Limited Generation Profiles Workshop #4 per Res. E-5230 7:37 am - 2:01 pm Friday, April 7, 2023 | (UTC-07:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) pht2 Eamon Hoffman ET 6502****13 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech Hill, Roderick McElvain, Frank Saxton, Patrick Bagri, Ramandeep Kimberley Chong SDG&E Sky Stanfield Michael Barigian SCE Denise Chan PG&E Frances Saeed Jazebi - PG&E An Tran SCE Steve Wurmlinger Alex Mwaura PG&E gary holdsworth SDG&E Regnier, Justin David Schiada Zach Jan Strack phuoc Andras Boross Frances Cleveland Matt Belden SDGE Morgan Smith Tom Key Francisco, AudioVisual Support Matt Gonzales Sheikh Hassan Jacob Willman (Consultant) Frank Goodman Quach Matthew Aliaga-Caro, Jose CPUC Presentation Feed Brian Lydic - IREC Jordon Roger Salas SCE Zachary Branum - SDG&E Stephan Barsun - Verdant Fardin Sarraf Reza_Dorostkar Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E Devin Rauss CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 Younes, Amin Albert Tapia Cory Luker WEBVTT 1 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:00:00.825 --> 00:00:02.804 Good morning, Jose. This is Jacob from Mighty. 2 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:00:03.135 --> 00:00:04.785 Hi, good morning Jacob. How are you? 3 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:00:05.415 --> 00:00:14.445 I'm okay, uh, Francisco, I was asking if you could hear me earlier, it seems, I had a different microphone active, so, uh, disregard that message. 4 Francisco, AudioVisual Support 00:00:20.535 --> 00:00:20.925 Problem. 5 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:00:23.205 --> 00:00:25.815 And, uh, everybody received the slides. 6 Francisco, AudioVisual Support 00:00:27.735 --> 00:00:30.795 Yes, I'm going to post, uh, bringing them up right now. 7 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:00:30.945 --> 00:00:32.775 Yes, slide deck. Number one. 8 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:00:45.404 --> 00:00:52.694 It's sort of a number in them like that also helps my life go to them, like, alright, you know, the order of presentations. 9 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:01:02.744 --> 00:01:04.213 Oh, thank you. Perfect. 10 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:01:14.564 --> 00:01:18.464 And, uh, who's driving the presentation? is it Francisco or Jacob? 11 Francisco, AudioVisual Support 00:01:18.854 --> 00:01:20.534 Um, it's me, Francisco. 12 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:01:20.924 --> 00:01:21.794 Okay, thank you for. 13 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:01:27.795 --> 00:01:32.085 So now we just sit tight until, uh, we'll start joining. 14 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:01:54.764 --> 00:02:02.564 Jose, this is Jacob. I'm going to pause the recording, um, until people start, uh, filtering in, You can give us the go ahead and start recording. 15 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:02:03.254 --> 00:02:08.744 Okay, like, how would we start like five minutes, um, to the hour. 16 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:15:24.405 --> 00:15:24.885 Thank you. 17 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:15:30.434 --> 00:15:39.884 Hi, good morning Lisa. This is Jacob from my team, if we could just get a audio visual check on you please and Matt Gonzalez, uh, if we could get an audio visual check on you to please. 18 Matt Gonzales 00:16:15.734 --> 00:16:18.284 Hi, this is Matt. I think you were looking for a audio check. 19 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:16:21.614 --> 00:16:28.514 Yes, yes, uh, also if you have a camera available, that's uh, preferable to just, uh, not to not appearing on video. 20 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:16:34.515 --> 00:16:36.075 Not everything looks good. Thank you. 21 Matt Gonzales 00:16:36.795 --> 00:16:37.275 Awesome. 22 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:16:42.134 --> 00:16:47.324 RISA, this is Jacob from IT if we could just get an audio visual check on your end, please. 23 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:17:05.864 --> 00:17:08.803 Reason I can't see you, but I cannot hear you. 24 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:18:08.084 --> 00:18:12.284 Hello, this is Jacob from my team, if we can get an audio visual check on you please. 25 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 00:18:12.824 --> 00:18:14.204 Yeah, hi Jacob. Can you hear me? 26 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:18:17.744 --> 00:18:24.464 I can hear you and looks like your video is. 27 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 00:18:24.584 --> 00:18:25.124 Active. 28 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:18:25.124 --> 00:18:25.724 Yes. 29 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 00:18:25.874 --> 00:18:26.114 Yeah. 30 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:18:26.144 --> 00:18:26.504 Thank you. 31 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 00:18:27.014 --> 00:18:27.224 Thank. 32 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:18:27.224 --> 00:18:27.374 You. 33 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 00:18:27.404 --> 00:18:27.974 Thank you. 34 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:18:34.214 --> 00:18:40.574 Uh, Alex, Laura, if we could get a, uh, audio visual check on you, please. 35 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:18:43.904 --> 00:18:52.844 And, uh, this will say, uh, Corey, uh, Lucre, uh, you're a consultant correct. 36 Cory Luker 00:18:53.684 --> 00:18:54.614 Yes, hi, there. 37 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:18:54.914 --> 00:18:59.204 Hi, okay, yeah, cause you're first on the agenda, cause I know you had limited time. 38 Cory Luker 00:18:59.834 --> 00:19:00.314 Yep. 39 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:19:06.344 --> 00:19:08.324 All right, just wanted to make sure on that. 40 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:19:27.224 --> 00:19:36.794 All right, I just want to make sure so I know, uh, Corey's on the call. Um, do have Sky on the call yet. 41 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:19:41.085 --> 00:19:43.515 Or any other representative from Iraq. 42 Brian Lydic - IREC 00:19:46.994 --> 00:19:47.744 Brian is here. 43 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:19:48.494 --> 00:19:55.244 Oh, okay, thank you Brian. All right, and do we have the utilities on the call? Uh, PG e. 44 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:20:00.884 --> 00:20:00.974 Good. 45 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:20:00.974 --> 00:20:03.284 Morning this is Alex. Can you hear me? 46 CPUC ITAV - ZJ7 00:20:05.354 --> 00:20:06.764 Alex, we can hear you fine. Thank you. 47 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:20:07.184 --> 00:20:07.574 Thanks. 48 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:20:10.604 --> 00:20:13.334 Uh, Edison main speaker in edison. 49 Michael Barigian SCE 00:20:15.614 --> 00:20:17.354 This is [...]. I'm on the call. 50 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:20:17.564 --> 00:20:20.294 Okay, Michael, good and [...]. 51 gary holdsworth SDG&E 00:20:22.064 --> 00:20:28.904 So, Gary holds worth, we'll be representing [...] today representing [...]. 52 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:20:30.134 --> 00:20:36.494 Alright, thank you, Gary. Okay, and, uh, let's see Scott. 53 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:20:36.650 --> 00:20:37.875 Is joined All right. 54 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:20:41.415 --> 00:20:43.425 So I think we have. 55 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:20:45.164 --> 00:21:06.254 A majority here, so I think we can get started. Um, thank you everybody for joining today's, uh, last, uh, limited generation profile workshop per resolution. Fifty- two, thirty, next slide, please Francisco, yeah, safety reminders please note [...]. 56 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:21:06.644 --> 00:21:27.404 And exit routes reach out to, uh, if you need help during the call or two and attendee, uh, some logistics, uh, the meeting is being recorded and materials will be posted at the [...] webpage. You are encouraged to participate and ask questions during the presentation. 57 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:21:28.334 --> 00:21:47.864 Uh, please, uh, and this is important today. Keep discussion two items in scope or for a solution fifty to thirty. We have very limited time and a very full agenda today, so I wanted to make sure that everybody has plenty of opportunity to present and speak. 58 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:21:48.794 --> 00:22:08.114 Please keep yourself muted when not speaking, and uh, if you recall him by phone use the mute button on your handset and unmute yourself to speak if muted by the host press star six to unmute your hand press star to RJ next slide, please. 59 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:22:09.765 --> 00:22:24.075 Yeah, as I said, today's is the last workshop. Yeah, and we do have a hard stop at two o'clock, uh, the two or three advice letters are do May first. So in about three weeks. 60 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:22:25.395 --> 00:22:26.385 Slide please. 61 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:22:29.114 --> 00:22:49.094 And, uh, like I said, we do have a full agenda. I'm not going to go through with it for the sake of timing, but, uh, at the end of today's discussion, we will have a wrap- up and, uh, next steps. Uh, one of the utilities recommended may be. 62 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:22:49.189 --> 00:23:02.774 Having this conversation to see if there are any outstanding items they can be resolved and that will probably be through email. uh, next slide. 63 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:23:05.504 --> 00:23:13.394 Yeah, and this is just a little background again, from the resolution and all the topics we'll be covering or have been covered to date. 64 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:23:14.774 --> 00:23:31.484 Next slide, and again, if you have, these are our contact information, uh, please always email me with any, uh, questions regarding these workshops for [...] and [...]. 65 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:23:31.545 --> 00:23:41.775 Justin, in case I am out. All right, having said that I think we could bring up the second slide. 66 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:23:44.594 --> 00:23:49.244 We don't have to go through this background. We can just bring up the second slide deck. Please. 67 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:23:55.514 --> 00:24:02.384 Oh perfect, all right, so, uh, Cory, Scott take it away. 68 Cory Luker 00:24:04.214 --> 00:24:25.064 All right, cool. Hi, everybody my name's cory. I am working alongside Iraq and, um, as an, a consultant for a company called Cadet Group and we've done some assessment of the [...] data looking at how different [...] designs can affect energy delivery. 69 Cory Luker 00:24:25.904 --> 00:24:28.004 So we can move on to the next slide. 70 Cory Luker 00:24:30.014 --> 00:24:36.434 So to balance effort and outcome and not look at all. I see data from all of the three. 71 Cory Luker 00:24:38.294 --> 00:24:58.724 We focused it on a dataset that we already had available to us, which was Southern California edison data. Um, we're looking explicitly at the Uniform static grid, ICAAY study type at Minimum Load, and we looked at four circuits, um, so we looked at the Monroe Advocate City Creek in a clay circuit. 72 Cory Luker 00:24:58.909 --> 00:25:19.844 And we assessed all the different nodes on all the circuits. So this doesn't give us a comprehensive assessment of California distribution network, but it starts to point us in the right direction, um, into what different LGB [...] designs can do, um, pros and cons. So. 73 Cory Luker 00:25:20.234 --> 00:25:40.304 Um, we can go to the next slide and talk through the different [...] that we analyzed. So we looked at four different limited generation profiles. The first one is just the [...] profile for the minimum load. So that is the maximum two hundred and eighty- eight profile considered as all points. 74 Cory Luker 00:25:41.594 --> 00:26:02.354 Across the month and hours, and then we looked at the second [...] for the twelve month profile in this profile, we take the minimum value for each month across all hours, so that minimum value becomes like the maximum you can export for that entire month, and then it shifts each month. 75 Cory Luker 00:26:02.805 --> 00:26:23.505 The third [...] we looked at was the twenty- four hour profile. So this is taking the minimum value for each hour across all months. Um, in this type of profile, the value changes every hour over the course, twenty- four hours, and then it repeats itself each month and. 76 Cory Luker 00:26:23.509 --> 00:26:44.624 The fourth one that we looked at was a blocked profile and in this case we divide the year into blocks of three months and each day in two blocks of four hours and we take the minimum value for each block. So, for example, one of our blocks is July, August and September, but. 77 Cory Luker 00:26:44.684 --> 00:27:05.624 In five zero P. m. at nine zero PM we look at all [...] values that aren't within that block, We take the minimum value there and we use that for all July, August, September five to nine zero PM hours, and so what this does is, it helps us see more seasonal variation and daily view. 78 Cory Luker 00:27:05.809 --> 00:27:16.064 [...] while maintaining a more constrained set of Icaay values. So we've got a total of twenty- four blocks. Um, and so. 79 Cory Luker 00:27:18.045 --> 00:27:21.795 Which is far less than the entire two eight profile. 80 Cory Luker 00:27:26.384 --> 00:27:45.194 So before we go and look at the results at the circuit level, it's helpful to dive into an individual node and just get a feel for what we're doing. So the analysis of the node level is what we did is we looked at each node and each [...] and we calculated annual energy. 81 Cory Luker 00:27:45.289 --> 00:28:06.314 [...] over the course of the year, and then the utilization rate and the utilization rate we've defined as the percent of energy delivered relative to a two hundred and eight profile. So the two hundred and eight profile, uh, give you five gigawatt hours of energy over the course of the year and your twin twelve month profile. 82 Cory Luker 00:28:06.464 --> 00:28:25.664 You, uh, for Gigawatt hours of energy delivered over the course of the year. The utilization rate of that twelve month profile would be eighty percent that allows us to use the two hundred and eighty- eight profile as a baseline and to compare the different [...] piece. Next slide. 83 Sky Stanfield 00:28:26.294 --> 00:28:27.584 Cory, can I jump in real quick. 84 Sky Stanfield 00:28:27.855 --> 00:28:48.735 Just for everybody's context, um, as far as going through the point of our analysis here was not to do what the utilities data and their analysis would just look at the difference between like, one year and the next year and the number of violations rather than focus of this is just to figure out what combination of those different profiles that Cory walked through. 85 Sky Stanfield 00:28:49.214 --> 00:29:03.914 Would enable us to capture the greatest amount of beneficial energy essentially while minimizing the number of changes which is where the utilities concern was just so that people know what they're, what we're heading towards with that. Go ahead. 86 Cory Luker 00:29:04.844 --> 00:29:09.884 Yeah, thanks, that's great context. Yeah, so we're just comparing for a single. 87 Cory Luker 00:29:09.914 --> 00:29:31.034 Time or a single year of data on these different [...] profiles and what you're looking at here is a visualization of the results for an individual node. So we're looking at the City Creek Circuit, we picked node four hundred and eight hundred and two to three hundred five could've been any node, but the nice thing about this. 88 Cory Luker 00:29:31.064 --> 00:29:52.184 The node and the [...] profile here, which is shown by the dark Blue line is that it varies seasonally and it also shows somewhat of a peak during like, expected peak load periods around five to nine zero PM, so we can see the impact of how these different profiles. 89 Cory Luker 00:29:52.454 --> 00:30:13.244 In fact, um, the overall energy delivery. So the dark Blue line is the two hundred and eight profile that one varies over the course of every month and every hour, the orange line, which is the flat line that doesn't really change for the first half of the year and then kind of shifts up shuts down shifts up again. 90 Cory Luker 00:30:13.395 --> 00:30:17.715 That's your twelve month profile And that's fine. the minimum value for each month. 91 Cory Luker 00:30:19.094 --> 00:30:40.124 Red line is the minimum is the twenty- four hour profile, So that just finds the minimum value for each hour across all months. So it changes twenty- four times over the course of a day, and then it repeats that same profile every single month, and then in light blue, we see this box profile. 92 Cory Luker 00:30:40.154 --> 00:31:01.274 In the black profile changes every four hours and it shifts, um, it kind of according in a conservative way, following the increase of the [...] profile and so what we see here when we calculate annual energy delivered, um, is that the twelve month profiles utilization? 93 Cory Luker 00:31:01.424 --> 00:31:22.424 Rate is eighty seven percent. Twenty- four hour profile, slightly better. Eighty nine percent and the block profile has the best utilization rate of ninety- three percent, which says for this or get you get about a six percent increase in energy delivery over the course of the year, but what's more important. 94 Cory Luker 00:31:22.455 --> 00:31:30.255 And, or what's important to know is the impact during these peak load times. So if we go to the next slide. 95 Cory Luker 00:31:32.624 --> 00:31:53.444 Now we've got the same exact circuit and same exact node, but we've only assessed the peak load periods, so we calculated energy delivery between five zero PM and nine zero P. m. And looked at the utilization rates during those periods and when we look at it, just that these peak load. 96 Cory Luker 00:31:53.474 --> 00:32:14.174 periods, we see the variation between that twelve month profile in the block profile is far more significant and that's because, um, the minimum value for the twelve month period is always going to be significantly lower than that peak period, whereas the blocked profile because it follows the. 97 Cory Luker 00:32:15.434 --> 00:32:34.964 It takes out like three hour or four hour chunks. Um, we'll be able to capture more energy. so here for this node, we see that, um, the black profile captures ninety- four percent of the energy available relative to the twelve month profile, which only captures seventy- eight percent. 98 Cory Luker 00:32:38.805 --> 00:32:54.045 Um, and this can be kind of visualized by just seeing these orange bars on this graph. Those orange bars are the periods that were assessed to create these values on the table to the left. 99 Cory Luker 00:32:57.074 --> 00:32:57.974 So next slide. 100 Cory Luker 00:33:00.735 --> 00:33:20.595 So now we're diving in a little closer and just looking at three months for the same node on the same circuit and we're only looking at how the two hundred and eighty- eight profile compares to the block profile. So we had a defined block profile that changes. 101 Cory Luker 00:33:20.895 --> 00:33:42.015 Um, every four hours and it was based around an assumed peak load period at five to nine zero PM, so you can see the seventeen to twenty- hour period. Um, if you look in this light blue that is that five to nine zero. 102 Cory Luker 00:33:42.974 --> 00:34:03.164 And the, um, blocked load profile, but if we were theoretically to shift that block to six to ten zero PM, um, we would actually increase the export capacity during that time, and that's shown visually by this orange line and what this demonstrates is that when we ship. 103 Cory Luker 00:34:03.169 --> 00:34:24.224 [...], the block profile based on circuit- specific characteristics, we can optimize the system's energy delivery while maintaining a set number of limited generation changes. Um, and so this is an important point because the block profile enables. 104 Cory Luker 00:34:24.523 --> 00:34:39.614 [...] installation to modify their [...] based on the specific characteristics of that underlying [...] data. So I see a question. Yes. 105 McElvain, Frank 00:34:41.624 --> 00:34:53.924 Yeah, thanks, uh, did you check other time period blocks other than six to ten? Did you check like seven hundred and eleven? I mean, how far do. 106 Cory Luker 00:34:53.924 --> 00:34:53.983 You. 107 McElvain, Frank 00:34:54.134 --> 00:34:54.944 Go with that. 108 Cory Luker 00:34:55.454 --> 00:35:02.354 Yeah, we didn't go too far. Um, is the answer we, we did our analysis based around this five to nine block. 109 Cory Luker 00:35:02.414 --> 00:35:23.444 The specific ones that we chose and we just know that if you were to adjust it, you're going to see some increase or a potential decrease in your available expert capacity, but the, the point is, is that like some DVR installation, if they have the ability to shift their block. 110 Cory Luker 00:35:23.564 --> 00:35:42.584 Is on their known information about the [...] value. They'd be able to optimize based off of that peak load period or where the [...] profile shows the greatest benefit while still maintaining twenty- four or thirty- six values over the course of the entire year. 111 McElvain, Frank 00:35:43.334 --> 00:35:43.634 Okay. 112 Cory Luker 00:35:45.764 --> 00:35:46.334 Yes. 113 Brian Lydic - IREC 00:35:48.074 --> 00:36:08.654 If I could add, this is Brian, you can see that one of the drawbacks of this is that, you know, in month one you could actually go a lot higher if you weren't, if you didn't have to account for the entire three months block, um, but that's why, you know, all the orange lines have to be at the same level because they're following the same. 114 Brian Lydic - IREC 00:36:08.660 --> 00:36:19.185 Schedule for the, the whole three months. So if there were more custom customize ability than maybe we'd be able to get a little bit more energy harvest as well. 115 Cory Luker 00:36:20.475 --> 00:36:29.805 Mm- hmm And another thing to point out is that these blocks don't need to be uniform size. So long. 116 Cory Luker 00:36:29.834 --> 00:36:50.954 As they meet certain constraints, so you could imagine a row where the [...] may only have up to twenty- four unique about is, and then each block can't be less than three consecutive hours, but the hour block length could vary from block to block. 117 Cory Luker 00:36:51.494 --> 00:37:12.104 So, for example, we could imagine an [...] that varies month to month, and then within each month there is a four hour block that aligns with the peak load period and shifts without peak load period, and then a twenty- hour block for all remaining hours of the day. So that's going to capture the most benefit during. 118 Cory Luker 00:37:12.225 --> 00:37:19.845 Those peak load hours, which can be extremely beneficial for certain [...] installations. 119 Cory Luker 00:37:22.814 --> 00:37:25.964 The other benefit. Oh, yes, question. 120 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:37:28.784 --> 00:37:43.124 Yeah, you had a question, I guess in terms of, um, computation time, how long would it take to run this and create the profile and who would do. 121 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:37:43.154 --> 00:38:03.974 With the utility or the customer himself is at the moment. The, the way things have been discussed is that the customer submit the profile when they apply for [...]. So this seems to have a few extra. 122 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:38:04.279 --> 00:38:04.939 Steps. 123 Sky Stanfield 00:38:05.594 --> 00:38:25.424 Jose doesn't, this is Sky. So this data is all available to the customer. That's the point. Is that the [...] download tells you that. So the customer can do exactly what Cory did. they can pick the node and they can pick the node that they want to connect that download the [...] profile, take a. 124 Sky Stanfield 00:38:25.755 --> 00:38:44.205 At it and design and customize it with the, whatever the rules constraints are thirty- six points or whatever. Um, and submit that profile to the utility. There's no real, like computational intensity for, and no work by the utility other than to verify as we've already talked about the. 125 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:38:44.205 --> 00:38:44.595 poker. 126 Sky Stanfield 00:38:45.105 --> 00:38:46.515 So it's, it's not. 127 Sky Stanfield 00:38:46.604 --> 00:39:07.724 This is all like what he's available and it shows the, the real power of actually using the [...]. Um, but as- as Cory's explaining, we're trying to use that to the best, you know, take the greatest advantage of the customized ability while also addressing the utilities concerns about changing two hundred and eighty- eight hours. So that's what we're showing. There's a lot of. 128 Sky Stanfield 00:39:07.754 --> 00:39:22.064 Ability to capture the greatest energy based upon the customized conditions of that circuit while still staying within some constraints that, that will help better manage those risks that the utilities are concerned about. 129 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:39:22.244 --> 00:39:23.264 Okay, thank you. Scott. 130 Cory Luker 00:39:24.944 --> 00:39:28.874 Hm, yeah, and then one other benefit. 131 Cory Luker 00:39:28.904 --> 00:39:50.024 Bit of the customizing your block profile is, um, we do see sometimes some outlier values in the [...] data. So, um, for example, value might drop significantly for one hour in the month of January and then pop, right back up, um, with being able to customize your bot profiles, You still can. 132 Cory Luker 00:39:50.054 --> 00:40:11.174 For that job. So, you know, it's still minimized during that time. Um, but that effect isn't translated across that either like the entire day, in the case of a twelve- month profile or across that hour. Um, so you can kind of like, um, minimize the impact of. 133 Cory Luker 00:40:11.205 --> 00:40:32.325 And as I go into the next slide, when we look at the circuit level, we'll be able to see that benefit by looking at variation in, um, utilization rates. So let's go to the next slide. Um, so that was kind of diving deep into the circuit level analysis or the nodal level analysis to see what's possible. 134 Cory Luker 00:40:32.804 --> 00:40:53.204 Now we're going to step back out and look at aggregate results. So here we look at average energy delivered per node across each circuit. We look at the average utilization rate, the standard deviation of the utilization rate. So this is going to measure the spread of the data across the mean and susceptibility to outlier values. 135 Cory Luker 00:40:53.744 --> 00:41:04.664 And then the bottom fifth percentile, the utilization rate, which means it's just a measure of the utilization rate of the worst performing notes on the circuit from an [...] perspective. 136 Cory Luker 00:41:06.404 --> 00:41:07.154 Next slide. 137 Cory Luker 00:41:09.434 --> 00:41:20.264 So this is how you can like visualize the [...] data for each of these circuits. We've got four circuits advocates at the top, City Creek then clay, then Monroe. 138 Cory Luker 00:41:20.864 --> 00:41:41.414 And each of these light blue lines represents a single nodes, [...] profile over the course of the year. Um, and so an abacus we can see generally for the most part relatively flat, I see profiles at this level of granularity, although there is a big drop in January for a couple hours. 139 Cory Luker 00:41:41.419 --> 00:42:02.534 Is that happens to occur during a peak load period? That's what I'm talking about when you say you see an outlier value that you don't want affected over the course of the entire month, um, or just translated further on. So the customized ability of your profile can be really helpful. There. Cindy Creek. 140 Cory Luker 00:42:02.594 --> 00:42:23.714 We see a little bit more variation, um, over the course of the day and the shift, um, during those summer months, to an increased capacity and then play in mid- row. Uh, there is some variation, but we're also seeing some relatively flat profiles as well, and. 141 Cory Luker 00:42:23.745 --> 00:42:44.865 flatness of the profiles is important because it's a profile is entirely flat, then we wouldn't have to worry about this, right? The minimum would be the same as the value that it's always going to be at. It's when you see [...] profiles that have a lot of variation where the L- g. P design has a significant impact, so you can go on to the. 142 Cory Luker 00:42:44.895 --> 00:43:05.955 Next slide and look at the results, and so here we're looking at the top, um, four rows are the annual energy delivered and then the average utilization rate is basically the ratio of those, um, various [...] relative to. 143 Cory Luker 00:43:06.314 --> 00:43:27.164 Two eight profile energy delivery and what we see here is modest increases and utilization rate as we go from the twelve month profile to the twenty- four hour profile and then to the blocks profile and that's shown across all circuits and was based on just an assume. 144 Cory Luker 00:43:27.169 --> 00:43:48.314 [...] block profile that we described earlier, that's not a custom design profile based on the characteristics of the circuit. So those utilization rates could theoretically improve, um, with customization. The other important finding is that the standard deviation is significantly less for the blocked profile. 145 Cory Luker 00:43:49.004 --> 00:44:05.264 And this again points to that ability to limit this profiles susceptibility to outlier values, which are going to drastically change the utilization rate of some circuits relative to others or some nodes relative to others. 146 Cory Luker 00:44:07.245 --> 00:44:27.645 And then we also see that, uh, at the average, at the bottom fifth percentile, those same trends and utilization rate continue, just, those utilization rates are a little bit smaller as expected. So then we can do the same assessment, but just looking at peak. 147 Cory Luker 00:44:28.784 --> 00:44:48.944 So similar to what we saw when we just assessed, um, that single node at peak loads here we're doing it on average across all nodes for each circuit here we can see City Creek where we saw a large variation and I see values the significant benefit of that blocked profile even in. 148 Cory Luker 00:44:48.974 --> 00:45:09.344 Aggregate, so it wasn't that specific node, it was on average. All nodes, SAP pronounced increases in their utilization rate during peak periods, um, because of that benefit of that block profile effectively capturing additional energy utilization. 149 Cory Luker 00:45:10.335 --> 00:45:11.565 Um, next slide. 150 Cory Luker 00:45:13.754 --> 00:45:33.134 So it's not always the case though, so we look at advocates and we see that, that same blocked profile is actually performs worse than the twelve month profile in this case, and if we dive into the data, we'd see that, that outlier value, um. 151 Cory Luker 00:45:34.244 --> 00:45:55.214 Happened in January between five and nine zero. P. m- had a significant impact on the blocked profiles utilization rate and it was translated not only in January, but in January and February and March because we took the minimum value of those three months, and so this points out the need if we were to do. 152 Cory Luker 00:45:55.245 --> 00:46:10.785 Blocked profile design, the need to have some customers bility to minimize that impact, um, and ensure the most utilization possible at that location. 153 Cory Luker 00:46:14.234 --> 00:46:32.354 Um, next one. So finally it's just some summary of the findings of benefits of using the custom design block profile. So generally you're gonna get higher utilization rates, which means more energy will be delivered to the grid over the course of the year. 154 Cory Luker 00:46:33.464 --> 00:46:54.404 Custom design, a block profiles can optimize energy delivery during circuit specific P- load periods and it's going to do this while still compressing that two hundred and eight profile into, however, twenty- four values in our case could be thirty- six could be whatever is defined as the constraint. Well. 155 Cory Luker 00:46:54.464 --> 00:46:59.504 Still capturing seasonal and daily changes in the grid. Thank you. 156 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:47:14.774 --> 00:47:16.364 Alright, do we have any questions? 157 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:47:36.704 --> 00:47:53.924 No question, but just a comment or maybe it's a question. I'm just curious if we propose this custom customized profiles and we know that it's not uncommon for these feeder profiles to change over time and even peak periods to change. 158 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:47:55.184 --> 00:48:15.074 Would you reconcile? So one issue I see is like, how do you make sure that the profiles are keeping up with the changes and to how practical is this from a developer perspective? I know this data is easily, you know, I was easily developer. 159 Alex Mwaura PG&E 00:48:16.425 --> 00:48:24.465 Files for [...], but is this something that, you know, a single developers expected to do for each and every of their project before they submit it. 160 Cory Luker 00:48:26.175 --> 00:48:47.175 Yeah, I can answer that second question first, and I think it'd be relatively easy to design a tool that runs through the possibilities, um, based off of the given constraints and optimizes, their [...] based on the underlying data. So developing a simple algorithm. 161 Cory Luker 00:48:47.504 --> 00:49:08.384 That kind of looks at all possible options, maximizes based off of assumed energy delivery would be extremely straightforward. Um, so I don't think that it's much additional effort on behalf of the developers and um, the, to answer your other question. 162 Cory Luker 00:49:09.224 --> 00:49:29.534 Um, that would, uh, you know, ensuring that changes aren't impacted on the future changes don't have an impact, um, that would kind of be something that would need to be designed with like the building constraints and also worth noting that these black profiles are taking me. 163 Cory Luker 00:49:29.564 --> 00:49:46.694 Um, of values over the, um, over a certain month and hour period. Um, so you are capturing a more conservative estimate than you would, um, we're just using it to eight profiles guy, anything to add there. 164 Sky Stanfield 00:49:47.144 --> 00:49:50.684 Yeah, I mean, Alex, I think your, if I understood your question. 165 Sky Stanfield 00:49:50.714 --> 00:50:11.474 And that's just a question about the [...] in general, right? Um, it's not unique to other block profiles that way we've designed the [...], um, is that it won't, it doesn't change as the load and, and [...] changes over time, that's the whole point of why we're mostly going to be talking about today is managing that ideally. 166 Sky Stanfield 00:50:12.015 --> 00:50:32.985 We would, eventually, once we, I think establish an [...] and test that out, we can look at like, more flexible interconnection style options where things would change over time, but there's nothing unique about the block profile in that context. It's that what we're proposing is that somebody design a project using a profile based on the available. 167 Sky Stanfield 00:50:33.014 --> 00:50:54.134 ICAAY at the time, and, um, that's, and it's going to because of the, the sort of oddities of one year's load versus the next year is load, um, there is gonna be some sort of quirkiness to that and that's true whether you do a two hundred and eight profile or a twelve month profile or one of the combination. 168 Sky Stanfield 00:50:54.164 --> 00:51:09.314 Is there and I think so it's a, it's a valid question that load is going to change, but that's what we've been talking about. Basically, this whole proceeding is that things that just like with a traditional interconnection today you're interconnecting based on the conditions at the known at that time. 169 Sky Stanfield 00:51:25.604 --> 00:51:43.454 So, Jose, it sounds like we can move on if people don't have further questions, I did want to just sort of semi- some- this from Iraq's perspective is that, um, yeah, this was a very small sample, so it's clearly, we can't say that these numbers are going to be same across. 170 Sky Stanfield 00:51:43.604 --> 00:52:04.634 We ran it across the whole system and all the nodes for each of the [...] and so on however, we did, we do feel pretty optimistic about this approach as being a really good compromise between the twelve month profile and the two hundred and eighty- eight profile. It significantly reduces the amount you're tracking, you know, last year's load is. 171 Sky Stanfield 00:52:04.640 --> 00:52:25.725 Potentially, which would be the way I see it structured and enables us to really capture those peak periods where California needs the energy and we are, um, time abuse based rates are likely to be structured while also mitigating the number of different variations and we do think that it. 172 Sky Stanfield 00:52:26.294 --> 00:52:46.934 Is, you know, it's a little bit more complicated to do, but it's not actually that complicated we set some basic parameters around how the blocks can be defined and then as Cory already spoke to, we're confident that developers have the sophistication to be able to look at the [...] and decide what makes sense for their project within those parameters. 173 Sky Stanfield 00:52:47.564 --> 00:53:08.084 Um, and again, somebody doesn't have to propose a whole bunch of complicated blocks. They can still just propose, yeah, twelve months if they wanted to, within this, we're giving them more flexibility and based upon what the circuit conditions are. So I feel like this is a, a nice middle ground, if we're, if we're trying. 174 Sky Stanfield 00:53:08.089 --> 00:53:17.474 To seek that we're aiming to get greatest utilization, but not that, you know, real tracking of the exact Icaay curve. 175 Cory Luker 00:53:18.254 --> 00:53:18.524 Mm- hmm. 176 Sky Stanfield 00:53:18.554 --> 00:53:24.584 And I really appreciate Cory by the way doing doing this number crunching and help us helping us visualize all of this. 177 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:53:25.634 --> 00:53:29.234 I think Cory, thank you Scott. I did have a, uh, just this. 178 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:53:29.264 --> 00:53:50.384 I guess that's summarize summarizing question, so it looks like the proposal is that we restricted to twenty- four points. It is up to the customer then to determine what, you know, what blocks within will work for them to [...]. 179 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:53:50.390 --> 00:54:04.485 [...] and like you just said, Sky, they don't have to, if they want to choose this option cool, but otherwise if they just want to go strictly with the [...]. 180 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:54:04.514 --> 00:54:09.044 Option of twelve values per year, then they also have that. 181 Sky Stanfield 00:54:10.664 --> 00:54:31.154 Yeah, I mean it will be up to us to define exactly what that, what I assume that we would define the MAX number of variations and put some structure around it. So is it, you know, and, and Brian and Corey spent some more time, which if we have time we can talk through the different ways we could define that, but the, but I assume that. 182 Sky Stanfield 00:54:31.635 --> 00:54:52.425 We allow somebody to do anything less than that as well. Essentially, so they just want to pick twelve values and that happens to be. I don't see any reason why they, we couldn't allow that flexibility. We're essentially defining the Max complexity and allowing people to do that, and again, it really will just depend on the feeder and the economics of the project, but they want to take advantage of the GP at all. 183 Sky Stanfield 00:54:52.454 --> 00:55:13.484 All, or whether it makes sense for, for their site as, as Corey noted when he showed those four different, the aggregate, all the nodes for each of those features. The features are really different, some cases, it just, there's not going to be any real value to it, in some cases there's going to be quite a bit of significant difference, especially during those peak hours. So this is. 184 Sky Stanfield 00:55:13.634 --> 00:55:27.734 nobody's gonna be required to do an [...] or an, and we want to make it so the whole point of optimizing the creation of the [...] was to optimize the deployment and that's what we're trying to get out here. Um, if that makes sense. 185 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:55:31.994 --> 00:55:49.604 Alright, thank you. Scott. Thank you again Cory, uh, very enlightening for presentation, um, definitely, uh, uh, you know, uh, well this will be on the record since everything's being recorded. Um. 186 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:55:50.504 --> 00:56:01.694 But again, I do remind, you know, con protests are responses to, you know, if you want to stress it or expand a little bit on it, uh, you know, bring it up. 187 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:56:04.364 --> 00:56:06.404 And Michael, you had a question. 188 Michael Barigian SCE 00:56:08.084 --> 00:56:23.324 Yeah, thanks, so sorry for asking my question kind of late here. I just want to make sure I didn't miss anything. Was there, uh, I definitely saw the discussion on the benefit of this blocked profile, but was there any characterization of how the risk changes when you move to this block approach. 189 Cory Luker 00:56:24.854 --> 00:56:40.784 Like, looking at like an inversion over the course of a different year, like the uh, diabetes or doing some analysis looking at one year and [...] and another year and seeing if there's potential like inversion. 190 Michael Barigian SCE 00:56:42.914 --> 00:56:45.224 Yeah, that's the way that at least [...]. 191 Michael Barigian SCE 00:56:45.254 --> 00:56:49.634 Looked at it. It doesn't, I'm not saying it has to be that way, but any, any way to kind of. 192 Cory Luker 00:56:50.714 --> 00:56:51.254 Right? 193 Michael Barigian SCE 00:56:52.305 --> 00:56:57.465 Sure, bye bye, Complementing the benefits. also with any characterization of risk. 194 Cory Luker 00:56:58.215 --> 00:57:10.935 Yeah, so we have only looked at a single year of data, so we don't have any wait at least with the current underlying data set to assess impacts based on variation year- to- year. 195 Michael Barigian SCE 00:57:12.224 --> 00:57:13.484 Got it, thank you. 196 Sky Stanfield 00:57:14.084 --> 00:57:32.744 And Michael, I'm hoping that once we do, once we get to you guys as slides on that, that's where we're hoping these conversations can be. So big company gather, um, we were doing this some maximization that you guys would look at the variability year to- year and how it changes, depending on the number of iterations. I think so I'm hoping that we can kind of. 197 Sky Stanfield 00:57:33.195 --> 00:57:36.675 Bring those together and in discussion about what makes sense to do. 198 Michael Barigian SCE 00:57:37.785 --> 00:57:38.895 Sounds good, thank you. 199 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:57:45.135 --> 00:58:01.365 All right, uh, hearing no more questions. I think we'll move on to the next topic and uh, I would like to have framed everything, uh, side by side, but, uh, due to timing presentation and when. 200 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:58:01.424 --> 00:58:10.094 presenters could be here. We're going to have to be skipping topics actually, uh, Francisco, it's two slides before this one. 201 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:58:11.984 --> 00:58:20.054 Yeah, really an [...] configuration. So I believe this is Brian Lyric. 202 Brian Lydic - IREC 00:58:23.954 --> 00:58:33.704 Hello, um, so I'll try and be quick overall sense of what the configuration looks like and where signals go just. 203 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 00:58:33.704 --> 00:58:39.464 For reference, just for reference, this is, uh, in regards to a topic e. 204 Brian Lydic - IREC 00:58:41.474 --> 00:58:43.664 Thanks, yeah, after. 