Regulatory Packet — MCE Board of Directors, March 21, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

FEBRUARY FILINGS

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish a
Framework and Processes for Assessing the
Affordability of Utility Service.

R.18-07-006
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION’S REPLY COMMENTS ON ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S RULING SEEKING ANNUAL FEEDBACK

ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AFFORDABILITY FRAMEWORK
Evelyn Kahl,
General Counsel and Director of Policy
Eric Little,
Director of Regulatory Affairs

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE

ASSOCIATION
One Concord Center
2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1150
Concord, CA 94520
Telephone: (510) 980-9459
E-mail: [email protected]
February 16, 2024
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 II. CAL ADVOCATES’ PROPOSAL THAT THE COMMISSION BE

REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE USE OF THE

AFFORDABILITY FRAMEWORK IN THE AAR SHOULD BE ADOPTED

BECAUSE IT WILL PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY TO RATEPAYERS
WITHOUT HIGH ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ...........................................................2 III. TURN’S PROPOSED REQUIREMENT THAT THE IOUS INCLUDE

CUMULATIVE AFFORDABILITY METRICS SHOULD BE ADOPTED
AS IT WILL INCREASE TRANSPARENCY ...................................................................3 IV. THE JOINT UTILITIES’ PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE REVENUE

REQUIREMENT THRESHOLD TRIGGERING THE AFFORDABILITY

METRICS ANALYSIS SHOULD BE REJECTED AS IT WILL REDUCE
VISIBILITY IN TO THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACTS .................................................4 V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................5 ii

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The California Community Choice Association recommends that the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) take the following actions:
• Adopt the proposal of the Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission to provide details on how the Commission uses the Affordability Framework and Metrics in the Annual Affordability Report (AAR) because it would provide transparency to ratepayers with only a marginal change to the current drafting of the AAR;
• Adopt The Utility Reform Network’s proposal to require the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to provide cumulative Affordability Metrics so all stakeholders can understand cumulative impacts to affordability from IOU applications; and • Reject the recommendation of San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company to increase the threshold for presenting the Affordability Metrics in rate applications from 1 percent to 3-4 percent because it would reduce transparency of proposed impacts to affordability.

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish a
Framework and Processes for Assessing the
Affordability of Utility Service.

R.18-07-006
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION’S REPLY COMMENTS ON ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S RULING SEEKING ANNUAL FEEDBACK

ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AFFORDABILITY FRAMEWORK
California Community Choice Association1 (CalCCA) submits these reply comments pursuant to the Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling Seeking Annual Feedback on the Implementation of the Affordability Framework , dated December 13, 2023 (Ruling),2 and Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Noticing Related Proceedings of Comments Sought, dated December 14, 20233 (December 14 Ruling). The Ruling seeks feedback on the use and implementation of the California Public Utilities Commission’s (Commission) adopted affordability framework within Commission proceedings and in the Annual Affordability Report.4
In addition to seeking feedback from parties
1 California Community Choice Association represents the interests of 24 community choice electricity providers in California: Apple Valley Choice Energy, Ava Community Energy, Central Coast Community Energy, Clean Energy Alliance, Clean Power Alliance, CleanPowerSF, Desert Community Energy, Energy For Palmdale’s Independent Choice, Lancaster Energy, Marin Clean Energy, Orange County Power Authority, Peninsula Clean Energy, Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy, Pioneer Community Energy, Pomona Choice Energy, Rancho Mirage Energy Authority, Redwood Coast Energy Authority, San Diego Community Power, San Jacinto Power, San José Clean Energy, Santa Barbara Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, Sonoma Clean Power, and Valley Clean Energy. 2 Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling Seeking Annual Feedback on The Implementation of The Affordability Framework, Rulemaking (R.) 18-07-006 (Dec. 13, 2023):
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M521/K479/521479648.PDF. 3 Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Noticing Related Proceedings of Comments Sought, R.18-07- 006 (Dec. 14, 2023): https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M521/K449/521449073.PDF. 4 See Decision (D.) 22-08-023, Decision Implementing the Affordability Metrics, R.18-07-006 (Aug. 4, 2022), at 71, and Ordering Paragraph 13, at 87-88 (allowing parties to comment generally on the use and interpretation of the affordability framework within Commission proceedings and in the annual Affordability Report):
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M496/K428/496428621.PDF. 2 to this rulemaking, the December 14 Ruling seeks feedback from parties to other proceedings in which the Affordability Metrics have been introduced and analyzed.

I. INTRODUCTION
These reply comments support specific party opening comments that contribute to transparency and accessibility of the Affordability Framework and Metrics for stakeholders and ratepayers. Conversely, these reply comments recommend the rejection of party proposals that will have a negative impact on Affordability Framework transparency and accessibility. As such, CalCCA respectfully recommends the Commission take the following actions:
• Adopt the proposal of the Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates) to provide details on how the Commission uses the Affordability Framework and Metrics in the Annual Affordability Report (AAR) because it will provide transparency to ratepayers with only a marginal change to the current drafting of the AAR;
• Adopt The Utility Reform Network’s (TURN) proposal to require the investor-owned utilities (IOU) to provide cumulative Affordability Metrics so all stakeholders can understand cumulative impacts to affordability resulting from IOU applications; and • Reject the recommendation of San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company (together, the Joint Utilities) to increase the threshold for presenting the Affordability Metrics in rate applications from 1 percent to 3-4 percent because it will reduce transparency of proposed impacts to affordability.

II. CAL ADVOCATES’ PROPOSAL THAT THE COMMISSION BE REQUIRED

TO PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE USE OF THE AFFORDABILITY

FRAMEWORK IN THE AAR SHOULD BE ADOPTED BECAUSE IT WILL

PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY TO RATEPAYERS WITHOUT HIGH

ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN
Adopting Cal Advocates’ proposal that the Commission provide details in the AAR on how the Commission uses the Affordability Framework is a reasonable way to provide more transparency without high administrative burden. Cal Advocates recommends in opening comments that the Commission “include a description of how the Commission uses the affordability framework to 3 inform its decisions.”5 This additional information will provide transparency for ratepayers and the public to understand the Commission’s efforts in protecting affordability. Since the AAR is published once per year, this added section to the report will not represent a high administrative burden relative to other alternatives.

For example, one alternative is that the Commission incorporate a discussion of its use of the Affordability Framework in every decision for proceedings in which the IOUs apply the Affordability Metrics. However, this will likely require the Commission to repeat itself, creating redundancy and unnecessary burden, as the Commission makes multiple decisions on similar applications. Instead, the Commission’s publishing its usage of the Affordability Framework and Metrics once per year via the AAR provides the necessary visibility regarding the Commission’s strategies to address affordability concerns without adding unnecessary administrative burden.

III. TURN’S PROPOSED REQUIREMENT THAT THE IOUS INCLUDE

CUMULATIVE AFFORDABILITY METRICS SHOULD BE ADOPTED

AS IT WILL INCREASE TRANSPARENCY
Requiring the IOUs to include cumulative Affordability Metrics any time IOUs already present the metrics will arm the Commission with critical data to make more informed decisions, as well as improve transparency for stakeholders. TURN recommends that the IOUs “include both the revenue request and also the approved request(s) that are pending for inclusion in rates” any time the IOUs present the Affordability Metrics.6 The incremental and siloed nature of the current presentation by the IOUs of the Affordability Metrics makes a holistic consideration of all revenue requests challenging for the Commission and stakeholders. The IOUs already submit a list of itemized revenue requests on a quarterly basis to the Commission, which can be augmented by 5 See Cal Advocates Opening Comments, at 18.
6 See TURN Opening Comments, at 4.
4 requiring incorporation of the Affordability Metrics.7 While all revenue requests have their own rationale, keeping track of the bigger picture of how the requests add up will allow the Commission to adequately consider the overall impact of each request. Therefore, the Commission should require the IOUs to include both incremental and cumulative Affordability Metrics with applications.

IV. THE JOINT UTILITIES’ PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE REVENUE

REQUIREMENT THRESHOLD TRIGGERING THE AFFORDABILITY

METRICS ANALYSIS SHOULD BE REJECTED AS IT WILL REDUCE

VISIBILITY IN TO THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACTS
The Commission should reject the Joint Utilities’ proposal to increase the threshold triggering Affordability Metrics analysis in IOU applications because it will reduce the frequency of metric presentation and reduce transparency. The Joint Utilities propose to increase the threshold from 1 percent to 3-4 percent due to the Commission’s Affordability Ratio Calculator using a 3-4 percent escalation factor for income and housing.8
However, their proposal would result in less
transparency for customers.

The Joint Utilities found that using the affordability metrics to assess revenue requirement increases less than 3-4 percent lead to “counterintuitive affordability metrics results”9 The Joint Utilities provide an example that demonstrates the income and housing escalation factors included in the Affordability Ratio Calculator can lead to instances where small revenue requirement increases appear to improve affordability. Therefore, the Joint Utilities argue that the 3-4 percent trigger is necessary to prevent the confusion that can result from the application of the 1 percent threshold.

However, a potentially confusing result is not a reasonable argument for reducing transparency. 7 Commission webpage of Itemized List of Revenue Requests: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/affordability/quarterly-revenue-request-reports. 8 See Joint Utilities Opening Comments, at 7 (explaining why the Affordability Metrics threshold should be increased).
9 See id., at 4.
5 While ensuring accurate interpretation of the Affordability Ratio Calculator is important, the issue the Joint Utilities cite can be addressed by enhancing context within the calculator and presenting metrics in a clear manner to aid users in understanding its functionality and interpreting results effectively. Submitting cumulative metrics as proposed in section 3 above would also serve to counteract potentially misleading results. While one application at just above the 1 percent threshold may cause unexpected results, presenting the impact on metrics from the rest of the pending requests with it would develop a clearer picture. This would avoid the outcome with which the Joint Utilities are concerned and provide more transparency. On the other hand, tripling or quadrupling the threshold percentage for Affordability Metric presentation will provide less transparency than is currently the case. Fewer instances of presenting the Affordability Metrics will generate less data over time, therefore decreasing the time granularity of data and the usefulness of the data. Affordability of utility rates is a critical issue for Californians, and the Commission’s actions must not decrease transparency and use of the Affordability Metrics. As a result, the Joint Utilities’ proposal to increase the threshold to trigger the affordability metrics analyses should be rejected.

V. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, CalCCA respectfully requests consideration of these reply comments and looks forward to an ongoing dialogue with the Commission and stakeholders.

Respectfully submitted,
Evelyn Kahl,
General Counsel and Director of Policy

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE

ASSOCIATION
February 16, 2024
t

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue
Electric Integrated Resource Planning and
Related Procurement Processes.

R.20-05-003
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION’S REPLY COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DECISION ADOPTING 2023 PREFERRED SYSTEM PLAN AND

RELATED MATTERS, AND ADDRESSING TWO PETITIONS FOR MODIFICATION Evelyn Kahl,
General Counsel and Director of Policy
Lauren Carr,
Senior Market Policy Analyst

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE

ASSOCIATION
One Concord Center
2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1150
Concord, CA 94520
Telephone: (510) 980-9459
E-mail: [email protected]
February 5, 2024
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD RETAIN FOF 19, WHICH FLAGS A
POTENTIAL RELIABILITY SHORTFALL IN 2025 .......................................................1 II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD MAINTAIN THE REQUIREMENT TO
PROVIDE BRIDGE CAPACITY FOR LLT EXTENSIONS.............................................2 III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REJECT EDF’S RECOMMENDATION TO ORDER LSES TO PROCURE SHED DEMAND RESPONSE .........................................3 IV. THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT ADOPT FORM ENERGY’S
RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW IOUS TO SUBMIT TIER 3 ADVICE
LETTERS FOR APPROVAL OF UTILITY-OWNED STORAGE ...................................4 V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................5 iii

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
• The Commission should retain Finding of Fact 19, which flags a potential reliability shortfall in 2025;
• The Commission should maintain the requirement to provide bridge capacity for long lead time extensions;
• The Commission should reject the Environmental Defense Fund’s recommendation to order load-serving entities to procure shed demand response; and • The Commission should not adopt Form Energy’s recommendation to allow the investor-owned utilities to submit Tier 3 Advice Letters for approval of utility-owned storage.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION’S REPLY COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DECISION ADOPTING 2023 PREFERRED SYSTEM PLAN AND

RELATED MATTERS, AND ADDRESSING TWO PETITIONS FOR MODIFICATION The California Community Choice Association (CalCCA)1 submits these reply comments pursuant to Rule 14.3 of the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure2 on the proposed Decision Adopting 2023 Preferred System Plan and Related Matters, and Addressing Two Petitions For Modification3 (Proposed Decision), mailed January 10, 2024.

I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD RETAIN FOF 19, WHICH FLAGS A
POTENTIAL RELIABILITY SHORTFALL IN 2025
Finding of Fact (FOF) 19 states, “Commission staff analysis shows that there is a potential reliability shortfall to the reliability standard for the electric system in 2025, even if the procurement already ordered in Decision (D.) 21-06-035 comes online in time.” The Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT) suggests this FOF is overstated and should be revised.4 CalCCA disagrees.

CEERT first demonstrates that while the Commission’s analysis shows a potential shortfall in 2025, there is a surplus if the analysis were to include the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (Diablo Canyon).5
Including Diablo Canyon in Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) reliability modeling is inconsistent with the statute adopted in Senate Bill 846, which states:

The commission shall not include the energy, capacity, or any attribute from Diablo Canyon Unit 1 beyond November 1, 2024, or Unit 2 beyond August 26, 2025, in the adopted integrated resource plan portfolios, resource stacks, or preferred system plans. 1 California Community Choice Association represents the interests of 24 community choice electricity providers in California: Apple Valley Choice Energy, Ava Community Energy, Central Coast Community Energy, Clean Energy Alliance, Clean Power Alliance, CleanPowerSF, Desert Community Energy, Energy For Palmdale’s Independent Choice, Lancaster Energy, Marin Clean Energy, Orange County Power Authority, Peninsula Clean Energy, Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy, Pioneer Community Energy, Pomona Choice Energy, Rancho Mirage Energy Authority, Redwood Coast Energy Authority, San Diego Community Power, San Jacinto Power, San José Clean Energy, Santa Barbara Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, Sonoma Clean Power, and Valley Clean Energy. 2 State of California, California Public Utilities Commission, Rules of Practice and Procedure (May 1, 2021).
3 Proposed Decision Adopting 2023 Preferred System Plan and Related Matters, and Addressing Two Petitions for Modification, Rulemaking (R.) 20-05-003 (Jan. 1, 2024). 4 CEERT at 7.
5 Id. at 8.
2 The Commission should, therefore, not modify its FOF on the basis of including Diablo Canyon in reliability modeling for 2025.

CEERT then suggests supply chain challenges are no longer a cause for concern because California Independent System Operator (CAISO) data shows more battery storage projects were able to interconnect in 2023 than was required by the mid-term reliability (MTR) procurement order.6 The Commission should not modify FOF 19 on this basis. It is not clear that developers are able to procure the necessary equipment to complete projects ahead of schedule as CEERT suggests. Data collected from CalCCA members in May 2023 found that supply chain was the primary source of delay experienced by projects under contract, followed by interconnection delays and permitting issues. Per this data, 51 projects totaling 1,763 megawatts (MW) of net qualifying capacity have been impacted by supply chain issues for community choice aggregators alone. Given the persisting challenges developers face with the supply chain, interconnection queue, and permitting process, it would be misguided to assume that projects will be able to come online ahead of schedule as suggested by CEERT. For these reasons, the Commission should retain FOF 19 as written in the Proposed Decision.

II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD MAINTAIN THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE

BRIDGE CAPACITY FOR LLT EXTENSIONS
Several parties recommend that the Commission re-evaluate the need for bridge capacity, either in the Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program (RCPPP) or through updated analysis, before making bridge capacity procurement a requirement for receiving a long lead time (LLT) resource extension.7 The Commission should reject these recommendations.

The Commission's October 5, 2023, Ruling8 (Ruling) evaluated the reliability impacts of allowing an additional extension and found a very small capacity surplus if it were to grant the extension without bridge capacity. Requiring bridge capacity will provide assurances that the LLT extensions do not threaten reliability in the event of procurement risks such as project delays, extreme weather, thermal derates, localized forced outages, or other factors as cited in the Ruling. Given the Ruling demonstrates the market for new capacity will continue to be tight through 2028, it is prudent 6 Id. at 9.
7 The California Energy Storage Alliance at 4, Hydrostor Inc. at 4-5, Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. d/b/a Shell Energy Solutions at 5-6, and the Western Power Trading Forum at 5-6. 8 Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Seeking Comment on Proposed 2023 Preferred System Plan and Transmission Planning Process Portfolios, R.20-05-003 (Oct. 5, 2023). 3 for the Commission to require bridge capacity to cover any extensions in the LLT resource requirement.

Allowing extensions without bridge capacity also creates an incentive for load serving entities (LSE) to ask for extensions unnecessarily given the possibility of not needing to do any other procurement to cover the amount subject to the extension. This would delay procurement further than necessary and disadvantage LSEs that made successful efforts to comply with the June 1, 2028, deadline and, therefore, do not require extensions. For these reasons, the Commission should retain the LLT extension process as outlined in the Proposed Decision that requires LSEs to cover their extension amounts with bridge capacity.

III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REJECT EDF’S RECOMMENDATION TO

ORDER LSES TO PROCURE SHED DEMAND RESPONSE
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) supports the Proposed Decision’s adoption of the 25 million metric ton Core Portfolio but recommends the Commission additionally order 300-600 MW of shed demand response (DR) procurement in 2026.9 EDF suggests that its recommendation will act as a stepping-stone toward achieving the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) load shift goal of 7,000 MW by 2030.10
The Commission should not adopt EDF’s recommendation for two reasons. First, procurement orders should be done on an attribute basis rather than a technology-specific basis. It is resource attributes, not the specific technology, that contribute to reliability and greenhouse-gas reduction.

Mandating procurement on a technology-basis rather than an attribute-basis unnecessarily restricts LSE from making economically efficient procurement decisions and remaining flexible to changing conditions. If the Commission orders additional procurement in the future, it should do so on an attribute-based, technology-neutral basis to allow LSEs to procure the most cost-effective portfolio of resources that meets their share of reliability needs.

Second, the Commission should not unilaterally order procurement of shed demand response in the name of advancing the CEC’s load shift goals. The Commission should, instead, work with the CEC to evaluate methods for achieving the CEC’s load shift goal in a holistic manner that targets the identified need in the CEC’s Load Shift Goal Report (the Report). The policy recommendations in the Report are wide-ranging and include load-modifying DR and supply-side DR, dynamic 9 EDF at 6.
10 Id.
4 pricing, load-shifting, and pilots. As the CEC states in the Report, “[m]any pathways exist to achieve the load shift goal.”11
IV. THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT ADOPT FORM ENERGY’S
RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW IOUS TO SUBMIT TIER 3 ADVICE

LETTERS FOR APPROVAL OF UTILITY-OWNED STORAGE
Form Energy, Inc. (Form Energy) recommends the Commission allow the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to file Tier 3 Advice Letters, rather than applications, for the approval of utility-owned long-duration energy storage (LDES) under certain conditions.12 Form Energy states that expediting Commission review through the use of the Advice Letter process will (1) improve the odds LDES projects will score higher in Department of Energy federal funding programs, and/or (2) make it possible for LDES projects to meet the Commission’s initial June 1, 2028, deadline.13 The Commission should reject Form Energy’s recommendation. The Commission already allows for an application to request expedited treatment. If the IOU sees a need, including the reasoning Form Energy has provided for using a Tier 3 Advice Letter, the IOU may request an expedited application. By retaining the application process, intervenors are still allowed important opportunities including testimony, discovery, and hearings that a Tier 3 Advice Letter does not guarantee. Investment in a new plant with implications to the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment should be afforded the opportunity that an application provides and not left to a Tier 3 Advice Letter.

In addition, with regard to bringing on LDES by June 1, 2028, the Proposed Decision provides an opportunity to provide replacement capacity for LLT resources that cannot meet the deadline. CalCCA supports this option. Allowing the IOUs to skip the important steps applications require, therefore, does not solve a reliability risk created by LLT resources coming online past the June 1, 2028, deadline. For these reasons, the Commission should not adopt Form Energy’s recommendation.
11 Neumann, Ingrid and Erik Lyon. May 2023. Senate Bill 846 Load-Shift Goal Report. California Energy Commission Publication Number: CEC-200-2023-008. 12 Form Energy at 12.
13 Id.
5 V. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, CalCCA respectfully requests consideration of the Reply Comments herein.

Respectfully submitted,
Evelyn Kahl,
General Counsel and Director of Policy

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE

ASSOCIATION
February 5, 2024
t
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102-3298

GAVIN NEWSOM,
Marin Clean Energy
ELC (Corp ID 6)
Status of Advice Letter 70E
As of February 7, 2024
Division Assigned: Energy
Date Filed: 10-16-2023
Date to Calendar: 11-08-2023
Authorizing Documents:

Authorizing Documents:

Disposition:

Effective Date:

Resolution Required: No
Resolution Number: None
Commission Meeting Date: None
CPUC Contact Information:

AL Certificate Contact Information:

Subject: Marin Clean Energy's True-Up Advice Letter
D2105031
D2306055
Accepted
11-15-2023
Wade Stano
[email protected]
415-464-6024X104
[email protected]
To: Energy Company Filing Advice Letter
From: Energy Division PAL Coordinator
Subject: Your Advice Letter Filing
The Energy Division of the California Public Utilities Commission has processed your recent Advice Letter (AL) filing and is returning an AL status certificate for your records.

The AL status certificate indicates:

Advice Letter Number
Name of Filer
CPUC Corporate ID number of Filer
Subject of Filing
Date Filed
Disposition of Filing (Accepted, Rejected, Withdrawn, etc.) Effective Date of Filing
Other Miscellaneous Information (e.g., Resolution, if applicable, etc.) The Energy Division has made no changes to your copy of the Advice Letter Filing; please review your Advice Letter Filing with the information contained in the AL status certificate, and update your Advice Letter and tariff records accordingly.

All inquiries to the California Public Utilities Commission on the status of your Advice Letter Filing will be answered by Energy Division staff based on the information contained in the Energy Division's PAL database from which the AL status certificate is generated. If you have any questions on this matter please contact the:

Energy Division's Tariff Unit by e-mail to
[email protected]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102-3298

GAVIN NEWSOM,

!
!

"
#$#%"&&'$'
(%)#"(
#*#+"$,-"%#*#**

.*&
/%
0123453

6+
7 8
6 9

!-:
;<=>?4@?AB1CDE?F1GBH??EI45J123K?LABD23MAAB145K?NA>1F?ED23K?=BD5?O1BN43D12 P1BJD2QRB1GA<
S

8 :

TUT.
$
(

U -!

!
V<W@3K?B?42FD@@G?X5K4>>?2Q?B?>43?E31L54B5D3F=BD5D2Q3K43K4@213I??2ED@5G@@?E42E Y4BB423@HGB3K?BP1BJD2QRB1GA512C?B@43D12Z
)[-6
6 U
T

8 :T 8:6\-

T --

T-
UT
[

U
8:6

66T

[
] TT

U!
S

U-
6^_
-

T!]`ab

T T
6 U-

6T
T

UT-

T
U
[

--
!

T
6 6T
[c. -

T
T!

ab
"666!
!
[+T
$

(
d
**! !
e<=>?4@?AB1CDE?F1GB1BQ42Df43D12@H??EI45J123K?H1>>1YD2Q=B1I>?NL343?N?23@ AB?@?23?ED23K?LABD23<gKD@H??EI45J542D25>GE?51NN?23@123K?D@@G?X5K4>>?2Q? DE?23DHD?EhHB4ND2Q1H3K?D@@G?hA13?23D4>@1>G3D12@1B2?5?@@4BF512@DE?B43D12@D21BE?B31 E?C?>1A@1>G3D12@<

!
]
-
TU
Ui[+

T[8i+
:
[

T--U !.!
j
-
TU-U-
T

UT
T

T--U[

U
T .U
!(-U
-
T. +()

.
k***
l6
U
TU-
U 6.

k***
l!!S

[
T.

[
U-T[
\ !
S.

T T-
T--U

U
-!

] T

T-
U

T
U
T
--

6[
\-

.m[.U

6-
T
U.
-

!SU

T
6 .

[

T[
T
U

6 .
.
.[-
-

-TT
U
[

[
T!)
04>DH1B2D401NNG2D3F0K1D5?M@@15D43D12 n)
SS(+****%

!
!

"
#$#%"&&'$'
(%)#"(
#*#+"$,-"%#*#**

.*&
/%
-
0-
1 -

2 0

31 322-2
1 4

.
2--1 !
56-7243 4

4 -
2 -89

.
12 2

.
14 .
1 2892(-1:
; 2 -

1--

1 8%9

-$
0 -

-!5

4 2

1 -4

2 1
2 .1
!
5 2

4 1.
24 2

2 4<2. -

22. 2

4 4

2 !+2-
1 -

23 1.

2 3

=>?@ABCDE?F2

3 -2-!+

2 .0 .
4 2

31 1

.
!
5 2

1. 4

.
2 1.
!

12 < 32
3 -
1 4 4
2 1

2 2
1 1

1 -32
2 4

.
2 1!
-

1. 2
G3

-
1 4 EA=>?@ABCDF

2 .

3-
!HEDIB

2 1
.4
-

2!-
13 132
-

42. 44-

1--
1-!JKL>AM3

.
0 1 2

4 2

1 2G3

-
1 4
4 2
1 2

3 -204
1-3

!OPEDM
-

22-

3 2
1 4

.
!H>@DBP

1 -

4 13

2 2
122
3 32

42 3

4 4

-!Q

2 -

3 2
-

2 2-

43 2

.
1!3

12 23.!
+

2 1
21 .
1!
4 2
2 3

41 !5

41 2

2 3

!74

222

2 !

-3.

--1
-2. +
2 (-1)

R***-
3 28
69 1
21-1 3
.

R***
6!
2 2
1 3
-. 2

!
-2
.

4 1-
3 2

.
2R***
6!
STUVWXYZ[\]^Y_`WaWY_YbW`WXaWcY[Yde`fg``YdebWXYhfa[feWij[efebkhZ[ebWlZ^Ya`Y Z[\medYi\g[\[kabenaWe\b`meYc\bWXe`Z[\]^Y_`WaWY_YbWopekXZ[e\[eWilqYdeg_j[e\[eWil r\cj[e\[eWils\WaZ[e\[eWiltbYYd_\[YebV\[_aWe\bude`fg``e\bW\dYfedYvT

!
G
-
21 1;4+

248;+
9 4

2--1 !.!
w
-
21-1-
2 1

.
12 2

2--14

1 2 .1
!(-1
-

2. +()

R***
63 1
21-
1 3.

R***
6!!5

4 2.

4 1-24
0 !
6 0
.

G-13
4 42

1. -

-42

1. !
!

"
#$#%"&&'$'
(%)#"(
#*#+"$,-"%#*#**

.*&
/%%

.0
-

--
1-!
234567895:;<;;9=5>?@<78=A9B<B;=C<<DEC7F<;=G=H:=GCE8I<:EJ:9=5;:=<D7F=8<3KLE:

E8<:L<=H:=GCE8I<:EJ:9=5;M=HN<F9<A<;L=HFBN<<D7F=8<BGH8:L<895K=8I95OP8=H7 J=5A<8;E:9=5Q
RS%!
T3UF<E;<78=A9B<E5MEBB9:9=5EFJ=CC<5:;=GG<<BNEJI=5:L<U89J<V=8CE:9=5 W5LE5J<C<5:;K=8I95OP8=H73

DOCKETED
Docket Number: 21-OIR-01
Project Title: Rulemaking to Amend Regulations Governing the Power Source Disclosure Program
TN #: 254723
Document Title: CalCCA Comments on Pre-Rulemaking PSD Revised Updates Description: CalCCA Comments on Pre-Rulemaking PSD Revised Updates Filer: Shawn-Dai Linderman
Organization: CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION
Submitter Role: Public
Submission Date: 2/28/2024 2:49:22 PM
Docketed Date: 2/21/2024

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF:

Rulemaking to Amend Regulations Governing
the Power Source Disclosure Program
DOCKET NO. 21-OIR-01
RE: Power Source Disclosure
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION’S COMMENTS

ON THE PRE-RULEMAKING UPDATES TO THE POWER SOURCE

DISCLOSURE REGULATIONS
Evelyn Kahl,
General Counsel and Director of Policy
Leanne Bober,
Senior Counsel

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE

ASSOCIATION
One Concord Center
2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1150
Concord, CA 94520
(510) 980-9459
[email protected]
February 21, 2024
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. THE PROPOSED PSD UPDATES SHOULD BE ADOPTED, WITH
CLARIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................4 A. The Commission Should Clarify When the New Annual Accounting Rules Will Take Effect .............................................................................................5 B. User Accessibility of the Power Content Label for Non-English Speakers and the Visually Impaired Should be Addressed .....................................5 C. Procurement for Small Procurement Programs With Narrow Eligibility Requirements and Limited Applicability Should Be Exempted from Reporting..................................................................................................................5 D. The Commission Should Provide Example ‘Use Cases,’ Templates, and Program Testing Opportunities to Ensure Accurate and Consistent Implementation of the New Hourly and Annual Reporting Rules ..........................6 III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................6

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF:

Rulemaking to Amend Regulations Governing
the Power Source Disclosure Program
DOCKET NO. 21-OIR-01
RE: Power Source Disclosure
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION’S COMMENTS

ON THE PRE-RULEMAKING UPDATES TO THE POWER SOURCE

DISCLOSURE REGULATIONS
California Community Choice Association1 (CalCCA) submits these comments to the California Energy Commission (Commission) on the second version of the “Pre-Rulemaking Draft” of Proposed Amendments to the Power Source Disclosure (PSD) program regulations, and the “Summary of Changes and FAQs,” both dated January 31, 2024 (collectively, the Proposed PSD Updates).

I. INTRODUCTION
CalCCA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed PSD Updates, and to be a participant in both this pre-rulemaking and the upcoming Rulemaking to formalize the PSD program modifications. As generation providers to approximately 37 percent of customers in the investor-owned utilities’ (IOU) territories, community choice aggregators (CCA) as load-serving 1 California Community Choice Association represents the interests of 24 community choice electricity providers in California: Apple Valley Choice Energy, Ava Community Energy, Central Coast Community Energy, Clean Energy Alliance, Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, CleanPowerSF, Desert Community Energy, Energy For Palmdale’s Independent Choice, Lancaster Energy, Marin Clean Energy, Orange County Power Authority, Peninsula Clean Energy, Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy, Pioneer Community Energy, Pomona Choice Energy, Rancho Mirage Energy Authority, Redwood Coast Energy Authority, San Diego Community Power, San Jacinto Power, San José Clean Energy, Santa Barbara Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, Sonoma Clean Power, and Valley Clean Energy.
2 entities (LSE) serve approximately 14 million electricity customers in California. CCAs have a strong interest in ensuring the accurate portrayal of their electricity portfolios through the PSD program and the power content labels (PCL), especially given their focus on procurement of renewable and green-house gas-free (GHG-free) electricity to meet California’s decarbonization goals.

The Proposed PSD Updates follow draft regulations, a draft hourly reporting template, a staff proposal paper, and a pre-rulemaking workshop all in September 2023, and party comments on the draft regulations submitted in October 2023. This first draft included changes to the regulatory language to refine the annual accounting rules, implement the hourly reporting requirements from Senate Bill 1158 (Stats. 2022, ch. 367) (SB 1158), and adopt annual deadlines for posting and distributing of retail suppliers’ PCLs as required by Assembly Bill 242 (Stats. 2021, ch. 228). The Proposed PSD Updates include the second round of revisions to the proposed regulations, including:
(1) attributing emissions from oversupplied resources not to a retail supplier’s specified purchases, but rather to the hourly unspecified power emissions factor; (2) omitting green-house gas (GHG) emissions associated with geothermal resources from the PCL and aligning the label with the GHG emissions subject to a compliance obligation under Cap-and-Trade;
(3) agreeing with commenters that the PSD program should utilize more complete data to calculate the emissions factor for system power purchases of undersupplied utilities;
(4) retaining the line loss adjustment factors from the first set of pre-rulemaking regulations (i.e., a four percent loss adjustment factor for specified in-state resources, an additional two percent loss adjustment factor for specified imports, and a variable loss adjustment factor for hourly unspecified power), but allowing reported losses from retail suppliers that have verifiable loss data; (5) estimating (i.e., providing proxies of) hourly production profiles of resources when they are unobtainable by using the Clean System Power (CSP) calculator of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC);
3 (6) for reporting on Voluntary Allocation and Market Offer (VAMO) transactions and other allocations, requiring the IOUs to submit an allocation report on or before May 1 of each year, which includes hourly resources allocated to other retail suppliers, and providing access to applicable entities to use in hourly and annual reporting;
(7) for resources sold or allocated to parties without specific hourly distributions to each party, a retail supplier will claim its hourly share of the resource based on its proportional share of the annual procurement of the resource, and when hourly generation data is unobtainable, the retail supplier will report hourly data using the hourly distribution tool for the relevant fuel type; (8) allowing retail suppliers with an annual electric demand of less than 1,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) to report proxy data obtained from the CSP for all their resources to minimize the reporting burden for these relatively small retail providers, as long as the retail supplier provides its hourly load; (9) consolidating the annual and hourly reporting;
(10) requiring retail suppliers to report annual loss-adjusted load; and (11) revising the PCL template to ensure accuracy and less confusion for customers, including reclassifying unspecified power as “unspecified power (primarily fossil fuels),” and incorporating a footnote stating that “unspecified power is primarily fossil fuel generation but may include other resources.” CalCCA supports the proposed updates and appreciates the Commission’s efforts to improve the accuracy of the PSD and PCL. CalCCA provides the following additional recommendations and requests for clarification to continue the refinement of the regulations:
• the Commission should clarify when the new annual accounting rules will take effect;
• the PCL should be made more accessible through language translations and screen reader compatibility;
• the Commission should allow exemptions of procurement for retail supplier limited eligibility procurement products which are not generally applicable to all customers; and
• Example use cases, templates, and program testing opportunities should be provided for each new accounting rule to ensure accurate and consistent implementation among retail suppliers.
4 II. THE PROPOSED PSD UPDATES SHOULD BE ADOPTED, WITH

CLARIFICATIONS
The Proposed PSD Updates should be adopted. With this second set of revisions, the Commission has addressed many of the concerns raised by CalCCA and other commenters in comments on the first set of revisions in September 2023. CalCCA appreciates the Commission’s diligence in balancing the interests of stakeholders, while refining the PSD accounting rules and PCL to better reflect retail suppliers’ procurement. In particular, CalCCA appreciates the updated regulation’s clarification of treatment of VAMO and all other allocations from the IOUs to CCAs. CalCCA also appreciates the system put into place for the IOUs to provide an annual detailed report of allocations to allow CCAs to accurately reflect such allocations in their reporting. The Commission’s adoption of an exemption from the hourly reporting requirement for retail suppliers (with an annual electrical demand of less than 1,000 GWh) will also minimize the reporting burden for these small entities. Finally, acknowledging that unspecified power does not only consist of fossil fuels, but may include other resources, more accurately depicts the makeup of unspecified power.

To further refine and improve the accuracy of the PSD and PCL, CalCCA also recommends below that: (1) the Commission clarify when the new annual accounting rules will take effect; (2) the PCL be made more accessible to non-English and visually impaired customers; (3) additional exemptions to hourly reporting should be made for small procurement programs of limited applicability; and (4) example use cases, templates, and program testing opportunities should be provided for the new rules to ensure consistent and accurate implementation by retail suppliers.
5 A. The Commission Should Clarify When the New Annual Accounting Rules Will Take Effect
While SB 1158 clearly requires the reporting of hourly data beginning in 2028, the Commission has not clarified when the new annual reporting rules will take effect. Therefore, the Commission should clarify the implementation date of the new annual reporting rules to occur in 2026, considering the need for retail suppliers to themselves implement and adapt to the new rules.

