BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. And Related Matters. Application Application (Consolidated)

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of San Diego Gas and Electric Company (U902E) for Approval of its 2018 Energy Storage Procurement and Investment Plan. Application (Filed February 28, 2018) And Related Matters. Application Application (Consolidated) REPLY COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) ON RULING REQUESTING COMMENTS ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY DIVERSITY JANET S. COMBS REBECCA MEIERS-DE PASTINO Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) Dated: September 5, 2018

2 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of San Diego Gas and Electric Company (U902E) for Approval of its 2018 Energy Storage Procurement and Investment Plan. Application (Filed February 28, 2018) And Related Matters. Application Application (Consolidated) REPLY COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) ON RULING REQUESTING COMMENTS ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY DIVERSITY Pursuant to the Assigned Commissioner s and Assigned Administrative Law Judge s ( ALJ ) Ruling Requesting Comments on Issues Pertaining to Energy Storage Technology Diversity ( Ruling ), dated August 8, 2018, Southern California Edison Company ( SCE ) hereby submits its Reply Comments. The ruling of ALJ Stevens, dated August 14, 2018, granted an extension of time to Tuesday, August 28, 2018 to serve and file comments and Wednesday, September 5, 2018 to serve and file reply comments. On August 28, 2018, 13 parties filed comments. 1 SCE hereby timely replies to those comments. For the reasons discussed more fully below, SCE s Reply Comments respectfully request the Commission 1 In addition to SCE, the following parties filed Opening Comments: California Energy Storage Alliance (CESA); California Hydrogen Business Council (CHBC); Hydrostor, Inc. (Hydrostor); LS Power Development, LLC (LS Power); Megawatt Storage Farms, Inc. (Megawatt); National Fuel Cell Research Center (NFCRC); Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA); Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E); San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E); Small Business Utility Advocates (SBUA); Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas); and Tesla, Inc. (Tesla).

3 refrain from adopting a carve-out for specific energy storage technologies in the IOUs energy storage solicitations. I. TECHNOLOGY DIVERSITY IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE GOAL FOR THE TECHNOLOGY-NEUTRAL ENERGY STORAGE PROGRAM Multiple parties assert that the energy storage market cannot be considered transformed while lithium ion technologies comprise a significant majority of the energy storage systems in the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) 2 territories. 3 However, these proclamations are based on a faulty assumption about the Commission s and Legislature s energy storage goals articulated in Assembly Bill ( AB ) 2514 and for the Energy Storage Program the Commission adopted in Decision (D.) These parties cannot credibly claim that technology diversity is necessary for market transformation when, as PG&E notes, the Commission did not define the term in D and the Legislature did not define it in AB By contrast, Tesla, LS Power, and ORA provide interpretations of market transformation that do not require technology diversity. 5 Thus, absent a clear definition for market transformation, parties must rely on the objectives and other requirements for the Energy Storage Program to determine whether technology diversity is a requirement. As ORA points out, D established market transformation as a primary goal of the Energy Storage Program Technology diversity as a goal is distinct from market transformation, and was not adopted as a core objective of the Energy Storage Program. 6 In fact, the use cases the Commission adopted for the Energy Storage Program are technology 2 The IOUs are SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E. 3 See Hydrostor Comments, pp. 2-3; Megawatt Comments pp ; SBUA Comments, pp. 5-6; CHBC Comments, p. 4; and NFCRC Comments, pp PG&E Comments, p Tesla Comments, pp. 45; LS Power Comments, p. 2; ORA Comments pp ORA Comments, p. 2.

4 neutral and were adopted to guard against technology preference. 7 Absent evidence that the market share of lithium ion battery technologies is causing harm to customers or the grid, the Commission should continue to remain technology-neutral for AB 2514 procurement. II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT ESTABLISH A CARVE-OUT FOR NON- LITHIUM-ION ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE IOUS AB 2514 SOLICITATIONS Several parties recommend the Commission establish a carve-out for non-lithium-ion energy storage technologies in the IOUs AB 2514 solicitations. 8 The Commission should reject these recommendations for multiple reasons. First, a successful bid in a solicitation must offer attributes the IOU is seeking. There is consensus among the parties that filed comments that non-lithium-ion energy storage technologies can technically provide attributes that benefit customers and/or the grid. However, as Hydrostor and Megawatt note, the current Resource Adequacy (RA) structure influences the attributes an IOU seeks in its solicitations, 9 and a non-lithium-ion energy storage technology may not provide the attributes an IOU needs when it conducts its solicitation. An IOU should not be required to procure storage that does not meet its needs. Indeed, such a mandate might violate the reasonableness standard for customer rates set forth in Public Utilities Code Section Id. 8 SBUA Comments, pp ; Hydrostor Comments, p. 15; NFCRC Comments, p. 7; CHBC Comments, p Hydrostor Comments, pp. 8-9; Megawatt Comments, pp However, when Megawatt states, There is no fundamental reason for the procurements to be designed around the RA requirements, they are mistaken. SCE must abide by current RA rules. 10 Cal. Pub. Util. Code 451 ( All charges demanded or received by any public utility, or by any two or more public utilities, for any product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or any service rendered or to be rendered shall be just and reasonable. Every unjust or unreasonable charge demanded or received for such product or commodity or service is unlawful. )

