SM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON® Page 1 Discussion on CEC’s and SCE’s Forecast Differences Presentation at CEC Preliminary Demand Forecast Workshop July 07,

SM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON® Page 2 Highlight of the Main Forecast Differences Annual Sales Forecast –CEC’s unmanaged forecast versus SCE’s managed forecast –CEC used actual sales data up to 2013 while SCE utilized actual 2014 data –CEC’s preliminary forecast did not reflect the other non-EV TE load (more than 2.4TWhs by 2026) –EV forecast is lower in CEC’s forecast compared to SCE’s Annual Peak Demand –SCE attributed much less peak impact from increasing Solar PV load for the later forecasted years CEC assumed the same peak hour which is HE16 SCE assumed that the peak hour could be shifted to later(e.g HE18); therefore, SCE accounted for much less solar PV peak impact due to the peak hour shift effect –SCE also assumed more EV charging for the early evening peak hour (or HE18) in the future based on the projected EV charging load profile 2

SM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON® Page 3 * The total demand reflects the average load shape of CAISO annual peak days For Illustration Purpose Only Annual Peak Hour Shift Effect

SM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON® Page 4 Solar PV Peak Impact Comparison 4

SM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON® Page 5 Recommendation  Incorporate the latest available information for the revised forecast  Capture potential non-EV TE load growth using the recent TEA study as a reference  Reflect the appropriate Solar PV peak impact by examining peak hour shift effect  Take governmental environment goals into account when modeling TE adoption and TE-related electricity use  Provide more transparency and consistency over scenario specifications for both EV and other TE load forecast 5

SM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON® Page 6 Back Up 6

SM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON® Page 7 Comparison of Light-Duty PEV Load Forecasts 7

SM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON® Page 8 Other Non-EV TE Load Forecast 8