BLACK & VEATCH CALIFORNIA RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCE POTENTIAL AND COST UPDATE

Introduction California Cost and Resource Assessment Solar Wind Bioenergy Geothermal Out of State Resources Future Cost Declines Zone Identification PRESENTATION OUTLINE 2

1. INTRODUCTION 3

The objective of this project is to prepare a comprehensive and up-to-date data set of cost, performance, and resource potential for renewable energy in California and the West This information will be used in the RPS Calculator and potentially other applications The last comprehensive California resource assessment was the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI, ) Many changes in the market necessitate this update PROJECT OBJECTIVE 4

This PowerPoint summarizing approach Detailed maps showing location and quality of potential Tables and spreadsheets with resource potential and cost (incorporated into RPS calculator) CONTENT GENERATED UNDER THIS PROJECT 5

2. CALIFORNIA COST AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 6

Summary of Cost and Resource Assessment General Approach Resource Exclusions Solar PV Solar Thermal Wind Bioenergy Geothermal COST AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION TOPICS 7

SUMMARY – COST AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 8

This section summarizes: Major methodological changes in the cost and resource assessment compared to the approach taken in RETI Key results, especially as they compare to previous RETI work Much more detail included later in this presentation and in reference material INTRODUCTION TO SUMMARY 9

Used to compare ranges in estimates across major resource assessments: RETI 1B – 2008 RETI 2B – 2010 RPS Calculator – 2013 Three key variables summarized Capital cost Capacity factor Resource potential BOX AND WHISKER PLOTS 10 Minimum Maximum Average Median 1st Quartile 3rd Quartile

Methodology Changes Completely new state-wide resource assessment for fixed and tracking PV from 250 kW to 20 MW+ Much lower capital costs Potential for significantly higher performance driven by modern plant designs Incorporated E3 “Local Distributed PV” study for DG potential Results Much lower LCOE than previously estimated Good-to-excellent quality PV resources available throughout state SOLAR PV 11

SOLAR PV CHANGES (TRACKING, 20+ MW) 12 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %acResource Potential, MWac Excludes distributed PV State- wide Southern CA State- wide

SOLAR PV CHANGES (TRACKING, 20+ MW) 13 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %acResource Potential, MWac Excludes distributed PV Reduced capital cost CF up to 36% for best sites State- wide Southern CA State- wide Statewide resource

Methodology Changes Only minor changes Increased capital costs to reflect current costs Added Power Tower with 6-hour storage Results No changes in resource potential Slightly higher costs SOLAR THERMAL 14

SOLAR THERMAL CHANGES (NO STORAGE) 15 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %acResource Potential, MWac RETI 1B included wet and dry-cooled plants. RETI 2B and the current estimates are dry-cooled only.

SOLAR THERMAL CHANGES (NO STORAGE) 16 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %acResource Potential, MWac RETI 1B included wet and dry-cooled plants. RETI 2B and the current estimates are dry-cooled only. Increased capital cost No changes

Methodology Changes Characterized low wind speed resources using new turbine designs Reduced minimum wind speed for development from 6.3 to 5.5 m/sec Reduced capital costs Accounted for significant wind development that has occurred in last 5 years Removed restriction on development in RETI category 2 lands (yellow) Added distributed resources Results Overall costs significantly lower Total potential relatively unchanged, but much more wind identified in Northern California Quality of identified resources lower on average WIND 17

WIND CHANGES 18 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %acResource Potential, MWac Excludes distributed wind

WIND CHANGES 19 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %acResource Potential, MWac Excludes distributed wind Reduced capital cost 75% of identified wind <30% CF Increase in low wind potential 75% of identified wind >30% CF

Methodology Changes Accounted for biomass already being used and competing uses Added distributed resources (incl. biogas) in compliance with SB 1122 Adjusted costs upward slightly to account for inflation Results Resource potential and costs relatively unchanged Average plant size is smaller, which increases average cost Distributed resources now available BIOENERGY 20

BIOENERGY CHANGES 21 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %acResource Potential, MWac DG Capital cost and capacity factor exclude distributed bioenergy

BIOENERGY CHANGES 22 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %acResource Potential, MWac DG Capital cost and capacity factor exclude distributed bioenergy Increased capital cost No changes Slight reduction

Methodology Changes Only minor changes Accounted for development that has recently occurred Adjusted costs upward slightly to account for inflation Results Resource potential and costs relatively unchanged GEOTHERMAL 23

