Limited Generation Profiles Workshop #3

7:56 am - 3:43 pm  Friday, December 16, 2022 | (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)

pht2  Eamon Hoffman ET  gary holdsworth sdg&e  Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech  Hill, Roderick  Selene  Brian Seal  Rottman, Mary  Eva Wang TotalEnergies  Christopher Schwegler  Saxton, Patrick  Abtin Mehrshahi  9164****43  Roni Mejia - SCE  Kimberley Chong SDG&E  Sky Stanfield  Khoe, Richard  Francisco Hernandez (Consultant) @CPUC  Michael Barigian SCE  Cathy Le  Josh Gerber  Stanford, Robert  Denise Chan PG&E  John Berdner  Stephen Wurmlinger  Mandee Figueroa SCE  7342****17  Presentation Slides  Alex Mwaura PG&E  Hutton, Marc  Yochi Zakai, IREC, he/him  Brad Heavner  selene  Regnier, Justin  David Schiada  Christian Eder, Fronius USA  Jan Strack  phuoc  Josh McDonald SCE  Will Wood  Frances Cleveland  Matt Belden SDGE  Iman  Matt Gonzales  Frank Goodman  Kasia  Steve Letendre, Nuvve  Aliaga-Caro, Jose  Jorge Chacon  Yi Li SDG&E  Michael Barigian  Abe Flamenco SDG&E  Brian Lydic - IREC  Jordon  Roger Salas SCE  Christian Eder  Fardin Sarraf  LGP Presentation Feed (JHI)  Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E  Haga, Joseph  Younes, Amin  Albert Tapia  


WEBVTT

1
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:17:34.764 --> 00:17:37.374
And the meeting has started to be, uh, recorded.

2
Rottman, Mary 00:17:37.764 --> 00:17:42.054
Yes, I just wanted to catch everybody's attendance.

3
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:17:43.194 --> 00:17:45.474
Yeah, so do we have a PG E on the call?

4
Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:17:54.025 --> 00:17:55.885
Good morning Jose. This is Alex from Virginia.

5
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:17:56.545 --> 00:18:01.915
Okay, thank you Alex. Are we still waiting for anybody else? From P.

6
Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:18:06.115 --> 00:18:06.535
No.

7
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:18:07.735 --> 00:18:14.035
Okay, uh, do we have Edison on the call? I see. Uh, Roger and, uh, Roger.

8
Roni Mejia - SCE 00:18:17.214 --> 00:18:21.054
Good morning who said is Ronnie I think Roger.

9
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:18:21.294 --> 00:18:33.084
Okay, thank you. Ronnie and on the call, I know Gary was having trouble Gary can you hear us or anybody else?

10
gary holdsworth sdg&e 00:18:34.434 --> 00:18:37.344
You know, I, I can hear everybody. Yeah.

11
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:18:37.434 --> 00:18:38.244
Perfect.

12
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:18:38.605 --> 00:18:50.785
Okay, so we have on the call then and I see. Well, Fred Hassan. Um, all right. And, uh, do we have Eric on the call?

13
Yochi Zakai, IREC, he/him 00:18:56.544 --> 00:19:02.814
Good morning Jose gilpey's here, but, uh, sky's going to be the 1 doing the presentation and I don't think she's on yet.

14
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:19:03.414 --> 00:19:08.394
Okay, yeah, yeah, we still got about 9 minutes so, you know, no worries there.

15
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:19:11.364 --> 00:19:31.824
So all right, so, uh, like Mary said earlier, but it can relax for the next, uh, 9 minutes, get your tea coffee juice, your cats. So they don't bug you, which actually just did and, um, yeah.

16
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:19:31.854 --> 00:19:34.944
We'll start in about, uh, 9 minutes.

17
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:24:12.984 --> 00:24:23.544
Okay, Joseph, I think we can start bringing the, uh, energy division. It's like that 1 just to get that ready. So we're ready in about 3 minutes to start.

18
Haga, Joseph 00:24:24.204 --> 00:24:25.194
Very good. We'll do.

19
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:24:25.914 --> 00:24:26.934
All right Thank you Joseph.

20
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:27:44.484 --> 00:28:02.244
Kay, I can get I think we can get started. Now. I have 9 o'clock. Uh, thank you everybody for, uh, joining us today. Uh, December, 16th for the 3rd, uh, limited generation, profile workshop per resolution E50 to 11. I will.

21
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:28:02.424 --> 00:28:09.444
Uh, hand it over to, uh, Mary to, uh, go over logistics next slide.

22
Rottman, Mary 00:28:11.124 --> 00:28:13.314
We're just going to say next slide just.

23
Rottman, Mary 00:28:21.174 --> 00:28:37.494
Uh, back a couple slides there we go. There. We go. Great. Um, so, this just as a safety reminder, everyone please take a note of your surrounding and your exit roots and, um, reach out to any 1. if you need help either during the call, or you can.

24
Rottman, Mary 00:28:37.944 --> 00:28:58.644
Uh, tapping attendee, um, also, I think you've all heard this meeting is being recorded and the recorded materials will be posted on the website rule, 21 limited generation profiles webpage after we're all done here. Um, so you have access to the recording and the information.

25
Rottman, Mary 00:28:59.095 --> 00:29:19.465
That we talk about today, um, if you were forwarded an invite, um, and did not receive it directly from the energy group or me, um, and you want to be added to the workshop distribution list um, just send me an email at Mary, uh, at dot ca dot com.

26
Rottman, Mary 00:29:19.799 --> 00:29:40.944
And I'll add you to the distribution list and, uh, please feel free to do that. That would be great. Um, we do encourage everyone to ask questions during the presentations and, um, however, there will be also dedicated Q and a time slots, um, where after each presentation and also toward the middle and end of the presentation materials.

27
Rottman, Mary 00:29:41.484 --> 00:30:02.064
Um, and just as a courtesy, you know, we all know this, but please try to keep yourself muted. Um, and when you're not speaking and do, please, don't put the call on hold that will kind of mess up all the audio and, um, to speak. You know, you just need to unmute yourself, uh, from the button on the lower part of your screen. Um, if you are calling in, by.

28
Rottman, Mary 00:30:02.124 --> 00:30:23.244
Phone, uh, use the mute button on your handset and unmute yourself to speak. Um, if for some reason you're muted by us, the host just press star 6 and That'll unmute you and if you want to raise your hand plus press star 3. um, so I don't know if I need to go through this, but, uh, this is already.

29
Rottman, Mary 00:30:23.274 --> 00:30:43.644
To resolution e5230, which was issued on December 9th 2022 and, um, so the, uh, from PG E. S. C. E. S. T. Jenny are related to 15 and 51 of decision 2935 unlimited generation profiles.

30
Rottman, Mary 00:30:44.575 --> 00:30:47.935
Any questions on our logistics or the announcements.

31
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:30:49.675 --> 00:31:04.585
I just wanted to add, uh, Mary, just on resolution. 5,230. mm. Hmm. Um, those workshops are scheduled to start, uh, at the latest by February, 17 2023.

32
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:31:05.549 --> 00:31:08.424
So, uh, stay tuned for notices.

33
Rottman, Mary 00:31:08.934 --> 00:31:16.284
More excitement to come is what he's saying so great. All right. So I think the next slide, right?

34
Rottman, Mary 00:31:18.924 --> 00:31:19.134
Right.

35
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:31:19.164 --> 00:31:19.344
Yep.

36
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:31:21.204 --> 00:31:42.054
Uh, yeah, so, uh, again, just to reiterate what I've said in previous meetings, uh, you know, you can find all material by going to the CPC rule, 21 interconnection website. You just Google CPC rule 21. that should be the 1st page that comes up and there'll be a limited.

37
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:31:42.384 --> 00:32:03.354
Profile length, and that will take you to all the material related to these workshops uh, next slide. Joseph please. Yeah, this is today's agenda. Um, our introduction now of course, by energy division, then we're gonna start, uh, with the utility.

38
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:32:03.504 --> 00:32:07.824
Uh, presentation, uh, then we'll take a.

39
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:32:09.804 --> 00:32:30.114
15 minute break, um, and 1 caveat. I1 caveat I would like to pose is I know in the past, uh, presentations have run, longer and scheduled. Uh, I would like to keep this break has scheduled. So if we do.

40
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:32:30.175 --> 00:32:51.295
Run longer, we can come back after the break, but, you know, by this time, uh, it will be 2 hours into the, uh, workshop. So, I think everybody will need a little stretch break. And if everything goes according to the agenda, of course, we'll then we'll, uh, start with, um, presentation.

41
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:32:51.444 --> 00:33:12.444
Uh, Eric, and we'll take our lunch break, continue any, uh, discussions, uh, from presentation. Um, then there will probably be a, uh, you know, a discussion from, uh, energy vision. Uh, T, that's TBD. Followed by.

42
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:33:12.474 --> 00:33:19.164
General Q and a, uh, from everything we've had so far, um.

43
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:33:21.025 --> 00:33:37.675
In today's workshop, and then wrap it up. So the goal is, uh, wrap up by 330. but, as I've said before, um, that has not always happened. So, uh, next slide please.

44
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:33:40.824 --> 00:34:00.294
Yeah, uh, workshop goals course, um, arrive at a consensus proposal, uh, to, um, you know, clarify 15 and 16 of, uh, decision 2945. uh, again, the utilities presentations contains the I use proposals and not and should not be taken out.

45
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:34:00.414 --> 00:34:21.533
Solutions stakeholders are welcome to propose a different process and just as a reminder, any discussions regarding icaay should concentrate on the end use and not what changes are needed within the modeling. Uh, those changes.

46
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:34:21.564 --> 00:34:41.934
Are outside our scope, uh, and they're they are actually within another proceeding, the, uh, proceeding Joseph next slide. Please, uh, just a little recap resolution 5,211 issued on October, 10, 2022.

47
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:34:43.794 --> 00:34:51.115
The resolution, the advice letters are due by January.

48
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:34:53.033 --> 00:35:13.614
A reminder to everybody that both the decision, and the resolution will be used as guidance to evaluate the advice letters. Uh, the utilities and non utility parties are encouraged to review all sections software solution to ensure compliance off requirements, um, on the.

49
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:35:13.709 --> 00:35:34.854
Bullet, I wanted to specify that, you know, that large how you should provide details as to the basis or lack of consensus and alternate proposals if any. So, uh, the utilities will be required to include any write ups provided by not parties when presenting alternative.

50
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:35:34.859 --> 00:35:39.264
Muscles and there will be, uh, more guidance to follow on that.

51
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:35:40.704 --> 00:35:41.484
Next slide.

52
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:35:44.634 --> 00:36:04.344
Uh, these are just and I'm not gonna read all of them, but these are just, um, highlights from resolution e5211. Uh, these are basically verbatim from the resolution cut and paste. Um.

53
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:36:04.705 --> 00:36:25.225
Deleted a word document that includes, uh, you know, more details that I, uh, went through the resolution a couple days ago, and just cut and pasted, you know, all of the requirements that the resolution called for, within the workshop discussions and the advice letters.

54
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:36:25.644 --> 00:36:45.474
So, uh, parties, like I said before, both and non use should read that both the resolution and the document I, uh, we circulated carefully, uh, because that will be the basis for the advice letters and.

55
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:36:47.664 --> 00:37:01.464
Protest I'm hoping not that's always my hope, but anyways. All right. Uh, next slide. I think that's okay. No, I'm sorry. Previous slide.

56
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:37:04.585 --> 00:37:11.275
So, um, any questions so far before we, uh, move on to the utilities presentation.

57
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:37:18.804 --> 00:37:21.624
Uh, feel free to raise your hand or speak up.

58
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:37:24.144 --> 00:37:32.364
Otherwise, I think we can, uh, start with, uh, slide deck number 2, Joseph, uh, which is the utilities presentation.

59
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:37:43.944 --> 00:37:46.734
Joseph, can you bring that up slide deck? Number 2?

60
Haga, Joseph 00:37:56.815 --> 00:37:57.505
Have that right up.

61
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:37:58.285 --> 00:38:02.785
Okay, thank you. And who's going to start the discussion from the utilities.

62
Yi Li SDG&E 00:38:04.285 --> 00:38:09.235
It's me price surprise. This is easily feisty journey.

63
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:38:10.404 --> 00:38:10.734
Okay.

64
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:38:18.894 --> 00:38:25.824
Oh, I know it's a reminder if you are speaking, please turn your camera on otherwise you can leave it on.

65
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:38:27.145 --> 00:38:32.905
I'm sorry if you're speaking, please turn your camera on otherwise you can leave it off.

66
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:38:34.554 --> 00:38:37.644
All right, uh, so, uh, take it away.

67
Yi Li SDG&E 00:38:40.524 --> 00:38:40.854
They can.

68
Rottman, Mary 00:38:40.854 --> 00:38:42.774
Still waiting for the presentation.

69
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:38:44.724 --> 00:38:46.104
That is correct.

70
Rottman, Mary 00:38:51.144 --> 00:38:51.714
Okay.

71
Yi Li SDG&E 00:38:56.094 --> 00:38:59.214
All right is it is, uh, Joe driving.

72
Rottman, Mary 00:38:59.544 --> 00:39:00.504
Yes, Joseph.

73
Haga, Joseph 00:39:01.854 --> 00:39:03.024
It's actually Francisco.

74
Rottman, Mary 00:39:03.174 --> 00:39:03.684
Uh, oh.

75
Yi Li SDG&E 00:39:06.715 --> 00:39:07.075
Okay.

76
Rottman, Mary 00:39:07.525 --> 00:39:09.085
Next page probably your 1st.

77
Yi Li SDG&E 00:39:09.115 --> 00:39:11.455
Got it. All right let's go to the next slide.

78
Yi Li SDG&E 00:39:15.955 --> 00:39:33.955
Uh, I think, unless they already kicked off, sort of the introduction this is the workshop number 3 of the limit generation profile discussion relates to resolutions 5 to 11. so, just to recap, uh, we have walked through this example multiple times throughout the workshops and the suite discussion.

79
Yi Li SDG&E 00:39:34.584 --> 00:39:55.494
As far as the elimination profile, um, example, we propose kind of a table here just to reflect what the schedule will look like. Uh, it's gonna be a 12 values ranging from January to December, reflecting the, the lowest value of the month and which is different from.

80
Yi Li SDG&E 00:39:56.394 --> 00:39:59.934
Uh, requirement when's reflecting the lowest.

81
Yi Li SDG&E 00:39:59.940 --> 00:40:19.165
Of the year, so again, this is just trying to recap what has been discussed in recognizing there has been a scheduled discussion on the workshop number 2, which is to be discussed in the future resolution 530 workshops any question before we move on.

82
Yi Li SDG&E 00:40:28.524 --> 00:40:31.494
Hearing none can we move to the next slide?

83
Yi Li SDG&E 00:40:35.334 --> 00:40:54.894
Okay, so we would like to start talking about the scenario where we do believe that based on the discussion of the last workshop, both the, and the stakeholders to have some consensus around this particular scenario, which is around the emergency or plan outages that results in.

84
Yi Li SDG&E 00:40:55.224 --> 00:41:16.074
The possibility of violating system limits and system constraints. So the triggering event for this particular system condition would be a fault condition, or a plant outages, or plant mental list, which, uh, the expectations to happen for a temporary period of time. So, the operator initial.

85
Yi Li SDG&E 00:41:16.104 --> 00:41:37.224
For these triggering event, and the system condition would be that for both sales UPN, loyalty customer they would need to Kurt sell until for the notify by if they're deemed to be a safety reliability issues cap and during these emerging situation and reduction only last for the duration of the particular.

86
Yi Li SDG&E 00:41:37.344 --> 00:41:58.314
Emergency outages events and you will provide a custom notification that's indicating that the customer what, as you resume the normal operation I believe we provide some details on the scenario in the last workshop number 2, but here's just to recap. And for the let me finish.

87
Yi Li SDG&E 00:41:58.380 --> 00:42:19.525
File reduction, the limiter from customer and the non profile customer would be treated equally for these merchants situation. There may be a slight difference. Because as we all know, there's could be a difference in the capability of particular systems. So, if it's a limited generation profile customer has the.

88
Yi Li SDG&E 00:42:19.529 --> 00:42:40.674
Ability to be Chelsea and non 0 level potentially for the, during the emergency event they may not have to be curtailed to 0 versus if it's a customer system that does not have the ability to be decreased to a certain level has to be turned off that project will need to be disconnected completely during the emergency event.

89
Yi Li SDG&E 00:42:40.974 --> 00:43:01.734
So there is a slight difference there, but based on the capability, uh, of the individual system, um, and last, but not least, so we do want to put out a, if there's a, and condition arise such as, you know, earthquake a fire curtailment could be weeks 2 months so we don't want to sort of set the expectation that the temporary.

90
Yi Li SDG&E 00:43:01.829 --> 00:43:09.414
Tom is always going to be a very short period of time. Just want to set that level ground any question comments.

91
Younes, Amin 00:43:13.015 --> 00:43:14.305
Yeah, I, I have a quick question. I'm.

92
Younes, Amin 00:43:14.635 --> 00:43:32.815
Curious mechanically. Technically, how does how are the procurements actually done on projects less than I guess if it's, I imagine for greater than a megawatt, you can use the telemetry that's required for the equipment, but for less than a megawatt, how would you actually curtail? Do you have to call people on the phone and tell him to shut off their system?

93
Younes, Amin 00:43:32.934 --> 00:43:33.624
What would happen?

94
Yi Li SDG&E 00:43:35.034 --> 00:43:53.994
So, on this is our year that may be different across and as we discussed before, this hasn't really happened that often. So, uh, in scenario, if there is emerging events that we do need to, this could tell the customer. We wouldn't really just flat out like.

95
Yi Li SDG&E 00:43:54.024 --> 00:44:11.004
Directly, we will communicate to them most, like, giving them a call and tell them about the situation to ask them to shut down their system instead of just, you know, telling it from the telemetry directly. Does that answer your question?

96
Younes, Amin 00:44:11.214 --> 00:44:14.904
Yeah, thanks and just that the recording and I guess participants I'll mention that.

97
Younes, Amin 00:44:15.175 --> 00:44:15.685
I forget.

98
Roger Salas SCE 00:44:16.675 --> 00:44:36.295
I would say that for it's a little bit different. You want to clarify that for, for emergency conditions, such as outages that happen automatically through faults in projects that are greater than 1 megawatt. We do have equipment now in the field installed that automatically take action.

99
Roger Salas SCE 00:44:37.044 --> 00:44:57.324
And actually disconnect the generator to isolate that generator. So that our operators can then troubleshoot the location or the fault and are able to find the fault and isolate and sectional lines and all the things that need to do the restore power. And so for for us for.

100
Roger Salas SCE 00:44:57.745 --> 00:45:18.445
1, big 1 greater, uh, exporting generators. We do have switching equipment that automatically sectionilize those, those live generators from the grid for plan outages. Uh, not necessarily haven't experienced that much, but I would think that we would be able to communicate with the customer ahead of time.

101
Roger Salas SCE 00:45:18.834 --> 00:45:24.174
To have them disconnect their side of generator prior to going through the planning system.

102
Yi Li SDG&E 00:45:28.315 --> 00:45:36.595
Thanks for clarification. Uh, do we have a hand up? We have a hand up from sky right? Go ahead and meet yourself.

103
Sky Stanfield 00:45:37.735 --> 00:45:46.765
Yeah, thanks. Um, this does sound great to me, I think from my perspective, we agree just to confirm, like the consensus I had more of.

104
Sky Stanfield 00:45:46.799 --> 00:46:07.944
Procedural question, um, both for for you, the utilities am, I guess also for Jose a little bit, which is, um, does this are you thinking that this requires language in rule 21 or is this really just an affirmation of the existing language in the sense that nothing needs to be changed because all projects are subject.

105
Sky Stanfield 00:46:07.950 --> 00:46:17.155
These emergency curtailment under current language or do you think that there's, are you going to propose language related to this? For the, in the terrorist.

106
Roger Salas SCE 00:46:23.064 --> 00:46:26.394
Yeah, this is right. Y'all get my point of view. I, I don't think that it needs to change in the.

107
Sky Stanfield 00:46:26.514 --> 00:46:26.814
Okay.

108
Roger Salas SCE 00:46:27.954 --> 00:46:38.304
But, um, you know, obviously we good to look at it and make sure but it seems to me that we have the ability to do that in the tariff now. And so I don't see why anything would change.

109
Sky Stanfield 00:46:39.384 --> 00:46:40.374
Okay, that's my general.

110
Sky Stanfield 00:46:40.380 --> 00:47:01.405
Sense and I think the, um, the question towards Jose a little bit, and this is not just for this issue but otherwise, um, is in the advice letter filing, whether it was the January 8th or 9th. Um, are the utilities supposed to propose all the rule, 21 language in there? Or is there going to be another round of advice? Letters?

111
Sky Stanfield 00:47:01.644 --> 00:47:03.084
Actual tariff language.

112
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:47:07.225 --> 00:47:15.115
So, uh, the utilities are going to propose advice or language, uh, just to, uh.

113
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:47:17.394 --> 00:47:32.874
Uh, 1st, to address your 1st question sky I think I agree with Roger. No, uh, language, uh, is needed to change this, but we do have to make sure that, you know.

114
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:47:34.164 --> 00:47:55.044
Condition, um, you know, includes customers, just because of how the decision is, uh, stated about that lowest minimum value. So I wouldn't want a, a non a I'm sorry, I, I would not want an ltp.

115
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:47:55.109 --> 00:48:06.924
Customer to think that common emergency condition that, you know, their lowest value is only going to be curtailed down to the lowest, uh, you know.

116
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:48:08.184 --> 00:48:09.954
I see a static value.

117
Sky Stanfield 00:48:12.384 --> 00:48:33.174
i think like that that makes sense um and i you know to to roger's point they'll have to look and see but if if there is language they want to add i just wanted to confirm that the language for this item and then any other proposals whether they're consensus or not in these advice letters will include propose terrible language um we've gotten kind of done different way i think that's the right way to do 

118
Sky Stanfield 00:48:33.324 --> 00:48:40.914
But I wanted to confirm that we'll see the actual terrible language. That's what we're commenting on if we need to protest or otherwise provide input.

119
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:48:41.904 --> 00:48:46.554
Okay, I believe that later in this slide for you to start proposing some advice serve language.

120
Sky Stanfield 00:48:47.394 --> 00:48:47.964
Thank you.

121
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:48:48.204 --> 00:48:54.324
So, uh, maybe, uh, the advisor language discussion can be, can we can wait hold off on.

122
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:48:54.354 --> 00:48:57.894
To the, uh, that list to when that slide comes up.

123
Yi Li SDG&E 00:49:07.254 --> 00:49:09.414
All right any other question before we move on.

124
Yi Li SDG&E 00:49:16.890 --> 00:49:18.835
All right, I think we can move on to the next.

125
Yi Li SDG&E 00:49:23.124 --> 00:49:42.264
so starting this slide i think we're gonna start talking about the system condition that we talked a lot uh in workshop number one and extensively in the last workshop number two so the triggering event here is about the low reduction and low disappearing given circuits either some business 

126
Yi Li SDG&E 00:49:42.294 --> 00:50:03.414
Down moving away no longer in business or customer implementing low management technologies um, that has someone let to a large amount of reduction load. Uh, the system condition here is that after the little reduction, now, the output of the customer is.

127
Yi Li SDG&E 00:50:03.419 --> 00:50:24.564
Meetings to the fullest violation or overloading condition, resulting in the reduction of the hosting capacity on a given circuit or a given line segment, or given area where the system is connected. So we talked about the initial action and kind of a permanent.

128
Yi Li SDG&E 00:50:24.594 --> 00:50:45.654
And on the institution last week, uh, last workshop, uh, to start to some of these events will also kind of, uh, generates or lead to a emergency events, or a needs emergency action. So, to restore maintain the safety and reliable grid, condition, utility operators will perform these initial actions, which may include.

129
Yi Li SDG&E 00:50:45.864 --> 00:51:06.444
adjust the full chanel tc regulators direct uh reduction in the export or shutdown of and generations you will find a lot of similarity between this and what was on the last slide uh given at the time if the emergency is event is ongoing um operators will have to 

130
Yi Li SDG&E 00:51:06.894 --> 00:51:28.014
Do what they, whatever they should do to bring the system back to you as safe and reliable operation and Chris will consider other mitigation measures as well. You'll have discussed this before there's option to transfer the load to the circuit to another circuit, or perform some other circular reconfiguration, like, load balancing a series of.

131
Yi Li SDG&E 00:51:28.134 --> 00:51:49.164
That can potentially happen to mitigate the fence as pertaining to the limited generation profile the, which is also kind of a discussion point part of the, you know, the last 2 workshops in, which was also granted in the decision is that the ltp.

132
Yi Li SDG&E 00:51:49.194 --> 00:52:10.314
Well, maybe reduce that potentially to the lowest amounts and reduction of the generation profile below the lowest. I see. Value may also be required temporarily to maintain the group liability and safety. So, when it comes to the permanence of the reduction, this is where there's kind of a difference here between.

133
Yi Li SDG&E 00:52:10.345 --> 00:52:20.365
The position and the stakeholder stands position. Uh, Jose do you have immediate question you want to meet to finish presenting before you ask.

134
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:52:23.035 --> 00:52:39.295
I can ask something really quickly just clarification. So, this is when an emergency event turns into a future grid condition, just to clarify that, cause that that's the based on what you said, that's cannot take I got on this.

135
Yi Li SDG&E 00:52:41.934 --> 00:52:53.724
No, I wouldn't describe it as turn into a future recognition. This is a future great condition that may surface itself presenting an emergency situation that utility operator has to address.

136
Yi Li SDG&E 00:52:56.304 --> 00:53:00.744
So, it's not like there's not a leading up to if that makes sense.

137
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:53:02.364 --> 00:53:03.564
Okay, yeah, I think so.

138
Yi Li SDG&E 00:53:03.924 --> 00:53:04.254
Yeah.

139
Yi Li SDG&E 00:53:05.754 --> 00:53:26.454
okay so uh for the um profiles uh the profiles could be temporary uh as we mentioned before if the mediation efforts such as reconfiguration change of setting care resolve the issue it wouldn't really require any upgrade it's not going to be a permanent reduction it's going to 

140
Yi Li SDG&E 00:53:26.460 --> 00:53:47.605
Could be a temporary reduction, but to the extent that those do not really solve the problem completely. And it needs the upgrade I always positioning is that we will build the upgrades at the, you know, repair expense to restore the profile to the lowest value. But we wouldn't be able to do that to restore.

141
Yi Li SDG&E 00:53:47.724 --> 00:54:08.754
The I C, Valley agree at the point of the interconnection. And the difference between the UN stakeholder position here is that the stakeholder believes the upgrades, uh, at the repair costs and fundamental repairs should be implemented to restore profiles to the project original, contractual profile. Not just to the lowest.

142
Yi Li SDG&E 00:54:13.194 --> 00:54:15.174
Any question comments.

143
Younes, Amin 00:54:18.084 --> 00:54:20.994
Yeah, I just I just like, oh, sorry, someone else.

144
Rottman, Mary 00:54:21.984 --> 00:54:23.244
Go ahead. Go ahead.

145
Younes, Amin 00:54:24.264 --> 00:54:38.364
I just like to clarify that. That's what's presented a stakeholder's stance here does not reflect Co advocates. We have not given an official position yet and to the extent that we have a position or that we've given a position I suppose.

146
Younes, Amin 00:54:38.394 --> 00:54:47.214
It's along the lines that we don't believe that I use, have fully justified their position, not that we particularly endorse this position over here in the bottom. Right? Thank you.

147
Yi Li SDG&E 00:54:48.774 --> 00:54:59.784
Understood we are really just directed to present different positions, not to provide exclusive position summary of everybody on the call. So I understand what you're saying.

148
Younes, Amin 00:55:00.654 --> 00:55:07.674
Yeah, I just want to make sure that, you know, it it doesn't say what stakeholders and it, it looks like it applies to all the other stakeholders and I want to clarify that. That's not the case.

149
Rottman, Mary 00:55:11.095 --> 00:55:30.415
And this is Mary. I'm, I may have missed something. I was just wondering, could you clarify the distinction in the, in the boxes? Um, on the left on the right? I'm sorry, the, the lighter colored boxes versus the darker color ones uh, in this discussion I just kind of missing something here.

150
Rottman, Mary 00:55:30.864 --> 00:55:38.514
Um, so, for example, profile project, profile, the lower box is in a lighter color. Um.

151
Yi Li SDG&E 00:55:40.584 --> 00:56:01.494
Oh, okay. So those, we were talking about the scenario where the reduction to the lowest value will be temporarily. If there's a mitigation can be found to resolve the issue. So it doesn't generate the upgrade versus the lighter box below is talking about scenario. Where of the.

152
Yi Li SDG&E 00:56:01.559 --> 00:56:11.874
Federation below the yet lowest. Really not be temporary will be permanent and unless, uh, some upgrade can be made to address the issue.

153
Rottman, Mary 00:56:13.524 --> 00:56:18.924
And then, is that true? Only the next 2 boxes the difference between the dark and the light gray.

154
Yi Li SDG&E 00:56:19.314 --> 00:56:22.674
Those are the correspondent, uh, information, so.

155
Yi Li SDG&E 00:56:22.735 --> 00:56:24.025
With the profile.

156
Rottman, Mary 00:56:25.045 --> 00:56:25.615
Okay.

157
Rottman, Mary 00:56:30.114 --> 00:56:31.494
He'll say it looks like you have your hand it.

158
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:56:32.814 --> 00:56:48.024
Thank you Mary. Um, I just wanted to say, I think, I mean, for bringing up, um, an interesting topic. Um, I know a lot of people here are probably just, um, stakeholders that are actively participating and.

159
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:56:48.834 --> 00:57:09.234
Others are listen only that they're just here for the information. So, maybe at some point either, uh, you know, maybe through email, we need to identify, you know, uh, when it comes to the stakeholder stands call.

160
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:57:09.984 --> 00:57:24.774
Who are the active participants and who, you know, just to distinguish just to make sure that, you know, uh, the term stakeholder that's not, um.

161
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:57:27.894 --> 00:57:35.634
Include everybody here that participated who may be only in listen only information only mode.

162
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:57:40.854 --> 00:57:43.914
So, I just wanted to throw that, uh, idea out there.

163
Roger Salas SCE 00:57:51.804 --> 00:58:11.544
This is Roger. I mean, I think that's a good thing that we need to clarify, because I believe we need to put in the advice letter stakeholders positions. We need to clearly understand who those take. Uh, I'm not sure what we what the expectation is, whether or not advise that or we need to, uh, uh.

164
Roger Salas SCE 00:58:12.924 --> 00:58:20.424
How, like, who does stake holders holders are and what each each of their positions are. So, in some guidance, there would be appropriate.

165
Yi Li SDG&E 00:58:22.104 --> 00:58:22.434
Yeah.

166
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:58:22.464 --> 00:58:22.674
Okay.

167
Yi Li SDG&E 00:58:23.274 --> 00:58:33.624
I call that and you'll see on your slide leading up to this presentation you had mentioned that, you know, we want the write ups of the alternative in different positions.

168
Yi Li SDG&E 00:58:33.839 --> 00:58:54.984
Also, the sort of the comments, it's, it's not the easiest to just tell based on workshop discussions who is agree with whose position because it's mostly people raising hands and making comments. So, to the extent that can be there can be written proposal. It would help as we were drafting those advised letters to capture.

169
Yi Li SDG&E 00:58:54.989 --> 00:58:55.974
Those positions.

170
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:58:56.874 --> 00:59:15.054
Okay, we'll, uh, we'll work on that and figure out how to, uh, you know, uh, get that on, you know, through email on, you know, to see who is active participant who is in full on the, you know, so we captured that in the advice letters.

171
Roger Salas SCE 00:59:16.165 --> 00:59:37.195
Maybe a suggestion would be like, what we did for the, the working groups, which was, uh, a in, uh, say, uh, an entity would then, you know, would make a proposal. And under there. It would be like, who supports the proposal. So so, so maybe maybe we can do something like that if, uh, there's a proposal.

172
Roger Salas SCE 00:59:37.374 --> 00:59:50.334
Proposed by whomever then in that proposal online, who's supporting that and that could then be added to the advisor or otherwise we don't know who who's proposing what or who's supporting 1.

173
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:59:50.844 --> 00:59:52.854
Okay, thank you Roger. That's actually a good idea.

174
gary holdsworth sdg&e 00:59:53.484 --> 00:59:58.434
Yeah, and before we go on, I I just wanted to add as Gary and.

175
gary holdsworth sdg&e 00:59:58.494 --> 00:59:58.824
Day.

176
gary holdsworth sdg&e 00:59:59.874 --> 01:00:20.634
It's fairly unprecedented to ask you to summarize other stakeholders points of view. Maybe it's common and other proceedings. It's the 1st time I've ever seen it in rule 21 proceeding. So that's what we're we're struggling with. I think you can understand that, you know, we generally know.

177
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:00:21.024 --> 01:00:27.264
We don't know a great deal of detail on folks positions. There really needs to be a clearing house for that.

178
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:00:30.805 --> 01:00:34.795
It goes well, beyond, just knowing who is listen only and who's not thank you.

179
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:00:35.815 --> 01:00:39.805
Okay, thank you for that. Gary. So we'll work on that.

180
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:00:45.265 --> 01:00:45.535
Got it.

181
Yi Li SDG&E 01:00:45.565 --> 01:00:45.955
I.

182
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:00:46.345 --> 01:00:48.025
I'm sorry yeah. Go ahead.

183
Sky Stanfield 01:00:48.985 --> 01:01:03.115
Yeah, so, um, I'll wait on that and then I ask my other question. Um, so I agree that, you know, you're you're going to need to know what parties positions are. And as soon as I emailed you earlier this week, what what I would like to do is.

184
Sky Stanfield 01:01:03.564 --> 01:01:24.444
We'll write up our proposal in, you know, in whatever level of details, appropriate, um, and, and provide it to the prior to the filing. So they can simply attach it to the advice letter and not be forced to try to characterize our position. And we will, we'll probably collaborate with others on that and, and be able to.

185
Sky Stanfield 01:01:24.475 --> 01:01:45.595
Something indicates who's joining our proposal um, but I, you know, there's always like a bunch of people who don't know whether they're participating or not. Um, I would say that those who think they might want to work with Iraq on their proposal, should reach out to me directly to let me know. And then, but I think and I think if others have proposals.

186
Sky Stanfield 01:01:45.744 --> 01:02:06.744
That, um, different from the proposal, or the 1 that I read at all might work on that they should also be required to provide in writing what their proposal is. Um, so that the don't aren't in the position of trying to characterize something that's somewhat base. So, um, and I think the other way to do it, Jose.

187
Sky Stanfield 01:02:06.749 --> 01:02:19.404
Is to let people know that their organizations won't be listed unless they respond directly with either a statement that they support the proposal or other proposals.

188
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:02:20.874 --> 01:02:27.774
Okay, we can definitely do, uh, that guy I, I think having a, uh, separate list of.

189
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:02:27.900 --> 01:02:42.955
Attendees versus active participants, you know, will definitely be helpful, just, uh, to keep the record, you know, great. Um, and That'll make that distinction. I think you had another point.

190
Sky Stanfield 01:02:43.045 --> 01:02:49.045
Yeah, I just had a question that goes goes beyond what we were just more substantively. So, 1 of the things that.

191
Sky Stanfield 01:02:49.104 --> 01:03:10.194
Sort of talked about vaguely, but haven't really addressed specifically. Here is under that I use proposal. Um, so you propose an, and and maybe whether or not a curtailment happens after the project's interconnected. Um, if a project comes along later.

