[0:03] Good morning, everyone. Today is October 28, 2025, and this is a regular public meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Oregon, and all commissioners are present. We take time at the beginning of each meeting to provide the opportunity, the public, the opportunity to comment on issues that are not on the agenda this morning. And so if anyone wishes to comment, you can use the

[0:33] raise your hand feature or press star nine if you're dialed in to give a public comment on issues

[0:41] not on our agenda. So I will give a minute to see if any hands come up.

[0:53] I don't see any

[0:54] public comment this morning on items not on our agenda. So let's move on to the consent agenda.

[1:01] Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

[1:06] I will move to, excuse me, I will move to

[1:09] approve the consent agenda. Oh, second. I concur. The consent agenda is adopted. Great. This morning,

[1:18] we have an item on our rulemaking agenda, RM1, docket number AR674, rulemaking to amend

[1:27] OAR 86091, the Small Scale Renewable Energy Project Standard. And I think Gene Falconer is going to

[1:36] I present that for staff this morning.

[1:38] Jean?

[1:38] Good

[1:43] morning.

[1:45] Good morning.

[1:46] So, good morning, Chair Tonny, Commissioner Perkins,

[1:50] and Commissioner Power.

[1:51] For the record, my name is Jean Faulkiner,

[1:53] and I'm representing PUC staff.

[1:55] I'm joined by staff council, Joanna Reiman Schneider.

[1:58] Today I'm presenting staff's recommendation

[2:00] to move AR-674, which considers changes

[2:03] to the administrative rules

[2:05] that implement Oregon's small-scale,

[2:07] renewable energy project standards

[2:09] to the formal rulemaking phase.

[2:11] As a reminder, the state's goal

[2:13] for community-based renewable energy projects law

[2:16] requires large electric IOUs

[2:18] to have 10% of their aggregate electrical capacity

[2:22] composed of small-scale resources

[2:24] under 20 megawatts by 2030.

[2:27] This past May, a Pacific War filed a petition

[2:30] requesting a declaratory ruling

[2:32] to clarify several SSR-compliant scenarios

[2:35] as we get closer to the standards 2030 effective date.

[2:39] The Commission declined to take up a declaratory ruling at that time, and instead opened this rulemaking who scope it limited to addressing clarifications regarding first, how to calculate the SSR compliance obligation and second, which resources will count toward the SSR requirement.

[2:56] We heard the Commission ask for something expedited and narrowly focused, and staff tried to carry that through in our process, leading to these draft rules.

[3:05] Before I give an overview of staff's proposal, staff would like to thank all of the stakeholders

[3:09] who participated in this process for their timely, thoughtful, and constructive feedback

[3:14] provided through meetings of workshop and written comments.

[3:18] Stakeholders productive engagement with this process enabled us to complete a thorough review

[3:22] of the current rules on a relatively short time frame as envisioned by the commission.

[3:27] Because the rulemaking began with a request for greater clarity, staff aired on the side

[3:32] being explicit. We understand that the commission made a strategically nuanced decision when the

[3:38] rules were created in 2021, but we expect this to be the most efficient approach so close to

[3:44] the 2030 requirement. Staff's proposal was guided by some key principles. First, we wanted to

[3:51] continue to treat the SSR standard as a generating capacity standard. This principle influenced a

[3:57] a number of staffs proposed rules,

[3:59] such as those stating that storage

[4:01] and behind the beta resources are not eligible SSRs,

[4:04] as well as to not involve energy-based instruments

[4:07] and compliance.

[4:09] Second, we wanted to preserve the value proposition

[4:12] of resources with system and community value.

[4:16] Staffs proposals that community solar projects

[4:18] and front-of-meter resources incorporated

[4:20] into microgrids are SSR eligible,

[4:23] aligned with this principle,

[4:24] as the staff's proposal to exclude storage resources from aggregate electrical capacity.

[4:31] Lastly, we wanted to create clear criteria for calculating compliance that can be planned for

[4:37] by utilities and project developers and that align with the intent of the laws and state policy.

[4:42] This principle underlined staff's proposal that aggregate electrical capacity be calculated one

[4:48] year prior to a given compliance date, among other things. Although we are moving forward to the

[4:53] formal rulemaking with a good amount of alignment on staff's proposal, there are areas

[4:58] where there are still differing.

[5:00] First, some stakeholders are concerned about proposed rule language that explicitly excludes storage and SSR capacity when calculating aggregate electrical capacity. In our view, this aligns with a generating capacity standard and eliminates the feedback loop caused by SSR additions, whereby adding SSR capacity generates additional SSR obligations. Second, some utility stakeholders propose that behind the meter projects should be SSR eligible.

[5:29] Staff can see the potential for managed distributed energy resources like a virtual power plant to align with our principles in particular treating this as a generating capacity standard and preserving the value proposition of resources with system and community benefits.

[5:46] However, we don't think that those managed behind the meter resources are well enough understood to recommend inclusion in the rules today.

[5:54] staff believes that it's proposed rules adequately balanced stakeholder concerns with the need

[5:59] to provide clarity on SSR compliance ahead of 2030 and we would like to again thank stakeholders

[6:05] for their extensive feedback as these proposed rules were developed. Staff recommends that the

[6:10] Commission open a formal rulemaking. This concludes my opening remarks and I'm available for questions.

[6:16] Thanks so much, Jean. I'm curious on the behind the meter piece. Did you think at all or how

[6:28] did you think about language that might in the rural point to that potential future for managed

[6:41] behind the meter resources as, or did it see an infeasible?

[6:49] I'm curious.

[6:50] I think we have some stakeholders who will sort of read the statement

[6:53] as all I'm composing, and I'm curious about that sort of nuance

[6:57] and how you thought about it.

[7:00] Right. Thank you for the question.

[7:01] And that is something that we considered.

[7:03] And I think PGN, particular in comments, was saying perhaps we could include some sort of revision

[7:09] to allow the commission to potentially reconsider this in the future if the situation is warranted,

[7:15] which is something that, as I'm sure you know, the commission said that you might be willing to do

[7:20] in the original rulemaking. So we, I might ask Council to speak to this further, but

[7:28] in having this conversation, it was pointed out by Joanna that having this rule in there

[7:34] doesn't preclude it from being changed in the future. And I don't know all of the logistics,

[7:38] but essentially a petition could be submitted, allowing for a reconsideration of that rule.

[7:44] But we felt that it made sense to have that rule in there for now because it's something that the commission was very clear about early on.

[7:50] So in our view, we're not trying to change how the rules work. We're just being very clear about this is what the commission already determined.

[7:57] Let's have that in the rules so everybody knows how it works.

[8:02] Okay, I appreciate that.

[8:04] Other questions for staff?

[8:15] I guess I would create and I'll see a brought up the capacity and connection capacity issue at this point or is that something that would be still considered in the in the formal we're making in staff's proposal.

[8:38] It certainly could be are you referring to surplus and our connection and shared in a right.

[8:43] Yeah, so that's actually something that we talked about pretty extensively as part of this rulemaking and there's a lot of consensus on that issue.

[8:50] We ultimately felt that adding explicit language to the rules wasn't necessary.

[8:57] We feel like there's nothing in the rules currently that precludes resources from being eligible if they use these specific interconnection agreement types.

[9:07] Now, I will say that Pacific War was asking for language to be written somewhere, whether

[9:13] it be in the commission order or maybe in the rules themselves clarifying that.

[9:17] But it's very much staff's position that the use of those interconnection types shouldn't

[9:22] impact the eligibility of a resource.

[9:24] So that's something that in the formal rulemaking we could consider adding explicit language.

[9:28] But we, again, felt it was unnecessary given the current rules, and we were also worried

[9:33] about writing something that might conflict with the statute.

[9:37] Okay, yeah, and I was thinking about

[9:41] creating and seeing those comments that they wanted to protect access for small projects,

[9:48] but you feel that staff has adequate tools to be able to kind of triage as issues come up within

[9:56] and the proposed rule framework.

[10:00] Well, I think as far as the access question goes, this, I think you're referring to them worrying about anti-competitive outcomes. And our feeling was that that was, so that's a valid concern, but we kind of felt it was outside of the scope of what we're considering as part of this rulemaking, whereas we're concerned about the eligibility piece, whereas that seems to relate more with, you know, the implementation of interconnection agreements. So that's something that we could certainly consider about how to add ruling,

[10:29] language to address that, but it was something that for now we felt was a little bit broader than what we were asked by the commission to consider.

[10:37] Thank you.

[10:42] Great.

[10:44] I am also curious on the.

[10:50] In the rule of language, you you pivoted.

[10:55] or revise the language around RPS eligible resources to be not those that are projects used

[11:09] to comply with the standard, but broader, but there was a little less discussion about

[11:15] sort of that change. I'm curious why you felt that needed clarification.

[11:23] Great. Thanks for the question. So that the the direct thing that prompted that change in language was so pacific or in dr 58 they were asking about community solar and whether those projects are SSR eligible and we feel that they should be, but it was pointed out by pacific or that.

[11:42] that none of their CSP projects are RPS approved generators.

[11:48] But we were also thinking in general that, you know,

[11:52] we wanted to distinguish between resource types,

[11:55] so that motivated some of the language and the rules.

