utilities to demonstrate new methods to better calculate and identify risk and — to mitigate risk more effectively. The utilities should use the RAMP filings as opportunities to clearly identify the most effective ways to achieve these goals and should communicate that understanding to all parties so that others can adopt the best practices that result. Demonstrate progress towards spend efficiency” calculations “risk California’s utilities have attempted to develop efficiency” “riskspend calculations that can compare the costs and benefits of particular mitigations. These calculations have posed a challenge, and the utilities and other parties have not always agreed among themselves on what methods are most useful for calculating riskspend efficiency. Nevertheless, understanding the costs of mitigations is an important part of the proceeding and an important step toward the General Rate Cases. The utilities should include riskspend efficiency calculations in their RAMP filings, even if those calculations are imperfect. It may take iterations over multiple cycles to refine those calculations, but by starting now California can benefit in the future. This guidance is for SMAP #1. By SMAP #2 or SMAP #3 these riskspend efficiency calculations may arrive at the desired state. If a utility develops a different method to calculate and optimize its spending for mitigations, then the utility should describe that method in its RAMP filing for the Commission to understand and for other parties to see. How the Utilities [should] show progress toward probabilistic calculations
utilities to demonstrate new methods to better calculate and identify risk — and to mitigate risk more effectively. The utilities should use the RAMP filings as opportunities to clearly identify the most effective ways to achieve these goals and should communicate that understanding to all parties so that others can adopt the best practices that result. Demonstrate progress towards “risk spend efficiency” calculations California’s utilities have attempted to develop “riskspend efficiency” calculations that can compare the costs and benefits of particular mitigations. These calculations have posed a challenge, and the utilities and other parties have not always agreed among themselves on what methods are most useful for calculating riskspend efficiency. Nevertheless, understanding the costs of mitigations is an important part of the proceeding and an important step toward the General Rate Cases. The utilities should include riskspend efficiency calculations in their RAMP filings, even if those calculations are imperfect. It may take iterations over multiple cycles to refine those calculations, but by starting now California can benefit in the future. This guidance is for SMAP #1. By SMAP #2 or SMAP #3 these riskspend efficiency calculations may arrive at the desired state. If a utility develops a different method to calculate and optimize its spending for mitigations, then the utility should describe that method in its RAMP filing for the Commission to understand and for other parties to see. How the Utilities [should] show progress toward probabilistic calculations
165087191.docx