192
Sky Stanfield 01:03:10.315 --> 01:03:31.165
And upgrades the circuit, because there isn't any remaining capacity and has to pay for an upgrade. I think we might need to clarify what happens after that. So, if the circuit's been upgraded and just go on, and then, you know, down the road, there is a large load drop off again or or.

193
Sky Stanfield 01:03:31.674 --> 01:03:52.314
For the 1st time, I'm not clear whether what would happen to the customer are they still subject to permanent curtailment in that circumstances? Because the complex thing of course, is that the grids going to change in lots of ways for a variety of reasons new new.

194
Sky Stanfield 01:03:53.784 --> 01:04:13.644
You know, upgrades the utilities are doing for, for reasons not related to the ers so on. And it's a little unclear to me how you track and an account for, or treat customers in that much more dynamic environment. Um, so that's a question. Um, and I don't I have somewhat of an opinion on it, but.

195
Sky Stanfield 01:04:13.675 --> 01:04:17.395
But I'm curious to hear what what utilities are thinking around that.

196
Yi Li SDG&E 01:04:18.865 --> 01:04:30.325
I just do we've confirm the situation usually not during the Internet connection. Somebody else pay for the upgrades already for the.

197
Sky Stanfield 01:04:30.355 --> 01:04:34.795
So, no, after so say, you know, we interconnect with project and.

198
Sky Stanfield 01:04:34.854 --> 01:04:55.944
A year or 2 or 20 later a, the circuit changes for any variety of reasons either. Another our project proposes, propose a project gets a study, and it's determined there's not capacity and they get an upgrade cost and they pay for that circuit to be upgraded or the utility through their planning efforts determines.

199
Sky Stanfield 01:04:56.005 --> 01:05:17.095
It needs to be upgraded or other circumstances arise, post the projects interconnection. It's going to create a really confusing environment for what the project was responsible for. If again later after all of that happens, there are changes. I just think that the nature of the circuits.

200
Sky Stanfield 01:05:17.124 --> 01:05:38.244
Dynamic for a variety of reasons and so, this idea that we're going to track and hold the earlier customer who might be. I agree. Will still be required to conform to their unless they submit a new interconnection application, proposing a different profile or no profile or whatever. But what how they'll be treated in terms.

201
Sky Stanfield 01:05:38.274 --> 01:05:48.324
Of potential curtailment gets pretty complicated if there's a lot more things that have happened on the feeder. Subsequently that does that make sense.

202
Roger Salas SCE 01:05:50.364 --> 01:06:07.464
I I I think I understand what you're saying Skype. Um, basically, I think what you're saying is if you have an, that you could tell, but, you know, obviously circuit will continue to change in the future, what would happen or how do we address if capacity becomes available right?

203
Sky Stanfield 01:06:07.824 --> 01:06:10.044
When it's not just whether or not the project.

204
Sky Stanfield 01:06:10.680 --> 01:06:15.145
Even if the project wasn't curtailed, those changes could occur.

205
Roger Salas SCE 01:06:16.555 --> 01:06:16.705
Well.

206
Sky Stanfield 01:06:16.705 --> 01:06:26.365
So it's either or like, either they work or tailed and things change, or they weren't curtailed, but things change and then the reduction happens after that.

207
Roger Salas SCE 01:06:27.085 --> 01:06:31.735
Well, if they were not retail, uh, we're not gonna go and tell customers.

208
Roger Salas SCE 01:06:32.364 --> 01:06:38.064
That they have the ability to to increase their profile. I mean, for that, they would require a new inner connection request.

209
Sky Stanfield 01:06:38.394 --> 01:06:52.884
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that what I'm saying is so the circuits are going to change, you know, this rather better than I for a lot of reasons after an customer is interconnected. Right? And those changes could result and upgrades or other changes in how you guys operate.

210
Sky Stanfield 01:06:53.274 --> 01:07:14.124
For a variety of things, and then if a large customer drops off, you know, let's say 5 or 10 years down the road, and you still have this LGB customer I think it creates some difficulty about what and how what's the responsibility for curtailment is with that customer, because what if, like, 10 other interconnections were made after.

211
Sky Stanfield 01:07:14.154 --> 01:07:34.374
Because of either upgrades paid for by a developer or upgrades paid for, by the utility, for example, because of logos or other circumstances I think it becomes. And this is part of the reason why I'm hesitant with the proposal overall. But regardless of whether it's repairs or.

212
Sky Stanfield 01:07:35.394 --> 01:07:37.974
Customers, I just think we're creating this sort of.

213
Sky Stanfield 01:07:39.805 --> 01:07:47.365
It's gonna be hard to, like, determine, um, what the, what the response to what the cost responsibilities are.

214
Roger Salas SCE 01:07:47.665 --> 01:07:47.995
Yeah, [...] [...].

215
Sky Stanfield 01:07:48.025 --> 01:07:57.175
When we begin layering on, like, the future events for that for that on that speeder that that a customer is interconnected.

216
Roger Salas SCE 01:07:58.735 --> 01:08:00.625
Yeah, very complex. I agree. I agree. I.

217
Roger Salas SCE 01:08:00.774 --> 01:08:21.653
I agree what you're saying. It's a, it's a tough 1 definitely to deal with. Um, I would I would sense that, you know, you have new generators coming after the, they're likely going to trigger an upgrade because again, the is essentially taking the project is limits.

218
Roger Salas SCE 01:08:21.954 --> 01:08:42.954
And so it is, it is probably not likely that we'll end up with that condition. Because most likely the, the next project is gonna have to perform some system upgrades either through repairs. Uh, because they're gonna be likely less than 1 megawatt or potentially themselves. If they aren't where they want.

219
Roger Salas SCE 01:08:42.984 --> 01:08:53.994
Maybe so, but I, but I have the sense that many many of these situations will will end up where the system's going to be upgraded after the fact anyways.

220
Sky Stanfield 01:08:54.653 --> 01:09:04.104
So, this system could be upgraded after the fact and then large load could still drop off. Yeah. And then it create what I think is problematic about this is.

221
Sky Stanfield 01:09:04.133 --> 01:09:18.594
Shifting the cost responsibility for LGB customers, but not for other customers and by costs responsibility. I mean, the curtailment is per you guys's proposal at least. And if the circuits upgraded and again, there are subsequent.

222
Roger Salas SCE 01:09:18.594 --> 01:09:19.974
Connections.

223
Sky Stanfield 01:09:20.934 --> 01:09:25.254
From there where the utility is responsible for the.

224
Sky Stanfield 01:09:25.285 --> 01:09:46.404
If the right pair, let's say, just to be really clear, um, for the upgrade for upgrades would happen if load dropped off, how does the customer who has a different set of costs responsibility get treated in that? And this is, you know, they were talking over a 20 year time frame or something. So I just feel like the problem with this is that we're.

225
Sky Stanfield 01:09:46.410 --> 01:10:07.495
Fixing cost responsibility. Yeah. Up on a feed it's going to have lots of different people with different obligations and it's not the LGB customer per se. That's fully responsible. So say on a typical feeder, you have 150 inner connections and all of the projects have some contribution to the generation that.

226
Sky Stanfield 01:10:07.559 --> 01:10:28.704
Cause the need for an upgrade of load drops off, but we're saying an customer. It's really clear. They'll GP customer was the last interconnected. Right? And then the load drops off, but that's not going to be the scenario over time. There's going to be a whole lot of different things that have happened. And so I think that this, this mixing of.

227
Sky Stanfield 01:10:28.734 --> 01:10:33.684
Responsibilities and again, I have an obvious opinion about that.

228
Roger Salas SCE 01:10:33.774 --> 01:10:34.164
Um.

229
Sky Stanfield 01:10:34.194 --> 01:10:49.854
That I can express in our own proposal, but I think you guys need it would be helpful, um, for the commission likely if you clarify what you'll do in those hard to pin down scenarios for how you treat the.

230
Sky Stanfield 01:10:49.974 --> 01:11:05.634
Customer in the future, if their costs responsibility, or their risk of curtailment is different, because couldn't we argue that the later projects should be that their cost responsibility should govern or what? That's what's confusing.

231
Yi Li SDG&E 01:11:06.384 --> 01:11:11.004
This is why we kind of arguing that cost responsibility has been really complicated from the.

232
Yi Li SDG&E 01:11:11.035 --> 01:11:28.015
Right, because if you look at the other angle, the scenario you just described sky, the cost responsibility of paying for the upgrade was shifted by from the customer to the next customer line. Right? If it's a name customer, less than 1 megawatt, the costs of responsibility are paying for the upgrades.

233
Sky Stanfield 01:11:28.105 --> 01:11:31.945
I'm not talking about paying for the upgrades caused by new generation.

234
Sky Stanfield 01:11:33.805 --> 01:11:53.125
These facts that you guys have identified. So, and I don't think there's any problem with just like any interconnection. If I come on and I take the last bit of the capacity, whether I'm, the next project is LGB or not. They have to pay for those upgrades. There's all sorts of things wrong with that that are queued up another proceedings or other parts of this proceeding.

235
Sky Stanfield 01:11:53.904 --> 01:12:03.804
The cost responsibility for upgrades that needs to happen because the grid changes in some way, namely load dropping off. That is the cause responsibility I'm talking about.

236
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:12:04.254 --> 01:12:14.454
You know, can I chime in a little bit? Okay. All right. Um, I want to make, like, for the record, or at least express. Um.

237
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:12:14.459 --> 01:12:28.314
They're changing the paradigm that's been serving, you know, the interconnection world for years with, um, and to quote an old commercial. It's pay me now or pay me later.

238
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:12:30.684 --> 01:12:51.114
When you're talking about, we're no longer studying a full study to develop the worst case mitigations, which is the old way and now we're moving to okay, we're going to push it to the limit and then we're going to figure out what the.

239
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:12:51.119 --> 01:13:12.114
Patient is and whoever's left holding the bag at that point is left. That's a fundamental paradigm shift. And I think, you know, from your perspective, sky, that's unfair. And from my perspective, it's someone's going to have to pay eventually because we didn't study it to begin with.

240
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:13:12.474 --> 01:13:23.124
You know, we had to study it the way we used to study it, so the paradigm shifts, then it's natural that costs responsibility may shift in an unfair way for some people.

241
Frances Cleveland 01:13:24.774 --> 01:13:33.414
Yeah, I, I would like to sort of jump in a little bit on this, which is 1 of the things that we're looking at in the smart inverter.

242
Frances Cleveland 01:13:33.419 --> 01:13:54.564
Personalization working group is exactly what happens in the future and 1 of the possibilities in this, I think picks up on sky's issue is that the interconnection agreement could really be the maximum constraints per.

243
Frances Cleveland 01:13:54.625 --> 01:14:15.715
Whatever time frame we're talking about, you know, 12 or 288, whatever that's separate issue, but that's going into the future that gets set in the interconnection agreement or the part of the interconnection agreement. But then in the future, I think.

244
Frances Cleveland 01:14:15.744 --> 01:14:18.504
I think it is worth while.

245
Frances Cleveland 01:14:20.365 --> 01:14:41.095
Requiring reassessment as conditions change as technology gets better to say, understand better what's happening on a particular circuit to at least alleviate some of the limits that have been put in.

246
Frances Cleveland 01:14:41.514 --> 01:15:02.064
So long as those limits remain within the original constraints. So, what we're saying is making it better for the based on current conditions, or perceived near term future conditions.

247
Frances Cleveland 01:15:02.364 --> 01:15:23.394
And so that those limits would then be changed in the schedule somehow again how that gets done. It's a different issue, uh, over time again. So long as they don't so long as they remain within.

248
Frances Cleveland 01:15:23.400 --> 01:15:44.515
The constraints originally set in the interconnection agreement if there needs to be a change that makes the situation worse, then you have to negotiate a new interconnection agreement. But I think it's important to provide the flexibility to make life better based.

249
Frances Cleveland 01:15:44.574 --> 01:15:56.844
On changing conditions, changing technologies, changing visibility of of what's happening. So, again, so long as they're within the constraints of the interconnection agreement.

250
Roger Salas SCE 01:15:58.674 --> 01:16:05.484
Thanks, for instance, maybe going back to sky's comment. I understand exactly what you're talking about.

251
Roger Salas SCE 01:16:06.325 --> 01:16:26.845
It gets very complicated, but at this point, the only thing that we have to play with is the language that the provided, which is, we're not allowed to curtail anybody, you know, are not allowed to be curtail projects that are connected to non. Are.

252
Roger Salas SCE 01:16:26.964 --> 01:16:47.904
Are not allowed to be curtailed. The only thing that we're allowed to curtail is projects, and so to your scenario uh, uh, um, there, uh, it appears to me that the only resource that we have is really going to the LGB projects, you know, whether we kind of like it or not because that's the only thing that.

253
Roger Salas SCE 01:16:48.024 --> 01:16:51.474
What's outlined in the decision as the only thing that we can do.

254
Brad Heavner 01:16:52.224 --> 01:17:07.794
Well, I don't think it's the case that you're forced to turn on anything. Right? I, I fundamentally disagree with the characterization that customers would not be paying for something that they should be paying for. What they're doing is they're using the existing capacity.

255
Brad Heavner 01:17:09.175 --> 01:17:30.295
Hitting a system they're building a system that is within the confines at that time in the future grid conditions will change utilities. We'll need to adapt custom. The new customers will have to go through the normal process, but it's not the responsibility of the customer. At that point. They've built the according to the rules. What was what was safe.

256
Brad Heavner 01:17:30.299 --> 01:17:51.444
For the time we need to make sure safe means safe for sure. But that doesn't change for that customer over time. And so I just disagree with gary's framing of this that it's they should be paying later because they didn't pay. Now, they built something that there's capacity for it.

257
Brad Heavner 01:17:51.565 --> 01:18:12.385
Effectively what the utilities are saying in their position here is we should not use the existing capacity of the grid because other people will need it in the future. And I don't think that's accurate. I think it's that we should we use the existing capacity. We paid for and built the system will change. Customers will change.

258
Brad Heavner 01:18:12.599 --> 01:18:19.074
We will adapt with our normal processes and that's the way the system works.

259
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:18:20.094 --> 01:18:31.194
I was I was hoping to respond just to a little bit. I was obviously oversimplifying Brad but the, the point is that when you contrast as to where we used to.

260
Fardin Sarraf 01:18:31.464 --> 01:18:31.644
Huh.

261
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:18:31.644 --> 01:18:33.744
Way of studying the worst case.

262
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:18:33.774 --> 01:18:36.804
And mitigating towards the worst case scenario.

263
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:18:37.979 --> 01:18:43.494
Where, you know, it's how Roger used to do studies when he did studies, right right.

264
Roger Salas SCE 01:18:44.004 --> 01:18:44.574
That's right.

265
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:18:44.694 --> 01:18:58.944
Um, we didn't have this problem later. We didn't if the system changed, it was okay, because it was always studied for the worst case. So when you leave when you reduce that.

266
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:18:59.129 --> 01:19:01.434
Front, you know.

267
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:19:01.950 --> 01:19:18.355
And allow it to change over time, take advantage yes. Of the existing capacity. We're never saying no to that. What we're saying is if the system changes such that it creates a problem, somebody has to address that problem. That's all we're saying.

268
Brad Heavner 01:19:18.835 --> 01:19:19.795
When it's still studying.

269
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:19:19.795 --> 01:19:22.855
What else was worst case? We would have addressed it earlier, but we didn't.

270
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:19:23.214 --> 01:19:31.344
We allowed, you know, we allowed the change in the paradigm, but someone eventually has to figure out the mitigation.

271
Brad Heavner 01:19:31.704 --> 01:19:40.044
Well, I don't understand cause you're still studying worst case in making sure it's safe. What you're not doing is leaving as much headroom as you used to. Yes, that is a big change.

272
Roger Salas SCE 01:19:41.064 --> 01:19:43.974
And again we're talking about, it's not it's not necessarily what happens.

273
Roger Salas SCE 01:19:44.274 --> 01:20:05.244
The time of the study is more about what happens, you know, potentially years after the status, creating this complexity. Yes, absolutely. We started at the time that we started the project a time that we know going into project is says, and we study what it's supposed to be study, but it's really more what happens after the fact. And again, just.

274
Roger Salas SCE 01:20:05.815 --> 01:20:26.455
For me, the only thing whether we like it or not that guy, I mean, I know you you and Bradley disagree, which is fine. The only thing that we have to play with for the order is our ability to limit systems. He did not talk about allowing us to limit.

275
Sky Stanfield 01:20:26.574 --> 01:20:47.694
Systems right so I wouldn't want to interject and go back to what I'm asking for here. Um, we disagree on a lot of the fundamental theory and policy here, but I think that what I'm asking for and when I think you guys may want to take consider is that you're going to need to implement your proposal.

276
Sky Stanfield 01:20:48.025 --> 01:20:48.955
In reality.

277
Roger Salas SCE 01:20:49.075 --> 01:20:49.435
Mm, hmm.

278
Sky Stanfield 01:20:49.645 --> 01:21:08.845
And you're gonna have later generators, interconnecting later changes to load later system reconfiguration. And I think the commissions under this, this order is going to expect you to articulate how you're going to manage that when you have these different responsibilities.

279
Sky Stanfield 01:21:08.849 --> 01:21:29.994
Deleted and I haven't seen a proposal that explains or runs through the gazillion different scenarios and how you're going to grapple with that. And so that it's whether we disagree, obviously, on some of the fundamentals. But even under your proposal, even if we agreed under your proposal, it seems to me, like, we need some clarity on what.

280
Sky Stanfield 01:21:30.024 --> 01:21:50.004
Going to happen in the future as later generators, upgrade the grid and then a event happens who is responsible in that circumstance for curtailment or upgrades. I think that it's not this, like, bright clean scenario that we've been envisioning. And so it's fine if you guys want to take the position, you're taking.

281
Sky Stanfield 01:21:51.265 --> 01:22:12.205
That you haven't explained how it actually will work in the future under those more dynamics scenarios, which are probably more the norm than not. So, I, you know, there's a lot to this and I get that. That requires some thought. But I, I think what I'm saying is not really pushing back on the proposal itself, because we disagree on some of the basics there.

282
Sky Stanfield 01:22:12.654 --> 01:22:32.064
And I just think that there's a big gap here in. I don't understand what will happen in the future under your scenario. And my guess is that the commission also would like some clarity on. What are you going to do and who is going to be responsible for those costs if they arise in a much more mixed up set of circumstances in the future.

283
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:22:32.634 --> 01:22:33.444
So people.

284
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:22:33.475 --> 01:22:54.595
Gone I would like to support sky's, uh, position here cause, um, you know, this slide is, um, you know, uh, based on the discussion. The last few minutes, this slide is very static and it's not looking about. It's now looking out on what happens afterwards. So, uh, you know, I do agree.

285
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:22:54.684 --> 01:23:08.664
That we need to start looking at that on what happens after, I guess, after you implement, let's say this slide and then more stuff happens to the grid.

286
Roger Salas SCE 01:23:09.714 --> 01:23:15.744
I would disagree with that because that's what we're saying in triggering events. What is going to.

287
Roger Salas SCE 01:23:15.774 --> 01:23:36.894
Well, you know, something happened could be, you know, load going off. Um, obviously, you know, generation is not there because new generators will will be required to pay for any updates based on their generation queue. But any, any changes that happen after the agreement is executed. Any any trigger an event between the.

288
Roger Salas SCE 01:23:37.015 --> 01:23:48.505
That you got connected to 10 years on the road that trigger an event could happen. And what we're saying is, when such trigger it, it happens. Now we're in the future. That's how we planning to handle it.

289
Sky Stanfield 01:23:49.225 --> 01:23:57.865
But, yeah, you're not explaining how you're gonna handle it Roger. So, let me just run through a scenario. So I connect to project on use most or all of the.

290
Sky Stanfield 01:23:58.254 --> 01:24:18.294
Capacity and then mode electrification happens in a major way, which we fully expect, particularly, you know, what if a multi megawatt EA charger is installed and low grows and then what that means is that there's additional hosting capacity. Mm. Hmm. And a project comes on multiple. Go ahead.

291
Roger Salas SCE 01:24:18.294 --> 01:24:19.074
Can we talk about.

292
Roger Salas SCE 01:24:19.345 --> 01:24:37.285
They will proceed. Okay so so just that that scenario, right there, maybe you can proceed with your scenario adding load has no impact on. Okay. So so, so, so we approve an profile you are a low because of electrification or you add a note because for whatever reason, nothing changes to the.

293
Sky Stanfield 01:24:37.315 --> 01:24:40.135
I'm not saying that it does. You haven't let me finish my scenario.

294
Sky Stanfield 01:24:42.084 --> 01:25:01.494
Yes, I am not suggesting and I said this twice already once you propose your, you cannot change your, unless you reapply for modifications. I am 100% in agreement with that. I am not suggesting in any way, at any point in this process that a project that proposed an, would be able to change without.

295
Sky Stanfield 01:25:02.784 --> 01:25:17.124
So, let me play out the scenario I was trying to get to so this, this electrification happens creates more capacity and later a new generators, thus interconnect under that capacity either using an, or maybe not using it.

296
Sky Stanfield 01:25:18.204 --> 01:25:22.464
And then we go 3 or 4 my years and then a major factory that's on that circuit.

297
Sky Stanfield 01:25:23.065 --> 01:25:43.765
Goes away load, drops off. We now have a bunch of generators and again, the low dropping off fully is going to implicate both the profile hours and the profile hours of those flat generators. So an upgrade may need to happen. Not just because of the projects. But, because of later, and even previously interconnected.

298
Sky Stanfield 01:25:43.824 --> 01:25:44.634
Generators.

299
Roger Salas SCE 01:25:44.694 --> 01:25:44.964
Hmm.

300
Sky Stanfield 01:25:45.114 --> 01:26:04.944
It doesn't if your your position is that you will still curtail that project, even though there are later generators that would have essentially triggered the traditional cost responsibility. I think it should would be helpful for the commission to know that that's how you'll handle that. If you're saying you'll handle it in a different way.

301
Sky Stanfield 01:26:04.975 --> 01:26:26.095
These articulate it, it's not that I'm not saying the project can change its profile. The question is, when low drops off in the future once you've had a variety of changes to the circuit. What is the, how are you going to treat that? 1 to customer? Maybe that connected 10 years ago under that.

302
Sky Stanfield 01:26:26.124 --> 01:26:47.244
Scenario, and how are you going to track it? How are you going to communicate to the customer? How all of that is is going to get pretty complicated and it seems like a good idea if we're going to say to the LGB customer, take this amounts of risk that they understand what it is and that the commission is assured that it has cost responsibility.

303
Sky Stanfield 01:26:47.274 --> 01:26:47.874
Tracking.

304
David Schiada 01:26:51.924 --> 01:27:11.064
Hey, Jose, this is Dave. Just I know this is a procedural comment here, but I just wanted to follow up on to the extent that there is, um, there's going to be a, a, an email or otherwise to, uh, allow folks to send their proposals or alternatives.

305
David Schiada 01:27:11.454 --> 01:27:32.364
To be incorporated in an advice letter. I mean, the are are on the hook to file that advice that I believe it's January 9th. So, we'll just need to make sure that there are some, you know, from deadlines and that provide sufficient time for those to be incorporated to the extent that there's an invitation for those.

306
David Schiada 01:27:32.394 --> 01:27:39.204
Because I think we're kind of running into some, some time constraints here. So, thanks for that.

307
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:27:40.014 --> 01:27:53.514
Okay, uh, thank you. Uh, Dave, for bringing that up. Uh, we will definitely do some deadlines. Um, or do I do want to bring up um, and I'm, uh, I don't want to jump ahead on slides, but.

308
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:27:53.544 --> 01:28:04.344
You know, uh, ironic last slide, I believe, had some questions regarding that whether more time is needed. So we can address that then.

309
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:28:10.734 --> 01:28:13.104
And, I mean, I think you had your hands up.

310
Younes, Amin 01:28:13.524 --> 01:28:27.354
Yeah, I just wanted to to bring up a couple other scenarios in addition to the 1 that Scott mentioned the 1st, is that if you had an profile on a circuit and interconnection, until you ever met 1 megawatt load leaves under the proposal.

311
Younes, Amin 01:28:27.384 --> 01:28:48.474
Well, they would curtail that that down to the profile and leave assuming that that solve the problem didn't require any updates. You would leave it there but then what if loads subsequently grows. Um, and I asked that question, because my understanding from the decision is that you're only allowed to retain that curtailment in your view as long as safety.

312
Younes, Amin 01:28:48.535 --> 01:29:09.595
Liability concerned warranted, but as soon as, as soon as load grows, so you get 100 kilowatts back of logos. You would then need to continue. Would you I guess I'll ask that as a question would you continuously reevaluate low growth on that circuit? And I say limits and return return that capacity as logos allows it or would you do something else? So I'll pin that question.

313
Younes, Amin 01:29:09.660 --> 01:29:30.805
And the 2nd scenario that I just wanted to talk through, um, just just for the kind of to make sure I'm understanding the, the policy correctly. So, I want to imagine the circuit with with or 2 identical circuits 1 with a 500 kilowatt interconnection and 1 with a 500 kilowatt traditional say, name interconnection and.

314
Younes, Amin 01:29:30.809 --> 01:29:51.954
Imagine that imagine that the are connecting uses of all the capacity. So, then in, in, in both of those circuits, any of the subsequent 100 kilowatts inner connection my understanding of the proposal by the is that in the non interconnection you would then trigger an upgrade. You would build the upgrade for the interconnection that you would basically just curtail that.

315
Younes, Amin 01:29:51.984 --> 01:29:57.924
Down by the 100 kilowatt name profile and not built an interconnection. So I guess I'd like to ask.

316
Younes, Amin 01:29:59.010 --> 01:30:02.785
If I'm understanding that correctly, understanding how that would be treated under the proposal.

317
Roger Salas SCE 01:30:06.384 --> 01:30:08.664
I'll start and give you per.

318
Roger Salas SCE 01:30:09.564 --> 01:30:30.024
Um, let's start with the 1st, 1 a little bit. The 1st one's a little bit easier. Um, 1st of all. I, I don't expect that we'll have so many of these that we can attract. So, I imagine that if we have a condition where we actually have to curtail a project, because low disappearing again, I expect.

319
Roger Salas SCE 01:30:30.055 --> 01:30:51.175
To happen very rarely, not a guarantee, but very rarely. So I imagine that we would be able to easily track those projects and yes. Our goal, at least for us, his position is our goal is to mean, you know, give projects what they are, but they got approved and only core tell them when there's a safety.

320
Roger Salas SCE 01:30:51.180 --> 01:31:12.235
Ability to so, yes, to the extent that we are a system upgrade happens for whatever reason new generation, a capacity upgrade reliability, update, whatever that may be or change new load comes in then yeah. You know, at least for for we would definitely be willing to to.

321
Roger Salas SCE 01:31:12.564 --> 01:31:33.444
Bring that gender and generator up to its originally originally approved ltp projects again. That's essence. View only. So, you know, other utilities can give their position your 2nd scenario how, you know, maybe maybe, can you repeat your seconds or maybe let's start. Let's stop there. Maybe you can repeat your secondary afterwards.

322
Roger Salas SCE 01:31:33.954 --> 01:31:37.944
Uh, I want to give the other utility opportunity to come in and that 1st.

323
Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:31:39.414 --> 01:31:54.624
Yeah, this this is Alex with PG so I think I think that's an interesting point. Interpretation on the safety reliability reasons. Um, it's something that I don't think we had thought about, um, as far as, like, if a project.

324
Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:31:54.654 --> 01:32:15.774
Reduced, and then in the future Lord gets increased and I do agree with Roger. That is something we'd be willing to do. I don't think especially if it's verifiable that load did grow. The only caveat is typically, we don't go, we go through a load planning process.

325
Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:32:15.835 --> 01:32:34.105
Once a year, so, and I don't know what mechanism would use to track these projects. I mean, I guess if it's 1 project to 2 a year, we could come up with a methodology to go back to those projects that have been curtailed, or reduced to the.

326
Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:32:34.314 --> 01:32:47.424
So, I'm not opposed to it, but I have to be honest, it's not something that we had thought about, but I don't I don't see, I don't see how we would not be. I don't see how we can't allow it. I guess.

327
Younes, Amin 01:32:55.285 --> 01:33:03.505
All right, unless sdg, he wants to weigh in on that question. 1st I will, I will reiterate the 2nd question, which is just you, you have, uh, sorry was.

328
phuoc 01:33:04.465 --> 01:33:16.405
For PG E, um, yeah, I would echo what are Roger and Alex said, um, if we the lowest go away, we reduce the, and then those come back.

329
phuoc 01:33:17.155 --> 01:33:30.835
Can we do load, um, study every year we probably come back with you and have a plan to look at it and we would support that. And I think to answer your 2nd question, I would try to the stab at it. You have an existing, uh, ltp.

330
phuoc 01:33:32.004 --> 01:33:53.064
Go 1st, they take up all the capacity's available a next 500 K. are you less than 1 megawatt project? Come in? Would probably trigger upgrade. So, at that point, because it's a D***, let's say, name less than 1 megawatt utility would fund the upgrade, um, and get get that project to be.

331
phuoc 01:33:53.094 --> 01:34:01.884
Connected so, then, in that scenario, if the, uh, large loads going away, causing the issue.

332
phuoc 01:34:03.594 --> 01:34:24.084
Uh, what I would think, and that's an hour, because we would have a larger conductor. So, the chances for the existing projects to be reduced is that because now you have a larger conductor. We cannot guarantee that, but that's not what I would think now the issue would be then the next 1 coming in less than 1 megawatt. What would happen? Would we evaluate again?

333
phuoc 01:34:24.114 --> 01:34:44.604
We go through the same process. So I think what we see would be at the beginning of the of the process when the next less than 500 K. W, go up. The cost shifting would be from the ratepayer to. But then the subsequent coming, the project may have to be reduced. And if you have a 1 Meg 1.

334
phuoc 01:34:45.294 --> 01:34:55.524
Then the cost of upgrade would then be on that 1 megawatt project. Um, so that's kinda wanna offer that thought. I think that's what your question is. Uh, I mean, I'm not sure I answered it.

335
Younes, Amin 01:34:55.584 --> 01:35:06.384
Yeah, I think I just want to clarify what you're saying because so, in the case where you have the 1st, and then in less than a megawatt Yep. Suppose that curtailment is a sufficient mitigation strategy rather than upgrades.

336
Younes, Amin 01:35:06.715 --> 01:35:18.715
Is it the position of the, rather than upgrade the line even though ratepayers would be responsible for the cost that instead of upgrading, they would just curtail the LGB customer if that were a sufficient strategy because, uh, because they're allowed to do that.

337
phuoc 01:35:19.105 --> 01:35:27.445
Gotcha, I was thankful for what I think a position would be. We would not go curtail. We would upgrade it 1st before we go.

338
phuoc 01:35:27.864 --> 01:35:32.544
But that's kind of what I'm thinking right now that, uh, sorry, Roger answered it. So.

339
Roger Salas SCE 01:35:32.574 --> 01:35:34.884
Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, you know, you know.

340
Roger Salas SCE 01:35:36.234 --> 01:35:57.144
For generation projects should not cause the LGB project to be curtail, um, meaning that if a future generation project costs an upgrade, then that app is going to be done for whatever applicable rules and process procedures are. So, any less than 1 megawatt repairs, pay for it none any.

341
Roger Salas SCE 01:35:57.715 --> 01:36:17.275
In wondering what, then the, the, the responsible, uh, uh, I see, uh, you know, customer customer is responsible for the upgrade, but we are not going to, uh, reduce the project to prevent system upgrades as part of the generation process. If that was your question.

342
Younes, Amin 01:36:17.965 --> 01:36:18.295
Yeah.

343
Younes, Amin 01:36:18.504 --> 01:36:39.444
That is my question. Um, I guess I'm surprised by the answer, I must have misinterpreted what the position was for the, for the last couple of meetings. Because I thought that the position was that a net load a net load reduction would cause the talent. But the actual position I'm understanding now, is that only if it's a, a growth load reduction, actual customer shuts down business, not a customer, installs some self generation.

344
Roger Salas SCE 01:36:39.895 --> 01:37:00.295
Yeah, like we said, customer reduces load or implements energy efficiency, not generation base, but if this part of at least against per se, if his generation Danny follows the generation recognition process, follows the responsibility requirements.

345
Roger Salas SCE 01:37:00.599 --> 01:37:08.994
For that particular project, and we don't go and penalize earlier, you know, connection projects to allow that customer to proceed.

346
Sky Stanfield 01:37:09.414 --> 01:37:15.474
Roger, can you say what the reasoning is behind that distinction? Just out of curiosity I'm not pushing back on it.

347
Roger Salas SCE 01:37:17.004 --> 01:37:21.744
Well, I mean, I think we have the procedures in place to basically the queue.

348
Roger Salas SCE 01:37:21.774 --> 01:37:23.094
In terms of of generation.

349
Sky Stanfield 01:37:23.094 --> 01:37:23.784
Right.

350
Roger Salas SCE 01:37:23.964 --> 01:37:42.864
Um, you know, you know, it would be my opinion and, um, and a really large extension of our ability to go in 1 generation to allow the other generation to especially when we have pretty clear rule in the interconnection process.

351
Roger Salas SCE 01:37:42.900 --> 01:37:58.465
That he could trigger space right now that is very clear in our rules in both the rule 21 and our W that. So why would we not follow those rules to maximize our ability to maintain generations on the.

352
phuoc 01:38:00.925 --> 01:38:03.805
Saying is that we follow the cost causation principle.

353
phuoc 01:38:04.104 --> 01:38:13.134
Project connected, and if, uh, last 1 or greater than 1 megawatt coming in, it costs an upgrade. We'll make sure it's a upgrade stuff.

354
Roger Salas SCE 01:38:13.524 --> 01:38:20.304
Yeah, and the biggest issue what we were talking about ways that we, we don't have a cost calculation for load going away. Right? So that's the problem that we have.

355
Frances Cleveland 01:38:20.874 --> 01:38:25.164
Yeah, so I just want to be clear. Um, I think I.

356
Frances Cleveland 01:38:26.215 --> 01:38:46.015
The fact that, um, on probably a yearly basis, or certainly on a periodic basis, or a triggered basis, there would be a re, evaluation of what the limits might be for an customer. And if.

357
Frances Cleveland 01:38:46.349 --> 01:38:56.544
There's actually then more room more capacity for whatever reasons that indeed you would then, um.

358
Frances Cleveland 01:38:57.954 --> 01:39:16.284
Maybe negotiate or add in, uh, that additional capacity to the customer, um, on some kind of an agreement basis. Um, I just want to be clear that that is, is this 1 of the things that you're proposing over time.

359
Roger Salas SCE 01:39:16.854 --> 01:39:18.774
No process we only talking about those.

360
Roger Salas SCE 01:39:18.805 --> 01:39:23.185
Which we have reduced the approved project.

361
phuoc 01:39:23.515 --> 01:39:24.055
Exactly.

362
Frances Cleveland 01:39:25.525 --> 01:39:38.725
It's an approved project, but over time, let's say there's more load and in fact, you need that extra generation. You would not go back and evaluate.

363
Frances Cleveland 01:39:39.929 --> 01:39:46.974
Customer and say, hey, there's more capacity here. In fact, we need your generation.

364
Roger Salas SCE 01:39:47.184 --> 01:39:51.084
No, they need to know they need to submit on your application for that.

365
Frances Cleveland 01:39:51.564 --> 01:39:54.054
Well, maybe it would be a new application.

366
Roger Salas SCE 01:39:54.234 --> 01:39:54.354
Yeah.

367
Frances Cleveland 01:39:54.384 --> 01:40:01.074
But you would at least let the ltp customer know that there is a possibility of.