GEOTHERMAL CHANGES 24 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %acResource Potential, MWac

GEOTHERMAL CHANGES 25 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %acResource Potential, MWac Increased capital cost No changes Slight reduction

APPROACH – COST AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 26

Black & Veatch developed new cost and performance information from internal sources, market data, and other literature (LBNL, DOE, CEC) When possible, previously-vetted information from other Black & Veatch stakeholder projects was used Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative ( ) Western Renewable Energy Zones (2009, ) SB1122 Biomass Feed-in Tariff (2013) NREL Renewable Electricity Futures (2010) APPROACH – SOURCES OF DATA FOR RESOURCES 27

RETI was active from Two major resource assessments: RETI 1B – 2008 RETI 2B – 2010 The RETI methodology was reviewed extensively by stakeholders and reused to the greatest extent possible Updated as necessary to address significant changes market APPROACH – RENEWABLE ENERGY TRANSMISSION INITIATIVE 28

Capital Cost Updates Costs are “all-in” installed costs and include EPC + owner’s costs (soft costs) Costs include costs through the interconnection to the T&D system Costs are for 2013 projects – Future cost forecast curves developed for all technologies Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Updates Black & Veatch O&M cost estimates include all other annual costs, including land lease, insurance, and property tax * Resource potential and performance was updated for all technologies compared to the RETI assessment Major methodology changes made for wind and solar PV Small-scale bioenergy from SB 1122 analysis Minor updates to all other resources (Solar Thermal, Geothermal, Biomass) APPROACH – GENERAL METHODOLOGY *Solar PV is currently exempt from property tax in CA 29

A comprehensive resource assessment was completed identifying specific project locations This is a more detailed approach for assessing the costs of the remaining CA developable potential than generic ranges Costs for individual locations can vary widely Costs presented in this presentation represent the range of values from the resource assessment Comprehensive resource assessments should show much higher costs at the high end than observed in the market today APPROACH – COSTS BASED ON UPDATED RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR CALIFORNIA 30

Declining capital cost trends make improved performance more affordable Developers may opt to pay higher capital costs for increased performance (low wind speed turbines, tracking PV, higher PV dc/ac ratios) Black & Veatch is observing this in the market Lower LCOE (and other market factors) enables much more resource to be economically available than previously estimated by Black & Veatch CAPITAL COST, PERFORMANCE, AND RESOURCE POTENTIAL ARE CONNECTED Cost Performance Potential 31

Uncertainty exists in all estimates Estimates are not points, they are ranges What is the cost for a house in the US? Status of technology development, status of design, site specifics, contracting approaches, market conditions and other factors can all impact cost Estimates for a single project at a single site with identical design will be bid at different costs by different EPC (Engineer- Procure-Construct) contractors So when you add different sites and different contracting approaches the ranges of estimates widen further IMPORTANT NOTE - ESTIMATES ARE NOT POINTS 32

Black & Veatch Design & Construction Projects Financial due diligence Project finance, mergers and acquisitions Bid Reviews for Developers, Utilities, and Others Market modeling and assessments Energy market modeling, forecasts, integrated resource planning, locational marginal pricing Broad, high-level studies Strategic planning (RETI, Western Renewable Energy Zones, etc.) APPROACH – SOURCES OF INTERNAL BLACK & VEATCH COST DATA 33

RESOURCE EXCLUSIONS 34

Not all lands are suitable for renewable resource development Land exclusions were generally based on: Previously-agreed exclusions in RETI Updated environmental exclusions Resource-specific exclusions (e.g., military flyways for wind) – discussed later GENERAL LAND EXCLUSIONS 35

Military Lands (some exceptions) Tribal Lands Active Mines Airports Urban and Built-up Land Water Bodies GENERAL LAND EXCLUSIONS Example For Southern California 36

WECC EDTF = Western Electricity Coordinating Council Environmental Data Task Force ‎ Focus has been to remove lands where development is prohibited or practically impossible Merged stakeholder-vetted public datasets: RETI Category 1 – “Development Prohibited” WECC EDTF* Category 4 – “Areas Presently Precluded by Laws or Regulation” Feinstein California Desert Projection Act Consistent with DRECP exclusion areas for conservation lands Have not screened out any other lands for environmental reasons. These may be “scored” (0-100) rather than removing them entirely ENVIRONMENTAL EXCLUSIONS 37

