WEBVTT 1 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:17.189 Kicking off another year. Great. Thank you Lynn for doing that. Ok, so, yeah, this is, this is kind of our, our kickoff for the upcoming compliance year, which. 2 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:00:17.189 --> 00:00:37.189 Believe it or not is the 2027 compliance year. So this workshop, is likely not new to folks or if it is, just kind of a reminder setting the stage. We're holding this, we hold this annually, it's a bit more informal than our typical. 3 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:00:37.189 --> 00:01:11.990 Cool kind of proceeding workshops. We used to call this office hours, but we're just gonna go over any changes or updates that are going to be effective in the coming compliance year. The, and that that'll kind of be the scope of the discussion and presentation today. So we're not really gonna get into a policy discussion or get into anything in the, in the 2028 compliance year, though, maybe that is more of the exciting stuff, but we're really just gonna kind of focus on what we, what we passed in the in the track one decision. 4 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:01:11.990 --> 00:01:27.360 Then just a few months ago that will be effective for year ahead and month ahead. Compliance filings in 2027, and then of course open to questions or discussions as they come up. 5 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:01:27.360 --> 00:01:47.360 We are already a bit into the process for 2027. We're holding this a few weeks I think later than we typically do, but it's about at the same time of the process. So, we'll touch a little bit more on compliance dates at the end, but just to get everyone kind of on the same page and maybe. 6 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:01:47.360 --> 00:02:07.360 Just as a reminder for folks if you haven't seen, any of the LSCs that are, that are on this call should have already received their initial RA requirements and allocations for the 2027 year. With that, you should have also received the most updated template with some of the changes that we'll go over later today. 7 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:02:07.360 --> 00:02:36.140 We've also posted and distributed the draft MRD for 2027 out to the service list and are currently taking informal comments on that as well as, as well as the template and allocations. And I think that should be just about it that we've received so far. We also circulated the draft 2027 filing guide, and kind of everything that that comes along with that, the template you. 8 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:02:36.140 --> 00:03:00.410 Your guide as well. But I won't get too far ahead of ourselves. We'll, we'll come to that later. And then maybe just one additional thing before we get into content, I think this, this always presents a pretty good opportunity to give just a small shout out to to the RA team and kind of everyone across the commission and CEC that that support. 9 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:03:00.410 --> 00:03:20.410 That the work that we do today that will go through and, and everyone of course on this call who participates in it. But I just want to give just a brief shout out to to to my team, to Ryan Greezer, Elijah Cohen, Lily Chao isn't here today, but she's kind of a big, a big help in the RA program. 10 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:03:20.410 --> 00:03:41.480 Eric Deprey, Allie de Lorenzo, Natalie Rashard, Paul Nelson, of course, Jamie Gannon, who really runs the whole show. Yeah, we couldn't, we couldn't be going through this RA year or or any year without all of their work son. 11 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:03:41.480 --> 00:04:01.480 Applause to to all of you. Of course Rob Hansen as well, who's working endlessly and always on our slice and day showing template, and working with a lot of LLCs and kind of troubleshooting everything. So a big thanks to you and and of course to Lynn Marshall, with. 12 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:04:01.480 --> 00:04:34.640 Who does kind of an incredible amount of work preparing load forecast each year, which we'll get into in just a second. But yeah, before I get too far into the slides, just wanted to make sure I take the opportunity to kind of say thanks to everyone and to all of our LSCs and stakeholders and everyone who stays engaged in this implementation work and our proceeding work as well, pretty, pretty invaluable to getting us kind of through, through the years and and through all this policy development. So thank you all. 13 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:04:34.640 --> 00:04:57.079 As well, but yeah, I'll I'll get off the soapbox and and we'll start getting through, get through the material. So, great. So here's the agenda for today. We're gonna start I'm gonna start by passing it over to Lynn in just a second to cover the 20. 14 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:04:57.079 --> 00:05:17.079 27 hourly load forecast, and the adjustment process. And then we will review some of the policy and implementation updates from the D 26 of seven oh eight the track one decision. We'll go through and highlight a couple of either the. 15 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:05:17.079 --> 00:05:44.929 More kind of technical updates or just kind of a brief reminder of of some of the changes that will be in effect in 2027. We won't cover everything that got passed out in the decision, just gonna kind of highlight, highlight things if there's anything that we miss, feel free to, to jump in with questions but we have kind of more updated guidance, and updates in the. 16 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:05:44.929 --> 00:06:02.069 Filing guide per usual and of course in the decision. And then we're gonna go through, Ryan will take us through a review of the LSC showing template updates. We're really gonna focus on the slice of day template updates which we're kind of. 17 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:06:02.069 --> 00:06:22.069 Most of the changes that we made for this coming year. And so Ryan's gonna kind of highlight some of those changes, how to navigate those and we'll I think walk through the template, and that'll be pretty much it. We'll go through questions and discussion. Thanks to everyone who submitted questions ahead of time. We should. 18 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:06:22.069 --> 00:06:42.069 We've incorporated those, so we'll touch kind of on all of those as we go through to the extent that they made sense for the scope and the presentation today. If you haven't already, if there were kind of more individualized questions that came in, I've either already reached back out to you or will do so, so. 19 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:06:42.069 --> 00:07:17.059 So, if we miss a question that feels kind of general and and for the group, feel free to jump in with any of those. Otherwise you have already heard or will hear back from this. And then I just have one more boring slide and then Lynn I'll pass it over to you. But just some logistics, I think everyone's pretty used to this by now, but all of the attendees are muted. If you have any questions, please raise your hand or use the chat function. We'll be monitoring the chat so we can jump in and read questions along. 20 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:07:17.059 --> 00:07:37.059 Cloud or we can unmute you, and you can jump in with, with any questions. I think just for the sake of kind of time and flow of the presentation, let's kind of do, we can do some clarifying questions in the moment as they come up, but let's maybe leave the more. 21 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:07:37.059 --> 00:07:57.059 Substantive questions or maybe anything that might prompt some discussion to the end. We'll have ample time. I think this is maybe scheduled for 2 h and I think that we'll maybe hit one, with just kind of some, some regular updates. We don't have too, too much substance to go through today, so. 22 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:07:57.059 --> 00:08:17.059 Plenty of time for questions, so don't, don't be anxious about that. I will say though, because we only have Lynn in the beginning, or at least we'll want to let her, let her go after her presentation, we can do any kind of load forecast, questions at the. 23 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:08:17.059 --> 00:08:43.367 End of lynn's, presentation. So unless there's any questions about the logistics or agenda or anything, I'll I'll stop talking and and pass it pass it along ok great maybe ok great Lynn, it's all you. 24 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:08:43.367 --> 00:09:03.769 Okay, go ahead. You can go ahead him good afternoon, everybody. I'm just gonna give kind of a high level overview of the process and results for the forecast this year. So you can go to the next slide. We did already send out to each LSC sort of a work. 25 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:09:03.769 --> 00:09:31.399 Book that has their detailed forecast adjustments and we're always happy to talk to individual lses about that so for today I'll just give a an overview and some, some context. So this process starts off with the reference forecast derived from the IPER, the planning scenario, and we're disaggregating those to POC jurisdictional only. 26 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:09:31.399 --> 00:09:52.099 We also developed, developed a direct access reference forecast and then conversely the residual, the IOUs and CCAs. So those are that DA reference forecast is based on recent loads and current DA enrollment levels and the change. 27 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:09:52.099 --> 00:10:14.839 This year the last few years SCE has been good bit below the cap, 5 % or more, and that's changed, so it's we've adjusted up the DA reference forecast for SCE to reflect those higher enrollment levels. PG and E in San Diego are always pretty near the cap. So that's unchanged. 28 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:10:14.839 --> 00:10:43.649 So, those, those are our kind of control totals. So let's go on to the next slide and we'll talk. Oh, ok, we've got some slides showing this year's reference forecast compared to last year and this is the POC jurisdictional service area and pretty close, but you will notice on the coincid on the system peak hours, those late afternoon hours, there is. 29 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:10:43.649 --> 00:11:03.649 Pretty noticeful increase, so there's some hours five 700 mW higher. So there's an impact there. So going on to the next slide which is SCE on the other hand overall it's lower. 30 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:11:03.649 --> 00:11:26.789 A lot lower in May and but overall we had a lower energy in, and starting and similar starting point for SE and the forecast. So that flows through here. And then the next slide is San Diego service area, and once again it is a lower overall, and there's a. 31 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:11:26.789 --> 00:11:42.569 Summary file posted in the RA forecast section that has the whole reference forecast posted or it should be posted, so that's available for the full year. So this just provides some context on how these results maybe. 32 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:11:42.569 --> 00:12:01.709 Feel a little different than last year. Alright, so next slide, this is an overview of the adjustment process we go through to get from the submitted to the final adjusted forecast that are consistent with the IPERB. 