205 Brian Lydic - IREC 00:58:43.670 --> 00:59:04.815 This will go into more detail about, um, you know, the methods of exchange of information and whatnot a little bit more detail here. So this is just kind of the overview of what our tech can do in combo with a relay. So the real time automation controller is basically a very capable computer with input. 206 Brian Lydic - IREC 00:59:04.844 --> 00:59:09.284 And outputs, so it can do many, many things. 207 Brian Lydic - IREC 00:59:10.604 --> 00:59:30.794 Want it to do here. The main thing that we want to do is to help with managing changing, um, export limits over time via schedules, whatever numbers per your schedule that we want and it can do that basically, you know, you can set up different types of logic in the. 208 Brian Lydic - IREC 00:59:31.695 --> 00:59:52.635 To compare current measured values of export or wherever you're measuring the, the values to a specific preset value. So, and then you can define how that changes over time within the [...]. So the architect's doing or can do that. 209 Brian Lydic - IREC 00:59:52.784 --> 01:00:13.694 parasitoids within itself, And it would do that via data. I've tried to cover some lines in different different ways here, but measurement data here is in green. It can actually get measurement data from the relay because of course the relay is taking in data. I haven't shown the relay. 210 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:00:14.265 --> 01:00:35.055 [...] connections here. Um, but, you know, you, you could have them connected to the relay and then the relay is sharing information back to the [...] that could potentially create a little bit more delay in the process. So if we are worried about timing and staying within exact. 211 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:00:35.144 --> 01:00:55.634 Two seconds, then it might make sense to do it a little bit differently in terms of getting measurement data directly to the [...] and it has a lot of configurable inputs. So I've shown a P. T and C. T- here going into a sensor box, which would basically translate those values to electrical signals, but. 212 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:00:56.294 --> 01:01:17.354 Sensor box may not be necessary if you've just got kind of standard like four to twenty million amp style. Um, I don't remember for, for voltage or zero to five volts or whatever or zero to fifteen volts, but you can get those off the shelf and plugged them into the Artex into one of the mini inputs and configure those inputs for the [...]. 213 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:01:18.435 --> 01:01:38.505 Parameters of that sensor. So then the, the architect doesn't need to get measurement data from the relay. Um, so if the R Tech is getting the measurement data directly from the [...], then it can be, uh, looking at that comparing to the present. 214 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:01:39.434 --> 01:01:59.624 Power limit, and if it exceeds that value for certain amount of time that it can send it a trip flag to the relay and relay would do the tripping, and so it's really the relay is mostly just doing the relay and it's not actually doing the comparison of values in that scenario. So it would trip the breaker and in that scenario, I'll also mentioned. 215 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:02:00.825 --> 01:02:20.745 Probably, I guess we should talk about it, but since the, our tech is powerful, they can also manage the inverters, just like an uncertified power control system. So if you actually take the relay completely out of this, um, you could, you could consider the [...] by itself talking to the inverters as a. 216 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:02:21.104 --> 01:02:41.924 uncertified power control system and maybe we want to talk about that as an option, but I think we're focused on relays as being the main backstop here. Um, so I just wanted to mention that that's potentially another option because there are different ways to configure this. Um, let's see. 217 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:02:42.044 --> 01:03:03.104 So, so it might be doing both, you know, might be doing the, the power control system functions of controlling the inverters as well as managing the, the export limits. Another way to do that would be to set different groups settings in the relay, so different relays have a different different number. 218 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:03:03.135 --> 01:03:23.985 As of group settings. So I think the minimum I've heard is like six values and some of them have like twelve values or something like that, maybe eight, um, and so you could set a directional power value in six, six different increments and so you could basically have somewhat less granular schedule. 219 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:03:24.704 --> 01:03:45.164 That has six or twelve different values, and so the Artech would be managing when those different groups settings change, so it would use the scheduling logic within the [...] to send a command to change over the group setting in the relay and that might take several seconds, but. 220 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:03:45.705 --> 01:03:48.315 That's the thing that only happens, um. 221 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:03:49.695 --> 01:04:10.755 You know, a few times a day say, or on a monthly basis whatnot, so that's another way to manage it, and then the relay would just be doing its normal relay directional power function. The [...] and [...] would be connected there because I should've showed that for that for that use case and then, you know, it would act. 222 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:04:10.814 --> 01:04:31.934 Normally in that case, the, our tech is just changing those settings over time, but the, the drawback of that method is that you just, you can't change those settings to anything that has to be one of those predefined groups. So it's just a little bit more, um, uh, it's just less granular. 223 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:04:32.084 --> 01:04:45.614 Then being able to set any value in the tech itself. So I think that's basically a bit before we go on to see if there's any questions there or maybe we should just go on to a persona and then ask for questions after that. 224 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:04:52.274 --> 01:04:52.514 Yeah. 225 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:04:52.544 --> 01:04:53.174 So why don't we go to. 226 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:04:53.174 --> 01:04:53.564 Brian. 227 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:04:53.594 --> 01:04:54.074 Next slide. 228 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:04:56.985 --> 01:05:17.055 Yeah, so just to expand on what Brian said we kind of discussed this and expanded it into more detail. So in the first option, the release doing only the tripping. So in this option, what do you do is you store in the outback all the MVP registers, So it's a one time program. 229 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:05:17.059 --> 01:05:38.204 [...], so all the rest of the store in the archive and the archive looks at the PCCC output comparison, and if it finds that there is a, I mean, if it crosses that it sends a trip command to the relay, this key command can be given if it's six hundred and fifty can use a goes on if you use. 230 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:05:38.234 --> 01:05:59.354 sally can use that, but it could be like a full millisecond true commands. It would be pretty fast and it will trip really, so the attack, so irrespective of what the final GB profile is just going to be stored in the attack and not that gives us the six one, one, three, one, real time logic engine to do it, and this applies to. 231 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:05:59.895 --> 01:06:19.995 Any vendor tag, it doesn't specifically need to be destroyed. So all our tech support does capability. So that's the option one and option three is, uh, the second option, Brian was talking about is, uh, the, the control the logic is running in the relay. 232 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:06:20.624 --> 01:06:41.594 In terms of checking the BCC and saying that it's the same, um, if the PM does cross the trip and this is using the release settings group, um, but the release have limitations on the number of settings they have typically [...] has six, but there is, it's more of a manufacturer defined thing. 233 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:06:41.805 --> 01:07:02.805 You can have as many setting scopes as you can, but the typical, six, eight, ten, in this case, the [...] gain has the registers or text to decide on the, um, uh, [...], but then based on the schedule looking at the time, the. 234 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:07:02.809 --> 01:07:23.954 The time it says that the settings group has to be shifted, it sends the change setting group command to the relay. Um, depending on the protocol, it users could be six hundred and fifty- one hundred bits per change the relay settings group and the relay and then switch us the same script in this, from the active passive settings group to those active. 235 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:07:24.314 --> 01:07:45.104 It might take a few seconds to, uh, for the relay to switch over there could be a soft restarted relay format. So all the logic. So that's the only downside the downside is a number of groups you could have sixteen based on the release that is in the market. So really there's no limitation, but. 236 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:07:45.285 --> 01:07:51.795 We see six at twelve, twenty- four blocks six and twelve, six between six and twelve that's kind of the standard. Let me see. 237 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:07:53.834 --> 01:08:14.714 Um, and the option two and four is the same thing essentially, but he's saying is that if the schedule needs to be changed and we have to push a different schedule to the [...], then you can use the [...] gateway to send it. That's one option or somebody has to go to the architect and manually update the register. So if it's. 238 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:08:14.775 --> 01:08:32.805 Give them TV profiles, Static then does not need it, but if it's up to two years, three years, if it changes, then somebody has to physically go and update the contract. We just go to send it to the utility as a conditioning or a validation process, then that also has to happen. So that's. 239 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:08:34.574 --> 01:08:38.863 That, that, that's the only thing that the option two and four kind of addresses. 240 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:08:42.344 --> 01:08:45.284 I guess that's Brian, you want to add anything else? 241 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:08:47.474 --> 01:09:08.294 I think that's it. I mean, yeah, the, um, you mentioned the timing there. Um, I think the, the only other thing you didn't mention that in terms of timing is when the heart attack is comparing the schedule to the monitor data directly, it's like one hundred millisecond. 242 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:09:08.504 --> 01:09:29.443 Yeah, hm, yeah, so the, all the artifacts in the market, however, as I said, the real time six months one engine, so they have Latin loops, so you can say that you want to, it's like a twenty millisecond low or one hundred milliseconds. So, so that always in real time and shows that within one hundred milliseconds and. 243 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:09:29.474 --> 01:09:50.054 Can happen, so, so if you program it correctly in a one hundred millisecond logic loop, you one hundred percent guaranteed that it happens in hundred milliseconds. So verify the [...] look at the logic and if anything has to happen, we'll send them a true command to the remaining four seconds, Four milliseconds, so you have very granular time. 244 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:09:50.600 --> 01:10:10.785 Control on this and it will happen and because of the time because of that, like you said, we can't even replace it really. I think that is also real possible, given which you can send the command right? To the inverter that will also work because from a timing standpoint, not that it's pretty fast. 245 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:10:12.644 --> 01:10:17.624 So we do have two questions, uh, from Alex and then we'll fredo. 246 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:10:24.734 --> 01:10:27.074 Well, I think you have your hand raised first. 247 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:10:28.184 --> 01:10:41.114 Oh, sure, thank you. Can we go back to the previous slide? Please the one Brian. So thank you Brian for making the comment that we need [...] and [...]. Also that. 248 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:10:41.385 --> 01:10:46.215 Into the relay because I think that's what you said, right? 249 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:10:47.325 --> 01:11:01.125 Well, we don't need them. It's, it's, it's dependent on those two configurations. So if you're using the group settings in the relay than the, the [...] and [...] would feed into the relay rather than the Artech. 250 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:11:01.515 --> 01:11:02.415 I see so in this. 251 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:11:02.534 --> 01:11:11.354 This example is showing basically these sensor boxes is a, will be the one that will be telling the relay when he needs to. 252 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:11:12.614 --> 01:11:17.684 Really would pick up based on the data that it gets from the [...] through the sensor box. 253 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:11:18.404 --> 01:11:33.314 No, so it's not like that. So if it really has the, the [...] directly connected, then we are using the settings group method. So then the reliable based on. 254 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:11:34.275 --> 01:11:54.555 The data gets from the, it's monitoring it. The only thing that I guess in that case is changing the settings so changing, so each settings will pull up a different element value and the [...] looks at the schedule and keeps changing the settings limit, um, and really will operate based on. 255 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:11:54.974 --> 01:12:06.104 inputs from [...]. So it's connected to, in the second option, the [...] are not connected to the relay. They connected to the attack and the attack will send the true command to the. 256 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:12:06.614 --> 01:12:15.614 Yeah, that's, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, so the, the option and the second option is what's shown on the screen that option the [...] will have this. 257 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:12:15.829 --> 01:12:36.974 The set points you will care the regular when to change those set points, depending on if it's an hourly value and because there's only so as I know most released like six group settings or somewhere around that number, and if you're doing anything more than even told values, there's going to be more than six groups. Um, but anyway, so, so one comment. 258 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:12:37.034 --> 01:12:58.094 I want to make here is that this sensor box, I know you said something like this can be just something off the shelf. Um, these, a sudden accuracy requirement for these type of setup. So I don't believe that it can be just something off the shelf. I don't have the exact grade. it's not like a, it might be like a, you know, revenue grade mirroring. 259 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:12:58.129 --> 01:13:18.464 Or something because of the accuracy that's required or some other type of grid of metering, but it's not just any type of sensor box, so we can get that information, if we, if we do go down that line and, and say that this is a viable solution, and then the other comment I wanted to make also is the issue of this. 260 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:13:19.545 --> 01:13:40.395 Non- satisfied [...] came up during the [...] discussion. and initially my understanding was that this solution is something that's supposed to monitor and non- certified PCs. So if you say the ITOC can also control the [...], which then would make it a non- certified BCS and then. 261 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:13:40.454 --> 01:14:01.574 Have the relay plus our tech that's supervising the non- certified PCs. So essentially have the architect supervising itself. So that's, that's not a good solution. Usually if you have a set of equipment or something that's supervised something else you can't. It can't be supervising itself if that makes sense. So if this is, if this is a solution. 262 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:14:02.054 --> 01:14:17.144 Then the PCs would have to be the non- certified PCS would have to be a separate control scheme. That's then being supervised by a relay so that if that controls can failed, then the relay would then trip the breakout in case there was a, the expert was exceeded. 263 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:14:20.085 --> 01:14:22.065 I don't know. See if Brian you have any comments on that? 264 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:14:24.585 --> 01:14:25.905 I'm not entirely sure. 265 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:14:28.244 --> 01:14:39.494 Exactly the basis for that. I mean, I guess you're just saying if it's all contained in one piece of equipment, then are you saying like, what if the Artech itself sales? 266 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:14:39.644 --> 01:14:39.914 Yeah. 267 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:14:43.964 --> 01:14:44.144 Yeah. 268 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:14:44.804 --> 01:15:02.054 So I guess I can, I can see that, but the other, the other argument would be to say, you don't need a power control system in the scheme at all, really you've got a supervisory function that's making sure. 269 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:15:02.234 --> 01:15:23.324 Thing doesn't exceed the limit and so we've actually, so the point of that is basically, so we don't care what's happening behind behind that thing in order to control or not control the inverters. I mean, you could put something like this on a system where you just probabilistic li- you know, that your load is going to be high enough at a, you know, throughout the day or. 270 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:15:23.360 --> 01:15:44.505 Something like that, And so you're not actually doing any control, um, that's somewhat feasible, you know, but, but at the same time [...] is just powerful enough to run different functions and so I think the fact that can control the inverters and act like a power control system is kind of moved as long as it does. 271 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:15:44.509 --> 01:15:48.164 The job of, of the supervisory function in my opinion. 272 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:15:49.364 --> 01:16:05.654 That's a good point. So the reason why I bring up the issue of the relay plus supervising the control scheme sort of has to do with this issue of redundancy. So typically if you have a relay set up to. 273 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:16:05.660 --> 01:16:26.805 You do not export function or do some other functionality if it's a multi- function relay, at least for PG and you will recall redundancy of that piece of equipment, but if you had a quote unquote, non- certified PCs that was being supervised, then it may eliminate the need for redundancy because then you could say the [...], the release [...]. 274 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:16:26.984 --> 01:16:38.984 redundancy, but if you're saying, okay, we don't care what's behind it. That's fine too. Then in that case, we may say we need redundancy of the pieces of equipment that are doing the supervision. So I think that's where the difference might come in. 275 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:16:40.094 --> 01:16:43.334 Yeah, but Redundancy is pretty easy with our tech and relay, right? 276 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:16:43.364 --> 01:16:43.814 Yeah. 277 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:16:44.144 --> 01:16:45.824 So you do it all the time, so. 278 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:16:45.854 --> 01:16:47.954 Yeah, so we then have two architects and two. 279 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:16:48.194 --> 01:16:54.614 relays for that reason, But if a customer already has a PCS, they may eliminate the need for the second set of pieces of equipment. So. 280 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:16:58.184 --> 01:17:01.394 Alright, and then the other thing I wanted to, uh. 281 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:17:03.495 --> 01:17:12.165 I guess can you talk more about this clock issue? I know we extend some emails about it. Can you elaborate more on how we can. 282 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:17:12.885 --> 01:17:13.845 So. 283 Regnier, Justin 01:17:13.965 --> 01:17:14.595 Maybe we can. 284 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:17:14.625 --> 01:17:24.615 So the reason I think Clark is not needed is, um, so here we are looking at lot schedules, which are in a minute ten hours, right? 285 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:17:24.620 --> 01:17:45.765 Right, we're not looking at millisecond second kind of situation. So, so, so I don't think it makes sense to put a separate log and then synchronize smoothly and really, um, so the second, the DR side anyway is connected to the internet for management and a lot of other purposes. So you could use an [...]. 286 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:17:45.794 --> 01:18:06.914 In the attack and relate to synchronize them. So, so that the unpacked pretty accurate as well. The only thing that block gives us, well, if we put a clock on a JPS, then it is local that's under the sun, like Rosie improvements, I agree, but I don't think in this application. 287 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:18:06.944 --> 01:18:13.724 It makes sense. So we could go within [...] through through an internet time server for those. 288 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:18:17.474 --> 01:18:27.734 Yeah, we haven't, we haven't talked about the issue of time drift yet, but I think either whether you have a power control system or in hard tech, you. 289 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:18:27.734 --> 01:18:27.884 Would. 290 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:18:27.884 --> 01:18:37.184 Want them to at least connect to a network once every year or something like that, but that's additional technical detail that I guess we haven't. 291 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:18:38.714 --> 01:18:56.384 Previously discussed, I don't know if the Power Control system group has has discussed that or what if there's a solution needed for that exactly, but that's, yeah, finer details that we haven't gotten to in the overall conversation at all. 292 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:18:59.894 --> 01:19:18.734 And also the drift, um, yeah, I think the artifacts and control systems are much smaller drift then conventional computers and so, but I think the drift or Mon may not be that critical impact and JP. 293 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:19:18.829 --> 01:19:37.364 So, um, but yeah, we're multiple use, it will be significant. So at some point it needs to be synchronized. Um, so I to NTP is good enough for this application for some reason, [...], we set that in a con- connect to internet, then we do have to talk about the clock. 294 Alex Mwaura PG&E 01:19:44.834 --> 01:19:46.274 Alright, let me find it. go. 295 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:19:47.264 --> 01:20:05.264 Good morning everyone. And we'll probably go on to [...]. Um, I just want to ask my first question would be how we got, did we get confirmation from [...] that this is a viable solution to us. It seems like it, it seems like it's going to work accepted. I just want to warn you that, that type of. 296 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:20:05.415 --> 01:20:26.505 Late, I think they wanted to see it here. I think you'd probably just to give us a picture, right? I see an [...] hundred and fifty- one, um, when we, when we go to draft the language, we want to make sure that the language says they realize you have automation logic because that gives you a lot more flexibility to do what you're trying to do to, to change settings every hour and first of all. 297 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:20:26.509 --> 01:20:47.654 Was thinking about six groups, but now I'm also thinking that you probably because you have an architect, you might have the possibility of just using that automation logic just to change the, actually the power element every hour and use that would have mapped variable. I don't want to get too technical on it, but you can compare it to a math variable and then every hour you can actually have a logic that tells you. 298 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:20:47.685 --> 01:21:08.805 If you want to bother above the limit and take action, you know, I mean, these two devices I will prefer because I talked to our protection team and then they say they would prefer eight four hundred level relay, like a [...] hundred and fifty one. I'm not sure hundred and sixty- one are that John Burner mentioned before if that has the type of logic that those are the only details, but, you know, in our. 299 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:21:08.834 --> 01:21:16.964 Team, we think that this is a viable solution that is complex and it would require a lot of engineering, but, but it seems doable. 300 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:21:18.104 --> 01:21:29.774 Just to add to that, the only thing that we were talking about some of the prediction worked on Sarah was that if you use a rename logic to change the [...] settings. 301 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:21:30.824 --> 01:21:49.034 We're not too sure whether we can do it. Um, so run the logic is really and that itself change its own settings. I think that you can do. So that's why you need an architect on site to give them that, that's otherwise we could have done just with a really and lower than our tech as well. That's an option. 302 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:21:53.745 --> 01:21:53.955 Well. 303 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:21:54.555 --> 01:21:54.795 Then. 304 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:21:54.795 --> 01:22:02.895 Were you thinking of changing the, like, changing those settings directly via the Artech or I didn't quite follow it. 305 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:22:02.925 --> 01:22:12.255 Right, I think that the article, right? I think the art I can write into into the relay automation logic continuously as soon as you. 306 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:22:12.284 --> 01:22:24.944 Haven't communicated and that was my only thing, maybe I'm not sure what you're going to use DMP or some type of protocol, but, um, that, that's kind of what they mentioned to me. the reality is that with the [...]. 307 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:22:25.184 --> 01:22:44.024 Relay, there's a lot of automation that can be done and I know my point on this will be related to the [...]. We, uh, our team probably would prefer to have it to the relay, right? To have the [...] and the [...] to the relay and relay to provide the measurements values that they would need to make decisions. 308 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:22:46.635 --> 01:23:06.885 Um, so I think what you're describing is, what I was hoping would be the case that the Artech could simply feed the values to the relay, but I was told that, that is not possible that you would have to use those group settings. So you're limited to the, whatever those preset group settings are and changing those fields. 309 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:23:07.844 --> 01:23:09.134 Is that your understanding? 310 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:23:11.024 --> 01:23:27.854 Yeah, so that, and the other thing was the timing where it goes to the release and the release sends it to the contact then sends it back. So what's the timing factor as well? So if you want to meet that two second open loop response time. So that's, that's kind of. 311 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:23:28.664 --> 01:23:49.544 Recent, but one first that is true that you can relay can still send all the values to the back- end sandbox. Um, uh, command, sorry, change the P limit. Well, that's possible, but I'm not too sure it might work with cell and cell relay. 312 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 01:23:49.574 --> 01:24:01.364 That maybe the [...] has an option to change the settings module itself. Um, if that's an option would work for, I was talking about. I think that's a vendor specific solution, but maybe that will work. 313 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:24:02.864 --> 01:24:10.484 Yeah, just make sure you talk with [...] and they can probably say it's available. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of things they can do with the architect. 314 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:24:11.084 --> 01:24:31.844 And I guess to bring it back to a higher level, you know, this is a non- certify option, right? So what we are saying, at least from [...] is that, yeah, we were willing to entertain it and we'll say we'll put some requirements or what would it take to do this, but we all agree that it's going to take some engineering work from our protection teams and the customer. 315 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:24:31.875 --> 01:24:32.835 To get this thing done. 316 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:24:33.705 --> 01:24:34.095 Sure. 317 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 01:24:36.079 --> 01:24:36.344 Thank you. 318 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:24:39.525 --> 01:24:39.915 Justin. 319 Regnier, Justin 01:24:45.674 --> 01:25:01.214 So just going back to, um, Alex's concern about redundancy, it occurs to me that there's likely to be control logic within the inverter anyway, um. 320 Regnier, Justin 01:25:02.895 --> 01:25:23.985 Would it address the concern to have either directly from the sensor box or just a pass through from the Artech, Not a power point, but a. P. T. and C. T- value and then the inverter from compute, it's own values, um, you know, it may not be a certified power control. 321 Regnier, Justin 01:25:24.019 --> 01:25:44.594 System, but the, the protection functions being taken care of by the relay. Anyway, so when this configuration may not need to be certified because that protection is already covered by something that's a trusted element. Um, here's the question I've got for Alex than the rest to consider maybe not answer now. 322 Regnier, Justin 01:25:45.314 --> 01:26:03.914 Is whether it's just passing through a data stream without actually determining the set points to the inverter would be helpful in terms of providing redundancy, um, because there's so. 323 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:26:04.364 --> 01:26:05.264 I think the original. 324 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:26:08.204 --> 01:26:27.464 Yeah, I mean, I think the original idea behind this was that yes, you're going to have some sort of control system that's not certified behind this relay and the relay is just supervisory function to make sure that, that, because since it's uncertified, you don't want to have to do any field testing or what. 325 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:26:27.525 --> 01:26:47.325 Or in order to make sure that it works, and so the, the relay is there to ensure that it does work and if it doesn't work, then it drips. So, um, yeah, I think that's, that's the original idea. The, I don't know that it matters too much whether the Artech is participating in that power control system or not. 326 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:26:49.875 --> 01:27:03.705 It just became clear as I was researching that could do both functions in parallel, basically, so I'm not sure if we, the question is, do we need to specify that it'd be separate pieces of equipment that do those things? 327 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:27:05.774 --> 01:27:10.934 Or could [...] be shared between those different functions. 328 Regnier, Justin 01:27:14.114 --> 01:27:19.754 Got it, thank you. Um, good question I had is how much time do you have to standard over a year. 329 Regnier, Justin 01:27:21.584 --> 01:27:26.444 What would it be feasible to just take the worst case of the spec. 330 Regnier, Justin 01:27:29.534 --> 01:27:37.064 Take a look at the two time periods under consideration and take the lowest value starting not at the hour, two minutes before the hour or something. 331 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:27:40.664 --> 01:27:51.134 I don't, I haven't been able to research that in detail for the Artech itself and I don't have a sense for things in general. I don't know if anybody else does. 332 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:28:01.575 --> 01:28:02.265 Sounds like not. 333 Regnier, Justin 01:28:05.984 --> 01:28:13.154 Final question, um, would it make sense for folks to try and get, um. 334 Regnier, Justin 01:28:14.954 --> 01:28:33.014 Uh, an architect or relay manufacturer out to either the MRNA or working group with the idea just to explain the common sense of functionality and the functional groups and defined functions for everybody to have a level set or the folks feel pretty confident their knowledge. 335 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:28:37.664 --> 01:28:56.924 I mean, I think that would be a good idea. I haven't been able to talk to an actual, our tech engineer as of yet. I've been chatting with relay engineers, so, um, they're actually, I just got a, I've been waiting for a contact from [...] and haven't gotten one yet, but I did find out there's someone, that's probably the right person to talk. 336 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:28:56.954 --> 01:29:14.894 That's in the one hundred and forty- seven point, Ten working group. So we could reach out to him and see if he'd be available to just see if he's the right person who kind of seems like it would be because he's automation background and see if he'd be willing to join us. 337 Regnier, Justin 01:29:16.669 --> 01:29:16.964 Thank you. 338 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:29:25.514 --> 01:29:31.034 All right, unless there are any other questions, I think we could proceed to the next presentation. 339 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:29:32.834 --> 01:29:36.614 All right, thanks to present for filling in all the gaps for me. 340 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:29:37.484 --> 01:29:38.834 Alright, thank you. Thank you. 341 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:29:41.895 --> 01:29:47.415 So, Amin, you are up and we are back on topic after, again. 342 Younes, Amin 01:29:47.895 --> 01:29:49.305 Great, are you going to do slides for me? 343 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:29:50.745 --> 01:29:54.045 Yeah, just let Francisco go when to move forward. 344 Younes, Amin 01:29:54.165 --> 01:30:01.755 Okay, great, so yeah, for those of you who haven't heard me speak about this exact topic before, and these workshops, my name is [...]. 345 Younes, Amin 01:30:01.844 --> 01:30:17.534 I'm a utilities engineer with Kyle advocates. I'm going to be providing some further analysis of, of the quantified benefits of using two hundred and eighty- eight values in limited generation profiles relative to twelve values and relative to one value next slide, please. 346 Younes, Amin 01:30:19.454 --> 01:30:38.474 So I'll just start with that kind of overview in summary review of the data and methods I've used, I'll provide updated results and then some observations and explorations of the results. I'll go relatively quickly through the, some of the stuff that I've talked about before and people can follow up with questions. I'm also fine if people want to. 347 Younes, Amin 01:30:40.185 --> 01:30:50.685 And ask questions during the presentation that's okay with me, but also feel free to hold them until the end, particularly if they are kind of discussion points next slide please. 348 Younes, Amin 01:30:54.794 --> 01:31:13.544 So, yeah, I've kind of showed this kind of data before we've presented slides on. I think it was the first [...] workshop of these four, as well as one of the smart converted working groups at that point, I had a very small sample of data, something like fifty circuits, uh, since then I've gotten about five hundred to one. 349 Younes, Amin 01:31:13.724 --> 01:31:34.844 And circuits from each of the utilities and I've basically conducted the full analysis on the circuits, calculated the power and energy, the power during the peak window four to nine zero PM, the energy over the course of the year that could be exploited on those circuits that have kind of proved that up to the total number of circuits. So if. 350 Younes, Amin 01:31:34.875 --> 01:31:55.965 I got half the circuits. I doubled the value conceptually. I also this time integrated some pricing data, so I've got data. I'll tell you later where I got that data for those data, and so the main point here is to develop the same analysis with a much more robust dataset where we can make more kind of. 351 Younes, Amin 01:31:55.999 --> 01:32:01.304 Statistical inferences influences about the effect on the whole size of the system, rather than just. 352 Younes, Amin 01:32:03.074 --> 01:32:24.134 Looking at kind of the relative value. I'm really trying to make the assessment of what is the total value to California is, uh, ratepayers or [...] user to the state of implementing more values, also note here that I didn't in any way, consider typical TV profiles. so those would kind of sit somewhere. 353 Younes, Amin 01:32:24.224 --> 01:32:39.524 When, in my view [...] and a typical one value profile, but I didn't make any comparisons to those. So what I'm talking about relative benefits, it's never relative to the typical TV profiles. I'm assuming either flat or [...], uh, next slide, please. 354 Younes, Amin 01:32:42.375 --> 01:33:02.265 Okay, so we'll go through this quickly because I think this guy basically covered the same thing, but it's starting point for this analysis. Excuse me the starting point because this analysis is the [...] data. I used the static grid generation data, the y axis here shows the integration capacity and kilowatts and then across. 355 Younes, Amin 01:33:02.269 --> 01:33:22.724 The bottom you have monthly hours typical the month of January everyday being the same February March so forth. The black solid line is the actualizing data for a random example circuit that, that is visually visually useful. The red line shows ninety percent of the minimum value per year, which is. 356 Younes, Amin 01:33:23.474 --> 01:33:44.564 Into account the, the buffer, the blue shows the minimum monthly value. So you get twelve values and then the, the purple dot dash line is two hundred and eighty- eight values. Essentially, it's just ninety percent of the [...] profile. It's worth noting here as I have in the top, right, that I'm the. 357 Younes, Amin 01:33:44.594 --> 01:34:05.714 Flat profile doesn't really exist because a non- [...] customers have to incorporate the operational flexibility to limit which I, I didn't consider in this analysis would have made things more complex, but just something to keep in mind, uh, when comparing these, that the, without LDP, the actual values would be lower than what's shown here. 358 Younes, Amin 01:34:07.035 --> 01:34:10.755 Uh, that said we can go on to the next slide. 359 Younes, Amin 01:34:13.814 --> 01:34:33.404 Okay, so I'm going to continue going through the examples. so everyone can understand conceptually, what I did. This is just for one circuit, but I do this for every single circuit and then, and then kind of some things up. So this is just kind of showing the general trend, The twelve value [...] one value per month. 360 Younes, Amin 01:34:35.834 --> 01:34:46.934 increases the energy and power that can be exploited, but it doesn't show a particular benefit during the forty- nine zero PM window because you're bound by whatever the value might be at noon or at one zero PM or. 361 Younes, Amin 01:34:49.364 --> 01:35:09.104 Ten zero a. m. which aren't doing that value during that during that window when you move to the to eighty eight and then you aren't really bound by those low monthly values, for example, you can see in February here there's a very low value at right around noon kind of use a monthly profile that value applies to the whole month. 362 Younes, Amin 01:35:09.194 --> 01:35:30.224 Of February, but if you use the hourly profile you are able to ramp energy output up during the kind of late afternoon or evening hours, which could help support the grid quantitatively, the average power during the forty- nine zero PM window on this, Peter increases from one point four megawatts with a one static value at one. 363 Younes, Amin 01:35:30.344 --> 01:35:49.694 Nine megawatts with twelve values and then moving up to two hundred and eighty- eight values goes up to two point, seven megawatts, you can see a substantial increase significant increase from, from one to twelve, and then a really substantial increase from twelve to two. We, of course, this is just one circuit. So if we go to the next slide. 364 Younes, Amin 01:35:52.365 --> 01:35:55.425 Uh, actually I think the next slide is going to be method, but next slide, please. 365 Younes, Amin 01:35:57.615 --> 01:36:18.165 Yeah, so before we get through the whole thing and we talked about the data use so that was kind of the methods, here's the data. So PG e gave me data from nine hundred and eighty four Peters and they, I think they gave me the whole feeder and I selected a random node on that. Peter Southern California edison gave me five hundred and fifty- six feeders and they gave me the first note on every few days. The one. 366 Younes, Amin 01:36:18.494 --> 01:36:39.404 To the substation, which should have the highest capacity. San Diego got some electric again, give me the whole feeder and there's no way for me to know which node is the first node. so I can selected a random node and you see that, that Pacific gas electric gives me something like one third of their features. Uh, Southern California edison. I'm not going to try to do the math on that. 367 Younes, Amin 01:36:39.435 --> 01:37:00.555 Yeah, more than a tenth of their features and so San Diego guess I'd like to give me nearly all of their features, but not all their views will also note that these total failure numbers are not necessarily correct. They're the best estimate I have based on the data available to me. They're not as far as I know there's no real official tally and they came from research. 