[11:57] So moving from referring to a generator versus generation types,

[12:01] that's where that came from.

[12:02] But then moving from RPS approved to RPS eligible,

[12:05] we had community solar specifically in mind,

[12:07] but we were also thinking about in the future,

[12:09] there might be other resources that reasonably should be SSR eligible, but you know, for whatever

[12:16] reason they aren't RPS approved. So we just wanted to allow for a little bit more flexibility in

[12:20] that language. Okay. Okay.

[12:28] So then when I, so having a,

[12:36] changing it to A and or B, you felt like

[12:42] you needed to sort of revise what was previously won in order to I guess I'm not sure why I'm

[12:55] not saying the question very clearly. To add B you didn't necessarily need to change how A was

[13:04] framed but you wanted to be more general.

[13:11] Yes yes I think that's right and so again the community

[13:14] solar piece was what directly prompted this but we were also thinking about a future in which

[13:19] we might want to have that greater flexibility around that language. Yeah, okay. Okay, I appreciate

[13:26] that. What is probably not wildly clear about the old language is it meant if somebody didn't

[13:36] lot there because this is not a Rex embedded. Because Rex are not required for this standard,

[13:44] it sort of created a way for somebody to keep their project out of the count if they wanted to,

[13:52] if they wanted to. So because they were trying to protect their Rex, but I hear you on the breadth.

[14:00] And with the decisions on HB 2021, I don't know that that decision matters anymore.

[14:06] because our wrecks aren't greeny certified anymore so okay appreciate all of

[14:13] that work. My staff especially to go quickly like we had previously like we had

[14:18] asked and being really responsive to that.

[14:22] Let's turn to comments I know I had

[14:28] heard from OSEA but I'd love to see a show of hands as well

[14:35] And maybe I'll start with OSEA if you're on the line since you let us know that you wanted to speak.

[14:45] Morning, Angela.

[14:46] Morning.

[14:47] Thank you.

[14:48] Commissioner, Angela Crowley-Cook, Executive Director of OSEA.

[14:53] First of all, I appreciate all the work that staff did and also the speed at which this has happened.

[14:59] And I'm big.

[15:00] Because of the federal changes to tax credits and new deadlines, we really appreciate how quickly

[15:06] this rulemaking is going and hope that the rest of it will be fast as well.

[15:13] So in general,

[15:15] we're supportive of staff's recommendations, but with a few exceptions, excuse me, I'm

[15:21] recovering from a cold. And I'll have my colleague Greg go into more details on some of the

[15:29] those concerns we have, but they're surrounding not including storage in the denominator of

[15:37] the equation for what counts as the capacity, the total capacity for the requirement, the

[15:44] exclusion of small-scale renewables that have been used for compliance already being excluded

[15:55] We neither of those exclusions were discussed in the statute, and from our perspective, there's no reason to have those deductions.

[16:06] And it reduces compliance.

[16:08] Again, I'll have Greg go further into detail on those.

[16:12] But I'd like to spend some time talking about the discussion that the commission was just

[16:21] having regarding RPS compliance versus RPS eligible and the exclusion of net metering.

[16:30] OCS is very supportive of the commission's repeated exclusion of net metering from the

[16:36] at Renewable Standard in previous orders in the last public meeting when this rulemaking

[16:46] was ordered. So I think it's worth thinking about the legislative history here. Back when

[16:54] this requirement was first created, it was all about being RPS compliant. And in the minds

[17:02] of everyone then, wrecks were included in that definition of what would be considered eligible

[17:11] for small-scale renewables. That's one of the reasons why net metering was never discussed

[17:18] in conversations about this policy. It was never dreamed of being considered because net metering

[17:26] is not RPS eligible, it's not RPS compliant, and the same is true with community solar.

[17:33] And so OCS stands by the position that both community solar and net metering should not

[17:39] be included in this small scale renewable as eligible projects, because of the intent

[17:47] of this was for RPS eligible and compliant projects, so the REX going with the project.

[17:54] I think the opening the door in this way is leave the door open for a potential weakening

[18:03] of the standard and not following the true intent, which is for small scale projects,

[18:11] but above net metering, so between the two and 20 megawatt size range.

[18:21] But so we support the exclusion of netmeanering here.

[18:26] We hope to see the rules go further in the next stage of the role making.

[18:31] But overall we really appreciate staff's work and the revisions that they made in modifying what counted as capacity throughout the process.

[18:42] Thank you.

[18:45] Thank you.

[18:46] Questions for you?

[18:48] I'll

[18:53] turn to Greg with CREA.

[19:00] Good morning, Chair Tawny and commissioners Perkins and Powers.

[19:03] Can you hear me okay?

[19:06] Yes.

[19:06] So yeah, I'm speaking here today on behalf of the Community Renewable Energy Association, CREA.

[19:12] We did, as Angela mentioned, file comments with OSEA and Renewable Energy Coalition

[19:18] joined one of our rounds of comments too.

[19:19] So, we also really appreciate staff's consideration of our comments and incorporation of our recommendations

[19:29] into their rule and the very thorough explanation of the issues and various positions in

[19:36] the staff report, which was very good.

[19:39] We recognize this is an expedited rulemaking where the commission may be inclined to move

[19:44] to the formal phase based on the current staff proposal and address remaining disputed points in

[19:51] the formal rulemaking phase. And as Angela mentioned, we do largely support staff's proposal,

[19:58] but I wanted to just highlight.

[20:00] We're still going to wait two of the key issues, which Angela mentioned, where we still have a disagreement with staff, and which we filed joint comments on and be available to answer any questions the commissioners might have on those today. Those two key points I was going to address relate to the resources that are included in the denominator, which is the part of the equation where you're looking at what is the utilities aggregate electrical capacity.

[20:29] capacity under the statute, and that's the total number against which you apply the 10%

[20:35] to get to what how many small scale renewable facilities you need to have.

[20:41] And so the two, I think there's a lot of detail here, but the two key points I think where

[20:47] we have a disagreement right now with staff are on storage being excluded from the denominator

[20:53] and the small scale renewable facilities themselves being excluded from the denominator.

[21:00] On storage, we don't see how they should be excluded, storage, or at least we see an inconsistency in the commission's policies across small scale renewables on this point.

[21:16] And that is that in the ongoing purple docket and I think in some other purple dockets,

[21:23] utilities have proposed that storage is the avoided capacity resource.

[21:28] And that's what you should use to calculate the purple avoided costs that are paid to a QF.

[21:37] In our view, and staff's gotten behind that to a certain extent in those dockets.

[21:43] And so in our view, that argument contradicts treating storage as not a capacity resource

[21:50] when you're looking at what's the totally aggregate electrical capacity.

[21:55] We do acknowledge storage is a unique type of resource, but just wanted to flag

[21:59] that inconsistency in the treatment storage and point out that in our opinion it's not

[22:05] reasonable to use storage as a capacity resource to calculate avoided cost rates that are offered

[22:12] to the QFs and get at a lower avoided cost rate by doing that while simultaneously claiming

[22:18] that storage is not a capacity resource for purposes of calculating how many small-scale

[22:24] renewables be totally must acquire under this provision we are against.

[22:31] The other issue that is still in dispute is whether the small-scale renewable facilities themselves

[22:38] should be in the denominator. As Angela mentioned, we disagree with staff's current proposal to

[22:44] exclude them from the denominator. The plain language of the statute says that the denominator

[22:52] is both the aggregate electrical capacity of the utility. There's no there's no exclusion in

[22:59] there for the SSR resources themselves. And we don't see how you get there with the way the statute's

[23:06] written.

[23:08] As staff states, in this report, we do support staff's proposal to measure the compliance target

[23:14] each year based on the aggregate electrical capacity at the beginning of the year, which

[23:21] we think mitigates the impact of this moving target problem utilities have identified with

[23:26] inclusion of SSRs in the denominator, so I wanted to point that out there.

[23:31] there is a way to kind of make the whole mechanism more workable without

[23:38] ignoring the language of the statute in American. So I think I'll stop on those

[23:42] issues. Again, we really appreciate stat work and I can answer any questions you

[23:47] have on those issues or anything else that we filed comments on.

[23:52] Okay, again, curious. It wasn't clear to me. Then are you suggesting storage would

[23:59] also be in the numerator? No storage to the numerator has a different requirement

[24:04] that there has to be an RPS resource so storage isn't an RPS resource and that

[24:10] would be why it's not in the numerator and I mean it's conceivable you could have

[24:18] behind the meter you know like a solar plus storage I think where it's all where

[24:25] is part of the facility where it's just charging from an RPS resource, but I still

[24:32] don't know if storage is technically itself an RPS resource at that point.

[24:37] So there's sort of two kinds of storage, there's standalone storage and there's co-located

[24:43] storage. You're you're drawing a distinction with a little mark gray area around the co-located

[24:50] storage. That could be, I don't think we got into that in detail in the comments, but I think

[24:55] didn't, you know, if you think through it, when you're looking at the

[25:00] The numerator, the, you're talking about an SSR facility, if it had storage with it, I would argue that the storage is generally just charging behind, behind, you know, the meter, and it's not actually increasing the capacity of the overall facility to the extent it's a part of the facility. If it's a separate standalone storage unit, it's charging from the grid, I would argue it's not a RPS compliant, right?

