WEBVTT 1 00:28:50.284 --> 00:28:51.004 Thank you. 2 00:28:55.835 --> 00:28:59.555 And from the utilities, how we're waiting for anybody else to join. 3 00:29:18.394 --> 00:29:26.194 Jose, this Dave [...]. I think we're good to go. I'm just scrolling through the attendees here. So. 4 00:29:26.704 --> 00:29:27.184 Okay. 5 00:29:52.744 --> 00:30:07.024 Okay, I think we can get started. Uh, thank you everybody for joining, uh, today's, uh, second workshop on [...] for resolution [...]. Uh, can we move on to the next slide? 6 00:30:12.245 --> 00:30:30.215 Ah, actually one more slide. Ah, just a few logistics, uh, you know, safety reminder make sure, you know, your, surrounding an exit roots and reach out if you need help either joined the call. 7 00:30:30.544 --> 00:30:51.424 Or to an attendee, uh, workshop logistics. Uh, this meeting is being recorded and recording and materials will be posted at the [...], uh [...] website. Uh, workshop participants are always encouraged to ask questions during the presentation. We also have. 8 00:30:51.454 --> 00:31:12.574 Dedicated Q and a session time slots after the presentations. Uh, please remember to keep yourself muting. Why not speaking and do not put the call on hold to speak unmute yourself from the button at the lower part of your screen and identify yourself before speaking if calling by phone. 9 00:31:12.844 --> 00:31:33.664 Use the mute button on your handset and unmute yourself to speak it muted by the host press star six to unmute raise your hand press star three, if you were forwarded the invite and did not receive it directly from Energy Division and we'd like to be able to add it to the workshop. 10 00:31:33.729 --> 00:31:54.844 [...], please email me. Uh, I normally just, I use, uh, the previous workshops list to distribute material and to, uh, schedule that next workshop. uh, next slide, please just a reminder. This is where. 11 00:31:54.905 --> 00:31:56.645 Find, um. 12 00:31:57.815 --> 00:32:05.735 Rule twenty- one web page and the, uh, all the information for these workshops, next slide. 13 00:32:07.864 --> 00:32:28.564 Uh, we have a full agenda today. Uh, so we're starting with introduction here from Energy Division and then the utilities will be presenting on topics F- uh, implementing more than twelve LTP values per year. Continuing to. 14 00:32:29.134 --> 00:32:49.864 E- implementation of limited generation profiles using coin smart number functions, then we'll take a break around eleven o'clock. Uh, then move on to topic [...]. Use of, um, grows, nameplate rating and then around noon, we will take a one hour lunch break. 15 00:32:49.954 --> 00:33:03.664 And then resume with the utility of presentations on overview of proposals in the advice letters. Um, next slide, please. 16 00:33:05.525 --> 00:33:26.465 All right, just a reminder section. B- issue too is user proofing plate rating section. See is the overview of the proposals section is implementation of somebody's generation profiles using point smarter, burger functions. Section f is implementing more than twelve. 17 00:33:26.554 --> 00:33:31.684 I'll do key values per year. Next slide, please. 18 00:33:33.814 --> 00:33:53.494 I guess it's just a schedule of the workshops and phone number working group meetings dedicated to this topic. Uh, we are at workshop number two right now, uh, workshop three, scheduled for March, fourteen th- uh, details to be announced. 19 00:33:54.729 --> 00:34:15.753 In the near future, a workshop board is still to be determined, uh, at the moment, um, believe we may need it so that will happen sometime around March twenty- eight and as a reminder to two or three advice Letters are due May first so. 20 00:34:15.879 --> 00:34:37.024 We do have to finish these workshops by the end of March. Smarter Board of Working Group meetings. We've had three meetings already scheduled to this subject. Uh, we have three other possible meetings, uh, subjects are still to be determined next slide. 21 00:34:37.054 --> 00:34:37.594 Please. 22 00:34:40.594 --> 00:34:57.784 And this is just a tentative, uh, agenda of the topics that will be presented at the workshops and smart number of working group meetings next slide. Please. 23 00:35:00.454 --> 00:35:20.734 All right, I will not be this word for word, but basically a resolution need fifty to thirty- directed be utilities to discuss a section in section B- to, uh, to, uh, discuss they need to use to justify. 24 00:35:20.765 --> 00:35:26.645 Use the Bruce nameplate waiting four hundred and twenty- one screens are next slide. 25 00:35:29.194 --> 00:35:48.904 Section c- of resolution fifty to thirty, uh, required the utilities to discuss their proposal, submitted in their advice letters, uh, thoroughly and answer any questions and clarify any, uh, any. 26 00:35:48.964 --> 00:35:59.974 Thing that stakeholders deemed, that was not unclear. So we will be commencing that today. Next slide please. 27 00:36:02.585 --> 00:36:22.775 Section II, we started last time I implementation or limited generation profiles using [...] functions will be good, and we also discussed it last week during the smoking burger working group. So, uh, today will be getting a refresh on that based on the input, uh, Roger receive. 28 00:36:25.684 --> 00:36:26.974 Next slide, please. 29 00:36:29.075 --> 00:36:39.305 And section f- implementing more than twelve [...] values per year. This is a continuation from previous discussions. 30 00:36:43.234 --> 00:37:01.234 And next slide. So next steps basically are, you know, if you need it, if you believe there are any topics that need addressing in the forthcoming advice letters and the workshop, please. 31 00:37:04.025 --> 00:37:09.485 Email us by thirty- twenty- seven, th- so we can start planning those ahead of time. 32 00:37:11.224 --> 00:37:12.094 Next slide. 33 00:37:14.464 --> 00:37:22.084 And these are the next few slides I will not go over by just background materials on [...] fifteen and it will be fifty one. 34 00:37:23.614 --> 00:37:40.354 Per, uh, per the requirements of, uh, the two thousand and nine nine hundred and thirty- five. All right, I believe unless there are any questions we can bring up the utility slide deck, slide deck number two. 35 00:37:59.884 --> 00:38:01.414 Ah, Francisco or. 36 00:38:03.245 --> 00:38:05.825 Joseph, could you bring up that slide deck? Please? 37 00:38:06.125 --> 00:38:06.725 Which we are. 38 00:38:07.325 --> 00:38:07.985 Okay, thank you. 39 00:38:10.954 --> 00:38:14.914 And what that happens is who will, uh, start, uh, the discussion. 40 00:38:19.775 --> 00:38:20.945 Okay, alright. 41 00:38:23.825 --> 00:38:43.775 Yeah, so maybe while we're waiting for the deck to come up, I think Jose did a good job covering the topics that are in scope for today's workshop, but the order that we're going to go through for the [...] portion. We're going to start with topic app, which is the continuation of the topic that was introduced at workshop one on February first. 42 00:38:44.344 --> 00:39:04.924 And the primary focus of topic app for the [...] material today is to introduce the analysis that we were not able to get to, during workshop one, the analysis that is centered around the use of twelve versus two hundred and eighty- eight distinct values when defining the annual limited generation profile, then we'll go into top. 43 00:39:04.930 --> 00:39:26.075 [...] sharing as Jose mentioned the additional details and insights that have followed some [...] industry engagement on the functionality to implement unlimited generation profiles that will go into topic [...]. This is use of gross nameplate rating, if you attended the February second Smart Inverter Working Group, these will be very familiar with [...]. 44 00:39:26.104 --> 00:39:47.224 I believe they're identical slides to what was presented on February second, and then finally we'll get into a topic. See, this is a net new topics. So I don't believe this has been previously presented in either smart Inverter working group or workshop one. It's overview of proposals and the [...] will respond to various questions or clarify elements that. 45 00:39:47.254 --> 00:39:54.034 Were called out in the resolution so that let's go ahead and advance a slide. Please. 46 00:39:55.834 --> 00:39:58.714 So moving into topic F- one more please. 47 00:40:00.485 --> 00:40:21.065 And similar to what Jose had in, in the, in his deck. This is an excerpt from resolution fifty- two thirty, which is really the prompts for what we'll be discussing here on topic. Again, if you haven't seen it already, there is a recording of workshop one where we introduce kind of the initial positions and thinking, and also a phased approach. 48 00:40:21.069 --> 00:40:41.494 [...] on top of f. So encourage encourage you to review the workshop one recording to get that background information if needed go forward, I think two more slides. Okay, so now we'll be moving into the core of this topic. The data analysis. So this really stemmed from the February sixteen, th- smart inverter working group. 49 00:40:42.394 --> 00:41:03.364 Where advocates presented and some analysis that they performed and largely the [...] agree with the findings of Cal advocates analysis that allowing more than a single limited generation profile value each month, or in other words, more than twelve distinct values over the course of the year would in concept allow increase. 50 00:41:03.605 --> 00:41:24.515 Limited generation profile experts experts in both kilowatts and kilowatt hours. We understand that lot to logically be something beneficial to the limited generation profile customer is, it's more than likely they're being contractually compensated based on their production of kilowatts and kilowatt hours. So the ability to produce more of those in the course of. 51 00:41:24.544 --> 00:41:45.664 Ear would be financially beneficial for the [...] customer. What the [...] we're hoping to see a little bit more of in that analysis or in subsequent analysis would be a more holistic assessment of the operational risks of allowing to go beyond twelve distinct values per year and whether into the extent which the. 52 00:41:45.670 --> 00:41:51.905 The ratepayers who are not participating in the limited generation profile would benefit and if so how much. 53 00:41:54.335 --> 00:42:14.915 So as, as introduced in workshop one, we see these potential damages. We agree with kind of the conclusion as I mentioned at the Cal advocate study, however, we recommended the, I use recommended a phased approach in workshop one that initiates this process with a single value per month or again, twelve distinct values per year. 54 00:42:15.424 --> 00:42:19.444 As we begin to get more familiar with the technology and its implications on the grid. 55 00:42:23.074 --> 00:42:42.664 So go ahead and move to the next slide and this is where we'll get into the fun stuff. So what we see here is the first of three slides that represent [...] analysis and the first one here is a minimum net load profile comparison. So, in the February sixteen smarter working group, there was some dialogue. 56 00:42:43.504 --> 00:43:04.624 Around what happens if load goes down, how can be Icaay, Static grid values potentially change from year- to year and what may that mean for a limited generation profile customer who is connected generating facility based on the Icaay static grid values in the year in which they. 57 00:43:04.655 --> 00:43:25.775 Are connected, so the main takeaway here of this analysis is that load can and does decrease from year to year and the reason that's important is as mentioned in workshop one, the [...], the minimum [...] static grid value is more often than not going to. 58 00:43:25.804 --> 00:43:46.924 Be driven by the minimum load value that occurs in that month, there's a close correlation between when the minimum load occurs on the circuit and when the lowest Icaay static grid result occurs, so to explain what we've got in the chart here we compared the minimum net load profile. 59 00:43:47.255 --> 00:44:07.745 For one circuit, this is the entire circuits low profile, which we recognize this is not an [...] static grid result, but this is a very influential input into the [...] itself. So year one is in Yellow and this is the two hundred and eighty- eight profiles. So this represents a year. 60 00:44:08.464 --> 00:44:29.224 The time period that you see on the chart starts with September of two thousand and twenty and runs through August of two thousand and twenty- one. So if you're looking for kind of typical seasonality, just recognize that the chart does not start in January. It actually starts in September, which is why you see the higher loads occurring towards the end of the chart, which are in the August or the summer timeframe. 61 00:44:30.244 --> 00:44:50.374 And then the blue profile is time period two or year two, which runs from September two thousand and twenty- one to August of two thousand and twenty- two. So, again, this is for one circuit, in this case, it's the abacus twelve [...]. I think we picked this circuit because alphabetically it was the first one on the list and we wanted to take a look at how those profiles, those minimum net low. 62 00:44:50.405 --> 00:45:11.225 profiles change from year- to year. So the final element on the chart here is the orange line. This is the percent difference between a year one and year two. So where the orange line is below the red zero line, That means that load has decreased in year two. 63 00:45:11.554 --> 00:45:23.944 When, compared to year one where the orange line is above the red line, that means the load at those hours that each individual hour in year two has actually increased when, compared to year one. 64 00:45:27.664 --> 00:45:48.184 So the main takeaway here is that there is low variability does exist from year to year and it's demonstrated here as you can see the large number of data points that are on the orange line that are below the red line. Suggest that many hours in year two actually had experience loading, that was less. 65 00:45:48.214 --> 00:46:09.334 Yes, then the loading in year one, the challenge is that if you were to interconnect a limited generation profile project based on the [...] static grid results that used the load profile for year one and then in year two, your load actually decreased. There could be a chance of exposing the grid. 66 00:46:09.394 --> 00:46:17.734 Two unexpected criteria violations that were not accounted for in the [...] at the time of the generators, the interconnection. 67 00:46:20.254 --> 00:46:21.124 Sky, go ahead. 68 00:46:22.264 --> 00:46:25.714 I was just going to ask the same question that Brian put in the chat, which is. 69 00:46:27.845 --> 00:46:36.725 Does this account for the year one a year or two different installation of new [...] on that circuit. 70 00:46:38.135 --> 00:46:44.465 Yes, there is no forecast component of this. However, the load profiles. 71 00:46:44.465 --> 00:46:45.605 Represented. 72 00:46:45.815 --> 00:46:48.695 Include all of the [...]. 73 00:46:48.934 --> 00:46:52.624 We're interconnected at the time that the profile was extracted. 74 00:46:52.894 --> 00:47:01.834 So it's possible that the load changes could have been attributed to installation of new [...] in year two. 75 00:47:02.524 --> 00:47:09.964 Yes, that's correct. And the key there is that this is the net load profile, which includes the effects of both. 76 00:47:09.994 --> 00:47:11.914 The load and the DVR production. 77 00:47:16.684 --> 00:47:18.694 So, yeah, so the. 78 00:47:21.304 --> 00:47:32.764 In theory though, if it was new DR, that was causing load reduction, That would have been evaluated during the interconnection process. Correct for those new D. R. 79 00:47:34.234 --> 00:47:42.124 So I think the degree to which it would be evaluated depends on the mechanism in which the DVR is interconnecting. So if we're doing this. 80 00:47:42.454 --> 00:47:56.614 Study or a detailed study. I think it would be evaluated in the case of small net energy metering customers, they would be going through a much more accelerated process, so it may not be captured to the same or evaluate to the same level of detail. 81 00:47:58.114 --> 00:48:03.544 And you guys didn't look at this feature and determine what percent, what portion of this load change. 82 00:48:03.574 --> 00:48:05.434 Could have been attributed to new [...]. 83 00:48:06.394 --> 00:48:11.284 No, we didn't run queries to see how the generation change from time periods. You to time period, one. 84 00:48:11.644 --> 00:48:12.694 Okay, thank you. 85 00:48:14.194 --> 00:48:14.914 Thank you. 86 00:48:16.475 --> 00:48:37.385 Maybe I can just run through the chat and try to address these questions. So I see one from, I mean, how many years of data does the [...] capture. So currently the generation [...] looks at the most recent twelve months of available profile data and. 87 00:48:37.475 --> 00:48:58.445 develops eight hundred and eighty- eight input profile that's used in the analysis. So I would say the most recent twelve months of data there is a couple of months of gap because that data does go through an automated and manual cleansing process to make sure that we're not basing our analysis on some outliers that were like noise. 88 00:48:58.539 --> 00:49:07.054 From the status system or just errors due to temporary transfers, So I would say the most recent twelve months of historical data to reflect a year. 89 00:49:13.024 --> 00:49:16.654 That answer the question. I mean, you see some clarification in the chat too. 90 00:49:23.314 --> 00:49:40.834 Okay, I'm caught up on the chat. Now looks good. And then Justin, I see recommendations, I agree with Yes, we should definitely have a second. Why access that is labelled appropriately the peak percent change. I don't have that value. 91 00:49:40.839 --> 00:49:56.554 [...], but I do have the underlying data so I can get that for you. I would say there's definitely the highest value is happening towards the end of the chart in terms of a positive change and then the largest negative value looks like it's happening, maybe a couple of months before that. 92 00:49:58.054 --> 00:50:01.654 But it would be beneficial to clarify that I agree, so we can get that data. 93 00:50:04.054 --> 00:50:07.324 Were there any other hands up? Frank, do you have a hand up? 94 00:50:09.814 --> 00:50:21.784 Yeah, hi Michael. Appreciate the presentation. Wouldn't it make more sense to talk in terms of megawatts, not percent change. I think that's sort of. 95 00:50:23.465 --> 00:50:38.075 Change can be so ambiguous in terms of knowing how much generation we're actually talking about or how much, how many megawatts we're talking about. 96 00:50:38.675 --> 00:50:44.135 Yeah, definitely I agree with you and we'll see in some of the slides that follow, we actually do. 97 00:50:44.314 --> 00:51:05.434 [...], the difference in megawatts actually kilowatts and also percent difference just so we have both of those figures. I think maybe the motivation for going with percent in the case of this analysis was to try to get at that ten percent [...] buffer that we've all been talking about here. So the thought was, if we see a differ. 98 00:51:05.464 --> 00:51:26.584 It's agree that it's not completely the, the net load profile is not an entire representation of the [...] differences, but the loose recommendation is that if you see a difference in the circuit load profile of ten percent or greater than we could expect there to be some difference in the [...]. 99 00:51:26.614 --> 00:51:32.314 Hello, that are based on that circuits load profile. So that's kind of the motivation for percent and in this analysis. 