368 Younes, Amin 01:37:00.559 --> 01:37:21.704 [...] to my data request. Some came from like, the grid needs assessment, if we find out that these numbers are a little bit off, it doesn't shouldn't really affect things too much. You can just imagine that the results would be scaled up or down a little bit depending how far off the actual total numbers of meters are there's potential to correct to the result in, for me to rerun this analysis, if someone gives me better numbers, they're. 369 Younes, Amin 01:37:23.084 --> 01:37:42.854 Use the best numbers I had and made things transparent. So for the value of energy, I use two sources. I use the two thousand and twenty- two values for the avoided cost calculator, and that's the whole value. So it includes, it's not just the assumed energy market value in ACC, but it's a whole tally including including everything in the. 370 Younes, Amin 01:37:42.885 --> 01:38:04.005 ACC which I don't recall off the top of my head. I also downloaded data from the [...] market two thousand and twenty- two hourly day ahead market energy only prices not including congestion. So using one value for the whole speed as a final note, sometimes you see negative values in the Kaiser market. I ignore those and assume that any resources will curtail what they want to, if the. 371 Younes, Amin 01:38:04.009 --> 01:38:05.204 [...] goes below zero. 372 Younes, Amin 01:38:06.914 --> 01:38:14.054 Which seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me. So no negative values. Okay, next slide. please. 373 Younes, Amin 01:38:16.394 --> 01:38:36.374 Okay, so now we get to the big ice chart. That is the results. I think these are all fairly interesting. So I did include them all and I will walk through them spend a little bit of time here, so the far left, we have the three, I use PG E [...] we break it down into the three limit types one value per year. One. 374 Younes, Amin 01:38:36.464 --> 01:38:57.584 Your per month or twelve dollars per year, and then a monthly hourly value two hundred and eighty- eight values per year. The next column, the third column is that the summation of exports possible over all of the features and then trued up to kind of extrapolate across the whole territory. So, for example, you can see that you could. 375 Younes, Amin 01:38:57.614 --> 01:39:18.734 Export you can interconnect with [...] enough without LGB with a flat profile. You could interconnect enough [...] across all the PG E- territory to export or to generate fifty- seven terabyte hours per year with a twelve million [...] that moves up to seventy terabyte hours per year, and with monthly hourly profiles that would move up. 376 Younes, Amin 01:39:18.765 --> 01:39:39.885 To seventy seventy or one hours per year, it's actually not the largest and we'll see subsequently, the other [...], uh, potentially more benefit, um, moving down the chart then you'll see, I'm not going to walk through every value, don't worry, but, but moving down to the [...] has significantly larger values and an [...] has less values being part of that. I think is. 377 Younes, Amin 01:39:39.914 --> 01:40:00.884 SDG, having less territory, but they're actually other significant factors that we'll talk about later. So I also tallied that average power that could be exploited over the forty- nine PM window across the state in gigawatts across each [...] territory individually, but you see the potential for kind of gigawatts of. 378 Younes, Amin 01:40:01.454 --> 01:40:21.914 Connection at present and many more gigawatts of interconnected impossible with twelve value and even more with two hundred and eighty- eight value, [...] in terms of the total value, the price of an ACC ended up tracking very closely and you see values in the billions of dollars, potential billions of dollars worth of energy could be. 379 Younes, Amin 01:40:22.214 --> 01:40:43.124 Could be generated on these, um, you know, these distribution filters and the amount increases again, fairly substantially with more points in the limited generation profiles then over at the right side I have ratios are really present, so they're all relative to the yearly. 380 Younes, Amin 01:40:43.339 --> 01:41:04.484 The one value profile, which is why that went blank, but as you can see in PG e, you get about twenty to twenty- three percent, more energy, power or money, if you use twelve values and you get about what thirty- four to thirty- six percent, more energy, power or money or really value, if you use two hundred and eighty- eight profiles. I think. 381 Younes, Amin 01:41:04.515 --> 01:41:25.635 These are still kind of the bottom line from my perspective. Uh, and that's relatively small, it's much smaller than the numbers I stated previously, because I was looking at an average across the [...] if you look down now at [...], those numbers are quite close to the numbers. I've shown before fifty percent with the twelve values and about doubling with two hundred and. 382 Younes, Amin 01:41:25.784 --> 01:41:46.664 Eight values and then [...] is actually quite a bit higher. So I think we had one [...] was high one he was low and when I was about in the middle of what I was showing before, um, makes makes some sense to me anyway, so with SDG, EE, the monthly profiles allow you to almost double the. 383 Younes, Amin 01:41:46.904 --> 01:42:06.674 Of, of exports and with the two hundred and eighty profiles more than tripled the amount of export, so [...] result is much more substantial than the average results. I showed before PG E is quite a bit less than the average that I showed before [...] is quite similar to the average that I showed before, with that next slide, please. 384 Younes, Amin 01:42:08.564 --> 01:42:29.084 Although I'm not paying attention to the chat while I present. so if there are questions that should be brought up immediately, someone feel free to interrupt me otherwise we can get to those at the end. Okay, so here are my observations from the results that I just presented [...] significant power and energy. 385 Younes, Amin 01:42:29.089 --> 01:42:50.114 [...] with significant value PG E, [...] has significantly less capacity per feeder than [...]. That wasn't shown explicitly, but if you divide the energy power capacity by the number of peters, you'll see that that's the case and what is John explicitly? Is that [...] provide. 386 Younes, Amin 01:42:50.240 --> 01:43:11.385 Significantly less benefit for [...], relative to [...]. I've already kind of hopped on this SDG sees the largest relative game. I'll explore those in the next two slides. It's also interesting the energy and power and value in both the [...] ACC track closely some of those are quite unintended. 387 Younes, Amin 01:43:11.445 --> 01:43:32.445 To me, um, but one of those things, the fact that ACC track closely means the ACC is relatively close to the Kaiser market price. part of this is probably an artifact of using two thousand and twenty- two kinds of data. The winter energy prices, wholesale electricity prices were extremely high much higher than typical and those drugs. 388 Younes, Amin 01:43:32.714 --> 01:43:53.684 The types of the market price up kind of higher than the ACC would have expected another interesting and in my view, even more on intuitive thing is that the average value of energy export is essentially the same across all of the profiles across all of the markets was between eighty five and ninety- one dollars per megawatt hour, but then that was. 389 Younes, Amin 01:43:53.744 --> 01:44:14.744 Explicitly showing, but with some division of the tables, on the previous slide, you've come to that result and that essentially shows what I've put in the last bullet, which is the [...] is not really unlocking extra valuable peak hour energy exports, which is what my intuition would have been that you're really unlocking a lot of energy with the forty- nine zero PM window. What's actually happening is that you are doing that. 390 Younes, Amin 01:44:14.864 --> 01:44:32.144 You're also unlocking some energy at say, ten zero AM and that energy is not very valuable and maybe on unlocking some energy at three AM, which is also pretty cheap. So the benefits that kind of appear to be pretty well distributed across all the hours of the year, so I don't know. I've done that. I've done that interesting. 391 Younes, Amin 01:44:33.584 --> 01:44:54.194 And that we can go to the next two slides which are, okay, so the things are kind of complicated on this slide and hopefully I can explain them in a way that makes sense to everybody. So the chart on the right is my attempt to get to the question of why do PG E and [...] have about about third of the energy or power capacity per feeder. 392 Younes, Amin 01:44:54.319 --> 01:45:15.434 [...], and so I've made a cumulative distribution function of the observations on the right. So, so what this is showing is increasing our lead generation integration limit on the X axis and the cumulative share of observations below a page. 393 Younes, Amin 01:45:15.494 --> 01:45:22.514 color threshold, so for example, if we look at [...] and [...]. 394 Younes, Amin 01:45:22.634 --> 01:45:43.334 And either green and blue lines. You see that about fifteen percent of the observations are at zero. So fifteen percent of the Peter hours, which could be either fifteen percent of users or fifteen percent of our pre- tweet or some kind of combination of the two has zero capacity that's only about five percent for PG e- that line departs pretty low. 395 Younes, Amin 01:45:44.264 --> 01:46:04.604 But then the [...] lines more or less the same shape, but again, I thought was was pretty interesting. You see about, um, for PG E- about half of well, for both for PG and SDG about half the feeders, half the observations fall below five megawatts or so in about. 396 Younes, Amin 01:46:04.844 --> 01:46:25.904 About half full above for PG E- none of the observations reach ten megawatts for SDG, Some of them reach ten megawatt, but just a very few at the tail there, on the other hand, for [...], you see this very long, fairly different shape, It blows by ten ten megawatts of more than half the features have. 397 Younes, Amin 01:46:25.994 --> 01:46:47.084 Well, above ten megawatts of integration capacity and I'm fairly confident that the reason for that is many of [...] distribution lines have voltages above twelve volt and correspond and they have power capacity as well in excess of ten megawatts to the whole integration capacity ends up being much higher. Again, that was a kind of maybe that's the thing that a lot of. 398 Younes, Amin 01:46:47.145 --> 01:47:08.265 Well, no, that was, that was kind of new to me, and I found that quite interesting and, um, hopefully relevant to the conversation ask him to speak to a common in the chat. Oh, I'll do that later. I guess, uh, so then I tried to very roughly get to the question of why. 399 Younes, Amin 01:47:08.414 --> 01:47:29.414 PG e data shows significantly less benefit than the other. I'll use and to do that, use this table at the bottom, right? Which will, again try to explain in a way that makes sense. So the first thing I did was take the standard deviation of all the observations and that gives you kind of a view of the dispersion of these results. what you'd expect to see from the [...]. 400 Younes, Amin 01:47:29.594 --> 01:47:50.534 Is that [...]? Has a quite larger standard deviation because it's spread between about zero and about twenty thousand or twenty megawatts. Whereas, uh [...] in PG E. I split between about zero and ten, if you look at the left column that goes from two thousand and eight hundred to six thousand seven hundred and three. 401 Younes, Amin 01:47:50.624 --> 01:48:11.714 And then you say that's about right PG E, [...] have about the same distribution of values and RSSI has a broader distribution that doesn't really say anything that interesting and just kind of confirms the intuition there. What is maybe a little more useful and explaining this is taking the standard deviation of the hour hourly [...]. 402 Younes, Amin 01:48:11.719 --> 01:48:32.804 [...] an integration limit for each year, but separate each Peter. I think it's standard deviation and then I took the average of those and that's showing how much variation is there our, our, across each feeder. So this is the kind of a one number view of how much are we seeing the integration capacity on each feet are going up and down versus how, how flat is it and PG e. 403 Younes, Amin 01:48:32.870 --> 01:48:52.875 Has quite a significantly less our, our variation on each feeder than the other. I've used about a third of [...] and something like a six of [...] if I did my back, the envelope there correct. So what that essentially saying is that piece of news feeders have an IC that's relatively flat compared to [...]. 404 Younes, Amin 01:48:54.224 --> 01:49:15.134 I think the comparison to [...] is a little bit more complex because the total variation [...] is greater, but because the total variation in PG and SBC is the same and the hourly variation is very different. You can kind of make that input and I'll dig a little bit more into that on the last slide. Uh, the point there being that there's very little, our power varied. 405 Younes, Amin 01:49:15.169 --> 01:49:29.924 [...] in the data that you provided me, and that is why the two hundred and eighty- eight profile does not provide as much benefit on PG E- feeders in this analysis. Okay, that was a lot, and I'm going to wrap it up on the next slide. 406 Younes, Amin 01:49:32.834 --> 01:49:53.234 Okay, so this is showing five random features, Icaay data for [...] at the top [...]. Very important to note that the scales here are not the same [...] consistent for the last slide is twice the others are a little bit more and we'll also know for the record, but these are not truly random. 407 Younes, Amin 01:49:53.295 --> 01:50:13.545 I did a random selection of five features and I repeated that random selection a few times until I got Peter's that I thought kind of represented the trends, those generally think in the future. So I kind of put my thumb on the scale. There's some randomness here, but it's not, it's not truly random. So I'll start from the bottom with SDGS. 408 Younes, Amin 01:50:14.715 --> 01:50:35.355 So there are five features, there's a green blue pink yellow and red and SDG every single one of these five features has a value of zero at at least one point during the year. The green line is always zero and the other lines kind of go up and down from zero, but as you can see, have a lot of. 409 Younes, Amin 01:50:35.984 --> 01:50:56.684 Zero values, so in my view, this explains why you see a huge increase in the relative power output and energy export capability on [...]. see this because it starts very close to zero because you have all of these zero value when you add two hundred and eighty- eight [...], but this had been the whole sample, you've gotten. 410 Younes, Amin 01:50:56.689 --> 01:51:17.834 An infinite increase because it would have started at zero and gone up to non- zero buckets. Okay, FCS is kind of, I would say this is the most... This is what I would have expected. Now usually looking at [...] data is the, a bunch of curves with a bunch of variation. These are all at. 411 Younes, Amin 01:51:17.864 --> 01:51:38.804 Really these curves are all fairly similar. They show kind of a d- at noon because there's likely solar on all of these lines and as that solar is generating at noon, that's reducing the hosting capacity during those hours. I mean, I would call he's pretty intuitive and you see some variation, there's some hours that you could capture more value with a flat profile, but you could actually already, sorry. 412 Younes, Amin 01:51:39.255 --> 01:51:49.245 There's some hours you can capture more value without two hundred and eighty- eight value profile or twelve value profile relative to a flat profile, but there's already a significant amount of capacity. 413 Younes, Amin 01:51:50.714 --> 01:52:11.384 That can be captured. So you see the results somewhere in the middle PG E is on the other hand or of the five lines, the blue line, the red line, the pink line, and the Green line are all essentially flat. I mean, the red lines I totally forgot the other three are completely flat. So actually the pink one's not completely flat, but it's pretty close to flat. So again. 414 Younes, Amin 01:52:11.444 --> 01:52:31.514 I think very little value for [...] on these lines, the blue line is zero, right? One value, Does it all for that for that feeder? The others again, it's very little, the yellow line is quite different. It's more like what we see with SDG where there are some zero values and there's some higher values. 415 Younes, Amin 01:52:33.224 --> 01:52:53.684 On this feeder, it looks like you, again, kind of seeing that solar profile where the low values tend to be around noon, but it's a little fuzzy here. So, again, I think this is kind of consistent [...] is the least value because it's relatively flat [...] is a moderate amount of value because there's some variation. 416 Younes, Amin 01:52:53.719 --> 01:53:14.864 And [...] sees the most value because there's so much variation on each Peter hour an hour, but I guess the last point I'll make which maybe off topic a little bit is that I'm a little bit skeptical of some of these results frankly. I mean, that's the [...] result looks intuitive to me. It's hard for me to explain why. 417 Younes, Amin 01:53:14.895 --> 01:53:22.095 [...] would have all of these features going up and down, like, uh, like flipping a switch and it's like a binary kind of thing. 418 Younes, Amin 01:53:24.614 --> 01:53:39.734 And to some extent, the same for PG E- is, I mean, it seems like more of these features should look like [...] that I find it hard to believe. There's not some kind of data problems in this [...] data. I'll leave it there and, and get to some of the questions. 419 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 01:53:43.214 --> 01:53:47.264 On my call and then Brian and then Scott. 420 Michael Barigian SCE 01:53:49.034 --> 01:54:02.804 Yeah, thanks, I mean, I left a comment in the chat when you were discussing earlier on slide nine where you were making comparisons across the [...]. I can't help, but think that may be the differences that you saw here is. 421 Michael Barigian SCE 01:54:02.834 --> 01:54:19.514 The fact that the methodology was different per node selection, [...] had the first one out of the sub, and then it was a random node for the other two. I've used so kind of curious how that methodology difference in node selection might change or influence the comparisons that were made on slide nine. 422 Younes, Amin 01:54:20.894 --> 01:54:23.804 Yeah, I think that it probably does make. 423 Younes, Amin 01:54:23.959 --> 01:54:45.074 Some difference, I mean, I think that the voltage is clearly also a huge impact there because just the, the raw who has the capacity of [...] lines is just much higher. So that's going to lead to much much higher hosting capacity of [...]. I think it's a little bit regrettable. It just has to that. I use different methodology. 424 Younes, Amin 01:54:45.110 --> 01:54:47.475 I would not have chosen to do that. It just has to do it. 425 Younes, Amin 01:54:50.624 --> 01:54:57.254 I provided the same data request to all the [...], but the I use have different capabilities and the responses I got were different. So the data I got was different. 426 Younes, Amin 01:54:59.744 --> 01:55:13.604 And then allow a perfect side to side comparison. So, um, yeah, there is probably some impact from using the first versus a random selection, but I don't know for sure with the data answer that question. 427 Michael Barigian SCE 01:55:13.964 --> 01:55:20.354 Maybe just a follow- up to that for the nodes that you, that you analyze. Did you have the breakdown? 428 Michael Barigian SCE 01:55:20.385 --> 01:55:35.955 By nominal voltage that shows the ones that you analyzed for [...] were predominantly twelve or sixteen KB and the other areas where maybe like four KB, because I didn't think our nominal distribution voltages work, two, two different across the I'll use, but I could be wrong. 429 Younes, Amin 01:55:37.304 --> 01:55:56.594 So I think that most of the ones I got from the other, I use Word twelve, I just kind of scan through the files I got from [...] and I saw a lot that were well above twelve. I mean, I've seen a lot of like sixteen and even higher. I don't know if that is a result of. 430 Younes, Amin 01:55:58.964 --> 01:56:19.304 So, you know, all of the, all of the, I use, I got a subset of the data for [...]. I got all the, you know, the clean data since, since it was most recently ran and I understand that, I guess those circuits are not not randomly selected and the thing with PG E- that circuits at PG E- had to send me, we're not truly randomly selected. So there is. 431 Younes, Amin 01:56:21.224 --> 01:56:40.694 Yeah, I probably should have actually noted this. I wasn't it wasn't really on my mind, but I was presenting, but they're not a truly random sample, so my inferences about the total population are gonna be a little bit. Um, they're gonna, it's gonna be some noise there maybe maybe the other I used to talk to though the distribution of Peter role. 432 Younes, Amin 01:56:40.755 --> 01:56:42.795 It is, I certainly am not the expert on that. 433 Michael Barigian SCE 01:56:57.945 --> 01:56:58.665 Well, thank you. I mean. 434 Sky Stanfield 01:57:11.415 --> 01:57:13.035 I think Brian was up next wasn't me. 435 Brian Lydic - IREC 01:57:16.275 --> 01:57:18.285 My questions were pretty much answered with the list. 436 Sky Stanfield 01:57:20.265 --> 01:57:35.475 Um, okay, so I mean, can you or whoever's driving the slides, go back a few slides to the, your summary of the conclusions on the, on the financial value, essentially. 437 Younes, Amin 01:57:38.054 --> 01:57:40.664 sees me see what that table. The big table side. 438 Sky Stanfield 01:57:42.134 --> 01:57:45.284 We're actually the slide you had after that kind of explained what you were. 439 Younes, Amin 01:57:45.284 --> 01:57:45.524 On. 440 Sky Stanfield 01:57:47.354 --> 01:57:52.064 Yeah, while we're waiting for that, you had. 441 Younes, Amin 01:57:53.624 --> 01:57:55.604 Can you go back with the branches? 442 Sky Stanfield 01:57:57.524 --> 01:57:57.884 Yeah. 443 Younes, Amin 01:57:58.279 --> 01:58:01.844 Francisco one more. Yeah. 444 Sky Stanfield 01:58:01.874 --> 01:58:19.424 Yeah, that's fine. Um, and we may not want to go back to the other one after I asked the question, but I wanted to help him talk, I wanted to make sure I understand the very last point, which is as, you know, that is kind of an interesting observation, so I don't entirely know if I understood it, but one of the things that I'm thinking about here. 445 Sky Stanfield 01:58:19.429 --> 01:58:40.574 Or is you had mentioned that because there may be periods at ten AM or other periods where they can produce more about the, there's lower value energy. That's why you're not seeing the over extra valuable hours for me to say that if we think. 446 Sky Stanfield 01:58:40.579 --> 01:59:01.724 About sort of the more I think about the projects that we can see in the near term in terms of where the [...] procurement programs are going, you're likely going to be the new community solar projects that are utilizing that switch are fortunately going to be a lot more price responsive to the elements that you've looked in hasn't been decided exactly how that price structure will be set. 447 Sky Stanfield 01:59:01.755 --> 01:59:22.635 Yeah, but, but those projects are gonna have energy storage and I'm wondering if it's likely that, that use of the energy storage will be to charge exactly during those ten am hours so that they, they designed to export during those peak hours more if once we take into account the actual project. 448 Sky Stanfield 01:59:23.084 --> 01:59:33.824 Behavior in terms of when they'll want to charge the systems and just charge it that might actually result in greater value during the peak hours. Does that make sense? 449 Younes, Amin 01:59:35.474 --> 01:59:43.514 Yeah, I think I understood that reminded me that this is probably another point where I didn't choose the best possible wording on this slide. I don't. 450 Younes, Amin 01:59:44.294 --> 02:00:05.144 It's not the case that LGB doesn't unlock the valuable hours. It's just the case that [...] isn't locking unlocking specifically the valuable hours and I was looking at the average, so it could be that it seems likely to me like I can't prove it because I didn't do that analysis since you're unlocking that forty- nine PM window if you have storage, you're going to export it there and your actual project average value. 451 Younes, Amin 02:00:05.204 --> 02:00:26.324 You'd go up if you were simply exporting all the values that were available with, uh, you know, like a natural gas kind of engine that's exporting all values. You wouldn't see your average value out, but before, yeah, solar, plus storage project. I think it could end up seeing [...]. Raise the average value of the energy and that's actually possible to analyze, but I think that my, my. 452 Younes, Amin 02:00:26.564 --> 02:00:32.594 Contribution to this effort has reached the maximum so I will probably not be doing any more of that analysis. 453 Sky Stanfield 02:00:32.894 --> 02:00:47.474 Right, well that's fine. I just, that's what I was thinking. I think it's an important element, like what you've done here is super helpful in terms of just kind of putting some numbers to this, and I think that one of the things I'm thinking about this in the context of like, what kind of profiles people are going to get to do. 454 Sky Stanfield 02:00:47.480 --> 02:01:08.595 You and one of the real values of not doing just a twelve month profile is to actually enable projects to take advantage of the storage so that it can, by limiting the expert capacity, basically result in more more energy during those peak hours, which is both that more beneficial for the system and aligns better. 455 Sky Stanfield 02:01:08.654 --> 02:01:29.774 Project economics, if we have a pricing structure that actually has time of use elements to it. Um, so I think that, that's useful. I agree that, um, speaking to your other questions at the end about the [...]. So, I mean, I think you've seen the, the, but we're just calling the anomalies. 456 Sky Stanfield 02:01:29.894 --> 02:01:50.924 Research that I recommended with [...] and had circulated via data request. Um, the, the observation what you were seeing in terms of the, particularly [...] system of having all of those up and downs and which would result in a lot of zero does reflect what we were seeing as well in this, in the sample theaters. 457 Sky Stanfield 02:01:50.954 --> 02:02:12.074 That we had looked at again, only a small sample, but it's not really something we're gonna be able to do in this docket per se, but I do think that, um, for the [...] staff and more broadly that those, this, the more we look at the [...] we are beginning to see things that warrant further understanding around. 458 Sky Stanfield 02:02:12.194 --> 02:02:33.194 The actual models within the, and the data that goes into them for the [...]. I still think overall we're seeing that there's value even with the current [...] as modeled to doing this, but we might have an opportunity to actually like get even more value if we figure out what's happening in terms of the modelling for those different. 459 Sky Stanfield 02:02:33.230 --> 02:02:39.195 Features are actually reflective of certain conditions or a quarter of the modeling or data inputs. 460 Younes, Amin 02:02:52.844 --> 02:03:01.214 Let's say Gary and Frank have their hands up. I don't know Gary, your request was not part of the chat, then go ahead. 461 gary holdsworth SDG&E 02:03:02.024 --> 02:03:08.474 Yeah, this is a comment. Um, I think we're all understanding. 462 gary holdsworth SDG&E 02:03:08.480 --> 02:03:29.625 From the two data sets already presented to confirms, what we suspect all along, we know that two hundred and eighty- eight, it's going to create more potential than twelve or, or one. I don't think that was ever really in doubt, but I think these, these data. 463 gary holdsworth SDG&E 02:03:29.744 --> 02:03:50.474 Such to show that and demonstrate there, what we will preferencing what we will be focusing on, in the [...] parts of the presentation. Is that what each Megawatt and addition is not necessarily created equal and it has risk associated with it and. 464 gary holdsworth SDG&E 02:03:50.779 --> 02:04:06.644 So the risk of criteria violations and so forth as well the [...] are going to be focusing on because we acknowledge that, that risk is not been discussed thus far and so we're going to focus on. 465 gary holdsworth SDG&E 02:04:08.175 --> 02:04:09.015 Box, I know. 466 Younes, Amin 02:04:11.744 --> 02:04:31.574 Yeah, absolutely I look forward to hearing the other side of the coin. I think when I first presented this, and I think my message has been that I have a way to assess the benefits. I'm not the expert on the risks. So I've been looking for the, I used to assess those risks and I see that those, I preview those slides and I'm very excited to. 467 Younes, Amin 02:04:31.754 --> 02:04:35.084 Kind of dig into those into, to learn more and to talk about those, um. 468 Younes, Amin 02:04:36.644 --> 02:04:56.954 I'll just reiterate though that these slides don't simply show that there's increased benefit they do show that they've increased benefit, but they do also quantify that benefit in terms of dollars and cents, and it's not just a matter of hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars, millions of dollars or even tens of millions of dollars. We're talking about potentially billions of dollars. 469 Younes, Amin 02:04:58.874 --> 02:05:16.964 Of, of energy value. I mean, you can't say, it's, it's purely like money in the bank because, you know, the cost of interconnection cost of, of actually building the resources is still there, but we're talking about kind of potential huge benefit. So I just wanted to reiterate that point that I think Frank has signed up as well. 470 McElvain, Frank 02:05:21.315 --> 02:05:26.775 Yeah, Francisco, could we go back one slide. Please, thank you. 471 McElvain, Frank 02:05:28.094 --> 02:05:42.554 So I've got a comment. Uh, I think the key takeaway, uh, I mean, is the column that says exports possible. Um, that is a lot of energy. 472 McElvain, Frank 02:05:43.694 --> 02:06:04.724 And the state is going to need that energy. We're going to have to make investments, we're going to have to use storage, but we can protect these circuits to do two way power flows. Um, we can utilize the, the infrastructure. 473 McElvain, Frank 02:06:04.755 --> 02:06:13.215 That's already there to capture most, if not all of this energy, if we wanted to. 474 McElvain, Frank 02:06:14.624 --> 02:06:35.384 Even use real time circuit ratings and do some creative things such as that, but this energy is needed by the state. Um, and right now there's talk about reaching out to neighboring states to get to import more power. 475 McElvain, Frank 02:06:36.044 --> 02:06:38.144 We can get a lot of it. 476 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:06:38.204 --> 02:06:38.654 Okay. 477 McElvain, Frank 02:06:38.864 --> 02:06:39.644 Right here. 478 McElvain, Frank 02:06:44.054 --> 02:06:57.914 What was anyway, that's, that's, that's what I have to say, and that's, that's where I, I would hope most of us could build some consensus to, to capture this, um. 479 McElvain, Frank 02:06:58.364 --> 02:06:59.864 This power and energy. 480 McElvain, Frank 02:07:01.214 --> 02:07:11.834 Risks, w- w- we can, we can address the risks and middle of mitigate the risks. we know how to do that. Um, but that's, that's what I have. 481 Younes, Amin 02:07:15.254 --> 02:07:15.884 Thanks, Frank. 482 Younes, Amin 02:07:18.164 --> 02:07:29.924 I guess, yeah, it's got to add a little bit to that too, you know, kind of theoretically, this is without any transmission and building a single transmission line. 483 Younes, Amin 02:07:32.474 --> 02:07:47.354 Some potential benefit to Michael's question. that's right, these dollar values or if you'd saturate every circuit across the IV territory, it is an annual number, but this is basically saying you could, if you saturated. 484 Younes, Amin 02:07:49.124 --> 02:08:04.784 [...] entire distribution system using flat values, the value of that energy generated in the Kaiser market would be eight hundred million dollars, if you did it with twelve value profiles, it'd be twenty- seven billion if you did it with two hundred eighty value profiles would be thirty- five million in the Kaiser market. 485 Younes, Amin 02:08:06.555 --> 02:08:27.135 And so I think that's kind of open to interpretation and kind of how you, how you, what influences you draw from that, but that's what is, that's how these numbers were determined. I think my goal also has a handout. So if you want to follow up on that, go ahead and then maybe adjusted this guy. I don't know the order. 486 Younes, Amin 02:08:27.140 --> 02:08:30.795 Or I guess I shouldn't be doing this. There should be energy division. 487 Michael Barigian SCE 02:08:32.295 --> 02:08:35.205 Yeah, I think, I think Justin was the for me if you want to go ahead Justin. 488 Regnier, Justin 02:08:35.595 --> 02:08:36.705 That's fine, but go ahead. 489 Michael Barigian SCE 02:08:37.575 --> 02:08:38.145 Okay. 490 Michael Barigian SCE 02:08:39.884 --> 02:09:00.944 Yeah, so thanks for touching on that. I mean, I guess the comment I wanted to make is that the [...], at least the [...] is it's mutually exclusive. So every node is analyzed in a vacuum so to fully realize these values in both energy delivery and dollar benefit. I think you've touched on it. I mean would require like. 491 Michael Barigian SCE 02:09:00.980 --> 02:09:15.075 The significant sub- transmission and, or transmission infrastructure upgrades upstream to be able to fully saturate the territory with the maximum LTP values that are shown in our [...], [...]. 492 Michael Barigian SCE 02:09:15.194 --> 02:09:36.224 Does not consider upstream impacts to the sub- transmission or transmission network. So if you were to connect the maximum amount on every circuit out of a distribution substation you'd likely be causing reversal at the substation there'll be substation upgrades and potentially overloads and either reconfiguration new build or upgrade on the upstream sub transmission could potentially transmit. 493 Michael Barigian SCE 02:09:36.285 --> 02:09:38.955 Great, so just wanted to kind of provide that comment. 494 Younes, Amin 02:09:42.165 --> 02:10:03.015 So just to clarify, I was only looking at one node per feeder, but I, I guess I'm not one hundred percent clear on to what degree the [...] prevents reverse power flows are limit through both power flows. Are you saying that there are multiple feeders going to the same substation. Once you load up one feeder. 495 Younes, Amin 02:10:03.104 --> 02:10:08.984 With the ours, the next view would have its limits reduced because there's a limited substation. Is that what you're saying? 496 Michael Barigian SCE 02:10:09.524 --> 02:10:24.014 So I think that's the reality. However, I don't know if that is fully reflected in the [...]. So each node is analyzed completely independent of what's going on on the adjacent cert gets fed from the same bus as the substation indefinitely. 497 Michael Barigian SCE 02:10:24.254 --> 02:10:28.304 That same substations that are served on that subject transmission network. In the case of [...]. 498 Regnier, Justin 02:10:31.304 --> 02:10:36.644 To rely upon diversity factors to, to kind of. 499 Regnier, Justin 02:10:38.354 --> 02:10:47.054 Get a utilization out of this, the substation that you wouldn't be able to get everybody was pushing on it all at the same time. Is that what you're saying? 500 Michael Barigian SCE 02:10:49.485 --> 02:11:05.715 From what I understand from that comment, I think I agree with that, but yeah, basically in my words, it would be, we look at each node on each circuit completely independently and then stress test it to the maximum amount of generation that it can host and then remove that and move to the next node independently. 501 Regnier, Justin 02:11:06.405 --> 02:11:09.285 Got it, I'm going to ask the [...]. 502 Regnier, Justin 02:11:09.314 --> 02:11:30.074 Used to formulate a reply to that question because it does have bearing on the benefit that's realizable. What I originally put my hand up to speak to is Frank Mix. I think a very valid point in terms of energy independence within the state and the column of the TARA one hours per year. 503 Regnier, Justin 02:11:31.124 --> 02:11:33.614 Being critical to that, um. 504 Regnier, Justin 02:11:34.904 --> 02:11:55.034 I think that is going to be a greater in greater consideration as we build out our electrification of everything. I think the more near term thing that pops for me is the Gigawatts. Um, so I do want to make sure that those. 505 Regnier, Justin 02:11:55.994 --> 02:12:00.404 Are in fact, reflected by, um. 506 Regnier, Justin 02:12:02.294 --> 02:12:22.604 Let me, let me backtrack my phrasing here. Not reflected bar. I think those are real. I think what it means discussed in terms of just taking notes out of a feeder and maximizing that not trying to maximize every single node simultaneously takes care of that. I think that those numbers are real and are moving. 507 Regnier, Justin 02:12:22.635 --> 02:12:30.615 Forward and it sounds like this is for these numbers here. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong or for each, I use entire service territory on the distribution side. 508 Younes, Amin 02:12:32.480 --> 02:12:35.385 My best estimate based on a sample size I have in the total number. 509 Regnier, Justin 02:12:36.645 --> 02:12:53.415 Okay, so I think, I think we would like to get from you if you can a, a description of how you did that because what we're doing is we're extrapolating off for limited information to the entire population, and I'm not saying that's an invalid approach. 510 Regnier, Justin 02:12:53.654 --> 02:13:01.904 But I think we do need to understand how that was done so that the commission can be considered. Um, so. 511 Regnier, Justin 02:13:03.224 --> 02:13:23.234 The very impressive numbers, I think Sky's point is a valid one that the energy values are likely to fluctuate with real world, um, charging and discharging behavior, but if we assume that the folks are profit, maximizing it seems like those [...]. 512 Regnier, Justin 02:13:23.265 --> 02:13:27.375 Lots of real do appreciate you putting those numbers together. 513 Younes, Amin 02:13:30.224 --> 02:13:31.664 Just to clarify a little bit. 514 Younes, Amin 02:13:33.135 --> 02:13:54.255 How I did the extrapolation? So I got a sample of circuits and I'll use, um, you know, they have limited availability and I don't know the reasons behind fully certainly not off the top of my head. The sample of circuit data they gave me, but then they also gave me an estimate of the number of circuits again. I don't know the source of that estimate, but I just simply multiplied the [...]. 515 Younes, Amin 02:13:54.855 --> 02:14:14.535 From the dataset by the ratio of total circuits, two circuit samples that I have, and the circuit samples are quite large very lighter than the other five hundred or more. So if they were a random sampling, you know, that inference is very good question. I think the potential is that seems. 516 Younes, Amin 02:14:15.434 --> 02:14:26.174 The [...] is not updated randomly. Those are not necessarily random sampling, but I don't really have a lot of insight to provide into that because, you know, those data would just give them to me by the. I would use. 517 Younes, Amin 02:14:28.214 --> 02:14:33.824 I hope that is helpful to you. Justin, I think with us guys been waiting patiently for a long time. 518 Sky Stanfield 02:14:37.964 --> 02:14:55.874 Thanks, I was just going to add one other element. I think we, we also need to be aware that these are the [...] values along the circuit That doesn't mean there's actually land and development and capability across, especially you see Hi, hi, [...] in. 519 Sky Stanfield 02:14:56.804 --> 02:15:15.854 More urban suburban areas where there's not going to be land availability or at a reasonable cost, at least for some of these. So these will have to be checked by a variety of realities, but I don't think that takes away from the fact that we can see that there is. 520 Sky Stanfield 02:15:17.835 --> 02:15:37.815 That the GP opens up potential to capture more of that we would otherwise, and with the development of pricing structures together, that's the best way for us to do that. Those pricing structures that are being created like through the community solar program won't be as. 521 Sky Stanfield 02:15:38.624 --> 02:15:58.934 We won't realize the benefit if we don't also align that a little bit with the interconnection process, what we're kind of trying to do here. So I think there's a lot of realities on the ground about where those projects can be built and taken into account that, you know, the substation impacts, but I do think that the, the big picture is still speaks to the fact that there is. 522 Sky Stanfield 02:16:00.044 --> 02:16:06.824 A fair bit of potential added value relative to a flat flat [...] or flat interconnection. 523 Younes, Amin 02:16:21.644 --> 02:16:22.904 Does anyone jump in again. 524 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:16:24.764 --> 02:16:25.814 Sorry, go ahead, Justin. 525 Regnier, Justin 02:16:27.524 --> 02:16:28.604 I think you're referring to. 526 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:16:30.374 --> 02:16:41.473 Well, I have some more general thoughts and this is not directed specifically what it means analysis necessarily, but we're talking about the value of the energy here and, um. 527 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:16:42.164 --> 02:16:59.353 And the sort of need for this. Um, and so if you look at [...], daily load curve, you know, there's several days out of the year where it's above forty thousand say we're approaching forty thousand, but most of the days of the year are sort of. 528 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:17:00.404 --> 02:17:21.314 Significantly less than that below. Thirty for peak loads. Um, so I guess I wonder how much of this is deployable in those, you know, approaching fifty gigawatt load scenarios to the extreme screaming peaks of the hot summers. Um. 529 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:17:21.553 --> 02:17:41.683 You know, I know that's not the analysis you did here. So I apologize, I'm also, I see here, you know, we're looking at [...] prices to evaluate the energy value and this looks to me like market participation essentially, and so I just have to say, you know, these. 530 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:17:42.884 --> 02:18:03.824 These projects are not going to be receiving [...] prices there. Uh, the current Scott alluded to this, the current term structure is a little bit, uh, is being developed I guess, and so, um, you know, it's neither here nor there, but these are just some thoughts. I don't think that the. 531 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:18:03.829 --> 02:18:15.164 Is people are- are that these customers are going to be reimbursed this value and they may be reimbursed considerably more. Um, so just want to put that on the. 532 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:18:16.518 --> 02:18:16.874 Out there. 533 Younes, Amin 02:18:18.284 --> 02:18:39.013 Yeah, those are good points. I can particularly kind of engage in the second one. The Kaiser market value here is not meant to suggest that this is the revenue that would be got by the people building these projects and you're also right to that there is certainly a concern about. 534 Younes, Amin 02:18:39.374 --> 02:18:45.044 You know, right now because he's always concerned about about that. So. 535 Younes, Amin 02:18:47.084 --> 02:19:05.564 At this point, I'm kind of been thinking about those as a separate issue. The compensation versus, uh, the, making the experts available, um, and this is just really trying to attempt to give give a number to talk about in terms of what is the value of the energy that could be posted. Um. 536 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:19:05.594 --> 02:19:07.244 Yeah, but I do think it's important, like. 537 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:19:07.279 --> 02:19:15.134 I'm curious what the, what the customer would be paid in his cases. I mean, showing them side by side would be interesting. 