for approval uh, you know, so it really depends on if we get approval on during our 2024 on our driven activities. But if we do get alignment on this type of schedule, you know, for our internal perspective, will work.

992
04:09:25.865 --> 04:09:46.985
Collect weight, she tried to stick to the schedule, um, but again, if there will be necessary to implement 280 schedule, that's something that we still need to evaluate and determine based on the learning in phase 1 in phase 2 right? So, we don't want to just flat out and say that all we have to have a term. We don't want to pass everything to the operational system.

993
04:09:46.989 --> 04:09:55.924
You say that we definitely need that right? We need, you know, data and experience to prove that's actually necessary. Does I answer your question?

994
04:09:56.704 --> 04:10:07.894
Um, let me just add 2 things. So so what I heard you say is that you guys are seeking approval for terms, but you haven't yet. I haven't yet gotten that approval so it'd be contingent upon whether the commission approves it.

995
04:10:08.284 --> 04:10:22.774
And then just give me a sense, like, if the commission does approve it, you know, when that would happen. And then how long would it actually take to roll out germs across your system? I, I, I don't know enough about what the technology deployment actually.

996
04:10:22.954 --> 04:10:29.224
That I have to take it back to my dirhams team right? Cause it's going to depend on what use case. We end up developing.

997
04:10:29.289 --> 04:10:39.514
ltp right, because that may impact what they're having plan. Yeah, I don't want to speak for my colleagues for. They may have a different kind of timeline on this 1.

998
04:10:40.204 --> 04:10:45.064
Okay, I don't think it's important exactly to respond to that. Now. I just think that that.

999
04:10:46.655 --> 04:11:07.355
It's it's not guarantee that that will happen. This is the problem or that it will be in place. And that doesn't mean that we, you know, with the standards more aspects to this. But, and then just the 2nd, thing to clarify. Is that what I just heard you say is the way this slide shows up is that to do the 288, you need all the, you need the terms, and you need all.

1000
04:11:07.359 --> 04:11:20.914
Indication address and what it sounded to me, like, what you were clarifying is, is that you're saying, you don't know whether that will be necessary and you'd want to learn from phase 2 and not that you're saying that that's your bottom line.

1001
04:11:22.414 --> 04:11:28.474
Yeah, W, we're trying to be fair here. Right? W W. Yeah we don't want to say that we absolutely need a sort of.

1002
04:11:28.534 --> 04:11:49.654
To be available insurance. Definitely. We think, is going to give us more visibility onto the system. It allows our operators to operate the system and more granular level. But we may decide based our learning from phase 1 phase 2 and to say that, you know, maybe there's already features that can be achieved. Right?

1003
04:11:49.685 --> 04:12:10.805
We are comfortable it's it's more it's the challenge that we have so far, you know, find utility perspective on implementing, go straight to a 280 distinct values. Just we just don't know what are the risks associated with that. And we're nervous that the unknown is going to be, you know, causing a lot of outpatient issue that we know we did not have the tools necessary.

1004
04:12:10.863 --> 04:12:21.423
To address it, but we're not saying that we absolutely have to have, you know, all the tools and what exactly the tools need to look like in order to address that.

1005
04:12:22.113 --> 04:12:31.863
Okay, um, John burden put some helpful comments in the, um, chat and it would be great. John if you could, um, for the.

1006
04:12:31.985 --> 04:12:49.745
Purposes of the record, and maybe he's able to just read them out again. But, um, address why the, the concern about the PCs failing, um, may not be or add the context on what what is actually being verified in the for to prevent that scenario.

1007
04:12:51.699 --> 04:13:10.534
Yeah, so, um, I think the concern is, um, you know, unforeseeable interactions on a given between a given piece of equipment and a given load at a specific site, which could cause.

1008
04:13:11.464 --> 04:13:32.494
The control system to not respond as expected, and no matter what you test in the lab. There may be weird corner cases that, uh, can occur. So, um, in in the PCs standard, there are numerous abnormal tests. What happens if.

1009
04:13:32.675 --> 04:13:53.255
C. T, gets disconnected what happens if the system controllers disconnected what happens if the installed and properly and someone and so on there's a bunch of tests that check. I, I would call, you know, dumb errors, but this interaction issue is not testable in the lab because.

1010
04:13:53.764 --> 04:14:14.884
It is very site specific, um, in the 2023 edition of the National electrical code. Um, there is a new requirement that says if and our paraphrases, the PCs malfunctions, then the system is required to shut down. We did discuss this at.

1011
04:14:14.914 --> 04:14:36.034
Then the task group, and we reached consensus position, including with, uh, input from the that shut down was an option. Another option would be to move the, the export limit to a generation limit with the.

1012
04:14:36.064 --> 04:14:57.124
Being you could never an export can never exceed the generation because if there's any load at all, then the export would be lower than generation. So, um, we are going to add a watchdog type function, uh, a new test that would basically.

1013
04:14:57.214 --> 04:15:17.434
Force a failure, you know, you could induce it by injecting a signal that pools a PCs into thinking the power, uh, export is still going on even though it's curtailed all the generation and then it would be required after some longer period of time seconds or.