368
Frances Cleveland 01:40:01.104 --> 01:40:02.004
I.

369
Frances Cleveland 01:40:02.934 --> 01:40:22.224
Asking for, is there the flexibility over time to change the ltp constraints the limits in a way that where the use are providing at least the information that this is.

370
Frances Cleveland 01:40:22.229 --> 01:40:23.454
Possible because.

371
Frances Cleveland 01:40:25.284 --> 01:40:27.564
No, that there's now some capacity.

372
phuoc 01:40:27.894 --> 01:40:32.994
Yeah, wouldn't the customer be able to look into map load, reflect it and get themselves.

373
Roger Salas SCE 01:40:33.444 --> 01:40:46.164
Yeah, they, they should be able to download the IC values and as frequently as they, as the customer wants, and be able to determine that there's actually more capacity and the location and if they wish they can submit.

374
Frances Cleveland 01:40:48.115 --> 01:40:48.625
Okay.

375
Frances Cleveland 01:40:51.114 --> 01:41:00.924
Uh, I, I think that's the key is, is that there will be the capability 1 way or another, because I, you know, the, the system will change the grid will change.

376
phuoc 01:41:00.954 --> 01:41:10.674
And that is the capability and looking at the, and then if the customer wants to change, the profile region is submitted, they can apply for new connections and re, evaluate it. So.

377
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:41:47.814 --> 01:41:51.684
Okay, I assume we're still, everybody's still here I just heard silence.

378
Rottman, Mary 01:41:52.584 --> 01:41:55.014
Yes, I was, I thought, wow.

379
Brad Heavner 01:42:00.415 --> 01:42:17.845
This is Brad if I can just, I think you said this, Roger, I just want to make sure I understand the answer to that means question. If there's a load reduction on the circuit. Um, and the is reduced, you would not later.

380
Brad Heavner 01:42:17.874 --> 01:42:24.504
Your next annual planning cycle, do the upgrade that allows them to go back? Is that what you just said?

381
Roger Salas SCE 01:42:24.834 --> 01:42:38.904
Yes, that's our position. Yeah, if if the, if the, if the reduction down to the lowest value of the IC value mitigates the upgrade, then then I think we're allowed to to do that.

382
Roger Salas SCE 01:42:39.084 --> 01:43:00.144
Permanent basis, um, in an extension to that if, if if in the system gets upgraded for, for whatever reasons, whether it's a system upgrade or new generation comes in, that causes the upgrade to be done anyways, new load comes in. Then, at that point, they think is appropriate for, for for us to go to.

383
Roger Salas SCE 01:43:00.150 --> 01:43:12.535
Back to the, the who we reduce and bring bring them up to the to hopefully the originally approved values, at least at least higher than than the restriction.

384
Brad Heavner 01:43:13.855 --> 01:43:21.295
Okay, well it's good to understand your proposal. I think, you know, will support the Iraq proposal. I think if the commission approves the utility proposal.

385
Brad Heavner 01:43:21.325 --> 01:43:23.455
I'd be surprised if any customers use this at all.

386
Regnier, Justin 01:43:26.815 --> 01:43:45.265
I just wanted to check before we went on whether the other 2 were in the same position that they view the reduction down to the lowest value at the time as a permanent as a legitimate permanent mitigation to, to whatever it.

387
Jan Strack 01:43:49.045 --> 01:43:53.575
Does Jan and San Diego? Um, I think Roger is laid out our position. Exactly.

388
phuoc 01:43:57.355 --> 01:43:59.035
Yes, I agree with.

389
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:44:08.304 --> 01:44:28.914
And I like to read a few comments from the chat, uh, 1 from sky, you could have multiple over time as well as low changes with different profiles. Uh, do we, we do have cost conversation for load, going away. Currently the rate pairs would be responsible for.

390
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:44:29.004 --> 01:44:48.894
Load changes post interconnection and then from brian's SEO, when load increases would an existing customer priority over a new applicant for that increased capacity. And that's a question.

391
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:44:56.275 --> 01:45:01.015
Just briefly touch on the sky's point on load going away.

392
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:45:06.354 --> 01:45:06.834
Hold on.

393
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:45:11.184 --> 01:45:12.054
Um.

394
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:45:14.099 --> 01:45:23.244
I got everything that's retail load. Wholesale load has its own rules associated just making sure we're talking about retail load. That's all.

395
Rottman, Mary 01:45:29.544 --> 01:45:38.094
Um, I just want to note that it, um, to if you're not speaking to please mute yourself to avoid any background noise. Thanks.

396
Fardin Sarraf 01:45:41.784 --> 01:45:42.084
So.

397
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:45:44.754 --> 01:45:51.714
And, uh, Scott, I guess, uh, clarifying that was a clarifying question for you wait till load versus wholesale.

398
Sky Stanfield 01:45:55.495 --> 01:46:16.135
I don't know we haven't been talking about wholesale load or necessarily so that's not something that I was. I think what, what I was responding to when I put that comment in was the statement that we don't have cost causation rules for this scenario. We do, and we're proposing to change them for a certain class of projects. Here is what I was saying. I guess if Gary, if you need to if.

399
Sky Stanfield 01:46:16.164 --> 01:46:37.284
There is some difference between what will happen if it's wholesale load versus retail load. It'd be great if you wanted to explain that both today and then also for the commission, in terms of what what the scenario would be. I think if you're saying the wholesale loads responsible, then we again, we have a different complexity to make sure that the LGB customer isn't curtailed. I'm not.

400
Sky Stanfield 01:46:37.314 --> 01:46:39.504
Sure, exactly what you meant by the difference.

401
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:46:40.014 --> 01:46:58.374
No, um, I'm just saying that there are separate procedures for wholesale load and, um, increases is typically the only way we really see wholesale loads only increase over time. So it.

402
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:46:58.674 --> 01:47:02.964
I just didn't want to assume everyone thought.

403
Sky Stanfield 01:47:02.964 --> 01:47:03.624
It was.

404
gary holdsworth sdg&e 01:47:03.834 --> 01:47:08.214
I'm more, you know, 1, amorphous thing there are various flavors in load. That's all. I'm.

405
Sky Stanfield 01:47:08.394 --> 01:47:19.584
Right, and the cost case I'm talking about here is is the cause the costs associated with upgrades that could happen when load goes away. So currently.

406
Sky Stanfield 01:47:19.589 --> 01:47:30.444
The cost position is, is that no, buddy, that's already interconnected various responsibility for conditions post interconnection and that's the aspect of the.

407
Frances Cleveland 01:47:32.214 --> 01:47:39.714
So I want to get a little bit of clarification on response to Brian seal.

408
Frances Cleveland 01:47:42.145 --> 01:47:45.025
Where an existing customer.

409
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:47:45.025 --> 01:48:01.885
And Francis, before you go on, let me reiterate brian's question again, when load increases within existing customer, have priority over a new applicant for that increased capacity. And.

410
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:48:01.914 --> 01:48:15.624
And Jan said, I don't think a load increase changes, central connection, queuing process and existing customer would not have priority over a new applicant, just to put that in context. All right. Thank you. Very much.

411
Frances Cleveland 01:48:16.194 --> 01:48:23.034
Okay, um, so it's really just, um, this may be the details, but it would.

412
Frances Cleveland 01:48:23.064 --> 01:48:44.184
To me that an existing customer could be at the forefront of any queue. Uh, if there's a change that would affect him. Um, again, it may be that they're, you know, looking at at capacity every day and that they would have to in order to.

413
Frances Cleveland 01:48:44.189 --> 01:48:57.894
To be in front of the queue, but it, it seems to me that sort of, by definition an customer should be at the head of any queue for increases of capacity. I just.

414
Brian Seal 01:48:57.894 --> 01:48:58.284
Right.

415
Frances Cleveland 01:48:58.494 --> 01:49:01.224
Understand the, the rationale for for.

416
Frances Cleveland 01:49:02.604 --> 01:49:03.504
The other approach.

417
Brian Seal 01:49:04.044 --> 01:49:05.334
This is Brian just.

418
Brian Seal 01:49:05.844 --> 01:49:21.834
Thinking out loud really? And and exactly what you said Francis just and to Jan. yeah, absolutely. You know, it's kind of honoring the sort of getting in line in the queuing process to the greatest degree, but just the way you said it Francis just wondering if the.

419
Brian Seal 01:49:23.724 --> 01:49:43.404
Were you at the front of the line, when you build the plant, that essentially wanted, say a megawatt of capacity, but it wasn't available so you are now since then operating in this constrained is environment. Um, you know, are you essentially standing at the front of the line? 1 thing that's sort of appealing there? Is that the.

420
Brian Seal 01:49:43.435 --> 01:50:04.465
Cost has already been born, so the, uh, as a society, you know, have this capacity setting there, this asset that's capable of more but operating if you will constrained. Um, but the money's already spent it's there. And then the, the new 1 that's in the queue is not spent yet. It's not invested yet. And so.

421
Brian Seal 01:50:06.114 --> 01:50:24.474
By 1 reason of logic, and I'm sure there's a lot of angles to the discussion, but it would seem sensible to say, hey, let's let's unleash and fully utilize the the asset that was there, you know, quote unquote 1st, in line before letting others come on and end up with a overall situation where.

422
Brian Seal 01:50:25.824 --> 01:50:32.424
Looked viewed collectively, everything is more under utilized than than it could have been.

423
Frances Cleveland 01:50:38.034 --> 01:50:51.084
Yep, I agree with that comment. Um, I'm just wondering what what the process might be there for, um, you know, by the, um.

424
Frances Cleveland 01:50:51.294 --> 01:50:59.094
Um, and the CPC for that matter to establish who has priority in this case.

425
Roger Salas SCE 01:51:00.624 --> 01:51:10.644
Yeah, for instance, if the, if I understand the question is again, it's only the only for those that that we have reduced the profile is that correct?

426
Roger Salas SCE 01:51:12.565 --> 01:51:14.155
That what the concern is.

427
Frances Cleveland 01:51:14.425 --> 01:51:15.655
Yeah, so there are no.

428
Jan Strack 01:51:15.655 --> 01:51:16.045
P.

429
Frances Cleveland 01:51:16.045 --> 01:51:17.095
Customer, they.

430
Frances Cleveland 01:51:18.355 --> 01:51:33.325
Limited at this point in time, uh, this month or this hour or whatever, but you have determined that there's more capacity. Should they be 1st in line to gain.

431
Frances Cleveland 01:51:33.414 --> 01:51:35.274
Access to that capacity.

432
Roger Salas SCE 01:51:35.574 --> 01:51:54.534
So so the answer to that is, no, in my opinion, if they want if they want, if they want to increase their capacity, they need to submit a new application request any their application request comes in 1st, and others. Then we would abide by the queuing process. So so for me.

433
Roger Salas SCE 01:51:54.564 --> 01:52:14.814
that that's what the scenario is if you have an project that was approved for the normal process side we maintain that profile it's not has not been reduced um the future new load comes in upgrades are made i see values are are are added are increased 

434
Roger Salas SCE 01:52:15.864 --> 01:52:36.834
the customer any any customer existing or new has the right to submit a new inclination request and he he or she who submit that application request first gets gets priority over the available incremental capacity now the second scenario i think is is a valid one which i think is worth mentioning 

435
Roger Salas SCE 01:52:36.839 --> 01:52:57.984
Which is if we have reduce the profile in new capacity, become new capacity comes along then then I can see that you have the, that, for which we have reduced the capacity. 1st, they have, um, for which we haven't received the.

436
Roger Salas SCE 01:52:57.990 --> 01:53:05.785
Possibly they do have 1st queue into getting it back to normal and then, you know, prior to any new project coming in.

437
Frances Cleveland 01:53:07.225 --> 01:53:19.135
Okay, I'd be interested in ultimately the thoughts on the, you know, having the customer not automatically at the top.

438
Frances Cleveland 01:53:19.284 --> 01:53:23.964
Of a priority queue, but, um, I'll leave that for another time.

439
Sky Stanfield 01:53:24.744 --> 01:53:40.284
i was going to add i think your concept is interesting and probably something that would be good to discuss in the idr proceeding and in the planning proceedings with respect to the how the utilities when they evaluate if new upgrades need to 

440
Sky Stanfield 01:53:40.314 --> 01:54:01.434
And for load growth, this is kind of like an essentially a non, whereas type alternative. But I do think I agree with with Edison, at least at this stage that that projects should be just required to submit a new application and there's not queuing priority per se.

441
Sky Stanfield 01:54:01.464 --> 01:54:22.584
That's partly because I think that the concept of the way the projects are going to be designed, it's, there's a lot of factors that will go into, whether the project could, or or should, or will want to add use the existing capacity at different hours of the day, which is what we're saying, or a season I think that.

442
Sky Stanfield 01:54:22.614 --> 01:54:42.684
There's, there's a lot of, you know, potential for better utilization of the, that are on the grid as the grid evolves. But I think it right now, I think that the, my biggest concern is more that, like, I think the utilities are going to have a hard time tracking and going back to the LGB customers and so on, even in the case where they work or tails.

443
Sky Stanfield 01:54:43.885 --> 01:54:59.215
But I think that this idea that we need to be better utilizing the, and their capabilities is something that the commission should be considering in or other proceedings about, you know, changing the way we really think about those as assets versus liabilities.

444
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:55:02.454 --> 01:55:23.214
Roger just 1 clarification, and I may have missed, uh, maybe you already answered it, but but had a, uh, project been curtailed to the lowest steady grid. They would be allowed to go back to their original profile before the new project got interconnected.

445
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:55:23.219 --> 01:55:24.174
Is that correct?

446
Roger Salas SCE 01:55:24.504 --> 01:55:33.534
That doesn't that's my my view that in for projects, for which we have.

447
Roger Salas SCE 01:55:34.499 --> 01:55:49.194
If new capacity becomes available for whatever reason upgrades, uh, new load comes in whatever, then they really should have priority over the, that additional capacity over New inner connection requests.

448
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:55:51.024 --> 01:55:55.644
Okay, thank you. Yeah, and just a note, uh, we need to make.

449
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:55:55.675 --> 01:55:56.965
She'll be memorial.

450
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:56:00.024 --> 01:56:07.854
Writing, I was gonna use that fancy word, but I can't pronounce it now. And I, someone else had their hand up, but I think they lowered it.

451
Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:56:23.424 --> 01:56:43.494
jose i had my hand up but i i put it down i was i just wanted to echo raj and sky satisfy as like putting in a new application and just to because that's what would happen for customers that wanted to change their the way they operate their system if they wanted to be able to export 

452
Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:56:43.614 --> 01:57:04.044
I'd capacity that would be considered a material notification, which would then trigger a new application. So, you know, to be fair, which, I think is what the tariff tries to be. It would have to treat customers the same way to use somebody else's words to think on this during these workshops. You know, we don't want to create a new class of customers. Right? So.

453
Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:57:04.855 --> 01:57:10.915
would have to treat them the same way we would treat customers as far as changing the the way they operate the system 

454
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:57:19.914 --> 01:57:21.024
Okay, thank you up team.

455
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:57:28.734 --> 01:57:48.354
So, unless there are any more questions, I guess, or discussions regarding this slide um, I'm not hearing any bit anybody since it's gone silent. We could probably move on to the next slide. So, uh, going once going twice.

456
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:57:49.944 --> 01:57:51.804
All right Thank you.

457
Roni Mejia - SCE 01:57:55.284 --> 01:57:57.864
Good morning. Everybody can can everyone hear me.

458
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:57:59.124 --> 01:57:59.874
Yes, we can.

459
Roni Mejia - SCE 01:58:00.894 --> 01:58:12.354
So, I'll be taking over cause, I think, uh, he has another commitment. Uh, I'll be, uh, presenting, uh, the remainder of the slides here.

460
Roni Mejia - SCE 01:58:14.754 --> 01:58:34.974
I appreciate everyone's, uh, input I think, uh, this is a great discussion, um, this, uh, next slide here, uh, per discussions that we've had in previous workshops um, we were asked to, uh, summarize, uh, to some extent, uh, the conditions that were.

461
Roni Mejia - SCE 01:58:35.004 --> 01:58:55.644
Describing the previous slide and basically detail, how would would we handle a situation? Uh, if we were to follow, I guess the, uh, um, the, uh, proposal from the stakeholders in which, uh, the rate pairs would pay for the upgrades.

462
Roni Mejia - SCE 01:58:56.424 --> 01:59:17.274
So, scenario is a very, uh, it's the same as what has been described, uh, EE, describing the previous slide where we have a system condition where an overload, uh, is, uh, is experienced and, uh, similar to, um, any condition that would arise, uh, the operators with.

463
Roni Mejia - SCE 01:59:17.305 --> 01:59:38.425
Take immediate action to ensure that the, uh, the, the overload that's been experience or condition. I think the experience and the grid, uh, is is mitigated immediately they will take immediate action and whether it be re, tripping generation, they'll go ahead and do that. Um, and then.

464
Roni Mejia - SCE 01:59:38.455 --> 01:59:59.575
After studies have been performed, uh, then, uh, it will be determined whether, or not, uh, reduction of, uh, generation is appropriate, uh, to mitigate the, the underlying issue that has been, uh, that that, uh, has been identified. So, in this case, uh, the, the operators would would.

465
Roni Mejia - SCE 01:59:59.604 --> 02:00:20.724
Do the, the 1st steps right uh, to adjust voltage, uh, try to figure out other other conditions that they can do to, uh, mitigate the initial overload or voltage violation, or whatever the case may be. And if that does not, uh, does not mitigate the problem.

466
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:00:20.754 --> 02:00:41.874
Fully, then then the next step would be, uh, to see if a reduction of generation, uh, then, uh, help, uh, with this, uh, with this condition. And, um, if, uh, the, uh, reduction of, uh, of of the generation.

467
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:00:41.879 --> 02:00:43.704
Does.

468
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:00:46.554 --> 02:01:07.254
Uh, mitigate the condition, then, at that point, uh, we would say that the, the, the generation is, uh, is effective and therefore, um, we would, um, you know, maybe communicate to the project that we will be reducing them on a temporary basis, uh, to, uh, to the lowest.

469
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:01:07.259 --> 02:01:28.404
The amount, and under this scenario here, if we, uh, consider that rate, parents would pay for the upgrades and and to clarify. This is not an position. But it's a summary that we are putting here to capture.

470
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:01:28.435 --> 02:01:49.555
The stakeholders, uh, proposals, um, the, the would upgrade the circuit right parents expense. Um, and of course, depending on the, uh, the extent of the, uh, the upgrade that would be required, uh, we will continue, uh, communications with, or the impacted.

471
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:01:49.584 --> 02:02:10.704
Uh, GP project, or projects, uh, on the timelines of, uh, the, uh, you know, the expected upgrade to be completed and then once the upgrade has been fully, uh, completed at that point in time, then the, uh, project would be, uh, brought back to its original.

472
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:02:10.734 --> 02:02:31.854
Jp profile that was, uh, uh, uh, that was agreed upon during the application of the projects. Um, and, um, at this time, uh, uh, what are the, uh, key points to, uh, to highlight here, is that, uh, the did not have a.

473
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:02:32.004 --> 02:02:53.004
Uh, authorization to recover costs for upgrades, uh, that restore projects to the original contractual profile but I wanted to make sure that we highlighted this, uh, this condition, uh, that I know a lot of the folks have been, uh, kind of maybe, uh.

474
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:02:53.034 --> 02:03:10.104
Thinking that this could be a solution for mitigating a level of risk that an project might might have to undertake because of a reduction of load, or whether the case may be that may come up in the future.

475
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:03:14.784 --> 02:03:15.714
Any questions.

476
Sky Stanfield 02:03:16.404 --> 02:03:31.644
I have 1 question just about that last point on what the utilities view is on what the commissions authorized, or hasn't authorized, um, is the position that the commission has not authorized recovery of cost or.

477
Sky Stanfield 02:03:32.965 --> 02:03:53.605
The recovery cost, or it seems to me, like, the decision permitted the utilities to curtail the, but is silent on whether or not alternate solutions such as trading projects. Just like all the other projects. I don't think the commission said the utilities are prohibited.

478
Sky Stanfield 02:03:53.664 --> 02:03:58.554
From doing that, but they said that they are allowed, assuming you guys adequately.

479
Sky Stanfield 02:04:00.714 --> 02:04:20.154
Articulated the safety umbrella, the weather and how which I think is what we're here to talk about. Um, but I don't think that there's is that is your opinion and if you can you point us to the language that suggests that the commission has prohibited the from recovering the costs like, they would for any other traditional customer.

480
Roger Salas SCE 02:04:22.524 --> 02:04:42.774
I would, I would say that when the commission has not provided a direction in a, in an order it is I don't think it's our position or it's our I don't think it's appropriate for us to.

481
Roger Salas SCE 02:04:43.525 --> 02:05:04.135
Interpret what that that is so, you know, if they didn't say, then they will not the right otherwise they would have said it. Um, and so the fact that it's not there doesn't, you know, give us our ability to say, well, it's not there. So, therefore, they're probably saying, thinking, it's okay, so, you know, for us, I think it's more about the fact that it was not.

482
Roger Salas SCE 02:05:04.164 --> 02:05:16.074
Clear as opposed to, like, you know, as opposed to like this is being, you know, it didn't say it either way. It does not prohibited. It also is not being clear as to what we should be doing.

483
Sky Stanfield 02:05:16.404 --> 02:05:25.224
Yeah, I understand that. And that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that I was I was clear about what you guys thought the decision said there. Um, let me ask another question just building on that.

484
Sky Stanfield 02:05:27.084 --> 02:05:46.284
Is the position that if it is the IoT position that they are opposed to the commission authorizing that or is your position that, that you that you're taking the proposal that you guys have done simply because you don't think the commission has authorized it.

485
Sky Stanfield 02:05:46.614 --> 02:05:59.604
What what if, if if we're asking the commission for clarification, I understand your position to be that you're not interested in asking for that authorization, but it might be helpful to just clarify that very basic idea.

486
Roger Salas SCE 02:06:02.184 --> 02:06:23.034
I'll speak on behalf just for for us. I mean, I would say our position is that repair shouldn't be shouldn't be asked to pay for more than what's already been approved by the commission. So so, yes. Also, so, yeah, we probably will not support the commission asking us to.

487
Roger Salas SCE 02:06:23.304 --> 02:06:28.704
Directly, you know, directing us to say, hey, do you know, do the athletes to bring the up to.

488
Roger Salas SCE 02:06:29.035 --> 02:06:45.745
Approve limit, but the commissions do not do what they're going to do. Right? I'm just saying you're asking them if you're asking us what our view is our view is like, no, we should use this capabilities to keep, keep it to those level. So that we don't have to update the system saying, we don't have to impact our customers.

489
Sky Stanfield 02:06:46.315 --> 02:06:49.885
Yep, that's fine. Thanks, Roger. I, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't understanding whether.

490
Sky Stanfield 02:06:49.914 --> 02:06:56.094
It was that that was your opinion or simply that you felt timed by the commissions.

491
Jan Strack 02:06:57.804 --> 02:07:02.934
For San Diego, and I would say the same thing think our company's position is it.

492
Jan Strack 02:07:04.255 --> 02:07:09.415
Generally generators should pay for the upgrades and so I don't think we would support.

493
Sky Stanfield 02:07:12.265 --> 02:07:20.725
And what you mean by generators is that the customers should pay for upgrades because are you taking the position that all generators should pay for it?

494
Jan Strack 02:07:22.225 --> 02:07:25.135
I understand our management to upset and based on.

495
Jan Strack 02:07:25.164 --> 02:07:39.144
My discussions with them is all generators is a principal should pay. So, even like the name under 1.0, I don't think that we're too happy about where the commission came out on that. But, like, Roger said, vision makes those hard calls and.

496
Sky Stanfield 02:07:40.044 --> 02:07:46.284
So, we got to be we don't need to be really careful about what we're talking about in terms of the different layers of cost.

497
Sky Stanfield 02:07:46.289 --> 02:08:07.434
Possibility no, 1, as I know in this proceeding is pushing back on the cost responsibility for upgrades prior to interconnection that are required to accommodate a project. This is a question about upgrades triggered after a project is interconnected due to circumstances that shade on on the circuit outside of their control. So.

498
Sky Stanfield 02:08:07.439 --> 02:08:27.084
So, going back to you again, is, are you guys opposed are you taking the position that you would prefer that all interconnections? Even the traditional flat interconnection, be responsible for upgrade costs when, when load goes away after they've been interconnected.

499
Jan Strack 02:08:29.784 --> 02:08:40.284
Well, I think the question about if you're talking about reducing the down to the some level below the minimum.

500
Jan Strack 02:08:41.365 --> 02:08:45.535
You know, like Roger said it, I mean, we would never could bring it back up to that level.

501
Jan Strack 02:08:50.724 --> 02:08:58.734
And we'd be willing to pay for the upgrades to bring it back up to that level. If the talent was, you know, not just temporary.

502
Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:09:05.425 --> 02:09:21.925
This is Alex from I agree with Roger, uh, sky. Um, but I also want to mention that this is sort of like a 2 layer issue. Right? The 1 issue is, um, the cost responsibility for projects, or.

503
Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:09:23.094 --> 02:09:37.974
Lgb projects back to the approved profile and then there's this other issue of non projects on the issue of being able to tell them once they've been approved for the connection. So, it's not just 1 issue of, you know, are we allowed to.

504
Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:09:39.144 --> 02:09:49.824
Should we have red parents pay for upgrades to bring projects to preapproved profiles but also can we.

505
Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:09:50.754 --> 02:09:59.844
Also, uh, remove non projects, or can we could tell them after they've been interconnected? That's another thing that the commission there's no decision that allows us to do that.

506
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:10:03.925 --> 02:10:22.735
This is Jose, so, um, I heard, uh, you know what Roger in the sky and the utilities have said uh, so this brings us down basically to the topic of cost conversation. Uh, I believe resolution in that expert that, um.

507
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:10:25.165 --> 02:10:35.155
Um, email circulated yesterday, I believe 1 of those experts, uh, did talk about cost conversation. Um.

508
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:10:37.105 --> 02:10:57.925
And, you know, anything, I think needs to be justified by those principles, um, in particular I'm thinking, and this is out, of course, outside the scope of what we're discussing here. But, you know, it's, I'm here, I heard both right pairs, you know, from the utilities.

509
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:10:58.135 --> 02:11:03.595
Parents shouldn't bear that burden, but yet.

510
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:11:05.214 --> 02:11:08.814
You know, just because I'm also involved in.

511
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:11:09.624 --> 02:11:30.174
I also see all these requests for that are asking right Eric, to be, you know, to take a certain burden. So, to me, you know, on a very high level, it's like, I'm getting 2 different 2 different. Uh.

512
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:11:32.934 --> 02:11:50.724
Arguments here right. Payers shouldn't, Ah, but in this case rate pair should so I think, you know, anything that relates to cost conversation needs to be properly justified. Yep. All right. That's all I had to say for now.

513
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:11:52.674 --> 02:11:53.574
Thank you.

514
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:12:02.034 --> 02:12:03.384
We can go to the next slide.

515
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:12:07.614 --> 02:12:26.814
So, um, in, uh, this next slide basically summarize, uh, the position and, uh, at least what we took away from the, uh, stakeholder position during workshops, number 1 and number 2, with regards to the 2, uh, basically, uh, major, I guess.

516
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:12:27.684 --> 02:12:48.024
Topics that were previously discussed, uh, our position is that the, the attribute projects are benefiting from the, uh, hosting capacity, uh, of a given circuit, uh, which has been, uh, worn by the right pairs. Uh, this does support.

517
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:12:48.055 --> 02:13:09.085
Our goals, um, which also minimizes the need for repair costs to actually pay for upgrades because the ltp projects can really take advantage of, uh, the, you know, the maximum hosting.

518
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:13:09.235 --> 02:13:30.325
Capacity on a given circuit and be able to kind of follow that profile and enhance it. It's a, it's a big benefit, I think, uh, or for the grid in order to meet demand and also, uh, be able to interconnect these types of projects without having to put in a very.

519
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:13:30.354 --> 02:13:50.124
Upgrade, um, and as had been previously communicated during the workshop, uh, the possibility, at least from what we see at this point, uh, the, uh, procurement of experts is low. Um, and, uh, I think we.

520
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:13:51.924 --> 02:14:12.624
Um, and also the, uh, uh, the, uh, upgrades that minimize the possibility for are funded by Ray pairs, but the associated commercial benefits accrue to the customer. So, basically, um, the, the repairs, uh.

521
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:14:12.654 --> 02:14:33.624
Really benefit from, uh, you know, from the, uh, I guess, uh, the benefits of the projects we'll be getting if, uh, they were to fund, uh, upgrades, uh, that may impact these projects. Um, and as we had communicated previously, uh, the customers.

522
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:14:34.165 --> 02:14:53.395
Always have the right to, uh, fund upgrades if, uh, if their project is curtail, uh, to the lowest value, as has been, uh, as we understand that decision, uh, allows, um, the utilities, uh, to do.

523
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:14:55.195 --> 02:15:16.015
And, um, with regards to the, uh, stakeholders positions that we've been able to gather from the workshops is that, uh, the, uh, commercial risks of possibly being curtail are unacceptable risks, uh, because this will, uh, cost.

524
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:15:16.254 --> 02:15:35.694
Financial burden, um, and, uh, because it can cost financial burden. This may be an acceptable risk for projects. And, uh, and therefore, I think, uh, you know, there has been, uh, some, uh, I guess.

525
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:15:38.274 --> 02:15:58.044
Um, some thought that perhaps, uh, the, the risk is is so high that maybe we will not be getting any projects to even try to interconnect. Uh, and so it kind of it would be like a show stopper if you will. Um, and.

526
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:15:59.604 --> 02:16:11.364
And, of course, uh, by having the right pairs, uh, bear the cost of the upgrades, uh, this will incentivize the projects. Uh, maybe.

527
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:16:14.064 --> 02:16:19.524
Maybe, uh, proceed with, uh, going with this route of, uh, doing the option.

528
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:16:19.555 --> 02:16:40.675
Because it would also reduce the financial risk impact that this project would have. If there are circumstances that may decrease the hosting capacity of that circuit in the future, I. E, load reductions since we had explained or other or other, um.

529
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:16:40.945 --> 02:17:01.525
Uh, deficiencies that may come up in the future, uh, that will not be, uh, impacting them financially. Um, so these are just a few items that we have been able to capture and wanted to make sure that, uh, we highlight them here.

530
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:17:01.852 --> 02:17:05.873
And, uh, I'll open that up for, for questions.

531
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:17:10.524 --> 02:17:12.114
And and then.

532
Younes, Amin 02:17:12.864 --> 02:17:27.984
Like, to clarify again that the stakeholder positions here does not reflect the position of Cal advocates. Uh, I can say that, um, CO advocates is concluded that, you know, would better utilize the distribution grid and that could be aligned with the long term interest of ratepayers.

533
Younes, Amin 02:17:28.644 --> 02:17:45.835
By by reducing, um, grid cost in the long term. So so we are generally supportive of of, um, and we don't want to we don't want to block implementation. Um, but we, uh, yeah, I think I think the rest of the statements are not, um, not statements that we have made.

534
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:17:48.384 --> 02:17:49.134
Can you hear me.

535
Sky Stanfield 02:17:53.215 --> 02:17:54.325
So.

536
Sky Stanfield 02:17:56.724 --> 02:18:03.085
I guess, I'm not sure and this is maybe more a question for for the commission staff.

537
Sky Stanfield 02:18:04.615 --> 02:18:24.925
Yeah, there's a lot more nuance to the to, to at least position on this. That isn't articulated here. Um, I, I'm happy to go through all of that, but I'm also not sure if that's what if it's worth us doing at this point in the discussion or where we are. I think, like, what I mean said.

538
Sky Stanfield 02:18:26.425 --> 02:18:45.894
You know, this may be a generalized statement about some pieces that haven't picked up, but it's not necessarily reflective of the full scope of anybody's position or anybody's position overall. So, 1st of all. I want to say, you guys did a reasonable job of laying out. Some of the aspects of it, but I to the commission staff. Like, I think, I'm not sure what.

539
Sky Stanfield 02:18:46.314 --> 02:19:07.314
What you want to do with this, you want us to lay out all of our positions here or and part of the reason I'm asking that is that as, you know, we have a presentation after this that's going to lay out. Some of the things that we're still working on to try to, to try to develop a position. These I think there's a reasonable summary of like, the basic fact, which is that if.

540
Sky Stanfield 02:19:07.319 --> 02:19:28.433
Imposes on unreasonable, financial risk, nothing will happen and we won't get any benefits. That's essentially what we're grappling with, but the details of how we think it should be set up or part of what we're still working on. And then, so the other specific point here is that the current proposal we do think is proposes unacceptable.

541
Sky Stanfield 02:19:28.494 --> 02:19:40.674
But that doesn't mean that our proposal is that there couldn't be some risk sharing over time, but we're still working on the details of our exact proposal through this workshop process.

542
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:19:41.094 --> 02:19:49.464
So, Scott, let me ask you this. Um, do you think position would be better conveyed? 1st.

543
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:19:49.645 --> 02:19:59.455
Going through your slides before, addressing this slide, because we can always come back to this slide after you, you give your presentation.

544
Sky Stanfield 02:20:00.565 --> 02:20:10.765
So, I, I think our, there's 2 things about our presentation 1 is is to explore things. So it's not necessarily as I noted to you when we set the slides, an articulation of the position, we're going to take.

545
Sky Stanfield 02:20:11.155 --> 02:20:31.915
At the end of all this workshop. So that's why I'm sort of saying, well, what's the purpose for the purpose of this workshop? Are you guys trying to document in the record people's positions through this workshop slides? Or is that I feel like that? The people's position, including the is, we've just discussed is going to have to come in the advice letter in writing when people are finished discussing and.

546
Sky Stanfield 02:20:31.944 --> 02:20:53.064
Working through, though, I'm happy to explain aspects of our position, or what we're thinking for purposes of working towards consensus. And that's what we part of what our, the goal of our presentation is. What I'm trying to distinguish is, what's the goal here is the goal here to solicit more discussion to get us to.

547
Sky Stanfield 02:20:53.094 --> 02:21:14.214
Consensus or just to have a clear statement of parties positions I think having a statement of parties positions is not what we can do in the beginning of a workshop when we're supposed to be working through the issues still that should come in written form. But if there's more discussion that would help us reach consensus, then I'm happy to further.

548
Sky Stanfield 02:21:14.484 --> 02:21:23.814
Positions here for that purpose. Sorry I'm trying to be all picky. I'm just trying I didn't want to, like, go in and argue spend a bunch of time arguing about all the nuances of our decision. If that's not really a.

549
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:21:23.814 --> 02:21:35.364
No, no, no, no, I fully understand. Okay so I think that, and let's see to respond to correct me they totally set presented their position right now. We are still.

550
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:21:35.395 --> 02:21:56.185
We don't know what the non position is so that is still being discussed, but unless the utilities, uh, you know, after this workshop come back and, you know, um, give something else.

551
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:21:56.935 --> 02:22:15.925
You know, based on, uh, you know, uh, the discussions and presentations, I think, uh, the utilities have presented their position on, you know, on the matter. So, uh, unless the utilities, uh, on, uh, correct me.

552
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:22:20.724 --> 02:22:38.754
Jose, yeah, that is the intent, uh, to present the position. And, uh, and to some extent, uh, summarize some of the, uh, you know, the stakeholders positions that we have heard, uh, through the workshops. And, of course.

553
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:22:38.964 --> 02:22:58.074
We definitely don't want to miss, you know, what has been said during the workshops this guy had correctly pointed out. That's why, you know, we're putting it here. See if, uh, if something needs correcting then and please.

554
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:23:00.894 --> 02:23:01.284
You know.