538 Younes, Amin 02:19:15.853 --> 02:19:28.334 Well, the [...] value is what the customer would be paid in after the ramp down period from them, if it were an amateur connection, which I guess this wouldn't be a nightmare. Yeah. 539 Younes, Amin 02:19:28.513 --> 02:19:34.544 It depends, right? I think on it on the ACC, gives a better. I think a better estimate of what the customer would be paid. 540 Sky Stanfield 02:19:35.234 --> 02:19:49.424 And this could be very well be, I mean, for the large, larger projects that would be the projects above one Megawatt. Um, yeah, and then similarly the, yeah, it's not decided, but the community solar program is. 541 Sky Stanfield 02:19:49.604 --> 02:19:53.174 We to also look at the CC and other elements. similarly, so. 542 Younes, Amin 02:19:55.724 --> 02:19:59.564 Well, there you go. Thank you, okay. now Justin's been waiting patiently for a long time. 543 Regnier, Justin 02:20:02.775 --> 02:20:22.005 Yeah, so just a few points on the topics brought up. I mean, I would note that, you know, when you add this up, it's kind of a wild amount of power and we're looking over fifty- five gigawatts. I mean, that's, that's a lot. Um, that's not all going to come on in your one. I think that. 544 Regnier, Justin 02:20:22.094 --> 02:20:43.124 The implementation time may be a bit of a benefit and these guys just because it'll allow folks to understand the ripple effects on sub- transmission transmission systems skies points around for quarter to twenty- two twenty- two implementation are noted, um, because there were. 545 Regnier, Justin 02:20:43.160 --> 02:21:04.305 Just pointed out that there are so many moving pieces to the energy evolution at this point. Trying to get them all locked down thankfully out of scope of this particular discussion. Um, Danny, many engineers have spoken to their partners about how the one thing engineers can't stand during the term. 546 Regnier, Justin 02:21:04.334 --> 02:21:25.364 No problems and these are nothing, but in determining problems, but we're trying to make them determine what the scope and the, I guess the last point that I would raise is that I think the [...] is reflecting a reality towards, towards Amon's question that when you are in a situation, when you've got, I think the screaming. 547 Regnier, Justin 02:21:25.484 --> 02:21:30.824 Load is what you said. Um, the, the, the, um. 548 Regnier, Justin 02:21:33.074 --> 02:21:49.874 The relief that can be provided by distributed generation is that it's maximum, so it may bear further consideration, but on first blush, it would seem that the greatest utility of this initial output would be one. we need at the most. 549 Regnier, Justin 02:21:53.084 --> 02:21:53.174 Real. 550 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:21:53.174 --> 02:22:05.174 Quick, I think the, the greatest utility would be definitely at that point, but the ability of the DVR to provide that is not the same, you know, these are solar resources. So I just. 551 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:22:06.554 --> 02:22:16.604 Most for the most part and the duration of his picks is three for six hours. So I think to validate that. 552 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:22:17.954 --> 02:22:20.594 Would require some more, some more work. 553 Regnier, Justin 02:22:22.215 --> 02:22:43.005 I think that's based on the assumption that these are, uh, DB storage coupled with PV with the duration long enough to be able to tell that, and that may be a bit of a optimistic assumption given the market. 554 Regnier, Justin 02:22:43.034 --> 02:22:48.254 That's likely to adopt it, but these are maximum potential buyers and the point is taken. 555 Younes, Amin 02:22:50.894 --> 02:23:03.764 Before we get your bank to clarify one thing though, I don't think solar straightforward. No storage would use limited generation profiles because they're going to already use the difficult PV profile, which gets them the same thing. 556 Younes, Amin 02:23:04.425 --> 02:23:13.215 Um, so yeah, I think we are talking about, you know, primarily solar plus storage, um, feel free to respond to that, but in the meantime, Frank, you're up. 557 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:23:13.635 --> 02:23:16.065 And then after Frank, we'll have to move on. 558 McElvain, Frank 02:23:17.445 --> 02:23:24.705 I was just going to observe that I don't understand all of the market, uh, UPS and downs and how they all apply here. 559 McElvain, Frank 02:23:25.334 --> 02:23:45.134 Distribution and transmission connected, but, uh, that's what markets do markets go up markets. go down markets respond to supply and demand. So what you have on this slide is just an indicator of what, Well, this is what the market looks like today. 560 McElvain, Frank 02:23:47.264 --> 02:23:48.464 The market will respond. 561 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:23:51.494 --> 02:23:55.934 Alright, and definitely the last comment on this before we move on. 562 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:23:58.575 --> 02:24:03.195 Sorry, I completely lost my call now so I can add it in the chat if needed. 563 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:24:04.215 --> 02:24:04.455 Oh. 564 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:24:04.485 --> 02:24:18.885 Yeah, the question was to, uh, I mean, real quick, um, so when you're looking at this, we're saying these are solar powered storage sites. Are we looking at what the storage is able to discharge or are we looking at the total discharge? 565 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:24:18.975 --> 02:24:21.615 Capacity of the plant or what are we looking at? 566 Younes, Amin 02:24:21.645 --> 02:24:40.005 Oh, these are essentially modeled like more like what a natural gas plan is, what a good operate continuously would would be, um, you know, the average power is probably, it's somewhere that's a five hour window. It's right for or forty- nine. Yeah, it's close to what you get is what you give us. 567 Younes, Amin 02:24:40.063 --> 02:25:01.153 Five hour duration storage will actually not necessarily even you wouldn't even necessarily need that much. So the total export per year is the physical everything that you could get. So essentially require, you know, ability to generate all hours, but the average car window is looking at more like. 568 Younes, Amin 02:25:01.214 --> 02:25:11.324 Four or five hour battery. I didn't model that specifically, I was just looking at what could be export it, basically based on the constraints of the distribution system and the point about not being sold with just that. 569 Younes, Amin 02:25:12.524 --> 02:25:19.214 I don't think solar is being the use case for [...]. It's all standalone. It's always being used case for [...], but I could be wrong about that. 570 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:25:20.204 --> 02:25:33.614 So real quick, the peak California [...] is that our end and twenty, which is after which is sunset. So if we're going to end the ramp, so. 571 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:25:33.645 --> 02:25:48.045 It's at about five o'clock, six o'clock, five o'clock. So I don't think we should be looking at what the plant can produce at x time. I think we should be looking at what the plant can produce when solar is approaching the minimum. 572 Eamon Hoffman ET 02:25:50.683 --> 02:25:56.023 If we're evaluating peak peak load performance value. 573 Younes, Amin 02:25:57.973 --> 02:26:11.023 Yeah, I agree with that. I'm not exactly sure how that relates to this analysis. This is just saying what the interconnects would allow it's independent of generation resource, but it is consistent. I would say with like a four to five dollars battery. 574 Younes, Amin 02:26:11.924 --> 02:26:13.724 Generally, during that full rack period. 575 Younes, Amin 02:26:17.084 --> 02:26:19.844 We can take this offline though. I think I'm happy to. 576 Younes, Amin 02:26:21.614 --> 02:26:23.654 Not go any further overtime than I already have. 577 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:26:46.124 --> 02:26:49.874 I'm sorry Alex she'll be speaking for PG E. 578 Alex Mwaura PG&E 02:26:53.414 --> 02:26:57.164 No, I think we'll go to Michael and then side. 579 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:26:57.584 --> 02:27:01.034 Alright, so let's move the slide back to the next presentation. 580 Michael Barigian SCE 02:27:03.734 --> 02:27:13.724 Yeah, so our order kind of got the flow that we had planned kind of a little bit out of order now. So the deck that we actually want to bring up first if possible is. 581 Michael Barigian SCE 02:27:13.755 --> 02:27:14.685 Number seven. 582 Michael Barigian SCE 02:27:16.934 --> 02:27:24.554 We wanted to jump just to slide twenty- three because we thought [...] analysis was going to follow the joint [...], but there's okay. 583 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:27:24.554 --> 02:27:24.884 That. 584 Michael Barigian SCE 02:27:24.884 --> 02:27:25.154 Was. 585 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:27:25.154 --> 02:27:33.554 unclear, but okay, so we have to go forward to the next slide deck. Francisco. 586 Michael Barigian SCE 02:27:35.144 --> 02:27:37.694 Number seven is the one we're looking for slide twenty. 587 Michael Barigian SCE 02:27:37.725 --> 02:27:39.465 Three on deck number seven. 588 Francisco, AudioVisual Support 02:27:42.254 --> 02:27:43.034 I'm getting there. 589 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:28:22.244 --> 02:28:23.984 And you said what's like Michael. 590 Michael Barigian SCE 02:28:24.494 --> 02:28:39.734 Yeah, let's, let's, let's go to slide twenty- three please. That's the minimum we wanted to cover before we jump into the analysis. It's a very last slide. Yeah, so this is, this was intended to just be a refresher on what was presented at [...] workshop. 591 Michael Barigian SCE 02:28:39.765 --> 02:29:00.855 Three and I believe at various smarter working group meetings, this was the slide that was presented at the same time that PG E- and [...] presented our proposed scope of additional [...] analysis to set up kind of the rough definition of the scope and the suggested interpretation of the results. So in general for both PG. 592 Michael Barigian SCE 02:29:01.035 --> 02:29:22.035 And [...] the objective was to compare the IC static grid for two time periods for at least one node on at least five different circuits and then quantify the frequency where the [...] in time period two would be less than the [...] time period one, which suggests that if you were to in. 593 Michael Barigian SCE 02:29:22.063 --> 02:29:42.823 Connect to project based on the values from time period, one, you would exceed those values and potentially cause a criteria violation by the time you get to the second year that follows also quantifying the severity or magnitude range suggested in kilowatt hours and then based on recommendations from stakeholders in the meetings. 594 Michael Barigian SCE 02:29:43.214 --> 02:30:04.244 Also, identify the limiting criteria that drove the minimum value in the GP profile and the most important part of this slide is, I think the interpretation of results because this is on which the [...] based our recommendations in the analysis that will follow this in our suggestion or proposal here was that if, as the number of limited generation profiles. 595 Michael Barigian SCE 02:30:04.454 --> 02:30:25.484 Use increases from twelve upward if the frequency or the maximum magnitude of violation increase than the [...] would maintain our position to utilize twelve unique limited generation profile values and I recognize that there were, there were some other thoughts on maybe the suggested interpretation of the results, but this. 596 Michael Barigian SCE 02:30:25.490 --> 02:30:32.025 Was the proposal that was presented on the record, So I wanted to bring this up just to refresh everyone before we go into PGDS analysis. 597 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:30:34.155 --> 02:30:40.815 Okay, thank you, Michael. So I know we're going back to the, uh, okay. All right, so Francisco. 598 Michael Barigian SCE 02:30:46.094 --> 02:30:50.384 Yeah, so to PG e- analysis, deck and site will be the speaker on that one. 599 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:30:52.304 --> 02:30:56.654 So it's basically the previous slide deck wherever we left off, Francisco. 600 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:31:37.814 --> 02:31:40.574 Perfect, thank you and site, Europe. 601 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:31:41.234 --> 02:31:54.314 Thank you, Jose, Francisco. Uh, hi Hello, everyone. Um, I'll be representing [...] for the [...] analysis part today. Um, I'm gonna present a summary of. 602 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:31:54.344 --> 02:31:58.694 Our, uh, analysis in ten twenty slides. So. 603 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:32:01.064 --> 02:32:20.984 It is a lot of data that we should review on [...]. So I asked the attendees to write down the questions for the end of the presentation so that we can go through all the slides and then if there are remaining questions because I expect a lot, we can be discussing the, at the end of the section. Okay, so, um. 604 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:32:22.575 --> 02:32:23.835 Next slide, please. 605 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:32:25.874 --> 02:32:46.394 Uh, here we present the summary of our findings and our recommendations [...] has performed some risk benefit analysis to compare benefits compare different HDPS profiles as well as discussed in the previous workshop. So, according to the. 606 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:32:46.490 --> 02:33:07.635 Data that we are going to discuss in next slides on previous discussion before we are running our eyes. I see analysis, um, in general, PGI maintains, uh, the joint [...] position for the twelve unique [...] values repeated twenty- four times each month to produce a twenty- eight profile. 607 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:33:08.355 --> 02:33:28.785 Molecule discussing approved previous slide also mentioned that the, we have studied multiple cases where the results are ranked based on the risk of violations to highlight the risk and benefits associated with each case for stakeholders review. So as we. 608 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:33:28.813 --> 02:33:49.933 No, there are two basically, well known correct statement. So first we can increase the OR export limits by using a more granular [...] profile. So the more granular, uh, granular we go, the more energy could be export it, so that in theory, the customers. 609 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:33:50.504 --> 02:34:11.084 Um, I mean the developers can benefit by connecting in the larger generator without triggering upgrade, uh, associated lead time and costs in this regard. We found that overall, um, about ten percent more energy could be exploited with two hundred and eighty- eight [...] compared to twelve [...]. 610 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:34:11.114 --> 02:34:32.234 So for us, um, second we will increase the risk of while violating of course is now safety design criteria or meaning both is on terrible by using a more granular [...]. That's the second statement that we all know that is true. So overall about forty percent more violations. 611 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:34:33.735 --> 02:34:53.385 Are all observed in our analysis with two hundred and eighty- eight [...] compared to twelve [...]? Also about thirty percent increasing. Is there an average magnitude of violations. So four hundred and eighty- eight [...] profile. We see like thirty percent increase in average magnitude. 612 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:34:53.415 --> 02:35:14.445 Oh, violation, generally what we observed was that the limiting criteria varies by node on granularity of HCP profile, but most common causes of violations are [...] respectively. So, so like voltage is the highest and then turn them off rotation doesn't. 613 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:35:14.563 --> 02:35:35.413 I mean, the most relevant in the equation, so in the following slides, we will attempt to answer all, um, answer the question, if we can quantify the risk and benefit associated with different energy piece, um, so that we can draw the reason why they see an order of the data. 614 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:35:36.044 --> 02:35:37.274 Next slide, please. 615 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:35:39.884 --> 02:35:59.654 So with that in mind, PG E has performed two types of analysis, uh, which will be presented in this workshop. The first one is, uh, system wide statistical analysis perform on around ten percent of, uh, PG and circuits or on three. 616 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:35:59.685 --> 02:36:20.805 Hundred and thirty- nine circuits. Meaning about one hundred and fifty- five thousand lines sections, which equates to, about forty- four million, like low line sixteen dollars. So these correspond to the circuits that are published in January, two thousand and twenty- three as well as January two thousand and twenty- two. So what we. 617 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:36:20.809 --> 02:36:41.774 This was, we looked into January two thousand and three publication batch. We compare it to January. twenty- two publication of batch, then we selected the circuits that select the [...] as well as long sections that are common between the two data sets are run or studies based on this population. 618 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:36:42.494 --> 02:37:03.104 So, again, this is about like forty- four million, six hundred dollars, the second or less is more is more detailed kind of study where we selected five line sections from five circuits. They'll say those areas are selected from five different regions in PG. 619 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:37:03.255 --> 02:37:24.195 Thirty and we calculated the magnitude, the frequency of violation for each hour for each of the [...] scenarios of the first year, and then compare it to two hundred and eighty- eight [...] of the second year. We consider a ten percent buffer for the generator that connects to the agree that first year. 620 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:37:24.944 --> 02:37:45.374 As it did happen in practice in the future, when the developers submit that application and then, um, the same threshold is not applied for the second year MVP. So the results us are basically calls everything closer to a real life situation. Um, so. 621 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:37:45.465 --> 02:38:05.205 What we did basically we tried to quantify the risks on one side and benefits on the, on the other side. So for benefits, we calculated the kilowatt hours delivered over the course of the year for each of the GP scenarios for risk, we calculated two parameters, first, the number of. 622 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:38:07.004 --> 02:38:26.354 Hours were two hundred and eight and GP off. Good period two is less than ninety percent of [...] scenario period. One and second, the magnitude of the difference between two hundred and eighty- eight [...] to ninety percent of the [...] scenario period. 623 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:38:27.794 --> 02:38:48.824 Also we will be providing the limiting criteria for each scenario. I should also know that, uh, we tried to query the month of [...] connected to different searches for a period long. I see Ron's versus period two IC runs, but unfortunately this, since. 624 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:38:48.860 --> 02:39:09.885 We do not have access to the entire historical data, specifically the Q generation that we used for running [...] for period long. Uh, we do not have data on whether the violations are due to reduction of load or additional generation. So, I mean, nevertheless, I think since. 625 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:39:10.009 --> 02:39:31.124 I see him with technology is the inputs. The assumptions are based on the net load seen at the monitoring devices, both, um, both situations have similar consequences where it creates risk and violations for power system operators, specifically when the data data set providing. 626 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:39:31.185 --> 02:39:40.485 Studies or perform on a statistically representative sample of these violations. Next slide, please. 627 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:39:42.494 --> 02:40:03.584 Thank you, so, um, as mentioned overall, these studies sixteen a limited generation profile scenarios, um, here in this slide we attempt to visualize how these [...] profiles are direct wise for the twenty- four hours of the day. 628 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:40:03.614 --> 02:40:24.734 So, um, I'd like to note that also in each scenario, the, the hours with the same color in this chart or is it the same color have the same [...] values, Meaning the minimum of the minimum of the [...] values for those hours is calculated to present the [...] values. 629 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:40:25.305 --> 02:40:45.855 So the two hundred and eighty- eight profile, which is our base case when is throughout the twenty- four hours. So as you can see it is represented, it'd be different colors from hour two hour. The next scenario is every two hours scenario where for example, for our zero. 630 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:40:45.890 --> 02:41:01.275 On the wall, the minimum is selected for these two hours and four hours, two and three, and the other minimum is used and I saw, so the same approach is used for the, every three hour scenario on other pieces. 631 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:41:02.894 --> 02:41:12.674 I should also highlight that, um, the scenarios that are followed by hourly contains the hourly [...]. 632 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:41:12.704 --> 02:41:33.674 GP values for the hours mentioned, um, constant values for the remaining hours. So, for example, for the eighteen to twenty- three hourly scenario, minimum constant value is assigned to hours zero to fifteen and it is variable between eighteen to twenty- three. 633 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:41:35.114 --> 02:41:54.974 Whereas the scenarios that are followed by fixed the profile is made up of two fixed values for the two intervals, for example, for the eighteen to twenty- three fix and minimum costs on values is assigned to hours is zero to fifteen. 634 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:41:56.265 --> 02:42:16.095 And another minimum costs on value. He's assigned four hours between eighteen to two thousand and twenty- three. So that's the difference between the fixed profile and on our profile, the scenarios name, twenty- four hour feast. The last one is. 635 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:42:16.664 --> 02:42:37.274 Actually already has proposed in the last workshop, meaning we have a twenty- four hour [...] profile. At least that, that was our understanding, but, um, so we basically, um, study this, this profile, so meaning we have a twenty- four hour GP profile, but the profile is not being changed for the, for. 636 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:42:37.304 --> 02:42:58.394 Month, so we have a twenty- four hour profile for a day, but, uh, this is going to be constant throughout the year for all the month. Uh, for example, for our zero, the minimum [...] values of all the twelve month for that [...] is used. So, so that's the way we calculated this, this. 637 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:42:59.084 --> 02:42:59.624 Um. 638 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:43:00.404 --> 02:43:19.904 Profile the last, but not least is the, um, twelve month fix or twelve [...] profile, which is the twelve twelve value MVP with minimum [...] values for each month. So this is the most common cause everything we know, and then we use this as a base case to. 639 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:43:21.015 --> 02:43:25.755 Run our statistical analysis comparison next slide, Please. 640 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:43:32.473 --> 02:43:34.063 Next next slide, please. 641 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:43:45.105 --> 02:43:49.335 Um, Jose, can you hear me? Oh, okay, thank you. 642 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:43:51.674 --> 02:44:11.744 Okay, this slide, um, I think this slide on the next slide are the most important slides to review. So, um, here we present a summary of our system white data analysis for about forty- four million section hours of PG E, [...] data. So in the table, on the. 643 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:44:11.774 --> 02:44:32.894 Right side the presented percentage in energy export, like the increase in percentage compared to the twelve month fixed [...] values, meaning that if we assume that the twelve month fixed [...] is our base case, how much more. 644 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:44:32.925 --> 02:44:54.045 Or energy we can export with more granular [...] profiles at the same time as we calculated the number of violations that happened four different scenarios. we were able to calculate the increasing risk of violations in percentage compared to twelve [...], meaning that if we assume that twelve months. 645 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:45:00.200 --> 02:45:20.595 For our [...] profiles. So, as we expected go into more granular [...] and it's maximum two thousand and eight to two hundred and eighty- eight LTP profile, the energy exported, um, use as, as much as it maximum compared to twelve [...] scenario. 646 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:45:21.824 --> 02:45:41.774 And about nine point four percent higher compared to our [...] profile, Also, the violations increased about forty percent in average, if you use the two hundred and eighty- eight LGB profile. So the first observation is that at least, um. 647 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:45:42.674 --> 02:46:03.644 As I mean was, uh, discussing what we see is that the, the benefits, meaning the amount of energy that could be exploited to the grid with two hundred and eighty- eight [...] profile is about like, ten percent, uh, when we used to eighty eight prefer. So the order of magnitude is about ten percent, not as much as like one. 648 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:46:03.649 --> 02:46:24.794 Hundred to one hundred percent more export, um, the violations or how we're about like, forty- percent higher, um, in the top left graph. Um, we sort of actually the scenarios based on violations. In other words, the- the risk, so the lowest [...]. 649 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:46:24.824 --> 02:46:45.944 Audio is a twenty- four hour fixed case. Uh, that is the one that basically Eric has proposed. Um, so this one, uh, uh, this, this one of the scenarios we will look in more detail in the next slide because we saw that we have low risk, so we're going to have a more deep dive. 650 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:46:46.275 --> 02:47:07.095 Into this scenario also overall, um, with the more granular [...] profile, um, as we know the risk will increases as you can see after the twelve, the GP profile, the next scenario scenarios are the two in terrible fixed. 651 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:47:07.124 --> 02:47:28.244 [...] profiles now. Um, so we named them eight hundred and twenty- three fifty- six hundred and twenty- one fix six thousand, two hundred and three weeks and every twelve hours. Those are like lowest risk after, after the twelve [...] profile. So this scenario is also intrude introduce around. 652 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:47:28.249 --> 02:47:49.304 On seven point, five percent more violations and are able to export around two point five percent more energy on average between these scenarios, the eighteen to two thousand and three fixed, a scenario produces. I mean, slightly higher energy and has a. 653 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:47:49.399 --> 02:48:09.494 Bit lower risk. So that is why we will be presenting some of some more details also on this specific scenario, that is the eighteen to two thousand and three phase. Um, this scenario has also the advantage of allowing more export during peak hours when degree that customers needed. 654 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:48:10.549 --> 02:48:18.284 As well as it kind of has a harmony with the time of use raised in California next slide, please. 655 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:48:23.985 --> 02:48:41.565 Okay, I think, um, here is the next morning, next important slide where we break down the criteria violations to different buckets for some of the selected or not scenarios. So as we discussed in previous slides base, uh, because based. 656 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:48:41.594 --> 02:49:02.714 Really it is too much data to digest, if you want to present the breakdown for all all of our sixteen scenarios and these cases basically are good representation of overall data. Um, the first scenario is a twelve MVP profile. We gonna discuss the other. 657 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:49:02.719 --> 02:49:23.684 One is the twelve hour fixed profile which Rick has proposed. The third one is that eighteen to twenty- three phase one. Uh, where we have a twenty- four hour profile for entire year two values per day per day for each month. So twenty- four values overall for the entire. 658 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:49:25.004 --> 02:49:44.234 Um, so one value for hours, zero to seventeen and the other value for hours eighteen to twenty- three. The last case is the two hundred and eight [...] profiles. So let's focus on the top chart. This chart represent the violation count of voltage. 659 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:49:45.404 --> 02:50:06.074 Protection buckets for all, um, for all of the lines section hours for the four scenarios that we just discussed. So generally as we discussed in the summary, the protection, uh, plays a minor role here, but thermal and voltage violations both represented great. 660 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:50:06.195 --> 02:50:27.165 Some of our overall content violations, it should be noted that, um, number of both worlds are thermal violation increased with more granular [...] profiles. What the count of voltage voltage violation increases more significantly more granular and GP values. 661 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:50:28.664 --> 02:50:48.434 Um, the chart in the bottom is focusing on section hours where there was not a violation for the two other [...] scenarios, but a new violation basically occurred moving to two hundred and eighty- eight [...], um, for the eighteen to twenty- three fixed or the two. 662 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:50:48.494 --> 02:51:09.584 For our [...], so the statistical population on their studies is limited to new violation. Considering the twelve [...] as a baseline. So as you can see the twelve twenty- four hour fixed, um, scenario results show that the mortgage violation cases. 663 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:51:09.619 --> 02:51:30.644 Decrease compared to the twelve, the GP profile and that is the reason we saw a lower risk in the previous slide for this case. So thermal, um, violations still increased, but voltage violation decreases, however, as mentioned, like terminal violation increase compared to. 664 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:51:31.305 --> 02:51:35.685 [...] profile, Um, next slide, please. 665 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:51:50.295 --> 02:51:51.855 Um, next slide, please. 666 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:51:55.274 --> 02:51:56.414 Oh, great, thank you. 667 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:51:58.244 --> 02:52:18.704 So now moving on to the detailed studies, um, basically we selected five random sections from five different searches in [...] territory for this reason, once once every kid is selected from five main regions, meaning North Coast, North Valley. 668 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:52:18.735 --> 02:52:30.495 Bay Area Software and Central Coast and Central Valley, and then five random line sections are selected from the circuits for studies next slide. Please. 669 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:52:33.164 --> 02:52:53.894 So for each case, three different charts are presented for, for this example, from North Coast Region, the average generation hosting capacity is presented in megawatt hours for the sixteen scenarios on the top left the maximum violation. 670 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:52:53.960 --> 02:53:15.105 [...] for each scenario as compared into the top right? Corner chart and then, uh, for all cases, the number of violations are compared in the right bottom quarter corner chart. So the numbers in, um, this graph are numbers of hours violation. 671 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:53:15.135 --> 02:53:36.255 So out of two hundred and eight hours. um, so this case, for example, shows, um, obviously, uh, with the, increasing the granularity of [...], the export energy has increased, and at the same time or a violation more violations are happening, mainly due. 672 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:53:36.259 --> 02:53:57.404 You two parallel constraints. in this case, the table selectively shows the difference between the three scenarios, specifically for the two hundred and eighty- eight [...] in comparison to twelve and GP, it shows about, um, sixty- three percent increase in maximal vials. 673 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:53:57.409 --> 02:54:18.554 [...] and more than three times three times the number of violations where whereas increases the energy exploited for about eleven percent. Um, next slide please. So, um, okay, so I will. 674 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:54:18.584 --> 02:54:39.704 Go through the rest of these slides faster because we don't have time, and at the same time, um, uh, there are probably a lot of questions from stakeholders, um, and these slides are somehow read repetitive slides. So this case, um, in North Valley region shows, No, no significant. 675 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:54:39.735 --> 02:55:00.675 Uh, benefits moving from twelve [...] to two hundred and eight in terms of energy export, this is about like three point, seven percent more energy at the same time, number of violations are not significant. Uh, so as you see, you can see number of violations are like six, seven, ten, like, not. 676 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:55:01.035 --> 02:55:18.045 Significant, although the maximum violation magnitude is changed significantly, but I mean, overall the, um, number of violations and the, um, energy increase shows that, um. 677 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:55:19.214 --> 02:55:32.654 Shows that the risk kind of correlates with rewards. So meaning, if we are willing to take more risk, we can export more energy. Uh, so there is basically no free lunch here. Um, next slide, please. 678 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:55:41.324 --> 02:55:42.854 Um, next slide, please. 679 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:55:45.404 --> 02:55:45.944 Oh, thank you. 680 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:55:47.985 --> 02:56:08.535 So the third example is from Bay Area Region where we can see difference in both magnitude on violation a number of violations due to voltage constraints. So here, uh, developer can export potentially sixteen percent more energy, B- two point, seven, five. 681 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:56:08.539 --> 02:56:19.124 Is higher my top magnitude of violations and about three to four times more number of violations. Uh, next slide, please. 682 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:56:21.974 --> 02:56:42.374 This example for represented in a case from South Bay Region, we twenty- one percent potential increase in energy export and also it will lead to both terminal voltage violation. This means about thirty- three percent increase in magnet, the violate. 683 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:56:42.379 --> 02:57:03.524 [...] and fifty percent increasing number of violations. Another thing to mention is that violations are almost happening all hours, except for eight hours out of two hundred and eight hours. Um, so this one has already severe violations for the twelve [...]. 684 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:57:03.555 --> 02:57:24.345 Profile, so even looking at it to a [...] profile, you can see, um, there are, there are already violations, so I mean, I mean the [...] profile is, uh, is not risk free [...]. You're already taking risk with the twelve AGP profile. 685 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:57:24.704 --> 02:57:25.874 Next slide, please. 686 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:57:27.854 --> 02:57:48.374 Um, examples [...] represent the case from Central Valley Region where the two hundred and eighty- eight [...] causes violations for all two hundred and eight dollars. This is, uh, about three to four times higher number of violations compared to twelve VP. It should be noted. 687 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:57:48.704 --> 02:58:09.794 The violations are all terrible in this case, and I'm a developer could export about nine percent more energy using the two hundred and eight profile compared to a twelve [...] profile. Alright, um, I think with this we. 688 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 02:58:09.824 --> 02:58:15.794 Conclude the [...] analysis and then we can open it up for questions. Thank you. 689 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 02:58:24.494 --> 02:58:25.124 Go ahead, Frank. 690 McElvain, Frank 02:58:28.994 --> 02:58:49.274 Yeah, thanks, sorry, thank you. I, I appreciate, uh, PG e- analysis. Um, I'm going to quote more byron here. He said the purpose of analysis is not computation. It's insight and I. 691 McElvain, Frank 02:58:49.304 --> 02:59:09.974 Think at least speaking for myself, I accept the fact that there's, there's increased risk here. I think the question is, how do we, how do we manage that risk to get to the benefits that we've seen from. 692 McElvain, Frank 02:59:10.784 --> 02:59:31.214 For instance, it means analysis, how do we get there? How do we do that? Um, a lot of voltage violations, no matter how we approach this. Uh, I think, I think the inverters have our potential ways to mitigate voltage violations. 693 McElvain, Frank 02:59:31.965 --> 02:59:46.755 Um, in an operating scenario equipment additions, uh, added infrastructure could unlock, um, a lot of that energy that, that is now locked. 694 McElvain, Frank 02:59:50.115 --> 02:59:55.215 Onto the, the extremes of the distribution system, um. 695 McElvain, Frank 02:59:57.614 --> 02:59:58.934 I'd like to know how we get there. 696 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:00:03.344 --> 03:00:22.214 Great question, alright, thank you. So I can take the first stab at it, but it's a very broad question. I, I think Alex and Michael and others from, um, value use can jump in anytime, so I think generally for, um. 697 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:00:22.340 --> 03:00:26.925 [...] we are less concerned with the voltage violations. So when I say we are not concerned, but. 698 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:00:29.174 --> 03:00:49.124 There are ways to mitigate it kind of as you can see in the analysis, we have also a huge risk of terminal violations, so we do wanna avoid those, um, violations at the same time. I think, um, there are. 699 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:00:49.129 --> 03:01:10.274 A lot of opportunities with the dems and other methodologies too as both for basically controls of smart inverters, other technologies to balance voltage on distribution network, but are you using, for example, for [...] there is, is not ready. 700 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:01:10.279 --> 03:01:17.594 [...] at the moment, we kind of propose a multiple stage, um. 701 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:01:18.764 --> 03:01:39.884 Approach to this. So we start with twelve [...] profiles now, and then in a year or two, we move to another kind of more granular [...] profile and then when we have them ready, we have more control over distribution system. So we can control these risks or time. We're not specific. 702 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:01:39.889 --> 03:01:56.384 [...] opposed to being more granular, but we do want to avoid the risks at this time because we don't have that much, uh, observe ability at the same time controls, um, or distribution system operations. 703 McElvain, Frank 03:02:02.774 --> 03:02:07.214 I don't know who's next to Sky? Were you next? I. 704 Sky Stanfield 03:02:07.214 --> 03:02:20.384 Don't know either, but I see myself, so I'm gonna jump in, um, just can, so I'm trying to think of like what I reckon presented at the beginning in terms of the block profile instead of. 705 Sky Stanfield 03:02:21.044 --> 03:02:33.464 The twenty- four hour or the fixed increments that you Ryan, do you have thoughts or observations on what you expect that would look like relative to the examples, you shared, um. 706 Sky Stanfield 03:02:35.144 --> 03:02:55.874 Seems like it would be somewhere in between, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts just reflecting on that as, as a, as a potential compromise, that again is designed around limiting, you know, not looking like the two hundred and eight profile, um, capturing enabling capturing of those peak periods for each. 707 Sky Stanfield 03:02:57.764 --> 03:03:04.844 Do you think that it would look similar to the eighty eight hundred and twenty- three fixed, or do you have any sense? 708 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:03:05.594 --> 03:03:17.174 I think that, I think it's a mix of the twenty- four hour fixed profile that we mentioned, like, uh, as proposed last. 709 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:03:17.504 --> 03:03:31.034 A workshop and under eighteen to twenty- three fix a scenario, it should be somewhere around that, but I mean, to answer your question, we should run the analysis and see what, um. 710 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:03:34.124 --> 03:03:41.264 But I mean, roughly, I think, I think that makes sense. It should be, it should be somewhere around those, those two profiles. 711 Sky Stanfield 03:03:42.404 --> 03:03:53.714 And then if the block profile wants to be somewhat customizable as we suggested, so it would have some parameters, like twenty- four total changes or something. 712 Sky Stanfield 03:03:53.895 --> 03:04:12.315 Designed around that specific [...] at that node. Um, is there any reason to think that would be more or create more or less fewer violations because it was being designed specifically to align with that circuits, um, conditions. 713 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:04:19.845 --> 03:04:21.165 I'm just thinking, uh. 714 Sky Stanfield 03:04:21.375 --> 03:04:26.175 Yeah, no, I think, but without running some scenarios, but I would assume. 715 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:04:26.175 --> 03:04:35.055 Yes, I think because it's more valuable from circuit circus, I mean, what my first reaction is that. 716 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:04:38.294 --> 03:04:57.284 We will have more like, so, so next year when we have next year, like with the refreshes of [...] studies, we see more changes, and then as Alex mentioned, I think that's all. 717 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:04:57.314 --> 03:05:18.434 So a concern that, um, how would we account for those like, um, changes in circuit, uh, for, for example, the eight hundred two hundred and twenty- three scenario we know that those, uh, like intervals or the times that we need energy for system. so. 718 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:05:18.439 --> 03:05:39.104 So, uh, like overall the, statistically, we can see that this is, this is the time we need energy. So I think personally, I'm more confident more comfortable with using a fixed for fixed scenario for all cases, then. 719 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:05:39.765 --> 03:05:44.295 Um, changing it for different circuits. 