33 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:12:01.709 --> 00:12:21.709 Now in the track two decision this year, part of that, there's an appendix B that has a detailed description of all the steps we go through, so I'm not gonna go through all of that here. And again, we're always happy to talk to individual LSCs about your forecast, so I'll just hit a. 34 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:12:21.709 --> 00:12:43.669 Sort of a few of the most significant points here. We start off with an LSE specific adjustments and I'll talk more about that on the next slide because that's kind of the most significant impact that, that, that can affect your forecast. The coincidence adjustment is a reminder under slice of day now. 35 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:12:43.669 --> 00:13:03.669 Since LSCs are submitting hourly forecasts, this coincidence adjustment is now net of what whatever within day coincidence is already reflected in the submitted forecast. So that can mean LSCs may have a zero coincidence adjustment if they typically peak on the the. 36 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:13:03.669 --> 00:13:23.999 Same day as the system and we have some load credit adjustments, very CPUC approved specific categories, and then we move on to the prorated steps and we now have a two step process where we're 1st adjusting. 37 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:13:23.999 --> 00:13:43.999 Direct access to the direct access reference and I use the CCAs together to that reference forecast within 5 %, and that's done for each TAC area. And then after that step, we move to the final prorated to within 1 % of the TAC reference forecast, right? 38 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:13:43.999 --> 00:14:03.689 So you can go to the next slide and I'm gonna show, this is a comparison, oh wait, forgot. We're gonna talk 1st about LSE specific adjustments, and there's a three step process. 39 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:14:03.689 --> 00:14:23.689 We go through 1st is to look at the load modifiers that were submitted to verify that they're reasonable and consistent with what's an allowed load modifier. We don't do the forecast adjustment process at the load modifier level. 40 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:14:23.689 --> 00:14:43.689 So it's just not practical, not all LSCs even do their forecast that way. And at the end of the day, what matters is their forecast in aggregate. But, but that said, because of the interest in the data center aspect, we did, you know, review the aggregate the the data center load modifiers. 41 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:14:43.689 --> 00:15:04.289 And that load was substantially accounted for. It did not match if you're familiar with the CEC form 11C which has some energy breakouts by LSE that made assumptions about data center load. The RA forecast didn't really. 42 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:15:04.289 --> 00:15:24.289 Match that, it's a very dynamic situation, but it did not appear to be a problem in terms of having cost allocation impacts. And we did understand that those at the project level, things change over the time that we've developed our. 43 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:15:24.289 --> 00:15:48.829 The Forecast to when people are submitting, so we weren't trying to enforce at the LSE level a specific amount of energy that had to be accounted for from data centers. So the next we move on to assessing the aggregate the you can go, you go back to the next slide, not quite there. I was talking about 2nd bullet. 44 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:15:48.829 --> 00:16:10.549 On the previous slide, the adjustments to monthly peak and energy, so we look at the LSC forecast in terms of their total monthly energy for a slice of day and their monthly peak, looking at a weather normalized peak and making adjustments to there. At that point reshaping the submitted forecast. 45 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:16:10.549 --> 00:16:31.759 And then after that we then do a comparison with hourly profiles, again, normalized to their to the new forecast, and that can help target more specific hourly adjustments that are really needed to identify gaps between the submitted and the. 46 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:16:31.759 --> 00:16:57.649 Reference forecast. All right, now let's go on to the next slide and this shows ahead myself will show shows the submitted forecast versus the reference. Now, in a perfect forecasting world, since LSCs are submitting their non coincident forecast, you'd actually expect them to be the sum of those before any coincident adjustment to be. 47 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:16:57.649 --> 00:17:17.649 Here than the reference forecast maybe by a couple of percent. But that's not what's happening here, at least in the summer months, things are a little better in the winter. But we, we do see in PG and E here, there's quite significant gaps between the LSC, the forecast we've received from the LSC. 48 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:17:17.649 --> 00:17:34.649 Is in the reference forecast. In, in PG and he actually we have this sort of morning peak in the Hyper forecast and that's not showing up in the LSE forecast, so percentage wise, that's where some of the larger gaps are, but then you know. 49 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:17:34.649 --> 00:17:53.519 During the peak hours still, we have 80 90 % of shortfalls there. Let's go to the next slide which shows SCE, things are much better here, much less unclaimed load, but there is a. 50 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:17:53.519 --> 00:18:13.519 Gap in the afternoon peak hours in, in some of those those summer months. Not so much September, that was really clean, but July, August, October is a, a big gap there. And then in San Diego, let's go to the next slide. 51 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:18:13.519 --> 00:18:34.789 And a little different picture, but here here the gaps are really centered around the hours of behind the meter PV production. So it looks like different assumptions about how much behind the meter PV you're getting during the day. So. 52 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:18:34.789 --> 00:19:04.439 So those, let's go on to the next slide and I'm going to show a summary of the adjustments and this is for the whole TAC area. But what happens with these large gaps between the submitted reference means the LSC specific adjustments have a whole lot more work to do. So you can see in some of these months June, July, October, where we had that gap, we have to. 53 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:19:04.439 --> 00:19:24.439 Scrutinize the LSE forecast more carefully and make those LSE specific adjustments this so this shows that the system peak hour, you can go to the next slide shows the similar table, but it shows the energy for the whole. 54 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:19:24.439 --> 00:19:53.239 Day of the month. And again, 12 % in June and you know much of that is in PG and E where we had such a large shortfall. October is pretty large, much better situation in the winter months, so different, much smaller differences and forecast assumptions there. So you all have these for the individual LSC, so as I said. 55 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:19:53.239 --> 00:20:02.129 We can discuss those in more detail if you want to understand what's going on with your forecast. So next slide. 56 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:20:02.129 --> 00:20:18.569 Let's we'll be working on the final forecast late August and we'll send those out in early September and you'll get the forecast and also the monthly, the month ahead forecast. 57 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:20:18.569 --> 00:20:33.929 Workbook that is needed for the month ahead forecast filing, I think in February, the we'll have some, these summary tables should be posted on the RA compliance website. 58 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:20:33.929 --> 00:20:50.399 And as I said, we're always happy to talk to LSCs about your specific forecast where we can get into a little more detail. So that with that I'll open it up to any questions or comments. 59 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:20:59.528 --> 00:21:11.369 I'm gonna give me one sec. I should be able to unmute you. Alright, go ahead Lauren, you should be unmuted. 60 "Lauren Carr" (1635662848) 00:21:11.369 --> 00:21:21.239 Hi, thank you. This is Lauren Car from Cal cca and I have a couple of questions back on slide eleven. 61 "Lauren Carr" (1635662848) 00:21:21.239 --> 00:21:40.307 I was wondering if you could speak a little bit more to 2nd sub bullet there where it says data center load was in aggregate substantially accounted for. If you could explain a little bit more what that means and, like how data center load was allocated. 62 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:21:40.307 --> 00:21:55.559 This year. Well, we didn't allocate it. We we don't do the RA forecast is not done at the load modifier level. We, I'd still be working on it. We'd never get it done, right? It's just not practical. So we LSCs submit their forecast. 63 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:21:55.559 --> 00:22:15.559 And, we review them and we were really focused on what's the total forecast Cause what I found in the past I can look at the individual load modifiers, the PV forecast or this or storage whatever and it'll say, well, this looks a little high and that looks a little low, but you can't just look at one load modifier, you have to look at the base forecast. 64 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:22:15.559 --> 00:22:35.849 And all of them to to do that process fairly and at the end of the day, what matters is the aggregate forecast in terms of cost allocation, right? What I'm referencing there is that we do ask the LSCs to document what's in their submitted forecast and what I could see from the. 65 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:22:35.849 --> 00:22:55.849 Data center load that was in the forecast that was submitted. Lsc's work including data center load in their forecast. It didn't match the specific assumptions that we had for individual LSCs back in January, but we're aware that the kind of mix in the pipeline and when things come on. 66 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:22:55.849 --> 00:23:14.429 Line is is changing but it didn't appear to be, and we didn't really have, I think there was only a hundred and 60 something megawatts in PG and E for the whole service area for for this RA here. So it didn't appear appear to be a problem. 67 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:23:14.429 --> 00:23:35.309 In terms of, you know, this large shortfall, when you look at this slide that shows the gap between the submitted forecast and the reference forecast, that's not a data center issue, right? That's other forecast assumptions. So we're not doing allocation of data center load, right? Lscs are doing their own forecasts. 