[25:29] Okay. Thanks for that. Other questions for Korea?

[25:40] Yeah, I guess I just struggled a little bit with the storage on the denominator.

[25:47] Just in the fact that it isn't a generating capacity.

[25:52] It's a capacity resource, but it isn't generating electricity.

[25:57] So how do you square that aspect of it, Greg?

[26:01] Well,

[26:05] I mean, it's I that sounds like the arguments we've been making in the

[26:09] purpose. So I don't want to get into to that about parties here. I think we've

[26:14] identified kind of an inconsistency there. It is treated as a capacity resource and in

[26:20] the utilities planning. So I think I'm working with it. It should be included as aggregate

[26:27] capacity.

[26:31] But I will I acknowledge yes, it doesn't generate electricity that

[26:35] I think it's the challenge with storage that wasn't considered, you know, it's relatively

[26:44] new.

[26:44] So it's as we move through the process, I know there's some, some rather gray areas

[26:49] or inconsistent language.

[26:51] Yes.

[26:55] Okay.

[26:57] Anything further for Korea?

[27:00] No.

[27:00] All right.

[27:01] Thanks so much, Greg.

[27:02] Thank you.

[27:04] I ran.

[27:11] Good morning Chair Ty, commissioners, Perkins and Power.

[27:15] Appreciate the opportunity to be here today

[27:17] and the work that everyone's done.

[27:19] I don't have any prepared comments.

[27:22] I think Angela and Greg did it well.

[27:24] I just wanted to know through the record

[27:26] that we support the earlier comments

[27:27] the Korean OSCS submitted

[27:30] and appreciate all the work that everyone's done in this case

[27:33] and look forward to further engagement.

[27:36] Thanks so much.

[27:39] All right.

[27:40] Right, Thomas with Pacific Corps.

[27:50] One second, I think you can hear me there, my camera clicked on.

[27:54] Good morning, Chair Tony, Commissioner Perkins, and Commissioner Power.

[27:57] For the record, I am Tom Burns, Vice President of Resource Planning and Acquisitions for Pacific Corps.

[28:03] Thank you for the opportunity to comment on AR674 regarding small scale renewable energy amendments.

[28:09] We very much appreciate staff's thoughtful proposal, which recognizes that while small scale resources are required to comprise 10% of the allocated generating capacity, their contribution to the overall generation cost may well exceed this threshold.

[28:25] The proposal's approach, removing storage resources from aggregate capacity, including front of the meter resources such as community solar and utilizing surplus interconnection.

[28:37] connection, meaningfully reduces customer cost while maintaining the intent of the small

[28:42] scale resource requirement.

[28:44] The company will be seeking further clarification on resource proximity rules, and in regards

[28:52] to the compliance year, we will also recommend that the compliance target volume be based

[28:58] on the aggregate generating capacity from four years previous on a rolling basis.

[29:03] This would allow developers to participate in interconnection studies, enable the utility

[29:10] to conduct an RFP, and ensure projects are delivered in time for compliance at the lowest

[29:15] cost to customers. That concludes my comments, and I'm available for questions.

[29:27] Thanks so much. Questions for Pacific War?

[29:39] Thank you.

[29:41] Sorry, I was struggling to find the place in your question, in your comments.

[29:46] I was a little bit confused in your discussion of the surplus interconnection proposal.

[29:56] You said I was trying to find the quote.

[30:00] Which I'm not going to be able to do on the fly. The staff's proposal would also avoid creating any unnecessary complications with a federal interconnection requirements that would result of the commission chose to instead codify surplus interconnection language. I was, I wasn't totally following the conflicts or necessarily understanding the conflicts you were thinking might occur.

[30:29] I'm going to, you know, there's a wide array of people that contribute to the comments

[30:35] for Pacific Orp, some of which are very much legal-minded.

[30:39] And I believe that that was specifically directed at codifying something within Oregon

[30:46] might come into conflict with the FERC interconnection process.

[30:50] us. So I do have someone that can speak more to that, but I don't think that that's necessary.

[30:59] I think I addressed the point.

[31:09] Chair, Tony, you're muted. Sorry.

[31:11] Thank you. So it was more of a hypothetical potential as opposed to a specific wording that

[31:18] had come up in the conversation that was concerning.

[31:20] Correct.

[31:21] Okay.

[31:22] Helpful.

[31:22] Correct.

[31:23] Keeping the lines straight between FERC and Assets on Interconnection isn't always straightforward,

[31:30] so appreciate that.

[31:31] Other questions for PAC?

[31:33] I think it was no.

[31:37] All right.

[31:38] Thank you so much.

[31:38] Thank you.

[31:39] Thank you.

[31:39] And Jason.

[31:46] Good morning.

[31:49] Good morning.

[31:49] Chair Tony.

[31:50] Commissioner Perkins.

[31:51] Commissioner Power.

[31:52] My name is Jason Salmy-Claughts.

[31:54] I'm with Portland General Electric.

[31:56] I appreciate the opportunity to engage with staff and stakeholders and

[32:01] commenting today. We wish to reiterate our concern stated in our comments,

[32:08] filed during the informal making September 11th and October 13th.

[32:15] We support commissions in 10 as expressed in order 25-232 to limit the scope of

[32:24] this rulemaking to address specific course DR58 petition, PG support staff's proposed

[32:32] division 91 rule amendments to address aggregate electrical capacity, and certain inputs

[32:38] necessary to calculate the SSR compliance. We're also supportive of staff's language clarifying

[32:44] community solar eligibility. However, we're opposed to elements of the proposal that appear

[32:51] to go beyond commission's direction in order 25-232 or that exceed the statutory authority

[32:59] as evidence in the plain language of the statute.

[33:02] This would be language excluding from qualifications behind the meter resources including rooftop

[33:07] solar or solar and batteries or any behind the meter generation that would otherwise be

[33:13] leveraged as a system resource to offset other large generation purchases and expenditures

[33:20] or clean energy strategies directed at affordability

[33:25] to reduce overall system and delivery costs.

[33:30] We believe the exclusion of behind-the-meter resources is not

[33:33] need to be addressed in the current rulemaking.

[33:36] It was not raised as a question by Pacificor.

[33:41] Pacificor's DR filing and the informal rulemaking process

[33:44] is afforded no significant opportunity to explore the issue.

[33:48] In short, we feel the proposed rules and seeking to avoid scope creep have gone too far in the

[33:55] other direction.

[33:57] Beyond the commission's direction, not to increase the scope of beyond specific course discrete

[34:03] questions, codifying these issues and rules, ignores the point previously acknowledged by

[34:08] the commission and AR622, naming that the role of these behind the meter resources and utility

[34:15] systems can evolve to become resources contributing to the state's small scale

[34:20] renewable requirement. We find other venues with the Commission and

[34:25] now the legislature through the microgrid bills and courage system direction for

[34:29] behind the meter, where to become an active and managed component of resource

[34:34] portfolios for the utilities. If adopted, the amendment would discourage

[34:40] development of behind-the-meter options.

[34:45] Perhaps if we were to make investments

[34:48] with behind-the-meter resources to optimize them

[34:51] as a system resource and then seek

[34:53] small-scale renewable consideration

[34:57] or attribution.

[35:00] And we ask for cost recovery, there could be a ruling on improvements.

[35:06] If we cut off from eligibility,

[35:08] a significant segment of potential CBRAs and microgrid projects that customers will support as part

[35:14] of a utility CEP, IRP proposal with negative impacts on statewide goals, utility customers ability

[35:20] to pursue such projects and requirements that they pay twice for compliance with SSR. We're a bit

[35:27] concerned about the exclusion of behind the meter resources here, especially when it comes to

[35:33] CBREs. CBREs could include behind the meter resources. So now we've

[35:38] and part defined what CBREs are for compliance purposes with SSR. So where would you put your money

[35:45] if you had limited funds?

[35:49] Staff assertion that utilities can simply seek waivers or ask to reopen

[35:54] but rule makings is, it is onerous.

[36:01] I mean, there are opportunities here to create language

[36:03] and opportunities without having to go to a,

[36:06] ask for a change in rules.

[36:08] Rules are rarely changed.

[36:10] It's difficult to change rules.

[36:12] That's why the commission exercises that power under the APA.

[36:19] But most of all, as alluded, at the time when affordability is a foremost issue for customers,

[36:27] utilities in the condition, looking at this through the customer lens are raising some concerns.

[36:35] The behind the meter exclusion fundamentally turns the SSR compliance into a surplus requirement

[36:40] for supporting QF market resources.

[36:46] We, therefore, encourage the Commission to open up formal rule making to address the

[36:52] questions raised in the Pacific Wars DR58, but move to strike staff's proposal –00302C

[37:02] and 3A amendments as being unnecessary and unsupported at this time and beyond the scope of the

[37:11] proceeding.

[37:14] And I'm available for questions I also brought along our council if there are

[37:20] sort of legal questions that I'm unable to answer. Thanks Jason. I you know we we had left a space

[37:33] open for future business models when we had engaged these roles previously.