B. User Accessibility of the Power Content Label for Non-English Speakers and the Visually Impaired Should be Addressed
The Commission should increase the accessibility of the PCL to allow non-English speakers and the visually impaired to access the information. The PCL should be translated into languages spoken by many customers in California, including Spanish, Mandarin, Vietnamese, and others. In addition, the Commission should make the PCL screen reader compatible so that visually impaired customers can access the PCL to understand its content. The greater accessibility the Commission allows, the more customers the PCL can reach.

C. Procurement for Small Procurement Programs With Narrow Eligibility Requirements and Limited Applicability Should Be Exempted from Reporting The Commission should allow exemptions for hourly reporting of procurement for programs with narrow eligibility requirements and limited applicability among customers. For example, the Disadvantaged Communities-Green Tariff program enables income-qualified residential customers in Disadvantaged Communities who may be unable to install solar on their roof to benefit from utility scale clean energy and receive a 20 percent bill discount. The procurement for such programs is relatively small, the eligibility for the program is limited and therefore the program is not of general applicability to all customers, and the hourly reporting burden will be quite large. Therefore, stakeholders and the Commission should compile a list of small procurement programs that can be exempted from the hourly reporting. 6 D. The Commission Should Provide Example ‘Use Cases,’ Templates, and Program Testing Opportunities to Ensure Accurate and Consistent Implementation of the New Hourly and Annual Reporting Rules Given the complexity of the new hourly and annual reporting rules for retail sellers, the Commission should provide example “use cases” for each new accounting rule to clearly establish how the rules will be applied. In addition, to the extent new templates and programs are established to implement the new rules, the Commission should allow retail suppliers adequate time to test the new templates and programs well before they are required to be implemented. As such, these new templates and “use cases” would provide the most value if they are developed and made available by the end of 2024.

III. CONCLUSION
CalCCA looks forward to further collaboration on this topic in the pre-rulemaking and rulemaking phases.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Leanne Bober
Leanne Bober,
Senior Counsel

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE

ASSOCIATION
February 21, 2024

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding
Policies, Procedures and Rules for the Self-Generation Incentive Program and Related Issues.

Rulemaking 20-05-012

OPENING COMMENTS OF THE JOINT COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATORS ON PROPOSED DECISION IMPLEMENTING ASSEMBLY BILL 209 AND

IMPROVING SELF-GENERATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM EQUITY OUTCOMES Nikhil Vijaykar

KEYES & FOX LLP
580 California St., 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (408) 621-3256
E-mail: [email protected]
On behalf of Joint Community Choice
Aggregators
February 22, 2024
i

SUBJECT MATTER INDEX
I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REVISE THE PD AND REQUIRE SGIP RECIPIENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN A QUALIFIED DR PROGRAM AS DEFINED IN D.23-12-005.. 2 II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONTINUE TO EVALUATE ELIGIBLE COSTS IN THE WORKSHOP PROCESS THE PD ORDERS .............................................................. 5 III. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 6 ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Commission Decisions
D.23-12-004.................................................................................................................................... 3 D.23-12-005........................................................................................................................ 1, 2, 3, 4 Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure
Rule 14.3......................................................................................................................................... 1 iii

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
• The Commission should revise the Proposed Decision (PD) and require Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) recipients to participate in a “qualified Demand Response (DR)” program as defined in Decision (D.) 23-12-005.
• The Commission should clarify that SGIP recipients are permitted to switch between qualified DR programs within the first ten years of receiving SGIP incentives. • The Commission should continue to evaluate eligible project costs in the workshop process the PD orders.
1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding
Policies, Procedures and Rules for the Self-Generation Incentive Program and Related Issues.

Rulemaking 20-05-012

OPENING COMMENTS OF THE JOINT COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATORS ON PROPOSED DECISION IMPLEMENTING ASSEMBLY BILL 209 AND

IMPROVING SELF-GENERATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM EQUITY OUTCOMES The Joint Community Choice Aggregators1 (Joint CCAs) submit these comments on the Proposed Decision Implementing Assembly Bill 209 and Improving Self-Generation Incentive Program Equity Outcomes (PD) pursuant to Rule 14.3 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the California Public Utilities Commission. These comments focus on the PD’s directive that all new Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) participants must enroll in one of the qualified Demand Response (DR) programs listed in Appendix E to the PD. The DR programs listed in Appendix E are a sub-set of the programs that meet the definition of “qualified DR programs” established just two months ago in the DR Application proceeding decision, Decision (D.) 23-12- 005 (DR Decision).
2 The PD errs by subjecting SGIP participants to a different, more narrow definition of “qualified DR programs” than the inclusive definition established in the DR Decision. Rather than narrowing customers’ choices, the Commission should maximize DR enrollment options for SGIP incentive recipients to not only encourage SGIP participation but also foster the continued 1 The Joint CCAs consist of Ava Community Energy Authority (Ava), Marin Clean Energy (MCE), Peninsula Clean Energy Authority (PCE), Sonoma Clean Power Authority (SCP) and the City of San José. 2 Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U39E) for Approval of its Demand Response Programs, Pilots and Budgets for Program Years 2023-2027 and Related Matters, A.22-05-002 et al. (DR Application proceeding), Decision (D.) 23-12-005 at 24-25 (Dec. 20, 2023) (DR Decision). 2 diversification of the DR program market. Moreover, the Commission should not establish a pattern of creating distinct definitions of “qualified DR program” for each incentive or rebate program. Doing so would not only promote confusion among program administrators, developers and customers, it would also waste Commission and stakeholder resources without offering any clear benefit. Indeed, the PD provides no justification for creating an SGIP-specific definition of “qualified DR program” beyond the bare assertion that Appendix E “best serves SGIP program implementation.”3 The Commission should therefore revise the PD and require SGIP recipients to participate in a “qualified DR program” as defined in D.23-12-005.

The PD also requires SGIP recipients maintain enrollment and participation in a qualified DR program for a project 10-year permanency period.4 The Joint CCAs request the Commission clarify that SGIP recipients may switch the DR program in which they are enrolled during the 10- year period, provided the programs each meet the definition of “qualified DR program.” I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REVISE THE PD AND REQUIRE SGIP

RECIPIENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN A QUALIFIED DR PROGRAM AS
DEFINED IN D.23-12-005
The October 26, 2022 Assigned Commissioner Ruling asked parties to comment on whether the Commission should require all new SGIP storage incentives and AB 209 recipients to enroll in either a supply-side market integrated DR program, or load modifying DR program such as critical peak pricing (CPP).5 The Joint CCAs recommended that SGIP program administrators (PAs) encourage SGIP participants to enroll in DR programs, but did not agree participants should be required to participate in (or be auto-enrolled in) any given DR program, both because automatic 3 PD at 74.
4 Id. 5 Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling Seeking Comments on Improving Self-Generation Incentive Program Equity Outcomes and Assembly Bill 209 Implementation at 20-21 (Oct. 26, 2022). 3 or mandatory enrollment in DR programs does not necessarily lead to effective or beneficial participation, and because DR program goals may at times be at odds with the goal of SGIP.6 The PD does not adopt the Joint CCAs’ view. It requires new SGIP participants to enroll in one of the qualified DR programs listed in Appendix E to the PD.7 The programs listed in Appendix E are a sub-set of the programs meeting the definition of “qualified DR program” recently established in the DR Decision, D.23-12-005. While the Joint CCAs will no longer oppose a mandatory DR program enrollment requirement for SGIP participants, the Commission should not limit “qualified DR programs” for SGIP purposes to the list of programs in Appendix E.

Narrowing the list of DR programs in which SGIP participants may enroll to meet the DR program enrollment requirement is not sound policy for at least three reasons. First, the PD narrows customer choice to the potential detriment of both the SGIP program’s goals and the state’s reliability objectives. That is because, all else equal, a narrow list of qualified programs risks dampening both SGIP and DR program participation. The Commission should instead support a broad range of DR program enrollment options—including community choice aggregator (CCA)- administered programs—in order to ensure all SGIP participants are able to enroll in a DR program that suits their needs while encouraging the DR market to continue improving program offerings.

Second, by creating a different definition of “qualified DR program” than the definition established in the DR Decision (and incorporated by reference in the SGIP Heat Pump Water Heater decision, D.23-12-0048) the PD risks increasing confusion among customers, developers and PAs by requiring them to track multiple distinct eligibility criteria. Requiring these additional costs of customers, developers and PAs offers no clear benefit, because in each case, the objective 6 Amended Comments of the Joint Community Choice Aggregators on Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling at 14-15 (Dec. 2, 2022).
7 PD at 70, Ordering Paragraph 17.
8 D.23-12-004 at Ordering Paragraph 1.
4 of the DR program enrollment requirement is the same: to realize more grid value from the asset receiving an incentive.

Third, even if it were reasonable to limit SGIP participants to a narrower set of “qualified DR programs” than the definition established in the DR decision (which, as explained above, it is not), that limitation is premature at this stage. The DR Decision directed investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and CCAs to submit a Tier 2 advice letter to identify DR programs meeting the requirements listed in that decision.9 Those Tier 2 advice letters have not yet been submitted. Until IOUs and CCAs create and submit that comprehensive list, the Commission cannot reasonably determine the subset of programs that best match SGIP’s needs, to the extent it finds it necessary to make that determination.

Rather than attempting to re-invent the wheel for each incentive or rebate program, the Commission should align the definition of “qualified DR program” for SGIP purposes with the DR Decision. The Commission arrived at that definition after considering input from several parties, including the IOUs and multiple CCAs, and the definition is therefore broad and robust.

The very purpose of establishing a definition of “qualified DR program” in the DR proceeding was to create something that could be easily referenced and would facilitate DR program enrollment requirements in other non-DR proceedings.10 The Commission should therefore replace Appendix E with the definition of “qualified DR program” established in D.23-12-005, which is as follows:

1. Economic supply-side market integrated DR programs counted for RA irrespective of whether the administrator is an IOU, CCA or third-party DRP.

2. Load modifying DR programs that satisfy the following two requirements:
a. The program is indirectly integrated with the CAISO energy market such that the program’s dispatch signal is linked to the energy prices in the Day-Ahead or real-time market – operational domain.
9 D.23-12-005 at 25, Ordering Paragraph 10.
10 Id. at 22.
5 b. The program’s load impact is counted towards RA obligations directly or indirectly through a Commission-approved process (such as, via a process for reducing RA obligations by integrating the program’s load impact with CEC’s peak forecasts) – planning domain.

3. Any DR pilot authorized and designated by the Commission in a DR proceeding including R.22-07-005 as a “qualified” DR program eligible to meet the DR enrollment requirement.

4. Critical Peak Pricing or Peak Day Pricing. These options, which at this time do not meet requirement 2a above, shall be discontinued as a “qualified” DR program if they still do not meet requirements listed here when the dynamic rate(s) under consideration in R.22-07-005 (to comply with CEC adopted Load Management Standards (California Code of Regulations – Title 20, Article 5, §1623)) are made available to customers.

Finally, the PD also requires SGIP recipients maintain enrollment and participation in a qualified DR program for a project 10-year permanency period.11 While the Joint CCAs do not object to that requirement, the list of qualified DR programs is likely to change over a 10 year period as the DR market continues to evolve, and customers should have the flexibility to enroll in new DR programs that best suit their needs. The Joint CCAs therefore request the Commission clarify that SGIP recipients may switch the DR program in which they are enrolled during the 10- year period, provided the programs each meet the definition of “qualified DR program.” II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONTINUETOEVALUATEELIGIBLE COSTS IN

THE WORKSHOP PROCESS THE PD ORDERS
The PD declines to expand or increase the project costs eligible for coverage via the equity budget category.12 While the Joint CCAs advocated for broader eligible cost coverage to promote greater low-income customer participation in SGIP,13 the Joint CCAs do not object to the PD’s conclusion. However, the Joint CCAs recommend the Commission expressly state that it will continue to evaluate the merits of expanding or increasing eligible project costs as a part of the 11 PD at 74.
12 Id. at 56-57.
13 Amended Comments of the Joint Community Choice Aggregators on Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling at 13-14 (Dec. 2, 2022).
6 workshop process it directs.
14 That workshop will consider proposals aimed at maximizing the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) cost share for SGIP projects, including all cost categories potentially eligible for tax credits under the IRA such as solar, storage and panel upgrades.15 It will also consider “residual costs to low-income customers.”16 That consideration can and should include a continued evaluation of whether the current eligibility limits on project cost eligibility are reasonable given the availability and applicability of IRA tax credits, or whether those limits should be revised to promote greater low income customer uptake and better meet low-income customers’ needs.

III. CONCLUSION
The Joint CCAs respectfully request the Commission adopt the revisions discussed in these comments and in Appendix A.

Respectfully submitted,
Nikhil Vijaykar

KEYES & FOX LLP
580 California St., 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (408) 621-3256
E-mail: [email protected]
On behalf of Joint Community Choice
Aggregators
Dated: February 22, 2024
14 PD at 60, Ordering Paragraph 26.T. 15 Id. at 60.
16 Id.

A-1

APPENDIX A
Pursuant to Rule 14.3(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Joint CCAs provide this Appendix setting forth proposed changes to the ordering paragraphs in the Proposed Decision Implementing Assembly Bill 209 and Improving Self-Generation Incentive Program Equity Outcomes. The Joint CCAs’ proposed revisions appear in underline and strike-through.

Ordering Paragraphs

17. Program Administrators for the Self-Generation Incentive Program must ensure that incentive applicants are required to enroll in a qualified Demand Response program as defined in D.23-12-005 and as described in Appendix E and Section 13.3 of this Decision.

26. Program Administrators (PAs) for the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) shall hold a workshop to develop proposals to maximize the federal cost share of SGIP project costs covered by the federal Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and to evaluate whether changes to current project cost eligibility is warranted. Within six months after the adoption of this Decision, the PAs shall file and serve the proposal through a Tier 2 Advice Letter.

!"#$$!%#&'"'#!()$($#
*+
""(('(,-,-"'.-
/012342 5
6 7

68 +9 :;<=0>?@A3BCDD3=E0FE0C=0=G31?H32?01IB40DDA12B012JAKL:MNOP<QR0=S?1GT=0CU @?B4CBB?01V W

7 9

6X6, %,6
X'"Y6 Z6
X7Y 9

+
[+
&+\+]6+7\+ ]69 W

^7
9 Y +

6+6

X
_

6 ,

_ W

^+
+

+
6 `+
,

W
6 X6
a&
_
,
X 79+
6+ _]
&
_
,
X Y_`
_^
,

_X
66 W
6 _
+
X

X7b
[9

W
6 6
b
[`

6 +X
, 6

[6,
b

^7
9Y + 7Y '""9

[b
6 _,`
X^

6b
[6+
`
66b
[_

6 W
6 6
+
_6

5 Y+6

X 675Y 9

66+

,
X_
+X

_5Y

b
[
+X`
,`
X6

5Y ,

66+
[

+Y_

+7[Y
9+

6 ,
X
+
5Y W
6 X

X,
,

+
` W_
""cY `+X

6 ""Y `+6+

W,
c

6 `
[b
`

,
X[

+ 7d 9 efa

a
6ghijklmniopinikqrnojjijstuumuuvmjkw xyz{|}h~k~okmnqlmhkW ,
'

+ +X
+_]&6
a
-'

6 XY 6XX
""#)a, 6
+_[6,
&)
]"""
--$--$"' [&%
K;<=0>?@AE0C=0=G31?H32?01IB40DDA12B012JA=A>?A0FFAA@34S=A4A?>A@01U=0AD B232ADA12BK31@MV

,
_,

'
M;<=0>?@AE0C=0=G31?H32?01IB40DDA12B012JA/OU=ABA1232?01/012?1CA@U0=32?01 0F<=0AD232ADA12BVQA?>A=3??2EV ` _`
+]
&
_
,
X

+X Y_`%

[

6+
_
,
XZ6,

,
X

66 X,6 6
`]
&
_
,
X

+XY_`
ef
/3?F0=1?3/0DDC1?2E/J0?4AOBB04?32?01 b!
WW)&"$""'"[

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

!"#$$!%#&'"'#!()$($#
*+
""(('(,-,-"'.-

/01

2 ,2
/3

42 3&
/
,
4 56+
2+/
,

7 /4
22 01

"""",$(,
$#
""

*+,''-(-(###(-#""",,"

89:;<=>?@A<B;<;CDE>FDG><EHIJ<KK@EGI<EGL@MNOPQR;@I@EGDG><ES:;><;TUTVWMN: :;<R<IDXY@Z;@IL@;[ \ ]"^
_

4 _^
2 /
+
4/
^
_
+4 2

2 7+^
_4

4 22
+

4+_`
a^^
_ _`
72 4/
+/

2 +2^
_/

2 //2

2 +a &
+^
_/

2,4

2 4

2 +2
2 a +2
+2++2
4227+

a
4+2+2

2 +44

2 4

,
,4

2 /72+
+

25 2+
72 2^
_

72 46a
+2,
+

/
,
c2

4 2

^
_
2 2+2
4 232
+72 2,2 \
2 2
^
_7

2 +45

2+
246
+

,27
2 +442
+

72 +4^
_

\
2 /,2
2 2
/d
42,2
+74
2 /

^
_/

2 2

4 /

,
4 e9:;<=>?@A<B;<;CDE>FDG><EHIJ<KK@EGI<EGL@M:WMR;@I@EGDG><ESYN:;<J@@?>ECWMN: PJ<;>EC[ &2+7 _^
^
_

)+4&/2,` + ` '"" 01\
_^
]

72 2
+4^
_/

2 2 ^
_/

2 ^^
_/

2 4,
24//2,
/

d2
+ \
+4/

2/,4
4 7
+2

,
7+^
_/

2 4

d+2

,
7 7^
_/

2 \

_^
2 /
+2
+

+4 5
6/
2,

4 /

,
^
_/

2 +/+

24/

2 47fg

4 ,
2 2+/
2 +

27 h
+ /

,
4&

45h &6
4 2
+
2,2 \
_^
]
+4

]/2^
_

2,7
4 5
+4/22^
_/

2 4/2

^
_/

2)/% 2
+`
&
5)%`6/2+2
42 6

_^
] ` +

_^
2 /

2^
_ 2+
7 •
•
•
•
•
•

!"#$$!%#&'"'#!()$($#
*+
""(('(,-,-"'.'-
/012342567898:896;<:=4>?@96;8A1B427448C4<47A:2D4E34F:?DGH2A;2?>IJA679342H2A;2?><4KA2>7 ?63<4K964>4687I?63L78?M=97CNA2O?23<47A:2D4E34F:?DGH2AD:24>4681M=9;?89A67PQ

+RP S'" "R"'S
Q
+T
UVW"-#PX-$PPX-YXP
))&Z[Y)\)
]P'""^
_`abcdefghcibcbjklemkneclopqcrrglnpclnsgtklgufepqippeclvwnkxgscufgbagbptgqnedgp clykuklqeljzgpcibqg{cilnelj|ens}dkeuk~euenhklfagbcbrklqglqglnedgp

Q
T

+
+QQ+

T ]

Q
+

+
]
Q
Q
+
TQ

QQ+

,
T
+ P+

T+R\)S

T
T,
T

,
]
Q

X
+

,
T

+
T

,
T
QQ++
U,

T\P

X
+
,
Q

\P ,

QQ+
XP
+

,

+
\P \P Q+
XQ

QXP

QQ
+
T,
Q

QQ+Q
Q ]

)+
Q
T

Q
XP

+ XP
\P
Q

Q+UQQQ ]Q

QUQ
+QQ+

QXP

XQ+
Q

+
,Q N9278
XT

QQ
,Q ]
Q

Q
Q
XT

Q ZQ
XT

,
Q

T
+
+,

XT

Q Q

T

X ]
Q
Q+

T
+Q

,
,
+QQ T

Q 4DA63
Q

T
,
+

,+P

+T ]

,
T+P
T
T

T
+
XT

P QQ C923
Q

+Q
X
Q+,T+

Q,Q
X

T+Q,Q
T

Q
+

+
NA:28C

XQ+
Q

PQ Q
T

,
T

RP
S
XT,
T

,
T
P
,
QQ
P
Q
Q +
P

,
T,+P
,
Q, +P

T
P
+ N9K8C

,Q
XT

QQ
,Q,

,

P U
N96?==G
XQ
,

,
Q
Q

+
\) T

TQ
Q+P

U

Q

+QQ
+

+U

Q
\)
Q
,
,Q
,QP
+,

QQ+

P Q

"'Q+"#

)+P+Q

)
Q

P /0

U
Q

+Q Q

Q %Q
,
Q
Q
Q

U+

Q Q

QQ,
+
P
V Q

T
+

- ---- ------ ----------------

!"#$$!%#&'"'#!()$($#
*+
""(('(,-,-"'.-
/0123456789:5;<=>45?;9<5>=;@@2<5AB=C;568D::;65>A5;<E:=;@@8<A:;<D::5F<8G=;@@5::5;<89E: H6;I5<FJ8@;><GK245<FLM '""NO "P)Q, R
+S-TR,
&)
U"""
-V-$--$"' T&%
WXYZ[\]^_`[aZ[Zbcd]ecf][dghi[jj_dfh[dfk_lmnopqZ_h_dfcf][drY[f_df]cst[^_s]db uZcj_v[Zwhx y

zRzR

+
+Nz

P
{

M {+

,
z
+ R
+Nz

P
{

{R
S

R}R

,
z
+
+
+N-"z

P
{

{
+

RR
|R

,
z
+ y
~Rz

R
,

,RRzM

,R
R

z,
,

+
,&,""' /0
y

R
+
z

)
{R
R

R
,R{
zR){

{R
|R)S
R
R
z,+""M {+z

z
R+

{
N
R+
R&
|RRR,{R
P

R yz

z
R

z
R
S

,
zM

{

zR y
R
{S

+
+ yS
""M {+z

""M {+R+

N
P{+
R
z

{

{
+

N
P

S )|R{
{
+
,R
S

R
{

z,
S

)
+
M |R US

S,{
M {+
R

,
R
,R{
R{

,{,{

{
T
{

{

O /0R
{R
R

R+

RzQ{R
{R
}

S ,R){

S
R

y
R
,

{

{
Q+

zQ ,
S

,
R /0

$--$(#
,$(
"$(
/0Q

Q
ROM

,
zT

+ !(#%RR

zMy
,
'

+ +z
+S-U&R
Q-'

zM Rzz
""#

{+
)Q, R
+S-TR,
&)
U"""
-V-$--$"' T&% Xm^^]f][dcsi[jj_dfhx
•
•
•
•

!"#$$!%#&'"'#!()$($#
*+
""(('(,-,-"'.--

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for
Compliance Review of Utility Owned Generation
Operations, Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account
Entries, Energy Resource Recovery Account Entries,
Contract Administration, Economic Dispatch of
Electric Resources, Utility Owned Generation Fuel
Procurement, and Other Activities for the Record
Period January 1 through December 31, 2022
U 39 E
Application 23-02-018
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION’S

MOTION FOR COMMISSION REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S EVIDENTIARY RULINGS

PUBLIC VERSION
Evelyn Kahl
General Counsel and Director of Policy

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE

ASSOCIATION
One Concord Center
2300 Clayton Road, Suite 1150
Concord, CA 94520
Telephone: (510) 980-9459
E-mail: [email protected]
Nikhil Vijaykar
Tim Lindl

KEYES & FOX LLP
580 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (408) 621-3256
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel to

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COHICE

ASSOCIATION
February 23, 2024
1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

MOTION FOR COMMISSION REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
California Community Choice Association (CalCCA)1 submits this motion seeking the California Public Utilities Commission’s review of the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) following three rulings (collectively, “Rulings”) in the above-captioned proceeding pursuant to Rules 11.1(a), 13.6 (a) and 13.6(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice:

1. Ruling granting Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Motion to Strike Portions of the Prepared Testimony of Brian Shuey;2
1 California Community Choice Association represents the interests of 24 community choice electricity providers in California: Apple Valley Choice Energy, Ava Community Energy, Central Coast Community Energy, Clean Energy Alliance, Clean Power Alliance, CleanPowerSF, Desert Community Energy, Energy for Palmdale’s Independent Choice, Lancaster Energy, Marin Clean Energy, Orange County Power Authority, Peninsula Clean Energy, Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy, Pioneer Community Energy, Pomona Choice Energy, Rancho Mirage Energy Authority, Redwood Coast Energy Authority, San Diego Community Power, San Jacinto Power, San José Clean Energy, Santa Barbara Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, Sonoma Clean Power, and Valley Clean Energy. 2 Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Granting Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Motion to Strike Portions of the Prepared Testimony of Brian Shuey (Jan. 23, 2024). 2 2. Ruling denying CalCCA’s motion requesting official notice of certain documents filed in San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s (SDG&E) 2022 ERRA Compliance proceeding;3 and

3. Ruling determining the disputed factual issues CalCCA identified for cross examination during the evidentiary hearing are irrelevant to this proceeding and taking the evidentiary hearing scheduled for February 21, 2024 off the calendar.4 Through this motion, CalCCA also makes an offer of proof for the record pursuant to Rule 13.6 (e) because, in light of the ALJ’s ruling taking the evidentiary hearing off the calendar, CalCCA will not have an opportunity to make an offer of proof during the hearing.

CalCCA’s testimony, motion for official notice, and intended cross examination all focus on PG&E’s sales of, and attempts (or lack thereof) to sell, excess System Resource Adequacy (RA) during the summer of 2022. PG&E’s efforts bear directly on the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) rates that community choice aggregator (CCA) customers pay. Sales proceeds from RA are credited to all PCIA ratepayers. As such, if PG&E makes inadequate efforts to sell RA, that can result in CCA customers (customers of CalCCA’s members) paying higher PCIA rates than they should be paying. That is why examining PG&E’s efforts to sell RA is a key part of the ERRA review of PG&E’s portfolio management. The ALJ’s refusal to entertain testimony and cross examination on PG&E’s RA sales practices as a part of that ERRA review is therefore extraordinary.

To put a finer point on why PG&E’s RA sales matter, investor-owned utility (IOU) management of the RA element of the PCIA portfolio implicates Decision (D.) 21-12-015, which allows PG&E to count its existing RA resources towards its incremental system reliability 3 Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Denying California Community Choice Association’s January 18, 2024 Motion, Ordering a Report from Pacific Gas and Electric Company and California Coommunity [sic] Choice Association and Scheduling a Status Conference (Feb. 6, 2024). 4 Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Taking Status Conference and Evidentiary Hearing Off Calendar (Feb. 15, 2024).
procurement targets after PG&E makes reasonable attempts to sell its excess RA capacity to other load serving entities (LSE). 5 Those activities also implicate Appendix S to PG&E's Bundled Procurement Plan. Appendix S, which describes the standards and criteria for PG&E's management and sales of RA products,
Yet,
PG&E identified- and counted towards its incremental system reliability procurement targets by transfening to the Cost Allocation Mechanism (CAM)- nearly a gigawatt (923 MW) of excess RA capacity during the summer of2022.8 Clearly, there was a major disconnect between PG&E's RA sales solicitations and the excess RA PG&E ultimately counted towards its incremental system 5 Rulemaking (R.) 20-11-003, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish Policies, Processes and Rules to Ensure Reliable Electric Service in California in the Event of an Extreme Weather Event in 2021, Phase 2 Decision Directing Pacific Gas and Electiic Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas and Electiic Company to take Actions to Prepare for Potential Extreme Weather in the Summers of 2022 and 2023, D.21-12-015 at 183-184 (pennitting PG&E to count excess resources in its existing po1tfolios toward its incremental system reliability procurement targets "provided it has made reasonable attempts to sell this excess capacity to other LSEs") (emphasis added). 6 CalCCA-03C at 12-14.
7 8
Id. at 5-7.

PG&E Prepared Testimony at 12-15.
3 4
reliability procurement targets in the summer of 2022.

Moreover, PG&E’s RA sales activities impact all LSEs (including CalCCA’s members), who faced a constrained RA market during the summer of 2022. To properly fulfill its obligations to review PG&E’s ERRA Compliance activities, the Commission must examine the following:
• The timing and substance of PG&E’s RA position calculations for the purposes of its RA sales solicitations with delivery in 2022;
• The volumes of System RA PG&E offered for sale in its solicitations with delivery in 2022, and the results of those solicitations;
• The timing and substance of PG&E’s RA position calculations when it identified excess RA for the purposes of its incremental system reliability procurement targets; • PG&E’s transfer of excess system RA from its PCIA-eligible resource portfolio to its CAM portfolio; and
• PG&E’s attempts (or lack thereof) to sell excess RA through once it identified that excess.

Those activities are squarely within the scope of Scoping Issues 1, 3, and 5.9 Those Scoping Issues are as follows:10
• Scoping Issue 1: Whether PG&E, during the record period, prudently administered and managed, in compliance with all applicable rules, regulations and Commission decisions, including but not limited to Standard of Conduct No. 4 (SOC 4), the following:
a. Utility-Owned Generation Facilities, except for the Elkhorn Battery Energy Storage System and Pit 1 Powerhouse outages which will be reviewed in the 2023 ERRA Compliance proceeding;
b. Qualifying Facilities (QF) Contracts; and
9 Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling at 2-3 (June 2, 2023). 10 Id.
5 c. Non-QF Contracts
If not, what adjustments, if any, should be made to account for imprudently managed or administered resources?
• Scoping Issue 3: Whether the entries recorded in the ERRA and the Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account are reasonable, appropriate, accurate, and in compliance with Commission decisions.
• Scoping Issue 5: Whether PG&E administered resource adequacy procurement and sales consistent with its Bundled Procurement Plan.

The facts of PG&E’s 2022 RA sales activities are relevant to Scoping Issue 1 because they tend to prove PG&E did not prudently manage its RA resources during the record period. They are also relevant to Scoping Issue 3 because those facts tend to prove PG&E’s RA-related entries recorded to the PABA are not reasonable, appropriate or in compliance with Commission decisions. Finally, the facts of PG&E’s RA sales activities are relevant to Scoping Issue 5 because they tend to prove PG&E did not administer RA sales consistent with Appendix S of its Bundled Procurement Plan.

The Rulings erroneously—and without discussion or reasoning—find the vast majority of CalCCA’s testimony and the specific disputed issues CalCCA identified for hearing irrelevant to this proceeding, and take the evidentiary hearing off the calendar. Thus, the Rulings collectively slam the door shut on the Commission’s and CalCCA’s examination of PG&E’s excess RA sales during the summer of 2022, leaving no other opportunity to examine these issues in this proceeding. By depriving CalCCA of its “day in court” on these issues, the Rulings are fundamentally at odds with Rule 13.6(a), which requires that in the conduct of Commission proceedings “the rights of parties to meaningfully participate in the proceeding and to public policy protections shall be preserved.”11
11 Rule 13.6(a); see also The Utility Reform Network v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 223 Cal. App. 4th 945, 959-960 (1st Dist. 2014).
6 Extraordinary legal error warrants extraordinary procedural remedies. The Rules of Practice and Procedure permit the assigned Commissioner or ALJ to refer evidentiary rulings to the Commission for determination where prompt Commission review is necessary to promote substantial justice.12 Further, the Commission has entertained review of ALJ rulings where the ruling may have ramifications on other proceedings.13 Here, prompt interlocutory review of the Rulings is necessary not only because the Rulings are incorrect, but because by the time this matter is submitted to the Commission, the train will have left the station. The parties will be forced to reconstruct the work already done and to further develop a record on PG&E’s sales activities during 2022 at some much later date. Now is the time for the Commission to act on clear legal error.14
Moreover, the Rulings have possible ramifications on San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s pending 2022 ERRA Compliance proceeding,15 in which certain community choice 12 Rule 13.6(c); see Application (A.) 09-09-019, Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Authority to Increase Electric Rates and Charges to Recover Smart Grid Costs Related to Compressed Air Energy Storage Demonstration Project under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (U 39 E), D.10-01-025, 2010 Cal. PUC LEXIS 12 at *34 (Jan. 22, 2010). 13 See In re Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E) for Commission Approval Under Public Utilities Code 851 of an Irrevocable License for use of Utility Support Structures and Equipment Sites to ExteNet Systems (California) LLC, 2016 Cal. PUC LEXIS 588 at *27-29 (where an ALJ’s evidentiary ruling may present possible ramifications in other proceedings the proper procedure is to bring the issue before the full Commission for resolution, including during the pendency of the proceeding, citing In Re Alternative Regulatory Frameworks for Local Exchange Carriers, 55 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 672, 680 (1994)).
14 Even if the Commission reopens the record following a Proposed Decision, it would be more efficient for the Commission to review the Rulings at this stage, before the record has closed and before parties file legal briefs.
15 A.23-06-002, Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E) for Approval of: (i) Contract Administration, Least-Cost Dispatch and Power Procurement Activities in 2022, (ii) Costs Related to those Activities Recorded to the Energy Resource Recovery Account, Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account, Power Charge Indifference Adjustment Undercollection Balancing Account, Transition Cost Balancing Account, and Local Generating Balancing Account in 2022, and (iii) Costs Recorded in Related Regulatory Accounts in 2022.
7 aggregators (CCA) have raised substantially similar issues concerning the utility’s RA sales activities in 2022. If the Rulings are allowed to stand, they may color or even inform the parties’ arguments in SDG&E’s proceeding.

This motion for interlocutory review therefore properly brings the Rulings before the full Commission. The Commission should reverse the Rulings.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
During the summer of 2022, PG&E transferred nearly a gigawatt of excess RA capacity— capacity in excess of its bundled customers’ needs—from its Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) resource portfolio to the System Reliability Incremental Procurement subaccount (Reliability OIR) of its New System Generation Balancing Account (NSGBA, recovered through the CAM). 16 Decision 21-12-015, the Commission’s Phase 2 Summer Reliability decision, allows PG&E to count its existing RA resources towards its incremental system reliability procurement targets (and transfer the corresponding capacity from the PCIA to CAM) only after PG&E makes reasonable attempts to sell its excess RA capacity to other LSEs.17 CalCCA addresses PG&E’s transfer of excess RA capacity in the prepared direct testimony of witness Brian Shuey. Mr. Shuey’s testimony identifies a substantial gulf between the RA position reports that formed the basis for PG&E’s RA sales solicitations in 2022 and the excess capacity PG&E ultimately transferred to CAM mere months later. As witness Shuey notes, 16 PG&E Prepared Testimony at 12-15.
17 R.20-11-003, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish Policies, Processes and Rules to Ensure Reliable Electric Service in California in the Event of an Extreme Weather Event in 2021, Phase 2 Decision Directing Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company to take Actions to Prepare for Potential Extreme Weather in the Summers of 2022 and 2023, D.21-12-015 at 183-184 (permitting PG&E to count excess resources in its existing portfolios toward its incremental system reliability procurement targets “provided it has made reasonable attempts to sell this excess capacity to other LSEs”).
8 PG&E’s attempts to sell excess RA impact all LSEs, who faced a constrained RA market during the summer of 2022 and paid fines where they failed to meet RA compliance requirements.18 Mr.

Shuey recommends the Commission require PG&E to provide a detailed reconciliation between the RA position reports used as the basis for its solicitations and the RA position reports resulting in excess capacity during the summer of 2022; scrutinize PG&E’s assumptions informing its RA positions; update PG&E’s Bundled Procurement Plan (BPP) to ensure excess capacity is made available to the market; and consider a disallowance, penalty or other remedy based on PG&E’s non-compliance with D.21-12-015.19
On October 6, 2023, PG&E filed a motion to strike the majority of witness Shuey’s prepared testimony, arguing CalCCA’s testimony is irrelevant, out of scope of this proceeding, and unfairly prejudicial.20 On October 23, 2023, CalCCA filed a response rebutting each argument in PG&E’s motion and noting the motion was premature because CalCCA had not yet moved to admit any evidence into the record.21 The ALJ deferred a ruling on PG&E motion to strike until ruling on the admission of CalCCA’s testimony.

