1. Study Results California In-State Net-Short California Out-State Net-Short California Out-State Net-Short w SWIP N This slide deck contains results from the 2011 TEPPC Study Program. This study shows the results of moving renewable resources inside and outside of California and there transmission impacts.

2. 2 Central Question: What is the impact on transmission congestion and generation dispatch of replacing out-of-state resources assumed in the California (CA) renewable resource portfolio in the 2022 Common Case with additional in-state resources? Change to starting input assumptions: o Loads – None o Transmission System – None o Generation – 6,201 GWh of out-of-state CA RPS resources replaced by in-state renewables 2022 PC2 In-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity

3. 3 Net short calculation: o RPS requirement (33% of eligible retail sales) = 88,268 GWh less Existing renewables as of 12/31/2010 = 42,826 GWh Net short = 45,442 GWh o In-state net-short resources = 33,889 GWh, or 74% of total net-short resources 2022 Common Case In-state vs. Out- of-state CA Net-short Resources

4. Strategy for Removing Out-of-State Resources Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stack –Did not adjust TEPPC under-construction resources –Did not adjust CPUC discounted core resources Resulting out-of-state resources replaced: 1,787 MW for 6,201 GWh New in-state/out-of-state split by energy: 87%/13% Net Zero

5. 5 Utilized CA CPUC modified cost- constrained resource stack o Selected only in-state resources Portfolio mix of additional in-state resources: 1,078 MW for 6,201 GWh Strategy for Adding In-state RPS Resources Net Zero

6. Resulting Load/Generation Balance Out-of-state CA RPS resources removed from analysis, replaced by additional in- state RPS resources No deficits resulted LoadGen

7. 2022 CA In-State Net Short Results – Changes in Total Annual Generation

8. 2022 CA In-State Net Short Results – Changes in Generation by State Removed (wind)

9. Small change in Region-to-Region Transfers

10. 10 Small Changes to CA Imports/Exports

11. 11 Small Changes in Transmission Utilization P45 SDG&E-CFE P29 Intermountain-Gonder P26 Northern- Southern California P03 Northwest-British Columbia P47 – Southern New Mexico Most Heavily Utilized Paths Increases in U90 Relative to Common >5% Case Indicated in Red P08 Montana to Northwest P60 Inyo-Control P27 IPP DC Line P11 West of Crossover P10 West of Colstrip P01 Alberta-British Columbia P61 Lugo-Victorville *NEW*

12. 2011 Study Program Results PC2 In-State CA RPS Net-Short Sensitivity Questions?

13. 13 Central Question: What is the impact on transmission congestion and generation dispatch of replacing in-state resources assumed in the California (CA) renewable resource portfolio in the 2022 Common Case with additional out-of-state resources? Change to starting input assumptions: o Loads – None o Transmission System – None o Generation – 11,168 GWh of in-state CA RPS resources replaced by out-of-state renewables 2022 PC3 Out-of-State CA RPS Net- Short Sensitivity

14. Strategy for Identifying In-state RPS Resources to Replace Utilized CA CPUC modified cost-constrained resource stack –Did not adjust TEPPC under-construction resources –Did not adjust CPUC discounted core resources –Resulting in-state resources that could have been replaced: 4,720 MW for 15,709 GWh 11,168 GWh (3,265 MW) of resources shifted for an in-state/out-of-state split (by energy) of 50%/50% More than in-state sensitivity (still net zero though)

15. 15 Utilized CA CPUC modified cost- constrained resource stack o Select only out-of-state resources Portfolio mix of additional out-of-state resources: 4,710 MW for 11,168 GWh Strategy for Identifying Additional Out- of-state RPS Resources to Add Net Zero

16. Resulting Load/Generation Balance In-state CA RPS resources removed from analysis, replaced by additional out-of-state RPS resources No deficits resulted LoadGen

17. 2022 CA OOS Net Short Results – Changes in Total Annual Generation ?

18. Observed Large Generation Shift

19. Significant Changes in Region to Region Transfers w/ SWIP N.

20. 20 Observed Key Changes in Transmission Utilization P45 SDG&E-CFE P29 Intermountain-Gonder P26 Northern- Southern California P03 Northwest-British Columbia P47 – Southern New Mexico Most Heavily Utilized Paths Increases in U90 Relative to Common >5% Case Indicated in Red P08 Montana to Northwest P60 Inyo-Control P27 IPP DC Line P11 West of Crossover P10 West of Colstrip P01 Alberta-British Columbia P66 COI *NEW* SWIP N

21. 21 SWIP North Utilization 837 aMW 42% Average Utilization (2,000 MW limit) More transfers from NW into Idaho COI SWIP N

22. Questions or thoughts on this study?