1 / 7

Parties Comments

Parties Comments. Data Sources In general, supplement RETI with sensitivities on cost (SDG&E, CalWEA); in specific, consider decreases in technology costs (GPI, CalWEA, CLECA)

lalasa
Download Presentation

Parties Comments

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Parties Comments • Data Sources • In general, supplement RETI with sensitivities on cost (SDG&E, CalWEA); in specific, consider decreases in technology costs (GPI, CalWEA, CLECA) • Discussion point: From an analytical results perspective, what is the main driver for considering lower technology costs – higher MWs of specific renewables, lower portfolio cost/rate impact, or both? • Discussion point: Given the approach presented by E3 on possible 33% RPS cases (high wind, high solar, high DG), does this suffice or do parties have something else in mind?

  2. Parties Comments (cont’d) • Data Sources • Renewable procurement outside CA (i.e., WECC-wide) should be considered (All Parties), but focus should be on CA-only (DRA) • Discussion point: RETI will produce data for some out-of-state resources (BC, WA, OR, NV, AZ, Northern Baja), but these may need to be enhanced to be consistent with in-state RETI resources and supplemented with data from other states (WY, UT, NM). • Should one, some or all 33% RPS cases assume: • CA-only? • RETI geographical scope? • WECC-wide resource availability? • How should use of RECs factor into the case assumptions?

  3. Parties Comments (cont’d) • Data Sources • Resource cost should be based on net cost (PG&E) including benefits (LSA, GPI) such as market value (PG&E) • Discussion point: RETI uses economic rank methodology which includes benefits (i.e., energy & capacity value). Is this sufficient?

  4. Parties Comments (cont’d) • Analytical Approach • Supply curve approach is adequate (PG&E, SCE, CalWEA, CLECA)or should be augmented with (production cost or reliability) modeling studies (SDG&E, DRA, UCS/NRDC) • Discussion point: Given that CAISO’s 33% integration study will do sophisticated modeling based on outputs (resource build-outs) from staff’s analysis, is a supply curve approach acceptable at this stage?

  5. Parties Comments (cont’d) • Analytical approach • Study period should go beyond 2020 (UCS/NRDC) with limitations (GPI and DRA) or should stop at 2020 (SDG&E) • Discussion point: What analytical approach should we use to study beyond 2020, if at all?

  6. Parties Comments (cont’d) • Scenarios Approach • In general, parties thought it reasonable to consider alternative RPS scenarios, with one exception (CARE). • Staff should explain distinctions between scenarios, plans, and resource build-outs in its proposed analysis (PG&E). • The IOUs (PG&E, SCE) emphasize that 33% by 2020 should be an output, not an input of the analysis; • Optimal percentage should be driven by cost relative to other GHG abatement measures (SCE, SDG&E); • Timeframe should be tied to lead times for transmission (SCE, SDG&E) and mitigation of environmental & regulatory hurdles (SCE) • Discussion point: Do parties agree, or should percentage (33%) and timeframe (by 2020) be assumed as inputs?

  7. Parties Comments (cont’d) • Anything else?

More Related