5 Second, the energy storage systems SCE procures pursuant to AB 2514 and D must be cost-effective. SCE s Least-Cost Best-Fit (LCBF) valuation methodology for ranking and selecting bids in its energy storage solicitations is technology-neutral. Therefore, if the nonlithium-ion projects were cost-effective at the time of SCE s solicitations and viable, SCE likely would have already been selected them. Requiring the IOUs to procure energy storage technologies that have not yet proven to be cost-effective in previous solicitations does not conform to AB 2514 s requirements. As LS Power states, most energy storage technologies can accomplish the same things as lithium-ion batteries, just not at the same price and performance point at this time. 11 Finally, if the Commission elects to implement measures to support non-lithium-ion energy storage technologies that have yet to be successful in solicitations, there are more costeffective ways to do so than mandates. Rather than require ratepayers to pay for non-costeffective technologies for the sake of diversity, SCE agrees with several parties recommendation the Commission use research and development funding, much of which is already approved, such as Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) funding, to facilitate pilots for immature and evolving energy storage technologies. 12 SCE also reiterates a point from its opening comments regarding the allocation of costs for any carve-out. 13 As Tesla notes, if the utilities select a more expensive or less valuable project over one that is lower cost or higher total value, simply to increase the total diversity of their portfolio, ratepayers will be saddled with higher costs unnecessarily. 14 Therefore, if the Commission establishes a carve-out for non-lithium-ion energy storage technologies, it should either establish the same requirement for all load-serving entities or explicitly authorize the IOUs to recover the costs of the carve-out storage from all customers. It would be inequitable and 11 LS Power Comments, p CESA Comments, p. 3; SDG&E Comments, p. 3; Tesla Comments, p. 3; Megawatt Comments, p SCE Comments, p Tesla Comments, p. 2.

6 unreasonable for the Commission to require that only IOU bundled service customers absorb the costs associated with promoting the diversity of increasing energy storage technologies in commercial operation without any demonstration that it is beneficial to those customers to do so. III. SUPPLIERS AND THE MARKET WILL MITIGATE MOST RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING A DOMINANT TECHNOLOGY Several parties argue that there are risks to customers and the grid as a result of lithium ion being a dominant technology in the IOUs energy storage portfolios. One of the identified risks is constrained supply. 15 In the event a supply issue occurs, or a technical problem arises with a certain technology, the market will respond accordingly. As SDG&E states, To the extent that the sources of lithium are feared insecure, that issue is addressed in the market for the mineral, which includes forward pricing. If there is a future lithium supply constraint, that supply constraint will be reflected in the market price of the lithium technology, which, all else being equal, would result in other technologies being more economically competitive. 16 Another risk that parties identified is that dominance of lithium ion could stall other energy storage technologies. 17 However, as parties have noted, the other technologies already have the capability to provide attributes to customers and the grid. SCE agrees with LS Power that [t]here are many other technologies that all work, and we could switch to them if needed. 18 It is also important for the Commission to acknowledge that there is diversity among lithium ion batteries. As Tesla states, lithium ion batteries are not all the same: various chemistries are under investigation and are likely to be proposed in response to utility 15 CHBC Comments, p. 4; NFCRC Comments pp SDG&E Comments, p SBUA Comments, p. 13; 18 LS Power Comments, p. 3.