On January 18, 2024, CalCCA filed a motion to admit certain exhibits, including the prepared direct testimony of Brian Shuey. That motion explains the relevance of Mr. Shuey’s testimony to Scoping Issues 1, 3 and 5 in detail.22 CalCCA also filed a Motion for Official Notice 18 Id. at 11-14.
19 Prepared Direct Testimony of Brian Shuey on behalf of California Community Choice Association at 18 (Sept. 22, 2023) (Exhibit A to this Motion). 20 Motion to Strike Portions of the Prepared Direct Testimony of Brian Shuey on behalf of the California Community Choice Association by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39-E) (Oct. 6, 2023). 21 California Community Choice Association’s Response to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Motion to Strike (Oct. 23, 2023).
22 California Community Choice Association’s Motion to Offer Exhibits into Evidence and Admit Into the Record (Jan. 18, 2024).
9 on the same day.23 That motion requests notice of certain documents filed in SDG&E’s 2022 ERRA Compliance proceeding (namely: the Scoping Ruling, San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance’s (Joint CCA) Motion to Compel, SDG&E’s Response, and the ALJ Ruling granting the Joint CCAs’ Motion to Compel) because those documents demonstrate a different ALJ’s resolution of a similar evidentiary question that ultimately concluded the opposite of what the Rulings in this proceeding conclude. The ALJ in the SDG&E case ruled discovery surrounding that utility’s sales of RA was relevant to the (nearly identical) scoping issues in that case.

Ultimately, the resolution of the discovery question in the SDG&E case contradicted the Rulings in the instant proceeding because, on January 23, 2024, the ALJ granted PG&E’s motion to strike in its entirety. That ruling strikes testimony that, in the ALJ’s view, is “not relevant to the issue of whether PG&E administered resource adequacy procurement and sales consistent with its Bundled Procurement Plan” (in other words, Scoping Issue 5). The ruling does not explain why the testimony it strikes is not relevant to Scoping Issue 5, nor does it discuss or resolve the relevance of CalCCA’s testimony to Scoping Issues 1 or 3.

On February 6, 2024, the ALJ denied CalCCA’s Motion for Official Notice in its entirety.

Again, the ruling offers no discussion or reasoning in support of its conclusion.

On February 14, 2024, CalCCA and PG&E filed a Joint Report in which CalCCA explained an evidentiary hearing is necessary to address the following disputed factual issues:24

1. Whether PG&E made attempts to sell excess Resource Adequacy capacity to other LSEs in 2022 once it determined excess Resource Adequacy capacity was available, and if so, the nature and timing of those attempts.

2. Whether PG&E made attempts to sell excess Resource Adequacy capacity to other LSEs in 2022 beyond year-ahead and quarterly solicitations once it determined excess 23 California Community Choice Association’s Motion for Official Notice (Jan. 18, 2024). 24 Joint Report by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E) and the California Community Choice Association (Feb. 14, 2024).
10 Resource Adequacy capacity was available, and if so, the nature and timing of those attempts.

PG&E contended the above issues are irrelevant to this proceeding and that hearings are therefore unnecessary.25 PG&E also filed a motion in limine to preclude questioning on the sale of, or attempts to sell, resource adequacy outside the solicitations required by Appendix S of PG&E’s Bundled Procurement Plan.26 That motion asks for an expedited ruling at a status conference that was scheduled for February 16, 2024, and suggests “to the extent CalCCA wishes to be heard, it can present its position at the status conference[.]”
That opportunity did not materialize, because the next day, the ALJ issued a ruling determining the factual issues that CalCCA identified for hearing are “irrelevant for evaluating PG&E Resource Adequacy procurement and sales in accordance with its Bundled Procurement Plan and outside the scope of the Scoping Memo.”27 Further, the ruling took both the scheduled status conference as well as the evidentiary hearing off the calendar. Here, again, the ruling provides no discussion or reasoning in support of its conclusion.

In sum, the Rulings strike the vast majority of CalCCA’s testimony addressing PG&E’s 2022 RA sales activities; deny official notice of documents demonstrating the Commission’s resolution of a substantially similar evidentiary question in SDG&E’s pending ERRA Compliance case; and deny CalCCA the opportunity to cross examine PG&E’s witness on the utility’s attempts 25 Id. at 3.
26 Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (U 39-E) Motion In Limine to Preclude Questioning on the Sale of, or Attempts to Sell, Resource Adequacy Outside the Solicitations Required by Appendix S of PG&E’s Bundled Procurement Plan, and Request for Expedited Ruling at the February 16, 2024 Status Conference (Feb. 14, 2024).
27 Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Taking Status Conference and Evidentiary Hearing off Calendar (Feb. 15, 2024).
11 to sell excess RA it identified in 2022. Thus, the Rulings leave CalCCA without a meaningful opportunity to develop the record on PG&E’s RA sales activities in the record period.

II. RELEVANT LAW
A. Rule 13.6 (c) Permits the Assigned Commissioner or Administrative Law Judge to Refer Evidentiary Rulings to the Commission for Determination.

Rule 13.6(c) permits the assigned Commissioner or Administrative Law Judge to refer evidentiary rulings to the Commission for determination “[i]n extraordinary circumstances, where prompt decision by the Commission is necessary to promote substantial justice[.]” The Commission has previously stated that “[a]lthough the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure do not provide for interlocutory appeals, on rare occasion the Commission may chose [sic] to reconsider some interim rulings[.]”28 Those rare occasions include circumstances where the challenged ruling could have ramifications in other proceedings.29 The Rulings fit the rare circumstances in which the Commission reviews evidentiary rulings. Absent the Commission’s prompt interlocutory review and reversal of the Rulings, CalCCA will be denied a timely opportunity to develop a robust record concerning PG&E’s RA sales activities in the record year. The Rulings strike the vast majority of CalCCA’s prepared testimony and have taken the evidentiary hearing off the calendar, seemingly foreclosing further record development via cross examination.
28 D.03-12-057 at 2, fn. 1 (Dec. 18, 2003).
29 See In re Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E) for Commission Approval Under Public Utilities Code 851 of an Irrevocable License for use of Utility Support Structures and Equipment Sites to ExteNet Systems (California) LLC, 2016 Cal. PUC LEXIS 588 at *27-29 (where an ALJ’s evidentiary ruling may present possible ramifications in other proceedings the proper procedure is to bring the issue before the full Commission for resolution, including during the pendency of the proceeding, citing In Re Alternative Regulatory Frameworks for Local Exchange Carriers, 55 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 672, 680 (1994)).
12 Moreover, the Rulings challenged by this interlocutory appeal have possible ramifications on SDG&E’s pending 2022 ERRA Compliance proceeding.30 In the SDG&E proceeding, certain community choice aggregator (CCA) parties have raised issues that mirror the issues CalCCA has raised in the instant proceeding—concerning the utility’s sale of, and attempts to sell, excess RA during the summer of 2022.31 Absent the Commission’s prompt interlocutory review and reversal, the Rulings may color or directly inform parties’ arguments in SDG&E’s 2022 ERRA Compliance proceeding. This interlocutory appeal therefore properly brings the Rulings before the full Commission.32
B. California Law Supports a Broad Interpretation of Relevancy.

The California Evidence Code defines “relevant evidence” as evidence “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.”33 That definition does not create a precise formula for relevancy.34 Rather, California courts have held that evidence is relevant if it “logically, naturally and by 30 A.23-06-002, Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E) for Approval of: (i) Contract Administration, Least-Cost Dispatch and Power Procurement Activities in 2022, (ii) Costs Related to those Activities Recorded to the Energy Resource Recovery Account, Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account, Power Charge Indifference Adjustment Undercollection Balancing Account, Transition Cost Balancing Account, and Local Generating Balancing Account in 2022, and (iii) Costs Recorded in Related Regulatory Accounts in 2022.
31 See A.23-06-002, Public Prepared Direct Testimony of Carlo Bencomo-Jasso on behalf of San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance in San Diego Gas and Electric Company’s 2022 ERRA Compliance Proceeding at 1-16 (Dec. 22, 2023) (Exhibit B to this Motion). 32 See In re Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E) for Commission Approval Under Public Utilities Code 851 of an Irrevocable License for use of Utility Support Structures and Equipment Sites to ExteNet Systems (California) LLC, 2016 Cal. PUC LEXIS 588 at *27-29 (where an ALJ’s evidentiary ruling may present possible ramifications in other proceedings the proper procedure is to bring the issue before the full Commission for resolution, including during the pendency of the proceeding, citing In Re Alternative Regulatory Frameworks for Local Exchange Carriers, 55 Cal. P.U.C. 2d 672, 680 (1994)).
33 Cal. Evid. Code sec. 210 (emphasis added).
34 People v. Simms, 10 Cal. App. 3d 299, 311 (1st Dist. Aug. 6, 1970). 13 reasonable inference tends to establish some fact.”35 Further, the definition of “relevant evidence” is “manifestly broad,” and evidence is relevant “no matter how weak it tends to prove a disputed issue.”36
Commission rules also support a broad interpretation of relevance. Under Commission Rule 13.6(a), California’s “technical rules of evidence . . . need not be applied in hearings” before the Commission, and the Commission need not exclude evidence “merely by application of rules governing admissibility, competency, weight or foundation.”37 The Rule further requires that in the conduct of Commission proceedings, “the rights of parties to meaningfully participate in the proceeding and to public policy protections shall be preserved.”38 By foreclosing CalCCA from addressing PG&E’s RA sales efforts through either testimony or cross examination, the Rulings prohibit CalCCA from meaningfully participating in this proceeding. CalCCA’s testimony and intended cross examination fall within the Commission’s broad relevancy standard and therefore the Rulings should be reversed such that CalCCA can participate meaningfully in this proceeding III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REVERSE THE RULING GRANTING PG&E’S

MOTION TO STRIKE
ERRA Compliance proceedings typically involve a review of the investor-owned utility’s (IOU) RA activities during the record year. The facts of those activities, therefore, are facts of consequence to the Commission’s determination of an ERRA Compliance proceeding. In this proceeding, one of the specific issues of consequence to the Commission’s determination is the reasonableness of PG&E’s attempts to sell its excess RA capacity to other LSEs during the summer 35 Id.
36 See, e.g. People v. Tauber, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 656, 660 (4th Dist. Sept. 18, 1996). 37 Rule 13.6(a).
38 Id.
14 of 2022 prior to transferring that capacity to CAM. As CalCCA explained in its Motion to Admit, that issue is of consequence to three separate scoping issues in this proceeding: Scoping Issue 1, which generally asks whether PG&E prudently managed and administered its resources; Scoping Issue 3, which generally asks whether PG&E’s accounting entries to the PABA were appropriate; and Scoping Issue 5, which generally asks whether PG&E complied with its BPP.

CalCCA’s testimony scrutinizes PG&E’s RA activities during the record year. CalCCA witness Shuey discusses the nearly one gigawatt of excess RA PG&E transferred from the PABA to the NSGBA over the course of five summer months;39 the dramatic differences in PG&E’s RA position between the time it made those transfers and the RA sales solicitations PG&E conducted just a few months prior;40 PG&E’s attempts (or lack thereof) to sell its excess RA to other LSEs;41 the RA market constraints all LSEs face; and the implications of PG&E’s failure to make reasonable attempts to sell its excess RA to other LSEs.42 Those facts collectively tend to disprove the reasonableness of PG&E’s attempts to sell its excess RA capacity in 2022 prior to transferring that capacity to CAM and therefore CalCCA’s testimony falls within the broad definition of relevance applied in Commission proceedings.

The ALJ Ruling granting PG&E’s Motion to Strike strikes “portions of the prepared testimony of [CalCCA witness] Brian Shuey that are not relevant to the issue of whether PG&E administered resource adequacy procurement and sales consistent with its Bundled Procurement 39 CalCCA Direct Testimony at 3-4.
40 Id. at 4-6.
41 Id. at 6-11.
42 Id. at 11-14.
15 Plan”,43 and offers no discussion or reasoning in support of its conclusion. The ruling is unsound, and the Commission should reverse it and admit CalCCA’s direct testimony in its entirety. 1) CalCCA’s testimony is relevant to whether PG&E prudently managed its RA portfolio (Scoping Issue 1).

Scoping Issue 1 of the Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling asks “[w]hether PG&E, during the record period, prudently administered and managed the following, in compliance with all applicable rules, regulations, and Commission decisions, including but not limited to Standard of Conduct (SOC) 4: a) Utility-Owned Generation Facilities, except for the Elkorn Battery Energy Storage System and Pit 1 Powerhouse outages which will be reviewed in the 2023 ERRA Compliance proceeding; b) Qualifying Facilities (QF) Contracts; and c) Non-QF Contracts. If not, what adjustments, if any, should be made to account for imprudently managed or administered resources?”44
At a high level, Scoping Issue 1 requires the Commission to evaluate whether PG&E prudently administered and managed its generation portfolio (UOG and contracted resources) in 2022. As a part of that broad evaluation, the Commission must assess whether PG&E administered and managed its RA resources prudently. That prudence assessment, in turn, includes assessing whether PG&E made reasonable efforts to ensure it received value for all its RA resources, a key consideration in determining whether PG&E has prudently managed its generation portfolio.

The Commission applies several standards to assess the prudence of PG&E’s management and administration of its generation portfolio, including SOC 4, the Commission’s Good Utility 43 Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Granting Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Motion to Strike Portions of the Prepared Testimony of Brian Shuey at 1 (Jan. 23, 2024). 44 Scoping Memo at 2.
16 Practice standard and the “reasonable manager” standard.45 SOC 4 requires utilities to prudently administer all contracts and generation resources and dispatch the energy in a least-cost manner.46 The Commission has stated that prudent contract administration consistent with SOC 4 requires the utility “dispose of economic long power”—in other words, sell excess resources—among other activities.47 In a similar vein, the “Good Utility Practice” standard requires utilities act consistent with:
“[A]ny of the practices, methods and acts engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the electric utility industry during the relevant time period, or any of the practices, methods and acts which, in the exercise of reasonable judgment in light of the facts known at the time the decision was made, could have been expected to accomplish the desired result at a reasonable cost consistent with good business practices, reliability, safety and expedition.”48 Lastly, the broad “reasonable manager” standard requires utilities act in a manner that “comport[s] with what a reasonable manager of sufficient education, training, experience and skills using the tools and knowledge at his disposal would do when faced with a need to make a decision and act.”49 Each of these standards permit the Commission to review whether the utility maximized the value of its RA resources for the benefit of its customers during the record period.

In addition, as referenced in Scoping Issue 1, the Commission must determine whether PG&E managed its resource portfolio in compliance with all applicable Commission decisions, including D.21-12-015. Decision 21-12-015 requires PG&E make reasonable attempts to sell its excess RA capacity to other LSEs before counting that capacity towards its incremental system 45 See, e.g. A.19-05-007, D.20-12-036 at 9 (in SDG&E’s 2018 ERRA Compliance proceeding, finding SDG&E complied with the Good Utility Practice and reasonable manager standards). 46 D.02-10-062, Conclusion of Law 11 (Oct. 24, 2002).
47 D.02-12-074 at 54 (Dec. 19, 2002); see also D.05-04-036 at 24. 48 D.02-12-069, Attachment A at 5 (Dec. 19, 2002).
49 D.90-09-088 at 499.
17 reliability procurement targets.50 PG&E’s efforts to sell its excess RA during the summer of 2022 and realize the value of those resources for the benefit of its customers, therefore, is relevant to the assessment the Commission must make under Scoping Issue 1.

In its Motion to Strike, PG&E argues D.21-12-015 “does not create a separate or additional requirement beyond Appendix S” and asserts Appendix S “is the upfront reasonableness standard by which PG&E’s compliance is measured for the management and sale of RA in this proceeding.”51 In support, PG&E points to Commission Resolution 4998-E approving Appendix S and the Commission’s subsequent disposition of PG&E’s Advice Letters 6306-E and 6306-E-A (collectively, “Appendix S Justification ALs”), claiming that disposition “affirms that Appendix S contains the CPUC-approved upfront reasonableness standard for conducting RA sales, including in connection with the Emergency Reliability OIR procurement orders.”52 In essence, PG&E suggests the Commission cannot scrutinize its RA sales activities during the record period in an ERRA Compliance proceeding beyond confirming PG&E carried out the solicitations required by Appendix S.

PG&E overstates the effect of Resolution 4998-E and the Commission’s disposition of the Appendix S Justification ALs. Nothing in Resolution 4998-E or the Commission’s disposition of the Appendix S Justification ALs narrows the scope of ERRA Compliance proceedings or precludes parties (and the Commission) from investigating whether PG&E prudently managed its RA sales during the record period. Finally, even if the Commission’s scrutiny of PG&E’s 2022 RA activities in this proceeding were limited to confirming PG&E complied with Appendix S (and 50 D.21-12-015 at 183-184.
51 Motion to Strike at 4.
52 Id. at 6.
18 CalCCA does not agree it is), CalCCA’s testimony is nevertheless relevant to the Commission’s scrutiny of that issue, as discussed in Section V below.

Ultimately, PG&E’s management of its generation portfolio—and specifically the efficiency of PG&E’s sales of excess RA—directly contributes to the rates customers pay. That is because PG&E’s sales of RA from its PCIA portfolio drive the quantity of Sold and Unsold RA it records, which in turn impacts PG&E’s PABA balance—a key component of the PCIA rates PG&E’s customers (bundled and unbundled) pay.53
In addition, the reasonableness of PG&E’s attempts to sell excess RA has larger implications for other LSEs in its service territory, as CalCCA witness Shuey explains in his testimony. During the summer of 2022, LSEs faced a severely constrained RA market, which led to difficulty procuring sufficient RA to meet compliance obligations. 54 Under these market conditions, PG&E’s efforts to maximize its sales of excess RA are especially relevant to whether PG&E prudently managed its resource portfolio—not only to lower costs to customers but also to ensure excess capacity is available to meet regional RA needs.

Finally, this is not only the appropriate proceeding for the Commission to review the prudence of PG&E’s management of its RA portfolio during the summer of 2022—it is the only proceeding in which the Commission can do so. Section 454.5(d)(2) expressly permits the Commission to “establish a regulatory process to verify and ensure that each contract was administered in accordance with the terms of the contract[.]” 55 That process is the ERRA Compliance process. In an ERRA Compliance proceeding, parties can contest whether PG&E 53 See also infra I.B.2., discussing the relevance of CalCCA’s testimony to Scoping Issue 3. 54 CalCCA Direct Testimony at 11-14.
55 Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 454.5(d)(2).
19 followed SOC 4 and prudently managed its resources in making RA sales during the record year.

Because the question involves actions PG&E should have taken, but did not pursue (i.e., a retrospective review of PG&E’s actions during the record year), the ERRA Compliance application and review process is the only available forum for parties to probe that question. 2) CalCCA’s testimony is relevant to whether PG&E’s entries recorded in the PABA are reasonable, appropriate, accurate, and in compliance with Commission decisions (Scoping Issue 3)
Scoping Issue 3 asks “[w]hether the entries recorded in the ERRA and the [PABA] are reasonable, appropriate, accurate, and in compliance with Commission decisions.” 56 The Commission has broad latitude to consider PG&E’s activities impacting those entries.

Among the myriad activities informing Scoping Issue 3 is PG&E’s transfer of 923 MW of excess RA capacity from the PCIA to CAM in 2022, and associated accounting entries, which PG&E describes in its Prepared Direct Testimony.57 The reasonableness of PG&E’s attempts to sell excess RA during the summer of 2022 is well-within the scope of this proceeding because that issue ultimately impacts the entries PG&E made to its balancing accounts, including the Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account (PABA) during the 2022 record period. Those entries directly contribute to the rates PG&E’s customers ultimately pay.

To be more specific, PG&E’s attempts to sell its excess RA impact not only the magnitude of PG&E’s credit to PABA resulting from the transfer of excess RA to CAM, but also the actual amount of RA capacity PG&E sold during the record year. Ultimately, PG&E’s Actual Sold RA (compared to the amount of Sold RA it had forecasted it would sell) is a key factor driving whether 56 Scoping Memo at 2-3.
57 PG&E Prepared Testimony at 12-15.
20 an over- or under-collection exists in the PABA, which in turn drives the revenue requirement for the following year’s PCIA rates that PG&E’s customers pay.58 The facts of PG&E’s attempts to sell excess RA during the summer of 2022 therefore go to whether PG&E’s PABA entries are “reasonable, appropriate, accurate, and in compliance with Commission decisions.” Put differently, should the Commission find PG&E’s attempts to sell its excess RA capacity were not reasonable, and could have resulted in a different PABA balance at the end of 2022 due to increased sales of RA, it might determine PG&E’s PABA entries were not “reasonable, appropriate, accurate and in compliance with Commission decisions.” CalCCA’s testimony is replete with the facts of PG&E’s attempts to sell excess RA during the summer of 2022, including (but not limited to) the following specific portions:
• At page 4, lines 2-11 of CalCCA witness Shuey’s direct testimony, discusses the amount of excess RA that PG&E counted towards its incremental system reliability procurement targets between June and October 2022.
• At page 5, lines 4-13 of CalCCA witness Shuey’s direct testimony, discusses the RA sales requirements in PG&E’s BPP.
• At page 5, lines 14-19 of CalCCA witness Shuey’s direct testimony, discusses PG&E’s calculation of its RA position for the purposes of its RA sales solicitations. • At page 6, lines 1-6 of CalCCA witness Shuey’s direct testimony, summarizes PG&E’s System RA Positions calculated for solicitations with delivery in 2022. • At page 6, lines 6-11 of CalCCA witness Shuey’s direct testimony, discusses the discrepancy between PG&E’s Excess Resources Report and its RA Positions calculated for the purposes of RA sales solicitations.
• At page 6, line 12 to page 7, line 8 of CalCCA witness Shuey’s direct testimony, discusses the timing of PG&E’s RA sales solicitations, PG&E’s preparation of an RA Position for the purposes of that solicitation, and PG&E’s identification of excess RA capacity counted towards meeting incremental system reliability 58 PG&E’s PCIA rates are set in the ERRA Forecast proceeding based on: (1) the Indifference Amount (the difference in the forecast year between the cost of PG&E’s supply portfolio and the market value of that portfolio); and (2) the year-end balance in the PABA. The Indifference Amount and the year-end PABA over- or under-collection are added together to form the PABA revenue requirement underlying PCIA rates.
21 procurement targets.
• At page 7, lines 12-20 of CalCCA witness Shuey’s direct testimony, discusses PG&E’s responses to certain CalCCA discovery requests scrutinizing the attempts (or lack thereof) PG&E made to sell its excess capacity during the summer of 2022. • At page 7, line 21 to page 8, line 6 of CalCCA witness Shuey’s direct testimony, discusses the terms of PG&E’s RA sales under its BPP.
• At page 8, line 7 to page 11, line 3, discusses RA offered for sale in each RA sales solicitation with delivery periods from June through October 2022, the bids PG&E received, as well as the outcomes of those solicitations. • Attachment B (PG&E responses to CalCCA Data Requests) to CalCCA witness Shuey’s direct testimony includes discovery responses addressing:
o PG&E’s sold, unsold and retained RA; its RA positions; and its operational constraints (PG&E response to CalCCA data request 1.08); o PG&E’s evaluation of the bids it received in response to its RA sales solicitations (PG&E responses to CalCCA data requests 2.21 and 2.23); o PG&E’s attempts to sell any portion of its excess RA capacity to any other LSEs prior to transferring that capacity out of PABA (PG&E response and supplemental response to CalCCA data request 2.54);
o PG&E’s receipt of offers from other LSEs to purchase any portion of its excess RA capacity (PG&E response to CalCCA data request 2.55); o PG&E’s response to offers from other LSEs to purchase any portion of its excess RA capacity (PG&E response to CalCCA data request 2.56); o PG&E’s efforts to make excess capacity available in RA solicitations before counting that capacity toward PG&E’s incremental system reliability procurement target (PG&E response to CalCCA data request 2.57); o When PG&E knew it had excess RA capacity available (PG&E response to CalCCA data request 3.26);
o Circumstances that caused changes to PG&E’s RA position such that PG&E had excess RA capacity available for use to meet summer reliability needs in 2022 (PG&E responses to CalCCA data request 3.27, 3.33CONF,

4.14CONF, 4.15);
o The System RA volumes PG&E offered for sale in its RA solicitations for delivery between June and October 2022 (PG&E response to CalCCA data request 3.31CONF); and
22 o PG&E’s efforts to communicate the availability of its excess RA capacity to other LSEs (PG&E response to CalCCA data request 3.28).

CalCCA’s testimony is therefore relevant to Scoping Issue 3, and this, on its own, should have been sufficient to defeat PG&E’s Motion to Strike.
3) CalCCA’s testimony is relevant to whether PG&E administered resource adequacy sales consistent with its BPP (Scoping Issue 5) Scoping Issue 5 asks “[w]hether PG&E administered resource adequacy procurement and sales consistent with its [BPP].”59 Facts related to PG&E’s RA sales in 2022—including PG&E’s RA positions; the calculation of its RA positions; the timing of PG&E’s calculation of its RA position; the timing and outcomes of its RA solicitations; and PG&E’s attempts to sell its excess RA capacity—are each relevant to Scoping Issue 5, because those facts go to whether PG&E conducted RA sales consistent with Appendix S of its BPP. CalCCA witness Shuey’s testimony adduces several of these facts, including in particular:
• At pages 5-7, discusses PG&E’s System RA Positions calculated for each RA sales solicitation with delivery during 2022;
• At pages 7-11, discusses PG&E’s attempts to sell excess RA capacity in 2022, including the timing of PG&E’s RA solicitations; the RA volumes PG&E offered for sale by solicitation; and the bids PG&E received and rejected; and • In Attachment B (PG&E’s responses to CalCCA data requests), includes several of PG&E’s responses to CalCCA data requests seeking information regarding the RA volumes PG&E offered for sale by solicitation (PG&E response to CalCCA data request 3.31CONF); PG&E’s calculation of its RA position for the purposes of its RA sales solicitations (PG&E response to CalCCA data request 1.08); and the outcomes of PG&E’s RA sales solicitations (PG&E responses to CalCCA data requests 2.21, 2.23, 2.55, 2.56 and 2.57).

While CalCCA witness Shuey does not reach a conclusion regarding PG&E’s compliance with its BPP, the facts adduced in his testimony nevertheless inform the Commission’s evaluation of Scoping Issue 5, and CalCCA may address PG&E’s consistency with its BPP in legal briefing. 59 Scoping Memo at 3.
23 CalCCA’s testimony is therefore relevant to Scoping Issue 5, and this, on its own, should have been sufficient to defeat PG&E’s Motion to Strike.

IV. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REVERSE THE RULING DENYING CALCCA’S

MOTION REQUESTING OFFICIAL NOTICE
In support of its motion to admit the testimony of witness Shuey, CalCCA moved for and requested official notice of the following four documents (collectively, the “SDG&E Filings”):

1. Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling filed October 31, 2023 in Application (A.) 23-06-00260 (“SDG&E Scoping Ruling”, Exhibit C to this Motion);

2. Motion to Compel Discovery of San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance, filed on November 22, 2023 in A.23-06-002, (“Joint CCA Motion to Compel”, Exhibit D to this Motion);

3. San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s (U 902-E) Response to San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance’s Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on December 1, 2023 in A.23-06-002 (“SDG&E Response to Motion to Compel”, Exhibit E to this Motion);

4. E-mail Ruling Granting San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance Motion to Compel San Diego Gas & Electric Company to Fully Respond to San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance Data Requests by 5 P.M. on December 8, 2023, issued on December 4, 2023 in A.23-06-002 (“SDG&E Ruling”, Exhibit F to this Motion).

Similar to the ruling granting PG&E’s motion to strike, the ALJ’s ruling denying CalCCA’s request for official notice offers no discussion or reasoning in support of its conclusion. The Commission should reverse the ruling because the documents above are plainly relevant to the evidentiary question PG&E’s Motion to Strike raises, and because CalCCA’s request easily meets the legal standard.
60 A.23-06-002, Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902-E) for Approval of: (i) Contract Administration, Least-Cost Dispatch and Power Procurement Activities in 2022, (ii) Costs Related to those Activities Recorded to the Energy Resource Recovery Account, Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account, Power Charge Indifference Adjustment Undercollection Balancing Account, Transition Cost Balancing Account, and Local Generating Balancing Account in 2022, and (iii) Costs Recorded in Related Regulatory Accounts in 2022.
24 1) The Commission Should Take Official Notice of the SDG&E Filings Because Those Documents are Relevant to a Key Disputed Evidentiary Issue in this Proceeding
The evidentiary question PG&E’s Motion to Strike presents—Whether CalCCA’s testimony regarding PG&E’s attempts to sell its excess RA during the summer of 2022 is relevant to the scope of this ERRA Compliance proceeding?—mirrors a question that was recently resolved in San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s (SDG&E) 2022 ERRA Compliance proceeding. As the table below demonstrates, Scoping Issues 1 through 3 of the SDG&E proceeding are exceedingly similar to Scoping Issues 1 and 3 of the instant proceeding:

Scoping Issue A.23-02-018, PG&E 2022 ERRA
Compliance proceeding61
Scoping Issue A.23-06-002, SDG&E 2022
ERRA Compliance proceeding62
Scoping Issue 1 Whether PG&E, during the record
period, prudently administered and
managed, in compliance with all
applicable rules, regulations and
Commission decisions, including but
not limited to Standard of Conduct
No. 4 (SOC 4), the following:
a. Utility-Owned Generation
Facilities, except for the Elkhorn
Battery Energy Storage System
and Pit 1 Powerhouse outages
which will be reviewed in the
2023 ERRA Compliance
proceeding;
b. Qualifying Facilities (QF)
Contracts; and
c. Non-QF Contracts
If not, what adjustments, if any,
should be made to account for
imprudently managed or
administered resources?
Scoping Issue 1 Whether SDG&E administered and
managed its own generation
resources prudently, to include the
management of outages and
associated fuel costs, according to
Standard of Conduct (“SOC”) 4
Scoping Issue 2 Whether SDG&E administered and
managed its Qualifying Facility
(“QF”) and non-QF contracts for
generation and power purchase
agreements in accordance with the
contract provisions and otherwise
followed Commission guidelines
relating to those contracts and their
amendments according to SOC 4.

Scoping Issue 3 Whether the entries recorded in the
ERRA and the Portfolio Allocation
Balancing Account are reasonable,
appropriate, accurate, and in
compliance with Commission
decisions.

Scoping Issue 3 Whether the entries recorded
during the record year in the
following accounts are correctly
stated and in compliance with
Commission directives:
[. . .]
61 A.23-02-018, Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling at 2-3 (June 2, 2023). 62 Exhibit C at 2-3.
25 b. Portfolio Allocation Balancing
Account
[. . .].

In SDG&E’s 2022 ERRA Compliance proceeding, the Joint CCAs sought a ruling compelling SDG&E to produce information fully responsive to data requests seeking to scrutinize SDG&E’s attempt to maximize its RA sales during the record period.63 The Joint CCAs explained that between June and October of 2022, SDG&E relied on excess RA capacity from its existing resources to count toward its incremental system reliability procurement targets64—mirroring PG&E’s treatment of excess RA during the summer of 2022. The Joint CCAs asserted, therefore, that “[a]n important question for the Commission to consider in [SDG&E’s 2022 ERRA compliance] proceeding is whether SDG&E should have offered more RA for sale in 2022 given this substantial excess RA capacity, i.e., whether SDG&E prudently managed its portfolio during the record year that is the focus of this proceeding.”65 That question parallels the key disputed issue between CalCCA and PG&E in this proceeding: whether PG&E made reasonable attempts to sell its excess capacity to other LSEs during the summer of 2022 before transferring that capacity to CAM.

In order to help the Commission address that question in SDG&E’s proceeding, according to the Joint CCAs’ Motion to Compel, the Joint CCAs issued data requests seeking information regarding SDG&E’s RA solicitation materials, RA positions, and bid outcomes of SDG&E’s sales of excess RA.66 The CCAs explained SDG&E’s attempts to maximize its RA sales “[go] directly to the heart of whether [SDG&E] prudently managed its generation portfolio during the 2022 63 Exhibit D.
64 Id. at 4-5.
65 Id. at 5.
66 Id. at 5-6.
26 compliance period. SDG&E’s efforts in this regard ultimately impact the entries it made into its balancing accounts, including the [PABA], which is subject to a compliance review in this proceeding.”67 Similarly, here, CalCCA’s testimony adduces facts regarding PG&E’s attempts to sell its excess RA, including PG&E’s RA positions and solicitations, because those facts go to whether PG&E prudently managed its resource portfolio (Scoping Issue 1); whether PG&E’s entries to the PABA were appropriate (Scoping Issue 3); and whether PG&E complied with its BPP (Scoping Issue 5).

SDG&E objected to the Joint CCAs’ data requests. 68 It contended any information regarding its attempts (or lack thereof) to sell excess RA was not relevant to its ERRA Compliance proceeding.69 In response to the Joint CCAs’ Motion to Compel, while acknowledging intervening parties in an ERRA Compliance proceeding “may make a threshold inquiry as to whether SDG&E sold excess RA in the record year”, SDG&E asserted intervenors “are not allowed to review or examine the specifics of those activities for the purposes of contesting their reasonableness.”70 SDG&E also argued it had already “justified its methodology for determining how much of its PCIA-eligible RA is reserved in its BPP” and the Commission “recently confirmed that SDG&E’s methodology for determining how much of its [PCIA]-eligible RA is reserved in its BPP is reasonable.”71 SDG&E further argued its RA transactions in compliance with an approved BPP are not subject to any additional “after-the-fact” reasonableness review.72 67 Id. at 1-2.
68 Id. at 5-6.
69 Id.
70 Exhibit E at 12.
71 Id. at 12-13.
72 Id. at 11.
27 The substance of SDG&E’s evidentiary arguments echoes the substance of the arguments PG&E advances in this proceeding, even if the form of each utility’s argument differs (i.e. SDG&E sought to deny the Joint CCAs the opportunity to review its RA activities by objecting to discovery, whereas PG&E seeks to deny CalCCA the opportunity to meaningfully dispute its RA activities by moving to strike portions of its testimony after objecting to discovery). Like SDG&E, PG&E argues CalCCA’s data and arguments on PG&E’s RA activities during the summer of 2022 “are not relevant to the scope of this proceeding”; 73 asserts its BPP establishes an “upfront reasonableness standard” by which the Commission evaluates PG&E’s RA sales;74 and asserts the Commission’s review of PG&E’s RA activities during the record year is limited to a review of PG&E’s compliance with its BPP.75
The ALJ in SDG&E’s proceeding ruled in favor of the Joint CCAs. The Ruling concludes the Joint CCAs “showed that SDG&E’s responses to [their] Data Requests are relevant to the scope of this proceeding.” 76 The Exhibits therefore support the relevance of CalCCA’s prepared testimony in this proceeding, and CalCCA reference the Exhibits in its motion for the admission of the prepared testimony of Brian Shuey. The Commission should take official notice of the SDG&E Filings because the documents are plainly relevant to a key disputed evidentiary issue between PG&E and CalCCA in this proceeding.
73 Motion to Strike at 1.
74 Id. at 4.
75 Id. at 6-7.
76 Exhibit F at 2-3.
28 2) Official Notice of the SDG&E Filings is Proper Under Commission Rule

13.10. The Commission may take official notice of the SDG&E Filings under Rule 13.10 because these documents may be judicially noticed by California courts pursuant to Evidence Code section 450 et seq.

First, the SDG&E Filings meet the standard set forth in Evidence Code section 452(c). That section permits notice of “[o]fficial acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the United States and of any state in the United States.”77 Official acts include records, reports and orders of administrative agencies78 and therefore include the Exhibits, each of which constitute records of the Commission.

Second, the SDG&E Filings meet the standard set forth in Evidence Code section 452(h).

That section permits notice of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.”79 The existence of the SDG&E Filings, and the content therein, are facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute because each document includes the Docket Office’s electronic filing stamp. Further, the existence of the SDG&E Filings, and the content therein, are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to the Commission’s electronic filing system, which is a source of reasonably indisputable accuracy.

Consistent with the requirements of Evidence Code section 453, CalCCA attached copies of the SDG&E Scoping Ruling, Joint CCA Motion to Compel, SDG&E Response to Motion to Compel, and SDG&E Ruling as exhibits to its Motion for Official Notice (and again provides 77 Cal. Evid. Code sec. 452(c).
78 Rodas v. Spiegel, 87 Cal. App. 4th 513, 518 (2d Dist. Jan. 30, 2001). 79 Cal. Evid. Code sec. 452(h).
29 those documents as exhibits to this motion). In addition, prior to filing its Motion for Official Notice, CalCCA notified the parties and the Commission of its intention to file that request, including via the Joint Report of Meet and Confer filed in this proceeding on January 8, 2024.80 CalCCA therefore provided adverse parties sufficient notice of CalCCA’s request and furnished the Commission with sufficient information to enable it to take notice of the existence of, and content in, the SDG&E Filings. CalCCA’s motion for official notice therefore met the requirements of the Evidence Code. The Commission should reverse the ALJ’s ruling denying CalCCA’s motion, and take official notice of the SDG&E Filings.

V. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REVERSE THE RULING TAKING THE

EVIDENTIARY HEARING OFF THE CALENDAR
On February 14, 2024, CalCCA and PG&E filed a Joint Report in which CalCCA explained an evidentiary hearing is necessary to address the following disputed factual issues:81

2. Whether PG&E made attempts to sell excess Resource Adequacy capacity to other LSEs in 2022 beyond year-ahead and quarterly solicitations once it determined excess Resource Adequacy capacity was available, and if so, the nature and timing of those attempts.

The ALJ issued a ruling on February 15, 2024 determining “the above issues are irrelevant for evaluating PG&E’s Resource Adequacy procurement and sales in accordance with its Bundled 80 Joint Report of Meet and Confer by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E), Public Advocates Office, and the California Community Choice Association at 4 (Jan. 8, 2024). 81 Joint Report by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E) and the California Community Choice Association (Feb. 14, 2024).
30 Procurement Plan and outside the scope of the Scoping Memo.”82 Based on that determination, the ruling took the evidentiary hearing off calendar.

As this motion discusses at length above, the facts of PG&E’s attempts to sell excess Resource Adequacy to other LSEs in 2022 after it identified that excess are relevant to multiple scoping issues. Even if the ALJ’s ruling on PG&E’s motion to strike were to stand and CalCCA’s scrutiny of PG&E’s RA sales were limited to PG&E’s consistency with Appendix S (Scoping Issue 5), the disputed issues CalCCA identified for hearing would clear that bar. That is because, as explained above, Appendix S
.
83 Thus,
cross examination of PG&E’s witness regarding the utility’s sales of excess RA once it determined excess RA was available is relevant
to the question of whether PG&E “administered resource adequacy procurement and sales consistent with its Bundled Procurement Plan.”84 Put differently, CalCCA’s intended lines of questioning (which would drive at the disputed issues CalCCA identified) would produce facts that tend to prove PG&E did not administer RA sales consistent with its Bundled Procurement Plan.

By not only precluding CalCCA from pursuing those lines of questioning (the remedy PG&E’s motion in limine requests) wholesale, but also taking the evidentiary hearing off calendar altogether, i.e., going further than the remedy PG&E’s motion in limine requests, the ALJ’s ruling unreasonably limits CalCCA from asking any questions of PG&E’s witness and developing a 82 Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Taking Status Conference and Evidentiary Hearing off Calendar at 1 (Feb. 15, 2024).
83 CalCCA-03C at 12-14.
84 Scoping Memo at 3.
31 robust record on PG&E’s RA sales activities for the Commission’s consideration. Again, the ruling offers no discussion or reasoning for its determination. The Commission should reverse the ruling and permit CalCCA to cross examine PG&E’s witness on the factual issues identified in the February 14, 2024 Joint Report.

VI. THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THIS MOTION CALCCA’S OFFER OF PROOF FOR THE RECORD PURSUANT TO RULE 13.6 (E)
Rule 13.6 (e) permits parties to make an offer of proof for the record, and requires that the offer “consist of a statement of the substance of the evidence to which objection has been sustained.” CalCCA has not had an opportunity to make an offer of proof for the evidence to which the ALJ sustained PG&E’s objection because the ALJ took the evidentiary hearing off the calendar. CalCCA therefore requests the Commission consider this motion its offer of proof of the following evidence to which the ALJ sustained an objection:
• Prepared Direct Testimony of Brian Shuey on behalf of the California Community Choice Association, dated September 22, 2023 (public version marked CalCCA-01, confidential version marked CalCCA-01-C). • Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling filed October 31, 2023 in A.23-06-002;
• Motion to Compel Discovery of San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance, filed on November 22, 2023 in A.23-06-002;
• San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s (U 902-E) Response to San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance’s Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on December 1, 2023 in A.23-06-002;
• E-Mail Ruling Granting San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance Motion to Compel San Diego Gas & Electric Company to Fully Respond to San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance Data Requests by 5 P.M. on December 8, 2023, issued on December 4, 2023 in A.23-06-002; • Cross examination regarding the following disputed factual issues:
o Whether PG&E made attempts to sell excess Resource Adequacy capacity to other LSEs in 2022 once it determined excess Resource Adequacy capacity was available, and if so, the nature and timing of those attempts. 32 o Whether PG&E made attempts to sell excess Resource Adequacy capacity to other LSEs in 2022 beyond year-ahead and quarterly solicitations once it determined excess Resource Adequacy capacity was available, and if so, the nature and timing of those attempts.

The substance, purpose and relevance of CalCCA’s evidence listed above is discussed in detail in this motion, consistent with the requirements of Rule 13.6(e).

VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons described herein, CalCCA respectfully requests the Commission reverse the Rulings.

Respectfully submitted,
Nikhil Vijaykar

KEYES & FOX LLP
580 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (408) 621-3256
E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel to

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE

ASSOCIATION
Dated: February 23, 2024
Exhibit A
A.23-02-018
Prepared Direct Testimony of Brian Shuey
Public Version
Docket No.: =-===-aa.=.....a;....::...aa.. A.23-02-018 ____ _ Exhibit No.: CalCCA-01 --------- Date: September 22, 2023 Witness: =B=ri=ana:..;S=h=u=ey,.____ ____ _

PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF BRIAN SHUEY

ON BEHALF OF

THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION

IN PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMP ANY'S
2022 ERRA COMPLIANCE PROCEEDING
Public Version
i
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and summary of testimony .................................................................................. 1 II. PG&E counted a significant quantity of PCIA-eligible resources toward 2022 System Reliability Incremental Procurement targets. ........................................................................ 3 III. PG&E’s System RA position reports are inconsistent with PG&E’s claim that it had 923 MW of excess RA available during summer months in 2022. .............................................. 5 IV. PG&E did not offer to sell excess System RA to other LSEs prior to counting the capacity toward its System Reliability Incremental Procurement targets. ........................................... 7 V. LSEs have paid substantial fines because they were unable to procure sufficient RA capacity. .............................................................................................................................................. 11 VI. The Commission should scrutinize the assumptions used in PG&E’s position reporting and solicitation process. .............................................................................................................. 14 Attachments
Attachment A: Curriculum Vitae of Brian Shuey
Attachment B: PG&E Responses to CalCCA Data Requests
1 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
2 The California Community Choice Association (CalCCA) presents this direct 3 testimony in the Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for 4 Compliance Review of Utility Owned Generation Operations, Portfolio Allocation 5 Balancing Account (PABA) Entries, Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA) 6 Entries, Contract Administration, Economic Dispatch of Electric Resources, Utility 7 Owned Generation Fuel Procurement, and Other Activities for the Record Period 8 January 1 Through December 31, 2022 (Application). This testimony has been prepared 9 on behalf of CalCCA by Brian Shuey, Senior Manager, NewGen Strategies and 10 Solutions, LLC. Mr. Shuey’s qualifications are set forth in Attachment A. 11 CalCCA has a particular interest in the PABA, which is charged to CalCCA 12 members’ customers through the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) rates. 13 This testimony presents CalCCA’s recommendations on issues falling within scope of the 14 following items from the Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling in this case:1 15
16 1. Whether PG&E, during the record period, prudently administered and 17 managed, in compliance with all applicable rules, regulations and 18 Commission decisions, including but not limited to Standard of Conduct No. 19 4 (SOC 4), the following:
20 a. Utility-Owned Generation Facilities, except for the Elkhorn Battery 21 Energy Storage System and Pit 1 Powerhouse outages which will be 22 reviewed in the 2023 ERRA Compliance proceeding;
23 b. Qualifying Facilities (QF) Contracts; and
24 c. Non-QF Contracts.
1 Application (A.) 23-02-018, Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling at 2-3 (June 2, 2023) (Scoping Ruling).
2 1 If not, what adjustments, if any, should be made to account for imprudently 2 managed or administered resources?
3 2. Whether the entries recorded in the ERRA and the Portfolio Allocation 4 Balancing Account are reasonable, appropriate, accurate, and in compliance 5 with Commission decisions.
6 5. Whether PG&E administered resource adequacy procurement and sales 7 consistent with its Bundled Procurement Plan;
8 Based on my review of PG&E’s Application, supporting workpapers, and 9 responses to discovery I make the following recommendations:
10 • PG&E should be required to provide a detailed reconciliation between the 11 resource adequacy (RA) position reports used as the basis for its solicitations 12 offering to sell RA for delivery in 2022 and its final RA positions resulting in 13 excess capacity in June through October 2022.
14 • The Commission should scrutinize PG&E’s assumptions about resource 15 availability and the adjustments made to its RA position to ensure reductions 16 to capacity made available to the market are justified and to eliminate 17 potential overlap among categories.
18 • PG&E’s Bundled Procurement Plan (BPP) should be updated to ensure excess 19 capacity is made available to the market, either through refined adjustments to 20 available capacity in RA position reports or through market offers outside of 21 the scheduled solicitation process.
22 • The Commission should consider whether disallowance, penalty, or other 23 remedy is warranted for the 2022 record year based on PG&E’s non-24 compliance with Decision (D.) 21-12-015. 3 1 II. PG&E COUNTED A SIGNIFICANT QUANTITY OF PCIA-ELIGIBLE 2 RESOURCES TOWARD 2022 SYSTEM RELIABILITY INCREMENTAL
3 PROCUREMENT TARGETS.
4 In its Prepared Testimony, PG&E reported it transferred a total of 923 MW of 5 excess RA capacity from its existing PCIA-eligible resource portfolio to its Cost 6 Allocation Mechanism (CAM) portfolio to be counted toward its 2022 System Reliability Incremental Procurement requirement established in D.21-03-056.2 7 According to D.21- 8 12-015 if PG&E has not met its minimum contingency procurement target for June and 9 October it may:
10 “…use excess resources in its existing portfolios to meet the 11 minimum contingency procurement target (900 MW for PG&E and 12 SCE, and 200 MW for SDG&E), provided it has made reasonable attempts to sell this excess capacity to other LSEs.”3 13 14 15 Additionally, for the months of July, August, and September, excess resources may:
16 “… be used to meet or supplement these procurement targets up to 17 the upper end of its contingency procurement target (1,350 MW for 18 PG&E and SCE, and 300 MW for SDG&E), provided it has made reasonable attempts to sell this excess capacity to other LSEs.”4 19 20 As noted in D.21-12-015, PG&E is authorized to count excess RA capacity from 21 existing resources to meet its System Reliability Incremental Procurement targets 22 provided it has first made reasonable attempts to sell this excess capacity to other load 23 serving entities (LSEs). Because cost recovery for System Reliability Incremental 24 Procurement is through the CAM, the value of excess RA capacity provided by existing 25 resources must be transferred from the applicable balancing account to the CAM 26 balancing account (for PG&E, the New System Generation Balancing Account 2 PG&E’s Prepared Testimony, Chapter 12, page 12-15, lines 3-19. 3 D.21-02-015, Phase 2 Decision Directing PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E to take actions to prepare for potential extreme weather in the summers of 2022 and 2023, page 183 (emphasis added). 4 Id., page 184 (emphasis added).
4 1 (NSGBA)).
2 PG&E reports that it counted 923 MW of excess RA from existing PCIA-eligible resources, during the months of June through October of 2022.5 3 As required, PG&E 4 credited PABA and charged NSGBA for the value of the RA transferred to CAM. 5 Transfers were valued at the Forecasted 2022 System RA Adder for June through 6 September, prior to the publishing of the Final 2022 System RA Adder. PG&E trued-up 7 the entries through October and made an adjustment to account for the publishing of the 8 Final RA Adders. The total amount transferred to NSGBA was over the five 9 months. See Table 1 for the transfers by month.

Table 1: System RA Transfer from PABA to NSGBA6 10
11 12 CalCCA does not dispute that PG&E is authorized under D.21-12-015 and D.21- 13 03-056 to count excess RA capacity toward incremental procurement obligations. 14 However, even though PG&E appropriately credited the PABA for the PCIA resources it 15 borrowed, my testimony demonstrates that PG&E did not make reasonable attempts to 16 sell the ‘excess’ capacity to other LSEs as required by D.21-12-015. 5 See PG&E’s response to CalCCA data requests 2.19 and 2.58. 6 RA Transferred to CAM from PG&E 2022 IOU Excess Resources Summary Report, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/resource-adequacy-homepage/resource-adequacy-compliance-materials/oct-2022pge-template-for-excess-resource-reporting-d2112015-public-083122.xlsx.

June July August September October Total
RA Transferred to NSGBA (MW) 103.70 183.14 148.97 156.70 330.00 922.51 System RA Transferred to NSGBA
$/kW
-
5 1 III. PG&E’S SYSTEM RA POSITION REPORTS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH 2 PG&E’S CLAIM THAT IT HAD 923 MW OF EXCESS RA AVAILABLE DURING 3 SUMMER MONTHS IN 2022.
4 PG&E’s BPP Appendix S explains that
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14 PG&E creates a projected RA position at the time it holds each solicitation in order to determine the quantity of RA available for sale at that point in time.8 15 As part of 16 the Joint CCA Master Data Request included with PG&E’s filing in this case, PG&E 17 provided CalCCA the RA positions it prepared for each solicitation in which it offered to 18 sell RA with delivery during 2022. Table 2 summarizes PG&E’s System RA position for 19 the months of June through October 2022 as calculated at the time of each solicitation. 7 See PG&E’s Bundled Procurement Plan Appendix S Section B.3.b.1.a 8 See PG&E’s response to Joint CCA Master Data Request 1.08. -
6 1 Table 2: Summer System RA Position (MW)
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 PG&E reported a dramatically different picture to
9 the Commission in its 2022 Excess Resources Report. In that report, PG&E reported that 10 it had 923 MW of excess RA from existing resources during June through October 2022, including 183 MW in July and 330 MW in October.9 11
12 In response to CalCCA’s discovery requests, PG&E explained that it identified 13 the final quantity of excess RA capacity counted towards meeting System Reliability 14 Incremental Procurement targets between T-50 and T-30 days prior to each compliance month.10 15 That timing coincides with PG&E’s preparation of monthly RA supply plans required to be submitted to the CAISO 45 days prior to the compliance month.11 16 This 17 means, for example, that PG&E did not identify that it had 183 MW of excess RA for 9 Excess RA from PG&E 2022 IOU Excess Resources Summary Report, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/resource-adequacy-homepage/resource-adequacy-compliance-materials/oct-2022pge-template-for-excess-resource-reporting-d2112015-public-083122.xlsx. 10 See PG&E’s response to CalCCA data request 3.26. 11 See CAISO Open Access Transmission Tariff Section 40.4.7.1.b.

RA Position Date Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22
8/23/2021 System RA Position
10/6/2021 System RA Position
11/22/2021 System RA Position
1/14/2022 System RA Position
4/11/2022 System RA Position
7/18/2022 System RA Position
7 1 July 2022 until sometime around May 12, 2022, while preparing its monthly RA supply 2 plan. But just 31 days earlier (for its April 11, 2022 solicitation), PG&E prepared a 3 System RA position report
.
12 4 For
5 October 2022, the change from PG&E’s System RA position report to 6 the amount of excess RA counted towards PG&E’s System Reliability Incremental 7 Procurement targets (330 MW excess)
8 9 IV. PG&E DID NOT OFFER TO SELL EXCESS SYSTEM RA TO OTHER LSES 10 PRIOR TO COUNTING THE CAPACITY TOWARD ITS SYSTEM
11 RELIABILITY INCREMENTAL PROCUREMENT TARGETS.
12 When asked to explain all attempts made to sell any portion of the 923 MW of 13 excess capacity, PG&E responded that it “attempts to sell all excess capacity, or its long 14 RA position, as determined by Appendix S [of the BPP], pursuant to the commercial processes in Appendix S.”13 15 Specifically, PG&E issued six solicitations offering to sell 16 System RA for delivery during the 2022 Compliance Year. PG&E held two year-ahead 17 solicitations in August 2021 and October 2021, in which PG&E projected out the 18 available RA for the full twelve months of 2022. PG&E also held four quarterly 19 solicitations in November 2021, January 2022, April 2022, and July 2022, projecting the 20 available RA for the remaining months of 2022 updated on a quarterly basis. 21 As described earlier, PG&E’s BPP prescribes
22 23
12 PG&E held no solicitations after April 11, 2022, offering to sell RA capacity in July 2022. 13 See PG&E’s response to CalCCA data request 2.54.
-
8 1 PG&E’s BPP
2 also states,
3 4
5 14 6
7 Table 3 summarizes the System RA offered for sale in each solicitation with 8 delivery periods from June through October 2022 based on PG&E’s projected System RA positions prepared at the time of each solicitation.15 9 Consistent with PG&E’s BPP 10 Appendix S,
11 12 Table 3: Summer System RA Volumes Offered for Sale by Solicitation (MW) 13 14 As Table 3 demonstrates,
15 16
17 16 18
14 See PG&E’s Bundled Procurement Plan Appendix S Section B.3.d.1. 15 See PG&E’s response to Joint CCA Master Data Request 1.08 Attachment 2 and CalCCA data request 2.57. 16 See PG&E’s response to CalCCA data request 3.31.

RA Position Date System RA Volume Offered for Sale Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 8/23/2021 Phase 1 2022 YA Solicitation
10/6/2021 Phase 2 2022 YA Solicitation
11/22/2021 Q1 Balance-of-Year Solicitation
1/14/2022 Q2 Balance-of-Year Solicitation
4/11/2022 Q3 Balance-of-Year Solicitation
7/18/2022 Q4 Balance-of-Year Solicitation
-
9 1 When asked to provide documentation demonstrating whether it received any 2 offers from other LSEs to purchase any portion of the 923 MW of excess RA, PG&E 3 responded that it “did not receive any bids from other LSEs to purchase any portion of the excess capacity after it was known to be available.” 4 17 However, PG&E issued each of 5 the solicitations summarized in Table 3 above before PG&E had determined the quantity 6 of excess RA from existing resources that it would count toward System Reliability 7 Incremental Procurement targets. In other words, PG&E offered solicitations based on a 8 System RA Position that was calculated before PG&E calculated the excess RA it had 9 available to meet System Reliability Incremental Procurement targets. 10 PG&E issued its final two solicitations for RA with delivery in 2022 on April 11, 11 2022, and July 18, 2022, which projected System RA positions for July through 12 December 2022 and October through December 2022, respectively. According to 13 PG&E’s BPP,
14 15
16 When asked whether it had rejected offers from other LSEs to purchase any 17 portion of the 923 MW of excess capacity, PG&E simply referred back to its statement that it did not receive any bids “after the excess capacity was known to be available.”18 18 19 Reviewing data from PG&E’s RA solicitations tells a more complete story, however. 20 Table 4 below details for each RA solicitation the bids submitted by third parties seeking 21 to purchase System RA, but which were rejected by PG&E 22 17 See PG&E’s response to CalCCA data request 2.55 (emphasis added). 18 See PG&E’s response to CalCCA data request 2.56. 10 1 Table 4 summarizes the number of bids rejected
2 3 . As Table 4 demonstrates,
.
19 4
5 Table 4: Bids Rejected
6 7 PG&E’s responses that it had not received any bids to purchase the RA “after it 8 was known to be available” obfuscates the reality of the solicitation and compliance 9 reporting processes. A follow-up discovery question from CalCCA asked PG&E to 10 explain specifically how it communicated to other LSEs that excess capacity had become 11 available following its solicitation, to which PG&E simply replied that it complied with the requirements in Appendix S of its BPP at all times.20 12 PG&E’s responses to discovery 13 fail to acknowledge that there was no RA solicitation that would have been timely 14 enough to offer PG&E’s excess RA for sale, and that therefore, LSEs could not have 15 made bids to purchase excess RA “once it was known to be available.” Therefore, those 16 LSEs did not have the opportunity to use PG&E’s excess RA capacity to meet their own 17 System RA obligations. PG&E's failure to make reasonable attempts to sell the excess 19 See PG&E’s response to CalCCA data requests 2.21, 2.23, and 2.54 Supplemental. 20 See PG&E’s response to CalCCA data request 3.28.
# of Bids MWs # of Bids MWs # of Bids MWs # of Bids MWs # of Bids MWs Phase 1 2022 YA
Phase 2 2022 YA
Q1 2022 BOY Solicitation
Q2 2022 BOY Solicitation
Q3 2022 BOY Solicitation
Q4 2022 BOY Solicitation
Solicitation Terms / Number of Bids / MWs Rejected
Solicitation
June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 -
11 1 capacity to other LSEs, as required by D.21-12-015, should have disqualified it from 2 counting the capacity towards its 2022 System Reliability Incremental Procurement 3 targets.
4 V. LSES HAVE PAID SUBSTANTIAL FINES BECAUSE THEY WERE UNABLE TO 5 PROCURE SUFFICIENT RA CAPACITY.
6 Allowing PG&E to count RA from existing resources toward its System 7 Reliability Incremental Procurement target without first making that capacity available to 8 other LSEs cannibalizes an already constrained RA market and increases costs to all 9 customers. One symptom of the constrained RA market is that many LSEs have been 10 unable to meet their System RA requirements despite being willing to pay. The 11 Enforcement Actions Spreadsheet updated by the Consumer Protection and Enforcement 12 Division in July 2023 tracks RA citations issues to various entities from October 2009 13 through July 2023. As shown in Figure 1, there was a sharp increase in the number of citations in 2019, and elevated levels continued through 2022.21 14 21 CPUC’s Utility Enforcement Branch – July 2023 Energy Citations, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/- /media/cpuc-website/divisions/consumer-protection-and-enforcement-division/documents/ueb/energy-citations/2023/july-2023-ueb-energy-citations.pdf. 12 1 Figure 1: RA Citations by LSE Type
2 3 Since 2009 there have been 130 fines totaling $39.6 million to LSEs for failing to meet RA compliance requirements.22 4 In 2022 alone, there were 18 citations issued 5 totaling $10.9 million, including 11 citations to CCAs that failed to meet the Commission’s RA requirements.23 6 According to the Energy Division’s Annual RA 7 Report from 2021 “Citations and penalties have increased in recent years, likely driven 8 by issues related to supply and demand balances due to resource retirements, load forecast increases, and changes in counting conventions.”24 9 22 Id.
23 Id.
24 2021 Resource Adequacy Report, https://webproda.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/resource-adequacy-homepage/2021 ra report 040523.pdf.

RA Cit at ions by LSIE Type
25 20
.....

C 15 ::,
0 u
C
0 :.:;
B 10 -0
5 I I I • I I
2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 ■ CCA ■ IOU ■ Other
13 1 Another symptom of the constrained market is the steadily increasing price of 2 System RA. Figure 2 below reproduces Figure 4 from the 2021 Resource Adequacy Report,25 3 showing the rise in RA prices from 2017 to 2021. 4 Figure 2: Weighted Average Price of System RA, January and August 2017-2021 5 6 As Figure 2 shows, Energy Division’s 2021 Resource Adequacy Report illustrates 7 that the average price of System RA transactions executed for August 2021 was 158% higher than for August 2017.26 8 The RA market price benchmarks calculated by Energy 9 Division in September 2022 report that System RA prices in 2022 averaged $8.11/kW-10 month over the entire year, and the forecast for average System RA prices in 2023 is 11 $7.39/kW-month.
25 2021 Resource Adequacy Report, https://webproda.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/resource-adequacy-homepage/2021 ra report 040523.pdf. 26 Id. at 28-29. 2021 Resource Adequacy Report
Figure 4: Weighted Average Price of System RA ($/kW-month), January and August 2017- 2021
an ug
$9.00
$8.07
$8.00
$7.00 $6.2 1
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00 $3.73 $3.97
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
2017 2018 20 19 2020 2021
Sor,rce: 2017-2021 price data sr,bmitted by LSEs.
14 1 Energy Division’s data also shows that variation in RA prices during 2021 was 2 significantly greater during high-demand summer months relative to other periods; prices for 15 percent of transactions exceeded $14/kW-month during July – September 2021.27 3 4 Figure 3 below presents Energy Division’s monthly price data for 2021 in graph form. 5 Figure 3: 2021 System RA Prices by Month
6 7 Price spikes such as these in the short-term RA market simply create a windfall 8 for existing generation owners at the expense of retail consumers; there is no incremental 9 reliability benefit to the system. If LSEs are not provided with a reasonable opportunity 10 to purchase PG&E’s excess RA in a timely manner, they will continue to struggle to meet 11 RA compliance requirements and incur penalties that increase costs to customers. 12 VI. THE COMMISSION SHOULD SCRUTINIZE THE ASSUMPTIONS USED IN 13 PG&E’S POSITION REPORTING AND SOLICITATION PROCESS.
14 The fact that
15 but then
27 Id. at 27-28.
$18.00
$16.00
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
2021 System RA Prices by M onth
11 II 11 11 11 11 I I I 11 II
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
■ IVeghted Av erage Price
(S/k\111- month)
■ &5th Percenti~
(S/k\111- mo nth)
15 1 count excess capacity of 923 MW for System Reliability Incremental Procurement, 2 indicates the current RA solicitation process is flawed. CalCCA asked PG&E several 3 times in discovery to explain how it could forecast a shortfall in RA for a given period 4 but later have excess RA in that same period. PG&E merely responded that its “bundled RA position changed due to a variety of conditions”28 5 and reiterated that it identified the excess capacity between T-50 and T-30 days prior to the compliance month.29 6 7 As described earlier, PG&E determines its System RA position by 8 9
10 30 11 Table 5 below details each of those line items as 12 calculated by PG&E in its RA position reports for the summer 2022 delivery period. 13 Table 5 also shows the change from the previous RA position for each component of the 14 reports.
28 See PG&E’s response to CalCCA data requests 3.27, 4.14 and 4.15. 29 See PG&E’s response to CalCCA data requests 3.33.
30 See PG&E’s Bundled Procurement Plan Appendix S Section B.3.b.1.a. -
16 1 Table 5: RA Position Reports Detail
2 17
1 Table 5 demonstrates that there is little change to PG&E’s RA Position 2 components after the two year-ahead solicitations (based on the 8/23/2021 and 3 10/26/2021 position reports) are complete and resulting RA sales are incorporated. Once 4 the year ahead solicitations are complete the line-item assumptions that go into the 5 ultimate RA position do not change significantly. In fact, the changes are generally 6 smaller than the RA swings in capacity described earlier between 7 PG&E's position reports and ultimate excess RA used towards its System Reliability Incremental Procurement.31 8 CalCCA is continuing to issue discovery to PG&E on this 9 point and may seek to supplement this testimony if it will provide additional clarity. In 10 any event, PG&E should be required to explain specifically what changed relative to its 11 RA position reports such that it ended up with 923 MW of excess summer RA capacity, 12 most of which was never made available to the market. 13 One potential explanation for the swing in PG&E’s available RA capacity is that 14 PG&E determines factors in its RA position reporting that are impacted by resource 15 availability and other adjustments to available capacity. To the extent PG&E has 16 discretion with regard to assumptions of resource availability, outage schedules, or 17 operational constraints, it is likely to make conservative assumptions that ensure 18 resources are used to meet its own compliance rather than make those resources available 19 to the market.
20 Concerns over service reliability and resource adequacy in California, and the 21 increasingly constrained RA market, make it critical that PG&E does not improperly 31 The reason we’re looking at the later position reports only is to get past the major updates from the Commission on RA requirements and CAISO on resource Net Qualifying Capacity. The remaining large changes are in the existing sales line due to previous solicitations. 18 1 withhold available RA capacity from the market. As such, CalCCA recommends the 2 following:
3 • PG&E should be required to provide a detailed reconciliation between the RA 4 position reports used as the basis for its solicitations offering to sell RA for 5 delivery in 2022 and its final RA positions resulting in excess capacity in June 6 through October 2022.
7 • The Commission should scrutinize PG&E’s assumptions about resource 8 availability and the adjustments made to its RA position to ensure reductions 9 to capacity made available to the market are justified and to eliminate 10 potential overlap among categories.
11 • PG&E’s BPP should be updated to ensure excess capacity is made available to 12 the market, either through refined adjustments to available capacity in RA 13 position reports or through market offers outside of the scheduled solicitation 14 process.
15 • The Commission should consider whether disallowance, penalty, or other 16 remedy is warranted for the 2022 record year based on PG&E’s non-17 compliance with D.21-12-015. 18 This concludes my testimony.

Attachment A
Curriculum Vitae of Brian Shuey
Brian T. Shuey

SENIOR MANAGER
[email protected]
Economics | Strategy | Stakeholders | Sustainability
www.newgenstrategies.net
Mr. Brian Shuey joined NewGen as a Senior Manager in May 2022, with over 15 years of experience in consulting and the utility industry. Mr. Shuey has audited specialized financial statements and reviewed adjustment clause rate filings for electric, gas, water, and steam utility companies. Additionally, Mr. Shuey participated in various special projects regarding utility rate-making issues. He also has significant Big 4 internal audit, enterprise risk management, regulatory compliance, IT consulting, and process improvement experience.

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Accounting, The Pennsylvania State University

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Internal Auditor; Institute of Internal
Auditors

KEY EXPERTISE
Adjustment Clause Rate Filing Review
Cost Recovery
Enterprise Risk Management
Financial Statement Audits
IT Consulting
Management Consulting
Process Improvement
Project Management
Regulatory Compliance
Utility Rate Design

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Litigation Support
Mr. Shuey provides litigation support related to utility revenue requirements, rate design, and other ratemaking issues before state and local regulatory bodies. He has evaluated utility stranded costs and exit fees for retail customer choice, including on behalf of approximately a dozen Community Choice Aggregators in California.

A sample of Mr. Shuey’s clients includes the following:
� California Community Choice Association, CA � Clean Power Alliance, CA NewGen
Strategies ~ , ,
Brian Shuey

SENIOR MANAGER
Thoughtful Decision Making for Uncertain Times 2

PRIOR RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Below is a small sample of Mr. Shuey’s work within the energy utility industry.

PA Public Utility Commission Auditor & Supervisor
§ Experience reviewing and auditing Electric
Default Service, Transmission Service,
Competitive Transition Charges, and
Infrastructure Improvement Charges.
§ Developed and maintained a training program
for new and current employees to complete the
review of adjustment clause rate filings.
§ Assigned and supervised the review of over 300
adjustment clause filings per year for
conformity to Commission directives and State
statutes.
§ Led discussions with utility personnel to revise
or update filings as needed.
§ Supervised the preparation of all audit work
papers and reports for a team of seven
auditors.
§ Reviewed the work of Audit Team Leaders to
ensure the audits were in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards.

Enterprise Risk Management/Internal Audit
§ Directed and supervised up to 15 staff while
completing multi-year internal control
assessments over multiple large and small state
agencies.
§ Participated in risk assessments and control
testing in multiple organizations over five years,
utilizing COSO 13 and Green Book internal
control frameworks.
§ Facilitated the documentation of over 35 key
processes and over 500 controls for a single
client and assisted in developing and executing
a risk-based monitoring plan for these controls.
§ Participated in executing a risk-based audit
plan, including process/control documentation
and control testing.

Attachment B
PG&E Responses to CalCCA Data Requests
ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_JointCCAs_001-Q08 Page 1 Confidential

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account Compliance
Application 23-02-XXX
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: JointCCAs 001-Q08
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR JointCCAs 001-Q08 Request Date: January 6, 2021 Requester DR No.: 001
Date Sent: February 28, 2023 Requesting Party: Joint CCAs PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester:

QUESTION 08
Provide Resource Adequacy (RA) information as follows:
(1) sold, unsold and retained resource adequacy by resource and balancing account (RA Tracker)
(2) system, local and flex positions for solicitations governed by Appendix S including the data as presented in the attached RA Position Table for (a) each solicitation in which RA for delivery in the record year was offered for sale (b) at the time each solicitation took place
(3) all Tier 1 advice letter filings addressing Operational Constraints, including confidential attachments.

ANSWER 08

THE ATTACHMENTS TO THIS DATA RESPONSE CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PROTECTABLE UNDER DECISION 14-10-033, DECISION 06-06- 066, PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 454.5(G) AND/OR PURSUANT TO NON-PROCUREMENT DECLARATION DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2023 (1) Sold, unsold, and retained resource adequacy by resource and balancing account are included in the attachment “ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_JointCCAs_001- Q08_Atch01-2022_20221231_Retained_RA_Tracker_December_2022_CONF.xlsx” in the “2022 RA Tracker” tab.
(2) Positions for solicitations governed by Appendix S for (a) each solicitation in which RA for delivery in the record year was offered for sale (b) at the time each solicitation took place are included in ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_JointCCAs_001- Q08_Atch02-2022_Positions_CONF.xlsx. Each RA Position Table reflects the system, flex, or local area position at the time of solicitation and the quantity available for sale at that point in time.
(3) All Tier 1 Advice Letter filings addressing Operational Constraints, including confidential attachments are in included in ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_JointCCAs_001-Q08_Atch03-Advice_Letter_Filings_CONF.zip.

Attachment is confidential.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q019 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account – Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 002-Q019
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 002-Q019 Request Date: March 15, 2023 Requester DR No.: 002
Date Sent: April 5, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 019
Referring to PG&E’s prepared testimony, Page 8-4, lines 24-30: Did PG&E meet its minimum target of 900 MW as required in D.21-12-015? If yes, provide workpapers demonstrating compliance. If no, explain why not.

ANSWER 019
Yes. Attached is the public version of PG&E’s progress towards the minimum procurement target of 900 MW (ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002_Q019_Atch01.xlsx). This document can also be found on the CPUC’s RA Compliance website at the following link: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/- /media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/resource-adequacy-homepage/resource-adequacy-compliance-materials/oct-2022pge-template-for-excess-resource-reporting-d2112015-public-083122.xlsx.

Utility Name: Pacific Gas and Electric
Monthly Minimum MW Target: 900
Date of Report 10/1/22
Subset of the resources below shown on the IOU’s supply plan Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22
IOU Supply Plan Summer Reliability MW Amount 670.84 706.00 652.66 756 94 703.90 Total resources available as incremental above 15% RA requirement (i.e., progress toward the IOU's incremental effective PRM target) Project/Resource Name Resource Type Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Advice Letter and/or
Resolution Notes

1. Supply-Side Emergency Re iability OIR Procurement -
Itemize each new project/resource by name
Ind cate whether the resource is new bu ld firm import short-term energy only call option etc. List # if app icable E.g. exp ain monthly variability discrepanc es between contract values etc.

Sierra Pacific Industries Short-term Energy-Only Call-Option 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 10.00 AL-6604 Chevron Taft/Cadet Short-term Energy-Only Call-Option 2.20 2.20 2.20 2 20 2.20 AL-6604 Chevron Cymric Short-term Energy-Only Call-Option 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 AL-6604 Chevron Coalinga Short-term Energy-Only Call-Option 3.20 3.20 3.20 3 20 3.20 AL-6604 Chevron SE Kern River Short-term Energy-Only Call-Option 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 AL-6604 Chevron East Ridge Short-term Energy-Only Call-Option 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 AL-6604 Chevron McKittrick Short-term Energy-Only Call-Option 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 AL-6604 Wheelabrator Shasta Short-term Energy-Only Call-Option 15.90 15.90 15.90 15 90 15.90 AL-6604 Import RA: PowerEx Firm Import 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 Import RA: PowerEx Firm Import 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 AL-6504 Import RA: PowerEx Firm Import 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 Import RA: Morgan Stanley Firm Import 50.00 50.00 41.00 100.00 Import RA: TransAlta Firm Import 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Import RA: Guzman Energy LLC Firm Import 25.00
Import RA: Dynasty Power Inc. Firm Import 25.00
Import RA: BPA Firm Import 100.00
Tesoro Martinez PPA extension 45.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 AL-6323 Import RA: ConocoPhilips Firm Import 25.00 25.00 75.00
Calpine Short-term RA only 190.00 AL-6604
E k Hills Short-term RA only 70.00 AL-6604
Vistra Short-term RA only 30.00 AL-6604
New build New bu ld 150.00
New build New bu ld 63.00 63.00 63.00
New build New bu ld 47.00 47.00 47.00
UOG Enhancements - Gateway UOG Enhancement 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 AL-6088 page 6 Not included in Cost Recovery for System Re iability OIR UOG Enhancements - Colusa UOG Enhancement 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 AL-6088 page 6 Not included in Cost Recovery for System Re iability OIR

2. Excess Resources from IOU Portfolio Above 15% PRM
Excess Resources from IOU Portfolio Excess Resources 103.70 183.14 148.97 156.70 330.00 Amount to be Shown on RA/Supply Plan SUBTOTAL SUPPLY-side Excess Procurement 961 855 906 1,105 990

3. Demand-Side Emergency Reliability OIR Procurement ndicate subcategor es of resource if applicable ELRP Enrollment 378.00 423.00 466.00 466.00 466.00 N/A
DR program expansion 19.00 15.00 14.00 14.00 12.00 N/A
Other (Smart Thermostat) 12.00 13.00 14.00 13.00 5.00 N/A DRAM 5.00 AL-6619 Amount to be Shown on RA/Supply Plan
SUBTOTAL DEMAND-side Excess Procurement 409 451 494 498 483 1,370 1,306 1,400 1,603 1,473 <-- total MW procured
900 900 900 900 900
-470 -406 -500 -703 -573 <-- negative values mean minimum target exceeded; positive values mean minimum target not met 389 495 444 245 360 <-- maximum additional supply resources permitted Monthly IOU reports available at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=6311 D.21-12-015 Ordering Paragraph 74:

D.21-12-015 Ordering Paragraph 74:

MW to be c aimed for CAM Cost Recovery

3. Demand-Side Emergency Reliability OIR Procurement: Report a l demand-side resources authorized under D.21-12-015 and being claimed toward the IOU's monthly incremental procurement target.