720 Sky Stanfield 03:05:45.075 --> 03:05:48.885 Why is that why would you be weren't comfortable with that? 721 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:05:51.044 --> 03:06:11.174 Because I mean, statistically system wide, what we see is like the eighteen to twenty- three works for most of the scenarios, then moving from one, one scenario to another one may create like, okay, so for the next, um, [...] Ron. 722 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:06:12.345 --> 03:06:33.165 See some condition Matt might change. So now we're having one sample data only we decided based on one sample, which is the same circuit only, and now the system conditions that has changed the other, the next month. So now. 723 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:06:33.824 --> 03:06:35.384 The, um. 724 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:06:38.474 --> 03:06:50.924 The generation is all the inventory is already connected. It has a set schedule, but that circuit condition has changed. So how do we wanna address that specific? 725 Sky Stanfield 03:06:52.664 --> 03:06:58.484 It doesn't seem to me like though that we know if the circuit condition, it seems. 726 Sky Stanfield 03:06:58.549 --> 03:07:19.514 From what we had looked at at the [...] profiles when we were just trying to understand what they look like, you get random, what seemingly random spikes one year, you had one day when someone either went offline or how a huge spike remember. We were looking at that data. There were some things in January where you suddenly had like one day or you just had a really high peak. 727 Sky Stanfield 03:07:19.815 --> 03:07:40.815 Don't necessarily correspond to the broader expected curves or pe. So what we're, when we're capturing these violations between year- to year, it's partly that there's always going to be those random events that we're one day's load just happens to look really differ. 728 Sky Stanfield 03:07:40.874 --> 03:08:01.994 And the way that I see a profile is twenty- four hour profiles developed kind of captures those and maybe maybe exposes them in particular, but I don't know that using a block profile. Makes it any more likely that those are going to be that they're going to occur in those hours per se because they don't necessarily. 729 Sky Stanfield 03:08:02.024 --> 03:08:22.214 Early always occurred during the peaks or whatever, um, but it would capture more value in terms of getting us towards those hours that match on that feeder and it's generalized characteristics. I think the way the twenty- four hour profile is structured and the [...] is a big limitation for our ability to get this right? Or that's optimize it for sure. 730 Sky Stanfield 03:08:23.264 --> 03:08:44.294 Anyway, I just wanted your thoughts. I think that, that it is likely to be somewhere in between and I do think we don't, I think I'm less inclined to want to set a fixed set of hours because Peter load profiles are different and depending on the percent of residential and commercial, et cetera and we should should allow that. 731 Sky Stanfield 03:08:44.324 --> 03:08:59.204 Because I don't think it corresponds to the likelihood of violations per se, if we set it in a fixed amount, that's actually more likely, I think then having it be a little more customized, but we haven't done any analysis either to know that. 732 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:09:03.045 --> 03:09:22.365 To conclude, I mean, for, for that specific scenario, I think we should run the same analysis and then see what data says. I mean, um, we expect that it is going to be close to these two scenarios, but, um, maybe. 733 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:09:22.394 --> 03:09:31.904 Run the same analysis have the risks and benefits again, compare those, and then see what the data says. 734 Sky Stanfield 03:09:32.084 --> 03:09:43.394 Yeah, I mean it would be a more difficult analysis to run, especially on a large number of features because you'd need to design the profile to be slightly customized to run it in separately. 735 Sky Stanfield 03:09:43.520 --> 03:09:46.785 [...] it would be a fair bit more labor. I think, um. 736 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:09:49.934 --> 03:09:51.944 Alright and Justin, I mean. 737 Regnier, Justin 03:09:55.844 --> 03:10:00.464 Um, thank you. No, I would, would that go, um. 738 Regnier, Justin 03:10:03.614 --> 03:10:22.964 Scott and [...], the running the block would make sense if we're going to run all of these and just see how it stacks up. I wanted to pivot back to the input that had been given in the chat by Francis and vice guy around voltage violations. 739 Regnier, Justin 03:10:23.024 --> 03:10:30.914 Ballpark curves, um, Michael as well. Maybe it just makes sense to read it. I'm sorry, um. 740 Regnier, Justin 03:10:33.824 --> 03:10:53.984 So reading the chat from Francis, first of all the voltage violations are the most common problems and vote bar and, or football function shouldn't be involved with more appropriate curves that are in rule twenty- one, there's a whole long discussion that falls under from Michael, where voltage violations may or may not occur. I find. 741 Regnier, Justin 03:10:54.045 --> 03:11:15.165 Merit in the suggestion and understanding not necessarily the volt, what, because that would definitely impact production and this is another step beyond, but I think an assessment of utilizing the full range of volt or settings that are available and [...]. 742 Regnier, Justin 03:11:15.194 --> 03:11:36.314 That are certified make sense, if we're seeing a bunch of multi- violations, similarly, we'd like to understand Michael's point, the voltage violations aren't necessarily on the node being a provider generation. We'd want to understand that the portions that. 743 Regnier, Justin 03:11:36.344 --> 03:11:57.434 Or not because to his point a, an inverter will not know what's going on in a different node of the circuit necessarily third, um, skies discussion around Thermal. This is Germane that if we're trying to read through it there, this, I'm sorry for. 744 Regnier, Justin 03:11:57.494 --> 03:12:17.684 Or more we would need to understand how long the violation would happen to understand its impacts in the sky statement. I find that to be a valid one, um, a minor excursion for a short amount of time as a, as a fundamentally different effect than a higher level excursion for a longer time matter, more time of the year. 745 Regnier, Justin 03:12:18.645 --> 03:12:39.735 So I think, I think more analysis is in order if we can't come to compromise between the utility and our utility parties on how we want to move forward with this, I wanted to make sure that we got on this record that those are three specific inquiries. We want to run down the duration and magnet. 746 Regnier, Justin 03:12:39.770 --> 03:13:00.885 To the thermal violations, the impact of utilizing the full volt or capabilities of a smart number on the voltage violations and an understanding of the proportion of voltage violations that are on the node under consideration versus adjacent nodes. So. 747 Regnier, Justin 03:13:00.944 --> 03:13:08.564 We can't come to compromise on that. Those are definitely, um, areas of analysis that we'll be requesting. Thank you. 748 Younes, Amin 03:13:15.134 --> 03:13:31.934 I don't, I don't want to go to a topic with my question. I think, um, so I'll leave it to Energy Division to, um, to tell me if it's out of scope for this discussion, but I mean, this really just gets me thinking of like the isn't the point of the [...] to understand what can be integrated. 749 Younes, Amin 03:13:31.939 --> 03:13:49.214 [...] you give us two hundred and eighty- eight hours, and if we use those, you know, there's a violation or there could be a violation next year. I mean, that really gets me asking the question of like, is there a fundamental problem and how that [...] is constructed right now. I mean, it should be. 750 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:13:50.270 --> 03:13:52.695 So, I mean, yeah, I was gonna say that side of the scope. 751 Younes, Amin 03:13:53.625 --> 03:13:54.015 Sure. 752 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:13:54.015 --> 03:13:55.905 Discussion, we're not here to discuss. 753 Younes, Amin 03:13:56.355 --> 03:13:56.835 Yes. 754 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:13:56.865 --> 03:14:01.125 Internet of [...], [...]. 755 Younes, Amin 03:14:01.635 --> 03:14:22.695 Sure to keep it in scope. I guess I would re- phrase the question as if the [...] were corrected. Would the [...] be okay with the two hundred and eighty- eight value profile. Uh, is there some fundamental reason that's unacceptable or is, or is that based on limitations? I see, I mean, maybe that, maybe that's actually not, um, a useful thing. 756 Younes, Amin 03:14:22.725 --> 03:14:25.695 No, but I mean, that's the direction that my thoughts taken at least. 757 Eamon Hoffman ET 03:14:26.535 --> 03:14:42.765 I just want to point out that. This is sort of a speculative question. Okay, hugely, speculative question and some of the questions that site has been asked are very speculative nature. I'm not a lot of them are included in the analysis that he ran. 758 Eamon Hoffman ET 03:14:44.054 --> 03:15:04.994 I just want to recap a little bit what the findings of this analysis basically represent, right? It analysis shows that as we take on more granular [...], there is a greater risk of these violations. Um, these violations. I'm sure they have definitions, um, and so they're. 759 Eamon Hoffman ET 03:15:05.024 --> 03:15:26.024 For, you know, what we, the other thing that the analysis shows is that the twenty- four hour profile is roughly comparable in risk to the twelve monthly profile. So there is an element of compromise with the stakeholders here. I think that it's misleading to say that there is not, um, if you know. 760 Eamon Hoffman ET 03:15:26.149 --> 03:15:47.294 We have characterized the risk, we've got, we've demonstrated, uh, the different kinds of risks, um, these risks are things that can be quantified and so, um, I think what the analysis shows is that there's a roughly increasing relationship with granularity and how much, uh, megawatts were. 761 Eamon Hoffman ET 03:15:47.300 --> 03:16:08.445 unlocking with how much risk we're taking of additional violations, right? That's clear that the more megawatts we're unlocking the more violations we're getting, I think Justin, your point about how this would be different if it were being mitigated, I mean, I think we're going to have to be mitigating even the baseline best case, twelve hour or two. 762 Eamon Hoffman ET 03:16:08.450 --> 03:16:29.565 [...], [...] profile. Um, but I do think that they're, you know, in good faith, they just put a pretty comprehensive analysis together, show him lots of different options here, and I think there is good data to review here and I don't think that many other questions directed at. So you'd had to do with this analysis. I think they had to do. 763 Eamon Hoffman ET 03:16:29.599 --> 03:16:50.444 Is what if we changed it or what if the conditions were different and so I hope that the data requests we're getting to run more analysis is put into writing please. um, cause we need very clear, uh, understanding of what conditions you do want us to evaluate, um. 764 Eamon Hoffman ET 03:16:50.749 --> 03:17:11.774 And then I think again, you know, we see here that there is, there is a pretty, you know, if the stakeholders now need to evaluate and the commission needs to evaluate, is there a more value in a twenty- four hour versus a twelve versus a monthly profile and, you know, the risks are on the record. I think. 765 Eamon Hoffman ET 03:17:12.134 --> 03:17:13.484 With this analysis, right? 766 Eamon Hoffman ET 03:17:14.954 --> 03:17:23.054 We don't need to argue over whether there's more risk cause I think we've showed that at least this analysis shows that there is. 767 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:17:26.805 --> 03:17:35.475 Right, we'll have Brian, David and then Justin, and then we'll probably have to move on to add a six presentation. 768 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:17:38.804 --> 03:17:39.074 Yeah. 769 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:17:40.154 --> 03:17:47.774 Few thoughts and perhaps open- ended questions and maybe there's something that somebody can answer there. Um. 770 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:17:48.614 --> 03:17:50.354 So I'll take them maybe one by one. 771 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:17:51.434 --> 03:18:12.224 I guess my overall impression here. Yes, it shows that there is more risk in terms of, you know, the values it's still a little bit hard to evaluate how large of a additional risk that is, but looking at some of the numbers. 772 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:18:13.094 --> 03:18:33.284 We'd probably have to dive into the details behind those numbers to understand that a little bit, but for example, on the example, North Valley Region, some of the worst case scenarios or maximum violation of three hundred and thirty- four kilowatts. So the question is that's three hundred and thirty- four kilowatts on. 773 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:18:34.724 --> 03:18:54.824 Related to what's the worst case. So, yeah, that's three hundred and thirty- four kilowatts in a scenario where the hosting capacity was only one Megawatt or less than a Megawatt or, you know, a lot of the scenarios that we've seen, which are five megawatts and above, So if it's, you know, where it's. 774 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:18:55.004 --> 03:19:14.924 Five megawatts and above, then I would expect that we're talking something much less than ten percent of the, the rating of the conductor or something like that, and so that's where it's, it's a little bit challenging just to say in terms of numbers, yes, there's violations. 775 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:19:16.095 --> 03:19:36.855 There's more violations, but it's still a little bit hard to suss out what the ramifications are, but it does the general pattern as I see, it actually seems to show that there's not a ton of deviation between the different methods, especially for the methods that are using twenty- four values. 776 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:19:37.424 --> 03:19:58.274 There you can kind of lump them into similar results, even though there might be more violations or the magnitude might be a bit higher compared to the twelve month value, It actually doesn't seem like there's a ton of deviation necessarily again, so. 777 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:19:58.305 --> 03:20:12.765 What dependent on what the, uh, uh, the values are behind numbers, but I mean, if you look at the lower left hand box for all of these examples, it seems like eighteen to twenty- six. 778 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:20:14.174 --> 03:20:32.264 Example, most of those numbers are somewhat comparable. Not knowing exactly what comfortable means, but it seems somewhat comparable to the twelve month value. Um, but that seems like that would unlock more and potentially be similar to that blocked style analysis that Cody, which Cory was showing. 779 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:20:34.939 --> 03:20:56.084 And in relation to that, I was just kind of curious and maybe I mean can jump in here as why the, the differences in energy values seem to be much lower than what it means analysis was showing. I didn't didn't catch exactly how that was constructed, but it seems as though. 780 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:20:56.145 --> 03:21:01.725 It's much lower benefit that has shown here for PG E- territory. I don't know if that's true or not. 781 Younes, Amin 03:21:04.334 --> 03:21:18.824 Yeah, I was curious about that too. I mean, we, I think they have different denominator, so they're not directly comparable, but the numbers looked a little bit smaller in this analysis. I don't really have any insight into why that would be w- w- we should have used essentially the same underlying data, so. 782 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:21:27.315 --> 03:21:36.645 Right, I don't think that's a question that can be answered Brian, unfortunately so David and Justin. 783 David Schiada 03:21:38.895 --> 03:21:46.305 Yeah, Dave try to see, I just would appreciate some clarification on expectations. 784 David Schiada 03:21:46.904 --> 03:21:49.814 Regarding it potential additional analysis. I think. 785 David Schiada 03:21:51.194 --> 03:22:11.234 Our understanding was that PG E and soon to be presented as he had completed the analysis that we committed to, and we're presenting it at this workshop, and then this workshop is the final workshop and we have a pretty aggressive schedule to get from here to May first with the advice letter. So. 786 David Schiada 03:22:12.525 --> 03:22:33.375 I don't think we were anticipating additional analysis or kind of taking what was presented here today and, and retooling, so just appreciate any expectations on, on additional analysis and if there is some additional analysis that is on the table between here and May first, I. 787 David Schiada 03:22:33.404 --> 03:22:37.394 We need to talk about that and perhaps that's at the end. So thanks. 788 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:22:40.875 --> 03:22:41.685 Justin go ahead. 789 Regnier, Justin 03:22:43.634 --> 03:22:46.184 Yeah, few words to, to. 790 Regnier, Justin 03:22:47.505 --> 03:23:08.565 Compromise and analysis. So, um, payments point is taken, Uh, did not mean to imply that there has not been compromise generally between parties and between utilities willingness to take on analysis these analysis. I don't see as being. 791 Regnier, Justin 03:23:08.864 --> 03:23:29.504 Florida golf, I think we're, we're all appreciative of the good work that's being done and appreciative of the magnitude of the work that's being done. This is frankly up a very large work product. I'm speaking to quantifying risk and risk is the, the. 792 Regnier, Justin 03:23:30.195 --> 03:23:50.895 Likelihood of an incident happening times the magnitude of its consequences. Um, the, the number of violations down here is an indication of the likelihood of an issue cropping up the maximum violation magnet. 793 Regnier, Justin 03:23:50.929 --> 03:24:12.074 [...] is a piece of information. I don't know that we understand so Brian [...], um, whether these violation magnitude are going to present an issue on the circuits being discussed or whether those can be mitigated and the, the need to. 794 Regnier, Justin 03:24:12.104 --> 03:24:33.194 Stand the ability to mitigate these with currently available mitigations is worth a discussion. Further analysis would be around understood procedurally the, the timing on getting anything done prior to your wife's letters, and may one is type a, would also throw out. 795 Regnier, Justin 03:24:33.255 --> 03:24:54.375 Or the, the commission that energy division reserves, right? Just to make a data request to clarify anything in an advice letter. I wouldn't, I wouldn't say necessarily that we're done with asking for information under which we might be able to understand the risks and the benefits and the various approaches being here or. 796 Regnier, Justin 03:24:54.404 --> 03:25:15.254 Being being put forward here to that though, um, if utility stakeholders, non- utility stakeholders can come together and discuss and come to a singular consensus around which, um. 797 Regnier, Justin 03:25:15.530 --> 03:25:36.675 Proposal or proposals because we've got a lot of them and all of the [...] analysis and also on all of the stakeholder proposals, so there's, I think we're going to agree that there is a greater number of possibilities being. 798 Regnier, Justin 03:25:36.679 --> 03:25:57.824 [...] put on the table then it is feasible to run down a deep understanding of whether first, first really the quantifiable risk to operations and equipment then going down that pathway would pose and second whether or not the. 799 Regnier, Justin 03:25:57.829 --> 03:26:18.974 The, um, mitigations that are, that are easily available within the smart or hardware that already exists would take care of them. So, I mean, I don't think I don't think we have the bandwidth to go down every single pathway, but if you and I are you stakeholders can come to consensus on which are the most like. 800 Regnier, Justin 03:26:19.005 --> 03:26:40.125 Clearly that reduces our computational load tremendously and make it easier for the commission to, to get behind the compromise agreement on which option would be the best one. I don't think we've got a. 801 Regnier, Justin 03:26:40.154 --> 03:26:42.794 Definitive understanding of. 802 Regnier, Justin 03:26:44.384 --> 03:27:01.184 The level of analysis and the regular of analysis that may still awareness. I think is dependent upon what level of compromise on which proposed, um. 803 Regnier, Justin 03:27:02.834 --> 03:27:08.384 Methodology for coming to a profiles is acceptable to you and not a stakeholder. 804 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:27:17.174 --> 03:27:22.154 Alright, thank you. Brian. Did you have your hand up or sorry from earlier. 805 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:27:23.234 --> 03:27:36.104 Oh, no, that's a new one. I was, I was just wondering, you know, given that this is a presentation of data, I'm wondering if there is the ability for the utilities to share the data behind the presentation. 806 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:27:36.555 --> 03:27:57.675 If there is there deeper data here where it just says maximum violation magnitude. Is there a database of all of the violations that, you know, could be crushed further looked at by stakeholders. I guess ideally it'd be nice to see like a whole, uh, scientific report on this. That has the. 807 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:27:57.704 --> 03:28:17.894 That I presented in a lot of different ways and that would take a lot of time, but if there's a way to share the data and if there is indeed more data than just these numbers that are presented here, perhaps we could do more of that analysis that would give us a better understanding of, of the different options. 808 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:28:28.395 --> 03:28:33.315 Thank you Brian. So I think that was the question for the utilities where they can share data or not. 809 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:28:33.675 --> 03:28:45.405 Yeah, so, um, this, aside from PGN we have, uh, our Excel spreadsheets from January, two thousand and twenty- three and January two thousand and twenty- two. So upon, I think open. 810 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:28:45.854 --> 03:28:48.914 Data request we can share that information. 811 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:28:52.964 --> 03:28:54.644 Do you mean the ACA data itself? 812 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:28:54.884 --> 03:29:05.954 Yes, it's the raw data. It's a, it's our Excel spreadsheets with two hundred and eight profiles from last year, and this year, that's what we used for this analysis. 813 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:29:08.474 --> 03:29:19.754 Do you have additional numbers in your analysis though as well, like, you know, like in, in the maximum maximum violation, magnitude I imagine you've got, you know. 814 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:29:20.444 --> 03:29:29.144 Those are magazines, so the, we have, so in the Excel spreadsheets, we have [...]. 815 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:29:29.354 --> 03:29:50.474 Values for two to eight hours. We have a voltage protection, Tim, Tim, about, uh, terminal limits and then we have it for two years, so we compared two years and then calculated violations based based on the raw data. So, so we can. 816 Saeed Jazebi - PG&E 03:29:50.505 --> 03:30:01.545 Share actually the raw data information on Excel spreadsheets and then you can have all the magnitude and everything calculated from there. 817 Brian Lydic - IREC 03:30:03.794 --> 03:30:10.724 Let me see. Okay, that may be useful if we can have the time, so we can chat more about that. Thanks. 818 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:30:11.624 --> 03:30:12.464 Alright, thank you. 819 Michael Barigian SCE 03:30:15.405 --> 03:30:20.085 Sorry, Jose, I just wanted to respond for [...] because I think that was to both [...] and [...]. 820 Michael Barigian SCE 03:30:20.115 --> 03:30:22.935 Jeannie, we also have the data and we can share it. 821 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:30:24.794 --> 03:30:34.664 Thank you, Michael. All right, so, uh, no more questions. Uh, let's move on to, uh, edit since presentation. 822 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:30:39.404 --> 03:30:40.484 And Michael go ahead. 823 Michael Barigian SCE 03:30:41.294 --> 03:30:52.094 Yes, thank you, Jose, Michael break in from [...] here before I get into this, Jose am I allowed to go all the way up to noon on this, or should I try to do a speed round? 824 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:30:52.844 --> 03:30:55.244 No, you, you were allowed, and that's what I'm saying. 825 Michael Barigian SCE 03:30:55.274 --> 03:30:57.794 Okay, alright, thanks. 826 Michael Barigian SCE 03:30:58.274 --> 03:31:19.304 We can go ahead and jump to the next slide here. So some of this, uh, I think, unfortunately we will seem a little bit redundant, but I think for the purposes of getting it on the record here, it's important for me to repeat it. So the scope of [...] additional limited generation profile analysis is shown on this slide apologies for the small text, but in step one we set out to select the circuit and any [...]. 827 Michael Barigian SCE 03:31:19.309 --> 03:31:40.454 [...] node on that circuit with a preference to select twelve or sixteen Katie circuits because those are the most common nominal distribution voltages across all of our distribution circuits and we sought to select circuits that represented geographic diversity potentially one from the San Joaquin Valley or metropolitan area postal at Valley and inland area. 828 Michael Barigian SCE 03:31:41.475 --> 03:32:01.605 Step two was to define the circuit load profile for two time periods, each twelve months in length. The first one ended up being defined as two thousand and twenty- one January through December and the second being two thousand and twenty- two January through December and we produced the circuit, the circuit load the entire circuit load five hundred and eighty- six load profile, which is very. 829 Michael Barigian SCE 03:32:01.634 --> 03:32:22.754 Influential input to the [...] for both of those time periods in step three. We, and this is not really a sequential step, but worth mentioning, we extracted some parameters based on discussions prior to performing this analysis around the nameplate amount of generation that connected to the subject circuit during time period to, to help care. 830 Michael Barigian SCE 03:32:22.784 --> 03:32:43.904 Your eyes if there is a difference in the [...] results from time period, one at a time period to how much of that could be attributed potentially to the addition of additional generation to that circuit from time period. One to time period two and then three B is the upstream and downstream conductor sizes and, and passes by. 831 Michael Barigian SCE 03:32:43.909 --> 03:33:05.054 [...] parameters three A- and [...] reported on each of the subsequent slides for each node step. Four was the real work here that was computing the [...] uniform generation static grade values, which required us to produce all of the limiting criteria, steady state voltage voltage variation, thermal protection to identify. 832 Michael Barigian SCE 03:33:05.084 --> 03:33:25.574 The coincident minimums of each of those limiting criteria, producing the IC, a uniform gen- static grid for both time periods. One and time periods, two time periods, one and two in step five. We then use those uniform generations dedicated great results for each time period to construct nine different profiles. 833 Michael Barigian SCE 03:33:26.385 --> 03:33:46.485 A being the two hundred and eight profile we've been discussing at length with no modification or averaging or minimums to the, to the [...] results except for multiplying it by ninety percent and then five, I mean, the twelve [...] profile taking the monthly minimums and then repeating them twenty- four times each month. 834 Michael Barigian SCE 03:33:47.359 --> 03:34:08.264 To produce it to a profile jumping back to [...] and then I'll go quickly through each of these profiles. The one hundred and forty- four profile was taking the minimum of the [...] value over every two hour window. Five C- nine hundred and six, our profile was the minimum over every three hour profile and you would probably. 835 Michael Barigian SCE 03:34:08.654 --> 03:34:28.874 Five D- to be over four hours, but five D is unique to eighty four point profile. I want to highlight is adopting not ninety percent [...] values from four zero PM to nine zero PM and then using the monthly minimum value for the other eighteen hours of each month. So you have the monthly minimum followed by the. 836 Michael Barigian SCE 03:34:30.014 --> 03:34:43.064 Four to nine zero PM. The actual ninety percent [...] values themselves with no modification minimum or averaging, and then you return back the monthly minimum for ten ten zero P. m- eleven, zero PM and midnight for each monthly profile. 837 Michael Barigian SCE 03:34:45.614 --> 03:34:58.064 Five e- the seventy- two hour profile is the minimum over every four hours over every six hours. g- over every eight hours, and then h- is over each twelve hour block for two values a day. 838 Michael Barigian SCE 03:34:59.595 --> 03:35:20.085 In step six, we start to compare the results for each profile, granularity twelve, twenty- four, thirty- six, forty- eight and so on, in terms of risk characterized by the count of hours, where the [...] profile or the [...] values for time period two are less than those in time period. One. 839 Michael Barigian SCE 03:35:20.474 --> 03:35:41.564 The [...] is the consequence consequence, the percent difference in magnitude difference on, on an hour by hour basis and also the limiting criteria that drove each value in each profile [...] is the benefit quantified as the, the energy and instantaneous power. 840 Michael Barigian SCE 03:35:42.554 --> 03:36:02.714 There is a correction here. There's a correction here. two, six, eight and six C- which I'll mentioned on the next slide, but at least for six, see we did this over the course of the two hundred and eight profile not extrapolated to an entire year four hundred and sixty. So we calculated again, the cumulative energy delivered for each pro. 841 Michael Barigian SCE 03:36:02.745 --> 03:36:23.865 File type over the two hundred and eight profile, not extrapolated to an eight hundred seven hundred and sixty, but making that comparison on a two hundred and eight basis should allow us to see the differences across since the basis is the same for each of them, and then step seven is kind of a process step- go back to the top and select your next note on your next circle. 842 Michael Barigian SCE 03:36:23.894 --> 03:36:25.904 But, and I repeat all the steps we covered. 843 Michael Barigian SCE 03:36:29.924 --> 03:36:31.634 Go ahead to move to slide two. 844 Michael Barigian SCE 03:36:33.739 --> 03:36:54.884 Okay, so again, apologies the error that I wanted to point out on this one is the risk here it says the count of hours where the year [...] value exceeded the coincidence year one [...] value. It's actually where the year to LTV value is less than the year one [...] value. This is a late addition to the deck and I did make a typo on that, but again, the risk is care. 845 Michael Barigian SCE 03:36:54.889 --> 03:37:16.004 Actor as the count of hours where the year to L- g. P- value is less than the year one [...] value. The consequence is severity or magnitude of the year too early [...] by seating year one, how much did it exceed it, and that's shown as a table and the bottom left of each of the slides for each node, the benefit as I mentioned quantified. 846 Michael Barigian SCE 03:37:16.125 --> 03:37:32.925 As the maximum instantaneous power delivered over the course of the [...] profile and then the cumulative energy over the two hundred and eighty- eight profile, not extrapolated to a full year. So, apologies for those mix- ups, but hopefully that, that's clear, and I'd be happy to make updates to these slides and share them. 847 Michael Barigian SCE 03:37:34.754 --> 03:37:55.034 I wanted to also define relevant [...] criteria. So this is not the full set of [...] criteria, but it is the criteria that showed up in the limiting components or the limiting factors for some of the note hours. So the steady state voltage is the amount of generation that can be installed without violating rule. Two plus or plus or minus five percent of nominal typically expresses. 848 Michael Barigian SCE 03:37:55.634 --> 03:38:16.664 One hundred and fourteen volts to one hundred and twenty- six volts and again, based on the conversation, we were having in the chat that is, that is looked at for anywhere on the circuit. So if you interconnected generator at a certain node and that causes a voltage at another node piece of equipment or line section to exceed rule two, then that would be the limit for. 849 Michael Barigian SCE 03:38:16.694 --> 03:38:37.814 You're [...] at that node for steady state voltage voltage variation, also known as voltage fluctuation is the amount of generation that can be installed without causing a three percent variation in voltage. What does that mean? Well, you, if you look at the voltage at that node before you connect the generator. 850 Michael Barigian SCE 03:38:38.534 --> 03:38:57.974 And then compare it to the voltage after you connect the generator. Was there a variation of three percent or more, even if you are still within rule two, that is what voltage variation seeks to identify thermal is amount of generation can be installed without causing any thermal overloads anywhere in the system. 851 Michael Barigian SCE 03:39:00.915 --> 03:39:01.755 Next slide, please. 852 Michael Barigian SCE 03:39:06.075 --> 03:39:24.285 Alright, so here's our thirty thousand foot summary, uh, consistent with PG E [...] maintains the joint out of your recommendation to use twelve unique LTV values, which are the monthly minimums repeated twenty- four times each month to produce eight hundred and eighty- eight profile. What we saw in the analysis of five nodes. 853 Michael Barigian SCE 03:39:24.349 --> 03:39:45.494 Was that from a risk standpoint for four out of those five nodes we saw a higher risk of causing an unexpected criteria violation for all profiles with more than twelve LGB values. There was one node, this is the terminal specified here on the Pesos circuit that had a slightly lower risk associated with an eighty four point profile. We believe that. 854 Michael Barigian SCE 03:39:45.524 --> 03:39:55.574 That is due to one zero that occurred in the [...] results and the [...] results themselves are plotted on the following sites as well. 855 Michael Barigian SCE 03:39:57.255 --> 03:40:17.925 From a consequence standpoint, again, the severity of, of differences from year- to year one in all cases, the severity increase as a number of [...] values increased and to further quantify that when we're considering nodes that had one or more zeros in the results, we saw up to twenty five times increase that was observed on the. 856 Michael Barigian SCE 03:40:17.929 --> 03:40:38.744 The box site, I believe it's pronounced. No, that's specified in that sub- bullet and then if we say, well [...], there may be impacting that or overinflated that consequence difference, not considering the nodes that had zeros or excluding the nodes that had zeros in their results on the Judson terminal. We saw double. 857 Michael Barigian SCE 03:40:39.164 --> 03:41:00.194 doubling the increase on that second symbol there and we'll go into those on the subsequent slides as well, and I'm, I'm sure to nobody's surprised at this point based on all the analysis that's been performed. We saw the peak instantaneous power and cumulative energy increase as the number of [...] is increased. So the benefit does increase as far as limiting crime. 858 Michael Barigian SCE 03:41:00.230 --> 03:41:20.235 [...], it varies by node and by number of LGB values, there is some consistency, we'll see when we jump into the detailed data, but voltage variation again, that three percent delta maximum three percent, delta and Thermal were the most common limiting criteria observed across the five nodes. next slide, please. 859 Michael Barigian SCE 03:41:22.064 --> 03:41:42.434 And at this point we're going to jump into the data. So this is very detailed. I'll do my best to explain every element on these slides because there's a lot here. So in the top left corner, we have the circuit name, the terminal ID, the remote ID, the substation, the system, and the region in the table next to that with two. 860 Michael Barigian SCE 03:41:42.795 --> 03:42:03.675 We have the total [...] by count and aggregate nameplate amount on the circuit today. Reflected in the model as of today. As of the time of analysis and then below that we have how much connected just in time period to. So, in this case, there's two hundred and sixty- four generators, totally one point, five megawatts of generating capacity. 861 Michael Barigian SCE 03:42:03.704 --> 03:42:24.824 On the circuit, but in time period, two forty- five generators connected amounting to two hundred and eighty three kilowatts, the upstream conductor type and then pass it is to the right at the top, right? In this case upstream at seven hundred [...], which is an underground conductor at five hundred and fifty- nine amps, and then the downstream is six hundred fifty- three, [...] and overhead can. 862 Michael Barigian SCE 03:42:24.854 --> 03:42:28.334 Doctor rated with a very generous nine hundred and twenty- s. 863 Michael Barigian SCE 03:42:30.855 --> 03:42:51.615 Starting with the line chart and left, this is what I'm calling The risk profile. Please note for all three of these line charts. There is a triangle plotted on the first vertical line, which represents the data point for the eighty four point profile. Remember, this is the one that accepted ninety percent [...] values. 864 Michael Barigian SCE 03:42:51.619 --> 03:43:12.704 From four zero PM to nine zero PM that methodology was different than the, than the minimum hourly multi- hour minimums that we took for the remaining profiles and it looked a little funny when we were charging it in numerical order with the rest. So we decided to plot it by itself on the left as a triangle. The, in the risk. 865 Michael Barigian SCE 03:43:12.914 --> 03:43:33.914 Out and actually, across all three of these charts, the x axis is the number of values and the [...] profile, the y- axis varies. So in the risk profile, the y axis is the count of values where year two was less than year one. So you only see one line for that because it is a comparison of the two years in the middle chart, you'll. 866 Michael Barigian SCE 03:43:34.484 --> 03:43:54.134 And the chart on the right, which are the benefit in terms of maximum instantaneous power and benefit in terms of kilowatt hours of energy delivered over the course of the two hundred and eight profile in the middle chart. You'll see the two lines red being year one's results, Blue being your one. I'm sorry, Red is your two's results and Blue is here for one's results? 867 Michael Barigian SCE 03:43:55.214 --> 03:44:16.154 Y- axis is in kilowatts and then on the far, right, you have again, year one is in blue year two is in red and energy is the y- axis in kilowatt hours, the table and the bottom left represents the consequence again, starting with eighty four and then decreasing the number of LGB values from two. 868 Michael Barigian SCE 03:44:16.335 --> 03:44:37.365 Eight to twelve, you see the maximum deviation for maximum coincident deviation comparing year to tier one in terms of kilowatts, so looking at now the data itself, we can see the conclusion kind of draw here is that you see the risk profile. 869 Michael Barigian SCE 03:44:37.544 --> 03:44:58.514 Generally increasing as you go from twelve to two hundred and eighty values with the eighty- four point profile being somewhere between the risk of eight hundred and four- point profile, any thirty- six point profile from a benefits standpoint. Let me know if there's any actually for benefit and energy. Let me know if there's any questions or some. 870 Michael Barigian SCE 03:44:58.519 --> 03:45:19.664 prizes here, but we see decreasing benefit from the power and energy standpoint in the middle chart on the right? It's kind of interesting to me that the eighty four point profile is somewhat in the middle from an overall energy delivery standpoint in the middle of the twelve to two hundred and eight profiles, but again, the overall trend is. 871 Michael Barigian SCE 03:45:19.694 --> 03:45:21.284 That it's declining. 872 Michael Barigian SCE 03:45:23.925 --> 03:45:45.045 The one more thing to mention here, the y- axis of the first chart will be, this have the same range on each slide from zero to three hundred, but the Y- axis for the middle and the right, most charts will vary based upon the data itself in the subsequent slides, and I think the last thing I'll mention on this slide is the consequence table at the bot. 873 Michael Barigian SCE 03:45:45.049 --> 03:46:00.014 Them, we see maximum magnitude difference of three hundred and sixty- six point four kilowatts. we're using a twelve point profile. Is the exact same risk for the twenty- four point profile? In the case of this node, but beyond that we see. 874 Michael Barigian SCE 03:46:02.055 --> 03:46:20.535 We see upwards of seven hundred and sixty- five over seven hundred and sixty- five kilowatts of difference as we move to, to eighty eight and interestingly enough the consequences exactly the same when looking at the eighty four point profile, so that tells me that the maximum difference happened between four zero PM at nine zero PM for this node. 875 Michael Barigian SCE 03:46:28.364 --> 03:46:29.774 Go ahead and go to the next slide. 876 Michael Barigian SCE 03:46:32.084 --> 03:46:52.724 Apologies for how small this is, I'm hoping folks can zoom in, on Zoom in, on this, on the PDF to see the better level of detail here, but the top left chart is the one hundred percent of [...]. So this is the actual results produced by the [...] itself, before we implement the ten percent buffer year, we. 877 Michael Barigian SCE 03:46:52.730 --> 03:47:13.875 One is shown in Blue and year two is shown in orange in the bottom left. we see the circuit load input profiles that were fed into both years analysis, you have Blue and orange representing year ones maximum and minimum load profiles respectively and then green and. 878 Michael Barigian SCE 03:47:13.904 --> 03:47:35.024 Red representing a year or two's maximum and minimum circuit load profiles respectively. The series of pie charts on the right again, apologies, we were encountering some issues with the color coding and the legend on this that we didn't have time to fully resolved, but you can see the annotation on the pie chart. T- h- correspond. 879 Michael Barigian SCE 03:47:35.085 --> 03:47:55.425 Into thermal in the center legend, indicates that regardless of the number of [...] profiles for this particular node thermal was always the limiting factor. One hundred percent of the time, and I should say each pie chart represents the different number of attribute values, the top left being two hundred and eighty- eight at the bottom, right. Being twelve. 880 Michael Barigian SCE 03:48:00.314 --> 03:48:00.974 Next slide. 