[37:42] I'm curious if you've

[37:44] thought about wording or additions to staff's wording to differentiate utility

[37:55] dispatched resources or anything like that, as opposed to simply striking the rule,

[38:04] the proposed rule.

[38:05] I think that we would be open to having some language around

[38:12] optimizing and operating behind the meter resources as a system asset. I think one of the things that we've heard from others here in the preceding was concerned that rooftop solar right now is a reduction to load.

[38:33] it's not optimized through a system dispatch, so we could be open to

[38:41] a compromise there of course. You know that creates an incentive for the utility to make

[38:46] investments and optimizing and deploying those assets with customers or situating them

[38:54] on customer physical plans or in their homes. It's part of compliance here that would be

[39:01] very helpful.

[39:05] I appreciate that. Other questions for PTE on their comments? Or anything?

[39:15] Nope. All right. Thanks so much Jason. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[39:23] Anything you'd like to go back to staff with colleagues.

[39:45] This is detailed complex staff. So I want to give space to flip through the PDFs and find them.

[39:54] Okay.

[39:55] Well, I suggest perhaps we can move to delivery.

[40:00] If there's no follow-up questions, I just want to give folks any space, if they want to follow up. No? No. I didn't hear anything new that had already been fully briefed or addressed in the staff report.

[40:14] So I think the table of issues remain what they are right now. And I think you did a nice job of sort of teasing out some of the nuance as we've gone through comments from stakeholders over the last half hour or so.

[40:33] So, you know, these rules have been challenging since they were, since the law was passed.

[40:43] And the last round was quite finely balanced, particularly, you know, on the Rex issue,

[40:50] for example. But the landscape keeps moving and changing. The affordability challenges continue

[41:01] to grow. From my part, I have increasing concerns about sort of system reliability,

[41:12] following ELCCs and how do we get more, more RAA value out of the distribution system,

[41:21] and trying to keep these rules sort of aligned with those other pressures or operating in the

[41:29] context of all those other pressures. There's a real challenge, and so I'm comfortable moving

[41:38] forward into formal rulemaking. I am uncomfortable with the blanket statement on behind the meter,

[41:47] not because I think behind the meter needs to be counted right now, but because I think that

[41:52] parties will use that statement later to mean more than we intend, more than I intend right now,

[41:58] in terms of future flexibility. And I don't want future flexibility around business models that could

[42:07] really bring more RA into the distribution system to be disincentivized, and I

[42:14] worry that that rule once it's in the, once it's in the rule book, we'll get read

[42:20] as very broad as opposed to more nuance, which is sort of my intention

[42:24] certainly. I think the other details I'm comfortable sort of how we where we're

[42:32] and letting AHD bring us a set of choices on the other elements, but that's where I'm at right now.

[42:43] Happy to delve into the other details if folks want to explore them or have perspectives on them.

[42:51] Thank you, Chair Tony, excuse me.

[42:55] It is challenging. I think we have other dockets that touch on many of the issues that are explored here and that can make it a little tough

[43:03] Tough and there is, like I mentioned before, there is some inconsistency in language because of things that weren't necessarily considered when legislation was passed.

[43:11] And so those gray areas can create difficulties.

[43:14] I do think, you know, small scale resources are a way that we can get generation capacity on the system.

[43:21] Maybe more quickly than larger resources and that have benefit to local communities and potentially to the distribution system.

[43:30] I don't have the same concerns as you with the behind the meter statement.

[43:35] I think that there are other ways that we can get at incentivizing those types of resources

[43:43] and demand response type resources at both commercial and industrial and residential level.

[43:48] So I think we have other ways to get at those.

[43:52] But I hear you, we know how much change has happened just in the last couple of years

[43:58] and are anticipating rapid change in the industry in the coming years and so it's hard to foresee

[44:04] what challenges we're going to have in front of us and what new verability we're going to want.

[44:09] So I totally understand you're desired to preserve that ability to have flexibility.

[44:16] So I appreciate the discussion around battery storage and how that fits into the mix.

[44:23] I think that the nuance on small scale resources being in the denominator I think is

[44:27] I still have questions about that, and I have mixed emotions, and so that's an area

[44:34] that I think that further discussion is warranted.

[44:41] So that's just an area that I look at, and I think there's valid arguments on why we

[44:45] would include small-scale resources in the denominator.

[44:52] Thanks.

[44:53] I think my perspective is similar to Commissioner Parkinson, particularly with including...

[45:00] Small-scale renewables already occurred to date in the current denominator. Since we're sort of setting

[45:08] a, the rules are setting new side boards on a going forward basis. So I'd like some more

[45:15] conversation there to capture where we are right now.

[45:25] Comfortable moving forward today. And I think

[45:28] I think I also still have some questions behind the meeting resources and how they're utilized here.

[45:37] The bill was a product of compromise between legislative interests.

[45:42] I think some of the comments on the floor were representative of how legislators arrived at that compromise.

[45:49] And what was in and what was out was a key part of how legislators had their perspectives incorporated into the bill.

[45:56] that said, Chertani, I think your comments are spot on.

[46:00] We are in a different space now than we were in 2021.

[46:09] And I think we need to have a sharp eye towards overall impacts to bills as we move ahead with all requirements.

[46:18] So I'm comfortable with that and I think appreciate both of you and your work in this.

[46:25] this docket to help shape the next phase.

[46:30] I appreciate that and I think there is a great deal we're going to do in the distribution system.

[46:36] We're going to have to look to the distribution system for a lot of resource.

[46:41] I think as I think about how to manage that affordability with that reliability,

[46:47] with the policies, the sort of generation choices that the legislature has mandated,

[46:53] really trying to squeeze out absolutely as much reliability out of those generation choices as we can is is for me sort of the key way to keep the three the three legs of the stool and balance with each other.

[47:13] And this is a tricky one because it's really driving energy rich resources and not necessarily strong RA resources into the mix.

[47:23] And so how do we sort of squeeze out as much RA from them as we can, given that it's sort of how I'm approaching the balancing act.

[47:34] So appreciate that. I think there's lots we can do as the ALJs take this over and we move it to completion. So I'll move we adopt staffs proposed motion as outlined in the memo.

[47:53] I'll second and I will concur.

[47:57] Excellent. The motion is adopted, and we'll look forward to word-smithing and trying

[48:05] to sort of put a package together that accomplishes all the, all the challenges, all the different

[48:11] goals. But have to be honest all the time, because that's just what the system is. All right,

[48:19] Let's move on to RA1, which is speaking of. Today is all about the distribution system.

[48:31] Docket number, sorry, my screen's all flipped over.

[48:36] 2, 3, 6, 2, the 2024 distribution system plan for PGE.

[48:42] And I think Nixon and Rebecca, if you're like they're going to present for us,

[48:48] if you guys would like to come forward.

[48:58] Good morning. Good

[49:03] morning, Chair Tony. Thank you. I'm

[49:05] pausing for a beat to see if Rebecca is having any connection issues. She was going to

[49:14] deliver our open remarks, which I can do if she is disconnected, but I'll

[49:18] it's okay with you. Pause for just a moment.

[49:36] Hearing from Rebecca, I will quickly jump in if that's

[49:41] Okay. Thank you for your patience. And so I need to grab the notes we prepared. Sorry about that.

[49:51] No worries. She was on, but it looks like she's disappeared. So I'm guessing that

[49:56] and some sort of challenge in is coming back into the meeting.

[50:00] We'll get started and she'll jump in if that's okay with you. Thank you very much for the time to chat this morning for the record. My name is Nick Sayon. I'm a senior utility analyst with PUC staff. Eventually, probably, we'll be joined by Rebecca Ferrelact, my co-author on the staff memo. We worked closely together on this, which is why we're intending to co-present today. Also on the line is Natasha Smith, assistant attorney general with DOJ.

[50:29] should we have specific legal questions come up as is sometimes the case.

[50:36] I'd like to begin by thanking PGE for its substantial efforts to develop the plan and engage

[50:42] with stakeholders. Staff finds that the PGE 2024 DSP meets the guideline requirements set

[50:50] fourth in order 24-421 and therefore we recommend the plan being accepted.

[50:58] The DSP guidelines require electric utilities to provide greater transparency around

[51:02] grid needs and justification of proposed solutions to promote spending discipline and establish

[51:09] a through line for future cost recovery.

[51:12] Through this planning docket, staff seeks to understand the utilities decision-making process

[51:17] and to identify and vet its spending in this area that represents one of the

[51:22] largest set of capital investments in customer rates. PGE's plan includes

[51:28] near-term investments of more than $2.4 billion over a five-year period from

[51:33] 2024 through 2028 and that's across six spending categories. 80% of this spend

[51:40] addresses customer and partner commitments that's one category, capacity and

[51:46] flexibility to address load growth as a second category and compliance requirements as a third

[51:52] category. Staffs analysis concluded that PGE's proposed investments exceed study state spending

[51:59] by at least $200 million annually, and this is likely to put upward pressure on customer rates.

[52:07] PGE is currently seeking cost recovery for certain investments in its 2024 DSP through

[52:14] through Docket UE 459, and that is a contested case.