68 "Lauren Carr" (1635662848) 00:23:35.309 --> 00:23:51.947 Okay, that's really helpful. And then you kind of spoke to this already. I was gonna ask like what are the drivers of the gap? I think for the San Diego area, you said it was differences about behind the meter PV were there other things for PG and E or do we know? 69 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:23:51.947 --> 00:24:00.179 I think it's a com I think PV is always a contributor, then you. 70 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:24:00.179 --> 00:24:20.179 And like the gaps do be are generally larger in the summer and shoulder meds, so assumptions about weather can be can be a big driver. We did our IPER forecast for PG and he did have some good amount of. 71 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:24:20.179 --> 00:24:39.510 Load growth in there so you you know could have different perspectives on that. So, it's a con I think it's a combination of factors, but for number of years now, so there there have been larger gaps in PG and E than in the other service area, other service areas. 72 "Lauren Carr" (1635662848) 00:24:39.510 --> 00:24:45.488 Okay, thank you. Yeah. 73 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:24:45.488 --> 00:24:48.139 Thanks, and it looks like we have a couple of. 74 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:24:48.139 --> 00:24:49.130 Questions in the chat. 75 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:24:49.130 --> 00:24:52.589 So I'll just go ahead and read, one of those. 76 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:24:54.239 --> 00:24:59.081 Do you think that you can talk again just about the ESP DA cap. 77 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:24:59.081 --> 00:25:21.439 Yeah, sure. And so right, so that's what, you know, under slice of day, the DA versus CCA and IOU reference forecast really was critical in having a process to allocate the load fairly because if we didn't. 78 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:25:21.439 --> 00:25:53.759 If we only had one prorated, yeah, the ESPs would be getting a prorated share that far exceeded the amount of load they're allowed to serve. And so that's why as we go through this process, we try to address most of the shortfall with the LSE specific, right? And then we go to that intermediate, the load type prorated. So the the direct access load is only getting approated at that step based on. 79 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:25:53.759 --> 00:26:13.759 Their typical load shape in a given month on a coincidence system peak day and also maybe adjusted by what we see in the Dozar data in terms of current levels of enroll enrollment. Like I said, so last year. 80 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:26:13.759 --> 00:26:29.369 Where the DA cap for SE was below, definitely below the cap. Now it's much, much closer because we do see people actually using up that cap in, in SCE. 81 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:26:29.369 --> 00:26:46.859 And then we have another question about the LSC forecast gaps, incomplete renewable assumptions, you know, not with the, the magnitude, that can be a little bit. 82 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:26:46.859 --> 00:27:04.409 But there's just not enough DA load to even explain that. And often we do see the ESPs, some increasing their forecast in August. There's the change load moves around. 83 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:27:04.409 --> 00:27:26.145 But that's only a, a small portion of it, so does that answer your questions? Anybody have anything else? Okay ok great. 84 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:27:26.145 --> 00:27:46.429 Great, ok, thanks Lynn. And then I think I've mentioned this to a few folks reaching out, but, yeah, that so in in 2028, we'll have some, some slight changes on kind of large loads and some of the meet and confer processes that were spelled out. 85 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:27:46.429 --> 00:28:20.328 In the track one decision. Again, we're not covering the 2028 compliance here so so we're not speaking to that specifically now, but more information on processes will will come out. And if you have any questions, you can obviously reach out to energy or or to energy division or to Lynn directly on that. But yeah, we wanted to just kind of keep this focused on 27. But before we move on Lauren I'm gonna unmute you again if you have another question, you should be able to go ahead. 86 "Lauren Carr" (1635662848) 00:28:20.328 --> 00:28:32.759 Yes, thank you. And sorry I know you don't want to go into 2028, but, do we know when those processes will begin? I'm just asking cause I know. 87 "Lauren Carr" (1635662848) 00:28:32.759 --> 00:28:51.687 The 2026 ipers what informs like the 2028 requirements and that process is currently underway, so I'm wondering if those new processes are expected to begin soon or like what's the timeline there? 88 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:28:51.687 --> 00:29:11.069 So with respect to the, the additional data sharing that's discussed in the track two decision and meeting control, we're planning on meeting with the iOS in the fall to kind of finalize those and, and, you know, work out all those specifics. So we'll, we'll get started pretty soon. 89 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:29:11.069 --> 00:29:19.505 So that well before the timeline for that to start, we we've made those determinations. 90 "Lauren Carr" (1635662848) 00:29:19.505 --> 00:29:23.630 Okay, thank you. 91 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:29:23.630 --> 00:29:31.564 Great, and then we've got another question from Michael. You should be able to unmute yourself. 92 "Michael Quiroz - Ava" (1142585344) 00:29:31.564 --> 00:29:48.549 Thanks. Am I coming through, ok? Yeah. Great. Lynn, was there a slide? I think there was a slide comparing the 2026 forecast to the 2027 forecast. Could you please flip back to that? 93 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:29:48.549 --> 00:29:50.682 Yeah, so that then it. 94 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:29:50.682 --> 00:29:58.547 Do you know which direction to direct me? Yeah, i'll go up about. 95 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:29:58.547 --> 00:30:07.206 You want to go back, it's probably about slide three maybe if you want to see the that one. Yeah, go back. 96 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:30:07.206 --> 00:30:08.789 Sorry about that. 97 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:30:08.789 --> 00:30:16.280 There we go, that's it. So yes. So your question was about that. 98 "Michael Quiroz - Ava" (1142585344) 00:30:16.280 --> 00:30:25.011 Actually, I sorry I thought I saw something that I would have had a question on, but I do not. 99 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:30:25.011 --> 00:30:37.767 See it. Okay, the other slide was, this is the reference forecast comparison. The other one was the submitted versus reference. 100 "Michael Quiroz - Ava" (1142585344) 00:30:37.767 --> 00:30:41.428 Yeah, I it What I It would have been on this one. 101 "Lynn Marshall" (2585207552) 00:30:41.428 --> 00:30:44.501 Oh, ok. Bye. 102 "Michael Quiroz - Ava" (1142585344) 00:30:44.501 --> 00:30:49.039 Thank you, sorry. Okay. 103 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:30:49.039 --> 00:31:21.649 No problem. If questions come back to folks, you can throw them in the chat, and yeah, we can, we can follow up or address things later as well. I'm not seeing anything else, so we can move on, but yeah, like I said, throw questions in the chat or anything else, but, yeah, let's keep going. Thank you. 104 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:31:21.649 --> 00:31:51.589 So much Lynn, and yeah, you already walked through next steps on this so, yeah, folks should be kind of aware of what's coming in the next couple of months. Great. Okay, so let's, I'm gonna kind of hand it back over to energy division and we're gonna walk through, just some of the slice of day implementation updates, so some of the rule changes. 105 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:31:51.589 --> 00:32:16.429 Just like I had mentioned, that will be effective come the upcoming compliance here. Again, these won't be comprehensive, but we're gonna highlight kind of the ones that, that we think you know warrant some some reminders or some, some additional kind of detail, but feel free to jump in with any questions or anything or reach back out if there's something that we're not covering here. 106 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:32:16.429 --> 00:32:32.390 That you might want to discuss in more detail. So I think I'm gonna hand it over to Elijah 1st if I'm remembering correctly. 107 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:32:32.390 --> 00:32:54.499 Yeah, it looks like alright Thanks. For sure. Thank you. Hi everybody. It is, it's good to see you all virtually. I'm going to discuss a change that's happening to the way that we handle long duration batteries and so that and that is based on the. 108 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:32:54.499 --> 00:33:13.199 The recent track one decision, that batteries with a discharge duration of 8 h or greater will receive a multiplier that we're calling the forward charging period or an FCP multiplier, and that recognizes the charging flexibility that LDAS resources have. 109 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:33:13.199 --> 00:33:33.199 This, table that's right here is coming directly from the SOD compliance tool, and it shows just what the multiplier is depending on the duration of the battery. So 028 will have one, so just like whatever the amount of energy required whatever the energy requirement. 110 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:33:33.199 --> 00:34:01.759 Is is what the energy requirement is. There's, that's that's just It just says what it is eight to twelve, it's two and so on and I have two examples right here that show how that works practically. So 1st is a 10 mW 13 h battery, so that gets a3X multiplier, and if it's 13 h it means it can discharge a hundred and 30 mW hours and. 111 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:34:01.759 --> 00:34:21.759 And its round trip efficiency would be, in this case a 70 %, so its charging agreement is a hundred and 85 point 71 mW hours. With the three X multiplier, all that it needs is 61.9 mW hours. So basically, the LSCA is on the hook for 61 point. 112 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:34:21.759 --> 00:34:41.759 9 mW hours and then it can have a hundred and 85 point 71. Oh NO sorry not that's not a hundred and five point 701A hundred and 30 to, put where it needs to. And then in the one below it's a 50 h battery, so it can only discharge 24 h or whatever. 113 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:34:41.759 --> 00:35:04.583 Only 240 mW hours, and then with a7X multiplier, it's 62.57 mW hours, so basically the LSE has to be ease on the hook for 62.57 mW hours and then it can put the 240 mW hours throughout the day. I saw a question. 114 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:35:04.583 --> 00:35:08.326 Are you able to see the chat or I can read it out? 115 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:35:08.326 --> 00:35:37.379 I can see the chat. In your example with a 10 mW 13 h battery, have you tested whether that same configuration passes the two day state of charge test? So that's a that's a good question, ri thank you Rich, that's referring to the state of charge test that is also in the slice of day tool. So the, the, the purpose of the state of charge test is. 116 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:35:37.379 --> 00:35:57.379 To prevent like inappropriate multi day cycling. So you can't charge discharge for 4 h, so if you're a 4 h battery, they can cycle twice, you can't discharge for 4 h and then discharge for another 4 h right after without charging. So, as of right now, the state of charge tests. 