• Subtitle
New SV Clean Energy
PowerPoint Template
SVCE 2026 Integrated Resource
Plan Preview
SVCE Board of Directors Meeting
June 10, 2026
Maren Wenzel, Director of Regulatory Policy and Planning Liyang Wang, Senior Forecasting and Planning Analyst
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Agenda and Purpose
Today’s Agenda:
Review CPUC IRP purpose and requirements
Summary of proposed SVCE 2026 IRP and development process Proposed Preferred Conforming Plan draft results
Proposed Alternate Conforming Plan draft results
Summary of additional analysis
Key narrative components
Action from Board of Directors
Staff will provide an overview of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) process and share draft results intended for use in SVCE’s 2026 IRP which is due to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on August 10th.
Item 3
PRESENTATION
CPUC IRP Summary and Purpose
The IRP is first and foremost a compliance requirement. • The IRP’s purpose is to ensure that collectively load serving entities (LSEs) are on track to develop an electric system which maintains reliability while achieving the state’s clean goals. • LSE’s individual IRPs are “stitched together” to form a Preferred System Plan which is used for CAISO transmission planning processes and evaluation of long-term system needs.
• The CPUC generally requires individual IRPs be filed by jurisdictional LSEs every two years.
• The CPUC skipped the 2024 IRP cycle making this the first IRP SVCE has filed since 2022.
• SVCE staff does not consider this to be a binding plan; actual resource build out will depend on the market and future CPUC actions.
Electric Sector
Emissions
2030 30 MMT
2035 25 MMT
2040 17 MMT
2045 8 MMT
Item 3
PRESENTATION
IRP Requirements
The IRP filing is composed of three parts:
1) Clean System Power Tool (CSP)
• Used to assess compliance with CPUC set emissions targets. • Calculates LSE’s hourly system emissions for key study years (2030, 2035, 2040, 2045). • Relies on CPUC modelled emissions and curtailment.
2) Resource Data Template (RDT):
• Provides contract data for online, in development and planned resources. • Calculates compliance with reliability needs using annual Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) metrics, not the Slice-of-Day metrics used in Resource Adequacy program. 3) Narrative:
• Document describing modeling process and results.
• Provides opportunity for LSEs to discuss risks, costs and viability of its portfolios. • Requires LSEs discuss many specific issues including impacts to disadvantages communities, potential central procurement activities and more.
Item 3
PRESENTATION
IRP Requirements
The CPUC mandates many of the inputs and assumptions LSEs must use, which may not align with SVCE’s view of the future.
• SVCE staff relied on CPUC assumptions for candidate resource profiles, future system emissions and reliability metrics.
• CPUC prices and resource availability informed, but did not dictate, SVCE modeling inputs. • While several CPUC assumptions do not align with SVCE staff world view, the most impactful is the load forecast.
The CPUC’s 2035 load
forecast increased 60%
relative to last cycle, mainly
driven by electric vehicle
adoption and data centers.
Item 3
PRESENTATION GWh
9,000
Load Forecast (GWh)
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
z^A rp) z>\ zvV zA zj^ rP) zyA z^Eb rp) nV tA ^9
2026 IRP Load
Forecast
—SVCE Operating
Forecast
2022 IRP Load
Forecast
SVCE’s Proposed IRP
Staff is proposing SVCE submit two formal cases as part of its IRP. • Preferred Conforming Plan: Utilizes SVCE’s current board adopted clean targets • 75% RPS by 2030, 100% RPS by 2035 (and beyond)
• 106% clean each year, measured annually
• Alternate Conforming Plan: Assumes 50% of SVCE’s load moves to a minimum compliance product, while remaining load maintains product that meets current board targets • Proxy for “levers” discussions held with the Board in recent months • SVCE also plans to provide information – but not full RDT/CSPs – on other scenarios in its narrative:
• SVCE internal load (optional): To show impact of forecast uncertainty • CPE Allocations (required): To show impact of potential central procurement allocation of geothermal, long duration storage and offshore wind on portfolio results Item 3
PRESENTATION
Process Overview
SVCE’s modeling is substantially complete but work is ongoing. • Baseline
resources
• Candidate
resource
information
(shape, capacity
factor, price)
• Load
• Targets: RPS,
GHG-free,
emissions,
reliability
Inputs
• Selection of least
cost resource
build to meet
load and targets
based on model
calibration with
CPUC
compliance tools
Capacity
Expansion Model
• Adjust resource
build to align
with CPUC’s
CSP and RDT
tools
Post-Processing
• Cost and risk
analysis
• Reliability
analysis
• 24x7 emissions
view
Additional Analysis
• Final RDT and
CSP for each
conforming plan
Compliance
Deliverables
• Study Design
• Study Results
• Includes review
of viability and
cost
• Action Plan
• Lessons
Learned
Narrative
Development
File
Aug.
10 Complete In Process
Item 3
PRESENTATION
• Subtitle
New SV Clean Energy
PowerPoint Template
Results of Recommended
Conforming Plans
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Results of Preferred Conforming Plan
Model results indicate SVCE will need to acquire nearly 4 GW of additional capacity by 2045. 100
40 30 50
290 300
110 120
160
80 80
10 80
125 70
13 60
100
200
200
190 113
5 10
10 77
25 55
25 118
20 10
70 25
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 MW Annual Capacity Build - Preferred Conforming Plan
Solar + Storage Onshore Wind Solar Geothermal Storage 8h Storage 4h Storage 12h Cumulative Build
2030 2035 2040 2045
Hybrid - Solar 100 140 220 810
Hybrid - Storage 100 140 220 810
Onshore Wind - 470 835 848
Solar - - 560 863
Geothermal 5 102 102 325
Storage 4h - - - 10
Storage 8h - 20 20 20
Storage 12h - 70 70 95
Total 205 942 2,027 3,780
Item 3
PRESENTATION
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 GWh Modelled Portfolio Mix
Baseline PPA Baseline ST New PPA New ST IRP Load Forecast (Retail Sales) SVCE 2026 Operating Forecast (Retail Sales) Results of Preferred Conforming Plan
Much of SVCE’s existing PPA portfolio will roll off by the late 2030s, necessitating new contracts.
