As part of the project ? Designing Resilient Communities (DRC) : A Consequence - Based Approach for Grid Investment , ? funded by the United States (US) Department of Energy?s (DOE) Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium (GMLC), Sandia National Labora tories (Sandia) is partnering with a variety of government , industry, and university participants to develop and test a framework for community resilience planning focused on modernization of the electric grid. This report provides a summary of the section of the project focused on h ardware demonstration of ?resilience nodes? concept . Acknowledgements ? SAG members ? P roject partners ? Project team/management ? P roject sponsors ? O ther stakeholders
Traditionally electric grid planning strives to maintain safe, reliable, efficient, and affordable service for current and future customers. As policies, social preferences, and the threat landscape evolve, additional considerations for power system planners are emerging, including decarbonization, resilience, and energy equity and justice. The MOD-Plan framework leverages and extends prior work to provide a framework for integrating incorporating resilience, equity, and decarbonization into integrated distribution system planning.
Broderick, Robert J.; Sandoval, Marcelo S.; Hernández, Jorge H.; Grijalva, Santiago G.; O?Neill-Carrillo, Efraín &.
This work details a project to design reliable, resilient, and cost-effective networked microgrids considering grid constraints and resilience metrics focused on Puerto Rico distribution feeder locations with long outages after Hurricane Maria. The project consisted primarily of modeling and simulation tasks that accomplished the following objectives: 1. Selected 10 distribution feeder models in vulnerable areas. The sample feeders are geographically distributed across Puerto Rico and vary in length to capture the wide variety of feeders on the island. 2. Determined the optimal location and sizing of distributed energy resources (DERs) on the identified distribution feeders. The systems considered as part of the microgrid solutions were solar photovoltaic (PV), battery energy storage systems (BESS) and distributed fossil fuel generation (DFFG). 3. Estimated the cost-benefit of the proposed DER portfolios. 4. Provided a set of final recommendations that inform decision making on how to do targeted planning analysis for microgrids that can supply energy to critical infrastructures.
This guide is meant to assist communities – from residents to energy experts to decision makers – in developing a conceptual microgrid design that meets site-specific energy resilience goals. Using the framework described in this guidebook, stakeholders can come together and start to quantify site-specific vulnerabilities, identify the most significant risks to delivery of electricity, and establish electric outage tolerances across the community. In addition to establishing minimum service needs, this framework encourages communities to consider broader sustainability goals and policy constraints and begin to estimate up-front costs associated with the installation of alternative microgrid solutions. The framework guides a community through data collection and a high-level assessment of its needs, constraints, and priorities, prior to engaging engineers, vendors, and contractors. The first sections of this guidebook provide a high-level primer on electric systems. The latter sections include guidance for step-by-step data gathering and analysis of site conditions. The ultimate product resulting from the stepwise approach is a conceptual microgrid design. A conceptual design is defined as an initial design (10%-20% complete) that considers the specific threats, needs, limitations, and investment options for a given location. Going through this exercise and developing the conceptual microgrid design as a community ensures the same community members who will ultimately live with the solution are the developers of its foundational design. Often, these are also the very same people who understand system tolerances and needs the best and are therefore the ideal candidates for establishing these criteria. Especially when it comes to evaluating critical infrastructure, it is the community that best understands the most critical services. The framework is intended to facilitate a systematic approach to planning for resilience and provide a deeper understanding of how to use a framework to make decisions around microgrid solutions. Like many processes where tradeoffs need to be considered, this is often an iterative process. If this guide serves to help educate and empower communities who are beginning the process of deploying a microgrid, it has met the goal of its authors.
In 2019, Sandia National Laboratories contracted Synapse Energy Economics (Synapse) to research the integration of community and electric utility resilience investment planning as part of the Designing Resilient Communities: A Consequence-Based Approach for Grid Investment (DRC) project. Synapse produced a series of reports to explore the challenges and opportunities in several key areas, including benefit-cost analysis, performance metrics, microgrids, and regulatory mechanisms to promote investments in electric system resilience. This report focuses on regulatory mechanisms to improve resilience. Regulatory mechanisms that improve resilience are approaches that electric utility regulators can use to align utility, customer, and third-party investments with regulatory, ratepayer, community, and other important stakeholder interests and priorities for resilience. Cost-of-service regulation may fail to provide utilities with adequate guidance or incentives regarding community priorities for infrastructure hardening and disaster recovery. The application of other types of regulatory mechanisms to resilience investments can help. This report: characterizes regulatory objective as they apply to resilience; identifies several regulatory mechanisms that are used or can be adapted to improve the resilience of the electric system--including performance-based regulation, integrated planning, tariffs and programs to leverage private investment, alternative lines of business for utilities, enhanced cost recovery, and securitization; provides a case study of each regulatory mechanism; summarizes findings across the case studies; and suggests how these regulatory mechanisms might be improved and applied to resilience moving forward. In this report, we assess the effectiveness of a range of utility regulatory mechanisms at evaluating and prioritizing utility investments in grid resilience. First, we characterize regulatory objectives which underly all regulatory mechanisms. We then describe seven types of regulatory mechanisms that can be used to improve resilience--including performance-based regulation, integrated planning, tariffs and programs to leverage private investment, alternative lines of business for utilities, enhanced cost recovery, and securitization--and provide a case study for each one. We summarize our findings on the extent to which these regulatory mechanisms have supported resilience to date. We conclude with suggestions on how these regulatory mechanisms might be improved and applied to resilience moving forward.