117 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:35:57.379 --> 00:36:17.749 For, really for any, any battery that is under 12 h, it works to prevent those batteries from discharging for 10 h and discharging for another 10 h. Right now we don't have any 13 h batteries and, yeah, the th the test was not designed. 118 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:36:17.749 --> 00:36:38.479 To engage with long duration batteries, so in a situation where it, it might fail like we we would we would address that situation. Because yeah, it's that's not what the test was designed to prevent. It was designed to prevent like, like stacking on charging cycles. 119 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:36:38.479 --> 00:37:04.970 And yeah, we, we can we can go into more details about like how we would would address that situation if it comes I don't know over over email or something like that. I think that right now we only have 8 h batteries that are LDAS. An 8 h battery will have a multiplier of two. That's to answer Shannon's question. 120 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:37:04.970 --> 00:37:08.008 Okay. It looks like oh well. 121 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:37:08.008 --> 00:37:10.406 Oh yeah. Rich had his hand. 122 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:37:10.406 --> 00:37:22.708 End up, but maybe we answered your question. Oh, ok, let me I'm gonna go ahead and un unmute you Rich. Give me just a second. Ok. You should be able to. 123 "Rich Viebrock" (3652368128) 00:37:22.708 --> 00:37:42.169 Yeah, just just wanted to quickly follow up on that and acknowledge that regardless of the intent of the two day state of charge test. I think we should acknowledge that that is the impact. My understanding of expanding the template to include some rules for long duration energy storage was to give lsc's guidance for procurement. So while there's new. 124 "Rich Viebrock" (3652368128) 00:37:42.169 --> 00:38:24.327 Not a 12 h battery that you're looking at on the MRD right now. I want, I I think it should be understood that this is a signal for value and we still do not have an answer to that question. So on the one hand, I'm curious to know when this, if and when this will get resolved. On the other, I also want to acknowledge that a 10 h battery might fall into the same category if it was at 70 % RTE. So it's not just twelve as duration, it's the relationship between duration and RTE. So the question is, when will this get resolved? Because it's a glaring inconsistency. 125 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:38:24.327 --> 00:38:43.890 Yeah, thank you Rich. I think the, the, the question of how or when it will be resolved in like the tool dynamics, I, I can't answer that right now, but I can say that. 126 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:38:43.890 --> 00:39:03.890 A 12 h battery, like by its nature failing the 2 h state, the two day state of charge test is not going to like like that's, that that's not going to be something that we're going to let harm the LSE. So, so that that inconsist. 127 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:39:03.890 --> 00:39:26.022 Consistency is, is, is a technological inconsistency, if that makes sense, like it's, it has to do with just Rev 38 of the compliance tool, like we're, we're not, we're not going to allow a situation where a 12 h battery is failing the state of charge tests and that's causing problems. But. 128 "Rich Viebrock" (3652368128) 00:39:26.022 --> 00:39:47.529 That is what the template currently does. So if there was that duration live today, that would happen. And I understand what you're saying, it's gotta be fixed in the template as logic, but again, just noting that this does not offer the direction needed I would say to assign our value to 12 h resource I can leave it at that. 129 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:39:47.529 --> 00:40:07.370 Can I just let me let me if we can kind of clarify a little bit more just back kind of back to the original question as well. Yeah, we hear the problem and yeah, like Aleja said, this is kind of a template issue that is that we'll need to kind of update and reflect how long duration batteries are, are updating or are. 130 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:40:07.370 --> 00:40:28.460 For operating and kind of being shown in the template versus our our current battery fleet, but in any case, so template updates will be made, but I think this is kind of a, a larger kind of like something that we'll need to address in a future proceeding. I think there's some of details implemented. 131 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:40:28.460 --> 00:41:01.040 Documentation details that will need to be brought either in track two, or in a future proceeding. So if you, if you see kind of gaps in, in either the tool or in our rules, and you want to bring forward a proposal in the, in the coming track, please, please do so. I think that we'll need that space to kind of address any, any changes to kind of treating monderation resources in, in the template. 132 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:41:01.040 --> 00:41:21.170 So, yeah, hopefully that, that clears things up. I think it won't be enforced as as kind of a deficiency, we'll we'll kind of take them case by case. I don't want to make that a blanket statement, but, kind of case by case in 2027 because there's a bit of a, a gap or missing. 133 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:41:21.170 --> 00:41:52.170 Matching the tool, that won't kind of negatively impact any compliance, and then I think we've got some things to work out in a future proceeding. So richard I hope that kind of addresses your question and Eleja I hope that, that was consistent with, with what you were thinking too, but just trying to kind of state that in a different way. But yeah, I think that's, that's kind of what we would need to do moving forward. Sure. 134 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:41:52.170 --> 00:42:11.790 Yeah, thank you Zoey. I I think I I I I agree with that and I I think just to kind of like lean in a little bit more to the the guidance versus logic or or template logic kind of like a pain point is that I, I guess I would just like. 135 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:42:11.790 --> 00:42:27.300 In terms of guidance folks should plan to engage with 12 h batteries as if they're not going to fail the state of charge test, even though as of right now yes, the logic does cause that. 136 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:42:27.300 --> 00:42:47.300 And that's something that like how like the specifics of how we're going to work on that or how, how we're going to deal with that is still like there are some things that need to be hammered out, but the guidance is, it's being worked on and we recognize that that's, that that's a mismatch between the. 137 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:42:47.300 --> 00:42:53.700 Policy in the logic of the template, yeah. 138 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:42:53.700 --> 00:43:13.700 Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay, then next slide. There are a few other changes and adjustments to the MRD. The 1st one I want to draw attention to. 139 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:43:13.700 --> 00:43:33.480 Two is number two right here just cause it closely relates to what we were just talking about with regards to LDAS and that is the hours continuous duration column. That's a new column, and that is calculated by dividing the energy per cycle megawatt hours. 140 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:43:33.480 --> 00:43:53.480 By the P max. So it's, it's, it's based off of the, the energy per cycle, not, like the stated duration of a battery. That's how we're calculating what the duration is. And that duration is upstream of that table that was in the previous slide of what type. 141 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:43:53.480 --> 00:44:15.020 The multiplier it should get. So that that feeds into that logic. So that's the new column. The changed column is the energy per cycle that is formerly the max continuous energy column, and we changed it because, it was a little confusing about like max continu max con energy limit in the. 142 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:44:15.020 --> 00:44:43.140 Master file, it sort of gives the implication that we're not taking into account the min continuous energy limit in the master file. So that that's the why the the name was changed. That value is the difference between the max and the min from the master file, and then that is divided by four, which would result in the QC. And the QC in case the battery is greater than 4 h of duration, the P max would be the QC. 143 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:44:43.140 --> 00:45:03.140 So that's 1st two things, the 1st two changes. The 3rd change or just thing that we wanted to address is that the energy used in RA compliance should not include fault back. We think that that's the appropriate interpretation of the story. 144 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:45:03.140 --> 00:45:28.940 RA rules from 2014, now that the the implementation of that for compliance year 2027 is a little bit complicated because there is NO like explicit precise calculation for the the non foldback range right now. We're aware that has requested storage operators adjust. 145 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:45:28.940 --> 00:45:53.870 The maximum continuous energy limit and the minimum continuous energy limit to not include the fallback range. We are going to continue to take these values for calculation until Kaiso updates its master file parameters to explicitly identify fallback. And, yeah, just whatever, whatever values are there are the ones that we're going to use and how the guidance on how you're going to, how, how operators are going. 146 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:45:53.870 --> 00:46:16.845 Did you enter that those values is that's that's more between like that, that's that's a different conversation that that is more between like how Kaiso is instructing folks to enter those values because we're, we're taking those values in the way that is described in point number one. 147 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:46:16.845 --> 00:46:21.070 Sorry about that. 148 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:46:23.306 --> 00:46:49.700 Any questions? One sec. One thing I'd also add is we're, we're under the we have heard that guys working on on including those fields and it will ideally come in the spring of 2027 but but like. 149 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:46:49.700 --> 00:47:07.110 That is dependent on a lot of things. So when it will come hopefully it's in the spring because that will at the very least make it so that we can have the precise numbers for compliance year 2028, but yeah, we are, we are beholden to that process. 150 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:47:15.987 --> 00:47:49.400 Thanks. I'm not seeing any questions, but as as they come in or as they come up throw them in the chat. Raise your hand. Excuse me. Ryan I'm gonna pass it over to you. Sorry, my PowerPoint is touching out a little bit, so give me just a second to, to get to our slide. I'm so sorry. Okay I think I maybe have control back on my computer. 