100 00:51:35.075 --> 00:51:36.185 Okay, appreciate it. 101 00:51:37.025 --> 00:51:38.135 Yeah, thanks for the question. 102 00:51:39.574 --> 00:51:44.284 I don't see any of their hands up and I think we're caught up on the chat, so let's go ahead and move to slide seven. 103 00:51:46.654 --> 00:52:07.474 So again, this slide six before we move to slide seven is while we move to slide seven, this was the single circuits net load profile comparing year- to- year one, and if we move to slide seven, we'll see that we took the same kind of comparison approach for our, all of our distribution circuits system wide. So again. 104 00:52:07.504 --> 00:52:28.624 And looking at the net load profile for year two compared to year one for all of our distribution circuits and then we bend the differences on an hour by hour basis. So this is not just for the peak, this is for every hour in each circuits, two hundred and eight profile we bend them into percent difference. So the first. 105 00:52:28.655 --> 00:52:49.655 Bar that you see thirty- six point, eight, nine percent of circuit hours experienced eight percent difference in year two when compared to year one negative, ten percent or greater there were no circuits that experienced negative five percent negative ten percent, and then you can see as you move to the right. 106 00:52:49.984 --> 00:53:10.924 Point two, five circuit hours experienced percent difference from zero to negative five percent, four point, six, four percent were the same and then zero to five percent positive difference. The load went up by zero to five percent was fourteen point, zero, two and then five to ten. 107 00:53:11.495 --> 00:53:32.075 Positive difference increase in load, eight point, eight four percent and then a positive change of ten percent or more twenty- three point, three, six percent. So the main thing we want to focus on here is that about thirty- seven percent of our distribution circuits experienced a decrease in load of ten percent or more again, that's on an hour by hour basis. 108 00:53:32.314 --> 00:53:53.224 Not just the peak loading and that indicates that there is a chance that if a customer were to interconnect in [...], based on the [...] results with two hundred and eighty- eight unique values as, as we moved into the following year, there would be a chance that [...] operating as designed could expose the grid to a uninstall. 109 00:53:53.254 --> 00:53:57.604 Criteria, violation, Skype. 110 00:53:58.804 --> 00:54:08.494 So I'm going to ask the same question here, so you guys didn't back out any new DR that was added to the system in this data. 111 00:54:09.364 --> 00:54:09.964 Correct. 112 00:54:10.474 --> 00:54:14.374 So I don't see how you can make this. I don't see what. 113 00:54:14.405 --> 00:54:35.525 You're saying here if you're not taking into account a very significant potential contribution across the system, in terms of what system impacts they're going to have to not have taken into account new [...], which you guys are obligated to screen through the interconnection process. This. 114 00:54:35.554 --> 00:54:53.194 Seems like potentially misleading down at least until we have. I'm not disagreeing with load is going to change or reasons unrelated to [...] it will go up and it will go down, but to present this data without having backed out the DVR. 115 00:54:53.974 --> 00:54:56.734 I'm not sure what story you're trying to tell exactly. 116 00:54:57.064 --> 00:55:14.404 Yeah, the, I see your point, The perspective I have on this and open to anything. The other I use would like to add or clarifies that the addition of say a large quantity of [...] generators that go through an accelerated streamlined evaluation. 117 00:55:15.094 --> 00:55:36.154 Well, reduce the net load that's seen by the, at the circuit breaker. So it's kind of, it doesn't make a difference whether it's a large node customer that say vacate their facility and that load is no longer present on the circuit or there is a large increase of behind the meter generation, which creates a reduction. 118 00:55:36.185 --> 00:55:57.305 In the net load seen by the circuit breaker when we actually run the [...], the, all of the [...] that have either connected to the system or are [...] to be connected, are going to be represented in the model and then their generation will be allocated accordingly when we run that power flow analysis. So what I'm trying to say here is that. 119 00:55:58.324 --> 00:56:12.544 Regardless of what is causing the reduction of load the nature that the load has reduced in time period two is going to lead to potentially less generation hosting capacity than was present in the prior year. 120 00:56:15.064 --> 00:56:35.314 Potentially, again, it's like, without really looking, we're not looking at data that tells us that we're looking at out of, it isn't is abstracted from that. So we could, I don't disagree that there will be load changes in load, but I don't, I don't see what follows in terms of what the conclusion is about whether or not somebody should be able to use a twenty- four hour. 121 00:56:35.380 --> 00:56:56.525 Profile and, or who's responsible for that change from this? It's interesting data, but it seems like it's not, I'm not sure that it's really helping us answer the fundamental question. We're going to answer about whether it makes sense to allow people to cap. 122 00:56:56.554 --> 00:57:02.374 The benefits of those business profiles. Oh, let me ask this question now. 123 00:57:03.424 --> 00:57:04.684 Thanks for the feedback Skype. 124 00:57:05.614 --> 00:57:17.344 Yeah, sorry I'm thank you for giving me the opportunity. I'm still not quite grasping exactly what this- this slide is actually showing here. Does that, that thirty six point eight nine percent. 125 00:57:17.680 --> 00:57:33.425 Does that mean that thirty six point, Eight, nine percent of circuits saw a decrease of load of all circuits looked at. So a decrease of load by ten percent or more in every single hour of the year because I think that's what it says at the bottom, but. 126 00:57:34.864 --> 00:57:35.614 Yeah, I guess. 127 00:57:35.614 --> 00:57:35.794 Yeah. 128 00:57:35.824 --> 00:57:36.574 Can we start there? 129 00:57:37.084 --> 00:57:55.384 Yeah, so what the basis is, is circuit hours every circuits to eighty eight profile. So every time a circuit for one hour experienced a ten percent or more decrease in load in time period two, when compared to time period one, you're increasing that count in the far left. 130 00:57:56.314 --> 00:58:12.664 And that, so regardless of, we don't want to generalize it and say, just the number of circuits it's the number of hours on each circuit, so it would be the total basis of the data here would be two hundred and eighty- eight data points multiplied by the number of circuits that we looked at. 131 00:58:16.055 --> 00:58:36.635 Okay, so then thirty- seven percent of those circuit hours. There was a decrease, but ours occurred, I mean, so I guess this is kind of maybe a somewhat similar point to Sky's, but based on a different thought process, is that I also don't quite understand what this is saying, because I think what we're really interested. 132 00:58:36.664 --> 00:58:57.244 Here is in basically the probability that, that decrease is happening at the minimum. our first is happening at a monthly minimum hour versus happening at only an hour in the middle of an hour because if it's happening at the absolute minimum, our then LTP non- [...] two thousand eight hundred and eighty- eight LTP. they would all require the same or similar mitigation. 133 00:58:57.789 --> 00:59:18.934 If it's happening at a monthly minimum, that's not a monthly minimum, that's not the absolute minimum, then [...] twelve hours or any number of hours would require the same mitigation, but non- LGB wouldn't and what's happening at a different hour, then only the higher number of points, [...] would require those upgrades and I think that big. 134 00:59:18.965 --> 00:59:40.085 Is what we really care about and I don't quite see how this relates to that. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite showing that it happens in a very large number of hours indicates to me that almost all the profiles are going to be the same if it happens every single hour then that would tell you that there's no difference right for sure. So, I mean, I. 135 00:59:40.114 --> 00:59:43.114 Think this is interesting and I think it shows that. 136 00:59:44.319 --> 00:59:56.254 You kind of have the data you need to do all the analysis to do some very interesting analysis. I'm just not quite sure that this, uh, that we can draw strong conclusions in this data, These data. 137 00:59:57.574 --> 00:59:59.494 Yeah, good point. Thanks for that feedback. I mean. 138 01:00:02.105 --> 01:00:04.025 I think Sky had her hand up first. 139 01:00:05.075 --> 01:00:05.735 Yeah, can I just. 140 01:00:08.135 --> 01:00:17.945 Why did so we both besides why didn't you guys do the comparison actually with the [...] instead of just with the obstructive load profile. 141 01:00:18.755 --> 01:00:28.025 Yeah, so we're going to get to take a look at that on the next slide. We did do it for a single node on a single circuit. We did some challenges we do face it for folks. 142 01:00:28.054 --> 01:00:49.174 That are kind of familiar with what's going on in the [...] space for SE. We have all of our computing resources and employees and engineers working on our system wide refresh to make sure that the results that are out there that we published are as useful as possible. We're actually finally got a thirty- day status report on that today as well, but. 143 01:00:49.205 --> 01:00:57.665 We will see some of that on the next slide. I would say the main barrier is that our computing and human resources were kind of tied up with doing the system wide refresh, but we didn't take a look at that. 144 01:00:58.145 --> 01:01:10.145 Okay, I guess one of the questions I have when we get into this in the next slide is because of the interesting voltage and thermal variations that we've been seeing in the. 145 01:01:10.384 --> 01:01:18.724 Early data and the explanations that PG E- edison provided on the call with IRAQ. 146 01:01:20.554 --> 01:01:41.344 I'm not sure what the [...] actually will show from these letter changes because the relationship wasn't what you keep saying. You told us that we were wrong that the relationship is what you think we thought the relationship would be the same as you are saying that load would when load changes the January, the hosting capacity would go up or down. 147 01:01:42.334 --> 01:02:02.494 correspondingly, but actually the data we were seeing, there's a lot more variables in that overall, so I think that again, I think it would be useful to see on a greater number of Peters. Well, I'm not sure if it would be useful. I think that what I'm saying is this data doesn't really tell us that much because. 148 01:02:02.524 --> 01:02:23.554 Cause there's a lot more elements at play, I guess is what I'm thinking. I'm not sure that playing out a bunch of scenarios is going to tell us that much more either other than load changes over time. I think it means point that it, that what we're talking about actual hours where there's going to be assistant impact is worth digging into. 149 01:02:24.244 --> 01:02:34.054 Just saying low changes. I don't think is really telling us that much about whether there's going to be system impacts from those twenty- four hour LTP customer profiles. 150 01:02:36.424 --> 01:02:39.754 Understood, thank you Scott, right. 151 01:02:42.694 --> 01:03:03.124 Yeah, this, this tells us net load changes. Uh, I think just a comment I have a comment. There's still an opportunity to gain a lot of energy back back into the grid, um, by using the two hundred and eighty- eight. 152 01:03:03.425 --> 01:03:16.565 Uh, versus versus the twelve th- um, so I don't, I don't really have a question. So this data does not change, uh, that, that proposition. 153 01:03:18.784 --> 01:03:19.894 Thanks for the comment, right? 154 01:03:24.334 --> 01:03:26.224 Taking a look at the chat here. 155 01:03:35.434 --> 01:03:54.784 So John, to your question, you are correct in that minimum load is one factor that could limit the [...], but it is not the only one thermal limits, the voltage reverse flow reverse flow is considered in the operational flexibility limits only, but those are all kind of. 156 01:03:55.300 --> 01:04:10.985 Criteria that will produce different [...] results at this time, [...] does not have any plans to conduct similar analysis for each one of those factors, but we'll certainly see how the workshop discussion today goes. 157 01:04:13.835 --> 01:04:16.535 Thanks for the question. John, let's go ahead and move on to slide eight please. 158 01:04:20.014 --> 01:04:39.004 So this is, I would say, perhaps the most interesting of the analysis that we've done at [...] on this topic. So in the chart, at the bottom, you'll see two hundred and eighty- eight point [...] static grid profiles ninety percent. So already accounting for the ten percent buffer, the blue. 159 01:04:39.214 --> 01:04:59.884 Profile is for time period, two thousand and twenty- one and the green profile is the time period for two thousand and twenty- two, you'll see that the green profile does not go all the way to the end of the chart. This is because these are our results to date for January through October of two thousand and twenty- two. 160 01:05:00.160 --> 01:05:21.125 I mentioned earlier. There's a bit of gap in time between when the data is available and when the [...] is produced because it goes through eight automated and manual cleansing process. So that's the reason why, for time period, two, we only have two hundred and forty- data points, ten months versus for the blue profile in two thousand and twenty- one we have. 161 01:05:21.334 --> 01:05:41.344 Representation of the entire years, two hundred and eighty eight. I see a static grid results again, these are already documented by ten percent to reflect what potentially the customer would develop their LTP on then in yellow and in orange, we see the twelve distinct values per year. 162 01:05:42.484 --> 01:06:03.604 Presented in yellow is time period of two thousand and twenty- one and Orange is January through October of two thousand and twenty- two into Frank's kind of earlier question about, you know, percent versus Kilowatt, um, on the third bullet now when comparing the two hundred and eight profile for year- to- year one, we saw that out. 163 01:06:03.609 --> 01:06:24.724 At one hundred, one hundred and seventy- three out of the two hundred and forty hours again, just comparing January talked over seventy- two percent of the [...] values in time period two were less than time period one. So again, in this case, maybe I should back up a little bit. We actually ran the Icaay Static grid for a single node on a single circuit. 164 01:06:25.024 --> 01:06:45.874 Based on the circuits load profile in two thousand and twenty- one store those results and then ran the ICAAY Static grid for time period to based on that load profile stored the results and then compare them on an hour by hour basis. So when using two hundred and eight hundred and eight points to eight unique points in a, in an annual. 165 01:06:45.910 --> 01:07:07.055 Profile seventy- two percent of the hours, experienced a decrease in the [...] results and the range of differences Frank to your earlier question was from about seventeen kilowatts to, about four megawatts of difference, We saw, we can probably zero in, on the, on the comparison between the blue. 166 01:07:07.114 --> 01:07:28.144 And the green lines to figure out where those largest difference occurred. It looks like it's happening, maybe in the October timeframe towards the end there, but we didn't highlight that on the chart here, and then I mean, I see your handout. Let me just cover the twelve point profile comparison before I get to you. So when we looked at the comparison of. 167 01:07:28.209 --> 01:07:49.354 [...] unique points. Again, this is the yellow line or I'm sorry, the orange line compared to the yellow line. We saw a one hundred and forty- four out of two hundred and forty hours, if we repeat the same value for twenty- four hours in a month or six out of ten of the months we saw sixty percent occurrence where the [...]. 168 01:07:49.384 --> 01:08:10.504 G in time period two was less than that in time period one and the range of differences is about twenty- two point four kilowatts to about one point, one megawatts, the main thing to highlight here, I think, is that the, the largest difference when using twelve distinct values is a fraction of the large. 169 01:08:10.534 --> 01:08:31.653 Just difference when using two hundred and eighty- eight distinct values. So at one point, one Megawatts is your maximum change for twelve points versus three point nine megawatts, we're using two hundred and eighty- eight unique values. So the thought here is that if you, if you interconnected a project in base in two thousand and twenty- one based on the [...]. 170 01:08:31.660 --> 01:08:47.134 The results using the blue line that you could have experienced a potential difference of about four megawatts for at least one hour over the course of that year. The following year, I mean. 171 01:08:48.604 --> 01:09:09.724 Yeah, this is really interesting. I think, uh, much more like what I was what I was kind of getting at, um, and I guess just one observation is that, that one conclusion from this is that both profiles twelve and two hundred and eight would cause violations and it's, I understand that the two hundred and eight. 172 01:09:09.754 --> 01:09:30.184 It's significantly larger, but if, if the twelve would cause a violation doesn't really matter whether you have more violations or fewer violations because I mean, in theory the ICAAY should reflect what the system can handle and if the [...] is not reflecting that, then I think there are issues with the [...]. 173 01:09:32.464 --> 01:09:51.815 So, I mean, I guess I am sensitive to the fact that two and a half times larger is significant and could either way all of your, your buffer, do you have anything I'd say, so there's definitely something real here that's worth understanding, but yeah, I guess it's just not, that's another thing that I'm thinking about, and also, I mean. 174 01:09:53.164 --> 01:10:04.954 In comparing the one to the twelve, this is a little bit of a, not the best circuit use as an example because the two thousand and twenty- one profile goes down to zero. So if you use one profile, you couldn't install anything. 175 01:10:06.130 --> 01:10:27.035 So it doesn't really tell you that much in comparing the one to the twelve, but you can sort of see that you can imagine that even even the one profile if you just swap the years, you know, the one if you had the opposite changes in the system, it could interconnect in two thousand and twenty- two would have caused a violation in two thousand and twenty- one in, um. 176 01:10:28.714 --> 01:10:40.054 Whatever month that is between forty- nine hundred and seventy three. So, anyway, I think that this is super interesting, and this is kind of the type of data that I'd like to have this conversation around. 177 01:10:41.945 --> 01:10:42.605 Moving forward. 178 01:10:44.674 --> 01:10:45.844 Thanks for the feedback. I mean. 179 01:10:50.164 --> 01:10:51.364 Brian, I see your hand up. 180 01:10:53.074 --> 01:11:02.524 Yeah, I was just curious. So is it the same case that this could, this data could include reductions in the [...]. 181 01:11:03.994 --> 01:11:12.064 Because, you know, I mean, the [...] interconnecting does cause a reduction in the ACA values or should cause a reduction on the ICAAY values, right? 