555
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:23:03.774 --> 02:23:23.574
You're Ronnie. So, yeah, so, uh, you having said that, you know, kinda reaffirmed that the utilities have presented their their position now and I'm gonna say initial in quotes maybe they'll change it later after, uh, your presentation. Uh, but that's TBD, uh, up to them.

556
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:23:24.475 --> 02:23:44.695
So, right now, you know, they are trying to capture what they have heard in in the previous workshops and the non position is still, um, not fully determined. So, these workshops are.

557
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:23:45.294 --> 02:23:55.824
Uh, feeding into what your proposal sky's going to be, which you will be supplying, has to write up to be included in the advice letters.

558
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:23:59.365 --> 02:24:01.675
So does that answer your question, Scott? Do you think.

559
Sky Stanfield 02:24:04.554 --> 02:24:05.454
Yeah, I think so. I.

560
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:24:06.594 --> 02:24:07.374
Okay.

561
Sky Stanfield 02:24:07.374 --> 02:24:14.364
Is is that the record that the commission is going to be designing on is what's in the advice letters and not what's in some slide deck right?

562
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:24:15.024 --> 02:24:24.504
Right, right, right, right. That's like, that's the slide deck. I for us, it's background, because it gives us a lot to think of how we got to.

563
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:24:24.834 --> 02:24:38.724
The advisors are, you know, and eventually we're going to be looking at also this, you know, record and this history to see how it all got developed.

564
Regnier, Justin 02:24:40.974 --> 02:24:45.714
And I do think that we were pretty explicit and pretty careful in the resolutions to.

565
Regnier, Justin 02:24:45.744 --> 02:25:06.864
Be clear that everything that happens in these workshops should be reported on as a part of the record, and the recordings are also part of the record but skies I said, raise 2 points 1, is that the user are under our jurisdiction and required to have consistent positions and.

566
Regnier, Justin 02:25:06.925 --> 02:25:20.155
21, the stakeholders have no such limitations and 2 is that we would always welcome, um, clarity and writing. It makes our life much much easier.

567
Sky Stanfield 02:25:23.094 --> 02:25:43.254
Great, well, I will, we're gonna never to provide more clarity. We're also in our presentation going in writing when we submit our final proposal. And then I'm happy to provide more clarity during our presentation about where we're going. And why we think that makes sense, um, for the record, for you guys as benefit, as you look through these.

568
Sky Stanfield 02:25:43.585 --> 02:26:04.555
Picture, I think the important there, some of the reasons that are articulated on this slide are not fully fleshed out in terms of why our position is, is that I think the core part is correct that as proposed the utilities proposal, which puts all of this.

569
Sky Stanfield 02:26:04.705 --> 02:26:25.345
Risk on the shoulder of the LGB customer, without any ability to predict either the likelihood it's going to happen or the costs associated with it likely render the option unusable. It's not use less per se, because it would be useful and people did it. It's just not going to be able to be done. We expect.

570
Sky Stanfield 02:26:25.883 --> 02:26:32.843
So, for that reason, we're trying to explore options that will enable the.

571
Sky Stanfield 02:26:33.054 --> 02:26:53.934
To happen, because we think there are significant benefits that are spread across the board, um, not just reducing upgrade costs, but actually enabling projects to produce power when the state most needs it, which is documented in various ways. And I think that's.

572
Sky Stanfield 02:26:54.505 --> 02:27:15.175
Captured here, so those are kind of just to add to the record what that there's more nuance to why the stakeholders are taking or potential stakeholders yet to be defined. But I can speak for Iraq. Why we're taking the position that having individual GP customers take on undefined risk is not workable and.

573
Sky Stanfield 02:27:15.180 --> 02:27:20.875
That it's worth doing something else because of the benefits that we'll lose if we don't allow them.

574
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:27:23.394 --> 02:27:27.834
So, Scott, do you want to then go back to this slide? Uh, after you do your presentation.

575
Sky Stanfield 02:27:31.675 --> 02:27:43.585
I don't, I don't know what the point of going back to the site is, but I'm happy to, uh, why don't we just proceed and we'll see where we get to at the end of the day. And what you guys, whatever you guys need, is what we're happy to do.

576
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:27:46.194 --> 02:27:50.754
Okay, no, I'm just asking because you tend to like, you had some feedback on this slide so.

577
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:27:53.484 --> 02:27:55.434
I just wanted to make sure we do capture it.

578
Sky Stanfield 02:28:00.174 --> 02:28:04.764
Yeah, I mean, I think I articulated it at a high level there. I could go on and on, but I.

579
Sky Stanfield 02:28:06.025 --> 02:28:27.085
You guys want here? I think that's the general statement, is that this slide is a good high level summary, but it misses a lot of the nuance in the pursuit. What I consider to be persuasive reasons to do it something slightly different, but I appreciate that the utility. I do think the utilities have heard our general basic concepts and I appreciate them articulating them.

580
Sky Stanfield 02:28:27.114 --> 02:28:31.854
Here, although, you know, they haven't captured all of the pros and cons that we see.

581
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:28:33.204 --> 02:28:40.164
Okay, and and I would say those since are important to eventually capture and Justin has his and.

582
Regnier, Justin 02:28:43.134 --> 02:29:03.744
Yeah, I'll keep it brief. I think 1 of the things is that is missed by the slide, unless I've misunderstood it and I just want to make sure that we get this consensus documented on the record. If it does exist. Is that it from my recollection of the previous workshops it sounds like there's broad based consensus by stakeholder.

583
Regnier, Justin 02:29:03.749 --> 02:29:24.894
The developers are willing to share some of this risk, but it is not their position that repair should bear the cost of upgrades, full stop no matter what without any willingness of the developers to share some reasonable amount of risk. So.

584
Regnier, Justin 02:29:24.900 --> 02:29:34.255
Wanted to maybe I'm splitting hairs there and maybe I'm reading a consensus that doesn't exist, but if it is there, um, it would be great to get that on the record.

585
Sky Stanfield 02:29:40.194 --> 02:29:58.734
So, I think Justin, um, position, and again, we're not developers, um, is that we're open to ways in which developers could take on some risk but to say that that's a general position, it's.

586
Sky Stanfield 02:29:58.795 --> 02:30:19.825
You're going to depend on what the characterization, what risk we're talking about, and we haven't been able to get to a point where we've got anything other than the full risk minus. I want to acknowledge the utilities are saying that they'll take some mitigations and that is valuable. So so, yes, in theory, but in reality, we're not we're not at the point where I've been able to evaluate anything.

587
Sky Stanfield 02:30:20.124 --> 02:30:41.004
Where we can say, yeah, I think that that is an acceptable risk. So it's a, I don't want to, you know, and then I think I also do think that the LGB customers are already taking on essentially risk or financial. They're doing something. We want them to do that has benefits to broadly characterize benefits to both the grid and to.

588
Sky Stanfield 02:30:41.424 --> 02:31:02.184
Providing energy when the state needs it and so that's where the balancing of where the, where the risks should fall is is an important part of evaluating the different options on the table. Um, I think that, you know, there, there's already risk built into the interconnection process and the design aspects already. So that's kind of the balancing.

589
Sky Stanfield 02:31:02.335 --> 02:31:03.835
We're trying to get to here.

590
Regnier, Justin 02:31:06.714 --> 02:31:18.624
Makes sense, and that's why I use reasonable to characterize the level of risk. I think our definitions of reasonable, or are not in alignment. So, maybe I just let that go and we keep moving.

591
Sky Stanfield 02:31:19.254 --> 02:31:20.064
Thanks, Justin.

592
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:31:24.144 --> 02:31:44.454
Yep, thank you Scott I appreciate it. And I think, uh, I think somebody had said it previously, uh, you know, receiving the positions in writing, uh, would be very helpful for us because we definitely don't want to miss the nuances that, uh, use.

593
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:31:44.755 --> 02:32:00.475
Pointing out, and let's say, um, and as we get start getting ready to write this advice letters, we want to make sure that, you know, we can just kind of attach those positions and, uh, and present them correctly.

594
Brad Heavner 02:32:02.964 --> 02:32:17.904
Will you be sharing actual tags draft texts of advice letters cause any normally, if there's a group report where you're representing multiple positions, there would be, you know, joint writing. So, is that part of the plan?

595
David Schiada 02:32:20.875 --> 02:32:31.315
Hey, Ronnie, this is Dave. Uh, yeah, just, um, I mean, maybe as we get to the, toward the end, we save some time on process cause.

596
David Schiada 02:32:33.265 --> 02:32:53.575
Currently, the, as I understand the user or again on the hook for the filing the advice letter on January 9th, and kind of given the schedule here and where we're at. Um, you know, I think we need further discussion about the expectations of incorporating a stakeholder positions into those advice letters.

597
David Schiada 02:32:54.263 --> 02:33:14.693
I I know that, you know, W, W, we did, uh, prepare a workshop reports. There was quite a bit of time on developing the host to make sure we had, uh, positions reflected, uh, the parties agreed with. So, I think we had to save that maybe a little time at the end for next steps because I am concerned kind of how to get from here to January.

598
David Schiada 02:33:14.754 --> 02:33:18.084
The given given the expectations here.

599
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:33:19.884 --> 02:33:21.924
Right. That's a good point.

600
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:33:29.783 --> 02:33:34.223
Some more discussion hopefully, uh, later on.

601
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:33:36.144 --> 02:33:37.824
So, if we can go to the next.

602
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:33:40.164 --> 02:34:01.134
Next slide, um, within this, uh, this slide, um, uh, we are, um, basically drafting language, uh, for the, uh, consensus proposal. And this has to do with, uh, the option number 1, in which.

603
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:34:01.284 --> 02:34:22.404
If an, if a condition arises in the in the system where the ltp project, uh, can be reduced to the lowest value, and that is an effective, uh, mechanism to mitigate the overload, then reduction will be maintained. Uh.

604
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:34:22.705 --> 02:34:43.555
You know, temporary or permanent, that's the 1st, part of the paragraph. Uh, and then the 2nd part is, uh, recognizing that, uh, there may be instances when, um, the effectiveness of reducing the general, the generation output of the project might have to be.

605
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:34:43.584 --> 02:35:04.704
Reduced, uh, below the minimum lowest value and at that point, in time as we have summarized within the slides, there, there will be, uh, a some kind of reduce level, uh, profile that would be communicated generator until.

606
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:35:04.734 --> 02:35:14.574
Uh, appropriate, uh, mitigation measures can be implemented to bring that project back to at least, uh, the lowest.

607
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:35:14.578 --> 02:35:35.663
And that's what we're trying to capture in the 2nd bullet and the 2nd, paragraph there that we would be proposing to add within the terror. And this is, in addition to what's I think somebody had asked, you know, what would we do under emergency conditions? I think that's captured.

608
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:35:35.729 --> 02:35:44.364
Part of the section 9 of this tariff, uh, which would be like, the previous 2 paragraphs. Um, for that.

609
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:35:48.084 --> 02:35:52.284
You read through it and, uh, let me know if you have any questions.

610
Sky Stanfield 02:36:13.164 --> 02:36:31.554
I think 1 of the things that is maybe not captured here and I don't know, is is the part of the utilities proposal, which I rec, appreciates, um, that you will undertake some mitigations I think, is what we're calling them. Um.

611
Sky Stanfield 02:36:32.814 --> 02:36:41.964
That it may cost the utility something, um, in order to restore the project to its profile. Um, so.

612
Sky Stanfield 02:36:42.054 --> 02:36:55.614
I think what I understood was, is that utilities were taking the position that they wouldn't that they would do they would be willing to do certain low cost, or I can't remember what the exact terms we talked about before to restore the project.

613
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:37:08.904 --> 02:37:29.934
Yeah, and and I think, um, Skype that would probably fall under the last part of it that this reduction could be temporary or permanent where, uh, there will be, uh, there will be, uh, some operational type analysis that would, uh, would probably need to be, uh, that the.

614
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:37:29.965 --> 02:37:51.085
Operations folks will probably do and, um, and that might determine, uh, you know, those low cost solutions that you're talking about, uh, that may maybe bring them up to the value that was originally there. Um, I don't know.

615
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:37:51.174 --> 02:37:51.684
Uh.

616
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:37:54.685 --> 02:38:05.185
If from a tariff language perspective, if we go into, like, the, if we're supposed to go into the actual details of of that.

617
Sky Stanfield 02:38:05.845 --> 02:38:15.025
I mean, I think some of the, uh, the 2nd, advice letter gets involved is going to get into a lot more of the mechanics of things. 1 of the thing is that just just a highlight.

618
Sky Stanfield 02:38:15.059 --> 02:38:36.204
For you guys is consideration and ultimately for the commissions is that there. There is some potential for a lot of debate about what, you know, there's going to be some question about well, what mitigations and where when and where you should pursue them. I mean, customers that if they were to go ahead, which again, I don't think they.

619
Sky Stanfield 02:38:36.234 --> 02:38:57.024
In this scenario, but to do an, and then, you know, there might be some debate, or there may need to be some transparency around which options were taking them, which weren't taken right now we don't have a clear definition of, of where that where that lies.

620
Sky Stanfield 02:38:57.444 --> 02:39:12.744
I think it's fine for the usual disposition to be. We're just gonna apply our discretion but that's just being clear that if that's the, that is the position. Um, because there, I think there, there's gonna be, you know, costs on it. Some level. What what is the are there available? Mitigations.

621
Sky Stanfield 02:39:25.223 --> 02:39:28.853
I guess the other thing, it's hard to just more if you look at this, the other thing that maybe isn't here.

622
Sky Stanfield 02:39:31.825 --> 02:39:52.345
Is that this language, um, isn't being specific as to these future grid conditions that we're referring to? So, I think part of the goal of the whole sending this back, was the commission in the original decision, asked for clarity on what those sort of circumstances were. And right now this isn't.

623
Sky Stanfield 02:39:52.824 --> 02:40:04.944
Specifying that it's load loss and maybe characterizing that even in more detail. Um, it, it is very open to, you know, some future good condition. Yeah. Not defined.

624
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:40:10.554 --> 02:40:11.034
Okay.

625
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:40:13.104 --> 02:40:33.234
Yeah, I think I, uh, I mean, at sky's correct there, which brings up, I mean, we've discussed a lot about load laws and, uh, you know, earlier today, on what is gonna happen for future, clarifying that, you know, um, if available capacity.

626
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:40:33.240 --> 02:40:46.195
That's become available and the project is at the lowest, uh, I see a static rate. They'll be brought up to the regular profile, you know.

627
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:40:48.144 --> 02:40:55.554
We need all that information, so people know what they're, you know, what's entailed.

628
Jan Strack 02:41:08.394 --> 02:41:25.374
Um, just 1 point that I would make is and I went to any particular language at all and appreciate any suggestions, but I wouldn't look at what's in section. 3.9 currently write some.

629
Jan Strack 02:41:25.410 --> 02:41:44.275
Maybe guidance as to the level of detail that is currently in the terror, you know, again, I mean, we can argue about whether that's sufficient or not. But but it is there now and it has been accepted by the commission. So, just to, I think it's, it may be worth people going back and look at what's already there in the curtailment section section. 8.9.

630
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:42:22.735 --> 02:42:25.705
All right any other thoughts feedback.

631
Frances Cleveland 02:42:32.334 --> 02:42:44.214
Um, just just 1 quick thought here, because we were discussing it before, which is, um, that if a.

632
Frances Cleveland 02:42:46.525 --> 02:43:02.065
Project that's in the queue comes in and it is known ahead of time or it's part of the, the assessment of that new project that it would impact an.

633
Frances Cleveland 02:43:02.995 --> 02:43:23.845
Uh, customer would that be enough to disc either disqualify that project that new project? Uh, or would there have to be some other mechanism to allow the, the new project to go forward with some.

634
Frances Cleveland 02:43:23.874 --> 02:43:27.144
How not impacting the customer.

635
Roger Salas SCE 02:43:31.945 --> 02:43:50.365
Yep, Francis, um, I think we talked about earlier that new projects will not impact the LGB customer. So so if you have a an project that's already approved, and it's based on his profile and that profiles approved and.

636
Roger Salas SCE 02:43:50.664 --> 02:43:57.024
Went to that we have on another project whether it's an or not an.

637
Roger Salas SCE 02:43:58.585 --> 02:44:09.265
Project has to do the system upgrades that are needed to interconnect without affecting the existing projects, including the, the approval GP projects.

638
Frances Cleveland 02:44:09.835 --> 02:44:14.635
Um, okay, even if their, once at the right pair would have to pay for the upgrades.

639
Roger Salas SCE 02:44:14.665 --> 02:44:18.715
Yeah, I mean, if he's less than 1 megawatt, then we have to do the upgrades.

640
Frances Cleveland 02:44:19.914 --> 02:44:27.654
Yeah, which then erases the issue that if you're going to do those upgrades, maybe the customer should also benefit but that's a different issue.

641
Roger Salas SCE 02:44:28.224 --> 02:44:28.464
Yeah.

642
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:44:32.545 --> 02:44:34.165
Thank you Francis, thank you. Roger.

643
Sky Stanfield 02:44:35.935 --> 02:44:40.255
Something just occurred to me that we haven't talked about, I don't think yeah.

644
Sky Stanfield 02:44:44.245 --> 02:44:56.125
The, the kind of framing that we've been talking about, the is a project proposals, um, a profile based upon the that's published. Um, what.

645
Sky Stanfield 02:44:58.674 --> 02:45:19.464
A project goes through study and wants to use a profile. Um, and I'm not even sure exactly how this would happen, but I'm trying I want to set out that this because this language is dependent upon what the says as opposed to.

646
Sky Stanfield 02:45:19.469 --> 02:45:40.584
To, and, you know, to the point that that was being made earlier, like, study, what would happen if you've studied to the project. So, if I were supposed to post a profile and said, go ahead and study it, does that result in in a different treatment or a different perspective? Or is that even.

647
Sky Stanfield 02:45:40.645 --> 02:45:57.475
Cloud, it's essentially a project, proposing a schedule, whether it's based on the, or maybe not based on the, um, because I think we are going to get to the scenario where projects are proposing schedules for a variety of reasons that may not even be tracking the per se.

648
Roger Salas SCE 02:45:59.365 --> 02:46:20.095
I mean, maybe that's some of the detail that we still need to work on, meaning that and what I mean, by that is, it seems to me that screen M needs to be updated to account for this profile. Because right now we have, I mean, we have screen, em, to basically have the, the 2 scenarios, you know, the, we don't have.

649
Roger Salas SCE 02:46:20.124 --> 02:46:32.244
I see values and we use the all 50% criteria limit, or we have I see values and then we use the 90th, the 90% of the, uh, and.

650
Roger Salas SCE 02:46:32.904 --> 02:46:53.604
But it seems to me that we need to add language into screen M, to also add the, the profile and eventually, I think we will treat it the same as all other projects, which means is if a screen and passes. Then then the project proceeds, if it fails, then it goes to supplemental review and.

651
Roger Salas SCE 02:46:54.145 --> 02:47:15.055
Additional studies are perform, but I think studies are performance still based on the profile. So I don't know that we will still be approving the profile itself. Uh, and in in at the end, you know, we would we would approve what a customer requested. Um, you know, I think there was an app, or we might have spoken some time ago.

652
Roger Salas SCE 02:47:15.144 --> 02:47:36.174
I can't even remember now where there might be an opportunity, a feedback loop where, if, for instance, the, uh, the IC values are really not what the customer has some, you know, basis proposal on. In other words, they changed. They may be an opportunity for the customer to update the profile to pass screen. Am I supposed to go into supplement review?

653
Roger Salas SCE 02:47:37.285 --> 02:47:53.845
So, I think so, those are some of the details that still need to be addressed, you know, indifferent who takes responsibility and all that kind of stuff. It's more about just how we implement the, uh, the, uh, the profile within the various screens.

654
Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:47:55.015 --> 02:47:57.145
Say this is Alex from Virginia.

655
Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:47:57.414 --> 02:48:13.914
Slightly different answer from Roger, so if I understand your question correctly, if a customer comes in with a profile, and for some reason, they, the project or the profile does not fit under the 90% of.

656
Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:48:14.544 --> 02:48:35.394
And then we have to go through a steady if that's a scenario that you're talking about, if we have to go through a study, then we then propose mitigations. And in my opinion, at that point, this project is not an project anymore. Right? Because the profile that, you know, the 990% of is basically below what the customer's.

657
Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:48:35.459 --> 02:48:43.284
Posting then they would basically just be connecting based on their export, which is not a profile anymore.

658
Sky Stanfield 02:48:46.643 --> 02:48:58.913
Okay, um, I think that's a helpful clarification. Alex is, but I guess it does open up a lot of other other questions for me. Um, that I'm not sure if it makes sense to go through right now or not, but.

659
Sky Stanfield 02:49:01.374 --> 02:49:04.824
Because what I'm trying to piece out here is, are we.

660
Sky Stanfield 02:49:06.804 --> 02:49:27.504
Is your position that the only a project that will be considered an, is 1, who applied under the profile only? Um, I feel like there's a lot of future cases of projects with a schedule, or a profile that we have. We're not envisioning here web. And maybe even a project that a proposed.

661
Sky Stanfield 02:49:27.629 --> 02:49:48.774
Under the profile, we could say, I'm happy to have you study me if that means you don't have to treat me you don't have to curtail me in the future. I think the nuance I was trying to get at is whether you're you guys view that you want to have the option to curtail is tied to the, or if it's tied and the fact that you didn't get to.

662
Sky Stanfield 02:49:48.780 --> 02:49:59.905
That is a profile or whether it's it's just any profile period, whether it was studied or not should be treated as potentially curtail level in the future.

663
Yi Li SDG&E 02:50:01.494 --> 02:50:13.674
I don't think it will be very accurate to say that it's tied to because the existing screening criteria for the limited expert customer is also tied to the value. Right?

664
Sky Stanfield 02:50:13.674 --> 02:50:22.344
I'm trying to distinguish there just to cut you off is is if you studied it so they take the didn't exist.

665
Sky Stanfield 02:50:22.645 --> 02:50:41.905
And I study I proposed a project for study that had a limited generation profile. Would your view be that the limited generation profile that could be approved would still be subject to curtailment if you studied it as opposed to just comparing it to the model the.

666
Yi Li SDG&E 02:50:44.124 --> 02:51:04.914
No, it's it's not just about the study, right? So we propose a new process for the limited generation profile customer and the device letter we file, which is, uh, there's more discussion on that for the 5 to 30 workshops. So, there's quite a bit difference for limited management profile, right? They're choosing different value, right? Versus the.

667
Yi Li SDG&E 02:51:04.919 --> 02:51:17.694
And they're also having a different process. I think Roger was alluding to right? It's it's not just a study fact it's, it's there in value against a whole nother set of criteria.

668
Sky Stanfield 02:51:17.694 --> 02:51:25.854
So, summarize back what I, I'm hearing you saying that if I proposed a project with a profile, even if I was studied.

669
Sky Stanfield 02:51:26.664 --> 02:51:41.034
And not just screened against the your view is that that project would be treated as though it could be curtailed. Even if you've studied it, not that you just apply to the.

670
Sky Stanfield 02:51:41.603 --> 02:51:43.313
Profile or them yeah.

671
Yi Li SDG&E 02:51:43.733 --> 02:51:45.593
That's that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying.

672
Sky Stanfield 02:51:45.593 --> 02:51:46.223
That.

673
Yi Li SDG&E 02:51:46.703 --> 02:51:52.763
The existing process, you know, I see Alex has handled baby else. Do you want to jump in.

674
Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:51:54.474 --> 02:51:56.574
No, no finish finish what you're going to say. I.

675
Yi Li SDG&E 02:51:57.714 --> 02:52:14.814
Yeah, W, what I'm saying is that for the existing process, which again, we don't study every project, right? There is also a screen for customer that it has to go through. So, what we're proposing here is for the new process for.

676
Yi Li SDG&E 02:52:15.444 --> 02:52:36.564
Profile, which allows us to cartel, which we already discussed right under the emergency situation if we have to curtail, that's there's no difference for versus non but for the low reduction, we're currently not allowed to curtail customer under the existing rule 21, only for the limitation profile customer, that's a.

677
Yi Li SDG&E 02:52:36.594 --> 02:52:38.334
Due process we're currently discussing.

678
Sky Stanfield 02:52:38.784 --> 02:52:40.554
Right I understand that.

679
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:52:40.704 --> 02:52:41.724
So.

680
Sky Stanfield 02:52:41.724 --> 02:52:46.074
Questions maybe not being being, or maybe you guys aren't following my questions.

681
Sky Stanfield 02:52:46.704 --> 02:52:47.004
Call.

682
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:52:47.004 --> 02:52:57.714
Interject I mean, proposal 9, which is, he'll be 15 and 16 that's specifically to do with. Uh, so I.

683
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:52:57.744 --> 02:53:18.174
Your question is better, um, you know, uh, is better suited for the next set of workshops 15,230 because it sounds like now you're talking about 151, which allows.

684
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:53:19.405 --> 02:53:27.625
You know, uh, burying profile, but it'll be 51. uh, I, I think that was a B.

685
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:53:30.205 --> 02:53:44.185
3, I think proposal which is not it is related to proposal 9, but it's not entirely tied to the.

686
Sky Stanfield 02:53:48.595 --> 02:54:06.805
Yeah, maybe I need to go back and look at that anyway. I, I think we can move on. I I think this is all just in the bucket of why I think this is we're drawing some lines are gonna be very hard to, um, to adhere to with some with logic. But I, I certainly know that what we're talking about right now is project.

687
Sky Stanfield 02:54:06.924 --> 02:54:10.974
Probably under the, and we're trying to build a process for that and strongly supportive of it.

688
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:54:13.884 --> 02:54:23.214
Yeah, but, uh, let's revisit this, uh, for the next set of workshops cause I think it's probably better suited for 151 and 251.

689
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:54:40.254 --> 02:54:44.484
I think that concludes our part of the presentation. I think, uh.

690
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:54:46.224 --> 02:54:57.294
Yeah, and I just wanted to, uh, make 1 more comment regarding the tariff. I know it deals with curtailment. But part of is the permanency issue.

691
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:54:57.864 --> 02:55:01.164
And this brings it back to.

692
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:55:03.534 --> 02:55:24.204
Uh, comment, I think, uh, earlier today about, you know, uh, that we've been talking about load, and my comment about making it clear that, you know, under what circumstances will the, assuming it's already being lowered to the lowest value will be raised back again to the.

693
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:55:24.594 --> 02:55:27.564
Original, uh, profile submitted.

694
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:55:30.564 --> 02:55:36.534
Cause I don't think you can, uh, you know, you can separate permanency from.

695
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:55:39.414 --> 02:55:47.994
So that was like, my, my last closing thought, uh, I'll open it up to anybody else. Have any other questions.

696
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:56:12.444 --> 02:56:33.324
Okay, I do not see any, uh, questions. Um, and Gary just, uh, type they, uh, question on the, on the, on the chat box, which is what's gonna be my next subject. Um, I was gonna suggest, uh, you know, uh, we are technically.

697
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:56:33.450 --> 02:56:43.885
It over our schedule, so, uh, fruitful discussion. I certainly need a little break right now. So.

698
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:56:46.254 --> 02:56:54.114
Sky, unless you might, maybe we can take lunch right now and then start with your presentation in an hour.

699
Sky Stanfield 02:56:55.314 --> 02:56:56.634
I love that idea.

700
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:57:00.113 --> 02:57:02.603
Perfect and that's a good.

701
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:57:02.603 --> 02:57:03.083
[...] [...] [...].

702
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:57:08.394 --> 02:57:14.334
Okay, uh, Francisco, uh, no, actually next slide.

703
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:57:15.774 --> 02:57:17.484
After this break.

704
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:57:21.804 --> 02:57:23.664
Yeah, lunch. Oh, lunch break.

705
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:57:26.635 --> 02:57:32.755
Francisco Cheryl way you could change it from 1230 to 1130. yeah. Changed the 2 201.

706
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:57:34.373 --> 02:57:35.483
Add a to.

707
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:57:39.834 --> 02:57:47.664
Yeah, so 11 yes so all right everybody, uh, we'll see each other in an hour.

708
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:57:48.294 --> 02:57:59.394
And now, Jose, I just just wanted to, uh, I guess, uh, just a quick reminder we do want to, uh, reserve a little bit of time to talk about process about that or.

709
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:57:59.484 --> 02:58:01.014
January night.

710
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:58:01.074 --> 02:58:05.724
Okay, that's fine. We could do that towards the end.

711
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:58:05.724 --> 02:58:05.904
You.

712
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:58:06.174 --> 02:58:08.064
Scheduled plenty of buffer time.

713
Roni Mejia - SCE 02:58:09.864 --> 02:58:10.344
Thank you.

714
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:58:12.415 --> 02:58:13.315
Just remind me though.

715
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:58:18.774 --> 02:58:30.144
All right, everyone, uh, well, thank you and, uh, enjoy well deserved lunch and, uh, we'll see everybody in an hour take care.

716
Rottman, Mary 02:58:31.014 --> 02:58:31.944
Thank you everyone.

717
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:51:28.704 --> 03:51:30.654
Or buddy, I'm just doing a, a.

718
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:51:32.933 --> 03:51:36.443
Call to see who we have on the call at the moment.

719
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:51:40.645 --> 03:51:47.695
I record this next to speak so hopefully, uh, Eric is either here or due to be here soon.

720
Sky Stanfield 03:51:56.784 --> 03:51:58.884
I'm here, I thought we had until 1230. sorry.

721
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:51:59.124 --> 03:52:00.834
Oh, you do? Oh, you did? Did you do.

722
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:52:02.754 --> 03:52:04.824
No need to turn your camera on.

723
Sky Stanfield 03:52:04.944 --> 03:52:06.204
Okay, no worries.

724
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:52:06.834 --> 03:52:09.774
I'm just doing a preliminary, uh, check.

725
Sky Stanfield 03:52:10.044 --> 03:52:10.794
Yeah, correct.

726
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:52:13.825 --> 03:52:15.985
Relax put your feet up.

727
Sky Stanfield 03:52:17.755 --> 03:52:20.335
Catch up on 1000 emails that happened when I'm at.

728
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:52:22.315 --> 03:52:29.305
That's always the case. The moment you're busy emails come when you're not busy. No emails at all.

729
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:52:33.204 --> 03:52:36.204
At least in my experience, every time I take a day off.

730
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:52:38.514 --> 03:52:43.014
30 emails when I'm working 5 emails.

731
Sky Stanfield 03:52:44.214 --> 03:52:44.514
Wow.

732
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:52:46.375 --> 03:52:48.805
Like, you just know when I'm not here.

733
Roger Salas SCE 03:52:51.744 --> 03:52:53.514
I like to experience that will say when they.

734
Sky Stanfield 03:52:55.224 --> 03:52:56.244
Yeah, and that's what I was going to say.

735
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:53:00.835 --> 03:53:16.165
But it's frustrating. Roger, cause you're when you're on vacation, you always think, oh, my God, I'm gonna have so many emails and there are days where I'm free to answer emails and not a single 1 comes in and I'm like, really.

736
Roger Salas SCE 03:53:17.305 --> 03:53:20.005
Hey, someone's you don't want to go on vacation, right? Because you know that when you.

737
Roger Salas SCE 03:53:20.034 --> 03:53:21.414
Come back, it's going to be the worst.

738
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:53:22.674 --> 03:53:23.724
Yeah, exactly.

739
Sky Stanfield 03:53:30.894 --> 03:53:40.944
I think the solution on that is to just to take much longer vacation, such that people have to get an answer from somebody else while you're gone. And then it's lessons what you have when you come back.

740
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:53:42.804 --> 03:53:48.354
Or do you get that bounced message that says inbox full can't deliver your message.

741
Roger Salas SCE 03:53:49.824 --> 03:53:58.104
Or chess just, you know, clear all the messages as you come and then, you know, which are important because they'll ask you again.

742
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:54:02.754 --> 03:54:07.884
It's always the way to go. It's like, oh, hey, if it was important and he'll bring it back up like.

743
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:54:15.024 --> 03:54:36.054
I actually, um, at a boss who had his best line, his phone line is mobile phone and his email, but I asked him I tried leaving a message on your desk line and it was full and he told me yeah, that's on purpose.

744
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:54:36.354 --> 03:54:48.804
If it's important, they have 2 other ways to contact me, but I don't need a 3rd voice mail to, you know, to check.

745
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:54:50.964 --> 03:54:53.334
So, I thought, you know, that's good idea.

746
Roger Salas SCE 03:54:56.275 --> 03:54:57.835
You have to try that 1 they.

747
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:55:00.205 --> 03:55:05.845
Does that mean seriously if people know to contact you on your voice on your cell number.

748
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:55:07.855 --> 03:55:08.995
Message from my desk.

749
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:56:35.664 --> 03:56:39.984
Okay, I have, uh, 12, 2009, uh, Francisco. Are you on the call?

750
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:56:42.234 --> 03:56:47.724
I think we could, uh, bring, uh, uh, uh, 1st, slide up.

751
Francisco Hernandez (Consultant) @CPUC 03:56:48.264 --> 03:56:50.304
Yes. Okay. Give me 1 moment.

752
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:56:50.994 --> 03:56:51.744
Okay, thank you.

753
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:56:54.175 --> 03:57:06.025
And then we'll just wait, uh, you know, uh, 1, more minute to start. Oh, yeah. Let's start with the 1st slide the introduction. The, uh, title. Sorry the title slide.

754
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:57:35.635 --> 03:57:49.675
All right, so I'm gonna do a quick, uh, roll call. I know uh, skies here. Um, do we have and I know essence here are you, uh, roger's voice? Uh, Ronnie, are you online?

755
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:57:56.905 --> 03:57:57.715
Okay.

756
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:57:59.215 --> 03:58:06.115
Oh, wait a few more minutes. Uh, do we have, uh, on the call?

757
Yi Li SDG&E 03:58:11.784 --> 03:58:12.264
Right here.

758
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:58:15.174 --> 03:58:19.704
In queue and, uh, do we have, uh, on the call.

759
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:58:29.934 --> 03:58:34.104
Okay, not yet. Uh, I mean, are you on the call.

760
Younes, Amin 03:58:36.113 --> 03:58:36.863
Yes, I am.

761
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:58:37.313 --> 03:58:38.513
Okay, thank you.

762
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:58:41.093 --> 03:58:44.123
All right, so we'll just we had a couple more minutes, um.

763
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:58:46.314 --> 03:58:48.654
To make sure everybody's here.

764
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:59:53.935 --> 03:59:58.885
Okay, so, um, Ronnie, are you are you online.

765
Roni Mejia - SCE 04:00:03.025 --> 04:00:04.225
I dunno say I'm here.

766
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:00:04.675 --> 04:00:13.975
Okay, thank you. And I think I did not hear earlier. Anybody from PG E, um, did on the call.

767
Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:00:15.175 --> 04:00:17.215
Yeah, this is Alex on the I'm on that. I'm on the.

768
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:00:17.635 --> 04:00:21.595
Okay, thank you Alex. So.

769
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:00:21.713 --> 04:00:42.653
All right, uh, thank you everybody and welcome back. Everybody had a nice relaxing lunch. I'm not sure where it went. Where 60 minutes went it went by too fast for me, but, uh, all right, so let's jump in.

770
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:00:42.834 --> 04:00:55.344
Now, have presentation or risk assessment and, uh, sky believe you're the 1 speaking to this, or is it, uh, right.

771
Sky Stanfield 04:00:55.374 --> 04:00:58.314
Yeah, unfortunately you guys have to hear my voice even more.

772
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:01:02.543 --> 04:01:03.143
Take it away.

773
Sky Stanfield 04:01:03.533 --> 04:01:14.273
All right, thanks everyone. Uh, I hope you guys had a little nice lunch break. It's beautiful day here in San Francisco, at least. Um, let's go ahead and move on to the next slide.