* DCPP is not included per CPUC’s requirement.
Results add extra
energy in years with
binding emissions
constraint.
Due to curtailment, total
energy needed can
exceed load.
Model is hitting
constraint of 35% short-term energy in most
years and exceeds limit
in some early years.
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Preferred Conforming Plan Reliability
Results
Staff “right-sized” short-term fossil RA purchases to achieve reliability needs per CPUC requirements.
• On average SVCE meets 60% of its
RA needs with clean resources.
• In all years except 2043 and 2044
SVCE uses less than its load share
of the CPUC’s assumed available
gas fleet. In 2043 and 2044 it is over
by small margin (>15 MW)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 SVCE RA Mix
Natural Gas All Other RA
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Preferred Conforming Plan Emissions and
Annual Results
CSP results meet emissions targets but fall short of SVCE’s view of annual RPS results.
SVCE Target 0.442 0.351 0.300 0.155
Emissions Total Unit 2028 2030 2035 2040 2045
CO2 MMt/yr 0.29 0.44 0.35 0.29 0.15
PM2.5 tonnes/yr 20 30 26 20 12
SO2
tonnes/yr 3 4 3 2 1
NOx tonnes/yr 35 46 42 21 14
Renewable and GHG-Free % Unit 2028 2030 2035 2040 2045
LSE Supply, before curtailment and
exports
GWh 5,182 5,765 8,106 9,584 10,789
Curtailment GWh (438) (644) (1,351) (1,862) (2,099)
Retail Sales GWh 4,738 5,479 6,786 7,692 8,198
RPS-Eligible Delivered Renewable GWh 2,756 3,089 5,767 6,163 6,566 GHG free GWh 4,584 4,976 6,655 7,794 8,761
RPS-Eligible Delivered Renewable
Percentage % of retail sales 58% 56% 85% 80% 80%
GHG-free Percentage % of retail sales 97% 91% 98% 101% 107% CSP assumes nearly
20% of energy lost to
curtailment by 2045
Curtailment
assumptions result in
RPS below SVCE
modelled results
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Results of Alternate Conforming Plan
The Alternate Plan reduces build by over 600 MW relative to the Preferred Plan. 100
40 150
300
110
25 115 103 85 85 80
160
70 3
65 100
100
30 100 65
100
95 5
10 10
82 30
50 15
108
20 100
65 5
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 MW Annual Capacity Build - Alternate Conforming Plan
Solar + Storage Onshore Wind Solar Geothermal Storage 8h Storage 4h Storage 12h Cumulative Build
Difference
from
Preferred
2030 2035 2040 2045 Plan
Hybrid - Solar 100 140 140 590 (220)
Hybrid - Storage 100 140 140 590 (220)
Onshore Wind - 468 833 835 (13)
Solar - - 265 655 (208)
Geothermal 5 67 67 279 (46)
Storage 4h - - - 100 80
Storage 8h - 20 20 20 10
Storage 12h - 65 65 70 (25)
Total 205 899 1,529 3,139 (641)
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Alternate Conforming Plan Reliability
Results
The lower build quantities in this scenario require more “leaning” on the system. • On average SVCE meets approximately
55% of its RA needs with clean
resources.
• In 2042-2044 the portfolio requires as
much as 85 MW more than its load
share allocation of the gas fleet.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 SVCE RA Mix
Natural Gas All Other RA
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Alternate Conforming Plan Emissions and
Annual Results
SVCE Target 0.442 0.351 0.300 0.155
Emissions Total Unit 2028 2030 2035 2040 2045
CO2 MMt/yr 0.29 0.44 0.35 0.28 0.15
PM2.5 tonnes/yr 20 30 26 19 12
SO2
tonnes/yr 3 4 3 2 1
NOx tonnes/yr 35 46 43 27 14
Renewable and GHG-Free % Unit 2028 2030 2035 2040 2045
LSE Supply, before curtailment and
exports
GWh 5,182 5,765 7,418 8,636 9,731
Curtailment GWh (438) (644) (755) (949) (1,079)
Retail Sales GWh 4,738 5,479 6,786 7,692 8,198
RPS-Eligible Delivered Renewable GWh 2,756 3,089 5,031 5,563 5,864 GHG free GWh 4,584 4,976 6,610 7,806 8,771
RPS-Eligible Delivered Renewable
Percentage % of retail sales 58% 56% 74% 72% 72%
GHG-free Percentage % of retail sales 97% 91% 97% 101% 107% Curtailment is lower
in alternate case due
to fewer clean
purchases.
Achieved RPS ~10%
lower than Preferred
Case.
The Alternate case has lower curtailment but also significantly lower RPS achieved.
Item 3
PRESENTATION
• Subtitle
New SV Clean Energy
PowerPoint Template
• Additional Analysis &
Scenarios
• Narrative Topics
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Results of Alternate Load Scenario
Using SVCE’s internal load forecast dramatically decreases build requirements.
Note: Results developed using ARS model and do
not reflect post-processing to achieve GHG targets.
(CPUC assigned targets are dependent on load
forecast).
Cumulative Build
Difference from
2030 2035 2040 2045 Preferred Plan
Hybrid - Solar 100 140 140 140 (670)
Hybrid - Storage 100 140 140 140 (670)
Onshore Wind 0 225 405 650 (198)
Solar 0 0 80 490 (360)
Geothermal 5 34 34 34 (297)
Storage 4h 0 0 0 0 (10)
Storage 8h 0 20 20 20 (0)
Storage 12h 0 0 0 0 (95)
Total 205 559 819 1,474 (2,299)
100
40 110
55 60
80 95
5 80 80
5 80
35 15
10 20
45 100
100
65 100
5 10
10 9
20 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 MW Annual Capacity Build - Internal Load Forecast
Solar + Storage Onshore Wind Solar Geothermal Storage 8h Item 3
PRESENTATION
Results of CPE Scenario
CPUC provided allocations of offshore wind (177 MW) and 100-hr storage (21 MW) were added to the portfolio. SVCE’s Preferred Plan already included the necessary 12-hr battery and geothermal so no additional capacity for those resources was added.