881 Michael Barigian SCE 03:48:03.255 --> 03:48:24.375 So the subsequent slides are going to follow the same format, so I won't explain all of the header information unless there's questions or anything needs to be repeated, but this one was particularly interesting because we saw the thirty- six point profile when we saw a consistent trend from two thousand and twenty- four and thirty- six points, and then we saw a slight decrease. 882 Michael Barigian SCE 03:48:24.404 --> 03:48:45.524 For the forty- eight point profile in terms of the risk and then the eighty- four point, five profile is still higher than the twelve point protocol in terms of risk, all those slightly higher is still higher than the twelve point profile from a risk standpoint benefit follows the same characteristic in terms of power and energy is, is the prior node. 883 Michael Barigian SCE 03:48:46.455 --> 03:49:05.685 This one, however, is pretty interesting and in terms of the consequence, the consequence of twelve is, I mean, it's, it's not negligible. It's half a Megawatt five hundred and nine kilowatts and potential deviation from year- to year one for twelve months profile, but we see a fairly significant increase between twelve and twenty- four. 884 Michael Barigian SCE 03:49:06.794 --> 03:49:27.824 One thousand nine hundred and nine kilowatts to just about three thousand, seven hundred kilowatts, three point, seven megawatts for twenty- four and that risk is fairly consistent. again, it decreases kind of at one point between forty- eight and seventy- two, but we see it fairly. I would say in my mind consistent and quite a bit more severe consequence. 885 Michael Barigian SCE 03:49:27.854 --> 03:49:31.484 When you go above twelve LGB values, in the case of this node. 886 Michael Barigian SCE 03:49:35.804 --> 03:49:36.494 Next line. 887 Michael Barigian SCE 03:49:38.655 --> 03:49:58.845 So, a little bit more diversity in terms of the limiting criteria in this case and also to mention that you will see there are two zero are there. I'm sorry, there's one zero in the year one [...] profile. There is kind of a lower spike, in addition to the zero for the year one profile, but in year two, we. 888 Michael Barigian SCE 03:49:58.874 --> 03:50:19.994 Also, see one zero value. However, it occurs at a different at a different time in year two than it did in year one, but nevertheless the limiting criteria in this case is predominantly voltage variation for majority of the profiles for the twelve point profiles, we see a fifty fifty between voltage variation and thermal. 889 Michael Barigian SCE 03:50:20.654 --> 03:50:30.734 And then there's also some steady state voltage that makes its way into the limiting limiting criteria when we move from the twenty- four point profile to the two hundred and eight point profile. 890 Michael Barigian SCE 03:50:36.164 --> 03:50:36.884 Next slide. 891 Michael Barigian SCE 03:50:40.754 --> 03:50:59.474 Okay, this one is [...]. This is in our rules region. This was the anomaly in the sense that the eighty four point profile saw a lower risk. Again, I'm looking at the triangle plotted on the first vertical line in the first chart for eight hundred. 892 Michael Barigian SCE 03:50:59.480 --> 03:51:19.635 For that is ever so slightly less than the first, then the dot for twelve for the risk profile. So that was a bit of an inconsistent finding, but nevertheless, one worth noting here, the benefits following the same characteristics declining as a number of [...] values declines. 893 Michael Barigian SCE 03:51:20.654 --> 03:51:41.774 And this one, the consequence actually of the twelve and the eighty four is the same, just over one point, zero, five, five megawatts, but we do again, see an increase about three hundred kilowatt increase when you move to, from twelve to twenty- four and some of them are the same. 894 Michael Barigian SCE 03:51:41.780 --> 03:52:01.065 In forty- eight and seventy- two have the same consequence. I'm sorry, forty thousand seven hundred and ninety- six and rather one hundred and fifty- four hundred to eight. All have the same consequence, one thousand four, hundred nine hundred and twenty- eight kilowatts, which are all, I mean, they are higher than twelve twenty- four, thirty- six. 895 Michael Barigian SCE 03:52:05.534 --> 03:52:06.254 Next slide. 896 Michael Barigian SCE 03:52:10.364 --> 03:52:29.714 So, again, for this node, there was a one zero in year two in the orange chart at the top left one hundred [...] chart. Again, we're seeing voltage variation be the predominant limiting factor steady state voltage also plays a role here more so into the twelve point profile than the two hundred and. 897 Michael Barigian SCE 03:52:29.720 --> 03:52:30.555 [...] profile. 898 Michael Barigian SCE 03:52:34.425 --> 03:52:35.325 Next slide, please. 899 Michael Barigian SCE 03:52:39.404 --> 03:52:57.404 slalom, so this is an interesting one I believe this is up in the forest near by its name, maybe some areas where skiing or snow sports are done. It's peculiar in the sense that it has no generation on it. The. 900 Michael Barigian SCE 03:52:58.244 --> 03:53:18.914 The conductor sizes are pretty robust underground conductor sizes. One thousand and seven fifty [...], but again, similar characteristics, we see here from a benefits standpoint and the risk is in aligned with the, the other three nodes, except for the pay. So where the risk is higher for all except for twelve, I guess it's. 901 Michael Barigian SCE 03:53:19.124 --> 03:53:40.214 noting on this one that the risk appears to be equivalent for twelve and twenty- four LGB values from both the risk profile and the consequence standpoint and even thirty- six points in this case has the same consequence as twelve and twenty- four, which is in the table below. Seven hundred. 902 Michael Barigian SCE 03:53:40.220 --> 03:53:43.365 And eighty one point nine kilowatts, maximum difference. 903 Michael Barigian SCE 03:53:48.105 --> 03:53:48.915 Next slide. 904 Michael Barigian SCE 03:53:52.605 --> 03:54:10.575 The entirety of the different LGB profiles for this circuit were characterized by thermal limitations and noting the Y axis. Although I acknowledge it is incredibly small. This circuit has very high generation hosting capacity. I think at the bottom. 905 Michael Barigian SCE 03:54:11.415 --> 03:54:22.155 Range of the y- axis is fourteen megawatts in this case. So this is a pretty robust circuit from a generation standpoint generation hosting standpoint. 906 Michael Barigian SCE 03:54:26.085 --> 03:54:26.655 Next slide. 907 Michael Barigian SCE 03:54:29.474 --> 03:54:49.304 I believe this is our last one, which also has some kind of peculiarities in the risk profile. This is the box site sixteen KB, this is in our metropolitan area near say Long Beach area, generally speaking and the risk profile kind of bounce up and down on this one, but never the. 908 Michael Barigian SCE 03:54:49.334 --> 03:55:10.424 Less every number of [...] value is greater than twelve had a risk higher than that of twelve benefit from power and energy. again, it's pretty consistent the energy that's actually a nice smooth profile on this one more, so than the others consequence is the same for twelve and twenty- four, two hundred and fifty- six point, six kilowatts, but then we see a. 909 Michael Barigian SCE 03:55:10.484 --> 03:55:27.944 Really increase when we go from forty- eight to seventy to jumping from three hundred and forty- four point one kilowatts two over six megawatts, almost six and a half megawatts and that the risk. I'm sorry, the consequence is consistent for nine thousand, six hundred and forty- four hundred and eighty- eight. 910 Michael Barigian SCE 03:55:32.985 --> 03:55:33.705 Next slide. 911 Michael Barigian SCE 03:55:37.695 --> 03:55:56.985 So, again, the colors are a little misleading on this one because orange voltage variation is the predominant looming factor, but unfortunately it's shown in blue for the twelve to twenty- four, thirty- six and forty- eight profiles, and then for some reason, it turns to orange for the seventy- two, nine thousand, six hundred and forty- four and [...] profiles, but the bottom line is voltage variation is the [...]. 912 Michael Barigian SCE 03:55:56.990 --> 03:56:05.655 Minute limiting factor, regardless of the number of [...] values here, and we see steady state voltage also make an appearance for anything above seventy- two points. 913 Michael Barigian SCE 03:56:10.454 --> 03:56:29.294 Of note, also this, this note has a couple of zeros that occur in year two and I believe only one zero that occurs in year one. So that's why the initial thirty thousand foot summary at the beginning of this deck meet two conclusions one, which does include circuits. 914 Michael Barigian SCE 03:56:30.194 --> 03:56:32.744 And one that does not include circuits with zeros. 915 Michael Barigian SCE 03:56:37.844 --> 03:56:56.174 Yeah, good question. Justin, in the chat about the limiting factor charts for the eighty- four case since that profile did have a different methodology to construct it. It was not part of the process we use to automatically generate these, these pie charts that you see here, but I can certainly check with the. 916 Michael Barigian SCE 03:56:56.234 --> 03:57:04.334 In and evaluate the level of effort it would take to produce that pie chart. I think that would help produce a more complete picture here. 917 Michael Barigian SCE 03:57:09.584 --> 03:57:27.224 And I think this might be the last one, but let's check the next slide please. Yeah, so the only other material in this deck was for, if a question came up around the smart inverter functionality, what profiles being assumed that is included on the next slide, if there are any. 918 Michael Barigian SCE 03:57:27.230 --> 03:57:48.375 Any questions on that, But if not, yeah, I guess since it's here, I'll just cover it the chart on the top, right is the [...] that is currently assumed in [...] or existing and are [...] in sign. It corresponds to the table in the bottom, right, which I believe we know as part of the devices that are forty- eight twenty- four [...]. 919 Michael Barigian SCE 03:57:48.704 --> 03:58:09.404 Is obsolete and needs to be updated as part of these advice letters with the table in the bottom left, which shows different voltage values for the Q- two and Q three reactive set points. Those are also illustrated in the top left profile as the, to be full barker, if you will. 920 Michael Barigian SCE 03:58:10.005 --> 03:58:22.815 So I've already started some internal discussions around what modifications would be needed to adopt that new or implement that new protocol in our [...]. So I know it's a little bit out of scope, but the question came up in the past so I wanted to cover that. 921 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:58:23.205 --> 03:58:28.875 Okay, and Michael, can you confirm what advice letters were you speaking on that? These are going to be updated in. 922 Michael Barigian SCE 03:58:29.715 --> 03:58:30.435 Yeah, so. 923 Michael Barigian SCE 03:58:30.914 --> 03:58:37.904 Is specifically for [...], this was in our reply to Calsses protests of forty- eight, twenty- four, E. 924 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:58:38.924 --> 03:58:41.984 P. I, triple E- alignment. Okay, that's. 925 Michael Barigian SCE 03:58:41.984 --> 03:58:42.344 Correct. 926 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:58:42.794 --> 03:58:46.964 That's fine to make sure they're not included in the May first [...] advised. 927 Michael Barigian SCE 03:58:49.515 --> 03:58:49.995 Right? 928 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:58:50.115 --> 03:58:51.075 Yeah, all right. thank you. 929 Michael Barigian SCE 03:58:53.265 --> 03:58:54.765 That's it in terms of content. 930 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 03:58:56.234 --> 03:58:56.984 Question question. 931 Michael Barigian SCE 03:58:58.724 --> 03:58:59.384 Yes, to me. 932 Younes, Amin 03:59:00.224 --> 03:59:17.174 Yeah, I'll start by thanking you for that. It's, it's really excellent as was the last one too, which I did not acknowledge. So, and then the second thing I'll say is that I'm impressed by the eighty four point four, five personally looks like it captures a lot of the power expo. 933 Younes, Amin 03:59:17.209 --> 03:59:38.354 [...] and very little increase in risk. Um, I have kind of two pointed question, which is the first is alright guys it's really three. How could anything ever be lower risk than the twelve other than the twenty- four, which I understand it's different, but there was a slide, I think eight hundred and eighty. 934 Younes, Amin 03:59:38.415 --> 03:59:50.925 For which shows a lower risk than the twelve, which I can't see as possible and on five twelve the two hundred and eight was lower than one hundred and forty- four and others, which again, doesn't doesn't seem possible because it's. 935 Younes, Amin 03:59:52.514 --> 04:00:13.274 It could one hundred forty- four could never allow more capacity than the two hundred and eight, so how could you have more risk And then I was hoping you could dig into a little bit on some of those zeroes. You showed on slide seven thousand nine hundred and thirteen there were those points of zero integrating capacity in your estimation are those just like. 936 Younes, Amin 04:00:13.935 --> 04:00:17.565 Or are those an artifact that I say, like a kind of an error in the [...]. 937 Michael Barigian SCE 04:00:19.125 --> 04:00:34.755 Yeah, so really good questions and especially your first question is one that I shared when I first saw the data as well, that being, how can you have less risk for anything in greater than twelve by looking through the logic that was used and the raw data. 938 Michael Barigian SCE 04:00:34.785 --> 04:00:55.905 And reconstructing some of those profiles actually reconstructed it for. I think it was the box site was the one that looked a little counterintuitive and then visually counted the number of times that it was less. I can only conclude that it has to do with when the zeros occurred in that case and for how many hours you. 939 Michael Barigian SCE 04:00:55.934 --> 04:01:17.054 Extended that time window. So if there was a zero that was like the first hour of one profiles, multi- hour minimum that you're taking, but then it fell out of that window when you extended the range of that multi- hour window from say three to four hours and it fell into a different time window that the. 940 Michael Barigian SCE 04:01:17.294 --> 04:01:38.024 Account would be different for those number of hours. So that was the extent of the validation. I double checked, in that case that the logic was recreating the twelve twenty- four, thirty- six. So on profiles correctly and then I actually plotted them myself and visually inspected that it was counting the number of hours as well. So there is. 941 Michael Barigian SCE 04:01:38.714 --> 04:01:59.354 From that standpoint in terms of our analysis and how it counted it up, but in terms of being able to better articulate it, I wish I could offer more, but that's the extent of my understanding as far as the zeroes themselves in the [...] profiles. I didn't dive into models to bring up where did those arrows come from to see if that was a reason. 942 Michael Barigian SCE 04:01:59.595 --> 04:02:11.565 Non- convergence or some other limiting factor, but the underlying data is there, so I could identify for that zero for the zeros that occurred in each year. What was the limiting factor that drove those arrows? 943 Younes, Amin 04:02:16.484 --> 04:02:17.384 Thanks, that's my question. 944 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:02:21.044 --> 04:02:21.674 Go ahead, go ahead. 945 Sky Stanfield 04:02:26.054 --> 04:02:39.104 Yeah, thank you. And again, I appreciate the analysis and your detailed walk through of it again, going back to trying to think about where the compromise permit position is. 946 Sky Stanfield 04:02:40.424 --> 04:03:00.374 You showed a number of different features and they all are kind of different in some ways, but you can see that, that twenty- four hour and twelve points are the closest together on most of them with a very first one. I think is pretty far off, but I'm wondering again if asking you to speculate here, but if it's. 947 Sky Stanfield 04:03:01.815 --> 04:03:22.545 It's the, if twenty- four being a small number of variations is the critical piece or is it that it is the daily twenty- four hour profile. So, if we did a blocked profile that was essentially twenty- four different points versus the twenty- four hours of the day. Do you have a sense of whether we would see something can. 948 Sky Stanfield 04:03:22.574 --> 04:03:30.014 System where it's in the lower number of violations more closer to the twelve versus the two hundred and eighty s. 949 Michael Barigian SCE 04:03:31.425 --> 04:03:41.475 Yeah, it's a good question. I hesitate to kind of speculate on it though because I've already been kind of surprised by the results in some cases of this analysis. 950 Sky Stanfield 04:03:41.475 --> 04:03:41.835 Right? 951 Michael Barigian SCE 04:03:42.375 --> 04:03:47.145 Yeah, I would, I would have to kind of let the numbers speak for me in that case. 952 Sky Stanfield 04:03:47.235 --> 04:03:52.065 Okay, and one of the reasons I asked that too, is because as I think has been noted that they. 953 Sky Stanfield 04:03:52.334 --> 04:04:13.304 For our case is interesting in lots of ways and, and the block profile has some features that align with that as well in a sense of trying to limit the, capturing the peaks, but get, but not have as many variations overall, which I kind of feel like is what that eighty four profiles are doing. 954 Sky Stanfield 04:04:13.394 --> 04:04:14.234 In assets. 955 Michael Barigian SCE 04:04:23.624 --> 04:04:26.684 I took that as a comment. Let me know if there was a question in there that I missed. 956 Sky Stanfield 04:04:27.494 --> 04:04:38.714 Yeah, it was a comment flash, trying to solicit discussion to reach us to move afterwards a consensus, I guess we'll have that more or maybe move on at some point today. 957 Michael Barigian SCE 04:04:41.984 --> 04:04:42.614 Thanks guys. 958 Michael Barigian SCE 04:04:45.194 --> 04:04:48.434 Anything I'm missing in the chat. I have not caught up on that yet. 959 Michael Barigian SCE 04:04:58.335 --> 04:05:06.975 If nothing else, thanks for the opportunity to perform this analysis, I hope folks found it to be insightful and that'll pass it back to Jose. 960 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:05:07.335 --> 04:05:13.845 Alright, thank you, Michael. So I think we can actually break for lunch. 961 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:05:15.494 --> 04:05:22.574 And we will still have a half- hour lunch since it seems to be a very good time for the break. 962 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:05:25.695 --> 04:05:28.095 So I think we'll be back. 963 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:05:33.285 --> 04:05:40.365 Two thousand and fifteen PM. So our, Francisco, could you bring up slide decks? Sarah, please. 964 Francisco, AudioVisual Support 04:05:43.604 --> 04:05:44.264 Yes, I can. 965 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:05:44.774 --> 04:05:45.434 Alright, thank you. 966 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:05:52.845 --> 04:06:08.745 And as a reminder after the break is over, we will have about an hour and a half an hour and forty- five minutes to finish up including discussion on next steps. So. 967 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:06:08.954 --> 04:06:12.284 Again, please remember to keep all questions in the scope. 968 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:06:15.014 --> 04:06:18.554 So, all right, so we'll see everybody at twelve fifteen. 969 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:31:56.325 --> 04:31:58.995 Alright, and could we start recording again. 970 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:32:02.144 --> 04:32:03.254 Thank you, Francisco. 971 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:32:06.165 --> 04:32:08.745 And Michael, are you back? 972 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:32:10.034 --> 04:32:11.024 From the edison. 973 Michael Barigian SCE 04:32:13.154 --> 04:32:14.054 Yes, I'm back. 974 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:32:14.504 --> 04:32:18.494 Okay, and will you, you're going to be, will you be the main presenter or. 975 Michael Barigian SCE 04:32:19.154 --> 04:32:26.624 So we're going to jump around a little bit. We're going to start the [...] deck with Gary and then he'll hand it to Alex and then he'll hand it to me. 976 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:32:27.014 --> 04:32:28.544 Okay, so Gary, are you on? 977 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:32:31.305 --> 04:32:32.025 I am. 978 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:32:33.465 --> 04:32:35.415 All right, and Alex, are you on? 979 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:32:37.214 --> 04:32:42.224 Chapter shoving food down very limited time for lunch break. 980 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:32:47.714 --> 04:32:50.984 Have a good Friday to those who are celebrating today. 981 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:32:52.965 --> 04:33:04.664 So I'm representing San Diego gas electric today on some very narrow, say trivial, but non- controversial topics next slide. 982 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:33:11.445 --> 04:33:17.686 So this is on B one and this is just a change from our last. 983 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:33:20.443 --> 04:33:34.664 On this next slide, please, this was the background for me OneNote, basically using [...] data. So the next slide shows our new language. 984 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:33:36.885 --> 04:33:39.885 Just noting the change next slide, please. 985 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:33:43.244 --> 04:34:00.855 So now we're proposing an addition to section J- point five of the rule basically says that if they in mind is not available or customer ops out of telemetry or the point of common complaint will be required that producers express. 986 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:34:05.025 --> 04:34:08.234 Only thing I would add to that is, we would have. 987 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:34:09.674 --> 04:34:16.725 After the slide was finished, I realized we should say more customer ops out of [...] just to clarify. 988 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:34:22.154 --> 04:34:25.094 I don't think there's any questions on this, but there are. 989 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:34:34.305 --> 04:34:35.354 I do not see any. 990 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:34:38.055 --> 04:34:39.975 Users, so let's move on. 991 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:34:42.465 --> 04:34:44.385 This is where Alex is going to take care. 992 gary holdsworth SDG&E 04:34:46.484 --> 04:34:47.354 That wasn't hard. 993 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:34:49.273 --> 04:34:50.623 Thank you, Gary. Alex. 994 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:34:57.164 --> 04:35:13.064 Good afternoon everyone. So I'll be going over a presentation studying on slide number five, so as with Gary section, I, I'm hoping this is going to be less controversial, so we should be able to speak through these. 995 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:35:14.775 --> 04:35:16.545 The slide next slide, please. 996 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:35:18.740 --> 04:35:31.814 So this slide is, is something that we've, most of us have seen before it's just providing a background on topic [...]. So I don't think there's much to do here. We can move on to the next slide. 997 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:35:35.203 --> 04:35:53.984 As with the previous slide, this is also a repeat. This is a summary of the existing screen. I options in the current [...]. So we have eleven options that are existing. I don't believe there's any questions on this one there wasn't any before, but if. 998 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:35:54.016 --> 04:35:58.484 Anybody has a question. I'd be happy to go into more details on any of these options. 999 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:36:06.680 --> 04:36:07.664 Okay, next slide. please. 1000 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:36:10.664 --> 04:36:30.645 This is also a repeat of previous slides just to put it on the record, but this is the screen goes over the existing initial review screens these [...] and to the right of the screens, we've sort of gone over which of the screen. 1001 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:36:30.703 --> 04:36:51.764 We'll be looking will be using the template versus which ones will be using [...] values. So the main things to note is that screen D- we use maximum [...] value and we'll go over some additional details later screens f- through Edge, we'll use the template screens. Jake MK would use Max. 1002 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:36:52.004 --> 04:37:09.494 L- g. p- values L- we'll use an input and then screen em. We'll use the profile which is the actual individual or whatever the granularity that we agree on values for each hour. Any questions on this one? 1003 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:37:17.564 --> 04:37:19.305 Okay, next slide. please. 1004 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:37:22.363 --> 04:37:23.023 So. 1005 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:37:24.705 --> 04:37:43.994 And I should note also that on each of the slides, the text in red is the addition or the changes that we've, we're proposing from what we covered previously. So on this slide you can see on the screen and we've added nameplate, this is a result as a result of previous discussions that we have in the last workshop. 1006 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:37:45.615 --> 04:37:49.215 I use, we were proposing that if a project failed screen, m. 1007 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:37:51.045 --> 04:38:12.135 We would either give would give the project two options, they would either have to fix the [...] so that the [...] is below ninety percent of [...] profile or the project would have to withdraw and reapply it as a template project or with the proper [...]. So based on the discussions that we had last time. 1008 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:38:12.254 --> 04:38:15.225 We agreed that we probably should study these projects. 1009 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:38:16.453 --> 04:38:37.484 supplemental review, even the projects that fell on screen and so our proposal is to make this as much a streamlined process as possible is if a project submitted an [...], that was above or failed based on [...] that we would go to submit a review after giving the project, the developer chance to modify the. 1010 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:38:37.549 --> 04:38:44.533 [...] that we would study that in supplemental review that's specific to screen en, who would use the template value. 1011 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:38:54.373 --> 04:38:54.854 Quick question. 1012 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:38:54.914 --> 04:38:55.453 Sorry, go ahead. 1013 Sky Stanfield 04:38:57.014 --> 04:39:05.414 Yeah, Alex, I think I may need more explanation as to why you would use the nameplate value as opposed to the limited value. 1014 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:39:07.514 --> 04:39:13.004 Because sure this, this kind of goes back to a presentation that we made. 1015 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:39:14.533 --> 04:39:34.215 Sometime, I think it was two thousand and twenty- one, one of the [...] I think it was the eighteen th of February two thousand and twenty- one, and at that time we were proposing, essentially, the way we're looking at this is that if a customer is going to use [...], that the [...], the requirements that the profile is below ninety percent of [...] profile. 1016 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:39:35.385 --> 04:39:56.414 We cannot provide a profile that meets that requirement, then the project should not be studied in the [...] project at that point. so we already have a process in place, uh, believe screen n- right now has an option for projects that are using the template and then a product projects that are using typical. 1017 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:39:56.686 --> 04:40:17.054 Profile, so our proposal would be that if a project was PV, then I could see that being studied under typical PB profile, but if it was, you know, coupled with storage PV plus storage or something else, then it would be based on the template. So this is, I believe a compromise between saying. 1018 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:40:18.314 --> 04:40:38.594 Proposal profile that's doesn't meet the requirements then you have to redraw the project and reapply, we'll still provide developers an opportunity to fix that profile, but if you don't do, so within the amount of time then to make this process more streamlined, then to ensure that we're meeting deadlines where we just started the project. 1019 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:40:39.224 --> 04:40:40.604 Oh, typical profile. 1020 Sky Stanfield 04:40:41.414 --> 04:40:59.954 Okay, so, um, this doesn't get to the voltage consideration issue that I, that we, maybe you didn't talk about that a little later, um, that I'd raised which I wasn't sure if that's what you were trying to do and then separately. Can you say why you would study them a nameplate instead of just the Max. 1021 Sky Stanfield 04:40:59.984 --> 04:41:01.364 MHM [...]. 1022 Sky Stanfield 04:41:01.424 --> 04:41:08.234 Value or the, is it better to say the minimum l- g. p. 1023 Sky Stanfield 04:41:11.776 --> 04:41:30.044 I don't really think if a project like proposes an [...] and gets it wrong that I do think most of the time your doctor is going to cycle back. My bigger concern is actually the, like the voltage issue that are the smart inverter, both with regulation capabilities, but I'm not sure. 1024 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:41:32.026 --> 04:41:32.324 So. 1025 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:41:32.954 --> 04:41:53.534 I think that can address the voltages. So if we, even if we study the project and unemployed, we would still take the smart inviter settings into consideration. I think I mentioned this last time, so the way that we would do the analysis projects is we would enable this morning about our settings and all the existing generation will generate. 1026 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:41:54.104 --> 04:42:11.804 And then we would also enable the default smart inviter settings in the proposed project. So let me know if the, if the project, I mean, the project would have full benefit of the swiping broader functionality and there may be that there's no impact or there's no mitigations required. 1027 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:42:14.234 --> 04:42:15.314 Is that what you're asking? Sorry. 1028 Sky Stanfield 04:42:16.154 --> 04:42:34.424 I don't think so. I'm lost, so if you propose an [...] project and it is outside of the ninety percent of the [...] and the violations are voltage violations that the question we had this. 1029 Sky Stanfield 04:42:34.430 --> 04:42:55.574 [...] was whether there would be a way to confirm with one hundred and twenty- one already says in screen and which is that if there is a voltage violation that the utility will analyze that with the smart inverter functionality in screen add, um, and it doesn't make sense to say, well, we're going to study them as though they're producing all nameplate under. 1030 Sky Stanfield 04:42:55.604 --> 04:43:11.114 That analysis, they're not, they're still [...] prod. They're still proposing a limited generation profile that analysis would simply be our, those Icaay violations of voltage edge mitigated or not via the smart inverter functionality. 1031 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:43:13.244 --> 04:43:16.724 Yeah, so I think as we mentioned before. 1032 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:43:16.756 --> 04:43:32.324 The, that is the current ICAAY methodology for PG E does not take that into account and I would venture to say, I think based on what, you know, Justin's recommendation or Jose's recommendation, that is something that maybe can be addressed under the [...] proceeding. 1033 Sky Stanfield 04:43:32.356 --> 04:43:32.744 Okay. 1034 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:43:33.586 --> 04:43:34.036 Right, so. 1035 Sky Stanfield 04:43:34.064 --> 04:43:37.756 Have you read screen And recently would it be helpful for us to pull that? 1036 Sky Stanfield 04:43:37.904 --> 04:43:58.994 Up, because this is not a question about whether or not obviously the fact that the [...] doesn't analyze the smart importance is, is a problem that drives to the need for this analysis, but the screen and was written even for the flat profile projects using [...] to allow for that. 1037 Sky Stanfield 04:43:59.030 --> 04:44:20.174 [...] of the voltage. The potential for mitigations via the smart inverter capabilities and what I hear you saying if I understand correctly is that you are not planning on doing that for an [...] project. Despite the fact that it could potentially mitigate, and I think what we had. 1038 Sky Stanfield 04:44:20.204 --> 04:44:22.964 Talked about last time either remember this this week. 1039 Sky Stanfield 04:44:23.024 --> 04:44:43.814 The workshop last time we had talked about doing looking at the most limiting essentially looking at the ability for the project to mitigate at the most limiting, our, are the most extreme voltage violation. I guess is the way to say it, and I thought that was what you guys are going to take back and consider. 1040 Sky Stanfield 04:44:45.104 --> 04:45:05.144 Again, the baseline concern is that we have smarter vendors deployed both on the system as a whole, an individual project, deploying the smart inverter the [...] doesn't take into account the deployment on the whole, in your territory nor does the desk proposal allow any consideration of the ability of that smart inverter to. 1041 Sky Stanfield 04:45:05.324 --> 04:45:07.364 Mitigate the voltage considerations. 1042 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:45:09.974 --> 04:45:11.054 Fully understand. 1043 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:45:12.376 --> 04:45:33.464 Fairly aware of screen en and the requirements that, you know, put into [...] based on [...] projects and projects that are using typical preview profile [...] is not the same as what we were looking at when we came up with the screen and language. So I don't think there's anything that sort of starts from changing. 1044 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:45:33.524 --> 04:45:36.314 Language to feed what we're dealing with [...]. 1045 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:45:36.346 --> 04:45:57.346 Using a profile, it's not as easy to do a load flow based on a profile like it was using a single value. So that's the challenge, you know, these projects will be, most of them will be looked at, during fast track process. It's supposed to be fast, right? It's supposed to be fast and we don't want to... We don't want to create a scenario where we have projects that we're not meeting. 1046 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:45:57.764 --> 04:46:18.614 Term deadline, I think what we're proposing before was what we understood to be the most efficient process you propose a project with L. g. P- the requirements are pretty clear. It's supposed to be below ninety percent of our [...] profile, if it's not, it's not an [...] project anymore. This is supposed to be a. 1047 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:46:18.644 --> 04:46:27.284 compromised, we're not forcing customers to redraw the project. We will proceed with this study, but we're going to do, so in the most efficient way that we think is, you know. 1048 Sky Stanfield 04:46:28.606 --> 04:46:49.634 These are provided extra time and resources to conduct the supplemental review. There's a fee for that process and there was additional time provided for that process. There was not, this is not about efficiency. Are you meeting your deadlines? We're talking about you for complying with the actual supplemental review screens that are already there and conducting an analysis. 1049 Sky Stanfield 04:46:49.638 --> 04:47:10.784 Is the potential for the first party murders to mitigate voltage isolations. I'm not talking about and we talked about if you had to run a full power flow of every hour in the [...], that would be difficult and we agreed on that, but we think that there was a way to do that. That's a, that's a compromise on what you guys are saying is that we're just going to study and as though it's doing. 1050 Sky Stanfield 04:47:10.790 --> 04:47:31.934 Something that's not doing and not take into account any of the actuals motivator functionality. Um, you know, I think this is because the [...] doesn't model the smarter murders, which arguably you agreed, you would do that and you haven't incorporated that into your model and the individual projects have that ability we spent all these years we're. 1051 Sky Stanfield 04:47:31.964 --> 04:47:52.634 King on all these Martin burner things to just say, Well, we're just not going to consider them, especially in light of edits and data that we saw, which shows that those voltage is a really common criteria and there is a potential to mitigate that, I think all we're asking for here is that you do what essentially screening already. 1052 Sky Stanfield 04:47:53.384 --> 04:48:02.834 In there when we, that we implemented recently with the [...], which is allowing the consideration of the voltage mitigating capabilities of the inverters. 1053 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:48:04.214 --> 04:48:13.754 So I'll go first and let's see Michael has his hand up. So I don't think I'll just, this guy is that these languages screened and today that was created as a result of. 1054 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:48:14.266 --> 04:48:35.086 The existing study process or the existing user base user [...] for a single value or nameplate or preview profile [...] was not in the picture when we're making those discussions. So these whatever we were discussing today and the process that we've been going through part of it is to develop languages applicable to [...] project. So there isn't any thing in the tariff today. 1055 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:48:35.414 --> 04:48:39.224 That says how to analyze screen En when it comes to [...] projects. 1056 Sky Stanfield 04:48:39.254 --> 04:48:56.474 Right, okay, it sounds like we disagree and that we will have to protest and ask the commission whether they believe that the utility should have to account for the capabilities of smart and burners pretty sure after all this time that the commission kinda does think we should take this into account. Otherwise, why we've been spending. 1057 Sky Stanfield 04:48:56.654 --> 04:49:17.684 So many of you guys as ours on the smarter burners, like this is not a radical ask, it's already in the terrace for the regular ICAAY projects and it's illogical to say we're going to study nameplate that doesn't, you haven't explained any rationality to that. It's just sort of like, well, it's just a penalty to make them go out, which is fine. Like I said. 1058 Sky Stanfield 04:49:17.714 --> 04:49:35.894 I think most projects if they do that [...] will want to fit within the [...]. I think the only case where that's not the case is where they want to see if they can mitigate the voltage concerns and so it's saying, well we'll just study them as though they're doing something. They're not proposing to do that is a waste of everybody's time. 1059 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:49:36.404 --> 04:49:37.814 So to clarify. 1060 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:49:39.104 --> 04:49:59.924 We would take into account the voltage or this morning capabilities of the body in the study process, we do that today. We would continue to do that for [...] projects. The question of where the smart environment, especially [...] is included in [...]. That's a totally different question, and I agree with you, PG e does not do that today, but this is not the. 1061 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:49:59.990 --> 04:50:14.956 Forum to discuss that. What I'm saying is that if the project was started the [...] project, when we're doing the actual load flow possible study, we will take into account the VOLT, uh, volt, what calls for existing projects as well as the project that's been proposed. 1062 Sky Stanfield 04:50:15.044 --> 04:50:16.544 You will do that when will you do that? 1063 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:50:17.144 --> 04:50:18.914 During the study during the supplemental review. 1064 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:50:21.704 --> 04:50:29.594 So what we do is we would run Paul flow will we take whatever is existing would activate the cubs or the smart, [...]. 1065 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:50:29.654 --> 04:50:50.564 What, depending on the vintage of the invite or when it was connected. So if it was, if the inviter was required to have vault reactive pile priority or inviter was required to have Volkswagen, those were activated, there will be turned onto the model, they exist the new project that comes in would also have those default settings activated and we may even propose custom settings. 1066 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:50:50.774 --> 04:51:11.864 Like those would be to get the issue that's included in [...] forty- six or this working group reports though, right? So, so I'm not, so, so I think the only question is where the, where we are including these curves in [...], which we've already determined that PG does not do that, and I believe that if we're going to go down down that road, this should be done in a different. 1067 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:51:11.924 --> 04:51:28.154 All right, but I just want to show you that if we're looking at a project today, we do not ignore this modern project capabilities. We take those into account and those sometimes end up causing the project not to require any system upgrades because they need to get for voltage as you pointed out. 1068 Sky Stanfield 04:51:29.774 --> 04:51:33.044 Okay, so let me repeat this back because I think you were saying when I was. 1069 Sky Stanfield 04:51:33.074 --> 04:51:47.144 Um, but I, I'm understanding, so I propose an [...] project and it failed screen because it, the, it is outside of the [...]. 1070 Sky Stanfield 04:51:47.294 --> 04:52:08.294 Um, specifically with respect to one of the voltage criteria, then I go to screen or screen en and in the screen and you are going to evaluate the project as proposed to see whether the voltage, the smart inverter settings. 1071 Sky Stanfield 04:52:08.298 --> 04:52:14.444 [...] mitigate those voltage considerations as an L. G. P or nameplate. 1072 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:52:15.554 --> 04:52:16.004 nameplate. 1073 Sky Stanfield 04:52:16.304 --> 04:52:18.764 Yeah, okay, well that's not, that's a non- starter for us stuff. 1074 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:52:18.794 --> 04:52:28.514 Yeah, and it would be, we would, we would activate those settings for any project, right? And he doesn't have to be that the project only for the screen name, using, you know. 1075 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:52:29.956 --> 04:52:38.294 Wanted to retire was the one that failed or was the one that failed. We'd still activate settings for existing projects as well as the proposed projects. 