774
Sky Stanfield 04:01:17.063 --> 04:01:37.043
So, this is sort of a reiteration of what I think we are grappling with. And that is ultimately making some of this decision making difficult in terms of how to proceed which is that, regardless of who you think is responsible for.

775
Sky Stanfield 04:01:38.395 --> 04:01:58.555
Should be responsible for either curtailment or upgrades. The biggest central problem is that we don't have a sense of how likely it is, or how much it will cost. Um, for those that those, that circumstance that we're all here to talk about, will actually occur. And I want to say that.

776
Sky Stanfield 04:01:59.094 --> 04:02:20.034
I realize it's a little frustrating and I probably should have said this earlier and everybody, like, we're not trying to play games around. Not giving you our proposal. We've really just been trying to hear everybody out and think about ways to do this. And I had some additional calls with project financers and really have been trying to think about different ways of doing that. Um, but haven't made a ton of progress.

777
Sky Stanfield 04:02:20.063 --> 04:02:34.463
For us on alternate at this stage, but we 1 of the things that I think is driving, this is these unknowns and whether we can get to some clarity on them, um, 1 way or the other. So, next slide please.

778
Sky Stanfield 04:02:38.364 --> 04:02:54.744
We've spent already quite a bit of time talking about this today, which is that there's a policy change happening here with respect to how projects would be treated relative to your traditional what? I'll call flat interconnection project.

779
Sky Stanfield 04:02:55.313 --> 04:03:16.433
The, the challenge with holding the customers responsible for permanent curtailment is that they, as identified here, they, those are circumstances that are entirely out of their control and will prevent ultimately prevent them likely from being able to.

780
Sky Stanfield 04:03:16.465 --> 04:03:37.585
To do something that benefits the system overall, and we think it will ultimately result in higher costs, um, because we won't be able to provide peak power without upgrading the grid dirty hours where it doesn't necessarily need to be upgraded. This is just sort of setting.

781
Sky Stanfield 04:03:37.588 --> 04:03:55.103
The stage for what we're trying to get to, in the discussion that's going to follow and try to sort of address through potential additional information and policy solutions. So, with that I'm just going to keep moving, um, and get into the actual meat of this next slide. Please.

782
Sky Stanfield 04:03:57.683 --> 04:04:17.063
This is just the caveat, but the following slides and discussion or for discussion purposes, and aren't yet solidified into a proposal. What we're really looking for. Here is input from the full scope of parties. Utilities are welcome to provide input as well as others on this sort of framework that we're going to lay out.

783
Sky Stanfield 04:04:19.315 --> 04:04:20.125
Fire please.

784
Sky Stanfield 04:04:23.694 --> 04:04:41.994
Okay, so, over the last week or so, Iraq and advocates have been working together on a framework that we want to present today for discussion that essentially has multiple layers to it.

785
Sky Stanfield 04:04:42.475 --> 04:05:03.595
The 1st, core part of it as I see, it is trying to get provide everyone in particularly the commission, but all the stakeholders who are interested in taking a position, some greater insight into those unknowns that identified in the beginning. Um, and what we're proposing is essentially.

786
Sky Stanfield 04:05:03.623 --> 04:05:24.743
That there would be an analysis conducted using data, and we'll go through in a minute, the specific data sources and also the specific mechanics of the analysis using sort of historical data and some existing tools to understand the frequency with which these load reductions.

787
Sky Stanfield 04:05:24.749 --> 04:05:45.894
Things may occur and they're following from that, the potential costs of upgrades that could be required, should the load reduce and similarly, I should have put this in the bullet to either cost of upgrades or the cost of the curtailment essentially and then together.

788
Sky Stanfield 04:05:45.954 --> 04:06:07.044
We're hoping that that can give us an understanding of the potential financial costs of implementing the, our, that the analysis could be used by, you know, in a variety of ways. But what we're building on from there is using that analysis to develop a cap on costs.

789
Sky Stanfield 04:06:07.644 --> 04:06:28.194
That could be born by the rate pace as is implemented. So, if we have an understanding of what the potential costs are, and for the reasons that we already spent quite a bit of time discussing this morning, we think that it's not gonna be viable to shift that full responsibility onto the.

790
Sky Stanfield 04:06:28.285 --> 04:06:49.345
Developers, what we'd like to do is implement the with a essentially a cap on the, the ratepayer responsibility, and then over time and we'll talk about that more. We'll watch and see how that evolves. And then can revisit it as we have a better understanding.

791
Sky Stanfield 04:06:49.373 --> 04:06:57.293
About what and how those costs are actually emerging, whether, and how those costs are actually emerging next slide please.

792
Yi Li SDG&E 04:07:00.204 --> 04:07:06.174
All right, Skype before you go on for the last slide, uh, can go back to last night.

793
Yi Li SDG&E 04:07:09.593 --> 04:07:20.513
Yeah, I just want to confirm the 2nd bullet use this analysis to develop a cast cap on cost that could be born by the rate base as.

794
Sky Stanfield 04:07:20.513 --> 04:07:21.533
Mm, hmm.

795
Yi Li SDG&E 04:07:21.533 --> 04:07:30.233
This also Cal advocate's position that the objective of this analysis is to develop a cost to be taken.

796
Yi Li SDG&E 04:07:30.265 --> 04:07:30.955
Repairs.

797
Younes, Amin 04:07:33.894 --> 04:07:54.204
Um, I think I'd be very careful with exactly how I answer that question. Um, so we are interested in developing a cap and in better understanding the cost. We are not at this time saying that there's a specific number that we would be happy. Whether, or not be happy with, um, we are not opposing at this time.

798
Younes, Amin 04:07:54.234 --> 04:07:59.364
Care ratepayers paying for the upgrades for, but we want to better understand what that number is.

799
Yi Li SDG&E 04:08:02.755 --> 04:08:09.595
That your advocate is on the name is mentioned on the slide. So I just want to understand that. Thank you.

800
Younes, Amin 04:08:09.985 --> 04:08:23.785
Yeah, thanks for clarifying that cause I think, I, I, I don't want to talk about this too much, but I think some of the things that skies that are kind of policy positions, and some of the things are talking about the data analysis and, um, the data analysis the collection and that.

801
Younes, Amin 04:08:23.844 --> 04:08:35.154
Policy positions that are not necessarily reflective of advocates, uh, feel free to ask me as you just did if they are, but we're totally behind the, the analysis and data collection. That's the part we really collaborated on.

802
Sky Stanfield 04:08:40.375 --> 04:08:43.315
Gary, did you have a question? I see your your smiling face.

803
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:08:45.295 --> 04:08:50.395
So, help me understand the cop, the cost of just a bit. Is it a.

804
Sky Stanfield 04:08:50.755 --> 04:08:51.715
Cap.

805
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:08:51.805 --> 04:08:57.115
For how much rate pairs would have to pay, or how much would be expected to be.

806
Sky Stanfield 04:08:59.694 --> 04:09:07.374
Not to be invasive, but why don't we talk through the analysis 1st, and then have a good discussion about that? Does that make.

807
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:09:08.154 --> 04:09:08.844
Sorry.

808
Sky Stanfield 04:09:09.354 --> 04:09:20.214
Yeah, no worries, um, any other questions on this, this is sort of just laying out the basic framework. I think once we start talking about the data, we'll also it'll become a little clear what.

809
Sky Stanfield 04:09:20.219 --> 04:09:20.994
We'll get out of it.

810
Sky Stanfield 04:09:24.473 --> 04:09:25.343
Okay, next slide.

811
Sky Stanfield 04:09:28.914 --> 04:09:48.414
So this is sort of a continuation of the same framework that we're working towards. What we'd like to do in this analysis is, in addition to analyzing how often the load reductions are likely to occur and the potential costs associated with them. We'd also in addition to doing now, as part of doing that.

812
Sky Stanfield 04:09:48.420 --> 04:10:09.535
I'd like to examine how, how much of those, how to the extent to which those costs vary, depending upon whether there is an customer versus a traditional flat inner connection. Um, so we've talked about, you know, whether it's 12 months or whatever, the, the, the more frequent.

813
Sky Stanfield 04:10:09.594 --> 04:10:30.714
Touch points on the thresholds, and we'd like to get a better understanding with some fast historical data whether what how much additional risk of the need for upgrades due to little reduction actually arises due to projects. And then the final sort of goal, though, there's probably lots more we can pull out of.

814
Sky Stanfield 04:10:30.719 --> 04:10:51.714
Analysis in the end is to characterize the upgrade costs that would be heard if the is not allowed in a financial manner. And by that, I mean, if we don't come up with a way to do is that people can actually finance and therefore build a meaning that no is actually are developed.

815
Sky Stanfield 04:10:52.225 --> 04:11:12.775
Um, what that means is the projects, the grid will ultimately have to be upgraded to provide the power during those peak periods. And we'd like to see if we can get a sense of what that that cost is as a reference point for understanding some of the trade offs, there are additional costs and benefits that that.

816
Sky Stanfield 04:11:13.044 --> 04:11:34.164
We'd like to understand to it'll be, it would be a little bit harder to get to here because we'd need to bring in all the rate structures and so on. But I think just 1 touch point would be to get a sense of what we're talking about. In terms of actual upgrade savings by allowing the to go into effect and recognizing that who pays for those upgrades will vary, depending on.

817
Sky Stanfield 04:11:34.195 --> 04:11:55.225
Um, but mostly we have originally been paid for, by the customer how they'll carry into the actual cost of the energy that is ultimately purchased is something we're not proposing to get into here. Okay. With that high level overview to sort of frame what we're trying to get out of the analysis I'm going to turn it over to a mean for the next slide.

818
Sky Stanfield 04:11:55.464 --> 04:12:02.514
To help early talk through the way we were proposing this analysis be conducted and then the, the data points as well.

819
Younes, Amin 04:12:04.404 --> 04:12:05.394
All right. Thanks guys.

820
Younes, Amin 04:12:07.763 --> 04:12:11.993
So next slide sorry who's who's handling the slide deck? So I know who to ask.

821
Francisco Hernandez (Consultant) @CPUC 04:12:13.463 --> 04:12:14.903
That'll be me Francisco.

822
Younes, Amin 04:12:15.383 --> 04:12:27.743
Okay, thanks Francisco. Okay. So, um, there are really 22 kind of parts to what we're talking about here. There's, uh, kind of a historic analysis and then a an ongoing monitoring, uh, kind of analysis.

823
Younes, Amin 04:12:27.774 --> 04:12:48.894
And I, I have 3 slides on them. I think, what would be best is if you can interrupt with clarify I mean, anyone can do whatever they want, but I would like non, uh, like, substantive questions to be held until the end. Um, so they don't get bogged down I think, actually that the, the 2nd slide and it might be the 1 we get stuck on. So I'd like to get through the 3rd slide before we, we open the.

824
Younes, Amin 04:12:48.924 --> 04:12:52.494
Discussion do you have clarifying questions? Please interrupt me.

825
Younes, Amin 04:12:53.129 --> 04:13:13.374
With those, and I'll also add 1 further caveat, which is that, uh, as I updated my understanding this morning, on the types of scenarios, that were actually under consideration. That's not reflected in these slides. Cause they were created a couple of days ago. So, I might have to on the fly, um, talk about the implications of, um, self generation, not being, uh.

826
Younes, Amin 04:13:14.304 --> 04:13:35.424
Being treated differently than I had previously thought, uh, with that I'll, I'll just jump into it. Um, so the, the 1st, piece of of the analysis would be to to take historic data on how frequently have there been load reductions on features. That would actually trigger this scenario. So looking at low leaving, not looking at self generation. Uh, so we'd ask that the, to look at something like.

827
Younes, Amin 04:13:35.845 --> 04:13:56.575
5 years of data and eliminate the small drops. That might not be significant. Um, so we put tentatively the threshold to say 100 kilowatts. Um, and then looking at those reductions across their service territory over the last 5 or so years, backing out all the reductions caused by interconnections. Um, so I think this 1st bullet I would say, should just be.

828
Younes, Amin 04:13:56.603 --> 04:14:17.273
All all real, 21 interconnections would be excluded from that low dropping. I believe. But but we can open up that discussion. And then we might want to layer on expected load growth. This is something that we weren't sure about. Um, but we can talk about why, or why why why or why we might not want to do that as well as how we might do that. Subsequently.

829
Younes, Amin 04:14:17.905 --> 04:14:38.875
So the, the idea of that is to give us an idea of the frequency of of how often these little drops are occurring. And then the 2nd bullet here is about understanding the cost impact of those load drops and how that might vary between lines with and lines with non generators. Um, so, as a proposal here, we, we would rec, uh, sorry, not as a proposal. But as a kind of sketch.

830
Younes, Amin 04:14:39.504 --> 04:14:59.934
You would select 30 cases, uh, stratified cases, kind of representing the range of historic load drops and then estimate the upgrade cost. If any that, whatever reason if the largest allowable interconnection had occurred prior to that low leaving in the 2 cases. 1, with and 1 without so, essentially you'd say.

831
Younes, Amin 04:15:00.654 --> 04:15:21.174
We have this circuit. We, we saw it in 2019, uh, 1, megawatt, industrial customer left. Now, what would have happened if the largest Nam interconnection? Yeah. Nam, interconnection that could have fit on that circuit had been installed previously. How much how much of an upgrade, uh, would have been incurred? How much would that cost? And then if instead.

832
Younes, Amin 04:15:21.205 --> 04:15:37.975
That traditional name interconnection what are the largest interconnection? Instead? I didn't connected. How would, how might the cost change? Would it be exactly the same? Would it be different? Um, and then, uh, yeah, so that's that step and then.

833
Sky Stanfield 04:15:38.575 --> 04:15:42.325
Just quickly when you is there a reason why you said, does it.

834
Sky Stanfield 04:15:42.353 --> 04:15:44.753
Any project does it have to be a num project?

835
Younes, Amin 04:15:44.993 --> 04:15:47.003
No, I always just say that because I feel like.

836
Sky Stanfield 04:15:47.003 --> 04:15:47.483
Equipment.

837
Younes, Amin 04:15:47.483 --> 04:16:03.473
But, yeah, any interconnection any versus non RTP. Sorry about about that yeah, it shouldn't be restricted. And then as an alternate strategy to upgrade, we've talked about curtailment. So essentially we would do the same thing saying instead, instead of the upgrade.

838
Younes, Amin 04:16:03.505 --> 04:16:24.595
What, if they just curtailed that customer and had to pay that customer out or what is the last value to that customer based on the rate that they're that they're selling their export that? And I envision this as a time discounted cash flow over, and approximately 20 for 25 year lifespan, which I think is a typical lifespan of a solar project, which is.

839
Younes, Amin 04:16:24.774 --> 04:16:45.714
Is likely the typical 21 interconnection at this point? Um, and then the would would essentially sum up all those events times, the estimated cost per event based on these 30 cases. And that would what what this is doing is essentially creating an upper bound on what the maximum possible cost of it's really estimated. So that possible cost could be.

840
Younes, Amin 04:16:45.804 --> 04:17:06.924
But it's really it's something of an upper bound on what the, what could cost to the rate base in sort of the situation, which they were on every circuit. So really a true up around here. Um, and then on this 4th bullet here, you, you would divide that by the number of circuits in their territory and that would.

841
Younes, Amin 04:17:06.955 --> 04:17:28.075
Essentially estimate the the average cost, so it's if it's number of, uh, cost, if there were on every circuit divided by number of circuits, gives you essentially cost if they were 1 customer. Um, so that would give you the side by side. That would give you the average cost for customers, and we'd be doing a side by side with and non LGB interconnections to understand that.

842
Younes, Amin 04:17:28.103 --> 04:17:48.353
Cost difference as well, and this gets back to it's something that we've heard from, which is that they, I believe think, you know, it could be about 12 times as risky, because he had 12 touch points per year instead of 1. um, but we're, we're trying to understand. Well, is it, is it 12 actually 12 times is it 10 times is at 1.1 times? What is it a, try to understand that a little better.

843
Younes, Amin 04:17:49.555 --> 04:17:56.365
So, if there are any clarifying questions go ahead. Otherwise let's jump to the next slide. Please Francisco.

844
Roger Salas SCE 04:17:57.595 --> 04:18:10.285
Yeah, I mean, this is Roger I mean, I think just going back to what data is available, we don't have data on which customers left over the 55 years. We, we, we don't track, you know.

845
Roger Salas SCE 04:18:10.914 --> 04:18:30.774
Customers close their business or reduce usage. None of that is available. So, you know, there's no way to women develop the, the data for, for number 1. um, that's that's a huge problem. We don't have that data. Secondly.

846
Roger Salas SCE 04:18:31.974 --> 04:18:52.314
It is a bad assumption to say that you have 3 circuits or 3 cases, because each distribution circuit is absolutely different from each other. And even I would even take it up a point further, which is like, even if you were to select a circuit by itself.

847
Roger Salas SCE 04:18:53.095 --> 04:19:13.765
Each electrical node within that circuit can have significantly different impacts for the same type of change for example, you know, take us to take take project that's connected adjacent to the substation that project's probably safe for for forever.

848
Roger Salas SCE 04:19:13.853 --> 04:19:34.523
Most likely, you know, no matter how much low changes there's probably very little impacts for for anything while you take a circuit that's miles away from the substation that has so much more variability and things like, you know, things like how, you know, where is this customer connected is connected and.

849
Roger Salas SCE 04:19:35.755 --> 04:19:56.125
On the small section of the theater on a strong session with the theater. So, I mean, I mean, for me, I mean, you know, just to be honest, I mean, this, this, this, this study, it's, it's in a way purely academic in that. I don't know that there's anything that you can get out of here. That will give you an idea as to what would happen in the future because the so many.

850
Roger Salas SCE 04:19:56.154 --> 04:20:11.904
Variables that exist and I just don't want to spend in a valuable engineering hours who are performing engineering studies for actual customers to put into, uh, to do these type of studies. When really it's not going to give us get us anywhere.

851
Younes, Amin 04:20:16.194 --> 04:20:19.464
Do you want to jump in 1st? I can also, uh, respond to that.

852
Sky Stanfield 04:20:20.724 --> 04:20:24.414
Go ahead and I'll I may have the same thing. So as you and I'll let you lead.

853
Younes, Amin 04:20:24.774 --> 04:20:34.194
Yeah, so I'll take those kind of reverse order. So the 2nd point that there is variation, I think sure I understand that. Um, and that's the.

854
Younes, Amin 04:20:34.225 --> 04:20:55.285
Other stratified samples that you get a representation of the different cases, and we're trying to achieve an estimate here. I understand that. We can't have perfect knowledge of it. Um, but but I think I kind of fundamentally disagree with the idea that that modeling is useless, which is is really, I think what, what I'm hearing. We have no idea basically no quantity.

855
Younes, Amin 04:20:55.348 --> 04:21:16.463
Quantifiable no quantity to, to wrap our heads around to to think about this. And I, I understand I appreciate the idea that, like, a bad study can can not be valuable. It can mislead people. Um, but I, I just kind of fundamentally disagree with the idea that this can't be studied and that there's no way to understand.

856
Younes, Amin 04:21:16.524 --> 04:21:37.614
I think we have to change our perspective here that the CPC does a lot of modeling, and we rely on modeling for a lot of different aspects of how we make policy. And the idea that modeling is is useless is not, I don't think that's a productive way to think about things. I think we have to think about instead how to do a better model. If we want 1, which leads to.

857
Younes, Amin 04:21:37.649 --> 04:21:58.794
The 1st point, which I'm not the 1 of the data. It's like, I certainly can't disagree with that, but I would, I guess I would ask if if you have something like data monitoring the load flows on the circuits, and how those change over time or any other data sources and I open this up to the other that could be used to estimate when load reductions that have happened if they're closed.

858
Younes, Amin 04:21:58.824 --> 04:22:09.594
Accounts that are that are stored somewhere. Um, the point of this is is to brainstorm it's, you know, to expand it, not to not to reduce it. So, any data ideas are welcome.

859
Sky Stanfield 04:22:11.034 --> 04:22:19.914
Before responding on that specific data idea. Let me just add my general observations on the questions, which is, um, so I agree.

860
Sky Stanfield 04:22:19.975 --> 04:22:41.095
But what we're W, why we put all those caveats at the beginning this is a, um, uh, a non proposal proposal in the sense that we're trying is that we're at, and we want the utilities input on, um, how to conduct a meaningful study. And we're hoping utilities can weigh in. I want to just highlight and this is my policy.

861
Sky Stanfield 04:22:41.633 --> 04:23:02.243
Uh, view here, but what the utilities are saying is, we are we own we are responsible, we are, we are, you know, all of this about the system. We'll decide whether upgrades happen or not, but we're also completely incapable of providing any forecasts on likelihood. So, and and then the following policy position is and so the.

862
Sky Stanfield 04:23:02.274 --> 04:23:23.394
Individual customers should bear all this risk that's undefined. I think that's not a really it doesn't seem to me, like, a fair constructive way to try to move forward. So, what we're trying to do is bring everybody together to talk about. Is there a way to do an analysis to better inform that if the answer is well, it's just totally impossible. And so the, the party that has.

863
Sky Stanfield 04:23:23.424 --> 04:23:44.544
No control at all should be responsible for the risk. Just seems like a problematic approach to me, which is why I'd rather we have something constructive and to work from and then just thinking for Iraq. I understand that. This study may not be able to be done and be productive. That's and I don't, I'm not going to.

864
Sky Stanfield 04:23:44.574 --> 04:23:54.474
Recommend in the end that we go ahead with something if we decide that it's total junk. I agree with that but we're here to explore whether we can do something that isn't going to be total junk.

865
Younes, Amin 04:24:01.705 --> 04:24:02.545
Rather you muted.

866
Roger Salas SCE 04:24:04.195 --> 04:24:04.435
All right.

867
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:24:04.435 --> 04:24:17.695
Excuse me? Mr. Savan from PG. E. I just had a let me throw on my camera here. Real quick. All right. I just have a few questions. Um, you know, I.

868
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:24:19.044 --> 04:24:29.904
You know, sort of agree with Roger, I mean, in in order to identify these customers, you know, I, I think, I mean, your idea of, you know, getting a list of customers who have left.

869
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:24:31.103 --> 04:24:51.743
We might be able to do something like that. Um, I don't, you know, scan data, you know, I see you're looking at 100 kilowatts. I'm not, you know, I think load might vary more than that on a, on a circuit just during the day. So, you know what what's included here is.

870
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:24:52.555 --> 04:25:13.375
Not exactly sure what's in it seems like it's a very wide net that's being cast here. Um, and I agree that there are challenges because with providing this information easily or readily, because, you know, if we have a list of departing customers, um, we may not have them associated by.

871
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:25:13.704 --> 04:25:33.984
You know, it just, you know, as Roger alluded to, I mean, it's pretty comprehensive analysis that would need to, you know, sky is referencing, you know, an individual customer study involves multiple people. And, you know, what we're asking for is a system wide.

872
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:25:34.614 --> 04:25:36.954
Study of a similar detail.

873
Roger Salas SCE 04:25:39.174 --> 04:25:55.674
It's just enough for reference like, 100 kilowatts is about 5, amps at 12. you take a look at our profile or circuit, you know, it fluctuates throughout the year by a lot more than 100 times. I mean, than 5. amps. So, but again, besides that, regardless as to which value.

874
Roger Salas SCE 04:25:55.680 --> 04:26:16.105
You have, you're putting there I mean, we'll have some data data, but you don't know why that didn't change. It could be that, you know, that we move circuits. It could be that we transfer some load. It could be. There could be so many reasons why that load changes. So you cannot rely on on data.

875
Roger Salas SCE 04:26:16.828 --> 04:26:18.773
For these purpose, um.

876
Sky Stanfield 04:26:19.703 --> 04:26:24.743
Raise a question about how you're going to decide whether an customer has to be curtailed as well, but.

877
Sky Stanfield 04:26:25.763 --> 04:26:29.153
You're saying about, you don't know why the load 1 goes away.

878
Roger Salas SCE 04:26:29.183 --> 04:26:37.943
No, I don't. Yeah, I don't know why the logo in a way. I know the logo went away, but I don't know why I don't I don't know when the load goes down. I don't go to look at the customers and say.

879
Roger Salas SCE 04:26:37.980 --> 04:26:42.475
Why did you go or why did you change? I know it did change, but I don't know why.

880
Sky Stanfield 04:26:42.775 --> 04:26:46.075
So, how would you apply your proposal then going forward?

881
Roger Salas SCE 04:26:46.735 --> 04:26:59.095
Well, I mean, we thought, I mean, we, I think it might have been a couple a month ago. I sent, I think, to you last guy, how we use low profiles to determine the 90th percentile.

882
Roger Salas SCE 04:26:59.304 --> 04:27:05.994
And how we then use that to calculate save values. Uh, but but that's still a probability for determining the load profiles.

883
Sky Stanfield 04:27:06.294 --> 04:27:20.274
But, I mean, how would you decide if an LGB customer interconnects, and then load changes in the future you're saying, you don't know why load or Halo changes or what caused it and you also said that future Dr interconnections wouldn't be.

884
Sky Stanfield 04:27:20.279 --> 04:27:26.454
The driver for curtailment. How are you going to decide when an L. GP customer is responsible for.

885
Roger Salas SCE 04:27:29.485 --> 04:27:36.415
I don't understand your question. I mean, again, we want to based on our IC values right? And based on that algorithm that we, that we created that we shared.

886
Sky Stanfield 04:27:37.435 --> 04:27:38.575
And you can't reverse and.

887
Roger Salas SCE 04:27:40.195 --> 04:27:42.145
Well, I mean, yeah, we can.

888
Roger Salas SCE 04:27:42.355 --> 04:27:49.885
I remember, I'm, I'm not saying we can determine a low profile. I can I mean, can we determine I cannot tell you why that low profile change.

889
Roger Salas SCE 04:27:50.844 --> 04:27:52.254
Which is at 2 different questions.

890
Sky Stanfield 04:27:52.374 --> 04:28:11.004
Right, so do you do, let's just ask a basic question, do the utilities on a per feeder basis have records of load reductions for the past 5 years at any side of level? Do you have records on the load on every feeder that you could.

891
Sky Stanfield 04:28:11.063 --> 04:28:15.953
Look at to see where load has reduced regardless of what the reason for the reduction.

892
Roger Salas SCE 04:28:17.093 --> 04:28:32.183
We should be, I mean, I'm sure we have records of the, the projected loads for the 5 years, but, you know, that doesn't tell you whether the load. Well, it doesn't tell you whether the load change happened at the beginning of.

893
Roger Salas SCE 04:28:32.215 --> 04:28:41.905
Circuit in the middle of the circuit, you know, the circuit somewhere in the branch, which all of those are all those, all all of those are factors to determining whether there's an impact or not.

894
Sky Stanfield 04:28:42.205 --> 04:28:43.615
Yeah, I appreciate that.

895
Roger Salas SCE 04:28:44.035 --> 04:28:48.805
Which is guessing, you've got what I'm saying is at the end, it will just be guessing what he says. That's what I'm saying.

896
Sky Stanfield 04:28:53.904 --> 04:28:59.664
It totally just still keeps making the question to be about how practical what you guys are saying will happen for the later in.

897
Sky Stanfield 04:29:00.174 --> 04:29:00.774
Is to.

898
Roger Salas SCE 04:29:01.799 --> 04:29:14.964
If anything what I would suggest, instead of looking at historical go and look at the forecast, you know, how does the forecast changing over the next 5 years and that's publicly available information I believe. Um.

899
Sky Stanfield 04:29:15.204 --> 04:29:22.734
But what we're trying to, if you guys, 1st of all, if you have a forecast of how low is it going to change and you haven't brought it into this proceeding? I think that's fascinating.

900
Roger Salas SCE 04:29:22.975 --> 04:29:23.185
But.

901
Sky Stanfield 04:29:23.935 --> 04:29:42.745
What we're trying to understand is not what the forecasted if we can predict with things are going to change. That changes. This whole conversation. What we're trying to understand is when how often do these loads disappear, such that upgrades would be required. Curtailment would be required. That's what we're trying to understand.

902
Roger Salas SCE 04:29:44.453 --> 04:29:46.943
Which had a magic ball because.

903
Sky Stanfield 04:29:48.923 --> 04:30:00.713
If that's not possible, but I just want to make sure that we're understanding what we're saying, which is that the don't have any ability to actually say when load was reduced in the past.

904
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:30:02.063 --> 04:30:07.913
So, in in specific terms, that's correct. In aggregate.

905
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:30:09.480 --> 04:30:15.055
We can see the aggregate impact of load, moving up or down, you know.

906
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:30:16.794 --> 04:30:19.704
You're requiring a level of granularity. I.

907
Sky Stanfield 04:30:20.784 --> 04:30:22.614
Not requiring anything Gary, we're looking at.

908
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:30:22.614 --> 04:30:23.004
Call.

909
Sky Stanfield 04:30:23.004 --> 04:30:24.084
To tell us what.

910
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:30:24.084 --> 04:30:24.834
Flip.

911
Sky Stanfield 04:30:24.834 --> 04:30:25.524
For me to do it.

912
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:30:25.704 --> 04:30:41.544
What I'm saying, it would be required to do any kind of modeling. I think you would need more granularity than I think is what the point, you know, that we've been talking about. I, I just wanted to bring up a question and.

913
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:30:42.834 --> 04:31:02.994
Respond to some of that back, uh, you know, 550 seconds ago, Roger, and the planners do use forecasts for low growth as part of their distribution planning process. Every year. It's in the or other kind of filings with that.

914
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:31:03.144 --> 04:31:21.504
Are through the prototype process, but that's all aggregate stuff. And it's rarely if any I'm, I'm proposing, I don't know for sure you all can correct me. It's not an bottoms up. It's a top down.

915
gary holdsworth sdg&e 04:31:22.799 --> 04:31:31.734
That makes sense to vote. It's not looking at Circuit by circuit. It's looking at, you know, chunks of the system in aggregate.

916
Younes, Amin 04:31:33.624 --> 04:31:43.944
Yeah, I think broken down 4 guys is not what we're asking for there was a comment in chat regarding using data. That would be potentially another way to do. It would be the.

917
Younes, Amin 04:31:43.975 --> 04:31:58.435
Look at customer billing data and find customers that have had their, their bills drops significantly their consumption drop significantly and look at how that W, where those customers are located on. Which circuits would that something like that? Be possible? From the perspective of the.

918
Roger Salas SCE 04:32:01.494 --> 04:32:14.004
I mean, you're asking for a huge, huge amount of analysis that needs to be done. And and in my opinion, very practical, um, for.

919
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:32:14.004 --> 04:32:14.784
Real quick.

920
Roger Salas SCE 04:32:15.804 --> 04:32:16.344
Hello.

921
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:32:17.184 --> 04:32:37.344
Um, you know, if you have, even if you have the, if you've identified some departing customers and you've looked and you can associate them with a circuit, you've gotta make sure you know, cause at the end of the day, you all are trying to get to a probability number, right. And I think what folks are, you know, we may or may not.

922
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:32:37.529 --> 04:32:58.674
Have been required to track this information right in the past and in order to get to an actual probability number that's actionable or usable. You do need to know what your baseline, you know, what you're comparing to. Right. So, I think part of the problem is here you can maybe, or look at and I did want to.

923
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:32:58.705 --> 04:33:19.824
Say I appreciate, I mean, that you're asking for a stratified sample here, but what this shows here is, you need some sort of set of actual load reductions to say how often it happens. Right? It's 10% of the time 2% of the time and getting that.

924
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:33:19.828 --> 04:33:40.193
Serial number to compare to is if you don't have a complete data set is is basically producing garbage data. I would think we would agree. And, you know, I've already stated the other issue. I think this this is very specific and small.

925
Sky Stanfield 04:33:43.494 --> 04:33:44.814
So, I mean, go ahead.

926
Younes, Amin 04:33:45.863 --> 04:33:51.145
Oh, I was actually going to get a move along so if you want to continue on this thread guys should do. So now.

927
Sky Stanfield 04:33:51.174 --> 04:34:00.863
I I do think we should move along, but I want to say, um, 2 observations about the conclusion from this, which is that the utilities of.

928
Sky Stanfield 04:34:02.129 --> 04:34:23.273
Said that they are concerned about customers causing safety reliability issues essentially a long term. And what you're saying now is that you have no basis to conclude that that's actually or no ability to have any look at whether that is actually the case. We know that you have.

929
Sky Stanfield 04:34:23.305 --> 04:34:27.744
No records that it has happened in the past for the data request.

930
Sky Stanfield 04:34:29.305 --> 04:34:50.064
I think that's really fundamentally for why we come back to the idea that the proposal from the utilities around seems not like you have a desire to not allow at all because you're saying we have no idea. No reason. Actually even think it will happen. Haven't spent any time trying to evaluate.

931
Sky Stanfield 04:34:50.094 --> 04:35:11.215
Whether it will happen, and we want to propose something that you've heard from a wide range of people think will result in no projects ever happening. So there's no, there's like, no, no air in between there. If that's the case, there's no opportunity to test or move forward and see if this actually is a problem, which is what.

932
Sky Stanfield 04:35:11.219 --> 04:35:32.363
Why, for Iraq that if we can't do this analysis, we think what we should do is go ahead and pilot it with ratepayer responsibility for a period of time. If we can't figure it out from the past, we have to if we want to have, we're going to have to move ahead. And the only way we see a moving head is is to be able to characterize those risks.

933
Sky Stanfield 04:35:32.574 --> 04:35:53.484
No, individual can take on those risks without any sense of what they are and nor is it. So, I think that that's where why there's like, if we can't reach any middle ground about understanding the risk, we can't move ahead at all. If with the proposal that just customers bear all the responsibility, because we just don't see how any customer could take that.

934
Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:35:55.312 --> 04:36:14.543
I think, um, this is my my hand is getting now from being up for too long, but, um, I, I did just want, I think Roger and others have covered this pretty well. But I did want to say that this is a pretty heavy lift and I don't 1st of all. I think there's gonna be challenges in getting the information.

935
Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:36:15.086 --> 04:36:35.395
Um, even during the study, and then whatever solution the answer comes out of this, I'm not sure it's going to inform it's gonna answer much of the question that's on the table right now. I don't know if we can, but there's this issue of, you know, historical performance does not guarantee future performance. That's 1 issue. Then there's the challenge of.

936
Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:36:38.064 --> 04:36:56.424
Others, I mentioned, right we may know that the fetus had reduction, but we don't know which point, or which location on the field this low reduction. Actually. Okay. And those, that issue is actually has a huge impact on the hosting capacity because we don't know where this project is going to be.

937
Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:36:56.969 --> 04:37:18.113
Then we have to make an assumption of what the is going to be what the profile is just going to be, because not every project is going to use 100 of the profiles and projects may use reduced profile. This is too many variables to really come up with an informed answer to inform whatever decisions.

938
Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:37:18.145 --> 04:37:23.604
So, I don't, I think it's a pretty heavy lift. I don't see how usable this information is going to be.

939
Younes, Amin 04:37:27.414 --> 04:37:32.635
Thank you I think there are a couple of hands up, but that I'm guessing have been up a while cause I haven't been checking Jose and Justin.

940
Regnier, Justin 04:37:35.904 --> 04:37:36.385
Go ahead.

941
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:37:37.494 --> 04:37:43.404
Yeah, I just wanted to point out, you know, to Eric to escape point. Um.

942
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:37:46.283 --> 04:38:05.994
Be I, I wanted to reiterate basically 1 of the requirements of the resolution that if the utilities are gonna speak about, uh, safety and liability, they are required to justify it. Uh, that's explicit in, uh, resolution.

943
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:38:06.113 --> 04:38:08.844
211, so.