Cumulative Build
Difference
from Preferred
2030 2035 2040 2045 Plan
Hybrid - Solar 100 140 220 810 -
Hybrid - Storage 100 140 220 810 -
Onshore Wind - 435 800 825 (23)
Solar - - 160 650 (200)
Geothermal* 5 59 59 302 (29)
Storage 4h - - - 10 (10)
Storage 8h - 20 20 20 10
Storage 12h* - 70 70 95 -
Storage 100h^ - 21 21 21 21
Offshore wind^ - - 69 177 177
Total 205 885 1,641 3,722 (51)
Note: This scenario was developed without use of ARS; staff forced in CPE allocations provided by CPUC and reduced other resources until emissions targets were aligned with preferred plan. *Denotes CPE Resource that model had already selected
^Denotes new CPE Resource
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Additional Pending Analysis
Staff will be working on several additional analyses over the coming months for inclusion in the 2026 IRP.
• Cost analysis for each portfolio
• Risk analysis for each portfolio
• Reliability Analysis
• Comparison of IRP metrics to Resource Adequacy program Slice-of-Day metrics • Transmission viability
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Key Narrative Points
Staff is still developing the narrative but will likely highlight several themes. • Value of clean, firm resources & need for additional transmission build out • Geothermal in portfolio may manifest as other emerging technology, not modelled
• Load forecast uncertainty
• Planning challenges associated with uncertainty of CPE actions • Alignment issues between IRP and RA reliability metrics • Need to finalize development of the Reliable Clean Power Procurement Program (intended to replace “order by order” procurement) Item 3
PRESENTATION
Request of Board of Directors
Staff is seeking approval from the Board of Directors to:
1. Adoption of the proposed Preferred Conforming and Alternate Conforming Plans (“Plans”) for submission in SVCE’s 2026 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP); and
2. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to finalize and submit for approval to the California Public Utilities Commission SVCE’s 2026 IRP by the due date of August 10, 2026.
Item 3
PRESENTATION
22 Appendix
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Core Inputs and Assumptions
All modeling included several key assumptions
1) Baseline resource list includes all PPAs under contract as of 3/1/2026. 2) Forced in capacity to serve as a proxy for requirements under the latest procurement order (D.26-02-057)
3) Removal of DCPP allocations for all years, per CPUC guidance 4) Portfolio must purchase between 15% and 35% of its energy from the short-term market each year.
5) Limits to wind procurement, both in state and out of state per guidance from Procurement Team. 6) Used internal price forecasts for new resources.
7) Used CPUC resource profile shapes and capacity factors. 8) Limited short-term RA purchases to SVCE’s load share of CPUC reference system plan fossil fleet.
Item 3
PRESENTATION
Required Narrative Sections
The CPUC is prescriptive as to what must be discussed in the narrative Item 3
PRESENTATION
Preferred Conforming Plan Energy Mix
0 2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Annual GHG-Free Position (MWh) - by Type
Geothermal Onshore Wind Solar New GHG Attributes New RECs Existing RECs Existing GHG Attributes GHG Constraint Item 3
PRESENTATION
Results of Alternate Conforming Plan
0 2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Annual GHG-Free Position (MWh) - by Type
Geothermal Onshore Wind Solar New GHG Attributes New RECs Existing RECs Existing GHG Attributes GHG Constraint Item 3
PRESENTATION
24x12 Heat Maps: 2035
Preferred Conforming Plan:
Alternate Conforming Plan:
2035
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 47 65 64 56 57 64 64 53 70 19 -5 10 10 5 4 10 14 9 60 44 52 75 74 75 57 2 46 72 66 59 62 70 70 73 55 31 22 11 4 11 13 2 21 4 64 42 49 67 64 79 61 3 43 58 51 46 50 46 46 68 5 -10 -3 5 4 4 2 0 4 11 33 36 39 34 36 28 23 4 33 27 13 12 20 32 32 3 1 2 -1 0 1 2 1 2 4 6 20 29 25 4 8 6 8 5 30 22 18 16 20 21 21 4 -6 -3 0 1 1 2 1 1 3 -2 5 15 2 -17 -4 -16 -8 6 37 35 25 19 26 20 20 -7 -5 -6 -8 0 0 0 1 1 3 6 -6 1 10 -1 4 5 3 7 94 77 64 62 70 47 47 15 0 -2 -1 -2 0 1 1 4 8 15 68 98 39 26 48 62 80 8 123 103 90 85 93 87 87 40 7 12 12 7 8 7 7 12 19 35 103 98 51 61 96 100 108 9 125 110 95 89 95 113 113 59 6 4 9 5 3 6 9 14 26 68 138 75 72 78 120 125 119 10 91 81 68 64 71 85 85 72 8 2 1 6 4 5 6 9 13 51 66 54 80 73 86 77 82 11 51 75 62 51 51 61 61 68 -14 -20 -27 -29 1 3 6 5 19 77 61 43 63 78 72 72 55 12 76 92 85 74 72 83 83 86 72 40 20 31 35 29 33 35 39 94 83 72 88 104 93 107 98 2035