1014
04:15:18.755 --> 04:15:38.285
Probably 10 seconds, or maybe a couple of minutes, then there would be a watchdog function that would kick in and either shut system down or, um, switch the generation, uh, the export limit to a generation limit, which should guarantee below the, the agreed.

1015
04:15:39.664 --> 04:15:56.584
So, um, that that issue is out there. Um, it has occurred at least once that I'm aware of. So, codes and standards are, you know, adjusting to real world experience and we will add that as a requirement.

1016
04:15:58.323 --> 04:15:59.433
Thanks for sharing John.

1017
04:16:02.584 --> 04:16:05.884
And then my other comment was within 147.

1018
04:16:08.074 --> 04:16:28.714
A couple of functions that can be used to quote, override a PCs and the PCs, um, priority of responses within 547 is lower than the commanded response. So it's the lowest priority any command sent by the utility to the D.

1019
04:16:28.985 --> 04:16:49.985
147 2018 compliance system, it would have to obey the commanded limit. So we had a PCs that said limited to 2 megawatts and you sent a commanded limit to limit it to 1 megawatt. The would essentially have to.

1020
04:16:50.014 --> 04:16:57.244
The 1 megawatt limit, and it's even if the system didn't have PCs, that command still works.

1021
04:17:00.574 --> 04:17:03.484
So, that that exists within 147 already.

1022
04:17:04.024 --> 04:17:18.514
Yeah, it's helpful, John I will see that from a lot of the, you know, we're talking about here the envision is that implementation is not gonna require a direct control to the, to the, to the smart inverters. Right?

1023
04:17:21.515 --> 04:17:32.555
Right. So that's where the new quote, unquote watchdog function that resides within the PCs that's part of its certification would come in.

1024
04:17:32.555 --> 04:17:33.035
Huh.

1025
04:17:33.275 --> 04:17:39.875
But even if, for some reason, you know, that we're still exporting more than it should.

1026
04:17:41.104 --> 04:17:55.954
Would have to fall back within interoperability of 547 2018 to send a command to that site to tell it to reduce its output, or even turn it off. You can turn it off remotely as well.

1027
04:18:01.145 --> 04:18:08.495
Okay, um, I I see quite a few hands up so just to do you want to go 1st?

1028
04:18:10.924 --> 04:18:15.094
Yeah, that'd be brief. I know we're likely to try it on our.

1029
04:18:16.714 --> 04:18:17.734
Looking at the slide.

1030
04:18:20.764 --> 04:18:23.524
I can't hear you Justin. I don't know if it's my issue.

1031
04:18:25.384 --> 04:18:27.364
Justin, you went, you went silent.

1032
04:18:32.645 --> 04:18:34.115
Um, can you hear me now.

1033
04:18:34.865 --> 04:18:35.165
Yep.

1034
04:18:35.195 --> 04:18:35.675
Yes.

1035
04:18:35.705 --> 04:18:50.975
Yes, okay. So looking at this, it seems there is a proposal on the table from the I used to go phase 1 now, which is, uh, uh, the 12 values phase 22026toevaluatelearnings from phase 1.

1036
04:18:51.394 --> 04:18:56.254
In final phase germs, whenever that should come through my understanding that properly.

1037
04:18:58.714 --> 04:19:00.724
Yeah, this is our proposal on the table.

1038
04:19:02.584 --> 04:19:23.644
So, I would note that phase 3 is, there's a lot of it's shaky as sky's noted. There's the authorization for germs in itself. And I would note that just the architecture of having all of these systems tied into a single point of compromise.

1039
04:19:23.680 --> 04:19:44.825
Single point of failure on the terms, and the command and control environment is inherently to my understanding of cybersecurity and that's not what my license is in. But my understanding of it, it's inherently more risky to have all of those messages go through 1 clearing house than it is just to tell the customers that this is the profile you have to meet and then.

1040
04:19:44.853 --> 04:19:58.713
They can set it up for them their own systems. So just bring that up as something for further consideration. Maybe in parentheses group that wanted to confirm that this was a proposal on the table. And thank you for the clarification.

1041
04:20:02.434 --> 04:20:05.374
No, uh, I think next 1 is a Ming.

1042
04:20:06.364 --> 04:20:22.864
Yeah, um, I'm just a little bit skeptical of of phase 2, frankly, of what information the utilities would gather that would make them comfortable going from 12 to 288 because we've been hearing for for for months. Now, the utilities are not comfortable going from 1 value to 12.

1043
04:20:22.925 --> 04:20:34.325
You they see increased risk and can't quantify it. So, what are you going to specifically be doing in phase 2? It allows you to evaluate whether 288 values is safe simply by looking at 12.

1044
04:20:37.834 --> 04:20:58.024
So the phase 2 is built on on phase 1, right? So the phase 1 is where this is, where it's kind of it's, it's a bit tricky for us to, like, lay it out perfectly. So, phase 1 is more like now and phase 2 is like, after 3 years of experience, right? It's it's almost like a time check. Right now. We have 3. we have.

