If the PSAs Do Not Fulfill an Existing Procurement Need, are there Any Other Reasons Why the PSAs Should be Approved? SCE acknowledges that there is no need in the LA Basin to support procurement, but contends that there are still at least two good reasons why the 19 PSAs should nevertheless be approved. Specifically, SCE argues that: (1) they would support the objectives of the PRP itself; and, (2) they will support California’s ambitious environmental and energy policies to combat climate change and reduce polluting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Are the PSA Contracts Needed to Support the Objectives of the PRP? SCE argues that its procurement in this proceeding will support two PRP objectives: First, SCE will be able to determine whether it can acquire sufficient preferred DERs in a highly localized manner in urban areas down to the circuit level, and second, SCE will determine whether it is feasible to use locallysited preferred resources to effectively manage or offset forecasted load growth in the JS Region. These objectives are generally duplicative of other Commission mandates, programs and procurement activities. For example, SCE intends that the PRP “inform future use of DERs in lieu of conventional generation or distribution system upgrades” at the circuit level. Yet this is the same objective that SCE seeks to meet through the Integrated Distributed Energy Resources distribution deferral pilots adopted in D.1612036, through resources proposed in its 2018 GRC (A.1609001), as well as some of the LCR resources that may be deployed in the Demo C area. SCE’s stated objective of demonstrating that is can acquire sufficient DERs at the circuit level, and use locallysited preferred resources to manage load, is also very similar to the grid modernization efforts which are currently underway
If the PSAs Do Not Fulfill an Existing Procurement Need, are there Any Other Reasons Why the PSAs Should be Approved? SCE acknowledges that there is no need in the LA Basin to support procurement, but contends that there are still at least two good reasons why the 19 PSAs should nevertheless be approved. Specifically, SCE argues that: (1) they would support the objectives of the PRP itself; and, (2) they will support California’s ambitious environmental and energy policies to combat climate change and reduce polluting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Are the PSA Contracts Needed to Support the Objectives of the PRP? SCE argues that its procurement in this proceeding will support two PRP objectives: First, SCE will be able to determine whether it can acquire sufficient preferred DERs in a highly localized manner in urban areas down to the circuit level, and second, SCE will determine whether it is feasible to use locallysited preferred resources to effectively manage or offset forecasted load growth in the JS Region. These objectives are generally duplicative of other Commission mandates, programs and procurement activities. For example, SCE intends that the PRP “inform future use of DERs in lieu of conventional generation or distribution system upgrades” at the circuit level. Yet this is the same objective that SCE seeks to meet through the Integrated Distributed Energy Resources distribution deferral pilots adopted in D.1612036, through resources proposed in its 2018 GRC (A.1609001), as well as some of the LCR resources that may be deployed in the Demo C area. SCE’s stated objective of demonstrating that is can acquire sufficient DERs at the circuit level, and use locallysited preferred resources to manage load, is also very similar to the grid modernization efforts which are currently underway