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 16 37 37 29 30 36 36 20 83 63 49 38 22 15 13 15 17 11 26 11 19 43 42 45 26 2 29 55 51 44 46 53 53 57 86 81 66 42 29 28 24 18 26 16 52 27 33 50 46 61 43 3 22 41 34 29 32 24 24 72 46 23 17 7 6 6 4 3 7 14 39 22 24 17 19 9 3 4 14 7 -8 -11 -3 14 14 18 8 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 4 6 18 12 9 -13 -10 -12 -11 5 7 -2 -1 0 6 15 15 8 6 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 6 8 -14 -33 -22 -36 -29 6 16 10 -3 -8 -2 8 8 -3 -2 1 -1 0 0 0 1 1 3 6 -1 3 -4 -16 -11 -12 -16 7 88 73 59 55 61 61 61 41 28 33 20 7 0 1 1 4 8 15 104 118 34 21 43 57 75 8 124 104 88 81 88 92 92 81 69 64 62 28 19 17 16 23 29 41 140 109 57 67 101 105 111 9 119 105 90 82 87 104 104 92 86 97 87 50 33 17 13 18 30 95 144 68 66 73 116 121 114 10 80 71 58 53 60 71 71 90 79 76 45 21 14 12 9 11 18 65 52 41 67 60 74 64 69 11 30 55 44 34 34 42 42 54 41 50 41 28 17 11 13 14 24 75 42 23 42 57 50 51 34 12 52 70 65 54 52 61 61 60 88 92 74 79 67 53 53 47 52 78 57 46 63 81 70 84 75 Item 3
PRESENTATION
24x12 Heat Maps: 2045
Preferred Conforming Plan:
Alternate Conforming Plan:
2045
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 38 45 36 23 23 35 35 55 80 27 4 10 8 8 0 12 5 -3 34 40 53 57 62 57 44 2 59 57 40 21 22 34 34 69 56 32 9 12 -8 3 6 -10 6 -11 10 29 37 46 55 57 54 3 35 29 19 8 16 23 23 56 -20 -1 8 6 4 3 0 -2 -2 -2 -7 22 21 33 33 30 28 4 11 2 -5 -4 -1 -1 -1 -27 7 2 -2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -4 11 12 13 12 12 20 5 2 0 -3 -3 -2 -4 -4 -5 -8 -3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 -10 -2 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 6 1 -7 -4 -3 -2 -7 -7 -4 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -20 -3 -3 1 0 6 7 54 33 17 11 15 4 4 1 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 55 58 55 53 51 57 8 100 74 52 42 47 57 57 -1 -11 -8 0 3 2 3 4 3 4 8 60 87 84 88 96 92 96 9 115 86 62 49 54 78 78 29 -19 -28 -6 -4 1 1 2 3 3 19 125 107 101 101 114 110 113 10 69 51 33 25 33 51 51 62 -7 -18 2 0 1 3 5 1 3 17 70 70 77 75 72 65 69 11 58 53 42 22 18 33 33 63 -17 -15 -6 -2 -3 -2 -1 -5 -1 20 53 58 63 65 68 62 60 12 76 79 68 54 50 61 61 80 92 62 25 38 31 28 21 23 22 48 76 80 87 89 87 87 79 2045
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 15 18 7 -7 -6 7 7 29 123 111 55 40 25 20 14 16 9 -3 2 11 23 26 31 27 19 2 48 39 17 0 1 15 15 55 107 87 59 37 13 19 15 5 10 -3 -9 9 16 24 36 39 41 3 19 8 -2 -10 2 10 10 70 51 25 11 9 7 6 3 1 1 0 -6 4 2 14 15 16 16 4 -4 -10 -17 -12 -8 -7 -7 -6 9 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -4 -1 0 2 -1 -1 4 5 -3 -6 -8 -6 -6 -7 -7 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 -10 -7 -11 -10 -10 -11 -12 6 -13 -20 -10 -6 -5 -8 -8 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 -24 -17 -15 -10 -11 -8 7 36 17 5 -1 3 9 9 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 58 43 41 39 41 45 8 88 61 40 30 35 61 61 49 47 42 27 17 11 7 8 9 6 13 79 83 78 80 86 87 93 9 101 73 49 38 42 66 66 88 95 84 41 19 7 7 2 3 3 32 128 102 93 93 101 101 106 10 54 36 19 12 20 38 38 100 93 69 32 14 9 7 5 5 5 30 57 56 60 61 60 57 60 11 47 36 21 2 -2 12 12 58 66 59 28 12 8 6 6 4 5 17 35 40 43 43 48 44 46 12 60 58 46 32 28 38 38 58 132 141 106 85 58 47 38 37 36 34 53 57 63 64 63 63 59 Item 3
PRESENTATION
1 New SV Clean Energy
PowerPoint Template
Subtitle
Stress Test Analyses
Board of Directors Meeting
June 10, 2026
Item 4
PRESENTATION
2 Main Areas of Discussion
1. Review of the enterprise risk
management (ERM) framework and
key drivers of financial risks
2.5-yr Financial Base Case Forecast
Update • Updated projections compared to
Mid-Year
• Uncertainties surrounding the
financial projections
3. Stress test construction • By design, extreme but plausible
4. Compare the updated base case with
the stress test scenario
5. Actions & Next Steps
Purpose
Present findings of the stress test
analyses
Item 4
PRESENTATION
3 1. Stress Test is Part
of SVCE’s
Enterprise Risk
Management
(ERM) framework
Item 4
PRESENTATION
4 SVCE’s Planning & Budgeting Process
SVCE Mission: Reduce dependence on fossil fuels by
providing carbon -free, affordable, and reliable electricity and innovative programs for the SVCE community.