1076 Sky Stanfield 04:52:38.294 --> 04:52:45.134 Yeah, I appreciate that. but the decrease, the crucial part is obviously, but it is proposing a profile, not that. 1077 Sky Stanfield 04:52:46.394 --> 04:53:06.764 At name point, um, you know, at least as I know, and I don't understand why you're why you would want it why you're not like, help me understand what your reasoning is and just have an opinion on this, and if I'm not understanding this, I don't see why, why, why w. 1078 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:53:06.764 --> 04:53:06.974 W. 1079 Sky Stanfield 04:53:06.974 --> 04:53:07.184 W. 1080 Sky Stanfield 04:53:08.444 --> 04:53:13.184 Why do you think this is beneficial or what why you would buy a project would want to do that? 1081 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 04:53:13.484 --> 04:53:21.824 Yeah, could we say for this conversation could we jump to slide eleven, please, because that's the proposed language. 1082 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:53:28.154 --> 04:53:45.554 Well, I can answer Scott this question, and then we can go through this. I think Michael had his hand up too. We probably want to talk about slide ten before this one, but Skype, so to answer your question, the reason why is because [...] is looking at the export, right? We're looking at the. 1083 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:53:45.590 --> 04:54:06.734 Potential export, so the way I'm thinking about this is, you may have a project that's really large, but only ends up resulting in a small amount of export power. So if we take that if we just take, if we just say the project's export and fifty kilowatts, for example, the fifty kilowatts is not really going to tell us if you're doing a power. 1084 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:54:06.766 --> 04:54:16.304 Flow, it's not really going to tell give you an accurate representation of what the impact is going to be, because if you're looking at just the amount of part is getting exploited. It doesn't really tell the whole story. 1085 Sky Stanfield 04:54:16.964 --> 04:54:27.644 Isn't the whole idea behind limiting experts that you, that you're able to control you mitigate voltage constraints, like, what are you saying? you're saying that like, the, that, when a project limits export it. 1086 Sky Stanfield 04:54:28.274 --> 04:54:48.914 That we'd agree to the other slides and generally that, that's why we've gone through all this with rigger with the inadvertent export evaluations and so on that limiting export can mitigate voltage considerations is not nameplate. It's not the same as nameplate and again, I'm not the engineer here, but I. 1087 Sky Stanfield 04:54:49.304 --> 04:55:04.454 It sounds to me like what you're saying is like a reverse of all the work we've been doing for years here about trying to allow projects to limit expert whether it's a profile or not because they can mitigate one of the ACA criteria violations. 1088 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:55:05.624 --> 04:55:10.184 I don't see it the same way if the project just propose a profile, that would be. 1089 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:55:10.364 --> 04:55:14.084 Nine ninety- percent of our [...] profile, then this issue is marked right. 1090 Sky Stanfield 04:55:16.304 --> 04:55:36.134 Yeah, but it also means that you're not taking into account the capabilities of the system, which the commission has spent many thousands of hours trying to make sure we did and, you know, you're, you're saying is we just don't really want to actually consider whether smart inverters do anything either in aggregate or in an individual case of the project. 1091 Sky Stanfield 04:55:37.456 --> 04:55:49.154 You're not, no, that's what you're saying. You're not going to take those into account because you're going to study the nameplate instead. So you're basically just pretending, there's a project that's not, that's totally irrelevant from the project, Proposed. 1092 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:55:50.624 --> 04:55:55.756 I'll let Mike go first, maybe maybe has something to say that, Yeah, Michael go for it. 1093 Michael Barigian SCE 04:55:56.474 --> 04:55:58.096 Yeah, I'm just going to start by taking a. 1094 Michael Barigian SCE 04:55:58.154 --> 04:56:19.244 Breath here, so what I wanted to ask was the, what would the process we envision look like. So I think it kind of relates to what we're talking about in the chat about steady state voltage, for example, could be a voltage violation that occurs a thousand conductor feet away from the point where the. 1095 Michael Barigian SCE 04:56:19.280 --> 04:56:40.424 [...] is connecting. So even if that generator has the ability to implement again correctly, I think we're talking about like, non- standard bolt bar curve to mitigate the voltage at It's terminals to me. I would have to run a study to determine what is a bolt bar profile that would effectively mitigate the voltage. 1096 Michael Barigian SCE 04:56:40.454 --> 04:56:47.624 Violation, that's a thousand conductor feet away. Is that what we're envisioning this process? looks like I just want to better understand. 1097 Sky Stanfield 04:56:47.954 --> 04:57:01.574 Yeah, let me ask you a question back. How would you apply if I was proposing an [...] project, not a profile just based on the minimum [...] and screen, and so. 1098 Sky Stanfield 04:57:01.664 --> 04:57:10.844 That I can be above the [...], but you have to take into account and you'll do a power flow for the voltage. How would you do that for the single value project? 1099 Michael Barigian SCE 04:57:14.506 --> 04:57:18.404 And this, the single value project is a non- LTP. 1100 Sky Stanfield 04:57:19.186 --> 04:57:34.006 Yeah, it's an [...] project. So it is, it is designed to fall within the [...] limits. Putting aside the, the, um, and, but it is, it is the, the rule allows you to propose a project above. 1101 Sky Stanfield 04:57:34.036 --> 04:57:47.384 The [...] essentially and go all the way through to supplemental review and then potentially take into account the mitigating effects of the smart inverters. I'm trying to understand how you would do that. Now with even the non- profile project. 1102 Michael Barigian SCE 04:57:50.234 --> 04:58:10.664 It's not something I'm going to claim to have like an expert experience with Firsthand, but I would imagine you would use the default volt bar profile that was ineffective at that time. So I think the one that's in what is it SB, if it was a newly submitted one, once SSP goes into effect, but I would certainly defer to others that are more. 1103 Michael Barigian SCE 04:58:10.694 --> 04:58:12.704 Closer to the process than I am here. 1104 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:58:14.174 --> 04:58:31.814 Yeah, so, so the, the language that Sky was pointing to within the current rule, twenty- one, the screen and it says if the voltage is a prevailing CONSTRAINT, then the full range of smart inverter functions, including the [...] function will be using powerful analysis for the evaluation. 1105 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:58:31.904 --> 04:58:51.376 The proposed projects we're already doing that. That's what, that's what I'm saying. We're going to do. That's all it does. All that language says, right? I can paste it into chart. It just says if the voice voltage is a prevailing CONSTRAINT in the full range of smart and broader functions, including the voltage by function will be used in powerful analysis for the evaluation of the proposed project. 1106 Sky Stanfield 04:58:51.974 --> 04:58:52.876 Right, I understand. 1107 Sky Stanfield 04:58:53.264 --> 04:59:09.524 I have this language. Yeah, that's what I keep talking about what I'm not what I'm hearing though is that you are going to study it as though it is at nameplate instead of that is already limiting generation. So that's the part that I'm really trying to get that is. I get that. 1108 Sky Stanfield 04:59:11.444 --> 04:59:17.624 Why are you saying you will study at nameplate instead of at a limited generation amount. 1109 Alex Mwaura PG&E 04:59:20.926 --> 04:59:37.186 Because because the requirement for [...] is that the project proposes a profile that's below ninety percent of [...] profile. So, if the project proposals a profile that's above ninety percent of your profile does not meet the [...] requirements. 1110 Sky Stanfield 04:59:38.536 --> 04:59:40.904 Okay, I think we just are at a fundamental dis. 1111 Sky Stanfield 04:59:40.934 --> 05:00:02.054 Agreement about what the commissions INTENDING here. Justin and Jose, I think this is, this is really bothersome to me, but I think it doesn't sound like there's room to Budge in terms of, we're not getting it anywhere if there's others that can help us understand better the reasoning why the utilities don't want to do that. I'd love to work on a call. 1112 Sky Stanfield 05:00:02.084 --> 05:00:13.874 Promoted, but I'm not really hearing that I'm hearing that they just don't want to take use the [...] at all in considering the voltage concern. So I guess we'll have to put that in our prior to us then. 1113 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:00:15.974 --> 05:00:22.814 I just want to point out that initially stance was that, so this proposal using nameplate. 1114 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:00:23.208 --> 05:00:44.234 Was made by the way back in two thousand and twenty- one, and then along the way we sort of settled on this idea that if a project was proposed a profile that doesn't meet the requirements for [...], that would give him some time to fix the profile and if they didn't fix the profile within the, a long time, then they would have to withdraw the project or be started or reapply basically, so. 1115 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:00:44.654 --> 05:00:54.734 In my mind, this is sort of a compromise because we're not forcing forcing projects to withdraw. We're actually going to do this study and it's, this is the way that we've determined is the best way to move forward. So. 1116 Sky Stanfield 05:00:54.856 --> 05:01:05.506 Yeah, it's not a real compromise though. Alex, it's, it's a, we're going to make sure the projects don't decide not to go like, why would a project do that? Y- you know that like, come on. Let's not, let's be honest, you're not compromising. 1117 Sky Stanfield 05:01:05.536 --> 05:01:26.596 Here you are basically saying, yeah, well if you want to proceed and spend the money on fundamental review for a project that's certainly going to be way out. Have a ton of violations because you're sending the nameplate all the way through. We'll do that for you, but that's not real, that's not that'll benefit. Anybody wouldn't benefit you or the customer and it doesn't. 1118 Sky Stanfield 05:01:26.684 --> 05:01:47.804 Honestly, get to the understanding the capabilities of the project, but I understand that you have a process consideration. I don't think that, that is, it would be helpful if somebody thinks that, that's what is in the order that the commission said that LGB projects don't get the benefit of supplemental review and the other aspects I haven't gone back to. 1119 Sky Stanfield 05:01:47.834 --> 05:01:57.074 Look at the order to see if it touched on and it said anything about whether [...] should not be able to take advantage of supplemental review, but, um. 1120 Sky Stanfield 05:01:59.474 --> 05:02:02.804 Just discuss it in the, in the advice letter filings, I guess. 1121 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:02:02.894 --> 05:02:14.594 Yeah, I don't see, I agree with you. There's nothing there that says [...] project should not get the benefit of stopping interview, but what's in the order is that [...] projects, the profile should be below ninety percent of [...]. 1122 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:02:14.624 --> 05:02:16.154 The order, so. 1123 Sky Stanfield 05:02:16.634 --> 05:02:20.596 Yeah, I agree that, that is in the order. It just doesn't say what happens outside of that. 1124 McElvain, Frank 05:02:22.964 --> 05:02:42.794 Let me understand the scenario here. Alex, so screen m- the project has failed screen M- correct using an L. G. P profile, It's failed screen M- and therefore for [...]. 1125 McElvain, Frank 05:02:42.798 --> 05:02:55.364 [...] N- as in November, uh, you're gonna bump bump it up to the nameplate rating to go through screen, right? 1126 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:02:55.604 --> 05:02:56.024 Yes. 1127 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:02:58.308 --> 05:03:18.884 So, as opposed to asking the project to withdraw and reapply with Frank, just so before doing that, there will be a results meeting at which we would inform the developer. What the, basically that the profile does not meet the requirement and give them an opportunity to fix it. So essentially. 1128 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:03:19.484 --> 05:03:35.714 It will be understood during the meeting that either you fix the profile should be below ninety percent of [...] profile or your project will be started on the template. So I guess if they proceed without fixing the profile, the understanding would be that, you know, they will be aware that it's going to be an input study. 1129 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:03:36.974 --> 05:03:37.904 So basically. 1130 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:03:39.676 --> 05:03:57.856 If the customer doesn't change the profile to meet the ninety percent and by default, they are saying, well full profile because it's no longer an [...] project at all because [...] has to be at ninety percent. 1131 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:03:58.786 --> 05:03:59.596 That's correct. Okay. 1132 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:03:59.894 --> 05:04:00.224 Okay. 1133 Sky Stanfield 05:04:02.356 --> 05:04:21.494 Why, why are you treating [...] different in the sense that like what, if an export limited export project failed screen and when, when you go to, they go to screen and you don't fail, you don't study them at nameplate you study them unlimited export and you evaluate the smarter greater capabilities, that's the whole idea. 1134 Sky Stanfield 05:04:22.094 --> 05:04:26.564 Why, why do it differently for an L. G. P. 1135 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:04:27.374 --> 05:04:42.644 I think sky, the issue is ninety percent to qualify as the no GP project, otherwise otherwise into project could, could be limited export. I mean, that is. 1136 Sky Stanfield 05:04:43.994 --> 05:05:03.614 It's like for testing, I just think that that's an irrational approach that ignores the capabilities that we're spending time trying to cultivate here. Um, so I guess we'll, we'll happy to brief it to the commission. It, it, it seems unlikely to me that it makes any sense to say, well, we're just going to pretend that the project. 1137 Sky Stanfield 05:05:03.944 --> 05:05:15.524 Limited export and mitigate voltage and ignore because the project wants to have a profile that they also should not be able to use the facility, The capabilities of the smart integrators. 1138 Sky Stanfield 05:05:17.924 --> 05:05:39.044 There's going to be a lot at stake here in terms of the amount of capacity and the actual value of, of smart numbers that would just be completely ignoring here if we don't allow some consideration, even in a very modest way, like what we had proposed not doing a full proper flow of every hour, but just the most conservative one that seem like a. 1139 Sky Stanfield 05:05:39.074 --> 05:05:42.374 Hey, to make sure we're at least not ignoring that potential capability. 1140 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:05:45.404 --> 05:05:49.364 Thanks guys set up then that is that project through an [...] project. 1141 Sky Stanfield 05:05:50.684 --> 05:05:57.494 They're still limiting their generation on an hourly basis. However, we decide what the, what the. 1142 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:05:57.494 --> 05:06:05.564 Product, yeah, but one of the, what I'm saying is one of the requirements is that ninety percent to be an [...], otherwise. 1143 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:06:05.984 --> 05:06:18.014 Just, and I'm just saying here that, that is the basis for [...]. So if you're not at that ninety percent, you're not [...]. 1144 Sky Stanfield 05:06:18.164 --> 05:06:18.734 Well, I don't. 1145 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:06:18.734 --> 05:06:20.864 Know discussion. 1146 Sky Stanfield 05:06:21.494 --> 05:06:26.984 I think we need to go back and look at what the actual order requires Jose, Jose and, and I'll do. 1147 Sky Stanfield 05:06:27.016 --> 05:06:46.724 That, and we'll figure out if that's what it was intended that idea that the project was supposed to be below ninety percent to pass fast track. Yes, I agree. One hundred percent and I've been working with you guys to implement that. I don't think that the order's book one way or the other whether that means that's the end of the road for the project. 1148 Sky Stanfield 05:06:48.194 --> 05:07:09.284 I'm not pushing against ninety percent of the [...]. all I'm saying is, is that the project we haven't taken into account the voltage. So essentially the L. g. P may still be within the limitations of the. I see it. We just haven't actually considered whether the voltage whether the voltage capabilities are incorporated. Sorry, I didn't say that very clearly, like what. 1149 Sky Stanfield 05:07:09.314 --> 05:07:30.434 I'm saying is that the, the way the way we're doing this, the project, the limited generation project could be within the constraints of the system, if we actually analyze the smarter versus both aggregate on the system and as the individual deployment and that's not happened in the end because it's not built in the, I see it and it's not considered. 1150 Sky Stanfield 05:07:30.464 --> 05:07:36.464 In the initial screen. So I was hoping we could at least take that into account in supplemental review. 1151 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:07:43.784 --> 05:08:00.014 I see several hands up. Yeah, Scott, your points of all taken, but I just want to point out that supplemental review is part of fast track, right? So, and based on your statement, if you have to be below ninety percent to pass fast track, then you, you can pause fast track, meaning supplemental review for your. 1152 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:08:00.254 --> 05:08:00.914 Ninety percent. 1153 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:08:05.414 --> 05:08:06.016 Frank, do you have a. 1154 Sky Stanfield 05:08:06.016 --> 05:08:22.394 Clinic we need to go back to the orders language and see if it, it agrees with your position or mine. I think it's silent on that and that this is the opportunity for us to compromise based on rational engineering considerations or to take it to the permission and I don't think we're making much progress on the compromise side. 1155 McElvain, Frank 05:08:23.926 --> 05:08:24.974 So I'm not. 1156 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:08:24.974 --> 05:08:25.154 Sure. 1157 McElvain, Frank 05:08:25.784 --> 05:08:44.474 I don't know how you take a voltage affects into consideration unless you run a powerful study. I don't know how you do that in a, without modeling and representation. 1158 Sky Stanfield 05:08:45.014 --> 05:08:46.574 That's what screening require. 1159 Sky Stanfield 05:08:46.604 --> 05:08:47.444 Right now Frank. 1160 McElvain, Frank 05:08:50.174 --> 05:08:50.714 Yeah. 1161 Sky Stanfield 05:08:52.218 --> 05:09:13.334 We agreed on this. We certainly went around and around around it. It says that in the supplemental review, they will do a power flow analysis and as I noted, I agree that running a powerful analysis of two hundred and eighty- eight values or whatever we come to would be hard, but we don't necessarily need that we need, we can. 1162 Sky Stanfield 05:09:13.394 --> 05:09:34.484 At the most limiting one and as a compromise to say that what I'm hearing is kind of like that, people don't know how they're going to do What's already in real time, um, which maybe we don't know how to do it and we need to talk about that, but we really did spend a lot of time making sure that the smart inverter capabilities were taken into account. 1163 Sky Stanfield 05:09:34.846 --> 05:09:46.814 That's one of the reasons why we allowed projects to exceed the Icaay because that hadn't been modeled properly, and so that's why not properly, not a value judgment is just isn't in the model. 1164 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:09:52.366 --> 05:10:02.054 Alright, uh, I think we need to, it's almost a one o'clock. I think we need to start moving forward. We do have a hard stop at two o'clock. 1165 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:10:04.214 --> 05:10:11.234 I'll try to go over these other slides fairly quickly cause they are, so if you go back to the previous slide slide number ten. 1166 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:10:14.414 --> 05:10:35.144 So we went back and made some changes to the slide based on comments and recommendations that we had during the last workshop. So the texting rate again is the addition or the modification to the previous language. There was a typo [...]. I think in the previous slides was L. P. G. so we made that change and then. 1167 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:10:35.624 --> 05:10:56.114 Biggest changes are number one and number four, we took out some of the language that was the number in the previous presentation and basically clarified that the certification of [...] is going to be based on you all seven hundred and forty- one segment, [...]. This is based on comments. We had from. 1168 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:10:56.298 --> 05:11:17.444 Steven, I believe on John, so, so that's pretty straightforward and obviously clarified that the [...] has to be certified for scheduling and then number two and three are the same from before, and then number four is something that also was commented on last time. 1169 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:11:17.474 --> 05:11:38.596 Um, and we wanted to clarify that these two second requirement is the expected PCS operation in case there was an in- in advance export above the export limit, I think there was a comment before, regarding the five hundred and forty- seven thirty- second time. 1170 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:11:38.624 --> 05:11:59.744 I'm for changing the settings and we will need to clarify that the two second that's being mentioned. Here is the open loop response time, which is the time it takes the [...] to reduce export, if it detects export above the limit five and six, five, six and seven are similar to what we had presented on before. So. 1171 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:12:00.134 --> 05:12:02.384 I'll pause for a second here to see if there's any questions. 1172 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:12:11.294 --> 05:12:12.824 Okay, we can move on to the next slide. 1173 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:12:16.036 --> 05:12:19.544 So this slide is the same. We didn't make any change actually we did make changes. 1174 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:12:20.924 --> 05:12:41.954 [...] had recommended that we take out what was previously five, six, four or five and six. So the stuff that's shown on here is, has already been previously presented, but on the next slide, we'll go through the changes that we made, we moved those items under Screen M, which is section. 1175 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:12:42.048 --> 05:12:45.104 [...] of the tariff. So if you move on to the next slide. 1176 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:12:47.654 --> 05:12:56.144 So on this slide, we've, we're proposing languages that would go under screen M. So this would be specific to [...]. 1177 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:12:56.324 --> 05:13:16.394 Projects these, if you look at screen name right now, there's an option for typical preview projects and then there's an option for nameplate projects and then if I see is not available, then you default to the fifteen percent role. So while we're attempting to do here is make changes to. 1178 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:13:17.414 --> 05:13:38.414 M- on how LGB projects will be analyzed. So the question here is, is the generating facility limited generation profile as defined under section [...], which is the new option, twelve less than or equal to ninety percent of the [...] profile and if the answer to this. 1179 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:13:38.450 --> 05:13:58.814 Question is, yes, then the project will pass screen M. and if there's no other failed screens would proceed to simplify the interconnection, if there's other screens that have failed, then make it necessary for us to do this to review this project and the supplemental review, then we'll proceed to do. So if the answer to this question is no. 1180 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:13:59.600 --> 05:14:19.904 Then the project would fail screen M. and it changed that we've made here from what we presented before is that failure of screen M does not mean that the project does not proceed to submit to review. So the answer is no, it would fail screen name. You would proceed to supplemental review and it will go through the status of. 1181 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:14:21.674 --> 05:14:41.894 Mentioned before, and then the items that were included under four hundred and fifty- six previously in the previous slide. I included down here. The one thing that I'd like to note on this on this deck is the bullet, the last bullet very last bullet, it says if modifications to [...] have not received. 1182 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:14:41.924 --> 05:15:03.044 Within five business days, the project would be deemed withdrawn and the applicant will have the option of re- applying based on [...] or nameplate. So this bullet is not applicable anymore, based on what we're proposing, we failed to delete it. So, essentially, like I said, before our position was that if the project proposals in [...]. 1183 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:15:03.134 --> 05:15:23.924 That does not meet the requirements. They'll either have to fix it within five business days, and if they don't, the project will be withdrawn and they'll have an opportunity to reapply a position now has changed and what we're saying is that even though and fails we'll still proceed to supplemental review. The only difference is, we will analyze the project. 1184 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:15:24.436 --> 05:15:26.356 In supplementary review, based on its nameplate. 1185 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:15:28.964 --> 05:15:30.044 Next slide, please. 1186 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:15:33.914 --> 05:15:52.394 For option tech team, which is, we're still in discussions as far as the real time automation controller is concerned coupled with a relay that's something that we're still discussing. So I just feel like we don't have enough. 1187 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:15:52.454 --> 05:16:13.484 Information right now to propose language, we still maintain though that we should have thirteenth option on the screen high because there's going to be specific requirements that are applied applicable to this option. That would not necessarily be reflected in the other options. We just don't have the language to propose what we're going to terrify this time. 1188 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:16:16.874 --> 05:16:18.674 Any comments or questions thus far. 1189 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:16:23.564 --> 05:16:24.676 Okay, next slide. please. 1190 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:16:29.474 --> 05:16:47.206 So Topic C was intended to go over to include requirements for monthly scheduling input capacity should include alignment of language section deal resolution and corporate all topics in the resolution. So go forward to the next slide. 1191 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:16:48.644 --> 05:17:08.534 So we presented this before this is the process flow, if you will, that weird proposed early on in the process and then ended up making some changes. it's hard to read, but there's stuff in blue is the updates that we've made since a very, very fast proposal. 1192 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:17:09.044 --> 05:17:29.294 Which had this language that I mentioned as far as projects requiring to go into supplements, we're using the template. We subsequently change this language to reflect the need for projects that fell screen M- to withdraw and reapply so we just wanted to include this for the record. 1193 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:17:29.984 --> 05:17:31.214 If you go to the next slide. 1194 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:17:33.676 --> 05:17:34.336 So. 1195 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:17:36.766 --> 05:17:57.884 We're trying to clarify here, uh, basically what I've said previously and the staffing plugin was an update to a previous process flow that we had provided while we're clarifying here, is that projects that fell screen name would be okay to proceed to supplemental review and that's kind of, we didn't want to. 1196 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:17:57.888 --> 05:18:18.164 Make a change to this process at this time because we still have to discuss and come up to an agreement, but we added the text in red, basically saying that this is subject to revision based on further discussion. So we've had some of those discussions today and I'm sure we'll continue to have them until we get to a point where. 1197 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:18:19.184 --> 05:18:22.034 We mostly agree and then. 1198 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:18:23.536 --> 05:18:44.356 One of the other things that we also wanted to clarify here was this issue of the twenty percent and we wanted to clarify if possible way the twenty percent came from. I think this was shared via email, but it was a twenty percent was adopted in the decision D- nineteen, zero three zero one hundred and three. 1199 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:18:44.714 --> 05:19:05.564 Section three, dot, three dot, two of working. Group one final report think this is something that Justin had asked us to find, and then the other thing that we also wanted to clarify is that if I use determined that I see a results are outdated and the project [...]. 1200 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:19:05.596 --> 05:19:23.414 On those outdated [...] results that customers will be able to reduce the project by more than twenty percent. So those are the two main changes from what was previously presented any questions. 1201 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:19:31.606 --> 05:19:33.856 Okay, next slide. please. 1202 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:19:35.534 --> 05:19:36.464 Okay, Michael, back to you. 1203 Michael Barigian SCE 05:19:38.774 --> 05:19:48.704 Yeah, thanks Alex. So to continue on with Topic II, from what we kind of discussed last time and maybe what we heard this morning, go into the next slide here. 1204 Michael Barigian SCE 05:19:50.744 --> 05:20:11.834 We have our background slide on Topic E, which I think we've seen a few times now, so I'll go ahead and move on to slide nineteen and this slide with the Red Line text illustrates the changes that we made to the proposed language since the last time we review this, but before we get into the proposed tariff languages, Alex mentioned earlier the [...]. 1205 Michael Barigian SCE 05:20:11.840 --> 05:20:32.084 Use recommendation of [...] option thirteen once we're able to get a complete picture and an understanding of the options that were discussed this morning, that's suitable to be defined as, as an option for thirteen as far as the proposed [...] language. The revisions here are updating to reference instead of the [...]. 1206 Michael Barigian SCE 05:20:32.990 --> 05:20:53.384 [...] seven hundred and forty- one supplement [...], which you see in red text there and to make it more universal description of the solution, instead of using what I understand to be an [...] specific acronym Artech, we remove that acronym and just refer to this as a real time automation controller. 1207 Michael Barigian SCE 05:20:54.464 --> 05:21:13.634 Slight change to how we described and approved relay, given that [...] is the outlier and that we do not maintain a list of approved relays, however, we review and approve relay settings as proposed by customers. I simply moved the, as approved by the utility to the end of that sentence. 1208 Sky Stanfield 05:21:22.604 --> 05:21:24.794 Michael, does that make sense? Oh, sorry. 1209 Michael Barigian SCE 05:21:26.504 --> 05:21:28.454 I was just going to call him Brian go ahead Scott. Yeah. 1210 Sky Stanfield 05:21:28.544 --> 05:21:31.904 No, go ahead. Brian, Brian had his hand up before me. Alright, we'll figure that. 1211 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:21:33.404 --> 05:21:41.984 Yeah, Michael, so based on, you know, the discussion this morning, I'm wondering when we say we're. 1212 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:21:42.078 --> 05:22:02.714 Starting to get specific about May be used in combination with the relay was directional over current power elements and automatic automation logic functions. It sounds like there may be, depending on which way or if we, we may leave it open, I suppose potentially in terms of which configuration we'd be using. 1213 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:22:03.554 --> 05:22:23.654 Um, and dependent on that, but configuration, like if we're, depending on the architect to do the, um, basically maintain the schedule, uh, or maintain the logic of whether it's, uh, exporting beyond the limit or not, then that might not actually be the directional over current power elements that we're thinking of. 1214 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:22:24.704 --> 05:22:39.914 Which would be more specific to the relay doing that task. So I just wanted to note that this, this language, maybe either should be more generalized or may need to change dependent on the specifics of, of what is out there. 1215 Michael Barigian SCE 05:22:41.924 --> 05:23:02.414 Yeah, thanks for that, Brian and you're correct. I mean, this language represents the [...] perspective as of April five, th- when we submitted the final slides, so we didn't have the benefit of the dialogue from this morning, but yes, I understand that the way that it's written basically says that you're going to have the real time automation controller and relay as an additional piece of. 1216 Michael Barigian SCE 05:23:02.450 --> 05:23:23.446 [...] that's backup protection to the non- certified PCS, which we came to learn this morning. The real time automation controller can play multiple roles and there's potentially differences with the relays as well. So I would say next steps on this if I understand correctly would be for the [...] to kind of reconvene on this revisit, this proposed airport. 1217 Michael Barigian SCE 05:23:23.600 --> 05:23:30.016 Which based on the presentations from this morning and then determine in the May first advice, look at our filings. What further revisions would be necessary. 1218 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:23:32.144 --> 05:23:32.564 Thanks. 1219 Michael Barigian SCE 05:23:34.904 --> 05:23:35.474 Thank you. 1220 Michael Barigian SCE 05:23:39.464 --> 05:23:42.314 Okay, I think we can go to the next slide. Oh Scott, did you have something? 1221 Sky Stanfield 05:23:42.376 --> 05:23:58.846 Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I understand again, from a slightly non- less technically savvy perspective when we say that the. So the other I use approve relays themselves and then you said that you guys, you're not looking to approve the re. 1222 Sky Stanfield 05:23:58.964 --> 05:24:03.314 You're just looking to approve the settings. Is that the way I understood that, and. 1223 Michael Barigian SCE 05:24:03.706 --> 05:24:03.946 Yeah. 1224 Sky Stanfield 05:24:04.186 --> 05:24:19.994 So what are the settings we're referring to is that the, essentially the profile or what, what is the, I want to understand what the difference is between the other utilities, also probably wanting to review the settings or is there a. 1225 Sky Stanfield 05:24:20.024 --> 05:24:22.694 Distinction there that I just don't understand. 1226 Michael Barigian SCE 05:24:23.714 --> 05:24:41.144 Yeah, so I can speak for [...] and then invite the others to weigh in. So in my experience and based on some conversations we had with folks in our protection department, we'll review the, and what I remember from doing that from working on this first hand is we'll review what the customer submits to us, which usually is data that includes. 1227 Michael Barigian SCE 05:24:41.564 --> 05:25:02.294 Current transformer ratios, potential transformer ratios, pickup settings, time dial settings, and then we will validate that those are going to are expected to achieve the desired outcome in terms of protection and then issue a, like an approval of those or further refinement as needed as far as the equipment itself as. 1228 Michael Barigian SCE 05:25:02.324 --> 05:25:14.384 As the equipment is able to intake store and manage those settings, then I don't believe we, at least in my experience that our protection department is dive too deep into the details of the actual relay model itself. 1229 Sky Stanfield 05:25:15.074 --> 05:25:23.444 Okay, and then I saw that Alex put in that he, they approved the relay settings and logic, Alex. Does that mean that you approve when you approve the [...]. 1230 Sky Stanfield 05:25:23.450 --> 05:25:34.064 [...] for your, your list. You're approving the settings with those or that you're reviewing the settings as part of that interconnection application, essentially more like what Mike was describing. 1231 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:25:34.366 --> 05:25:41.356 Yeah, so we approved the release before because release can be used for multiple different functions, right? 1232 Sky Stanfield 05:25:41.356 --> 05:25:41.894 Yeah, yeah. 1233 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:25:41.926 --> 05:25:44.596 So the approval process is to ensure that the [...]. 1234 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:25:44.600 --> 05:26:05.564 [...] use tested. And that is capable of doing the function for which is being proposed, and then once the customer proposals, a project then would approve the logic that's being used. In addition to the settings, because I think Frank mentioned this a few couple of days in the email that. 1235 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:26:05.924 --> 05:26:26.744 Really that made equal, right? Is released that are not capable of doing certain functions, maybe they can go below a certain limit and they become unreliable. So that is the sort of the watchlist pre- done to streamline the interconnection process for customers, so they don't go propose a piece of equipment during [...]. 1236 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:26:27.284 --> 05:26:30.284 Not to be suitable for the function that they're trying to use it for. 1237 Sky Stanfield 05:26:34.964 --> 05:26:36.794 Okay, um. 1238 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 05:26:40.064 --> 05:26:40.424 I was just. 1239 Sky Stanfield 05:26:40.424 --> 05:26:40.604 Gonna. 1240 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 05:26:40.604 --> 05:26:46.214 Add Skype, just for completeness. W- w- we had the same philosophy as PG E. 1241 Sky Stanfield 05:26:48.134 --> 05:26:59.324 Thanks, um, I think what I was trying to look at is what, when this language was modified, I wanted to make sure I understood what is being approved by the. 1242 Sky Stanfield 05:26:59.328 --> 05:27:20.474 Utility, um, and it, you know, Brian, it sounds to me like we're okay with this, the settings review and then we can just leave it at that and assume that that's not going to be an overreach of, you know, we're not saying that you're approving whether or not you can use a relay just that it has. 1243 Sky Stanfield 05:27:20.506 --> 05:27:26.266 To meet the settings that has to be on to perform the settings that you guys agree on. 1244 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:27:29.894 --> 05:27:31.304 Right, yeah, I mean, I think. 1245 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:27:33.170 --> 05:27:54.314 I'm not entirely following exactly when in the process that evaluation is done, if we're just talking about commissioning steps, you know, it seems like there's going to be a great deal, more commissioning steps related to a release and then for a power control system and I guess that's what I mostly imagine is that the [...] system refer. 1246 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:27:54.676 --> 05:28:15.436 The drawings and whatnot and the settings are installed or, you know, applied as, um, as they were proposed and that all the logic is set up in the correct manner. Basically, it was like, you know, the main things I think of, um, yeah. 1247 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:28:16.814 --> 05:28:24.974 I guess I would just be curious whether there are any process steps there that are different, um, besides the conditioning. 1248 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:28:32.832 --> 05:28:49.274 Just to limit the amount of back and forth that needs to happen, like as the, the system design is that you, you want to have the system designed basically upfront and submit the project, and so I'm just curious as to whether that would, yeah, I mean. 1249 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:28:49.334 --> 05:29:03.404 There could potentially be more back and forth during the. Yeah, yeah, I don't know exactly what part of the process that would be, um, but, you know, certainly, there's gonna be timelines associated with all that. so. 1250 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:29:04.820 --> 05:29:09.164 Envision it mostly in terms of commissioning, but just wanted to check my thinking. 1251 Sky Stanfield 05:29:15.674 --> 05:29:32.894 I think that's a question for you, Michael and it is exactly what I'm trying to get out with because I want to make sure that that applicant is not going to install a whole project and then in commissioning find out that the, the product itself is not acceptable or the design is not acceptable. So making clear just making clear that. 1252 Sky Stanfield 05:29:33.734 --> 05:29:46.214 From a process standpoint, we understand where that review will happen and, or if we need to specify what, where the discretion is either, what discretion is allowed or where it is Applied. 1253 Michael Barigian SCE 05:29:47.866 --> 05:29:54.164 Yeah, I was just going to say we'd have to follow up with our protection folks to get a response on. 1254 Michael Barigian SCE 05:30:08.214 --> 05:30:09.384 Justin, I saw your hand up. 1255 Regnier, Justin 05:30:11.604 --> 05:30:32.724 Yeah, no, I think that makes a lot of sense, and I, I imagine that the comfort is understanding that the, the relay is, is very purpose build whereas number and it may have lots of different functions. It has very, very clearly delineated functions and you're very familiar with it. I would encourage. 1256 Regnier, Justin 05:30:32.730 --> 05:30:53.846 [...] folks to the extent possible because it's not going to be that many configurations that many things we're trying to do with the relay, um, that we, we try and move to a standardized design that everybody understands gets the job done to the extent possible, but understand that we need to check with protection folks and. 1257 Regnier, Justin 05:30:53.904 --> 05:30:55.284 Some discussion may be required. 1258 Michael Barigian SCE 05:31:01.854 --> 05:31:02.124 Thank you. 1259 Michael Barigian SCE 05:31:05.456 --> 05:31:08.064 Nothing else, I think we can advance to the next slide. Please. 1260 Michael Barigian SCE 05:31:10.224 --> 05:31:30.534 Okay, so topic app, these were really the setup slides for PG E [...]. Additional analysis with our, what should it be very familiar background slide on twenty one, and then twenty- two simply extracts part of on the next slide slide twenty- two extracts part of the background info. 1261 Michael Barigian SCE 05:31:30.564 --> 05:31:34.134 Mason, if we could advance to the next slide, please. 