151 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:47:49.400 --> 00:47:50.990 How are you? 152 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 00:47:50.990 --> 00:48:09.060 Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for being with us today. For this slide I'm just gonna go over some of the recent changes to how we are accrediting co located energy only resources based on the decision that was released in July. 153 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 00:48:09.060 --> 00:48:26.790 So, in this decision, we updated the RA rules where energy only resources that are co located with deliverable storage may count towards a portfolio's overall charging sufficiency need subject to point of interconnection limits. 154 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 00:48:26.790 --> 00:48:44.040 Many of you are familiar, but the charging sufficiency refers to the additional energy that's required above your RA obligations to account for the charging needs of the storage that's shown in the LOC filings. 155 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 00:48:44.040 --> 00:49:04.040 So when we released the 2027, preliminary requirements and allocations, we sent that out in version 38 of the slice today showing template, and in that template, we've incorporated new logic that reflects the. 156 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 00:49:04.040 --> 00:49:08.425 Just updated rules from the decision. 157 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:49:08.425 --> 00:49:13.767 Sorry Ryan. It's ok. Okay. 158 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 00:49:13.767 --> 00:49:46.640 And then just to close out on this slide, and then, as was the case before these changes, the energy only charging sufficiency value remains bundled with the storage resource, so when you're showing the storage resource, you're getting the energy only charging sufficiency value. And I know that's something that we received comments on, in reply comments to the proposed decision. So, you know, we welcome more conversations on this topic in future proceedings, but that's how it's been implemented for 2027. 159 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 00:49:46.640 --> 00:50:08.105 And then later in the presentation today, I'm gonna go over a couple of examples of how this update was made in the template, but I just wanted to keep this slide high level for now. Are there any questions? Otherwise, I'll be talking more about this in a little bit. 160 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:50:08.105 --> 00:50:16.830 I'm not seeing any questions on this, but, let me just go ahead and. 161 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:50:16.830 --> 00:50:35.630 I talked through a question, that came in from Matt and PG and E and this is to to your last slide Elijah. If the updated Kaiser values for batteries come in the spring, will they be applied to the balance of 2027 or will that start in 2028? 162 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:50:43.509 --> 00:51:15.030 Yeah, that's a really good question. I think that we are, I mean, so Kaiso NQC values can't change, but we would change them for the balance of 2027 is, is my understanding of of the rules. Yeah. Is that they would be, they would be applied to the balance of 2027. Now I will say this, my understanding is that there are very few resources that. 163 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 00:51:15.030 --> 00:51:30.828 That would affect like it's under 10 %, and that in so far as it would affect it would be pretty minimal. But yeah, my, my understanding is that it would be applied to the balance of 2027. 164 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:51:30.828 --> 00:51:48.264 Okay, thanks. Ok, let me very carefully alongsides. I'm sorry if I'm making folks dizzy with jumping around, not trying to. 165 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:51:48.264 --> 00:52:11.900 Okay, ok, I'm just gonna run through just a couple of slides. These are just like some kind of minor, updates from from the from the decision that aren't kind of too technical or template changes or anything, just kind of reminders for folks. So 1st is the charging sufficiency penalty implementation. 166 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:52:11.900 --> 00:52:31.900 So the track one decision incorporated the charging sufficiency deficiency into the RA penalty structure, that'll be effective coming 2027 and I think we've already, I mean presented and discussed this hasn't really changed but just kind of as a high level reminder, the. 167 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:52:31.900 --> 00:52:51.450 Currently there's a daily megawatt hour charging sufficiency shortfall, that, that amount will be converted into kind of a 24 h flat profile, which will just be the megawatt hour, amount divided by 24, and that kind of flat megawatt equivalent. 168 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:52:51.450 --> 00:53:11.450 Will be applied evenly across the 24 h system positions. So the, it'll, it'll remain consistent that the hour with the largest resulting megawapp deficiency will be the basis for the penalty assessment. It'll just be the case that now that capacity deficiency, there will be that. 169 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:53:11.450 --> 00:53:34.280 Added, charging sufficiency deficiency, that will be added onto. It'll be added onto every hour, but again, for, for, kind of the basis of a deficiency notice, e.g., but we will continue to just enforce the largest deficient hour. So that will be a change beginning. 170 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:53:34.280 --> 00:53:54.280 This coming year. Feel free to jump in if you have any questions on how that will be applied. But if not, I'm just gonna kind of keep going through a couple of the other, of the other updates, and bear with me our kind of SMEs for, for the CPE and for the next slide are. 171 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:53:54.280 --> 00:54:29.030 Which aren't here, so I'm gonna just kind of read through, feel free to ask questions but they they might have to kind of be followed up on. But just kind of as a general reminder on some of the CPE changes. So the cpeious are directed to assess their local sufficiency at the local capacity or the LCA area, and the sub LCA levels before conducting their procurements, and this is all spelled out in ordering paragraph 23 of the previous decision, but in addition, they're to demonstrate in their india. 172 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:54:29.030 --> 00:54:49.030 Compliance reports, how their contracted capacity meets the sub LCA needs, and then also how the total capacity informed their procurement decisions. And they're also to account for storage charging limits when conducting their procurement. So just kind of some clarifying kind of rules around that. 173 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:54:49.030 --> 00:55:09.030 And then also, the other change that that will be effective for the central procurement entity framework, is that the or is that energy division will post onto the RA website, the local RA data was gathered from the annual data request. 174 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:55:09.030 --> 00:55:28.380 Which comes in with the year ahead findings, and that will be posted for lses and CPEs in an aggregated and anonymized format, and we, the decision didn't adopt a specific kind of time frame or reference, but just kind of. 175 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:55:28.380 --> 00:55:48.380 At a, at a very high level, and how we've kind of taken in, and processed this data in the past. This comes in at the end of October early November with the year ahead and we've previously made that available to CPEs around the beginning of the year, I wanna say sometime in January. So I think. 176 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:55:48.380 --> 00:56:07.350 Like Generally that would be kind of the framework of how we've done it in the past, but this will be a slightly different process. So, if you're, if you're kind of looking for more detail on that, you can reach out, but, yeah, we don't have kind of a set schedule for that data being available just yet. 177 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:56:07.350 --> 00:56:27.350 And then I'm gonna just keep going here. So there's a couple of changes for demand response, and this is so, so for demand response providers, drps and LLCs that are showing DR. So energy division will be for 2027 and not. 178 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:56:27.350 --> 00:56:47.350 Send Kaiso three monthly values. The 1st will be a maximum showing value. There will also be a peak showing value and then the average hourly megawatt over the AAH or the availability assessment hours that the resource is available. If the resource. 179 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:56:47.350 --> 00:57:19.410 This is available for less than or for, sorry, for greater than 4 h energy division will establish on a per DRP basis, which 4 h period to to use for for the Kaiso MQC list. And the availability basis will apply to the average value and will only count the AAH hours that the resource is available. 180 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:57:19.410 --> 00:57:39.410 Feel free if there's any kind of clarifying questions there, but, again, that's kind of all language, and guidance that, that came in the track one decision for DR resources, and then just kind of a few last kind of miscellaneous track one up to. 181 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:57:39.410 --> 00:58:11.420 Dates so for under construction flexible resources, those can be shown in the year ahead showings. Previously this there wasn't kind of guidance or or allowed under construction flex resources in the year ahead showings, but beginning compliance year 27, those, those can be counted towards year ahead requirements. Energy division when reviewing will verify that those under construction resources are flex eligible based on the MRD, and those need to be refer. 182 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:58:11.420 --> 00:58:31.420 In, in the Kaiso EFC list, and any resource that is not included in that list in the year ahead MRD cannot be counted towards your head flux RA compliance. This is really consistent with how we treat a system under construction resources, but just. 183 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:58:31.420 --> 00:58:54.620 Sending to flex where there was previously, NO guidance on that. And then off peak imports being shown in Q3, this isn't a new change. This just extends the rules that we have adopted previously beyond 2026. So now off peak imports can be shown in the Q3 showing months. 184 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:58:54.620 --> 00:59:14.810 Going forward into the future. We didn't didn't want to go through kind of implementation details here because again there's there's NO change to the rule, but if you do have any questions or anything on how that that is implemented or or verified, you can, you can reach out and we can, we can walk through that. 185 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:59:14.810 --> 00:59:37.500 And then, yeah, kind of my I've I've already kind of gave this, the, this, I guess note here but the the track one decision adopted several policy and implementation changes that will begin compliance here 2028. So we're not covering these here. 186 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:59:37.500 --> 00:59:57.500 But if you have any questions, of course you can reach out to energy division directly, or they can be brought to the RA proceeding. So just wanted to kind of give that note here. But I think that's everything that we were gonna cover in terms of implementation changes. 