Comprehensive assessment of risks and
opportunities to optimally achieve mission
Organization -wide priorities and
alignment toward achieving the mission
Funding in alignment with achieving
the strategic focus areas
Budget
Strategic Focus
Areas
Enterprise Risk
Management (ERM)
Item 4
PRESENTATION
5 Key Components of the ERM Framework
Risk
Register
• Record of the organization’s risks and opportunities – “Living Document”
• Identify current and additional planned mitigations
• Identify risk owner
Risk Matrix
• Risk Rubric. Assess the likelihood and consequence of risk events • Calibrate risks
• Identify risk tolerance – level of acceptance
Stress
Tests
• Model scenarios (financial position, systems, and processes) of interrelated risks that are extreme but plausible
• Develop appropriate risk management strategies, including the adequacy of reserves
Item 4
PRESENTATION
6 2. 5-yr Financial Base
Case Forecast
Update
• Updated projections
compared to Mid -Year
Item 4
PRESENTATION
7 Reserve Outlook Change from Mid -Year Budget
Comparing Base Cases
$ Millions BCFY 2026 CFY 2027 CFY 2028 CFY 2029 CFY 2030 CFY 2031 Updated Base Case Reserve Balance 544 316 308 268 228 228 Mid-Year Budget Reserve Balance 492 292 271 205 154 N/A Change 52 24 37 63 74 N/A
* Earmarked funds are unspent SVCE Program Funds and Remaining Building Funds. • Mid-year budget converted to calendar fiscal
year (CFY) convention
• Reserves and Days Cash on Hand (DCOH)
improve from the Mid -year projections
• 2026 projections improve from lower
expected Financial Security Requirement
(FSR)* and power supply costs resulting
from lower market prices
• Future years’ improvements result from a
reduction in power supply expenses from
updated portfolio positions
* SVCE provides FSR to PG&E because PG&E serves as
the Provider of Last Resort (POLAR) for SVCE customers
Item 4
PRESENTATION
8 3. Stress Test
Construction • By design, they are
extreme, but
plausible scenarios
Item 4
PRESENTATION
9 Current Market Price Collapse
Prices are currently in a drawdown roughly equivalent to the 2008 financial crisis. -57%
-86%
-79%
Item 4
PRESENTATION
10 Are Current Market Prices Already at Stressed Level? • Previous slides demonstrate that, from recent high prices, the current market prices are at stressed levels
• At these current prices, our base 5 -year financial projections have deteriorated significantly • Why the additional stress test with further collapse in prices? • Prudent risk management should consider the possibilities that financials can still worsen • Do not know if prices have reached a bottom
• During the 2008 crisis, prices kept falling beyond what appeared initially as low • “Black Swan” events can cluster and cascade
• New market dynamics – renewables with zero marginal cost • Stress scenarios are to test our financial resiliency and are not a prediction or forecast • Stress tests are designed to be extreme but plausible • Current collapse in prices demonstrates the plausibility of our past stress tests Item 4
PRESENTATION
11 CPUC Procurement Order Stress Scenario
• CPUC procurement order for expected data
center load growth
• Stress scenario assumes that the load doesn’t
materialize, leading to stranded costs
• In this case, the order would negatively affect
power market prices, causing MTM losses
• Added hypothetical portfolio of PPA’s to
portfolio assuming a ramp up of 33%
requirement in 2030, 67% in 2031, and 100%
from 2032 onwards
Item 4
PRESENTATION
12 Affordability Focus Stress Discussion
• Heightened discussion in recent years on the
importance of power affordability to customers
• Increasing public pressure to decrease electricity
rates
• Political, Regulatory, Legislative and/or Customer
interests
• Can occur both in isolation and in conjunction with
other stress scenarios
• Risk mitigation: monitor sentiment closely,
especially as 2026 election approaches
Note: Staff determined that too much uncertainty remains to assert a quantitative stress on this topic.
Item 4
PRESENTATION
13 PCIA Reopening Stress Discussion
• Ongoing CPUC proceedings on amendments to
PCIA calculation
• Currently three tracks that address RA MPB,
REC’s vintages, and wholesale changes
• Impacts could be across a spectrum of positive
to negative for CCAs
• Relatively uncorrelated with other stress
scenarios
• Risk mitigation: SVCE staff actively engaged in
OIR proceedings
Note: Staff determined that too much uncertainty
remains to assert a quantitative stress on this
topic.
Item 4
PRESENTATION
14 4. Comparing the
Updated Base
Case with the
Stress Test
Scenarios
Item 4
PRESENTATION
15 Reserve Outlook Under Base and Primary Stress Scenario: P1 Price Collapse • Updated Base Case - SVCE draws ~$63 million a
year on average from reserves under the current
operating framework
• Financially, SVCE is well -positioned to continue to
monitor market developments and implement any
of the financial levers that staff have been
developing with the Finance and Administration
and the Executive Committees and with the Board
of Directors.
• Under the base case scenario
• DCOH remains above the minimum threshold of 120
• DCOH remains ~279 through the end of 2028
• Under the stress case scenario
• DCOH remains above the minimum only through the
end of 2028 and falls below it from 2029 onwards
$
Millions BCFY2026 CFY2027 CFY2028 CFY2029 CFY2030 CFY2031 Primary Stress Scenario: P1 Price
Collapse Reserve Balance 564 264 147 (9) (136) (251)
Updated Base Case
Reserve Balance 544 316 308 268 228 228
Change 20 (53) (162) (276) (364) (479)
Note: DCOH and reserve balances exclude cash from projected FSR postings.
Item 4
PRESENTATION
16 Reserve Outlook Under Alt. Stress Scenario: Procurement Order • Identical assumptions to price collapse stress scenario (P1 prices) except for the addition of hypothetical PPA’s
• 33% of total order MW in 2030 and 67% in 2031
• Added hypothetical PPA’s to current portfolio:
• Geo: 20 MW
• Solar: 130 MW
• OOS Wind: 20 MW
• BESS: 130 MW
• Modeled after current PPA assets
• Stranded cost impact of the unfulfilled load:
• ~$20m increase in power supply costs in 2030 and ~$38m in 2031
• 2032 and beyond (ongoing) is approximated at ~$57m/yr based on P1 price collapse scenario prices
• Under the stress case scenario
• Lower reserves than the price collapse scenario from 2030 onwards
• DCOH remains above the minimum only through the end
of 2028 and falls below it from 2029 onwards Note: DCOH and reserve balances exclude cash from projected FSR postings.