944
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:38:10.432 --> 04:38:31.342
You know, the utilities need to back that up, somehow it, it's not gonna be safety of reliability, period move on to the next paragraph. The utilities will need to provide some sort of data and, you know, we, uh, have heard in previous workshop that, you know, low drop rarely.

945
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:38:31.645 --> 04:38:43.645
Pants, but the board rarely or seldom is very loose. So we are going to have to need some sort of, you know.

946
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:38:45.922 --> 04:38:56.992
Quantifiable way to incorporate that into the advice letters. So, uh, that was my comment. I wanted to say, uh, go ahead, Justin.

947
Regnier, Justin 04:38:58.252 --> 04:39:01.223
The game I've been waiting longer. Uh, go ahead.

948
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:39:02.062 --> 04:39:06.621
Well, I just, um, to that point, I'm not, you know, we're talking about curtailment and then.

949
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:39:06.689 --> 04:39:27.805
Interconnection proceeding, you know, and the initial action of curtailment is what happens before, you know, what we're talking about is lifting right? The need for the curtailment being in question. I think we're just going back.

950
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:39:27.838 --> 04:39:44.364
A little bit far in the process here. I mean, but, you know, utilities and then the other issue is that other customers very similar risks I don't know. Anyway, that's out of my wheelhouse. I'm sorry that's all.

951
Younes, Amin 04:39:45.052 --> 04:39:48.924
I need to just clarify and then I'll jump over to Justin that when I said curtailment. Oh, when we.

952
Younes, Amin 04:39:49.076 --> 04:40:04.286
Talents here, we're talking about between the interconnection profile and the I say, or whatever they might be reduced to. So I think that curtailment is unique to the LGB customers in this context. And, um, yeah and on topic.

953
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:40:04.286 --> 04:40:09.566
I don't think that's true though necessarily, because wouldn't any wouldn't be an operator.

954
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:40:10.854 --> 04:40:22.014
Under their authority, a site to whatever they're supposed to whatever is the safe level authority. Curtailment the curtailment authority is already existing.

955
Younes, Amin 04:40:22.764 --> 04:40:23.154
Yeah.

956
Younes, Amin 04:40:24.240 --> 04:40:24.692
Does.

957
Sky Stanfield 04:40:25.376 --> 04:40:25.826
Permanent.

958
selene 04:40:26.876 --> 04:40:45.386
I'd like to chime in for a 2nd, so what we're proposing is not something new that we do not do for any other generation or connection customer. Right? So we're trying to, um, have equal rules, apply to both. Right? So under system.

959
selene 04:40:45.388 --> 04:41:06.534
Or changing system conditions, we have to make sure we maintain safety and reliability of the grid and in order to do so, sometimes we have to curtail. Right? And we have to curtail generation customers in order to maintain that circuit or that substitution or that system within its limits. Right? So that's all that we're.

960
selene 04:41:06.538 --> 04:41:09.052
Proposing for this.

961
selene 04:41:09.384 --> 04:41:30.506
The difference is, is that in the traditional generation, right? We have a single point, right? Where it's like, this is our maximum capacity now with the they have a whole slew of different profiles what we're proposing is that within a given situation, right? If something were to happen, and we do have to do.

962
selene 04:41:30.686 --> 04:41:50.036
Um, reduced to the lowest, um, I see value right? Um, it's within that same construct that we do for traditional generation projects. So it's, it's a similar application right? But for the, the only difference is that it's a, it's based on that profile.

963
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:41:51.894 --> 04:41:54.684
Excellent. Could you state who you represent.

964
selene 04:41:54.744 --> 04:42:01.374
I am silanus lunches, inner connection, capacity, analysis manager.

965
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:42:02.940 --> 04:42:03.984
I'm sorry can you repeat that?

966
selene 04:42:04.946 --> 04:42:06.776
Southern California Edison.

967
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:42:07.494 --> 04:42:08.304
Oh, okay. Thank you.

968
Younes, Amin 04:42:09.206 --> 04:42:23.244
I think we are talking about 2 distinctly different things in the short term. I agree to say we're talking about talent, but we're talking about for customers, a permanent curtailment that the, I think the have stated, they do not have the authority for any other customers that this would be unique to.

969
Younes, Amin 04:42:24.088 --> 04:42:25.104
Customers.

970
Eamon Hoffman ET 04:42:28.318 --> 04:42:31.014
I think we're just saying that we would wait until they actually.

971
selene 04:42:31.284 --> 04:42:48.804
Materialize? Yeah, so this is something that exists today for generation customers right? So if certain system conditions occur, right? And we have to reduce a generator, um, by a specific amount until.

972
selene 04:42:49.468 --> 04:42:54.294
infrastructure's in place to be able to handle that that that is exactly what we're saying.

973
Roger Salas SCE 04:42:54.894 --> 04:42:55.794
Yeah, and and I think.

974
Younes, Amin 04:42:56.214 --> 04:43:10.614
Hold on, in this case, uh, the whole issue here is that you're saying that you just said they would never build those upgrades for customers where they, whereas they do build those costs those upgrades for all other customers. If if the.

975
Younes, Amin 04:43:10.620 --> 04:43:17.184
They're saying that they are going to build those upgrades for customers then I'm very confused what we're talking about.

976
Roger Salas SCE 04:43:17.184 --> 04:43:18.384
No, no, no, that's not the case.

977
selene 04:43:18.474 --> 04:43:18.864
No.

978
Roger Salas SCE 04:43:20.274 --> 04:43:31.764
Yeah, so so, maybe maybe instead of, I think we already have discussed at all that in previous meetings. Let's just continue discussing the, the study that's being discussed here. Cause I think that's why don't don't want to.

979
Roger Salas SCE 04:43:31.792 --> 04:43:52.912
Back to the the previous discussion so again, I think just talking about this study, that's being, I guess, proposed, uh, you know, again, you know, for for us and I think you heard from the 2 utilities. 1st, it's gonna be extremely, extremely, you know, intensive engineering, intensive data, intensive.

980
Roger Salas SCE 04:43:53.574 --> 04:44:07.224
Data cleaning intensive, uh, analytically intensive modeling intensive so I don't know where we were getting to get all that engineering time to be able to do that in the research. And then at the end.

981
Roger Salas SCE 04:44:08.456 --> 04:44:23.724
Just because you have an answer, doesn't really tell you anything as to what's going to happen because everything every circuit is different. Every part of a circuit is different. So you, you'll come up with an answer. But, in my opinion is going to be an academic answer.

982
Sky Stanfield 04:44:24.384 --> 04:44:29.574
I think that if I was an customer listening to you, Roger, I would be breaking out into hives and the idea.

983
Sky Stanfield 04:44:29.578 --> 04:44:42.082
That you're saying, it's this completely wildly unpredictable thing and I am responsible for it. We'll make that observation, but we should go to, to Justin who's had patiently have his hand.

984
Regnier, Justin 04:44:45.504 --> 04:45:06.232
Um, okay, so let's see Francis has got 1 there. So let me tell you what, let me do this. I'm just gonna read out what we've got in our comments here and for my my comment to after Francis, just from the chat gary's from says, there's a large assumption with last 5 years are gonna look like, the next 5 sky agreed and says if you have ideas.

985
Regnier, Justin 04:45:06.266 --> 04:45:27.116
On how to model that future years we're open to hearing your suggestions from PG. E. so speaker characteristics greatly affect hosting capacity. That'd be the same for the last hypothetical loads. Gary makes a comment. And engineer is not economists makes sense. Sky makes a point that she was open to suggestions on the appropriate.

986
Regnier, Justin 04:45:27.594 --> 04:45:48.534
Power threshold and what amount of load loss we trigger an upgrade, or could use that as a threshold. Um, Brian mentioned that billing folks might not be interval data on a per customer basis, but it would have to be spanning long periods to be meaningful and brings up the recession of 2008, 9, and the.

987
Regnier, Justin 04:45:48.538 --> 04:46:08.392
Effects of 920 as examples for anomalies that would avoid us from being able to have a useful forward looking probability on a short time frame. I'm going to skip Francis, because I'm sure she's going to speak to whatever she wants to speak to. Jan brings up the topic of weather and needing to account for that variability.

988
Regnier, Justin 04:46:10.286 --> 04:46:30.624
Who brings up the prospect of instead of doing a report sharing percentage of future upgrade costs for the 1st, few years throws out 50, 50, and then revisiting 50, 50 between there and connection customer and repairs and revisit after the few years of data. And again, I'm not going to read Francis, because she can speak for itself.

989
Regnier, Justin 04:46:30.982 --> 04:46:34.162
I'm going to defer the comment that I've gotten until after Francis can make.

990
Frances Cleveland 04:46:36.174 --> 04:46:51.892
Okay, so so basically, my comment is that we discussed this a little bit in a previous workshop that historical data is 1st of all, not really available and.

991
Frances Cleveland 04:46:52.016 --> 04:47:13.136
I understand Roger situation on that, but maybe the transmission data would be available, but not distribution data. So I think that it's probably more important to say, okay, let's be flexible. Let's be flexible for, let's say, 5 years where.

992
Frances Cleveland 04:47:13.224 --> 04:47:34.284
We come up with interconnection agreements that 1st of all, we'll provide a lot of detailed monitoring. Probably am I type monitoring, but not only of the customer, but any customers say on that circuit or the situation so that you can follow.

993
Frances Cleveland 04:47:34.312 --> 04:47:55.222
Easily during those 5 years what's actually happening and then during those 5 years, you also do things like allow changes to the limits. Particularly if it turns out you don't need to have a stringent.

994
Frances Cleveland 04:47:55.644 --> 04:48:16.494
Uh, limits allow those to be increased again. We've talked about if there's an emergency and decreasing the limit. Okay. There's, there's compensation of some sort and then there would be some kind of cap during those 5 years. Maybe it's this 50, 50 split. I'll leave that.

995
Frances Cleveland 04:48:16.588 --> 04:48:37.462
To others, but then there's the shared risk while we figure out what's really going to be useful. And I think it's that concept that we've got to be flexible at this point in time we can't have an interconnection agreement that's just solidly in place. And that's it.

996
Frances Cleveland 04:48:38.006 --> 04:48:43.526
And I think that's what I'm, I'm struggling with how best to be.

997
Sky Stanfield 04:48:44.186 --> 04:48:58.856
Francis, if I can can build on that and ask a few questions to understand what you're thinking here. So 1 of the things that we have another side on, this is like, if we did move ahead, regardless of the study or not, like, what data should we track going forward.

998
Sky Stanfield 04:48:58.914 --> 04:49:17.604
I think some of the ideas you presented, there are really helpful, and we'd love your thoughts really flesh out like, what we should be tracking. And I think this idea that we need to figure out, we need to track this to figure out what's really going to happen is basic ideas. And I agree with the challenge I'm really trying to grapple with is.

999
Sky Stanfield 04:49:19.134 --> 04:49:39.774
What projects going to do that? How do we get those 1st projects out there? And that that is 1 of the things that we think, I think is leading us to propose that we do, do exactly what you're saying. You know, with some details, we worked out obviously on moving ahead and having projects to it. But if the, if the.

1000
Sky Stanfield 04:49:39.804 --> 04:50:00.804
Projects don't have a very clear understanding of what their risk is. That can be essentially calculated so they can build it into the financing. I don't see how we get projects to do this. Especially since there's a lot of other things that also need to get happen in California, in terms of rates and stuff to really realize.

1001
Sky Stanfield 04:50:01.616 --> 04:50:22.074
I think, ultimately, where I would assume go, especially if the utilities just think this study is impossible, is towards something like what you're proposing and I'd love your further thoughts on that. But I think the key thing I'd like to hear from you on is how do you are you are you're saying this 50, 50 idea how do you put a price on that?

1002
Sky Stanfield 04:50:22.078 --> 04:50:26.754
50 for the developer to know that they can build a project that will pencil out.

1003
Frances Cleveland 04:50:27.742 --> 04:50:42.832
Yeah, and and let me also take a look at the inverse of a negative risk, which is a potential benefit, which is if we have this flexibility, it could be.

1004
Frances Cleveland 04:50:43.584 --> 04:50:47.424
Um, the IO.

1005
Frances Cleveland 04:50:47.484 --> 04:51:08.604
Can relax the the limits so that actually there could be additional revenue coming in because you've relaxed the limits because now you are now there's a better understanding of what exactly is happening. So there's a win win in.

1006
Frances Cleveland 04:51:08.664 --> 04:51:29.756
Sense too, but, yes, I think and I am not the person to discuss exactly how say a 50 50 would go but, I mean, I think it would be you've got the data now coming in with data. You've got that information from.

1007
Frances Cleveland 04:51:29.786 --> 04:51:50.634
All of the customers, you see, which ones are provide, making the problems. And that would be then some way. That would be then some way based on that to figure out whether it's a ratepayer thing. That's a problem caused by a small customer and the right payers are required then to do something.

1008
Frances Cleveland 04:51:51.144 --> 04:52:06.954
Or if it's, you know, an emergency, you know, who knows what? But I believe that we have to look on the benefits side as well as on the risk negative risk.

1009
Sky Stanfield 04:52:07.644 --> 04:52:12.054
Yeah, I guess I'm not sure without hearing from more developers on this, I'm not.

1010
Sky Stanfield 04:52:12.058 --> 04:52:29.394
Sure, I get the idea that there could be benefits. I also think that's the idea. The basic idea of proposing the profile altogether. Um, but I'm not sure that without understanding the drawbacks, the potential loss that the benefits can be captured.

1011
Frances Cleveland 04:52:30.744 --> 04:52:33.204
It's a flexible.

1012
Frances Cleveland 04:52:33.208 --> 04:52:46.554
So means that some of the risks are unknown, and I think it would just be a question of capping the risk in some way or another as best. We can.

1013
Sky Stanfield 04:52:46.614 --> 04:52:47.364
Right.

1014
Frances Cleveland 04:52:48.834 --> 04:52:49.464
To be on.

1015
Sky Stanfield 04:52:49.524 --> 04:52:54.354
We can't cap it. We have no numbers and no frequency. We can't do it.

1016
Sky Stanfield 04:52:54.384 --> 04:52:58.464
That there's, I mean, I've spent 3 months trying to figure that out.

1017
Sky Stanfield 04:52:58.794 --> 04:53:00.624
Yeah, nobody's suggestion about how to do.

1018
Frances Cleveland 04:53:00.926 --> 04:53:02.724
Right. It would be going for.

1019
Sky Stanfield 04:53:04.524 --> 04:53:18.504
If we were to pilot it with right pairs, we could get to that point. Right? Theoretically maybe but how do we get projects into the bucket in the 1st if we don't take that is the.

1020
Frances Cleveland 04:53:18.504 --> 04:53:25.134
That's where you've got to throw in the benefits capability as well. It's not just risk. It's also been.

1021
Frances Cleveland 04:53:25.554 --> 04:53:39.624
And I think, you know, and we've talked, of course about increased granularity we talked about commands that would say, allow more, not just less export of generation. So, I, I.

1022
Frances Cleveland 04:53:41.604 --> 04:53:54.144
You have to look at it as okay. We need to understand better what's going on. We can't just fixed now. Anything. It the, the situation is changing too rapidly.

1023
Sky Stanfield 04:53:57.084 --> 04:54:17.364
That's that's going to get projects for go through without any, any identification. So I appreciate the perspective that that'd be nice. But I don't think that that's, uh, that's going to bite right now, especially because we're saying, we don't know if those circumstances would arise where you could really realize the benefits, and we know that there's potential liability. We can. I just think that.

1024
Sky Stanfield 04:54:17.574 --> 04:54:26.364
Those are all too abstractly theoretical for projects that we've had until we had done a bunch of them and.

1025
Frances Cleveland 04:54:27.084 --> 04:54:38.664
And that's my point, the flexibility would be something where indeed you would have risk and you would have some unknown risk. I mean, you know, unknown. I know.

1026
Frances Cleveland 04:54:38.700 --> 04:54:59.036
We've been through that 1, but nonetheless there could be benefits and some people, some systems are going to want to go ahead with that. We'll have to see. But if we have a time where flexibility is the name of the game, instead of absolutes, then I think we'll be much better.

1027
Frances Cleveland 04:54:59.874 --> 04:55:04.882
And the flexibility along with analysis of data, going for.

1028
phuoc 04:55:06.232 --> 04:55:20.844
I just want to clarify the 50 50% or something. I kind of thought of to push us forward. Um, I have no idea what the cost would be, but I thought to move forward. We need to come up with something and it's just my personal.

1029
Regnier, Justin 04:55:23.332 --> 04:55:42.082
Note that Jan is putting in the comments to does not support the 50, 50 rate per customer sharing concept. Thank you for coming forward with something. I, I'm guessing people are afraid that 50% of price list turns out to be expensive.

1030
Regnier, Justin 04:55:42.354 --> 04:56:03.264
The comments today I had, and thanks for everybody for their their input here. 1st I just wanted to get a kind of a level setting and affirmation. The consensus check here in past conversations.

1031
Regnier, Justin 04:56:03.324 --> 04:56:24.294
Workshops what I think I've heard from stakeholders and utilities, like, is that everyone agrees that the odds of a large enough load departure to be significant on the right feeder at the right time to interact.

1032
Regnier, Justin 04:56:24.624 --> 04:56:29.006
Limited generation profile, or any other customer.

1033
Regnier, Justin 04:56:30.292 --> 04:56:51.232
A really long. What we're chasing here is a long tail kind of a problem where nobody's nobody's coming out and saying what we think this is going to happen all the time. What I'm hearing from folks is that we're, we're fairly sure that it's going to be a very rare occurrence if ever, and we've never seen it before, but we're concerned about the possibility because of the, you know, the 50%.

1034
Regnier, Justin 04:56:51.266 --> 04:56:54.866
Of of priceless risk.

1035
Regnier, Justin 04:56:57.324 --> 04:57:02.934
And I'm not hearing any argument, but I'll pause if anybody feels like I've got that 1.

1036
Sky Stanfield 04:57:04.014 --> 04:57:14.034
I, I think that that's what we've been hearing from the utilities is that it's very rare, but what their proposal doesn't reflect their confidence that it's.

1037
Regnier, Justin 04:57:14.034 --> 04:57:15.834
Well, yeah, I'm, I'm not getting to that part of.

1038
Sky Stanfield 04:57:16.074 --> 04:57:17.094
So that's sort of thing.

1039
Regnier, Justin 04:57:17.094 --> 04:57:17.394
The.

1040
Sky Stanfield 04:57:17.394 --> 04:57:17.874
To me.

1041
Sky Stanfield 04:57:18.030 --> 04:57:33.984
Worried that it's not that rare. And that's why I think. And I think if I was a developer, I would feel similarly, like, some big assurance with the utility that this is rare when they're also saying we really want a system to be able to crack down. I think that that would make me feel uncertain.

1042
Regnier, Justin 04:57:35.096 --> 04:57:36.714
But the point is taken.

1043
Sky Stanfield 04:57:36.776 --> 04:57:39.176
Yeah, but I do agree in theory.

1044
Sky Stanfield 04:57:39.180 --> 04:57:46.884
We know that they've said that has never happened in the past. So, if the past is like the future, maybe it is rare, I think, is what you were looking.

1045
Regnier, Justin 04:57:49.284 --> 04:58:09.444
Well, I wanted to the 2nd point that I've got there is I wanted to put a put a thanks out to sky into the involves key stakeholders and to to the effort for trying, I think, twice now, these last 2 workshops to try and come up with some way to quantify and accommodate the longterm.

1046
Regnier, Justin 04:58:11.064 --> 04:58:31.286
The very, very unlikely outcome that, at the same time, poses a significant risk or risk and a significant in the minds of and its possibility of developers and or utilities. I appreciate appreciate folks taking a stab at it. Understand.

1047
Regnier, Justin 04:58:31.348 --> 04:58:52.434
But it's not a trivial task and do appreciate the work that has been gone into it. But I would also recognize was this reiteration of the resolution language that the have to justify the actions that they're proposing to take.

1048
Regnier, Justin 04:58:54.174 --> 04:59:13.374
Would suggest that in the advice letter perhaps yeah, you should either come up with a way to quantify this load departure risk or state that the risk is not practical to evaluate at this point.

1049
Regnier, Justin 04:59:13.734 --> 04:59:26.514
And possibly suggest what data they'd need to do. So, in the future and what kind of timeline that might be possible upon because I think we've made some value in attempts. And we put a whole lot of smart people on the case.

1050
Regnier, Justin 04:59:27.832 --> 04:59:47.902
And it's almost the dog that didn't bark the fact that we haven't come up with something that's even managed to get traction going forward tells me that this, this may be an intractable problem right now. And if that is, in fact, the case, we should have the put that to the.

1051
Regnier, Justin 04:59:50.934 --> 04:59:51.504
And.

1052
Younes, Amin 04:59:56.484 --> 05:00:00.774
And I think Gary has his hand up and then if maybe we can move on to the.

1053
gary holdsworth sdg&e 05:00:01.524 --> 05:00:14.274
Maybe I'm beating risk to to death, but is there an idea the upper bound of what the risk would be would be.

1054
gary holdsworth sdg&e 05:00:14.304 --> 05:00:29.904
What a non project entering into the same circuit would would what upgrades that they would require is there a way to say? You know, it's not unbounded risk is.

1055
Regnier, Justin 05:00:33.866 --> 05:00:52.134
No, but it then becomes multi variant because if the LGB customer invests in additional affordable text and storage, if that's the technology, they're developing to take advantage of a particular scenario. And then the scenario moves around on them. It ends up getting recursive.

1056
Regnier, Justin 05:00:52.374 --> 05:00:53.242
Kinda part of the.

1057
gary holdsworth sdg&e 05:00:54.982 --> 05:01:01.104
Every interconnection customer assumes risk entering into the interconnection process.

1058
Sky Stanfield 05:01:01.104 --> 05:01:04.882
What does that risk define which.

1059
gary holdsworth sdg&e 05:01:05.004 --> 05:01:10.402
Well, the risk that they may get a poor outcome from a study that they don't want.

1060
Sky Stanfield 05:01:10.552 --> 05:01:13.492
But they're not risk.

1061
Sky Stanfield 05:01:13.552 --> 05:01:14.694
After they interconnect.

1062
gary holdsworth sdg&e 05:01:15.354 --> 05:01:18.142
Because the way because of the way they studied yes.

1063
Sky Stanfield 05:01:18.174 --> 05:01:30.412
Yeah, I want to be clear that we've been saying this and it is important to recognize that the risk is not unbounded for the interconnection customer. They will only be prevailed down to the, the lowest.

1064
Sky Stanfield 05:01:31.074 --> 05:01:51.564
So, they can calculate if I didn't build any of the additional capacity and tomorrow, that load goes away. This is all. It's essentially but the calculation is essentially that all the potential additional value will be gone. So, it is bounded and it's possible. The projects will decide when the right rate structure.

1065
Sky Stanfield 05:01:51.568 --> 05:02:11.934
Are in place to do that when we have massive differentials, but I think very few people at this stage will be able to do that. But I do think it's important to be fair that this is an unbounded risk on an individual basis. It's the risk of the full curtailment of all the added capacity.

1066
Regnier, Justin 05:02:17.274 --> 05:02:33.864
Well, and maybe that's the way forward right now it's, it's a bounded risk, but it's a risk who's bounds include a losing situation if we can find a way to bound the risk such that it's a.

1067
Regnier, Justin 05:02:33.894 --> 05:02:37.704
Went from both the developer around the red parents perspective maybe that's the way for.

1068
gary holdsworth sdg&e 05:02:38.934 --> 05:02:50.904
Does does that band of risk that we're talking about? Does that equivalent? Unequivocally turn an economic project into an, on economic.

1069
Sky Stanfield 05:02:53.936 --> 05:02:55.974
I don't think anybody can answer that question.

1070
Brad Heavner 05:02:56.124 --> 05:03:07.946
I think it puts it in that direction and risk is something that customers don't want. Right? Certainty is extremely valuable. His system, you know, large systems get financed. financers want certain.

1071
Brad Heavner 05:03:10.616 --> 05:03:30.686
1 thing I'm trying to understand here is how these projects get studied differently. I mean, I understand how they are different projects. They have certain controls that give them a certain shape, but ultimately there's still studied for the impacts on the system. And it seems to me.

1072
Brad Heavner 05:03:31.884 --> 05:03:52.794
Worst case if there's mitigations and mitigations, it's it's according to the current great condition. Good, great conditions at the time of the study. Just like any system. It seems to me that the difference is it's knowing how much hosting capacity there is and using more of it. So, there's less headroom so.

1073
Brad Heavner 05:03:52.854 --> 05:04:13.854
We're not talking about projects getting studied differently. We're talking about reducing the amount of head room in the distribution system. It's basically the buffer situation and yes, by having less headroom there's a more like more likelihood, the distribution study or some change in the circuit.

1074
Brad Heavner 05:04:13.978 --> 05:04:22.974
Trigger an upgrade, but is not the case that you didn't study that project the way that you always have in the 1st place.

1075
Brad Heavner 05:04:25.314 --> 05:04:34.494
So, I love all the question of how much how much buffer do you need to have confidence that it's something's not going to happen. So, suddenly that there's an emergency such.

1076
Younes, Amin 05:04:36.922 --> 05:04:47.092
But can I jump in and say that? I think that's an important question. I don't think it's related to what we're talking about with this study. So I'd like to continue with these slides and maybe we can come back to that. If that's okay with.

1077
Brad Heavner 05:04:47.242 --> 05:04:50.032
All right sorry I thought we were heading that direction so I didn't mean to take.

1078
Regnier, Justin 05:04:51.172 --> 05:04:56.842
And I think it is an important question, but it may be a settled 1 because the decisions.

1079
Brad Heavner 05:04:58.794 --> 05:05:09.744
No, but is less head room than 10% on a static solar, you know, profile we, we admit.

1080
Roger Salas SCE 05:05:11.064 --> 05:05:18.714
But I think that again, I think maybe the difference is that the decision again gave us that ability to reduce to the lowest.

1081
Roger Salas SCE 05:05:18.864 --> 05:05:24.444
Of the IC value, if obviously that wasn't there, then we probably wouldn't have this argument that we're discussing today.

1082
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:05:29.334 --> 05:05:47.004
So say, I had a comment and again, this is not position, but, you know, we're talking about risk now. So, you know, I'm thinking of the highest is 2.3. the lowest is 2.1. that's probably low risk.

1083
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:05:47.062 --> 05:06:08.182
Considering, there's not much of a Delta there. Uh, so maybe incorporating that into, you know, that may have maybe a, uh, you know, a higher percent chance of ratepayer funding. Uh, Hassan.

1084
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:06:08.190 --> 05:06:29.064
It's probably not in the billions and billions of dollars of course, you know, now we're getting to cost gap again, but, you know, versus something that is, let's say the highest value is 5% a 5 megawatts for 1 month and the lowest 1 is, is, let's say, point 5.

1085
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:06:29.482 --> 05:06:43.434
To me signal higher risk, because there's more of a Delta there in terms of megawatts. So, uh, you know, that's just what I was thinking, just in the last few minutes of the discussion.

1086
Roger Salas SCE 05:06:48.206 --> 05:07:07.346
Yeah, and in this in terms of, like, I mean, if I was doing a project like this as a developer, I would ask, I mean, I would put myself in that situation if I want to reduce that risk I would say, what do I, what do I need to know what WH, what is the stuff that I want to know about the system.

1087
Roger Salas SCE 05:07:07.914 --> 05:07:28.134
To, sort of make me feel comfortable going in there and then I'll prefaced this by saying, I don't know why, we can it cannot provide. For instance, if I was a developer, I would want to know, like, hey, what's the largest load you have in the circuit? Okay, you know, potentially what I don't even know what we can provide or not, but things like.

1088
Roger Salas SCE 05:07:28.704 --> 05:07:36.174
So, what they pull business is that, you know, or or time, things like that, right? What's the largest largest load.

1089
Sky Stanfield 05:07:36.654 --> 05:07:38.874
I mean, I would all violates the customer privacy.

1090
Roger Salas SCE 05:07:39.714 --> 05:07:49.344
Again, I'm just thinking about how loud, right? Like, you know, I don't even know what we can cannot provide, but just thinking out loud. Like, if I was a developer, if I want to build 1 of these systems.

1091
Roger Salas SCE 05:07:49.734 --> 05:08:10.824
These things that I want to know, like, hey, what type of loads do we have? Any sort of? What is there? What is what is, what is their relative size? Like how many how many customers do you have any circuits in in this particular circuit? What is the range of of size and they'll tell me whether or not if you've 1 customer goes away, or doesn't go away or if 1 customer's away.

1092
Roger Salas SCE 05:08:10.860 --> 05:08:32.006
Doesn't matter, versus if you have, like, 23 large customers that are very influential on the circuit, you know, that's more risky than having many customers. Um, but maybe, we can think about things like that things so that we can provide without violating 1515 rule in customer confidentiality. That can help developers.

1093
Roger Salas SCE 05:08:32.064 --> 05:08:34.494
Feel more comfortable, uh, about the.

1094
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:08:35.336 --> 05:08:53.154
Yeah, and that's the issue too, is that would be good information to have, but you have a scenario where you have, you don't have 1 significant, large enough customer on. That would be the section. The customer customer comes on. You have other.

1095
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:08:53.184 --> 05:09:13.524
Connect in the meantime, and then sometime in the future, you have 1 customer that comes in that's a large customer. If that customer then wants to go away, you know, after you've connected these other projects, you're back to this to square. 1. right? So, yeah. Could you have some information that will help you make a decision? But that doesn't guarantee that in the future Nothing's going to happen.

1096
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:09:14.844 --> 05:09:32.994
Because we're talking about what's going to happen after the project has been connected, that's the risk during into connection. I think everybody is comfortable with that process. We're trying to address the issue with, after the interconnection agreement has been signed. The project is connected changes in the future, which no 1 knows.

1097
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:09:35.544 --> 05:09:49.074
But if you had a large customer later on in the project is in the assumption that you will would have to build, you know, uh, the capacity to fit that larger customer.

1098
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:09:49.434 --> 05:09:56.574
True, but what I'm pointing out today is that the customer comes in hosting capacity, gets increased. You have this other.

1099
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:09:56.634 --> 05:10:11.724
Connect right, and kick up that capacity and then the customer decides to go these other projects are not, but you do have either 1 or multiple projects. We're back to what we're discussing right now.

1100
Younes, Amin 05:10:12.234 --> 05:10:17.756
Yeah, I think that this is what guy was talking about earlier. Um, so I.

1101
Younes, Amin 05:10:17.786 --> 05:10:31.974
I really think that we're kind of have moved away from the content of what's on the slide at this point pretty far. So I'd, I'd ask that we can go back to the presentation then we can continue this discussion. Subsequently.

1102
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:10:33.292 --> 05:10:54.354
I just say something real quick, though, on the topic that you are. I think at the end of the day, if we perform the analysis that you're asking for here, what you'd have would be, you know, your stratified examples of what the risk was. And I think, you know, if you just.

1103
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:10:54.474 --> 05:11:15.384
Look at any, you know, if you just look at the California system, any California system map of the distribution circuits, you could have a risk you know, maybe your risk is average risks is point 001% and say, you know, I think you're going to have a huge range because it's going to depend on the circuit, right?

1104
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:11:16.104 --> 05:11:36.714
So, to roger's point, if I give you 30, 30 test cases, and they range from 01% in some cases of, you know, possibility that a departing load could knock them offline or significantly curtail them, you know, because we're not even talking about what's.

1105
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:11:36.744 --> 05:11:49.434
Stream from that, you know, we're just talking about their risk of being curtailed at all. I mean, we'd need to know that before we get into what the difference is between their L. G. P. S. g men and their normal.

1106
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:11:51.054 --> 05:12:02.154
But what the customer is going to get from us is going to be when they become a customer, they're going to have their original load profile and they're going to know what their minutes.

1107
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:12:03.686 --> 05:12:08.994
So, that's going to tell them right away with their risk. Some of a big portion of what their risk is.

1108
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:12:12.534 --> 05:12:33.024
That's Roger alluded to so, too with the map that would give them a lot of specific information about the characteristics of their circuit. If they have an engineer on stuff. That's analysis here. I mean, I think even if we had all the information, even if we had an excellent dataset to provide, you.

1109
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:12:33.294 --> 05:12:54.234
Think we'd still be looking at examples with a huge range right? And know, you know, the average number with me, and essentially nothing to the average customer. Right? Because that customer could be way very little risk or a ton of risk. And additionally you'd also need to know.

1110
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:12:54.322 --> 05:12:55.822
The upgrade would be.

1111
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:12:57.382 --> 05:13:18.204
Needed right. That's another way. You'd have to characterize risk later on down the line and that gets down to the characteristics of the substation itself what could actually, you know, burned down or be eliminated that need to be upgraded and, you know, so, I think the.

1112
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:13:18.266 --> 05:13:39.386
With this analysis, we're gonna you're going to end up seeing, you know, a huge range of data. It's not going to be able to give you an actual average or an actual percentage probability. And then you're going to have to add on to that a whole lot of probabilities about the difference between, you know, how big.

1113
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:13:39.388 --> 05:14:00.264
The differences between the and their GP value, but they're going to know what that is when they get their original study. So, I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. I think no matter what we're gonna have a huge range and I don't think it's going to tell the customer very much unless we know that we're picking from the whole.

1114
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:14:00.682 --> 05:14:10.432
The data set of every single load reduction of us, you know, and yeah. You know, I'm reiterating what I've already said.

1115
Younes, Amin 05:14:12.204 --> 05:14:30.774
uh so i should just clarify that the point of this study was not to inform inner connection customers the point of this study would be to inform stakeholders and the commission about what the potential impact of rate pays would be of the profile of upgrades after the fact if if is rolled out 

1116
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:14:31.734 --> 05:14:32.964
And to that point.

1117
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:14:33.954 --> 05:14:46.884
Like, I think it, the chances of that being accurate information are very slim, because we're looking at lots of different calculations to get down to the point where we're talking about, what the average.

1118
Sky Stanfield 05:14:47.244 --> 05:14:53.814
I think we've heard that you guys feel like this idea why I mean, just finished presenting what our concept.

1119
Sky Stanfield 05:14:54.294 --> 05:14:57.534
And you guys can fire away when we get from the later.

1120
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:14:58.164 --> 05:14:58.674
I'm.

1121
Sky Stanfield 05:15:01.256 --> 05:15:01.946
I know, but we have a.

1122
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:15:01.946 --> 05:15:22.196
Please, excuse me. I'm just trying to get things on the record. I've had my hand raised. I've been very deferential and, you know, I mean, it's going to be making this request probably to me. So, you know, I'm trying to make sure, you know, that I appreciate, for example, the idea of the stratified sample.

1123
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:15:22.674 --> 05:15:32.604
But again, I think, yeah, I'll leave it there. I'm sorry, but the purpose of me, you know, I'm trying to speak to what's actually on the slide.

1124
Younes, Amin 05:15:35.336 --> 05:15:55.404
I need to keep going at this point. Thank you for that. I just want to say, as I, as I exit this slide deck. Cal, advocate's position with this is that we are not standing in the way at this point of rate pairs paying for the upgrades that would happen after the fact what we would like, is to have as much knowledge as possible as I can can help.

1125
Younes, Amin 05:15:56.634 --> 05:16:17.304
On Earth about what that potential cost impact could be, because we've heard that it's small, but we don't have any numbers to justify that. Uh, sorry that kinda came off slightly too harsh, but we don't have any quantification of that of that value. Um, so with that, I'll move on, I'm just going to skip through the rest of this content because I think the point that I.