182 01:11:12.754 --> 01:11:13.804 Yes, that's correct. 183 01:11:16.684 --> 01:11:36.064 Yeah, I mean it would be, I think it'd be very curious to see this data with the BDR interconnections backed out of it if possible just to get a sense of, you know, is there any effects there are any appreciable effects there that we're missing? Um, just to make sure that. 184 01:11:36.785 --> 01:11:38.945 All just caused by load fluctuations. 185 01:11:41.645 --> 01:11:42.305 Thanks, Brian. 186 01:11:51.364 --> 01:12:11.614 Looks like the, any other questions in the chat were addressed in the chat and I don't see any other hands up. So if you have any other questions come to mind, please, please don't hesitate to ask with that. I think I'll hand it over to. Let's see one more question, often the minimum [...]. 187 01:12:11.645 --> 01:12:32.765 Changes across the feeders, so that would, I think what I envision the analysis that would be needed to answer that question would be kind of doing what we've done on this slide, but for every single node and then beginning those results in the way that we. 188 01:12:32.794 --> 01:12:48.814 Did on the previous slide, so we haven't done that analysis. I don't frankly anticipate we will have the ability to perform that analysis, given the system wide refresh we have going on, but yeah, those are just my initial thoughts on that. 189 01:12:50.464 --> 01:12:53.674 So the, I guess what. 190 01:12:53.974 --> 01:13:13.324 What would be helpful for me to conceptualize what we're moving from is we're moving from the current state of interconnection, at least as of a month ago for, for edison, you weren't using the [...] at all to using the [...] and then using the profile and. 191 01:13:15.094 --> 01:13:36.214 We still don't really have good information on what the current situation is today or you study projects go through regular interconnection review submittal review interconnect up to one hundred a minimum load without a buffer and, you know, some possibility for additional analysis or even above one hundred percent, a minimum load. 192 01:13:36.304 --> 01:13:56.764 But we don't really know how often these same issues might occur with EVA, Not static generate interconnection, right? And I really, I'm not, I'm not saying that they're not going to be different. I'm just trying to understand what we know when we don't know about how this will really vary from what we've been doing historically. 193 01:13:57.425 --> 01:14:02.585 Yeah, I'm not aware of an analysis that would make that comparison, so I would agree with your statement Scott. 194 01:14:06.394 --> 01:14:26.974 So do you still agree with the data responses that Addison's provided that you guys have never don't have any record of having to do upgrades or system changes or any sort of due to load loss. That was the data request that you guys have answer. 195 01:14:27.034 --> 01:14:33.604 Twice now that says you don't have any evidence of this ever actually haven't happened with the static interconnections, right? 196 01:14:36.364 --> 01:14:45.874 Yeah, not to, again, to my knowledge, not nothing nothing. I can, I can verify that. They'll be looking crazy. 197 01:14:47.014 --> 01:14:47.494 Thanks. 198 01:14:51.604 --> 01:15:10.684 Thanks for the questions before I move off off of the slide and pass it over to PG E to present their analysis. I want to kind of comment on as I'm kidding used to these forms and interactions in this new role for me, the use of the word misleading, I believe has a very specific meaning and employee. 199 01:15:10.689 --> 01:15:31.834 [...] in these types of engagements. So, I mean, while I respect that stakeholders may have felt the information on the prior slides may have been misleading the utilities, performed analysis within the capabilities that we had to address the feedback that was discussed at the smart Inverter working group is not intended to be misleading. I do not. 200 01:15:31.864 --> 01:15:45.184 Leave it as misleading, but it is a representation of the analysis that we were able to complete since we discussed this at the smart inverter working groups. I hope I hope that carries some value, I greatly appreciate the feedback and the questions on this. 201 01:15:48.695 --> 01:15:49.775 Justin, I see your hand. 202 01:15:54.424 --> 01:15:58.624 Yeah, I think, I think the misleading comes out of. 203 01:16:00.604 --> 01:16:20.434 The database conclusions that you put in there because there are a lot of qualifications in the language such as potentially lead to higher risks. Um, but it is, is drawing a picture. 204 01:16:21.189 --> 01:16:33.244 What is maybe not substantiated by the data, so can understand where stakeholders are coming from on this, but also appreciate the I use effort to work within their resources and the data available, um. 205 01:16:36.034 --> 01:16:41.164 No, I'm not sure that this data is [...], and I'm glad that we're asking more questions. 206 01:16:43.084 --> 01:16:43.924 Thank you, Justin. 207 01:16:48.905 --> 01:16:52.805 I think, I think Scott just put it in the chat much more eloquently what I was trying to say. 208 01:16:55.744 --> 01:17:16.084 Thank you for that guy. Yeah, I mean for [...] I acknowledge that this is not as robust of analysis as we would have liked, probably would have all like to see or, or that [...] would have liked to perform. We did not run a full two hundred and eighty [...] for every single circuit node for two time periods, and then. 209 01:17:16.205 --> 01:17:34.025 Pair that, that would be months if not year long analysis to be able to get that done, especially in parallel with the system wide refresh that we've done here. So let me, let me state that as a clarification for analysis that it's done, and again, this is what we were able to complete within the time and resources we had available. 210 01:17:34.955 --> 01:17:37.325 I want to just say that, I don't, I think the. 211 01:17:37.654 --> 01:17:58.414 I understand your sensitivity to the word misleading. I think that, I don't think at least for Iraq, we were saying that you guys were try intentionally trying to do something various with data is data and we appreciate that you guys actually did take the time to run some analysis, but I think what conclusions should be drawn and. 212 01:17:58.479 --> 01:18:19.624 Whether it's the data is sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions is where we want, We're pointing out, but this could be misleading if you just look at this without having the context of the data. What did that doesn't doesn't include And what it actually tells us. So that's where we're here to propose that conclusion, but I also think is where we expect the utility. 213 01:18:19.655 --> 01:18:40.775 Is to be forthright about what the data did and didn't do and what it may or may not tell us so that we can all be on the same page about the conclusions, but we weren't saying that you weren't necessarily trying to hide something per se, but I think it's not the, the conclusions that use basic be suggesting or as obvious from the limitations due to the limitations. 214 01:18:42.844 --> 01:18:53.464 Thank you Scott. I see one more question in the chat from Francis. Was there any analysis of meter data versus the previous years, [...]? 215 01:18:53.469 --> 01:19:14.464 [...] as part of this, we were not... Well let me correct myself. We did not analyze the [...] data itself, however, on the slide that you see here on slide eight, the [...] data for two thousand and twenty- one January through December. 216 01:19:14.645 --> 01:19:35.765 And the [...] data for two thousand and twenty- two January through October was fed into the [...] model to disaggregated the circuit, the circuit level load and then perform the powerful analysis. So just in summary, we didn't look at the [...] data itself, but we fed the corresponding [...] data. 217 01:19:35.794 --> 01:19:40.474 Into the [...] for which the results are shown on this chart. 218 01:19:43.054 --> 01:19:53.614 So using it or using the [...] from previous years to help refine the [...] of the next year. So, is that what you're saying? 219 01:19:54.394 --> 01:20:03.964 I would say that whenever you're running an analysis for a period of time, the circuit load that you feed into that analysis should be [...]. 220 01:20:03.969 --> 01:20:25.114 [...] with the [...] data that you feed into the analysis to make sure that it's the best or most accurate representation of the loading and the distribution of load on that circuit at that time. So two thousand and twenty- one circuit load and two thousand and twenty- one [...] data are fed into the model and that analysis is performed. The results are stored and then two thousand and twenty- two circuit load data. 221 01:20:25.145 --> 01:20:32.585 In two thousand and twenty- two [...] data are fed into the model, the analysis performed and the results are stored and then the results of the two are comparing. 222 01:20:33.395 --> 01:20:45.155 Okay, so in essence you are really using the [...] data. Um, and that should be relatively accurate and I guess one questioning the. 223 01:20:47.044 --> 01:20:54.364 The limitations of the data issue shouldn't be [...]. Data be fairly accurate. 224 01:20:55.504 --> 01:21:07.414 Yes, and you are correct, we're feeding in the [...] data to the, in our case, the same model so that it can disaggregated or break down the circuit level load to each of the spot loads on. 225 01:21:07.444 --> 01:21:28.564 The, on the circuit to more accurately reflect the power flow. I think the limitation that we're talking about here is that in the case of what we're looking at on the screen here, this is a randomly selected note on a single circuit, We have hundreds of thousands of nodes across our territory at [...]. So the limitation here is that we're not able to evolve. 226 01:21:28.569 --> 01:21:39.694 [...], all hundreds of thousands of those nodes for two hundred and eighty- eight [...] profile and then be able to draw the truly informed conclusion of how does it change across the board. 227 01:21:42.275 --> 01:21:42.755 Okay. 228 01:21:45.544 --> 01:21:53.734 Thanks for the question. Francis, all right, I think we're caught up so I'm going to try one more time to pass this over to PG. 229 01:21:54.844 --> 01:21:58.984 One quick question, are we looking at the other because circuit, again. 230 01:21:59.524 --> 01:22:04.714 Yes, this is one node on the advocate circuit. Yes. 231 01:22:11.015 --> 01:22:12.245 Any follow- ups on that. 232 01:22:18.874 --> 01:22:22.564 Okay, I'll hand it over to Alex with PG E for the next slide. 233 01:22:32.524 --> 01:22:34.354 I believe [...] is going to go first. 234 01:22:37.834 --> 01:22:39.304 You can advance to the next slide, Please. 235 01:22:48.275 --> 01:22:49.085 Michael, can you hear me? 236 01:22:50.855 --> 01:22:53.135 Yeah, I can hear you. I'm not controlling the presentation. 237 01:22:53.195 --> 01:22:59.765 Oh, sorry, I just wanted to make sure my audio is coming through. Yeah, all right. 238 01:23:00.215 --> 01:23:01.775 Looks like PG E is up. 239 01:23:01.985 --> 01:23:07.265 You're right, I'm sorry. Okay, PG e data is on slide number nine and ten. 240 01:23:07.294 --> 01:23:28.414 But we'll begin with slide number ten and while we're showing on slide number ten is, is the change in loading in the PG system for two years. Um, we looked at a time period of October two thousand and twenty- two September two thousand and twenty- one, and then from October two thousand and twenty- one. 241 01:23:28.419 --> 01:23:49.564 One to September two thousand and twenty- two. So, what's being shown on the screen is actual system load and what's represented on the left hand side of the axis is systems or features that had reduced loading from one tier two and then the stuff on the right is where the loading actually went up. 242 01:23:50.224 --> 01:24:10.684 So as you can see, there's actually a reduction. So for instance, if you look at the first histogram, it's about thirty- seven percent is about a thirty- seven percent reduction between zero kilowatts and five hundred kilowatts and then another approximately seventeen percent between five hundred K. 243 01:24:10.744 --> 01:24:31.714 Watson, you know, want me to go out and so forth and so on. So this slide was the intention for this slide was to show that loading does is this potential for wanting to go down and, you know, taking into account all the comments that were brought up during the previous presentation. Um, I understand the issue with. 244 01:24:32.525 --> 01:24:52.955 Not looking at the connected generation between year one and year two, but the intention again is we're trying to demonstrate that loading guides go down because in the previous presentation, I believe somebody made a comment to the effect of low load should always go up. So. 245 01:24:53.019 --> 01:24:54.724 Any question on this slide? 246 01:25:06.905 --> 01:25:09.305 Okay, so we can go back to slide number nine. 247 01:25:12.455 --> 01:25:32.495 So for slide number nine, we looked at the actual [...] profile and this is again for two years, the label up above is incorrect. It should be, I see a results from two thousand and twenty- one and two thousand and twenty two, um, what we did here is we're looking at what happens to the. 248 01:25:32.554 --> 01:25:41.824 To create profile for me. I want to hear too, and then if we had interconnected the project using the [...]- [...]. 249 01:25:42.785 --> 01:26:02.075 Profile using the twelve monthly twelve different values for each month. What would happen. So the gray line is the initial profile from two thousand and twenty- one, the blue line is the profile from twenty- two thousand and twenty- two, and then the orange line is the. 250 01:26:03.519 --> 01:26:24.664 [...] profile if you will. So it's a twelve monthly profile based on the minimum [...] value. So as you can see the, the profile for the second year actually stays above, right? It stays above the [...] profile, but these, some are. 251 01:26:24.669 --> 01:26:45.544 Hours where the profile actually goes below the secondary profile. So the gray line actually violates if you will the blue line and that's going to duplicate towards the right of the graph is about four or five hours with that happens. So the conclusion that we reached based on this data again, this is just one single location. One feeder. 252 01:26:46.054 --> 01:27:06.814 Profile is that if we interconnected project using twelve core values, the [...] based on twelve values that it's unlikely that the profile of the [...] profile will deep below that, but if we use it to a profile, there's a chance that the. 253 01:27:07.054 --> 01:27:28.114 File for the second year will actually be below the profit from the first year. So this debt, obviously there's no information here that shows us whether it was a load reduction from a customer shutting down the plant, for example, or what it was new interconnections, but what's included in here is that if there was new interconnections in the second. 254 01:27:28.145 --> 01:27:49.235 Yeah, and I think I mentioned this before is those mitigations would have been taken into account and therefore if there was any mitigations that would have impacted the hosting capacity, then that would have been included. So even though we don't actually show how much generation or how much load, what was attributed to interconnection. 255 01:27:49.324 --> 01:28:07.324 Versus decreasing load, it shouldn't really matter because if the change in hosting capacity was because over, I need to connect the project that went through a steady then it's a mitigation would have been considered in the new hosting capacity, right? So the results in my opinion would have been. 256 01:28:19.324 --> 01:28:19.654 Gotcha. 257 01:28:21.034 --> 01:28:21.934 Alex, can you. 258 01:28:24.004 --> 01:28:44.254 So if I, if I understood this, and maybe I should just check. So I think what you were saying here is that there could have been potentially five hours in the year in which there was a violation. Is that what I understood correctly? What would happen in those five hours, like, hypothetically, did you look at the. 259 01:28:44.285 --> 01:28:55.265 Actual criteria violations. It might be helpful for us to understand what we're saying when we say there is a violation in terms of what the system impacts would be. 260 01:28:56.435 --> 01:29:05.225 Yeah, so we didn't actually look at what the criteria violations why, but what we're seeing here is that they would be more generation. 261 01:29:05.410 --> 01:29:25.325 [...] done the hosting capacity would otherwise allowed and what could happen there might be some overloads that might be voltage violations, but do we know what specific could have happened? No, we didn't look at that. We just want to demonstrate that. There is a possibility that you may have more generation that would be allowed based on the hosting capacity. 262 01:29:26.045 --> 01:29:26.465 Okay. 263 01:29:26.584 --> 01:29:47.644 Right, so, so going to the same conversation, we were having about what conclusions you can draw from the data. I appreciate this is useful, but again, I want to understand what does it really tell us about what's going to happen on the system? Is this actually a safety issue. That's what you guys are focusing on, and I, I suspect in some cases there. 264 01:29:47.709 --> 01:30:08.854 Will be, but first of all, not taking a look at the criteria violations is funny. This is the reason why we have this data is it going to tell us, well, what was that violation? Was it a bolted violation? Was it the thermal violation? Those are the most likely ones the protection arises not very often, but if to contextualize what this means from a safe. 265 01:30:09.094 --> 01:30:30.004 Just saying that there is a five hours we're in the [...] would have been different between two years isn't really in telling us is this really a problem, like from a safety reliability standpoint. Now, some features if you look at PG or Addison's data, they were showing a lot more variation. so again, we're not really the saying, well what actually. 266 01:30:30.035 --> 01:30:37.925 He would have happened on those feeders and I think from this non- engineer would find it helpful to understand that a little bit better too. 267 01:30:40.085 --> 01:30:40.685 Point taken. 268 01:30:48.364 --> 01:30:49.174 Yes, you have one hundred. 269 01:30:50.134 --> 01:31:09.484 Yeah, I think again, think this is quite interesting, and this is kind of relatively similar to the way I was looking at things. Um, I think it would be great to do this on a system wide basis, if you have the data available, which I think you might because. 270 01:31:09.490 --> 01:31:19.235 Of a data request that I submitted, um, among other things, um, and I guess, yeah, Stephan actually beat me to it in the chat, um. 271 01:31:21.064 --> 01:31:41.884 Which is that this looks like I would still be within the ten percent buffer and I understand that the ten percent buffer exists for a reason. We can't just eat into the ten percent buffer Willy Nilly, we have no buffer whatsoever, but kind of combining that with Sky's point, I do think it would be interesting to, to do this as a system wide basis. Look at all the violations, look at what they've. 272 01:31:41.944 --> 01:32:03.034 I like the buffer and look at what type of violation because if it's a voltage violation, then the solution is likely available with existing smart inverter functions if it's a thermal violation, you know, much less, so, um, but, but yeah, I just want to say that I think this is on, on the right track. I also wanted to ask, I didn't quite understand your. 273 01:32:03.094 --> 01:32:24.154 Point, I missed part of it perhaps when you were explaining why you thought it didn't matter whether or not this was caused by generation or load because I guess my understanding is that sorry, added generation versus low decrease because my understanding is that all we're talking about here is a low decrease in, in the case where. 