187 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 00:59:57.500 --> 01:00:17.340 The coming year. We'll go into the filing template and updates there next, but I just wanted to give folks maybe one last chance to ask questions. I think I just saw a hand go up. Let me try and get that without running through this PowerPoint, give me just 1 s. 188 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:00:17.340 --> 01:00:26.249 Okay, yeah, Liam, go ahead. You should be unmuted. 189 "Liam Pitman (PG&E)" (1188603136) 01:00:26.249 --> 01:00:51.390 Alright, can you hear me? Yeah, thanks. I wanted to kind of ask a maybe an additional question about the storage and QC or the storage QC rather accounting for foldback. I think a little concerning to hear that those QC values for size of day compliance might change within the compliance year. This was something. 190 "Liam Pitman (PG&E)" (1188603136) 01:00:51.390 --> 01:01:10.020 Commented on the proposed decision about just ensuring that any changes to to QC values for compliance wouldn't be made within the compliance here and that was a, a change that was adopted in the final decision and so I think. 191 "Liam Pitman (PG&E)" (1188603136) 01:01:10.020 --> 01:01:36.068 You know, for for LSCs it'd be a significant source of concern, just for portfolio planning purposes if if there was that QC change for the, for the balance of 2027, so just want to kind of register that concern based on Elijah what you had said earlier and and maybe that's, you know, something we can discuss further. 192 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:01:36.068 --> 01:01:48.743 Yeah, thank you Liam. I I, yeah, let's let's discuss it further. I I'm definitely interested in hearing yeah it's it's it's I I I'm registering the concern. Thank you. 193 "Liam Pitman (PG&E)" (1188603136) 01:01:48.743 --> 01:02:03.428 Yeah, thanks. And it, you know, this was something that that like I said we we commented on, so that might be something worth worth looking at. Thank you. Appreciate it. 194 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:02:03.428 --> 01:02:21.800 Yeah, great, thank you. Any I'm not seeing any other questions, so let's keep going, but we can always kind of come back to questions or or discussions later, but I think I'm gonna go ahead and yeah let's let's get dig into some template. 195 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:02:21.800 --> 01:02:39.831 Updates and changes and and Ryan I'll let you kind of jump in from here try and smoothly go through the PowerPoint, let's see if I can manage to do that. Ok, yeah, we'll let you go ahead and take it. Thanks. Thanks. 196 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:02:39.831 --> 01:03:05.866 Okay, the 1st slide here just kind of serves as a reminder and some guidance for the upcoming year ahead filings. So the process is gonna be very similar to what we did last year where for your head filings LSCs will submit two templates. You'll submit your slice today showing template, for, so can you remind me the months of what is it May through October? 197 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:03:05.866 --> 01:03:10.499 Right? Five seven months May through September. September, thank you. And then you're ahead yep. 198 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:03:10.499 --> 01:03:26.430 So yeah, you'll submit the solicit day showing template for May through September and then you'll be submitting a separate template to demonstrate compliance with year ahead local and flexible requirements. So. 199 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:03:26.430 --> 01:03:42.180 You guys were sent out the draft local flex and CPE data collection template in July. That's identical to the one that was used last year except for the the dates have been updated for the 4th coming year. 200 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:03:42.180 --> 01:03:57.270 So yeah, this is just a, you know, high level reminder for folks here. And then for the next couple slides we were gonna address some questions that we got asking us to just review template changes and go over a couple examples based on. 201 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:03:57.270 --> 01:04:13.800 Changes that came out of the recent decision, so we go to the next slide, please. Great, so there was two main changes that were implemented in the 2027 year ahead template. The 1st was incorporating the the forward charging period multiplier. 202 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:04:13.800 --> 01:04:33.800 So this has been implemented in the checked capacity worksheet where the the grid charging requirement for storage previously was, you're shown megawatt hours of storage divided by your round trip efficiency and then subtracting any on site deliverable energy. 203 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:04:33.800 --> 01:04:56.570 So that's how it worked under the old framework, and now we've just modified that slightly to incorporate that forward charging period multiplier. So that's how that's been implemented for, for the LDAS changes that came out of the recent decision, and then the other main change was updating the accounting logic. 204 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:04:56.570 --> 01:05:22.610 For co located energy only resources, to make sure that the generation from energy only resources was being applied to the portfolio's overall charging needs. So there's really two main worksheets that are doing the heavy lifting on the calculations for that. One is the the paired resources worksheet, and then on that worksheet. 205 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:05:22.610 --> 01:05:37.620 What you'll see is all the resources for a resource group are listed that so that would include any resources that are full capacity deliverability or partial capacity deliverability as well as the owner energy only components. 206 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:05:37.620 --> 01:05:53.430 You'd also see the the hourly generation profiles without the the POI limits applied there. And then the other main tab where, the information is being presented to you on like the energy only charging sufficiency value is on the checked capacity tab. 207 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:05:53.430 --> 01:06:09.780 And that will, give you the megawatt hours of charging that you're receiving from the energy only resource, as well as tell you if there's any on site undeliverable energy and then what the overall charging requirement is for the storage resource. 208 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:06:09.780 --> 01:06:25.200 I'll pause here for a moment, but then the next two slides are like specific examples that show us how this is working for the co located energy only charging accounting. Okay. 209 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:06:25.200 --> 01:06:45.200 Go ahead and move forward to the next one. So, we'll start with, I'd say a little bit more straightforward of an example. So what I've got mocked up here for us is, the 1st two rows are, a co located resource where the, the 1st row is show. 210 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:06:45.200 --> 01:07:08.690 Showing a fully deliverable storage resource, and 2nd row is showing the co located energy only component. And then the columns to the right are kind of like key fields that come from different worksheets in the template and I've got a legend there at the bottom to tell you like where you would find these these fields within the workbook. 211 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:07:08.690 --> 01:07:34.710 But what you can see from this example is that in this case, if you're showing a co located storage resource, as well as like an additional standalone storage resource. And in this example, you would have a 900 mW hour charging requirement, the energy only generation that's being provided. 212 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:07:34.710 --> 01:07:53.250 By this co located resource for the month of May is 932 mW, so that would cover, the charging sufficiency requirement for this type of a showing. So I think this example here really illustrates well. 213 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:07:53.250 --> 01:08:10.020 How we've updated rules, whereas in the past, you would only have gotten the the 500 mW hours of charging sufficiency value that would have been applied to the onsite storage resource, whereas now. 214 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:08:10.020 --> 01:08:33.448 As long as you're not, as long as the resource doesn't violate any point of interconnection limits, that additional generation is being counted towards the portfolio's overall charging needs. Any questions on this example before we go to the next one, which is a little bit more to look at? 215 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:08:35.340 --> 01:08:54.888 Okay, and I'll just note what I'll just note on that last one when we shuffle back. As that's example's been displayed on that slide, you should be able to replicate that within your templates too with that same configuration. So hopefully that helps just kind of make things a little bit more clear. 216 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:08:55.849 --> 01:09:00.327 So are we saying we have to start at the beginning again? We're having too much fun? 217 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:09:00.327 --> 01:09:12.703 I'm so sorry the truck paddled my computer has a mind of its own, so I just keep scrolling through, I'm sorry let me get us back. 218 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:09:20.343 --> 01:09:22.926 Okay, can you, can you let me know if we can. 219 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:09:22.926 --> 01:09:25.909 If you can see that in presentation mode again. 220 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:09:25.909 --> 01:09:46.100 Yeah, it looks like it's in presentation mode. So, so we just looked at an example before was a little bit more straightforward where it was like a storage resource with one energy only resource. And in this example here, we're looking at a case where we have multiple resources associated with the storage and. 221 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:09:46.100 --> 01:10:06.230 We want to make sure we're adhering to point of interconnection limits. So the table on the, the table on the top here is one that I calculated to just kind of show you kind of what's happening under the hood within the workbook. So I'll kind of walk through that quickly on that quickly but I. 222 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:10:06.230 --> 01:10:30.900 To Walk through it. So I guess let's start by looking at row four, which is the storage resource. So that would be the resource that's entered in the slice today showing template. And then rows one through three are the co located resources with that storage, and these values would be displayed on the. 223 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:10:30.900 --> 01:10:48.120 The paired resources, worksheet. So we would see, the hourly generation listed there in the in the columns. And then once we get down to rows like five, six, and seven, those are. 224 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:10:48.120 --> 01:11:08.120 Simple there are simplified equations that really demonstrate what's going on within the workbook there. So the 1st thing that we're checking within the workbook is, the hourly delivered energy. So we want to know of all the resources that are behind this point of interconnection, what is the amount of. 225 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:11:08.120 --> 01:11:26.460 Energy that's being delivered to the grid. And actually this looks like I made one change to that formula that didn't make it into this slide, but that's ok. So for row five, that the hourly energy that is delivered to the grid is gonna be. 226 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:11:26.460 --> 01:11:46.460 The most that can be delivered is the POI, so we're, we would be taking the minimum of either the POI or the sum of the hourly generation from the different resources. And this, for this row doesn't include the energy only generation, just the. 227 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:11:46.460 --> 01:12:10.260 Deliverable resources. So row five is summing up the hourly totals from two, three, and four. That's what that equation is, is saying there. And then as we look to the right, you can see in hours ending 17 and 18, we're at that point where we're, we're reaching the PI limit because the sum of rows two, three, and four is above. 