Comments of the several parties, we also California intend to revisit this target in Environmental Justice each IRP planning cycle.” Alliance, Sierra Club, (p. 58) and Environmental GHG target will Defense Fund on the “[T]he point the direction and Staff White CPUC’s trajectory that can be Paper On adjusted when more Implementing GHG information becomes Planning Targets in the available after each two-year IRP Process, pp. 9-11, cycle, either through better November 30, 2016; assumptions, improved Informal Reply analytical modeling Comments of the functionality, and/or actual California procurement Environmental Justice experience.” (p. 59) Alliance, Sierra Club, And Environmental will be required “PacifiCorp Defense Fund on the to file the IRP they already Staff White CPUC’s prepare, with any Paper On supplemental information Implementing GHG about disadvantaged Planning Targets in the communities or any other IRP Process, pp. 4-5, required aspect of SB 350 December 7, 2016; required in this decision that Opening Comments of is not already covered in California their IRP filing prepared for Environmental Justice those other jurisdictions.” Alliance and Sierra (p. 131) Club On Administrative Law PacifiCorp shall file an “15. Judge’s Ruling Alternative integrated Seeking Comment on resource plan (IRP) Staff Proposal on consisting of any IRP Process for Integrated submitted to another public Resource Planning, pp. regulatory entity within the 15-16, 18, 61-63, June previous calendar year, and 28, 2017) shall also include the information required in Sierra Club and CEJA Ordering Paragraph 6 of this recommended using decision as well as any other the 30 MMT Scenario requirements of Senate Bill in the IRPs to better 350 not already covered in reflect the mandates its (p. 174) IRP.” from SB 350, SB 32, and Executive Order (Opening
Comments of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense Fund on the CPUC’s Staff White Paper On Implementing GHG Planning Targets in the IRP Process, pp. 9-11, November 30, 2016; Informal Reply Comments of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, Sierra Club, And Environmental Defense Fund on the CPUC’s Staff White Paper On Implementing GHG Planning Targets in the IRP Process, pp. 4-5, December 7, 2016; Opening Comments of California Environmental Justice Alliance and Sierra Club On Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Seeking Comment on Staff Proposal on Process for Integrated Resource Planning, pp. 15-16, 18, 61-63, June 28, 2017) Sierra Club and CEJA recommended using the 30 MMT Scenario in the IRPs to better reflect the mandates from SB 350, SB 32, and Executive Order (Opening several parties, we also intend to revisit this target in each IRP planning cycle.” (p. 58) “[T]he GHG target will point the direction and trajectory that can be adjusted when more information becomes available after each two-year cycle, either through better assumptions, improved analytical modeling functionality, and/or actual procurement experience.” (p. 59) “PacifiCorp will be required to file the IRP they already prepare, with any supplemental information about disadvantaged communities or any other required aspect of SB 350 required in this decision that is not already covered in their IRP filing prepared for those other jurisdictions.” (p. 131) “15. PacifiCorp shall file an Alternative integrated resource plan (IRP) consisting of any IRP submitted to another public regulatory entity within the previous calendar year, and shall also include the information required in Ordering Paragraph 6 of this decision as well as any other requirements of Senate Bill 350 not already covered in its IRP.” (p. 174)
217956136.docx