274 01:32:24.244 --> 01:32:30.904 Generation was added. There's no disagreement over whether or not upgrades would be used as a solution. 275 01:32:32.404 --> 01:32:45.364 Yeah, sure, so I may address the first point of the data that's being shown is actually including a ten percent buffer, so both of you has included buffer so that would not really have helped a situation that's being depicted on. 276 01:32:45.370 --> 01:33:06.515 This graph, and then the second question when [...] was presenting the data think Skype mentioned or was asked whether the, uh, the reduction in load was, could be attributed to increased interconnection of generation or whether it was just. 277 01:33:06.544 --> 01:33:27.634 Purely a load reduction and I believe she made a comment to the effect of if it was, you know, if you could be a two different generation, then those impacts due to those generators could have been considered during an impact study and potentially the system would have been me to get it accordingly. So the point I was trying to make is that if the load reduction here was. 278 01:33:27.669 --> 01:33:47.854 Do two generation inter connections, then those would have been studied and if for example, there was a system impact, every contact that, that was required, that would have been implemented prior to the project being connected. So the impact of the increased generation and the system mitigation is already included in the results. 279 01:33:50.164 --> 01:34:09.874 Because if, for example, you had an increase of a Megawatt and you had a line re- conductor from a small, to a bigger one, then if it was a tunnel violation, then the term of violation would go away because the re- conductor you would still see a reduction in load, but, you know, yeah, so this is not just looking at loading, it's looking at the hosting. 280 01:34:11.284 --> 01:34:12.154 I think that's the difference. 281 01:34:12.334 --> 01:34:31.114 Yeah, okay, I think I understand that back to that. I think I still disagree with you though on the ten percent buffer point because in my view, the question is, would that limit actually violate the [...] value and as long as you're, you're more than ten percent, as long as the decrease for two thousand and twenty- one, two thousand and twenty- three. 282 01:34:31.120 --> 01:34:43.175 [...] is less than ten percent. You'd still actually be below what the [...] would show, right? The actual without the ten percent buffer. So you'd still be within the, I'd say limit you just eating into that ten percent buffer. 283 01:34:45.634 --> 01:35:06.364 I don't believe I, I don't, I don't agree. I think what happened is we took the profile from two thousand and twenty- one and applied the ten percent buffer to it, and then we took the profile from two thousand and twenty- two and applied ten percent buffer to that same profile. So, in the location where the grey line is below the blue line, the buffer has already applied to the. 284 01:35:06.395 --> 01:35:14.555 Two graphs, so it would still be below it. the violation would still exist. So I'm not sure I'm not talking good point. You're making. 285 01:35:21.034 --> 01:35:33.244 Yeah, I guess. So if we just look at that hour where the two thousand and twenty- three values that just about two thousand and eight hundred that's with the ten percent buffer. So the actual [...] value is more like thirty- one hundred, right? 286 01:35:33.244 --> 01:35:33.424 There. 287 01:35:36.844 --> 01:35:53.104 Am I going? This is worth it. Yeah, so then if you interconnected at thirty one, one hundred, like you could have in two thousand and twenty- one, because that's where the blue line is, and your hosting capacity goes down to, sorry. Well, maybe I'm thinking of this wrong. Let me think about it again. 288 01:35:53.164 --> 01:35:53.464 Okay. 289 01:35:53.464 --> 01:35:53.884 Back to you. 290 01:35:54.394 --> 01:35:55.144 Okay, thanks. 291 01:35:57.695 --> 01:35:58.265 So. 292 01:35:58.295 --> 01:35:58.505 Okay. 293 01:35:58.955 --> 01:36:18.275 So my, my question is more related to the fact that if there's a very limited time, uh, for this type of, um, violation, uh, and so are there other solutions to. 294 01:36:19.534 --> 01:36:39.424 mitigating this problem rather than, um, having the whole year. Uh... oh, yeah, oh, limited Based on, or if the whole month for that matter based on the possibility of a particular five hour type via. 295 01:36:39.430 --> 01:37:00.575 [...], rather than exploring other options for coping with possible violations. So I'm suggesting, you know, even just a phone call could say, Hey, we've got a problem here. Can you reduce your load your, sorry, your export for X number of hours or. 296 01:37:00.579 --> 01:37:16.564 Or whatever, um, so I just like to, to understand if there are alternatives to having the, uh, LTP limits, uh, based on the monthly or even the two hundred and eight values. 297 01:37:20.554 --> 01:37:40.054 Thanks for that for answer. So, I mean, um, I don't think that I know alternatives, but this is just, you know, this is what kind of cuts both ways, right? So this is just one example of a [...] system that showed the firewall violation, there could be other systems that show more hours. So we only show. 298 01:37:40.084 --> 01:37:59.614 One example based on the time and the availability of people to do this analysis, but it could be an example where we may have more than five, but to your point about having somebody make a phone call, I think it would be beneficial to all if we can have these systems be autonomous, we can. 299 01:38:01.654 --> 01:38:04.774 reacting to it and that kind of thing. So if we can find. 300 01:38:05.344 --> 01:38:22.354 Yeah, absolutely, we're talking now about something that's fixed for X number of years through an interconnection agreement, and that's what I think is the, the, the issue of how much flexibility they. 301 01:38:22.384 --> 01:38:27.394 Stone alternative methods for coping with violations. There might be. 302 01:38:30.214 --> 01:38:36.004 Yeah, suddenly, we, I think we can take that point back in and discuss that, but yeah, thanks, thanks for that. 303 01:38:36.544 --> 01:38:36.964 Okay. 304 01:38:44.254 --> 01:38:45.424 I mean, I see your back. 305 01:38:45.454 --> 01:38:47.494 Yeah, so let me try to explain this. 306 01:38:47.794 --> 01:38:48.214 Okay. 307 01:38:48.364 --> 01:39:00.424 I think I was correct as well, so Brian, I think that was correct. So if we look at that, that kind of very peak hour at the end of the violation hours area in two thousand and twenty- one we show a limit of about two thousand and nine hundred and fifty. 308 01:39:00.430 --> 01:39:21.575 I mean, the actual [...] was at about thirty to one hundred. I'm just estimating, but with a ten percent buffer that brings us down to two thousand nine hundred and fifty, so we would have been connected to [...] and our agreement would have said we can export twenty nine hundred and fifty in that hour now in two thousand and twenty- three, we show a value of two thousand, eight hundred I was actually about thirty- one hundred meaning that if we were. 309 01:39:21.604 --> 01:39:30.094 We're exporting at two thousand nine hundred and fifty, we would not cause a violation, but we would be eating up a lot of our buffer. I think, I think that's right, So yeah. 310 01:39:33.334 --> 01:39:36.934 Well, and eating up the buffer isn't a problem. That's why we have the buffer, right? 311 01:39:38.704 --> 01:39:46.924 That the whole point of including a buffer is, so that we can eat into it if needed isn't that the idea. 312 01:39:48.395 --> 01:40:09.125 Yeah, so I think, I think the intention here was to show that in two thousand and twenty- two. So, again, this, this, since two thousand and twenty- three, but I believe it should be two thousand and twenty- two, but in two thousand and twenty- two for the same project, you would have had to interconnect it based on the grey line, so you would have to. 313 01:40:09.574 --> 01:40:19.264 The constraints would be based on the gray line, right? But that project hadn't been interconnected in two thousand and twenty- one would have been based on the blue line, which is above the. that's what we're trying to depict. Yeah. 314 01:40:20.164 --> 01:40:30.664 Yeah, I understand that, but I do think that it's within the buffer, so you wouldn't actually end up with a violation, you just end up getting into the buffer and the sky's point, I guess, I don't really know the answer though. That's really a question for. 315 01:40:30.669 --> 01:40:47.644 For, I don't know who, but it's not immediately alarming tina it's about for, but there could be some risk because if that buffer is serving some, if it's covering some measurement error or some other physical phenomenon, then even the buffer could exist or, or could not be an issue. 316 01:40:49.684 --> 01:40:50.794 Sorry, sorry. 317 01:40:51.034 --> 01:41:10.144 Yeah, I guess I would just like to see this kind of extrapolated or not extrapolated, but repeated for all of the circuits and kind of identifying whether we're in the buffer, whether we're exceeding the buffer, what types of violations are occurring to, to John, John Bertner's point that voltage violations are relatively easy thermal limits require re- conductor and. 318 01:41:10.149 --> 01:41:30.994 And things like reverse power flow would require perhaps other solutions. So really kind of developing a robust data set around this. I think it'd be, would be one which we can can build statistical, Uh, do statistical analysis because we have a sample size larger than one, so we can get to these. These questions have probability, which we've been talking about. I think that's enough. 319 01:41:31.684 --> 01:41:33.604 So boxing for me, so I'll leave it there. 320 01:41:34.894 --> 01:41:52.294 Understood, yeah, so I agree on the point of more analysis, but I still don't follow both of these graphs include the ten percent buffer, so we're not really eating into a buffer because the buffer is already included, but I do agree that probably probably more more. 321 01:41:52.564 --> 01:42:05.374 Citizen probably better if we can correlate these results to like a violation or a criteria violation within [...] voltage or protection. I think that would be probably beneficial. I agree with that point. 322 01:42:08.674 --> 01:42:27.694 So I, I think, uh, let me jump in here so since these curves already include the buffer, there's actually more available, um, there's more capacity available, but I wanted what I wanted to get at was, was there are two mindsets clash. 323 01:42:28.144 --> 01:42:36.424 Here, uh, from, uh, at least from [...] and PG E or, uh, yeah, in PG E- at this point. 324 01:42:39.724 --> 01:42:58.264 The message that I, that I'm getting is that, well, we have to limit the entire year because of this small, um, what is it a five hour period or whatever, whatever this period of time is here that there is a violation. 325 01:42:59.885 --> 01:43:19.865 But I think the rest, the rest of us are trying to say look at all this additional energy that could be captured, and okay, maybe we need to find a way to address this small hourly period of violation, maybe. 326 01:43:21.634 --> 01:43:41.014 But during the rest of the year, there's- there's this gap and this energy could be captured if, if we found a way to address this small violation during this five hour period or whatever this, this. 327 01:43:41.044 --> 01:43:45.124 Small period is here, there's this additional energy. 328 01:43:47.135 --> 01:43:51.605 Otherwise, that is available and could be captured. Yeah. 329 01:43:53.135 --> 01:44:07.745 Understood Frank, so I do want to have a, I want to make a clarification or correction. So the data that is shown on the slide includes a ten percent buffer for two thousand and twenty- one, but there's no buffer included in two. 330 01:44:07.809 --> 01:44:24.634 Hundred and twenty- two. So that was, so it's actually, it's actually way more conservative than we're thinking. So if you look at the legend at the bottom, it says two thousand and twenty- one [...] with Buffer and it's being compared to [...] for two thousand and twenty- three without a buffer. 331 01:44:46.535 --> 01:44:51.545 Frank, did you have a question? I'm not sure if I missed it. Was that a question for me. I was just a statement. 332 01:44:52.775 --> 01:45:05.615 No, I'm sorry I was muted so that the shadow curve could actually move higher because it's already been been discounted. It's already. 333 01:45:05.619 --> 01:45:11.794 Been pushed down because because of the, the ten percent buffer. 334 01:45:12.664 --> 01:45:26.614 Yeah, so the ten percent buffer is something that was already agreed upon during the walk- in group discussions. I believe we're actually looking to have a twenty percent buffer, but, you know, the decision was made to use a ten percent buffer, so when we. 335 01:45:26.824 --> 01:45:35.224 We actually, when we're doing the connections, we included the ten percent buffer on the [...] or the [...]. 336 01:45:35.374 --> 01:45:49.444 Value, so the blue line for the second year does not include such a buffer, so if that, you know, that line was included, you would actually be less conservative, right? Sorry, the gray line. I'm sorry, the gray line. 337 01:45:53.074 --> 01:45:53.464 Right? 338 01:45:54.995 --> 01:46:05.225 Wouldn't necessarily it doesn't necessarily tell us that there's actually system impact because you guys haven't looked at what the criteria violations are, and whether they would actually cost the safety reliability issue, right? 339 01:46:05.675 --> 01:46:06.215 Correct. 340 01:46:06.425 --> 01:46:16.115 Yeah, I mean, ultimately digging into one feeder is not really going to be helpful. I think we're spending a lot of time on this. It's, it's useful to construct your. 341 01:46:16.504 --> 01:46:30.424 Mind around it, but obviously some leaders are going to have many more hours or a much bigger violation than this one, Peter, so I'm not sure digging into whether this one is in the buffer versus others is ultimately leading us to a broader conclusion. 342 01:46:31.054 --> 01:46:31.564 Agreed. 343 01:46:31.684 --> 01:46:33.754 Sorry Justin, I jumped in before you there. 344 01:46:37.474 --> 01:46:57.004 Oh, it would prefer to have a stakeholder speak before we do. So I've got a few different distinct points here setting aside the ten percent on the buffer. I want to get back a little bit to skies earlier point, which is that [...]. 345 01:46:57.010 --> 01:47:17.975 [...] installation between the first year's curve and the second year's curve have not been factored into the computation of the second year is curve, um, unless there's something different from PG E and [...] analysis. Is that correct? Alex, that if, if there had been a DVR. 346 01:47:19.235 --> 01:47:29.495 Installed at the end of two thousand and twenty- one that would not be reflected into these IGA S. T- hourly curve that's labeled two thousand and twenty- three, but actually it's two thousand and twenty- two. 347 01:47:31.595 --> 01:47:38.465 So if there was a deal installed, meaning interconnected or actually the study is completed. 348 01:47:39.545 --> 01:47:40.385 Um. 349 01:47:42.905 --> 01:48:00.395 interconnected if he was interconnected, then it would only be included if the months where the [...] was actually connected to the system, I included in the hosting capacity analysis of the data, the, you know, the [...] information, but for the month where it was not, then it would not be included. Yes. 350 01:48:01.475 --> 01:48:01.925 Okay. 351 01:48:03.280 --> 01:48:11.075 So the thing that, that leads me to is the D. R. 352 01:48:13.954 --> 01:48:33.634 So you're saying, so when we actually do this in the real world, as soon as you have a limited generation profile that is interconnected that capacity is subtracted out of the [...] going forward and you can have an [...] from one year. 353 01:48:34.834 --> 01:48:45.964 That decreases all the way down to zero in the next year, and that's not a violation that's, that's the way the system is supposed to work that hosting capacity was spoken for. 354 01:48:47.134 --> 01:48:51.484 Where we don't, we don't have that in this counterfactual. 355 01:48:54.094 --> 01:49:15.184 Sky's point prior that because I think we need to, as we do these analyses, look at what D- R may have been installed. In fact, are those into our determination as to whether or not there would be a violation, the second point that I would raise, it's also a reiteration of these guys is. 356 01:49:15.214 --> 01:49:33.784 The understanding that the effects on the single circuit probably don't give us a decent picture as to whether or not a violation would, in fact occur and whether that would be an issue or not. 357 01:49:34.954 --> 01:49:56.074 Potentially, if it's a voltage violation, the full barker would would compensate for that. So Frank's got a comment on here saying it would help everybody, if we agreed to distinguish between circle flows and load is in terms of the demand on the node and I think that's correct. I think that the PG analysis may. 358 01:49:56.104 --> 01:49:59.164 Who's on the right direction in terms of looking at. 359 01:50:00.394 --> 01:50:21.454 hosting capacity would be on whether or not there's a possibility of a violation based on these. Um, and that's, I think something that I would ask for, in the future and that will be reflected in the record here to avoid the assertion of misleading. 360 01:50:21.484 --> 01:50:42.544 And Charles, I think what we've got in the, in the legend for this chart is violation hours as a statement as a definitive statement that there is a violation occurring here and I'm not sure that we have established that. No, Alex would you agree that? This is a potential rather than a certain. 361 01:50:44.134 --> 01:50:54.934 So it is a violation of the profile, but we have not identified what, what sort of criteria violations occurring. 362 01:50:55.624 --> 01:50:55.864 Due. 363 01:50:55.864 --> 01:50:59.374 To this profile violation, so we can distinguish between the two. 364 01:50:59.884 --> 01:51:03.754 I think that would make sense given that they're both violations and these will be completed. 365 01:51:04.595 --> 01:51:05.105 Agreed. 366 01:51:08.494 --> 01:51:28.564 To your first point, Justin, as far as how potential generation impacts Icaay, I think I covered one way, so one way would be, if the projects get studied and they get connected. That's one way of them impacting the [...] result results, but there's also. 367 01:51:29.140 --> 01:51:49.925 Potential projects do also impact the hosting capacity while they're being studied. So while, when I see it being calculated, it also takes into account previously proposed projects are queued ahead project, so, you know, cube projects, you know, so, so they don't have to be connected, but there will be taken into account. 368 01:51:50.314 --> 01:51:52.924 If they are proposed in the hosting capacity. 369 01:51:54.184 --> 01:52:11.434 Analysis, no, I think we're in agreement and that's, that's kind of my point. Is that just the change between hosting capacity in two years doesn't necessarily indicate an issue where we're looking at it now because we're not looking at the. 370 01:52:11.464 --> 01:52:26.644 D- are there different facts. You have a D or the gets interconnected your hosting capacity may well go down to zero zero and that's not a problem that's useful, but in front of information for folks that are wanting to connect in the future. 