7 solicitations. 19 Similarly, CESA points out that, diversity exists in the lithium-ion deployments and [this] diversity is important. It highlights how suppliers are competing today to provide least-cost, best fit solutions, albeit usually to meet four-hour needs. 20 IV. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REJECT PARTIES POSITIONS THAT MISCHARACTERIZE THE IOUS VALUATION METHODOLOGIES Some parties express concern with the IOUs energy storage valuation methodologies. However, the Commission should recognize that some of these concerns mischaracterize the methodologies. Tesla expresses support for efforts to make the least-cost, best-fit framework that the utilities rely upon more transparent and consistent to ensure that all values that storage can provide are being appropriately recognized in the evaluative process. 21 However, SCE s LCBF valuation methodology is already transparent and consistent. All of the IOUs must abide by the Consistent Evaluation Protocol, which uses a consistent set of pricing assumptions to establish the values the IOUs assign to energy storage offers. The results are reported to the Commission s Energy Division along with each offer s technology. Hydrostor states that the AB 2514 and related initiatives to-date have been geared toward the characteristics of immediately-available lithium-ion based technologies and lists several attributes for which the solicitations have indicated a strong preference. 22 Some of the strong preferences Hydrostor identifies are not accurate for SCE. For example, Hydrostor identifies shorter storage duration requirements, despite evolving driver for long-duration as a 19 Tesla Comments, p CESA Comments, p Tesla Power Comments, p Hydrostor Comments, pp. 2-3.

8 preference. 23 SCE has never stated a preference for shorter duration storage our solicitations are designed to meet an RA need and / or a deferral need, thus the duration is tied to a need, not a preference. Hydrostor also identifies a preference for very rapid Commercial Operation Date (COD) timeframes. 24 While SCE s Aliso Canyon Energy Storage RFO did require, at the Commission s direction, rapid CODs due to its emergency nature, SCE s energy storage solicitations do not typically require fast CODs. SCE has an active energy storage RFO with 2021 COD requirements. Hydrostor also suggests the IOUs have limited recognition of a diverse set of ancillary benefits, including system inertia. 25 SCE values all ancillary services that it can monetize in the market. Paying for any ancillary services that it cannot monetize is not beneficial to customers. The Commission should therefore reject any parties assertion that the IOUs valuation methodologies are not transparent, consistent, and tied to IOU, system, and customer needs. V. CONCLUSION SCE respectfully requests the Commission refrain from adopting a carve-out for specific energy storage technologies in the IOUs energy storage solicitations. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id.

9 Respectfully submitted, JANET S. COMBS REBECCA MEIERS-DE PASTINO /s/ Rebecca Meiers-De Pastino By: Rebecca Meiers-De Pastino Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) September 5, 2018

10 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E) for Approval of its 2018 Energy Storage Procurement and Investment Plan. Application (Filed February 28, 2018) And Related Matters. Application Application (Consolidated) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have this day served a true copy of REPLY COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) ON RULING REQUESTING COMMENTS ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY DIVERSITY on all parties identified on the attached service list A Service was effected by one or more means indicated below: Transmitting the copies via to ALJ Brian Stevens and all parties who have provided an address. Placing the copies in sealed envelopes and causing such envelopes to be delivered by U.S. Mail to the offices of the Commissioner(s) or other addressee(s). ALJ Brian Stevens California Public Utilities Commission Division of Administrative Law Judges 505 Van Ness Avenue Room 5023 San Francisco, CA Executed on September 5, 2018, at Rosemead, California. /s/ Jean Reyes Jean Reyes, Legal Administrative Assistant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

11 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 1 of 6 9/5/2018 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: A SDG&E - FOR APPROVAL FILER: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: AUGUST 30, 2018 Download the Comma-delimited File About Comma-delimited Files Back to Service Lists Index Parties REBECCA MEIERS-DE PASTINO E. GREGORY BARNES SR. ATTORNEY ATTORNEY AT LAW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE / PO BOX CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32D, 2ND FL. ROSEMEAD, CA SAN DIEGO, CA FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SUE MARA DAVID MACMILLAN CONSULTANT PRESIDENT RTO ADVISORS L.L.C. MEGAWATT STORAGE FARMS, INC. 164 SPRINGDALE WAY 756 GLENVIEW DRIVE, STE 105 REDWOOD CITY, CA SAN BRUNO, CA FOR: ALLIANCE FOR RETAIL ENERGY MARKETS FOR: MEGAWATT STORAGE FARMS, INC. (AREM) AND DIRECT ACCESS CUSTOMER COALITION (DACC) MILA A. BUCKNER ANAND DURVASULA ATTORNEY ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH 601 GATEWAY BLVD., STE ROOM 4107 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA VAN NESS AVENUE FOR: COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY SAN FRANCISCO, CA EMPLOYEES (CUE) FOR: ORA ROSANNE O'HARA HAYLEY GOODSON STAFF ATTORNEY LEGAL DIVISION THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK ROOM MARKET ST., STE. 1400