Item 4
PRESENTATION
17 5. Recommendations
Item 4
PRESENTATION
18 Actions & Next Steps
• With 2027 projected to be the worst financial year, monitor market developments shaping the outcome of 2027 PCIA and PG&E generation rates and changes in 5 -year forward market prices
• The 2027 budget will also be up for approval in December, when there’s more certainty on next year’s rates
• Seek Board approval of the Financial Levers Playbook and implement as necessary
Item 4
PRESENTATION
19 New SV Clean Energy
PowerPoint Template
Subtitle
Appendix
Item 4
PRESENTATION
20 PCIA and PG&E Gen Rate impact SVCE Rates and therefore Revenues Review of Key Financial Risk Drivers SVCE Gen Rate
SVCE
discount
PG&E Gen Rate: PCIA
Biggest contributor to revenue risk: PCIA and PG&E Generation Rate Uncertainty.
Revenues
PCIA
PCIA
Revenues
PG&E Rate
PG&E Rate
• Revenues decline when prices decline
• Loss of revenues far exceeds savings from power purchases • Power procurement savings dampened by existing hedges • SVCE has adjusted its energy portfolio to mitigate this impact to the extent possible, and as best estimated by SVCE
Item 4
PRESENTATION
21 Big Contributor to PCIA and PG&E Generation Rate
Uncertainty is Market Prices
For the most part, this year’s actual prices and the forecast of next year’s Market prices will impact next year’s rates . • Can not bank the current year’s margin
• Current year’s gain may be returned the following year through higher PCIA and lower PG&E generation rates
• Deviations between actual and forecast costs
are tracked in balancing accounts and trued
up the following year
• For financial/reserve planning, greater focus
is placed on the next two years’ projections
Item 4
PRESENTATION
22 Other Uncertainties: Modeling & Other Risks
• Financial projections are made with the best available data and information • Market (Forward) Prices
• NewGen Strategies & Solutions model to forecast PCIA and PG&E Generation Rates • PCIA is a “black box”
• PG&E generation portfolio data needed to forecast PG&E generation rates are not available • SVCE power supply portfolio positions and other operating expenses can change • PG&E, with PCIA and its generation portfolio data, cannot accurately predict next year’s rates when it issues its mid -May ERRA forecast • Regulatory and Legislative changes have a significant impact • PCIA Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) Proceeding
• Track One decision had a significant impact on 2026 rates due to change in rules around RA MPBs • Track Two and Track Three decisions could further introduce changes affecting PG&E rates for future years Item 4
PRESENTATION
23 Financial Stress Test Description & Key Assumptions
• Forward Energy Prices Collapse
• Around one percentile level or less (P1)
• 44% drop from the current low forward prices
• Reasonable in terms of relative comparison to observed commodity price drops from the 2008 financial crisis
• Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Resource Adequacy (RA) Prices Drop as well
• 72% drop for RPS and 24% drop for RA from the current low forward prices
Item 4
PRESENTATION
24 Financial Stress Test Description - cont’d
• PCIA Uncertainty
• Ongoing PCIA proceeding further increases financial uncertainty • Both stress and base case are based on the current methodology • Customer Discount for both the Base Case and Stress Case • Customer discount is modeled at 1%
• FSR
• Staff modeled the FSR postings based on the maximum within each year and assumed cash wasn’t returned until the following year
• Maximum posting of $69m in the base case and $46m in the price collapse scenario (both in 2027) • Customer Un -collectibles Increase
• Bad debt is 0.75% in the base case and 2% in the stress case Item 4
PRESENTATION
25 2008 Financial Crisis Period Natural Gas Price
Collapse
50 to
65%
Drop
Actual realized prices were much lower than the forwards prior to the collapse Historical Natural Gas Forwards before price collapse
Item 4
PRESENTATION
26 FSR Assumptions
In the updated base case and all stress tests, EOY FSR postings are based on the required postings from January 1 st in the following year Item 4
PRESENTATION
27 Modeled Energy Price Collapse
The modeled 44% energy price collapse is within the observed 50 -65% decline in natural gas prices during the 2008 financial crisis period.
44%
Drop
Item 4
PRESENTATION
28 Updated Base Case Result Summary
Base Case as of March 21
• Sale of any excess monthly RA
• 1% discount to PG&E rates
• Bad debt is 0.75%
• FSR posting of up to ~$69m (in 2027)
• Investment yields in the 3 -4% range
year-over-year
• 2% of revenues represented in “other
costs” to fund programs
• No CARE/FERA monthly bill credit
Updated Base Case Days -Cash -On-Hand Reserve Levels
Item 4
PRESENTATION
29 Primary Stress Test Result Summary
Price Collapse Stress Scenario – P1 Prices
• No sale of any excess monthly RA
• 1% discount to PG&E rates
• Bad debt is 2%
• FSR posting of up to ~$46m (in 2027)
• Investment yields in the 3 -4% range year -
over-year
• 2% of Revenues represented in ‘other
cost’ to fund programs
• No CARE/FERA monthly bill credit
Financial Stress Test Case Days -Cash -On -Hand Reserve Levels Item 4
PRESENTATION
30 Alt. Stress Test Result Summary
Price Collapse Stress Scenario – P1 Energy, Historical Low RA, RPS, CF Prices • No sale of any excess monthly RA
• 1% discount to PG&E rates
• Bad debt is 2%
• FSR posting of up to ~$58m (in 2027)
• Investment yields in the 3 -4% range year -
over-year
• 2% of Revenues represented in ‘other
cost’ to fund programs
• No CARE/FERA monthly bill credit
Financial Stress Test Case Days -Cash -On -Hand Reserve Levels Item 4
PRESENTATION
31 Alt. Stress Test Result Summary
CPUC Procurement Order Stress Scenario
• Hypothetical PPA’s added to portfolio
• P1 prices
• No sale of any excess monthly RA
• 1% discount to PG&E rates
• Bad debt is 2%
• FSR posting of up to ~$46m (in 2027)
• Investment yields in the 3 -4% range year -over-year
• 2% of Revenues represented in ‘other cost’ to fund
programs
• No CARE/FERA monthly bill credit
• Ongoing stranded cost impact of the unfulfilled
load is approximated at ~$57m/yr based on P1
price collapse scenario prices
Procurement Order Stress Test Case Days -Cash -On -Hand Reserve Levels Item 4
PRESENTATION
32 All Stress Scenarios Results Summary
Note: DCOH and reserve balances exclude cash from projected FSR postings.
