assumptions and otherwise improve from the CEC should be the model. (Decision at p. 45.) doubled.” are many disputed issues of the supply side, the main “There “On material facts that have been raised concern was about the by POC and other parties assumption that existing throughout this proceeding resources, both fossil-fueled regarding assumptions made in the and renewable, would be model and the extent to which the recontracted and available model reflects realistic conditions. throughout the planning . . .For example, there are disputed horizon to 2030. This view was issues of material fact regarding the shared by numerous parties to question of the statutorily required some degree, increase in energy efficiency as (Decision at including…POC.” well as the price, availability, and p. 46.) time for procurement of wind, solar, and (POC Motion parties commented storage.” “Numerous for Evidentiary Hearings at p. 16.) on the manner in which resource costs are treated in POC argued against use 1.5 not RESOLVE…POC do[es] multiplier instead of doubling of believe that the TRC approach energy efficiency, assumptions of is appropriate for BTM PV resources costs, treatment of DER, storage and/or storage…For and other issues with the costs, some parties felt they RESOLVE model assumptions and were assumed to be too low analysis. (See POC Motion for (National Grid), while other Evidentiary Hearings; POC parties believed they were too Comment On Proposed Reference high (CESA). Vote Solar and System Plan And Related POC felt that solar PV cost Commission Policy; POC Reply estimates were too high.” Comment On Proposed Reference (Decision at p. 47.) System Plan And Related Commission Policy; POC respect to DERs, because “With Comments on the Proposed most are not optimized Decision.) intrinsically in the RESOLVE model, additional work is RESOLVE model] does not needed to be able to predict “[The accurately capture the cost of key their value with specificity.” resources solar, wind, and (Decision at p. 39.) – (POC Comment On storage.”
assumptions and otherwise improve the model. “There are many disputed issues of material facts that have been raised by POC and other parties throughout this proceeding regarding assumptions made in the model and the extent to which the model reflects realistic conditions. . . .For example, there are disputed issues of material fact regarding the question of the statutorily required increase in energy efficiency as well as the price, availability, and time for procurement of wind, solar, and storage.” (POC Motion for Evidentiary Hearings at p. 16.) POC argued against use 1.5 multiplier instead of doubling of energy efficiency, assumptions of resources costs, treatment of DER, and other issues with the RESOLVE model assumptions and analysis. (See POC Motion for Evidentiary Hearings; POC Comment On Proposed Reference System Plan And Related Commission Policy; POC Reply Comment On Proposed Reference System Plan And Related Commission Policy; POC Comments on the Proposed Decision.) “[The RESOLVE model] does not accurately capture the cost of key resources – solar, wind, and storage.” (POC Comment On from the CEC should be doubled.” (Decision at p. 45.) “On the supply side, the main concern was about the assumption that existing resources, both fossil-fueled and renewable, would be recontracted and available throughout the planning horizon to 2030. This view was shared by numerous parties to some degree, including…POC.” (Decision at p. 46.) “Numerous parties commented on the manner in which resource costs are treated in RESOLVE…POC do[es] not believe that the TRC approach is appropriate for BTM PV and/or storage…For storage costs, some parties felt they were assumed to be too low (National Grid), while other parties believed they were too high (CESA). Vote Solar and POC felt that solar PV cost estimates were too high.” (Decision at p. 47.) “With respect to DERs, because most are not optimized intrinsically in the RESOLVE model, additional work is needed to be able to predict their value with specificity.” (Decision at p. 39.)
231086612.docx