Limited Generation Profiles Workshop #3 per Res. E-5230 8:16 am - 4:01 pm Tuesday, March 14, 2023 | (UTC-07:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) pht2 Eamon Hoffman ET gary holdsworth sdg&e Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech Hill, Roderick 6502****13 Frank McElvain Brian Seal Saxton, Patrick Francisco ITAV Support Bagri, Ramandeep John Berdner Enphase Robert Kimberley Chong SDG&E Sky Stanfield Stephan Barsun - Verdant Associates Khoe, Richard Michael Barigian SCE brian Iman Niaz Denise Chan PG&E Jose Aliaga-Caro Francisco Presenter An Tran SCE Joe Mc. Steve Wurmlinger Yu Lister Alex Mwaura PG&E Glenn Skutt Fermata Energy Sherise Justin Regnier Regnier, Justin Petlin, Gabriel Adrianna SDG&E David Schiada Christian Eder, Fronius USA Jan Strack phuoc Josh McDonald SCE Will Wood Frances Cleveland Matt Belden SDGE Matt Gonzales Sheikh Hassan 4152****15 Aliaga-Caro, Jose Yi Li SDG&E Gordon Lum Kitu Yu, Lister Abe Flamenco SDG&E Zachary Branum - SDG&E Mary Rottman Christian Eder Prasanth Gopalakrishnan Stephan Barsun - Verdant Fardin Sarraf Reza_Dorostkar Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E Younes, Amin WEBVTT 1 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:23:14.014 --> 00:23:27.484 All right, everyone, I just wanted to make sure that we have the utilities here at the, uh, [...] here from [...]. So I think we have the main speakers present. 2 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:23:32.554 --> 00:23:39.124 So Michael, can you confirm if we're waiting for anybody else from the utilities? I don't think so, But. 3 Michael Barigian SCE 00:23:40.654 --> 00:23:42.124 Looks good on my side. Jose. 4 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:23:43.024 --> 00:23:51.244 Alright, sounds good. All right, uh, well let's nine zero am sharp. So let's start. 5 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:23:52.204 --> 00:24:09.784 Thank you, everybody for joining today's, uh, third limited generation workshop per resolution, [...]. thirty. Uh, the workshop is technically scheduled to run nine hundred and four with a half hour buffer. Uh, Robert next slide, please. 6 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:24:14.554 --> 00:24:32.074 Yeah, from safety reminders, uh, make a note of just for rounding and exit routes, we chat, if you need help either during the call or to n. d. A- this meeting is being recorded and the recording and materials will be posted in the [...] room. 7 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:24:32.165 --> 00:24:53.285 Ninety one [...] web page. Uh, workshop participants are encouraged to ask questions during the presentations, although we have also dedicated a QA session, um, after each presentation just in case, but this is an interactive workshop. Uh, please remember to keep yourself muted or. 8 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:24:53.314 --> 00:25:14.434 Not speaking and uh, do not put the call on hold, uh, to speak and mute yourself from the button at the lower part of the screen and again, just by yourself before speaking, although I think most of the, uh, I think we pretty much recognize each other spaces by now if calling by phone used to mute. 9 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:25:15.184 --> 00:25:35.584 A button on your handset and, uh, mute yourself to speak it muted by the host press star six to unmute to raise your hand press star three, if you were forwarded the invite and did not receive it regularly from Energy Division and would like to be added to the workshop distribution list, Please email. 10 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:25:35.614 --> 00:25:56.734 Me, uh, [...] workshop invites normally include participants from the previous workshop. So, um, it's better to be safe and just drop me an email just in case, uh, next slide. uh, next slide, please Robert, I just. 11 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:25:56.765 --> 00:26:06.935 A reminder, uh, that's our, uh, wh- where you can find all the recordings from this workshop in previous workshops. Next slide. 12 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:26:09.275 --> 00:26:29.075 Alright, so we, I think we have the full agenda today. Uh, we're gonna pretty much start with, uh, the utilities presentations then take a quick break around eleven fifteen. Um, and then, uh, continue on with the presentation I do want to make a. 13 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:26:29.195 --> 00:26:50.105 Art stop at twelve thirty for lunch. Twelve thirty to one hundred and thirty- in case people have scheduled, uh, you know, meetings based on this schedule I noticed, uh, I think last workshop or the previous workshop, some people had already scheduled meetings during the lunch break. So I just want to be courteous. 14 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:26:50.319 --> 00:27:11.464 And not getting the way with that, and then we'll continue the, uh, presentation, uh, the, you know, the timing on topics of course is subject to change based on discussions. Um, and then we'll pretty much open up to a general Q and A, and wrap. 15 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:27:11.469 --> 00:27:25.234 upping next steps. And as I mentioned, we do have some, uh, you know, according to this agenda, we should finish around three hundred and thirty, but, you know, we do have some buffer time next slide, please. 16 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:27:27.784 --> 00:27:48.124 Uh, so today's workshop number three, uh, workshop number four is scheduled to be, uh, April five. Th- the invites have already been sent out to that and they were based on the attendee list from maybe a week. 17 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:27:48.155 --> 00:28:06.545 And a half ago. So, again, if you were forwarded the invite, um, and are not and workshop number four. it's not on your calendar. Do send me an email to ensure that you get invited to the fourth workshop, Um. 18 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:28:07.954 --> 00:28:29.014 This, um, March sixteen. Th- uh, we do have a smart number working group call, uh, and the utilities will be continuing, uh, discussion on section II next slide. Please Robert, and this is just a quick [...]. 19 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:28:29.020 --> 00:28:41.045 List of the topics, um, from the resolution will not go through with them. Everybody is probably familiar with them already next slide. 20 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:28:43.594 --> 00:29:04.234 Uh, next steps. Uh, if there's anything that needs addressing in the advice letters and the forth and I stress final workshop, cause I do not think we'll be able to squeezing it squeezed in another workshop. Um, after April five, th- please. 21 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:29:04.295 --> 00:29:20.255 Email me and CC Justin, uh, by March, twenty- second at noon. So having said that I think we can move in to the utilities presentation. 22 Michael Barigian SCE 00:29:27.904 --> 00:29:33.244 Thanks, Jose will the [...] be able to present the [...] slides or should I get that queued up? 23 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:29:34.084 --> 00:29:38.884 A new, um, yeah, [...] will be able to present that. 24 Michael Barigian SCE 00:29:39.364 --> 00:29:40.264 Oh awesome. 25 Michael Barigian SCE 00:29:45.574 --> 00:29:46.594 Great, thank you. Thank. 26 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:29:46.594 --> 00:29:50.374 You for it. Yeah, thank you. Francisco. Francisco is the presenter. 27 Michael Barigian SCE 00:29:51.454 --> 00:30:03.484 Thank you, Francisco. and thank you Jose. Good morning everyone. Michael break in with Southern California edison here. I'll get us kicked off with topic [...] and then hand it over to my utility counterparts for other portions of this present. 28 Michael Barigian SCE 00:30:03.490 --> 00:30:24.605 [...], so topic [...] is on quarterly reporting. We can go ahead and go to the next slide please. So here we have an excerpt from resolution fifty to thirty that comments on the use of advanced meter infrastructure or [...] for projects within a plate of less than one Megawatt and telemetry for a limited generation profile. 29 Michael Barigian SCE 00:30:24.640 --> 00:30:45.725 Projects with a nameplate as stated over one megawatt as telemetry is already a requirement per rule. Twenty- one scuse me for project size above one megawatt. So it's like clarification as you'll see on that when we make it to the next slide here is, um, the use of telemetry is for one megawatt. 30 Michael Barigian SCE 00:30:45.814 --> 00:31:06.904 Or larger, not simply above or over one megawatt, so including projects, besides one Megawatt or larger. So we'll clarify that on the next size slide, but as far as this excerpt goes, the [...] are directed by the resolution to finalize the details and tariff language during workshops, including this one and included in the subsequent. 31 Michael Barigian SCE 00:31:06.939 --> 00:31:10.774 Advice, letters next slide. Please. 32 Michael Barigian SCE 00:31:12.664 --> 00:31:33.724 So here we have the conditions for [...] data versus telemetry to monitor the export of limited generation profile projects. So consistent in many ways with the language, we saw in the last slide where we have a limited generation profile projects with nameplate less than one megawatt, the [...] will use [...] data. We're available. 33 Michael Barigian SCE 00:31:33.729 --> 00:31:54.814 [...], if, for any reason, the [...] data is not available telemetry will be required for these projects under one Megawatt four limited generation profile projects with nameplate greater than, or equal to one megawatt. That's the nuance. I was keying in on, on the last slide telemetry will be required if the telemetry is monitoring only the generation out. 34 Michael Barigian SCE 00:31:54.880 --> 00:32:16.025 But then we may also leverage [...] data. We're available to monitor the export at the point of common coupling and one other note on this side as it's come up in prior discussions that [...] data, it has the potential of serving as post event data point. It's not, although designed to send data in real. 35 Michael Barigian SCE 00:32:16.054 --> 00:32:23.164 Time, so it's not a, considered an operational tool that offers real time visibility to utility system operators. 36 Michael Barigian SCE 00:32:26.404 --> 00:32:36.184 So on the next slide we had the proposed terrible language, but before we go to that one, actually I kind of want to pause on this one and see if there's any questions or concerns on this approach so far. 37 Michael Barigian SCE 00:32:46.294 --> 00:33:05.284 Okay, they'll certainly be more opportunities to ask questions, but I don't see any, any hands or anything in the chat. So let's go ahead and move forward please. So here we have the proposed [...] language for a topic [...] in the existing rule. Twenty- one tariff section J- five title, tele metering. 38 Michael Barigian SCE 00:33:05.915 --> 00:33:25.475 There's this paragraph, we have in non- bold text here. I won't read that word for word, but the main takeaway here is the proposed addition at the bottom, which is for generating facilities with a limited generation profile attached to their generate or interconnection agreement if [...] is not available. 39 Michael Barigian SCE 00:33:26.554 --> 00:33:30.934 Or the customer ops out telemetry at the point of common coupling will be required. 40 Michael Barigian SCE 00:33:37.325 --> 00:33:42.425 Any questions or concerns with this? This is the last slide we have for topic [...]. 41 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:33:56.315 --> 00:33:57.605 Okay, so I. 42 Michael Barigian SCE 00:33:57.605 --> 00:33:57.845 Would. 43 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:33:57.845 --> 00:34:17.284 Suggest, oh, thank you, Michael. I would suggest a, you know, since people may not have thoroughly read this yet, you know, maybe, uh, at the end of the, uh, workshop is, you know, we can go back and make sure that there aren't any concerns otherwise. 44 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:34:17.944 --> 00:34:29.974 One of the purposes of this workshop in the next workshop is to close out, uh, items and, uh, you know, get ready for the upcoming advice letters. 45 Michael Barigian SCE 00:34:32.374 --> 00:34:32.914 Sounds good. 46 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:34:32.944 --> 00:34:33.694 Thank you, Michael. 47 Michael Barigian SCE 00:34:34.983 --> 00:34:38.434 Thanks Jose, all. 48 Michael Barigian SCE 00:34:38.439 --> 00:34:53.523 Right, so yeah, so Jose is point the presentation slides have been attached to the meeting invite, so if you'd like to take a moment to review the existing language and of course towards the end of the meeting or later in the meeting, if there are questions on topic [...], feel free to share those questions. 49 Michael Barigian SCE 00:34:55.565 --> 00:35:02.435 Other than that, I think it's, I'll go ahead and pass it over to Alex, which is going to take us and he's going to take us into topic [...]. 50 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:35:12.634 --> 00:35:13.774 Hi, good morning. Can you hear me? 51 Michael Barigian SCE 00:35:16.294 --> 00:35:16.894 Yes. 52 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:35:17.134 --> 00:35:30.604 Awesome, so I will be going over topic [...] and topic topic C- so the language that's being shown. Um, next slide, please, sorry, yeah, so this is a straight from resume. 53 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:35:30.665 --> 00:35:43.565 And fifty- two hundred and thirty. Um, I think we've included this language in several presentations before, so I will not read the whole paragraph. So next slide, please. 54 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:35:46.714 --> 00:36:05.854 So as part of topic [...], we were asked by the commission to go over the existing revised power options or screen. I options the I use intend to either option to cover [...] as we feel like this would be more clear and it. 55 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:36:05.860 --> 00:36:26.675 We'll minimize the number of required revisions and probably confusion when applying these screens during interconnection. So what's being shown on the screen is the existing screen? I options is currently eleven of them. The option one through six, why existing prior to working group two and three. 56 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:36:27.034 --> 00:36:46.744 Option seven was in existence, but it wasn't clearly listed as an, as a screen. I option, but the language is already in the tariff. So during the previous revisions, we made that clear and added a specific option. This is for projects that are using [...]. 57 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:36:47.554 --> 00:37:07.894 And then options eight through eleven, well as a result of the term changes, stemming from working group two and three. So we planned to add a twelve to optional. Like I said, for [...] that option is going to mimic option nine closely with some additional changes that are specific to [...]. 58 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:37:08.074 --> 00:37:13.474 Projects are there any questions on these existing screener options? 59 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:37:23.074 --> 00:37:25.024 Okay, next slide. please. 60 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:37:28.864 --> 00:37:47.284 So, as far as LTP is concerned and the application of LTP in row, twenty- one screening, we went through all the existing screens through em- for initial review, as well as [...] for supplemental review and what we're trying to do here. 61 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:37:47.380 --> 00:38:07.685 Is specify, which screens we'll use the [...] values versus which screens we'll use the template and then also going a step further and saying which screens are not going to be impacted, um, those screens that you'd need the template or [...]. so I'll go through this very quickly. 62 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:38:08.529 --> 00:38:29.284 If there's any questions, please let me know. So we've already presented this before as well. So in previous slides, we went over some of these screens. So screen, eh, has nothing to do with [...] values or nameplate, that's the same case for Spring B and C screen D would. 63 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:38:29.705 --> 00:38:49.655 Usually use nameplate or export values for purposes of L- g. p screen D- we'll use the maximum [...] value. So whatever maximum export potential from the facility is what we'll use to analyze impacts on screen. D- what screen II. 64 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:38:51.394 --> 00:39:11.974 Neither of the tool will be applicable and then screens if, if one G and H- we'll all use nameplate if one and g are using the template because we have to do with full studies and she's using the template because there's a calculation to figure out if the, between. 65 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:39:12.004 --> 00:39:33.094 Generation [...] generation versus existing loading. And then screens, I screen, I does not use either template or for, for [...] purposes because [...] projects exporting projects, so screen eyes, a question is whether they'll be power- exploited. 66 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:39:33.155 --> 00:39:54.215 [...], so because [...] projects do have exports that would fail screen and then screens J. K. N- L. I use nameplate in the current carrier and the one hundred changes proposed as far as, as a, as far as [...] is concerned. So those will stay the same. 67 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:39:55.084 --> 00:40:07.744 And then screen em for [...] projects will be using the profile, so they will be using [...] values. Any questions on any of these screens squared sky. 68 Sky Stanfield 00:40:09.364 --> 00:40:15.364 Good morning, Alex. Thanks everyone. Um, so I think that I disagree. 69 Sky Stanfield 00:40:15.430 --> 00:40:35.465 That J and K should be named, I think they should be the Max export value. So sort of similar to what you have for D- in as you look through the slides, the language that you're proposing for the URL. 70 Sky Stanfield 00:40:36.604 --> 00:40:57.724 Certified PCS is the same as free as the technology is under option nine, I guess, which is m- three. Um, and in that section, it allows for the limited export value into those screens and I believe it should be the same because. 71 Sky Stanfield 00:40:57.814 --> 00:41:00.334 The export is being controlled. 72 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:41:05.795 --> 00:41:09.845 Yeah, what's that. Oh c- j. and K. 73 Sky Stanfield 00:41:12.155 --> 00:41:12.815 Uh, yeah. 74 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:41:12.875 --> 00:41:13.625 That's for sure. Okay. 75 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:41:20.794 --> 00:41:23.014 Yeah, I, I honestly don't, um. 76 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:41:26.225 --> 00:41:29.255 I think that's what I was going back and taking a look at. Yeah. 77 Sky Stanfield 00:41:30.905 --> 00:41:41.315 Yeah, just for others, reference, I can put in the chat the language from section M. m. Um, it's for people to reference, um. 78 brian 00:41:49.385 --> 00:41:58.625 I think we had a lot of healthy conversation, a couple of summers ago, trying to figure out all that section and then to, um. 79 brian 00:42:01.564 --> 00:42:02.254 Along with that. 80 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:42:05.104 --> 00:42:15.484 Yeah, so the, the approach we took on this was, um, this, this screening for GE, so okay. 81 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:42:17.074 --> 00:42:17.914 The screens don't. 82 Sky Stanfield 00:42:17.914 --> 00:42:18.544 Change. 83 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:42:19.414 --> 00:42:27.574 The J. K. L. I'm not changing the actual screening language for those specific screens, but I think what we did for this option, nine. 84 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:42:29.405 --> 00:42:30.395 Limited generation. 85 Sky Stanfield 00:42:30.395 --> 00:42:31.175 Project. 86 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:42:31.385 --> 00:42:33.095 This is how you would apply, right? 87 Sky Stanfield 00:42:33.125 --> 00:42:33.785 Right? 88 Sky Stanfield 00:42:36.214 --> 00:42:48.874 Same with, with d. so didn't change it just as referenced how it will be applied through the relevant section. I'll say, depending on which of the option eyes you're taking. 89 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:42:50.764 --> 00:42:54.634 Yeah, okay, I'll check that box. 90 Sky Stanfield 00:42:55.204 --> 00:42:55.834 Thank you. 91 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:43:01.894 --> 00:43:02.944 Any other questions? 92 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:43:15.994 --> 00:43:17.554 Alright, next slide. Please. 93 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:43:19.744 --> 00:43:39.814 So for, as far as screen, I mean, a supplemental review for screens in [...] screen n- is pending freshmen tests. So for the purposes of L. g. P- if a project fails screen, m- there will be no opportunity to go into. 94 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:43:40.685 --> 00:43:47.165 supplemental review, so we'll cover this concept or [...] in next slides, but. 95 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:43:48.694 --> 00:44:09.034 If a customer is proposing the [...] project and the profile does not meet the requirements, they'll be given an opportunity to fix the profile if they do not fixed the profile, then screen M- would fail in which case initial review would fail. So there will be an opportunity to go into supplemental review. 96 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:44:09.695 --> 00:44:10.715 I see Scott has it opened up. 97 Sky Stanfield 00:44:12.725 --> 00:44:15.005 Yeah, I think so. Um. 98 Sky Stanfield 00:44:16.684 --> 00:44:37.684 Generally I looked at your site and I know we haven't gotten there yet, so often back and forth a little bit, but I agree that it generally what's the approach that you're taking the projects that, um, if the profile isn't doesn't match, the [...] that you'll give us an opportunity to correct what happens though, if they decide if they don't. 99 Sky Stanfield 00:44:37.714 --> 00:44:47.164 No correct is the... are you just going to study yet as though it's not, it's Max limited, export amount. 100 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:44:50.615 --> 00:45:06.125 No, so if they do not correct the profile, um, wh- wh- thought processes like you said the customer's going to propose an [...] project, they understand the, everybody understands what, what needs to happen, right? The profile should be below ninety percent of [...]. 101 Sky Stanfield 00:45:06.275 --> 00:45:06.635 Yeah. 102 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:45:06.845 --> 00:45:07.595 And so. 103 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:45:08.734 --> 00:45:20.734 The proposed project, uh, whose profile does not meet that requirement and we give them an opportunity to fix it and they don't fix it will join the project. either have to reapply as an input or. 104 Sky Stanfield 00:45:21.904 --> 00:45:22.384 Okay. 105 Sky Stanfield 00:45:24.219 --> 00:45:35.524 It's not that the project isn't eligible for supplemental review. It's that the project essentially is there and it's terminated versus when you go to study or something is what you're saying. 106 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:45:35.974 --> 00:45:44.944 Yeah, because the, the, I think the previously would say that what we're discussing, the project is nameplate, but then we run into issues because there is material. 107 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:45:45.485 --> 00:46:03.155 Language in the tariff that says you can't increase a project in your infrastructure. So, if a project is proposed with project name is above the L. G. P values and you can't really start a technical [...], because then you'll be violating the material modifications rules. 108 Sky Stanfield 00:46:04.475 --> 00:46:06.515 Yeah, I mean it doesn't really make sense to me to study at the. 109 Sky Stanfield 00:46:06.544 --> 00:46:27.664 nameplate, because that's probably not what they would do. It would make more sense to study it in a limited export, but I think I'm okay with like, if they propose a profile and you're, and they don't, for some reason, you get it right in the sense that it doesn't match the [...] data. That was, that they had available, then then they should withdraw and resubmit if they. 110 Sky Stanfield 00:46:27.695 --> 00:46:32.255 Want to just do a traditional limited export is essentially what you're saying, right? 111 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:46:32.315 --> 00:46:36.245 Yeah, exactly, oh, they can resubmit as a [...], again, if they're wanting to. 112 Sky Stanfield 00:46:36.335 --> 00:46:37.055 Yeah, right. 113 Sky Stanfield 00:46:39.754 --> 00:46:53.104 Okay, I might digest that a little bit to see whether it makes sense for them to just be studied at the MAX export versus nameplate, but I think, I think I'm inclined in the same direction on that. I'll let you do oh, [...] then. 114 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:46:55.084 --> 00:47:15.544 So, so an [...] have pretty much the same language and the idea here is that if a project goes through the screening process fails any other screen, but passes screen M- then would proceed into supplemental review and once we get into self- mental review, the language is already existing will be applic. 115 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:47:15.905 --> 00:47:36.755 [...] projects as well. Meaning, you know, however, detailed that we'll start the screen and we'll be similar to how we would study a profile project and so for project process screen M. which basically you will be looking at comparing their profile to ninety percent of [...]. 116 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:47:36.814 --> 00:47:57.844 When you go to submit a review, then you're basically going to one hundred, right? I think so. It would be one hundred percent obviously profile for screen in impression test, and then obviously these, if one screen, so if it's a invited- based projects that is, has a [...] of one point two, then you would. 117 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:47:57.934 --> 00:48:19.054 You know, if one, because as long as the project is below the protection, and then the other sprints will be the same. So the key here is that if m fails and they don't fix the profile, then they have to withdraw and reapply if it passes and some other screen fails, then we're proceeding to submit a review and studied this. 118 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:48:19.174 --> 00:48:23.014 We would, for a limited generation project. 119 Sky Stanfield 00:48:24.724 --> 00:48:29.314 So it just occurred to me what's wrong with the purge on, into, um. 120 Sky Stanfield 00:48:30.394 --> 00:48:51.484 So project proposal is a limited generation profile, um, and it fails any of the screens, um, including, um, M. S. N or the same screen, right? So is actually the one hundred. 121 Sky Stanfield 00:48:51.515 --> 00:48:53.585 Percent of the profile is that correct. 122 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:48:53.825 --> 00:48:54.425 Yes. 123 Sky Stanfield 00:48:55.235 --> 00:49:04.715 So, is there a reason why you're not proposing to allow the project to go to the screen and even if they get the profile is not correct. 124 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:49:05.855 --> 00:49:11.135 So the study will be similar, but the language and. 125 Sky Stanfield 00:49:11.165 --> 00:49:11.285 I. 126 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:49:11.285 --> 00:49:12.635 Think would be ninety percent. 127 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:49:13.055 --> 00:49:14.705 For [...] projects. 128 Sky Stanfield 00:49:15.455 --> 00:49:17.045 And what's the reasoning behind that? 129 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:49:18.784 --> 00:49:23.164 The same reason why we are using ninety percent in screen him. 130 Sky Stanfield 00:49:24.394 --> 00:49:33.214 Don't you think that the commission might make the same decision between, we have the same debate about screen now for, for black profile projects. 131 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:49:35.344 --> 00:49:39.424 Well, I would, I would hope they don't because because we're not used. 132 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:49:39.430 --> 00:49:47.345 In one single vertical, right? We're not using one single value and it's g- wireless conservative then so. 133 Sky Stanfield 00:49:48.095 --> 00:49:48.485 Right? 134 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:49:48.515 --> 00:49:49.145 Now we're using. 135 Sky Stanfield 00:49:49.145 --> 00:49:49.595 Multiple. 136 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:49:49.595 --> 00:50:00.575 Values to start your screen. M. O- n. and then we're not using, you know, Oh yeah, we're using s. g. So I think then we're going to go back to the same issues. We've been talking about. 137 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:50:00.604 --> 00:50:04.024 With one single volume versus twelve versus two eighty eight, right? 138 Sky Stanfield 00:50:06.034 --> 00:50:21.514 Okay, um, I'm gonna pause that I guess whether that's something that I work at least is comfortable for obviously lots of others participating, um, what about if you failed or the other screen. Um, so it seems to me. 139 Sky Stanfield 00:50:23.104 --> 00:50:34.114 So what if you, if you fail, you know, any of the other screens, whatever, um, shouldn't there still be an opportunity for supplemental review, if you've got the profile, right? Yes. 140 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:50:34.144 --> 00:50:35.584 Yes, so. 141 Sky Stanfield 00:50:35.644 --> 00:50:36.844 Did I misunderstand that? Ben? 142 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:50:37.144 --> 00:50:42.754 Yeah, you did. So the, for purposes of going to submit a review, you have to resolve. 143 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:50:43.384 --> 00:50:54.034 Issues so screen m- s- screen and passes like any of the other screens that would normally push the project to supplementary review fails, then you can go to segment. 144 Sky Stanfield 00:50:54.064 --> 00:50:55.174 Right, so. 145 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:50:55.954 --> 00:50:56.344 Sorry. 146 Sky Stanfield 00:50:56.584 --> 00:51:04.024 That's okay, sorry I was cutting you off. So what I'm asking about is why does the current language apply as opposed to the same treatment. 147 Sky Stanfield 00:51:04.084 --> 00:51:19.474 Under [...] two, which would specify four different aspects of the review under O- n. P. That the Max export value, for example, the applied for the same question, I was asking you in the last slide. 148 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:51:20.734 --> 00:51:25.174 Yeah, so I think we'll have to include tariff changes under this specific. 149 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:51:25.205 --> 00:51:45.125 Screens m- n. o. p. So for example, if you go to the client n, um, for the penetration test, it tells you like, you know, projects that username plate or projects they use typical preview generation profile. So we'll have another program for projects that use [...] and then for. 150 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:51:46.834 --> 00:52:03.214 I think there's an F- one check in. So if everyone passed and the initial review, then that would obviously be a pause. So probably your way to supplemental review and it was below ninety percent and [...] was good then, and would pass and. 151 Sky Stanfield 00:52:03.214 --> 00:52:03.574 Then you. 152 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:52:03.574 --> 00:52:07.474 Would go to a screen or, and under. 153 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:52:07.504 --> 00:52:11.134 Oh, you would still look at the same what it was. Oh. 154 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:52:12.184 --> 00:52:15.574 specifies that, you know, you would use share my. 155 Sky Stanfield 00:52:15.574 --> 00:52:15.904 Screen. 156 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:52:16.924 --> 00:52:17.134 For. 157 Sky Stanfield 00:52:17.134 --> 00:52:17.194 The. 158 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:52:17.194 --> 00:52:28.564 Strategies you study them differently. So I think what you're asking is waiting to include specific language under the. 159 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:52:28.925 --> 00:52:32.555 [...] or the new screen that we're going to. 160 Sky Stanfield 00:52:32.555 --> 00:52:32.945 Use. 161 Sky Stanfield 00:52:34.444 --> 00:52:39.904 So let me pull up here. Hold on a second. Um, so in the [...]. 162 Sky Stanfield 00:52:40.055 --> 00:52:40.655 Um. 163 Sky Stanfield 00:52:42.784 --> 00:53:03.814 The, again, so we're using the same thing about using the same. Um, let me just paste it in here. So it's clear to everyone. So the third, the final section and then number two is the chat, which says that screen? Can you shall be applied using the generating facilities growth nameplate rating for evaluations that use. 164 Sky Stanfield 00:53:04.025 --> 00:53:17.135 Current calculations for other evaluations on your screen. P- the value identified into above maybe use, which would be for [...]. It was the Max expert, um, the requested limited export value. 165 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:53:17.465 --> 00:53:24.695 Yeah, yeah, so the reason why we did, we did not include that into the new option is because. 166 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:53:25.924 --> 00:53:28.534 We wanted to only talk about m. 167 Sky Stanfield 00:53:30.034 --> 00:53:30.364 M. 168 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:53:30.364 --> 00:53:46.174 And D- because of this new whatsoever going to supplemental review, only screening and passes. So the difference between the new [...] and the existing two is because [...] you would go to [...]. 169 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:53:46.385 --> 00:53:48.395 Review if you failed any screen. 170 Sky Stanfield 00:53:48.515 --> 00:53:55.385 Right, what about using D- though? Do you not do an evaluation under P relevant screen? D, I'm asking, I. 171 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:53:55.385 --> 00:54:07.295 Don't know, we do not so screen D screen D will be evaluated under screen and the screen D, right? So, so failure by. 172 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:54:07.329 --> 00:54:17.104 Itself would not require the project to go to supplemental review. So if you, if you fail screen and you pass em when you pass all the other screens, you could resolve that initial review. 173 Sky Stanfield 00:54:18.034 --> 00:54:18.994 Because if. 174 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:54:19.204 --> 00:54:19.804 It's. 175 Sky Stanfield 00:54:20.164 --> 00:54:26.164 Meaning you determine if the transformer needed to be or something through something before you've already something overview. 176 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:54:26.434 --> 00:54:27.154 Exactly, yeah. 177 Sky Stanfield 00:54:27.454 --> 00:54:28.474 Which is great. By the way. 178 Sky Stanfield 00:54:28.534 --> 00:54:30.934 Barry, few states do that. We appreciate that. 179 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:54:32.764 --> 00:54:53.824 The only things that really are going to push you to submit or you're going to be your screens F. F- one G and Edge. Those are the ones that are going to require additional sort of review mostly because they have to do with the full study is require, you know, like the actual study rather than just a screening, um. 180 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:54:54.604 --> 00:54:55.264 Process. 181 Sky Stanfield 00:54:55.564 --> 00:55:03.334 Right, so those would should be used nameplate or actuall current at the very least, right? Brian? does that make sense to you as well? 182 brian 00:55:06.184 --> 00:55:08.794 I'm not one hundred percent, um. 183 Sky Stanfield 00:55:08.884 --> 00:55:09.154 Okay. 184 brian 00:55:11.584 --> 00:55:31.744 I guess I'm trying to figure out, you know, with, with screen. Oh, it will be applicable for failure of those screens, and I guess it just, it would make me feel more comfortable if we just had the same language that anything applying to faults, current would utilize nameplate rating and anything applying. 185 brian 00:55:33.635 --> 00:55:40.505 Not apply in default correct. I'm basically local and whatnot would utilize the maximum output. 186 Sky Stanfield 00:55:40.985 --> 00:55:41.405 Yeah. 187 brian 00:55:41.735 --> 00:55:44.735 In the schedule, I'm trying to figure out, Yeah. 188 brian 00:55:46.264 --> 00:55:57.634 I don't know. I can't follow whether there's never going to be scenarios where you wouldn't need to look at the never going to be scenarios that you would look at the, um. 189 brian 00:55:59.134 --> 00:56:10.414 namely, reading or, you know, or the export unlimited rating for low flow purposes, basically, or, or some other evaluation that is not really related to. 190 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:56:18.034 --> 00:56:18.694 So Brian. 191 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:56:21.454 --> 00:56:33.124 Added a paragraph at the end of the new proposed option, that said these basically the same thing that we said in the previous slide, whatever slide I covered. 192 Sky Stanfield 00:56:33.124 --> 00:56:33.574 Before, as. 193 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:56:33.574 --> 00:56:39.544 Far as the screens use the template or not. We added a paragraph that covered that, that would happen for you. 194 brian 00:56:43.414 --> 00:56:44.464 Yeah, I think if it. 195 Sky Stanfield 00:56:44.494 --> 00:56:51.004 Is so similar to the language that I pasted in the second ago regarding screen. 196 brian 00:56:52.174 --> 00:56:57.154 Yeah, I, I'm still questioning. Oh, because I'm not certain. 197 brian 00:56:59.374 --> 00:57:10.354 I would assume I guess for, Oh, that you would never use. Um, so again, like the, I think I would just follow the same as, uh. 198 Sky Stanfield 00:57:12.154 --> 00:57:16.114 Those two paragraphs, essentially, sorry, go ahead, right? 199 brian 00:57:16.414 --> 00:57:19.924 Yeah, I don't know what would utilize the. 200 brian 00:57:20.794 --> 00:57:30.094 Maximum level where appropriate or just use the maximum level and then PE would use the maximum level where appropriate nameplate rating where appropriate. 201 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:57:33.695 --> 00:57:36.275 Yeah, we can clarify that. I think, yeah. 202 Sky Stanfield 00:57:40.354 --> 00:57:58.564 Thanks, Alex, this is helpful. Um, like I said, I want to think a little bit more about EM and maybe confer with our n- sorry and confer with Brian about it, but I do see the, the important difference between the [...] and the sort of [...] buffer and so on there. So. 203 Sky Stanfield 00:57:58.984 --> 00:58:03.994 Um, I'm just noting that I kind of need to think give a little bit more thought to that. 204 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:58:06.575 --> 00:58:26.645 Yeah, so we will clarify based on the previous slide when, which screens username played versus which ones are going to use the [...] value by adding a paragraph at the end of the new proposed language to say, which screens are with regards to [...]. We'll use an employee process, which ones would not. 205 Sky Stanfield 00:58:28.384 --> 00:58:40.054 Yeah, and I would ideally use as close of like you guys did in the proposed estimates we can go go to that screen next. Um, he's, as similar as language as possible to [...]. 206 Sky Stanfield 00:58:41.075 --> 00:58:46.805 It could be as clear as, you know, it's very difficult to follow those sections already. Um. 207 Sky Stanfield 00:58:48.154 --> 00:58:51.004 Make it as consistent as possible. create less confusion. 208 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:58:54.274 --> 00:58:54.634 Okay. 209 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:58:55.474 --> 00:59:14.704 So Skype, when you say you want to, um, you know, uh, talk with Brian more about this, uh, you know, given timing basically, uh, when, what do you wanna bring this back up at the end of the workshop or maybe devote some minutes to. 210 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:59:14.734 --> 00:59:17.824 It, during the smart number working group on Thursday. 211 Sky Stanfield 00:59:19.655 --> 00:59:30.905 Yeah, let me confirm with Brian a little bit on the sidebar and see, um, maybe we can talk at lunch. I just want to. I need to kind of think through it with a clear understanding now. 212 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:59:30.935 --> 00:59:31.655 Okay, yeah, I did, I. 213 Sky Stanfield 00:59:31.655 --> 00:59:33.305 Didn't want to spend time. 214 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:59:34.805 --> 00:59:39.995 On the spot, but I just wanted to, uh, I'm thinking timing here, so. 215 Sky Stanfield 00:59:40.984 --> 00:59:52.264 Yeah, I appreciate that. Um, if I, if Brian and I are able to connect during lunch or something, I will maybe I'll make that call and if not, we can talk about this at this week or if I. 216 Sky Stanfield 00:59:52.834 --> 00:59:54.214 See why if I. 217 Jose Aliaga-Caro 00:59:56.704 --> 00:59:58.714 Okay, yeah, sounds good. Just let me know. 218 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:00:01.984 --> 01:00:02.344 Alright. 219 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:00:05.614 --> 01:00:06.004 Go ahead. 220 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:00:08.134 --> 01:00:11.704 Okay, if there are no other questions, we can move on to move to the next slide. Please. 221 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:00:16.595 --> 01:00:35.015 Okay, so this, this is the, uh, these two slides. The next two slides are what we're proposing to be included in the new option twelve also known as M. m- five and this will be the limited export with limited generation profile. 222 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:00:35.644 --> 01:00:53.374 Utilizing certified power control systems. So for those who are familiar with the existing language in option nine, which is [...], this, this beginning slide is pretty much the same language. Um. 223 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:00:54.994 --> 01:01:06.724 Because this is, this is talking about what the PCS has to meet to be able to be used for option. Twelve, So the requirements that similar. 224 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:01:08.974 --> 01:01:18.274 I don't think there will be any questions on this because we didn't really make any changes to it, but take a second to see if anybody has a question. 225 Sky Stanfield 01:01:26.074 --> 01:01:28.954 I guess one question is, um. 226 Sky Stanfield 01:01:33.814 --> 01:01:51.214 I appreciate that this morning. we're just parallel with it. We're too, um, I guess the question is do, does it need discuss any specify anything regarding the scheduling capability with the [...]? I'm not sure how the devices are going to work in sensor. Will they all just be. 227 Sky Stanfield 01:01:51.244 --> 01:02:03.184 Certified under the same thing where do we need to specify that it has been certified with the scheduling capability. I don't know if, um, if John Burner is on or Brian, if you know. 228 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:02:05.794 --> 01:02:09.364 No, that's, that's a very good point. I think, I think we missed that. Yeah. 229 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:02:11.104 --> 01:02:16.234 We should specify that it has to be, he has to be approved for scheduling as well. 230 Sky Stanfield 01:02:16.294 --> 01:02:32.104 Yeah, Brian or, or John, if he's on, um, I guess the part that I'm not too clear on is we'll all the, by all systems that are being certified into that test has to have the scheduling capabilities such that it's not necessary to read. 231 Sky Stanfield 01:02:32.134 --> 01:02:41.224 State it or, um, or will it be an added functionality that some will have in some work under the seven hundred and forty- one. 232 brian 01:02:42.274 --> 01:02:52.084 So that would be added functionality and it would be, I don't know exactly how it's going to be described to be honest, but it. 233 Sky Stanfield 01:02:52.084 --> 01:02:53.074 Is. 234 brian 01:02:53.494 --> 01:03:13.984 An export limiting, um, scheduling, basically, um, yeah, we probably want to pull whatever language is similar to what's being discussed in the working group, um, for, for that. Yeah, optional functionality and as well. 235 brian 01:03:14.675 --> 01:03:31.475 You know, how many, uh, how many values should that schedule export and I don't know if there potentially other parameters involving the schedule that the working group has discussed and that might need to be specified, seems like the minimal thing. 236 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:03:33.125 --> 01:03:33.545 So. 237 Sky Stanfield 01:03:33.575 --> 01:03:34.025 Okay. 238 Sky Stanfield 01:03:38.764 --> 01:03:42.544 We can't hear barely hear whomever's speaking. It sounds like it's Christian. 