[52:18] Today, staff plans to focus remarks just on content

[52:21] from PGIS DSP, the 2024 plan.

[52:27] Staff commends PGIS and developed in a comprehensive plan

[52:30] that provides a granular forecast

[52:32] of expected investments by category,

[52:36] includes low growth and DER adoption forecasts

[52:39] at the substation level, provides updated baseline data,

[52:43] and discusses its virtual power plant, the VPP,

[52:47] with benefit cost analysis.

[52:50] Additionally, staff appreciate the company's six workshops

[52:53] and multiple office hours held

[52:56] to provide information in field stakeholder questions.

[52:59] And these, this engagement did exceed guideline requirements.

[53:05] However, staff found significant information gaps

[53:08] that hinder our ability to understand the company's justification

[53:11] of its many near-term investments.

[53:15] Specifically, staffs continues to see greater transparency

[53:19] into the relationship between PGE's most important grid needs

[53:23] and proposed solutions.

[53:26] Staff finds that the plan does not demonstrate

[53:28] a clear prioritization method for near-term investments

[53:31] or consistently demonstrate the origin

[53:34] or necessity of investments.

[53:37] There benefits to rate payers.

[53:39] and whether lower cost alternatives were considered.

[53:44] Additionally, it remains unclear to staff how PGE attributes the cost of large transmission

[53:49] projects to the distribution planning budget.

[53:56] Finally, PGE proposes expenditures over 20 years, so outside of just the action plan,

[54:02] the five-year action plan, over 20 years of $880 million for its VPP.

[54:07] The company's benefit cost analysis, as provided in the plan, presents a useful lens for this resource and staff believes PGE should next model the VPP resource within its upcoming IRP modeling process.

[54:25] Given the trend of increased distribution spending, it is increasingly important for utilities to demonstrate that investments are necessary and deliver measurable benefits to ratepayers.

[54:37] There is considerable room for improvement in PGE's plan.

[54:43] However, it has significantly advanced staff's understanding of PGE's investments

[54:47] since the company's last file plan.

[54:52] On a procedural note, the DSP guidelines require that utilities submit an interim update on

[54:59] you

[55:00] Project progress. One year after last file in the full DSP. Because UE 459 is currently underway,

[55:08] staff recommended a one year extension. After some additional feedback and discussion, staff now

[55:15] thinks it would be better to extend the interim update from December 20, 26 to March 15, 2027,

[55:24] effectively moving to Q1 of 2027 and that would include, sorry, allow inclusion of a full year

[55:32] of 2026 project data in the report.

[55:37] Staff would like to thank state holders for their valuable time

[55:40] and effort in providing feedback on PGE's plan. Staff expects to work with the company and state

[55:45] holders to evolve and improve distribution planning and increase transparency in future plans.

[55:52] Thank you very much for this time. I'm available to answer questions. And if

[55:56] while I've been chatting with you, Rebecca's back online. She's available to

[56:01] answer questions too.

[56:05] Thank you. Anything to add for Becca?

[56:10] Nothing to add for me.

[56:12] My apologies. My internet went out exactly the wrong time. So thank you my

[56:16] colleague Nick for taking those opening remarks. Absolutely. Very familiar with the

[56:25] It appears to questions for staff, colleagues.

[56:33] Well, thank you for the analysis and the detailed document

[56:39] that you provided to us, kind of summarizing the work

[56:42] that's been done.

[56:46] Talk to you about this as we were moving through this process.

[56:49] But I'd love to just hear you make a comment on,

[56:52] there's a repeated concern about lack of transparency.

[56:57] and lack of requested information.

[57:01] And I know CUB has brought this up in their filing

[57:04] that came in really late.

[57:07] However, I know there's the recommendation

[57:12] that we accept this plan.

[57:15] How do you square that need for more transparency

[57:20] with accepting the plan?

[57:23] What's the trade-off there?

[57:24] why should we accept a plan when we've repeated to be an asking for information that's really important to one of the largest investments that the utility is making that impacts customer rates.

[57:40] Thank you Commissioner Perkins for the question. It's a difficult one. It's one that frankly we wrestled with.

[57:47] We looked at the full set of guideline requirements one through nine I believe.

[57:54] and found that the plan does meet many of them.

[57:59] Partly, I noted those in my opening remarks.

[58:03] Our critiques are largely focused on guideline 6,

[58:06] which is the grid needs requirement and guideline 8,

[58:10] which is the near term action plan requirement.

[58:13] And in these instances, we argue strongly for ways in which the plan could be better,

[58:19] and needs to be better in the future.

[58:21] There are this set of shortcomings, and despite these, we felt the plan was on balance, adequate

[58:27] for acceptance. That is also contingent, not contingent, but builds on, probably is a better

[58:33] way to say it, that our belief that DSP is and should be an exercise and continuous improvement.

[58:40] And in that respect, PGE's plan does demonstrate incremental progress from the prior plan. It is

[58:47] important that that improvement continue going forward to future filings. There's a tremendous

[58:53] amount of detail about the

[58:58] technical details that were or weren't provided for any one of 100

[59:02] something projects. In summary, the plan was adequate for acceptance, and so rather than wrestle

[59:13] with those specific project details. I'll pause there to see if that is kind of an adequate

[59:20] answer for that high level answer for that question. Yeah, I think it's what is clearly

[59:28] wrestled with throughout the document. And you can see it in comments from stakeholders as well.

[59:36] So yeah, just wanted to kind of put that out on the table because I know it is a point of discussion

[59:41] that we're likely to have.

[59:45] Thanks for that, Commissioner Perkins. Anything else for staff?

[59:50] I think, you know, following up on Commissioner Perkins' question, I appreciate

[59:54] Nick and Rebecca how you've gracefully navigated that answer. I think

[1:00:00] I think it is challenging to receive substantive critiques of your staff report less than 24 hours before our meeting, which then, you know, puts us in a position of having to ask you that that complex sort of question live in this public meeting rather than being able to discuss it in detail. The timeframe is challenging. And so I wanted to note that and appreciate, you know, you sort of thinking through it in real time. It would be my strong preference to be able

[1:00:29] to have adequate time to talk through that with you if outside stakeholders have

[1:00:37] clear and I think very pointed concerns in the future. So a bit disappointed about timing,

[1:00:45] but thank you for working through that in real time with us.

[1:00:54] Wondered if how you think about, I appreciate that commissioner power.

[1:01:01] You know, we've thought a lot over the years about acceptance versus acknowledge versus

[1:01:07] approve, and I'm curious how you think about your very clear in the memo, this is not

[1:01:15] pre-approval, prudence review, remains where prudence review belongs, which we've been

[1:01:20] very consistent about as a commission.

[1:01:24] But I wonder if how you think about IRP acknowledgment versus TE and DSP acceptance and how you sort of applied that lens here.

[1:01:42] Thank you, Chair Tony. There's I think two aspects of that question immediately come to mind.

[1:01:48] One is that the level, the exercise of acceptance is two of the plan broadly or in whole, which is a distinction from IRP where there's an individual action plan with an action plan with individual items and also a long term plan, et cetera, that you are able to go through an evaluate on a specific basis.

[1:02:11] We haven't done that today in the DSP. It's just addressing the plan in whole. That's the way the guidelines structure review.

[1:02:17] So that's one point.

[1:02:19] The second point, I think, is perhaps more, you know, a big picture and more substantive is how much sure is this?

[1:02:28] I have a piece of been going on for several decades and we're not there yet.

[1:02:33] I would say that growth and development from our guideline development in 2020 to the first plans was pretty significant.

[1:02:39] and recognition of a need of growth and revised guidelines of 2024.

[1:02:44] And now, here with the first plan filed under those new guidelines, significant growth and progress again.

[1:02:53] But I do want to note, or sort of underscore, the points in the memo that we call that

[1:02:58] as those significant gaps and concerns where when we evaluate something,

[1:03:08] do we have the information to be able to really pass judgment on something specific?

[1:03:14] And I think those kinds of metrics and onifiable data were circling.

[1:03:21] We've gotten closer. We haven't dialed them in yet with respect to this plan before us today.

[1:03:33] Thanks. I appreciate that framing in terms of sort of the decision that you're asking us to take.

[1:03:43] And the complexity of those metrics, especially the cost effectiveness, sort of metrics.

[1:03:52] All right, so if there's nothing further for staff, I appreciate all the hard work on this.

[1:04:00] And just reflect back to what we started with in terms of the ever-spiraling smart grid reports and love that we were.

[1:04:08] So, fashion forward to be on our multiple, multiple revisions into our DSP guidelines at this point.

[1:04:18] So, appreciate all the work over the several years to get here.

[1:04:24] I'm going to ask for a raise of hands for anyone who would like to speak to the DSP and I see Fatima.

[1:04:33] if you can let us know if you're representing any organization or if you're

[1:04:39] not that's fine too.

[1:04:50] You should be able to turn your camera on and unmute yourself

[1:04:54] Fatima. Sorry, I think it was I dial it by accident. Sorry. No worries.

[1:05:00] No worries at all. All right, clear.

