1. Integrated Capacity Analysis Working Group June 9, 2016 9 am – 12 pm CPUC Golden Gate Hearing Room drpwg.org

2. Agenda TimeTopicPurpose 9:00 – 9:30Introductions & OverviewIntroductions Purpose of Meeting Proposed schedule for WG participation Joint IOU Motion Status 9:30 – 10:30Review Draft Outlines of ICA Implementation Plans Overview of IOU plans (SCE, PG&E, SDG&E) Pilot project locations Questions for WG Participants 10:30 – 10:45Break 10:45 – 11:00Next Steps & Questions regarding ICA plansDiscuss next steps for IOU’s and WG 11:00 – 11:20Presentation by EPRI on Comparative StudyProvide input on existing assessment done on PG&E Territory 11:20-11:35Joint IOU Comparative Analysis proposalJoint IOU presentation 11:35-11:50Proposed Calendar for addressing data issues in WG meetings Brief review of DRP data issues to date Proposed schedule for addressing data 11:50-12:00Next stepsOutline of next steps for WG 2

3. ICA WG PURPOSE - Pursuant to the May 2, 2016, Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling (ACR) in DRP proceeding (R.14-08-013), the Joint Utilities are required to convene the ICA WG to: 1.Refine Integration Capacity Analysis Methodologies and Requirements 2.Authorize Demonstration Project A CPUC Energy Division role Oversight to ensure balance and achievement of State objective Coordination with both related CPUC activities and activities in other agencies (CEC, CAISO) Steward WG agreements into CPUC decisions when necessary More Than Smart role Engaged by Joint Utilities to facilitate both the ICA & LBNA working groups. This leverages the previous work of MTS facilitating stakeholder discussions on ICA and LBNA topics. 3 ICA Working Group Background

4. May 2 nd, 2016 - Assigned Commissioner Ruling on ICA May 12 th, 2016 – First Joint Utility meeting on ICA and LNBA May 18 th, 2016 – Joint Utility meeting seeking input on (1) use of abstraction analysis or power flow analysis, and (2) level of granularity desired June 1, 2016 – First in person meeting to get input on: proposed Joint WG Recommendation for Demonstration A; input into ICA Implementation plans; discuss Comparative Analysis June 9, 2016 (today) – In person meeting to discuss ICA Plans before submittal June 16, 2016 – Joint Utilities file 3 separate ICA plans to CPUC July, 2016 – Q2, 2017 – Monthly ICA WG meetings re/ICA implementation Q4, 2016 – Final Demo A report due Q4, 2016 – Long-term ICA refinement intermediate status report due Q2, 2017 – Utilities submit long-term ICA refinement final report due 3 ICA Working Group Schedule To Date

5. Short Term: May 2 nd –end of Q4 2016 Update schedule for Demo A Results Recommend methods for evaluation of hosting capacity for 1) DER bundles or portfolios, responding to CAISO dispatch; and 2) Facilities using smart inverters Recommend format for ICA maps to be consistent and readable to all CA stakeholders Evaluate and recommend new methods that may improve computational efficiency of ICA tools and process Evaluate ORA’s recommendation to require establishment of reference circuits and reference use cases for comparative analyses of Demo Project A results Establish method for use of customer load data to develop more localized load shapes Establish definite timelines for future achievement of ICA milestones Long Term: May 2 nd -end of Q2 2017 Suggested topics include, but are not limited to: expansion to single phase feeders; data sharing; interactive ICA maps; market sensitive information; method for reflecting effect of load modifying resources; independent verification of ICA results; quality assurance and control measures Ongoing discussion in parallel with short term WG activities 3 ICA WG Schedule - May 2 nd CPUC ruling

6. 3 Proposed schedule for ICA WG topics Proposed WG Discussion Topics JuneICA Plans submitted to CPUC June 16 th JulyICA Maps: Discussion on Output Format AugustReview Portfolios for Demo A SeptemberUses of ICA analysis (streamlined Rule 21, etc.) OctoberReview Demo Project A and data discussion NovemberComparative Analysis Discussion DecemberReport Submitted/Demo A Lessons Learned and Future Roadmap Q4: 2016 FINAL ICA REPORT DUE INTERMEDIATE METHODOLOGY REFINEMENT REPORT DUE Q2: 2017FINAL METHODOLOGY REFINEMENT REPORT DUE Ongoing monthly discussion on continued refinement of ICA methodology