1045
04:20:58.235 --> 04:21:19.295
Experience, if you look at the bullet points, the bullet points, under the 3 of experience, we are operating with the 288 profile, but with total distinct value throughout the throughout the schedule. Uh, it allows us to collect more operational data. Understand more about what kind of operational challenge we're dealing.

1046
04:21:20.194 --> 04:21:40.354
And, uh, also, you know, gather the safety vulnerability challenges that I think, throughout the discussion parties have been asking us to to share, which we couldn't because we have never implemented yet. Uh, and also any experience we have throughout the interconnection processing for right? And how many people actually, you.

1047
04:21:40.654 --> 04:22:01.594
ltp right, let's say that we decided that there's a lot of people, there's a lot of value, right? Because there's the implementing, and there's a cost associated if we wanted to implement additional technology and additional tools to go for more granularity there's also going to be that consideration of how many people actually.

1048
04:22:01.625 --> 04:22:11.315
Want to utilize, and if it makes sense to request that investment in order to develop those technology and tools.

1049
04:22:11.585 --> 04:22:12.245
Quick question.

1050
04:22:12.425 --> 04:22:31.655
No, not really because what I'm hearing is that you're looking for issues with the 12 values. What does that mean? If you don't see any issues, you're going to be comfortable going to 288 values or are we going to spend 3 years at 12 values? And at the end of that here that you're still not comfortable with 288? I'm just I'm not really seeing anything that would make.

1051
04:22:32.644 --> 04:22:37.774
Make it seem like you would be more comfortable with 288, distinct values at the end of that 3 year process.

1052
04:22:38.854 --> 04:22:53.764
I'm not sure it's, it's it's it's right to a particularly saying that we are trying to look for issues right for now, utilities perspective, we're hoping for no issue occurring during that 3 year, period, but as long as we're operating with in the field.

1053
04:22:53.883 --> 04:23:14.763
We get more experience on how to model that, and how our systems function with that gives us more visibility on how the system be behave. Right? We have more data. It's a learning experience as well. We're not really kind of using the 3 year to see. We can't poke holes into the tool Valley. Right? That's not what we're doing. It's.

1054
04:23:14.975 --> 04:23:36.005
Practically allow us to collect more information on the applications. How many we get how these applications, you know, what? How does it change the circuit behavior wise they'll just be customer interconnected. How do how does that function during a transfer? Right? Because that's another issue that we were talking a lot. In fact, we love it when we reconfigure our lines.

1055
04:23:36.393 --> 04:23:48.723
Do we need to take more consideration of the system? Those are all experience we're hoping to again besides we're hoping for there's no issue occurring. So I do think that the 3 year is gonna make us more comfortable.

1056
04:23:49.503 --> 04:23:57.213
Yeah, so then I guess I understand that I understand the value of what you're going to learn in the 3 years. Just the question is then ultimately, how are you going to decide.

1057
04:23:57.245 --> 04:24:02.075
Whether or not, you're comfortable implementing 288 values without terms at that point.

1058
04:24:07.053 --> 04:24:09.903
What I, I don't understand what do you mean by that? You mean like.

1059
04:24:10.593 --> 04:24:24.003
Your final steps says if limited by phase 2 so isn't the implication there that either at the end of phase 2, you decide we can do 288 values without terms, or we need to wait for terms or am I misunderstanding?

1060
04:24:25.985 --> 04:24:46.505
This is Roger, let me make sure we can. I think again, this is the proposal that we have here, but essentially is to your point, I mean, is if, you know, if we implement the core values since, we don't see, for instance, say, we're not seeing any operational challenges, even though there's, we know that the the, the.

1061
04:24:46.683 --> 04:25:07.653
Is fluctuating. We know that will demonstrate that, but if we're not seeing any issues, operational safety or other issues with our values, and we have done that for 3 years. And then that would mix out a lot more comfortable, going to a more granular level, as opposed to going from.

1062
04:25:07.745 --> 04:25:27.575
1 value to choose the values were nothing in between. So, this is almost like a like a step function where okay well, no, we want to take a step 4. we want to see what we learn. See, what operational challenges if anyway, and hopefully we don't have any right? But if we were to have some, it would be a lot easier to catch up with 12 values. And 2 of the values.

1063
04:25:29.254 --> 04:25:49.984
So, I think that's what I wanted to hear, is that at the end of that, period, if you're not seeing big ShowStoppers, then you would be much more comfortable with 288 values in that. 3 year period is to is to find that out. And if you see a lot of issues, then you'll aim to adjust some of the terms. If you don't see a lot of issues, your proposal would then be to go forward with 288 values at the end of 2026, or in 2026.

1064
04:25:50.018 --> 04:25:50.523
Is that right?

1065
04:25:51.933 --> 04:26:11.133
That's right in fact, you know, if you look at the, the bullet number 1 of the final phase, which says if limited by phase 2, right? So, if I'm if I'm phase 2, we are limited by 288 to limit it from doing then. Then, at that point, we may have to wait until the room system, but it could be that our.