[1:05:10] Good morning. Can you hear all hear me okay? Lovely. Clear

[1:05:15] Valentine Fossum here with Oregon CUB. And I'd like to just start off by saying that we really

[1:05:24] appreciate working with staff on this. Nick and Rebecca have an excellent report here that's going

[1:05:31] to be very helpful for us. It's quite thorough as we move forward with evaluating the projects

[1:05:36] that are put into the DSP and then of course the next steps for recovery. So we, I just want

[1:05:42] to say that I really appreciate that we really appreciate here how that was laid out the level

[1:05:47] and the level of detail and scrutiny that's provided by this report. I also just want to say as well

[1:05:54] that throughout this whole process we appreciate the level of engagement from staff including the

[1:06:01] changed the procedural schedule when it was understood that there was a recovery proceeding

[1:06:06] going on, and also that more information was needed, and we would like another round

[1:06:10] of comments was needed.

[1:06:11] So I just want to start off by saying that we really appreciate working with staff throughout

[1:06:16] this whole process, and that this report was quite helpful.

[1:06:22] But it's from that, it's from what is found in the report, and our respect for what staff

[1:06:28] has found in this report, which was why we decided to make that comment. And I recognize

[1:06:33] it was late as we have a number of other competing deadlines for other PGE filings that are quickly

[1:06:41] approaching. But at the end of the day, though we wrestled with it and we had internal discussions,

[1:06:47] we still wanted to put forward this comment for you all. Again, after really reading and considering

[1:06:57] what staff had said, and though this comment was filed late, or not late, but at the last minute,

[1:07:07] I will say, the concerns around affordability are not new, and that is a theme throughout the

[1:07:13] staff report. The concerns about meaningful engagement and about transparency are not new.

[1:07:23] And we need these kind of things in order to be able to successfully look at a plan and

[1:07:28] be able to understand what is anticipated and use that information in the next steps

[1:07:34] throughout to get to recovery and the rate cases.

[1:07:37] And that is really what makes a thorough plan and an effective plan is be able to have that

[1:07:42] transparency and, you know, from looking at this plan, well, PG notes that the investments

[1:07:51] are necessary. And, again, that's not entirely clear, unfortunately, for the public, because

[1:07:55] of the lack of transparency of the information and the lack of information provided to staff

[1:08:01] and others in this plan, what I will say, what is clear and what is transparent is it is not

[1:08:06] afford, it is not here to be affordable, and so our concerns, I guess, rest on is a worth

[1:08:17] accepting a plan where from a sophisticated company that has had multiple rounds of working

[1:08:26] on DSPs that still does not provide the transparency, and yet is asking Oregonians to put the bill for

[1:08:32] significant increases in its distribution spending. Nick said something that really caught my

[1:08:41] ear earlier about the near-term investments and the lack of information there near-term investments

[1:08:49] while perhaps future investments, you know, comparatively, may have more uncertainty.

[1:08:55] Near-term investments should have the information available. They should be more certain,

[1:09:00] and especially if you're asking for recovery of them.

[1:09:03] And so it's quite concerning that staff found

[1:09:05] significant information gaps for the near-term investments.

[1:09:10] I know we have a comment in our part of our comment,

[1:09:13] I should say, where we do address the acceptance

[1:09:17] of near-term and the timeline aspect of that,

[1:09:20] both from an engagement level

[1:09:22] and then also the information availability level.

[1:09:25] But I think that was just something that,

[1:09:29] You know, I'm considering our comment and considering the staff feedback and what they found the report perhaps should be given some additional weight than perhaps will be initially put in our comments.

[1:09:40] So again, just to close, I want to say appreciate this report, nice work, and look forward to working with staff in the future as we go forward.

[1:09:52] And with this kind of level of detail, and I think response of this to the feedback that they were getting from stakeholders.

[1:10:00] Thank you.

[1:10:05] Thanks so much. Questions for cut.

[1:10:12] Okay. All right.

[1:10:16] I think I'll go to Fred and then come round to PGE to respond.

[1:10:28] Thank you, Chair Tony, and commissioners, Perkins, and power. Good morning. Fred here at the Northwest Energy Coalition. I'll keep this very short. First to say, it's been a long journey with a

[1:10:41] distribution system plan. I first want to thank the commission. We're setting up and executing a

[1:10:47] really good overall process. We're now going through the second round here with PGE. We can see

[1:10:55] really tremendous progress in this overall approach. It's actually exceeded my hopes in many ways

[1:11:05] in terms of providing information to the public and to you and providing a lot more context

[1:11:11] for filling in the gaps on this crucially important part of providing utility service.

[1:11:18] I also want to thank PGE for stepping up and really doing a lot of work,

[1:11:23] a huge amount of work, to pull all the pieces together and evolve their approach.

[1:11:31] And I especially want to thank Nick Sand on the Commission staff who's carried this through the whole way

[1:11:37] and is really advanced. I think we're advancing the state of the art here. Really

[1:11:43] want to express my appreciation for all that.

[1:11:48] But and I want to point to only one

[1:11:50] thing in the staff report to kind of summarize our thoughts. On page 12, the staff

[1:11:56] report talks about tightening the going forward, tightening the virtual power

[1:12:01] plan analysis and the consideration in the CPIRP process, as well as focusing on the future

[1:12:08] spending and customer benefits that pertain to that.

[1:12:13] And generally how the distribution system plan can provide more consistent context for

[1:12:19] cost review and recovery.

[1:12:20] I think that's really where our focus should be.

[1:12:23] We know that, as CUB just said, there's tremendous amount of bill pressure from this effort.

[1:12:28] And there's also a lot of focus on getting a better aim of all these very complex efforts toward providing delivered value to customers.

[1:12:39] This is a, this is a, the affordability question here is not a binary in our view.

[1:12:45] It's not either this plan is affordable or it's not.

[1:12:48] It's how affordable can it be and how effective can it be?

[1:12:55] That's really the key challenge that we've got.

[1:12:58] But I'm glad to have that challenge.

[1:13:00] I'm glad we have as much information as we've got that the company and the staff have spent a great deal of time on a huge amount of effort on.

[1:13:09] The approximately half a billion dollars a year of spending, this is a major component

[1:13:18] of what we pay in our bills, and the quality of service that we get.

[1:13:25] I think I've mentioned this previously, PGE's crews came and replaced the power pull at

[1:13:31] the end of my block earlier this year, over 100 years old.

[1:13:35] That's part of this.

[1:13:36] the very advanced kind of virtual power plant work is also part of this.

[1:13:42] It's really kind of been, for me, I kind of knew the complexities of the actually operating

[1:13:49] the distribution part of the utility. I had no idea.

[1:13:54] And now we have a much better idea. So for that, I thank you.

[1:13:58] And finally, just want to say we do have some concern about the ability to execute

[1:14:03] on this very ambitious, very broad-ranging approach.

[1:14:07] Does the company have the staff

[1:14:10] and the management processes to deliver on this

[1:14:14] is something we're watching closely?

[1:14:17] So overall, again, appreciation for getting to this point

[1:14:21] and we do look forward to continued progress

[1:14:24] on the distribution system plan.

[1:14:26] Thank you.

[1:14:29] Thank you for that, Fred.

[1:14:34] Any questions for Henwick?

[1:14:35] All right. I appreciate it. Jason.

[1:14:47] Good morning again. Chair Tawny, Commissioner

[1:14:52] Perkins, Commissioner Power for the Record. My name is Jason Salman-Klotz. I'm also here

[1:14:58] here with several...

[1:15:00] Local PGE members, PGE staff members, all who worked on the distribution system plan, in case

[1:15:05] you have some technical questions that I cannot answer. They're here as well, so there's

[1:15:10] a larger contingent of PGE at this meeting, just so you're aware. Our first ESP was developed

[1:15:18] in 21. The development of those guidelines was in part led by a Rocky Mountain Institute

[1:15:25] stakeholder-led process. The initial focus of the DSP then was community-centered planning,

[1:15:32] specifically addressing social and community interests in the distribution system evolution.

[1:15:37] Subsequent guideline updates to a certain part by concerns over rising rates,

[1:15:43] shifted the DSP focus to system planning and increased transparency regarding

[1:15:47] project spending. Projects on spending. PGE filed our comprehensive 2024 DSP, shortly after

[1:15:56] Commission adopted its newest guidelines in November of 2024. We understood the guidelines would

[1:16:03] continue to evolve. Staff indicated that this plan was highly informative to them, clarifying

[1:16:09] our planning methods, technical approaches, and resource management. We submitted over 600 pages

[1:16:17] of information trying to be as transparent as possible.

[1:16:22] We have detailed budgets, project tracking,

[1:16:24] justifications for both short-term and long-term needs.

[1:16:29] After a 10 month review,

[1:16:31] staff is focused on clarifying what additional information

[1:16:34] they need and how to integrate that data

[1:16:37] into their assessment of distribution activities.

[1:16:40] We welcome continued deeper engagement to craft

[1:16:44] the next evolution of the DSP guidelines.

[1:16:46] We know that that is part of the work that's ahead of us.

[1:16:50] During the development of the DSP and development of the DSP guidelines,

[1:16:55] we offer to sit down with staff at a regular cadence to walk them through each of the projects that we have going on,

[1:17:01] how those projects have changed or evolved, other budgets have changed or how money has moved from one project to another,

[1:17:08] or how some projects may have been reduced in size or scoped or had to not go forward because of funding concerns.