SOLAR PV 38

Completely revised approach from RETI to capture major improvements in technology Included three major configurations Tracking Fixed-tilt Rooftop Sizes from 250 kW – 20 MW+ (ac rating) Updated resource, performance, and cost SOLAR PV APPROACH 39

While overall trend is decreasing solar PV costs, higher performance is achieved by increasing inverter loading ratio which increases capital cost Cost updated for systems from 1 to 20+ MW (ac rating) Fixed Tilt and Single Axis Tracking Black & Veatch assumes little appreciable economies-of-scale after 20 MW. Therefore a single estimate is provided for systems that size and larger. Smaller-scale rooftop systems also included (250 kWac) Higher performance systems assumed Increased dc to ac ratio, also known as inverter loading ratio (up to 1.4) Higher ac capacity factors Capital costs include a $200/kW allowance for interconnection costs (except for rooftop, where interconnection costs are assumed to be minor and included in the system costs) SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SOLAR PV 40

SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT EXCLUSIONS - UTILITY-SCALE Rooftop and distributed assessment separate 41 Resource-specific Williamson Act Prime Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) “Mixed” Land slope greater than 5 percent General Environmental Water Native American Lands Military Lands Mines Urban Areas Airports

SOLAR PV PERFORMANCE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN PREVIOUSLY ESTIMATED (RETI 1B MAX CF = 28%, NOW 35+%) Fixed Tilt Tracking Capacity Factor (ac) 42

Potential identified by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3) From “Technical Potential for Local Distributed Photovoltaics in California” Study Study estimates the technical potential for “local” distributed photovoltaics Study defines local distributed as PV sized such that its output will be consumed by load on the feeder or substation where it is interconnected DISTRIBUTED PV POTENTIAL 43

CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS Fixed Tilt Design Single Axis Tracking Design Small-scale system (rooftop application) AC Capacity (kW)1,0005,00010,00020, $/Wdc$2.85$2.65$2.44$ $/Wac$4.00$3.71$3.41$3.28 AC Capacity (kW)1,0005,00010,00020, $/Wdc$3.22$3.02$2.81$ $/Wac$4.19$3.93$3.65$3.54 AC Capacity (kW) $/Wdc$ $/Wac$

SOLAR PV CAPITAL COSTS 45

PV COST COMPARISON WITH RETI RETI Phase 1B (2008)Current B&V Estimate Capital Costs ($/kWac) 7,0653,546 Fixed O&M ($/kWac-yr) 4435 Variable O&M ($/MWh) MW, Single Axis Tracking All O&M costs modeled as fixed for simplicity 46

SOLAR THERMAL 47

No update to potential Original resource potential identified in RETI 2B (2010) used SOLAR THERMAL Solar Thermal Project Locations 48

Cost data for developed projects is limited due to low activity in the sector Black & Veatch’s capital cost estimates were increased slightly relative to initial RETI estimates based on reported costs for projects in the DOE loan guarantee program and other data sources RETI costs were based on parabolic trough technology This update includes an estimate for solar power tower as well SOLAR THERMAL COST UPDATES 49

200 MW solar thermal plant SOLAR THERMAL COST COMPARISON WITH RETI RETI 1B (2008) Parabolic Trough, no storage Power Tower, 6-hrs storage Capital Costs ($/kW)5,3005,9008,100 Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr)66 Variable O&M ($/MWh)000 All O&M costs were decided to be modeled as fixed. 50

WIND 51

Wind turbine generator information includes new technologies Class III turbines can now be economically feasible at wind speeds as low as 5.5 m/s Costs reflect current conditions New software used to perform calculations, although the theory behind the calculations was unchanged Methodology consistent with RETI Methodology to develop expected production Calculations to estimate costs General exclusion categories under consideration Wind speed data source (AWS Truepower) SUMMARY OF UPDATES 52

Resource-specific Red military flight path Land slope greater than 20 percent General Environmental Water Native American Lands Military Lands Mines Urban Areas Airports WIND EXCLUSIONS Very similar to RETI 53

Similar approach as RETI Most high capacity factor sites in California have been developed Black & Veatch re-assessed wind potential in California applying newer low wind speed turbines as appropriate Many new areas included, especially northern California WIND PERFORMANCE 54

Utility-scale projects ( MW) were identified from the available land after exclusions were applied, based on LCOE and estimated project size Distributed wind projects (2-20 MW) identified using similar constraints, but also close to existing substations PROJECTS IDENTIFIED 55