1066
04:26:11.945 --> 04:26:27.845
During that phase 1 after the 3 years over, and we spend some time looking at the data and see what what our learnings are it may be that we feel comfortable willing to to 88 without terms. But we don't know that, because we don't have any operational experience to see whether or not there's any problems or not.

1067
04:26:29.854 --> 04:26:30.784
Okay, that makes.

1068
04:26:30.784 --> 04:26:30.994
And.

1069
04:26:31.024 --> 04:26:31.534
Thank you for.

1070
04:26:31.534 --> 04:26:40.684
Let me jump in here. What W, W, why why do you need 3 years to get that comfort? I mean, you're going to know after 3 months.

1071
04:26:42.814 --> 04:26:50.164
I would say not that, because many circuits our circuits don't have a problem every day.

1072
04:26:50.825 --> 04:27:11.225
Right, I mean, many of our circuits may have 12 issues, uh, a year, and it takes time to gain operational experience. Uh, so, no, I think we do need the time, not only from the engineering side, or on the operation side, uh, sites we can all learn. Uh, how this technology operates.

1073
04:27:14.554 --> 04:27:19.444
It it seems to me, like, you're kicking the can down the road, but, uh, um.

1074
04:27:19.984 --> 04:27:20.374
Well.

1075
04:27:21.695 --> 04:27:27.815
As a reference, I mean, we, we started this work back in 2017 so, I mean, I think it's 3 years appropriate.

1076
04:27:30.129 --> 04:27:47.434
So, I don't know if that follows route we've been working on this, then started 17 so we should wait until almost 10 years later before we achieve the benefits of it. I don't know if that that is exactly the case. It's taking a long time to get us here. And what you're proposing is that it takes us a lot of time a lot longer to get us from there.

1077
04:27:48.874 --> 04:27:51.274
No, what I'm proposing is that we receive.

1078
04:27:51.279 --> 04:27:57.214
Get the right level of timing for the utilities to gain experience so that we don't end up having a problem in the field.

1079
04:28:01.473 --> 04:28:01.953
To clarify.

1080
04:28:02.343 --> 04:28:07.623
Oh, go ahead. Sorry, Tim. I'm just going to say I would love to see the rest of the slides, because I think they do raise some good points that we need to work on.

1081
04:28:08.103 --> 04:28:14.403
Yeah, did I guess the real quick clarifying question just to be clear here? Um, this proposal is from all the values jointly, right?

1082
04:28:16.173 --> 04:28:16.533
Yeah.

1083
04:28:17.073 --> 04:28:17.523
Thank you.

1084
04:28:25.894 --> 04:28:27.634
Yeah, this is a joint proposal. Yes.

1085
04:28:31.835 --> 04:28:44.165
And I guess I'll just share my, my sentiment is matching what we just heard from other stakeholders here. This seems like a pretty protracted schedule, particularly given advanced modeling. Um, seems like it could be definitely shorten it quite a bit.

1086
04:28:48.273 --> 04:29:07.203
So, can I also ask a question or make a comment? Really? It seems to me that 1 of the key requirements is getting data from these sites um, in.

1087
04:29:07.595 --> 04:29:28.325
Essentially real time, I'll say near real time, but also, if you have the communication capability, then you should also be able to issue commands such as stop, uh, you know, or, you know, change your settings.

1088
04:29:28.683 --> 04:29:49.713
Right away or again in near real time. So I guess what I'm saying is that if you include as part of a an experimental time, whether it's 12.

1089
04:29:49.745 --> 04:30:10.715
For 288 values, if you add the communications capability, and not just for monitoring, but for actually being able to change it. And this may be something where you require it for these demo or these initial systems, then it would make less.

1090
04:30:10.894 --> 04:30:21.754
Whether you had 12 or 288, because you have the real time, uh, ability to change things.

1091
04:30:25.143 --> 04:30:35.493
I think what you're describing is what we're proposing here in phase 3 in final phase, right? Possibility that may be needed. It's it's really.

1092
04:30:37.353 --> 04:30:44.673
What I'm really saying is that you could have that right from the beginning why wait until the final phase you could have.

1093
04:30:44.735 --> 04:31:05.225
Communication capability for these experimental or, you know, systems not for every single 1 of them, but for experimental systems right away. You don't need to wait until the final phase in order to have communications.

1094
04:31:05.859 --> 04:31:16.264
No, and I think what you're talking about when we have telemetry, that's a 1 way communication. We don't have, um, return control that comes with terms. That is that only comes with terms as far as I know.

1095
04:31:18.574 --> 04:31:39.664
What I'm asking, it's, it's not like it's, it's really a capability. You could have 2 way communications for experimental or, you know, looking at demos. And I think this is the key. Are you willing to put in 2 way communications?

1096
04:31:40.294 --> 04:31:45.424
Um, in order to gain the experience that you really need.

1097
04:31:48.904 --> 04:31:57.634
I, I'm not sure what that question is directed to. For instance, are you asking are the developer willing to give the data.

1098
04:31:58.354 --> 04:32:07.894
If you are going to have projects, okay, you can say that, at least for the 1st, um.