[1:17:20] The commission staff in the utility should be planful about how best to evolve the distribution

[1:17:26] system and the business model of the utility.

[1:17:30] This is why we voluntarily created the benefit cost analysis within the 2024 GSB.

[1:17:36] It demonstrates the value that developing the distribution system into a bidirectional system

[1:17:44] provides to customers in the nearly two-to-one benefit to cost for issue.

[1:17:50] PGE views the BCAA as a qualification of a new service paradigm, establishing a long-term

[1:17:56] benefit to the grid monetization.

[1:18:00] I and the entire PGE team want to thank commission staff for their engagement.

[1:18:07] Their questions, the curiosity, the patients that they have brought to this review process,

[1:18:12] We've had countless meetings with staff working to better understand how PGE plans and our distribution system, how they operate, how we operate the system, what components provide, what services, what dependencies interdependencies, this is a very big, very complex system.

[1:18:31] and it's engineering, heavy, that your staff is trying to better understand and that we're

[1:18:36] trying to share with them and communicate with them about how that system works, what

[1:18:41] those dependencies, interdependencies are.

[1:18:46] We've held 21 public workshops since 2022.

[1:18:51] We've had six office hours and 2024 where any party, any stakeholder could come and ask

[1:18:58] questions. At those office hours we have the staff that's here at the commission meeting,

[1:19:05] engineers, planners there to answer any question that may have been brought up.

[1:19:11] All of this material, the presentations, recordings of the meetings, are catalogs and posted

[1:19:19] on the DSP website. We believe that this is just part of a strong regulatory process.

[1:19:26] We provided an appendix E to the distribution system plan, which yes has been carried over into a separate

[1:19:32] docket. That's how helpful it was with regard to how transparent the information are on technical

[1:19:38] information and spending information. That was provided through that appendix through the DSP. Yes, it was

[1:19:45] provided in a confidential manner, but any party that was part of this docket who adhered to confidentiality

[1:19:52] requirements was able to review that material. CUB had access to all of that

[1:19:57] material as to staff.

[1:20:01] We look forward to working with the Commission, staff, and stakeholders to evolve the next ESP guidelines, and to better understand how to direct investment to meet the operations and policy goals of the Commission and the utility. Thank you. Open for questions if you have any. Thank you.

[1:20:22] I am curious, you've responded to this, the transparency conversation in one way, but

[1:20:33] I didn't hear a discussion, for example, of taking in the sense of staff's interest

[1:20:42] in understanding why some projects were prioritized, how you sort of racked and stacked needs, for

[1:20:50] For example, and I'm curious how you're metabolizing or, you know,

[1:20:56] understanding sort of staff's asks for the next iteration.

[1:21:04] Yeah, so we did provide a great deal of information about our capital planning process and how

[1:21:10] decisions are made, how activities are ranked within the capital planning process.

[1:21:15] And I think what staff is curious to know is before items came to the capital planning process,

[1:21:21] How were some of those decisions made?

[1:21:24] What were some of the decisions that engineers were facing?

[1:21:27] What were the benefits and costs that they were looking at?

[1:21:31] What are the trade-offs they were trying to make,

[1:21:33] given the limited amount of capital funds that they had?

[1:21:35] How were they making decisions about prioritizing things before they got to the capital process?

[1:21:40] And I think, in part, that's what they're looking for,

[1:21:44] and what they've identified as missing from the distribution system plan.

[1:21:48] They're looking to go deeper than our capital planning process, which gives a kind of rank order

[1:21:54] for the activities, but they're wondering what was brought to the capital planning process,

[1:21:59] and how our decisions made pre-capital planning process. Those are fair questions to ask,

[1:22:05] and we certainly are trying to share with them as much information as we could after we submitted

[1:22:10] in these last nine months or so as to how are our engineers making some of those decisions and

[1:22:16] trade-offs, what information we could share with them.

[1:22:20] And so I think that's just part of the evolution.

[1:22:23] And I think it also goes to understanding how the utility functions, how the utility

[1:22:28] makes decisions, what questions to ask, what information to ask for, and how to ask for

[1:22:33] that information.

[1:22:35] As I said earlier in my comments, we were open to during the guideline process sitting down

[1:22:40] with staff and going through these projects on a regular cadence on a regular basis.

[1:22:44] and so they could see how these changes

[1:22:46] or how some of the decisions were being made.

[1:22:49] And certainly we'd like to have those conversations

[1:22:51] and the lead up to the next guideline development.

[1:22:55] Is that helpful?

[1:22:57] So what, I'm also curious to have points

[1:23:00] to wanting more quantitative metrics.

[1:23:05] And we had a conversation in the last two weeks ago

[1:23:09] about quantitative metrics and transparency.

[1:23:12] You know, you've done some work

[1:23:15] on cost-benefit analysis, but many of these projects are simply required and I'm curious,

[1:23:23] you know, how much more rigorous, how much further can we expect you to be utilizing

[1:23:31] that sort of analysis? And it matters because staff is pointing to how much faster than

[1:23:41] sort of depreciation, capitals being deployed here, and maybe that's okay if it's displacing

[1:23:50] some other capital expense or some other operational expense that would emerge otherwise, but

[1:23:55] we don't see that necessarily here. There's simply sort of required projects, and that

[1:24:03] That leaves us, I think, a little bit in the dark on the cost benefit equation, you know,

[1:24:10] what would it cost to not?

[1:24:13] Yeah.

[1:24:14] I hear you on that.

[1:24:15] And I also think that goes to part of the non-wire solutions discussions that we're having

[1:24:19] as it's a related item.

[1:24:23] We conducted a cost benefit analysis on part of the investments in the DSP that was voluntary.

[1:24:29] The cost benefit analysis wasn't something required by the guidelines.

[1:24:35] Subsequent to submitting the DSP, staff started asking for information around

[1:24:43] a kind of cost benefit or risk informed decision making.

[1:24:46] We've provided some of that information.

[1:24:49] The risk informed decision making is a new process for us

[1:24:52] and it does give you the kind of quantitative information you're looking for.

[1:24:56] It was developed after.

[1:25:00] We were developing this distribution system plan and submitted this distribution system plan. It is a process and a metric that is being incorporated into our practices here at PGE. As we speak, it has not been completely finalized. We have given staff an insight into how the risk informed decision making mechanism works, how it's constructed, it's various components and factors. And we anticipate being able to use that in the next distribution system plan, which I think is going to give you

[1:25:29] In large part, what it is that you're looking for because it is a type of benefit cost analysis,

[1:25:35] although it is not wholly similar to the benefit cost analysis that you're used to seeing

[1:25:41] in energy efficiency or other demand response or other DSM investments.

[1:25:48] Okay, I appreciate that.

[1:25:52] Colleagues, questions for Jason?

[1:25:54] I

[1:25:59] appreciate the explanation of how EGE moved through the process still troubled by not

[1:26:08] getting the information staff, not getting the information they were requesting. I think

[1:26:12] you're setting a pretty high bar for our expectations for the next iteration, and I'm really

[1:26:19] hoping that you meet that. But I think it is an evolution, recognize that this process has

[1:26:25] has been evolving and the expectations have been evolving, but I just want to make it clear that you're setting a pretty high bar for the expectations and we're going to have high expectations in the next iteration of the DSP.

[1:26:41] I also want to challenge you a little bit in what you said about being willing to meet with staff all along the way to provide information on specific projects.

[1:26:52] If you were willing to do that, you should have been willing to provide that information

[1:26:55] in the document itself because you basically would be discussing that information.

[1:27:01] So, there's also type requirements, and it's obviously our staff is eccapacity.

[1:27:07] I know you guys also experience a lot of work and probably not enough capacity to get it done.

[1:27:13] So there's an efficiency side of that piece too.

[1:27:18] Okay. Thank you for the comments. I hear what you're saying. We have worked with staff

[1:27:23] as much as we can. If there's information that's been missing, I'm, you know, that they've

[1:27:28] asked for recently. I'm unaware of it.

[1:27:36] I guess my reading of staff's report pointed out lots

[1:27:40] of holes and then requests and unmet information requests. So I'm going by what has been in the

[1:27:54] staff report and reading through the record. So I think what I'm saying is my expectation is

[1:27:59] as we move into the next DSP that I don't want to see us going through this same discussion in the

[1:28:08] next round. My expectation is is that we will have a smoother process and that we will

[1:28:14] have the information we need, and staff will have the information they need to feel comfortable

[1:28:18] with what's put forward.

[1:28:22] Thanks for that Commissioner Perkins. Commissioner

[1:28:26] Power, any questions for the company? No. Okay. Jason, one last sort of piece I'm wondering how you're

[1:28:34] digesting. I see staff really pointing to continued maturity around the distribution system plan,

[1:28:43] the feedback loop that needs to happen with the integrated resource plan.

[1:28:48] So the distribution system is clearly going to be this why we've done this process

[1:28:54] and why we worked so hard to get out in front of distribution system planning. It is clearly going

[1:28:59] to be a key part of the resource stack.