1. Supply-Side Emergency Re iability OIR Procurement: Report all approved contracts for supply-side resources authorized under D 21-12-015 showing the amount being claimed toward the IOU's monthly incremental procurement target even if the amount for any given month is zero MW.

Apply ng the TAC a ea CAISO load sha es fo each ut l ty s se v ce te to y to the cont ngency p ocu ement set fo th n th s dec s on esults n ta get p ocu ement amounts of 900 MW-1,350 MW each fo PG&E and SCE se v ce te to es and 200 MW-300 MW fo SDG&E se v ce te to y. (D.21-12 015, F nd ngs of Fact 28) PG&E has Excess Resou ces f om ts po tfol o ava lable to supplement the above l sted esou ces n Octobe 2022. These supplemental megawatts a e not captu ed n the above total and w ll not be sub ect to cost ecove y th ough D.21-12-015. The ava lable ene gy f om any Excess Resou ces w l be o fe ed n the CA SO ma ket based on least cost d spatch standa ds. “PG&E b ds esou ces w th b dd ng ghts nto the CAISO ma kets based on the nc emental costs o oppo tun ty costs. By b dd ng ts esou ces nto the CAISO ma kets at the nc emental o oppo tun ty costs, PG&E enables total p ocu ement to meet custome demand n the CA SO ma kets at least cost.

Resou ces w th cont actual o phys cal const a nts that l m t the ab l ty to be b d may be fully o pa t a ly self-scheduled nto the CAISO ma kets.” Page 1- 7, 2020 PG&E ERRA Compl ance Test mony
"Pacific Gas and Electric Company Southern Cal fornia Edison Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company shall provide the monthly amounts of the excess resources they applied to the Cost Allocation Mechanism as well as the calculus used to determine these amounts to Commission’s Energy Division and Energy Division will post this information on the Commission’s website."
MW to be c aimed for CAM Cost Recovery
MW reported
General: Report actual MW values for previous months and estimates for future months. At the top enter the subset of the resources from Sections 1 and 2 shown on the IOU’s supply plan for each summer month.

IOU EXCESS RESOURCE REPORTING SUMMARY
Instructions:

2. Excess Resources from IOU Portfolio Above 15% PRM: Report any additional "excess resources" above the IOU's 15% PRM requirement being applied to CAM for each month.
"In recognition of the continued tight grid conditions experienced this summer the Cal fornia Independent System Operator’s testimony reflecting a significant shortfa l in Load Serving Entity supply plan resources at net peak and the need for additional contingency resources identified in the California Energy Commission’s Summer 2022 Stack Analysis Southern Cal fornia Edison Company (SCE) Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) shall use their best efforts to meet a revised targeted procurement range of 2 000 megawatts (MW) to 3 000 MW for summers 2022 and 2023 which includes and is not additive to the targeted procurement of 1 000 MW of contingency resources adopted in Decision (D.) 21-02-028 and D.21-03-056 and results in an “effective PRM” of 20%-22.5%. Based on the proportional load share in each uti ity’s service territory the revised targeted procurement range represents 900 – 1 350 MW of additional procurement for SCE and PG&E and 200 – 00 MW for SDG&E." IOU Progress toward Monthly Target
Minimum Excess Procurement Target per D.21-12-015

DIFFERENCE
Supply Side Headroom (3,000 Max)
ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q021 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account – Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 002-Q021
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 002-Q021 Request Date: March 15, 2023 Requester DR No.: 002
Date Sent: April 5, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 021
Referring to PG&E’s prepared testimony, Page 8-7, lines 18-23: For each solicitation referenced in the cited testimony, please provide all workpapers detailing PG&E’s quantitative evaluation of all bids received. Workpapers should include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Details of all bids received, by solicitation, including buyer, term, volume, bid price, product, area, etc.
b. Each bid received but rejected
c. Justification for rejecting any bid
d. Each bid received resulting in an executed contract.

ANSWER 021

THE ATTACHMENTS TO THIS DATA RESPONSE CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PROTECTABLE UNDER DECISION 14-10-033, DECISION 06-06- 066, AND/OR PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 454.5(G) – SUBJECT TO NDA a) Please see the following attachments for the bid summary or shortlist files for each solicitation that were submitted to the PRG.
• Q2 2022 Balance of Year Solicitation: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q021_Atch1-CONF • Q3 2022 Balance of Year Solicitation: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q021_Atch2-CONF • Q4 2022 Balance of Year Solicitation: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q021_Atch3-CONF • Q3 2023 Year Ahead Phase 1 Solicitation: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q021_Atch4-CONF) • Q3 2023 Year Ahead Phase 2 Solicitation: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q021_Atch5-CONF) • Q2 2023 Balance of Year Solicitation: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q021_Atch6-CONF These files mentioned above contain the details of all bids received for each RA solicitation with 2022 and 2023 delivery, including counterparty, term, volume, bid price, ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q021 Page 2
product, area. For reference, the table below shows the file that corresponds to each solicitation.

Solicitation
Q2
through
Balance of
Year 2022
Q3
through
Balance of
Year 2022
Q4
through
Balance of
Year 2022
Q3
2023 Year
Ahead
(Phase 1)
Q3
2023 Year
Ahead
(Phase 2)
February
through
Balance of
Year 2023
Date Issued
to the
Market
1/26/2022 3/31/2022 7/21/2022 8/11/2022 9/29/2022 11/9/2022 Attachment
ERRA-2022-
PGE-Compliance_DR
_CalCCA_002-
Q021_Atch1-
CONF
ERRA-2022
PGE-Compliance_DR
_CalCCA_002-
Q021_Atch2-
CONF
ERRA-2022-
PGE-Compliance_
DR_CalCCA_0
02-
Q021_Atch3-
CONF
ERRA-2022-
PGE-Compliance_D
R_CalCCA_002
-Q021_Atch4-
CONF
ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_
CalCCA_002-
Q021_Atch5-
CONF
ERRA-2022-
PGE-Compliance
_DR_CalCCA
_002-
Q021_Atch6
-CONF
b) Attachments referenced in 2.21a shows accepted or rejected status of received bids for solicitations held in 2022. Accepted bids are shortlisted with the intention of execution while rejected bids are labelled as "Not Shortlisted". Some bids are partially shortlisted and partially rejected.
c) PG&E rejected bids received in response to RA solicitations in 2022 for a variety of reasons including but not limited to:
d) All attachments referenced in 2.21a show the accepted status of received bids.

Accepted bids are shortlisted with the intention of execution but not all shortlisted bids result in executed contracts for reasons #6,8 and 9 stated in 2.21c. Bids that resulted in executed contracts are in Attachment E and H of the QCR.

Attachment is confidential.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q023 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account – Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 002-Q023
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 002-Q023 Request Date: March 15, 2023 Requester DR No.: 002
Date Sent: April 5, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 023
Referring to the previous question (CalCCA to PG&E 2.22): For PG&E’s 2022 year ahead RA solicitation(s), please provide all workpapers detailing PG&E’s quantitative evaluation of all bids received. Workpapers should include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Details of all bids received, by solicitation, including buyer, term, volume, bid price, product, area, etc.
b. Each bid received but rejected
c. Justification for rejecting any bid
d. Each bid received resulting in an executed contract.

ANSWER 023

THE ATTACHMENTS TO THIS DATA RESPONSE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PROTECTABLE UNDER DECISION 14-10-033, DECISION 06-06- 066, AND/OR PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 454.5(G) – SUBJECT TO NDA a) Refer to the following Attachments for PG&E’s 2022 year ahead RA solicitation(s) that were submitted to the PRG.
• Phase 1 2022 Year-Ahead: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q023_Atch1-CONF • Phase 2 2022 Year-Ahead: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q023_Atch2-CONF These files mentioned above contain the details of all bids received for each RA solicitation with 2022 delivery, including counterparty, term, volume, bid price, product, area. For reference, the table below shows the file that corresponds to each solicitation.

Solicitation Phase 1 2022 Year-Ahead Phase 2 2022 Year-Ahead Date Issued
to the Market 8/31/2021 10/1/2021
Attachment ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-
Q023_Atch1-CONF)
ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q023_Atch2-
CONF)
ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q023 Page 2
b) Attachments referenced in 2.23a above shows the accepted or rejected status of received bids for PG&E’s 2022 year ahead RA solicitation(s). Accepted bids are shortlisted with the intention of execution while rejected bids are labelled as "Not Shortlisted". Some bids are partially shortlisted and partially rejected. c) PG&E rejected bids received in response to PG&E’s 2022 year ahead RA solicitation(s) for a variety of reasons including but not limited to:
d) All attachments referenced in 2.23a show the accepted status of received bids.

Accepted bids are shortlisted with the intention of execution but not all shortlisted bids result in executed contracts for reasons stated in 2.23c 6, 8 and 9. Bids that resulted in executed contracts are in Attachment E and H of the QCR.

Attachment is confidential.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q054 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account – Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 002-Q054
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 002-Q054 Request Date: March 15, 2023 Requester DR No.: 002
Date Sent: April 5, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 054
Referring to PG&E’s prepared testimony, page 12-15, lines 13-19: Please explain in detail all attempts to sell to other LSEs any portion of the 923 MW of excess capacity prior to it being transferred from PABA to ERRA.

ANSWER 054
PG&E made attempts to sell all excess capacity, or its long RA position, as determined by Appendix S, pursuant to the commercial processes in Appendix S. Please see Table 8-1 of PG&E’s prepared testimony of a list of solicitations, and Question 21 - attachments 1-6 and Question 23 - attachments 1-2 for the results of each solicitation.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q054Supp01 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account – Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 002-Q054
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 002-Q054Supp01 Request Date: March 15, 2023 Requester DR No.: 002
Date Sent: April 5, 2023(original) Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 054
Referring to PG&E’s prepared testimony, page 12-15, lines 13-19: Please explain in detail all attempts to sell to other LSEs any portion of the 923 MW of excess capacity prior to it being transferred from PABA to ERRA.

ANSWER 001_SUPP

THE ATTACHMENT TO THIS DATA RESPONSE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PROTECTABLE UNDER DECISION 14-10-033, DECISION 06-06- 066, AND/OR PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 454.5(G) – SUBJECT TO NDA PG&E’s February-December 2022 Balance of Year solicitation held in Q4 of 2021 was not included in PG&E’s original response to 2.54. Please see attachment 1 (ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q54_Atch1-CONF) for the results of this solicitation.

Attachment is confidential.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q055 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account – Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 002-Q055
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 002-Q055 Request Date: March 15, 2023 Requester DR No.: 002
Date Sent: April 5, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 055
Referring to PG&E’s prepared testimony, page 12-15, lines 13-19: Please provide documentation demonstrating whether PG&E received any offers from other LSEs to purchase any portion of the 923 MW of excess PCIA resource capacity.

ANSWER 055
PG&E did not receive bids from other LSEs to purchase any portion of the excess capacity after it was known to be available.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q056 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account – Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 002-Q056
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 002-Q056 Request Date: March 15, 2023 Requester DR No.: 002
Date Sent: April 5, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 056
Referring to PG&E’s prepared testimony, page 12-15, lines 13-19: Please explain whether any offers to purchase any portion of the 923 MW of excess PCIA resource capacity were rejected by PG&E. If yes, provide all details supporting why PG&E rejected the offer.

ANSWER 056
Please see answer to CalCCA DR 002 Q55.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q057 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account – Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 002-Q057
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 002-Q057 Request Date: March 15, 2023 Requester DR No.: 002
Date Sent: April 5, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 057
Referring to PG&E’s prepared testimony, page 12-15, lines 13-19: Please provide all RA Position Breakdown documents demonstrating that the excess capacity was made available in an RA solicitation pursuant to Appendix S of PG&E’s approved Bundled Procurement Plan prior to being counted toward PG&E’s system reliability procurement target.

ANSWER 057
Please see please see PG&E’s response to the Joint CCA’s Master Data Request question 8, Attachment 2: “ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_JointCCAs_001- Q08_Atch02-2022_Positions_CONF.xlsx”.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_002-Q058 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account – Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 002-Q058
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 002-Q058 Request Date: March 15, 2023 Requester DR No.: 002
Date Sent: April 5, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 058
Referring to PG&E’s prepared testimony, page 12-15, footnote 25:
a. What factors caused Diablo Canyon to have excess capacity? b. How was it determined that Diablo Canyon was the resource with the excess capacity?
c. Why wasn’t it another resource with the excess capacity at this time? d. Does PG&E have discretion to select the resource with the excess capacity? If so, please describe how PG&E makes that determination.

ANSWER 058
This data response contains confidential information protectable under Decision 14-10-033, Decision 06-06-066, and/or Public Utilities Code Section 454.5(G) – Subject to NDA
a. During the summer months of June through October 2022, not fully utilized to meet PG&E’s bundled compliance commitments, RA sales, or planned outage substitution obligations.
b. PG&E selected resources to meet its bundled compliance obligations, RA sales obligations, and planned outage substitution obligations. After meeting those obligations,
.
c. excess capacity available during the
summer months.
d. D.21-12-015 authorized IOUs to meet incremental procurement targets with excess RA capacity, and was silent regarding how excess resources should be selected. See response to Joint CCA DR 002 Q58 part a.
-
-
.PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account - Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 003-0026
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 003-0026 Request Date: April 25, 2023 Requester DR No.: 003
Date Sent: May 23, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Viiavkar
QUESTION 026
Referring to CalCCA DR Response 2.55: When did it become known to PG&E that the excess PCIA resource capacity was available?
ANSWER026
PG&E objects to this question on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the ERRA Compliance proceeding, is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. This data request is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding because the ERRA Compliance proceeding concerns PG&E's demonstration of com liance with its Bundled Procurement Plan BPP The final quantity of excess RA capacity shown towards meeting Summer Reliability procurement targets was identified between T-50 and T-30 days prior to the compliance month.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_003-Q026 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account - Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 003-0027
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 003-0027 Request Date: April 25, 2023 Requester DR No.: 003
Date Sent: May 23, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Viiavkar
QUESTION 027
Referring to CalCCA DR Response 2.55: If the referenced excess PCIA resource capacity was not previously known to be available, what circumstances changed that caused the capacity to become excess and available for use to meet summer reliability needs?
ANSWER 027
PG&E objects to this question on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the ERRA Compliance proceeding, is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. This data request is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding because the ERRA Compliance proceeding concerns PG&E's demonstration of com liance with its Bundled Procurement Plan BPP .

PG&E's bundled RA position changed due to a variety of conditions.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_003-Q027 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account - Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 003-0028
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 003-0 028 Request Date: April 25, 2023 Requester DR No.: 003
Date Sent: May 23, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Viiavkar
QUESTION 028
Referring to CalCCA DR Response 2.55: Please explain specifically how PG&E communicated to other LSEs that the excess capacity had become available.

ANSWER028
PG&E objects to this question on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the ERRA Compliance proceeding, is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. This data request is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding because the ERRA Compliance proceeding concerns PG&E's demonstration of com liance with its Bundled Procurement Plan BPP responds as fol lows:

For information regarding the required commercial processes under Appendix S of PG&E's BPP, please refer to Section 8.1.d of Appendix S. PG&E complied with the requirements in Appendix S of its BPP at all times.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_003-Q028 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account - Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 003-0031
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 003-Q031CONF Request Date: April 25, 2023 Requester DR No.: 003
Date Sent: May 23, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Viiavkar
QUESTION 031
Referring to the previous question and MOR 1.8, Attachment 2:
a.
b.

ANSWER 031

THIS DA TA RESPONSE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
PROTECTABLE UNDER DECISION 14-10-033, DECISION 06-06-066, PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 454.5(G) AND/OR PURSUANT TO NON-PROCUREMENT DECLARATION DA TED MAY 23, 2023 - SUBJECT TO NDA.

PG&E objects to this data request to the extent that it seeks information intended to support an argument that excess capacity was required to be offered in an RA solicitation pursuant to Appendix S of PG&E's BPP on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence, is beyond the scope of the ERRA Compliance proceeding, is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. This data request refers to the previous question, which refers to CalCCA DR Res onse 2.57 which is remised on the false assum tion
ant
ncern no
compliance with its BPP. Subject to and without waiving this objection, PG&E responds as follows:

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_ CalCCA_003-Q031 CONF Page 1 ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_003-Q031CONF Page 2

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account - Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 003-0033
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 003-Q033CONF Request Date: April 25, 2023 Requester DR No.: 003
Date Sent: May 23, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Viiavkar
QUESTION 033
Referring to CalCCA MOR 1.8, Attachment 2: Please explain how PG&E ends up with excess to transfer from PABA to CAM for Summer Reliabilit even thou h the osition iiiii~e ANSWER033
PG&E objects to this question on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the ERRA Compliance proceeding, is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. This data request is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding because the ERRA Compliance proceeding concerns PG&E's demonstration of com liance with its Bundled Procurement Plan BPP .

The final quantity of excess RA capacity shown towards meeting Summer Reliability procurement targets was identified between T-50 and T-30 days prior to the compliance month.

ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_003-Q033CONF Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account - Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Reauest No.: CalCCA 004-Q014
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Comoliance DR CalCCA 004-Q014CONF Reauest Date: June 29, 2023 Reauester DR No.: 004
Date Sent: July 14, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 014
Referring to PG&E's response to CalCCA 03.33: Please explain in detail how PG&E can show
ANSWER014

THIS DATA RESPONSE CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
PROTECTABLE UNDER DECISION 14-10-033, DECISION 06-06-066, AND/OR PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 454.5(G) - SUBJECT TO NDA ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_ CalCCA_004-Q014CONF Page 1 ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance_DR_CalCCA_004-Q015 Page 1

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
2022 Energy Resource Recovery Account – Compliance
Application 23-02-018
Data Response
PG&E Data Request No.: CalCCA 004-Q015
PG&E File Name: ERRA-2022-PGE-Compliance DR CalCCA 004-Q015 Request Date: June 29, 2023 Requester DR No.: 004
Date Sent: July 14, 2023 Requesting Party: California Community Choice Association
PG&E Witness: Robert Gomez Requester: Nikhil Vijaykar
QUESTION 015
Referring to PG&E’s response to CalCCA 03.33: Please explain how PG&E may forecast a shortfall in RA for a given period but later have actual excess RA in that period.

ANSWER 015
PG&E objects to this question on the grounds that it is beyond the scope of the ERRA Compliance proceeding, is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. This data request is irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding because the ERRA Compliance proceeding concerns PG&E’s demonstration of compliance with its Bundled Procurement Plan (BPP). The possible RA position changes that can occur after the monthly sales amount is determined pursuant to the BPP are not relevant to whether PG&E complied with the BPP. Subject to and without waiving this objection, PG&E responds as follows:

PG&E’s bundled RA position changed due to a variety of conditions.

Exhibit B
A.23-06-002
Prepared Direct Testimony of Carlo Bencomo-Jasso
Public Version
Docket No.: A.23-06-002
Exhibit No.:

Date: December 22, 2023
Witness: Carlo Bencomo-Jasso

PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CARLO BENCOMO-JASSO

ON BEHALF OF

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY POWER AND CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE
IN SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S
2022 ERRA COMPLIANCE PROCEEDING
PUBLIC
i
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY ...................................................... 1 II. SDG&E DID NOT PRUDENTLY MANAGE ITS EXCESS RA POSITION IN RECORD YEAR 2022. ........................................................................................................................... 3 A. SDG&E did not make all of its Excess RA available to the market. .................................. 6 B. SDG&E improperly limited Excess RA sales based on price. ........................................... 8 C. SDG&E’S BPP should be revised to ensure Excess RA sales are maximized for customers. ......................................................................................................................... 14 III. THE 2022 REVENUES FROM SDG&E’S MIGUEL BATTERY RESOURCE SHOULD

BE TRANSFERRED OUT OF ERRA AND INTO A DISTRIBUTION BALANCING ACCOUNT. ......................................................................................................................... 16 Attachments
Attachment A: Curriculum Vitae of Carlo Bencomo-Jasso
Attachment B: Select SDG&E Responses to SDCP and CEA Data Requests Attachment C: Advice Letter 3836-E
Attachment D: Excerpt from Advice Letter 3738-E
Attachment E: Excerpt from CAISO Fifth Replacement FERC Electric Tariff 1 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
2 San Diego Community Power (“SDCP”) and Clean Energy Alliance (“CEA”) 3 (together, “CCA Parties”) present this direct testimony in the Application of San Diego 4 Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”) for Approval of: (i) Contract Administration, 5 Least-Cost Dispatch and Power Procurement Activities in 2022, (ii) Costs Related to 6 those Activities Recorded to the Energy Resource Recovery Account, Portfolio Allocation 7 Balancing Account, Power Charge Indifference Adjustment Undercollection Balancing 8 Account, Transition Cost Balancing Account, and Local Generating Balancing Account 9 in 2022, and (iii) Costs Recorded in Related Regulatory Accounts in 2022 10 (“Application”). This testimony has been prepared on behalf of the CCA Parties by 11 Carlo Bencomo-Jasso, Manager, NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC. Mr. Bencomo-12 Jasso’s qualifications are set forth in Attachment A. 13 The CCA Parties have a particular interest in the Power Charge Indifference 14 Adjustment (“PCIA”) and the Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account (“PABA”), both 15 of which are charged to the CCA Parties’ customers through the PCIA rates. 16 Additionally, the CCA Parties are interested in SDG&E’s Resource Adequacy (“RA”) 17 solicitation practices for the sale of excess RA capacity and the results of its RA 18 solicitations held for the record year 2022. Revenue from SDG&E’s sale of RA capacity 19 in its portfolio not required for RA program compliance (“Excess RA”) is passed back to 20 customers as a credit against the cost of SDG&E’s generation resources. To the extent 21 RA sales are facilitated by PCIA-eligible resources, the revenue credit reduces PABA 22 costs paid by bundled and unbundled customers.
2 1 The issues raised in this testimony relate to the following issues in Commissioner John Reynolds’ October 31, 2023, Scoping Ruling:1 2
3 1. Whether SDG&E administered and managed its own generation resources 4 prudently, to include the management of outages and associated fuel costs, 5 according to Standard of Conduct (“SOC”) 4.
6 7 2. Whether the entries recorded during the record year in the following accounts 8 are correctly stated and in compliance with Commission directives:
9 10 a. Energy Resource Recovery Account;
11 12 b. Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account;
13 14 c. Undercollection Balancing Account;
15 16 d. Transition Cost Balancing Account;
17 18 e. Local Generating Balancing Account;
19 20 . . .
21 22 Based on my review of SDG&E’s Application, supporting workpapers, and 23 responses to discovery, I make the following findings and recommendations to bring 24 SDG&E’s request in line with prior Commission decisions and just and reasonable 25 ratemaking:
26 • SDG&E did not prudently manage its Excess RA position in 2022. 27 SDG&E should have
28 29 Additionally,
30 1
Application (A.) 23-06-002, Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling, pp. 2-4 (October 31, 2023) (“2023 Scoping Ruling”).
-
3 1 • SDG&E’s Bundled Procurement Plan (“BPP”) does not contain sufficient 2 guidance regarding the quantity of Excess RA that should be offered for 3 sale in SDG&E’s RA solicitations. Furthermore, the BPP does not 4 describe .
5 Because the BPP doesn’t include specific directions, SDG&E’s efforts to 6 sell Excess RA must be reviewed to determine whether it prudently 7 managed its resources on customers’ behalf.
8 • SDG&E should be required to refine its BPP to be more prescriptive 9 regarding how much Excess RA it should offer for sale during its RA 10 solicitations. The BPP should also outline how SDG&E 11 12
13 • SDG&E should transfer the 2022 California Independent System Operator 14 (“CAISO”) net revenues derived from its Miguel Battery NGR SP15 15 (“Miguel Battery”) resource out of the Energy Resource Recovery 16 Account (“ERRA”) balancing account and into a distribution balancing 17 account. This transfer would allow both the revenues and capital costs 18 associated with the Miguel Battery resource to be reflected in distribution 19 rates.
20 II. SDG&E DID NOT PRUDENTLY MANAGE ITS EXCESS RA POSITION IN 21 RECORD YEAR 2022.
22 23 Costs and revenues related to SDG&E’s generation resource portfolio are 24 recorded to various balancing accounts, including the ERRA, PABA, and Local 25 Generating Balancing Account (“LGBA”), and are recovered from customers through 4 1 various retail rate components. For example, as reflected in the current Application, the 2 PABA tracks actual costs and revenues of PCIA-eligible generation contracts throughout 3 2022. For 2022, the PABA recorded an undercollection of $161.108 million which, if 4 approved, will be recovered from bundled and unbundled customers in SDG&E’s service territory.2 5 Revenue from selling Excess RA capacity provided by PCIA-eligible resources 6 is an important offset to costs recorded to the PABA during the record year. Excess RA 7 from PCIA-eligible resources that is not sold to third parties is classified as Unsold RA 8 pursuant to Decision (“D.”) 19-10-001 and valued at $0 in the PABA. For the 2022 9 record year, SDG&E’s Unsold RA capacity from PCIA-eligible resources averaged 484 MW per month.3 10
11 Table 1: 2022 Unsold RA from PCIA-eligible Resources 12 13 Review of SDG&E’s actions and decisions affecting the sale of RA capacity (or 14 lack thereof) in 2022 ensures SDG&E properly managed its generation portfolio on 15 customers’ behalf. Because customers are required to pay the cost of these generation 16 resources, SDG&E should be expected to maximize wholesale revenue from selling 17 Excess RA capacity, thereby reducing the costs that must be passed on to customers. 18 In addition, the reasonableness of SDG&E’s attempts to sell Excess RA has larger 19 implications for other load-serving entities (“LSEs”) in its service territory. During the 20 summer of 2022, LSEs faced a severely constrained RA market, which led to difficulty 21 procuring sufficient RA to meet compliance obligations. The Enforcement Actions 2 Application, p. 7.
3 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 1.05.

Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Unsold RA (MW) 328 339 689 618 712 798 738 301 0 476 340 475 5 1 Spreadsheet updated by the Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division of the 2 California Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) tracks RA citations issued to various entities for deficiencies meeting RA compliance requirements.4 3 As shown in 4 Figure 1, there was a sharp increase in the number of citations for RA deficient LSEs in 5 2019, and elevated levels continued through 2022.
6 Figure 1: RA Citations by LSE Type
7 8 Under these market conditions, SDG&E should be expected to maximize RA 9 sales to interested LSEs to both lower costs to customers and ensure that regional RA 10 needs are able to be met.
4 California Public Utilities Commission Consumer Protection Enforcement Division, Enforcement Actions Spreadsheet (2023). Accessible at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpucwebsite/ divisions/consumer-protection-and-enforcement-division/documents/ueb/energycitations/ 2023/july-2023-ueb-energy-citations.pdf.
25 20
-
C: 15 :::,
0 u
C:
.Q
'ii,
.t,
u 10
5 I I I • I I
2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 CCA ■ IOU ■ Other
6 1 A. SDG&E did not make all of its Excess RA available to the market. 2 Each year, SDG&E must procure and/or retain specific volumes of RA capacity 3 to meet its annual and monthly RA compliance requirements, as defined by the 4 Commission. RA capacity not used by SDG&E for compliance purposes is considered 5 Excess RA and should be made available for sale through RA solicitations. Indeed, in 6 Advice Letter (“AL”) 3836-E SDG&E stated, “Since 2020, SDG&E has sought to make 7 all RA in its portfolio not required for RA program compliance (“Excess RA”) available to the market regardless of its PCIA-eligibility.”5 8 SDG&E further explained it “expects to maintain this approach going forward.”6 9
10 Although SDG&E indicated that it makes available for sale all RA capacity in 11 excess of its compliance requirements, the utility disregarded this policy during 12 solicitations offering to sell Excess RA for delivery in the 2022 record year. In response 13 to CCA Parties Data Requests 1.09 and 1.10, SDG&E provided solicitation materials, RA 14 position reports, and details of bids received, awarded, and rejected related to five different offerings to sell 2022 Excess RA capacity.7 15 These solicitations included a 16 multiyear (2022-2024) RA solicitation held prior to the 2022 year-ahead RA compliance 17 deadline and four quarterly RA solicitations held during 2022. SDG&E’s RA position 18 reports at the time of each solicitation show that SDG&E 19 For some of these solicitations, SDG&E
20 Table 2 and Table 3 show the amount of monthly
5 Advice Letter 3836-E, August 23, 2021, p. 2. 6 Id. 7 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DRs 1.09 and 1.10. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
System Excess RA that was available and offered for sale in the referenced RA solicitations for 2022.
8 Table 2: System RA Volumes for SDG&E's 2022 Quarterly RA Solicitations System RA Q1 2022 Solldtation Q2 2022 Solicltatlon Q3 2022 Solidtatlon Q4 2022 Solicitation Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 - . . . ... RA Requirements (MW)
Portfolio Reserves (MW)
Existing RA Sales (MW)
RA Position (MW)
Volumes Offered in Solicitation (MW)
Excess RA Not Offered In Solldtatlon (MW)
Table 3: System RA Volumes for SDG&E's Multiyear Solicitation- 2022 System RA Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Aor-22 Mav-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Au2-22 Seo-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 .. . . - .. RA Requirements (MW)
Portfolio Reserves (MW)
Existing RA Sales (MW)
RA Position ( MW)
- I - - I
ss
As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, the monthly amounts of System Excess RA offered for sale in each solicitation were . For several
months in 2022, the excess System RA amounts offered for sale in the quruterly solicitations were
Although it is unclear why SDG&E consistently
during its 2022 RA solicitations, SDG&E did provide some explanations for why it
8 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 2.03.
7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
These to the
statements made by SDG&E in AL 3836-E that it makes "all RA in its po1tfolio not required for RA program compliance ("Excess RA") available to the market regardless of its PCIA-eligibility."11 Fmther, they unde1mine the objective of maximizing revenue from the sale of Excess RA and ensuring there is sufficient capacity in the market for all LSEs to meet their RA obligations.

B. SDG&E improperly limited Excess RA sales based on price.

SDG&E
not conducive to
maximizing buyer pa1ticipation or RA sales during its solicitations. Solicitation documents demonstrate that SDG&E
and then ending the year
with unsold Excess RA and higher net costs to be passed on to customers. 9 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 1.10, Independent Evaluator Final Repo1t - SDG&E Multiyear 2022-24 RA Solicitation, December 22, 2021, p. 9. 10 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 1.09, h1dependent Evaluator Final Repo1t - SDG&E Q3 2022 Excess RA Solicitation, July 29, 2022, p. 11.
11 Advice Letter 3836-E, August 23, 2021, p. 2.
8 I
2 3
4 5
6 7
SDG&E
. SDG&E's RA
solicitation materials indicate that SDG&E
12 8 -
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
12 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 1.09, Independent Evaluator Final Repo1t - SDG&E Q3 2022 Excess RA Solicitation, July 29, 2022, p. 10. 13 SDG&E Responses to SDCP and CEA DRs 1.09 and 1.10, Independent Evaluator Repo1ts for SDG&E's Ql, Q2, Q3, and Q4 of2022 Excess RA Solicitations. 14 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 1.10, Independent Evaluator Final Repo1t - SDG&E Multiyear 2022-24 RA Solicitation, December 22, 2021, p. 6. 9 10
1 . The RA solicitation bidding process should produce a 2 competitive price for RA capacity through the bids offered by the solicitation respondents 3 and revenue should be maximized by choosing the highest prices among competitive 4 respondents with conforming bids.
5 . The Independent Evaluator report for
the 3rd 6 Quarter 2022 Excess RA Solicitation explains, 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 15 16
17 SDG&E’s current
18 19 . Table 6 summarizes the
20 number of bids received and accepted by SDG&E from respondents during its various 21 2022 RA solicitations. As Table 6 shows, SDG&E
15 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 1.09, Independent Evaluator Report – SDG&E Q3 2022 Excess RA Solicitation, July 29, 2022, pp. 9-10.

I
2 3
5 6
Table 6: Bid Summary for 2022 RA Solicitationl
Total bids received
Bids taken to purchase RA capacity
Figure 2 compares
Multiyear
Solicitation • 2022
Ql 2022
Solicitation
Q22022
Solicitation
Q32022
Solicitation
Q42022
Solicitation
16 SDG&E Responses to SDCP and CEA DRs 1.09 and 1.10, Independent Evaluator Repo1ts for SDG&E's Multiyear 2022-24, Ql, Q2, Q3, and Q4 of 2022 Excess RA Solicitations. 11 I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
11 17 SDG&E Responses to SDCP and CEA DRs 1.09 and 1.10, Independent Evaluator Repo1ts for SDG&E's Ql , Q2, Q3, and Q4 of 2022 Excess RA Solicitations. 18 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 1.09, Independent Evaluator Repo1t - SDG&E Q4 2022 Excess RA Solicitation, July 13, 2022, p. 7.
12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 Table 7: Quarter 4 RA Solicitation Bids
Contract Month Svstem Bids (MW} Local Bids (MW} Bid Price (S/kW-monthl Based on the results of the 2022 RA solicitations, it is clear that-19 Id. 20 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 2.03, pa1t d, attachment SDGE_Ju1Aug_2022_RA - 090922.xlsx.
13 14
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 For example, if SDG&E were to sell all its Excess RA in a solicitation, it may be 9 subject to a penalty or other CAISO backstop procurement costs if its remaining RA 10 portfolio does not perform or it does not have sufficient RA capacity to cover its RA deficiency.21 11 In fact, SDG&E’s BPP explains that “SDG&E may choose to retain all or 12 some portion of excess RA in order to retain surplus RA for use in management of scheduled outage replacement or lowering the CAISO’s RA product charges.”22 13 14 15
16 C. SDG&E’S BPP should be revised to ensure Excess RA sales are maximized for 17 customers.
18 After reviewing SDG&E’s 2022 RA solicitation data and its explanations 19 regarding the selection of bids during each solicitation, I believe that SDG&E did not 20 prudently manage its Excess RA position in the record year 2022. SDG&E abandoned its 21 own prescribed approach of offering all available Excess RA for sale 21 CAISO Fifth Replacement FERC Electric Tariff, Effective November 1, 2023. Section 40.9.6.

Accessible at: https://www.caiso.com/Documents/Section40-RADemonstration-for-SchedulingCoordinatorsintheCAISOBalancingAuthorityArea-asof-Nov1-2023.pdf. 22 SDG&E Advice Letter 3738-E, Attachment B, Original Sheet 32 (April 15, 2021).