1126
Younes, Amin 05:16:17.604 --> 05:16:38.184
Kind of think that we don't have the data to even get past step 1 is not really any point to go into step 2 or 3 and I've already at least talked to those at a high level. So, let's just go to the next slide. Please Francisco slide 9 and talk about a different strategy. It's entirely separate strategy for a better understanding.

1127
Younes, Amin 05:16:38.484 --> 05:16:41.664
Motorcycles going by my apartment. I'm very loud.

1128
Younes, Amin 05:16:43.734 --> 05:17:03.176
Another strategy for helping to, to protect rate pairs and understand the cost impact this time on an ongoing basis. Since, you know, we've heard that that the historic basis is is in the perspective of that I use unworkable. Um, so essentially what we would prefer.

1129
Younes, Amin 05:17:04.162 --> 05:17:24.982
Not using the word propose here. How this would work is that we would foresee that is implemented it moves forward and we would track interconnection data for all the LGB customers. So the would keep a database of every single connection. It's basic statistics here. We're talking about like, nameplate the resources. What else?

1130
Younes, Amin 05:17:24.990 --> 05:17:46.106
Profile is where which circuit where it is, and then they would subsequently track all upgrades and this again slide to kind of reflects my previous misunderstanding of what they are used. We're talking about what we're really looking for are upgrades caused by load leaving that would trigger curtailment in the short term. And then ultimately, when those lines are upgraded.

1131
Younes, Amin 05:17:46.138 --> 05:18:07.284
What the cost of the upgrades would be um, and then also, you know, what, what was triggering that event, which, in this case, just means that it's it's low leaving and then we also asked that the, to a side by side comparison of feeders with non SBP customers again tracking when load loss leads to upgrades, which we understand never happens, but.

1132
Younes, Amin 05:18:07.312 --> 05:18:28.432
To make sure that never happens and then also keep a side by side comparison of the number of features with and non SBP customers. The idea here being that we would understand the cost impact the rate pairs on ongoing basis of of and our connections. We would also understand develop an understanding of the relative cost of non customers non.

1133
Younes, Amin 05:18:28.440 --> 05:18:49.494
Connections to connections on a kind of, um, proportional basis proportional to the number of such interconnections and again, uh, yeah by their size. Um, and then that's kind of a, a suggestion this this data could be submitted in something like the compliance filing, or, uh, uh, perhaps an advice letter, um, every other year. And then as soon.

1134
Younes, Amin 05:18:49.674 --> 05:19:10.732
Upgrades have been completed to the loss of load on 10 circuits so that that would, uh, you know, then reevaluate whether or not we're comfortable with, with the right pairs continuing to, to, to flip the bill here. And I think that's, that's everything. I hope that made sense.

1135
Younes, Amin 05:19:10.766 --> 05:19:17.096
We can kind of open up this different study to conversation and criticism.

1136
Sky Stanfield 05:19:19.914 --> 05:19:40.346
I want to just add 1 thing that about this further thinks is that I do think 1 of the other things that we should think about when we talk about this is we spent a lot of time in the beginning of today's discussion on talking about how the proposal would even be implemented and how in terms of the future upgrades, and how they would be determined and I'd be interested in seeing some of.

1137
Sky Stanfield 05:19:40.348 --> 05:20:01.492
Personal tracking around that, even if we're saying that the upgrades would be done and paid for rate buyers, how they're actually identifying the need for those. So that when we, if we got to the point where we said, oh, this is too expensive for ratepayers. We'd have a clear sense of what, what are the circumstances that drove each of those.

1138
Sky Stanfield 05:20:01.524 --> 05:20:11.302
Conclusion that a upgrade or curtailment needed to be done and I think we're kind of getting at some of the pieces here, but might want to think flush that out a little bit more as well.

1139
Roger Salas SCE 05:20:15.176 --> 05:20:33.894
And he's Roger, I mean, yeah, this makes sense I my opinion that the tracking portion, after the fact, definitely want to know any instances where, where L. G. P. S. cartel, you know, the reasons, you know, and and all of those.

1140
Roger Salas SCE 05:20:33.956 --> 05:20:54.414
I think all of that is, is good information to keep track of, for, for any future actions or changes. So the, the tracking portion, as far as what being proposed here I don't I don't really see any ShowStoppers for lack of better words. Uh, assigning qualities. Definitely.

1141
Roger Salas SCE 05:20:55.402 --> 05:21:01.614
Probably like the other areas as sky indicated would be important to track for, for this type of projects.

1142
Younes, Amin 05:21:07.162 --> 05:21:11.122
Thank you, I'm very happy to hear some, some positive feedback on this idea. I appreciate that.

1143
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:21:14.094 --> 05:21:34.554
Yeah, I mean, I don't see any issue, but just for PG E, this is something that would have to figure out how to do and the reason I bring that up is because not all upgrades will be triggered from based on generation. Right? Some of them may be triggered based on load growth and we have within the, the, we have different groups that.

1144
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:21:34.584 --> 05:21:53.154
Deal with upgrades from a load related perspective we have the distribute the generation into connection team that deals with upgrades from interconnection, DJ, interconnection projects. So we just have to reconcile those 2 because like phone number 2 you're saying.

1145
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:21:54.894 --> 05:22:04.224
Any trigger after the fact upgrade, so this could be for any number of reasons right? And so, no, this is only for generation. Let it be.

1146
Younes, Amin 05:22:04.674 --> 05:22:15.444
Well, this would only be for loss of load upgrade right? Basically, what time here and when we had initially written this slide. My understanding was that self generation would also trigger upgrades that could put that could.

1147
Younes, Amin 05:22:15.474 --> 05:22:23.814
Result in the curtailment of LGB profiles, but I understand from the discussion today. What Roger has clarified is that's not the case. So really what we're just asking for is lots of.

1148
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:22:24.086 --> 05:22:36.474
Cause number 3 is specific to Los, Los Angeles, but number 2 doesn't say that, but to just say for amy's feed the feed with an customers, all triggered after the.

1149
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:22:36.598 --> 05:22:42.624
Upgrades and resulting costs. Right? Number. 3 says Daniel g pick anyway. Maybe I need to.

1150
Younes, Amin 05:22:43.674 --> 05:22:44.274
You're really.

1151
Regnier, Justin 05:22:44.274 --> 05:22:44.694
The.

1152
Younes, Amin 05:22:45.384 --> 05:22:46.284
Yeah.

1153
Sky Stanfield 05:22:49.462 --> 05:22:56.962
The difference between 2 and 3 are circuits with an customer and feeders without customer.

1154
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:22:57.322 --> 05:22:58.282
Okay.

1155
Roger Salas SCE 05:22:58.882 --> 05:23:01.612
There are lots of load, right? I mean, just to clarify.

1156
Sky Stanfield 05:23:02.572 --> 05:23:08.482
Well, whatever would've triggered you to project. This is the way to say it. I think that.

1157
Roger Salas SCE 05:23:08.482 --> 05:23:08.782
We've.

1158
Sky Stanfield 05:23:08.782 --> 05:23:10.432
A certain.

1159
Sky Stanfield 05:23:10.440 --> 05:23:11.606
Dude of lots of load.

1160
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:23:11.634 --> 05:23:11.964
Right.

1161
Sky Stanfield 05:23:12.356 --> 05:23:30.564
And whatever it seems to me, like, what, Alex, I appreciate your comments and need to work through this. I think if anything that you would needed to figure it out, that you were going to curtail a project. That was an was the type of data. We need to be tracking, essentially that if you can't figure out what.

1162
Sky Stanfield 05:23:31.614 --> 05:23:37.764
How would you figure out the customer needs to be Patel? It's that kind of information that essentially we're trying to get on.

1163
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:23:40.494 --> 05:23:41.634
Thanks for the clarification.

1164
Younes, Amin 05:23:46.404 --> 05:23:49.554
Justin, could you repeat what you said a minute ago? I think I talked at the same time.

1165
Regnier, Justin 05:23:50.634 --> 05:24:02.696
Oh, my God, no, I was just raising the point that these slides were my understanding intended to spur discussion. That's exactly what was going on. So yeah, not a bug.

1166
Younes, Amin 05:24:05.302 --> 05:24:16.492
Yeah, just to reiterate that point. These are these are a starting point for discussion so I don't take anything that we put on the slides is set in stone. This is just, you know, based on our on my guy and my, perhaps, uh, previous understand.

1167
Jan Strack 05:24:17.274 --> 05:24:17.754
Cool.

1168
Sky Stanfield 05:24:17.754 --> 05:24:25.162
1 of the things sorry just to I just occurred to me that 1 of the things I think we need to add here is this tracking.

1169
Sky Stanfield 05:24:25.256 --> 05:24:46.314
Whether there is an tomorrow or not, I think we need to track every major load loss. So, especially because this is going to be a slow roll out, right? Like, we well, we're assuming there's not going to be a ton of LGB customers next week, but I think that understanding at a system level how often these large load reductions occur, whether.

1170
Sky Stanfield 05:24:46.344 --> 05:25:06.354
Or not an customer is on that feeder would be information that will help us predict out in the future. How likely that is to occur and especially as we have electrification happening, because we may not have that many customers that happen to be on the feeder where the reduction occurs in the 1st, few years.

1171
Roger Salas SCE 05:25:07.614 --> 05:25:28.314
Yes, I don't know. I mean that I mean, obviously, that would be great to have, but customers are not required to inform us when, when they they leave or when they reduce. I mean, even if a customer didn't leave, let's say, reduced rebuilt, reduce production or or or or the significant energy efficiency.

1172
Roger Salas SCE 05:25:29.124 --> 05:25:31.224
I don't think they're required to tell us.

1173
Sky Stanfield 05:25:31.434 --> 05:25:33.924
But you guys are tracking minimum loads.

1174
Roger Salas SCE 05:25:35.274 --> 05:25:43.884
Track minimal loss at the at the circle level. Right? But again, when it goes down, we don't know what trigger that minimum.

1175
Regnier, Justin 05:25:44.154 --> 05:25:49.764
Yeah, so Roger, I think the cast customers are supposed to tell you if there's a.

1176
Regnier, Justin 05:25:49.792 --> 05:25:51.624
Fundamental change in their.

1177
Regnier, Justin 05:25:52.792 --> 05:26:03.624
Here, I'm not sure if they actually do, nobody's ever been able to give me a good definition of what significant change in load means, but theoretically they're giving you this information. So.

1178
Roger Salas SCE 05:26:04.312 --> 05:26:10.882
And typically, that happens a lot more with this, an increase. So so, for instance, customers, increasing load, they're.

1179
Roger Salas SCE 05:26:10.920 --> 05:26:27.266
Be interested in telling us because we need to make sure that we have our customers upgraded secondary transfers upgraded and that we have the capacity. But when is that? You know, I'm just going to reduce my my, my usage by 50%. They're not going to.

1180
Sky Stanfield 05:26:27.266 --> 05:26:27.836
Dallas.

1181
Younes, Amin 05:26:28.436 --> 05:26:32.064
But then how are you going to know to curtail customers.

1182
Younes, Amin 05:26:32.094 --> 05:26:35.034
You're not tracking these events because these are the exact events we're saying.

1183
Roger Salas SCE 05:26:35.604 --> 05:26:38.664
We'll see it. Right we'll see. We'll, we'll see it in the low profile.

1184
Sky Stanfield 05:26:39.444 --> 05:26:43.464
Well, how would, you know, because you can figure it.

1185
Regnier, Justin 05:26:44.514 --> 05:26:45.804
Alex may have an answer for.

1186
Sky Stanfield 05:26:46.224 --> 05:26:49.464
Great I can't sorry I have the chat when I need to open.

1187
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:26:50.934 --> 05:26:53.184
I was just going to mention that I don't think, what would we do.

1188
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:26:53.334 --> 05:27:09.084
Said we'll see the effect of that load loss on the on the system. So I think we mentioned it previously. We will have voltage concerns. We may operations group may be seeing impacts on the grid and that's how we'll, that's all triggers to go. Look. And the other point.

1189
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:27:10.344 --> 05:27:31.284
On the, at the field level, you may not have a load reduction you may actually have the same load, but it could be such that on the line section that the project is connected. There was a net load reduction, which was then the former feeder level was, it could be an increase somewhere else where you may not actually might not make money for itself at the federal level. So.

1190
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:27:31.288 --> 05:27:44.812
That doesn't mean, we're not going to have an impact regulation devices, like, you know, going full full backup for boost because the load changed. Now, we have generation that's potentially exporting what's flowing through a regular regular on the field in the field.

1191
Sky Stanfield 05:27:45.412 --> 05:27:52.432
Are you saying, tell me walk me through us through how you're actually going to unpack this for when you are about to tell an.

1192
Sky Stanfield 05:27:52.464 --> 05:28:13.554
Customer that you're going to you're gonna cause them to lose a whole bunch of money and reduce their profile. How are you going to be sure that, you know, that that was due to their project? Essentially, if you're saying, you don't have even data about the current interconnection status. Like, if you're saying the load is going to go away and.

1193
Sky Stanfield 05:28:13.588 --> 05:28:28.944
The driver, how are you going to be sure that, you know, that that was the case when you go to when you find that problem because what you've said is the only time you're going to reduce is when that triggered. So you need to have be able to say you have got to show that was the.

1194
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:28:29.632 --> 05:28:34.312
So, I'll go fast maybe Roger can chime in. So I don't believe that.

1195
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:28:35.036 --> 05:28:42.806
Say at the safety reliability issue needs to be caused by the project and I, in fact, we.

1196
Sky Stanfield 05:28:43.436 --> 05:28:43.616
The.

1197
Sky Stanfield 05:28:43.766 --> 05:28:44.336
Me that.

1198
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:28:44.366 --> 05:28:44.606
Sorry.

1199
Sky Stanfield 05:28:44.606 --> 05:28:44.846
Okay.

1200
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:28:44.906 --> 05:28:46.376
So, we've stayed in the past.

1201
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:28:48.324 --> 05:28:57.446
The issue may be caused by any project it could be you could have an project non project in the same line section. They may be both contributing to the.

1202
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:28:58.734 --> 05:29:09.984
We don't have an ability to day to reduce the non project. This decision, this working group 2 and 3 decisions gives us the ability to catel.

1203
Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:29:10.136 --> 05:29:15.956
Gp projects, if we determine that they saved and reliability issues on the grid. I don't know if you want to add.

1204
Roger Salas SCE 05:29:17.632 --> 05:29:38.032
What I would what I would say, I mean, we are talking about, you know, technically, or I will say, um, how we would actually do it. Um, you know, again, this is where some of the things that we want is to have to figure out, but I think we sort of set it right. Things like, you know, things like, you know, you start seeing voltage problems.

1205
Roger Salas SCE 05:29:38.664 --> 05:29:59.336
You know, mostly is going to be, I think, is gonna be voltage problems and then you sort of do some do an investigation and yes, you will have the original information like, hey, this this project was interconnected and we had this this level of value at this time, which tells you more or less what a low profile.

1206
Roger Salas SCE 05:29:59.338 --> 05:30:20.454
And all that, and you'll be able to determine whether or not you have the same level of values, uh, with the, the current condition. And if they're different, then you can go and look at things like, what happened to the load at the time that the project wasn't connecting versus what is the law that we're seeing now.

1207
Roger Salas SCE 05:30:20.786 --> 05:30:41.126
And eventually get to the point where, where you may get to the point where you have to tell a customer to reduce the. But even before you get there I mean, again, there's, uh, you know, um, several na, low cost alternatives. That that are available to us to restore, for instance.

1208
Roger Salas SCE 05:30:41.844 --> 05:31:02.784
And ability to trust if the issue is that there's not enough load, you know, for us, it's going to be a CC has moved some load over to the circuit, like, you know, close to close 1, tie, open another open and, uh, you know, us switch and another circuit move, move 100 amps over to the other 2 circuit that that has reduced 100 grams of load. Uh.

1209
Roger Salas SCE 05:31:03.022 --> 05:31:20.932
Voltage regulated settings, if that's what it is. Uh, so, for me again, you know, it's going to be we're spending a lot a lot of time in my opinion, discussing this topic, which, you know, my opinion is probably not going to occur very often. But but again, the problem is the guarantee.

1210
Sky Stanfield 05:31:21.682 --> 05:31:23.872
And what else what we're discussing is.

1211
Sky Stanfield 05:31:23.994 --> 05:31:45.086
Who bears the risk of that very unlikely event so I don't have a lot more. I mean, do you have more? We should present on this, because my sense is, I do encourage parties to think more about yeah, we're going to be specific about this tracking regarding whoever's proposal goes forward, but it doesn't sound like people are weighing in on that more. And it sounds like we're.

1212
Sky Stanfield 05:31:45.114 --> 05:31:59.094
Just digging in, on our, our general perspectives, we actually agree about the problem that's notable at the beginning. We just degree about we just disagree about who's responsible for it and we're not making much progress on.

1213
Roger Salas SCE 05:32:01.524 --> 05:32:05.662
Yeah, but I think we definitely need to track whichever way goes.

1214
Younes, Amin 05:32:08.034 --> 05:32:13.674
Yeah, yeah, I don't have anything more. I think there's 1 more slide of yours at the end sky. I remember correctly.

1215
Sky Stanfield 05:32:15.174 --> 05:32:21.742
Can't remember, let's see. Francisco. Can you flip forward? Yeah, so I.

1216
Sky Stanfield 05:32:23.034 --> 05:32:41.902
My sense, I mean, I don't want to put words in your mouth um, and I do think we'll have to digest this a little bit, but based on the utilities opposition to the idea of doing this analysis, both because data concerns, and just general, um, lack of confidence in the the idea.

1217
Sky Stanfield 05:32:43.134 --> 05:32:59.484
I don't, I'm not thinking that we're going to push for the analysis to be done at at the Pre decision phase. Instead I think, focusing on getting it deployed and then, um, reevaluating with some actual data is, what do you think about that?

1218
Younes, Amin 05:33:00.984 --> 05:33:04.044
Yeah, so I I think.

1219
Younes, Amin 05:33:04.074 --> 05:33:25.074
That's also likely how we'll proceed. I think our established position is that we will not oppose moving forward with the right pair of responsibility for data monitoring and I personally don't see any reason to push for this kind of analytical study that, or this historic study. That that we talked about today, given the, the strong.

1220
Younes, Amin 05:33:25.224 --> 05:33:29.786
But I would use that as infeasible and that they don't have the data. Yeah. So I.

1221
Sky Stanfield 05:33:30.564 --> 05:33:32.394
So, um, and then.

1222
Sky Stanfield 05:33:33.714 --> 05:33:54.804
So, I think the idea, the, the last bullet was the idea that if we wanted to get the analysis done, and we were going to debate that I think so I don't the specific question there. I don't think we need to pose at this stage. So, I think Jose, we can turn it back to you. I do think we need to talk about everybody, getting a written proposals in and whether there's all time to do all that. Um, and and get into.

1223
Sky Stanfield 05:33:55.044 --> 05:34:08.724
So, how we're going to proceed from here with that sort of kicks off 1 way or the other. But I think other than that, we are, was our attempt at trying to get to consensus again. Someone that's.

1224
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:34:13.164 --> 05:34:32.874
I think this is admin for I just want to say, you know, I don't I don't think that our, the argument here is that this analysis isn't just that it's impossible. It's that they're the accuracy and usefulness of the data that the results would be pretty much.

1225
Eamon Hoffman ET 05:34:33.354 --> 05:34:39.234
To someone who is getting a lot better information from their actuals.

1226
Sky Stanfield 05:34:41.064 --> 05:34:50.844
Okay, we heard I think we hear that. I don't necessarily agree with the basis of the study of what they're getting from the study, but I understand what you guys concerns are about conducting the analysis.

1227
Sky Stanfield 05:35:03.504 --> 05:35:05.992
Jose, unless I have seen some hands on.

1228
Regnier, Justin 05:35:06.774 --> 05:35:08.094
We would we were chatting in the.

1229
Sky Stanfield 05:35:08.124 --> 05:35:10.822
Okay, no worries like, if we can take a minute 5 minute break.

1230
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:35:12.082 --> 05:35:13.822
We, that would be appreciated.

1231
Regnier, Justin 05:35:15.594 --> 05:35:20.812
So, here we are.

1232
Regnier, Justin 05:35:20.844 --> 05:35:22.704
15 days left in 2022.

1233
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:35:23.274 --> 05:35:25.914
Wait, I was taking a break or you're.

1234
Regnier, Justin 05:35:25.944 --> 05:35:26.214
Be.

1235
Regnier, Justin 05:35:28.314 --> 05:35:29.544
I'm sorry, I didn't, I don't.

1236
Rottman, Mary 05:35:32.124 --> 05:35:38.604
You got a role unless sky. Did you, um, did we lose sky? We might.

1237
Sky Stanfield 05:35:38.604 --> 05:35:45.864
I don't need it. I can, we can pick on if we need to I just was saying, if you guys need to confer for 5 minutes, that seems reasonable. We can all.

1238
selene 05:35:45.864 --> 05:35:47.874
Right. Can we take a break please.

1239
Rottman, Mary 05:35:51.204 --> 05:35:51.594
Sure.

1240
Regnier, Justin 05:35:52.704 --> 05:35:53.242
I think.

1241
Regnier, Justin 05:35:53.274 --> 05:35:54.264
Everybody's appropriate.

1242
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:35:56.632 --> 05:36:03.292
Okay, let's take a 10 minute break or 12 minute break. Let's be back at here at, uh, 220.

1243
Roger Salas SCE 05:36:04.162 --> 05:36:08.302
It's also Friday, so it's good to to make them very sure. So we can get a.

1244
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:36:09.892 --> 05:36:10.254
To.

1245
Rottman, Mary 05:36:10.254 --> 05:36:11.004
You see that.

1246
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:36:12.990 --> 05:36:13.946
Then to.

1247
Rottman, Mary 05:36:15.476 --> 05:36:17.486
But anyway, I already said it.

1248
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:36:18.176 --> 05:36:18.716
All right.

1249
Rottman, Mary 05:36:18.716 --> 05:36:19.046
So.

1250
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:36:19.076 --> 05:36:21.446
Come back at 220.

1251
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:36:22.376 --> 05:36:23.906
Okay, which is 12 minutes from.

1252
Rottman, Mary 05:36:24.536 --> 05:36:27.716
Right. See, you at 220 everybody.

1253
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:48:14.572 --> 05:48:20.302
Okay, I think everybody I think we'll wait maybe 1 more minute to mature, but he is back.

1254
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:48:24.054 --> 05:48:38.634
But once we have people coming back, especially the parties that have been active, the utilities and Eric and Cal advocates, please state out loud that you are back.

1255
Sky Stanfield 05:48:42.026 --> 05:48:42.714
Guy.

1256
Younes, Amin 05:48:43.464 --> 05:48:45.776
Yeah, calendar gets back as well as well.

1257
Jan Strack 05:48:48.712 --> 05:48:49.944
With some reservations.

1258
Regnier, Justin 05:48:56.034 --> 05:48:56.724
That's pretty.

1259
Rottman, Mary 05:48:57.084 --> 05:49:00.504
That was good. Numbers are dwindling. I'm seeing here.

1260
Regnier, Justin 05:49:01.434 --> 05:49:02.064
Oh.

1261
Regnier, Justin 05:49:08.394 --> 05:49:11.006
Do we have a critical mass to keep.

1262
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:49:14.394 --> 05:49:15.894
I think so. Uh, let me.

1263
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:49:17.574 --> 05:49:20.754
Edison, you're on the call.

1264
Roger Salas SCE 05:49:22.404 --> 05:49:23.034
Right.

1265
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:49:23.664 --> 05:49:26.004
Okay, um.

1266
Jan Strack 05:49:28.404 --> 05:49:29.574
The.

1267
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:49:30.324 --> 05:49:31.524
Okay, pgnp.

1268
Regnier, Justin 05:49:37.164 --> 05:49:38.814
Alex gave us the thumbs up.

1269
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:49:40.854 --> 05:49:50.934
I just saw that and, uh, okay, I think those were a major speakers today. Our Brad, I think you also spoke up to.

1270
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:49:58.552 --> 05:49:59.662
From.

1271
Rottman, Mary 05:50:00.954 --> 05:50:02.124
I don't see.

1272
Brad Heavner 05:50:03.052 --> 05:50:03.382
Um.

1273
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:50:04.312 --> 05:50:04.642
You.

1274
Rottman, Mary 05:50:05.152 --> 05:50:05.934
Hello.

1275
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:50:07.642 --> 05:50:17.004
All right, so we have to make the speakers on the, from today's workshop anyways on the call. So all right. Critical Mass then established.

1276
Regnier, Justin 05:50:17.094 --> 05:50:17.844
All right.

1277
Regnier, Justin 05:50:19.466 --> 05:50:28.316
I guess, uh, thanks for suggesting the break. We definitely we're working behind the scenes as a team on this 1 during the break.

1278
Regnier, Justin 05:50:30.774 --> 05:50:43.194
We would want to start with this where sky left it, where, you know, want to maybe start with an appreciation for, let's say, and Mary and everybody is hardware.

1279
Regnier, Justin 05:50:44.454 --> 05:50:54.264
It is not a given that we all agree on what the issue is and getting things framed to the point that we're here. Um.

1280
Regnier, Justin 05:50:55.854 --> 05:50:59.424
No small task and is definitely appreciate it at least by myself.

1281
Regnier, Justin 05:51:02.122 --> 05:51:22.162
Given that it does sound as though parties are pretty well entrenched is the wrong word, because I don't think folks are at war with each other. I think folks are pretty stabilized and what they believe the appropriate path forward should be.

1282
Regnier, Justin 05:51:23.544 --> 05:51:43.586
We're looking at getting as per earlier in this conversation, uh, the non proposals and writing, such that that's, you know, um, a very firm declaration of position. That's only fair. We've pin the down pretty hard to make sure that we.

1283
Regnier, Justin 05:51:43.588 --> 05:52:04.732
Positions from them in these presentations that could provide a substantive discussion. Um, I see on the moving forward slide a questionnaire on another workshop being conducted and potentially extension less advice letter filing but that I know or that I understand to be in the.

1284
Regnier, Justin 05:52:04.740 --> 05:52:11.966
Context of doing an analysis that I think we have consensus that is not being something that would be productive at this time.

1285
Regnier, Justin 05:52:14.936 --> 05:52:33.624
So, absent any extension or additional workshop, what we've got on the table is, you know, internally talking about having non proposals and I'll, I'll reserve the right to the dev joke cause got goods.

1286
Regnier, Justin 05:52:34.374 --> 05:52:49.614
They're what we would like for Christmas. I don't know if we can get them by December, 23, which is 1 week from today. Um, so that would those would come in to. I used, but also CC staff. So we're.

1287
Sky Stanfield 05:52:49.614 --> 05:52:50.454
What's.

1288
Regnier, Justin 05:52:50.542 --> 05:52:54.562
What's being said, let's see noises from Scott, but I'm not sure I'm just trying to.

1289
Sky Stanfield 05:52:56.242 --> 05:52:56.844
I don't.

1290
Sky Stanfield 05:52:57.204 --> 05:52:57.832
Start getting.

1291
Sky Stanfield 05:52:58.104 --> 05:53:08.364
Get them before Christmas is feasible on our end and I'm not sure maybe it helped me understand why you need them until right before the actual filing.

1292
Regnier, Justin 05:53:10.822 --> 05:53:15.472
I don't know that we do. I think that was just the 1st.

1293
Sky Stanfield 05:53:16.072 --> 05:53:16.642
I'm not.

1294
Sky Stanfield 05:53:16.674 --> 05:53:17.124
Trying to.

1295
Sky Stanfield 05:53:19.884 --> 05:53:20.064
Right.

1296
Regnier, Justin 05:53:21.054 --> 05:53:33.024
Yeah, so, you know, it's a starting point maybe at this point, it makes sense to turn it around and say, when do we think it would be a reasonable time to have those in.

1297
Regnier, Justin 05:53:33.174 --> 05:53:40.614
Yes, that's at the yeah use are are able to accurately memorialize them in their advice letter.

1298
Regnier, Justin 05:53:41.064 --> 05:53:52.404
But the parties are to my understanding of the balance is making sure that we can get an accurate memorial ization response and get the parties maximum time to refine.

1299
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:53:54.114 --> 05:54:01.734
And, uh, I wanted to add to Skype answer. Uh, I think, uh, we.

1300
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:01.768 --> 05:54:16.042
When we discussed, it would be so the would not only be able to implement them to respond to them within the advisors.

1301
Regnier, Justin 05:54:16.072 --> 05:54:17.812
Possibly.

1302
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:17.812 --> 05:54:18.142
You know.

1303
Regnier, Justin 05:54:18.322 --> 05:54:18.774
Yeah.

1304
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:19.704 --> 05:54:21.292
Come up with.

1305
Regnier, Justin 05:54:21.444 --> 05:54:22.344
A.

1306
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:22.344 --> 05:54:22.732
In.

1307
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:23.392 --> 05:54:27.594
On, you know what they would need and respond to it.

1308
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:28.822 --> 05:54:35.004
To add more information, uh, you know, once you had.

1309
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:35.152 --> 05:54:35.694
Okay.

1310
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:38.664 --> 05:54:59.574
No, because the way the advice normally, advice letters I get filed, then they get protested and then the, uh, utilities reply to the protest. And then, uh, you know, that's kinda the regular fashion. So we were thinking that I have.

1311
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:59.604 --> 05:55:20.482
Do on the 23rd, then the would have a chance to give their view of the, you know, the non proposals. And then when parties come back during protest, they'd be able to respond to not only.

1312
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:55:21.144 --> 05:55:27.384
Proposal, but to the utilities proposal off the non.

1313
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:55:28.196 --> 05:55:45.206
Protests, but like Justin said, he just opened it up to what would be a, you know, a good date. And, you know, we are aware that, you know, the holidays are coming up. So we're definitely open to feedback.

1314
David Schiada 05:55:46.946 --> 05:55:48.894
Yeah, Jose, this Dave.

1315
David Schiada 05:55:48.930 --> 05:56:09.866
I I, I guess I was thinking something a little different, um, the, we're still under the obligation to, um, not only submit proposals, but I think there's terra language and meet the entire requirements of the.

1316
David Schiada 05:56:10.104 --> 05:56:31.222
Resolution regarding filing the advice letter by January, 9th and work together as so I was thinking if there were other proposals that were going to be included with that, it would be something along. The lines of energy division would send out an email. K proposals are due by X date. It's not the.

1317
David Schiada 05:56:31.524 --> 05:56:52.374
But we can talk about that, and then the role would be to say something in advisement or like, and, you know, for integrations email, the following proposals were received and they are attached in attachment a, and that would be what would get submitted on January.

1318
David Schiada 05:56:53.124 --> 05:57:09.714
Not try to respond to any proposals there or middle ground. I think that's pretty ambitious to do by the 9th, but but then to let the advice letter process play out after that, with, with protests or comments and reply.

1319
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:57:11.424 --> 05:57:13.524
Okay, I I think that sounds.

1320
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:57:13.766 --> 05:57:33.116
Unless Justin, you have any other thoughts of, which is, you know, finding a way for the to respond, you know, not only just include it, but to, you know, to inform more on what their thoughts were on the non proposal.

1321
Brad Heavner 05:57:36.714 --> 05:57:48.714
And then, Dave, are you thinking that the, the attached proposals would be the entirety of, of the stakeholder positions, or that you would additionally summarize.

1322
David Schiada 05:57:52.162 --> 05:58:12.742
The preference would not to try to summarize positions, but to indicate, you know, these discussions kind of thinking out loud here, discussions, took place uh, uh, there was not consensus in all areas and, you know, per following proposals were submitted.

1323
David Schiada 05:58:13.222 --> 05:58:30.232
Um, by these entities, and they are attached and not try to put an perspective on those proposals, but to incorporate them into the advice letter filing so that it meets the direction that was provided in the resolution.

1324
Brad Heavner 05:58:30.742 --> 05:58:33.892
Yeah, I think that's right you can just paste them in. Really? And we can make.

1325
Brad Heavner 05:58:33.898 --> 05:58:37.854
Make sure that our positions are fully reflected in within the proposals.

1326
David Schiada 05:58:37.974 --> 05:58:38.484
Yeah.

1327
Brad Heavner 05:58:38.544 --> 05:58:54.084
Um, and then fully fleshing out a terrible language. Seems like an awful lot of work when we're not at the point of consensus is that that really something you need to need to do at this stage with your proposal.

1328
David Schiada 05:58:57.714 --> 05:59:16.194
Well, I know that that was something that we were asked to provide in the slides for our proposal. Um, I agree with you. It does seem to be a little bit ahead of the horse if you will in terms of if there's if there's not fundamental consensus around a proposal. But, um, we probably have to take a.

1329
David Schiada 05:59:16.200 --> 05:59:27.324
Looked at what we were directed to do, and if we were directed to provide tariff language, we may have to put some asterisk around it and again, thinking out loud at this point.

1330
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:59:35.456 --> 05:59:43.044
Yeah, I'd have to go back to the resolution myself and read again, whether a tariff language was required.

1331
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:59:44.514 --> 06:00:02.754
That may be in the decision, but I can't recall at the moment. Um, but again, it's it's, uh, I remind, is this a tier 3 advice letter so it will require a resolution.

1332
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:00:05.574 --> 06:00:15.354
So, uh, you know, uh, once the commission makes that determination on, you know, how to proceed with the.

1333
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:00:17.274 --> 06:00:34.614
Whatever tariff language is submitted, but utilities will need to be altered accordingly to whatever resolution mandates. So, at the moment.

1334
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:00:36.924 --> 06:00:37.704
You know, pending.

1335
Regnier, Justin 06:00:37.704 --> 06:00:38.214
What.

1336
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:00:38.274 --> 06:00:52.284
Actual decisions originally said, and what there was resolutions said, you know, any advice tariffs language submitted is basically subject to change.

1337
Regnier, Justin 06:00:56.636 --> 06:01:14.636
Well, I mean, unless they nail it right out the gate you never know. Good. Um, I think so the question of whether it's language is required and it goes is where we need to go back to the decision to see if it is actually bonafide required what.

1338
Regnier, Justin 06:01:14.664 --> 06:01:35.724
I would say, though, is we have spent this, I mean, this group spent collectively an awful lot of time, trying to iron out misunderstandings, based on what we thought, this word or that word or the other word. So my strong preference is to get model tariff language in there and then we can argue over the language. That's.

1339
Regnier, Justin 06:01:36.772 --> 06:01:41.872
In there, whether that represents the idea as opposed to starting a step back from.

1340
Sky Stanfield 06:01:42.562 --> 06:01:56.902
Yeah, if I can weigh in there, I appreciate that effort that's required to write terrible language. But I, and I also appreciate that that it's a little hard because we have the 2 advice letters and a lot of probably a lot more.

1341
Sky Stanfield 06:01:57.086 --> 06:02:18.086
Language actually is going to have to be written for the 2nd advice letter than the 1st 1, but there might be some interaction between them. Um, but I do think that if we don't put the tariff language in here, then we have to go through another advice lab around. And historically we've had a lot of trouble on take, you know, so it would push the whole.

1342
Sky Stanfield 06:02:18.114 --> 06:02:34.642
Uh, they're a bit more if we don't work on the terra language now, though, I recognize that that's hard and time consuming but I do think that recent history suggests that getting the terra language, unless we want to do another round of rice letters is probably necessary at this stage.

1343
Jan Strack 06:02:36.534 --> 06:02:39.292
The resolution we clarify that.

1344
Jan Strack 06:02:40.792 --> 06:02:45.534
21 tearful notification large.

1345
Jan Strack 06:02:46.582 --> 06:02:48.114
21 and the tier 2.

1346
Jan Strack 06:02:50.542 --> 06:02:51.444
115.

1347
Regnier, Justin 06:02:53.274 --> 06:02:53.812
Do you.

1348
Brad Heavner 06:02:58.404 --> 06:02:59.184
Okay.

1349
Brad Heavner 06:03:00.954 --> 06:03:07.974
If there's not positions are just copy and paste into dependencies. How much lead time do you gotta use?