239 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:03:43.414 --> 01:03:46.954 Yeah, Christian, could you get closer to Mike? Please. 240 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:03:49.234 --> 01:03:49.924 One moment. 241 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:03:51.304 --> 01:03:52.444 That actually sounds better. 242 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:03:53.704 --> 01:03:56.614 Okay, oh, is it yet? Oh, is it better? Now? 243 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:03:57.724 --> 01:04:01.894 It was actually better when you said one moment. I don't know what changed. 244 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:04:02.794 --> 01:04:04.384 Oh, how is it Not? 245 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:04:07.474 --> 01:04:08.134 One on ones. 246 Frank McElvain 01:04:10.564 --> 01:04:13.714 Yeah, it's marginal at best question. 247 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:04:24.184 --> 01:04:25.054 Does it work now? 248 brian 01:04:29.074 --> 01:04:30.274 I think we can understand you. 249 brian 01:04:38.524 --> 01:04:39.214 Can you hear us? 250 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:04:40.684 --> 01:04:41.944 What about now. 251 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:04:49.835 --> 01:04:52.145 Um, probably I just try to, ah. 252 Frank McElvain 01:04:55.414 --> 01:04:58.444 Great what you just said, sounds great Christian. 253 Glenn Skutt Fermata Energy 01:05:03.484 --> 01:05:04.444 No, I was going on mute. 254 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:05:06.605 --> 01:05:12.695 Yeah, Christian, you actually your volume was perfect, right? At the last part, when you said you were writing it. 255 Sky Stanfield 01:05:26.854 --> 01:05:45.904 So, well Christian, please come back. Um, I guess what it sounds to me, like, maybe, um, either use and Brian and maybe the, the folks that are participating in the [...] I'm wondering if they can work offline to. 256 Sky Stanfield 01:05:46.690 --> 01:05:55.895 In the next couple of days to work together on the language that needs to be added, unless we think we can hash it out here. 257 Yi Li SDG&E 01:06:00.004 --> 01:06:02.704 Session, so, so first. 258 Yi Li SDG&E 01:06:06.724 --> 01:06:07.084 Yes. 259 Sky Stanfield 01:06:07.954 --> 01:06:10.714 Your audit audio is also super. 260 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:06:17.704 --> 01:06:20.914 You may need to lower your Mike a bit. 261 Yi Li SDG&E 01:06:22.865 --> 01:06:25.415 Hey John, how's it like? So it's nice. 262 Eamon Hoffman ET 01:06:34.835 --> 01:06:35.465 It's better. 263 Glenn Skutt Fermata Energy 01:06:36.815 --> 01:06:37.355 Painful. 264 Sky Stanfield 01:06:38.615 --> 01:06:39.365 That's better. 265 Yi Li SDG&E 01:06:40.655 --> 01:06:41.105 All right. 266 Yi Li SDG&E 01:06:44.464 --> 01:06:45.424 I guess my question. 267 Sky Stanfield 01:06:45.424 --> 01:06:45.604 Is. 268 Yi Li SDG&E 01:06:45.604 --> 01:06:45.964 That. 269 Yi Li SDG&E 01:06:47.554 --> 01:06:50.494 Buckets referencing the twenty- nine hundred and nineteen you will. 270 Yi Li SDG&E 01:06:52.115 --> 01:07:11.915 We're in the process of updating the two thousand and twenty- three U. L. PCS is the exact kind of the name of the standard. We'll be able to finalize before the advice letter or do we have to like, agree on a high level language and come back and update the exact reference to the standard. 271 Yi Li SDG&E 01:07:12.699 --> 01:07:13.354 That makes sense. 272 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:07:13.954 --> 01:07:32.344 Yeah, so if you look at number one, it says two thousand and nineteen you will stand up, but then the next sentence say to me says, may use a PCS that process later published revisions. So I think we included this language here just to cover our bases in case the standard does change. 273 Yi Li SDG&E 01:07:33.004 --> 01:07:33.484 Okay. 274 Steve Wurmlinger 01:07:38.224 --> 01:07:54.964 This, the state [...], Christian put a clarification in the chat, but the [...] will not contain scheduling information. It'll be the seven hundred and forty- one supplement [...] when we get it. 275 Steve Wurmlinger 01:07:54.999 --> 01:08:01.444 [...], then we'll have the scheduling. So the first number number one probably covers it. 276 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:08:06.484 --> 01:08:13.594 Okay, thanks David, but I think we should still, that's good to know. We'll still add in there just to clarify. 277 Glenn Skutt Fermata Energy 01:08:14.704 --> 01:08:16.504 John Bertner's note as well. 278 Glenn Skutt Fermata Energy 01:08:18.213 --> 01:08:21.213 You can't speak right now, but he's added something to the chat. 279 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:08:24.963 --> 01:08:27.844 Yeah, like John brother says, well the person. 280 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:08:29.224 --> 01:08:41.914 Schedule, this is a major part of the revision underway, you'll catch the [...] cash group is somewhat. 281 Sky Stanfield 01:08:41.914 --> 01:08:42.274 On the. 282 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:08:42.274 --> 01:08:43.804 Board pending. 283 Sky Stanfield 01:08:43.804 --> 01:08:43.923 The. 284 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:08:43.923 --> 01:08:47.104 Solution not just schedule the proceeding. 285 Steve Wurmlinger 01:08:51.904 --> 01:08:56.165 Yeah, so that, that work that's underway is to format the. 286 Steve Wurmlinger 01:08:56.944 --> 01:08:59.705 Into seven hundred and forty- one supplements. 287 brian 01:09:08.344 --> 01:09:11.613 That would be seven hundred and forty- one itself, Not the [...]. 288 Steve Wurmlinger 01:09:13.173 --> 01:09:29.434 Right, it'll be what exists as a [...]. Now we're, we're revising it cleaning up some adding scheduling information and all that will be published in. 289 Steve Wurmlinger 01:09:29.584 --> 01:09:49.264 Seven hundred and forty- one as supplement [...], the, the [...] will not be updated what we're doing now with the project John talked about is all improvements and revisions all that's going to be pulled over into a supplement [...] and no C or D changes. 290 brian 01:09:51.065 --> 01:09:52.654 Yes, so we can eliminate that language. 291 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:09:55.625 --> 01:09:58.775 And I tried again, maybe it's better now. 292 Steve Wurmlinger 01:09:59.465 --> 01:10:00.845 Yeah, you're, you're good. Christian. 293 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:10:01.265 --> 01:10:11.765 Okay, or, and all these functions which are in there or will be optional. So it's a [...] systems out there, which are certified and which are not certified. 294 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:10:12.784 --> 01:10:18.454 All the manufacturers to status in there in the documents. 295 Steve Wurmlinger 01:10:21.454 --> 01:10:41.374 Yeah, so this, I guess what Brian said is a good point, um, if this is specific to limited generation profiles, are you scheduling, um, in your, your drafting language specific for that, then there's no use mentioning the [...] because there's nothing in the [...] for scheduling, you might as well. 296 Steve Wurmlinger 01:10:41.405 --> 01:10:44.615 Just say supplement seven hundred and forty- one supplement [...]. 297 Sky Stanfield 01:10:47.434 --> 01:10:56.854 Well, the supplement as he include the basic export control capabilities in rolled together the [...] covers. Okay, got it. 298 Steve Wurmlinger 01:10:57.184 --> 01:11:08.134 Yeah, so, okay, so yeah, right now the [...] does have export control as part of the, one of the use cases that you can certify to. So, yes, if. 299 Steve Wurmlinger 01:11:08.194 --> 01:11:28.714 They're trying to say you can use a type of export controlled, it's not necessarily scheduling, but, you know, maybe some P- limit or load tracking or self- supply that can be covered under the existing [...], but if you're talking specific about scheduling that is not in the [...]. 300 Steve Wurmlinger 01:11:29.344 --> 01:11:30.484 Won't be in the [...]. 301 John Berdner Enphase 01:11:32.795 --> 01:11:41.495 This is John. Sorry, I was having other difficulties earlier. I just point to the last four words in bullet one. I don't think. 302 Steve Wurmlinger 01:11:45.424 --> 01:11:47.464 Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. John, if we just. 303 Steve Wurmlinger 01:11:49.084 --> 01:11:49.414 Can't. 304 John Berdner Enphase 01:11:51.274 --> 01:12:07.864 It looks fine. It says, or euro- public standard. So once supplement today would be [...], um, um, once, uh, supplement [...] is publish. It would be, or you will publish standard. So. 305 Steve Wurmlinger 01:12:07.864 --> 01:12:09.574 Yeah, it's okay to. 306 John Berdner Enphase 01:12:09.574 --> 01:12:09.964 Need any. 307 Sky Stanfield 01:12:11.224 --> 01:12:31.174 But we do need to know the scheduling capability if it's an option, right? Because not all things certified under SC necessarily have have the scheduling capability. Is that right? So I agree that the reference to the standard makes sense, but this doesn't referred to actually having the scheduling. 308 Sky Stanfield 01:12:31.714 --> 01:12:32.644 Is that right? John? 309 John Berdner Enphase 01:12:38.254 --> 01:12:39.454 Well, I'm. 310 John Berdner Enphase 01:12:42.214 --> 01:13:00.394 I'm confused because m- m- five, applies generally, right to all system and yes, there will be a certification to scheduling as part of I see, which would be the relevant you will publish standard. So. 311 John Berdner Enphase 01:13:02.525 --> 01:13:06.275 What we're proposing to change on the slide, it's on the screen. 312 Sky Stanfield 01:13:06.725 --> 01:13:23.405 So Empire doesn't exist today. we're proposing Alex don't see it here. We're proposing to add [...] five specific to capture, not just limited export, but limited export with scheduling capability. Um, so. 313 Sky Stanfield 01:13:24.394 --> 01:13:39.874 So the discussion we had about the different ways, the screens that applied staff are going to be captured in that, but what, what would distinguish [...] is that it's not just that it has the limited export capability, but that it has scheduled limited export capability. 314 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:13:40.834 --> 01:13:41.224 Yeah. 315 John Berdner Enphase 01:13:41.524 --> 01:13:44.614 That, that would maybe be an additional. 316 John Berdner Enphase 01:13:44.705 --> 01:13:50.135 Alright, uh, here, right. You want to mention scheduling. 317 Sky Stanfield 01:13:50.135 --> 01:13:51.215 Specific, yeah, exactly. 318 John Berdner Enphase 01:13:51.695 --> 01:13:52.985 Okay, that makes sense. 319 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:13:53.255 --> 01:14:05.795 Yeah, I think even without it is probably probably we could probably call on it, right, because there's language in here that says, you know, like, for example, in the first paragraph, it says interconnection status. 320 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:14:05.829 --> 01:14:18.514 [...] additional technical requirements that are not explicitly noted here, but I think it's better to just take it since we already know that scheduling is required. I think we'll add language to that effect. Um, just so. 321 Sky Stanfield 01:14:18.514 --> 01:14:18.664 There's. 322 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:14:18.664 --> 01:14:19.354 No questions here. 323 Sky Stanfield 01:14:19.384 --> 01:14:26.974 I think it should be because otherwise it's going to be confusing, yes, difference between [...] five and [...] is, and I would also change the title. 324 Sky Stanfield 01:14:27.214 --> 01:14:34.834 Of option, twelve to capture that scheduling or I guess it does already start with the limited generation profile aspect is captured. So, yes. 325 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:14:36.664 --> 01:14:48.034 Good suggestion here. We'll add language in there that specifies that scheduling is a requirement of option twelve, and, but I also agree that the language as written right now kind of. 326 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:14:48.215 --> 01:14:54.635 You know, gives room for additional standards or revisions to the standard. So. 327 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:14:56.975 --> 01:15:08.255 For this important as well, because at the moment. So this scheduling function has different certification levels or. 328 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:15:09.874 --> 01:15:30.334 It's up to the manufacturer level. They also define, for example, only twelve failures, twenty- four hour values or two hundred eight up to two hundred and eighty- eight values. So this is probably something that should be specified in there as well, but it's probably difficult because. 329 Christian Eder, Fronius USA 01:15:30.515 --> 01:15:47.165 The standard is not published yet and probably takes, uh, still some work to finish this, and uh, this is a input to this document as well. 330 John Berdner Enphase 01:15:52.715 --> 01:16:04.595 I do see kind of a chicken and egg problem here until we know what the schedule looks like. It's very difficult to determine what the test needs to be. 331 John Berdner Enphase 01:16:05.825 --> 01:16:26.345 You're talking about twelve per year. I would propose, you just do it with twenty- thirty dollars from the cloud. Why would you do anything with a local piece? Yeah, so if it's twelve hours only that's already supported. We would need to change [...] to make. 332 John Berdner Enphase 01:16:27.034 --> 01:16:38.104 Support that command, but if it's only pro- values, then there's really no need, you could schedule two years worth with [...]. 333 John Berdner Enphase 01:16:38.584 --> 01:16:51.124 Supported and export. So it kind of depends on what the resolution, you know, how we decide what the grant granularity of the schedule needs to be. 334 John Berdner Enphase 01:16:52.594 --> 01:17:03.694 Before you can figure out what tool to use, um, once you know what tool to use, you can right terrifying, so it's a little bit of checking in. I think. 335 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:17:05.104 --> 01:17:26.014 So, so the two eighty eight is kinda already decided. I believe it's just a matter of. is it going to be to a different values or is it twelve different values? So if the schedule can accept to eighty eight different points, but the only represent twelve different values would that. 336 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:17:26.075 --> 01:17:30.305 Hence, is that any different than to create different values from a testing perspective. 337 John Berdner Enphase 01:17:31.834 --> 01:17:50.644 The issue Alex is, is today under [...] there's a requirement for twenty- four, scheduled problem is that, um, that the, uh, it doesn't as Josh has pointed out and agree, she said, doesn't support today. Export generation. 338 Josh McDonald SCE 01:17:51.214 --> 01:17:52.834 No, I'm sorry John, John. 339 Josh McDonald SCE 01:17:53.104 --> 01:17:56.704 My, my comment was, it does support. 340 John Berdner Enphase 01:17:57.484 --> 01:17:57.814 Sorry. 341 Josh McDonald SCE 01:17:57.844 --> 01:17:58.324 Yes. 342 John Berdner Enphase 01:17:58.804 --> 01:18:13.984 Okay, so if you, if you have a [...] compliance system with export generation women, I think the problem Josh is [...] supports export generation limit, but it's a static value. It does. 343 John Berdner Enphase 01:18:14.045 --> 01:18:17.465 Support it as a scheduled, right? 344 Josh McDonald SCE 01:18:18.215 --> 01:18:35.135 No, it, it, it can be scheduled. It's a, it's a DVR control. It can be scheduled. Um, so you can create, um, continuous schedules where they, they, um, twenty- thirty- five or [...] server, um, if desired. 345 Josh McDonald SCE 01:18:36.485 --> 01:18:39.005 So that's possible. Um. 346 John Berdner Enphase 01:18:39.815 --> 01:18:54.275 So, yeah, I mean, I, I thought we looked at row twenty- one, um, Brian, uh, Brian's on the call. I thought the conclusion was, it didn't support that? So that would be a new. 347 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:18:56.344 --> 01:18:59.134 Yeah, that was, that's my recollection as well. Um. 348 Josh McDonald SCE 01:18:59.704 --> 01:19:17.434 I wasn't, I wasn't, I wasn't, um, part of those conversations, so I'm not sure what, what that's referring to, but, um, c- twenty- three point five supports and export generation limit. It can be scheduled as a control and so you can schedule continuous controls. 349 Josh McDonald SCE 01:19:17.464 --> 01:19:38.584 Regarding the comment about twenty- four. So the requirement in [...] is that clients, um, she'll be able to store at least twenty- four scheduled [...] control events. So I think that, that at least is key there, but, um, so yeah, I don't think. 350 Josh McDonald SCE 01:19:38.974 --> 01:19:45.934 At least from my understanding [...] isn't, um, eliminating part of this [...] thing of two thousand and thirteen point, five was used. 351 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan 01:19:46.894 --> 01:19:59.674 Yeah, I think in our prior discussions, we said that it supports and it can be done. That's why I think Roger renders Roger shared all the documentation and. 352 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan 01:19:59.740 --> 01:20:09.815 Architecture and, uh, it concluded that it supports and it is possible, it's only how you do it. That was the question that's local or remote. 353 Josh McDonald SCE 01:20:12.515 --> 01:20:16.295 Yeah, the architecture is a different thing. The protocol is fine. 354 brian 01:20:19.264 --> 01:20:38.884 I don't think it's an either or a situation here, you know, it's, if we are willing to support offsite communications as a part of the schedule, that would be a separate set of requirements, right? So the requirements that I think. 355 brian 01:20:39.304 --> 01:20:44.704 Alex is trying to list out here are the requirements for a standalone PCS, not for. 356 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:20:44.734 --> 01:20:45.934 Yeah, good point Brian's. 357 brian 01:20:45.934 --> 01:20:50.884 Communications, so we might need a [...] if we wanted to support. 358 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:20:53.705 --> 01:20:56.285 Yeah, thanks, thanks for bringing us back. Yep, so. 359 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:20:57.635 --> 01:21:12.515 These requirements, uh, PCS, uh, I think, you know, Josh's right, Roger did have some options. I forget how many options you have listed, uh, possible options for doing this, right, right? Um, that is a separate discussion. 360 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:21:17.825 --> 01:21:18.665 Sorry, go ahead. 361 John Berdner Enphase 01:21:18.725 --> 01:21:36.965 Maybe the solution is to just require a general, uh, you know, put it in a general reference for L. G. p. you must have a scheduling function that meets the requirements of the [...], but then specifically call out it could be. 362 John Berdner Enphase 01:21:37.594 --> 01:21:54.034 A recurring schedule, uh, from seven hundred and forty- one. So for maybe a supplement, I see or a secret scheduling function, and then you leave all the doors open, but you have a way to say, yeah, it's included on. 363 John Berdner Enphase 01:21:58.084 --> 01:22:16.624 So, a manufacturer might include a two hundred and eighty- eight value register for two thousand and thirty point, five, two sub- scheduled function, which would work, or they could use an offsite server that onsite supports only twenty- four. 364 John Berdner Enphase 01:22:19.084 --> 01:22:22.624 periodically updates, I mean, all those are possibilities, right? 365 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:22:27.034 --> 01:22:27.634 Yeah. 366 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:22:30.754 --> 01:22:35.644 I personally like these specific PCs. 367 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:22:37.685 --> 01:22:45.095 Option using PCs rather than mixing it up with what else is available possible. So, um. 368 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:22:46.865 --> 01:22:58.775 I will take your recommendation. John, I think I personally think we should just keep it this way. Tackle the requirements when you, when [...] customers would like to use BCS and then if there's any other option address that separately. 369 Sky Stanfield 01:23:03.184 --> 01:23:06.724 What do you mean by address that separately? How would that be addressed? Alex? 370 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:23:06.754 --> 01:23:08.374 Under a new, under a new option. 371 Sky Stanfield 01:23:09.154 --> 01:23:12.784 Okay, are you open to doing a new option? Are you saying? and having this? he said. 372 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:23:13.594 --> 01:23:21.364 Well, I think, I, I don't know how, what the conclusion was that discussion. I think what I remember. 373 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:23:21.370 --> 01:23:38.045 Was that we ended up landing back on PCS user PCS and the other systems, I mean, the other options were not viable, that's my recollection. Um, so at this time I'm not sure if there's any other alternatives that can be. 374 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:23:39.814 --> 01:24:00.814 Can meet the same requirements in the same timeline as the PCs because of these different pieces, like, for example, there's a [...] server and maybe you use that with the PCS, but then there is no test for both systems together. There's no certification protocol or certification. no testing for what says. 375 Sky Stanfield 01:24:01.685 --> 01:24:03.995 Right, so that's kind of what I was kinda stupid. 376 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:24:04.265 --> 01:24:04.535 Yeah. 377 Sky Stanfield 01:24:04.565 --> 01:24:10.625 We, we do the things that you still need a BCs to do the schedule. Is that what I remember? Or I didn't think that was. 378 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:24:13.145 --> 01:24:21.905 I think the [...] will have the schedule, but I'm not an expert in this, maybe Josh can chime in, but, but the [...] is what's going to be needed to do to do the controlling. 379 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:24:23.164 --> 01:24:23.914 Is that right? John? 380 Yi Li SDG&E 01:24:27.484 --> 01:24:42.664 Hey, sorry, do we want to do? We want to divert this conversation to the topic aid discussion, cause I think it's kinda hard to not discuss the architecture when we talk about these options. 381 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:24:43.384 --> 01:24:47.014 Yeah, let's do that. I think we can wait until [...] if everybody's okay with it. 382 Yi Li SDG&E 01:24:47.435 --> 01:24:49.085 Yeah, does that work for everyone? 383 Sky Stanfield 01:24:53.794 --> 01:24:55.054 Yeah, we'll just have to go back to. 384 brian 01:24:55.054 --> 01:24:55.174 Them. 385 Sky Stanfield 01:24:55.744 --> 01:25:06.814 If we need to, if we decide to use one more than just the [...] or the. I guess it's not going to be the [...]. It's going to be the seven hundred and forty- one option. 386 Yi Li SDG&E 01:25:07.504 --> 01:25:08.524 Yeah, fair enough. 387 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:25:12.544 --> 01:25:17.614 Alright, thank you for all the questions if there's no other questions on this slide, we can move on. 388 Sky Stanfield 01:25:18.874 --> 01:25:25.144 So can I just, just so we don't lose what we did. So it sounds like the takeaway is, is that. 389 Sky Stanfield 01:25:26.974 --> 01:25:47.794 For the, for this year, or for the seventeen forty- one option, we need to either add to paragraph one here or a separate paragraph that does identify, it's still, but it has the scheduling capability, not just that it certified under seven hundred and forty- one. Um, and I think that was the only language we. 390 Sky Stanfield 01:25:48.605 --> 01:25:50.375 Identified that need to be changed right? 391 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:25:52.775 --> 01:25:53.555 Yes, that's correct. 392 Sky Stanfield 01:25:54.065 --> 01:26:04.475 And Alex, do you want to take a crack at that language or do you need support from our seven hundred and forty- one wisdom in the, in this room? So, to speak. 393 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:26:05.825 --> 01:26:13.295 We'll take any help we can, but we'll, we'll try to do it on our side as well, but if anybody on the call has any suggested. 394 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:26:13.475 --> 01:26:18.395 Which you can either put it in the chart or you can send it to us and we'll include it. 395 Sky Stanfield 01:26:20.464 --> 01:26:20.914 Okay. 396 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:26:31.174 --> 01:26:34.804 Okay, there's no other comments or questions we can move on to the next slide. 397 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:26:37.414 --> 01:26:56.914 So this slide is the slide that covers the changes that we're proposing. Um, so for option twelve, uh, it looks slightly different from the language in option nine, actually quite a bit different and the idea here is that we wanted to. 398 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:26:57.125 --> 01:27:18.245 Identify the screens that we will be reviewing and what they'll be using, you know, as far as the nameplate or the controlled export value. So for the purposes of l. g. p- projects, we'll use the template to analyze screen F- screens [...]. 399 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:27:19.024 --> 01:27:39.394 Screen G on screen Edge. So this is consistent with the previous slide that we covered as far as which screens use wide and then four screens D- on screen M- screens D is in screen and we'll not use the template. So the language below goes over. 400 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:27:39.844 --> 01:27:46.144 How we will review screen EM and how will we will review screen B. So for screen M. 401 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:27:48.484 --> 01:28:09.004 We're introducing these a steady state value. I think it was also in the previous option nine. So if the maximum status did value is greater than one percent of the [...] controlled nameplate. This is based on the [...] testing. We will use the requested [...] values. So basically the profile as per. 402 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:28:09.010 --> 01:28:17.675 [...] plus the maximum steady state value of the [...] multiplied by the PCS controlled nameplate. What's my name? 403 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:28:18.905 --> 01:28:39.905 So if we get a test report that tells us that the steady state value is to the customer, let's use one hour proposals. one Megawatt as a controlled export. so we will take the one megawatt for that hour, and then we'll take two times. 404 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:28:40.384 --> 01:28:48.784 Project name plate and add those two values and that's how it would look the value that we would use to evaluate our, we're looking at. 405 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:28:50.014 --> 01:28:53.434 This is for screen name. So, I'll pause here to see if there's any clarifications needed. 406 Sky Stanfield 01:29:00.574 --> 01:29:16.684 So I'm going to ask, can we, as I said before, can we do this If you said you were going to take it back to look at what does it J and K- the same, essentially. 407 Sky Stanfield 01:29:16.714 --> 01:29:25.384 The same treatment be given to those screens. Yeah, and, um, o- n- p. 408 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:29:28.264 --> 01:29:49.114 Yeah, so we'll take you back to see if we can include the same language as for option nine for J and K and then add the progress in an N. P. P- specifically could be added to the previous slide so the, I think. 409 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:29:49.535 --> 01:30:00.065 No, no, you're right. It was in this section. I think, yeah, we may add like another paragraph or something or another number, uh, specifying how we will look at P. 410 John Berdner Enphase 01:30:07.504 --> 01:30:21.454 This, John, I had a question, um, you're using the term, uh, PCS control nameplate. Is that defined somewhere? It's just kind of important to understand that what you meant by that. 411 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:30:24.124 --> 01:30:31.024 I don't believe that is defined in, in the current terror. um, but. 412 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:30:32.854 --> 01:30:53.434 Oh, interpretation is that it's the, it's the nameplate of the project. I think this, this language is included in [...] and it was a result of the discussions that Brian mentioned that we had before. So that's not a correct interpretation. Please let me know, but while we're talking about here, is that. 413 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:30:54.244 --> 01:30:55.624 The project name please. 414 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:30:56.854 --> 01:31:07.834 Ten megawatts, the controlled export limit is, or profiles one Megawatt will take one megawatt time. I mean, plus two percent of ten megawatts. 415 John Berdner Enphase 01:31:10.654 --> 01:31:10.864 Right? 416 John Berdner Enphase 01:31:10.924 --> 01:31:32.044 So PCS control nameplate really is a setting. Is that correct? Because it is a setting in the [...] controller for export limiting. Similarly, it might be a, if you were to use a relay, it would be the setting and the relay not. 417 John Berdner Enphase 01:31:32.344 --> 01:31:52.204 The total rating of the system that would be the setting. So I think it may be, may be good to be a little more specific here, um, in terms of what we're talking about, if we're talking about a setting or a capability. 418 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:31:54.634 --> 01:32:11.344 Okay, so John, do you mind, uh, providing. I think it's good to include to include the, uh, the definition in the term. So this is something that we'll probably should define, do you mind providing the definition for this? So we can include it. 419 John Berdner Enphase 01:32:13.054 --> 01:32:17.074 Sure, I'll take a shot at it. Oh, oh, oh, try try to put one. 420 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:32:17.914 --> 01:32:18.604 Okay, thank you. 421 John Berdner Enphase 01:32:19.024 --> 01:32:19.384 Okay. 422 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:32:25.864 --> 01:32:27.664 Any other questions, but this one. 423 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:32:37.294 --> 01:32:56.644 Okay, and then as far as that screen di, uh, we would basically do the same as far as figuring out the maximum potential export and then on the profile, we'll pick the largest value and that's the value that we would use to analyze whether there's any impacts on [...]. 424 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:32:58.804 --> 01:33:17.704 So the same math as far as the profile or the control export limit, plus the one percent times the [...] controlled nameplate and so we'd come up with, however, many values are in the profile if it was twelve, there will be twelve different values and so for screen. 425 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:33:17.799 --> 01:33:20.014 [...] we would take whichever. One is the highest. 426 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:33:25.984 --> 01:33:28.084 Any questions about [...]? 427 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:33:36.815 --> 01:33:57.275 Okay, and then for to be, if the maximum steady state value is less than or equal to one percent, then we would just use the value provided on the profile. So there will be no additional kilowatts. 428 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:33:57.544 --> 01:34:15.124 Added to the proposed profile values, we just use those values as provided, and then for the purposes of screen de, what we'd still use a maximum of the profile. So, again, if there were twelve values would pick whichever one was the highest what's going to be. 429 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:34:20.254 --> 01:34:20.644 And then. 430 Sky Stanfield 01:34:20.854 --> 01:34:20.974 The. 431 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:34:20.974 --> 01:34:23.014 Next, sorry, question. 432 Sky Stanfield 01:34:23.824 --> 01:34:32.614 And just this potentially the same for, for the other screens, you're gonna consider K. O. o- n. P- yes. 433 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:34:32.644 --> 01:34:33.064 Yes. 434 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:34:36.155 --> 01:34:41.255 Yeah, so basically j and K, um. 435 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:34:42.934 --> 01:34:48.394 I think in an all be, what would be added here because [...] would be by itself, right? So. 436 Sky Stanfield 01:34:50.914 --> 01:35:09.424 It's a combination, so p- is, it would be for P- you want to review the current where, you know, the nameplate, essentially work all cards being reviewed, but for other analyses, you would want to use this MAX export calculation, which is slightly beyond my head. 437 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:35:10.625 --> 01:35:31.415 Yeah, yeah, so I think before we had PII as its own paragraph, but you're right, it was just specifies that if there's anything that's using for current calculations username plate and any imply that everything else should use the export limit and then for, for J. K- in an old. 438 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:35:32.014 --> 01:35:35.074 Included in essentially number two here. 439 Sky Stanfield 01:35:35.884 --> 01:35:36.244 Right? 440 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:35:38.405 --> 01:35:45.965 So, yeah, we'll take a look at that and see whether we can add them and if we can't add them, then we'll provide the reason why. 441 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:35:50.165 --> 01:35:51.485 Okay, so. 442 Sky Stanfield 01:35:52.505 --> 01:35:53.975 So I want to, oh, go ahead. 443 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:35:54.275 --> 01:35:54.665 No, no. 444 Sky Stanfield 01:35:55.295 --> 01:35:57.305 No, my questions are the later bullets. So. 445 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:35:58.205 --> 01:36:00.275 Okay, so for number three. 446 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:36:02.074 --> 01:36:22.114 Once we've determined the profile to be used, we'll compare that profile to ninety percent of [...] profile and all the values on the [...] should be below ninety percent of [...] profile if they above, then the project would fail would fail screen M. 447 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:36:22.745 --> 01:36:43.415 And therefore would also for our initial review, and then if a project for the initial review, then the customer will be offered an option of results meeting at which they'll be told why the project failed and given an opportunity to fix the profile. So if there's that. 448 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:36:43.714 --> 01:37:04.804 The whole profiles below the [...] or ninety percent of [...], or if it's just one value that will be discussed during the optional results meeting and then the customer will have five days to fix the issue and resubmit a new profile and so when we get a new profile, then we will see. 449 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:37:05.704 --> 01:37:25.654 Who started the project and the initial review we wanted to point out here is that based on the current carrier, the material notification rules, they do not allow any reduction by more than twenty percent of the original request, and then yeah, the issue here is that. 450 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:37:26.254 --> 01:37:47.074 Projects cannot be increased in size during a fast track study. So, so basically you can only reduce the profile you cannot increase it, and the customer would have five days to do. So, and resubmitted for study and the initial review if they do not do. So then they have to withdraw the project and re. 451 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:37:47.109 --> 01:37:55.774 [...] or nameplate or just limited export, go ahead Sky. 452 Sky Stanfield 01:37:58.595 --> 01:38:02.495 Submitted before I even turn my mic off. So. 453 Sky Stanfield 01:38:04.234 --> 01:38:25.174 So, so when a- if a customer, what are we envisioning in terms of when a customer with essentially use this? So the first is if they made a mistake, essentially they were intending to use the [...] profile in the, you know, accidentally, I'm assume entered the value that was above the profile for one or more. 454 Sky Stanfield 01:38:25.205 --> 01:38:40.895 Of the hours. Um, and that this all makes sense to me for, for that scenario. Um, or they didn't understand the rules and whatever I guess thought they could do that. What is the other scenario? Um. 455 Sky Stanfield 01:38:42.125 --> 01:39:01.625 So the issue with one of the issues I see is that it's only updated monthly, right? So the profile could change between when the applicant submitted their application and when you do the review because I can't remember what section that's in, but there's that period when you started before when you, when you checked the profile. 456 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:39:03.694 --> 01:39:11.704 Yeah, so the, the profile can be different, so when we get when we get a project under [...]. 457 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:39:12.214 --> 01:39:32.854 Group two and three. We allowed to change it if we, there's a reason why we think it could be different where the other projects that have been proposed since the last. No, I see it. Ron or whatever the reason. So this would also include that scenario. So would you include if a scenario where the customer just provided a wrong profile. 458 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:39:33.934 --> 01:39:44.764 And then it also includes the scenario where they provided a profile, but because we had to rerun [...] now the profiles above the [...] profile ninety percent of [...] profile. 459 Sky Stanfield 01:39:46.174 --> 01:39:54.004 Remind me, so who does that [...] project. So one of the current rules, what happens when that is the case when do. 460 Sky Stanfield 01:39:54.010 --> 01:39:58.055 You notify the customer that the, that the [...] is. 461 Sky Stanfield 01:39:59.674 --> 01:40:02.674 Incorrect or has changed. Maybe I'll put it that way. 462 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:40:03.905 --> 01:40:25.025 So we don't, we just would fail the project. So if a customer provided an application for initial review using a profile and we found out that nonprofit, but I see, I'm be failed, we just fairly initial review and then it would have an opportunity to. 463 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:40:25.054 --> 01:40:30.274 Modify the project to be in the carrot. 464 Sky Stanfield 01:40:31.084 --> 01:40:44.644 But you're saying they can only, even if the [...] had changed more than twenty percent, either at a flat level or along somewhere along the profile that you're not going to allow them to reduce more than twenty percent. 465 Sky Stanfield 01:40:47.585 --> 01:40:53.315 Cause it seems, I don't want to make those too complicated. So I'm just playing this out, so I understand it first Alex to be clear, but. 466 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:40:53.345 --> 01:40:53.615 Okay. 467 Sky Stanfield 01:40:53.645 --> 01:41:07.295 Um, it does seem to me a little bit kind of again, without putting normative language, you're unfair to not allow the project to just modify to match the profile of whatever it is. 468 Sky Stanfield 01:41:07.354 --> 01:41:28.354 Um, and it doesn't seem like, I guess that's what I'm kind of playing out here on one hand. I don't want to make this real super complicated, on the other hand, the applicant submitted an application following the [...]. that was publicly available the [...] changed and we're basically saying they have to go back resubmit if they want to map their. 469 Sky Stanfield 01:41:28.479 --> 01:41:43.024 Your profile, but the [...] profile might change again, so it's kind of like chasing your tail off of it. Um, if you can't just match it when you're in the queue, when you have that sort of locked in opportunity to get it, right? What do you think about that? 470 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:41:44.224 --> 01:41:49.564 Yeah, I see your point, but I think what we're trying to do is be as consistent as possible with existing. 471 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:41:49.630 --> 01:42:03.665 Projects and existing time. So my take is if we allow [...] projects to be able to reduce their profile, but more than twenty percent, then, you know. 472 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:42:05.855 --> 01:42:13.115 Allowing any other customer to do. So then using that basically trading LGB customers different from other projects. 473 Sky Stanfield 01:42:13.985 --> 01:42:19.415 Yeah, and what I'm saying here is not necessarily unique to our GP, it just seems like, um. 474 Sky Stanfield 01:42:20.649 --> 01:42:24.604 It seems like a broader issue. That's why I was thinking it out, but, um. 475 Sky Stanfield 01:42:28.804 --> 01:42:45.274 How often do you have a sense of like, do you guys have been doing this only for a few months now, but I guess since like, or maybe s- g- g has actually been doing the longest, but how often is this change in the [...] between application and review happening. Do you have any sense of that? 476 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:42:48.004 --> 01:42:52.924 Um, I don't have a percentage, but it, it, it happens, yeah. 477 Sky Stanfield 01:42:53.194 --> 01:42:54.574 Yeah, that was unexpected, right? 478 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:42:54.784 --> 01:42:55.294 Yeah, yeah. 479 Sky Stanfield 01:42:58.384 --> 01:42:58.924 Um. 480 Sky Stanfield 01:43:01.655 --> 01:43:06.785 Okay, I guess I'm gonna have to think about that a little bit. I understand the trade- offs here. Um. 481 Sky Stanfield 01:43:09.154 --> 01:43:21.964 To some extent. I also see, I think that we're trying to give him applicants some level of certainty or opportunity to at least fit within what the limitations are, and it's a little difficult with the frequency of the update I guess, but. 482 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:43:23.404 --> 01:43:27.994 The other issue too, that we're contending with is if we allow changes. 483 Sky Stanfield 01:43:28.534 --> 01:43:28.684 Like. 484 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:43:28.714 --> 01:43:29.734 Multiple changes during. 485 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:43:29.764 --> 01:43:38.434 The study process then is this, you know, we're running out of time, right? We only have fifteen days to complete initial review within the guidelines. So. 486 Sky Stanfield 01:43:38.974 --> 01:43:45.394 We're not talking about multiple changes. We're talking about one change to match the profile, the new [...]. Um, but. 487 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:43:47.075 --> 01:44:07.715 Well, the utilities, like when you start to study and you realize that [...] has changed, can you just immediately before you start the studies contact the customer [...] has changed here. That ninety percent level is at another level. Now would you like us to. 488 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:44:08.134 --> 01:44:28.684 And provide that information, cause you, you would have it provide that information to the customer and just say, uh, you know, would you like us to proceed with the studies or do you not wanna proceed now because the levels have changed? I mean, could that be no option somewhere. 489 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:44:29.404 --> 01:44:45.004 That the, maybe, or maybe the customer can save the ICAAY values have changed check box. Yes, proceed with the new values, even though I realized that they may be less than the value side originally submitted. 490 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:44:47.314 --> 01:45:08.224 So the challenge was, is that, um, the profile should, w- we can't, we can't determine a profile for the customer, right? Because they're the ones that I can tell us whether the new whatever profile is being used for the project walks for them, right? So I don't believe that we want to go down the road of coming up with a pro- funding. 491 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:45:08.884 --> 01:45:29.584 The second point is, you know, during the application phase, we don't usually know that the profile is different. Uh, the engineer that gets the application, they have to trigger an. I see a rerun, they have to know for some reason based on projects that they've been reviewing or changes to the system that this new. 492 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:45:29.589 --> 01:45:50.734 [...] is required, right? So we have certain thresholds that would automatically trigger. I see a rerun, but sometimes it has to be, it can be a manual trigger. So, and then the third piece is, it's not always instantaneous, right? So if we get a project and we decide that we need to run it again for, to get a new host. 493 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:45:50.764 --> 01:46:11.884 Capacity we may, we may not get the results on the same day, right? It depends on what else is going on with the systems that are doing the [...] calculations. So then the other piece is also, there is a workload issue, right? So it depends on what else is going on, right? So let's say the person doesn't get to the project until, you know, three, four or five. 494 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:46:11.975 --> 01:46:33.035 Days since we got the project they ask for, I see it to be rerun, then there's an issue with the tools, so they don't get the results back. Now we're pushing against this fifteen day tariff requirement, right? So we got a report on the nineteen timelines and there's potential for this project or projects to be late. So. 495 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:46:33.064 --> 01:46:42.454 So that's why we would want to leverage the [...] section that's already in [...] and then, you know, then we're more consistent with, you know, other projects as well. 496 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:46:46.984 --> 01:46:48.274 Does that answer your question? Jose. 497 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:46:49.624 --> 01:47:00.454 Yes, it does. I'm looking for the decision language. I thought the decision said [...] a time off application. 