7. 3 ICA Working Group Participation How will the Working Group provide ongoing input into Demo Project A development and ICA methodology? IOU ongoing solicitation and incorporation of feedback Stakeholder submitted comments Consensus recommendations to CPUC How should Working Group participants continue to stay engaged between monthly meetings? Do you have comments/suggestions on proposed schedule of monthly ICA WG topics for discussion? Today’s attendance list will be available online at http://www.drpwg.orghttp://www.drpwg.org

8. Joint IOU Motion Status update

9. Draft IOU Implementation Plans IOU presentations: see PDFs

10. 3 EPRI study Jeff Smith presentation: see PDF

11. Joint IOU Comparative Analysis Proposal ICA Working Group June 9, 2016

12. Comparative analysis of consistency between IOUs – Complete analysis on one IEEE Distribution System Test Feeder using the streamlined and iterative power flow methodologies – Compare results on a node-by-node basis, utilizing metrics similar to the EPRI Hosting Capacity study as a starting point Comparative analysis of capability and accuracy between calculation techniques utilized in each IOU Demo A – Complete streamlined and iterative power flow studies on feeders within each IOU demo plan – Compare results on a node-by-node basis, utilizing metrics similar to the EPRI Hosting Capacity study as a starting point – Compare processing times between techniques Comparative Analysis Proposal

13. Processing capabilities of methods to meet identified use cases and requirements of ACR Accuracy of limitation criteria between streamlined and iterative power flow methods – e.g. Streamlined method’s calculated value vs iterative power flow method-determined voltage Evaluation of both methods as a possible enhancement to the Rule 21 “fast track” process – Sample generation projects in queue tested for fast track using both methods Other technical considerations in methodology – Impact of Phase Imbalance (voltage and current) – Impact of line capacitance and charging current – Determining the impact of voltage regulation devices – Determining the impact of capacitor banks Comparative Analysis Considerations

14. 3 DRP Data Proposal

15. 3 Data needs for statutory compliance 769(a) [Applies to] distributed renewable generation resources, energy efficiency, energy storage, electric vehicles, and demand response technologies. 769(b) [DRP's shall] identify optimal locations for the deployment of distributed resources [by evaluating] locational benefits and costs of distributed resources [...] based on reductions or increases in local generation capacity needs, avoided or increased investments in distribution infrastructure, safety benefits, reliability benefits, and any other savings [...] to ratepayers [...]. 769(c) The commission shall review each distribution resources plan proposal submitted by an electrical corporation and approve, or modify and approve, a distribution resources plan for the corporation. The commission may modify any plan as appropriate to minimize overall system costs and maximize ratepayer benefit from investments in distributed resources. 769(d) Any electrical corporation spending on distribution infrastructure necessary to accomplish the distribution resources plan shall be proposed and considered as part of the next general rate case for the corporation. The commission may approve proposed spending if it concludes that ratepayers would realize net benefits and the associated costs are just and reasonable. The commission may also adopt criteria, benchmarks, and accountability mechanisms to evaluate the success of any investment authorized pursuant to a distribution resources plan.

16. 3 Data needs for DRP market transactions applies to all distributed renewable generation resources, energy efficiency, energy storage, electric vehicles, and demand response technologies. Identifies optimal locations for the deployment of distributed resources by evaluating locational benefits and costs of distributed resources based on reductions or increases in local generation capacity needs, avoided or increased investments in distribution infrastructure, safety benefits, reliability benefits, and any other savings to ratepayers. Clear visibility into an individual project’s ability to realize net benefits. The ability to propose criteria, benchmarks, and accountability mechanisms to evaluate the success of any investment authorized pursuant to a distribution resources plan to the Commission.

17. 3 Data needs to improve DER integration From utilities: identification of proposed methodologies’ limitations Foundation for broader conversation on best practices Blue sky for “perfect data” Survey of alternatives from other markets Initial assessment of market solutions for increased data integration From market participants: Neutral as to type of technology solution Full spectrum of possible data for improving DER integration Market mechanisms for data from other jurisdictions

18. 3 Data needs - next steps Ongoing stakeholder coordination on data needs (working groups, draft filings) July MTS working paper on data needs Proposed path to operationalization of data requirements

19. 3 Next steps