371 01:52:30.844 --> 01:52:49.414 I was just going to make the observation that you could have ten times the [...] or [...] connected at, at a given node, but it's not a violation unless, unless they are actually operate and, and I. 372 01:52:49.535 --> 01:53:08.105 And I think the [...] should be in charge of w- w- what actually operates, even though the hosting capacity, even though the [...] is available at a given node, no matter what, how big that is. What actually operates is a different question. 373 01:53:14.795 --> 01:53:31.805 I forgot to bring up one of the points that I had in mind, which is, if you look at the gray and the blue curve with, for the most part, it looks like there are multiples of each other and so the, the wave form doesn't. 374 01:53:32.074 --> 01:53:52.654 Really very that much from year- to- year or the scale of it. So the [...] value the hype seems fairly uniform. It's not like these are entirely disparate curves. I think it would be interesting to understand. 375 01:53:54.124 --> 01:54:13.864 The effect of rather than taking a single hourly value, taking a moving box or worst case of several hours and seeing what effect that might have on any potential violations, both [...] violations and actual operational violations. 376 01:54:19.624 --> 01:54:20.014 Thank you. 377 01:54:24.275 --> 01:54:42.035 So my question, and I'm coming back to the same sort of issue is of having alternatives to cope with possible potential violations, um. 378 01:54:42.934 --> 01:55:03.454 At the moment, I believe, um, uh, [...] sites that are greater than one megawatt at least have telemetry and I would like to understand if the utilities have enough data coming from substations or other distribution equipment to. 379 01:55:03.544 --> 01:55:24.604 At least determine if there was a fundamental overload, is there, is there a actual problem? Is there a voltage problem? Is there a thermal active power problem, because if you can determine that there is a problem or a potential problem because it's getting close to. 380 01:55:24.609 --> 01:55:45.574 To the limits that you could then simply make a phone call or hopefully have a communications, but, uh, you know, if you don't have that, Yep, um, at least be able in closer to real time using actual situations rather than a modeling. Ah. 381 01:55:45.760 --> 01:55:57.425 You cope with situations rather than constraining everybody for a whole year, uh, essentially, uh, due to possible constraints. 382 01:55:59.585 --> 01:56:06.905 Yeah, so just to answer the question about getting information whether there's any Thermo violate. 383 01:56:07.115 --> 01:56:13.175 I think that's, we don't have that level of visibility right now because even though. 384 01:56:15.394 --> 01:56:36.274 Generate as greater than one Mega would need visibility to telemetry and we may have the same sort of information coming in from the substations when you're talking about a line segment overload, you would have to have a sense at that specific location and, you know, that's something that we don't have that level of information coming back to our system. 385 01:56:36.519 --> 01:56:46.324 If you remember from the last presentation, we mentioned system being something that we can use to do what essentially you're asking, right? Because. 386 01:56:46.324 --> 01:56:46.564 Then. 387 01:56:46.564 --> 01:56:57.664 That might be potentially doing real time, You know, we would have the second modal information in there and you'd be running in a lot flaws switching operations that kind of stuff and then. 388 01:56:57.694 --> 01:57:18.814 Would be able to feed that information and make decisions based on the information. Um, that's why I think we were proposing the phased approach using the twelve values, See if we encounter any issues and potentially sometime in the future. Go to the two hundred and eight and hopefully by that time we'll have a near real time monitoring system that's installed and then. 389 01:57:18.964 --> 01:57:23.944 You know, hopefully we can monitor the system and react to it if there's any issues. 390 01:57:25.144 --> 01:57:39.874 Yeah, so it may be more getting, um, you know, I'll, I'll agree at the moment that you don't have the, the adequate visibility, uh, but then it's really developing a road map of l. g. P. A. 391 01:57:39.995 --> 01:57:49.325 Over the next few years, with the flexibility to modify, uh, the [...]. 392 01:57:51.365 --> 01:58:01.565 Yes, as we've discussed outside of this meeting, the scope of this resolution has to do with limited generation profile. I'm not going to get into dynamic profiles moving forward. 393 01:58:02.045 --> 01:58:02.315 That's. 394 01:58:02.315 --> 01:58:06.935 Also, the authorization administerial limits that have been unposted on this by the Commission. 395 01:58:07.595 --> 01:58:08.165 Alright. 396 01:58:09.245 --> 01:58:12.335 Agreed on the point, but this is why we can't get into. 397 01:58:12.574 --> 01:58:13.354 This discussion. 398 01:58:21.155 --> 01:58:23.915 Any other questions before we move to [...] presentation? 399 01:58:36.215 --> 01:58:39.635 Justin, do you have your handout from before? Do you have a question? 400 01:58:42.065 --> 01:58:44.045 Apologies that may end up from before please go ahead. 401 01:58:44.045 --> 01:58:45.065 Okay, sure, okay. 402 01:58:46.714 --> 01:58:48.844 Turning this over to [...]. Thank you. 403 01:58:54.035 --> 01:58:56.735 I believe [...] should be up. 404 01:58:56.945 --> 01:58:59.105 SDG, sorry about that. 405 01:59:02.464 --> 01:59:04.594 Um, uh, one more slide, please. 406 01:59:06.334 --> 01:59:06.904 One more. 407 01:59:09.634 --> 01:59:29.944 Okay, thank you so much everybody. Matt Belden, this is my first time joining the, the workshop. So, uh, glad to be with you today, um, some of our Sme's were unable to join today due to the long weekend, so I will be doing my best here to articulate the SDG [...]. 408 01:59:29.949 --> 01:59:51.094 [...], but we might have to circle back on some of the positions or some of the follow- up. I think there's a lot of similarities I've observed and likely will have very similar questions. Um, I think just some general comments if I may just just to open, um, there's been a lot of good. 409 01:59:51.100 --> 02:00:12.245 Good discussion, I think Michael open very well outlining, right? The preference of being able to have a more robust data set, um, obviously the data here is, is a time intensive to, to really get to the point where we have a first, a percentage that. 410 02:00:12.275 --> 02:00:33.395 We could tie to the amount of risk that, that exists here. I think from [...], what we're trying to communicate is just that there is some level of risk that, that inherently exist, right. Load profiles, um, you know, inherently change and they change from year- to- year. 411 02:00:33.424 --> 02:00:53.944 Or so I think there is risk and at the end of the day from our perspective, we're trying to maintain a safe and reliable system and mitigate as much risk as we can, and I perfectly understand the, the position of stakeholders and wanting more certainty around. 412 02:00:54.664 --> 02:01:04.744 The percent of risk, but right, that's, that's the challenge in front of us. Um, the other thing I just wanted to mention is I think there was some good discussion about, um. 413 02:01:05.854 --> 02:01:26.944 The net load profiles. This is the approach that we also chose to look at, and I think some very good comments were brought up about this approach. I think [...], right? I think that was a, that was a great comment. I think that could be challenging, um, right, all of the, the meter equipment scattered data that we use to produce our. 414 02:01:26.979 --> 02:01:48.124 [...] values is basically net load. So there would be additional challenges around pulling out the, the exact amount potential generation, uh, within that given year, right? We have nameplate data and things like that, but, um, so I think that was a good point, but obviously each one of these days. 415 02:01:48.155 --> 02:02:07.865 Sets is, is a bit more intensive. The, the further we dive into it, and then the last thing I just wanted to mention is I think a lot of the comments which have been fantastic, um, are really, you know, um, centered around a future state of the system. I think all of the [...]. 416 02:02:07.984 --> 02:02:29.014 Specifically, right, we filed [...] plans. There's a lot of future implementation around terms in real time, um, you know, Francis was talking about dynamic and whatnot. So I think, I think it's, there's a lot that's happening within each utility to move us forward. We've presented plans to do. 417 02:02:29.044 --> 02:02:49.654 That I think the concern for [...] always comes back to safety and reliability and risk. Um, so that, that's where we're at. So, and I say that with context of not getting wanting to get too far ahead of ourselves before we have all of that dynamic equipment. 418 02:02:50.374 --> 02:03:11.314 Installed those systems installed. Um, and we should, you know, focus on the equipment getting to a place where we have that, that data to make better informed decisions. So just wanted to make that comment to, and I'll dive in to our, our circuits here, but I'll hold here if anybody has any. 419 02:03:11.319 --> 02:03:12.184 Any questions. 420 02:03:17.315 --> 02:03:35.285 Okay, so we have very similar approach to [...] here we have, um, two graphs, one on the left one on the right? Um, and once again, we're looking at the net load profile, um, we've overlaid two years, so we have year one in green on the last year or two. 421 02:03:35.289 --> 02:03:56.434 To overlaid over that, and then we basically just took the percent difference here. Um, and, and about sixty- three percent of the time year two loading was lower than year one, right? So that's, that's the big takeaway from, from the graph on the left, the graph on the right, We took the minimum of a year. 422 02:03:56.464 --> 02:04:17.584 One and applied it across, which is what you see in the green dash line there, and then we did a comparison of year- to- year one and found that nine percent of the time here to loading was lower than year one. So I think this reflects what we've already talked about from [...] and what other stakeholder. 423 02:04:17.589 --> 02:04:38.734 [...] have brought up. There is still a percentage of time, right? Even when you take the minimum of the year one value, there still is a percentage of time where it falls below that. So there, there is still risk, right? Uh, but there's, there's, I think a clear difference here. 424 02:04:38.764 --> 02:04:59.884 In terms of the amount of risk and right, that's what I wanted to circle back on my opening comment at the end of the day, right? That's the most concerning part because we're preparing the system for our operations group and how they can respond to these issues whether they be voltage or thermal, um, you know, they have to respond to these in real time and our cost. 425 02:04:59.890 --> 02:05:13.865 summers and others potentially suffer the consequences. So, um, that is the basis of our analysis and what we were able to provide here today and I will open it up for any, any questions here. 426 02:05:17.404 --> 02:05:36.454 I just like to make one point that I was thinking earlier, but this kind of clarifies it more, which is that just looking back to the data that [...] provided she was quite a sharp contrast in terms of the shape, the load shape with a, rather than [...]. I think that, I guess these are slightly different. 427 02:05:37.474 --> 02:05:57.544 Oh, I see. I see what the difference is that now you're showing a load in amps and, and I see Eva's joined [...], but there were quite a lot of spikes in the, um, in the data that, that [...] showed particularly in like the third month that goes from zero to four megawatts to zero. 428 02:05:58.084 --> 02:06:06.154 Over the course of two hours and I guess it just raised some concerns for me regarding the fidelity of those data. Um, these ones. 429 02:06:06.154 --> 02:06:06.454 That have a. 430 02:06:06.454 --> 02:06:11.914 Lot smoother, but I understand there are other considerations in the [...] data that aren't shown here. 431 02:06:13.324 --> 02:06:34.324 I think that's fair, and I've, right, We've got thousands of circuits, right? So I think the analysis here is just to pull one circuit very quickly to just show the delta in the load, right? I'm, I'm almost certain there could be the circuits that we could pull that. There might not be a big delta between the values, but I, I'm. 432 02:06:34.474 --> 02:06:55.504 Certain that there are some that we could find an incredible deviation that could be attributed purely to low just because we know how the distribution system operates. So even if we have a larger dataset, the concern is that you can really see the stark differences between. 433 02:06:56.105 --> 02:07:08.525 Uh, the data sets and so you can narrow in, on ones that show the deviation and then there's others, you could probably find that don't have such a large deviation. I think from [...] w- we're just trying to say is that. 434 02:07:09.609 --> 02:07:30.754 The risk and the potential for us is there it does exist due to the deviations inherently tied to load and the way it is exists on the distribution system and that, and that risk is mitigated slightly by using a twelve value versus a two hundred and eighty eight, and I. 435 02:07:30.785 --> 02:07:41.465 Think that's the limit of what, what we're trying to say because we obviously don't have every circuit where we've done [...] comparison on two different years. 436 02:07:44.884 --> 02:08:06.004 Yeah, thanks, I'm still just kind of, I guess what I'm getting at here and what I'm still trying to wrap my mind around is like, what is the relationship between these data and how the limits are implemented to the actual physical constraints on the system? Like, are these, are these variations actual real changes in load shape or are they simply kind of random variation. 437 02:08:06.035 --> 02:08:07.625 And, um. 438 02:08:09.094 --> 02:08:28.804 You know, that, that may be reflex rather than I need to limit limited generation profiles or change how they're implemented, rather reflects the need to improve [...] modeling. Um, because I think it should be, you know, it should be like a future looking thing that is capturing true changes. 439 02:08:30.004 --> 02:08:36.364 Shouldn't be capturing random year- to- year variations that aren't gonna going to happen in the future. 440 02:08:38.464 --> 02:08:42.964 I guess it's kind of a little too broad for perhaps, for this discussion, but I, I do think it's relevant. 441 02:08:47.074 --> 02:08:47.704 Thanks, I mean. 442 02:08:54.005 --> 02:09:10.865 This guy, I think I'm up next unless I'm not seeing somebody else's hand here. Um, so I agree with some of these comments just about how much we can drop from the data. I think we've already hammered at that point through the other slides, especially in terms of looking. 443 02:09:10.894 --> 02:09:32.014 At the, our lead profile your year versus the [...] and taking into account how the Icaay actually models the load profiles on this, um, how it comes up with each month's calculation, but I have a more basic question, so we recently had a call with, with the utilities and. 444 02:09:32.044 --> 02:09:53.164 Out some of the, what I read considers anomalies in the [...] data and in [...] data you guys had some pretty radical shifts in voltage, the voltage constraints our, our, and in the, in the, on that call, you indicated that there were significant differences made. 445 02:09:53.194 --> 02:10:14.314 To the model runs between last year and this year, um, that you thought resolved that we just did a comparison and we see that there were some significant changes. So my question is in, this were those, does this data that you're looking at here, take into account any, a central. 446 02:10:14.344 --> 02:10:18.784 Data changes that you made between last year and this year. 447 02:10:20.044 --> 02:10:40.594 Yeah, great, great question. Uh, Scott, I think for, for that data request, specifically, right? Um, I'm, I'm glad to see that you guys were able to pull the new set and see that those changes were made and I just want to one other quick comment, right, SDG implements monthly and annual updates. So. 448 02:10:41.374 --> 02:11:01.474 I just, I think that that points to, you know, SDG continuing to improve our modeling process, the fact that we did, we did make improvements on that specific circuit, right? So we're always trying to do that in terms of this specific circuit. I d. There was, I do not believe. 449 02:11:02.285 --> 02:11:23.405 That there was considerations for modeling changes or what is already been asked about [...] being remove. This is purely the net load profile of the circuit. So I can't, I can't answer with certainty unless I spoke with the team on if there was a different model, but I. 450 02:11:23.435 --> 02:11:25.145 I don't believe that there was. 451 02:11:27.455 --> 02:11:38.765 So you're not, yeah, it sounds like what, what I'm not clear from, and we'll get into this and another data request and have to have further conversations about that on it. I wasn't clear what changed, what actually changed from last. 452 02:11:38.795 --> 02:11:39.185 Oh. 453 02:11:40.115 --> 02:11:44.555 In the updated [...], I wasn't clear if it was, you just changed something in the model that. 454 02:11:44.559 --> 02:11:55.894 Is still not transparent to us, or if it was because the underlying data or input assumptions change, which would, if it was a change in the load data, I just wanted to make sure I understood if this. 455 02:11:55.894 --> 02:11:56.434 Got it. 456 02:11:57.544 --> 02:11:59.974 Right, if we're really comparing apples to apples, essentially. 457 02:12:00.904 --> 02:12:01.384 Yeah, so. 458 02:12:01.384 --> 02:12:01.594 We. 459 02:12:01.594 --> 02:12:05.704 Probably have to look into that specific one sky. I'm. 460 02:12:05.734 --> 02:12:26.314 That sure if that question was posed in the data request or you just requested, uh, a revised, um, profile. So anything related to that data request. I, I probably have to circle back to see if we could point to what, what changed in the monthly updates because there was likely. 461 02:12:26.859 --> 02:12:48.004 Multiple updates that, that circuits like many of our circuits every time we get new information we try to capture that via the monthly updates within [...]. We, we try to keep that up to date. all the circuits as we get additional information or make improvements, that's why we do. That's why we have the monthly updates process. 462 02:12:48.010 --> 02:12:48.130 Yes. 463 02:12:50.285 --> 02:13:03.245 Okay, I think we're thinking past each other, but that doesn't, that doesn't matter right now. All I want to know is that you are confident that nothing in the way you look at the load data with all of this. This is not an [...] comparison. This is a low harrison. 464 02:13:03.305 --> 02:13:03.665 Yes. 465 02:13:04.655 --> 02:13:08.495 Nothing changed between one year or the other so that we actually are comparing. 466 02:13:09.185 --> 02:13:14.615 Similar data for the load profiles. That was the basic essence of the question. 467 02:13:15.725 --> 02:13:20.315 I, that is my impression, but I would have to confirm that with the team. 468 02:13:20.525 --> 02:13:20.795 Okay. 469 02:13:32.404 --> 02:13:34.504 Justin, do you have a question for me? 470 02:13:36.634 --> 02:13:48.634 Yeah, I think it's, it's you and all of the [...], um, I don't think I have the answer for [...]