I
■
■
15 2 . SDG&E should be offering all its available Excess RA in each 3 solicitation to maximize potential revenues from RA sales, which would benefit all 4 customers by lowering PCIA rates. Additionally, SDG&E 5 6
7 8
9 SDG&E’s BPP does not contain sufficient guidance regarding the quantity of 10 Excess RA that should be offered for sale in SDG&E’s RA solicitations, nor does it 11 12 When asked in discovery whether SDG&E is required to offer Excess RA for 13 sale at specific times, SDG&E stated that it will issue at least one Request for Offers 14 prior to the deadline for LSEs’ annual RA filing with the Commission and that it may seek to sell RA outside through other means.23 15 In fact, SDG&E’s BPP contains no real 16 requirements or guidelines for maximizing RA sales to benefit customers. Rather, it uses 17 vague language such as “SDG&E may make excess local, system, or flexible RA supply 18 (i.e., RA in excess of what SDG&E requires to meet its own RA obligations) available to 19 the market” and “SDG&E may offer such excess RA products to the market through an 20 RFO process, through the CAISO’s Competitive Solicitation Process where the offers are 21 submitted to the CAISO and CAISO optimizes to procure backstop capacity to meet 23 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 2.04.

I
-
16 1 deficiencies or significant events, through a response to a counter-party RFO or through bilateral negotiations with counterparties.”24 2
3 The 2022 record year demonstrates the disconnect between the desired goals of 4 SDG&E’s RA solicitations and the reality of its solicitation outcomes. This Commission 5 should act to address this situation. One solution to addressing this issue is to review and 6 revise SDG&E’s BPP. The BPP should be more prescriptive about the RA solicitation 7 process and the quantity of Excess RA that SDG&E offers for sale. Additionally, 8 SDG&E’s BPP should outline
9 10
11 III. THE 2022 REVENUES FROM SDG&E’S MIGUEL BATTERY RESOURCE 12 SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED OUT OF ERRA AND INTO A DISTRIBUTION 13 BALANCING ACCOUNT.
14 15 Among the utility-owned generation (“UOG”) resources listed in the Application, 16 SDG&E includes the Miguel Battery resource, which is a battery storage resource with a capacity of two megawatts.25 17 SDG&E explained that in 2022, both the revenues it 18 receives for the sale of energy from Miguel Battery into the CAISO market and the cost 19 of energy it uses to charge the resource were recovered in the ERRA, which is reflected in commodity rates.26 20 However, the capital costs associated with Miguel Battery were 21 approved in SDG&E’s 2019 General Rate Case (“GRC”) as a distribution resource and 22 therefore the revenue requirement for the resource would be recovered in distribution rates.27 23
24 SDG&E Advice Letter 3738-E, Attachment B, Original Sheet 32 (April 15, 2021). 25 A.23-06-002, Prepared Direct Testimony of Andrew Scates, AS-7 at Table 1b. 26 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 1.24. 27 Id.
17 1 The assignment of the costs and revenues associated with the Miguel Battery 2 between different generation and distribution functions contributes to inconsistent 3 treatment of costs and revenues, which leads to unequal impacts to bundled and 4 unbundled customers. Bundled customers receive the benefit of the CAISO revenues 5 generated by the Miguel Battery, which is offset by the costs of the energy used to charge 6 the resource, through the ERRA. However, the assignment of capital costs to distribution 7 results in both bundled and unbundled customers paying for the costs of the Miguel 8 Battery resource, with unbundled customers not receiving any benefits from the CAISO 9 revenues associated with the resource. SDG&E reports that it recorded in net CAISO revenue from the Miguel Battery resource in 2022.28 10 To ensure that the 2022 11 costs and revenues associated with Miguel Battery are treated consistently and impact 12 bundled and unbundled customers fairly, I recommend that the Miguel Battery’s net 13 CAISO revenues be transferred out of the ERRA and into a distribution balancing 14 account. SDG&E should also correct the accounting for the year 2022 and going forward 15 so that costs and revenue for the Miguel Battery are matched and recovered consistently 16 from customers.
17 18 This concludes my testimony.
28 SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 2.18.
-
Attachment A
Curriculum Vitae of Carlo Bencomo-Jasso
Carlo Bencomo-Jasso

MANAGER
[email protected]
Economics | Strategy | Stakeholders | Sustainability
www.newgenstrategies.net
Mr. Carlo Bencomo-Jasso joined NewGen as a Manager in April 2022. Mr. Bencomo-Jasso has over 10 years of experience in the energy industry, with prior experience working on regulatory and resource planning issues in California, including rate and feasibility analysis for Community Choice Aggregators.

EDUCATION
! Master of Environment and Energy, Boston University – Boston, Massachusetts ! Master of Environmental Science and Management, Bren School of Environmental Science & Management – University of California, Santa Barbara
! Bachelor of Arts in History, Princeton University – Princeton, New Jersey

KEY EXPERTISE
! Financial Advisory
! Economic and Regulatory Analysis
! Financial Planning
! Rate Design and Strategy
! Ratemaking Activities
! Regulatory
! Resource Planning

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Electric Cost of Service, Rate Design, and Regulatory Analysis Mr. Bencomo-Jasso assists with preparing cost of service studies and rate design studies, and performing financial and regulatory analyses for electric utilities. A sample of the utility clients that Mr. Bencomo-Jasso’s has supported includes the following:
! Central Coast Community Energy, California
! Orange County Community Power, California
! City of Burbank, California

PRIOR RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Below is a small sample of Mr. Bencomo-Jasso’s work within the energy utility industry.

Project Manager & Senior Associate in Energy Utility Industry ! Conduct forecasting of electric utility rates of
Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas &
Electric, and San Diego Gas & Electric.
! Track and review regulatory proceedings.
! Provide expert witness testimony for clients on
utility general rate cases.
! Assess Integrated Resource Plans of
community choice aggregators.
! Create official proposal responses to Requests
for Proposals.
! Created proxy price estimates and evaluate
bids for power procurements.
! Assessed renewable resource build-outs in
Integrated Resource Plans.
! Conducted research and analyses for electric
generation, transmission, and distribution
NewGen
Strategies ~ , ,
Carlo Bencomo-Jasso

MANAGER
Thoughtful Decision Making for Uncertain Times 2
§ Conduct analysis and research of the feasibility
of community choice aggregators in new
jurisdictions.
services unbundling.

Energy Utility Industry Analyst
§ Performed collection, cleaning, and statistical
analysis of energy commodity pricing and
power data for various projects using Excel and
R.
§ Created data analytics reports, discovery
requests, and case testimony for projects.
n Performed load forecasting and capacity
market modeling.
n Conducted economic impact and cost-benefit
analyses for energy projects, including
renewable energy development projects.

Solar Rooftop Program Analyst
§ Aided in identifying and creating leasing
agreements with commercial property owners
for the installation of solar arrays 1 MW and
larger in size.
§ Maintained program databases and addressed
program inquiries.
n Created presentations and weekly status
reports on site acquisitions and leasing
agreements for senior management.
n Helped create marketing materials and emails
for program promotions and outreach.

PREVIOUSLY FILED TESTIMONY
§ Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission
Docket No. 4692 and 4805 – Conclusions and
Summary of Opinions of Richard Hahn,
Matthew Loiacono, and Carlo Bencomo-Jasso
on Behalf of the Rhode Island Division of Public
Utilities and Carriers. March 19, 2018.
§ Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission
Docket No. 4692 and 4805 – Testimony of Carlo
Bencomo-Jasso on Behalf of the Rhode Island
Division of Public Utilities and Carriers on
National Grid’s 2018 Annual Retail Rate Filing
and 2018 Renewable Energy Standard Charge
and Reconciliation Filing. March 28, 2018
§ CPUC Application 19-11-019 – Direct Testimony
of William A. Monsen and Carlo Bencomo-Jasso
on Behalf of the California Farm Bureau
Federation Concerning Revenue Allocation and
Agricultural Rate Design. November 20, 2020.
§ CPUC Application 22-05-025 – Direct Testimony
of Carlo Bencomo-Jasso on Behalf of San Diego
Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance in
San Diego Gas and Electric Company’s 2023
ERRA Forecast Proceeding. August 22, 2022.
n CPUC Application 22-06-001 – Direct Testimony
of Carlo Bencomo-Jasso on Behalf of San Diego
Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance in
San Diego Gas and Electric Company’s 2021
ERRA Compliance Proceeding. December 16,
2022.
n CPUC Application 22-05-023 – Direct Testimony
of Carlo Bencomo-Jasso on Behalf of San Diego
Community Power in San Diego Gas and
Electric Company’s 2022 Green Access
Programs Proceeding. January 20, 2023.
n CPUC Application 23-05-013 – Direct Testimony
of Carlo Bencomo-Jasso on Behalf of San Diego
Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance in
San Diego Gas and Electric Company’s 2024
ERRA Forecast Proceeding. August 18, 2023.

Attachment B
Select SDG&E Responses to SDCP and CEA Data Requests

SDG&E RESPONSE TO
SDCP AND CEA DR001
RESPONDED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.05:

Please provide a schedule quantifying, by month and resource, SDG&E's total available RA capacity and the corresponding amount classified as Retained, Sold, and Unsold as defined in D.19-10-001.

Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.05:

SDG&E objects to this request under Rule 10.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure on the grounds that it seeks the production of infonnation that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending proceeding nor is reasonably calculated to lead to the discove1y of admissible evidence. SDG&E fmiher objects to this request on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SDG&E responds as follows:
2 SDG&E RESPONSE TO
SDCP AND CEA DR001
RESPONDED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
3 This response assumes that the question pertains only to PCIA-eligible resources, since it references D.19-10-001, and therefore this response includes only PCIA-eligible resources.

Please refer to the attached file “SDCP CEA DR 1 Q1.05 volumes reporting 2022”. Volumes shown in this schedule were compiled from accrued estimates, and may differ somewhat from actuals, but SDG&E is including this schedule because the formatting matches that of the request. For additional detail regarding specific resource generation, please refer to the responses to 1.07 below.

San Diego Gas & Electric
Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account (PABA) - Summary Monthly Volumes Report to Accompany the PABA Schedule in the monthly ERRA Reports 1 Non-confidential
Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Total Customer Monthly Usage (MWh)
PCIA MWh - CCA 348,283 267,931 387,196 346,661 287,863 574,602 584,782 703,350 757,356 677,645 562,065 561,323 6,059,056 PCIA MWh - DA 268,680 236,658 389,368 286,962 263,071 372,043 331,275 385,601 343,138 377,305 318,597 268,042 3,840,741 PCIA MWh - Bundled 822,155 663,937 779,891 559,994 621,453 516,234 586,658 737,347 797,796 643,848 522,706 548,088 7,800,107 Total PABA volumes 1,439,118 1,168,526 1,556,455 1,193,617 1,172,387 1,462,879 1,502,716 1,826,298 1,898,289 1,698,798 1,403,368 1,377,453 17,699,904 CAISO Supply volumes (MWh) (435,859) (404,404) (749,688) (608,874) (909,222) (745,496) (756,689) (1,241,185) (1,085,699) (804,412) (835,286) (795,546) (9,372,359) CAISO Load volumes (MWh) 810,610 574,009 456,320 541,314 745,163 452,539 514,302 795,616 876,716 826,459 672,821 521,026 7,786,894 Utility-Owned Generation (MWh)
Combined Cycle generation 86,272 155,412 257,248 133,716 183,013 222,355 414,888 541,752 543,701 352,356 479,951 444,774 3,815,438 Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine generation 81 844 6,923 5,715 1,757 2,623 2,991 7,558 9,900 3,844 1,911 1,969 46,115 Solar Energy 10 2 - 9 - - - - - - - - 20
Total MWh 86,362 156,258 264,170 139,440 184,770 224,978 417,879 549,310 553,600 356,200 481,862 446,743 3,861,573

CONTRACT PURCHASES
Purchases of Contract Generation (MWh)2
Tolling & Other Conventional Contracts 402 788 3,421 1,496 51,281 88,893 82,871 77,230 75,714 60,339 492 306 443,233 Renewable-Solar 189,416 262,200 285,809 310,488 346,462 340,511 337,940 318,587 266,391 292,108 218,629 181,117 3,349,658 Renewable-Wind 262,671 283,223 310,857 306,013 362,514 288,899 217,328 139,582 165,404 176,904 307,804 238,163 3,059,365 Renewable-Other 7,873 6,612 8,402 8,949 6,154 9,427 9,693 9,643 8,661 5,595 4,562 3,820 89,390 Purchases of Resource Adequacy (MW)
Purchases - Resource Adequacy-only contracts 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 604 Renewable Energy Credit (REC) Volumes (MWh)
(1 REC = 1 MWh)
Total RECs generated by Utility-Owned and Contract Renewable Resources 459,970 552,037 605,067 625,459 715,131 638,837 564,962 467,812 440,456 474,608 530,995 423,100 6,498,434 Less: Sales of Bundled RECs - - - - - - (360,000) (360,000) (345,000) (325,000) (230,000) (210,000) (1,830,000) Less: Bundled RECs used for the Green Tariff Interim Pool product - - - - - - - - - - - - - =2022 vintage RECs held in Active status in the WREGIS system (may be sold, retired and used for compliance, or retired and kept in the bank). 459,970 552,037 605,067 625,459 715,131 638,837 204,962 107,812 95,456 149,608 300,995 213,100 4,668,434 Unsold RECs - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Resource Adequacy (MW)
Total Net Qualifying Capacity (NQC) adjusted for outages 1,954 2,047 2,318 1,860 2,315 2,505 2,562 2,297 1,856 2,032 1,947 2,053 Less: Sales of Resource Adequacy (MW) (140) (279) (219) (272) (140) (330) (367) (517) (434) (238) (421) (338) Less: Substitution of PCIA resource RA for CAM resource RA - (22) (8) (35) (50) - (6) (0) - - (121) (8) Subtotal NQC adjusted for outages and sales 1,814 1,747 2,090 1,553 2,124 2,175 2,188 1,780 1,422 1,794 1,406 1,707 Less: Retained for Compliance - Resource Adequacy -Local (MW) 1,286 1,262 1,298 859 1,341 1,270 1,358 1,271 1,070 1,144 912 1,062 Less: Retained for Compliance - Resource Adequacy -Flex (MW) - - 29 26 26 35 20 22 172 86 117 154 Less: Retained for Compliance - Resource Adequacy - System (MW) 200 145 74 50 45 72 73 185 180 88 37 16 Subtotal RA used for SDG&E Compliance 1,485 1,407 1,401 936 1,413 1,377 1,450 1,479 1,422 1,318 1,066 1,232 Unsold RA3 328 339 689 618 712 798 738 301 0 476 340 475 1) All volumes shown are the estimates used for month-end accruals. Actual RECs may not yet have been received. Actual final volumes may differ from this report. 2) Volumes do not include curtailed MWh.
3) SDG&E offers all excess RA for sale, therefore all RA that is not classifed as retained for compliance or sold is classified as unsold.

SDG&E RESPONSE TO
SDCP AND CEA DR001
RESPONDED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
5 SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.09:

Referring to the Prepared Testimony of Michelle Menvielle and the table at MM-18; for each RA solicitation in 2022 where SDG&E sought to sell excess RA for 2022, please provide the following:
a. All solicitation materials
b. SDG&E’s detailed 2021 RA position, by month, at the time of the solicitation, detailed by Local, Flex and System RA.
c. Details of all bids received in the solicitation.
d. Details of all bids awarded.
e. Details of all bids rejected and why they were rejected.

Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.09:

SDG&E objects to this request pursuant to Rule 10.1 on the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure on the grounds that it seeks production of information that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending proceeding nor is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically, the details of the solicitation materials, RA position, bids received, bids awarded and the reasons bids were rejected are irrelevant to any issue presented in this ERRA Compliance proceeding. Furthermore, SDG&E notes that SDCP and CEA regularly participate in solicitations, and therefore, it would be improper for SDG&E to disclose confidential and commercially sensitive information regarding SDG&E’s sales strategy and other solicitors’ bidding strategies. Specific quantitative analysis involved in scoring and evaluation of participating bids is confidential pursuant to D.06-06-066. Finally, this information is confidential, commercially sensitive and could provide an undue competitive advantage, and therefore, is not subject to disclosure.

SDG&E Supplemental Response to
SDCP and CEA DR 1.09, 1.10, 2.02, and 2.03
RESPONDED: 12/8/2023
SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.09:

Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.09:

SDG&E further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases “All solicitation materials,” and “Details of all bids…” are overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SDG&E responds as follows:
a. Information responsive to this request can be found in the folder labelled:
“1.09_2022 RA Solicitation Materials”. Additional solicitations materials can be found at RFPs and RFOs | San Diego Gas & Electric (sdge.com) b. SDG&E’s 2021 RA position is out of scope for this ERRA compliance proceeding and SDG&E objects on relevancy grounds. SDG&E assumes that this is a typographical error in the question and that the requested information is for SDG&E’s 2022 RA position. Based upon that assumption, and without waiving its objection, SDG&E responds as follows: Information responsive to this request can be found in the attachment “1.09_2022 RA Solicitation Materials”. c. Information responsive to this request can be found in the folder labelled:
“1.09_2022 RA Solicitation Materials”.
d. Information responsive to this request can be found in the folder labelled:
“1.09_2022 RA Solicitation Materials”.
e. Information responsive to this request can be found in the folder labelled:
“1.09_2022 RA Solicitation Materials”.

SDG&E Supplemental Response to
SDCP and CEA DR 1.09, 1.10, 2.02, and 2.03
RESPONDED: 12/8/2023
Certain attachments referenced in this response contain “Protected Materials” (i.e., trade secret, market sensitive, or other confidential and/or proprietary information) as determined by SDG&E in accordance with the provisions of D. 06-06-066 and subsequent decisions and subject to a Nondisclosure Agreement.

Those attachments are labelled “Confidential.” A confidentiality declaration is also provided.

Attachment is confidential.

SDG&E RESPONSE TO
SDCP AND CEA DR001
RESPONDED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
6 SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.10:

Referring to the Prepared Testimony of Michelle Menvielle and the table at MM-18; for each RA solicitation conducted in 2021 where SDG&E sought to sell excess RA with delivery in 2022, please provide the following:
a. All solicitation materials
b. SDG&E’s detailed 2021 RA position, by month, at the time of the solicitation, detailed by Local, Flex and System RA.
c. Details of all bids received in the solicitation.
d. Details of all bids awarded.
e. Details of all bids rejected and why they were rejected.

Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.10:

SDG&E Supplemental Response to
SDCP and CEA DR 1.09, 1.10, 2.02, and 2.03
RESPONDED: 12/8/2023
SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.10:

Refening to the Prepared Testimony of Michelle Menvielle and the table at MM-18; for each RA solicitation conducted in 2021 where SDG&E sought to sell excess RA with delive1y in 2022, please provide the following:
a. All solicitation materials
b. SDG&E's detailed 2021 RA position, by month, at the time of the solicitation, detailed by Local, Flex and System RA.
c. Details of all bids received in the solicitation.
d. Details of all bids awarded.
e. Details of all bids rejected and why they were rejected.

Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.10:

SDG&E objects to this request pmsuant to Rule 10.1 on the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedme on the grounds that it seeks production of info1mation that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending proceeding nor is reasonably calculated to lead to the discove1y of admissible evidence. Specifically, SDG&E's excess RA sales and related activities are inelevant to any issue presented in this ERRA Compliance proceeding and are not subject to an after-the-fact reasonableness review pmsuant to Pub. Util. Code Section 454.5(d)(2). SDG&E further objects to this request on the grounds that the phrases "All solicitation materials," and "Details of all bids .. . " are overbroad, unduly bmdensome, vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SDG&E responds as follows:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SDG&E responds as follows:
a. Info1mation responsive to this request can be found in the folder labelled:
"1.10 _ 2022 RA Solicitation Materials (2021 Solicitations)". Additional solicitations materials can be found at RFPs and RFOs I San Diego Gas & Electric (sdge.com)
b. Info1mation responsive to this request can be found in the folder labelled:
"1.10 _ 2022 RA Solicitation Materials (2021 Solicitations)" c. Information responsive to this request can be found in the folder labelled:
"1.10 _ 2022 RA Solicitation Materials (2021 Solicitations)" SDG&E Supplemental Response to
SDCP and CEA DR 1.09, 1.10, 2.02, and 2.03
RESPONDED: 12/8/2023
d. Information responsive to this request can be found in the folder labelled:
“1.10_2022 RA Solicitation Materials (2021 Solicitations)” e. Information responsive to this request can be found in the folder labelled:
“1.10_2022 RA Solicitation Materials (2021 Solicitations)” Certain attachments referenced in this response contain “Protected Materials” (i.e., trade secret, market sensitive, or other confidential and/or proprietary information) as determined by SDG&E in accordance with the provisions of D. 06-06-066 and subsequent decisions and subject to a Nondisclosure Agreement. Those attachments are labelled “Confidential.” A confidentiality declaration is also provided.

Attachment is confidential.

SDG&E RESPONSE TO
SDCP AND CEA DR001
RESPONDED: SEPTEMBER 29 2023
SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.24:

Refening to the Prepared Testimony of Andrew Scates at Table 1 b:
a. Please explain the cost recove1y mechanism for all the resources featured in the table. For any PCIA-designated resources, please provide the PCIA vintage, RA type(s), and RA quantities.
b. Please explain to which accounts the cost and benefits of the "Miguel Battery" are recorded.

Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.24:
a. The cost recove1y mechanisms and PCIA vintages are provided in the Attachment 1 to Ms. Menvielle 's testimony. The quantity of RA available for PCIA resources is based on the Net Qualifying Capacity (NQC) of each resource, as published by CAISO. Please 13 SDG&E RESPONSE TO
SDCP AND CEA DR001
RESPONDED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
refer to the attached file "SDG&E response to SDCP _ CEA DR0 1 Q 1 _ 24a", for the RA type and quantities. This infonnation was downloaded from the CAISO's website. b. The revenues that SDG&E receives from CAISO, as well as the cost of the energy that is used to charge the Miguel resource, are recovered in the Energy Resource Recove1y Account (ERRA). The capital costs of the resource itself were approved in SDG&E's 2019 GRC as Distribution, and consequently the approved revenue requirement is recovered in distribution rates and not through any balancing account. 14 * Resource ID Local Area RA Type * ELCAJN_6_LM6K San Diego-IV Local * ELCAJN_6_UNITA1 San Diego-IV Local * JOANEC_2_STABT2 LA Basin * KEARNY_6_NESBT1 San Diego-IV Local * KEARNY_6_SESBT2 San Diego-IV Local * LAKHDG_6_UNIT 1 San Diego-IV Local * LAKHDG_6_UNIT 2 San Diego-IV Local * MRCHNT_2_PL1X3 CAISO System System * MRGT_6_MEF2 San Diego-IV Local * MRGT_6_MMAREF San Diego-IV Local * OGROVE_6_PL1X2 San Diego-IV Local * PALOMR_2_PL1X3 San Diego-IV Local * VLCNTR_6_VCEBT1 San Diego-IV Local Generator Name JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL
El Cajon Energy Center 48.1 48.1 48.1 48.1 48.1 48.1 48.1 Cuyamaca Peak Energy Plant 45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42 Santa Ana Storage 2 20
Kearny North Energy Storage 10 10 10 10
Kearny South Energy Storage 10 10 10 10
Lake Hodges Pumped Storage-Unit1 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Lake Hodges Pumped Storage-Unit2 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Desert Star Energy Center 419.25 419.25 419.25 419.25 419.25 419.25 419.25 Miramar Energy Facility II 44 44 44 44 44 44 44
Miramar Energy Facility 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Orange Grove Energy Center 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Palomar Energy Center 588.21 588.21 588.21 588.21 588.21 588.21 588.21 Valley Center Energy Storage 54 54 54 54 54 54
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Dispatchable Path Designation Deliverability Status Deliverability MW

48.1 48.1 48.1 48.1 48.1 Y South FC

45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42 Y South FC
20 20 20 20 20 Y South FC
10 10 10 10 10 Y South FC
10 10 10 10 10 Y South FC
20 20 20 20 20 Y South FC
20 20 20 20 20 Y South FC
419.25 419.25 419.25 419.25 419.25 Y South PD 419.25
44 44 44 44 44 Y South FC
45 45 45 45 45 Y South FC
96 96 96 96 96 Y South FC
588.21 588.21 588.21 588.21 588.21 Y South FC
54 54 54 54 54 Y South ID 100%
Comments
Waiting for Remedial Action Scheme - Up to 87.73 PCDS at Pmax.

SDG&E Response to
SDCP and CEA DR 002
RESPONDED: 11/16/2023
SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 2.03
Referring to SDG&E’s response to Cal Advocates MDR 3.20: Please provide SDG&E’s final net RA position for each month of the 2022 compliance period. The net RA position should include details demonstrating:
a. Total RA capacity owned or purchased
b. Adjustments for resource outages
c. Other adjustments for operating constraints
d. RA sales to third parties
e. SDG&E’s RA requirements
f. Excess RA
SDG&E Response to
SDCP and CEA DR 002
RESPONDED: 11/16/2023
SDG&E Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 2.03
SDG&E objects to this request pursuant to Rule 10.1 on the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure on the grounds that it seeks production of information that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending proceeding nor is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically, information regarding SDG&E’s final net RA position for each month is irrelevant to any issue presented in this ERRA Compliance proceeding, and therefore out of scope.

SDG&E Supplemental Response to
SDCP and CEA DR 1.09, 1.10, 2.02, and 2.03
RESPONDED: 12/8/2023
SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 2.03
Referring to SDG&E’s response to Cal Advocates MDR 3.20: Please provide SDG&E’s final net RA position for each month of the 2022 compliance period. The net RA position should include details demonstrating:
a. Total RA capacity owned or purchased
b. Adjustments for resource outages
c. Other adjustments for operating constraints
d. RA sales to third parties
e. SDG&E’s RA requirements
f. Excess RA
SDG&E Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 2.03
SDG&E objects to this request pursuant to Rule 10.1 on the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure on the grounds that it seeks production of information that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending proceeding nor is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically, SDG&E’s excess RA sales and related activities are irrelevant to any issue presented in this ERRA Compliance proceeding and are not subject to an after-the-fact reasonableness review pursuant to Pub. Util. Code Section 454.5(d)(2). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, SDG&E responds as follows:

SDG&E’s understanding of the question is that SDG&E’s final net RA position will be considered at the time of its Monthly RA filing deadline.

Information responsive to this request can be found in the folder labelled: “2.03” a. See excel spreadsheet labelled
“2022_SDGE_ERRA_Comp_MDR_3.20.2_RA_Position_Tables.xlsx” in the folder labelled: “2.03”
b. See excel spreadsheet labelled “2022 Outages.xlsx” in the folder labelled: “2.03” c. SDG&E’s CPUC RA filings contain no other adjustments for operating constraints at the time of CPUC MA RA filing deadline
d. See excel spreadsheets labelled “SDGE_Q1-Q2_2022_RA – 072522- Confidential.xlsx,” “SDGE_JulAug_2022_RA – 090922-Confidential.xlsx,” and “SDGE_SeptDec_2022_RA - 032423- Confidential.xlsx” in the folder labelled:
“2.03”
The attachments referenced in this response contains “Protected Materials” (i.e., trade secret, market sensitive, or other confidential and/or proprietary information) as determined by SDG&E in accordance with the provisions of D. 06-06-066 and subsequent decisions and subject to a Nondisclosure Agreement.

A confidentiality declaration is also provided.

SDG&E Supplemental Response to
SDCP and CEA DR 1.09, 1.10, 2.02, and 2.03
RESPONDED: 12/8/2023
e. SDG&E provides the twelve 2022 CPUC Monthly RA filings which contains the system, local and flex requirements.

The attachments referenced in this response contains “Protected Materials” (i.e., trade secret, market sensitive, or other confidential and/or proprietary information) as determined by SDG&E in accordance with the provisions of D. 06-06-066 and subsequent decisions and subject to a Nondisclosure Agreement. A confidentiality declaration is also provided. f. SDG&E objects to subpart f on the grounds that the term “Excess RA” is undefined and thus vague and ambiguous in the context of the question. In the context of the question, SDG&E assumes “Excess RA” is the amount of RA claimed on its CPUC Monthly RA filings above its requirements. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, SDG&E responds as follows:

SDG&E provides the twelve 2022 CPUC Monthly RA filings which contains the amount claimed per requirement as well as the system, local and flex requirements. Therefore, excess RA is provided on the ‘Summary Month Ahead’ tab of the twelve CPUC Monthly RA filings.

A confidentiality declaration is also provided.

Attachment is confidential.

SDG&E Response to
SDCP and CEA DR 002
RESPONDED: 11/16/2023
SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 2.04
Please provide a description of any requirements for making RA available to the market and include citations to any Commission-approved document ordering such requirement.

SDG&E Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 2.04
SDG&E objects to this request pursuant to Rule 10.1 on the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure on the grounds that it seeks production of information that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending proceeding nor is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically, the timing of SDG&E’s RA transactions and RA position are irrelevant to any issue presented in this ERRA Compliance proceeding, and therefore out of scope. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, SDG&E responds as follows:

As stated in Advice Letter 3836-E, SDG&E will issue at least one Request for Offers (“RFO”) prior the deadline for LSEs’ annual RA filing. SDG&E may issue additional RFOs during the compliance year if additional Excess RA becomes available due to changes in RA requirements and/or resource availability. SDG&E may also utilize brokers and bilateral negotiations to sell RA outside of the RFO process.

Referring to SDG&E’s response to Cal Advocates MDR 3.20 wherein SDG&E states it offers its excess RA for sale regularly:
a. Is SDG&E required to offer excess RA for sale at specific times (for example, on a scheduled, quarterly basis), or is the timing of any excess RA offerings at SDG&E’s sole discretion?
SDG&E Response to
SDCP and CEA DR 002
RESPONDED: 11/16/2023
SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 2.18
Referring to SDG&E’s response to SDCP/CEA data request 1.24, part b: Please quantify, through working spreadsheet if possible, the CAISO revenue and energy costs, by month, for “Miguel Battery” in 2022.

SDG&E Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 2.18
Please see attached confidential file “Confidential 2022 ERRA Compliance SDCP CEA DR 2 Q2.18.xlsx” and accompanying declaration.

The attachment referenced in this response contains “Protected Materials” (i.e., trade secret, market sensitive, or other confidential and/or proprietary information) as determined by SDG&E in accordance with the provisions of D. 06-06-066 and subsequent decisions and subject to a Nondisclosure Agreement. The Protected Materials have been highlighted in yellow. A confidentiality declaration is also provided.

Attachment is confidential.

Attachment C
Advice Letter 3836-E

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE
San Francisco. CA 94102
May 10, 2022
Greg Anderson
Regulatory Tariff Manager
San Diego Gas & Electric
8330 Century Park Court, CP32C
San Diego, CA 92123
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
Advice Letters 3836-E and 3836-E-A
SUBJECT: SDG&E Company Description of Methodology for Determining Amount of Power Charge Indifference Adjustment-Eligible Resource Adequacy Reserved in Its Bundled Procurement Plan in Compliance with D. 21-05-030 Dear Mr. Anderson,
Advice Letter (AL) 3836-E (San Diego Gas & Electric Company Description of Methodology for Determining Amount of Power Charge Indifference Adjustment-Eligible Resource Adequacy Reserved in Its Bundled Procurement Plan in Compliance with Decision 21-05-030) and AL 3836-E-A are approved, effective May 10, 2022 for the reasons described below.

Background:

Ordering Paragraph (OP) 11 of Decision (D.) 21-05-030 required Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison Company (SCE), within 90 days of the effective date of the decision, to each file a Tier 2 AL with the Commission justifying its methodology for determining how much of its Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA)-eligible Resource Adequacy (RA) is reserved as part of its Bundled Portfolio Plan (BPP). This directive arose out of transparency concerns raised by Working Group 3 (WG3) co-chairs in Rulemaking (R.) 17-06-026 regarding the excess sales framework for RA. 1 SDG&E filed AL 3836-E on August 23, 2021. In its filing, SDG&E explained that it defines "RA Reserves" as "RA capacity that is not required to meet its annual and/or monthly RA compliance requirements but is not offered for sale," and that SDG&E does not maintain RA Reserves given its expectation of significant near-term load departure. 2 Further, SDG&E explained that, since 2020, SDG&E has sought to make all "Excess RA," or RA in its portfolio not required for compliance with the Commission's RA program and the California Independent System Operator's (CAISO) outage substitution capacity requirements, available to the market regardless of its PC IA-eligibility. 3 On December 22, 2021, in response to a December 8, 2021, the Energy Division request, SDG&E filed a supplement, AL 3836-E-A, providing further details on its methodology with regards to uncertainty surrounding the Commission's planning reserve margin (PRM), RA capacity retained for resource outages, load migration, and how far out SDG&E offers RA capacity for sale to the market.

Protests, Responses, and Replies:
1 D.21-05-030 at 44. 2 SDG&E AL 3836-E at 2. 3 SDG&E AL 3836-E at 2-3.

Greg Anderson
May 10, 2022

Page 2 ends

The California Community Choice Association (CalCCA) protested AL 3836-E on September 13, 2021.

CalCCA recommends that the Commission require SDG&E to provide greater justification on the level of capacity to be retained by demonstrating the risks it describes in its AL based upon historical experience of those risks being realized, arguing that SDG&E fails to provide meaningful insight into its methodology and that based upon the language provided, SDG&E "could retain anywhere from 0 megawatts (MW) to all excess MWs in their portfolio to mitigate any of the uncertainty, compliance, or financial risks.',4 CalCCA points to July and August 2021 as high load months in which the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) collectively retained 619 MWs and 157 MWs of RA capacity, respectively, which "could have served significant amounts of load for smaller load-serving entities (LSEs)."5 To reduce the need to retain capacity, CalCCA suggests that the Commission work with the CAISO to determine if the Resource Adequacy Availability Incentive Mechanism (RAAIM) can be replaced with another mechanism to alleviate one of the forms of risk listed by SDG&E in its AL filing. 6 CalCCA further states that retained capacity in excess of a requirement may never be used for RA purposes, which would result in a resource not being subject to the CAISO's must-offer obligations and therefore not being available to serve the market's needs.7 Finally, CalCCA recommends that the Commission place firm monthly caps on the amount of capacity retained, arguing that the IOU s should not be allowed to retain excess RA capacity in a constrained market. 8 SDG&E filed a reply to CalCCA's protest on September 20, 2021. In response to CalCCA's suggestion that SDG&E might retain all excess MWs and withhold RA from the market, SDG&E argues that CalCCA does not offer credible evidence that SDG&E has done or will do so and that CalCCA's assertion is based on speculation. 9
With regards to the data on excess resources in July and August 2021 that CalCCA refers to in its protest, SDG&E states that CalCCA fails to provide proper context. SDG&E points to D.21-03-056 in R.20-11-003 (the "Emergency Reliability Proceeding"), in which the Commission ordered the IOUs to meet an effective PRM of 17.5 percent and provided that the IOUs could use "excess resources" to meet this requirement. 10 SDG&E asserts that these figures on excess resources are not the same as "Excess RA" that is available to be sold to the market; rather, these are resources that were available in SDG&E's portfolio to meet the obligation associated with the higher PRM.

In response to CalCCA's recommendation that the Commission place limits on the amount of RA capacity retained, SDG&E argues that CalCCA fails to recognize that SDG&E's RA compliance requirements (and thus, its level of Excess RA) may change based on updates to factors such as load forecast, load migration, changes in the net qualifying capacity (NQC) of its resources, resource outages, and/or changes in resource online dates. As a result, according to SDG&E, it is not reasonable to expect SDG&E to "operate on a razor's edge" and be subject to penalties resulting from failure to protect against these factors. Finally, SDG&E states that, while this could theoretically result in idle capacity, SDG&E has demonstrated that it will make Excess RA available to the market on a regular basis; thus, CalCCA's recommendation is "extreme and untenable."11 4 CalCCA Protest at 2. 5 Ibid.
6 CalCCA Protest at 2. 7 CalCCA Protest at 3. 8 Ibid.
9 SDG&E Reply to CalCCA Protest at 2. 10 Ibid. 11 SDG&E Reply to CalCCA Protest at 3.