228 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:12:10.260 --> 01:12:25.350 The point of interconnection limit. So row six is really just focused on what, is the hourly value that the, the energy only resources is providing to the grid for that portfolio charging. 229 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:12:25.350 --> 01:12:45.350 So, what it's providing to the grid is basically that gap between the point of interconnection limit subtracting away the energy that's being delivered from the other resources behind the point of interconnection limit. So that's like the that would be like the most that it could do. 230 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:12:45.350 --> 01:13:06.680 And so the a simplified representation of how the calculation works is like we would be taking the minimum of either the energy only resources hourly generation or kind of that remaining gap between the point of interconnection minus the rest of the generation occurring on site. 231 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:13:06.680 --> 01:13:26.850 So you can see in most hours in this example, the charging value that you'd be getting for your portfolio is equal to the hourly production from the energy only resource, except in hours 17 and 18, because we're already at the point of interconnection limit, you're not able to, well, we're not able to. 232 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:13:26.850 --> 01:13:45.150 Have that additional generation from the energy only go to the grid. So that's why that in row seven is being accounted for is undeliverable energy, so that's essentially energy that would only be available on site but not to be delivered to the grid for charging. 233 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:13:45.150 --> 01:14:05.150 And so, the table on the bottom comes from the slice today, showing template where we enter the storage resource. We see that the energy only, so the table on the bottom there is for the storage resource where it's showing us that the charge. 234 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:14:05.150 --> 01:14:30.890 Requirement is 339 mW hours and where that value is coming from is in row four, we can see that at the very end of the columns there, its charging requirement is 375 mW hours and we have some on site undeliverable energy. This, this example is a little odd because it wouldn't be like charging while it's also discharging, but we we kind of do the. 235 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:14:30.890 --> 01:14:49.560 Accounting across all, all the 24 h, but, we would have the 375 mW hours of charging requirement. We subtract the on site undeliverable energy and that's your remaining charging requirement for the storage. And then. 236 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:14:49.560 --> 01:15:04.590 The energy only capacity to the grid value that you're getting, so like the amount that's being counted towards the portfolio's charging you is 229. And we can also see that reflected here on the table on top in row six, so. 237 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:15:04.590 --> 01:15:23.370 Yeah, I just wanted to kind of give us a really concrete example to look at and try to understand better like where the different values are coming from. Initially I had thought about kind of going through the formula within the workbook which if anyone on the call. 238 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:15:23.370 --> 01:15:46.088 Feels like that would be helpful I can, but this example I think really illustrates what what the dynamics are within the workbook, so, I guess is there any questions on this or any requests to kind of go into that greater level of detail and, talk through some of the complexities of the formula in the workbook? 239 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:15:46.728 --> 01:15:52.008 Great, thanks Shannon i'm glad it was helpful. 240 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:15:58.882 --> 01:16:03.570 And then also I would say too, I mean we we have a call here with, you know. 241 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:16:03.570 --> 01:16:23.049 Almost a hundred people, but if anyone really wants to understand this better and like get into that next level of detail, I always welcome like outreach and happy to set up a call to kind of go over some specific examples together too, so more than welcome to do that as well. 242 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:16:26.709 --> 01:16:31.942 Okay, I'm not seeing any questions. That was all I had here. 243 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:16:31.942 --> 01:16:47.360 Thanks, Ryan. Yeah, those are helpful to walk through. Ok. I went to very carefully move us forward, and I just have kind of like one, one more bit of the next step. 244 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:16:47.360 --> 01:17:15.020 Oops or kind of upcoming compliance dates, just to round us out here. So the dates coming up, I believe this next week, the 18th, on the 18th will be kind of the last day for informal comments on the 2027 MRD that are due to, to energy division, to, to the commission. 245 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:17:15.020 --> 01:17:35.020 Just a caveat w we're always kind of taking comments and feedback on that, but we do we we kind of set an informal comment period for this draft MRD before NQC values and and our MRD get finalized. And so similarly on 19 August comments and requests for modifications from the 2027 NQC list. 246 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:17:35.020 --> 01:17:57.860 Are due to Kaiso, on that same day CPEs will make the local showing for 2720 08:29 for the PGE and SCE local areas. The 20th, we really spaced things out for next week. So calendar is full, the 20th will. 247 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:17:57.860 --> 01:18:18.290 We'll be taking, or will be the last day that we're here taking informal comments on the draft 2027 RA compliance materials, which would include the draft RA filing guide, the LSC showing template users guide and then the showing template itself as well. 248 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:18:18.290 --> 01:18:38.290 On the 26th, so later this month lses will receive their updated CPE CAM allocations on 18 September CPEC or CPE goodness. CPE annual compliance reports are gonna be filed by the PG and E and SCE CPEs. 249 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:18:38.290 --> 01:18:58.290 That same day 18 September, is when we're aiming to send out the final revised 2027 RA requirements and allocations. And then, on November second, 2027 year had filings are due. Lscs in San Diego talk are gonna make. 250 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:18:58.290 --> 01:19:19.100 A system flux and local Ra showing and LCs and PG and E and SCE talks to make a system in flux showing. Yeah, it looks like 31 October or Halloween this year is on a Saturday, so hopefully that is fun for everyone and yeah we'll see. 251 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:19:19.100 --> 01:19:45.410 Those year ahead filings the following business day which would be Monday 2nd. And that's kind of next steps for again just for kind of the compliance, year, it looks like we've had a question, let me see if I can unmute you, but otherwise we kind of have some, some open time for questions and discussions so feel free to to raise your hand or throw anything in the chat and. 252 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:19:45.410 --> 01:19:50.561 I will have some some time to cover those but. 253 "P" (337102080) 01:19:50.561 --> 01:20:06.981 Hello hi, this is Burie from Transgrid Energy. So what's the, if you need to make a modification to our NQC, there are multiple dates and I couldn't get is November second until when we can submit it? 254 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:20:06.981 --> 01:20:26.980 Elijah, correct me if I'm wrong, but if changes or modifications need to be made for NQC values, that would be by the 19 19 August to submit to Kaiso and if there's anything incorrect on the MRD specifically by the 18th. 255 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:20:28.042 --> 01:20:30.903 Go ahead Alacia yeah. 256 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:20:30.903 --> 01:21:00.390 Yeah, I would say the, you have until 19 August for modifications to the the NQC list for purposes of, for Kaiser purposes. For us, we're a little bit more flexible. We don't love it when they don't match, but we we are more flexible, so we we require that the comments on the or the the adjustments to the 2027 MRD. 257 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:21:00.390 --> 01:21:15.565 And on the 18th in order to best align ourselves with Kaiso, but yeah, like if, if we learned that we got something wrong or something like that, like we are flexible to change after that. 258 "P" (337102080) 01:21:15.565 --> 01:21:20.047 Understood. Thank you so much. Yeah. 259 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:21:20.047 --> 01:21:53.570 Great, thanks. I'm gonna read a couple comments in the chat, but feel free to kind of keep adding. There's a question on the 2027 filing guide that is posted on the resource adequacy compliance materials page. And I would have to double check I don't I don't recall off the top of my head if we typically post the draft, we will post the final guide on that, on that page. I I wanna say that we don't typically post the draft, we we will send them out with the initial requirements and templates. 260 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:21:53.570 --> 01:22:11.301 But it could be wrong, but if you, if you haven't seen that and you didn't receive that, you can reach out and we can send that your way. Alright, let me, sorry I have a very small chat window, so let me see if I can expand this to read out this question. 261 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:22:11.301 --> 01:22:13.743 I can read both. 262 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:22:13.743 --> 01:22:15.427 Thanks pressure go ahead. 263 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:22:15.427 --> 01:22:35.720 For 20 ok this is from Michael Perry P genie. For 2027 will ED implement partial deliverability adjustment to nqc's to ensure Kaiso monthly nqc's peak hour match the availability calculated slice of date template. E.g., in 2026, there are several resources that have monthly nqcs that have a higher monthly. 