. It sounds like [...] just grabbed Abacus because. 471 02:13:48.640 --> 02:13:53.165 It was the first alphabetically and took a look at that. 472 02:13:54.305 --> 02:14:15.425 Didn't really look good and the other circuits or if they did it was just a limited overview there wasn't any selection there because I have noted that it was a random selection, SMS- going to ask PG E- [...] the same as well, first [...] will want to understand which circuit here drawing from here. 473 02:14:15.454 --> 02:14:20.794 Um, that information is absent, but in terms of PG E and [...]. 474 02:14:21.544 --> 02:14:31.954 Did you randomly grab the circuit or did you look at a bunch of circuits and then choose the one the best demonstrated at the point you were trying to make. 475 02:14:36.845 --> 02:14:54.905 Jess and I believe for SDG E- uh, this was a circuit we were already looking at for other purposes. Um, so there was not an extensive look of many circuits to try and find one that, that best suited. I think, right, There's probably. 476 02:14:54.935 --> 02:15:13.115 But w- much larger deviations in terms of load that circuits across our territory. So, um, I'm, I'm fairly certain, but we'd have to confirm with my team and I don't, I don't have the exact circuit number handy, but can can circle back with my team. 477 02:15:13.865 --> 02:15:15.785 Yeah, we can just make that a report out. 478 02:15:16.174 --> 02:15:18.394 The next presentation will get captured in the record. 479 02:15:19.024 --> 02:15:20.134 Okay, thanks Jason. 480 02:15:24.754 --> 02:15:26.014 I'm sorry, Alex speaking. 481 02:15:28.925 --> 02:15:48.245 Sorry about that. I was double muted. So for PG e, we randomly looked for, um, features that had the data valuable. So I think we probably, this was ended up being a third one. So the first one we didn't have one of the years of data or something then this one was the one that we had the two years that we could compare. 482 02:15:51.544 --> 02:15:52.624 So it was random. Yep. 483 02:15:55.595 --> 02:16:15.245 So we will confer with Tim and he'll say that my first impression on this is a great improvement to the analysis provided before, although that may incur divide by zero or, um, the ability to use it. 484 02:16:15.280 --> 02:16:36.425 As a predictive measure unbound, our risk is still something. I think we need to explore a little bit more, but definitely appreciate the effort that's been put into it and understand that these things are non- zero efforts that does take time and resources to get there and look forward to seeing. 485 02:16:36.429 --> 02:16:37.625 The same where we're going. 486 02:16:52.654 --> 02:16:54.334 And Scott, you had one more question. 487 02:16:55.984 --> 02:17:13.084 Yeah, I guess my big conclusion from this, we've got unpacked a lot of different pieces of the data and I think we were looking at essentially three nodes or three feeders. It's very hard to draw any system conclusions, but we can see that across those three feeders. 488 02:17:13.114 --> 02:17:22.444 There is some variation in load that could reduce just whatever the hosting capacity value is potentially. Um, I think what, what. 489 02:17:24.664 --> 02:17:45.484 That is not for me, that's not inherently a problematic thing because I think we know that, that happens today even with traditional interconnections that load changes and that there may be some increase in the, if you're doing a profile, but we still haven't gotten to, whether there's actually any system safety reliability in. 490 02:17:46.324 --> 02:18:06.544 None of the utilities have looked at that criteria violations the magnitude of the violations and sort of analyze. Well, what would they do, If this circumstance rose in it, and I'm not, I don't want to imply that there is that there wouldn't be a safety reliability issue. I don't know, but I think what we're doing is we're identifying that there's. 491 02:18:08.014 --> 02:18:27.815 This data is super useful, but it has a lot of limitations and so if what we're trying to do is say, are there going to be safety and reliability issues that arise from using a twenty- four to eighty eight versus a twelve month profile. I think what, what I still. 492 02:18:27.844 --> 02:18:48.964 Like what I would like to get closer to, in terms of understanding is what actually would happen on the system in terms of a real safety reliability issue and, and so that we can understand what the real magnitude is, like, are we talking about safety reliable? 493 02:18:48.995 --> 02:19:10.115 Any issues occurring or not? And I think, or, and what to, what, to, what extent, because what we have is enough historical evidence to show that, that hasn't or the utilities have no tracking, which would suggest that it's not happening a lot, but I still don't really understand like, whether. 494 02:19:10.143 --> 02:19:30.874 These, these operations are causing a real safety reliability problem. Um, and if there's a way for us to connect that the actual issue we're trying to solve for better. Um, I think that would be constructive for us moving forward, and I'm not sure that the utilities. 495 02:19:31.714 --> 02:19:51.724 The thing that I'm thinking is the utilities proposal is let's, you know, walk not run here. Let's do twelve months instead of two hundred and eighty eight because so that you can understand the impacts, but I still don't understand exactly whether that's really going to tell us that much because I'm not sure what we're trying to solve for here. 496 02:19:53.075 --> 02:20:08.945 Is if you do twelve months, what do you get from that analysis ultimately would be helpful to understand in terms of, are we really going to see that learning between if we do a walk- to- run approach. 497 02:20:37.565 --> 02:20:55.865 I just want to support what you guys said. I think that, you know, it's very important to think about if we're, if the plan, if the proposal is to go one hundred and twenty to eighty eight, what is that exactly that we're going to study between twelve and two hundred and eight that makes [...] comfortable with two hundred and eight based only on having. 498 02:20:55.869 --> 02:21:15.784 An experienced with twelve values and really quantifying that advanced and setting it up in advance. So we don't just repeat the same exercise again in two years when we all experienced in the previous set of workshops, the stresses and the challenges of getting to twelve, and if we're just going to repeat those going from twelve to twenty- eight, what's really the point. 499 02:21:17.044 --> 02:21:38.164 And I guess I should say that one of the reasons I'm thinking that too, is that what are the main things we have to do is actually get developers to propose these projects. So the goal is to capture the value that it means analysis has helped demonstrate could be there in terms of the additional energy that could be provided. Um, there's, there's a good reason to. 500 02:21:38.255 --> 02:21:59.075 To believe that twelve month profiles won't make sense economically for projects to do and they certainly won't, right? Any real benefit from storage and they may also not get at the, the biggest problem in California, which is those limited hours. So. 501 02:21:59.464 --> 02:22:19.354 A multi- year pilot of a twelve month profile may not get us any data. Um, and it may not get us any value dirt. We're very limited value during that pilot period. I'm using pilot as a general term that not a absolute pilot pilot. Um, so. 502 02:22:20.495 --> 02:22:41.615 There are trade- offs with that, but I do think that my biggest concern through all of this is that we actually come out with some projects that we can test. That was the issue we went through with the last round, which is that if we create so much risk that no project can build similarly, if we constrained the actual value, so significantly. 503 02:22:42.004 --> 02:22:56.434 That nobody will build and therefore we won't have any experience from it. We also won't capture any of the theoretical benefit that you're getting from those using more a more diverse profile. 504 02:23:08.105 --> 02:23:09.455 And I mean, and Justin. 505 02:23:12.815 --> 02:23:14.015 I forgot to put my hand on. 506 02:23:14.645 --> 02:23:16.115 Oh, alright, and Jonathan. 507 02:23:18.394 --> 02:23:25.354 Yeah, just just a couple of points, uh, really, uh, procedure leader, legally, I suppose, um. 508 02:23:27.154 --> 02:23:38.494 The first is that it is incumbent upon the, I are used to make the affirmative case that there is a greater risk and to eighty eight than there is in twelve. 509 02:23:41.404 --> 02:24:01.984 So that, that is on them to make the case of that rather than just asserting it. That's not something that's been hashed out and clarified and binding language and the second is really to do with conclusions proper than these presentations. 510 02:24:03.874 --> 02:24:23.134 These presentations and the recordings are on the record. Um, all of the restraints and penalties for violating those restraints if anything on the record, I don't know as we look at the database conclusion here that we can say definitively, that it. 511 02:24:24.005 --> 02:24:44.075 Less likely unless often for a profile for below the previous, you're loading of the circuit based on two data points, one difference, I don't know that, that is a professionally valid. 512 02:24:44.464 --> 02:24:51.454 I'm not sure that, that's something that the folks that licenses as engineers would see as a. 513 02:24:52.775 --> 02:25:13.895 True statement or one that is justifiable under engineering judgment, so I would caution to folks putting these things together that if they're going to put database conclusions into their slides, they'd be sufficient rigour to withstand really picking those language apart and making sure. 514 02:25:13.899 --> 02:25:21.214 That they are the monster blue true and would reflect defensible engineering judgment. 515 02:25:38.134 --> 02:25:56.194 Hey, Justin, Brian's still here in Africa. Can I just ask for clarification on what you just said. So the, the example that is on the screen here, uh, you know, less like the right side looks at the two hundred and eight where the green and the blue, but really they're both very. 516 02:25:56.704 --> 02:26:03.544 With high granularity and on the right side the green curve is I guess monthly vary and so. 517 02:26:04.715 --> 02:26:25.265 If, if these weren't load data, just random curves, it would be mathematically provable that because there was a, a gap between the green curve and the blue curve. You've opened up space between the two that probability wise. It's a lot less likely that some variation in the blue. 518 02:26:26.553 --> 02:26:46.653 Some deviation blue curve would go below the green, right? The further south, the green curve moves away from the blue curve, you add margin and so you're less likely for some change in the blue to then deploy the green. I think Sky's numbers or whoever came with these numbers, prove that in the text, right? On the one side, it was sixty- three. 519 02:26:46.984 --> 02:26:58.414 Of the year, and then by going into monthly, it was only nine percent is your point that if we look at that across not just one feeder or node thousands of features that the result may be different. 520 02:27:03.124 --> 02:27:20.794 broadly speaking as it would seem like their conclusions being made here that exceed the quality of the data available. We're talking about a probability of something we're asserting a pattern that, uh, that has a probability. So it's less likely. 521 02:27:20.824 --> 02:27:41.944 Less often to fall below the previous year, which is what the hosting capacity is based on, we're conflating net load profile comparisons with hosting capacities and we're searching a pattern that is universal. 522 02:27:41.974 --> 02:28:02.674 Based on two years worth of data on a single circuit. So these, those are areas of which we want to be cautious to assert that we're on solid ground to make an engineering judgment call and that was my only point I really want to get into the details of this particular curve as examples prior. 523 02:28:03.365 --> 02:28:17.585 I just want to make sure to reiterate that if we're going to put something after the word conclusion that we've got a defensible rationale to get there. 524 02:28:36.094 --> 02:28:37.924 Justin, if I may, um. 525 02:28:39.760 --> 02:28:49.775 So, um, I think that's a, that's a fair statement. Um, I guess I would just ask, um. 526 02:28:51.394 --> 02:29:11.314 Where, where is that bar at, in terms of, of proving through data, I guess is the gap still about, cause I think we've [...] of all showed load deviations that can be created or exist on circuits from, from one year to the next year. 527 02:29:12.189 --> 02:29:25.714 Is the gap that remains now showing that Delta could then correlate to a voltage violation on the system. 528 02:29:30.304 --> 02:29:48.844 But I think as usual Scott has put it more eloquently than I, um, where we need to get to is an understanding of whether or not these things we're putting on the screen, which clearly are indicative whether or not. 529 02:29:49.655 --> 02:30:09.965 They translate into actual system issues and with what probability that would occur at a certain magnitude. So really getting putting together a statistically valid frame that gives us a particular confidence interval as the meeting has spoken to. 530 02:30:11.225 --> 02:30:31.145 That we can look at it and say, okay, at a ninety percent confidence interval or whatever the confidence interval is we can expect that we will have an actual system issue of this magnitude because these, these are indicative data. 531 02:30:32.134 --> 02:30:52.264 Particularly when we're looking at in that load profiles and translating those to [...] ratings, I'm not saying it doesn't have any value, but it doesn't get us across the threshold of understanding the risk that we're looking at. the overarching theme is understanding. 532 02:30:52.299 --> 02:31:13.444 The, the benefit versus the risk. I think Amanda has done, um, much appreciated job in demonstrating exactly what sort of benefit Mighty crew under the two hundred and eighty s- circumstance. thanks guys given a good articulation of why. 533 02:31:15.034 --> 02:31:34.354 The twelve and the two hundred and eighty eight. Well they may have some similarities in this kind of analysis. The twelve has characteristics, that would be market impediments or could be market impediments, but the two hundred and eight was not. So were there was a case being built. 534 02:31:34.625 --> 02:31:44.615 On the benefit of going in a particular direction, but there's not a commensurate understanding of what the risk entailed by going in. That direction would be. 535 02:31:45.905 --> 02:31:54.035 And these data while appreciative and indicative, I don't think answer that question, unless there's something I'm missing. I think that's where we need to get to. 536 02:32:12.604 --> 02:32:14.194 I guess this is Roger. 537 02:32:14.764 --> 02:32:15.094 Yeah. 538 02:32:15.604 --> 02:32:27.724 I agree with all those statements. I think the problem I think it is, is, is lies in the time, meaning like we. 539 02:32:28.745 --> 02:32:48.785 We were talking earlier with Michael, we will need months of work to be able to run Icaay, um, both yours and do the comparison that will really give us all the information. I think what we're looking for. So at this point, as you said, it's indications. 540 02:32:49.354 --> 02:33:10.474 What could happen not notice that this, the goal not a, not a nice statistical set of inflammation, really good, indication of what could happen, but it's really just don't have enough time at least at least for IC to run the appropriately in simple sets to. 541 02:33:10.504 --> 02:33:12.544 Be able to do both. 542 02:33:17.674 --> 02:33:35.854 Listen mistaken per conversation. How to do with running all of them, and I think that, that would be unnecessary and wasteful, I think we can draw on representative statistics in a manner that I mean, um, suggested, maybe it's, maybe the next step is having a meeting to discuss what it wasn't. 543 02:33:35.884 --> 02:33:38.134 He was suggesting exactly, um. 544 02:33:59.435 --> 02:34:02.135 Justin, I'm happy to discuss that if that's what's being asked for. 545 02:34:14.644 --> 02:34:30.214 Okay, so, um, unless there are any other questions, I think we could, uh, take a five minute break. Um, and I'm sure in the break time to five minutes, uh, due to timing, although we do have buffer at the end of, uh. 546 02:34:31.025 --> 02:34:51.965 Today's workshop, um, I do remind, uh, you know, if there are any, uh, topics or that you'd like to see for the next workshop, based on this discussion, do email me and I'll definitely put it on the list. This workshop will be available on. 547 02:34:52.000 --> 02:34:57.695 Line, probably within a couple of days, so everybody will be free to review it. 548 02:40:51.514 --> 02:40:52.174 Thank you. 549 02:40:55.174 --> 02:40:58.144 And we could start bringing the utility slide deck again. 550 02:41:05.704 --> 02:41:14.794 And we'll be starting with slide deck slide number, twelve topic II, thank you very much. 551 02:41:22.115 --> 02:41:24.365 Okay, do we have the utilities back? 552 02:41:27.634 --> 02:41:28.714 We presented this section. 553 02:41:29.494 --> 02:41:30.934 Okay, all right. 554 02:41:33.904 --> 02:41:36.844 So everybody else is here. 555 02:41:38.374 --> 02:41:41.944 So I think we can resume go ahead Roger. 556 02:41:42.754 --> 02:41:46.054 Sounds good, thank you. Very much. Wouldn't go to the next slide. 557 02:41:48.274 --> 02:42:08.734 So this was, this was an outcome from, from, from the meeting that we have workshop one where we were discussing possibilities of using this existing technology to implement [...]. 558 02:42:09.485 --> 02:42:30.215 And auto that meeting for the folks that can't remember that we had, we've had a pretty good discussion as to what's possible, what's not possible, and out of that meeting, uh, an action item came to us to go and investigate what, uh, what is out there in industry in terms of, uh. 559 02:42:30.485 --> 02:42:51.395 Available technology today to implement [...]. So between the, the workshop one and workshop two, we did that, uh, and now as, you know, so we, we consulted with some folks here, uh, Brian and John, thank you very much for your support here. Um, and amongst amongst many other. 560 02:42:51.424 --> 02:43:12.514 Members of industry. Uh, we also present to some of our findings, uh, in the February sixteen twenty- three, um, SWIG, uh, and so some of those, uh, you know, high level bullet points are there in terms of, uh, in terms of, um, um, what was discussed in this. 561 02:43:12.574 --> 02:43:33.124 Okay, um, so let's see, um, just background. I mean, this is this comfortable about the twenty thousand nine hundred and forty- five one hundred and fifteen, and fifty- one, uh, that requires the implementation of LGB further. This was part of the resolution where, where, um. 562 02:43:33.784 --> 02:43:54.844 To issue to resolve the issue. Nine, we're obligated to explore, uh, hard to implement [...] options before standards are approved or [...] and establish a mechanism for validating the proposed profiles. Um, let's see. um, uh, let's see the [...]. 563 02:43:54.850 --> 02:44:15.725 Determine which functional elements are already already present in commercially available in borders, which are not to establish the [...] functionality prior to the approved standards, and this is more specifically utilizing functions three and functions eight from this morning, border set of functions. 