next cycle, and the state of the current storage market, than under a scenario where IOUs have twelve months to make the same determination.” PG&E disagrees and argues that GPI’s comments do not appreciate the two-step nature of the RFO process. The first step is the development of the shortlist; and the second step is negotiation with those on the shortlist to reach agreement on mutually agreeable projects. PG&E complains that “GPI’s proposal would force the utilities to make their decisions on whether to request deferment based primarily, if not solely, on the bidders’ initial offers.” More time is needed to work together to develop mutually agreeable viable storage projects before a utility requests a deferment. Discussion PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E make persuasive arguments that the deadline to request deferral should be longer than three months after receipt of initial offers. In this decision, we extend the deadline to request deferments to no later than one year from the date of the solicitation coinciding with the IOU filing seeking Commission approval of contracts of winning bids. Early offers may not provide enough information to make a decision to defer volumes. It is only after the development of a short list and further negotiations that an IOU will know what the final offers looks like and what adjustments need to be made moving forward. A shorter deadline sounds attractive, but may not be realistic as the program is in a startup mode and more time may be needed to evaluate needed deferments moving forward. While we extend the time line for the IOUs in this first 2014 biennial solicitation, we may shorten timeline deadlines to defer in subsequent biennial
next cycle, and the state of the current storage market, than under a scenario where IOUs have twelve months to make the same determination.” PG&E disagrees and argues that GPI’s comments do not appreciate the two-step nature of the RFO process. The first step is the development of the shortlist; and the second step is negotiation with those on the shortlist to reach agreement on mutually agreeable projects. PG&E complains that “GPI’s proposal would force the utilities to make their decisions on whether to request deferment based primarily, if not solely, on the bidders’ initial offers.” More time is needed to work together to develop mutually agreeable viable storage projects before a utility requests a deferment. Discussion PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E make persuasive arguments that the deadline to request deferral should be longer than three months after receipt of initial offers. In this decision, we extend the deadline to request deferments to no later than one year from the date of the solicitation coinciding with the IOU filing seeking Commission approval of contracts of winning bids. Early offers may not provide enough information to make a decision to defer volumes. It is only after the development of a short list and further negotiations that an IOU will know what the final offers looks like and what adjustments need to be made moving forward. A shorter deadline sounds attractive, but may not be realistic as the program is in a startup mode and more time may be needed to evaluate needed deferments moving forward. While we extend the time line for the IOUs in this first 2014 biennial solicitation, we may shorten timeline deadlines to defer in subsequent biennial
127426247.docx