Results Apply exclusions and project size limitations LCOE state- wind estimates NCF at identified utility scale project sites 56

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CREZ ( ) Geothermal Wind 57

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CURRENT POTENTIAL WIND PROJECTS 58 Previously Identified CREZ ( )

LARGEST POTENTIAL NEW WIND AREA IS SACRAMENTO RIVER VALLEY 59

Relatively low quality wind regime – average capacity factor of 27% Generally accessible for transmission and construction A few projects have been proposed, but limited development outside Solano CREZ Concerns about viability due to cancelled projects and unquantified environmental risks Reflecting concerns, Black & Veatch discounted technical potential in this area by 50% SACRAMENTO RIVER VALLEY: 9 GW OF TECHNICAL POTENTIAL ACROSS 10 COUNTIES 60 TEHAMA BUTTE COLUSA GLENN SUTTER SOLANO SACRAMENTO YOLO LAKE SAN JOAQUIN

Apply exclusions, project size limitations, and ID sites near existing substations State-wind NCF estimatesDistributed Generation Sites 61

BASE COSTS: Steeper terrain makes some areas more expensive to develop. Modifiers based on slope were used to account for terrain: Direct Costs calculated as: Base Turbine Costs + (Slope Multiplier)*(BOP/erection + Switchyard) Owner’s cost was assumed to be 15% of the direct costs Distributed wind: 20% adder for dis-economies of scale CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS CategoryClass I, 80mClass II, 80mClass III, 100m Turbine ($/kW)9501,1001,250 BOP/erection ($/kW) Switchyard ($/kW)150 SlopeMultiplier Less than 4 percent1.00 Between 4 percent and 8 percent1.16 Between 8 percent and 16 percent1.22 Greater than 16 percent

Utility-scale (>20 MW) wind projects in CA WIND COMPARISON WITH RETI RETI Phase 1B (2008) Current B&V Estimate Capital Costs ($/kW)2,280-3,2601,770-2,400 Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr)6036 Variable O&M ($/MWh)

BIOENERGY 64

Original RETI work focused on solid biomass resources Biogas added as potential resource Minor changes to overall methodology used to identify potential Distributed resources (projects under 20 MW) included in update RETI focused on large (20 MW or larger) projects only BIOENERGY 65

Small biomass SB1122 (<= 3MW) projects included County-level resources from 0.3 to 19 MW Biogas SB1122 (<= 3MW) projects included County-level resources from 0.8 to 23 MW Resource potential updated for large biomass projects Potential of at least 20 MW SUMMARY OF CHANGES COMPARED TO RETI BIOMASS ASSESSMENT Vetted with SB1122 Stakeholders Vetted with RETI Stakeholders 66

Included biogas in the assessment Food wastes, leaves/grass, fats/oils/greases (FOG), and dairy manure Estimated SB 1122 (bioenergy FIT) development on a county level Updated resource datasets Different year basis for biomass dataset, same source Accounted for materials being used and corrected starting point for agricultural resources and urban wood waste Biogas datasets consistent with SB 1122 analysis RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHANGES SINCE

Forest residues, agricultural residues, and urban wood wastes for solid bioenergy California Biomass Collaborative (CBC) 2017 technically available tons (2007 report) CBC/CEC 2011 data for low moisture food processing waste Food and food processing wastes, leaves/grass, and FOG for biogas production CBC data for food waste and leaves/grass NREL estimates for FOG production per person, with assumptions for 2017 population and 50 percent recovery RESOURCE ESTIMATION 68

All biogas projects characterized by this approach 250 MW of SB 1122 compliant (bioenergy feed-in tariff) projects assumed to be built Food and organic wastes – 110 MW Agricultural residues and dairy manure – 90 MW Forest - 50 MW Allocation by county based on: Estimated resource potential and Utility obligations (IOUs only) Reported as countywide potential CAPACITY ESTIMATION, SMALL SCALE 69

505 MW identified Largely within urban areas and the Central Valley Price may restrict development with the exception of SB 1122 requirements (250 MW) BIOGAS FEEDSTOCK POTENTIAL 70

Determined potential MW using 85 percent capacity factor, 13,500 BTU/kWh heat rate, and CBC feedstock energy content data Subtracted resources already being used Reduced remainder by assuming one-third of supply available for power generation 20 MW minimum project size for economic feasibility Identified single and multi-county projects Sited near existing substations Cost of offsets for air emissions taken into account by attempting to site projects out of South Coast and San Joaquin Valley CAPACITY ESTIMATION, LARGE BIOMASS 71