1262 Michael Barigian SCE 05:31:36.534 --> 05:31:53.484 And I always wanted to kind of respond to each section of that. So the portion of the resolution that asks the [...] to discuss the. I'm sorry, direct the [...] to discuss the two eight hour format and how it may allow for more than one value per month. 1263 Michael Barigian SCE 05:31:54.654 --> 05:32:15.654 Users response to this is that we presented the proposed [...] format in workshop one. There were some column headers with the titles of what we would expect to see in the, in the format and then the second part of this of the resolution language was propose how implemented. 1264 Michael Barigian SCE 05:32:15.686 --> 05:32:36.804 More than one day per month may be accomplished better, taking advantage of available capacity on a circuit to accomplish the goals of issue nine, and we refer back to the phased approach to implementing two hundred and eight LTP values that was presented in [...] workshop one. So since this is the last workshop, and when we're on the record, we just wanted to kind of. 1265 Michael Barigian SCE 05:32:38.244 --> 05:32:42.804 Respond to each part of the resolution language for topic F- in this manner. 1266 Michael Barigian SCE 05:32:45.866 --> 05:32:58.224 And then slide twenty- three is what we've already covered, which was kind of the refresher of the analysis. So I don't, I don't have anything else to cover on this, and this is the last slide within the joint [...] presentation. 1267 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:32:59.994 --> 05:33:06.414 Thank you, Michael, and I think this is where we can open it up to tie in all the. 1268 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:33:06.594 --> 05:33:20.724 Other presentations on a topic that we've had today. So I think we have about half hour to do that, um, before we start wrapping up. 1269 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:33:32.964 --> 05:33:33.864 Oh, go ahead Skye. 1270 Sky Stanfield 05:33:35.514 --> 05:33:50.124 Okay, so, um, I guess I'd like to circle back with the [...] representatives on, um, it sounded like from the slides that, based on the analysis you've done and the information. 1271 Sky Stanfield 05:33:50.130 --> 05:34:10.554 And it's been presented by the other parties in terms of their analysis that your, you're not, you're not proposing any compromise beyond the twelve month profile first confirm if that's a correct understanding, and then, and then I just want to ask is there, are you willing to discuss a compromise? 1272 Sky Stanfield 05:34:12.204 --> 05:34:19.494 Based on any one of those many iterations that we've been evaluating in these different different analyses. 1273 Michael Barigian SCE 05:34:28.914 --> 05:34:49.344 I can maybe start for [...]. So as I stated in the deck, specifically on slide three for [...] analysis, we are maintaining the recommendation to stick with twelve [...] values. The technical curiosity in me very much wants to further explore this until I can find a solution that I'm [...]. 1274 Michael Barigian SCE 05:34:49.374 --> 05:35:09.504 In as university applicable across all nodes, but the other rational side of me wonders how far will that go and how long will that go on before we find a place where everyone is comfortable, so it has to be kind of tempered within the capabilities and the time commitment that we have, and then recognizing how much time and effort has already been put in at this point. 1275 Sky Stanfield 05:35:09.954 --> 05:35:10.404 Okay. 1276 Sky Stanfield 05:35:11.034 --> 05:35:31.554 I understand that part, especially about that additional analysis and I think we could iterate for a long time and get closer to something. Um, I do also feel like we have a pretty good understanding nobody disagrees that some more value as you add. The more risks are violations are, and, but we also. 1277 Sky Stanfield 05:35:32.094 --> 05:35:52.584 Less you do disagree with it does sound like we have some understanding that there is some additional value for more hours, especially during the critical periods and it seems to me like there, we've presented a few options that could help balance that taking into consideration both. 1278 Sky Stanfield 05:35:52.944 --> 05:36:13.944 Your concerns and the concerns of the rate pairs, as well as the developers stakeholders and I feel like it would be nice for us to be able to agree on something between twelve months and four hundred and eighty- eight recognizing that there are risks and benefits on both sides without having. 1279 Sky Stanfield 05:36:13.974 --> 05:36:31.224 To do a lot more further analysis, especially because we know that every feeder is different, you know, like that's the reality and the changes from year- to year are going to be different on every feed or two. So it's all going to be somewhat speculative based on. 1280 Sky Stanfield 05:36:32.366 --> 05:36:53.426 Even if we run all the features, we're just looking at two hypothetical years, but it does feel like there, there, there, you know, that there's a reasonable middle ground here, and so I'm just kind of pushing back on whether there is possibility for us to come to some, some middle ground that we've designed, we've been working with the. 1281 Sky Stanfield 05:36:53.454 --> 05:37:04.104 Line some other profile options that really do take into account your concerns and I think we've gotten pretty close to that while also recognizing that they all still might have a little more risk. 1282 Michael Barigian SCE 05:37:07.554 --> 05:37:26.936 Thanks for that guy, and I want to refresh on the recall, the, the proposal that I'll use presented in workshop one is, that's a proposal to get to two hundred and eight, and I mean, I know it's going to take some time, right? So we presented three different phases, the initial phase doing the monthly minimums. 1283 Michael Barigian SCE 05:37:27.294 --> 05:37:45.744 And then evaluating the learnings and then at such time that there's a full implementation of terms, if I can say that, that we would allow the whole two hundred and eighty- eight hourly limit. so I think it's really a timing component here based on the proposal that the utilities put forth in the first workshop. 1284 Sky Stanfield 05:37:47.754 --> 05:37:48.414 With the [...]. 1285 Sky Stanfield 05:37:48.420 --> 05:38:09.504 [...] of dermis doesn't actually change anything if we're just doing an [...] that's not going to do anything unless we're proposing a flexible a more real time control thing, which is very different from basic [...], right? So I understand that, that your desire to do the slow walk, but I don't think that the. 1286 Sky Stanfield 05:38:09.568 --> 05:38:30.714 Framework that you proposed actually gets us to anything different in terms of the kind of understanding we have now because we all agree on some pretty basic components of yes, there will be slightly more risk. The magnitude of that is hard to say, especially on each individual without doing individualized feeders. I don't. 1287 Sky Stanfield 05:38:30.718 --> 05:38:40.254 Think that the reason why I think that the framework, if there's nothing in it that actually helps changes the basic facts that we're grappling with. I think. 1288 Regnier, Justin 05:38:42.324 --> 05:38:44.004 May I jump in from him. 1289 Sky Stanfield 05:38:44.394 --> 05:38:45.354 Yeah, please ask them. 1290 Regnier, Justin 05:38:48.084 --> 05:39:08.754 Then maybe I'm taking this back separately. So apologies if I am, but in terms of setting the stage, I see what the I used to put into their slides as their official position as of one hundred and fifteen PM on some of the April two thousand and twenty- three, that makes sense. Um, I don't think that that official position being in that. 1291 Regnier, Justin 05:39:08.790 --> 05:39:29.934 For their time is something that we'll avoid or will prohibit non- utility and utility stakeholders from continuing to strive towards some kind of a consensus position. The, I mean, I guess where I'd want to start with is a recognition. 1292 Regnier, Justin 05:39:29.964 --> 05:39:45.864 Of the amount of work and the good faith that I've heard that all parties are brought up. This is not a trivial question. There's not a trivial amount of work and our appreciation for what you have done at this point is also not trivial full stop. 1293 Regnier, Justin 05:39:49.734 --> 05:40:09.414 What I'm hearing from the [...] consensus is the twelve is their position. I don't hear any, um, any argument that addresses the marketability concerns that are brought up on that, but the, the. 1294 Regnier, Justin 05:40:09.444 --> 05:40:15.084 This will revenue under that condition will be such that nobody's actually going to take advantage of the program. 1295 Regnier, Justin 05:40:16.468 --> 05:40:37.524 That's one thing that has been fairly well in the record and addressed by use if parties can come to a consensus that puts energy division staff in a position where we obviously have to do due diligence in any case, but if we have multiple suggestions for multiple. 1296 Regnier, Justin 05:40:37.620 --> 05:40:58.224 Orders, then we need to do a more full analysis, which is what I was perhaps elegantly alluding to earlier. It seems that the twelve S is clearly on the table that as a position, it seems that the [...] proposal was also gotten some fair consideration. 1297 Regnier, Justin 05:40:59.124 --> 05:41:19.914 It seems also the PG E- proposal. I believe it's a sixteen to twenty- three fixed, um, tends to occupy what some people might call it sweet spot. It appears that the [...] eighty four suggestion has some of those attributes as well. Those seem the most likely ones that would. 1298 Regnier, Justin 05:41:19.944 --> 05:41:41.064 Be requiring further analysis, that's kind of my understanding of the consensus view of this group. We do sincerely hope the folks were able to come to a position that everybody comes up with and I would reiterate the consensus is not that everybody agrees that this. 1299 Regnier, Justin 05:41:41.096 --> 05:41:46.974 Is the best solution consensus that everybody does that everybody agrees that we should go forward? Um. 1300 Regnier, Justin 05:41:48.294 --> 05:42:06.984 I hope that the discussion that we'll have in the next half hour or so is fruitful in that way. Um, but do you want to at least start with the agenda and appreciation for everybody's efforts on this and hope that we'll be able to get to a place for compromise. 1301 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:42:37.524 --> 05:42:41.214 Or comments or thoughts. Go ahead Scott. 1302 Sky Stanfield 05:42:41.814 --> 05:42:54.924 Okay, I'm trying to milk this thirty minutes to make sure we didn't have any discussion we can have before it's Friday. It's good Friday. I know people want to go home. I mean, are you still here? 1303 Sky Stanfield 05:42:57.234 --> 05:43:15.744 I'd be curious to hear what advocates is thinking on the schedule options based on the presentation today. I think I've shared our thoughts and the utilities have since you've been doing a lot of great analysis to I'm curious if you have thoughts to share about what you're thinking. 1304 Sky Stanfield 05:43:20.214 --> 05:43:21.744 I don't see him on the. 1305 Sky Stanfield 05:43:24.084 --> 05:43:27.024 Spent less now, so maybe you dropped off already. 1306 Regnier, Justin 05:43:43.434 --> 05:43:46.854 Gary is going to stand up, but I think at this point it's, it can be a free for all. 1307 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:43:50.064 --> 05:43:53.634 Oh, alright, well thanks for giving me a chance. 1308 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:43:55.284 --> 05:44:09.414 Responding a little bit to what Justin was talking about relationships, the marketability of this product, This process means a usability of it. I think that's really what you were pointing out. It's like, most people use it or not. 1309 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:44:11.814 --> 05:44:31.524 The challenge there is the utilities are not the developers. These projects are going to developer developers are represented by Scott and maybe some others that are not most vocal and I think based on what. 1310 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:44:31.884 --> 05:44:52.824 Is trying to accomplish which I don't, I'm not saying your, your nature was, I was trying to push the envelope and we understand that, um, but is there a compelling reason to do? So, a lot of the, a lot of the discussion on [...]. 1311 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:44:52.914 --> 05:45:13.704 Today, I think has we've had more discussion on risk today than, than any other of these workshops and we've tried to quantify or at least describe what that risk is, what we want to make sure that, that message is clear. There's risky one for going for twelve values, but. 1312 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:45:14.364 --> 05:45:15.714 Zero, but it's. 1313 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:45:16.884 --> 05:45:36.744 I guess we've, we've agreed that it's manageable or at least it's within the realm of reason, but once you, once you go past twelve with limited real world experience here, and that's, that's another reason why we used looked at a phased approach limited real world experience here. 1314 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:45:38.424 --> 05:45:49.404 Are there are engineering judgment is leading us to a certain path and we haven't seen a compelling reason to move off that path. 1315 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:45:52.434 --> 05:45:56.094 Talk to market ability or usability of this process. 1316 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:45:57.894 --> 05:45:58.464 Development. 1317 Regnier, Justin 05:46:21.144 --> 05:46:41.244 [...] disclaimer of not being a developer, and that's, that's fair. Do we have any developers on this call that we'd like to speak and I'm not, I'm not sure entirely agree with Gary. I mean you've gotta pee again. I think you can analyze cash. I don't think it's beyond your abilities, but it may be beyond the role that you've. 1318 Regnier, Justin 05:46:41.424 --> 05:46:41.694 MHM. 1319 Sky Stanfield 05:46:48.474 --> 05:47:07.044 You know, Justin, I guess one of the things that, you know, we're not really getting to a little bit here is I'm going to ask the utilities to address this is, you guys may not be able to figure out the economics for the specific projects and that's not your job in your interest, and I agree with that, but. 1320 Sky Stanfield 05:47:08.366 --> 05:47:28.914 We have identified the California has critical peak load periods that need energy to be served in that building transmission and all of that is going to be really expensive. Is there not any shared interest in trying to design a program to meet those peak periods both on a seasonal and. 1321 Sky Stanfield 05:47:29.544 --> 05:47:49.824 Basis like it sounds to me like the utilities are just sort of saying they don't see any benefits for them in this, and I, I feel like there are benefits for the broader mission overall, and I also appreciate the risks, but it's not like the not here to speak for themselves right now, but they. 1322 Sky Stanfield 05:47:50.784 --> 05:48:03.324 In this, for developing profit for developers, again, they're trying to look at the overall rate payer value that's being achieved and it seems to me like that should be a shared goal for the utilities as well. 1323 Sky Stanfield 05:48:04.824 --> 05:48:25.734 While recognizing utilities also need to manage the risk, I don't think it's, it's appropriate to characterize this as a benefit for developers, like Iraq's not here to do that because it's not here to do that. We're here to take to make sure we can deploy clean energy fast and efficient to benefit the state more. 1324 Sky Stanfield 05:48:25.764 --> 05:48:34.944 broadly in the environment, obviously, but it doesn't seem to me like the utilities shouldn't be interested in also getting more clean energy during those critical periods. 1325 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:48:38.304 --> 05:48:43.914 So I'll just respond just more and more we're having this conversation. I'm not saying that. 1326 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:48:45.478 --> 05:49:05.934 You know, we're not interested in what you're claiming that we're on the street and seeing that the revenue lines to more, but we have a definite role for safety reliability as a group and that is ultimately what drives almost all of our study processes. 1327 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:49:07.074 --> 05:49:26.814 Everything that we do take that very seriously. So I was, I was only talking about developers perspective from a standpoint of would they be willing to use this. That's the one that was really my only discussion point about developers is, will it be used. 1328 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:49:28.044 --> 05:49:44.124 We want to see it use if it's workable, we want to see it used because it will provide benefits, but we also have to balance that with our desire or need our mandate to keep up psychological system. That's all. 1329 McElvain, Frank 05:49:52.284 --> 05:50:12.894 Yeah, I'll just weigh in here. Gary all all that. All that is true, but that's also safety and reliability while we're delivering, uh, quality power and we're in a transition we can't do that with status. Quo can. 1330 McElvain, Frank 05:50:12.898 --> 05:50:17.484 [...], um, and I think that's. 1331 McElvain, Frank 05:50:19.044 --> 05:50:24.114 That's what I was trying to communicate earlier is that we gotta, we gotta find a way to. 1332 McElvain, Frank 05:50:25.706 --> 05:50:40.824 Develop these power projects and bring them up within the state. Not not build more projects out to other states and rely on other states to have projects to import, um. 1333 McElvain, Frank 05:50:43.434 --> 05:50:51.354 Just, I, I think we need to find a way to leverage what we have and do everything, you just said. 1334 McElvain, Frank 05:50:52.524 --> 05:51:11.904 Be safe and be reliable, but tap those resources in the infrastructure that we already have. We, we know how to use it. We know how to protect these systems, these circuits and, um. 1335 McElvain, Frank 05:51:14.214 --> 05:51:32.484 You know, it's a balance between being safe and reliable and providing a product, which can be deadly and unsafe. That is a fact, and it's why we, why you are so careful. 1336 McElvain, Frank 05:51:33.834 --> 05:51:40.944 I've been in your shoes too. I've worked for a utility and I understand wanting to be safe and reliable as well. 1337 McElvain, Frank 05:51:43.374 --> 05:51:43.884 Same boat. 1338 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:51:44.694 --> 05:51:47.604 Frank, you also know how much is in here today. 1339 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:51:48.804 --> 05:51:54.204 Both the distribution system and then the virtual assistant projects in the state. 1340 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:51:56.304 --> 05:51:58.044 You're aware of how big the keywords today. 1341 McElvain, Frank 05:51:58.794 --> 05:51:59.274 Yes. 1342 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:52:00.294 --> 05:52:16.974 So I think the market has more the provided opportunities. Yes, how to best use what the market correct? I'm all I'm going to be. 1343 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:52:17.004 --> 05:52:25.134 Quite after this, cause, you know, I just, I think fundamentally, we are not that far off from each other's goals. So. 1344 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:52:27.024 --> 05:52:29.364 I want to make sure that's understood that. 1345 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:52:31.104 --> 05:52:51.324 Where are utilities come from. Comes from a standpoint of keeping a safe reliable and yes, hi, highly reliable system. The more we invade the safety margin, you know, there's risk and we need to appreciate the risks that. 1346 gary holdsworth SDG&E 05:52:54.594 --> 05:53:04.104 I do, I, you know, I hear you. I hear Frank. I hear Skype and I will be quiet after this because of they have made my point. Thanks. 1347 McElvain, Frank 05:53:06.984 --> 05:53:17.934 Well, I don't want to, I hope you're not doing that because of me or anything. Gary exchanging ideas is the reason we're here, um. 1348 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:53:21.024 --> 05:53:22.374 Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead Frank. 1349 McElvain, Frank 05:53:22.434 --> 05:53:25.854 No, no, you know what Jose, I lost my point. 1350 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:53:26.484 --> 05:53:26.754 Okay. 1351 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:53:27.504 --> 05:53:32.094 No, so I wanted to, um, you know, we have twenty- five minutes here. 1352 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:53:34.404 --> 05:53:40.974 I wanted to go over and bring it back in terms of [...]. Um. 1353 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:53:43.314 --> 05:53:47.964 Next steps and what is outstanding. Um. 1354 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:53:50.064 --> 05:54:10.554 Major issues raised today, of course, our topic, B- two, B growth name versus nameplate, uh, we'll get to that in a sec. Um, let me do that. Let me bring up topic E- the, uh, real time automation controller, um. 1355 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:12.624 --> 05:54:17.484 Was presented by Eric earlier today and, um. 1356 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:54:18.444 --> 05:54:29.394 By the utilities. So does anything need to be done there. It looks like there was some wording that needed to be changed. 1357 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:54:34.676 --> 05:54:52.074 Good, um, I think the, there's pretty much four options I guess on the table if we look at slide slide, um, and I think we need to the utility. 1358 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:54:52.078 --> 05:55:13.164 [...] and maybe I can work with them on refining what the exact configuration allowable configuration or configurations are in that and how that would be set up just to get as clear as possible. I think we can leave some flexibility in the rule language. 1359 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:55:13.794 --> 05:55:33.684 And leave it up to interconnection handbooks to define other aspects of this. I don't know, PT, how do you deal with PT and [...] tolerances or, um, you know, we don't, we don't have to put in the role that you're speaking goose from the architect to the relay or whatnot, but, um. 1360 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:55:34.494 --> 05:55:51.324 There's at least these basic configurations that we need to figure out which ones are acceptable. I think that's one of the first steps and then we can kind of figure out what, what level of detail can really go into that role language. 1361 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:55:54.144 --> 05:56:15.266 All right, so the action item I guess is today's get as much done, uh, through email, then, uh, try to get that finalized. It's easier to do it before. This are filed just because. 1362 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:56:15.270 --> 05:56:18.564 Cause it becomes less of a, um. 1363 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:56:21.264 --> 05:56:40.194 Administration stuff, basically it makes it easier. So, all right, so that's one action item. Please CC Energy Division on those Frank and myself and Justin on those emails. So I think that would probably close out topic E. 1364 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:56:41.064 --> 05:56:41.936 Um. 1365 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:56:43.706 --> 05:56:59.036 Going back to topic B- two before we go back to topic app again, topic B- to screen and seems to be the, um. 1366 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:57:00.774 --> 05:57:07.794 Major issue that was brought up today. Uh, I'm not sure whether that can be. 1367 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:57:10.014 --> 05:57:17.304 Worked out through through emails, but I wanted to see a sky's [...]. 1368 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:57:17.336 --> 05:57:18.176 The utilities. 1369 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:57:23.094 --> 05:57:28.644 On basically on next steps or are we reserving that to test? 1370 Sky Stanfield 05:57:30.834 --> 05:57:42.354 I mean, I'd be happy to work on it via email, but I wasn't hearing that there was a middle utilities wanted to work on that with us further. So again, happy to do that if. 1371 Sky Stanfield 05:57:43.464 --> 05:57:44.786 Willing willingness. 1372 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 05:57:46.920 --> 05:57:48.474 All right, Alex, you had your hand up. 1373 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:57:50.364 --> 05:58:08.064 Yeah, I wanted to make a comment on, um, Brian's on topic. We don't mind, so I'm just thinking like the speaking for PG E- the preference would be that the option that we should explore should be one that we. 1374 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:58:08.094 --> 05:58:28.284 Can sell it and leave it, meaning that one that doesn't require, you know, I think I saw option one save schedule stored inside the architect registers reprogramming required for new [...]. So I think the preference would be to have something that could be set initially. 1375 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:58:29.516 --> 05:58:44.276 And then no, not required this additional programming. So to the extent Brian that you, you're going to try to provide more information, you know, maybe you can clarify that, that, that part of it. 1376 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:58:45.384 --> 05:58:50.366 Yeah, as I understood, um, for Sean, that is an. 1377 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:58:50.394 --> 05:58:57.384 She just, in, in case the profile needs to be changed in the future. So. 1378 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 05:58:58.164 --> 05:59:02.606 That's something we know why this changed, otherwise it can remain as it is. 1379 Brian Lydic - IREC 05:59:02.964 --> 05:59:06.506 Right, right, it would just keep the same schedule a year after you hear me. 1380 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:59:07.494 --> 05:59:11.484 Okay, so the so option one and option three, this. 1381 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:59:11.520 --> 05:59:20.154 [...] would basically live in the [...] and if you don't need to change it, there's no action required to just kind of let it go. Yeah, after, yeah, sorry, correct understanding. 1382 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:59:23.394 --> 05:59:31.284 Two and four there would be in the [...] gateway and then the same thing would apply, right? It's just going to. 1383 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 05:59:31.824 --> 05:59:32.334 Yeah. 1384 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:59:32.364 --> 05:59:33.384 So recurring schedule. 1385 Prasanth Gopalakrishnan ASE/Kalkitech 05:59:33.774 --> 05:59:41.244 That's needed, only if you need to change the schedule. So if the schedule is static, you don't need option understood. 1386 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:59:42.114 --> 05:59:42.504 Okay. 1387 Alex Mwaura PG&E 05:59:42.864 --> 06:00:03.564 Thank you, and then, you know, to Sky's comment as far as like, you know, discussions on the, uh, the issue. Uh, I mean, I'm personally willing to talk through it far that this is something that we've, what I presented today is something that we discussed as the, I joined [...] team and agreed was the. 1388 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:00:04.644 --> 06:00:12.836 Most feasible way to proceed, but happy to hear, you know, happy to discuss it further. There's no, I don't think that those closed. So. 1389 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:00:18.836 --> 06:00:25.016 Alright, I've been hearing that, and let's start a discussion through email on that. 1390 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:00:26.994 --> 06:00:29.004 And again, the energy division. 1391 Regnier, Justin 06:00:30.444 --> 06:00:32.904 Stand up, I'm not sure if you can see it from your configuration. 1392 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:00:32.934 --> 06:00:43.134 Oh, I'm sorry. Please from going forward from now on, you could just chime in since we're in an open discussion. 1393 David Schiada 06:00:43.914 --> 06:00:47.394 All right, yeah, I just, you know, I think. 1394 David Schiada 06:00:47.426 --> 06:01:08.544 W- we'll definitely open our emails and, and answer the phone to try to have discussions and what have you, but just to kind of set some expectations. I mean we've got an advice letter. I've used it. Let's do May first and given the comprehensive nature of this and, you know, the internal review. 1395 David Schiada 06:01:08.574 --> 06:01:26.724 So we got basically about a two week or so time period to kind of take everything that's been presented putting through today and put that in your inbox letter, including, um, for the resolution responsibility that if. 1396 David Schiada 06:01:28.290 --> 06:01:49.434 An item hasn't reached consensus. We'd have to provide details as to the basis for lack of consensus and the alternative proposals are fanny. So without having some of these things locked down, it makes it, we're going to have to start proceeding as, if, you know, picking area has not reached topic. X has not reached. 1397 David Schiada 06:01:49.440 --> 06:02:10.554 Consensus and be able to develop that and advice letter and describe why it hasn't reached consensus to meet that requirement of resolution. So while we certainly will answer the calls and the emails just kind of setting expectation a practical one that for us to get from here to what may first filing, we're going to have to. 1398 David Schiada 06:02:10.590 --> 06:02:20.124 Have, you know, kind of locked down what we're describing in the advice letter pretty quickly and I was hopeful that was by the end of this workshop. So. 1399 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:02:33.176 --> 06:02:54.294 And David, thank you for that. I do recognize that, and so as far as the email correspondence correspondences go, uh, it looks like topic E may be easily resolved via email and I'm not expecting, you know, back and forth. 1400 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:02:54.324 --> 06:03:08.034 Back and forth back and forth, but, you know, if the email threads are not going anywhere, then that gives a pretty good indication on, on where things stand. 1401 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:03:13.616 --> 06:03:17.336 And Justin, I think you had something to say, what do you mean or. 1402 Regnier, Justin 06:03:17.664 --> 06:03:19.856 Yeah, yeah, um. 1403 Regnier, Justin 06:03:22.734 --> 06:03:41.214 Here, Dave concerned and empathize with that dealing with executive review. Does take a non- trivial amount of time. Um, wanted to check first with the group that I got it, right. In terms of the consensus that the. 1404 Regnier, Justin 06:03:42.534 --> 06:03:52.104 Kind of the contenders that seem to have the most support or yeah, I use twelve [...]. 1405 Regnier, Justin 06:03:52.134 --> 06:04:11.904 Eighty four g news sixteen to twenty- three fixed and uh, [...]. Um, I forget the name of it by chunking proposal for lack of a better word. Um, so before going any further in conversations. 1406 Regnier, Justin 06:04:13.284 --> 06:04:20.544 Anybody object to that or is that fairly reflective of the groups? Um. 1407 Regnier, Justin 06:04:22.074 --> 06:04:26.754 preliminary evaluation chunk. Okay, cool. 1408 McElvain, Frank 06:04:27.414 --> 06:04:29.154 I thought it was blocked proposal, but. 1409 Regnier, Justin 06:04:29.814 --> 06:04:31.284 Block proposal, okay. 1410 Regnier, Justin 06:04:37.944 --> 06:04:45.084 Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to jump topics, maybe maybe we could think about that for a minute. Well, let's say close to the topic rather than. 1411 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:04:45.564 --> 06:04:54.144 I know, I think, uh, we've closed up, uh, I'll pick [...]. 1412 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:04:56.724 --> 06:05:07.644 But Justin, so you started topic at, which is the next topic that we need to find a middle ground or agreement on. 1413 Regnier, Justin 06:05:10.944 --> 06:05:11.274 Yep. 1414 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:05:11.994 --> 06:05:12.654 So. 1415 Regnier, Justin 06:05:13.254 --> 06:05:30.804 Remind them in my discussion about a moment ago. so maybe we should give it a moment to see if anybody's got any objections before assuming consensus, but that, that would be the first for the, the, the third time of, for anybody. 1416 Regnier, Justin 06:05:30.836 --> 06:05:37.494 To, to bring up a different view if they hold the differing view on the, on the lack of some vendors. 1417 Sky Stanfield 06:05:40.134 --> 06:05:51.956 I just a quick question about that. So, um, you've identified a couple of the other [...] options other than the twelve month profile, what is it are, are any of [...] is actually. 1418 Sky Stanfield 06:05:51.984 --> 06:05:55.674 Suggesting those are contenders not to discourage you not to, but. 1419 Regnier, Justin 06:05:58.374 --> 06:06:02.604 Yes, my only criteria was that it does seem to meet sweet spot criterias. 1420 Sky Stanfield 06:06:02.634 --> 06:06:07.014 Okay, I got it. I just wanted to make sure we were, I agree that that's stuff. 1421 David Schiada 06:06:07.974 --> 06:06:11.994 That was Michael can correct me here, at least from the [...] side, but I think. 1422 David Schiada 06:06:13.254 --> 06:06:30.834 We're at twelve is my understanding we presented analysis on the other areas, including, uh, eighty four. Uh, the data is what it is, but I think at least as of one hundred and forty- eight zero PM here in West the twelve, but Michael, you can wait. 1423 Michael Barigian SCE 06:06:32.934 --> 06:06:34.434 You got it right Dave, thanks. 1424 Regnier, Justin 06:06:38.964 --> 06:06:56.814 So the [...] we're not putting it forward as, as options, but what I'm assuming is those seem to meet the discussions. We've had previous on sweet spot where there is a, that's an inflection point where appreciable gain is, is not. 1425 Regnier, Justin 06:06:58.106 --> 06:07:03.984 Accompanied by additional risk overall of violations in any case. 1426 Sky Stanfield 06:07:05.454 --> 06:07:26.424 Justin, can I ask you does the staff have the capability to do any analysis, um, in this context and I understand your s- staffing considerations, but so like, if we settled on some of those options to evaluate is, is that, is there capability with. 1427 Sky Stanfield 06:07:26.454 --> 06:07:29.064 In the commission to help do some of that analysis. 1428 Regnier, Justin 06:07:32.244 --> 06:07:34.856 May have some, um. 1429 Regnier, Justin 06:07:36.834 --> 06:07:37.914 You know, it's. 1430 Regnier, Justin 06:07:39.266 --> 06:07:59.366 Equally likely that we would direct utilities to perform analysis as we're allowed to do budget on nine hundred and sixty in the evaluation of advice letters if consensus is not reached, then we will have to do, um, some level of analysis to make. 1431 Regnier, Justin 06:08:00.864 --> 06:08:07.764 The draft of the resolution or directive or some combination of. 1432 Regnier, Justin 06:08:14.394 --> 06:08:31.164 So the analysis is as much preciate it. I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this point. It seems a bit unfortunate that it is coming at this juncture because it's, you know, there's, we have, we have some friends that are. 1433 Regnier, Justin 06:08:31.290 --> 06:08:41.034 Marriage and family therapist in our circle. The joke is always all the work gets done in the last five minutes in the session, um, but there's some truth there. 1434 Regnier, Justin 06:08:43.706 --> 06:09:03.714 I guess the next thing that I would ask, well, I guess before that, um, so those, I mean, those, this seems to be consensus, those are the, the, the proposals that have been put forward as party positions or those that seem to occupy the sweet spot. 1435 Regnier, Justin 06:09:03.984 --> 06:09:08.664 Is there any argument that those are the four that were meet those two criteria. 1436 Brian Lydic - IREC 06:09:15.984 --> 06:09:31.884 I'm not sure I didn't hear you mentioned the twelve one or the twenty- four value one, not that I think it's necessarily very far in the sweet spot, but it. 1437 Brian Lydic - IREC 06:09:31.944 --> 06:09:37.524 So it seems to be lower risk in general, potentially. 1438 Regnier, Justin 06:09:37.524 --> 06:09:47.604 For that as well. Good point Brian. So those five minutes sounds like the consensus loop, our sweet spots or, or actual party proposals. 1439 Regnier, Justin 06:09:51.864 --> 06:09:58.914 So diving into those as a matter of non- trivial effort. Um. 1440 Regnier, Justin 06:10:00.266 --> 06:10:06.714 What is the group's thought of positioning for an extension of deadline on this particular last letter. 1441 Sky Stanfield 06:10:13.884 --> 06:10:14.214 So. 1442 Sky Stanfield 06:10:14.364 --> 06:10:35.364 Here's what I think about that. I think that it depends on whether the utilities are quite firm in not being willing to take more risk than the twelve months, cause all we know enough to know that there is risk, we don't understand why. 1443 Sky Stanfield 06:10:35.370 --> 06:10:56.366 What that risk really is like how reliable risk it is, what magnitude it is. Um, besides more frequent events, um, but the, I think that it, it'd be worth additional time and analysis if we want utilities, if we thought it would help us get to some consensus, but if the utilities are position that they think they can't. 1444 Sky Stanfield 06:10:57.894 --> 06:11:05.814 Do you know they're not going to be willing to agree to something that has any more risk than that, but I just don't feel like we. 1445 Sky Stanfield 06:11:08.184 --> 06:11:14.124 The more analysis will help the commission make the decision, but it's not going to move us towards more consensus on which. 1446 Sky Stanfield 06:11:15.114 --> 06:11:16.164 Helping our goals, right? 1447 Regnier, Justin 06:11:16.824 --> 06:11:23.814 That was the point that I was going to make is that whether the user willing to move towards consensus or not, we will probably need that analysis. 1448 Regnier, Justin 06:11:40.494 --> 06:11:57.894 But the question is still on the table in terms of what folks thoughts are, and maybe I know that we're in the last six minutes of this, this may not be in the place that we'll get the answer, but I don't know what folks thoughts are in terms of potentially putting out a petition for extension in order to be able to conduct the analysis. 1449 Regnier, Justin 06:11:58.946 --> 06:12:05.394 Discussions upon it that are not limited to protests and replies to protests and responses through blood. 1450 David Schiada 06:12:17.484 --> 06:12:35.214 It just is some understanding what's on the table? I probably have to go back to the I'll use here and talk about it. I would suspect, but it would be like, yeah, please provide an extension of X amount of time. 1451 David Schiada 06:12:35.218 --> 06:12:54.684 And in order to complete the following additional analysis and something like what you indicated before, around twenty four eighty, four, six hundred and twenty- three and blocks, or is that. 1452 Regnier, Justin 06:12:58.526 --> 06:13:03.384 Yeah, I mean we're at the, to some extent we're just flushing out possibilities here. 1453 David Schiada 06:13:03.446 --> 06:13:03.776 Okay. 1454 Regnier, Justin 06:13:05.036 --> 06:13:07.196 That seems in the vein of, of the discussion. Yeah. 1455 David Schiada 06:13:07.554 --> 06:13:07.946 Okay. 1456 David Schiada 06:13:10.164 --> 06:13:29.456 I have one question. I don't, I don't have the answer. I don't know if folks that would have to do this type of analysis Would this point as of today, understand fully what that would entail, you know, again, I'm not the technical one that's going to crank through it, but I don't know if that. 1457 David Schiada 06:13:30.684 --> 06:13:50.634 Folks at this point would have a clear understanding about what the scope of that is, and, and then once you get to a scope, how long that, that might take, which probably might need to be addressed in any kind of extension requests. So, but I'll defer to the technical folks in one way. 1458 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:13:56.484 --> 06:14:05.754 Justin, this is Alex. I have a question for you. So did I catch us, right? You said we would need additional analysis, regardless of something. 1459 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:14:08.786 --> 06:14:09.564 Can you elaborate? 1460 Regnier, Justin 06:14:09.926 --> 06:14:28.016 I think if folks can come to consensus whether there's a consensus opinion that negates the need to explain why consensus was not reached if they can't come to consensus, then staff has to do analysis and [...]. 1461 Regnier, Justin 06:14:28.044 --> 06:14:37.614 Motion for the commissions consideration. Um, and of course getting to that point would require analysis. Yes. 1462 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:14:37.674 --> 06:14:48.984 Okay, okay, so if we, for example, the twenty- four hour value that was something that was agreed upon, then this issue could be resolved without. 1463 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:14:49.224 --> 06:14:50.844 The need for additional analysis. 1464 Regnier, Justin 06:14:52.944 --> 06:15:10.044 I think that is a possibility. I think we would want to take a look at the energy division would want to take a look at the economics of that to see if that the resolve the issue that was brought forth by the developers and the earlier workshops. 1465 Regnier, Justin 06:15:10.526 --> 06:15:14.876 As to whether there's a market viability for the, for that to be adopted at all. 1466 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:15:15.624 --> 06:15:16.016 Thank you. 1467 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:15:30.744 --> 06:15:33.174 All right, we got two minutes. 1468 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:15:34.374 --> 06:15:38.964 Uh, I guess I'll any last thoughts or closing remarks from anybody. 1469 Sky Stanfield 06:15:42.836 --> 06:16:02.484 In the vein of closing remarks I want to, especially appreciate all the work that the utility engineers and Brian and [...] have been doing on the relay, our tech option. I, I really think that was a huge obstacle, like not having an alternate to the PCS options. So I really appreciate. 1470 Sky Stanfield 06:16:02.488 --> 06:16:23.634 It, the collaborative work that's gone into that and that we're, we're not there yet, but we're very close and I do think that that was, you know, anything that's been successful out of that, that, that was a big change over a couple of weeks and I appreciate everybody's willingness to be really collaborative on that topic, and I think that makes the algae be much more viable. Whichever approach, we end up. 1471 Sky Stanfield 06:16:23.724 --> 06:16:26.844 Settling on, so recognizing some successes. 1472 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:16:33.084 --> 06:16:40.014 Thank you Scott. I echo your sentiment there. A lot of work has gone into this. Uh, thank you everybody. 1473 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:16:42.144 --> 06:16:56.334 All right, unless there is any other thoughts here. Um, thank you for sticking with us through all of these workshops. 1474 Wilfredo Guevara - SDG&E 06:16:59.694 --> 06:16:59.934 Thank you. 1475 Regnier, Justin 06:17:01.734 --> 06:17:04.404 Thank you for Jose for running them keeping us on track. 1476 Aliaga-Caro, Jose 06:17:08.876 --> 06:17:13.676 Alright, thank you. Everybody. Take care, enjoy the rest of the day. 1477 Alex Mwaura PG&E 06:17:14.366 --> 06:17:15.776 Thank you, everyone. Have a nice weekend. 1478 Michael Barigian SCE 06:17:17.336 --> 06:17:18.384 Thanks, have a good one. 1479 Brian Lydic - IREC 06:17:18.926 --> 06:17:19.376 So. 1480 McElvain, Frank 06:17:20.696 --> 06:17:21.116 Hello.