12 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 2 of 6 9/5/ VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: TURN FOR: ORA JAMES BIRKELUND MERRIAN BORGESON PRESIDENT SR. SCIENTIST, ENERGY PROGRAM SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 548 MARKET ST., STE SUTTER ST., 21ST FL. SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES FOR: NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (SBUA) (NRDC) STEPHANIE WANG ALEXANDER MCDONOUGH POLICY DIR VP - PUBLIC POLICY CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP SUNRUN, INC. 369 PINE STREET, STE MARKET ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP FOR: SUNRUN, INC. CORPORATION GRADY MATHAI-JACKSON MARK R. HUFFMAN PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ATTORNEY AT LAW 77 BEALE STREET, B30A PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN FRANCISCO, CA BEALE STREET, B30A FOR: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY BRIAN T. CRAGG SARAH VAN CLEVE ATTORNEY ENERGY POLICY ADVISOR GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI & DAY, LLP TESLA, INC. 505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE DEER CREEK ROAD SAN FRANCISCO, CA PALO ALTO, CA FOR: LS POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR: TESLA, INC. ELISE HUNTER LAURA GRAY DIR - POLICY & REGULATORY AFFAIRS ENERGY STORAGE POLICY ADVISOR GRID ALTERNATIVES CALIFORNIA SOLAR & STORAGE ASSOCIATION 1171 OCEAN AVE., STE TH ST, SUITE 700 OAKLAND, CA OAKLAND, CA FOR: GRID ALTERNATIVES FOR: CALIFORNIA SOLAR & STORAGE ASSOCIATION ALEX MORRIS GREGORY MORRIS SR. DIR., POLICY & REGULATORY AFFAIRS DIRECTOR CALIFORNIA ENERGY STORAGE ALLIANCE GREEN POWER INSTITUTE 2150 ALLSTON WAY, SUITE SHATTUCK AVENUE, STE 402 BERKELEY, CA BERKELEY, CA FOR: CALIFORNIA ENERGY STORAGE ALLIANCE FOR: GREEN POWER INSTITUTE (CESA) DAVID PEFFER DAVID PEFFER ATTORNEY AT LAW BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE, P.C. BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE, P.C. 915 L STREET, SUITE L STREET, SUITE 1480 SACRAMENTO, CA SACRAMENTO, CA FOR: CALIFORNIA CHOICE ENERGY AUTHORITY

13 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 3 of 6 9/5/2018 FOR: MARIN CLEAN ENERGY, SONOMA CLEARN POWER, SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY, AND PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY. JON NORMAN PRESIDENT AND COO HYDROSTOR, INC. 365 BAY ST, SUITE 300 TORONTO, ON M5H 2V1 CANADA FOR: HYDROSTOR INC. Information Only HUGH MCDERMOTT KATIE JORRIE SVP BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT & SALES DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP ESS TECH, INC ONLY ONLY ONLY, CA ONLY, OR PATRICK FERGUSON DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP ATTORNEY ONLY DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP ONLY, CA ONLY ONLY, CA MRW & ASSOCIATES, LLC ONLY ONLY, CA BLAKE ELDER CLEAN ENERGY SPECIALIST EQ RESEARCH 401 HARRISON OAKS BLVD., STE. 100 CARY, NC EDWARD L. HSU KENDRA TALLEY SR COUNSEL CASE MGR. - II SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 555 WEST 5TH STREET, GT14E7 555 W. FIFTH STREET, GT14D6 LOS ANGELES, CA LOS ANGELES, CA FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY DANIEL W. DOUGLASS AMBER WYATT ATTORNEY AT LAW SR. ATTORNEY DOUGLASS & LIDDELL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 4766 PARK GRANADA, SUITE WALNUT GROVE AVE. G.O.1, RM 345E CALABASAS, CA ROSEMEAD, CA FOR: ALLIANCE FOR RETAIL ENERGY MARKETS AND DIRECT ACCESS CUSTOMER COALITION CASE ADMINISTRATION DAVID BALANDRAN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 8631 RUSH STREET 8631 RUSH STREET ROSEMEAD, CA ROSEMEAD, CA JOSH GERBER DONALD C. LIDDELL