Large potential in northern California (forest) and Central Valley (agricultural) 1,075 MW identified Agricultural – 260 MW Forest – 660 MW Urban Wood – 155 MW Lower than 2008; 2008 overstated ag. residues and urban waste, and did not account for material currently being used LARGE SCALE BIOMASS POTENTIAL 72

Fluidized bed steam generator Feedstock costs from GPI $27 to 48 per dry ton (average $40) Capital cost vary due to size: $4700 to $6200/kW Operating costs also vary based on size Fixed: $70 to 275/kW-yr Variable: $8.4 to $9.1/MWh Emissions reduction credit requirements added for certain AQMDs based on ARB transaction costs NOx and PM-10 allowances PROJECT COSTS – LARGE SCALE 73

Conversion technology Digestion and reciprocating engine for biogas (η = 35%) Gasification and reciprocating engine for biomass (η = 21%) Digestion Complete mix, glass lined steel tanks Biogas cleaning to remove moisture, H 2 S, and siloxanes Engines have NOx and CO removal equipment Gasification Limited commercial options at this scale Syngas cleaning prior to feeding to engines Costs from B&V engineering estimates, vendor quotes, and/or public prices PROJECT COSTS – SMALL SCALE 74

Assumed one base case size and performance due to county level, not project level, assessment Solid resource costs/heat rate vary depending on feedstock used (forest vs. agricultural residue) PROJECT COSTS – SMALL SCALE Dairy ManureGreen WasteSolid Biomass Capital Cost ($/kW) 10,9009,7006,000 Operating Cost ($/kW-yr) Tipping Fee ($/ton) to -50 Capacity Factor (%) Heat Rate (BTU/kWh) 10,000 15,000 to 17,000 75

B&V Costs: Large facility in Fresno, CA 2008 facility was 70 MW but capacity reduced to 38 MW Biomass originally included for project is being used by other existing plants BIOMASS COST COMPARISON WITH RETI RETI 1B (2008) Current B&V Estimate Capital Costs ($/kW)4,4005,400 Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr)66159 Variable O&M ($/MWh)

GEOTHERMAL 77

No changes to original methodology Projects identified in RETI 2008 considered for potential Developed project included in RETI removed from potential GEOTHERMAL 78

Capital cost escalated by 5 percent from RETI 2010 estimates, which had been escalated 5 percent from RETI 2008 estimate B&V estimates below are for Salton Sea flash plant GEOTHERMAL RETI 1B (2008) Current B&V Estimate Capital Costs ($/kW)4,9005,390 Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr)0344 Variable O&M ($/MWh)41.50 For most recent B&V update, all O&M costs were decided to be modeled as fixed. Overall cost ($/yr) similar to previous estimate. 79

3. OUT OF STATE RESOURCES 80

Out-of-state resources may be competitive in certain instances All out-of-state of resource estimates from updated Western Renewable Energy Zones Project (WREZ) Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Geothermal Hydro OUT OF STATE RESOURCES 81

Western Renewable Energy Zones was a stakeholder initiative completed by the Western Governors’ Association, DOE, and many other entities in Resource analysis competed by NREL and Black & Veatch quantified renewable energy resources in the WECC Analysis was updated by Black & Veatch in 2012 and 2013 Updated Generation and Transmission Model (GTM) available on WIEB website BACKGROUND ON WREZ 82

WREZ RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Estimates resource potential at a particular price point in each “hub”

Screening tool to assist load serving entities, regulators and renewable planners (“users”) to identify and quantify the cost of delivering renewables to load zones throughout western North America. Includes resources initially defined by the WREZ Zone Identification and Technology Assessment (ZITA) Work Group. These have been updated for 2013 by B&V. Resources accessed by a conceptual transmission network developed by the Generation & Transmission Modeling Work Group (GTMWG). No changes in current model. Model is Excel-based and flexible so users can customize to meet their needs. That said, the model includes methodologies and data that has been developed and vetted by industry experts. WREZ GTM - TRANSPARENT TOOL FOR TRANSMISSION PLANNING 84