264 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:22:35.720 --> 01:22:55.720 Keep our value than what can be counted in the same hour towards RA compliance and the CPU slice update template. Yeah, thank you Michael. If I I think I'm understanding this as, are we going to implement the, solar and wind. 265 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:22:55.720 --> 01:23:25.350 QC in the same way that we did in 2026, which is if there is a deliverability hair cut that is based on the point of interconnection of a co located resource, will we keep that deliverability haircut and in what way will we? And we will do it the same way, which is basically if there's a deliverability haircut that will affect the NQC, but it will not affect. 266 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:23:25.350 --> 01:23:42.600 What that solar resource is capable of producing in the, in the, the, the slice of day tool. So like e.g. if something its peak hours should be 35 mW hours and it's cut to 20 in the Kaiso. 267 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:23:42.600 --> 01:24:02.600 We will still use that 20 mW as the NQC, but on the tool you will see the solar resource producing up to 35. Yeah, so that's, if that didn't answer the question, please raise your hand and clarify it. To Jose Vallo. 268 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:24:02.600 --> 01:24:08.363 Let's, let's keep with this question also second. 269 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:24:09.264 --> 01:24:10.441 Oh cool. 270 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:24:10.441 --> 01:24:15.467 Yeah, let's let's start with that. You can go ahead and jump in Michael. 271 "Michael Perry (PG&E)" (222213888) 01:24:15.467 --> 01:24:33.000 Think you can hear me? Yes. Okay, so I think I was thinking of the inverse where the Kaiser value is say 20, but in the template, with the partial deliverability calculations, the value you can claim in the same number, maybe seven. 272 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:35.889 Maybe less would be less. 273 "Michael Perry (PG&E)" (222213888) 01:24:35.889 --> 01:24:48.960 Yes, so that's currently happening in 2026. There's partial deliverability, so the site is a higher number and what we're seeing is a lower number in the template and that is challenging. 274 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:24:48.960 --> 01:24:57.700 Yeah, if you could reach out to me about that situation. 275 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:24:58.601 --> 01:25:22.740 We can. Yeah, yeah, I I, I would say, I can't currently recall how, how that could happen, but I know that there that there are situations where Kaiso chooses, like that Kaiso has two deliverability haircuts that it applies. 276 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:25:22.740 --> 01:25:38.700 Or that it could apply, one being a percentage and one being a, a flat cut, and if potentially if they use a flat cut and w and they tell us to use the percentage. 277 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:25:38.700 --> 01:25:58.090 Potentially the percentage might be less. I hope that that doesn't happen because I wouldn't understand why they wouldn't just use the lower number themselves. But if that did happen, then, then that might be why. But yeah, if you, if you could reach out to me with that situation and I I can take a look at it. 278 "Michael Perry (PG&E)" (222213888) 01:25:58.090 --> 01:26:12.779 I think so for reference if you it's the resources where in the comment field on the NQC list that says at CPUC, you know, partial deliverability a percent. And if you calculate the percent, then it ends up being lower than. 279 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:26:12.779 --> 01:26:15.202 The monthly value at that. So. 280 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:26:15.202 --> 01:26:35.580 Okay, but we should Yeah I mean, I guess I guess I I don't quite know why the number would be the higher number and not the percent if they're telling us to use the percent, but, but. 281 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:26:35.580 --> 01:26:53.190 If it's, if we're supposed to use the percent for hourly deliverability, then that's, that is what we're expecting to use. Yeah, so but but maybe this is a a conversation a bigger conversation about coordination. 282 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:26:53.190 --> 01:27:11.667 So yeah, if we could, we could talk about this later, but I, I would, I expect us to be using the comments, how they're encouraging us to use them, if that makes sense. Like if it says at CPUC 30 % deliverability, then that's what we would wanna be using. 283 "Michael Perry (PG&E)" (222213888) 01:27:11.667 --> 01:27:16.744 Got it. Thank you. 284 "Cohen, Elijah" (1468534528) 01:27:16.744 --> 01:27:24.527 Thank you. 285 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:27:24.527 --> 01:27:44.130 Okay, maybe, maybe one last chance for any questions, either raise your hand or throw something in the chat. Oh, great. I think this is. 286 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:27:44.130 --> 01:28:03.120 Well, I'll hand it maybe to Ryan or maybe to if you want to talk through this, but the question, can we explain how the grid capacity field is calculated for resources that aren't paired store? 287 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:28:03.985 --> 01:28:23.565 Sure, let me make sure I'm referring to the right field. So is this referring to grid capacity field? So not grid charging requirement grid capacity. 288 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:28:23.565 --> 01:28:32.642 Yeah, grid capacity if you can see that. 289 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:28:32.642 --> 01:28:52.650 Yeah. Yeah, and sorry just cause, I'm trying to remember which do we know which worksheet that's on like grid grid capacity in general should be referring to the hourly deliverable energy I believe but on the check capacity, ok, let me have a worksheet open here. 290 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:28:52.650 --> 01:29:07.687 Let me just look. Can you explain how the gridge is calculated for resources that are not battery or resource. Let me pull up and you can you can jump in, yeah, maybe if you want to. 291 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:29:07.687 --> 01:29:09.488 Can I clarify, talk to this question? 292 "Shannon McCann (NCPA)" (2532031488) 01:29:09.488 --> 01:29:21.750 Yeah, so his example he showed earlier was really was really good and it does show how the battery and solar that is associated with it relate to one another. But from what I can tell you, you have to. 293 "Shannon McCann (NCPA)" (2532031488) 01:29:21.750 --> 01:29:49.345 See if you pass validation by taking into account all the resources including including like a 24 by seven resource and that can help then determine if you have enough charge for your battery. So how is the charge for like a 24 by seven resource come up with? Because it's not just 24 times the NQC for that 24 by seven resource. Okay, so I think what you maybe asking about. 294 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:29:49.345 --> 01:29:58.546 It's like how is the charging value from like say a 24 by seven resource calculated in the check capacity? Okay. And that's used to then compare against. 295 "Shannon McCann (NCPA)" (2532031488) 01:29:58.546 --> 01:30:02.341 Discharging requirement and hopefully your capacity is larger than your. 296 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:30:02.341 --> 01:30:11.029 Right, ok. I'm gonna go ahead and pull up a screen here and hopefully that's helpful. 297 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:30:12.009 --> 01:30:41.508 So this is the field that you're referring to, and I believe this field here, the wait, let me just look at the formula to make sure I'm remembering right Rob's got his hand up. Go ahead Rob. 298 "Hansen, Robert" (641649408) 01:30:41.508 --> 01:30:45.906 Yeah, can you hear me? 299 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:30:45.906 --> 01:30:48.864 Yeah, we can hear you. 300 "Hansen, Robert" (641649408) 01:30:48.864 --> 01:31:17.486 Yeah, so it's basically just the sum of the profile in the hours ending one through 24 in this table to the left. So if it's a 24 h profile, it should, and it's shown with a constant profile that should just be that sum if there's an example where it isn't, we could take a look at that. 301 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:31:17.486 --> 01:31:24.805 Well, you know, Rob, I was looking at the, we might have to pull up an example, but I think this one. 302 "Hansen, Robert" (641649408) 01:31:24.805 --> 01:31:28.427 This one's only counting the energy if. 303 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:31:28.427 --> 01:31:34.027 If it's in excess of your RA requirements. So basically ours. 304 "Hansen, Robert" (641649408) 01:31:34.027 --> 01:31:37.866 Yeah, go ahead, sorry. 305 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:31:37.866 --> 01:31:59.459 This one's a little complicated, it would be helpful if I had a few more resources entered here. But essentially what this field is looking at is it's not totaling what's shown across all 24 h, but it's only county, ok, this is how it works. So. 306 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:31:59.459 --> 01:32:15.659 It looks at the sum of hours one through 24, whatever your generation is, and if it's an hour where you're in excess of your RA requirement, so basically where this row here is. 307 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:32:15.659 --> 01:32:31.985 Greater than zero, those values are being summed. But if in a given hour you're at zero or below, that hour generation from that resource isn't being counted. 308 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:32:31.985 --> 01:32:50.947 In this grid capacity column, so that's, that's what this column does. It's like it's looking at all 24 h, what the hourly generation is, and then in a given hour, if your total from all your resources is above zero, then it's counting the generation from that particular resource. 309 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:32:54.606 --> 01:33:08.108 And if you'd like Shannon, I'm happy to, have an exchange over email and share some more examples and we could dig into that further if you'd like. But any follow up questions to your initial question? 310 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:33:09.999 --> 01:33:15.666 Great. 311 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:33:17.769 --> 01:33:52.159 Alright, great, do maybe one last call for any questions or anything, but, if there are none, really appreciate the participation from everyone and hopefully we can have covered most of what people were were looking for to go over for, for the coming year. And it sounds like we've got a few follow UPS or kind of a few follow up questions that that will go back and forth on. So, yeah, a little bit to continue, but. 312 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:33:52.159 --> 01:34:12.349 For now, thanks everyone for joining. We'll, we'll post this recording as well as slides and if they aren't already, the, the load forecast material that Lynn was going over should already be or will be soon posted on the, on the RA. 313 "Draghi, Zoe" (2500831744) 01:34:12.349 --> 01:34:33.065 Page so you should have all the materials that we went over but yeah inboxes are are always open, so let us know if you have any questions or anything and, yeah, I don't know, see you in the 2027 compliance year. Thanks everyone. 314 "Grieser, Ryan" (3249122560) 01:34:33.065 --> 01:34:36.384 Yes, thank you for joining today.