564 02:44:16.594 --> 02:44:37.084 Um, again, from workshop one, we were directed to engage, uh, industry to industry experts to further explore what is available to establish a [...] with our development of the [...] standards, and, um, and then we presented some of those findings in the workshop. 565 02:44:37.474 --> 02:44:38.614 Let's see, um. 566 02:45:00.200 --> 02:45:21.345 The, uh, the profiles for the, uh, uh, for, uh, residential systems for which we responded that the [...] is mainly for the [...] systems, and so most most residential customers are connected in a single face and therefore the, uh, the, the, like, likelihood of you seen the. 567 02:45:21.349 --> 02:45:31.484 The, um, the control systems for residential, ah, for IC purposes, it's probably not there. Um, let's see what else, um. 568 02:45:32.655 --> 02:45:53.505 Let's see the... there were some comments regarding the utilization of individual, uh, individuals certified devices without sort of find entire operations or for the whole group, um, for which we responded that, that was a concern for us, and the reason why we have indicated us needing additional investigations and investigation in some of those. 569 02:45:53.804 --> 02:46:14.894 Areas that North or those systems that work together and they're, they're individually certified, but together, we're not sure how they want to operate, uh, the, the ownership and the control of the [...] data was discussed for which they are use, um, um, uh, let's see for which, um, they use discuss the [...] will be up. 570 02:46:14.929 --> 02:46:36.074 [...], [...] the interconnection process using a template, which is currently being discussed as part of these workshops, once approved, the condition of customer would be responsible for the ownership control in up in the application or [...]. Um, and there was really not that many comments in regards to the takeaways that. 571 02:46:36.079 --> 02:46:57.194 It will show in the next slide and just a note there, uh, you know, disclaimer that the information that, that present that we present here is really based on our best understanding of the system capabilities and so as we understand the, the systems even further, then we may need additional additional investigation or additional risk. 572 02:46:57.229 --> 02:47:18.104 [...] it's go to the next slide. Uh, whoever's driving. So, uh, in this concept, in this discussions with, uh, discuss three possible, uh, six possible options and we'll, I'll discuss them in an aggregate manner for, for the one, two and three options, but. 573 02:47:19.334 --> 02:47:39.524 Essentially, uh, it has to do with what type of systems, um, um, you know, got a couple of things. One is where's the output measure whether it's measure at the terminals of the [...] or as Michelle or measured other BCC, uh, whereas the two [...]. 574 02:47:39.555 --> 02:48:00.675 P- store w- you know, where's the eighty seven hundred and sixty LGB store because again the two eighty eight is, is twenty- four hours per month, but eventually that twenty- four hours per month needs to be translated to eighty seven hundred and sixty or twenty- four hours every day of the year. 575 02:48:00.704 --> 02:48:21.824 Or so that every day, the, the, uh, the, the system is limiting the generation to that particular hour, uh, of the year, right? So there has to be a way as to like, wait to either create or translate the [...] two hundred eighty seven sixty [...], then of course the applicable stand. 576 02:48:21.855 --> 02:48:42.195 There's, you know, we have the system gateways that, uh, the [...], um, um, the gateways, the servers, um, the Yosemite forty one is SE and as we standards, um, through addition and so each one of these roles has, has the know the specific applicable standards. 577 02:48:43.664 --> 02:49:04.124 And then there's the high level takeaway. So for, so for the first three, the ones that use this, the, uh, the server and gateway, uh, our understanding was that technology may be available out there. Um, but, um, you know, integration of that technology to me. 578 02:49:04.129 --> 02:49:25.244 Make these [...] work as, you know, nice nice, nice, additional validation and testing, and then for the option to where now you're using the, the gateway, the server in a PC, A. P. A PCS to control the output of the BCC. 579 02:49:25.935 --> 02:49:46.425 That technology application may be available possible in industry, but from my understanding, it was not an option that industry was moving forward to make make it available and then option number three talks about the control power, the BCC, you've seen, you've seen the certified [...] with the inner. 580 02:49:46.429 --> 02:50:00.674 Great schedule that, um, that does standards currently being worked on and probably be ready by [...] or two thousand and twenty- three. So those are the high level takeaways, um, and you know, anytime anybody has a question, please let me know. 581 02:50:02.804 --> 02:50:04.724 Please go to the next slide. 582 02:50:07.365 --> 02:50:27.075 So this, this is one of three that I'm going to generalize the first three options are from the technology perspective is sort of the same other than where, where is this schedule stored? So the, in this concept is the schedule or the, the [...]. 583 02:50:27.344 --> 02:50:48.464 Uh, uh, profile would we store, uh, the, uh, the certify, uh, server that would, um, that server would send the, the two hundred and eighty eight to the certified gateway, who would then translate or create the eight hundred seven hundred and sixty out of the [...] profile. 584 02:50:48.494 --> 02:51:09.614 Well, in, at each hour of that eight hundred and sixty- cents, a limit, a limit command to the inverters. So again, the, uh, the additional investigation that's needed here is the fact that the, that is the, the [...] certified gateway. So it's only certified hundred and twenty- four. 585 02:51:09.644 --> 02:51:30.734 Hours, I mean, I'm sure it can be one thousand nine hundred and sixty hours, but it hasn't me certified to do that, Um, putting, you know, having all these systems work together in terms of, um, you know, making sure that each one does what he's supposed to be doing, um, making sure that the gateway, uh, um, uh, translates at two hundred and seven. 586 02:51:30.795 --> 02:51:51.915 Two eighty, eight, two hundred and seven hundred and sixty, and then understanding potential potential issues with communication, you know, communication problems. Um, so, so this is option one, a- where, again, that the [...] server only stores at [...] and sends the, the two. 587 02:51:51.944 --> 02:52:00.464 [...] to the gateway. The next version, if you go to the next slide is a little bit different. Again, this is, uh, groups backwards. 588 02:52:03.915 --> 02:52:24.075 momma for it. Yeah, so this one is where the [...] could hold a two hundred and eight and the eight hundred seven hundred and sixty and it sends the entire eight hundred and sixty- two, the system gateway, and again, once it gets to the gateway, now the gateway responsible to send him the communications to each inverter, again, some areas that need additional investigation as well. 589 02:52:24.645 --> 02:52:30.045 And then the third option is where the, um, if you go to the next slide, please. 590 02:52:32.684 --> 02:52:52.544 Where the [...], uh, server, uh, stores everything and only sends one command at a time to the [...] gateway, which would then release that to the borders without any additional time delay. Uh, all of these options I. 591 02:52:52.574 --> 02:53:13.664 What I, what I heard from industry is that, uh, these are these one on- one are split by not going to be one that's very feasible. Also the one we're there, you know, the, the, the server's sending the eighty seven hundred and sixty- spinal feasible. Instead it could be something else could be every week. The, the server since, uh, the [...]. 592 02:53:13.725 --> 02:53:23.685 The, the schedule for that week or a month at a time, and so on that end of the day, that would be something that the integrator would have to figure out right? 593 02:53:25.304 --> 02:53:46.124 Let's see, so, so this suddenly going to the next, uh, next slide. Uh, it's the concept of now this is measurement that a BCC. So the previous three were just examples of how systems could be set up to control the up order of how the, uh, the murderer on the board of terminal. this is now. 594 02:53:47.024 --> 02:54:07.244 Which is, you know, like the [...], this was been up was here's what the [...] is intended to be doing, which is measurement at the BCC, which is then controlled by, by your [...] device. So in this concept, again, the three things scenarios as before, except that the certified gateway. 595 02:54:07.305 --> 02:54:28.425 sends the, um, the command to a- your [...] device of what we currently have certification for which is, uh, one value, uh, input who knows. So it's not, it's not the same. It's not the, the whole profile is just one value. So the [...] device gets the [...]. 596 02:54:28.429 --> 02:54:49.574 [...] from the, from the Gateway elaborate on that value until he's told to do something else and so, uh, so from that end, from that perspective, the gateway is sending the [...] device. The limit for each hour, and then the [...] device then measures the power of the [...]. 597 02:54:49.580 --> 02:55:10.725 [...], and if the power is more than what it's supposed to be then sends the, the [...] command to, to ramp it down if it's, um, if it's lower than it then needs to be then doesn't need to do anything or it could tell the imburse to increase the output, right? So the point is that now you're introducing and. 598 02:55:10.729 --> 02:55:31.874 [...] device between the [...] gateway to the inverters that, but now the, now it's measuring the measure, measuring the point they'll come on company and again, the concerns here is the sort of the same as before whether the gateway will have the ability to eighty seventy sixty or storage seventy- sixty by real. 599 02:55:31.904 --> 02:55:53.024 He is having all of these systems working together. You'll PCs, I'm getting input from the gateway and sending it out to the borders. We know that these devices get certified to do what they need to do individually. So the, in boarders, they, they get served, they get certified under the U. S. seven hundred and forty- one essay or SB two basically say. 600 02:55:53.655 --> 02:56:14.175 If you give me this value, I want to operate this value. Same thing with a [...] BCS and, and then same thing with the system. So all of them are individually certified to do their thing now working together. I think that's where we need to do further investigation and then same thing we'll go to the next next slide. Uh, so this was one. 601 02:56:14.204 --> 02:56:35.324 Option where the, where the server was stored, the [...] and send it to eighty eight to the system. Uh, in this, in this example, number two, it's worth and again, the [...] server has both the two hundred and eight and the eighty- seven hundred and sixty, and since the, the each hour to the [...] gateway, right? Just like before. 602 02:56:35.330 --> 02:56:56.475 Or, and then let's go to the last one, which is, we're the certified server sends the [...] to the, the certified gateway. The point is that there's going to be really an integrator question as to how they're going to do that. I'm told that the, the setting a one hour one by. 603 02:56:56.504 --> 02:57:17.594 You every hour explaining the best way to do it in Kansas. The possible communication problems, but also sending the whole package already. Seven sixty may not be a- might may not be viable either, so it is likely there'll be more of a, like weekly or monthly batches from. 604 02:57:17.629 --> 02:57:38.714 The [...] server to the center to the [...] sort of a gateway and then of course the system gateway then proceeds an hourly basis to send the information to the BCs and so on, and then the last slide I think is really what we're looking for, which has, or what, what we sort of prefer, which is. 605 02:57:39.045 --> 02:57:59.925 Have an integrated PCs with the, um, with the integrated schedule, so something whether it's a computer or, or some other, some other way, you know, it's a, it's, um, it's used to upload the, the two hundred and eight and the eight hundred seven hundred and sixty- s. 606 02:57:59.929 --> 02:58:21.074 [...] into the BCS that, that BCS would then send the commands to the inverters on an hourly basis and it will have a reoccurring per year, unless, unless something changes, um, you know, we talked about what those changes could be, but unless something changes where, where. 607 02:58:21.105 --> 02:58:42.225 That device needs to have a new schedule, You will just continue to do the same thing year by year. So, so those are the, I mean, again, this is where we're still working on the standard Q. Q two or twenty- three twenty- twenty three. What I'm, what I'm told. So, so this. 608 02:58:42.229 --> 02:59:03.374 Has been done not that far away. I mean, we're already in the middle of [...], so it's not that far away and so, so, so these are the options that, you know, again, from industry, in some of the information from industry that we gather, let's go to the next one. I can see what we have. Their testing terms of implementation. 609 02:59:03.404 --> 02:59:06.554 Of [...], what is it that we need? 610 02:59:07.635 --> 02:59:28.755 Regardless as to which technology is available or not, right? Well, of course we need to update our rule twenty- one they're off to operationalize this MVP, and so we're going through these workshops, today's the second workshop, there's one more possibly more workshops that we need to be able to resolve all these. 611 02:59:28.784 --> 02:59:49.334 Issues and once you know that, then we were submitting an advisor which I believe is due May first two thousand and twenty- three, and then after that, once, once it's approved, then we will update our rule. Twenty- one are open to one therapy and at that point we were like night night, we were like, nine months after that. 612 02:59:49.910 --> 03:00:11.025 To be able to implement the L. G. P. A itself. So, so we still got some more work to do and hopefully by then option three, what I was discussing earlier would already be in place as opposed to, you know, using other systems, but, but again, that's, that's really our investigation on. 613 03:00:11.084 --> 03:00:19.964 So I'm not sure there's any questions or, or other members of that working group to provide input. So, so please, um, please go ahead if there's any questions. 614 03:00:23.895 --> 03:00:24.915 Frank has a question. 615 03:00:25.275 --> 03:00:31.845 Yeah, thanks Jose and Roger, thank you for that presentation. Can we go to slide twenty one? 616 03:00:36.074 --> 03:00:55.544 Um, so this diagram, I think, yeah, this works for me from the way I think, but it's easy to get that, um, that measurement from, from the PCC with that one. Current transformer they're measuring there. 617 03:00:56.474 --> 03:01:12.584 But our, our input today was that we have to get, we have to get the data down here. Complete from these load breakers. That's the real key, just getting data from the PCCC kind of. 618 03:01:15.284 --> 03:01:35.654 Mix mix the data in pure, you know, so it's a, it mixes in this [...] stuff. So somehow we have to get to this, these load breakers and so that might mean more [...] to some of the cities that the load breaker or to take the. 619 03:01:35.660 --> 03:01:56.535 The value at the PCCC and subtract out the DVR levels to get to get back to that correlation between what is that flow on the PCCC versus what is, what is the, uh, the demand right there At that, at that bus. 620 03:01:58.034 --> 03:02:17.954 Yes, so the intent here is, all of this is be, is behind the meter, right? And the intent here is that a customer has generation and load where the generation exceeds the load. The customer could. 621 03:02:19.875 --> 03:02:37.185 Export the access generation back to the grid in that concept, then there is no need to make sure the load breakers because the only thing that really matters is, was going back to the grid, um. 622 03:02:37.875 --> 03:02:57.855 So the generators could serve the local load and that really, I mean that impacts to the grid. I mean, we talked about that before, but, but what really matters is, was going back to the grid and the [...] intended to be exporting back to the grid. 623 03:02:59.774 --> 03:03:19.604 So, no, I don't know that we really need to make sure that put additional cities and the load breakers because really what we're talking about is the net export. Um, there are some other topics of an interesting discussion that, for instance, this load that we're seeing here. 624 03:03:20.055 --> 03:03:33.255 Was incorporated in terms of what's incorporated to determine the actual the actual [...] values, And so now when we only look measuring the, the export. 625 03:03:35.564 --> 03:03:56.504 That can potentially be problematic because we were when we calculated how much generation you can put this electrical node, we were counting on and the load shown here. So, for instance, let's say the loads, one Megawatt and that was model to calculate the low rate and the. 626 03:03:57.044 --> 03:04:17.804 The, um, calculate the, uh, the, uh, the ACA values, um, and uh, because of that we said, okay, this location has the ability to accept two megawatts of generation. Well, now that, now that we measure it this way, there's a possibility that you actually put three. 627 03:04:17.834 --> 03:04:38.834 Male was a generation which could potentially be a problem, but, you know, we're, we're thinking this is not going to be, these doesn't happen very often, most, most of our customers that we think are gonna be using this type of system are going to be likely generation only type of projects where, where there's really no significant facility. 628 03:04:39.435 --> 03:04:41.985 And I hope that was not too confusing. 629 03:04:45.284 --> 03:04:52.844 But the bottom line, I think what I'm saying is that for this situation you do not need to make sure the low breaks cause we're talking about measurement of the BCC. 630 03:05:00.434 --> 03:05:02.354 Any follow up from that Frank and let me. 631 03:05:02.834 --> 03:05:10.214 Know, Roger, I'm, I'm still educating myself on, on this topic, but, um. 632 03:05:11.444 --> 03:05:11.654 Okay. 633 03:05:13.484 --> 03:05:18.914 Um, other than that, cause I'm not sure if there's any questions from anybody in the chat or anywhere. 634 03:05:20.684 --> 03:05:22.904 I see, uh, Brian Lyrics, Hannah. 635 03:05:23.684 --> 03:05:24.674 Brian, Brian. 636 03:05:25.604 --> 03:05:33.944 Yes, so I just wanted to pinpoint one issue that has a reason that I don't know that we have a good resolution for, or. 637 03:05:33.950 --> 03:05:54.615 Or idea of a solution as of yet, Is that the power control system certification might be more challenging for these larger systems with multiple different components and, you know, potentially with different manufacturers and whatnot, and so we haven't pinpointed whether we need to look at an additional pathway. 638 03:05:55.274 --> 03:05:58.814 You know, that might be exclusive of PCs as well. 639 03:06:05.355 --> 03:06:09.465 Brian, can you explain a little bit more? So. 640 03:06:11.055 --> 03:06:31.725 I think first of all, I want to say the reason why Brian pointed that out because I noticed him because I want to recognize that one of the big things that I already said earlier is that we need to create a program that somebody can use and the more a lot of the restraints that we're discussing, which are all based on, you know, legitimate areas. 