14 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 4 of 6 9/5/2018 FOUNDER & PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY 33 NORTH ENERGY LLC DOUGLASS & LIDDELL 1050 HYGEIA AVE., NO. A ND AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA SAN DIEGO, CA LISA MCGHEE ANDREA ALTMANN OPERATIONS MGR. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY SAN DIEGO AIRPORT PARKING CO OVERLAND AVE KURTZ ST. SAN DIEGO, CA SAN DIEGO, CA FOR: SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY AND CITY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL FILES JENNIFER WRIGHT SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY REGULATORY CASE MGR CENTURY PARK COURT, CP31-E SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO, CA CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32F SAN DIEGO, CA KELLEN C. GILL DR. JACK BROUWER REGULATORY CASE MGR. DIR SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY NATIONAL FUEL CELL RESEARCH CENTER 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP 31G UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE SAN DIEGO, CA ENGINEERING LABORATORY FACILITY B323 IRVINE, CA FOR: NATIONAL FUEL CELL RESEARCH CENTER EMANUEL WAGNER MARC D. JOSEPH DEPUTY DIR. ATTORNEY CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN BUSINESS COUNCIL ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZA VIA SERENO 601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000 YORBA LINDA, CA SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN BUSINESS FOR: CUE COUNCIL (CHBC) RACHAEL E. KOSS JUNAID RAHMAN ATTORNEY ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO RISK ASSESSMENT AND ENFORCEMENT 601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000 AREA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA VAN NESS AVENUE FOR: COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY SAN FRANCISCO, CA EMPLOYEES (CUE) ERIC BORDEN LILLIAN RAFII ENERGY POLICY ANALYST REGULATORY ATTORNEY THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES 785 MARKET STREET, STE MARKET ST. SUITE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES ROBERT EARLE CASE ADMINISTRATION 1388 HAIGHT ST., APT. 49 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN FRANCISCO, CA ONLY FOR: COALITION OF CALIFORNIA UTILITY ONLY, CA EMPLOYEES (CUE)

15 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 5 of 6 9/5/2018 JESSICA TELLEZ MATTHEW BARMACK ENERGY SUPPLY PROCEEDINGS DIR. - MARKET & REGULATORY ANALYSIS PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALPINE CORPORATION PO BOX DUBLIN BLVD., SUITE 100 SAN FRANCISCO, CA DUBLIN, CA JOHN KING SANDEEP ARORA LS POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC VICE PRESIDENT, TRANSMISSION 5000 HOPYARD ROAD, SUITE 480 LS POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC PLEASANTON, CA HOPYARD, ROAD, SUIT E480 PLEASANTON, CA ALICE L. HARRON RACHEL BIRD CEO DIR - POLICY & BUS. DEVELOPMENT, WEST HARRON, LLC BORREGO SOLAR SYSTEMS, INC EVERETT AVE ND STREET, SUITE 600 OAKLAND, CA OAKLAND, CA PHILLIP MULLER CAROLYN KEHREIN PRESIDENT PRINCIPAL SCD ENERGY SOLUTIONS ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES 436 NOVA ALBION WAY 2602 CELEBRATION WAY SAN RAFAEL, CA WOODLAND, CA KEVIN WOODRUFF REGULATORY CLERK WOODRUFF EXPERT SERVICES BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE, PC TH STREET, SUITE L STREET, STE SACRAMENTO, CA SACRAMENTO, CA SCOTT BLAISING TAM HUNT, J.D. ATTORNEY CONSULTING ATTORNEY BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE, PC COMMUNITY RENEWABLE SOLUTIONS, LLC 915 L STREET, STE MOKU ST SACRAMENTO, CA PAHOA, HI FOR: GREEN POWER INSTITUTE STEWART JENSEN ASSOCIATE, BUS. DEVELOPMENT HYDROSTOR, INC. 365 BAY STREET, STE. 300 TORONTO, BC M5H 2A1 CANADA State Service AMIN NOJAN BRIAN STEVENS CARRIER OVERSIGHT AND PROGRAMS BRANCH DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AREA ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA

16 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 6 of 6 9/5/2018 DAVID PECK KAJ PETERSON PRESIDENT PICKER ELECTRICITY PLANNING & POLICY BRANCH ROOM 4108 AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA KARI SMITH KARIN M. HIETA INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND PERMITTING B ELECTRICITY PLANNING & POLICY BRANCH AREA ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA MEGHAN O'BRIEN SHANNON O'ROURKE ELECTRICITY PLANNING & POLICY BRANCH COMMISSIONER PETERMAN AREA AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: ORA SONJA ZIAJA ELECTRICITY PLANNING & POLICY BRANCH AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS