 |
Inaugural Workshop
Breakout Sessions
This section summarizes the activities resulting from the topic-specific breakout sessions, including the goals, current related activities, next steps identified, the lead and the other participants. Additional details on topic activities can be accessed by linking on the session title below.
Session attendees:
List of attendees not collected
Topic clarification:
- How can collaboration improve analytic foundation for planning and portfolio decisions?
- How can we improve the quality of the information for portfolio decisions?
- Portfolio analysis is asking and answering three questions:
- What has the portfolio done and accomplished?
- One question we (state agency) always get is "you have R&D projects, what are the benefits to our state?
- What do we still need to do to achieve our objectives?
- What gaps do we need to fill to do it?
Important Decision Makers Identified:
- Utilities
- R&D programs (program managers, team leads, senior management)
- Folks stressed that upper management relies on expert judgment and the analysis needs to be synthesized
- Someone commented there is currently a gap in DOE in synthesizing/integrating analysis findings
- States - because they manage energy funds
- Regulators
- Consumers
- Manufacturers
Which comes first — analysis or policy?
- Analysts provide information to help inform decisions (e.g., how to optimize the portfolio to fulfill stated objectives).
- Decision makers know what they want to do (often for political reasons) and the analysis is done to support that position.
Good analysis is critical to (1) inform decisions and (2) to help inform how best to get where decision makers want to go (i.e., if that is the direction you want to go, here are the realities you should be aware of as you set your goals and timelines). At the end of the day, all analysis has to pass the test of being able to communicate with decision makers in an effective way.
The goal of analysis should be to define the "trade space" within which decision makers have to work, and it should not pick winners or losers. Rather, analysis should define the "trade space" and let policy makers decide what to emphasize.
Data needs for portfolio analysis
- Doing a portfolio characterization is important to do before you do a portfolio analysis (enables you to identify common indicators and know your baseline).
- To compare across various programs and evaluate across a portfolio, we need:
- Consistent set of indicators that can be reported out before we become obsessed with figuring out how we will deal with the differences.
- A common way for all programs to "report out" their information.
- Create a clearinghouse of existing information - would be valuable and doesn't exist.
- Decision makers at the low and high levels need different information; need tools/results that can be rolled-up to meet the high level needs while still be of value to the low level.
Performing portfolio analysis
- There is no core structure for portfolio analysis in energy
- Organizations seldom look at the whole problem nor do they identify dependent element of the portfolio (e.g., PV and storage).
- DOE - Science is considering system dynamic models for basic research tradeoffs.
- System dynamic model is easy to visualize, but difficult to implement — need to be aware of the conditions that need to be in place to accomplish what we want.
- We need to find a way to perform portfolio analysis on a consistent basis.
- Probably is not a single tool, maybe a framework or a suite of tools
- They need to be able to:
- Address potential future scenarios,
- Address the temporal aspects of the portfolio (research vs. deployment),
- Address risk by considering large uncertainties.
- Integrate/synthesize portfolio analysis work to help inform the portfolio decisions.
- Communicate our findings in terms that decision makers will understand.
Collaboration process
- Recommend a multiyear effort, with a step-by-step approach to improving the method and tools, while not holding the near term work hostage to the ultimate tool.
- Needs to includes experts on existing portfolio analysis tools; their knowledge is important, we can improve tools and perhaps develop new ones.
- Perhaps EIA could request collecting certain data it doesn't currently collect.
- We need to engage more state folks in the input process.
- TIMING: Backdate if from June (when the budget reviews take place in DOE) to identify what you need, from what players, and by when to inform the budget-formulation process.
- One potential solution is to expand Laboratory Working Group effort to broader set of "stakeholders" in a structured way to develop a set of tools along the way.
Activities decided by the group:
Activity No. 1 — Improve framework for analysis -
- Risk, value, and uncertainty are three key portfolio analysis areas we need to assess.
- Need to identify key areas of portfolio analysis people need input on:
- What can we use that's in place,
- Where are the gaps,
- NREL will be lead for this activity,
- Needs to be independent to have credibility,
- Peer review is critical of institute's work.
Activity No. 2 — Portfolio analysis center -
- Funding is a key issue for all activities,
- Science could include request for line-item funding in their August Energy Policy Act (EPAct) portfolio recommendations deliverable,
- LWG should share their best practices review with the group,
- NYSERDA's analysis shop may be a model,
- Need to review options for establishing a permanent portfolio analysis capability.
Activity No. 3 — Identify standards of excellence for portfolio analysis - no discussion because we ran out of time
|
|