Item 4
PRESENTATION
33 Mid-Year Budget - Prior FY Convention
Item 4
PRESENTATION
• Subtitle
New SV Clean Energy
PowerPoint Template
Approving the Financial Levers
Playbook
Board of Directors Meeting
June 2026
Item 5
PRESENTATION
2 • Recap levers and feedback
• Defining the playbook
• How the playbook will work
• Timeline
Agenda
Item 5
PRESENTATION
3 • This is risk mitigation – knowing generally
what we will do if needed
• Specific “split product” approach would be
finalized with the Board in the future
• Balance – trying to manage competitiveness
with mission, impact, and value proposition
Key Takeaways Today
Item 5
PRESENTATION
4 • Enact operational cost savings and efficiencies
• Maintain current levels of clean, programs, and rate discount for 2026 and 2027 planning
• Introduce new split product offering to give customer choice, assess opt-out risk and interest (only if needed):
• One cheaper than PG&E – e.g. less clean and no program participation • One same as current default but at premium
• Scale up premiums for both products over time (only if needed) • Incorporate a small reduction/pause in programs (only if needed) Staff Recommends the Board Approve the
Financial Levers Playbook ("Playbook")
Item 5
PRESENTATION
Recap
5 Item 5
PRESENTATION
6 Recap: Core to Mission is Reducing Carbon
(locally and in supply)
MISSION: reduce dependence
on fossil fuels by providing
carbon free, affordable and
reliable electricity and innovative
programs for the SVCE
community.
Customer-Facing
Value Proposition
Item 5
PRESENTATION
7 Recap: SVCE’s Load is Mostly Non-Residential;
T&D Has Driven Bill Increases
Item 5
PRESENTATION
8 Recap: Eventually, Increasing Rates May be
the Only Way to Eliminate Gap
Item 5
PRESENTATION
9 Recap: Continue to Find Ways to Close the
Gap, Including Pre-Pays and Opex Efficiencies
Data Management
9%
PG&E Service Fees
4%
Salaries and Retirement
44%
Professional Services
25%
Marketing & Promotions
5%
General and Administration
13%
Operating Forecasted Expense, 5-yr Avg
• Non-Supply Operating
Expenses represent
~10% of Budget
• ~$40M per year; ~1
cent per kWh
• 25%-50% non-discretionary expenses
• Continued savings
potential from prepays
Item 5
PRESENTATION
10 Recap: Feedback on Levers
Continue with current approach for now – ideally don’t have to change Mitigate in a balanced way across levers, if needed
Maintain other elements of the value proposition knowing that moving rates above PG&E could be inevitable (if this forecast becomes the new normal) Item 5
PRESENTATION
11 Recap: Feedback on Levers
Clean Electricity Local Decarb
Programs
Rate Relative to
PG&E
Current 106% clean energy on
annual sales
Allocate ~$7M/yr; drawing
~$19M/yr from reserves
for approved work
1% discount (including
PCIA) on the generation
side
Feedback for Future • Important to mission
• SVCE core role
• Limited ongoing $ impact
• Important to mission
• Only SVCE is doing in a
big way, locally
• Limited ongoing $ impact
• Not directly solving
affordability
• CARE/FERA discount is
more meaningful
• Discount feels important
to competitiveness
• Ongoing $ impact
Continue with current approach for now – ideally don’t have to change Mitigate in a balanced way across levers, if needed
Maintain other elements of the value proposition knowing that moving rates above PG&E could be inevitable (if this forecast becomes the new normal) Item 5
PRESENTATION
12 Recap: Feedback on Levers
Clean Electricity Local Decarb
Programs
Rate Relative to
PG&E
Current 106% clean energy on
annual sales
Allocate ~$7M/yr; drawing
~$19M/yr from reserves
for approved work
1% discount (including
PCIA) on the generation
side
Feedback for Future • Important to mission
• SVCE core role
• Limited ongoing $ impact
• Important to mission
• Only SVCE is doing in a
big way, locally
• Limited ongoing $ impact
• Not directly solving
affordability
• CARE/FERA discount is
more meaningful
• Discount feels important
to competitiveness
• Ongoing $ impact
Continue with current approach for now – ideally don’t have to change Mitigate in a balanced way across levers, if needed
Maintain other elements of the value proposition knowing that moving rates above PG&E could be inevitable (if this forecast becomes the new normal) Item 5
PRESENTATION
13 Recap: Feedback on Levers
Clean Electricity Local Decarb
Programs
Rate Relative to
PG&E
Current 106% clean energy on
annual sales
Allocate ~$7M/yr; drawing
~$19M/yr from reserves
for approved work
1% discount (including
PCIA) on the generation
side
Feedback for Future • Important to mission
• SVCE core role
• Limited ongoing $ impact
• Important to mission
• Only SVCE is doing in a
big way, locally
• Limited ongoing $ impact
• Not directly solving
affordability
• CARE/FERA discount is
more meaningful
• Discount feels important
to competitiveness
• Ongoing $ impact
Continue with current approach for now – ideally don’t have to change Mitigate in a balanced way across levers, if needed
Maintain other elements of the value proposition knowing that moving rates above PG&E could be inevitable (if this forecast becomes the new normal) Item 5
PRESENTATION
14 • 98% of customer accounts are on GreenStart
~60% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) + 100% clean @ 1% discount to PG&E • GreenPrime
100% RPS @ ~$4/month premium compared to GreenStart
• GreenPrime Direct
Custom arrangement for large commercial customers – must cover all costs, be 100% clean, and commit to a term/contract
Recap: New Product Offering to Maintain a
Rate Below PG&E (initially, if needed)
Current:
New “Split” Product Concept:
• Move the default GreenStart to a premium and create new opt-down at a discount to PG&E (e.g. less clean, program ineligibility) Item 5
PRESENTATION
15 • Would need to refine what the opt-down product includes • Could also consider a new opt-up, like GreenPrime, for customers who want to fund programs or supply projects additionally/voluntarily • Could let each city decide on an auto-enrollment product for their customers • Consider different decisions for different customer classes (e.g. residential vs. small/medium business vs. large commercial)
Recap: Other Ideas for Introducing a New
Product
If playbook is approved, next step would be to develop by mid-2027 a playbook-aligned mix of SVCE’s products – would come back to the Board for approval
Item 5
PRESENTATION
16 Ava, Central Coast, CleanPowerSF, MCE, Pioneer, Sonoma, Redwood Coast, and SJCE
• A few are currently below PG&E (0.5% to 10%)
• Many are currently above PG&E (10% to 60%)
• Mix of customer blends, with some up to ~60% residential • Default product for most is <100% clean
• Most have participation rates in the mid-90% range
Case Study: SJCE moved to an 8% premium for two years, also creating an opt-down product at parity with PG&E. Now are back to a discount. They remain at 97% enrollment.
