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

2. Agenda TimeTopicPurpose 9:00 – 9:15Introductions & OverviewIntroductions & Background Purpose of Meeting 9:15 – 10:00Review Consensus Recommendations of ICA Working Group on Demonstration A (see drpwg.org) Review recommendation Discuss CPUC Decision process 10:00 – 11:45Review Draft Outlines of ICA Implementation Plans Overview of IOU plans Working Group member comments on Comparative Assessment 10:30 – 10:45Break 11:45 – 12:00Next Steps & QuestionsDiscuss next steps & June 9 th meeting 2

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

4. May 2 nd, 2016 - Assigned Commissioner Ruling on ICA May 12 th, 2016 – First Joint Utility meeting on ICA and LNBA May 18 th, 2016 – Joint Utility meeting seeking input on (1) use of abstraction analysis or power flow analysis, and (2) level of granularity desired June 1, 2016 (Today) – First in person meeting to get input on: (1) proposed Joint WG Recommendation for Demonstration A; (2) input into ICA Implementation plans; (3) discuss Comparative Assessment June 9, 2016 – In person meeting to discuss ICA Implementation Plans June 15, 2016 – Joint Utilities file ICA plans to CPUC July, 2016 - Q1, 2017 – Monthly ICA WG meetings re/ICA implementation Q1, 2017 – Joint Utilities submit final ICA plans to CPUC 3 DRAFT ICA Working Group Schedule

5. Today’s ICA Workshop Topics 1.IOU Recommendation for ICA Ruling Clarification 2.ICA Use Cases 3.Interconnection/Rule 21 Coordination 4.Demo A Requirements 5.Demo A Objectives 6.IOU Demo A Project Plans 7.Discussion of Comparative Assessment

6. 1. IOU Recommendation for ICA Ruling Clarification 7 comments were submitted on the proposed IOU Recommendation Language below, with any edits made today, will be submitted to CPUC “ICA WG supports the Joint IOU request to test both the streamline and iterative methods through the Demo A projects to help inform adoption of the best ICA method by Q1 2017 for all IOUs to use going forward that enables the following: Results allow for streamlining Rule 21 interconnections while also informing developers and customers where DER and combinations of DER are best deployed Methodology is flexible enough to model different DER types and DER portfolios” 61 June 2016

7. 1. IOU Recommendation for ICA Ruling Clarification (Cont’d) “However, this support is conditioned on the IOU Demo A plans including detailed plans for a comparative assessment of the two methods by the IOUs and to identify the process for moving toward a single methodology statewide once the results of the Demonstration Projects are known. The Demo A plans, consistent with the ACR (p.19, 3.1.d & e), should include the following: 1.A detailed comparative summary of the methodologies and the content and format of results from the ICA analyses to be performed through Demo A projects. 2.A detailed protocol explaining how results of the individual IOU Demo A projects will be analyzed to allow comparison of: a) ICA accuracy; b) ICA consistency; c) incremental ICA computing needs and costs; d) ICA commuting time. 3.Recommended protocol for baseline tests using reference circuits, for discussion and approval by the ICA working group. The baseline testing should test the full range of circuits, projected loads, and DER penetration across IOUs, and will test each individual ICA criteria (e.g., thermal, protection, power quality, safety). Testing on a single sample circuit will not be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the CPUC requirement for consistency. 4.Discussion of how working group input regarding optimal granularity and frequency of updates will be incorporated in the Demo A projects. 5.A process for publishing the details of the methodologies, testing their consistency, and results should include reviews by the ICA WG prior to being submitted to the CPUC.” 71 June 2016

8. 2. ICA Use Case Overview Use CaseDescriptionApplication Interconnection Customers and third-parties can use ICA information to understand locations and amounts of DER capacity that can be interconnected without extensive upgrade costs or time. Near-term decision-making (1-3 years) due to ability forecast with needed certainty only in short- term. Planning Determine where DER Growth Scenarios are exceeding integration capacity to determine hosting limitations or needs Customers and third-parties can use ICA in combination with LNBA to assist in identifying optimal locations for DER development Guidance for procurement and solution development longer-term (3-10 years) recognizing values will change as forecast becomes more certain. 8 1 June 2016

9. 3. Interconnection/Rule 21 Coordination Utilize ICA to streamline Interconnection Study Process (ISP), provide higher level of certainty results, and decrease interconnection costs Note: Following figures are illustrative of possible streamlining and may not reflect current process or discussions Coordination is necessary with Rule 21 Proceeding to properly incorporate/adopt ICA as part of the Rule 21 process ICA Methodology replicates components of detailed interconnection study. By utilizing node level ICA, the IOU’s could reduce the risk of distribution system upgrades while reducing the interconnection study process time Interconnection Project Results Customer Distribution Upgrades Interconnection Facilities Is project FastTrack Eligible? No Yes Interconnection Study Process Revised FastTrack Distribution Upgrades Is project under ICA Value? No Yes Interconnection Project Results Customer Distribution Upgrades Interconnection Facilities Is project FastTrack Eligible? No Yes Interconnection Study Process FastTrack Distribution Upgrades 91 June 2016

10. 10 4. Demo A Requirements Requirements as described by May 2nd ACR a)Demonstration A Learning Objectives b)ICA Baseline Requirements and Conformance c)Tools Used to Prepare ICA d)Schedule/Gantt Chart e)Additional Resources f)Monitoring and Reporting Progress and Results g)Availability of Project Files h)Comparative Evaluation and Benchmarking i)ORA Success Metrics for ICA Evaluation 1 June 2016

11. 5. Demo A Objectives Study reverse flow at T&D interface – DER Capacity with and without limiting reverse power beyond substation busbar Diverse Locations – Evaluate two DPAs (one urban and one rural) covering broad range of electrical characteristics Incorporate Portfolios and New Technology – Methods for evaluating DER portfolios, CAISO dispatch, and Smart Inverters Consistent Maps and Outputs – Consistent and readable maps to the public with similar data and visual aspects Computational Efficiency – Evaluate methods for faster and more accurate update process that works for entire service territory Comparative Analysis – Benchmark for consistency and validation across techniques and IOUs Locational Load Shapes – Utilize Smart Meters for localized load shapes Future Roadmap – Determine roadmap and timelines for future ICA achievements based on demonstration learnings 11 1 June 2016

12. 6. IOU Demonstration A Project Plans To be discussed by each IOU 12 1 June 2016

13. 7. Discussion of Comparative Assessment 13 1 June 2016 Tam HuntCommunity Environmental Council Curt VolkmannVote Solar Kevin JoyceSolarCity Karey Christ-Janer[Independent advocate] Tom Roberts and Zita KlineCPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates Sky StanfieldInterstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc. Sahm White, Bob O'HaganClean Coalition X X X Of the 7 comments submitted, three submitted detailed discussions of a “Comparative Assessment”. It is hoped these stakeholders can discuss their comments with the ICA Working Group.