1099
04:32:07.985 --> 04:32:28.955
1 project, you would include communication capabilities, a 2 way communication capabilities that would allow you to do not just sort of monitoring, but to be able to react to situations and to my mind.

1100
04:32:29.074 --> 04:32:50.194
That is by far the more important aspect, if you can react to situations, then you can mitigate the security or safety and reliability issues. And I think that's what I'm.

1101
04:32:50.224 --> 04:33:11.344
Talking about and the communications may also be protective relaying. Not saying it's just communications directly to the utility, but I think it's, it's looking at communication capabilities, protective, relaying substation monitoring so that.

1102
04:33:11.373 --> 04:33:22.475
You know, what's going on and that you can react to it that would close the time needed to really determine what you need to do.

1103
04:33:25.145 --> 04:33:45.064
This is Brian with Eric I'm gonna have to run here, but just wanted to support that. That's definitely something. That could be done on a pilot basis. But also not sure that the extent of that is even necessary, was mentioned before for its monitoring capabilities of voltage and whatnot, and maybe we can learn to leverage.

1104
04:33:46.715 --> 04:33:58.443
Somewhat new way to monitor the distribution system for these types of potential issues. If there actually are issues that arise from these things.

1105
04:34:01.684 --> 04:34:21.725
Not a pilot basis, but potentially, you know, thinking of how how you leverage those systems for managing the distribution system into the future and trying to get the full benefits of the 288 profile sooner rather than waiting until 2027 or.

1106
04:34:22.623 --> 04:34:26.885
But putting in other aspects in place to gain more confidence.

1107
04:34:31.506 --> 04:34:50.045
I have a separate point that I think would be helpful if you, if you could address just for my less technical knowledge. Um, I guess what, I'm not sure I understand is why we need to deploy systems to get this understanding versus being able to model.

1108
04:34:50.613 --> 04:35:11.193
There seem like there are 2 parts here 1, is whether you trust the PCs, um, control scheduling capabilities to perform accordingly and that might lean towards needing to deploy. Although I think John gave a good explanation. And and the commission will have to decide if that the systems are reliable enough to require that.

1109
04:35:11.225 --> 04:35:32.344
But I'm not clear that, like, if there are a fixed set of schedules, we have utilities are both saying we don't have data, but then you did provide data and you did look at some specific theater. So, I'm not sure exactly why we actually need to deploy the systems to get that learning versus being able to do modeling. There may be I think.

1110
04:35:32.494 --> 04:35:53.494
The the samples that you guys have done, which, I don't know if we're going to end up getting to today now raise some questions we need to work through and potentially design mitigations around. But it's not clear to me what, what actual deployment that we can't model it instead of waiting this long time again. Because what I think you're getting at is a very.

1111
04:35:53.523 --> 04:36:14.523
The timeline, and there may be ways to do it either the be the pilot approach that Brian and others just discussed, or just doing better modeling with the data. You guys should have already, um, to understand what your underlying concerns are. Because every feeder is going to be different indefinitely as you always remind us. So why can't we use.

1112
04:36:18.936 --> 04:36:35.074
How come in is that modeling is just as good as how the system perform in the past. I mean, that's, you know, modeling, you know, it's it's great just to know. Hey, this is this, this is based on the systems.

1113
04:36:35.799 --> 04:36:40.354
The way this has performed in the past this is the way from in the future.

1114
04:36:41.555 --> 04:36:46.324
But it's not always going to be true. Even if you do this for 3 years, then you're not going to know how it's going to perform into the.

1115
04:36:46.324 --> 04:36:46.744
Future.

1116
04:36:46.744 --> 04:36:49.504
Further help me understand that.

1117
04:36:49.533 --> 04:37:02.434
Well, give me up for a 2nd, again I'm going to address the comment of modeling. Marina doesn't guarantee anything in the future. So, you know, we can matter all we want, but it's not a predictable predictor of what.

1118
04:37:03.096 --> 04:37:23.734
This is how the system's gonna react for real time, operational conditions, you know, target polls, you know, you know, failures, or, uh, on subject line, or customer changing, you know, something that their facility, all that kind of stuff. You know, Alex talked about earlier. Um, so, so, so, Marlene, you know, you know, I know folks.

1119
04:37:23.740 --> 04:37:39.936
He's talking about, which is model it, you know, that is not sufficient in my opinion, to, to ensure in the future, um, in terms of our, in terms of unless unless we, uh, you know, I'm gonna say, have the thoroughly brand new way.

1120
04:37:39.936 --> 04:37:40.506
Please.

1121
04:37:41.164 --> 04:37:44.885
Which I think we are working on, that would have real time communication.

1122
04:37:44.914 --> 04:38:05.584
Since, at this time, all the data is connected connected nicely for, and it's really nice it's only used for billing use for some other information, but not for real time operations. And so, because I think what the problem that we're dealing with here is is the real time operations now that we can model or that we cannot get information later.

1123
04:38:06.484 --> 04:38:27.154
So so, I think what we're seeing here is that this phase 2 experience will give us a little bit more experience to determine whether whether 12 months is creating a problem or not problem. And that will give us more. Um, I'm going to say more confidence that we're.

1124
04:38:27.635 --> 04:38:40.744
With all those fluctuations in the system it is still now, it's still not gonna create a safety problem but but we need that experience, you know, and and I don't know that, that we can get it from from just the 1 year now that we have.

1125
04:38:41.045 --> 04:38:48.334
Okay, so I think that, um, what I heard did not explain why you're going to be ready in phase 2. you're going to say.

1126
04:38:48.365 --> 04:39:09.484
The same thing you're going to say, we don't know what the conditions will be in the future and you have data and you keep saying you don't what you do, you have data that could go back a year or 2 and see what this is going to behave like, and later on what a 24 hour profile would look like. It's you're never going to know what tomorrow holds that's going to be an infinite way to hold this. I.

1127
04:39:09.516 --> 04:39:21.904
Realize they're playing it out in the field might give you a little bit more data but again we're making trade offs here. And I don't think up until this presentation on the utilities have taken a look at any data to see if that was really going to hold. True.

1128
04:39:26.133 --> 04:39:41.704
I mean, I think again what we're at least at least for for me, what I'm, what I would gain out of this period is learning whether now we actually experienced any problems. And and it would be a step towards getting more granular instead of going from 1 to 208.

1129
04:39:43.712 --> 04:40:04.472
Yeah, this is Alex from so, everything you and Roger said, but the 1 thing that I'd like to add is that the hosting capacity, the profile is based on history, historical loading information. Right? So, what we're saying is that if we follow that profile really, really closely on our, by our basis.

1130
04:40:04.478 --> 04:40:25.624
There's an opportunity that the profile, the customer profile may actually go above the hosting capacity profile, because we don't know what's going to happen in the future. Like, you point out sky we've been able to implement or pass screen, em, in the past, because the values are very conservative using 15% and now using 1, single 1, single or f value but.

1131
04:40:25.654 --> 04:40:46.564
You have these profiles, you know, 1 profile with the 10% buffer following the profile in an hour by hour basis, moving on, in the future. We don't know that they're not going to cross and what's gonna happen in this? If we have this project's connect with 1 year, 2 years, 3 years what the learnings we're going to find out if this is.

1132
04:40:46.894 --> 04:40:48.214
Be an issue or.

1133
04:40:50.374 --> 04:41:10.744
And by issue, you mean, if there's actually a transformer that burns up or something like that or you mean, a hypothetical that I see it didn't line up with the what what was modeled for it too, cause that's what you just said is the same thing. I understand which is that? Yes, I agree. You guys have some good.

1134
04:41:10.774 --> 04:41:31.832
We still haven't gotten to that shows that below the modeled off last year's load and the next year's load is going to be different ad infinitum. That is something we could model. We could look at multiple years of data to figure out and see how a profile would perform. What I guess what I want to understand is what more what ish, quote issues will.

1135
04:41:32.106 --> 04:41:52.836
Will be seen as we deploy. It's not I don't I actually think that you're you have really good points that we need to work on on load is different every year. That is something we can work on. That's something we can agree on Eva profitably, but I don't see how deployment we know that. Why does the, why do we have to deploy it for 3 years to know.

1136
04:41:56.194 --> 04:42:14.104
I think my response to that would be, uh, sky is that. I'm hoping that even with that low fluctuation data that you'll see in the next slides that even in that case, we don't have a problem with 12 months. And if that's the case, then then I would feel a lot more comfortable.

1137
04:42:14.224 --> 04:42:34.954
Even with that fluctuation, a load profiles, we wouldn't have a problem with 288. so that's that's that's that's that's the test criteria there right? Like, okay, now we're doing the, the current proceed that the current, the way that we, the way you currently do in operations today. We can look at the worst case condition as we know folks over on Thursday right?

1138
04:42:35.374 --> 04:42:56.494
Well, now we're going to another level where now you're looking at 12 values and we know that these these low fluctuation is happening as we'll show, in our hopes is that we don't have any of these issues. And then at that point, we can say Yep. You know, even though this, this, there's this, uh, low fluctuation, we are still okay within the 12 months, and we will feel more comfortable. Now.

1139
04:42:56.498 --> 04:42:57.184
28.

1140
04:42:59.434 --> 04:43:01.052
I think we've, we beat this 1.

1141
04:43:08.854 --> 04:43:28.114
Alright, well, now that we beat that 1 what I think I heard Roger say, is that 12 months of operational information would help him feel better about the lack of likelihood that they'd run into project problems in the future.

1142
04:43:30.484 --> 04:43:50.074
So, I wanted to check that, but I also wanted to raise the point to Francis francis's point that we're not I don't think our scope here includes pilots and learning opportunities. I think we're, we're pretty pretty.

1143
04:43:50.104 --> 04:44:11.222
Tightly prescribed by what the commission is authorized and the resolutions, and also raise the point that has also been raised by John that we will have a natural experiment for systems that are larger than a megawatt that they will have telemetry within them. And they will have data that is of sufficient quality that it could be.

1144
04:44:11.254 --> 04:44:32.344
Rationalized I would also throw out that I don't think we've established any linkage between having or any need to have operational level data to understand the effects of this. What we've discussed all the way through here is just a level of.

1145
04:44:32.378 --> 04:44:50.254
Data the sufficient to ensure compliance with limited generation profile, established an interconnection agreement. The I use of confirmed that data would be sufficient for that. So all the disparate points now on the record and I'm happy to move on to Alex.

1146
04:44:57.334 --> 04:45:05.404
Else do you have a question, or? Oh, okay. I saw the hands disappearing. Can we go to the next slide? Please.

1147
04:45:09.064 --> 04:45:11.464
I I think we already talked about this earlier about the.

1148
04:45:14.134 --> 04:45:25.954
Before we go, I guess I want to bring Justin back. I want to because I know that he put some stuff on the record. Can you repeat that Jessica? I want to make sure that that we're concurrent with what you stated.

1149
04:45:31.504 --> 04:45:32.254
Um.

1150
04:45:36.336 --> 04:45:38.314
I don't know that I can recall it all.

1151
04:45:39.036 --> 04:45:42.006
You you talked about, you talked about.

1152
04:45:43.324 --> 04:45:52.294
Yeah, so so the, I is confirmed that is sufficient for verifying whether the site is complying with their interconnection agreement or not.

1153
04:45:52.564 --> 04:45:55.564
Okay, yeah, we, we agree with that. Yeah, that's right. So so the.

1154
04:45:55.624 --> 04:45:59.524
My data instead of telemetry for systems, less than 1 megawatt.

1155
04:46:00.212 --> 04:46:16.322
It's all coming back to me now at 4 points. So, 1, am I to, uh, to Francis suggestions of a pilot? I don't believe that we've got the implementer from the commission to do that. We're, we're limited to what the resolution tells us to do. That's what we're ministerial so we take we carry out.

1156
04:46:16.926 --> 04:46:37.806
The instructions of the 3rd thing was emphasizing and echoing John's comment in the chat that, uh, we'll have a natural experiment systems that are larger than a, a megawatt will provide telemetry data and we'll be able to take a look at that and see if it differs anything at all from, and if there's any useful information.

1157
04:46:38.074 --> 04:46:55.714
And the difference, and the other thing, the last thing I'm going in reverse order here, was that what I thought I'd heard you say prior, was that getting 12 months of actual operational data, something that would provide you some degree of comfort.

1158
04:46:56.194 --> 04:46:56.764
No, I, I.

1159
04:46:56.764 --> 04:46:57.364
I think.

1160
04:46:57.724 --> 04:47:11.494
I think we mentioned 3 years for the flow chart before. So not 12 months. I I don't know what the 12 year, 12 months come from, but yeah, we said that 3 months of operational data, um, conference will be 3 years not 12 months.

1161
04:47:12.334 --> 04:47:18.754
And that's what I saw on the slide. So it was interesting. It was interesting. What I thought I heard was the 12 months, and it sounds.

1162
04:47:18.786 --> 04:47:20.554
You're correcting that impression.

1163
04:47:20.676 --> 04:47:22.894
Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Jonathan. Appreciate it.

1164
04:47:28.836 --> 04:47:44.766
Okay, uh, just wanted to kind of recap this point. Uh, if you've already talked about here, and we are in agreement, uh, with, uh, the utilizing a sort of a common file, such as a CSV that contains 280 data points.

1165
04:47:45.784 --> 04:48:04.864
The format here, which we provided kind of example, is just to be illustrative. Specific terminology is subjective teams and maybe different across. Yeah, I think we're kind of short on time. So I'm not going to go into a lot of details unless there's question on this point.

1166
04:48:13.324 --> 04:48:25.356
Okay, uh, thank you. Uh, so, um, we're definitely not going to be able to go through the utilities last section.

1167
04:48:26.974 --> 04:48:47.464
And by 5 o'clock, the way, uh, the discussion is going, that's definitely we'd probably be here until 7. um, I do not want to do that cause that's that time. So I think we should, uh, pick up on the data analysis.

1168
04:48:47.914 --> 04:49:07.744
Which the utilities were going to present, we should pick that up at the next workshop. Uh, topics are definitely not resolved, which I had planned for. I knew this was not a 1 workshop.

1169
04:49:09.394 --> 04:49:29.856
Topic, you know, 1 workshop, everything is resolved, kind of deal for these 2 topics. So I think we should pick up with the data analysis, uh, at the next workshop on February 21st, along with any new presentations that.

1170
04:49:29.914 --> 04:49:51.034
Need to, uh, you know, any new information that needs to be added. 1 thing I wanted to do is quickly show the updated count advocate slides. So, uh, Francisco, I think I should be.

1171
04:49:51.064 --> 04:49:57.664
Able to share. Correct you don't have these slides so I'll share what I have.

1172
04:50:01.684 --> 04:50:20.642
And again, my apologies for these, um, we're not, uh, circulating, uh, this final slide but, uh, what I got them, it was under a different heading. So I didn't think they were.

1173
04:50:20.676 --> 04:50:25.446
It, but everybody can see my screen. Can I get an affirmative.