Brief Overview of Other CCA Rates – Different
Supply Mixes, Different Priorities, Different Rates
Item 5
PRESENTATION
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Days Cash on Hand (DCOH)
DCOH Forecast by End of Year (incl. unspent program dollars) 17 SVCE’s World Has Been Changing Since
March
Max
Target
Min
Base Case
Item 5
PRESENTATION
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Days Cash on Hand (DCOH)
DCOH Forecast by End of Year (incl. unspent program dollars) 18 SVCE’s World Has Been Changing Since
March
Max
Target
Min
Base Case
Item 5
PRESENTATION
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Days Cash on Hand (DCOH)
DCOH Forecast by End of Year (incl. unspent program dollars) 19 • FY26 financial improvement, FY27
worsening
• New rate proceedings
• Large load legislation
• Updated IRP runs
• New procurement orders
• Credit rating improvement
• Integrated Decarb Plan
discussions
• Continued review of opex and
increased efficiencies
SVCE’s World Has Been Changing Since
March
Max
Target
Min
Base Case
Item 5
PRESENTATION
Defining the playbook
20 Item 5
PRESENTATION
21 • Enact operational cost savings and efficiencies
• Maintain current levels of clean, programs, and rate discount for 2026 and 2027 planning
• Introduce new split product offering to give customer choice, assess opt-out risk and interest (only if needed):
• One cheaper than PG&E – e.g. less clean and no program participation • One same as current default but at premium
• Scale up premiums for both products over time (only if needed) • Incorporate a small reduction/pause in programs (only if needed) Staff Recommends the Board Approve the
Financial Levers Playbook
Item 5
PRESENTATION
How this playbook approval
will work
22 Item 5
PRESENTATION
23 1. Approve playbook recognizing priorities and impact between levers
2. Staff develops potential product mix options for Board approval
3. Staff monitors financial situation
4. At future budget decisions, staff will propose changes to the products offered, if needed (along with alternatives)
Direction Today, Action in the Future
Item 5
PRESENTATION
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Days Cash on Hand (DCOH)
Example 1 DCOH Forecast by End of Year (incl. unspent program dollars) 24 Scenario:
• Next few years happen as forecasted; staff design alternate, if-needed product mix and Board approves • FY28 introduces new premium clean product and an opt-down discounted product • To address continued reserves decline, FY29 sees both products raise rates above PG&E Example 1: Action in FY28 and Beyond
Base Case
Max
Target
Min
Example Forecast
Item 5
PRESENTATION
Timeline and
discussion
25 Item 5
PRESENTATION
Today we are seeking approval of the
playbook
Exec Committee
Oct 2025
Board
(introduction to
concepts)
Dec 2025
Exec Committee
Finance & Admin
Board
(specific modeled
scenario)
Feb/Mar 2026
Exec Committee
Finance & Admin
Board
(final decisions on
preferred approach)
May/Jun 2026
Board Study Session
(initial feedback on
values and priorities)
Dec 2025
Board
(approve
product mix
options,
incorporate in
budgets)
Sep 2026+
*Timeline subject to change
Item 5
PRESENTATION
27 • September 2026: Approve Stub Budget (Oct to Dec 2026) • October 2026: Integrated Decarbonization Roadmap Approval • December 2026: CFY2027 Budget Approval
• June 2027: final Board approval on product mix options • June 2027: Midyear Budget Adjustment
• December 2027: CFY 2028 Budget Approval
Next Steps After Playbook Approved
Item 5
PRESENTATION
28 • Enact operational cost savings and efficiencies
• Maintain current levels of clean, programs, and rate discount for 2026 and 2027 planning
• Introduce new split product offering to give customer choice, assess opt-out risk and interest (only if needed):
• One cheaper than PG&E – e.g. less clean and no program participation • One same as current default but at premium
• Scale up premiums for both products over time (only if needed) • Incorporate a small reduction/pause in programs (only if needed) Staff Recommends the Board Approve the
Financial Levers Playbook
Item 5
PRESENTATION
Thank you
29 Item 5
PRESENTATION
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Days Cash on Hand (DCOH)
Example 2 DCOH Forecast by End of Year
(incl. unspent program dollars)
30 Other Examples – Playbook Provides Optionality
Base Case
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030
Days Cash on Hand (DCOH)
Example 3 DCOH Forecast by End of Year
(incl. unspent program dollars)
Base Case
Scenario:
• Same forecast
• Introduce new product a year earlier
• Don’t increase rate in FY29
Scenario:
• Forecast improves in later years
• Introduce new product in FY28, still
• Move both products to a discount in FY29
Max
Target
Min
Example Forecast
Max
Target
Min
Example Forecast
Item 5
PRESENTATION