Greg Anderson
May 10, 2022

Page 3 ends

Discussion:

Requirements Under D.21-05-030
OP 11 ofD.21-05-030 states as follows: "Within 90 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall each file a Tier 2 advice letter to justify its methodology for determining how much of its PCIA-eligible Resource Adequacy is reserved as part of its Bundled Portfolio Plan." This directive arose out of transparency concerns raised by WG3 co-chairs in R.17-06-026 regarding the excess sales framework for RA. 12
The Energy Division acknowledges the transparency concerns raised in R.17-06-026 and the fact that certain IOU procurement information is not available to all parties (e.g., information provided in Procurement Review Group meetings, which are closed to market participants). After reviewing SDG&E's initial filing for AL 3836-E, the Energy Division requested clarifications on several topics, including uncertainty surrounding the Commission's PRM, RA capacity retained for resource outages, load migration, and how far out capacity is offered for sale to the market. SDG&E responded to the Energy Division's questions in its supplemental filing, AL 3836-E-A, summarized as follows:

PRM Uncertainty for Calculating RA Requirements - Discussions in various Commission proceedings coupled with the rolling blackouts of 2020 and ''unprecedented capacity buildout in the state" suggest a permanent increase to the PRM. In determining the amount of excess capacity that is available for sale, SDG&E considers a variety of factors, including potential changes to the PRM that could impact its compliance requirements.

Planned Outages/Substitution Capacity - SDG&E works with generators to avoid sustained scheduled outages during summer months when RA requirements are highest. If SDG&E is aware of a planned outage for a resource that is scheduled to run through a significant portion of a given month, SDG&E will remove that resource from the stack when determining its portfolio position; conversely, for planned outages that are of sho1ier duration (e.g., only a few hours during the month), SDG&E will include that resource in its position for the month.

Load Migration - SDG&E bases its load migration forecasts on the latest adopted California Energy Commission (CEC) system forecast, historical load departure information, forecast information gathered during the annual meet-and-confer process conducted with community choice aggregators (CCAs), and any expected increase to the direct access (DA) cap. SDG&E also considers possible reductions in claimable Demand Response Auction Mechanism (DRAM) RA capacity due to undersubscription when determining excess volume eligible for sale. These forecasts are incorporated in the year-ahead load forecast process in April/May and adjusted in September to account for any changes in migration patterns.

How Far Out RA Capacity is Offered for Sale - SDG&E will consider selling RA capacity up to three years from the current year.

CalCCA's Protest
CalCCA recommends that the Commission require SDG&E to provide greater justification on the level of capacity to be retained by demonstrating the risks it describes in its AL based upon historical 12 D.21-05-030 at 44.

Greg Anderson
May 10, 2022

Page 4 ends

experience of those risks being realized and states that based upon the language provided in the AL, SDG&E could retain anywhere from O MW to all excess MW in its portfolio to mitigate any uncertainty, compliance, or financial risks.

SDG&E states that it does not maintain RA Reserves (RA capacity that is not required to meet its annual and/or monthly RA compliance requirements but is not offered for sale) and that, since 2020, it has sought to make all Excess RA (RA in its portfolio not required for RA program compliance) available to the market regardless of its PCIA-eligibility. In its reply to CalCCA's protest, SDG&E notes that its level of Excess RA may change based on updates to its RA compliance requirements.

To provide further transparency on factors that affect its Excess RA calculation, the Energy Division requested further information on SDG&E's methodology with regards to uncertainty surrounding the Commission's PRM, RA capacity retained for resource outages, load migration, and how far out SDG&E offers RA capacity for sale to the market. SDG&E provided clarifications on the information requested in its supplemental filing, AL 3836-E-A. The Energy Division also notes that, along with the further transparency provided in SDG&E's supplemental filing, the Energy Division staff regularly review SDG&E's Excess RA sales in its Procurement Review Group meetings.

CalCCA's concern with regards to SDG&E's ability to "retain anywhere from O MW to all excess MW in its portfolio," is unsupported.

CalCCA further argues that retained capacity in excess of a requirement may never be used for RA purposes, which would result in a resource not being subject to the CAISO's must-offer obligation, and therefore not being available to serve the market's needs. CalCCA refers to the high load months of July and August 2021 in which the IOUs collectively retained 619 MWs and 157 MWs of RA capacity, respectively, as examples of months where large amounts of capacity were withheld from other LSEs. CalCCA is correct that the IOUs collectively showed these amounts to the Commission in their monthly excess resources report.
13 However, the Energy Division clarifies that the IOUs were authorized in D.21-03-056 to show excess capacity above their existing RA requirements (based on a 15 percent PRM) to meet an effective PRM of 17.5 percent after making reasonable attempts to first sell this excess capacity to other LSEs to meet their 15 percent PRM RA requirements. 14 SDG&E explains that it will issue at least one Request for Offers (RFOs) prior to the deadline for LSEs' annual RA filing in addition to further RFOs throughout the compliance year if Excess RA becomes available. Additionally, the Energy Division notes that, although the IOUs may technically reserve RA capacity that does not get used for RA purposes, there is no reason to believe that the IOUs are withholding unreasonable amounts of RA capacity from the RA market according to the review the Energy Division Staff have undertaken.

CalCCA also suggests that the Commission work with the CAISO to determine if RAAIM can be replaced with another mechanism to alleviate one of the forms of risk listed by SDG&E in its AL filing. The Energy Division staff is currently engaged in the CAISO's RA Enhancements initiative, where a RAAIM replacement, the Unforced Capacity (UCAP) mechanism, is being considered. 15 The UCAP mechanism is also being considered as part of the CPU C's RA Reform Track in proceeding R.21-10-002.16
13 Excess Resources Report pursuant to D.21.03-056 at 49. "The IOUs shall provide the monthly amounts of the excess resources they used to meet their additional procurement targets, as well as the calculus used to determine these amounts (i.e., net of other resources contracted under this proceeding's authority including their estimated ELRP resources), to the Energy Division, and the Energy Division is directed to post this information on its website." 14 D.21-03-056 FOF 79. 15 See CAISO Stakeholder Initiative "Resource adequacy enhancements," which commenced on October 30, 2018. 16 R. 21 -10-002 Order Instituting Rulemaking to Oversee the Resource Adequacy Program, Consider Program Reforms and Refinements, and Establish Forward Resource Adequacy Procurement Obligations, Scoping Memo at 6.

Greg Anderson
May 10, 2022

Page 5 ends

Finally, CalCCA recommends that the Commission place firm monthly caps on the amount of capacity retained, arguing that the IOU s should not be allowed to retain excess RA capacity in a constrained market The Energy Division acknowledges the constrained RA market but rejects CalCCA's recommendation. The Energy Division is of the opinion that firm monthly caps could impact SDG&E's ability to manage its portfolio safely and reliably, in addition to unfairly shifting risk to bundled service customers. Regardless of this opinion, OP 11 ofD.21-05-030 requires the IOUs, in a Tier 2 AL filing, to justify their respective methodologies for reserving PCIA-eligible RA capacity in accordance with their BPPs, rather than establish methodologies for doing so. Any Commission-ordered changes with regards to BPP procurement methodologies are under the scope of the cuuent Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) Proceeding, R.20-05-003. 17 Whether the Commission should place firm monthly caps on the amount of capacity retained is not an issue that can be resolved under this AL process. Although the IOU s may currently update their BPPs via Tier 3 AL filings, the Energy Division will not, in its review of AL 3836-E, direct SDG&E to change its methodology with regards to retaining excess RA capacity. Thus, the Energy Division finds that CalCCA's recommendation does not constitute a proper basis for protest under Section 7.4.2 of General Order (G.O.) 96-B. 18
The Commission requires the IOUs to manage their portfolios reliably and safely; the Energy Division has not seen evidence that SDG&E's methodology and justification, detailed in AL 3836-E and AL 3836-E-A, is unreasonable for doing so or prevents other LS Es from managing their portfolios reliably and safely.

The Energy Division has reviewed AL 3836-E and AL 3836-E-A. The Energy Division finds that AL 3836-E and AL 3836-E-A meet the requirements ofD.21-05-030. Based on what SDG&E has provided, its methodology for reserving PCIA-eligible RA capacity is reasonable to manage its portfolio risks and uncertainties.

Disposition:

The Energy Division hereby approves SDG&E AL 3836-E and AL 3836-E-A. The justification for SDG&E's methodology for reserving PCIA-eligible RA capacity meets the requirements ofD.21-05- 030.

Sincerely,
Pete Skala
Interim Deputy Executive Director for Energy and Climate Policy/ Interim Director, Energy Division, CPUC
cc: R.17-06-026
Evelyn Kahl, California Community Choice Association
17 R16-02-007 Order Instituting Rulemaking to Develop an Electricity Integrated Resource Planning Framework and to Coordinate and Refine Long-Term Procurement Planning Requirements, OP 3. "'This is a successor proceeding to the Commission's procurement rulemaking, Rulemaking 13-12-010, with respect to long-tenn procurement plans and the record developed in that proceeding is fully avail able for consideration in this proceeding." 18 G.0. 96-B, General Rule 7.4.2 reads in part, "a protest may not rely on policy objections to an advice letter where the relief requested in the advice letter follows rules or directions established by statute or Commission order applicable to the utility. [,II Example 1.

Where the Commission has approved a rate change, an advice letter submitting taiiff sheets in compliance with the Commission order approving the rate change is not suqject to protest on the grounds that the rates are unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory. ~nG~
-,u lf
A ~ Sempra Energy utility'
August 23, 2021
ADVICE LETTER 3836-E
(U902-E)

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Clay Faber - Director
Regulatory Affairs
8330 Century Park Court
San Diego, CA 92123
[email protected]
SUBJECT: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY DESCRIPTION OF

METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF POWER CHARGE

INDIFFERENCE ADJUSTMENT-ELIGIBLE RESOURCE ADEQUACY

RESERVED IN ITS BUNDLED PROCUREMENT PLAN IN COMPLIANCE WITH DECISION 21-05-030

PURPOSE
In accordance with Decision ("D.") 21-05-030, Ordering Paragraph ("OP") 11, San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDG&E") submits this advice letter to justify its methodology for determining how much of its power charge indifference adjustment ("PCIA")-eligible Resource Adequacy ("RA") is reserved in its Bundled Procurement Plan ("BPP").

BACKGROUND
On May 12, 2021, the Commission issued D.21-05-030, which requires each investor-owned utility ("IOU") to file a Tier 2 advice letter to justify its methodology for determining how much of its PCIA-eligible RA is reserved as part of its BPP. For Local RA resources, the Working Group ("WG") 3 Proposal would have required each IOU to allocate all its local RA capacity to all load-serving entities ("LSE") based on each LSE's forecasted, vintaged, coincident peak load share, as informed by the year-ahead RA procurement obligations within the RA process, in a similar manner to the Cost Allocation Mechanism ("CAM"). Subsequent to submission of the WG3 Proposal for Commission consideration, the Commission approved a Central Procurement Entity ("CPE") for Local RA procurement in the service territories of Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") and Southern California Edison Company ("SCE") in D.20-06-002.

The WG3 Proposal aimed to reallocate all PCIA-eligible Local, System and Flexible RA without limitation and did not consider the potential impact of a CPE on Local RA procurement; nor did the WG3 Proposal include a recommendation regarding how to make its RA proposal compatible with the new CPE framework. The Commission found that the WG3 Proposal was not properly tailored to minimize risks and that the proposal to allocate all RA resources would create market inefficiencies for RA, raise costs for bundled and unbundled customers alike, and/or create RA planning and compliance problems when layered with the new CPE and RA compliance requirements. Accordingly, D.21-05-030 declined to adopt the WG3 Proposal for RA. The decision further requires each IOU to submit an advice letter to justify its methodology for determining how much of its PCIA-eligible RA is reserved as part of its BPP.

Public Utilities Commission 2 August 23, 2021

DISCUSSION
RA Reservation Methodology
SDG&E defines "RA Reserves" as RA capacity that is not required to meet its annual and/or monthly RA compliance requirements but is not offered for sale.

Currently, it is SDG&E's practice to maintain no RA Reserves given its expectation of significant near-term load departure. Since 2020, SDG&E has sought to make all RA in its portfolio not required for RA program compliance ("Excess RA") available to the market regardless of its PCIA-eligibility.1 SDG&E submits that this approach benefits bundled service customers by reducing overall RA costs while still enabling compliance with RA requirements.

SDG&E expects to maintain this approach going forward. Thus, its BPP does not currently specify a methodology for determining RA Reserves. SDG&E may propose a methodology for defining RA Reserves in the future if circumstances warrant. Below, SDG&E describes its process for defining Excess RA to be offered to the market.

Excess RA Determination
SDG&E's determination regarding Excess RA to be offered to the market begins with consideration of its annual and monthly RA compliance obligations.

The Commission's RA Program establishes System, Local and Flexible RA procurement requirements as follows:
• System RA Requirements are determined based on each LSE's California Energy Commission (CEC) adjusted forecast plus a 15 percent planning reserve margin (PRM). • Local RA requirements are determined based on an annual CAISO study using a 1-in-10 weather year and an N-1-1 contingency.
• Flexible RA requirements are based on an annual CAISO study that currently looks at the largest three-hour ramp for each month needed to run the system reliably.

In addition, the CAISO requires IOUs to account for potential RA resources outages.2 SDG&E takes all RA requirements into account when determining whether it has Excess RA to offer to the market. For example, SDG&E might have more Local RA than is required to meet its Local RA requirement, but not have adequate System RA to meet its System RA requirement. However, because SDG&E's Local RA can also be used to meet its System RA requirement, SDG&E might count a portion of its Local RA toward its System RA requirement, and therefore would not deem that portion of its Local RA to be Excess RA.

System, Local, and Flexible RA requirements for each LSE, including Demand Response and CAM allocations, are provided by the Commission in September of each year for the following compliance year. Starting in RA compliance year 2020, in accordance with 0.19-02-022, 1 SDG&E's Advice Letter 3738-E seeks to clarify SDG&E's authority to sell RA, but does not propose a methodology for establishing RA Reserve amounts. 2 See BPP, pp. 32-33.

Public Utilities Commission 3 August 23, 2021
Commission-jurisdictional LS Es are allocated Local RA compliance obligations in each of the local capacity areas within the service territory in which they serve load (rather than meeting a Local RA compliance obligation using capacity from any local capacity area).

In addition to the Commission's RA compliance requirements, the CAISO releases the Net Qualifying Capacity ("NQC") and Effective Flexible Capacity ("EFC") in October. The NQC and EFC establish the quantity of MWs a resource can count for RA compliance purposes.

Thus, SDG&E's RA compliance requirements for the following year are generally fixed in the October preceding the compliance year, which allows for determination of the Excess RA to be offered to the market.3
However, SDG&E's RA compliance requirements (and, hence, its level of Excess RA) may change based on updates to the load forecast, changes in the NQC of each of its resources, resource outages, and/or changes in resource online dates. SDG&E will rely on the best information available at the time to determine its RA program requirements and its available Excess RA.

Availability of Excess RA
SDG&E will issue at least one Request for Offers ("RFO") prior the deadline for LS Es' annual RA filing. SDG&E may issue additional RFOs during the compliance year if additional Excess RA becomes available due to changes in RA requirements and/or resource availability. SDG&E may also utilize brokers and bilateral negotiations to sell RA outside of the RFO process.

Sales Volume Reporting
SDG&E reports the amount of Excess RA determined to be available for sale through competitive solicitation in Attachment E of its Quarterly Compliance Report ("QCR"). SDG&E also discusses the volume and reserve price for its Excess RA solicitations with its Independent Evaluator ("IE") and its Procurement Review Group ("PRG").

EFFECTIVE DATE
SDG&E believes this submittal is subject to Energy Division disposition and should be classified as a Tier 2 (pending Energy Division disposition) submittal pursuant to GO 96-B and D.21-05- 030. SDG&E respectfully requests that this submittal be approved effective September 22, 2021 which is 30 days from the date filed.
3 SDG&E may exclude resources that are still under construction or are expected to experience an outage.

Public Utilities Commission 4 August 23, 2021

PROTEST
Anyone may protest this Advice Letter to the Commission. The protest must state the grounds upon which it is based, including such items as financial and service impact, and should be submitted expeditiously. The protest must be made in writing and must be received no later than September 13, 2021, which is 21 days after the date this Advice Letter was submitted with the Commission. There is no restriction on who may submit a protest. The address for mailing or delivering a protest to the Commission is:

CPUC Energy Division
Attention: Tariff Unit
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Copies of the protest should also be sent via e-mail to the attention of the Energy Division at [email protected] and to [email protected]. A copy of the protest should also be sent via e-mail to the address shown below on the same date it is mailed or delivered to the Commission.

Attn: Greg Anderson
Regulatory Tariff Manager
E-mail: [email protected]
NOTICE
A copy of this submittal has been served on the utilities and interested parties shown on the attached list, including interested parties in R.17-06-026, by providing them a copy hereof either electronically or via the U.S. mail, properly stamped and addressed.

Address changes should be directed to SDG&E Tariffs by email to [email protected]. /s/ Clay Faber

CLAY FABER
Director - Regulatory Affairs
California Public Utilities Commission
MUST BE COMPLETED BY UTILITY (Attach additional pages as needed) Company name/CPUC Utility No.: San D iego Gas & Electric (U902) Utility type: Contact Person: l o ff Morales
[Z) ELC □ GAS □ WATER Phone#: 858-650-4098
E-mail: TMorales02sd2.-e.com
□ PLC □ HEAT E-mail Disposition Notice to: SDGETariffs02sd2:e.com EXPLANATION OF UTILITY TYPE (Date Submitted/ Received Stamp by CPUC) ELC = Electric GAS= Gas WATER = Water PLC = Pipeline HEAT= Heat Advice Letter (AL) #: 3836-E Tier Designation: 2
Subject of AL: San Diego G as & Electric Company Description Of Methodology Foe Determining Amoun t Of Powec Chacge fodifference A djustment-Eligibl e Resource A dequacy Reserved In I ts Bundled Pcocurem ent Plan In Compliance With D ecision 21-05-030
Keywords (choose from CPUC listing): Compliance
AL Type: D Monthly D Quarterly D Annual D One-Time [Z] Other:

If AL submitted in compliance with a Commission order, indicate relevant Decision/Resolution#:

D ecision 21-05-030
Does AL replace a withdrawn or rejected AL? If so, identify the prior AL: /A Summarize differences between the AL and the prior withdrawn or rejected AL: N/ A Confidential treatment requested? D Yes [Z] No
If yes, specification of confidential information: N/ .A Confidential information will be made available to appropriate parties who execute a nondisclosure agreement. Name and contact information to request nondisclosure agreement/ access to confidential information:

Resolution required? D Yes 1Z] No
Requested effective date: 9/22/21 No. of tariff sheets:

Estimated system annual revenue effect (%):

Estimated system average rate effect (%):

When rates are affected by AL, include attachment in AL showing average rate effects on customer classes (residential, small commercial, large C/1, agricultural, lighting).

Tariff schedules affected:

Service affected and changes proposed1= N/ A
Pending advice letters that revise the same tariff sheets: N/.A Discuss ·n AL if ore Clear Form
Protests and all other correspondence regarding this AL are due no later than 20 days after the date of this submittal, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, and shall be sent to:

CPUC, Energy Division
Attention: Tariff Unit
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: [email protected]
Name: Greg Anderson
Title:

Utility Name: San Diego Gas & Electric
Address: 8330 Century Park Court, CP32C
City: San Diego
State: California
Telephone (xxx) xxx-xxxx:

Facsimile (xxx) xxx-xxxx:

Email: [email protected]
Name:

Title:

Utility Name:

Address:

City:

State: California
Telephone (xxx) xxx-xxxx:

Facsimile (xxx) xxx-xxxx:

Email:

Zip: 92123
Zip:

Clear Fonn
cc: (w/enclosures)
Public Utilities Commission
CA. Public Avocates (CalPA)
R. Pocta
F. Oh
Energy Division
M. Ghadessi
M. Salinas
L. Tan
R. Ciupagea
K. Navis
Tariff Unit
CA Energy Commission
B. Penning
B. Helft
Advantage Energy
C. Farrell
Alcantar & Kahl LLP
M. Cade
K. Harteloo
AT&T
Regulatory
Barkovich & Yap, Inc.

B. Barkovich
Biofuels Energy LLC
K. Frisbie
Braun & Blaising P.C.

S. Blaising
D. Griffiths
Buchalter
K. Cameron
M. Alcantar
CA Dept. of General Services
H. Nanjo
California Energy Markets
General
California Farm Bureau Federation
K. Mills
California Wind Energy
N. Rader
Cameron-Daniel P.C.

General
City of Poway
Poway City Ha II
City of San Diego
L. Azar
J. Cha
D. Heard
F. Ortlieb
H. Werner
M. Rahman
General Order No. 96-B

ADVICE LETTER SUBMITTAL MAIUNG LIST
Clean Energy Renewable Fuels, LLC
P. DeVille
Clean Power Research
T. Schmid
G. Novotny
Commercial Energy
J. Martin
regu [email protected]
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
J. Pau
Douglass & Liddell
D. Douglass
D. Liddell
Ellison Schneider Harris & Donlan LLP
E. Janssen
C. Kappel
Energy Policy Initiatives Center (USO)
S. Anders
Energy Regulatory Solutions Consultants
L. Medina
Energy Strategies, Inc.

K. Campbell
EO Research
General
Goodin, MacBride, Sgueri, & Day LLP
B. Cragg
J. Squeri
Green Charge
K. Lucas
Hanna and Morton LLP
N. Pedersen
JBS Energy
J. Nahigian
Keyes & Fox, LLP
B. Elder
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
D. Huard
R. Keen
McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP
J. Leslie
Morrison & Foerster LLP
P. Hanschen
MRW & Associates LLC
General
Nline Energy
M. Swindle
NRG Energy
D. Fellman
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

M. Lawson
M. Huffman
Tariff Unit
RTO Advisors
S. Mara
SCD Energy Solutions
P. Muller
SD Community Power
L. Fernandez
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP

0. Armi
Solar Turbines
C. Frank
SPURR
M. Rochman
Southern California Edison Co.

K. Gansecki
TerraVerde Renewable Partners LLC
F. Lee
TURN
M. Hawiger
UCAN
D. Kelly
US Dept. of the Navy
K. Davoodi
US General Services Administration
D. Bagni
Valley Center Municipal Water Distr
G. Broomell
Western Manufactured Housing
Communities Association
S. Dey
Copies to
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Service List
R.1 7-06-02 6
Attachment D
Excerpt from Advice Letter 3738-E
),
A ~ Sempra Energy utilitl
April 15, 2021
ADVICE LETTER 3738-E
(U 902-E)

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Clay Faber - Director
Regulatory Affairs
8330 Century Park Court
San Diego, CA 92123
cfaber@sdge com
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO UPDATE SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S

BUNDLED PROCUREMENT PLAN

PURPOSE
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) hereby requests California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) approval of proposed updates to SDG&E's Bundled Procurement Plan (BPP), and the following appendices:

Appendix B - Electricity and Gas Hedging Strategy
Appendix C - Gas Supply Plan
Appendix D - Congestion Revenue Rights
Appendix E - Convergence Bidding
Appendix F - Greenhouse Gas/AB 32 Compliance Plan
Appendix H - Procurement Limits and Ratable Rates
Appendix J - Acronym Glossary
Appendix K - Energy Procurement Organization

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 57, codified at Public Utilities Code Section 454.5, SDG&E's Commission-approved BPP establishes upfront and achievable standards for procurement activities and cost recovery. On December 30, 2013, the Commission issued Rulemaking (R.) 13- 12-010, a successor Long-Term Procurement Plan (L TPP) proceeding, for the purpose, inter alia, of updating the investor-owned utilities' (IOUs') respective BPPs. At the time R.13-12-010 commenced, BPP updates through L TPP proceedings had generally operated on a two-year cycle with the IOUs submitting procurement plans that projected their procurement needs over a 10-year horizon and BPPs for authority to procure to meet those needs. 1 1 See D.15-10-031 , p. 4.

San Diego Gas & Electric Company
San Diego, California
2014 LONG TERM PROCUREMENT PLAN
Original Sheet No. 32
an SDG&E RFO process; or through participation in a counterparty RFO or electronic auction process.ii SDG&E may make excess local, system, or flexible RA supply (i.e., RA in excess of what SDG&E requires to meet its own RA obligations) available to the market. SDG&E may procure excess capacity from resources to enhance local area reliability in order to reduce the chance of the backstop by the ISO as part of the ISO's capacity procurement mechanism Tariff authorization. SDG&E may offer such excess RA products to the market through an RFO process, through the CAISO's Competitive Solicitation Process where the offers are submitted to the CAISO and CAISO optimizes to procure backstop capacity to meet deficiencies or significant events, through a response to a counter-party RFO or through bilateral negotiations with counterparties. Such transactions would be for capacity or rights to capacity, and the related cost would be fully recoverable through SDG&E's Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA).

Current Commission rules permit SDG&E to buy and/or sell products bilaterally when ( 1) SDG&E is approached by an outside non-affiliated third party seeking to sell or purchase short-term RA of one year or less in duration; or (2) SDG&E has a need to purchase or sell short term system, local, or flexible RA capacity. SDG&E will periodically brief its PRG on its RA positions. SDG&E may choose to retain all or some portion of excess RA in order to retain surplus RA for use in management of scheduled outage replacement or lowering the CAISO's RA product charges. 41 In D.04-07-028, the Commission relaxed the restrictions on negotiated bilateral contracts to allow for the use of bilateral negotiated contracts for capacity and energy from power plants where the purpose is to enhance local area reliability (mimeo, p. 17 and Ordering Paragraph 1.e.). D.04-07- 028 prohibits bilateral negotiations between SDG&E and affiliated third parties.

Advice Ltr. 3738-E I Decision D.15-10-031 Date Filed: April 15. 2021 Effective: XXXXX XX. 2021
Attachment E
Excerpt from CAISO Fifth Replacement FERC Electric Tariff California Independent System Operator Corporation
Fifth Replacement Electronic Tariff
November 1, 2023
Section 40
Table of Contents

40. Resource Adequacy Demonstration for all SCs in the CAISO BAA ............................................... 3

40.1 Applicability ...................................................................................................................... 3

40.1.1 [Not Used] ........................................................................................................................ 3

40.2 Information Requirements for Resource Adequacy Programs ........................................... 3

40.2.1 Requirements for CPUC Load Serving Entities and CPEs................................................. 3

40.2.2 Non-CPUC Load Serving Entities and CPEs..................................................................... 4

40.2.3 [Not Used] ........................................................................................................................ 6

40.2.4 Load-Following MSS......................................................................................................... 6

40.3 Local Capacity Area Resource Requirements for SCs for LSEs ........................................ 7

40.3.1 Local Capacity Technical Study ........................................................................................ 7

40.3.2 Allocation of Local Capacity .............................................................................................. 8

40.3.3 Procurement of Local Capacity Area Resources by LSEs and CPEs............................... 11

40.3.4 [Not Used] ...................................................................................................................... 11

40.4 General Requirements on Resource Adequacy Resources ............................................. 11

40.4.1 Eligible Resources and Determination of Qualifying Capacity.......................................... 11

40.4.2 Net Qualifying Capacity Report ....................................................................................... 11

40.4.3 General Qualifications for Supplying Net Qualifying Capacity .......................................... 12

40.4.4 Reductions for Testing.................................................................................................... 13

40.4.5 Reductions for Performance Criteria ............................................................................... 13

40.4.6 Reductions for Deliverability............................................................................................ 13

40.4.7 Submission of Supply Plans............................................................................................ 36

40.5 Minimum State of Charge Tool for Non-Generator Resources Electing Limited Energy Storage Resource Status that Provide RA Capacity........................................................ 39

40.5.1 Operation of the MSOC Tool........................................................................................... 39

40.5.2 Determining the Days and Hours for which the MSOC Applies ........................................ 39

40.5.3 Notification of Applying the MSOC Tool .......................................................................... 40

40.5.4 [Not Used] ...................................................................................................................... 40

40.5.5 [Not Used] ...................................................................................................................... 40

40.6 Requirements for SCs and Resources for LSEs.............................................................. 40

40.6.1 Day-Ahead Availability.................................................................................................... 40

40.6.2 Real-Time Availability ..................................................................................................... 43

40.6.3 [Not Used] ...................................................................................................................... 45

40.6.4 Availability Requirements for Resources with Operational Limitations that are not Qualified Use-Limits ...................................................................................................................... 45

40.6.5 Additional Availability Requirements for System Resources ............................................ 46

40.6.6 Requirement for Partial Resource Adequacy Resources ................................................. 46

40.6.7 [Not Used] ...................................................................................................................... 47

40.6.8 Use of Generated Bids.................................................................................................... 47

40.6.9 Firm Liquidated Damages Contracts Requirements......................................................... 51

40.6.10 Exports of Energy from Resource Adequacy Capacity .................................................... 51

40.6.11 Curtailment of Exports in Emergency Situations.............................................................. 51

40.6.12 Participating Load, PDRs, and RDRRs ........................................................................... 51

40.7 Compliance .................................................................................................................... 51

40.7.1 Other Compliance Issues................................................................................................ 53

40.7.2 Penalties for Non-Compliance......................................................................................... 53

40.8 CAISO Default Qualifying Capacity Criteria ..................................................................... 54

40.8.1 Applicability .................................................................................................................... 54

40.9 Resource Adequacy Availability Incentive Mechanism .................................................... 59

40.9.1 Introduction to RAAIM..................................................................................................... 59

40.9.2 Exemptions..................................................................................................................... 60

40.9.3 Availability Assessment .................................................................................................. 63

40.9.4 Additional Rules on Calculating Monthly and Daily Average Availability........................... 76

40.9.5 Availability Standard ....................................................................................................... 77 California Independent System Operator Corporation
Fifth Replacement Electronic Tariff
November 1, 2023
Section 40

40.9.6 Non-Availability Charges and Availability Incentive Payments ......................................... 77

40.9.7 Reporting........................................................................................................................ 80

40.10 Flexible RA Capacity ...................................................................................................... 80

40.10.1 Flexible Capacity Needs Assessment ............................................................................. 80

40.10.2 Allocation of Flexible Capacity Needs ............................................................................. 84

40.10.3 Flexible Capacity Categories .......................................................................................... 86

40.10.4 Effective Flexible Capacity.............................................................................................. 91

40.10.5 Flexible RA Capacity Plans............................................................................................. 94

40.10.6 Flexible RA Capacity Must-Offer Obligation................................................................... 102 California Independent System Operator Corporation
Fifth Replacement Electronic Tariff
November 1, 2023
Section 40
Resource Adequacy Capacity or Flexible RA Capacity on an Outage, except to the extent the resource provides RA Substitute Capacity for the outage in accordance with Section 40.9.3.6, the Outage is approved by the CAISO without requiring RA Substitute Capacity under other authority of Section 9 or Section 40, or the Outage is excluded from RAAIM under Section 40.9.3.4(d); and (5) the capacity, duration, and must-offer requirement for any RA Substitute Capacity or CPM Capacity the resource is committed to provide. (b) If the resource’s minimum daily availability is the same in the Day-Ahead Market and the Real-Time Market, the CAISO will use the availability in the Real-Time Market in the calculation of the monthly average availability.
(c) If the resource is committed to provide local and/or system RA capacity and Flexible RA Capacity in a month, but is not committed to provide both for the full month, the CAISO prorates the number of days that local and/or system Resource Adequacy Capacity and Flexible RA Capacity was provided against the total number of days in the month.

40.9.5 Availability Standard
(a) Percentage. The Availability Standard shall be 96.5 percent each month. (b) Availability Range. The CAISO shall apply the Availability Standard with a bandwidth of plus and minus two percent, which produces a range with a lower bound of 94.5 percent and an upper bound of 98.5 percent.

40.9.6 Non-Availability Charges and Availability Incentive Payments (a) Non-Availability Charges. A resource providing local and/or system Resource Adequacy Capacity, Flexible RA Capacity, or CPM Capacity that is subject to the availability assessment in accordance with Section 40.9.3 and whose monthly availability calculation under Section 40.9.4 is below the lower bound of the monthly Availability Standard of 94.5 percent will be subject to a Non-Availability Charge for the month. (b) Availability Incentive Payments. A resource providing local and/or system Resource Adequacy Capacity, Flexible RA Capacity, or CPM Capacity that is subject to the availability assessment under Section 40.9.3 and whose availability calculation under California Independent System Operator Corporation
Fifth Replacement Electronic Tariff
November 1, 2023
Section 40
Section 40.9.4 is above the upper bound of the monthly Availability Standard of 98.5 percent will be eligible for an Availability Incentive Payment for the month. (c) No Payment or Charge. A resource providing local and/or system Resource Adequacy Capacity, Flexible RA Capacity, or CPM Capacity that is subject to the availability assessment under Section 40.9.3 and whose monthly availability calculation under Section 40.9.4 is equal to or between the lower bound of 94.5 percent and the upper bound of 98.5 percent of the Availability Standard will not be assessed a Non-Availability Charge nor paid an Availability Incentive Payment.
(d) Advisory Period. During an advisory period of April 1, 2018 through May 31, 2018, the CAISO will show the Non-Availability Charges and Availability Incentive Payments on Settlement Statements but will not include those Non-Availability Charges and Availability Incentive Payments on Invoices for financial settlement. (e) Separate Calculation of Payments and Charges for Flexible RA Capacity. The CAISO will calculate separate Non-Availability Charges and Availability Incentive Payments for Resource Adequacy Resources providing Flexible RA Capacity. For RMR Resources, the Non-Availability Charge will be based on the RMR Contract capacity costs. RMR Capacity is otherwise treated the same way as Resource Adequacy Capacity.

40.9.6.1 Determination of Non-Availability Charge
(a) Calculation
(1) RA Capacity. The Non-Availability Charge for a Resource Adequacy Resource providing local, system, or Flexible RA Capacity shall be determined by the resource’s average monthly RA and Flexible RA MWs multiplied by the difference between the lower bound of the monthly Availability Standard of 94.5 percent and the resource’s monthly availability percentage, and multiplying the product by the RAAIM price.
(2) CPM Capacity. The Non-Availability Charge for a Resource Adequacy Resource providing CPM Capacity shall be determined by the resource’s California Independent System Operator Corporation
Fifth Replacement Electronic Tariff
November 1, 2023
Section 40
average monthly CPM MWs multiplied by the difference between the lower bound of the monthly Availability Standard of 94.5 percent and the resource’s monthly availability percentage, and multiplying the product by the maximum of the resource’s CPM price and the RAAIM price.
(b) RAAIM Price. The RAAIM price shall be 60 percent of the CPM Soft-Cap Price in Section 43A.4.1.1.
(c) Separate Collection of Non-Availability Charges for Flexible RA Capacity.

Separately-calculated Non-Availability Charges collected for Resource Adequacy Resources providing Flexible RA Capacity will be held separate from other Non-Availability Charges assessed for Resource Adequacy Resources.

40.9.6.2 Determination of Availability Incentive Payment (a) Self-Funding. The Availability Incentive Payment will be funded entirely through the monthly Non-Availability Charges assessed. Availability Incentive Payments for Resource Adequacy Resources providing Flexible RA Capacity will be funded exclusively by Non-Availability Charges assessed against Resource Adequacy Resources providing Flexible RA Capacity.
(b) Eligible Capacity. The capacity of a Resource Adequacy Resource providing local, system or Flexible RA Capacity that is eligible to receive an Availability Incentive Payment shall be the resource’s average monthly MWs of capacity that exceed the upper bound of the Availability Standard.
(c) Calculation.
(1) The monthly Availability Incentive Payment rate will equal the total Non-Availability Charges assessed for the month plus any unpaid funds under Section

40.9.6.2(d), divided by the total Resource Adequacy Capacity eligible to receive the Availability Incentive Payment that month.
(2) The Availability Incentive Payment rate shall not exceed three times the Non-Availability Charge rate. (3) The Availability Incentive Payment the CAISO shall pay to each eligible resource California Independent System Operator Corporation
Fifth Replacement Electronic Tariff
November 1, 2023
Section 40
shall equal the product of its eligible capacity and the Availability Incentive Payment rate.
(d) Unpaid Funds. Any Non-Availability Charge funds that are not distributed to Resource Adequacy Resources eligible to receive Availability Incentive Payments in a month will be added to the funds available for Availability Incentive Payments in the next month and will continue to roll over to successive months until the end of the year. The CAISO distributes any unallocated funds remaining after the CAISO settles December monthly RAAIM Non-Availability Charges and Non-Availability Incentive Payments. The separate pool of undistributed Non-Availability Charge funds collected for local and/or system Resource Adequacy Capacity will be distributed to Load Service Entities based on their load ratio share for the year. The separate pool of undistributed Non-Availability Charge funds collected for Flexible RA Capacity will be distributed to Load Serving Entities based on their overall ratio of obligation to demonstrate Flexible RA Capacity for the year.