498 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:47:01.804 --> 01:47:05.044 You mean [...] or just the [...] section. 499 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:47:08.855 --> 01:47:09.875 Uh. 500 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:47:14.344 --> 01:47:16.654 No, I'll get back to you on this. 501 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:47:16.684 --> 01:47:16.924 Okay. 502 Jose Aliaga-Caro 01:47:17.284 --> 01:47:18.874 If I, that's fine. 503 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:47:20.824 --> 01:47:21.394 Okay. 504 Sky Stanfield 01:47:22.864 --> 01:47:27.814 I'm also taking a look at the actual languages. Twenty- one on how the update. 505 Sky Stanfield 01:47:29.464 --> 01:47:32.764 The ICF values is provided, um. 506 Sky Stanfield 01:47:35.284 --> 01:47:53.974 It's not super clear. I think, again, I'm reading those really fast, but how you actually notify the customer that the [...] has changed. I'm looking at section [...] a- in the initial review, but I'm not sure if there's a section that defines this more clearly. 507 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:47:55.354 --> 01:47:56.224 Yeah, I don't think. 508 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:47:56.229 --> 01:48:03.574 There's any section that specifically talks about [...] changes in the curve. Yeah, maybe I'm. 509 Sky Stanfield 01:48:05.284 --> 01:48:06.724 Looking at it. That's what I'm saying. 510 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:48:06.724 --> 01:48:07.474 Here, sorry. 511 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:48:20.199 --> 01:48:29.044 [...], yeah, so it does not doesn't see how there's no notification. Yeah. 512 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:48:30.154 --> 01:48:32.254 Just [...] is pretty much. 513 Sky Stanfield 01:48:33.484 --> 01:48:44.764 Say there's notification it says distribution provider shall share the results of any [...] updates with the applicant provide an explanation of changes, blah, blah, blah, um. 514 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:48:44.824 --> 01:48:48.754 I think it's doing it with the results with the initial review results. 515 Sky Stanfield 01:48:51.245 --> 01:48:53.975 Does it actually say that, but maybe, yeah. 516 Sky Stanfield 01:49:05.585 --> 01:49:07.055 Okay, um. 517 Sky Stanfield 01:49:08.795 --> 01:49:29.255 Jose to your comment. I guess the reason I was, I'm struggling with this is, and again, it's really not specific to [...] really, but is that it's sort of unclear, like when these features are changing, how often how projects actually do get to submit an application, knowing what their inner. 518 Sky Stanfield 01:49:29.289 --> 01:49:50.044 Connecting under, if we're kicking them out because the [...] change and not letting them modify around it. Um, they go back to the beginning of the queue and you're just going to be repeating the cycle there, but I guess I need to think about whether there's, I'm not really sure there's a good reason to limit it till the twenty. 519 Sky Stanfield 01:49:50.974 --> 01:50:11.584 Um, per se because it's really just an, er, re- application, um, like what Alex, from your perspective in this context with, cause you're doing it, you're allowing the change within the period of the, of the initial review we. 520 Sky Stanfield 01:50:11.589 --> 01:50:26.464 Why limit it to twenty percent? I know that's because that's what the tariff says, but we're here to talk about getting it, right? Is there a reason beyond just that, that's what the tariff says to limit it when it's directly in response to the [...]. 521 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:50:29.825 --> 01:50:37.355 Well, I don't think that it should matter whether it's [...] or if it's a project using template or using a different profile, right? 522 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:50:40.745 --> 01:50:59.525 If we're going to, I mean, if we're going to change the rule, then the rule should apply to all projects. The changes should apply to all projects, right? So this is the, I think it has to do with impacts to other projects, but you could have an impact to other projects where they're using the template where they're using [...]. 523 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:50:59.555 --> 01:51:02.345 JP, oh, you're using a single [...]. 524 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:51:05.345 --> 01:51:16.385 So I guess plus your question is, would changes on the twenty percent. Could those be okay, probably, but if we're going to go down down that road, then we need to make changes in the terms that apply to all projects. 525 Sky Stanfield 01:51:18.125 --> 01:51:23.015 Well, we may or may not, that's kind of what the commission will decide whether it does or not, but. 526 Sky Stanfield 01:51:23.765 --> 01:51:29.105 You're already proposing changes to the term specific to that right here. So, um. 527 Sky Stanfield 01:51:31.024 --> 01:51:44.944 It says reduction in each hour of the updated [...] must comply with table F- one and then it defines how that applies specifically, so it's each hour, it may not be reduced more than twenty percent, which is different than what table one division, um. 528 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:51:45.394 --> 01:51:49.594 Yeah, but table, if one is already in existence today, right? So. 529 Sky Stanfield 01:51:49.924 --> 01:51:51.694 You're modifying it. We can change that. 530 Sky Stanfield 01:51:51.699 --> 01:51:54.424 Sentence modify it differently. 531 Sky Stanfield 01:51:55.984 --> 01:52:16.984 When is there, but we can add language, you're proposing to modify the language. I'm not Alex, I need to think about this. I understand why you guys are doing this. I also want to make sure that we're not sending you guys through this endless cycle of re- looking at a project and project again and having them go back and forth. So I just think this is understandable. 532 Sky Stanfield 01:52:17.079 --> 01:52:38.224 And related to the complexities of the [...] updates, but, um, need to give it a little bit more thought as to whether this is the most logical way to actually optimize the ability of a applicant to fit within the existing hosting policy. It's not really that helpful to say, well, if that's other projects they're all going to be impacted as well, if the, by the same theory, the [...]. 533 Sky Stanfield 01:52:38.254 --> 01:52:45.694 [...] changed if anybody else's in queue behind them, it will have changed for them as well. So does that make sense? 534 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:52:46.684 --> 01:52:55.624 Well, it could actually be projects that I had, right? So if you, uh, think about this. 535 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:53:00.005 --> 01:53:19.115 So if you allow projects to reduce, uh, actually mostly projects that are behind, right? Because reduce more than twenty percent, then if there is, there would have been any mitigations associated with that project then, you know, this project, the project that's being reduced may not have to be at those costs or mitigations. 536 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:53:19.144 --> 01:53:22.924 Any more, so they may end up falling on a project that's behind them, right? 537 Sky Stanfield 01:53:23.884 --> 01:53:40.264 Yeah, I am what I'm saying. Is that the projects behind them are going to be essentially be in the same bucket, right? Um, I mean it depends on what they were proposing, they guess if a project behind them is just proposing a very small project that [...] may not change. 538 Sky Stanfield 01:53:40.294 --> 01:53:45.454 Their ability to pass. Um, so what I'm, what I'm, yeah. 539 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:53:47.764 --> 01:54:08.464 I think, you know, probably, there could be wrong to make changes, but these are the new one it says, you know, days. So the tariff would say if you're going to be reducing your size, you can reduce more than these size, and then you have to accept whatever mitigations I've been identified. So I guess if you're going through the initial review and you identify. 540 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:54:08.555 --> 01:54:22.925 I sent mitigations and the only thing that we already know what else needs to be mitigated and then [...] and the project says. Yeah, we'll keep covering, you know. Yeah, I think there's probably room to think about this a more. 541 Sky Stanfield 01:54:23.255 --> 01:54:29.615 Yeah, it seems like just the twenty percent thing is the part I'm kind of stuck on, like, if I see a change. 542 Sky Stanfield 01:54:29.644 --> 01:54:50.464 And more than twenty percent, either overall or within any hour, not sure what the benefit of saying is you can go down to twenty percent. You could do eighteen, but not twenty- two. What are we accomplishing with that here? Doesn't make sense to me. I don't remember, I understand the later Q projects, but I also think, yeah. 543 Sky Stanfield 01:54:50.769 --> 01:55:11.914 So let's give this a little more thought. I was, I'm happy to correspond with you further about this. I appreciate that. The tariff already has that twenty percent language and that you guys are trying to fit in with an existing process, but I also think it doesn't seem terribly logical to me to just say we're pull twenty percent out as opposed to just letting the price. 544 Sky Stanfield 01:55:11.944 --> 01:55:14.464 Checked respond to what the current [...]. 545 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:55:15.274 --> 01:55:26.104 Yeah, and I know that there's a lot of discussions that went into coming up with these twenty percent down, but I wasn't intimately involved in those discussions, but if you guys, you know, if we say. 546 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:55:27.964 --> 01:55:33.334 Twenty- two, okay, then what about thirty- two percent and forty- two, and then by one hundred, right? 547 Sky Stanfield 01:55:33.364 --> 01:55:48.544 Well, I think up to one hundred percent just responding to the ACA. Um, so we didn't participate heavily in not just the creation of f- one. Um, I assume it was for the reason you noted. 548 Sky Stanfield 01:55:48.579 --> 01:55:57.964 Which is leadership project, but then again, five percent could affect later [...] projects. So it's sort of obscure, maybe I'll check with Brad and see if he remembers. 549 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:55:58.264 --> 01:56:09.724 Yeah, I mean my recollection is, I think the, I was one at ten percent and then stakeholders we settled on twenty percent of them, but I'll do my homework too and see where it came from, but. 550 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:56:10.204 --> 01:56:23.164 I'm glad you saw the point that we're trying to be consistent with the telephone, you know, basically minimize changes if we already have a framework that works, then we'll just fit within the framework. So twenty percent is already there. It makes sense to just within twenty percent. 551 Frank McElvain 01:56:25.564 --> 01:56:46.384 Yeah, let me jump in here real quick. Uh, just an observation that I have is, you know, [...], um, it changes, I mean, it's, it's dependent on demand levels to a great extent and uh, they changed not because. 552 Frank McElvain 01:56:46.415 --> 01:57:00.815 Cause of any fault of the developers. So, uh, um, I'm just glad to hear that there's some collaborative, uh, thought going on between everybody, but, um, I think this can be improved. 553 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:57:07.234 --> 01:57:08.104 Yeah, thanks Frank. 554 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:57:11.254 --> 01:57:13.504 Any other questions on this slide? 555 Sky Stanfield 01:57:19.775 --> 01:57:36.875 So no more questions just circling back to my understanding is that you are going to going to keep saying let's just, so we're out there on the same page that you're going to take a look at these, this language in the context of the J. K. O. N. P. 556 Sky Stanfield 01:57:37.474 --> 01:57:53.884 And ideally, you modify accordingly, um, especially I guess to, and then maybe whatever we need to do with that P- language, whether it goes here or above. Um, is there anything else that we had said is going to change other than digesting this twenty percent issue. 557 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:57:55.534 --> 01:57:56.824 No, that's all I remember. 558 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:57:58.534 --> 01:57:59.974 J. K. n. O. 559 Sky Stanfield 01:58:00.004 --> 01:58:00.574 P and. 560 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:58:00.574 --> 01:58:01.504 Then twenty percent. 561 Sky Stanfield 01:58:03.304 --> 01:58:03.904 Thank you. 562 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:58:06.095 --> 01:58:06.395 Sure. 563 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:58:11.194 --> 01:58:14.254 Okay, if there's no other questions, we can move on to the next slide. 564 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:58:19.595 --> 01:58:26.165 So this next steps are flat slides addressing topic C. um, so next slide please. 565 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:58:30.605 --> 01:58:48.275 This graphic was showing last time during a last presentation. Well, what's changed here is, uh, the stuff in blue at the bottom, uh, the interconnection steady process section, right? At the bottom. So that's what's changed. 566 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:58:49.174 --> 01:59:10.204 And the reason this change is because the previous one was not as clear based on the language that we've discussed thus far today. So what this is saying is that if you pass a screen M- and you pass all other screens, then you can go to simplified interconnect. 567 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:59:10.209 --> 01:59:30.904 [...] or interconnection agreement, if you fail a screen, M- there's two things you can either fail initial review and require the project to withdraw and reapply if they do not address the screen and failure, so that would be the profile, right? 568 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:59:31.384 --> 01:59:52.504 So we just clarified here that if a customer passes all other screens, but they failed screen, m. then they have the opportunity to, to fix the issues that caused screen empty fail, if those issues are dressed, then the project would pass a, would connect a simplified interconnection or they would proceed to. 569 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:59:52.510 --> 02:00:05.105 interconnection agreement if they do not screen EM, then they would have to withdraw the project and reapply so we already kind of talked about this, but this is represented in this graphic. So. 570 Sky Stanfield 02:00:06.605 --> 02:00:09.215 Just one clarifying question. I think this makes sense. 571 Sky Stanfield 02:00:11.074 --> 02:00:28.144 If I think you told me this already, I'm just confirming randomly. So if you fail in the other screen, then screen m- you were saying that essentially any of those other failures could be addressed to that customer results meeting or is that not right? So. 572 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:00:28.474 --> 02:00:29.614 That is correct. Yes. 573 Sky Stanfield 02:00:30.454 --> 02:00:31.894 Even if it was a fault. 574 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:00:34.324 --> 02:00:37.774 Yeah, yeah, exactly. So let's say for example. 575 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:00:39.154 --> 02:00:49.444 So [...] already addressed his protection, Assuming that the current contribution is one point two per unit. 576 Sky Stanfield 02:00:49.834 --> 02:00:50.584 Right, right? 577 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:00:50.704 --> 02:01:00.184 So if the project, let's say, for example, did not provide that, or there was an assumption that it was actually higher and that's why. 578 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:01:00.189 --> 02:01:09.184 My, the project failed and during the results meeting, the customer clarified, so no, no, it's actually one point one five, then yes, that would be the need for supplemental review. 579 Sky Stanfield 02:01:11.495 --> 02:01:31.535 Okay, so let me just what about the lane configuration screen. Um, I don't actually know what happens if you failed, like if there's, what the fix is that screen engineer has helped me out, but I just want to make sure that if a project passes anything other than that, we're providing them the right pathway shorter the full study. 580 Sky Stanfield 02:01:33.694 --> 02:01:35.404 So it's, it's. 581 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:01:37.145 --> 02:01:55.175 So the line configuration screen is checking where the phase potential for ground for overvoltage. So if a project, you know, the scenario where this could be addressed during the optional results meeting would be, if a customer was connecting to [...]. 582 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:01:55.204 --> 02:02:16.324 Distribution system, um, and they, you know, if you look at [...] and [...] and let's say these, we are proposing a project and a [...] system and they are going to use a delta high side transformer and they would fail a screen edge, but during the option of results meeting, the customer could say, well I'm actually going to use a differ. 583 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:02:16.354 --> 02:02:26.884 And configuration of a transfer bar. So if they provided a single one that shows that showed this new transfer, that was the only issue then we would not need to go to submit review for that specific screen. 584 Sky Stanfield 02:02:27.154 --> 02:02:37.474 So my understanding Brian, I'm going to queue you up here. Is that maybe that screen isn't using the most current understand. 585 Sky Stanfield 02:02:37.504 --> 02:02:50.824 The inverter grounding capabilities and that, that could be addressed through supplemental review rather than just saying they need to do a different configuration frame. Can you help me out here? 586 Sky Stanfield 02:02:53.164 --> 02:02:54.004 I simply what I'm trying. 587 brian 02:02:54.004 --> 02:02:54.214 To get. 588 Sky Stanfield 02:02:54.214 --> 02:03:13.864 Out, I'm not proposing to change the screen. I'm trying to make sure that it's appropriate to say they can go to supplemental review and that every happy to have things addressed in the customer results meeting, but I want to make sure that we're, we're thinking through what are the scenarios, uh, types of issues that could arise and whether they. 589 Sky Stanfield 02:03:14.165 --> 02:03:19.175 All can be addressed through customer results meetings or if there does need to be an opportunity to go to supplemental. 590 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:03:19.955 --> 02:03:35.285 Yeah, so just to clarify if we have a resource meeting and we tell the customer which screens failed, usually what we tell them the reason why the screen failed. So can you screen that? The customer can address that they can say, Oh, no, this is not how this is, can be. 591 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:03:35.314 --> 02:03:36.844 Address, but we're not going to. 592 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:03:38.494 --> 02:03:55.894 Not give them an opportunity to go to supplemental review if that's what they desire. So if there's a screen that fails that cannot be addressed and the project will go to submit for review if it fails, but if there's things that can be addressed, then obviously, if we could resolve it, there's no need to go into this additional study, but I don't know if that clarifies or. 593 Sky Stanfield 02:03:55.984 --> 02:03:59.254 I think it does. So, yeah, like I said, obviously I do. 594 Sky Stanfield 02:03:59.260 --> 02:04:08.825 You want projects to go to, to get everything resolved in a results meeting instead, but where there is additional technical evaluation required. 595 Sky Stanfield 02:04:10.564 --> 02:04:26.044 As opposed to a project just changing a project so that it matches the screen or something, then I think that's the purpose of supplemental review, absolutely a little less clear on exactly what that technical evaluation is, which is why I was trying to think through what the screens are actually looking at. 596 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:04:33.484 --> 02:04:36.034 Right, I think you asked Brian a question, right? 597 Sky Stanfield 02:04:39.094 --> 02:04:39.724 Yes, I'm not. 598 brian 02:04:39.724 --> 02:04:51.334 Sorry, I'm not clear if we need to address the grounding thing directly, but I mean, it could be potentially addressed in supplemental review. It seems as though there's a pathway regardless, right? So. 599 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:04:51.394 --> 02:04:54.484 Absolutely, I mean we do that quite often actually. 600 Sky Stanfield 02:04:54.784 --> 02:04:58.444 Yeah, so that's, I think that's what I was saying. So I think as long as we're saying that they. 601 Sky Stanfield 02:04:58.504 --> 02:05:17.764 Bill can wrote a supplemental review and to resolve those technical anything that does require further technical evaluation that's fine, but I had thought you were saying earlier was, is that essentially nothing would would end up in there, but I think it could, there could be cases where a project end up in benefit from being in segment overview. 602 Sky Stanfield 02:05:19.715 --> 02:05:21.875 If it matches the screen. Yeah. 603 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:05:22.745 --> 02:05:36.065 Yeah, so the, the only time that a project would not be allowed to go to supplemental review is if they fail a screen EM and they cannot address clean em, they will not be allowed to go to submit review as an [...] project. 604 Sky Stanfield 02:05:38.645 --> 02:05:39.365 Thank you. 605 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:05:43.445 --> 02:05:44.495 Any other questions? 606 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:05:51.484 --> 02:05:52.774 Alright, next slide. Please. 607 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:06:02.164 --> 02:06:03.214 Can we go on to the next slide? 608 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:06:15.395 --> 02:06:15.845 Francis. 609 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:06:16.355 --> 02:06:16.775 I'm sorry. 610 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:06:19.115 --> 02:06:19.955 I lost everyone. 611 Frank McElvain 02:06:24.514 --> 02:06:25.204 You're still here. 612 Sky Stanfield 02:06:25.204 --> 02:06:26.314 You're still here. Alex. 613 Frank McElvain 02:06:26.494 --> 02:06:26.764 Yeah. 614 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:06:26.794 --> 02:06:27.154 Okay. 615 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:06:28.204 --> 02:06:30.334 Yeah, let's just go next slide. Please. 616 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:06:33.574 --> 02:06:33.994 Thank you. 617 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:06:35.224 --> 02:06:36.064 Alright, thanks. 618 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:06:37.324 --> 02:06:56.974 So this slide is talking about phase three. Um, the technical evaluation phase we have a series of questions. I think the next four slides, uh, addressing previous things that we had presented on, uh, with additional clarifications. So sorry, go ahead. 619 Sky Stanfield 02:06:57.964 --> 02:06:58.324 Alex. 620 Sky Stanfield 02:06:58.354 --> 02:07:03.064 I just remembered a question. I had on earlier slide. Do you want to go back now? or do you want me to do it? 621 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:07:03.064 --> 02:07:03.754 Yeah, we can go back. 622 Sky Stanfield 02:07:05.405 --> 02:07:26.525 Cisco, can you go back to? Let's see one more, one more this slide. So I guess I had a question, um, for consideration. So in [...] here we're proposing an explanation of how the process. 623 Sky Stanfield 02:07:26.555 --> 02:07:47.675 Yes, we'll go. Like in a, just not just how the screens would be applied, particularly in section five number five here, and again, I don't have a yes or are not expressing for opinion, but I'm wondering if that's the right place to put this in terms of the process detail, I think what. 624 Sky Stanfield 02:07:47.704 --> 02:08:05.014 Kind of getting out is more of that, but I'm just sort of wanting to make sure that this explanation of how the project will be reviewed. Does it belong in M. M- five or elsewhere in the terrorists blow purposes? 625 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:08:05.584 --> 02:08:08.794 Yeah, I think, I think for, for number five, we could. 626 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:08:08.854 --> 02:08:20.314 Easily just stayed material more discussion, rules apply or something, but just because of the discussion we want it to be explicit on what, what, actually, what we're trying to do, but, um. 627 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:08:21.519 --> 02:08:22.834 Is that what you're saying? This guy like. 628 Sky Stanfield 02:08:22.864 --> 02:08:28.744 Yeah, I guess I was thinking like, should this actually be in F. M. F- T, v. 629 Sky Stanfield 02:08:30.004 --> 02:08:46.684 Or another part where we're describing the actual process where the project goes through the steps of the project goes through if it's l. D. P. Um, I think that the language we were about to get to, which is why I remembered that I had this question. 630 Sky Stanfield 02:08:49.234 --> 02:09:09.454 Get to that, but the concern, again, we're, we're willing to this problem already been terribly structured, but m- m- five is like at the very end of the tariff and it's like this thing that's supposed to be just about your controls, but then we're building in all this process changes within it just becomes very confusing, but it may be confusing. 631 Sky Stanfield 02:09:09.484 --> 02:09:10.954 Um, either way, um. 632 Sky Stanfield 02:09:12.305 --> 02:09:20.615 I just want to make clear that somebody's able to figure out what the, what their process steps are. Um, in the clarify possible. 633 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:09:21.095 --> 02:09:33.425 Yeah, so if I understand what you're saying correctly. So in, in five, we can just say identify during optimal results, meaning ask by section [...], and then in [...]. 634 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:09:33.429 --> 02:09:40.444 [...] then include this additional language that would say for LGB projects, this is, you know, what's allowed. 635 Sky Stanfield 02:09:42.814 --> 02:09:48.544 I guess it's three, four and five when is there going to be another part of the terrorist. 636 Sky Stanfield 02:09:51.695 --> 02:09:53.405 That explains. 637 Sky Stanfield 02:09:57.514 --> 02:10:17.014 So like, normally screen M- would say, or a screen would say if you fail, then you go the option for, or you, if you fail you go to screen five and, and then there are existing you for referring to an existing process. Yeah, I'm not super articulate here because I haven't given it a ton of thought as to where else it would go. 638 Sky Stanfield 02:10:17.140 --> 02:10:31.745 Why don't we go onto the other language, but with that in mind, it's just a question of again, I'm not disagreeing with the, the process. I just want to make sure that wherever that is clear, we are in the process steps are best explained. 639 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:10:32.375 --> 02:10:38.195 And I see your point. So basically in screen m- we'd have to add the. 640 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:10:38.344 --> 02:10:50.794 Language for [...] projects and wait normally says, like, you know, if you fail a screen, M- go to submit a review or if you fill a screen and if you pass do this and we have to add language that's specific to [...]. 641 Sky Stanfield 02:10:51.214 --> 02:10:59.314 Right, and it may be, it may be if you fail screen, um, yeah, like where, where does that crosstalk? 642 Sky Stanfield 02:10:59.974 --> 02:11:05.284 See section X or whatever is that for [...] project? That's what I'm thinking. 643 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:11:05.884 --> 02:11:07.414 Okay, yes, yes. 644 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:11:09.814 --> 02:11:10.564 Okay, thank you. 645 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:11:20.284 --> 02:11:27.454 Next slide please, uh, was there any other question on that graphic before we move on. 646 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:11:30.364 --> 02:11:30.754 Okay. 647 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:11:33.874 --> 02:11:34.924 Alright, so. 648 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:11:36.455 --> 02:11:57.245 Slide fifteen, please next one. So for this slide, um, we're asked to discuss or clarify how customers will be given an opportunity to update the [...] values of one or more values does not comply with ninety percent. So what we wanted to clarify. 649 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:11:57.305 --> 02:12:18.395 This is also similar to the twelve already discussed before, and we wanted to clarify that this, uh, our response has changed from the very first response we provided under this section, and at this time it's consistent with what we talked about before. So basically. 650 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:12:19.084 --> 02:12:39.514 Customers who fail will be given an opportunity to provide a new [...]. They'll have five days to do, so they will not be allowed to have more than twenty percent reduction for any hour. The not allowed to increase the values and then wanted to also clarify. 651 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:12:39.549 --> 02:13:00.634 That, if the reduction impacts screen D and the cost and timing or reschedule based on table [...], and then there's a scenario here. So this scenario is customer submits [...] values with one or more values exceeding ninety percent of [...]. So the project would fail screen M. 652 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:13:01.264 --> 02:13:21.844 Uh, the customer will be informed of the discrepancy during the optional meeting and it have five days to submit revised [...] values if they submit those values within five days, we will study the project and the initial review if they do not, then the interconnection request will be withdrawn and the customer. 653 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:13:21.965 --> 02:13:36.935 Could apply either based on template LTP or just a limited export. So we've already talked about this previously, but if there's any other questions, please let me know. 654 Sky Stanfield 02:13:40.414 --> 02:13:48.184 Is the five business days the same amount of time that's in the material modifications or I guess there isn't a timeframe there, right? 655 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:13:49.144 --> 02:13:54.334 These are material notification, but there's a time in [...]. 656 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:13:55.924 --> 02:14:09.364 Well, actually the timing has to be, is just for, to convene a resource meeting, but we're proposing actually adding this time for a submission over a revised [...] profile. So this is going to be a change to [...]. 657 Sky Stanfield 02:14:13.264 --> 02:14:15.874 Okay, I'm just quickly looking at up to the, um. 658 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:14:20.825 --> 02:14:23.735 We may actually add it to F- two instead, I don't know. 659 Sky Stanfield 02:14:31.324 --> 02:14:38.224 Yeah, um, what I'm just contemplating is five days is pretty fast, but I also appreciate the need to keep things moving, um. 660 Sky Stanfield 02:14:39.424 --> 02:14:46.864 I don't know that we actually have any project developers do we have any project developers listening today. 661 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:14:56.045 --> 02:15:09.545 Yeah, the reason the reason why we chose five days sky is because I believe there's other sections in the area that govern the additional information request and they all have this five day timeline. So. 662 Sky Stanfield 02:15:11.829 --> 02:15:18.724 Not quite just additional information that's actually having the project redesign be redesigned essentially, right? 663 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:15:19.054 --> 02:15:21.814 No, it's just a profile. It's just a, it's just a new profile. 664 Sky Stanfield 02:15:22.744 --> 02:15:32.944 Right, which may require some economic analysis to determine if the new profile is viable. Um, again, I understand that there's some value moving fast here. So. 665 Sky Stanfield 02:15:33.394 --> 02:15:53.884 Um, but it's not just, uh, it is just a profile, like, actually updating the numbers is easy enough, but the decision of whether it makes sense to proceed or is viable is a different sort of a different consideration. Um, I'll just take that back and give it some thought, um. 666 Sky Stanfield 02:15:54.395 --> 02:16:01.655 I appreciate you guys putting this language together and um, maybe that, that's what applicants have to live with. 667 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:16:04.415 --> 02:16:25.115 Yeah, understood I didn't mean to minimize the, the other impacts, but I was, I was assuming, you know, based on my limited knowledge that customers would already know, like, you know, the constraints, right? Like anything under one Megawatt does it make sense, you know, something like that. So, but. 668 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:16:26.464 --> 02:16:27.544 Thanks for the additional. 669 Sky Stanfield 02:16:29.794 --> 02:16:45.904 Because it's going to depend on. Well, okay, so this is great. Yeah, so under the scenario where they made a mistake, I'm not that sympathetic again, you can can't see me, but I'm doing air quotes they're for mistake, but where are the [...] had. 670 Sky Stanfield 02:16:46.299 --> 02:16:54.994 [...] is the scenario that I'm kind of thinking about, um, kinda goes back to that earlier problem. I guess, but, um. 671 Sky Stanfield 02:16:58.684 --> 02:16:59.675 We'll think about it. 672 Justin Regnier 02:17:02.463 --> 02:17:11.253 Yeah, I echo Sky's concern on the five days just because as we get into more, um. 673 Justin Regnier 02:17:13.444 --> 02:17:32.944 Storage couple generation systems under lumen under that billing tariff. The, that's a, that's a multi- variant optimization to understand what's going to work under that scenario, Whereas before, before they change the name was low. 674 Justin Regnier 02:17:34.324 --> 02:17:55.324 A little more straightforward. So echo the concern on the five days, but else we made excuse me me raised my hand was the reduction of more than twenty percent of them. I don't understand why, why we're limiting the reduction and I'm sure Scott's conservative. 675 Justin Regnier 02:17:56.495 --> 02:18:02.705 If the change and L- G. P is coming out of a change in [...] with the customer. 676 Justin Regnier 02:18:04.085 --> 02:18:18.065 Could not have anticipated getting to an [...], That means the new [...] May necessitate more than a twenty percent change. So I don't know if you can speak to that, but Alex. 677 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:18:19.775 --> 02:18:23.974 No, I think, I think I need to take this by Justin. 678 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:18:25.175 --> 02:18:45.965 Settled on twenty percent because that's the current percentage included in the material notification section, but I understand Sky's concerned and your concern. So what I'd like to do is take this back to the [...] team and have a discussion on, do we. 679 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:18:46.234 --> 02:18:57.274 To align with that twenty percent or is that, is there a need to come up with a different number or allow an unlimited reduction and, you know, that sort of thing. So. 680 Sky Stanfield 02:18:58.294 --> 02:19:07.294 Yeah, thanks Alex, I think that the, um, if we sent you guys PG e. 681 Sky Stanfield 02:19:07.384 --> 02:19:28.444 [...] have been doing this, um, where we're a customer applies under the [...], just a flat [...] limited generation profile or limited expert profile or non- profile whatever. Um, I'm curious just, there may be some insight from what the reaction is under that language. 682 Sky Stanfield 02:19:28.504 --> 02:19:49.534 Where you come back and say, actually the ICF changes you said this does happen and so it might just be helpful to think about what has been happening when you notify a customer that the [...] has changed or you are, they just withdrawing or are they proposing modifications or how is that being? 683 Sky Stanfield 02:19:49.600 --> 02:20:10.025 Handled in general because like, we talked about the language and the term isn't terribly clear right now it says you have to notify the customer and provide the reason again, it doesn't say, specifically in the initial review results, but I think that's a reasonable interpretation and then I just said, well, what are people doing when they get that answer today. 684 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:20:12.995 --> 02:20:21.635 Yeah, so for projects that are using like a single [...], if they fail initial review, then they will proceed to supplemental review, right? 685 Sky Stanfield 02:20:21.965 --> 02:20:22.385 Right? 686 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:20:23.464 --> 02:20:44.584 Usually it's not usually the, I don't think there's any, um, there's been any issues meaning that customers are not questioning, like, why, why did I go to submit to review because the understanding is that we have an ability to calculate updated ICM values. 687 Sky Stanfield 02:20:45.004 --> 02:20:52.924 Well, it's also because you're reviewing them under [...] under Em right now, right? Okay. 688 Sky Stanfield 02:20:55.204 --> 02:21:08.944 Do you guys have on that point? Do you have proposed language in here for screen M- cause we are gonna have to. I can't remember if we looked at that already, we are gonna have to clarify that screen number is applied differently for LDP, right? 689 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:21:09.784 --> 02:21:15.604 Yeah, we do not. Yeah, you called this out earlier. So we'll have to come up with some language at least clarify. 690 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:21:16.504 --> 02:21:21.484 What happens for [...], And then what happens if you fail, we have to include that language in screen name. 691 Sky Stanfield 02:21:22.474 --> 02:21:28.114 Right, so for the, in specifically that it's not that it's applied using s- g- instead of F, right? 692 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:21:28.564 --> 02:21:29.284 Exactly. 693 Sky Stanfield 02:21:29.914 --> 02:21:30.394 Thanks. 694 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:21:37.264 --> 02:21:38.284 Any other questions? 695 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:21:43.624 --> 02:21:45.574 Alright, so next slide, please. 696 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:21:48.275 --> 02:22:07.325 This is also some clarification that we will ask to provide. So clarify, how project is studied if customer does not respond within five business days of being notified that the [...] does not comply with ninety percent of [...] at each hour, [...] was asked to. 697 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:22:07.954 --> 02:22:18.034 Correct, it's language to reflect at or below ninety percent instead of only below ninety percent. Um, the response is [...] confirms that it will make the change. 698 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:22:20.343 --> 02:22:36.093 And then we also, this second paragraph is sort of related to the previous slide and what we're seeing here is that the previous language that was provided the response that was provided under three D- three, um. 699 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:22:37.865 --> 02:22:58.295 Is not valid anymore and the previous slide and the process diagram that we already covered is the new process that I use are proposing, and then for this next one I use should also clarify any additional changes required for this step based on the. 700 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:22:58.564 --> 02:23:10.684 Kind of discussions towards resolving issue two and a bite by previous direction regarding material notification. So we're not proposing any additional changes required in reference to issue to. 701 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:23:12.665 --> 02:23:31.475 And then we're also not proposing any changes as far as the material notification five hundred and twenty- one at this time. So if we do go through and make changes to table [...], then that will be new, but at this point, at this time, we're not proposal to make any changes. 702 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:23:33.964 --> 02:23:34.834 Any question. 703 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:23:36.874 --> 02:23:39.934 Justin, do you have your hand up now or did you forget to put it on? 704 Regnier, Justin 02:23:44.465 --> 02:23:45.485 Sorry, I forgot to put it down. 705 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:23:54.424 --> 02:23:55.264 Any questions. 706 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:24:01.989 --> 02:24:09.664 [...], okay, no, no questions. You can move on to the next slide. 707 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:24:15.754 --> 02:24:33.004 So this is still under the technical evaluation phase. Uh, we're trying to clarify when customers do not need to respond within five business days, but still requesting all GP interconnection on justification of the five business days. So I think the five business days. 708 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:24:33.365 --> 02:24:54.125 Um, we mentioned before, and I've also mentioned it today that it's used in other parts of rule twenty one. So for example, e- five, but we, so that's why we felt like this was it made sense to use five days, but we phase on Sans and I'll take you. 709 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:24:54.185 --> 02:25:15.305 To the team and see if we can clarify why we would want to maintain five days if we're able to adding additional time, and then so the first part of this response is just clarifying that the previous response is outdated and what we provided today is the. 710 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:25:15.333 --> 02:25:36.453 Position, are you position moving forward and then for three D- five, um, we provided additional statements that are applicable to all three. I use. So the [...] tools and enhancements to existing tools will have to be developed to. 711 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:25:36.514 --> 02:25:57.484 Frequently valued [...] projects. These tools either software or hardware or enhancements and necessary to efficiently extract the most updated [...] profile import. The customer provided [...] profile compare each hour of the profile and determine if the profile of the project meets the criteria of each. 712 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:25:58.864 --> 02:26:18.754 Additional enhancements to planning tools and [...] process may be needed to enable efficient and automated integration of [...] into the interconnection process. In addition, distribution modeling enhancement will be necessary to reflect the [...] projects and then once [...]. 713 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:26:18.785 --> 02:26:39.425 Project connects a unique output profile, must be stored maintained and referencing system planning in interconnection and during ICF studies. So this, this is just going over what enhancements the, I use feel necessary to efficiently effectively deal with LGB projects. 714 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:26:40.655 --> 02:26:41.855 Any questions about this? 715 Sky Stanfield 02:26:43.235 --> 02:26:59.225 Do you guys have proposed time like, so we know the changes need to be made, I guess the committee is going to need to know how long you need to what you're thinking about how long it will take you to do that from when the commission order or the resolution is issue, right? 716 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:27:00.605 --> 02:27:00.905 Yeah. 717 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:27:02.133 --> 02:27:15.153 Speaking for PG E- we're proceeding with the understanding that [...] implementation is nine months after, uh, forget the exact language, but, um. 718 Sky Stanfield 02:27:15.693 --> 02:27:18.333 Essentially nine months, let's say nine months after the. 719 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:27:21.544 --> 02:27:21.784 Yep. 720 Sky Stanfield 02:27:21.994 --> 02:27:24.784 So you think you'll be able to do it within the next month, essentially. 