1 / 17

Load Forecasting Process Review Calvin Opheim Generation Adequacy Task Force October 7, 2013

Load Forecasting Process Review Calvin Opheim Generation Adequacy Task Force October 7, 2013. Outline. Long-Term Load Forecast Process Review Previous Model Approach What we’ve learned New Modeling Approach Approach Weather Normalization 4 Coincident Peak Analysis Questions.

denzel
Télécharger la présentation

Load Forecasting Process Review Calvin Opheim Generation Adequacy Task Force October 7, 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Load Forecasting Process Review Calvin Opheim Generation Adequacy Task Force October 7, 2013

  2. Outline • Long-Term Load Forecast Process Review • Previous Model • Approach • What we’ve learned • New Modeling Approach • Approach • Weather Normalization • 4 Coincident Peak Analysis • Questions

  3. Weather Zones

  4. Previous Model • 2-3 weather stations per weather zone • Used non-farm employment to capture future growth • Weather Zone Forecasts • Daily Energy Per Job = f(weather, season, day type, daylight) • Hourly Demand = f(temperatures, previous hour’s load) • ERCOT Forecast • ∑ eight weather zone loads

  5. Previous Model Forecast Accuracy

  6. Previous Model – What we’ve learned • Historical values of economic data are subject to significant revision for two years • During the first quarter of 2013, the Bureau of Labor Statistics increased non-farm employment values by 1% in 2011 and 2% in 2012. • While values may seem small, relative impacts are significant. • Changing historical data compromises the accuracy of the model as “historical” relationships are subject to change. • Model was based on the assumption that non-farm employment values were stable.

  7. Previous Model – What we’ve learned • Historical revisions impact forecast years • Moody’s forecast for CY2013 was increased by 2% in order to align with the revised historical values for CY 2012. • Did load suddenly increase by 2% due to these revisions? • Economic forecasts have been trending high, resulting in forecasts that reflect overly optimistic growth scenarios.

  8. Previous Model – What we’ve learned

  9. What’s new? • Daily energy forecasts are now based on Neural Network Models. • Growth is determined by multiple factors (premise growth rates, weather variables, day types, and their interactions). • A single economic variable has less influence on forecast outcome. • Benefits • ERCOT can determine/account for variable interactions more robustly, compared to linear regression models. • All predictor variables are used as inputs in each network node. • This approach produces more detailed/precise model formulation.

  10. Neural Network Model Diagram

  11. What’s new? • Forecasts will now be based on many model simulations instead of being based on a single linear model. • Neural Network models were developed with 33% of the historical data being withheld from model development. • The data being withheld was determined randomly. • Randomly withholding data mitigates over-fitting of the data. • The model’s accuracy was determined based on how well it predicted the sample holdout data. • Process was repeated hundreds of times (model convergence). • Benefits • In statistics, repeated sampling gives a more accurate estimate than a single sample. • The result is a more robust forecast.

  12. What’s new? • Historical energy relationships will now be based on premise counts by customer class (residential, commercial and industrial). • Historical energy relationships will no longer be based on non-farm employment values. • Benefits • Historical premise accounts will be very stable and will not be subject to the significant changes exhibited by non-farm employment revisions. • “Historical values are actually historical.”

  13. What’s new? • The determination of 15-year normal forecast will now be based on model output using the most recent 15 years of historical weather data. • Will no longer create a synthetic weather file for use in the model • Will no longer time align weather conditions for time of peak • Benefits • More accurately reflects historical weather patterns • More accurately reflects load diversity at time of peak

  14. 2011 Summer Peak – Impact of 4 CP load reduction • 4 CP impact shown is based on aggregated transmission load values for ~430 premises. • Estimate is not based on an analysis of individual premises. • Difference represents the 4 CP impact of ~600 MW on an aggregated basis. • 4 CP impact would likely be greater if analysis were performed on individual premises. 4 CP impact

  15. 2012 Summer Peak – 4CP Impact • 4 CP impact shown is based on aggregated transmission load values for ~430 premises. • Estimate is not based on an analysis of individual premises. • Difference represents the 4 CP impact of ~900 MW on an aggregated basis. • 4 CP impact would likely be greater if analysis were performed on individual premises. 4 CP impact

  16. 2013 Summer Peak - 4CP Impact • 4 CP impact shown is based on aggregated transmission load values for ~440 premises. • Estimate is not based on an analysis of individual premises. 4 CP Impact • Difference represents the 4 CP impact of ~500 MW on an aggregated basis. • 4 CP impact would likely be greater if analysis were performed on individual premises.

  17. ON OFF Questions

More Related