In 2019, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) contracted Synapse Energy Economics (Synapse) to research the integration of community and electric grid resilience investment planning as part of the Designing Resilient Communities (DRC): A Consequence-Based Approach for Grid Investment project. Synapse produced a series of reports to explore the challenges and opportunities in several key areas, including benefit-cost analysis (BCA), performance metrics, microgrids, and regulatory mechanisms. This report focuses on BCA. BCA is an approach that electric utilities, electric utility regulators, and communities can use to evaluate the costs and benefits of a wide range of grid resilience investments in a comprehensive and consistent way. While BCA is regularly applied to some types of grid investments, application of BCA to grid resilience investments is in the early stages of development. Though resilience is increasingly cited in connection with grid investment proposals and plans, the resilience- related costs and benefits of grid resilience investments are typically not fully identified, infrequently quantified, and almost never monetized. Without complete assessments of costs and benefits, regulators can be hesitant to approve some types of grid resilience investments. This report provides the first application of the framework developed in the 2020 National Standard Practice Manual for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Distributed Energy Resources (NSPM for DERs) to grid resilience investments. We provide guidance on next steps for implementation to enable grid resilience investments to receive due consideration. We suggest developing BCA principles and standards for jurisdiction-specific BCA tests. We also recommend identifying the resilience impacts of the investments and quantification of these impacts by establishing utility performance metrics for resilience. Proactive integration of grid resilience investments into existing regulatory processes and practices can increase the capacity of jurisdictions to respond to and recover from the consequences of extreme events. 1 National Energy Screening Project. 2020. National Standard Practice Manual for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Distributed Energy Resources.
Synapse Energy Economics has conducted structured interviews to better characterize the current landscape of resilience planning within and across jurisdictions. Synapse interviewed representatives of a diverse group of communities and their electric utilities. The resulting case studies span geographies and utility regulatory structures and represent a range of threats. They also vary in terms of population density and size. This report summarizes our approach and the findings gleaned from these conversations. All the communities and utilities we interviewed see increased interest in and commitment of resources for energy-related resilience. The risks and consequences these communities and utilities faced in the past, face now, and will face in the future drove them to improve engagement, advance processes, further decision-making, and in many cases invest in projects. While no process used by communities and utilities was the same, the different processes used by communities and utilities allowed each one to make progress in its own way. Several approaches are emerging that can provide good models for other communities and utilities with an interest in improving resilience.
Broderick, Robert J.; Reno, Matthew J.; Lave, Matthew S.; Azzolini, Joseph A.; Blakely, Logan; Galtieri, Jason G.; Mather, Barry M.; Weekley, Andrew W.; Hunsberger, Randolph H.; Chamana, Manohar C.; Li, Qinmiao L.; Zhang, Wenqi Z.; Latif, Aadil L.; Zhu, Xiangqi Z.; Grijalva, Santiago G.; Zhang, Xiaochen Z.; Deboever, Jeremiah D.; Qureshi, Muhammad U.; Therrien, Francis T.; Lacroix, Jean-Sebastien L.; Li, Feng L.; Belletête, Marc B.; Hébert, Guillaume H.; Montenegro, Davis M.; Dugan, Roger D.
The rapid increase in penetration of distributed energy resources on the electric power distribution system has created a need for more comprehensive interconnection modeling and impact analysis. Unlike conventional scenario-based studies, quasi-static time-series (QSTS) simulations can realistically model time-dependent voltage controllers and the diversity of potential impacts that can occur at different times of year. However, to accurately model a distribution system with all its controllable devices, a yearlong simulation at 1-second resolution is often required, which could take conventional computers a computational time of 10 to 120 hours when an actual unbalanced distribution feeder is modeled. This computational burden is a clear limitation to the adoption of QSTS simulations in interconnection studies and for determining optimal control solutions for utility operations. The solutions we developed include accurate and computationally efficient QSTS methods that could be implemented in existing open-source and commercial software used by utilities and the development of methods to create high-resolution proxy data sets. This project demonstrated multiple pathways for speeding up the QSTS computation using new and innovative methods for advanced time-series analysis, faster power flow solvers, parallel processing of power flow solutions and circuit reduction. The target performance level for this project was achieved with year-long high-resolution time series solutions run in less than 5 minutes within an acceptable error.
The Energy Surety Design Methodology (ESDM) provides a systematic approach for engineers and researchers to create a preliminary electric grid design, thus establishing a means to preserve and quickly restore customer-specified critical loads. Over a decade ago, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) defined Energy Surety for applications with energy systems to include elements of reliability, security, safety, cost, and environmental impact. Since then, Sandia has employed design concepts of energy surety for over 20 military installations and their interaction with utility systems, including the Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security (SPIDERS) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) project. In recent years, resilience has also been added as a key element of energy surety. This methodology document includes both process recommendations and technical guidance, with references to useful tools and analytic approaches at each step of the process.