WREZ GTM INTERFACE 85

Black & Veatch developed estimates for both projects using similar assumptions However, differences in cost and performance exist for several reasons: Resource quality, especially wind Generally higher costs in CA Timing issues -- WREZ developed before RPS 2013 Assumptions about project size Inclusion of gen-tie costs Key resources are wind and solar PV Other resources are generally very similar COMPARISON OF COST AND PERFORMANCE OF WREZ 2013 TO RPS

Out-of-state wind resources (e.g., WY, NM) are potentially lower cost and higher performance than remaining CA resources Transmission is constraint WIND COMPARISON 87 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %ac

Solar PV characteristics very similar WREZ has tighter performance band as only the best solar resources are included, versus all CA resources for RPS Calc SOLAR PV TRACKING COMPARISON 88 Capital Cost, $/kWacCapacity Factor, %ac Gen-tie costs included in PV capital costs

4. FUTURE COST DECLINES 89

Forecasts are almost never correct They are useful because they provide a best guess and can help identify trends Sometimes when sufficient time and information is available, multiple forecasts are used to create scenarios to better understand the range of possibilities. Different forecasts can also be used for different purposes. Planning 90% GHG reduction might assume something different than what would be used to plan your next transmission investment. One might be more ambitious and the other more conservative. IMPORTANT NOTE - NO FORECAST IS CORRECT 90

Cost curves based on National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) study supported by Black & Veatch Renewable Electricity Futures (REF) study completed in 2010 Stakeholder process that reviewed various technologies Provided future performance and cost Results from study updated to reflect changes in market from 2010 to 2013 (cost declines projected to occur, did occur) The resulting curves also used for latest WREZ update DATA SOURCE 91

NREL REF FORECASTED CAPITAL COST DECLINES (REAL $) YearSolar PV Fixed Tilt Solar PV Single Axis Tracking Solar Thermal Solar Thermal with Storage Wind % %95%98% 100% %91%95% 99% %88%91%90%98% %84%87%86%97% %81%83%81%96% %78%79%77%95% %76%75%73%94% %74%72%68%93% 92

REF WIND PERFORMANCE CURVES In addition to cost, REF also provided future performance for wind 93

The following technologies are relatively mature. Black & Veatch does not assume their costs will improve over time: Biomass Biogas Geothermal Capital cost provided earlier used for current and future project costs REMAINING TECHNOLOGIES 94

5. ZONE IDENTIFICATION 95

From , Black & Veatch worked with stakeholders to identify Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) as part of the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) These zones were subsequently used in various different processes by various stakeholders In , Black & Veatch reassessed renewable resources to address significant improvements in technology, particularly with wind and solar PV Resource availability much more widespread Many new wind resources in northern California Updated zone definitions are needed to reflect the updated resource assessment ZONE IDENTIFICATION

2010 RETI PHASE 2B CREZ

UPDATED RENEWABLE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, and Solar Thermal Project Locations Solar PV not shown, but is available across the state (see next slide) For wind, substantial shift north, into non- CREZ areas

Widespread and generally good quality throughout California Most of resource is outside previous CREZ boundaries SOLAR PV RESOURCE (TRACKING PV)

New zones based on: “Legacy” 2010 CREZ to the extent possible Locations of ~150 projects which have been “tagged” to zones in the CPUC’s 2012 RPS calculator Project Development Status Reports CEC Renewable Energy Action Team Expanded resource assessment (tried to not split newly identified projects into two zones) Transmission topology Geographic constraints County boundaries PRINCIPLES FOR UPDATING ZONE BOUNDARIES

Previous CREZ identified the best resources for large scale transmission development considering technical, economic and environmental factors Very specific boundaries, sometimes capturing specific project boundaries and interconnection lines Purposefully made as small as possible (“Shrink-wrapped”) to minimize perceived environmental footprint Current zones are intended to capture most of the resources in California regardless of relative economic or environmental considerations Not for siting or environmental assessment - used for categorization and assigning transmission upgrade cost More comprehensive coverage - “Puzzle pieces” Boundaries less meaningful No particular advantage to being in a zone DIFFERENCES FROM PREVIOUS CREZ

LEGACY CREZ (WESTLANDS AREA)

2012 CALCULATOR PROJECTS TAGGED TO CREZ

NEW “SUPER CREZ”

All of these zones correspond with a legacy zone name or a zone in the 2012 RPS calculator (Los Banos, Central Valley North) Includes Southwest NV resources No new zones identified by B&V, except Sacramento River Valley Resources outsides zones summarized by county NEW SUPER CREZ BOUNDARIES