40.9.7 Reporting
By July 1 of each year, the CAISO will provide an informational report that will be posted on the CAISO Website and include information on the average actual availability each month of Resource Adequacy Resources, the total amount of Non-Availability Charges assessed and the total amount of Availability Incentive Payments made.

40.10 Flexible RA Capacity

40.10.1 Flexible Capacity Needs Assessment
The CAISO shall annually conduct a study to determine the Flexible Capacity Need of the CAISO Balancing Authority Area for each month of the next calendar year and provide the results of the study in the Flexible Capacity Needs Assessment.

40.10.1.1 Process
(a) Schedule. The CAISO shall conduct the study pursuant to the schedule set forth in the Business Practice Manual, which shall include a process for stakeholders to review and provide input on the study methodology and assumptions and on the draft study results. (b) Completion and Distribution. The CAISO shall provide the final results of the Flexible Exhibit C
SDG&E Scoping Ruling
520527764 - 1 -
COM/JR5/smt 10/31/2023

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of San Diego Gas & Electric
Company (U902E) for Approval of:
(i) Contract Administration, Least-Cost
Dispatch and Power Procurement
Activities in 2022, (ii) Costs Related to
those Activities Recorded to the Energy
Resource Recovery Account, Portfolio
Allocation Balancing Account, Power
Charge Indifference Adjustment
Undercollection Balancing Account,
Transition Cost Balancing Account, and
Local Generating Balancing Account in
2022, and (iii) Costs Recorded in Related
Regulatory Accounts in 2022.

Application 23-06-002
ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S SCOPING MEMO AND RULING
This scoping memo and ruling sets forth the issues, need for hearing, schedule, category, and other matters necessary to scope this proceeding pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1701.1 and Article 7 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).

1. Procedural Background
On June 1, 2023, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application to seek Commission approval of contract administration, least-cost dispatch and power procurement activities, and costs recorded in its Energy Resource Recovery Account, Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account, Power Charge Indifference Adjustment Undercollection Balancing Account, Transition FILED
10/31/23
09:36 AM
A2306002
A.23-06-002 COM/JR5/smt
- 2 -
Cost Balancing Account, Local Generating Balancing Account, and other related accounts. On July 6, 2023, Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates) and California Energy Alliance and San Diego Community Power (Joint CCAs) timely filed protests to SDG&E’s application. SDG&E filed a reply to Cal Advocates’ and the Joint CCAs’ protests on July 17, 2023. On August 4, 2023, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling noticed the prehearing conference (PHC). A PHC was held on August 21, 2023, to address the issues of law and fact, determine the need for hearing, set the schedule for resolving the matter, and address other matters as necessary.

After considering SDG&E’s application, Cal Advocates’ and the Joint CCAs’ protests, SDG&E’s reply to protests, and discussion at the PHC, I have determined the issues and initial schedule of the proceeding to be set forth in this scoping memo. I have also determined that no environmental and social justice issues have been raised at this time.

2. Issues
The issues to be determined or otherwise considered are:

1. Whether SDG&E administered and managed its own
generation resources prudently, to include the
management of outages and associated fuel costs,
according to Standard of Conduct (“SOC”) 4.

2. Whether SDG&E administered and managed its Qualifying Facility (“QF”) and non-QF contracts for generation and power purchase agreements in accordance with the
contract provisions and otherwise followed Commission
guidelines relating to those contracts and their
amendments according to SOC 4.

3. Whether SDG&E used the most cost-effective mix of
energy resources under its control and achieved Least Cost Dispatch of its energy resources according to SOC 4.

A.23-06-002 COM/JR5/smt
- 3 -

4. Whether SDG&E administered its demand response
programs to minimize costs to its ratepayers according to SOC 4.

5. Whether the entries recorded during the record year in the following accounts are correctly stated and in compliance with Commission directives:
a. the Energy Resource Recovery Account;
b. Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account;
c. Undercollection Balancing Account;
d. Transition Cost Balancing Account;
e. Local Generating Balancing Account;
f. New Environmental Regulatory Balancing Account
(NERBA);
g. Independent Evaluator Memorandum Account;
h. Litigation Cost Memorandum Account;
i. Green Tariff Marketing Education & Outreach
Memorandum Account;
j. Green Tariff Shared Renewables Administrative Cost
Memorandum Account;
k. Enhanced Community Renewable ME&O
Memorandum Account;
l. Green Tariff Shared Renewables Balancing Account;
m. Tree Mortality Non-Bypassable Charge Balancing
Account (TMNBCBA);
n. Disadvantaged Communities – Single Family Solar
Homes Balancing Account;
o. Disadvantaged Communities-Green Tariff Balancing
Account; and
p. Community Solar Green Tariff Balancing Account

6. Whether SDG&E’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Compliance
Instrument procurement was consistent with applicable
A.23-06-002 COM/JR5/smt
- 4 -
standards and in compliance with SDG&E’s Commission-approved procurement plans.

7. Whether the entries in SDG&E’s Greenhouse Gas Revenue Balancing Account and Greenhouse Gas-related entries in other ERRA sub-accounts are accurate, and whether
SDG&E met its burden of proof regarding its claim for
these entries.

8. Whether the Commission should authorize SDG&E to
pursue adjustment of the undercollection in SDG&E’s
NERBA in the Annual Electric Regulatory Account Update
filing.

9. Whether the Commission should authorize SDG&E to
pursue adjustment of the undercollection in SDG&E’s
TMNBCBA in the Annual Electric Public Purpose Program
Account Update filing.

3. Need for Evidentiary Hearing
Based on party feedback at the PHC, there may be disputed issues of material fact including but not limited to SDG&E’s prudent management and administration of utility-owned generation resources, purchased power contracts, demand response programs, GHG compliance instrument procurement, and generation-related balancing accounts. Accordingly, parties will be allowed to present evidence on these issues if evidentiary hearings are needed. The need for evidentiary hearings will be determined by the assigned ALJ and further instructions provided at the status conference.

4. Schedule
The following schedule is adopted here and may be modified by the assigned ALJ as required to promote the efficient and fair resolution of the application:

A.23-06-002 COM/JR5/smt
- 5 -
Event Date
Intervenors’ prepared direct testimony
served December 15, 2023
Status Report on Settlement Talks (if needed) February 17, 2024 Rule 13.9 Meet and Confer Deadline March 8, 2024
Status Conference on Need for Hearings March 11, 2024
Evidentiary Hearings March 18, 2024
Opening Briefs April 12, 2024
Reply Briefs May 3, 2024
Proposed Decision Third Quarter
2024
The purpose of the March 11, 2024 status conference is to ascertain whether, pursuant to Rule 13.8(c), the parties stipulate to the receipt of prepared testimony into evidence without direct or cross examination or other need to convene an evidentiary hearing or, in the alternative, the parties’ resources, readiness and needs for the effective remote conduct of the evidentiary hearing, including estimates of time requested for cross-examination and identification of anticipated exhibits.

The proceeding will stand submitted upon the filing of reply briefs, unless the ALJ requires further evidence or argument. Based on this schedule, the proceeding will be resolved within 18 months as required by Public Utilities (Pub. Util.) Code Section 1701.5.

5. Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) Program and Settlements
The Commission’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program offers mediation, early neutral evaluation, and facilitation services, and uses ALJs who have been trained as neutrals. At the parties’ request, the assigned ALJ can refer A.23-06-002 COM/JR5/smt
- 6 -
this proceeding to the Commission’s ADR Coordinator. Additional ADR information is available on the Commission’s website.1
Any settlement between parties, whether regarding all or some of the issues, shall comply with Article 12 of the Rules and shall be served in writing.

Such settlements shall include a complete explanation of the settlement and a complete explanation of why it is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law and in the public interest. The proposing parties bear the burden of proof as to whether the settlement should be adopted by the Commission.

The schedule set forth in this Scoping Memo includes a date for the completion of settlement talks. No later than this date, the parties will submit to the assigned ALJ a status report of their efforts, identifying agreements reached and unresolved issues requiring hearing.

6. Category of Proceeding and
Ex Parte Restrictions
This ruling confirms the Commission’s preliminary determination that this is a ratesetting proceeding. Accordingly, ex parte communications are restricted and must be reported pursuant to Article 8 of the Rules.

7. Public Outreach
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code Section 1711(a), I hereby report that the Commission sought the participation of those likely to be affected by this matter by noticing it in the Commission’s monthly newsletter that is served on communities and businesses that subscribe to it and posted on the Commission’s website.
1 See Decision 07-05-062, Appendix A, § IV.O.

A.23-06-002 COM/JR5/smt
- 7 -

8. Intervenor Compensation
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code Section 1804(a)(1), a customer who intends to seek an award of compensation must file and serve a notice of intent to claim compensation by September 20, 2023, 30 days after the PHC.

9. Response to Public Comments
Parties may, but are not required to, respond to written comments received from the public. Parties may do so by posting such response using the “Add Public Comment” button on the “Public Comment” tab of the online docket card for the proceeding.

10. Public Advisor
Any person interested in participating in this proceeding who is unfamiliar with the Commission’s procedures or has questions about the electronic filing procedures is encouraged to obtain more information at http://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/ or contact the Commission’s Public Advisor at 866-849-8390 or 866-836-7825 (TTY), or send an email to [email protected].

11. Filing, Service, and Service List
The official service list has been created and is on the Commission’s website. Parties should confirm that their information on the service list is correct and serve notice of any errors on the Commission’s Process office, the service list, and the ALJ. Persons may become a party pursuant to Rule 1.4. 2 When serving any document, each party must ensure that it is using the current official service list on the Commission’s website. 2 The form to request additions and changes to the Service list may be found at https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/administrative-law-judge-division/documents/additiontoservicelisttranscriptordercompliant.pdf A.23-06-002 COM/JR5/smt
- 8 -
This proceeding will follow the electronic service protocol set forth in Rule 1.10. All parties to this proceeding shall serve documents and pleadings using electronic mail, whenever possible, transmitted no later than 5:00 p.m., on the date scheduled for service to occur.

When serving documents on Commissioners or their personal advisors, whether or not they are on the official service list, parties must only provide electronic service. Parties must not send hard copies of documents to Commissioners or their personal advisors unless specifically instructed to do so.

Persons who are not parties but wish to receive electronic service of documents filed in the proceeding may contact the Process Office at [email protected] to request addition to the “Information Only” category of the official service list pursuant to Rule 1.9(f).

The Commission encourages those who seek information-only status on the service list to consider the Commission’s subscription service as an alternative. The subscription service sends individual notifications to each subscriber of formal e-filings tendered and accepted by the Commission. Notices sent through subscription service are less likely to be flagged by spam or other filters. Notifications can be for a specific proceeding, a range of documents and daily or weekly digests.

12. Receiving Electronic Service
from the Commission
Parties and other persons on the service list are advised that it is the responsibility of each person or entity on the service list for Commission proceedings to ensure their ability to receive emails from the Commission.

Please add “@cpuc.ca.gov” to your email safe sender list and update your email A.23-06-002 COM/JR5/smt
- 9 -
screening practices, settings and filters to ensure receipt of emails from the Commission.

13. Assignment of Proceeding
John Reynolds is the assigned Commissioner and Rajan Mutialu is the assigned ALJ and presiding officer for the proceeding.

IT IS RULED that:

1. The scope of this proceeding is described above and is adopted.

2. The schedule of this proceeding is set forth above and is adopted.

3. Evidentiary hearings may be needed.

4. The presiding officer is Administrative Law Judge Rajan Mutialu.

5. The category of the proceeding is ratesetting.

Dated October 31, 2023, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ JOHN REYNOLDS
John Reynolds
Assigned Commissioner
Exhibit D
Joint CCA Motion to Compel

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of San Diego Gas & Electric
Company (U 902-E) for Approval of: (i)
Contract Administration, Least-Cost Dispatch
and Power Procurement Activities in 2022, (ii)
Costs Related to those Activities Recorded to
the Energy Resource Recovery Account,
Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account, Power
Charge Indifference Adjustment
Undercollection Balancing Account, Transition
Cost Balancing Account, and Local Generating
Balancing Account in 2022, and (iii) Costs
Recorded in Related Regulatory Accounts in
2022.

Application 23-06-002
(Filed June 1, 2023)

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF SAN DIEGO

COMMUNITY POWER AND CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE
Jacob Schlesinger
Alissa Greenwald
Keyes & Fox LLP
1580 Lincoln St., Suite 1105
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (970) 531-2525
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]

November 22, 2023 On behalf of San Diego Community
Power and Clean Energy Alliance
FILED
11/28/23
04:59 PM
A2306002
1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application 23-06-002
(Filed June 1, 2023)

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF SAN DIEGO

COMMUNITY POWER AND CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE
Pursuant to Rule 11.3 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the California Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”), San Diego Community Power (“SDCP”)1 and Clean Energy Alliance (“CEA”)2 (together, “Joint CCAs”) hereby submit this Motion to Compel (“Motion”) San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”) to produce information fully responsive to the Joint CCAs’ Data Requests 1.09, 1.10, 2.02, 2.03, and 2.05 (the “Data Requests”).

The Data Requests seek information regarding the solicitation materials, resource adequacy (“RA”) positions, and bid outcomes of SDG&E’s sales of excess RA in 2021 and 2022.

SDG&E’s attempts to maximize its RA sales — and thereby lower costs to customers — goes 1 SDCP is the CCA for the cities of Chula Vista, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, National City and San Diego and the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. 2 CEA is the CCA for the cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Escondido, San Marcos, Oceanside, and Vista.
2 directly to the heart of whether it prudently managed its generation portfolio during the 2022 compliance period. SDG&E’s efforts in this regard ultimately impact the entries it made into its balancing accounts, including the Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account (“PABA”), which is subject to a compliance review in this proceeding.

Despite the broad implications of SDG&E’s attempts (or lack thereof) to sell excess RA, SDG&E contends this information is not relevant for stakeholder or Commission review in this proceeding. In addition, SDG&E improperly seeks to withhold the requested information from representatives of the Joint CCAs that have executed non-disclosure agreements, arguing that it would be improper to disclose confidential and commercially sensitive information to the reviewing representatives for community choice aggregators (“CCAs”) that participate in its RA solicitations. SDG&E’s objections should be rejected.

The information sought through the Data Requests is relevant to whether SDG&E prudently managed its generation resources and should not be withheld from Commission review.

SDG&E’s efforts to sell excess RA have a direct impact on its customers’ rates, and its efforts to prevent a thorough review of its actions raise larger concerns surrounding SDG&E’s perception of the Commission’s ability to oversee its operations. Further, the Commission adopted a framework to provide market-sensitive data to reviewing representatives for market participants that has largely operated successfully since D.06-06-006. That framework addresses the confidentiality concerns SDG&E has raised; no market participant will receive any market-sensitive materials.

Consequently, and given the December 15, 2023, deadline for intervenor testimony, the Joint CCAs respectfully request the Commission direct SDG&E to produce information fully 3 responsive to the Data Requests to the Joint CCAs’ reviewing representatives by December 8, 2023.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2023, SDG&E filed its Application for Approval of ERRA Compliance for Record Period 2022. The Application requests, among other things, review and approval of costs related to activities recorded to the ERRA, the PABA, and the PCIA.3 CCA and other unbundled customers are subject to several non-bypassable charges (“NBCs”), including PCIA rates to recover above market costs of the utility’s PCIA-eligible resources and the Local Generation Charge rate to recover Cost Allocation Mechanism costs.

SDG&E’s PCIA rates are set in the ERRA Forecast proceeding based on: (1) the Indifference Amount (the difference in the forecast year between the cost of the IOU’s supply portfolio and the market value of the IOU’s supply portfolio); and (2) the year-end balance in the Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account (“PABA”). The Indifference Amount and the year-end PABA over- or under-collection are added together to form the PABA revenue requirement underlying PCIA rates. The ERRA Forecast case sets those rates for implementation on January 1 of the record year.

For bundled customers, the PCIA-related costs are included in the commodity revenue requirement and recovered through a bundled commodity rate, which is also set in the ERRA Forecast case. Costs to meet bundled customers’ energy and ancillary service requirements through the CAISO market, along with costs of resources not eligible for recovery in the PABA or CAM, are recovered via the ERRA. The total bundled customer commodity revenue requirement is 3 Application (A.) 23-06-002, Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902-E) for Approval of ERRA Compliance for Record Period 2022, p. 1 (June 1, 2023). 4 calculated by combining ERRA costs with bundled customers’ share of above market cost of PCIA-eligible contracts and utility owned resources.

SDG&E then tracks actual costs and revenues incurred over the course of the year for PCIA-eligible resources in the PABA. Costs to meet bundled customers’ energy and ancillary service requirements are recorded and tracked in the ERRA balancing account during the record year. The result in both balancing accounts is SDG&E recording either an under- or over-collection based on many factors tied to actual market costs, actual market revenues, and actual customer revenues from retail sales. The resulting under- or over-collection is then included in the revenue requirement for the following year’s ERRA and PCIA rates. For example, customers are currently paying (in 2023) the under- and over-collections that SDG&E recorded over the course of 2022.

One important factor in whether an over- or under-collection exists in the PABA is the actual amount of RA capacity SDG&E sold during the record year (“Sold RA”) compared to the amount of Sold RA it had forecasted it would sell. A close review of both (1) the accounting tracking those sales, and (2) whether SDG&E prudently managed its portfolio in making those sales, takes place in the ERRA Compliance proceeding, i.e., the instant proceeding. There is no other proceeding in which to scrutinize these factors from SDG&E’s RA sales: this proceeding is the Commission and parties’ only opportunity to review SDG&E’s accounting of its 2022 RA sales and whether it prudently managed its portfolio in making those sales in 2022.

In the 2022 record year, SDG&E reported it relied on excess RA capacity from existing resources to count toward its incremental system reliability procurement targets.4 In other words,
SDG&E reported it had substantial excess RA capacity available from June through October 2022, 4 SDG&E Excess Resources Report (last updated September 28, 2023). Accessible at:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/resource-adequacy-homepage/resource-adequacy-compliance-materials/sdge-excess-resource-reporting-d2112015octpublic081522.xlsx. 5 and, as a result, it 1) counted that capacity toward its incremental targets, and 2) transferred the RA value to CAM for cost recovery. An important question for the Commission to consider in this proceeding is whether SDG&E should have offered more RA for sale in 2022 given this substantial excess RA capacity, i.e., whether SDG&E prudently managed its portfolio during the record year that is the focus of this proceeding.

The Joint CCAs issued discovery on August 31, 2023, to further evaluate SDG&E’s attempts to sell its excess RA. The Data Requests seek information regarding the solicitation materials, RA positions, and bid outcomes related to SDG&E’s sales of excess RA in 2021 and 2022. The Data Requests are attached as Exhibit B. Notably, the Data Requests are substantially similar to information requested by the California Public Advocates Office (“Cal Advocates”) in its Master Data Requests (“MDR”). Specifically, MDR 3.20.2 sought the system, local, and flex positions for each solicitation in which RA for delivery in the record year was offered for sale.5 MDR 3.20, which indicates that parties beyond the Joint CCAs believe this information to be relevant in the present proceeding, is attached as Exhibit D.

SDG&E issued responses to the Joint CCAs’ First Set of Data Requests on September 29, 2023. However, SDG&E objected to Data Requests 1.09 and 1.10 in their entirety.6 In its objections, SDG&E argued that the Data Requests seek production of information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.7 In addition, SDG&E argued that because the Joint CCAs participate in its RA solicitations, it would be improper to disclose confidential and commercially sensitive information.8 5 Joint CCA Exhibit D, Cal Advocates MDR 3.20.2 (issued March 30, 2023). 6 Joint CCA Exhibit B, SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA Data Request 001, pp. 5-6 (September 29, 2023) and SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA Data Request 002, pp. 1-3 (November 16, 2023). 7
Id. 8
Id.
6 On October 23, 2023, the Joint CCAs sent an electronic message to counsel for SDG&E to request a meet and confer pursuant to Rule 11.3 to discuss the discovery dispute.9 The meet and confer took place on November 6, 2023, during which the parties resolved disputes surrounding two additional data requests. However, counsel for SDG&E later notified the Joint CCAs that it maintained its objection to the Data Requests.10
On November 2, 2023, the Joint CCAs issued an additional set of discovery requests, including Data Requests 2.02, 2.03, and 2.05.11 The Data Requests sought information regarding SDG&E’s monthly RA requirements, its final net RA position for each month of the 2022 compliance period, and any attachments to its 2022 Quarterly Compliance Reports that address its RA solicitations, RA volumes made available, RA-related filings with the Commission, and the calculation and reporting of SDG&E’s net RA position.12 SDG&E served its responses to the Joint CCAs’ Second Set of Data Requests on November 16, 2023. In its response, SDG&E objected to Data Requests 2.02, 2.03, and 2.05 in their entirety, arguing these requests are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.13 Further, SDG&E argued the Data Requests are irrelevant to any issue presented in this proceeding and are therefore out of scope.14 Given the similar nature of Data Requests 1.09 and 1.10 to Data Requests 2.02, 2.03, and

2.05 and the unsuccessful meet and confer, counsel for the Joint CCAs sent an electronic message to counsel for SDG&E on November 21, 2023 inquiring as to whether an additional meet and 9 Joint CCA Exhibit C.
10 Id.
11 Joint CCA Exhibit B.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
7 confer was likely to be productive.15 Counsel for SDG&E indicated that another meet and confer was not necessary.16 As a result, the Joint CCAs must now request the Commission compel SDG&E to produce the information requested in the Data Requests.

II. CALIFORNIA LAW SUPPORTS A BROAD INTERPRETATION OF
RELEVANCY.

SDG&E claims that information regarding its solicitation materials, RA positions, bid outcomes of its 2021 and 2022 excess RA solicitations, and the additional RA-related information requested in the Data Requests is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, California law favors a broad interpretation of relevancy and supports the Joint CCAs’ position that the requested information is, in fact, relevant to the issues in this proceeding.

The California Evidence Code defines “relevant evidence” as evidence “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.”17 The definition is “manifestly broad,” and evidence is relevant “no matter how weak it tends to prove a disputed issue.”18 Further, “any ‘doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.’”19 Commission rules also support a broad interpretation of relevance to ensure the Joint CCAs have a meaningful opportunity to rebut evidence affecting the PCIA rates their customers will pay.

Under Commission Rule 13.6(a), California’s “technical rules of evidence . . . need not be applied 15 Joint CCA Exhibit C.
16 Id.
17 Cal. Evid. Code § 210 (emphasis added).
18 See, e.g., People v. Tauber, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 656, 660 (1996). 19 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 542 (2017) (quoting Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v.

Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 161, 173 (1970)).
8 in hearings” before the Commission.20 However, “the rights of parties to meaningfully participate in the proceeding and to public policy protections shall be preserved.”21 III. ARGUMENT
A. The Requested Information is Relevant to Whether SDG&E Prudently Managed its Portfolio.

Scoping Issue One of the Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling asks “[w]hether SDG&E administered and managed its own generation resources prudently, to include the management of outages and associated fuel costs, according to Standard of Conduct (‘SOC’)

4.”22 SDG&E argues that Scoping Issue One is narrowly constrained to whether it administered and managed its generation resources in compliance with the Commission’s Good Utility Practice and reasonable manager standards.23 Specifically, SDG&E argues that only keeping up with maintenance obligations is essentially all that is required to meet these standards.24 However, Scoping Issue One is broader than SDG&E contends. SOC 4 requires utilities to prudently administer all contracts and generation resources and dispatch the energy in a least-cost manner.25 In an ERRA Compliance proceeding, the Commission’s review typically extends to whether the utility administered and managed its generation resources and contracts in compliance with all applicable rules, regulations, and Commission decisions, including but not limited to SOC

4.26 No Commission decision has limited the applicability of this review solely to utility maintenance and upkeep of generation resources, and nothing prevents the Commission from 20 Rule 13.6(a).
21 Id.
22 A.23-06-002, Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling, p. 2 (October 31, 2023). 23 Joint CCA Exhibit C.
24 Joint CCA Exhibit C; A.23-06-002, Direct Testimony of Kevin Counts, p. KMC-5 (June 1, 2023).
25 D.02-10-062, Conclusion of Law 11 (October 24, 2002). 26 See e.g., A.21-06-004, Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling, Scoping Issue One (August 13, 2021).
9 including SDG&E’s management of its RA resources in its evaluation of SDG&E’s management of its generation resources more generally.

Moreover, the “Good Utility Practice” standard is also broader than SDG&E asserts.

SDG&E’s compliance with the Good Utility Practice standard includes the need to exercise proper management of its entire business, not just to maintain its utility-owned generation (“UOG”). This includes making reasonable efforts to ensure SDG&E gets value for all its resources, a key consideration in determining whether the utility has prudently managed its generation portfolio. “Good Utility Practice” was defined in D.02-12-069 as:
“[A]ny of the practices, methods and acts engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the electric utility industry during the relevant time period, or any of the practices, methods and acts which, in the exercise of reasonable judgment in light of the facts known at the time the decision was made, could have been expected to accomplish the desired result at a reasonable cost consistent with good business practices, reliability, safety and expedition. Good Utility Practice does not require the optimum practice, method, or act to the exclusion of all others, but rather is intended to include acceptable practices, methods, or acts generally accepted in the Western Electric Coordinating Council region.”27
In addition, the reasonable manager standard holds utilities to a standard of reasonableness based upon facts that are known or should have been known at the time.28 The act of the utility should “comport with what a reasonable manager of sufficient education, training, experience and skills using the tools and knowledge at his disposal would do when faced with a need to make a decision and act.”29 While the reasonable manager standard is generally applied to evaluate the reasonableness of outages and contract administration,30 nothing constrains the Commission to applying the Good Utility Practice standard solely within the prism of utility maintenance 27 D.02-12-069, Attachment A, p. 5 (December 19, 2002) (emphasis added). 28 D.90-09-088, 37 CPUC2d 488, 499 (September 25, 1990). 29 D.90-09-088 at 499.
30 See D.16-04-006, pp. 11-12 (April 7, 2016) (describing the application of the reasonable manager standard in ERRA compliance proceedings).
10 decisions. Rather, SDG&E takes an unduly narrow view of the scope of this proceeding, its obligations, and the Commission’s authority. In a compliance proceeding, it is appropriate to review the prudence of portfolio management – including whether the utility maximized the value of its resources for the benefit of its customers. Contrary to SDG&E’s suggestion, the Good Utility Practice standard can appropriately be applied to this evaluation.

SDG&E’s prudent management of its generation portfolio, specifically the efficiency of its sales of excess RA, directly contributes to the rates its customers ultimately pay. It is crucial that the Commission is able to scrutinize these practices, as “[a]ll charges demanded or received by a public utility for any product or service shall be just and reasonable.”31 To ensure rates are just and reasonable, “it is critical that the Commission have access to full and accurate information from utilities to carry out the Commission's responsibilities to set equitable, just, and reasonable rates.”32
If excess RA is not sold or retained to meet RA compliance obligations, it is valued at zero in Indifference Amount.33 In turn, the Unsold RA valued at zero increases the overall Indifference Amount, which is a key factor in determining the PCIA rates paid for by both bundled and unbundled customers. The reasonableness of SDG&E’s attempts to sell excess RA during the summer of 2022 is relevant to issues in scope in this proceeding because that issue ultimately impacts the entries SDG&E ultimately made to its balancing accounts, including the PABA, during the 2022 record period. Given the direct correlation excess RA has to customer rates, Good Utility Practice would dictate that SDG&E make all reasonable attempts to sell excess RA to lower costs for customers.
31 D.21-01-017, p. 17 (January 21, 2021); see also D. 19-12-041, p. 217 (emphasis added). 32 D.19-12-041, p. 217 (emphasis added).
33 D.19-10-001, Attachment B (October 10, 2019).
11 In addition, the reasonableness of SDG&E’s attempts to sell excess RA has larger implications for other load-serving entities (“LSEs”) in its service territory. During the summer of 2022, LSEs faced a severely constrained RA market, which led to difficulty procuring sufficient RA to meet compliance obligations. The Enforcement Actions Spreadsheet updated by the Commission’s Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division tracks RA citations issued to various entities for deficiencies meeting RA compliance requirements.34 As shown in Figure 1, there was a sharp increase in the number of citations for RA deficiency for LSEs in 2019, and elevated levels continued through 2022.

Figure 1
34 California Public Utilities Commission Consumer Protection Enforcement Division, Enforcement Actions Spreadsheet (2023). Accessible at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/consumer-protection-and-enforcement-division/documents/ueb/energy-citations/2023/july-2023-ueb-energy-citations.pdf.

RA Citations by LSE Type
25 20
....

C: 15 :,
0 u
C:
0 .,
.s
u 10
5 I • I
2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 ■ CCA ■ IOU I Other
12 Under these market conditions, maximizing RA sales to interested LSEs is a Good Utility Practice to both lower costs to customers and ensure that regional RA needs are able to be met.

That SDG&E reported substantial amounts of excess RA given the constrained RA market conditions suggests that further Commission scrutiny is needed into whether SDG&E reasonably offered enough RA for sale.

The information requested by the Data Requests, i.e, the details of SDG&E’s solicitation materials, RA positions, and accepted versus rejected bids, along with the additional information requested in Data Requests 2.02, 2.03, and 2.05, will provide the Commission and the Joint CCAs with the information necessary to evaluate the reasonableness of the large amounts of excess RA SDG&E reported for the summer of 2022. Whether SDG&E acted reasonably in conducting solicitations to attempt to sell this excess RA speaks directly to Scoping Issue One — whether SDG&E prudently managed its generation portfolio. Without the requested information, the Joint CCAs will be unable to determine whether the large amount of excess RA, and its ultimate impact on the PABA, were the result of prudent portfolio management. Moreover, the requested information is essential to the Commission’s ability to evaluate whether the resulting rates are just and reasonable.

Finally, there is no other venue in which the Commission can review this issue. SDG&E’s RA solicitations are governed by its Bundled Procurement Plan (“BPP”).35 Pursuant to § 454.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, transactions in compliance with an approved BPP are not subject to an after-the-fact reasonableness review of the utility’s actions.36 That is, if SDG&E followed its BPP, the Commission cannot later require SDG&E to record different amounts to the PABA if it believes SDG&E should have sold RA for a higher price. 35 See SDG&E Advice Letter 3738-E, Attachment B, Original Sheet 31-33 (April 15, 2021). 36 See Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 454.5(d)(2).
13 However, parties can contest whether SDG&E followed SOC 4 and prudently managed its resources in making those RA sales through the ERRA Compliance application and review process. Parties can contest if SDG&E’s actions during the record year are in compliance with the BPP. In fact, if the question involves actions the IOU should have taken, but did not pursue, the only available venue for parties to utilize is the ERRA Compliance Application and review process. Consequently, the Joint CCAs are limited to raising the question of whether SDG&E followed its BPP and prudently conducted solicitations to sell excess RA to this ERRA Compliance proceeding. While opportunities for oversight of particular contracts or decisions made with respect to BPPs are limited, the Commission’s procurement review framework allows the Joint CCAs’ narrowly tailored inquiry.

B. The Commission’s Well-Established Confidentiality Practices Adequately Protect SDG&E.

SDG&E argues that because the Joint CCAs participate in RA solicitations, it would be improper for SDG&E to disclose confidential and commercially sensitive information regarding SDG&E’s sales strategy and other solicitors’ bidding strategies.37 SDG&E asserts that disclosing the requested information could provide an undue competitive advantage, and therefore is not subject to disclosure.38
The Commission is bound by constitutional due process requirements,39 which require that parties be given the opportunity to be heard.40 The Commission has often stated that it applies the elements of due process that the U.S. Supreme Court articulated in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.:
37 Joint CCA Exhibit B, SDG&E Response to SDCP and CEA DR 001 at 5-6. 38 Id.
39 People v. Western Airlines Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621; Railroad Commission of California v.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (1938) 302 U.S. 388.
40 People v. Western Airlines Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d at 632. 14 An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process . . . is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. [Citation omitted.] The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, [citation omitted], and must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance. . .41
While the “opportunity to be heard” does not require the exact same process or procedure in every case, the key is that parties have an opportunity to participate at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.42
The balance between allowing for meaningful stakeholder participation and providing adequate protections for confidential information has been the subject of extensive legislative and Commission consideration.43 To this end, the Commission issued D.06-06-066 establishing confidentiality procedures for the disclosure of market sensitive information.44 The procedures set forth in D.06-06-066 are intended to further the Commission’s policy directive of open decision-making and to ensure that stakeholders are afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in accordance with the Commission’s constitutional requirements.45 The Joint CCAs’ ability to meaningfully participate in ERRA proceedings is critical because the outcome of these proceedings has a direct impact on the rates their customers pay. To participate and advocate on behalf of their customers, the Joint CCAs have always complied with the confidentiality practices established in D.06-06-006. These procedures ensure that information is not directly disclosed to entities that participate in market transactions, but that they are still afforded the opportunity to be heard in Commission proceedings. As in every other ERRA 41 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 314; see e.g., D.01-10-036, Order Modifying Decision 01-09-060 and Denying Rehearing as Modified. 42 See e.g., Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego Section (2001), 94 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1071-1072.
43 D.06-06-066, p. 2 (June 29, 2006).
44 See generally, D.06-06-066.
45 D.06-06-066 at 2-3.
15 proceeding the Joint CCAs have participated in, the Joint CCAs have engaged Reviewing Representatives that will abide by the confidentiality practices the Commission has adopted to ensure that adequate protections are in place for SDG&E’s confidential information. SDG&E provides no explanation as to why these well-established procedures do not provide sufficient protection in this case and should therefore be rejected by the Commission. No CCA market participant will have any access to SDG&E’s market-sensitive information.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Joint CCAs respectfully request that the Commission grant this Motion, direct SDG&E to produce information responsive to the Data Requests by 5:00 p.m. on December 8, 2023, and provide any other relief the Commission deems reasonable.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alissa Greenwald
Alissa Greenwald
Keyes & Fox LLP
1580 Lincoln St., Suite 1105
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (913) 302-5567
E-mail: [email protected]

November 22, 2023 Counsel to San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance
1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of San Diego Gas & Electric
Company (U 902-E) for Approval of: (i)
Contract Administration, Least-Cost Dispatch
and Power Procurement Activities in 2022, (ii)
Costs Related to those Activities Recorded to
the Energy Resource Recovery Account,
Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account, Power
Charge Indifference Adjustment
Undercollection Balancing Account, Transition
Cost Balancing Account, and Local Generating
Balancing Account in 2022, and (iii) Costs
Recorded in Related Regulatory Accounts in
2022.

Application 23-06-002
(Filed June 1, 2023)

EXHIBIT A
[PROPOSED] RULING GRANTING MOTION OF THE

JOINT CCAS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
On November 22, 2023, San Diego Community Power (“SDCP”) and Clean Energy Alliance (“CEA”) (together, the “Joint CCAs”) filed a Motion to Compel San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”) to produce information fully responsive to the Joint CCAs’ Data Requests

1.09, 1.10, 2.02, 2.03, and 2.05 (the “Data Requests”).

The Motion requests an order directing SDG&E to provide all information responsive to the Data Requests by 5 p.m. on December 8, 2023. The Joint CCAs have demonstrated that the Data Requests are proper in light of the scope of issues in this proceeding and a complete response should be provided forthwith by that date and time.

IT IS RULED THAT the Motion of the Joint CCAs to Compel SDG&E to produce information responsive to the Data Requests is granted in its entirety. SDG&E shall provide the requested information to the Joint CCAs by 5 p.m. on December 8, 2023.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________, 2023 at San Francisco, California. ______________________________
Administrative Law Judge

EXHIBIT B
JOINT CCA’S DATA REQUESTS 1.09, 1.10, 2.02, 2.03, 2.05, AND SDG&E’S RESPONSE

SDG&E RESPONSE TO
SDCP AND CEA DR001
RESPONDED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
1 SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.09:

Response to SDCP/CEA to SDG&E 1.09:

EXHIBIT B

Page 1 of 5 ends

MCE Board of DirectorsMarch 21, 2024

MCE Board of Directors
March 21, 2024