1350
David Schiada 06:03:13.914 --> 06:03:16.706
Let's see. Well.

1351
Sky Stanfield 06:03:20.934 --> 06:03:39.864
How about we get them to you on? So, the vice leaders are doing the 9th right? Why don't we get them to you on the 6 to the Friday before? If it's just a matter of attaching it? Um, that seems reasonable. And then what I'm hearing is that the responses will essentially occur in the I assume that.

1352
Sky Stanfield 06:03:39.870 --> 06:04:00.864
We're going to have to protest the advice letter for formality reasons. Even though our position may already be stated in the our counter proposal will be stated, but I guess we're going to have to protest and then you guys can respond in the replies to the protests or whatever. Right? So, I think that in that case, it doesn't seem.

1353
Sky Stanfield 06:04:01.524 --> 06:04:07.222
You guys are gonna need more than a day to attach our our comments or.

1354
David Schiada 06:04:10.044 --> 06:04:10.974
Yeah, I think.

1355
David Schiada 06:04:12.684 --> 06:04:32.814
I know it's just attaching, but there is kind of the process of getting them. I'm not the 1 that's going to sign off on this. I have to each of us has to have our respective, whoever it is managing directors sign off. So, I mean, is there something like a little earlier than the 6th? Because that kinda pushes it.

1356
David Schiada 06:04:34.404 --> 06:04:38.154
I mean, is there like the, I don't know the 30th.

1357
Sky Stanfield 06:04:38.426 --> 06:04:42.654
Well, so, from my perspective, since I suspect I'm going to be doing most of the right.

1358
Sky Stanfield 06:04:42.776 --> 06:04:54.596
I was supposed to be on vacation today and I, I postponed it so we could do this workshop. I'm out of office, Monday and Tuesday as a result. And then all of the following week after Christmas, I suspect.

1359
Sky Stanfield 06:04:54.624 --> 06:05:15.742
The only 1 taking that vacation and I realize you told me you also probably have vacation. So that's what I'm trying to make. Sure. And I, because I also want to be leave room for the non utility stakeholders to try to get to 1 proposal, which I think will be easier for everybody. I am totally open to if this is a possibility changing the date of the advisor.

1360
Sky Stanfield 06:05:15.774 --> 06:05:32.722
I'm not sure if that is a possibility, but I do think it's going to be hard to with all with the holidays coming in and the actual amount of work. It's going to take to articulate all that to get something beyond that. That's why I was proposing as much time as we could squeeze in.

1361
Brad Heavner 06:05:33.562 --> 06:05:36.624
I think we would all be supportive of a request for a.

1362
Regnier, Justin 06:05:42.562 --> 06:06:03.592
Okay, so, let me raise a few points around that. Um, which is, which is not a no, but let's think about this stuff, this schedule, um, is what was proposed by the and agreed upon I mean, we just gave them what they wanted.

1363
Regnier, Justin 06:06:03.956 --> 06:06:12.026
They would, they would have to come with the justification for changing it, which is not insurmountable, but it's the 1 for.

1364
Regnier, Justin 06:06:13.584 --> 06:06:34.704
2nd consideration is that this, you know, we'll be at about 5 and a half years on phase 1 of our 17,707. um, so there's, there's an appetite clearly draw things to where we can at least move into phase. 5th consideration being.

1365
Regnier, Justin 06:06:34.734 --> 06:06:55.014
How these things backup is probably going to be evaluated in conjunction with the changes in export compensation through the decision that went through yesterday on non billing. So alignment with the April, 15 effective date to the extent possible is desired.

1366
Regnier, Justin 06:06:56.366 --> 06:07:05.994
All that being said, I don't think that we're opposed to a reasonable extension if we can articulate what we're gaining by it.

1367
Sky Stanfield 06:07:07.434 --> 06:07:08.484
It seems to me, like.

1368
Regnier, Justin 06:07:08.484 --> 06:07:08.814
It would.

1369
Sky Stanfield 06:07:08.814 --> 06:07:10.404
We don't need a huge amount. We're talking.

1370
Sky Stanfield 06:07:10.944 --> 06:07:16.224
A week, right folks looking to the faces that I'm seeing on the camera. So maybe.

1371
Regnier, Justin 06:07:16.254 --> 06:07:16.884
Somebody.

1372
Sky Stanfield 06:07:17.244 --> 06:07:19.974
You know, 11 week, more what? I think the.

1373
Regnier, Justin 06:07:19.974 --> 06:07:20.424
It'd be.

1374
Sky Stanfield 06:07:21.654 --> 06:07:23.214
I think we're gonna make a.

1375
Regnier, Justin 06:07:23.214 --> 06:07:23.394
Do you.

1376
Sky Stanfield 06:07:23.394 --> 06:07:28.164
I think so, but the other advantages is that we get more refined.

1377
Sky Stanfield 06:07:28.822 --> 06:07:30.622
Help it to make sure that we don't.

1378
Sky Stanfield 06:07:33.024 --> 06:07:39.924
Is the concept, but the result you and I know that totally.

1379
Regnier, Justin 06:07:41.274 --> 06:07:53.662
Well, by design, and thank you as a result of lessons learned from the 1st, round of advice letters, all of these workshops are recorded on the record and publicly available.

1380
Regnier, Justin 06:07:54.232 --> 06:08:14.812
So, to the extent, we need to drop on them. I understand. My understanding is procedurally that can be done in the device letters, protests resolutions, et cetera. So there's there are a lot of we're not painted into a corner in the way we might be. Otherwise, I guess 1 thing I left out on there, is that the 5,230.

1381
Regnier, Justin 06:08:14.844 --> 06:08:35.964
They're also set up with the understanding that we'll be maintaining a schedule. So, given that I usually going to have to justify this to our executive director, given the, you know, the 1st line is going to be. I know you gave us exactly what we asked for, but here's what we're asking for now.

1382
Regnier, Justin 06:08:36.504 --> 06:08:42.654
I would like to grow at the areas, have to say in terms of duration and justification for extension.

1383
David Schiada 06:08:48.534 --> 06:08:55.792
Yeah, well, I think the, um, I don't know, again, thinking out loud with the story.

1384
David Schiada 06:08:57.120 --> 06:09:18.084
It sounds like after the result of, uh, you know, 3 workshop discussions, um, cause, I think we originally conflict, at least 2. so we, we had 3 right then uh, and and, and the agreement to develop, uh, that there would be a need for stakeholders to submit.

1385
David Schiada 06:09:18.292 --> 06:09:37.344
Their perspectives based on their write up versus an summary, um, you know, parties would request an extension for 1 week to allow that to, um, record to be fully develop something along those lines.

1386
David Schiada 06:09:39.418 --> 06:09:40.854
My best at this point.

1387
Regnier, Justin 06:09:41.962 --> 06:09:56.152
That's fair and to be clear, this is not, you know, Mary or Justin or Jose or any other ministerial staff, making the determination. This is a call by our executive director and I like being employed. So I'm not going to try to put words in her.

1388
Regnier, Justin 06:09:56.812 --> 06:10:00.562
Yeah, um, but the useful thing.

1389
Regnier, Justin 06:10:00.594 --> 06:10:09.654
I think to the drafting of that is whether or not other parties are in consensus around the need for that extension and that's something we can take care of right here. Right now, if folks are.

1390
David Schiada 06:10:10.554 --> 06:10:11.454
I mean, I think we.

1391
Regnier, Justin 06:10:11.454 --> 06:10:11.754
You have.

1392
David Schiada 06:10:12.444 --> 06:10:19.554
Back is I use here, um, cause I, I also recognize the extensions.

1393
David Schiada 06:10:20.934 --> 06:10:21.504
I mean, we.

1394
David Schiada 06:10:21.834 --> 06:10:42.774
Filed some recently. I know they're not that's something that we we look at, uh, don't have a whole lot of them to, to, to call upon. So we do take those seriously. So, I think we probably should get back as a team and see, since we would be the ones. Like you said, Justin proposing it based on, uh.

1395
David Schiada 06:10:42.894 --> 06:10:47.574
We were granted the schedule we had asked for going into this so.

1396
Regnier, Justin 06:10:52.194 --> 06:11:07.042
That makes sense if we go with the hypothetical that the do indeed want to request a 1 week extension to the parties on this call, have consensus as to whether they would be on board with that extension.

1397
Sky Stanfield 06:11:07.704 --> 06:11:11.062
Iraq would be happy to support that extension and.

1398
Sky Stanfield 06:11:11.154 --> 06:11:15.834
To submit a letter to the executive director accordingly if that is what we decide to.

1399
Younes, Amin 06:11:22.494 --> 06:11:25.044
I don't think I can take a position on it. Unfortunately.

1400
Regnier, Justin 06:11:27.652 --> 06:11:47.572
All right, well, that can be done in the future. So given that, we don't know, let's let's just assume that the letters are going to be filed on date X. I think the other thing we're trying to come to is X minus. How many days do we want the non party? I'm sorry? The non party proposal.

1401
Jan Strack 06:11:52.254 --> 06:12:04.434
Let me see, let me just 1 line from the resolution. If an item is not reached consensus, or you should provide as the basis for the.

1402
Jan Strack 06:12:06.144 --> 06:12:07.374
So, I think that by its.

1403
Jan Strack 06:12:07.584 --> 06:12:08.754
It's going to require some time.

1404
Regnier, Justin 06:12:17.214 --> 06:12:20.786
And how much time would you assume that would be in a, in a.

1405
Jan Strack 06:12:22.196 --> 06:12:23.336
6 months to.

1406
Regnier, Justin 06:12:26.724 --> 06:12:29.394
Populates how.

1407
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:12:31.254 --> 06:12:32.604
I think that made my.

1408
David Schiada 06:12:44.664 --> 06:13:01.044
I thought part of the concept of attaching the stakeholder positions was that, you know, well, good, um, you know, their understanding of differences. They are best.

1409
David Schiada 06:13:01.048 --> 06:13:02.514
Flamed by the attached proposed.

1410
Sky Stanfield 06:13:04.164 --> 06:13:22.194
Yeah, I mean, I feel like Justin, it's up to you on the or up to higher ups possibly and interpreting what exactly. That would meet compliance with that language. But I think if the explain why, and maybe 1 way to do it is for us to get you guys a framework of what.

1411
Sky Stanfield 06:13:22.200 --> 06:13:43.346
Our proposal is a little earlier, but leaving some time to flesh it out. But otherwise we can explain why we, we, we don't didn't reach consensus. And you guys can explain it as well based on what our understanding is of each other's holistic positions, which I think at a high level, we have pretty clear understanding of.

1412
Sky Stanfield 06:13:44.754 --> 06:14:04.194
But if you guys need me to write up an email, that's the basic framework of the positions. I I don't want to commit to do more because I want to make sure to work with, you know, there's a lot of stakeholders that I'd like to be able to do that work on our side. And I know that especially with thanks college advocates for being able to present with us here, it takes a bit.

1413
Sky Stanfield 06:14:04.524 --> 06:14:14.902
A bit more process for different parties to be able to get agreed to get sign off the same way it is for the. So, this all sounds like it seems like more difficult than it.

1414
Regnier, Justin 06:14:18.776 --> 06:14:37.946
The language in there was geared towards not getting, um, Trish Trish justification based on an insufficient record. I feel like these workshops have provided a fair amount of record for everybody to be able to go back and.

1415
Regnier, Justin 06:14:38.338 --> 06:14:43.792
Right down on the on the granularity of what their position is.

1416
Regnier, Justin 06:14:50.004 --> 06:15:06.534
It's a hard thing to to objectively state what sufficient detail will be, but speaking, just for interconnection and distribution engineering we've got a high level of concern that we won't get another.

1417
Regnier, Justin 06:15:06.622 --> 06:15:23.182
The Apple, because we've also got something to draw on all the rack, all the record and replies and I think it's, it doesn't rise to the same level of concern as it did. When we wrote the resolution. We're in a dramatically different position with the record.

1418
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:15:35.152 --> 06:15:42.924
I would like to ask if the utilities do file for an extension when is the as soon as that could happen.

1419
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:15:47.392 --> 06:15:51.024
Just so a week, you know, so the commission can respond to it. So.

1420
David Schiada 06:15:56.124 --> 06:15:58.044
Yeah, I don't know Jose.

1421
David Schiada 06:16:00.504 --> 06:16:08.844
Once you get a request to, um, executive director, it, it takes a different signature than.

1422
Regnier, Justin 06:16:12.506 --> 06:16:19.496
I think we're, we're in the same situation over here as well. We are looking at essentially 3 weeks.

1423
Regnier, Justin 06:16:21.444 --> 06:16:26.454
So, vice letters are due ish green.

1424
gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:16:33.114 --> 06:16:36.234
That's counting the week as a week.

1425
Sky Stanfield 06:16:41.724 --> 06:16:59.304
Can I suggest something, it sounds to me, like, what we are going to be in a day to figure out what they can do on their end and maybe Dave, do you think not speak for all? I or use, but maybe you could get to the CPC staff on Monday.

1426
Sky Stanfield 06:16:59.572 --> 06:17:19.732
When you think that could be done and what the date of the extension is, and any of the other hanging threads there so to speak and I'm happy Jose or Justin. I assigned it to Yogi since I'm on vacation that day. But to follow up with you guys, if you have questions further, and then you can send out an email just to the group that provides what the path forward is.

1427
David Schiada 06:17:23.486 --> 06:17:32.726
Yeah, let me ask, what does it necessarily have to be the requesting the extension? I'm, I'm not.

1428
David Schiada 06:17:36.864 --> 06:17:48.562
I mean, if I rec, and Scott you and Brad send a request, or does it have to be because we were the ones directed to the.

1429
Sky Stanfield 06:17:50.302 --> 06:17:51.652
I don't know the answer to that.

1430
Regnier, Justin 06:17:53.034 --> 06:17:59.062
Brad, didn't she file a request for extension on greater requirements? At some point it seems to bring about.

1431
Brad Heavner 06:18:01.222 --> 06:18:04.732
We file a request for extension, someone else's obligation.

1432
Regnier, Justin 06:18:09.204 --> 06:18:10.944
That is a different scenario.

1433
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:18:15.324 --> 06:18:34.194
Yeah, uh, David, um, I do not know the answer to your question, but my assumption is that it would need to be the utilities because this is server solution. So it's different than a proceeding. A proceeding.

1434
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:18:35.484 --> 06:18:55.884
So, there are multiple parties involved with, you know, that are parties to the proceeding. And, you know, my understanding is that if, you know, something needs to be extended, it would file a motion.

1435
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:18:56.904 --> 06:19:02.274
I think in this case, it probably is, uh, up to the utilities.

1436
Sky Stanfield 06:19:03.234 --> 06:19:17.514
I, I have an alternate suggestion if this is too complicated. Um, if I can interject sorry if it's too complicated to just get an extension. What I think that we could probably do. And I have not talked to.

1437
Sky Stanfield 06:19:17.518 --> 06:19:38.662
The other stakeholders to make sure none of them are out like, the whole time following is if we submit a proposal, our proposal, the proposal itself is probably not the lengthy part. Um, when I was envisioning, is that we were writing a proposal plus explanation of why. And the trade offs, just like the utilities will do in their advice letter on their own proposal if we can submit the proposal.

1438
Sky Stanfield 06:19:38.874 --> 06:19:59.812
Well, in, you know, and in a shorter period of time, sometime that 1st, week of January, and then put the justification, et cetera in the protest, if that's the preferred way of doing it and that, I think that's, I think, and please Brad and anybody else who.

1439
Sky Stanfield 06:20:00.564 --> 06:20:11.184
Join with Iraq at least, um, if you think we can come up with I think the proposal itself is probably not going to be the lengthy part of that. We need to get together.

1440
David Schiada 06:20:18.204 --> 06:20:28.642
And I think there still is the opportunity as I understand it for protests or responses to what was to the advice letter that is filed.

1441
Sky Stanfield 06:20:29.424 --> 06:20:35.062
Well, that's what I'm saying is, I'm assuming we kind of have to protest for for.

1442
Sky Stanfield 06:20:35.068 --> 06:20:41.124
Reality reasons the utilities proposal through a formal protest. Um, even if our proposal was include.

1443
David Schiada 06:20:41.274 --> 06:20:41.484
Okay.

1444
Sky Stanfield 06:20:41.544 --> 06:20:51.084
Yeah, um, and so, for that reason, we could insert the, the more thorough explanation in the protest. Um, if getting this extension is, is that.

1445
David Schiada 06:20:56.514 --> 06:20:58.134
Yeah, I think that.

1446
David Schiada 06:21:01.586 --> 06:21:21.596
And I'll throw it out here. I'd see what we've got side chats going from our proposed. That might be better from a logistical perspective and a, not request too many extensions perspective just to if we get that proposal and.

1447
David Schiada 06:21:21.652 --> 06:21:23.302
Attach it and then if there.

1448
David Schiada 06:21:26.454 --> 06:21:35.242
A desire to provide additional explanation, or or comparison or response that could be done in in the, in the protest.

1449
Sky Stanfield 06:21:39.264 --> 06:21:59.662
Okay, hearing none from Brad or, I mean, in terms of objecting to that plan, I think let's just stick with the timeline. And can we agree though, Dave, that you, the other thing we still haven't decided if we do that is when you need that just brief summary of the proposal that, you know, I do still think that that needs.

1450
Sky Stanfield 06:21:59.694 --> 06:22:06.652
Shouldn't need to be lengthy, especially because you'll be able to respond to our protest and your responses. So.

1451
Sky Stanfield 06:22:06.804 --> 06:22:20.484
Is getting getting that to you by January 6 or? I want to say the 5th but like, that's only there's really just not that many working days in there.

1452
David Schiada 06:22:29.814 --> 06:22:36.294
I don't know maybe the PG E, PG E team from your side. I mean, is.

1453
Yi Li SDG&E 06:22:38.544 --> 06:22:49.014
I think we can work with something like, maybe force cause we're really just for the record. All of us, our engineering team here on this call. We're not really our term.

1454
Yi Li SDG&E 06:22:49.042 --> 06:23:10.162
Folks and whoever that needs to handle that through regulatory and legal, even though it's just attachment, I still have to go through the process. So, sending that to us on the 6, literally gives us no working days to even get that route. It's through the approval chain. So, um, this is the, by the way I was hoping for something like.

1455
Yi Li SDG&E 06:23:12.024 --> 06:23:13.524
For a minute.

1456
Younes, Amin 06:23:14.004 --> 06:23:16.524
It would give you the night, right? It will give you 1 working.

1457
Yi Li SDG&E 06:23:18.292 --> 06:23:20.392
Yeah, it's very generous, but.

1458
Younes, Amin 06:23:21.564 --> 06:23:24.234
Just making sure we're counting correctly.

1459
Sky Stanfield 06:23:27.472 --> 06:23:47.934
Why the utilities need to approve my proposal I don't know what I'm going to send it to you as an attachment. This is not subject to your review in my opinion. So, I'm not really willing to make it so that we don't have the time to work on a good proposal. This conversation seems overly belabor it at this point. I think it would be great to hear from the commission on what your preferences.

1460
Sky Stanfield 06:23:48.266 --> 06:23:52.556
We've offered as much as we can here. Like, there's only so many working days.

1461
David Schiada 06:23:53.876 --> 06:24:09.386
Just 11 thing from the person that's signing off on this. Um, I think I can see them reasonably wanting to know what they're signing off on. And we typically do that not the day of filing, but prior to that so they can, if.

1462
David Schiada 06:24:09.414 --> 06:24:17.724
Any questions or edits before they sign on the dotted line they, they know what the package has. That's that's the main driver here.

1463
Sky Stanfield 06:24:17.874 --> 06:24:25.704
Okay, I'm not getting the chance to sign up on your proposal, though. Either way. I don't want to be Starkey. I understand your concern Dave.

1464
David Schiada 06:24:25.884 --> 06:24:26.064
And.

1465
Sky Stanfield 06:24:26.064 --> 06:24:30.534
It's hard with the areas. I'm just saying I done what I can't here. I can't.

1466
Sky Stanfield 06:24:30.538 --> 06:24:45.982
I don't want to give the parties who have have to pull ourselves together as well. We all need time if that extension needs to happen. And, like I said, I can support it, but I do think that you should be able to submit their request for the extension. If that's the.

1467
Regnier, Justin 06:24:58.946 --> 06:24:59.276
Okay.

1468
Regnier, Justin 06:25:00.148 --> 06:25:20.964
I think the thing that I would throw in here and note, is that the stakeholders not no, I use stakeholders rather putting together a written articulation of their proposals. It's useful for a couple things. Um, 1 of them is.

1469
Regnier, Justin 06:25:21.564 --> 06:25:42.414
I mean, uh, having it written down, directly in front of you and clear black and white is is useful. But the 2nd, is that it is a labor saving device from the. So, it does not excuse them from going back through the record. I use these workshops, but it does make.

1470
Regnier, Justin 06:25:42.956 --> 06:25:53.904
Easier to understand what all of the things that were said are most germane to the stakeholders at the end of this.

1471
Regnier, Justin 06:25:55.554 --> 06:25:59.574
I mean, that's that, I think is a, is a courtesy and something that.

1472
Regnier, Justin 06:26:00.804 --> 06:26:21.894
The non stakeholders are doing in the spirit of shared progress. Um, yeah, what we've got in our internal discussions seems to be a close of business on the 5th.

1473
Regnier, Justin 06:26:22.706 --> 06:26:30.866
Normally means 50 P. M, end of day, takes you to midnight, but is what we've been discussing.

1474
Regnier, Justin 06:26:33.684 --> 06:26:37.614
I mean, that's, you know, it's an interesting place because.

1475
Regnier, Justin 06:26:40.222 --> 06:26:49.072
I don't know that the stakeholders are directed to do this by any commission direction. We don't have.

1476
Regnier, Justin 06:26:50.244 --> 06:26:57.294
We don't we don't have regulatory oversight over a public advocates counsel, or any of the other.

1477
Regnier, Justin 06:26:58.972 --> 06:27:10.674
I think that the 5th would be something that a mutual agreement would make sense, but I don't have the ability to weigh in with.

1478
Regnier, Justin 06:27:13.074 --> 06:27:32.214
That user, they're out of there if the, if that takes this whole discussion apart, and they'd rather come through the 3 recordings and then come to the conclusions that they come to. Um, it looks like Mac and tell us from PG E.

1479
Regnier, Justin 06:27:34.014 --> 06:27:38.034
I think on the 5th to a stakeholder document should work for.

1480
Regnier, Justin 06:27:56.722 --> 06:28:13.284
I think maybe this isn't an area where staff needs to get terribly involved. I mean, they, I used to have an obligation to accurately summarise positions in detail their responses to non.

1481
Regnier, Justin 06:28:13.318 --> 06:28:13.974
That's this 1.

1482
Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:28:16.344 --> 06:28:17.034
So.

1483
Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:28:23.244 --> 06:28:23.994
The 1.

1484
Regnier, Justin 06:28:23.994 --> 06:28:39.984
And I do note in response to jan's comment. Yes. Uh, he staff has been on that voyage many times with, with, uh, staff. We have our own similar.

1485
Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:28:43.044 --> 06:28:44.036
I just had a quick.

1486
Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:28:46.162 --> 06:28:47.184
Do we have to.

1487
Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:28:49.134 --> 06:28:51.864
How do we use tech log?

1488
Regnier, Justin 06:28:52.164 --> 06:29:04.284
Okay, you have to provide a detailed explanation of why on the non consensus items you do not believe that the other position is.

1489
Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:29:06.384 --> 06:29:07.194
So, I.

1490
Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:29:08.844 --> 06:29:11.094
David's point, that's why we would sign the.

1491
Regnier, Justin 06:29:11.124 --> 06:29:11.754
Right.

1492
Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:29:12.414 --> 06:29:13.434
So, not.

1493
Regnier, Justin 06:29:13.434 --> 06:29:13.854
The.

1494
Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:29:13.854 --> 06:29:18.204
That's been provided, but what we provide as a response to that.

1495
Regnier, Justin 06:29:18.264 --> 06:29:28.164
Okay, I understand the conundrum that you're in. I do have sympathy for everybody in all directions.

1496
David Schiada 06:29:29.484 --> 06:29:31.734
See, my.

1497
Regnier, Justin 06:29:31.734 --> 06:29:37.134
Timeline however is set to what it is upon requested the.

1498
David Schiada 06:29:39.052 --> 06:29:59.062
I think I'm in the right exit from the resolution, but what I had was that included, if an item has not reached consensus. And I think there's consensus that we do have some of those items that reach consensus the larger you shall provide details as to the basis for lack of consensus.

1499
David Schiada 06:29:59.634 --> 06:30:07.254
And the alternative proposals, if it is that what how others are saying that.

1500
Jan Strack 06:30:11.814 --> 06:30:14.696
That's what I read earlier.

1501
Jan Strack 06:30:15.446 --> 06:30:32.696
I think that the, the stakeholder positions can speak to themselves. He's attachment but the 1, a little more concerned about is whether the have to provide the details, or whether we can say the details are embedded within the document that are.

1502
Jan Strack 06:30:33.144 --> 06:30:35.124
Which would be obviously much much better.

1503
David Schiada 06:30:37.164 --> 06:30:38.364
Yeah.

1504
Jan Strack 06:30:39.384 --> 06:30:43.584
And David, I kind of look to you, you've got more experience probably in the series than I have.

1505
Regnier, Justin 06:30:44.334 --> 06:30:49.584
Can you read that back again? David cause I think that is the right passage and I may have MIS characterized.

1506
David Schiada 06:30:50.604 --> 06:30:51.204
Yeah.

1507
David Schiada 06:30:52.704 --> 06:31:04.554
We try to, uh, if an item is consensus, the large provide details as to the basis for lack of consensus.

1508
Regnier, Justin 06:31:04.554 --> 06:31:05.124
Sent.

1509
David Schiada 06:31:05.184 --> 06:31:08.454
And the alternative proposals are any.

1510
Regnier, Justin 06:31:11.034 --> 06:31:14.904
Yeah, that that is a lighter lift on what I described. That's.

1511
David Schiada 06:31:15.444 --> 06:31:30.174
Which I was hoping the alternative proposal Danny would be the ones that Scott you and Brad, or are either 1 or 2 that we attach. And I think we're talking about.

1512
David Schiada 06:31:31.104 --> 06:31:37.044
I think Jan captured it well, in the chat there, assembling and sign off there.

1513
David Schiada 06:31:44.276 --> 06:31:45.384
And that.

1514
Sky Stanfield 06:32:14.544 --> 06:32:31.346
It sounds to me, like, where we could leave things right now, if if I'm hearing everybody correctly is that we, our offer is to get you guys something by the 5th at the end of the day and we also are offering to support an extension of a week and if you.

1515
Sky Stanfield 06:32:31.374 --> 06:32:52.402
These need to take that back and decide which of those work better for you. That seems reasonable. So long as that. We can extension is going to need to get filed quickly, or at least give us a heads up of the extensions coming again. We don't know if it would be adopted. That's the problem here I think is that we just assume that the expense is going to be granted, but I think if I always need to take back, whether the 5th or another.

1516
Sky Stanfield 06:32:52.524 --> 06:33:07.704
Is better for them um, we can work with that. Um, yeah it's going to be hard for us if we want to get participation in our proposal for them to get sign off. So, I don't even know the 5th is going to be.

1517
David Schiada 06:33:24.356 --> 06:33:28.314
Okay, well, I think we could. I'm sorry, I'm looking at chats.

1518
David Schiada 06:33:31.254 --> 06:33:41.994
I see Matt PG E side they're okay with the 5th. I think they would just follow up, um, close the loop on that and communicate that with you sky if that's okay.

1519
Regnier, Justin 06:33:52.254 --> 06:34:00.294
I know that we do have the case manager's meeting next Tuesday morning. Um, we can maybe I agree.

1520
Regnier, Justin 06:34:01.764 --> 06:34:16.462
I guess maybe I'll phrase that as a question. Can we agree? I owe you reps that we'll do a weekend to put this to bed by Tuesday morning and report that out as quickly as possible to stakeholders. So people can.

1521
Regnier, Justin 06:34:19.616 --> 06:34:22.676
Yeah, of course a faster resolution is always well.

1522
Regnier, Justin 06:34:32.064 --> 06:34:34.586
I see Matt go to space up. So I don't know if you want.

1523
Matt Gonzales 06:34:35.214 --> 06:34:36.836
Yeah, I was just gonna say if that sounds good.

1524
Kimberley Chong SDG&E 06:34:47.454 --> 06:34:48.024
Yeah, I can do.

1525
Jan Strack 06:34:48.954 --> 06:34:50.484
Updates are equally.

1526
Regnier, Justin 06:35:10.914 --> 06:35:14.994
So consensus, it's a difficult thing. Really.

1527
Regnier, Justin 06:35:16.614 --> 06:35:25.614
I don't know I'm going to turn that back to Jose, because I don't know that we've got what we've got on the agenda remaining if anything.

1528
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:35:26.814 --> 06:35:37.464
Thank you Justin. Uh, so the 1st item just to recap uh, I think we'll, uh, follow up with an email to clarify everything. We've spoken.

1529
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:35:37.494 --> 06:35:58.614
2 in the last half hour on logistics, so everybody's on the table after, uh, we heard back, uh, you know, from the utilities on, uh, whether they will file an extension or not or when the, a good date is to get, uh, comments from.

1530
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:35:58.674 --> 06:36:01.674
Do you participants.

1531
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:36:04.764 --> 06:36:08.694
That is really the only thing I had on the.

1532
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:36:10.074 --> 06:36:13.914
Agenda at the moment, um.

1533
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:36:15.802 --> 06:36:23.032
I think for once we can end a little before our actual scheduled ending.

1534
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:36:25.434 --> 06:36:45.294
And basically, um, other than that, I wanted to just, uh, you know, open it up to, uh, any last minute comments or feedback on any of the slides that have been presented that people did not, uh, get to express earlier.

1535
Sky Stanfield 06:36:55.676 --> 06:37:12.894
I don't have anything additional, but I just want to say again, I appreciate everybody's collaboration on attempts to work on this. And I think we had a really good. It's civil conversation about our differences today. So, I appreciate everybody's efforts and I appreciate the commission staff for helping to try to.

1536
Sky Stanfield 06:37:13.462 --> 06:37:14.274
Get us to the.

1537
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:37:17.152 --> 06:37:20.604
This guy, uh, nice. 2nd.

1538
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:37:22.854 --> 06:37:31.794
Not not to the commission staff, but just to everybody else or be a non. I, are you party Sandy? I use.

1539
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:37:33.444 --> 06:37:49.434
Definitely has been a long process. I did not imagine would consume my life for the last year, but here we are in for the next half a year.

1540
Regnier, Justin 06:37:54.472 --> 06:38:12.354
I didn't, I didn't bring it up earlier, but we're also speaking to the next Tuesday meeting looking to set up the following workshops for resolution 5,230. um, I think this has been a productive and it took us a minute to get the kinks worked out, but a productive format. Um.

1541
Regnier, Justin 06:38:13.224 --> 06:38:25.614
If not parties have conflicts in the time, period that's being, um, contemplated for the 5,230.

1542
Regnier, Justin 06:38:26.962 --> 06:38:36.954
Workshops, they should let us know because we're going to be sitting now with our calendars with your calendars that just occurred to me that that leaves.

1543
Sky Stanfield 06:38:39.204 --> 06:38:47.812
That is very gracious. I forgot that. I really appreciate that. Um, can you remind us what the possible date range is that you're looking for?

1544
Sky Stanfield 06:38:47.934 --> 06:38:50.124
Availability on.

1545
Regnier, Justin 06:38:51.534 --> 06:38:53.304
You call it the lifeline on.

1546
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:38:53.724 --> 06:38:57.504
Yeah, the workshops need to command people 470.

1547
Sky Stanfield 06:38:59.724 --> 06:39:00.444
We need to.

1548
Sky Stanfield 06:39:01.554 --> 06:39:05.754
Availability, I'm assuming you're looking like the 1st, 2 weeks of February then.

1549
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:39:06.834 --> 06:39:08.814
Ah, yes, probably.

1550
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:39:08.994 --> 06:39:09.654
The earliest.

1551
Sky Stanfield 06:39:10.434 --> 06:39:10.914
Okay.

1552
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:39:12.384 --> 06:39:13.044
And the.

1553
Regnier, Justin 06:39:13.044 --> 06:39:13.704
Can we.

1554
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:39:13.734 --> 06:39:17.334
Because, you know, we need to do eventually move on to.

1555
Sky Stanfield 06:39:17.634 --> 06:39:23.064
Yep, that's fine. I was just checking to see if you're asking what our availability is what dates you're looking for.

1556
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:39:23.694 --> 06:39:30.084
Yeah, yeah, we'll be sending out a solicitation later on, um, I think it's.

1557
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:39:30.120 --> 06:39:50.004
To assume that everybody that I joined our meeting during this, uh, during our 5,211 workshops, uh, will be also in that call but, uh, we will also be sending out a solicitation as we did last time.

1558
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:39:51.534 --> 06:39:54.292
So, uh, you know, with further instructions.

1559
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:39:57.474 --> 06:40:18.054
And, uh, you know, uh, those, uh, discussions, uh, are probably since we do have, uh, you know, our record for those advice letters we're not starting from scratch my whoop. Or I should say my wishful hope is that they're not.

1560
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:40:18.294 --> 06:40:22.704
Difficult, but who knows.

1561
Sky Stanfield 06:40:25.642 --> 06:40:40.492
Yeah, when the on those I'm eager to get to and I was like, is, is that I think that getting advice, letter language for those is going to be particularly important. That's where all the doubles details are and the implementation.

1562
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:40:42.382 --> 06:40:46.162
And those advice letters will be due by May 1st.

1563
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:40:46.260 --> 06:40:59.154
3, so we have allowed basically, uh, based basically, based on the discussions that we've had for, you know, resolution 50 to 11, we allowed a little bit more time.

1564
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:41:02.034 --> 06:41:06.412
Due to experience, basically on the on the subject.

1565
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:41:17.904 --> 06:41:33.954
But all the information will be updated in our, uh, web webpage and the link will be there to the final, uh, issued resolution by probably, uh, Tuesday or Wednesday next week, along with the recording of this.

1566
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:41:52.554 --> 06:41:59.336
Okay, are there any other, uh, further question or topics we need to do?

1567
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:42:12.262 --> 06:42:18.442
Okay, hearing none. I think we can end, uh, 15.

1568
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:42:20.754 --> 06:42:24.894
Minutes before our, uh, scheduled time.

1569
Rottman, Mary 06:42:28.194 --> 06:42:41.664
Yeah, it says 15 minutes of that. That's great. I think everybody deserves a very good at Friday afternoon evening. Lots of work.

1570
Regnier, Justin 06:42:44.454 --> 06:42:45.084
Et cetera.

1571
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:42:45.954 --> 06:42:50.004
Maybe we should have on Fridays because everybody's already warned.

1572
Rottman, Mary 06:42:51.804 --> 06:42:55.194
Well, it was very productive I wouldn't say, thank you.

1573
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:42:57.534 --> 06:42:57.984
Works right.

1574
Rottman, Mary 06:42:58.434 --> 06:42:58.854
Sorry.

1575
Sky Stanfield 06:42:59.244 --> 06:43:00.984
Is everybody signing off.

1576
Rottman, Mary 06:43:02.244 --> 06:43:04.284
Have a good weekend.

1577
Yi Li SDG&E 06:43:04.764 --> 06:43:06.564
Thanks, Ron and ballet.

1578
Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:43:06.714 --> 06:43:07.314
Take.