[1:29:03] There's no question about that, that's our rules totally aside.

[1:29:06] It's going to be a clear part of how we get to reliability and decarbonized, a decarbonized

[1:29:12] system.

[1:29:13] I'm curious how you were thinking about or what you can take away from how you've matured

[1:29:21] your distribution system plan, how you plan to further mature your distribution system planning

[1:29:27] into the IRP process, where you're looking at connection points there.

[1:29:36] So our lead for Integrated Resource Planning at Jim Lindsay, I believe, is on the phone

[1:29:43] would it be all right if I ask him to respond to that question?

[1:29:46] I'm great to hear how Jim is thinking about it.

[1:29:48] So I hear, for example, Jimmie staff really asking, can't the IRP program modeling

[1:29:55] not just take a number for the VPP, but sort of tell you what a number might be for the VPP.

[1:30:00] The VPP based on, avoid, you know, avoid a cost, for example. So I'm curious how you're internalizing their, their feedback there. Thanks, Chair, Tony, commissioners, for the record. My name is Jimmy Lindsay, and I direct a resource planning activities, including our Integrated Resource Plan Clean Energy Plan. And yes, we reviewed staff's suggestions regarding incorporation of our sort of VPP measures into the

[1:30:29] IRP and we've been thinking directly about how can we, you know, be responsive to that feedback

[1:30:35] in the 26 IRP and I think you're right to sort of point out the past practice is, you know,

[1:30:44] attempting to like embed a certain amount of cost effective, you know, measures regarding

[1:30:50] flexible load and distributed storage and, you know, rooftop solar into our

[1:30:59] forecasts using a adopter tool. And we've been reflecting internally since

[1:31:07] receiving this staff report about, you know, how can be responsive to having

[1:31:10] the selection occurs, sort of more indulgenously or within the IRP models

[1:31:15] themselves. And that is something that we're looking to be responsive to in

[1:31:19] the 26-IRP and look to kind of, you know, first arrive at our methodological approach and

[1:31:28] share it with staff and look to successfully introduce it to the 26-IRP. I can't say

[1:31:33] that, you know, at this moment we've sort of identified the exact clear path on the methodology

[1:31:41] but I can say that that is something that we intend to be responsive to, look to kind of

[1:31:47] collaborate with staff and hopefully find some innovations here that are easy to implement in

[1:31:54] our responsive. And so that's what we intend to do. I think one sort of note that'll just make is

[1:32:02] the DSP and the IRP-CEP that these are iterative, cyclical things, something we tend to do

[1:32:09] you know every year. And I think we can make good progress in this 26IRP. You know it might sound

[1:32:17] And silly, it's, you know, the 26IRP's not due for another eight months, but just when

[1:32:23] we think about really substantive methodological changes, that can take a fair bit of time

[1:32:30] to develop, share with the audience, get feedback, perform, write about.

[1:32:37] And so we're starting now to try to make it within that timeline, but it's, you may see

[1:32:42] Yes, sort of improving in a couple of stepwise functions

[1:32:46] over the upcoming planning cycles.

[1:32:49] But my intention is to have sort of a good first response

[1:32:53] to staff in the commission in the 26th IRP.

[1:32:57] I appreciate that.

[1:32:58] You made significant progress in how you thought

[1:33:01] about energy efficiency, for example,

[1:33:03] taking ETO's number and also endogenously selecting

[1:33:07] energy efficiency over and above that

[1:33:09] that really gave us an early signal at how much more energy efficiency we might need to look to.

[1:33:17] I think given the uncertainties you're facing on BPA timelines, on transmission more generally

[1:33:26] into the BA, really thinking about the IRP in terms of scenarios and test cases that give us sort of

[1:33:35] as opposed to point forecasts is going to be really important in the face of the uncertainty that you have and from that perspective,

[1:33:43] you know, running some versions that give us some endogenous selection, you know, can be really important.

[1:33:49] So it doesn't, it's not all or nothing in my view.

[1:33:51] I think there's a lot that you can get from different sort of runs that give us different worlds and different futures.

[1:33:59] If there's a future where the BPA projects don't come together, then how much DER is selected, for example.

[1:34:08] But I appreciate that you're thinking about how to keep these processes in forming each other.

[1:34:16] Because I think that's the key for me in doing this process, is that they're in forming each other as we go along.

[1:34:25] Thank you for the question.

[1:34:28] All right. Any further dialogue with the company?

[1:34:37] Thank you, Jason. Thank you.

[1:34:42] All right. Anything that you'd like to go back to staff with or anyone else follow up questions?

[1:34:51] No, all right. Great.

[1:34:56] So from my perspective,

[1:34:59] and

[1:35:01] Distribution system planning is essential because it is both the single largest sort of source of capital spend. And also there are many hopes and dreams for how much it's going to contribute to the generation stack to reliability from that perspective to resilience. There are many hopes and dreams pinned on.

[1:35:31] the distribution system that are essential for decarbonizing and providing reliability in a

[1:35:40] challenged regional grid.

[1:35:44] And you know I see a lot of movement from you know in the smart grid

[1:35:52] land and ending some of the first distribution system efforts a lot of sort of chasing

[1:35:59] Chinese objects, but hard to see how they all connected, hard to see how they

[1:36:06] reinforced each other, how they delivered customer value. And that has improved.

[1:36:11] And I'm excited to hear about the risk-informed decision-making, because I would

[1:36:16] argue that is the commission pushing the company to be disciplined on the company

[1:36:22] responding and putting in a discipline mechanism, is it as far along as I'd

[1:36:26] like, probably not. But I see that feedback loop, that positive feedback loop happening

[1:36:31] and that that gives me hope for where we're headed. I am frustrated by that sort of talking

[1:36:42] past each other. I see the companies sort of feeling they've been responsive to data requests

[1:36:47] and staff articulating real gaps in analytical work. I see that same conversation happening

[1:36:54] in the wildfire space. I see the same conversation happening in a variety of venues.

[1:37:02] And I'm not quite sure how to, the company is answering very literally. And I think staff's

[1:37:07] asking more strategic questions. The company is struggling to answer. And so I look forward

[1:37:14] to staff in the company continuing to try to bridge that. And I'm happy for the commission to weigh in

[1:37:21] and support bridging that, talking past each other challenge that I'm observing.

[1:37:28] But in general, I'm comfortable accepting this plan, recognizing we are on a journey

[1:37:34] and we expect to your point, Commissioner Perkins, the continuous improvement that's laid

[1:37:41] out here, and that's with that sort of continued hope of improvement in meeting the challenge

[1:37:48] that I'm comfortable accepting what we have in front of us, but I'm really open to other

[1:37:54] perspectives if there's a different view.

[1:38:00] Oh, Cheritani, I appreciate your comments,

[1:38:02] and your articulation of the importance of the distribution system in addressing a range of needs.

[1:38:11] I have been feeling more and more sense of urgency in figuring out how we meet those challenges

[1:38:18] and also understanding the possible future scenarios, like you said, if this doesn't happen,

[1:38:24] then what does that mean over here? And that's what we need to really understand, but we also

[1:38:30] very much need to understand how that affects ratepayers. Are we making wise decisions

[1:38:37] that both give the benefit to the system but also are cost effective? And it's a challenge. And

[1:38:43] we're seeing this, like you said, in multiple dockets where we're trying to figure out strategically

[1:38:48] in a very rapidly changing environment what our options are moving forward so

[1:38:53] that we can so the company and we as regulators can be making good well-informed

[1:39:00] decisions and that's I think we're my frustration around not seeing information

[1:39:04] that we need comes from and yes we need to not talk best each other we need to be

[1:39:10] working in the same direction but both the company and us regulators need to be

[1:39:17] thinking strategically and in thinking about what the potential options are in the future and

[1:39:23] what those scenarios might be because there are a lot of different things that can happen

[1:39:27] and have been happening. So that's where my frustration comes from. I appreciate the progress

[1:39:33] that's been made from previous iterations. Is it exactly what I want to see? No. I've been

[1:39:39] likely to see exactly what I want to see every time. No. But like you said, I want to see that

[1:39:45] continuous improvement and I want to see a better alignment between the company and staff

[1:39:51] in terms of expectations and information that's put forward.

[1:39:55] So I, I am.

[1:40:00] I'm willing to accept what's put before us, but like I said, with the expectation of things being different in the next go round. And just to the comments around concerns about how we determine where we are in a cost recovery setting, I just want to lay it out there that this is not cost recovery. This is simply a distribution system plan, and it does not dictate decisions that we make in cost recovery dockets. I

[1:40:33] think you too have a lot covered it.

[1:40:34] I don't have anything for other to add.

[1:40:39] I will prepare to accept a motion then.

[1:40:44] I will move that we accept PGE's distribution system then.

[1:40:50] I'll second.

[1:40:51] I'll concur, and the motion is adopted.

[1:40:54] We'll look forward to the next revision, as well as the IRP.

[1:40:59] All right.

[1:41:00] I think that's all on our agenda.

[1:41:02] I'll see if there's anything further that needs to come before us this morning hearing

[1:41:08] nothing.

[1:41:09] Thank you all.

[1:41:10] We are adjourned.

Public Meeting

Transcript