721 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:27:24.964 --> 02:27:29.974 That's the plan. Um, I would not, uh, you know. 722 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:27:30.875 --> 02:27:51.425 For those who have looked at the PG E [...] results, they downloaded the results right now, they do include a column that has the, at this time monthly [...] values. So, so basically it's a minimum of all the hourly, you know, it's G value. So. 723 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:27:51.844 --> 02:28:12.964 Customers could basically look at that, but of course, if we're going to go to twenty- eight and different values in that will require additional changes, but if it's two eighty- eight values with all of unique values, then that is easily identifiable on the downloadable [...] results today for the PG E. 724 Sky Stanfield 02:28:13.865 --> 02:28:18.095 Well, for all the utilities, it includes the full two eighty eight profile. 725 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:28:18.875 --> 02:28:25.085 Yeah, well I think they were proceeding under the understanding that we'd have to do twelve and we'll try to simplify it. 726 Sky Stanfield 02:28:27.094 --> 02:28:27.394 Okay. 727 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:28:32.674 --> 02:28:40.024 So I don't know if anyone else you wanna chime in on the timeline for system tools changes. 728 Michael Barigian SCE 02:28:41.044 --> 02:28:49.624 Yeah, thanks Alex, this is Michael [...]. So the response we got from our internal teams that are developing these capabilities gave us a time. 729 Michael Barigian SCE 02:28:49.630 --> 02:29:10.775 Frame of two thousand and twenty- five quarter, three with approximately sixty percent confidence in that timeframe. So they're still working on documenting the capabilities and adding them to the road maps and evaluating the work that's going to be needed to implement them, but that's not to say that we're not going to be able to do this until that timeframe. We would utilize manual mechanism. 730 Michael Barigian SCE 02:29:10.834 --> 02:29:21.574 Where we need to comply with the nine month timeframe with that timeframe twenty- twenty- five [...] refers to is when we're starting to see a more automated more efficient approach to these projects. 731 Yi Li SDG&E 02:29:35.105 --> 02:29:55.835 Sure if there was any question from Michael that, ah, this is [...]. I think we talked about earlier given the number allocation [...]. Typically get, is a smaller amount. Uh, we're planning to mostly just handle it in our existing process with the addition of some Excel sheets and possibly automation, depending on how many. 732 Yi Li SDG&E 02:29:55.899 --> 02:30:06.064 [...] files, we'll have to evaluate how many points et cetera and obviously open to exploring a further if we get more applications to further enhance that efficiency. 733 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:30:13.804 --> 02:30:16.654 Thank you, Michael. Thank you, so are there any questions. 734 Sky Stanfield 02:30:17.674 --> 02:30:29.734 So, in conclusion what I understand is that each of the utilities believes that they will be able to process interconnection applications for [...] within or by the nine months. 735 Sky Stanfield 02:30:29.854 --> 02:30:43.474 Deadline whether you're, you fully updated your tools or you're doing it on a more manual or process, but that you will be able to start processing your [...] applications after nine months. 736 Sky Stanfield 02:30:45.455 --> 02:30:47.075 thumbs up, cool, thank you. 737 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:30:54.964 --> 02:30:55.114 Okay. 738 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:30:55.174 --> 02:30:56.734 Thanks next slide. Please. 739 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:31:09.245 --> 02:31:10.715 Can we go to the next slide? Francisco? 740 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:31:14.764 --> 02:31:15.184 Thank you. 741 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:31:17.254 --> 02:31:37.414 So for this slide, this is in, uh, phase four, which is interconnection agreement PTO phase discussion below provides clarification of the requirements fulfilled performance verification relationship to certification testing and the process for developing commissioning test procedure. 742 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:31:37.445 --> 02:31:37.775 Yes. 743 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:31:39.514 --> 02:31:58.564 So I think during the last presentation there was a question that had to do with whether I use a requiring additional testing or commissioning for [...] projects above and beyond what's required for other projects. So we wanted to clarify. 744 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:32:01.234 --> 02:32:21.124 Of I used field performance verification is to verify the operational performance performance to ensure that the installed equipment has been set to meet the intended need configured and configured consistent with the customer, proposed [...] values and the operational requirements of rule twenty one. So the. 745 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:32:22.685 --> 02:32:42.215 Main thing here is that feedback or response directly to what Justin had? I use is that our testing or commissioning will be consistent with row twenty- one section five, a- we will conduct field performance verification commissioning. 746 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:32:42.279 --> 02:33:01.324 Testing for [...] projects. Consistent with how it is conducted for non- [...] projects, including remote remote inspection is permissible and we would follow what was already approved in [...] advice letters that are listed on the screen. 747 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:33:07.385 --> 02:33:08.765 Any questions about this? 748 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:33:19.324 --> 02:33:37.144 Yeah, we also wanted to clarify that the full performance verification commissioning tests default from their certification testing in that these are professional tests for equipment that have been installed in the field as opposed to lab tests using in RTLS to. 749 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:33:37.294 --> 02:33:53.314 Verify that the equipment being tested meets the requirements of the standards such as I triple a one hundred and forty- seven or you or seven hundred and forty- one. So we're talking about full testing rather than lab testing. 750 Sky Stanfield 02:33:58.055 --> 02:34:06.215 Alex, what are you doing today with projects using PCs? Are you field testing all of them? 751 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:34:06.905 --> 02:34:16.415 No, we're not testing all of them. We are testing a select number of projects, and then once we, once we verified performance and. 752 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:34:16.805 --> 02:34:22.205 Any subsequent projects using the same equipment for the PCs. We don't go test them. 753 Sky Stanfield 02:34:22.955 --> 02:34:31.625 Okay, so do you anticipate the same thing once you've tested a few with the PCS scheduling, but you won't need to do field tests for all of them. 754 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:34:32.165 --> 02:34:36.515 You're free if it's the same piece of equipment. Yes, I anticipate the same fall in the same process. 755 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:34:39.394 --> 02:34:40.714 The [...]. 756 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:34:40.745 --> 02:34:57.035 Certified to [...] standard and we perform verification for an agreed upon number of devices or installations, then we should, we should not be able to, We should not be required. We should not require testing for subsequent installations. 757 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:35:04.264 --> 02:35:05.434 Any other questions? 758 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:35:17.464 --> 02:35:24.484 [...] Jeanine is that consistent with you as far as testing go tests. 759 Yi Li SDG&E 02:35:26.104 --> 02:35:28.654 Yeah, that's the same with us. Thanks, Alex. 760 Michael Barigian SCE 02:35:28.654 --> 02:35:31.654 Yep, same [...]. Okay. 761 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:35:31.684 --> 02:35:32.134 Thank you. 762 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:35:35.704 --> 02:35:49.354 Alright, so no questions for this other section. The question was, sorry back to the previous slide. Please, Sorry, I use Chuck. Sorry, was there a question. 763 Justin Regnier 02:35:50.674 --> 02:35:55.444 Yeah, it sounds like [...] tests. The first. 764 Justin Regnier 02:35:55.804 --> 02:36:15.994 Each type of equipment to the I'll use share with each other, which ones they haven't haven't tested. It seems that, I mean, it seems that testing for function, something that has been certified to function as it was a bit of overkill, but I understand why you're. 765 Justin Regnier 02:36:16.745 --> 02:36:33.755 That for testing it and all three [...] seems a bit wasteful. I don't know if you share it with each other, you know, manufacturer X model Y was faster or commissioning testing and you need to run that with the other two values. 766 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:36:35.285 --> 02:36:37.715 Yeah, so in the past we have shared informed. 767 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:36:37.750 --> 02:36:58.895 [...], what happens is sometimes we get projects that come in. Let's say all three, I use GIT specific PCs around the same time, right? So if we have customers that want to proceed to interconnection and then now we're willing to wait then we may not be able to. 768 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:36:58.924 --> 02:37:20.044 Wait for, you know, for example, you need to complete the testing before we can issue PTO for up for the PG E- customer. So in those scenarios, then we may, we may end up doing testing at all three utilities differently at the same time or close together, but if we have a project that's already connected in one [...], then we may be able to leverage the tech. 769 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:37:20.074 --> 02:37:20.464 Sting. 770 gary holdsworth sdg&e 02:37:30.575 --> 02:37:33.425 By that answer, I was going to add a little bit. 771 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:37:36.123 --> 02:37:37.143 Go ahead, go ahead Gary. 772 gary holdsworth sdg&e 02:37:37.203 --> 02:37:56.613 Gary, it is, it still isn't covered upon each utility to, to feel comfortable with their testing procedures, so they should be sharing best practices for sure, but they don't necessarily have to be the same. 773 gary holdsworth sdg&e 02:37:57.784 --> 02:37:59.344 Let's make sure we understand that. 774 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:38:01.594 --> 02:38:01.894 Yeah. 775 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:38:03.785 --> 02:38:23.885 Agreed, yeah, I know during the unrelated notification only process, there was a discussion of potentially maintaining a list across the I used that could be shared, um, for PCS, so I kind of answered that question. 776 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:38:24.935 --> 02:38:28.625 Knowledge of the previous discussion, but you're right, Gary. 777 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:38:41.135 --> 02:38:42.305 Are there any other questions? 778 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:38:52.504 --> 02:39:11.104 Okay, so for this, for this next section, we wanted to clarify that floor performance verification slash commissioning test will ensure that the project is set up to comply with [...] requirements and that we already addressed the issue of quarterly reporting. 779 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:39:11.494 --> 02:39:30.124 In previous discussions and we would like to clarify that. I use, we'll use [...] data and telemetry for projects greater than, or equal to one meg or to verify [...] performance requirements, and then the last point is protection. twenty- one. 780 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:39:31.715 --> 02:39:52.265 Yeah, I read the question first so PG e- states that it will review discussion. Oh, discuss and agree on the verification process procedures more clarity is needed whether this is slowly at PG E is discretion or it involves the customer should [...] also adopt similar language when aligning the process. 781 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:39:52.384 --> 02:40:13.474 Which they should also, they shall also abide by this requirement. So we did want to clarify that rule. Twenty- one sections, l- five, eh, I use may require a written commissioning test procedure to be provided by the interconnection customer, ten days in advance with the commission. in case I use with coordinate. 782 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:40:13.504 --> 02:40:16.684 With the customer on the development of the commissioning test procedure. 783 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:40:20.044 --> 02:40:21.844 Any question on this clarification. 784 Sky Stanfield 02:40:29.015 --> 02:40:32.345 This is the same as the language is in the territory. You're saying. 785 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:40:33.395 --> 02:40:38.885 Yeah, there's already a section of five in Detroit that covers commissioning test requirements. 786 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:40:43.955 --> 02:40:44.525 Procedure. 787 Sky Stanfield 02:40:44.705 --> 02:40:58.925 And are you. So how do you do this today? So it says it may require written commissioning testing procedure. Do you, when do you typically require that and how do you think that will be the same or different for [...]? 788 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:41:01.085 --> 02:41:02.825 I don't think it will be different. So. 789 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:41:02.974 --> 02:41:23.974 Typically, what happens is if we get a project that comes in, that's using a controller or a PCS, we would ask the customer to provide us a test procedure that, you know, basically test the function of the [...]. So if it's something that's limiting export or limiting input. 790 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:41:24.154 --> 02:41:45.094 Then they would say, you know, we would begin to use that if it's going to be a live test, then they would essentially detail what, what system is going to be on the PCs, what's going to be on if it's in a PV storage customer loading, what brick is going to be opened and how the anticipated. 791 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:41:45.130 --> 02:42:06.275 PCS reacting to that, right? And then it would cover things like communication tests, communication, failure communication. So if you're using communication to reduce export, then we would test what happens when they lose communication, but essentially the way the process works is. 792 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:42:06.304 --> 02:42:27.334 Customer would provide us with a description of operation. Let's say this is how the system works, you know, if we have export values exceeding x, this is how the system's going to react to reduce the export to the approved export limit, and then if we lose communication, this is how the system's going to react. It's not going to. 793 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:42:27.455 --> 02:42:47.855 Sport anything it's going to cease to operate and then once we get that we would review it, if it's something that makes sense, then customer would give the, in addition to that, or at the same time, provide us with a procedure that essentially verifies what the detailed in the description of operation we would review that procedure. 794 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:42:48.874 --> 02:43:06.424 If we have enough information and, you know, it looks like something that can be verified in the field, then we would schedule a inspection or witness testing and then that testing would be to verify what the customer say is the system does I don't know if I answered your question. Sorry. 795 Sky Stanfield 02:43:07.294 --> 02:43:09.694 I, um, I guess what I'm understanding from that. 796 Sky Stanfield 02:43:10.234 --> 02:43:22.324 I'm not pushing back. I just want to make sure I'm understanding is that essentially, for the LDP is going to be a little bit more complicated because of the profile to come up with the test procedure. Is that correct understanding? 797 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:43:22.984 --> 02:43:26.584 I, I'm not sure that is going to be more difficult. 798 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:43:28.593 --> 02:43:44.073 Maybe the testing because I'm not sure if we have to eighty eight values whether we'd want to test all to eighty eight, right? Basically, for a certain number of hours to check to verify that the whole profile would work correctly, but that's still TBD. 799 Sky Stanfield 02:43:45.903 --> 02:43:48.213 Yeah, I guess this just seems like one of the ones. 800 Sky Stanfield 02:43:49.444 --> 02:43:59.464 Once we get out in practice that it might be helpful for the, once the utilities have done a few of these to be able to provide good guidance to customers and what they're looking for, if it turns out to be. 801 Sky Stanfield 02:44:00.844 --> 02:44:10.684 What they, what they actually want to have tested, but I guess that the tariff already provides for that opportunity, but so every customer is not having to go through the same back and forth learning curve will be good to hear. 802 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:44:13.144 --> 02:44:13.504 Yeah. 803 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:44:14.794 --> 02:44:35.554 And for what, what is what we usually provide customers is like a framework of what we're looking for, um, at least for PG E, you would say, no, we need, we need this. We would tell them we wouldn't give him the test procedure, but we'll tell them like this is what we're looking for based on your description of operation, we want to check. x, y- z, so tell us how x- y- z is accomplished kind of thing. 804 Sky Stanfield 02:44:37.594 --> 02:44:39.124 Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. 805 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:44:46.205 --> 02:44:47.255 Any other questions? 806 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:45:00.405 --> 02:45:16.605 Alright, thank you Alex, and so I think before we move on to topic key, it's a good time to take a ten minute break. So let's or nine minute break. Let's be back here at eleven thirty. 807 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:45:19.034 --> 02:45:20.954 And then we'll resume with top key. 808 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:53:03.884 --> 02:53:09.224 All right, I'm just making sure that, um, utilities are back. 809 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:53:14.054 --> 02:53:16.784 Can I get confirmation from the utilities? Please? 810 Michael Barigian SCE 02:53:18.164 --> 02:53:19.154 Michael's here. 811 Yi Li SDG&E 02:53:19.844 --> 02:53:20.204 Okay. 812 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:53:24.644 --> 02:53:27.314 We're starting on topic II who is the presenter. 813 Yi Li SDG&E 02:53:28.754 --> 02:53:30.014 It's me okay. Can you hear me? 814 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:53:30.794 --> 02:53:31.484 Yes. 815 Yi Li SDG&E 02:53:31.604 --> 02:53:31.934 All right. 816 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:53:31.934 --> 02:53:32.384 Again. 817 Yi Li SDG&E 02:53:32.654 --> 02:53:34.934 I'm not yelling again, right? Sorry for that, really. 818 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:53:34.934 --> 02:53:41.234 Yeah, yeah, no problem. All right, perfect. Thank you, Francisco. 819 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:53:41.899 --> 02:53:45.434 So I think, uh, eleven thirty sharp. So I think we can get started. 820 Jose Aliaga-Caro 02:53:47.774 --> 02:53:48.284 Take it away. 821 Yi Li SDG&E 02:53:48.974 --> 02:53:52.844 Sounds good, Francisco. If you don't mind, go to the next slide. 822 Yi Li SDG&E 02:53:54.589 --> 02:54:15.614 So as a recap, we already started talking about the different kind of options for a topic e- just a clarification on [...] slides. We didn't feel like there was a time formation between workshop two and workshop three. So hopefully today can be an open dialogue on collecting more thoughts on this topic. 823 Yi Li SDG&E 02:54:15.764 --> 02:54:36.884 And if needed, we can further discuss this at the [...] discussion. This Thursday, um, but just to provide a recap on what was previously presented by Roger, uh, based on industry member inputs, which thank you very much. Can, uh, essentially we discuss. 824 Yi Li SDG&E 02:54:37.905 --> 02:54:58.005 Seven options including the PCs with integrated schedule, which was the original option, if you will, that was specifying the resolution. So just to connect the dots as far as what Alex was presenting earlier part of the option. 825 Yi Li SDG&E 02:54:58.039 --> 02:55:19.184 [...] five and the option, the new option to help that corresponding with the green one in this table, which is used [...] with integrated schedule it obviously a few other options, which involves PCS device also is dependent on PCS. Andrew is being available. 826 Yi Li SDG&E 02:55:19.334 --> 02:55:40.184 But, uh, just want to point that out, so it's clear to folks that, that's what's that about. So as a recap in summary, we have three operational option, one, two, three and [...] through [...]. So this is my. 827 Yi Li SDG&E 02:55:40.424 --> 02:56:01.394 Standing of previous discussions. Yeah, workshop and maybe some follow- up conversations between [...] team and the industry member, it appears that the most practical master slash option is Joe to use the [...] standards with integrated schedule, which. 828 Yi Li SDG&E 02:56:01.489 --> 02:56:07.364 Means I'm talking about the number, Mr. G- slash option three in this table. 829 Yi Li SDG&E 02:56:08.654 --> 02:56:29.504 So, as far as the timeline updates, our understanding is that right now, uh, the [...] team is still on track to finish the standards by the second quarter of two thousand and twenty- three, again, I know a lot of folks who are leading that is on the call, so feel free to jump in if you feel. 830 Francisco ITAV Support 02:56:37.785 --> 02:56:39.075 You went on mute. 831 Yi Li SDG&E 02:56:40.335 --> 02:56:49.365 Oh, I don't know what happened. I guess I'll mute myself. So still got where I mute myself really, but what I was. 832 Sky Stanfield 02:56:49.365 --> 02:56:49.905 Saying is. 833 Yi Li SDG&E 02:56:49.905 --> 02:56:50.265 That. 834 Sky Stanfield 02:56:50.535 --> 02:56:54.255 I heard you the whole time. Yeah, I don't know if others here. I didn't hear you on mute. 835 Yi Li SDG&E 02:56:55.125 --> 02:56:55.635 Okay. 836 Yi Li SDG&E 02:56:57.044 --> 02:57:17.624 Maybe Francisco caught me before I keep going. So thank you for that just to recap because that based on what we're hearing the standards is actually being developed and anticipating to be completed by the second quarter of two thousand and twenty- three, we feel, it's still the most practical approach to implement [...]. 837 Yi Li SDG&E 02:57:18.254 --> 02:57:30.224 Waiting for the standard to be available. So with that, I'm gonna pause and see if anybody has any questions or wanted to jump in and add it to some additional thoughts here. 838 Sky Stanfield 02:57:41.054 --> 02:57:58.484 So this is Skype, I guess, um, I certainly agree that [...] should go in the roles as we've discussed about. Um, I'm also interested in making in making sure that we discuss whether it's possible to do. 839 Sky Stanfield 02:57:59.445 --> 02:58:17.685 Any of the options that do not require a PCs, um, because of the size limitation issues for those, and it looks to me like those would be the method, the operational options number one, is that correct? 840 Yi Li SDG&E 02:58:19.694 --> 02:58:40.814 Little more than that, but before we go there, Sky, I just want to key on the site limitation issues. So I'm not a technical expert. I was asking a few others after the workshop discussion. My understanding is that the [...] is designed in a way to allow size no size limitation. What's the. 841 Yi Li SDG&E 02:58:40.844 --> 02:58:46.424 However, so does it, is there actually a site limitation issue with the [...] standard. 842 Sky Stanfield 02:58:46.754 --> 02:59:01.964 My understanding, and of course, the engineer should speak to this one to me is not that the PCS has a size limitation. It's just that the way that the projects that have to be configured, they're likely to use multiple devices and so getting the certification for the whole system. 843 Sky Stanfield 02:59:01.970 --> 02:59:12.225 [...] is the problem. Once you get above one Megawatt, so this certified concept is problematic. Brian did I characterize that correctly? 844 brian 02:59:14.955 --> 02:59:34.245 I think so. I mean, basically, it's just, the larger system might be more likely to use more equipment that may not be certified together because if he's a PCs, if the PCs for a separate box, which it may not always be, but it might be a separate box that controls inverters and you may be more. 845 brian 02:59:34.454 --> 02:59:54.284 To have inverters from manufacturer a plus inverters from manufacturer B, especially if it's a PV plus storage system that is ac coupled. So those are, they won't be certified together unless, you know, the manufacturers work together to get those things certified together and so there's kind of infinite combinations that one might have to certify. 846 Sky Stanfield 02:59:55.694 --> 03:00:07.454 Brian, is there a way that could be worked around in our work here by doing additional testing and, or commissioning simply of those systems, if the utilities were open to that. 847 Sky Stanfield 03:00:09.794 --> 03:00:19.814 Dave, again, maybe exposing my ignorance on exactly how the certification for the [...] component works, but, um, I know that that's. 848 Sky Stanfield 03:00:21.104 --> 03:00:39.644 What I really do think we need to spend some time trying to figure out options that are safer reliable, but also feasible for those larger projects, and I'm wondering if that issue of having multiple different inverters or something could be tested in the, through the commissioning testing process. 849 Sky Stanfield 03:00:42.314 --> 03:00:42.974 Viable. 850 brian 03:00:43.934 --> 03:00:46.604 Uh, so. 851 Sky Stanfield 03:00:46.604 --> 03:00:46.874 Yeah. 852 brian 03:00:46.874 --> 03:01:00.194 You could, you could have a non- certified quote unquote power control system that works, that does all the things that we wanted to do, and if it's not certified, so I don't know if you're asking if. 853 Sky Stanfield 03:01:00.854 --> 03:01:01.814 I guess I was asking. 854 Sky Stanfield 03:01:01.844 --> 03:01:17.864 Is, could you use a certified PCS plus additional inverters or how does that work? Like, is there some middle ground between an entirely non- certified PCS and again, I just, I don't understand that there's not enough, that's a silly question. 855 brian 03:01:18.644 --> 03:01:18.944 I. 856 brian 03:01:20.204 --> 03:01:26.954 I would have to ask the manufacturer whether there's any likelihood of cross compatibility, but. 857 brian 03:01:29.055 --> 03:01:29.985 It seems. 858 brian 03:01:32.264 --> 03:01:51.734 At least fifty percent unlikely that you'd be able to take a PCs from manufacturer and make it worth with, with inverters from manufacturer B because some of them may be using similar communications protocols to accomplish the TCS function. Maybe that's a possibility. 859 brian 03:01:52.635 --> 03:02:05.475 Um, but it's, it may equally be a possibility that someone's just using other methods to accomplish that, and there would be no way for somebody else doesn't hurt us to work with that. 860 Sky Stanfield 03:02:07.455 --> 03:02:13.725 Okay, so that was that just that basic explanation of why what the. 861 Sky Stanfield 03:02:13.754 --> 03:02:15.884 Size limitation is makes sense to you. 862 Yi Li SDG&E 03:02:17.744 --> 03:02:34.784 Not exactly, so just let me, let me make sure I understand. I'm also not clear what, what was, what Brian was describing as a tentative to PCS, is that matching any of the methods we're discussing here because looking at. 863 Yi Li SDG&E 03:02:34.994 --> 03:02:56.024 Mr. eight through F, which are outside of g, right? Each of them will still require some sort of inverter with a gateway testing, right? And it looks like you're going to have the same issue where you use multiple inverters, you have to make sure the [...] gateway or a [...] server. 864 Yi Li SDG&E 03:02:56.114 --> 03:03:03.374 Also work these multiple inverters, right? how's that not an issue with the other approach. 865 brian 03:03:07.754 --> 03:03:10.544 I'm not sure if I follow the question, but there's. 866 brian 03:03:12.975 --> 03:03:15.975 The methods that are spelled out here. 867 brian 03:03:17.204 --> 03:03:37.184 Are utilizing community communication protocols that are well specified, basically, and so you can leverage those to talk to any inverter system that has the ability to bring in those communication protocols. 868 brian 03:03:40.125 --> 03:03:59.475 And yeah, so therefore you're kind of, um, you can talk to, that's the whole reason why one hundred and forty- seven specified, these protocols is that you'd be able to talk to manufacturer is inverter in the exact same way you've talked to manufacturers these inverter and so, yes. 869 brian 03:03:59.774 --> 03:04:19.964 That could be done. I mean, you're essentially doing the same thing. You're, you're setting up a power control system, but you're using specified communications methods. So if we were to implement one of the methods a- through F- maybe we would add on a method G- but it. 870 brian 03:04:22.154 --> 03:04:40.664 The thing that I just described might be somewhat similar to one of these methods as well. You've got a server or you've got something that stores a schedule and it sends out power commands to inverters and those are the essential ingredients and this is doing that. 871 brian 03:04:41.804 --> 03:04:48.674 A through F is doing that and on top of that, specifying what communication, um. 872 brian 03:04:48.830 --> 03:04:51.045 Protocol must be used right? 873 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:04:51.855 --> 03:05:09.975 Suggest Shawn, just to, I think the difference is g- if you are doing about one Megawatt and you using multiple in what is the schedule is stored in the PCS and the [...] through communication Protocol to all the inverters. 874 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:05:10.004 --> 03:05:31.124 In one to, or eight to f. Um, the schedule is coming from a server to the gateway and then the gateway is doing the same thing. So the main difference is one is how are you getting the schedule and who's storing the schedule. So, um, but the community. 875 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:05:31.129 --> 03:05:51.614 [...] more or less pretty much would be the same. So, um, ideally, uh, if you have a metal G- that supports my John's charging if it gets scheduled from external sources, it would be the same as, uh, eight and a half. 876 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:05:53.984 --> 03:06:04.964 Protocol, the PCS gets the, the [...] file through an external interface and can be uploaded. Can you can see that it's, as soon as the BCS plus gateway. 877 Yi Li SDG&E 03:06:12.284 --> 03:06:28.184 Okay, I'm a, I'm a bit slow. So let me see if I actually understand that. So what are we saying is that it sounds like the message [...], which is a use of [...] with integrated schedule work. 878 Yi Li SDG&E 03:06:29.354 --> 03:06:38.744 And there may be opportunity for incorporating additional flexibility in future revision to allow primary control via the cloud. 879 Yi Li SDG&E 03:06:40.365 --> 03:06:59.115 Am I totally crazy saying that, or I'm just trying to understand, you know, before we say that there was other option trying to understand what problem we're trying to solve and is it one of those master is better than the [...], which is what [...] recommended? We continue with. 880 Sky Stanfield 03:07:00.225 --> 03:07:01.365 It's not necessarily just. 881 Sky Stanfield 03:07:01.904 --> 03:07:11.354 I'm not going to just, we're just saying one or only one messages should be, you, we agree the PCs should be possible. We're looking at whether we need another method. I would say. 882 Yi Li SDG&E 03:07:12.674 --> 03:07:23.954 But is it because the existing method definitely doesn't work or is there just, it's just complicated to get it tested, which may be the same scenario for any of the other master to. 883 Sky Stanfield 03:07:24.854 --> 03:07:26.774 Yeah, that's what I'm trying to explore with you here. 884 Yi Li SDG&E 03:07:27.494 --> 03:07:33.494 Yeah, I'm trying to understand, so I'm looking for your help on like what exactly is the issue. 885 Yi Li SDG&E 03:07:33.799 --> 03:07:34.874 We're trying to solve here. 886 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:07:35.234 --> 03:07:54.884 Yeah, I think one megawatt, even with the PCs, you end up with having multiple inverters, so the, um, the [...] will have to send commands or communication protocol to the [...], and these are certified inverters with certified protocol into. 887 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:07:54.975 --> 03:07:57.765 This is my asking though [...]. 888 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:07:58.095 --> 03:08:18.915 Right, so the [...] certified inverters, so you can send a command for export limit the PCS can send with the schedule store and stored inside. So, um, so the issue is as a science, increases. 889 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:08:19.994 --> 03:08:40.064 You don't have like, one [...] integrated solution that does, you still end up in an architecture that is similar towards describing ABC ABC SU. So that's kind of the issue. Um, and so you have to use. 890 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:08:40.094 --> 03:09:01.214 And communication protocol and certified [...] interface to send commands, um, to make the whole thing. Well, so what Brian was saying is that you don't have like, one to two point eight, you might not, we'll meet the requirement. It's still have to send commands. 891 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:09:01.425 --> 03:09:10.635 To meet a met about one mega. One it is doable. It's what it will look similar to one to ABC or yes. 892 brian 03:09:12.704 --> 03:09:33.644 So what I guess what the effect is, is that the, um, the testing for certified systems is done as a type test. So it's done, you know, four eight, one piece of equipment that represents everything that's ever going to be shipped, right? Or everything that's going to be put together in a few in the field, we. 893 brian 03:09:33.674 --> 03:09:54.794 Whereas there, there are gonna be instances where you could come up with a design that does not fit any of those testing scenarios and so that would shift the testing burden to commissioning rather than, rather than type testing, perhaps some desk level evaluation plus commission. 894 brian 03:09:55.034 --> 03:10:09.284 But in general, you know, that's what it means, if you can't have something certified to fit a standard, then that means you need to do the testing elsewhere that typically just winds up being in the field commissioning time. 895 Yi Li SDG&E 03:10:21.015 --> 03:10:38.295 Able to maybe like, similar to what we had previously discussed, you know, in the last workshops, are you able to like all the architecture out or like, explain that to, to the group here? Like I mentioned. 896 Yi Li SDG&E 03:10:38.624 --> 03:10:52.754 We didn't really have much to present on this topic for today's workshops. So I think that utilities are open to see that if you have additional information because based on what we know so far, we don't feel like there is. 897 Yi Li SDG&E 03:10:54.075 --> 03:11:01.065 Needs or there's enough sort of driver to explore additional, uh, [...]. 898 brian 03:11:04.664 --> 03:11:23.684 Yeah, I could try to draw something up. I mean, I think the other options have been, we'll explored and I guess what we're saying is that we just need to continue down the line of potentially exploring the other options as well as PCs. 899 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:11:25.394 --> 03:11:46.034 Just to add to that, I think in the diagrams that Roger made earlier, if you replicate the gateway with the PCs and the, um, export monitoring from the, sorry, the BCC collect the export. 900 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:11:46.634 --> 03:12:01.274 Generation data, I think that would be the architecture, so it's, it's pretty much the same architecture, Roger man, but yeah, minor changes not included in the BCS architecture. We didn't have multiple models that you're dealing with. 901 Yi Li SDG&E 03:12:03.374 --> 03:12:08.834 Sorry, wh- what is what equipment is going to be monitoring at the [...]. 902 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:12:09.404 --> 03:12:24.254 The PCs, so the, the difference would be that now the PCs would still be monitoring the PCCC, but there'll be still be multiple inverters shown in Rogers diagrams for [...] that. 903 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:12:24.284 --> 03:12:30.914 Would be the, and the PCs will be connected through protocols to these multiple languages. That would be pretty. 904 John Berdner Enphase 03:12:30.914 --> 03:12:31.154 Much. 905 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:12:36.674 --> 03:12:37.334 John. 906 Yi Li SDG&E 03:12:37.844 --> 03:12:38.894 John, go ahead. 907 John Berdner Enphase 03:12:40.964 --> 03:12:53.624 Yeah, um, I, uh, I put some notes and a chart, but, uh, PCS does not allow primary control to be done through the cloud, specifically. 908 John Berdner Enphase 03:12:55.215 --> 03:13:15.015 So the controller, uh, that's actually doing the primary control must be at the site that is not to say that you couldn't use a communication- based method on site. It also does not prohibit the scheduling function to occur in the cloud, but the actual. 909 John Berdner Enphase 03:13:15.045 --> 03:13:23.655 Or control of the export moment must be at the site. That's a specific requirement. So, um. 910 John Berdner Enphase 03:13:24.914 --> 03:13:46.034 Other issue would be, uh, how do you evaluate the equipment from different vendors today within your world? You have to specifically evaluate that equipment and type testing There are, uh, there are options for [...] thing where you take a equipment from manufacturer. 911 John Berdner Enphase 03:13:46.124 --> 03:14:07.154 A, um, different equipment for, uh, from manufacturer, be Andrew evaluate it at a given site and you get, you would get a PCS listing for that site, but that, that listing is not transferable. It is for that site only if you were to take the. 912 John Berdner Enphase 03:14:07.214 --> 03:14:19.544 zack, same combination of equipment and move it to a different site. You would have to do another field listing for that second site or third type of website. 913 John Berdner Enphase 03:14:23.115 --> 03:14:29.265 So, I only, I don't see an easy way to do equipment from multiple. 914 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:14:29.265 --> 03:14:30.255 Vendors. 915 John Berdner Enphase 03:14:30.615 --> 03:14:43.845 Other than onsite commissioning testing or field testing and both of those are, but, um, uh, uh, difficult the, how are you going to run a [...]? 916 John Berdner Enphase 03:14:43.849 --> 03:14:54.404 [...] and load test. I guess you'd have to bring a big load bank out, uh, in order to evaluate the operation with [...]. So it's not trivial, it's not easy. 917 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:14:57.434 --> 03:15:13.334 Also, John, if the [...] is receiving schedules like from a cloud or from remote, then should it be also [...] certified because it's getting scheduled remotely. I understand the control part, but the. 918 John Berdner Enphase 03:15:20.534 --> 03:15:37.424 So remember that response time is a critical element here. So you can't just say, well, we have a communication system and it supports this protocol and something else supports the same protocol. So everything is fine. You have to validate. 919 John Berdner Enphase 03:15:37.574 --> 03:15:38.414 The response, right? 920 Frances Cleveland 03:15:40.874 --> 03:15:58.334 So I guess, um, the, uh, site testing would be primarily for the DVR client, the person who owns the site once the PCS is certified because the PCs, um. 921 Frances Cleveland 03:15:58.844 --> 03:16:16.334 Would be certified to manage, whatever is within the site. So the site testing may not be needed by the, I'll use once they're comfortable with that, the [...] is truly a compliance and certified, I. 922 John Berdner Enphase 03:16:16.334 --> 03:16:16.574 Think. 923 Frances Cleveland 03:16:16.574 --> 03:16:18.494 That's the distinction I'd like to make. 924 John Berdner Enphase 03:16:20.235 --> 03:16:40.875 Yeah, just, uh, however, um, the [...], uh, control function wherever it may reside has to be evaluated with the [...] and it's intended to control. You can't just say, well I have a controller and it runs a PCS function and sends out [...]. 925 John Berdner Enphase 03:16:40.879 --> 03:16:50.414 And, uh, and some other device that sees my best command that may all be rolling good, but you can't get that certified at the normal. You would have. 926 Frances Cleveland 03:16:50.414 --> 03:16:50.534 To. 927 John Berdner Enphase 03:16:50.534 --> 03:16:55.304 tally that controller with this specific piece of equipment that is being controlled. 928 Frances Cleveland 03:16:57.704 --> 03:17:02.024 But is that needed for the IO use? Because all. 929 Frances Cleveland 03:17:02.029 --> 03:17:02.414 All their. 930 John Berdner Enphase 03:17:08.054 --> 03:17:09.254 We lost your Francis. 931 Yi Li SDG&E 03:17:11.714 --> 03:17:15.674 Yeah, we can't hear you for instance, not sure if you are muted. 932 Frances Cleveland 03:17:18.584 --> 03:17:19.394 Can you hear me now? 933 John Berdner Enphase 03:17:20.054 --> 03:17:20.744 Yeah, go ahead. 934 Frances Cleveland 03:17:21.975 --> 03:17:42.795 Okay, so again, I'm separating out what would be needed by, by the neural testing it for the D. C. for the [...] client as opposed to what the use need, uh, from the PCs and uh, if you will seven hundred and forty- one. 935 Frances Cleveland 03:17:42.919 --> 03:17:57.644 [...] is a good. Uh, it should have any default actions taken by those PCs, um, you know, with the equipment within the site is not operating correctly. 936 John Berdner Enphase 03:18:00.015 --> 03:18:00.705 So, again. 937 Frances Cleveland 03:18:00.735 --> 03:18:04.455 So I think there are two different things is really trying to say. 938 John Berdner Enphase 03:18:04.455 --> 03:18:20.025 Yeah, if you, if you type test it, then it's equipment from manufacturer equipment from manufacturer either evaluated to work properly together. You can't then take equipment from manufacturer C and say, well that works as well. 939 John Berdner Enphase 03:18:21.105 --> 03:18:42.135 How tight testing works. Oh, that would not be an option and at least what we looked at earlier in the proposed modifications to, um, uh, the tariff, it says it has to be, uh, listed. So if we were. 940 John Berdner Enphase 03:18:42.164 --> 03:18:54.854 To say, well it has to be listed or, uh, I use can do drawn own onsite testing. Um, we'd have to go back and modify the stuff we saw earlier because that's not what it says. 941 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:19:00.914 --> 03:19:12.614 John, the two second time is for the PCs to react, right? Or, or is it the communication, How do you define that two seconds? 942 John Berdner Enphase 03:19:18.284 --> 03:19:21.674 Hang on, I need to put on my headset. I'm having a hard time hearing you just a minute. 943 brian 03:19:25.815 --> 03:19:44.025 I can answer that the two second time response is that the power is actually reduced within that are reduced within ninety percent of the total change within that amount of time. So the entire communication system works, as well as the power electronics take. 944 brian 03:19:46.124 --> 03:19:47.174 They are complete their actions. 945 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:19:48.314 --> 03:20:01.694 But it's, it's from what trigger, what triggers that like from minute monitor is something on the BCC and then sends and controls it to bring it down in two seconds. Is that. 946 brian 03:20:02.414 --> 03:20:04.934 Right, from the start of the written exports. 947 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:20:08.834 --> 03:20:09.284 Okay. 948 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:20:12.045 --> 03:20:23.505 Schedule the scenario would that happen because your anyway schedule and you have the, um, so that's technically though. 949 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:20:27.824 --> 03:20:35.204 Yeah, how, how will it happen in a scheduled scenario because you already have scheduled it, you know, ahead of time that, what's the limit fine. 950 brian 03:20:35.324 --> 03:20:46.004 Yeah, I mean it's not a problem for changes in the schedule is just a problem for the limit, maintaining the limit itself. I think that's what. 951 brian 03:20:46.305 --> 03:21:05.505 John was pointing out is that you've got, you've got one hundred inverters on site that you have to communicate with, to reduce power in real time in response to changes in load that may be more challenging than doing that with one or two inverters, basically in order to stay within that two second response. 952 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:21:06.855 --> 03:21:07.305 Okay. 953 brian 03:21:08.144 --> 03:21:13.154 So, yeah, it's not not the changes in the values of the schedule that is concerning here. 954 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:21:32.595 --> 03:21:52.275 And the excursion, um, or changes, um, beyond two seconds is there, does the regulation say, sorry, is there any requirement on that? Is that seem that in two seconds? Become three seconds nearly by day of communication delays. 955 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:21:52.965 --> 03:21:56.325 Does that mean that a client is, um. 956 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:21:58.814 --> 03:22:13.784 noncompliant [...] or the [...] data, you're monitoring there. I think you're looking at more of a good, fifteen minute data, right? So. 957 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:22:15.405 --> 03:22:33.375 No, so, so this is Alex from PG E. So the aim I get it that we're leveraging is only for us to be able to confirm the export value after the fact [...] information or system has nothing to do with [...]. 958 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:22:34.574 --> 03:22:54.524 You know, in real time, right? So the requirement is that the [...] is able to control the open loop response time, which is what Brian just defined few minutes ago is two seconds and then time to steady state is ten seconds. So the PCS has to be able to control. 959 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:22:55.185 --> 03:23:03.315 Two ten within two seconds and then to five percent or lower within, within ten. 960 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:23:03.315 --> 03:23:04.095 Seconds. 961 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:23:06.044 --> 03:23:24.104 Okay, so the option one and two since there's no load is not included this because anyway, the next generation will be lower than the load, the issue, this issue is not there only when it's BCS and we are monitoring the [...]. 962 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:23:25.635 --> 03:23:36.225 Tool ensuring that between the raw load and the generation. we won the discussion, uh, the control to be within two seconds. You need to meet that deadline by. 963 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:23:38.925 --> 03:23:43.965 So I think option a method C is the one that. 964 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:23:45.704 --> 03:23:56.744 Let's see was more conservative, right? Because it's measuring at the invite at time he knows, but he's actually loading. So the assumption is that, that number is going to be lower than what would be exploited. 965 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:23:57.194 --> 03:23:57.614 Yeah. 966 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:23:58.124 --> 03:23:58.514 Yeah. 967 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:23:59.144 --> 03:24:05.804 So all the, uh, I think both A, B, C, D, F- all are measuring and being loaded on. 968 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:24:07.214 --> 03:24:12.974 Yeah, no, ABC invite a terminal D. e, f, g. PCCC. 969 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:24:22.575 --> 03:24:26.655 Okay, yeah, yeah, so ABC, this should be a problem. 970 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:24:32.624 --> 03:24:35.864 Shouldn't be a problem, but, uh, so let's see. 971 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:24:43.484 --> 03:25:03.764 Yeah, it just depends on if there's no loading on site and you're, you're basically setting the export limitation and measuring at the invited terminals, then they would be the same value minus any losses. You still have the issue, right? Because if your. 972 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:25:04.334 --> 03:25:18.584 If you, if you lose any loading, then you may end up exporting more than you're supposed to, and then it just has to do with, you know, what the difference is between what the inviter Tammy knows the measuring plus. What's going across the BCC and then you have this. 973 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:25:19.759 --> 03:25:22.274 Time when you have to react and reduce it to that expert limit. 974 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:25:25.424 --> 03:25:28.454 I don't know if I'm prepared to say there's no issue, um. 975 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:25:29.684 --> 03:25:32.444 No, sorry, [...]. 976 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:25:32.450 --> 03:25:40.005 See you're not measuring load Dawn. So you are, if those load, it'll always be lower than in. 977 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:25:40.215 --> 03:25:40.515 Yeah. 978 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:25:41.085 --> 03:25:53.595 But if, since you're not measuring load, you're just setting the inverter values to whatever is done and GP value. So it'll always be at that value or lower because you're not. 979 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:25:53.624 --> 03:25:54.494 Measuring low. 980 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:25:54.914 --> 03:25:59.804 Yeah, the assumption that I think is that the reason load on site, if you don't have any loading on site, then. 981 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:26:00.974 --> 03:26:10.454 Even, yeah, even then you, you're still not considering load and [...] at all. So you're just setting the model output though. 982 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:26:13.454 --> 03:26:28.334 Yeah, but the issue I guess what I'm pointing out is that if you have no loading and you're measuring the export typing by the time he knows then what's flowing across the [...] will be a dollar value, less any losses between that point in the [...]. 983 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:26:29.294 --> 03:26:29.534 Yeah. 984 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:26:29.564 --> 03:26:33.074 Right, so if whatever reason I don't know. 985 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:26:33.079 --> 03:26:54.224 What could maybe is that there's a failure in the schedule something happens and you need to control that export value. You still have the two seconds and the ten seconds, right? I understand that it's more than one issue when you have loading because then there's more chances of that export to be export limit to be exceeded if you lose some load. 986 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:26:54.345 --> 03:26:57.375 Or something happens. It was just loading, but yeah. 987 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:26:59.055 --> 03:27:02.955 The concern doesn't one hundred go away. I think because I'm trying to say. 988 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:27:05.114 --> 03:27:25.064 So we had discussed that with Roger at that time, and so once we set the inverter at one P limit the, the only condition where that will happen is that the next hour values lower and there's a communication failure and you didn't set it in the next. Yeah. 989 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:27:26.054 --> 03:27:34.904 You will be exporting more because for some reason, the gate within was not able to send the value to the, um. 990 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:27:37.035 --> 03:27:49.995 Right, yeah, but that's the only place where we have an issue, but then that applies to wherever there was a communication, so we have that concern everywhere. 991 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:27:51.375 --> 03:27:51.945 Yeah, so. 992 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:27:52.665 --> 03:27:53.775 Communication, so. 993 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:27:53.985 --> 03:27:57.675 Yeah, I think that's why John can correct me. 994 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:27:57.704 --> 03:28:18.734 I'm wrong, but I think there is, there's going to be requirements to address that issue, if you lose communication, do you default back to the, you know, the lowest value in the schedule or that's why the standards for testing a very important, and that's why we have to wait for those to be in place because we have to have those sort of a fail safe. 995 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:28:19.124 --> 03:28:30.794 Systems in place, right? Do you, what happens if you don't have any communication, do you just go back to the lowest value in the schedule? Do you go to the previously scheduled value? What do you do? In that case. 996 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:28:33.584 --> 03:28:53.234 So there are two communication. One is a local communication. So this failure happens only the local communication fields, one of the external communication fields, um, or from the [...] server to the gateway, the gateway will still work with the schedule. It has, and what will limit is on the invoice will continue. 997 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:28:54.494 --> 03:29:04.724 So the default switch won't happen because the module set to appear in the middle to the new limit is settled continue as it is. Um. 998 John Berdner Enphase 03:29:09.195 --> 03:29:27.555 Um, in the interest of time, uh, we discussed these issues every week on the [...] call and we have discussed local com versus, uh, remote comms. All of that has been discussed. I would say if we're interested in that discussion. 999 John Berdner Enphase 03:29:28.424 --> 03:29:37.814 Folks can contact me can attend the call to an open call and we'd be glad to go through it. It's a Tuesday morning at eight thirty. 1000 Yi Li SDG&E 03:29:42.195 --> 03:30:00.225 So I do have a question for the stakeholder on the call here just so that we understand how we should move forward because as you know, this is the third workshop we have another workshop and we do have to put in the vice letter that sort of the approach is. 1001 Yi Li SDG&E 03:30:00.349 --> 03:30:18.854 It is, it being discussed. Is that some stakeholders are willing to pursue like a site specific testing and pay for that expense. Whatever that is, instead of going through a certification testing, is that kind of what's being explored here in this discussion. 1002 John Berdner Enphase 03:30:22.004 --> 03:30:38.414 I believe that's what is being discussed and there are a couple of paths forward if we look at the language that is being proposed for the terrorists for the screens, which we saw earlier, it says you'll have, um [...]. 1003 John Berdner Enphase 03:30:38.419 --> 03:30:59.564 Or D- or a relevant URL standard it is possible to get that listing on a side- by- side basis through equipment testing in the field whether people want to pay for that or not. Uh, it's a whole set of question, but it is, there is a mechanism that is called. 1004 John Berdner Enphase 03:30:59.594 --> 03:31:20.594 Maybe today called field listing, and that would be possible. So you hired the test lab to bring test equipment out into the field and run the test protocol for a given standard in the field, and then you'll get a listing. Yeah, it'd be a full PCS listing the. 1005 John Berdner Enphase 03:31:21.015 --> 03:31:28.035 It's only good for that site. If you say, well, I'm building that exact same system two miles away. 1006 John Berdner Enphase 03:31:29.179 --> 03:31:31.034 You have to get another field lesson. 1007 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:31:33.524 --> 03:31:54.554 So John, this is Alex, I think, I think that's an excellent proposition because one of the reasons why we went down the path of [...] was because we used to receive all these custom control systems and it takes quite a bit of time to. 1008 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:31:54.584 --> 03:32:15.704 You come up with a way to test them a program and for projects, especially projects that can do, can get listed as a, under the [...] it makes sense for them to do the testing, get certification and then propose a project that speeds up the process for interconnection, helps all parties involved. So. 1009 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:32:15.885 --> 03:32:36.675 For the few projects that can't do that, I think what you're proposing makes sense there would still be listed, but it would just be the project or customer or developer would permission to do a field commissioning test and then a program, it would be listed and then they can provide that information as part of the interconnection request. 1010 brian 03:32:42.044 --> 03:32:57.854 Is there any reason, Alex or other, I use why we wouldn't also be able to pursue what are the communications based methods here and have a commissioning test on site and then, you know. 1011 brian 03:32:58.214 --> 03:33:04.814 Ongoing monitoring that the utility plans to do via the telemetry. 1012 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:33:08.414 --> 03:33:12.764 You mean like commissioning tests by the utility rather than, by the [...]. 1013 brian 03:33:16.304 --> 03:33:20.954 Yeah, there could be witnessed by the utility or attested to, um. 1014 brian 03:33:22.844 --> 03:33:42.854 Yeah, some sort of additional commissioning tests that, that validate the ability of the, the system to control power to a certain limit, and then, you know, the sounds like the systems are. 1015 brian 03:33:43.154 --> 03:33:47.924 Already going to be monitored to ensure that they comply with the schedule over time anyways, so. 1016 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:33:48.614 --> 03:34:04.274 Yeah, but the issue, Brian is that the monitoring is, is not a real time It's, it's based on [...]. It's not very reliable, meaning that those systems are typically not readily available to planning engineers or even operations. 1017 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:34:04.305 --> 03:34:25.395 Engineers, so it's going to be like an, after the fact thing and I think that what John's proposing, if there's a pathway for, in our channels to do with the testing, I think that's probably best because this is going to be based on the [...] standard or [...] test protocol. I don't think the utility personnel is. 1018 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:34:25.429 --> 03:34:41.144 Really the best people to be, you know, doing this testing or witnessing this testing and, you know, if they're not, or can do it, then we should just have that done that way, and then the customer can schedule it at their own convenience, and then once it's done, provide the information to the utility. 1019 Yi Li SDG&E 03:34:43.814 --> 03:35:04.904 Yeah, I agree with Alex, um, the, the distinction here is that we can, we will be amenable to a field specific listing done on site, uh, arrange by the customer to show that it meets the requirements specify the [...] standards, but we are not in the business. We're in the appropriate position to perform any sort of. 1020 Yi Li SDG&E 03:35:04.909 --> 03:35:09.614 [...] testing. We just don't have that ability to do. 1021 brian 03:35:19.304 --> 03:35:28.394 I do think that is one option. I am curious whether that's the best option I have to think about this a little further and then come back to it, but. 1022 brian 03:35:30.554 --> 03:35:40.064 Yeah, I'm not, I don't don't love, you know, just completely going away from the communications- based approach. Um. 1023 brian 03:35:42.434 --> 03:35:52.334 But, uh, yeah, I understand the idea of testing complicating validation, um, if the utilities have to be the ones witness. 1024 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:35:54.824 --> 03:36:02.144 Yeah, and then there's also the issue with liability, right? If we utility does the testing we say it's okay, then that kind of shifts the liability to the. 1025 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:36:02.835 --> 03:36:03.795 How are you? So. 1026 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:36:05.924 --> 03:36:22.034 Like for one megawatt nearby, you have telemetry at the site, right? For larger systems, you're getting real time data, right? So the communication based options you already have control as well. It's not just [...]. 1027 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:36:22.274 --> 03:36:26.684 No, we don't, we just, just because we have visibility, it doesn't mean we have. 1028 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:36:26.714 --> 03:36:47.834 Control and even if we had control most of the, most of the control is, is not autonomous, right? Somebody actually has to detect an issue and do something about it, and we, we don't nobody is there's no one just kinda like monitoring these systems in real time to see whether there's an issue and then react to it, right? So as much as we do. 1029 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:36:47.840 --> 03:37:08.955 Do have the ability to query the aside and see what's being exported. We'd rather set it up correctly from the get go that way issues are not the norm, you know, we don't want to just say, okay, because we have visibility into the facility we'd like to make sure that the control system is designed correctly will walk correct. 1030 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:37:09.044 --> 03:37:18.254 Before we can allow the project to connect, and the only way to do that is to verify the system based on these prescribed test protocols. 1031 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:37:19.874 --> 03:37:30.134 That applies to the other system, the options, um, one and two as well, right? It's, it's supposed to work. It is the e. 1032 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:37:30.164 --> 03:37:51.194 Equipment is independently certified and [...] works and you're monitoring it in real time. So, so there is an imply thing that each of the [...] certified to work as expected, so individually they are certified, so they should work as expected. So. 1033 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:37:51.315 --> 03:38:12.435 You have real time monitoring. So this is, so there is no requirement that you monitor it continuously and take any action. It just gives you the information that these products are certified and since they are certified, it's supposed to work. The only difference is there are two separate. 1034 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 03:38:12.554 --> 03:38:27.254 certifications, right, that's the only thing, but typically they should go and so what's the, I don't fully understand the difference there between that and the other one. 1035 Frances Cleveland 03:38:29.924 --> 03:38:50.504 So maybe I can just add a little bit on the, um, communications in the telemetry. Um, it seems to me that if you're asking a [...] site to meet [...] requirements, it would be, um, a good idea. 1036 Frances Cleveland 03:38:51.195 --> 03:39:11.415 Ah, to add the communication telemetry in which case, that would be a non- issue for those one Megawatt because they already have it, but also to add the ability for the [...], the utility to monitor or at least, um. 1037 Frances Cleveland 03:39:12.074 --> 03:39:27.524 Determine in near real time if there is something that is anomalies namely above the export limit, it seems to me that if you were asking for. 1038 Frances Cleveland 03:39:28.964 --> 03:39:37.934 L- g. p. then it should be also important to ask the utilities to monitor those situation. 1039 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:39:40.124 --> 03:39:49.724 Yeah, so, so that's why I think what we were asking for telemetry and, uh, settled on a, my information, right? And also, I mean, what. 1040 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:39:49.755 --> 03:40:10.875 This is going to ha- what's gonna happen is we're going to do this confirmation after the fact, right? For you to be for you to be able to monitor your site and figure out what did the export limit is being exceeded, what happens during the monitoring also has to have a scheduling it, right? Because how do you know you're violating something that you don't know. So it's not just enough to say is export because. 1041 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:40:11.204 --> 03:40:32.024 If I select is allowed to export, we're saying, are you exporting more than being has been approved and for you to do that check with the utility installed telemonitoring equipment that also has to have scheduling it to check against the expert value. So, what would be what we weren't going to be using the [...] has no. 1042 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:40:32.055 --> 03:40:36.465 Really to even do that. Let alone be a real time monitoring system. 1043 Frances Cleveland 03:40:39.194 --> 03:41:00.224 I realized it's not there right now, but it seems to me that this could be something that would simply be a part of the whole [...] process, uh, that it would be good to require the communications and the monitoring of the communications based on the schedule values as part of [...]. 1044 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:41:01.335 --> 03:41:05.235 That would be ideal. Yeah, so process if I understand you correctly, you are. 1045 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:41:07.305 --> 03:41:28.305 Suggesting, or proposing that we should have something at the BCC that in real time looks at how much power is being exported and in real time verify that, that is consistent will be allowed or approved export limit and is also capable to do something if there is a violation, meaning control the. 1046 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:41:29.024 --> 03:41:35.204 You know, either the [...] breakout control, the generation system or something. 1047 Frances Cleveland 03:41:38.024 --> 03:41:49.454 Well, I think there are two issues, the PCS, other PC. S- is monitoring the PCCC at all times and should have the ability to, um. 1048 Frances Cleveland 03:41:49.724 --> 03:42:10.634 Take actions whether it's to cease to energize if it's not controlling its own [...], if there's a problem at the PC, see the PCs ought to be able to do something about it. However, if you want to monitor it from an [...] perspective, maybe you can ask the PCS. 1049 Frances Cleveland 03:42:10.755 --> 03:42:19.575 Provide you with the real time data whether you're one Megawatt Megawatt or not large size, um. 1050 Frances Cleveland 03:42:20.834 --> 03:42:41.744 That way you would know what is happening at the PCCC in near real time. I don't suggest seconds smarter skater, but something in near real time and if something is happening that the PCS itself is still not taking care of, you can give a phone call. 1051 Frances Cleveland 03:42:42.404 --> 03:42:56.744 I agree with John. You don't want to actually do something, um, automatically there if all you're seeing is that the PCS is not quite handling things correctly. 1052 John Berdner Enphase 03:42:57.944 --> 03:43:02.834 Uh, this, John, I put something in the chat and we discussed it, uh, at. 1053 John Berdner Enphase 03:43:02.900 --> 03:43:24.045 One point, um, and that would be if you have an uncertified [...] from the customer perspective, it's going to control the export and they may feel comfortable with that, Typically for large sites, it may make sense to say, well you had an uncertified PCS using equipment. 1054 John Berdner Enphase 03:43:24.049 --> 03:43:45.194 From different vendors that meets the functional requirements, but is not certified in that case, an option would be to require a direction where we're currently relay, in addition to the uncertified PCs and that becomes your secondary method that ensures there's something new. 1055 John Berdner Enphase 03:43:45.285 --> 03:43:53.895 behaves, the system doesn't create a hazardous condition on the grid and for larger systems that may not be a significant cost. 1056 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:43:57.885 --> 03:44:17.625 The concept of a relay is okay, but the issue is, is that relay? Is it, is it, um, does it also monitor the site based on the schedule and use that schedule? Does it get an input from the system gateway, for example, as far as what the schedule is, so it can. 1057 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:44:17.654 --> 03:44:23.444 Know when the schedule is being violated because we're not talking to one single limit at this point, right? 1058 John Berdner Enphase 03:44:25.124 --> 03:44:36.854 Right, I think, uh, I think really sort of available to do that. I can look if you want specific part numbers, but I believe you can have time variant settings and release. 1059 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:44:38.564 --> 03:44:45.824 Yeah, you don't mind providing the information. John, I'm not aware of any relay that is capable of having at least know. 1060 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:44:45.854 --> 03:45:06.974 Up to two hundred and eighty eight. Oh, even twelve, I'm not aware of there might be some out there, but I don't know of any, and then the other thing too, this might be utility specific, but if you're going to use a relay, they send requirements as well. It really has to be, for example, for PG E- that really has to be approved for specific functions. 1061 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:45:06.980 --> 03:45:27.555 So we have a list that shows relays that are approved for non- export or thirty- two function or over current or under voltage our voltage. So if we're going to be using a relay, we'd have to go through the same process and if there's a high tripoli function for ten variant. 1062 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:45:29.294 --> 03:45:35.264 Export limiting like you referenced John, then you would have to be satisfied or approved for that function. 1063 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:45:36.590 --> 03:45:41.535 Then once it's approved, once then it's good to go for the, you know, for the rest of the installations in the future. So. 1064 brian 03:45:42.615 --> 03:45:48.375 Alex, I think that we'd be using the same relays, but you would be adding on an automation controller. 1065 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:45:49.815 --> 03:45:53.535 This is a separate controller, in addition to the real, it's not internal to the relay, right? 1066 brian 03:45:53.925 --> 03:45:57.615 Right, but yeah, so if it were Schweitzer. 1067 brian 03:45:57.884 --> 03:46:09.224 Whatever relay, seven hundred fifty- one or whatever you want to use for the thirty- two functions. They also make a relay or a realtime automation controller that can control those limits. 1068 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:46:09.944 --> 03:46:13.154 Yeah, so now back to using a relay within our tech, right? 1069 brian 03:46:14.204 --> 03:46:18.824 I believe so. I believe that's the, the way it would be implemented. 1070 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:46:24.530 --> 03:46:40.185 So I really would be okay to use an app for relay for non- export or limited export, if he was just looking at one function, but once you introduce this issue of a profile, then you just not as, as clear cut. 1071 brian 03:46:45.974 --> 03:46:50.894 So are you saying that there would be no way to, for the utility to support. 1072 brian 03:46:52.875 --> 03:46:57.855 Utilizing our tech with a- with a relay that they've already certified. 1073 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:46:59.415 --> 03:47:12.495 It's not one of the options that are listed on here, right? I don't think it's something that was discussed before I think Roger had the options. I don't see it on here. It might be, it may just take out one quick look. 1074 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:47:14.114 --> 03:47:14.594 I don't see. 1075 Yi Li SDG&E 03:47:14.684 --> 03:47:20.654 I mean is the idea of using the relay to cobble with the PCs or to replace the PCs. 1076 brian 03:47:22.124 --> 03:47:34.904 It would basically be enforcing, I mean, this is done today. Sometimes the relay enforces certain parameters that the system is maintaining. So. 1077 brian 03:47:35.030 --> 03:47:55.965 You know, a system might have, yeah, the relay isn't actually acting as the power control system. In most cases, you're going to have a power control system in place that manages the output of the inverters, right? To maintain a certain level of control, but since they're not certified, then you would add on this relay to basically be. 1078 brian 03:47:56.384 --> 03:48:12.404 Replacement for certification. And so that's something that's likely done today for static limits, and then we'd be basically taking that same concept and simply applying the schedule. 1079 John Berdner Enphase 03:48:15.225 --> 03:48:35.655 Uh, this is John. I just looked online and I just went to SCL and looked at a two hundred and fifty- one and seven fifty one and they both have local communication ports that support [...], for example, so if we've established that the scheduling can be. 1080 John Berdner Enphase 03:48:36.134 --> 03:48:56.594 Uh, cloud base, then, uh, the, the, where w- wherever is doing the, the scheduling could send, uh, updates to the relay, the relay would be there to back stop the uncertified PCs and the time variant limiting behavior would. 1081 John Berdner Enphase 03:48:56.894 --> 03:49:02.864 Be transmitted to the relay at least based on my first cut at looking at it. 1082 brian 03:49:04.484 --> 03:49:10.154 Yeah, I think that's usually done that probably can be done multiple ways, but I think it's usually done through that. our tech. 1083 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:49:13.994 --> 03:49:32.804 So, again, so if you're using using a relay to customer control system and he doesn't even have to be PCS, it can be managed specific to that site. It could be anything at that point, you know, from a utility perspective. 1084 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:49:33.495 --> 03:49:54.615 It matter what's happening in the facility because for a static limit for one single limit. so long as the relay is capable of detecting export and controlling either a breakout generate or generate a breaker that would satisfy that requirement. This is for a single limit. This is something that we do today, right? The idea. 1085 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:49:54.644 --> 03:50:15.764 Of using a relay to, you know, with an architect to determine a time variant expert limitation is not done today. Doesn't mean it can be done. It's just not done today. We don't have a list of the distribution system. I'm not aware of any system that's installed that has a different expert limit, depending on the time of day or time, we have some. 1086 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:50:15.794 --> 03:50:27.374 Thing, so it would have to go through an approval process, if we deem that, that's something that's satisfactory, then we'll, it can be approved, but as of today, we don't have. 1087 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:50:28.904 --> 03:50:32.474 We do not have any systems approved to do what's being proposed. 1088 Sky Stanfield 03:50:33.104 --> 03:50:43.814 So this is good. I'm going to jump in here because I know Jose's going to jump in in three minutes and tell us we have to have a hard stop, Alex, it sounds to me like we're getting somewhere here and. 1089 Sky Stanfield 03:50:45.379 --> 03:51:03.464 I'm wondering you're saying that you guys would need to approve. I guess we need to talk about what that looks like and what it would look like to incorporate it into the terrorist, but Jose, should we, can we convene this conversation again after lunch or where are we schedule wise? 1090 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:51:05.204 --> 03:51:06.284 So we are. 1091 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:51:07.125 --> 03:51:11.745 You know, like I said, we have plenty of buffer at the end of the, um. 1092 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:51:13.604 --> 03:51:33.674 Shop today, so we can convene this discussion definitely afterwards and I do want to remind everybody that, you know, uh, identification, uh, this morning we're working group this week to also continue discussions on this topic. So, um. 1093 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:51:36.435 --> 03:51:55.725 Let's, uh, I would propose after lunch, let's convene for maybe half hour, forty- five minutes or so because I would like to get through topic F- two and then given timing we can go back to this topic or continue it continue it on topic. 1094 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:51:57.074 --> 03:52:03.284 I mean, on, uh, continue to topic E- on the smart number two working group. Does that sound like a plan? 1095 Sky Stanfield 03:52:07.785 --> 03:52:08.595 I think so. 1096 Sky Stanfield 03:52:11.385 --> 03:52:26.895 Again, this is not being the technical one, but I did feel like we were getting warm on something that might be workable, but maybe I wanted to pause there to just ask because that gives an hour for people who don't have other meetings at least digest how we would proceed with this. I guess. 1097 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:52:28.334 --> 03:52:36.404 Okay, so let's do that. Then let's reconvene after lunch then, and see where the, uh, you know, how the timing goes. 1098 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:52:39.795 --> 03:52:43.095 So like I said, we do have plenty of buffer at the end of the workshop. 1099 brian 03:52:46.965 --> 03:52:47.565 I think I. 1100 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:52:47.565 --> 03:52:47.805 Get. 1101 brian 03:52:47.805 --> 03:52:48.525 Ten minutes. 1102 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:52:50.565 --> 03:52:51.015 Is that. 1103 brian 03:52:51.465 --> 03:52:54.075 I think we only need ten minutes more on this, and then we'll have it, Let's. 1104 Sky Stanfield 03:52:56.355 --> 03:52:57.465 Love your optimism. 1105 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:53:00.015 --> 03:53:06.375 Yeah, but I do want to be a, you know, I did say, you know, but based on the schedule, you know, people may have scheduled. 1106 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:53:06.379 --> 03:53:16.514 The meeting, the other meetings for lunchtime night and I do want to be a recognize that, that, those meetings they may need other stuff to do. 1107 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:53:23.864 --> 03:53:25.064 So, okay. 1108 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:53:26.954 --> 03:53:41.714 But thank you Scott, you read my mind. I was thinking all right, I gotta jump in here at one point, but, uh, alright, so let's start back on slide twenty after lunch. So let's, uh, see each other back in an hour. 1109 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:53:44.684 --> 03:53:45.224 Sound good. 1110 Alex Mwaura PG&E 03:53:46.064 --> 03:53:46.634 Good, thank you. 1111 Jose Aliaga-Caro 03:53:52.154 --> 03:53:54.524 Alright, see you all back in an hour. 1112 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:53:25.814 --> 04:53:40.094 Thank you Francisco. and just, uh, let's do a quick roll check to make sure the speakers are on. Do we have the utilities back. 1113 Michael Barigian SCE 04:53:44.204 --> 04:53:45.614 Michael, from [...] on. 1114 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:53:46.424 --> 04:53:47.744 Alright, thank you, Michael. 1115 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:53:50.266 --> 04:53:51.676 Do we have you back? 1116 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:54:07.874 --> 04:54:09.764 Alex, do we have you back? 1117 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:54:28.364 --> 04:54:30.404 Anybody else back from the utilities. 1118 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:55:15.554 --> 04:55:17.804 Alright, let's give it a couple more minutes. 1119 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:55:43.874 --> 04:55:45.704 Either we have you back. 1120 Yi Li SDG&E 04:55:46.364 --> 04:55:47.114 Yeah, I'm here. 1121 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:55:47.654 --> 04:55:53.234 Okay, thank you and Alex, do we have for you back? 1122 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:56:01.994 --> 04:56:05.176 John Burger and Scott. 1123 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:56:05.324 --> 04:56:06.524 Do we have you back? 1124 Sky Stanfield 04:56:08.654 --> 04:56:10.484 I'm here with Brian. I think. 1125 John Berdner Enphase 04:56:11.354 --> 04:56:11.924 Yeah, I'm here. 1126 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:56:13.124 --> 04:56:24.104 Alright, thank you, Brian and I think John was off. So crucial to this conversation, so John Burger. 1127 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:56:37.814 --> 04:56:38.686 All right. 1128 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:56:40.874 --> 04:56:45.704 And I'll go back to Alex PG E. 1129 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:57:05.294 --> 04:57:13.274 All right, let's give it a couple more minutes, and then we'll start up again, just to give people a little bit more time to get back. 1130 Sky Stanfield 04:58:17.864 --> 04:58:22.724 Is someone able to ping Alex or others from PG E- that's who we're waiting for. 1131 Sky Stanfield 04:58:25.394 --> 04:58:27.764 Oh, you are. I thought that was what we were waiting for. 1132 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:58:28.424 --> 04:58:30.134 Okay, Alex, you're back. Okay. 1133 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:58:35.294 --> 04:58:38.714 And John, are you back burner? 1134 John Berdner Enphase 04:58:44.504 --> 04:58:45.194 Talking to me. 1135 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:58:46.064 --> 04:58:48.494 Oh, yes, just making sure you were on the call. 1136 John Berdner Enphase 04:58:49.394 --> 04:58:49.754 Yep. 1137 Jose Aliaga-Caro 04:58:49.904 --> 04:59:02.654 All right, okay, so I think we have the, uh, um, major people that we're discussing, uh, that we're talking before lunch break. So I think we can resume. 1138 Yi Li SDG&E 04:59:13.064 --> 04:59:24.106 My lunch break was filled up a meeting so I kind of forgot where we were when we had a break. So, um, I think we were talking about. 1139 Yi Li SDG&E 04:59:25.424 --> 04:59:46.544 The, I knew remember, Jolla had a good recommendation continue to take advantage of the field testing option to the extent that the PCs like equipment on site. Once you request a site, specially, if you're testing a lab, for example, at RTL to test through the [...]. 1140 Yi Li SDG&E 04:59:46.548 --> 04:59:54.374 Standard and that can kind of work from a testing perspective on site. Is that where we left off? 1141 brian 04:59:56.594 --> 05:00:16.724 This is Brian. I think we, we left off, um, looking more at the relay option as a- as an alternative to certification and potentially seeing what w, I think the next question that Alex was kind of lining up is whether or not the I use could support kind of. 1142 brian 05:00:17.714 --> 05:00:35.206 Verifying or certifying. I don't know exactly what the, the term they use is, um, the relay equipment that could potentially affect a schedule using a typical reverse power relay power BI- directional file. 1143 Yi Li SDG&E 05:00:36.346 --> 05:00:38.054 So if a relay. 1144 Yi Li SDG&E 05:00:38.834 --> 05:00:59.834 Is going to be used and couple with certified inverters and Gateway. Why can't that get a field testing like site specific testing to demonstrate that meet the whatever requirements in the PCs standard to get up. 1145 Yi Li SDG&E 05:00:59.984 --> 05:01:02.444 For integration. 1146 brian 05:01:05.714 --> 05:01:10.846 I think the idea would be that this would be as an alternative to feel certification. 1147 Yi Li SDG&E 05:01:12.494 --> 05:01:12.766 No, no. 1148 brian 05:01:13.154 --> 05:01:13.544 It's. 1149 Yi Li SDG&E 05:01:13.544 --> 05:01:13.876 What I'm. 1150 Yi Li SDG&E 05:01:13.994 --> 05:01:25.154 I'm hearing is that folks on the call believe that architecture can meet the requirements of [...] PCs. Hence, why its a appropriate alternative, right? 1151 Yi Li SDG&E 05:01:30.254 --> 05:01:36.434 Meet the requirement. How can, why can't it get the field testing for field listing, if you will. 1152 John Berdner Enphase 05:01:38.024 --> 05:01:59.084 Yeah, this is John. I, I had proposed, um, using, uh, uh, direction over currently in conjunction with an uncertified PCS as a way to meet, uh, utility requirements. So you would essentially use the. 1153 John Berdner Enphase 05:02:00.314 --> 05:02:20.234 As a, um, backstop or secondary limited and then the customer would use the uncertified PCs as a way to avoid nuisance stripping of the direction we're currently, but the overcrowding. 1154 John Berdner Enphase 05:02:21.314 --> 05:02:41.294 Totally requirements, um, for protection, um, the uncertified, um, PCS could meet the customer need to avoid nuisance stripping. So that's what I was proposing. Um, I did look, uh, during the break I looked at the. 1155 John Berdner Enphase 05:02:41.684 --> 05:03:02.534 [...], uh, [...]. Uh, um, so, um, they have a number of directional relays that do have communication interfaces, including my bus and the MP, three and, um, uh, I see six thousand one hundred and fifty, I put. 1156 John Berdner Enphase 05:03:02.564 --> 05:03:12.374 Call into [...], I haven't heard anything back yet, but these based on the data sheets, I think it's worth exploring a bit further. It looks like it might be viable. 1157 brian 05:03:17.956 --> 05:03:36.314 And you to your question, this is something that could be verified. Basically wants seems like, you know, the, the equipment itself could be verified once rather than requiring a listing for every single site. So there may be, you know, certainly commissioning tests to make sure that. 1158 brian 05:03:36.584 --> 05:03:40.394 That is set up, but you wouldn't have to feel this the same equipment over and over again. 1159 John Berdner Enphase 05:03:45.134 --> 05:03:58.724 And, uh, I think since we've already established, if we look, I'm looking at this matrix on the screen and essentially I think it would combine, um, I think it's basically, um. 1160 John Berdner Enphase 05:04:01.064 --> 05:04:14.536 Operation option to, uh, I believe it's the first one where you have, um, a server or [...] that then is communicating with the, um. 1161 John Berdner Enphase 05:04:16.484 --> 05:04:28.876 directional currently to provide the guarantee of not exceeding the export, so it may be a burning method d- item two. 1162 John Berdner Enphase 05:04:30.974 --> 05:04:31.814 It would seem to me. 1163 John Berdner Enphase 05:04:35.054 --> 05:04:49.784 It could also be done as method c- um, I wouldn't say the inverter terminals, uh, per se, but maybe the combined output of multiple inverters could run through the relay. 1164 brian 05:04:58.184 --> 05:05:19.302 I was gonna ask Alex is, you know, it sounds like there's ways that the utilities are certifying relays today. I don't know if there's something in section L- twenty one that references how this would be done. I haven't gone through there yet, but is there a standard process by which this would be done or is it. 1165 brian 05:05:19.334 --> 05:05:21.584 More utility, internal. 1166 John Berdner Enphase 05:05:24.104 --> 05:05:40.364 Yeah, I know that you can use that directional over current relay today for export limiting or to do a non- exporting system and they, they approved their lists, for example, they approve realized that are. 1167 John Berdner Enphase 05:05:40.544 --> 05:06:01.604 For that function, the unknown that I thought Alex raised prior to the lunch break was, do we need to realize support scheduling functionality and I didn't find that the relay itself supported scheduling functionality, but they do appear to see. 1168 John Berdner Enphase 05:06:01.634 --> 05:06:10.994 Port, the communication protocols that would allow them to be used with a gateway or a server to support that function. 1169 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:06:12.196 --> 05:06:22.756 Yeah, that's, that's correct. John. So what we would need to investigate would be, if the relay that's being proposed is already approved, then it's just this. 1170 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:06:22.760 --> 05:06:43.876 Additional piece of equipment we used with the relay, but Brian, if you, if the relay that's being proposed is not approved, there is a process, at least a PG follows to approve release. I think it's called Appendix T- in the PG E interconnection handbook, maybe. 1171 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:06:44.142 --> 05:06:45.582 Let me, let me double check real quick. 1172 brian 05:06:46.964 --> 05:06:47.384 Thanks. 1173 John Berdner Enphase 05:06:47.686 --> 05:07:07.876 Yeah, I recall looking at that appendix, maybe nine months ago, Alex and the, uh, really inexpensive relays like a seven hundred and fifty- one. We're not approved, but the more feature field relays were, so there appeared at least from [...]. 1174 John Berdner Enphase 05:07:08.084 --> 05:07:14.744 There appeared to be a number of options that at least on the data sheet looks like it could need the functionality. 1175 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:07:15.644 --> 05:07:15.974 Yeah. 1176 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:07:18.074 --> 05:07:38.894 Yeah, it's appendix- r- as in Robert, but we'll have to investigate this, this, uh, cause most of these relays I think the assumption is that it's a steady static setting, it's controlling based on the one setting, um, but if the export limit or setting it's changing over time. 1177 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:07:38.898 --> 05:07:41.384 And that's the piece that I'm not one hundred sure. 1178 Yi Li SDG&E 05:07:45.344 --> 05:07:46.904 Sorry for just. 1179 Justin Regnier 05:07:47.024 --> 05:07:47.354 Let's. 1180 Yi Li SDG&E 05:07:47.354 --> 05:08:04.274 Make sure we're clear, what is the equipment apology? We're talking about here. Is it, is it, are we talking about expansion of option one here where there's a C- setup, certify server and then there's inverter that meets. 1181 Yi Li SDG&E 05:08:04.366 --> 05:08:11.926 You will fifty- seven hundred and forty- one, and then there was another relay function alongside of all that. 1182 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:08:13.574 --> 05:08:25.426 So my, my understanding is that the PCs equipment and whether it's, you know, method a- through G- uh, well one of the other methods that's not. 1183 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:08:25.454 --> 05:08:46.574 Approved, right? It's using a SIP gateway or it's using some other control system that the customer chooses, but for one reason or another, they cannot go through a PCS certification process. So in that case, we would the proposal is that we accept an approved relay that. 1184 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:08:46.604 --> 05:09:07.244 Can be set for export limitation using different hourly values. So from the utility perspective, it doesn't really matter what's going on with the PCs, whether it's approved or not. All that we know the customer could be using some load management system that they designed themselves, but the relay. 1185 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:09:07.756 --> 05:09:19.696 Because it really is approved for limited export would ensure that no more than what's approved can be exploited to degreed. So therefore we would satisfy all GP requirements. That's my understanding. 1186 Yi Li SDG&E 05:09:22.184 --> 05:09:24.974 So the relay is approved to what. 1187 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:09:25.694 --> 05:09:26.444 To limit the. 1188 Yi Li SDG&E 05:09:26.444 --> 05:09:27.524 Maximum standards. 1189 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:09:29.384 --> 05:09:33.374 Just, it's just a release approved to limit export. It's just an approved relay, there's no standard. 1190 John Berdner Enphase 05:09:34.694 --> 05:09:42.344 Yeah, the, um, the relays themselves are approved. Typically these phases. 1191 John Berdner Enphase 05:09:43.154 --> 05:09:59.234 For, for specific functions, um, as Alex said, it's in, uh, for PG E- it's in the interconnection handbook and appendix R- and there's a list of relays. Are you totally great detection by function and which ones are. 1192 John Berdner Enphase 05:10:04.004 --> 05:10:05.234 No one is. 1193 John Berdner Enphase 05:10:06.974 --> 05:10:10.304 A time variant schedule, which I believe. 1194 John Berdner Enphase 05:10:13.244 --> 05:10:15.104 Using an offsite server or gateway. 1195 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:10:23.026 --> 05:10:39.314 Sorry, so what's being proposed right now is not listed on the screen. I think it will be another option, so it would be, it would be an option that will be using a relay with something like an archive, which is not, I thought what you had in one of his examples. 1196 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:10:39.794 --> 05:10:52.274 It's not listed on here, so it's an additional proposal which we have to vet amongst ourselves, but it essentially wouldn't have anything to do with the [...] standard. 1197 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 05:10:55.454 --> 05:11:05.054 Need an architect kind of gateway still, it's anyway using a protocol to send a command, six hundred, nine hundred and fifty or seventy- three, right? 1198 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:11:06.254 --> 05:11:27.134 That's a good point. So I think Brian was mentioning, I'll talk, but if it's Tim relay is also capable of being coupled with a SIP gateway then in the system, gateway would have to be satisfied, right? And then the relay itself. There's no, no certification standard for the relay and then. 1199 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:11:27.346 --> 05:11:32.054 It could be filled verify it as far as the functionality of the two pieces of equipment. 1200 brian 05:11:34.186 --> 05:11:39.794 Yeah, I think we'd have to verify whether the Gateway could control the relay directly, right? 1201 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:11:41.176 --> 05:11:48.464 Exactly, yeah, I just wanted to clarify that this is a sort of like a new proposal that's being put on the table that wasn't included. 1202 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:11:48.494 --> 05:11:53.654 In sort of what we've discussed before, and we still have to. 1203 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:11:55.574 --> 05:12:01.634 No, sounds like it's doable with self- vetted amongst the. I used to see what it would take to make this a reality sort of thing. 1204 Sky Stanfield 05:12:04.006 --> 05:12:24.616 Yeah, and I appreciate Alex willingness to this. I would say that this is the evolution of having understood what the limitations were. So it's great to hear that we've been able to think through this. So what would, um, trying to move us along here. What on the utility side needs to be considered, and then what can the. 1205 Sky Stanfield 05:12:25.154 --> 05:12:40.904 Um, other stakeholders help with, in terms of what we need to verify and Brian and John, it sounds like we need to figure out if the relay can work with a scheduling device. How do we, what's the process to do that? 1206 John Berdner Enphase 05:12:48.584 --> 05:12:56.564 Yeah, I can certainly, cause I already have a call into them, so I just haven't heard back from them yet. 1207 Sky Stanfield 05:12:56.774 --> 05:12:57.254 So. 1208 John Berdner Enphase 05:12:57.794 --> 05:13:08.444 I'm happy to ask the question, you know, it doesn't support two thousand and thirty- five, but it does support MP three at an odd bus and, um. 1209 John Berdner Enphase 05:13:08.864 --> 05:13:25.124 And I'm sixty- one, so it would mean that the gateway, a device or server device that is setting the schedule would need to be approved for one of those protocols. 1210 Sky Stanfield 05:13:32.414 --> 05:13:48.314 Okay, so John is going to talk to swipe Sir, um, and then hopefully if you can hear back from them, maybe we'll be able to report back on the C- wave, besides swabs, we weren't no go on Thursdays. Is that. 1211 Sky Stanfield 05:13:48.404 --> 05:14:09.286 Doable, and then the utilities that you guys are going to take this back internally and give it some thought in terms of what that testing would be. I, I see Alex, you pointed to appendix R- so it sounds like we need to everyone should probably take a look at that PG E- specifically. 1212 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:14:09.614 --> 05:14:27.284 Yes, Appendix, RSP, g- specific it has to do with the process for proving relays that go into the approval list, but if the project is proposing to use really, that's already on the list, then appendix will be irrelevant, but it's just for new release. Yes. 1213 Sky Stanfield 05:14:27.674 --> 05:14:30.614 Okay, so it sounds like what we'd need to need to do is. 1214 Sky Stanfield 05:14:30.794 --> 05:14:51.734 Figure out what do we need to write an additional? What, what review do you guys need or want, or if they're using an existing relay that's on the list and this combining it as not gonna attempt to distract myself. Um, what else is there? 1215 Sky Stanfield 05:14:51.794 --> 05:14:55.394 Other questions that essentially need to be answered on this. 1216 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:14:58.754 --> 05:15:18.254 Yeah, I, I assume there will be more questions. I just don't know which questions one thing that comes to mind is what does it really do, if you lose the communication between, you know, [...] gateway, it can be used with the relay. No, is it capable of going back to a different value or. 1217 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:15:20.324 --> 05:15:28.754 No, those are things. I don't know. So, cause if you said a relay and you say, get your schedule from... No, I'm talking for some reason. 1218 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:15:29.864 --> 05:15:50.984 fails or communication path is broken what happens in then, so, and then, you know, the time the time delay is there, is there any, what's the latency for communication and what does that add to the actual trip times? You know, those are questions that we would need to add. 1219 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:15:51.074 --> 05:15:56.686 But, you know, I'm assuming there'll be more questions, but, you know, for now that's what I can think of. 1220 Sky Stanfield 05:15:57.134 --> 05:16:07.154 Okay, it sounds like the exercise is to identify those questions so that we can get answers to those questions, um, in a, in a timely manner. 1221 Yi Li SDG&E 05:16:08.686 --> 05:16:12.134 Yeah, sky realistically. We may have to think through it. 1222 Yi Li SDG&E 05:16:12.138 --> 05:16:33.284 And talk about it based on what we see at this. Uh, oh, sorry, sweet. Sorry, I got it. But no, um, yeah, cause I've to engage my team who has more expertise on the control system to come in. Let us know what they think. Yeah. 1223 Yi Li SDG&E 05:16:33.344 --> 05:16:43.154 But basically summarize that we have some homework to do, and also we'll have to discuss based on what John was able to find out from [...]. 1224 Sky Stanfield 05:16:48.104 --> 05:16:55.694 Okay, sounds like plan. Is there anything more to discuss today about any of these other options then, or anything? 1225 Yi Li SDG&E 05:16:59.686 --> 05:17:00.554 Oh, sorry, go ahead. 1226 brian 05:17:01.276 --> 05:17:18.404 Yeah, it seems to me that this is very similar to option one in terms of, you know, one is using certified devices, um, without a PCS and this is, this is an option of using a trusted relay to basically do something similar, but you could affect. 1227 brian 05:17:18.524 --> 05:17:39.524 At the PCCC rather than right at the, uh, converter terminals, so I mean, um, I would think we'd still want to pursue that option one as well. I think that would be very similar questions, but I'm curious as to how other people think that would be the case that, you know, the. 1228 brian 05:17:39.584 --> 05:17:48.314 Questions that arise would be similar or what we would need to do in terms of commissioning and testing and whatnot. 1229 Yi Li SDG&E 05:17:52.154 --> 05:18:10.574 So, for a moment there, I thought I understand it, but maybe not. I, I thought this new option on the table is kind of a enhanced version of option one. So whatever option we have here except the green, which the last option is kind of off the table, but it doesn't say. 1230 Yi Li SDG&E 05:18:10.604 --> 05:18:18.764 Like, that's your understanding though Brian, so can you clarify what's the difference between this option one and this new option we're. 1231 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 05:18:18.764 --> 05:18:19.814 Exploring. 1232 brian 05:18:20.804 --> 05:18:31.694 Oh, you're, you're using different equipment to different sets of trusted equipment an option when you're implementing it at the inverter. 1233 brian 05:18:31.730 --> 05:18:52.876 terminals and then the relay option, you can allows you to do it at the PCCC without the certified PCS, which is both of them allow you to do it without certified PCS. So I'm not one hundred certain, we need those options if, if at least one is available and certainly the relay one would. 1234 brian 05:18:52.904 --> 05:19:13.844 Be preferable for allowing load to serve load before exporting. Um, but I just want to make sure that we either do or do not definitely do or do not want to pursue option one since it's similar instance seems as. 1235 brian 05:19:14.234 --> 05:19:17.026 Would have like, similar hurdles in terms of getting it implemented. 1236 Justin Regnier 05:19:20.894 --> 05:19:22.634 Can I check my understanding? 1237 Justin Regnier 05:19:25.574 --> 05:19:45.044 This is Justin. Sorry, I'm off camera. I'm not feeling well today, but what I'm understanding is the, the, the fundamental problem we're trying to solve is that it can be expensive to get PCS certification or large inverters. 1238 Justin Regnier 05:19:45.644 --> 05:19:54.104 So large singular inverters because of the high- powered higher power of the test equipment that is required to do. So. 1239 Justin Regnier 05:19:57.524 --> 05:20:17.474 And because of that, we're talking about potentially cobbling together different sorts of smaller equipment for large installation and using a relay as kind of a backstop protection because this certification of, of getting a bunch of smaller pieces of equip. 1240 Justin Regnier 05:20:17.506 --> 05:20:24.554 Meant together doesn't doesn't track what we've got with the PCS. Is that my understanding that right? 1241 brian 05:20:27.674 --> 05:20:40.394 I would, I think the second part of what you said makes sense. So the first one may or may not be the case, basically, but it's, it's more. 1242 John Berdner Enphase 05:20:44.504 --> 05:20:46.994 From my perspective, Justin, you. 1243 John Berdner Enphase 05:20:47.090 --> 05:21:08.084 You always could use a direction where we're currently that's always been on the table, um, however they had been implemented with static settings, so we're saying, um, we need to investigate how you would interface, uh, a schedule that is residing in. 1244 John Berdner Enphase 05:21:09.016 --> 05:21:28.786 Or an off- site server with an onsite relay and then, you know, the relay, normally you wouldn't want it to trip, but you would want to have an uncertified PCS sitting behind the relay. So that would be. 1245 John Berdner Enphase 05:21:29.474 --> 05:21:50.534 You know, modulating a generation load, whatever it needs to do to keep the exports within the limits, but because it had never been evaluated, we are, we're going to propose using an approved utility approved, you know, utility grade relay to end. 1246 John Berdner Enphase 05:21:50.564 --> 05:21:55.034 Force the limit. if the undervalue rate at TCS doesn't work properly. 1247 John Berdner Enphase 05:21:58.034 --> 05:21:58.904 Does that make sense? 1248 Justin Regnier 05:22:00.972 --> 05:22:14.204 Yeah, it does. I mean, it sounds like a different option then a- using a certified PCS to control Hub, uh. 1249 Sky Stanfield 05:22:15.104 --> 05:22:21.524 Justin, from my non- engineering understanding the reason why we're going spending a little time on this is I. 1250 Sky Stanfield 05:22:21.584 --> 05:22:42.434 There are two reasons. One is getting to the larger system size, which as we've talked about a lot is like the, like the projects that are most likely that we use the and get the right benefit from the JP. So that's one and then two is that the other options through some of them. I guess. 1251 Sky Stanfield 05:22:42.944 --> 05:23:03.194 Would the first I guess operation option number ones would be implemented in a way that we didn't label the customer to serve that one site mode or control the onsite load the same. So those are the, I think those are the two main challenges we're trying to resolve that this relay option would help with. 1252 Sky Stanfield 05:23:05.206 --> 05:23:10.064 Both of which are important to getting it to the most likely use case for the L. G. P. 1253 Yi Li SDG&E 05:23:12.554 --> 05:23:33.464 So I guess that does, you know what Justin was saying those kind of trigger my question here if we're exploring these attractive as opposed to the [...] standard testing, do we know these are tentative measures are obsolete cheaper and less costly to go. 1254 Yi Li SDG&E 05:23:33.524 --> 05:23:36.674 Through compared to just getting the [...] PCS testing. 1255 Sky Stanfield 05:23:46.034 --> 05:23:56.504 That's a good question. Um, Brian, I'm assuming that the testing is not just a cost as much as the time and logistics hurdle as well, though, right? 1256 brian 05:23:58.364 --> 05:24:00.104 Yeah, we're talking about field testing. 1257 Yi Li SDG&E 05:24:02.084 --> 05:24:22.664 No, it sounds like we are exploring, you know, using the relay, which potentially will involve, you know, field testing or lab testing, whatever needs to validate the functionality, but if, if the issue for like the options three, which is the green is not a practical. 1258 Yi Li SDG&E 05:24:23.266 --> 05:24:40.064 It's more like, just worried about, it's going to be too complicated or too costly. I guess I'm not, I'm not hearing like, do we actually know go in this. The attorney approach is going to make it easier and cheaper because does sound like a lot more moving parts like you have to make sure they're really actually works. 1259 Yi Li SDG&E 05:24:41.174 --> 05:24:48.704 Long side PCS whatnot. I'm not not a very technical aspect on that, but just I was thinking out loud here. 1260 John Berdner Enphase 05:24:51.196 --> 05:25:12.164 John, the relays are already approved for this application. Is there a standard? This is the old way that things were done before we had PCS, um, and [...] is an alternative to the protective, but what. 1261 John Berdner Enphase 05:25:12.194 --> 05:25:33.314 nobody's investigated yet is how to implement a schedule using a protective relay, so we know that the relay is already approved. They've already been tested by the utilities. It is a valid way to implement this functionality. The only missing piece is we have to pick. 1262 John Berdner Enphase 05:25:33.346 --> 05:25:43.214 Around how you can have a time variant behavior on the relay and that should be a relatively easy thing to figure out. 1263 Sky Stanfield 05:25:44.714 --> 05:26:05.744 Your question, so again, I'm not an expert in this either, but my understanding is, is that realize are an affordable option. They're not gonna be as cheap as a [...], but they would be affordable an affordable option for projects above one megawatt. That's what my understanding of how it works. Been operating on a lot of conversations about the larger scale system. 1264 Sky Stanfield 05:26:05.924 --> 05:26:25.904 Um, so that I think that's why this is worth pursuing. Is it going to be cheaper than a PCS loan? No, but the piece, the logistics of the challenges of getting a whole, a whole system certified as a system are probably makes us worth it is what we're guessing. 1265 brian 05:26:26.924 --> 05:26:46.274 It leaves the option up to the developer, whereas if we only have the certified option, the- the options are only the options would be limited to whatever the manufacturers feel the need to support that level of certification would be basically. 1266 Yi Li SDG&E 05:26:48.614 --> 05:26:58.364 Yeah, that's fair plan. I was just thinking out loud, right? I don't want to be down this path and end up being a more complicated route, right? 1267 Yi Li SDG&E 05:27:02.234 --> 05:27:21.256 Here, but last time I was asking him, he mentioned that some of the complex, um, you know, testing existing equipment and merging existing standard is the exact reason why we decided to go for the [...] route. So there's some reason why we decided this route. So I'm not sure I understand. Yeah. 1268 Sky Stanfield 05:27:22.064 --> 05:27:43.034 Really important for small projects for the reason we went the PCS route was critical for residential and small projects. That's exactly why the huge advantage of that as opposed to using a relay, but now that we're talking about, we're talking about several different center challenges was just doing the scheduling and then for larger projects. 1269 Sky Stanfield 05:27:43.064 --> 05:28:01.634 That's the gap we're trying to fill is those above one megawatt, Whereas the relay options always existed under the flat export control and non- export option. So we didn't, you know, that's kind of the niche that already filled before, and we're trying to just expand that to the scheduling capability. 1270 Yi Li SDG&E 05:28:06.284 --> 05:28:25.034 So for next step here, on, for Thursday, Brian's it too much asked for you to maybe like, bring a deck or bring a slide to draw out the architecture, so we can kind of use that as discussing point for this relay option. 1271 brian 05:28:26.744 --> 05:28:27.734 Yeah, I think I can do that. 1272 Yi Li SDG&E 05:28:28.784 --> 05:28:29.714 Thanks so much. 1273 Justin Regnier 05:28:31.484 --> 05:28:34.936 I mean, it sounds like the discussion we're, we're trending down. 1274 Justin Regnier 05:28:36.764 --> 05:28:57.764 Give us two pathways to satisfy and the utilities need to understand that the system is following it's limited generation profile, right? So one is a certified GCS system, um, and that one doesn't seem to have any, any contention or. 1275 Justin Regnier 05:28:57.794 --> 05:29:18.346 Any mystery really, but folks are- are concerned that larger size, maybe other costs are complexity prohibitive. I mean, I don't know, John, maybe you can answer if you've got a converter system that was, uh, five hundred kilowatts or something. 1276 Justin Regnier 05:29:19.214 --> 05:29:36.194 Would there be a way of sort of flag and see a good stack, you know, however, many five hundred K- w- blocks you want to make a modular system. So for three point five Megawatt would be seven of these blocks. Um, I mean, that's, that's one question. 1277 Justin Regnier 05:29:37.664 --> 05:29:38.354 Um. 1278 John Berdner Enphase 05:30:00.280 --> 05:30:21.426 And there's not really a cost- effective or expedient way to get a PCS listing on a system, like that can be done, but it's time consuming and expensive for the same money or less. You could probably put. 1279 John Berdner Enphase 05:30:21.634 --> 05:30:40.654 A protected relay on site and for larger systems that relay may be present anyway, so it's just a matter of picking the right multifunction relay from the approved list and you could get the expert limited capability. 1280 Justin Regnier 05:30:41.674 --> 05:30:42.064 Got it. 1281 brian 05:30:44.224 --> 05:30:44.494 Oh. 1282 Justin Regnier 05:30:44.524 --> 05:31:03.214 It sounds like the hurdle is we need to clear on this as understanding. So thank you John. That sounds like we're heading down to pathways for achieving utilities comfort with limited generation profiles being honored at the. 1283 Justin Regnier 05:31:03.994 --> 05:31:24.844 The generating facility level one is a single or some combination of systems that has achieved a PCS certification or SSP as it will be, and the second is using a relay with an [...] as a. 1284 Justin Regnier 05:31:24.878 --> 05:31:46.024 [...] stop for a similar control system that just doesn't have the certification and the open question as I understand it is whether the I or use, um, are comfortable with just having an architect bolted onto a relay and having that be something that is, there's known interest. 1285 Justin Regnier 05:31:46.030 --> 05:31:49.714 To prevent export and access of the [...]. 1286 Yi Li SDG&E 05:31:54.484 --> 05:32:12.814 Justin, I, I'm, I'm not an expert on [...], but I'm not sure if it's right. You just say that it's to satisfy, I use comfort level. I thought this new option on the table that really option is also, there's still some validation, uh, John, Brian, others. 1287 Yi Li SDG&E 05:32:12.876 --> 05:32:33.936 Is looking to validate to make sure Ashley can implement [...] at the [...], right? Cause the folks [...] mentioned earlier, right? There's also the benefit folks don't want to lose with going for option one where you don't have the PC, right? It's going to have to be implemented at inverter terminal. 1288 Yi Li SDG&E 05:32:33.994 --> 05:32:43.686 Well, so it's not really just us being comfortable with that. It's, there's some additional work that needs to be done to make sure that this option actually works. 1289 Justin Regnier 05:32:45.336 --> 05:32:46.984 Yeah, and you mentioned that. 1290 Justin Regnier 05:32:48.154 --> 05:32:50.884 The relay would achieve [...]. 1291 Justin Regnier 05:32:51.904 --> 05:33:02.134 I think it wouldn't achieve [...] so much as insurance. There's other equipment. that's, that's making it happen. The relay is just there to make sure that it happens and understanding of that. 1292 brian 05:33:04.714 --> 05:33:24.664 Right, yeah, I mean, this is the, we're suggesting the relay be there because it's a known no one item utilities, basically, and we have all these similar conversations actually for the national Electrical Code, two thousand and twenty- three edition because the. 1293 brian 05:33:24.756 --> 05:33:45.366 The definition of the power control systems was being used for multiple reasons and, you know, folks were coming to the table saying, well, we can't only allow for power for certified power control systems because sometimes here you have an entire building automation system involved say, and, and you're creating the thing on the site and so. 1294 brian 05:33:47.074 --> 05:34:06.664 [...] actually allows for something to be field certified, in addition to certified through type tests or even be approved under your engineering supervision. I believe has the wording there, and so I doubt that that style would really be, um. 1295 brian 05:34:07.114 --> 05:34:24.784 palatable to the utilities, but having some sort of device on there as John says as a back step for these systems that are there, they're going to be engineered to fit the requirements of the [...], but the relay is there as the police to make sure that it does that thing. 1296 Frank McElvain 05:34:27.964 --> 05:34:47.494 So we're talking about an extra relay, right? Because there are going to be realized there regardless. I mean, the system has to be protected so that there, there will be relays all around the, um. 1297 Frank McElvain 05:34:49.864 --> 05:35:09.064 The substation, the generating plant. I mean, every, every segment is going to be protected and double protected through zones of protection. So we're talking about an extra relay that's, that's strictly devoted to the G. 1298 Frank McElvain 05:35:09.070 --> 05:35:12.516 [...] output function. Is that, is that correct? 1299 Frank McElvain 05:35:14.974 --> 05:35:15.544 Or are we. 1300 brian 05:35:15.724 --> 05:35:15.994 Thinking. 1301 Frank McElvain 05:35:15.994 --> 05:35:20.374 About repurposing one or the other existing release. 1302 brian 05:35:22.534 --> 05:35:35.764 I would think you may have certainly made updates without release like a commercial rooftop may not have any relays on it. It's using the inverter inherit protective functions, and so that's a lot of. 1303 brian 05:35:36.244 --> 05:35:54.484 Today, use just inverters for the protection. You could have a relay on site doing protection and if it's a multi- function relay, maybe as long as you know, the PTS and whatnot, the [...] on the same in the right place, then maybe you can utilize that function alongside of other protective functions. 1304 Frank McElvain 05:35:56.286 --> 05:35:57.006 Okay, please. 1305 Frank McElvain 05:35:57.034 --> 05:35:57.904 It, thank you, Brian. 1306 John Berdner Enphase 05:36:00.064 --> 05:36:18.154 Yeah, I agree with you for larger systems. Larger the system, the more likely there were already be some protective relying on site and since most of the release these days are multi- function relays, directional. 1307 John Berdner Enphase 05:36:18.606 --> 05:36:39.124 Time over current is certainly a standard function, however, but no one on the call knows at the moment is how would you implement a time barrier setting on a directional, the current relay. It seems that it will be an easy question to answer. 1308 John Berdner Enphase 05:36:39.334 --> 05:36:46.654 Just nobody here knows and we haven't asked yet, but I agree with you the relay, I'll probably be there for a big system. 1309 Justin Regnier 05:36:49.144 --> 05:37:08.914 Okay, well given given all that, it sounds like there's not enough controversy around using a certified PCS, hold on a second and there's a, there's some more information we need to gather to, to speak to the, the second method, which is using whatever equipment is on site and whatever. 1310 Justin Regnier 05:37:08.944 --> 05:37:25.624 Configuration that we would reasonably expect to work in all circumstances, but doesn't have a certification, but certify that it'll do, so maybe we should table this discussion until Thursday and we've had a chance to do a bit of investigation as to what is it isn't feasible? 1311 Sky Stanfield 05:37:29.314 --> 05:37:43.234 Yeah, Justin, that's where I was thinking we were, and that's what I was trying to just hammer out who was, but utilities didn't take this back and John and Brian will coordinate on figuring out the relays talking to her about the relay. 1312 John Berdner Enphase 05:37:44.824 --> 05:37:49.744 Yeah, I think as Alex said it would, if, if we. 1313 John Berdner Enphase 05:37:49.834 --> 05:37:57.064 Imagine this table with another row at the bottom. That's what we will probably come up with on Thursday. 1314 Yi Li SDG&E 05:38:09.334 --> 05:38:24.964 Okay, um, I think we have a game plan for Thursday, um, this is [...] minus bring it to the next slide. Uh, there's actually no additional content. This is really just our recommendation based on what we know. 1315 Yi Li SDG&E 05:38:25.058 --> 05:38:40.984 We felt like, you know, option three is the best option and it doesn't seem, there is any sort of disagreement around that and the to be discussed, is this new option on the table and we'll further discuss it this Thursday. 1316 Yi Li SDG&E 05:38:43.984 --> 05:38:50.734 Alright, uh, with that, I think I'm actually done with topic. Yeah. 1317 Michael Barigian SCE 05:39:00.754 --> 05:39:03.874 All right, Jose, anything else before we jump into topic up here. 1318 Jose Aliaga-Caro 05:39:05.974 --> 05:39:10.174 No, not from my end. Go ahead Michael. 1319 Michael Barigian SCE 05:39:10.924 --> 05:39:27.064 Thank you, good afternoon everyone, Michael bring in with [...]. So on topic app, implementing more than twelve limited generation profile values per year, I just want to provide a little bit of background on this topic before we jump into the next slides. So in workshop. 1320 Michael Barigian SCE 05:39:27.100 --> 05:39:48.244 To which we had on February twenty first, the [...] presented the data analysis which included comparison of load profiles and comparison of [...] static grid profiles over two time periods and use that kind of as a proxy to estimate where unexpected criteria violates. 1321 Michael Barigian SCE 05:39:48.248 --> 05:40:08.824 [...] could occur on the system when you compare twelve or two hundred and eighty- eight unique values unique [...] values over the course of the profile on March second, we continued that discussion at the smarter working group during that meeting, the [...] presented a proposal for how to build upon the analysis. 1322 Michael Barigian SCE 05:40:09.694 --> 05:40:30.454 Hopefully provide a better characterization of how risk may be related to the number of unique [...] values. So today's slides will represent the analysis that the [...] are planning to complete hopefully in time or ideally, in time for limited generation profile workshop for which is going to occur on April. 1323 Michael Barigian SCE 05:40:33.394 --> 05:40:34.266 Next slide, please. 1324 Michael Barigian SCE 05:40:37.086 --> 05:40:57.336 So here's our excerpt from fifty resolution fifty- two thirty. We've covered this a couple of different times, but the main takeaway here is that we adopted two hundred and eight hour format, includes twenty- four values for each of the twelve months of the year. Essentially this amounts to customers submitting the same value, twenty- four times a month. 1325 Michael Barigian SCE 05:40:57.364 --> 05:41:18.484 On a monthly basis for a year one one value would suffice, and then the next paragraph, the large [...] are therefore directed to discuss the two hundred and eight hour format and how it may allow for more than one value per month since kind of workshop to, or along along this journey, there's been the topic of a middle ground profile. I think we're calling it now. 1326 Michael Barigian SCE 05:41:19.054 --> 05:41:39.634 Which is somewhere between twelve unique values over the course of the year and two hundred and eighty- eight unique values over the course of the year. So that's kind of been a question on the table. How can we further analyze something like that to ideally, determine where there's an intersection if you will, between the benefit of additional power and energy deliver. 1327 Michael Barigian SCE 05:41:39.724 --> 05:41:47.224 To the grid and the, you know, the risk that additional number of unique data points would potentially create. 1328 Michael Barigian SCE 05:41:49.714 --> 05:41:50.704 Next slide, please. 1329 Michael Barigian SCE 05:41:53.794 --> 05:42:12.904 So this is kind of the high level proposal for additional [...] analysis again, following a lot of, I would say good stakeholder discussion at the March second smarter working group meeting and then after this, you'll see a slide specific for [...] and then a slide specific for PG E. 1330 Michael Barigian SCE 05:42:13.834 --> 05:42:34.624 So in general, the scope and again, this is consistent with analysis that was presented during workshop too, and then it builds upon that. So the scope is to compare the [...] static grid for two time periods for at least one node on at least five different circuits when doing that we will compare the free. 1331 Michael Barigian SCE 05:42:34.654 --> 05:42:54.664 quincy the percent and the count of hours where the [...] for any given hour in time period two is less than the [...] for the same hour in time period. One, again, that's kind of a proxy to indicate where an unexpected criteria violation may occur on the system. 1332 Michael Barigian SCE 05:42:55.804 --> 05:43:16.924 Severity or magnitude range. So, where those numbers are less in time period to the time period. One, how different are they? What's the largest difference? What's the smallest difference? And then also as a really helpful and insightful input from the March second smarter quarter working group is what is the limiting criteria that's driving. 1333 Michael Barigian SCE 05:43:17.794 --> 05:43:38.044 That value that minimum value is from the [...]. So recall that the [...] static grid is the minimum of multiple limiting criteria, which includes steady state voltage, volt, variation, thermal and protection. So where there is a difference, what is driving that minimum value? So we can start to character. 1334 Michael Barigian SCE 05:43:38.106 --> 05:43:59.224 Eyes twenty percent of the time. the difference was due to voltage thirty percent of the time it was due to thermal et cetera, et cetera. So that was really helpful recommendation that I provided during the March second smarter, we're working group generally speaking around interpretation of results. So the initial puzzle. 1335 Michael Barigian SCE 05:43:59.284 --> 05:44:20.374 In here is that if the number of limited generation profile values increases it as the number of [...] values increases the frequency or the maximum magnitude of violation increase in the [...] would maintain the position to utilize twelve unique [...] values timeline. again, as I mentioned earlier. 1336 Michael Barigian SCE 05:44:20.404 --> 05:44:41.524 Is to be completed by [...]. Workshop for, before we move past this slide, I just want to acknowledge that at least for [...], we're not portraying this as a perfect analysis, at least one node on at least five different circuits. I think many would agree as far from what would be considered statistically significant based on [...] about four thousand. 1337 Michael Barigian SCE 05:44:41.554 --> 05:45:01.894 Two hundred and fifty- feeders distribution feeders, but it is additional analysis that will hopefully give us some further insight above and beyond what was presented at workshop too and is analysis that with some, at least at [...], some considerable workload re prioritization is something that we believe we can get done by workshop for. 1338 Michael Barigian SCE 05:45:06.364 --> 05:45:07.054 Next slide. 1339 Michael Barigian SCE 05:45:11.044 --> 05:45:29.464 So this is [...] plan limited generation profile analysis. You'll see some consistencies with PG E, but we'll go through [...] and then I'll pass it over to Alex to go through PG E. S. So we're going to start by selecting a circuit and any three phase node on that circuit following some feedback. 1340 Michael Barigian SCE 05:45:29.494 --> 05:45:50.614 Also, from the Smarter harder working group on March second was to be a little bit more definitive on how we select the circuits. So, instead of just doing it completely random, which was our initial proposal, I'm suggesting that we select a circuit from each of our kind of geographically unique areas. So potentially this. 1341 Michael Barigian SCE 05:45:50.620 --> 05:46:11.134 [...] valley the metropolitan area coastal area, our valley and inland areas and primarily selecting, we're actually exclusively selecting twelve or sixteen KB circuits since those make up the largest portion of our overall distribution circuits at [...]. So once you select that first note on the first circuit. 1342 Michael Barigian SCE 05:46:11.794 --> 05:46:32.914 You'll define or we will define the five seventy- six hundred and seventy- six circuit load profile for two different time periods. So, for example, calendar, year, two thousand and twenty January through December would be time period One and then calendar year two thousand and twenty- one January through December would be time period to number three is kind of not exactly. 1343 Michael Barigian SCE 05:46:33.484 --> 05:46:54.064 In order, but number three is gathering an additional parameter that we think is relevant and insightful to this analysis. It doesn't actually play a role in it, but we discussed that workshop too, and I think this morning we're working group to how much generation has actually connected to the circuit between time period. one time period, two to try to better. 1344 Michael Barigian SCE 05:46:54.094 --> 05:47:15.214 contextualizing the potential changes in [...] between those two time periods. So for number three, we'll, we will just query the total nameplate amount of generation that's interconnected to each circuit that we're studying and then kind of store that on the side for reference. So back into the sequence once you've created the five hundred and eighty- six circuit load per. 1345 Michael Barigian SCE 05:47:15.244 --> 05:47:36.304 Files for both of those time periods and step two in step four. we're actually going to run the [...]. It says Uniform, Gen, static grid, but in order to actually compute that value, we'll have to obtain the [...] for each of the limiting criteria, steady stable digital variation, thermal protection. So on and then use those individual criteria based. 1346 Michael Barigian SCE 05:47:36.370 --> 05:47:57.514 [...] results to generate the uniform gen- static grid [...] profile. So each of those profiles in number four are, they're actually going to be a one hundred and seventy- six profile because we feed in one hundred and seventy- six circuit load profile for each time period, and then produce one hundred and seventy- six. I see a result for the minimum and maximum two. 1347 Michael Barigian SCE 05:47:57.544 --> 05:48:18.664 Eighty- eight, so five is where it gets fun. So for each of the, each of the two time periods, we'll create the following [...] profiles. There's sixteen profiles total for, again, for each node on each circuit, a minimum of one node on five different circuits and what you see on five, eight through five H- is our. 1348 Michael Barigian SCE 05:48:18.696 --> 05:48:39.814 Attempt to explore this middle ground, the two hundred and eight, I think we're all familiar with. That's the highest resolution you can get for hourly minimums across the Icaay. That's five, a five h- is what we've been talking about is the monthly minimums with twelve unique [...] values over the course of the year, and then for [...]. 1349 Michael Barigian SCE 05:48:39.820 --> 05:48:59.314 [...] we're talking about taking the minimum over a two hour window over a three hour window over for our Windows, six hour window, eight hour window and then twelve hour window to try to figure out if there's, you know, we can better understand how that risk may be characterized over those different levels of granularity. 1350 Michael Barigian SCE 05:49:04.714 --> 05:49:22.084 So for step six, once we run each of those or once we've generated each of those sixteen profiles, we will compare them for the two time periods and we'll start to count the number of hours where the hourly [...] value for time period two is less than. 1351 Michael Barigian SCE 05:49:22.144 --> 05:49:37.264 hourly [...] profile or value for time period, one calculate the percent and the magnitude difference for each of those hours and then identifying delivery the limiting criteria that drove the minimum value within each [...] profile. 1352 Michael Barigian SCE 05:49:41.074 --> 05:49:42.064 Number seven. 1353 Michael Barigian SCE 05:49:43.894 --> 05:50:04.414 I'm not sure where this came from. This was an augmentation to [...] original proposal. I remember PG E- talking about it, but I think this is probably also borrowing from public advocate's offices analysis and seven is to calculate the actual energy and power that's delivered over the course of the year for each of the eight different profile types. So if you go with two hundred and. 1354 Michael Barigian SCE 05:50:04.474 --> 05:50:21.696 Eight, what's your energy and power delivered to the grid, if you go with one hundred and forty- four, what's your energy and power delivered to the get grid and so on and so forth for profiles, five eight hundred and five H- and then step in is just go back to the top and start over for the next note on the next circuit. 1355 Michael Barigian SCE 05:50:24.276 --> 05:50:28.836 So before I pass it over to PG E- let me pause here and see if there's any questions, Skype. 1356 Sky Stanfield 05:50:31.208 --> 05:50:44.464 Yeah, so I guess one question I have is just so I make sure I understand, is there a reason why you guys have to recreate this as opposed to just using existing data just from an efficiency standpoint. 1357 Michael Barigian SCE 05:50:45.724 --> 05:50:52.354 Yeah, so I'm hoping that for a time period to, we can use the most recent run. So we don't necessary. 1358 Michael Barigian SCE 05:50:52.360 --> 05:51:05.254 Really have to rerun time period too, but we would have to go back and regenerate time create one because as far as I know we don't have archived input load profiles and hourly IC results. 1359 Sky Stanfield 05:51:05.464 --> 05:51:13.504 So we have those, you gave them to us in March of last year. It will be helpful. We could re- provide them to you. 1360 Sky Stanfield 05:51:14.494 --> 05:51:32.764 Yeah, it's not a big deal for you to recreate it. That's fine. I was just noting that we have archived them from last, from the March two thousand and twenty- two data request in case that's helpful, and then I guess the other observation I had. 1361 Sky Stanfield 05:51:36.426 --> 05:51:50.494 Is I appreciate that. This would be complicated to do, but my sense is that the way to make the [...], the least impactful if we're doing, um. 1362 Sky Stanfield 05:51:51.934 --> 05:52:12.724 A more limited instead of two hundred and eighty- eight somewhere between two eighty eight and twelve would be that the profile that the time window be, you say, you could do every for our windows, but the four hour window will be set based upon the actual conditions on that feeder as opposed to a specific to our, for our profile has to be between. 1363 Sky Stanfield 05:52:12.754 --> 05:52:14.494 Nine and one or something. 1364 Sky Stanfield 05:52:16.446 --> 05:52:26.256 I don't know that there's a way to simulate that, but I do think that that's the way to help minimize the impact because it would be more based on the project's actual or the nodes actually. 1365 Michael Barigian SCE 05:52:32.644 --> 05:52:40.054 Yeah, could you help me understand like how you might go about defining that for, for a given node, how you define the intervals? 1366 Sky Stanfield 05:52:40.654 --> 05:52:50.764 Well, the way I was thinking about it is if we had settled on, like, okay, let's limit it to four hour window. Is that the applicant would have. 1367 Sky Stanfield 05:52:50.800 --> 05:53:11.946 centrally, decide which for our Windows made sense for them or for the feed or essentially, so they would say, okay, I'm going to reduce output at three because that's the time when this beaters load profile or a corresponding [...] is actually, does that change? I'm not suggesting. 1368 Sky Stanfield 05:53:12.934 --> 05:53:33.094 That for this analysis, but that's how I was thinking about, instead of saying everybody must follow these specific for our windows that both the customer's project considerations and the actual profile of that particular node would make that more precise and make. 1369 Sky Stanfield 05:53:33.124 --> 05:53:34.294 More sense, I guess. 1370 Michael Barigian SCE 05:53:39.994 --> 05:53:40.264 Yeah. 1371 Michael Barigian SCE 05:53:41.584 --> 05:53:43.984 Go ahead, yeah, after you, Francis. 1372 Frances Cleveland 05:53:45.694 --> 05:54:02.104 I was really just going to pick up on what Sky was saying, not necessarily having a variable window, but using the two hundred and eighty- eight profile and taking a look at that and seeing if there is. 1373 Frances Cleveland 05:54:02.854 --> 05:54:23.404 Say a particular hour or a particular four hour window that seems to be problematic, so it wouldn't be this even splitting of our up Windows, but let's say as an example from four till eight zero PM. 1374 Frances Cleveland 05:54:23.884 --> 05:54:44.974 That seems to be the most problematic for when you look at the two hundred and eighty eight, and then you would simply have that as let's say a four hour window and then the rest of the time, the twenty- other hours would be maintained as a separate. So it'd be a four hundred and twenty- hour. 1375 Frances Cleveland 05:54:45.604 --> 05:54:46.114 Split. 