1174
04:50:28.024 --> 04:50:28.864
Yes, so forbid.

1175
04:50:29.134 --> 04:50:29.344
Yeah.

1176
04:50:29.854 --> 04:50:48.814
Okay, thank you. So I'll just quickly share them just to get them on the record here. I'm not gonna discuss them. I mean, said only the last slide was, uh, different. So I just wanted to show them and I will be circulating this to the, uh, distribution.

1177
04:50:48.850 --> 04:50:56.644
Here everybody that participated today, so you guys have it and these slides will be posted.

1178
04:50:59.556 --> 04:51:12.546
And, uh, like I said, I mean, set, this was the only the last slide was the only difference. So I think it was at 288 value.

1179
04:51:17.014 --> 04:51:34.324
So all right, so I'm going to stop sharing, but, like I said, I just wanted to, uh, show everybody, uh, these updated slides. Like, how advocates uh, okay. So, um, having said that, um.

1180
04:51:36.034 --> 04:51:42.514
And given, uh, only 4 more minutes left here, um, I wanted to see if there are any, um.

1181
04:51:43.984 --> 04:52:04.956
Last minute questions or clarifications again, I wanted to point out that, uh, if you feel anything needs discussion, feel free to email me and I will put it on the agenda or solution e5230. That's allow energy to put topics in the agenda.

1182
04:52:07.144 --> 04:52:13.926
To be discussed, so having said that any last minute comments.

1183
04:52:24.516 --> 04:52:41.676
All right, uh, so hearing Don, uh, Roger, uh, 1 of the action items I noted is Roger will be taking lead on, uh, getting a group discussion going, uh, between John partner, and other parties and Brian.

1184
04:52:43.082 --> 04:53:04.024
And energy division to discuss topic E, Burger, um, and has been mentioned, uh, we will continue a topic in the 2nd workshop tomorrow. We will be holding the smarter we're working group meeting. The utilities will be kicking off discussion on topic.

1185
04:53:04.208 --> 04:53:25.024
1, which is just an affirmation that instead of quarterly reporting a, a M, I, data will be utilized and then topic B2 is the name played versus export rating that we're still a.

1186
04:53:25.360 --> 04:53:28.384
That were kind of in the gray area.

1187
04:53:29.824 --> 04:53:41.766
You know, whether what, uh, rating was, what rating was gonna be utilized during the study process. So that is tomorrow smarter virtual working group discussion.

1188
04:53:44.196 --> 04:53:50.734
It's just a quick plug in there. If anybody wants to be part of the technical discussion. Please send me the.

1189
04:53:50.766 --> 04:53:58.116
Email otherwise, at this point, I just have, uh, uh, Brian and John. So, thank you. And the emails that, and folks that you sent.

1190
04:53:58.984 --> 04:54:04.536
Yeah, and so that's, uh, Brian. Eric my Rick. Uh, uh, John.

1191
04:54:05.224 --> 04:54:05.464
Yeah.

1192
04:54:05.526 --> 04:54:06.936
And energy division.

1193
04:54:07.324 --> 04:54:07.686
That's right.

1194
04:54:07.686 --> 04:54:11.164
So, uh, everybody should have, uh, Roger email.

1195
04:54:11.974 --> 04:54:23.254
In the invite, uh, if not email me and I'll get you in touch with them and, uh, that's it. And Justin, I think, has some closing thoughts.

1196
04:54:24.364 --> 04:54:30.094
Just very quickly did you want to note to folks about PDF in the chat and having that be a part of the record or.

1197
04:54:30.784 --> 04:54:32.854
Oh, yes, thank you. So.

1198
04:54:34.234 --> 04:54:52.864
I will be, uh, along with the presentation and the recordings, I will be posting a PDF file with everything that was setting the chat window. I think we captured most of it.

1199
04:54:56.014 --> 04:55:00.664
You know, reading out loud, but just in case, it'll be there.

1200
04:55:07.866 --> 04:55:19.266
So all right, that's about it. Uh, thank you. Everybody for joining us today. Another interesting discussion and we will, uh.

1201
04:55:20.164 --> 04:55:20.404
Huh.

1202
04:55:20.404 --> 04:55:20.766
Soon.

1203
04:55:21.456 --> 04:55:23.766
Thanks everyone thanks to everybody put presentation.

1204
04:55:23.824 --> 04:55:24.844
Together especially.

1205
04:55:25.744 --> 04:55:26.314
Thanks everybody.

1206
04:55:26.794 --> 04:55:34.984
Yeah, thank you to everybody and the utilities for pulling that off even though we didn't get to that last section. Apologies for that.

1207
04:55:36.606 --> 04:55:37.266
Thank you.

1208
04:55:37.474 --> 04:55:38.164
Bye.

1209
04:55:39.304 --> 04:55:39.664
All right.

1210
04:55:41.766 --> 04:55:45.576
In Francisco, I think we can stop recording now.

1211
04:55:52.142 --> 04:55:54.692
Francisco, could you confirm recording has stopped?

1212
04:56:12.456 --> 04:56:13.564
It's just cause still on the line.