PNNL

Abstract

This report introduces a functional form that may be used to quantitatively predict the impacts of new grid tools and changing system qualities on the likelihoods, durations, and depths of various grid disturbances. Each disturbance scenario is modeled to have three component stages—avoidance, reactance and recovery, which together parametrically estimate one disturbance’s impacts. The modeled scenario is then placed and replicated within an analysis period to represent the likelihood or frequency of the scenario and its consequent impacts. Whereas analysts have struggled to define and apply metrics for grid resilience, the functional form introduced by this report shares units of measurement with accepted grid-status measures (e.g., numbers of customers currently experiencing a service outage). Furthermore, the integrated and averaged functional form over an analysis period provides a meaningful normalized performance metric (e.g., customer outage minutes per year) that is ultimately independent of the duration of the period of. The approach may be applied similarly regardless of the severity or frequency of the disturbances that are being analyzed. Because metrics can be chosen to be identical in both the hypothetical future and the actual historical past, the historical past eventually becomes the test of the future predictions, at least in a statistical sense. The authors originally developed this approach to facilitate analysis of the effects of transactive energy (TE) systems effects on electric power grid resilience. TE systems invite energy suppliers and consumers to actively collaborate toward the discovery of, and their responses to, the locational value of energy. The findings from this process are often embodied as energy prices, the dynamics of which indicate the locational value of energy and can further represent important grid service needs. While some academic papers claim to quantify the value of a specific TE system design toward grid resilience, the answer, in general, has been elusive. Not only do multiple and conflicting definitions of resilience and reliability exist, but countless TE systems are being invented. We conclude the following: (1) The ideal analysis should harmonize rather than differentiate resilience and reliability. Therefore, this report uses the more general term disturbance whenever the overloaded terms resilience and reliability can be avoided. (2) The effectiveness of TE systems must be mapped to underlying qualities of a TE system, thereby avoiding presumptions that every TE design offers similar advantages. The authors seek to evaluate the parametric effects of TE system qualities (e.g., spatial granularity, granularity of time steps, length of future prediction horizon) on avoiding, reacting to, and recovering from grid disturbances. Furthermore, any advantages (or disadvantages) must be fairly compared with the many alternative tools, systems, and strategies that might offer comparable benefits.