1376 Sky Stanfield 05:54:47.224 --> 05:55:06.064 That would have to be customized for every feeder, right? It's like in the sense that we would, what I'm proposing is that the rule would set again, I'm not proposing to do anything until we understand whether that's even needed, but that you would set the rule would say [...]. Can be, can do up to four hour window. 1377 Sky Stanfield 05:55:07.324 --> 05:55:27.276 For each month, and then the customer would look at the profile and decide that versus having to do a look at the profile back forth. Can we, what's the right window? Because you'd have to have the back years data to figure that out and so on for each feeder as opposed to just say they can select any, for our combination for our windows or. 1378 Sky Stanfield 05:55:28.504 --> 05:55:44.134 Hey, I think that's like the next level once we get this analysis, then I was mostly just noting that I think that, that caveat to how we interpret the results. I think Brian also had his hand up a minute ago. I don't know if he put it down. 1379 brian 05:55:46.294 --> 05:55:48.184 Yeah, I'm still, I was just. 1380 brian 05:55:50.104 --> 05:56:10.984 Curious, I'm assuming the information is available, but I'm curious whether it could be provided along with the analysis, just the circuit parameters for those locations that you select. I guess, I just specially be curious about the, the rating of the conductors. However, I'm not certain of that. 1381 brian 05:56:11.794 --> 05:56:26.494 It would be easy to provide the radio to the conductors if there's a thermal overload, what the rating is at the location of the thermal overload. I'm assuming that that gets spit out in the analysis, but I don't know how easy it is to access that data. 1382 Michael Barigian SCE 05:56:28.234 --> 05:56:49.084 Yeah, I'm not sure either. I would have to ask the team and obviously the powerful model has to know where the thermal overload is occurring, but I'm concerned that it may require us to go back and re- simulate that hour to identify where the thermal overload occurred, and then double click into the metadata for that conductor section or sections and then get the cable type and the [...]. 1383 Michael Barigian SCE 05:56:49.114 --> 05:56:57.874 In the overload amount. So I'm worried that part could be labor intensive to go back for each hour for each of these profile combinations and time periods. 1384 brian 05:56:59.914 --> 05:57:03.874 But you could likely provide just some basic sort of parameters for that location, right? 1385 Michael Barigian SCE 05:57:05.524 --> 05:57:10.234 For the selected note. Yeah, we could likely provide, we can definitely provide the [...]. 1386 Michael Barigian SCE 05:57:10.238 --> 05:57:16.564 [...] type that it's connected to maybe the upstream conductor type, the downstream conductor type in their sizes and, and pass these. 1387 brian 05:57:17.314 --> 05:57:19.684 Yeah, that'd be great. Whatever, whatever you can get there. 1388 Michael Barigian SCE 05:57:23.404 --> 05:57:24.964 Let me take note of that before I forget. 1389 Frank McElvain 05:57:33.274 --> 05:57:51.844 I would think that, uh, you could, you could find some boundary conditions that wouldn't require our, by our evaluation. I think if you. 1390 Frank McElvain 05:57:54.664 --> 05:57:56.974 Yeah, Michael, I think you don't. 1391 Frank McElvain 05:57:58.474 --> 05:58:01.384 Okay, so I'm not doing the work, but. 1392 Frank McElvain 05:58:02.434 --> 05:58:03.964 Just don't think. 1393 Frank McElvain 05:58:05.524 --> 05:58:18.154 Hour by hour evaluation is called for here. I think boundary conditions are called for and establishing some boundary conditions. 1394 Sky Stanfield 05:58:21.514 --> 05:58:23.074 Under conditions, Oh, sorry Mike. 1395 Michael Barigian SCE 05:58:24.394 --> 05:58:26.374 I was just going to clarify Frank, are you referring? 1396 Michael Barigian SCE 05:58:26.404 --> 05:58:29.824 Step six, where we're doing the hour by hour comparison. 1397 Frank McElvain 05:58:30.936 --> 05:58:37.564 Yeah, that's what I heard. You just say, is that, Yeah, yeah, you're going to do our by hour. You guys understand. 1398 Michael Barigian SCE 05:58:38.346 --> 05:58:47.526 Oh, let me see. Maybe not, so how I'm envisioning this in the simplest sense is you take the [...] for time period? One you line that up in the first column, [...]. 1399 Michael Barigian SCE 05:58:47.530 --> 05:59:08.674 [...] for time period to line that up and column two, and then you create a function in column three that says calculate the magnitude difference between each of those coincident values, and then another column that calculates the percent difference between those hourly values coincident hourly values, and then you look across the range of the full range of that results and you select the largest magnitude difference and. 1400 Michael Barigian SCE 05:59:08.680 --> 05:59:23.944 The smallest thing that you difference and that tells you what the range of potential criteria violation could be, or it helps you characterize or better understand it, maybe not exactly telling you the value, but it gives you a range of potential magnitude overload. 1401 Michael Barigian SCE 05:59:28.084 --> 05:59:43.414 So, yeah, in my mind, if we don't compare our to our, for each of the time periods, then we won't know what is the maximum magnitude difference that could have occurred for each of these different levels of granularity and the profiles, five eight hundred and five h. 1402 Justin Regnier 05:59:48.124 --> 06:00:03.604 Frank might be alluding to those, the likely to have common modes in terms of violations. We're likely to run into trouble at the same time of the day. 1403 Justin Regnier 06:00:05.794 --> 06:00:17.764 There are some values of the twenty- four hours of the day, the warrant close inspection and others that are not likely to present an issue. I don't know if that's what you meant, Frank. 1404 Frank McElvain 06:00:18.784 --> 06:00:23.584 I couldn't have said it better. Justin, thank you. I don't think. 1405 Frank McElvain 06:00:25.596 --> 06:00:42.214 I think you a human and maybe a computer as well would find some common modalities that you can rule out a whole series of combinations groups. 1406 Frank McElvain 06:00:44.586 --> 06:00:56.074 Didn't mean to do that, I'm sorry, but I think you could rule out a whole, a whole set of conditions that do not require, um. 1407 Frank McElvain 06:00:57.874 --> 06:01:00.604 Powerful evaluation a powerful solution. 1408 Michael Barigian SCE 06:01:02.914 --> 06:01:24.034 Yeah, yeah, I mean, well, power flow is [...], which includes power flow is only way for us to generate these results. So there's no way around that and to generate the ICAAY static grid profile. We have to have the limiting criteria for all of the other, all the other criteria thermal steady state, full variation protection, and so. 1409 Michael Barigian SCE 06:01:24.064 --> 06:01:45.186 On, that's the only way we can recreate the [...] profile for a past time period. Unless of course we find that data already exists in a prior data request. We've provided and we can repurpose that, but I mean, power flow is the core, the heart of [...]. So it's the only way we can actually perform this analysis and make the comparisons that we think are needed here. 1410 Michael Barigian SCE 06:01:45.214 --> 06:01:45.364 Yeah. 1411 Michael Barigian SCE 06:01:48.064 --> 06:02:03.934 Hopefully if the analysis suggests that there are periods of the day where a comparison is not needed, I would be interested to see the findings of that, but I didn't want to structure the analysis in a way that automatically excludes that without seeing it in the results. 1412 Frank McElvain 06:02:09.184 --> 06:02:09.724 Um. 1413 Frances Cleveland 06:02:09.964 --> 06:02:27.034 To some degree, that's why I was making that suggestion on using the two hundred and eighty- eight first, uh, to take a look at sort of a pattern that you might get, and that might help you avoid other. 1414 Frances Cleveland 06:02:27.544 --> 06:02:29.194 Assessments that you need to do. 1415 Michael Barigian SCE 06:02:31.564 --> 06:02:51.214 So can we explore that a little bit further? So if we envision that we have five, a- and we presented this in workshop to the two hundred and eighty- eight [...] S. g. profile values. How could we inspect that profile and understand where the problems exists is that, where all the. 1416 Michael Barigian SCE 06:02:51.634 --> 06:02:54.724 Occur where all the values are lower values. 1417 Frances Cleveland 06:02:58.866 --> 06:03:04.624 They are the values that are not meeting your ninety percent. 1418 Sky Stanfield 06:03:06.516 --> 06:03:18.214 Is it that values where the load is changing from year- to year. Most often that's where the, where the issue is, right? It's not where every hour is going to be up to some limit, what we're trying to assess. 1419 Sky Stanfield 06:03:18.514 --> 06:03:23.674 Is, are there periods where the load fluctuations cause differences from year- to year more. 1420 Michael Barigian SCE 06:03:28.624 --> 06:03:40.684 Yeah, that makes a little bit more sense to me. I guess, yeah, the only concern I have is to what extent would we be able to establish a trend when only comparing two years. 1421 Michael Barigian SCE 06:03:42.454 --> 06:03:54.124 You know, like ten years, seven years, ten years of data for ten years of IC results, then maybe I could establish a better trend for where those, those hours or month hours more specifically, could be problematic. 1422 Sky Stanfield 06:03:54.934 --> 06:03:58.504 And it's going to be feeder by feeder, so how would we apply it to the role anyways. 1423 Michael Barigian SCE 06:03:59.014 --> 06:03:59.284 Yeah. 1424 Justin Regnier 06:04:00.784 --> 06:04:21.694 I mean, maybe I'm, maybe I'm beating this one to death, but all models are wrong. Some models useless useful, um, what we're trying to do is get an idea of how these things trend. I don't think anybody's suggesting that this is going to be statistically representative or, or that we. 1425 Justin Regnier 06:04:21.724 --> 06:04:27.064 Good without any doubt apply it, um. 1426 Justin Regnier 06:04:28.684 --> 06:04:34.744 widely and say that would be right in every instance as opposed to actually, um. 1427 Justin Regnier 06:04:36.124 --> 06:04:56.946 The reason I raise my hand is question out a little bit to do with step number one. So two things, one is that I hope you will take up Eric on their offer to provide historic data that saves you a whole bunch of processing time because fully while. 1428 Justin Regnier 06:04:57.004 --> 06:05:18.034 Why wouldn't you, I mean, we're time constraints and I know that your particular needs are processor are as much as we can right now, and the second has to do with step one. I don't know if there's going to be any space for stakeholder input on what particular? No, it's good selected or that's going to be publicized ahead of time. 1429 Justin Regnier 06:05:18.394 --> 06:05:26.376 receiver, if we're just planning on, I don't know where you're at in your selection process. So I guess I'll leave it there. 1430 Michael Barigian SCE 06:05:29.014 --> 06:05:49.054 Yeah, so definitely interested in taking up Iraq on that, on that offer, we had not considered space for stakeholder input on the selection of circuits. I need to check with the team. I got agreement on this analysis. I think it was mid- week last week so they may have already started, but I can certainly. 1431 Michael Barigian SCE 06:05:49.144 --> 06:05:54.034 Check with them and see if there's any, any room for further influence on the selection of circuits. 1432 Sky Stanfield 06:05:56.974 --> 06:06:17.314 One of those who are strongly about those election and circuits as long as this also kind of captures the differences the way I had done there are comparison that we've been talking with you separately on Mike is the looking at urban roles, suburban or role, et cetera and geographic diversity might get at that, but again, I don't know ultimately it's. 1433 Sky Stanfield 06:06:17.320 --> 06:06:38.464 The load changes that are the critical driver here, probably, and it's hard to be hard to pick those circuits where the load without doing them more statistical sampling, right. Dustin and I think that in all, for all circuits that's going to be the primary driver for this. 1434 Sky Stanfield 06:06:38.494 --> 06:06:47.344 Issue that we're trying to get at is what load changes and maybe how, how sensitive the filtered regulators are something to those little changes, but. 1435 Michael Barigian SCE 06:06:54.274 --> 06:06:58.264 Thanks all for the questions and comments. I see Ameen has hand up. 1436 Younes, Amin 06:06:59.554 --> 06:07:10.654 Yeah, one too. So I guess I should say I'm with Kyle advocates, I wanted to, to jump in on a couple of the topics first regarding the sample size, I mean, kind of tied to getting the data from Iraq. I think. 1437 Younes, Amin 06:07:10.924 --> 06:07:30.724 Looks like it's something that could be highly automated perhaps other than getting the, the period one data. So if you get that thirty one data from Iraq, well, hope that this could really be automated, It needs to increase that sample size from like five to five hundred without, without a significant amount of, of person hours of labor increase. 1438 Younes, Amin 06:07:32.734 --> 06:07:53.106 Second, I think, well, I'm not sure if this ties into Frank's comment or not, but on item six, I think those are going to be useful pieces of information, but one key thing to do there will be to figure out how to kind of summarize that information because we're not going to be able to look through two hundred and eighty- eight hours of data for five. 1439 Younes, Amin 06:07:53.254 --> 06:08:02.764 Who's on a flight and make any conclusion from that. So I'll leave that up to you, but it's sort of on the same time as we spent on, on that. 1440 Younes, Amin 06:08:04.894 --> 06:08:25.324 In terms of what Francis and Scott were talking about with either having the Windows variable or variable size, I actually had the same thought as Francis from looking at [...] data. I think you often see there's just a couple hours that are low, or there's a few hours maybe four to nine zero PM where you really want to capture that value. So. 1441 Younes, Amin 06:08:25.654 --> 06:08:46.776 Perhaps, instead of looking at the set numbers of set our windows, it'd be by number of values. So you'd have two values, three values for values over the course of each day, et cetera and allows us to vary and then kind of tie that to the broader question of how you'd actually do that. I think that as long as you're automating this, you could. 1442 Younes, Amin 06:08:47.164 --> 06:09:07.924 Put it in a four loop and have it just try it. Try every option for five circuits or even five hundred circuits. I don't think that would be necessarily prohibitive in terms of how you actually implement this. It might end up being difficult than it might not, and then kind of, I guess you try every combination and pick the option. 1443 Younes, Amin 06:09:07.954 --> 06:09:26.404 That maximizes the amount. I think probably the most straightforward thing is to pick the window option that maximizes the total energy, export it over the course of the year. So you'd be looping through these things like potentially hundreds of times, but again, as long as it's kind of automated, you could run that on a, on a laptop in a few hours, probably. 1444 Younes, Amin 06:09:27.994 --> 06:09:48.786 I got to keep going through these points and you can follow up afterwards. I think on option or on step seven, you say kilowatt hours of energy delivery, That makes sense. That's what we did kilowatt hours is. I think undefined there either needs to be like the peak, what we did was the average over the four to nine zero PM window if you just do the app. 1445 Younes, Amin 06:09:48.994 --> 06:10:09.964 kilowatts, it'll actually, I think does correlate perfectly to kilowatt hours and not really be that useful. So we were pulling that forty- nine zero PM PCO. I'm not really sure that's exactly the perfect window to look at. could be six to ten. could be something else just to note there and then kind of zooming out a little bit and what was presented on the previous slide. I think what you said, you. 1446 Younes, Amin 06:10:09.994 --> 06:10:31.114 Look for, is no violations and no increases in magnitude. I think maybe that is worth talking about a little bit because likely you will see one of those things. I mean it's very unlikely in my mind that even the option gee, you're not going to see one circuit among the five that has, has, you're going to see probably more violate. 1447 Younes, Amin 06:10:31.144 --> 06:10:47.224 Two or more magnitude, even just statistically, if you pick the five circuits and then five different circuits you're going to see at least half the time you're going to, maybe can't make such a strong statement, but likely half the time you're going to just do random chance to see more more. 1448 Younes, Amin 06:10:50.494 --> 06:11:10.594 More violations are more greater magnitude and so I think that's worth talking through exactly exactly how strict that criteria would be to get to get [...] on board and supporting this anyway, that was kind of a lot of things that I just rattled through time. I'm finished with my thoughts here. 1449 Justin Regnier 06:11:11.526 --> 06:11:17.346 Thank you, man. For particular demonstrating why we record these things. 1450 Michael Barigian SCE 06:11:19.894 --> 06:11:20.794 I think, I mean. 1451 Frank McElvain 06:11:22.384 --> 06:11:28.354 I think we could also, I'm just thinking out loud here. W- we could. 1452 Frank McElvain 06:11:30.544 --> 06:11:51.274 Approach this from strictly a thermal evaluation voltage voltage violations are easier to solve. There are more options to solve them a lot of times. It's a matter of resetting, uh, uh. 1453 Frank McElvain 06:11:51.604 --> 06:12:08.224 Change on a transformers or something. So, I mean, any, any way of narrowing the scope of what you're analyzing mean mentioned some key hours during the day. Um. 1454 Frank McElvain 06:12:09.846 --> 06:12:16.714 I'm throwing out there just look at thermal, we're thermal issues. Mike might be the issue. 1455 Michael Barigian SCE 06:12:18.334 --> 06:12:39.304 Yeah, so thanks for that, Frank, the [...] data grid profile is fundamentally constructed by taking the minimum of the [...] thermal. I see steady state voltage volt variation protection. I think I got them all. I may have forgotten one, but I don't know of a way to reconstruct the [...] profile. 1456 Michael Barigian SCE 06:12:39.430 --> 06:13:00.574 [...] the voltage considerations and steady state voltage or voltage variation, and I think that it would be risky to only base this on the [...] thermal results and completely disregard the other parameters such as protection. So a process could certainly be built to construct an [...]. 1457 Michael Barigian SCE 06:13:00.604 --> 06:13:11.884 [...] without voltage profile. If you will, but I wonder how that could affect all of the work that's already been done in this proceeding, that's based on the [...] profile as it exists today. 1458 Frank McElvain 06:13:13.744 --> 06:13:15.094 Fair comments, Michael. 1459 Sky Stanfield 06:13:15.664 --> 06:13:34.414 I mean, you said you were going to run the, all the different criteria regulations, so we're going to see that you're waiting for and continue to your point and then what you'll see anyways is that protection as we've seen is very, very rarely or limiting criteria under the [...], based on the aggregated data, it's going to be thermal or voltage. 1460 Sky Stanfield 06:13:35.196 --> 06:13:43.026 Well, we'll have that data to look through and Frank, that'll show us whether how often it's a bolted versus a thermal variation. 1461 Michael Barigian SCE 06:13:46.294 --> 06:13:46.894 Agreed. 1462 Michael Barigian SCE 06:13:53.914 --> 06:14:08.614 Alright, I'm not completely caught up on the chat. I don't see any other hands up. Um, I guess maybe I could ask if there were any unaddressed questions in the chat, if whoever asked the question could raise it. 1463 Sky Stanfield 06:14:14.346 --> 06:14:30.814 I think the only thing is in the chat where my comments one was just to say that I have the data for all three. I use that, and then I think the comment that I mean was making, and the earlier slide you guys have what you guys, what you were going to [...] are going to conclude from that. 1464 Sky Stanfield 06:14:30.820 --> 06:14:51.964 Analysis in terms of the position, but I think ultimately we're here for the commission to decide what to take from this analysis. So it's certainly for IRAQ at least we're not agreeing that, that no variation is the conclusion will be that we just do a twelve twelve month profile, but I appreciate that you guys were drawing your current line in the sand and hope you'll. 1465 Sky Stanfield 06:14:51.994 --> 06:14:56.734 Be more flexible as we look at the data, like you suggesting. 1466 Michael Barigian SCE 06:14:58.714 --> 06:14:58.984 Thank you. 1467 Michael Barigian SCE 06:14:59.020 --> 06:15:11.014 Scott, yes, I agree. It's ultimately the commissions decision here. The statement on slide, twenty- four is that the [...] would maintain the position to utilize twelve unique LTV values if that condition is met. 1468 Michael Barigian SCE 06:15:17.314 --> 06:15:24.154 Okay, thanks for all the questions and input. I'll go ahead and pass it over to Alex to describe PG. E- is planned analysis. 1469 Sky Stanfield 06:15:24.334 --> 06:15:26.944 Justin had another question. They just pulled the chat. 1470 Michael Barigian SCE 06:15:30.244 --> 06:15:37.176 To what extent do the autonomous volt bar and volt what functions cure voltage issues encountered. 1471 Michael Barigian SCE 06:15:42.214 --> 06:15:45.454 Any, any experts want to weigh in on that question? 1472 brian 06:15:51.724 --> 06:16:08.074 Brian, I think the [...] may be included in at least a [...], [...] calculations and I think we discussed earlier that the other utilities would try to incorporate that and we would expect that to. 1473 brian 06:16:08.134 --> 06:16:27.904 Maybe have some mitigating of the fact that would raise the [...] values, but in terms of what would actually happen in the field, you know, the volt one isn't represented because, um, I think the [...] would go up to the range a- the edge of range a. 1474 brian 06:16:29.434 --> 06:16:49.534 On Range Day and Range B is allowed and we'll take effect after range be to try and keep things closer to range B and so I think that, I think it's a valuable question to ask once we see the results as you know, what does it actually mean to have high voltage. 1475 brian 06:16:52.954 --> 06:17:02.194 Most or many of the [...] have a whole lot turned on and anything moving forward. We'll have it turned on. 1476 Michael Barigian SCE 06:17:11.794 --> 06:17:12.544 Thanks, Brian. 1477 Michael Barigian SCE 06:17:17.106 --> 06:17:19.836 Okay, I think we can go to slide twenty- six. 1478 Michael Barigian SCE 06:17:32.824 --> 06:17:38.824 Francisco, are you able to advance the slide for us? Thank you and then take it away. Alex. 1479 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:17:40.594 --> 06:17:53.854 Alright, thank you, Michael. So the PG proposed analysis is very similar to what I see has already gone over. So may see some similarities in what we're proposing here. 1480 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:17:53.914 --> 06:17:54.244 But. 1481 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:17:55.564 --> 06:18:15.694 For the, I'll go through the PGY one and then take questions if there are any proposing to do is look at two time periods going to look at January of two thousand and twenty- two as period one in January of two thousand and twenty- three s- period number two, and then these specific periods or. 1482 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:18:16.446 --> 06:18:37.564 Compare the [...] profiles as follows. We'll look at the [...] profile all hours. So, eh, h- pretty much stuff that we've talked about before, so we're going to look at twelve zero GP values as well as two hundred and eight values, and then this tab. 1483 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:18:37.596 --> 06:18:57.936 In between is what's going to be the enhancement to the analysis. So we'll be, we're going to pick three periods of time, so those will be our eight to our seventeen eighteen to twenty- three and then zero to seven just to see what the differences within those hours. 1484 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:18:58.924 --> 06:18:59.884 And then for. 1485 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:19:02.134 --> 06:19:10.116 D- so these [...] is going to be fixed a fixed value for all those hours. So for this time periods will have. 1486 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:19:11.524 --> 06:19:32.524 Sorry, so for B. Two, B, they will pick the minimum values within those Windows and then four C- also be fixed the minimum value for every window. I mean, all the hours except for this window for sixteen to twenty- one and then. 1487 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:19:32.644 --> 06:19:52.804 That will be the same analysis for D and E- we'll have all of the hours with the fixed minimum and then an increased value if you will, for the hours that are shown here. So for [...] would be sixteen sixteen to twenty- one, and then there will be our eighteen to twenty- three. 1488 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:19:53.914 --> 06:19:59.014 Would be our sixteen to twenty- three and then for, if it would be. 1489 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:20:00.874 --> 06:20:21.904 Sixteen to twenty- one will be fixed minimum value for our sixteen to twenty- one and then then fixed minimum for all of the hours and then G- is similar to, but the hour range of hours changes from eighteen to twenty- one and we're trying to do here, we're trying to. 1490 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:20:21.934 --> 06:20:27.574 Focus on peak load periods since we feel like that, this will be the timeline. 1491 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:20:29.164 --> 06:20:41.614 Extra export it would be most valuable to developers and what we're trying to investigate is does it increase loading on the system. 1492 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:20:45.064 --> 06:20:58.444 [...] violations. So that's the question that we're trying to console as Michael mentioned, we're trying to find the intersection between increased experts and minimal risk from our grid perspective. 1493 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:21:00.754 --> 06:21:02.944 And then for item number three. 1494 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:21:04.594 --> 06:21:24.694 What we're doing is trying to do an analysis for at least five locations or five feet, and then so we're going to run the analysis is shown above in two for at least five locations and we're going to compare the results from Edge for period one compared to. 1495 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:21:25.446 --> 06:21:27.006 Twenty- eight [...]. 1496 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:21:29.194 --> 06:21:35.104 Period number two, which is a, I mean, analysis number two, which is the first one. 1497 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:21:37.864 --> 06:21:57.634 We will slightly the difference between what [...] will be doing or what patient will be doing is for these five locations, we'll run an analysis for all the nodes on those five different locations. So we're going to compare the nodes between the two analyses that exist in some. 1498 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:21:57.934 --> 06:22:13.354 Specific features that we're going to be looking at, and then what we plan to do is calculated magnitude and frequency violations. So we will, we'll take the twenty- eight [...] of pure number two. 1499 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:22:15.724 --> 06:22:21.424 And then we will look at [...] profiles improved number one. 1500 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:22:24.516 --> 06:22:32.314 Which is, we're going to consider the ten percent buffer, We feel like this is going to make it less cost more conservative, less conservative. 1501 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:22:34.624 --> 06:22:44.344 And then we will look at the frequency, which is the number of hours we're [...] period. Number two is less than ninety percent of [...] profile period. Number one. 1502 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:22:45.756 --> 06:23:06.574 We also look at the magnitude, which is the difference between two [...] of pure number to ninety percent of [...] of pure number one and then identify all the criteria violations based on the results that we get in three. We will also. 1503 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:23:07.624 --> 06:23:26.734 Capture the amount of generation that was added since January two thousand and twenty- two January of two thousand and twenty- three, this is a question that came up before, for informational purposes only, and lastly, we will also calculate the energy in kilowatt hours. 1504 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:23:28.564 --> 06:23:38.584 And kilowatts delivered over the course of the year for each of the profile types. So meaning, from, to above, we will do that calculation for each. 1505 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:23:41.134 --> 06:24:01.864 Like I said, these, uh, let's see a question from Justin. I think, uh, we wanted to pick there was no, there's no rhyme or reason Justin, we just want to pick two time periods and we have results published from January two thousand and twenty- two on two thousand and twenty- three, it could have been. 1506 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:24:01.870 --> 06:24:04.866 In February of two thousand and twenty- two in two thousand and twenty- three. 1507 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:24:11.104 --> 06:24:27.244 And what's not shown on here is the five locations or the, at least five locations that we pick. Yeah, all gonna be geographically diverse. So similar to what she's doing. We're going to try to pick locations that are not the same. 1508 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:24:27.274 --> 06:24:34.984 So an album, maybe a row, maybe something else that he's going to represent the diversity of the distribution grade. 1509 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:24:38.286 --> 06:24:39.664 And the main has a question. 1510 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:24:40.144 --> 06:24:41.196 For sure, what do you mean? 1511 Younes, Amin 06:24:42.634 --> 06:24:44.526 Yeah, I guess it's more of a comment that a question. 1512 Younes, Amin 06:24:45.754 --> 06:25:06.694 I, I guess I could also reiterate some of the feedback for [...], but I'll save everyone the time and not do that, and you can just imagine that a lot of that does the same kind of feedback applies beyond that and kind of thinking in the context of what I see showed. I think there'll be some, you know, there will certainly be some. 1513 Younes, Amin 06:25:06.730 --> 06:25:27.876 Benefit to be able to directly compare your results to [...], the greatest extent possible I do like the, I think the hours that you chose are good and interesting, and maybe it's worth having those stay as they are, we're [...]. Does that one way you do the other, but at least I think the h- will be directly [...]. 1514 Younes, Amin 06:25:27.878 --> 06:25:48.994 [...], so when you think about how to present these results, if you can have the results for those, at least in a way that makes it easy for us to, to compare the reason I say that is actually because I know in the analysis that I did, and I've been doing on Telco and the energy and power that can be delivered. I found some pretty sick. 1515 Younes, Amin 06:25:49.054 --> 06:26:10.174 And differences between [...] and PG E- that I will share in the next workshops, but, you know, having your data able to make that comparison as well would be very helpful additionally, I think it might be interesting just kind of thinking about the ways to summarize all the stuff. 1516 Younes, Amin 06:26:10.204 --> 06:26:30.874 that'd be helpful. It might be interesting to do something like a scatter plot where the X axis is the total energy over the course of a year for that profile summed across all the circuits. So you'd have one for eighty one for B One for [...] et cetera, and then on the Y axis, you'd have either the number of violations at a magnet total magnitude of all violations or something like that. So you can kind of see that. 1517 Younes, Amin 06:26:31.834 --> 06:26:40.114 Oh, for a profile B, we get way more energy, but we only see one more violation, whereas per profile, whatever it is. 1518 Younes, Amin 06:26:41.404 --> 06:26:51.604 See we get more energy, but we get way more violations or something like that. Hopefully hopefully that kind of makes sense and with that, I will conclude my remarks. 1519 Sky Stanfield 06:27:03.514 --> 06:27:16.204 So this guy I had a question comment so questions specific to... well this is for both really of the two different utility analysis is there. 1520 Sky Stanfield 06:27:17.884 --> 06:27:28.324 So the utilities preference as stated so far at least is that there just be a single hour for every single limited for every month. 1521 Sky Stanfield 06:27:30.574 --> 06:27:51.456 Is there a reason why it might be beneficial to do an analysis. That's just the same twenty- four hour profile all year round or a twelve point profile all year round. So, is that a. 1522 Sky Stanfield 06:27:51.754 --> 06:28:04.114 We're trying to capture the seasonal differences, but actually this peak hour difference might be kind of consistent across the year. The magnitude might vary a little bit, but I'm wondering if we want to. 1523 Sky Stanfield 06:28:05.974 --> 06:28:26.946 Test that out to one of these as opposed to a twelve month profile, just a twenty- four hour profile. That's the same. All twelve months, I'm not sure if I'm thinking about this, right? But it seems to me like there, especially when we're trying to capture energy storage, I think the twelve month thing is basically not going to make. 1524 Sky Stanfield 06:28:27.364 --> 06:28:41.104 This very viable for using energy storage and capturing its benefits. Whereas the twenty- four hour profile would even if it isn't as perfect for each month, so that's a question. 1525 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:28:44.464 --> 06:28:46.594 So I want to make sure I understand, so. 1526 Sky Stanfield 06:28:46.894 --> 06:28:46.984 Are. 1527 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:28:46.984 --> 06:28:59.284 You asking whether we can use one basically will be, let me see, uh, like c- fixed minimum four hours. 1528 Sky Stanfield 06:28:59.284 --> 06:28:59.734 Except. 1529 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:28:59.824 --> 06:29:03.034 For like, sixteen to twenty- one hours. 1530 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:29:03.610 --> 06:29:03.910 Time. 1531 Sky Stanfield 06:29:05.196 --> 06:29:24.756 Well, I guess I was thinking you had twenty- four hour profile for each you get, it would have to be based on individual leaders ACA, like the MAX profile that it's the same, twenty- four hours throughout the whole year as opposed to a different twenty- four hour profile for each. 1532 Sky Stanfield 06:29:24.784 --> 06:29:45.124 Month, and again, it may not have to be a full twenty- four hours. It could be twelve hours or something or twelve different points and it's not ours exactly, um, and again, I think what I'm, what I'm thinking is, is that the utilities concern is that the more variations you have, So two hundred and eight versus. 1533 Sky Stanfield 06:29:46.834 --> 06:30:07.054 Is the, is the concern another way of thinking about it is if you just have twelve or twenty- four, but they're, they're based upon the hours of the day as opposed to the seasons that might be a more useful use case for the customer because of the value of energy storage and what we know the peak load throughout the day. 1534 Sky Stanfield 06:30:07.086 --> 06:30:07.266 Okay. 1535 Sky Stanfield 06:30:09.994 --> 06:30:11.224 Sorry, if I'm not explaining that. 1536 Yi Li SDG&E 06:30:12.694 --> 06:30:25.744 Do you mean like, looking at the total value for each month across the twelve months and pick one value to show that, for example, for our one, is that what you're saying? 1537 Sky Stanfield 06:30:25.984 --> 06:30:30.844 So what I'm envisioning is that a customer would look at the ICAAY values. 1538 Sky Stanfield 06:30:31.054 --> 06:30:51.064 Pick one hundred and twenty- four hour profile or one twelve hour profile for the day, if we want to do it in two hour chunks, three hour chunks or what, but that would be the same limit every month as opposed to one limit for January one limit for February. So I feel like I've explained, this has been. 1539 Sky Stanfield 06:30:52.294 --> 06:30:52.804 To understand. 1540 Yi Li SDG&E 06:30:53.434 --> 06:30:53.914 Yeah. 1541 Yi Li SDG&E 06:30:55.384 --> 06:31:13.174 I, the part that is not clear meat to me is the picking, like, is it the minimal value across the twelve months or a customer can just pick whatever twelve out twenty- four hour. They're comfortable with which, what happens to those months that the, the value's actually less than the value they pick that makes sense. 1542 Sky Stanfield 06:31:13.354 --> 06:31:15.994 They would essentially have to pick the most limiting. 1543 Sky Stanfield 06:31:16.204 --> 06:31:27.574 Not exceed any of the most limiting values for them for those months, but be able to capture where for each month that goes up during those different peak load hours, for example. 1544 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:31:28.474 --> 06:31:29.284 I feel like this would be. 1545 Sky Stanfield 06:31:29.284 --> 06:31:29.584 More. 1546 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:31:30.304 --> 06:31:31.594 To the customer, right? 1547 Sky Stanfield 06:31:32.374 --> 06:31:36.364 That's what I'm getting at is that it may be more advantageous to the customer. 1548 Sky Stanfield 06:31:37.324 --> 06:31:52.506 Also address the utilities concern. So there will be fewer variations and values, but it's just a different way of thinking about, instead of twelve twelve month forty values, you're doing the same daily profile all across departments. 1549 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:31:52.836 --> 06:31:58.446 What I'm saying guys, I think, I think this will be less advantageous to the customer because. 1550 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:31:58.450 --> 06:32:06.904 Is there, would there will be limited to a lower Icaay hosting capacity then because remember before [...]. 1551 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:32:07.264 --> 06:32:27.874 I used to actually proposing a seasonal limit, right? So be careful limits for the year, and then we settled on this variation of the [...] proposal to allow monthly limits, which provides more flexibility, but I think if I understand you correctly, you're saying they should be limited to one months, basically. 1552 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:32:29.494 --> 06:32:37.054 Going back, I think from my perspective, I think semi- supported, but I don't know if it would be beneficial to customers. 1553 Younes, Amin 06:32:38.974 --> 06:32:49.206 I think what this guy's saying is that there would be every hour instead of, instead of right now there being a value for January value for February, value for March. 1554 Younes, Amin 06:32:49.234 --> 06:32:54.544 There's a value for one to two zero PM every month of the year value for two to three zero PM every month of the year, and so on and so forth. 1555 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:32:55.894 --> 06:33:10.294 Yeah, same answer. Because then your, your value, let's say, for example, you're using the minimum value, right. That minimum value happens in January, then you'll be limited to that hourly value for the rest of the year. Wow. 1556 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:33:10.686 --> 06:33:15.304 You can have a higher limit then you'd be able to export more in February and so forth, and so on. 1557 Sky Stanfield 06:33:17.914 --> 06:33:38.554 To kind of look at some numbers, but I think that could be true. That was my question now is, but I also think it could, it may not be true. Kevin thinking about it, right? Because if in every afternoon there, even when you're using the most limiting one, you're capturing that particular difference and you're able to use the technology capable and the customer flexibility. 1558 Sky Stanfield 06:33:38.884 --> 06:33:53.106 It may be a more practical use case, but again, you might be right, like, maybe it just reduces the total amount of capacity throughout the whole year, if you use that limiting our, if it's for, if for example, April's going to be really limiting. 1559 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:33:54.756 --> 06:33:59.706 That's what I think, but maybe we should look at it more, but that's, that's my immediate reaction. That's also a micro- note. 1560 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:33:59.764 --> 06:34:02.014 I don't know Mike or if you agree, or if you feel otherwise. 1561 Michael Barigian SCE 06:34:02.854 --> 06:34:07.414 I just wanted to how you'd construct in my mind. 1562 Michael Barigian SCE 06:34:09.994 --> 06:34:12.214 Get the [...]. 1563 Michael Barigian SCE 06:34:13.836 --> 06:34:22.686 Jenny minimum [...] for one hundred February through December. So you have well [...] for one hundred AM. 1564 Yi Li SDG&E 06:34:23.074 --> 06:34:25.956 Michael, you're breaking up for me. I'm not sure if it's. 1565 Sky Stanfield 06:34:25.956 --> 06:34:26.256 Just. 1566 Yi Li SDG&E 06:34:26.256 --> 06:34:28.356 Me, I can't hear you. 1567 Michael Barigian SCE 06:34:29.494 --> 06:34:30.304 Any better now. 1568 Justin Regnier 06:34:31.536 --> 06:34:32.016 Yes. 1569 Michael Barigian SCE 06:34:35.134 --> 06:34:35.464 Sorry, it. 1570 Justin Regnier 06:34:35.464 --> 06:34:36.664 Was it was. 1571 Yi Li SDG&E 06:34:37.780 --> 06:34:41.584 It still seems like your electrical wave or something. 1572 Michael Barigian SCE 06:34:44.464 --> 06:34:48.394 Let me try to stop the video and see if that improves the audio at all about now. 1573 Sky Stanfield 06:34:49.714 --> 06:34:50.616 Seems better. 1574 Michael Barigian SCE 06:34:51.456 --> 06:35:04.564 Okay, let me give it another shot then, so you take the [...] value for one hundred AM for January for one AM for every month. So you have twelve [...] values one for each month. 1575 Michael Barigian SCE 06:35:04.594 --> 06:35:25.714 The January through December, and then you take the minimum of that or I guess maybe one could argue, you take the median or you take the average or some percentile and then you set that as the maximum output for one hundred AM for every single month, and then you do that same, you take that same approach for two zero PM, three zero PM until you have a [...]. 1576 Michael Barigian SCE 06:35:25.718 --> 06:35:34.174 [...] twenty- four hour profile, which is represented every month to create a two hundred and eight if you will twelve multiplied by twenty- four for two hundred and eight. 1577 Sky Stanfield 06:35:34.744 --> 06:35:34.894 Is. 1578 Michael Barigian SCE 06:35:34.894 --> 06:35:35.554 That, what I'm talking. 1579 Sky Stanfield 06:35:35.554 --> 06:35:46.834 About, yes, I think that's what we're talking about, and again, I have no idea if that would end up being way too conservative or if it would ultimately capture enough variation throughout the. 1580 Sky Stanfield 06:35:46.894 --> 06:35:52.564 A day that would maybe potentially align more closely with [...] rates, for example, That's what I was thinking. 1581 Michael Barigian SCE 06:35:52.836 --> 06:36:08.016 Got it, so maybe two thoughts if I get them before they, escape me one is the, like, if we take the minimum, if we use the minimum function, not the average, not some percent, all of those twelve values for each hour, then we're absolutely definitely. 1582 Michael Barigian SCE 06:36:08.044 --> 06:36:16.234 Going to have less energy production over the course of the year because you're taking the minimum of one month and applying it to the other eleven months or twelve twelve months. 1583 Sky Stanfield 06:36:16.324 --> 06:36:29.164 Well, I guess what I'm saying, I think that's right, but I'm not sure that, that means that it's less value for the customer. I don't want to drag this out too much if I'm totally off base, but I think so there may be, if you can put. 1584 Sky Stanfield 06:36:29.196 --> 06:36:50.314 It's more in one month that may not have value if what you have to do to build it out to capture that one month. It may be that if you had a profile that can be utilized every day, even if the, the MAX at any one hour is lower that may have greater value based on the way we think about monetizing the value. 1585 Sky Stanfield 06:36:50.344 --> 06:36:51.274 You of the energy. 1586 Younes, Amin 06:36:55.266 --> 06:36:56.676 What it's worth. I agree with you. 1587 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:36:56.946 --> 06:36:57.696 So Scott, I. 1588 Sky Stanfield 06:36:57.696 --> 06:36:57.936 Think. 1589 Sky Stanfield 06:37:00.394 --> 06:37:02.134 Sorry, guys, sorry Alex. 1590 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:37:02.344 --> 06:37:16.984 I think I see your point. You're saying that even though the Ali value is going to go down, we're not limiting each day to this minimum for the day. There's gonna be variations our in any given day. 1591 Sky Stanfield 06:37:19.054 --> 06:37:21.334 Right, if you assume that the variation. 1592 Sky Stanfield 06:37:21.366 --> 06:37:42.484 Generally, are still going to follow a similar curve throughout the year today, and because of the way we're getting very little value for energy storage, if you're doing a twelve month profile because we don't, we don't have long duration storage in consideration here as far as I the way I think about the way the system should be designed, most of the. 1593 Sky Stanfield 06:37:42.514 --> 06:37:59.704 We're going to be capturing more value from a twenty- four hour profile than they would be from a twelve month profile, at least for storage, maybe a solar customer can afford to build out that extra solar only capacity that just doesn't get used at all during parts of the year. 1594 Sky Stanfield 06:38:02.464 --> 06:38:20.644 Just that a little bit again, but I have one other, just comment I wanted to make about all of this, which is, I appreciate this is what we have to work with the continuing limitation. Is that the way the twenty- four hour profiles themselves are the two eighty eight profile is constructed based upon the load. 1595 Sky Stanfield 06:38:22.204 --> 06:38:43.114 The load term, essentially it's established for each of the twenty- four hour profiles, I think is still, is this hypothetical, we still aren't getting it whether it's actually going to be any real system condition. We're just looking at this theoretical load profile that's been aggregated over time. That is, I'm just noting that as a limitation. We need to keep in mind. 1596 Sky Stanfield 06:38:43.144 --> 06:38:54.574 And even though I don't think there's a way to get around that without you guys going out in the field and actually doing using your data data to tell what's the bolt is doing today compared to what it did last year with the new new system. 1597 brian 06:38:58.414 --> 06:39:12.904 I think this is a really good thing that we can potentially look at through some of the results at least put some of these results in the lens that it's not that we're. 1598 brian 06:39:14.254 --> 06:39:33.634 The system that implements a two hundred and eighty- eight l- g. p is going to bump right up against that line every single time, right? They might have, you know, specifically say system and they do want to take advantage of that afternoon or evening piece and so they might just simply replicate that throughout the entire year. 1599 brian 06:39:35.584 --> 06:39:51.634 Rather than trying to increase their output by an extra megawatt in the summer months or whatever. So, yeah, just knowing that hopefully at least with [...]. 1600 brian 06:39:52.444 --> 06:40:07.144 They're going to be showing that you're, um, we can think about maybe how, how a twenty for a single twenty- four hour profile for every month. I mean, one single twenty- four hour profile for the entire year. 1601 brian 06:40:09.694 --> 06:40:14.404 Kind of comply with the results there. 1602 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:40:16.624 --> 06:40:17.074 Yeah. 1603 Sky Stanfield 06:40:17.764 --> 06:40:26.014 We could have Katie run this based on a couple of features we already have just looking at one year and see. is there any value captured there? 1604 Justin Regnier 06:40:26.644 --> 06:40:30.274 If we can do that, maybe we should do that and put a pin. 1605 Justin Regnier 06:40:30.304 --> 06:40:42.394 This discussion until the next time I think that it's worth exploring, but if we've got a vehicle to explore, that doesn't require us to wait for all of these returns. 1606 Sky Stanfield 06:40:44.014 --> 06:40:51.424 Well, yeah, I guess the reason I was asking originally Justin was, I was asking was trying to get at whether the one of the utilities that we should run that. 1607 Sky Stanfield 06:40:51.430 --> 06:41:05.464 Scenario, because that would help them understand if it's more or less risky than just the base called Twelve LTP option. H- here is just a single twenty- four hour profile for each each. 1608 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:41:07.384 --> 06:41:07.894 Show. 1609 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:41:09.574 --> 06:41:29.164 Before just what I was going to point out, so who will be taking on is a new scenario that Skype proposed and sorry, I didn't, I jumped in earlier Skype me a little bit to visualize what you were trying to say. 1610 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:41:30.124 --> 06:41:42.574 But, you know, I do agree that even though you're taking the most limited limiting value at each hour or at each point in the, within a month. 1611 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:41:43.654 --> 06:41:54.364 E- summation may be more than the summation for that year. May be more advantageous to the customer. 1612 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:41:57.124 --> 06:42:06.574 So Scott, you also mentioned that a few seconds ago that you could have someone run it on your end. 1613 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:42:10.506 --> 06:42:11.346 Look at it. 1614 Sky Stanfield 06:42:11.974 --> 06:42:20.346 I think I could have, um, our, our consultant who has the existing data from last year. 1615 Sky Stanfield 06:42:22.206 --> 06:42:42.786 Just look at whether there's more sort of. I mean it's hard without putting prices on, it actually took really figure it out, but whether there'd be value to doing that, twenty- four hour approaching, would it be this. I mean they could do what, what the utilities are doing here essentially from year- to year, but just looking at a single year to. 1616 Sky Stanfield 06:42:42.820 --> 06:43:02.224 Figure out whether there's is any value to that twenty- four hour every month versus twelve single values. I can, I can look ask ask Katie if they can do that for us, but I guess I was proposing that a utility do that in this simulation, looking at your year. 1617 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:43:04.294 --> 06:43:22.564 Okay, yeah, I think the utilities should add that as an option. I, you know, based on our Skype discussion now, um, I'm assuming the utilities understood, what I was trying to refer to the scenario. 1618 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:43:27.994 --> 06:43:29.824 Yeah, this is Alex, I understand. 1619 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:43:31.114 --> 06:43:42.484 Okay, alright, so let's add that, and that's an option, I, and see what the results are. 1620 Michael Barigian SCE 06:43:43.744 --> 06:43:46.264 So, Jose, at least for [...] and. 1621 Michael Barigian SCE 06:43:46.294 --> 06:43:57.394 Stand the proposal, but the team that's doing this analysis that [...] cannot support the addition of any scope unless we want to extend past workshop for, unfortunately. 1622 Sky Stanfield 06:44:00.664 --> 06:44:02.644 What if we kept one of your other scenarios. 1623 Michael Barigian SCE 06:44:04.264 --> 06:44:07.954 Is going to be my next thought I would have. 1624 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:44:07.954 --> 06:44:09.124 To get, I mean, yeah, you had, you. 1625 Michael Barigian SCE 06:44:09.124 --> 06:44:21.514 Again, there's a possibility that the team has already has this analysis underway. So in the event that they've already kind of started going through these different granularities or profiles for, for. 1626 Michael Barigian SCE 06:44:21.544 --> 06:44:38.734 At least one node then I would have to check to see, but we've gone through to great extents to re- prioritize work both on the I. T- infrastructure side and on the business side, to be able to accommodate the scope that we presented on the last slide. I know it's not an ideal answer, but just want to be realistic with where we're at. 1627 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:44:39.874 --> 06:44:43.144 Alright, thank you, Michael, and I mean, you have your hand up. 1628 Younes, Amin 06:44:44.794 --> 06:45:00.994 Yeah, so, um, the first thought I guess is that it might also be worth considering, including the typical PV profile and this analysis because that ends up being or could end up being a relatively kind of aggressive. 1629 Younes, Amin 06:45:01.354 --> 06:45:22.054 Use case for the, put it under existing policy that might end up having more violations in some of these [...]. So I think that's worth considering. I guess, I just want to respond to that kind of broad discussion about the hourly profiles not very month to month. I. 1630 Younes, Amin 06:45:22.324 --> 06:45:43.294 Agree with Sky that there could be value there likely would be on some circuits. I think I'm kind of looking through a handful of circuits myself. I'm sorry, because you see a lot of month to month variation some circuits. You see a lot of our, our variation on the circuit that has relatively similar shapes, the very throughout the day, but not so much month to month daily profile. It's probably better to provide a Skype. 1631 Younes, Amin 06:45:43.324 --> 06:45:49.266 Talking about, so my intuition is that you'd see some circuits that would be a better option. 1632 Younes, Amin 06:45:50.584 --> 06:46:11.464 I guess, and then I have two more broad thoughts about that, which is that I would be curious how the [...] users would respond to a request to broaden the twelve values to be something like any twelve values. The customer wants. So it could be like four times, three or six times to six months to hour. 1633 Younes, Amin 06:46:11.524 --> 06:46:32.374 periods or two months. Six hour periods, or I guess two seasons or four seasons with three periods or three seasons before period. So you'd still be seeing the same number of changes sort of that you potentially be letting the customers, customize their profiles more. I wouldn't necessarily include that in this analysis. I think that'd be a whole new can of worms. 1634 Younes, Amin 06:46:33.154 --> 06:46:53.614 But, but on that topic and also on the proposal that Sky just talked about, I'm also curious, I think that those don't quite align with the, kind of a prior commission direction, which was to have monthly variation allowed and look at further variation within a month. I don't really have the experience on this side of things to know whether. 1635 Younes, Amin 06:46:53.824 --> 06:47:09.814 Commission would be inclined to revisit that or whether we're kind of should be instead assuming that there is variation month to month and all of these considerations because that's what the commission has decided. I believe that to that other people to answer, but I think worth at least considering. 1636 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:47:22.084 --> 06:47:38.674 So my initial reaction I mean is I am not tracking how the typical preview profile comes into play here. I don't, I don't think that we should add typical PB profile because he has nothing to do with the [...]. So. 1637 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:47:40.026 --> 06:47:44.824 I mean, unless there's a reason why we should be including it. I think we should stay away from it. 1638 Younes, Amin 06:47:45.936 --> 06:48:00.036 Well, I think the reason to include it is that it sort of is an [...] and it's an [...] that exists today. It's a way that customers can interconnect today that uses more capacity on the grid than this than a single value or potentially then even the. 1639 Younes, Amin 06:48:00.070 --> 06:48:16.654 [...] value option. Eight that we're talking about. So when we're talking about those [...] two eight at risk, we should be talking relative to the Riskiest option available today in my mind and that could well be difficult for PD profiles. So I definitely think we should at least consider looking at that. 1640 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:48:17.224 --> 06:48:21.214 Yeah, so typical preview profile is, is not a male GP in the. 1641 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:48:21.244 --> 06:48:39.544 Yes, that is not. It's not a, it's not something that's being controlled, meaning that the system is not capable of putting more than, you know, the insulation or the radius would allow it to [...]. 1642 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:48:39.634 --> 06:48:55.356 Project, yes, capability of it actually. I'll put in the physical devices limiting the export regionally for the typical preview profile. We actually looking at the output of the project rather than the export of the project. 1643 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:48:56.524 --> 06:49:10.564 GP projects, I way less conservative because you're looking at the actual exploited value versus the typical user profile is looking at the potential output of the project compared to the [...]. 1644 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:49:10.624 --> 06:49:11.464 If profiles. 1645 Younes, Amin 06:49:15.276 --> 06:49:19.956 I thought that goes against my interpretation of the [...] of how the [...] would be set up. 1646 Younes, Amin 06:49:22.264 --> 06:49:24.814 Thought that onsite consumption would be included in that, but. 1647 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:49:25.114 --> 06:49:42.994 Yeah, [...] projects include onsite consumption because it's looking at the exploited value across typical PV profiles. Do not typical for your profile. You're looking at the profile of the typical [...] project and you're comparing that to the [...]. 1648 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:49:43.474 --> 06:49:46.384 If he does not take into account the loading on site. 1649 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:49:51.844 --> 06:49:52.114 You. 1650 Stephan Barsun - Verdant 06:49:52.114 --> 06:50:01.294 Want it, you need to be looking at the net of TV profile is minus the site load to get what the expected expert profile is. 1651 Justin Regnier 06:50:05.824 --> 06:50:17.884 Have a different kind of take on this for not necessarily this, this issue, but two slides back, um. 1652 Justin Regnier 06:50:20.314 --> 06:50:40.744 The user saying I think the user being appropriately stringent under their interpretation of results if we can get back to that slide and the interpretation of results. 1653 Justin Regnier 06:50:40.836 --> 06:51:01.926 The number of [...] values increases and the frequency or maximum magnitude of violation increase use maintain a position to utilize twelve unique LGB values. I think Alex, you've already shown that under the twelve we've got potentially an increase on some features. I believe the other than one of. 1654 Justin Regnier 06:51:01.958 --> 06:51:06.364 The one of the presentations in one of our earlier workshops. 1655 Justin Regnier 06:51:09.754 --> 06:51:11.044 Throughout the. 1656 Justin Regnier 06:51:15.844 --> 06:51:30.304 What we need to be looking at is a, kind of a risk reward trade off and understanding where the sweet spot is, um, drawing a hard line that is, if there's any, well, first off, you know. 1657 Justin Regnier 06:51:31.596 --> 06:51:52.686 They were beaten to death The fact that this is not just a good significant unnecessarily representative in every case, so drawing a hard line that if we've got something that is indicative that if this were representative, we might have an issue. We're not going to budge on a position and all is. 1658 Justin Regnier 06:51:52.984 --> 06:51:55.174 Not necessarily, um. 1659 Justin Regnier 06:51:57.034 --> 06:52:17.164 Really hard for lack of a better word. Um, I would, I would encourage the, I used to this guy was saying look at whether, whether something is likely to cause an actual issue in the real world as opposed to just mathematically if. 1660 Justin Regnier 06:52:20.704 --> 06:52:37.804 I mean, it feels a bit like a setup cause cause we've noted Alex, we've already run across this. We already know what the output is going to be. We're, we're fairly certain that we will find in some case somewhere that those violation increase. 1661 Justin Regnier 06:52:39.664 --> 06:52:42.424 But to say that because we find that. 1662 Justin Regnier 06:52:44.434 --> 06:52:50.854 We're not going to change our position doesn't doesn't seem as though we're working together to find a solution. 1663 Justin Regnier 06:52:54.606 --> 06:53:01.956 I would, I would challenge that framing and I would encourage the, I used to look at whether they can come to consensus on something that. 1664 Justin Regnier 06:53:05.764 --> 06:53:11.014 Allows for the realization of more benefit with less risk, also known as the sweet spot. 1665 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:53:25.264 --> 06:53:26.644 And Gary, you have your hand up. 1666 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:53:27.934 --> 06:53:41.194 Thanks, I also, I hear you Justin, but I'm also being taken aback by your, your obligations that we're trying to send this out. 1667 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:53:43.714 --> 06:53:46.294 I think you have folks that are doing it. 1668 Justin Regnier 06:53:50.376 --> 06:53:54.484 I really want to hear what you're saying, but you might be cutting out of it for me anyway. 1669 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:53:55.506 --> 06:54:00.634 All right, well I can't do anything much about that other than talk louder. 1670 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:54:02.706 --> 06:54:03.214 how's that. 1671 Sky Stanfield 06:54:04.384 --> 06:54:07.384 Yeah, I think being closer to your mic is what fix it. Thanks. 1672 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:54:07.836 --> 06:54:08.286 Okay. 1673 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:54:10.504 --> 06:54:15.484 We're not trying to set anything up here. We're trying to find common ground or. 1674 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:54:20.944 --> 06:54:32.044 Things that might work what we accomplished though is pushing expeditions we have to. 1675 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:54:33.846 --> 06:54:48.516 What we were saying that the folks that are tasked to do this type of analysis have all these only so much bandwidth between now when this is due. So. 1676 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:54:53.824 --> 06:55:01.804 Things like we're setting this up. That makes me very, uh, I have a very strong reaction to that. 1677 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:55:04.536 --> 06:55:05.376 So we're not doing that. 1678 Justin Regnier 06:55:10.596 --> 06:55:20.314 Well, I certainly didn't mean from our language to run counter to all of us working together to find a solution. 1679 Justin Regnier 06:55:22.234 --> 06:55:26.854 Correct me if I'm wrong. Alex did you have you already found this to be the case? 1680 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:55:30.514 --> 06:55:44.944 So just to clarify yesterday, are you asking in the previous analysis? Did we find there to be violations between the twelve [...] values and the two hundred and eight [...] values. 1681 Justin Regnier 06:55:47.524 --> 06:55:49.564 Recollection is when you looked at it. 1682 Justin Regnier 06:55:49.624 --> 06:55:56.044 Just with the twelve values from your, on your Alex, you found on your circuit that there was a violation for. 1683 Justin Regnier 06:55:58.686 --> 06:56:04.356 Uh, an issue just from year- to year twelve value level. 1684 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:56:08.584 --> 06:56:14.974 The results that let me, let me, I need to go back to me, so I don't mean to speak. Let me pull up the. 1685 Sky Stanfield 06:56:16.774 --> 06:56:27.664 Yeah, I think what does it say? We know you guys showed results some, which was database somewhere to load profile based on your previous curves show that there were, depending on the utility there. 1686 Sky Stanfield 06:56:27.670 --> 06:56:33.426 It was at least a little segment where I see it was different from your year based on just a twelve month profile. 1687 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:56:33.456 --> 06:56:35.734 Yes, that is the correct statement. Yes, yep. 1688 Sky Stanfield 06:56:36.064 --> 06:56:48.756 So I think what he's saying is that if you're, and again, if we could go back to the earlier slide, Francisco two slides before, if, if the criteria you guys are setting, is that any different. 1689 Sky Stanfield 06:56:48.846 --> 06:57:09.904 Already, we've already met that with just the twelve month profile. So I think what tardy be speaking for you, Justin, he was encouraged saying what's the point of doing this analysis, if you've already set that position, it's not going to shift anything because we know that, that might be the case on any one. Peter, even using a twelve month program. 1690 Sky Stanfield 06:57:11.704 --> 06:57:31.084 And then I wanted to just say back to you, I appreciate what you were saying to Dustin Separately, but I wanted to clarify that this is what we're discussing here. Isn't a fishing expedition. It's a effort to fight to meet you guys have concerns about not having a lot of variation year. 1691 Sky Stanfield 06:57:31.144 --> 06:57:52.264 A year in a way that's most feasible and viable for the customer. So thinking about different segments and what structure works for to identify your safety reliability concerns, but also the viability of using an [...] economically and from a system benefit standpoint for the customer and it's obviously complicated and we need to think. 1692 Sky Stanfield 06:57:52.294 --> 06:58:01.174 Through it together. So I wouldn't say that when you guys are trying to do a fishing expedition as much as we're trying to use analysis to get to the safest, but most constructive result. 1693 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:58:03.756 --> 06:58:08.464 Right, I hear you. I hear your skype. What, what I'm saying is. 1694 Justin Regnier 06:58:18.184 --> 06:58:22.504 You're clear Gary, right up until utilities are saying, sorry. 1695 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:58:23.764 --> 06:58:26.794 Can you go come closer to your bike? Please? 1696 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:58:27.094 --> 06:58:35.974 I am standing on it, So I don't know what to do with. So I'm just going to utilities has put forth. 1697 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:58:36.394 --> 06:58:37.594 These proposals. 1698 gary holdsworth sdg&e 06:58:40.234 --> 06:58:52.324 Seem to be getting some feedback from that we weren't doing it now and I was reacting to that. so I'll follow up. 1699 Sky Stanfield 06:59:00.844 --> 06:59:19.084 So to circle back, it sounds like edison was going to go find out if they could swap out one of these options or whether their team would has already started to conduct this to see of adding that twenty- four hour. What I was, I think what would be ideal would be to think about. 1700 Sky Stanfield 06:59:19.866 --> 06:59:37.624 Twenty- four hour or similar over a seasonal variation as opposed to just a fixed hours every year, and then PG- E, I don't know if you guys have that same limitation that Edison had of having already started or not being able to add one more scenario because it seems like the Genie could do it instead. 1701 Jose Aliaga-Caro 06:59:44.734 --> 06:59:48.814 I think Alex said that they could, but Alex, you confirm. 1702 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:59:49.294 --> 07:00:01.324 Yeah, I think what I said earlier was that I understood the ask, um, what I found out is we could add this analysis. So PG PG can, can add this in. 1703 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:00:02.194 --> 07:00:03.694 The analysis that we're going to be doing. 1704 Sky Stanfield 07:00:12.154 --> 07:00:12.634 Thank you. 1705 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:00:19.714 --> 07:00:35.824 And then just to, to Justin, to go back to your question from, before I think in workshop, number two, when we presented the analysis results, the analysis that [...]. 1706 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:00:35.828 --> 07:00:56.974 Did is the one that showed sort of like intersection between the twelve [...] values. So there was like a profile for two hundred and eighty- two profiles for two eighty, two profiles for twelve and in the profile for twelve in two thousand and two. 1707 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:00:56.978 --> 07:01:17.674 One hundred and two thousand and twenty- two, they sort of intersected. I think the PG E- analysis was only for the graph showed two profiles for two thousand and eight for the two periods of time, and then one for twelve, and so there was no intersection between twelve hours because we only showed one profile for the twelve. 1708 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:01:18.454 --> 07:01:21.124 So hope, hopefully that clarifies what you're asking, but. 1709 Justin Regnier 07:01:26.974 --> 07:01:27.814 Thank you, Alex. 1710 Justin Regnier 07:01:31.446 --> 07:01:31.804 Yeah. 1711 Justin Regnier 07:01:34.084 --> 07:01:35.674 I guess what I would say is just to. 1712 Justin Regnier 07:01:38.914 --> 07:01:50.044 I would appreciate whatever effort commitment to focus on risk versus reward as opposed to hard limitations. Thank you for the clarification. 1713 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:01:50.494 --> 07:01:50.884 Sure. 1714 Younes, Amin 07:02:01.594 --> 07:02:08.944 I'm still kind of stuck on this previous topic of how the, how the [...] differs from other interconnection. I mean, it's. 1715 Younes, Amin 07:02:11.314 --> 07:02:31.446 Most of what I've been focused on is the number of values, so I have not been as involved in these other discussions about. I think the growth versus the growth nameplate compensation is more to the point, but I think this is really important, so hopefully I can spend a couple of minutes on it, but it would be very confusing to me that you. 1716 Younes, Amin 07:02:31.474 --> 07:02:52.594 Just look at the exports if I see a capacity, is that capability the capacity for integration because if you have a three megawatt customer with one megawatt of capacity, are you really going to allow them to install a four megawatt system and, and use four megawatts. It seems like you would cause a, a huge overload. I recall conversations about subtracting out. 1717 Younes, Amin 07:02:52.984 --> 07:03:13.744 That customer's load when determining the [...], but I think kind of amounts to the same thing of amounts to line it up with the typical [...] profile and I don't want to believe at this point because I know this is kind of off topic, but I still think that using the typical [...] profile as part of the basis for this analysis is valuable. 1718 Younes, Amin 07:03:13.748 --> 07:03:20.644 [...], and if this is kind of what's preventing us from doing that, I'd like to understand where I'm going wrong here. 1719 Sky Stanfield 07:03:35.344 --> 07:03:46.024 So are you asking how a project with a PV profile today is screen essentially under screen M- for example. 1720 Younes, Amin 07:03:49.384 --> 07:03:55.534 I'm asking if there's like a fundamental difference between how that project would be screened and how an [...] project would be screen. 1721 Sky Stanfield 07:04:03.754 --> 07:04:04.564 I mean, the. 1722 Sky Stanfield 07:04:08.434 --> 07:04:09.064 I think. 1723 Sky Stanfield 07:04:10.204 --> 07:04:30.304 No, essentially, I mean, other than the fact that the project has to have actual controls and so on, you're looking at the PB profile as an export limit for each app for the day. I'm trying to find the actual terribly wedge for screen. 1724 Sky Stanfield 07:04:31.536 --> 07:04:45.394 Where we integrated the PD profile sync. It says is the generating facility generation profile based on PB Watts or less than or equal to ninety percent of the [...]. 1725 Sky Stanfield 07:04:45.724 --> 07:05:06.454 Five sixty- seven value in any hour. So it's essentially the same kind of analysis in terms of comparing the, the, every hour of the, of the [...], but just based on a assumed BB profile versus a customer designated limited X. 1726 Sky Stanfield 07:05:06.724 --> 07:05:07.414 Profile. 1727 Younes, Amin 07:05:11.644 --> 07:05:31.894 Yeah, that matches my intuition, and then so I think that seems like that would be kind of a, a use case that there's compared comparing [...] because, you know, if we're saying [...], are the utilities are talking about how risky [...] as well, if it's less risky or similarly or equally risky to the. 1728 Younes, Amin 07:05:31.930 --> 07:05:38.944 Difficult TV profile, but more risky, but they're both more risky than the static profile. I mean, that, that I think is really important to look at, right? 1729 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:05:39.634 --> 07:05:53.074 Yeah, so the way different it's not the same thing. So the typical preview profile is looking at how much the system can output compared to ninety percent of [...]. 1730 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:05:53.254 --> 07:06:04.054 Ninety percent of [...] or air. So the typical PV profile has to be below ninety percent of [...] and also be below ninety percent of. I feel like. 1731 Sky Stanfield 07:06:04.294 --> 07:06:12.454 Well, to pass screen M- but you look at the [...] S. G. One hundred. 1732 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:06:13.894 --> 07:06:14.164 Yeah. 1733 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:06:14.584 --> 07:06:35.344 But if you're looking at screen name, so you're assuming that the project has failed screen ham, in which case, if the project [...] as an [...] project can go to supplement review, so can compare and us up into review, right? We can only compare on the initial review, so for initial review, if you have a typical, if you have a project. 1734 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:06:35.404 --> 07:06:56.344 The typical project it would have the profile would have to be below ninety percent of [...] ninety percent of [...] for an [...] project. You would look at the export it kilowatts the profile based on how much can be exploited compared to. 1735 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:06:56.530 --> 07:06:59.554 [...] only not [...]. 1736 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:07:01.114 --> 07:07:17.674 And for the typical preview profile, let's say you have a... No, let's say the customer has a one megawatt of low on site load. You would say, okay, typical preview profile is one megawatt that same hour. It would be one megawatt compared to the [...]. 1737 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:07:18.244 --> 07:07:25.444 But for [...] project will be one meg minus one meg with zero compared to [...], only. 1738 Younes, Amin 07:07:29.794 --> 07:07:31.026 Wouldn't that cause issues. 1739 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:07:31.956 --> 07:07:48.696 So what, what you're referencing them in before is something that we brought up to, during the previous workshops, right? It's a, it's a gap that we identified and say, I think you had a graphic that explained it. We say this is, it's not ideal if we just look at exports and we're actually considering the on. 1740 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:07:48.844 --> 07:08:09.424 Loading and how much power because we might be taking capacity from the system, right? But you're not considering, you know, if we're not considering for the typical day, sorry, the typical preview profile or the [...] we have to be able to, to consider how much loading is connected because if a customer. 1741 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:08:10.384 --> 07:08:30.994 On site load on that onsite load was used in calculating the hosting capacity and then we're allowing them to export above and beyond that we could be causing issues on the grid. So what we're going to do is under [...] where we take the opportunity to rerun [...] and then based on that, and I think we were proposing something like, if you said above a meg. 1742 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:08:31.024 --> 07:08:31.774 A lot or something. 1743 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:08:34.266 --> 07:08:37.624 I don't know if he was still on and you remember that discussion if you want to chime in, but. 1744 Yi Li SDG&E 07:08:37.984 --> 07:08:54.964 Yeah, I do. I mean, it's one of the five to eleven workshop too. I can see if I can find the slide and send it over to you. We did have the conversation about this issue. The hope is that a lot of these application, what I really have that big kind of on site. 1745 Yi Li SDG&E 07:08:54.968 --> 07:09:16.084 Right, load prior to the interconnect, so it's not going to call it a lot of issues, but to the extent, it does, we do may have to take on the approach that Alex was describing as we were updating [...] just to make sure that it's not going to cause any issue, right? That's, for example, if that's two Megawatt load and you have to add the additional amount to. 1746 Yi Li SDG&E 07:09:16.120 --> 07:09:21.034 [...], because you're not comparing apples to apples in that scenario. 1747 Younes, Amin 07:09:25.984 --> 07:09:32.376 Right, and then I guess I, maybe we should just move on, but thank you. 1748 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:09:47.194 --> 07:09:54.244 Alright, are there any other comments or questions regarding this section of the presentation? 1749 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:10:00.394 --> 07:10:01.234 And now there's a lot. 1750 Stephan Barsun - Verdant 07:10:01.714 --> 07:10:21.634 Um, one quick comment hopefully doesn't reopen the can of worms, but I wonder if it's worth four step seven when you're calculating energy also looking at energy green. 1751 Stephan Barsun - Verdant 07:10:22.414 --> 07:10:29.734 Usual TV production hours because right now we're using an energy metric that is twenty- four, seven. 1752 Stephan Barsun - Verdant 07:10:32.014 --> 07:10:51.994 Peevey systems are going to be able to support and energy storage systems, like when going to discharge for whatever the, the peak hours are getting paid for is, so I'm not sure that is the most pressing issue, but just want to throw it out. 1753 Stephan Barsun - Verdant 07:10:51.998 --> 07:10:53.314 There and make people aware of it. 1754 Michael Barigian SCE 07:11:05.734 --> 07:11:15.844 stefan, this is Michael in the event that we're able to look at that. How would you define the hours for typical [...] production? Is it like seven zero am to four zero PM? 1755 Stephan Barsun - Verdant 07:11:16.354 --> 07:11:22.714 I think something like what I would do is, you know, take the. 1756 Stephan Barsun - Verdant 07:11:23.254 --> 07:11:44.134 Your monthly [...] profile that is used for the TV generation shape from that goes, that is the default TV watch one and it'll take when you have no, basically when you have production during that period, because it's going to vary somewhat during the year. 1757 Stephan Barsun - Verdant 07:11:47.494 --> 07:12:00.336 Ideally, you'd further go into integrating that with what the customer load shape is, but that gets insanely complicated. I think there's not a last. 1758 Michael Barigian SCE 07:12:03.274 --> 07:12:03.784 Thanks. 1759 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:12:18.964 --> 07:12:37.444 Alright, so hearing nothing else. I think we do have next steps are ready for a workshop for at least for PG E to add not green. I'd have to add a five point. 1760 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:12:37.774 --> 07:12:49.924 I in that scenario and I believe Eric, I think it was Brian who's setting Chad, they'd be able to, um. 1761 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:12:51.964 --> 07:12:55.234 Run it some of their data too. 1762 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:12:58.384 --> 07:13:18.604 Yeah, uh, Brian, from Eric, uh, to everybody at three, twenty- three zero PM in chat said, I think we can recreate that analysis just based on the output of that to each study. Uh, we just take the hourly profile, so the lowest value of the. 1763 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:13:18.664 --> 07:13:20.434 Year for each hour. 1764 Sky Stanfield 07:13:21.064 --> 07:13:30.634 It wouldn't be converted year though. It would just be looking at the value, right? Brand for whether there's value in that kind of profile overall. Is that right? 1765 brian 07:13:33.304 --> 07:13:53.884 We could, yeah, so I think [...] could do based on the data for two thousand and twenty- two that we have, but I was also actually my comment was in relation to, once we get these results, even if the utilities aren't able to add that analysis, we could extract that analysis for. 1766 brian 07:13:53.914 --> 07:13:55.954 The total to eighty- eight results. 1767 Sky Stanfield 07:13:56.494 --> 07:14:14.854 Yeah, what I was raising my hand to say was, depending on whether you told me you were able to get this done first of all, providing providing the service list or whatever the list is for this workshop, at least with the underlying CSP files or something so that we can all look at the data. 1768 Sky Stanfield 07:14:15.154 --> 07:14:31.804 I think that essentially the comparison between the two theaters anybody should be able to slice and dice different options from it, if that's right, so making sure that they're provided to the stakeholders to take a look and manipulable form. 1769 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:14:34.834 --> 07:14:55.924 Okay, so that would be a request for the utilities. I do think, uh, you know, getting some of the data of the workshop would be great for the stakeholders to start taking a look at. I do not know how the utilities run their batches where they're all results coming up. 1770 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:14:55.956 --> 07:15:16.654 One or whether one scenario is going to come in before the other, but I think that if you know, a handful of scenarios or a couple of scenarios, I mean, before the. 1771 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:15:18.394 --> 07:15:26.764 And, you know, it'd be great to circulate that ahead of time, so people can start digestion day digesting the information. 1772 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:15:33.514 --> 07:15:37.414 And I can coordinate with the utilities on that. 1773 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:15:43.324 --> 07:15:53.674 I'll take this back to the team, but can we also ask for the same from Eric, once you guys are done with the analysis, you're performing, can you provide us with the same information as well? 1774 Sky Stanfield 07:16:01.204 --> 07:16:02.284 Yeah, I guess if we. 1775 Sky Stanfield 07:16:03.784 --> 07:16:23.434 Talked Katie about what we'd be able to do here, but I think we're not comparing if we're not comparing your year, we're just going to look at a twenty- four hour profiles. Same thing or twenty [...] instead of ICM values, which you guys have, but we can, let me, let me see what we can do, and then what the best way to provide it is so that you guys can. 1776 Sky Stanfield 07:16:24.784 --> 07:16:25.774 Sense of it as well. 1777 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:16:28.654 --> 07:16:34.264 Okay, email the changes, please cc me, so I know what's going on. 1778 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:16:36.664 --> 07:16:48.874 No, I said, I'll ask the team to see what we can and cannot provide. I'm not sure if there's any privacy issues because we're dealing with [...] information. So. 1779 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:16:51.874 --> 07:16:54.454 We'll have to see what, what we can or cannot provide. 1780 Sky Stanfield 07:16:55.414 --> 07:16:59.914 Just don't think our feet are, that has the nodes already. 1781 Sky Stanfield 07:17:01.684 --> 07:17:10.144 This one's your picking because I think you should know that from the way I see it's published already if there's going to be a data privacy issue. 1782 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:17:18.456 --> 07:17:23.974 Alright, so it looks like we have next steps here for topic F- um. 1783 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:17:25.654 --> 07:17:33.904 We do and before I continue any more comments or questions on topic F. 1784 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:17:39.604 --> 07:17:56.404 All right, hearing non- topic. E- will be continued on this morning. We're working group, um, early on before topic II, uh, we had discussions on [...]. 1785 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:17:57.514 --> 07:18:17.554 And a section N- and some topics on, uh, topic C. uh, I wanted to know whether we should continue. I mean, it's five minutes for, uh, we can definitely go on til four thirty, but I want. 1786 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:18:17.586 --> 07:18:38.526 To see whether we were ready to continue those discussions or whether we should key up, maybe next steps or tee up some time during this third phase smart and we're working group call to kind of touch base on those of. 1787 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:18:38.710 --> 07:18:59.856 Sending issues, I will be true for anybody that needs to review what was said, uh, you know, I normally get the recording within an hour so that will happen faster than posting it on the webpage. So once. 1788 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:18:59.884 --> 07:19:15.844 To get the recording, I will distribute it to the attendees, uh, in, uh, from the list here from today's workshop. So you'll have it sooner than the webpage update. 1789 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:19:22.086 --> 07:19:25.144 So, Andy thoughts on that or we should, because. 1790 Sky Stanfield 07:19:26.464 --> 07:19:29.824 I've made a mistake which followup items were you referring to. 1791 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:19:29.824 --> 07:19:38.824 Specific, there was section n- that you and Brian wanted to talk about. 1792 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:19:39.994 --> 07:19:50.676 But you didn't know if you'd be able to, uh, I think it was the, uh, go back on just like. 1793 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:19:56.044 --> 07:20:07.956 I believe we had to do with the language, like you had mentioned guy that you wanted to confer with Brian on it. 1794 Sky Stanfield 07:20:09.124 --> 07:20:12.096 Alright, okay, so I think. 1795 Sky Stanfield 07:20:14.856 --> 07:20:23.974 I had to think about the... there were a couple of different things, five business days and then also whether we were thinking. 1796 Sky Stanfield 07:20:26.314 --> 07:20:35.974 Just heard digesting the process for where their products can go through screening. I think the five business days was one of the items to think about further. 1797 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:20:37.894 --> 07:20:38.554 That's why. 1798 Sky Stanfield 07:20:39.574 --> 07:20:39.876 Yeah. 1799 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:20:40.744 --> 07:20:52.894 That's why I was asking whether we wanted to call it a day because it's been a long day already and, you know, we could go back and listen to everything that was said in the recording. 1800 Sky Stanfield 07:20:52.956 --> 07:20:55.624 Well, I don't have the time to go back and listen to the recording. This was all day. 1801 Sky Stanfield 07:20:58.474 --> 07:21:01.834 constructed that's. 1802 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:21:01.834 --> 07:21:03.904 Why there's one point five replay. 1803 Sky Stanfield 07:21:05.284 --> 07:21:05.974 What was that? 1804 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:21:06.574 --> 07:21:10.864 Oh, I said, that's why there's a one point five replay option. 1805 Sky Stanfield 07:21:13.114 --> 07:21:13.804 Yeah. 1806 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:21:14.734 --> 07:21:15.574 That's what I do. 1807 Sky Stanfield 07:21:19.474 --> 07:21:29.014 I think we should, we should, maybe on the swig call, we can follow up on. I think it's on me to follow up items. I had further questions on so I can. 1808 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:21:29.014 --> 07:21:36.634 Take it and what I'll do is I'm recording and I will circulate my notes. 1809 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:21:39.364 --> 07:21:58.354 To everybody on the, on the attended. Well everybody who was you got the invite today, um, with the highlights on what was left out for discussion, so I would try my best to capture the. 1810 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:21:59.106 --> 07:22:07.234 Time within the recording, so you don't have to listen to the entire thing. You could just, that's over to that timeframe. 1811 Sky Stanfield 07:22:11.824 --> 07:22:12.304 Okay. 1812 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:22:21.934 --> 07:22:25.534 That will be my in place of Netflix. 1813 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:22:36.994 --> 07:22:53.256 Alright, so unless there are any other, uh, pending, uh, questions. I think we could call it a day at four P. m sharp, uh, any other thoughts or comments. 1814 Sky Stanfield 07:22:56.734 --> 07:22:57.694 Thank you everyone. 1815 Jose Aliaga-Caro 07:23:02.344 --> 07:23:10.294 Alright, thank you everybody and uh, check your email sometime later today and you'll get the recording information. 1816 Alex Mwaura PG&E 07:23:11.824 --> 07:23:12.394 Yeah, thank you. 1817 Frank McElvain 07:23:13.054 --> 07:23:14.014 Yep, take care. 1818 Michael Barigian SCE 07:23:14.554 --> 07:23:15.304 Thanks everyone. 1819 Younes, Amin 07:23:18.364 --> 07:23:18.934 Thanks everyone.