641 03:06:31.844 --> 03:06:52.814 Inquiry and concern all lead to a program that becomes more and more constrained in terms of who can utilize it and as Roger has said, because of the net metering cost waiver for projects below one, we don't anticipate at this time, without lots of. 642 03:06:52.934 --> 03:07:13.934 Their program changes outside of twenty one that predicts below one megawatt, at least the meter ones would use that. So we're likely looking at projects above one megawatt whether they are net meter or meaning they do have onsite load or they don't have onsite load in our front of the meter so forthcoming communities. 643 03:07:14.114 --> 03:07:34.994 Our projects which means that if we don't have a solution for scheduling that is particularly viable for those projects that we are heading down a pathway of identifying a program that nobody can utilize. So I think that we're in agreement. 644 03:07:35.655 --> 03:07:56.355 And Roger, thank you very much for laying out all of this so. well, with about the challenges and the potential of the different technologies, but we haven't gotten to the point where we're really having a directed conversation about the solution to that problem that what happens for projects that actually are most likely to use this, and is there a way in. 645 03:07:56.360 --> 03:08:15.915 The process and the time we have to identify a viable solution for that in my opinion. That's what I think we should be spending our time on today is really focusing very closely on. Is there a viable pathway for the projects that could potentially do an [...] from a scheduling control standpoint. 646 03:08:18.224 --> 03:08:38.384 Yeah, so my understanding from, from John, I'm not sure if he's nicole [...] wants to come in directly. is that there is no limitation on, on the size or, or who can, or the size for the [...] device. In other words, any size can certified. I think there may be a cost implication. 647 03:08:39.314 --> 03:08:46.094 But, you know, any size could be certified. It's John, Can I put you on the spot there? Is that a correct statement? 648 03:08:47.024 --> 03:08:59.564 Sure, Roger, yeah, that's correct. The [...], [...] does not have a size limit the system, however today is written. 649 03:08:59.809 --> 03:09:00.614 It requires you to. 650 03:09:00.614 --> 03:09:00.944 Test. 651 03:09:00.944 --> 03:09:02.924 System configuration. 652 03:09:04.394 --> 03:09:25.184 Um, since we're relying on [...], uh, there has been quite a bit of discussion. Could we, uh, testing at the maximum configuration? Could we get a signal injection method methods to validate the performance of the system and it is a cost issue. 653 03:09:28.484 --> 03:09:39.134 Customer certification, it's very expensive to run very large system a URL, or, or any really expensive to do that. 654 03:09:40.364 --> 03:09:41.864 That's why it's being discussed. 655 03:09:43.394 --> 03:10:00.344 John and Brian, can you help me understand a little bit what we're talking about from a individual? Is this certification for a single project or this is a system that would be repeated over and over. I asked that because I honestly don't. 656 03:10:00.524 --> 03:10:09.974 Really understand, but also because I'm trying to understand what kind of costs we're talking about, and, um, does that make sense? My question. 657 03:10:11.865 --> 03:10:32.775 Scott, this is what we call a type test. It's done of a representative sample of equipment and it's done at the middle or it can be witnessed by the needle nationally recognized testing lab at the manufacturer's facility and it is in. 658 03:10:32.869 --> 03:10:45.044 tended to be a huge broadly, you know, at any particular site, um, it is not a site specific, um, uh, test that has to be repeated at this location. 659 03:10:47.204 --> 03:10:53.744 Yeah, so this will be useful for developers that intend to do many projects, right? I mean. 660 03:10:54.045 --> 03:11:15.165 Or, well, maybe maybe I would say not developers, but, uh, uh, manufacturers that intend to sell many of these products, right? Because you may be expensive to do certification for the product itself, but once it's there, then it can be used for many projects, so you wouldn't be doing certification for. 661 03:11:15.194 --> 03:11:25.874 Or for one device for one project, that would be way too expensive in a very useful, but instead a product gets certified and then a product gets useful over over many years to come, right? 662 03:11:28.214 --> 03:11:46.184 So, Brian, why is that difficult at the larger scale? Is it because the projects are more variable and therefore a sort of product, right? Designing a singular product that can get tested would be more difficult. 663 03:11:49.004 --> 03:11:49.034 I. 664 03:11:49.034 --> 03:12:08.744 Think John pointed to some of the issues that might might be challenging just for large scale testing needs, you know, the more, the more power you have a more challenging and the testing is, but also potentially just having different components, like, maybe you've got an energy storage system by one manufacturer and a PV system. 665 03:12:09.224 --> 03:12:29.894 By another manufacturer you would need to have those things tested together and if the power control system is made by the TV manufacturer, they may not be thinking of testing the system with the energy storage somebody else's energy storage system. So there's potentially more components that would come into play. 666 03:12:30.224 --> 03:12:42.404 From, from various manufacturers that could be. Yeah, that would need to be tested together in order to be utilized as a certified system. So that's, that's another aspect of that. 667 03:12:43.574 --> 03:12:45.764 So it would essentially constrain. 668 03:12:48.230 --> 03:13:03.945 The individual system designs for those larger scale systems, they would only be out that they'd have to have all of those different components available at the same time and work for their system because what you're saying other or lots of different tests for all the thousands of different variations that could occur. 669 03:13:05.115 --> 03:13:09.345 Yeah, so with I guess we don't have it in California, but we've. 670 03:13:09.704 --> 03:13:30.524 In our batteries project, we tried to have a, a final options for compliance with limited export systems that is more open- ended compliance because there's going to be potentially lots of different ways to do this, and I've heard that there, there may be the spoke energy management system. 671 03:13:30.674 --> 03:13:38.834 As well, that are programs for that site, specifically, and those things would be challenging to certify as well. 672 03:13:41.444 --> 03:13:41.834 Okay. 673 03:13:42.644 --> 03:13:43.964 So I have just a. 674 03:13:43.964 --> 03:13:44.474 clarifying. 675 03:13:44.474 --> 03:13:53.534 Question, so in terms of cost, we're talking about the cost of using option three, correct. 676 03:13:55.544 --> 03:14:01.544 Yeah, so I, at least for me option three is again one that is coming in my opinion. 677 03:14:02.835 --> 03:14:12.015 Q- two thousand and twenty- three, which is probably gonna take us how long it will take us to go through all these workshops and update the, the rule twenty- one. Uh, so it seems to me that, that. 678 03:14:14.925 --> 03:14:35.355 Or most most feasible option. The other options I, I think still that will require additional testing again, just because you got so many systems that need to work together. They are independent dependency certified, but they, they need to work together and Gus. 679 03:14:35.414 --> 03:14:37.154 I think that's the area that concerns is the most. 680 03:14:38.355 --> 03:14:46.455 Okay, but then with the costs for the other options, be lesser for those slots for those larger systems, that was the point. 681 03:14:47.085 --> 03:14:47.115 I. 682 03:14:47.115 --> 03:14:47.925 Was trying to get to. 683 03:14:48.585 --> 03:14:51.585 Yeah, I don't know to be honest. I don't know the answer to that. 684 03:14:54.794 --> 03:14:55.634 Does anybody know. 685 03:14:56.924 --> 03:14:59.234 This is a question. Can you guys hear me? 686 03:15:00.974 --> 03:15:01.904 Go ahead Christian. 687 03:15:03.464 --> 03:15:04.244 So you can hear me. 688 03:15:08.384 --> 03:15:28.844 For me, the, you know, the PCs, first of all the timeline, I think, and this is my personal opinion with Q two, two thousand and twenty- three, if somebody knows the [...] processes, so it's so really optimistic to have something there and my opinion is. 689 03:15:29.024 --> 03:15:48.824 Especially for bigger systems, and I think it's necessary to make the differentiation between, you know, normal systems and systems speaker. One megabytes, uh, the option one, what you had presented before I think gifts already a lot of possibilities for scheduling. 690 03:15:50.865 --> 03:16:11.235 And it's probably also a cost efficient, uh, method for, uh, manufacturers to provide us because we know already be there functions where you can limit the export or the production system or the only thing what you would have to approve is that. 691 03:16:11.295 --> 03:16:13.785 A system like this could follow a schedule. 692 03:16:17.564 --> 03:16:31.034 Right, yeah, and then obviously the other limitation for option ones, the, the, the, the, the option one is that is the controlling the output or the, or the inverters, um, not necessarily the BCC, um, as well. 693 03:16:31.094 --> 03:16:36.614 This is correct, but the output on the [...] would be always smaller equal. 694 03:16:37.094 --> 03:16:39.614 To the production of any device. 695 03:16:40.634 --> 03:16:57.794 I agree with that. I wanted to point out that, that most most, you know, I believe this, uh, the discussion has always been export the BCC, but in the limitations will be at the [...], but, but yes, if you limit the, the terminal sodium borders, then that would meet. 696 03:16:57.825 --> 03:16:58.575 Requirement as well. 697 03:17:01.635 --> 03:17:21.765 There was an email discussion for brought up another configuration that included in realtime automation controller and I didn't understand, I didn't have time to read through it fully to understand it, but I'm also curious as to whether, you know, something like option one could be leveraged, but also to manage export through the. 698 03:17:21.770 --> 03:17:42.915 The addition of other equipment, like an architect and a relay or something like that. Um, and are we stretching the, the verbiage of certified systems or what exactly are constraints in terms of, Yeah, staying within currently certified systems, but it certainly does seem that. 699 03:17:43.394 --> 03:18:01.934 There are things within the currently certified and tested constraints that, that we can leverage in the meantime and just keeping the options open as much as possible, especially for those larger systems seems to make some sense. 700 03:18:02.804 --> 03:18:04.034 Yeah, we went back to one or. 701 03:18:04.069 --> 03:18:12.464 The figures, uh, maybe on the initial that'd be great for that. Um, if you can scroll back to one of the initial for years. 702 03:18:17.384 --> 03:18:19.934 whoever's driving can cause someone to go back to the. 703 03:18:24.164 --> 03:18:43.544 Yeah, backwards, yeah, no, but, but one additional ones. Yeah, one more one. Yeah, this is probably good. No back one, but one more we're not, we're not BCS. Yeah, this is probably good for now. So Brian to your question that discussion had to do with and. 704 03:18:43.575 --> 03:19:04.695 The potential limitation here, which is the system gateway may not be able to send commands to, to in borders for instance, and so the, the, uh, the comment for that using an attack was potentially taking the output from the gateway to the [...], and then the ARC are doing the, the separate. 705 03:19:04.700 --> 03:19:25.725 [...], all of that input into one one hosting to the multiple numbers. Um, yeah, could you add the, the, the output of the BCC, ah, maybe, but, um, but, but for that particular backend for email, it was more about how do you break this, you know, the single, a single app with the system. 706 03:19:25.874 --> 03:19:32.204 Way and break it up into multiple commands to do multiple [...]. So. 707 03:19:36.314 --> 03:19:55.424 Roger, this Steve [...], I think we talked about this before that we really shouldn't be showing these as individual pieces of equipment that are separate blocks, but they're functions, and so to answer your question on this one, if there was a gateway, then that's a. 708 03:19:55.460 --> 03:20:16.575 [...] site gateway. And it's translating from [...] two thousand and thirteen point five to maybe some other protocol and if it has to talk to multiple inverters, then it'll probably do that through the Power plant controller. So if there's multiple inverters that these large sites, there's a power plant controller. So either all these functions. 709 03:20:16.609 --> 03:20:28.514 Will be combined into a power plant controller or it might be a separate box, so it's a gateway that talks only to the power plant controller, which then sends signals to all the converters. 710 03:20:29.114 --> 03:20:37.424 Right, right, thank you Steven. Yeah, and I think that goes to the point that additional investigation needs to happen, right? I mean, we're introducing a. 711 03:20:38.714 --> 03:20:55.994 A power plant controller or an attack and none of that has been tested, right? So, so that, that goes to just the, the, um, the, the comment that we need to find ways to do additional investigation of this particular operation. 712 03:20:56.684 --> 03:20:58.904 Roger, what does that invest? 713 03:20:58.909 --> 03:21:00.314 Station look like. 714 03:21:00.764 --> 03:21:19.574 Well, I think it would be a labs me. I know that we, we've done some work with particular manufacturers on labs that could be that coding Delta. Um, if there's some, you know, there's a manufacturer that has these type of systems and potentially we. 715 03:21:20.084 --> 03:21:27.284 Good work with our manufacturer to, uh, to verify performance in labs that, that, that could be one way. 716 03:21:27.524 --> 03:21:28.034 Is that. 717 03:21:30.344 --> 03:21:31.904 Project locations that could also be. 718 03:21:32.774 --> 03:21:43.694 So with the upcoming [...] funding opportunity to get the national lab to do work. Is this something that might be able to fit within that we could get. 719 03:21:44.384 --> 03:21:44.774 Yeah. 720 03:21:44.924 --> 03:21:51.074 Something useful, I don't know if others have thoughts on whether we have designed that said effectively and an. 721 03:21:51.104 --> 03:21:57.884 I think trying to get to not just one manufacturer, but like something that you told, these could rely on more holistically. 722 03:22:00.194 --> 03:22:06.794 Yeah, maybe I'm not too familiar with the program, but it does seem to be like a good program to take a look at. Yes. 723 03:22:12.464 --> 03:22:17.204 I guess, let me just follow up on that. So I think, Jose, you. 724 03:22:18.104 --> 03:22:39.014 You had the deal we present on this at the swig or the [...] or whatever the, and I know we circulated this to your Energy division, but it seems to me like this is, this is something that we're, the energy division could engage in. 725 03:22:39.045 --> 03:22:54.915 Trying to get some support from the labs to do some modeling or something and I don't know if this is the highest priority issue or not, but it does seem like we're certainly leading around a potential significant obstacle without some, without a solution. Yeah. 726 03:22:59.624 --> 03:23:03.104 Sounds good, um, any last questions or comments from, from me. 727 03:23:03.614 --> 03:23:17.084 Yeah, thank you, Scott. For that comment. Uh, I did want to point out that. Um, and Roger, thank you for the presentation, but, uh, you know, regardless that the option that you took is prefer. 728 03:23:17.565 --> 03:23:38.235 I did want to point out that the resolution is clear and says that should implementation of the issue nine or proposal and proposal [...] be feasible before approval of standards. The utilities show outlined a clear process and their requirements, including technical. 729 03:23:38.895 --> 03:23:53.955 To be considered in the implementation of the LTP options and the larger you should also establish a mechanism for validating proposed profiles, Implementation of the mechanism is not feasible. 730 03:23:56.384 --> 03:24:16.184 Period if the implementation of this mechanism feasible largely you shall clearly articulate the reasons, but it looks like it is feasible based on the takeaways from the presentation. So I just wanted to remind the utilities that regardless, that. 731 03:24:16.309 --> 03:24:37.124 Whether they prefer option three to the previous ones, they had to follow the letter of the resolution and what's required in the advice letters and especially given that the timing, uh, has Christian pointed out the timing. 732 03:24:37.995 --> 03:24:50.445 I think it was Christian. The timing may not be, you know, I know, uh, you know, the PCS working group is aiming for Q Two, but. 733 03:24:52.334 --> 03:24:55.994 You know, from what I have heard anyway. 734 03:24:58.035 --> 03:25:00.705 That's never a setting concrete. 735 03:25:03.795 --> 03:25:08.175 So those were my comments, Uh, any other questions. 736 03:25:10.454 --> 03:25:30.824 Hey, this is Alex, thanks Roger for the presentation. So the one thing that I, I wanted to point out is, you know, option three may look like it's a, it's favored by the utilities, but this is also considering the interconnection customer experience when we have systems that have been satisfied by the labs. 737 03:25:31.304 --> 03:25:52.184 And, you know, listed either listed on the CC list or the listed on the specific [...] list. No, the interconnection is pretty smooth, right? Usually we assume that the systems are good to go. We do very limited field verification for PCs that have been approved for a single use. I think across the [...]. 738 03:25:52.274 --> 03:26:13.094 As we've been doing verification on a very small number of units, one or a couple, and then once that's completed, those projects can connect, um, when you introduce specific equipment, like a specific relay or a specific article specific, you know, something that's not certified by the, you know, the [...]. 739 03:26:13.785 --> 03:26:34.485 What that means is that we may have to do more field verifications on a project by project basis. This can impact project integration timelines because you have to schedule the field verification. So I just want to point out that it may seem like we're favoring one versus the other, but it's not just from the benefit to the utility. It's also a benefit to the. 740 03:26:34.515 --> 03:26:39.825 The connection customer because it greatly impacts the experience and the interconnection timeline. 741 03:26:41.775 --> 03:26:55.635 Alex, if I can jump in, I think that's a great point, but it's also something, so we're talking about small projects like a couple hundred kilowatts or something that's particularly critical. It seems like as we start to move into the larger scale projects where. 742 03:26:56.864 --> 03:27:16.784 Where the potential issues are lying that, you know, the additional scheduling of testing may not be quite as significant of a hurdle, if especially if we're talking about is not having had to go through a study. there's some trade off and capturing additional value, right? I do think that's a really good point, especially when you're looking at small projects, but maybe as we get into these larger. 743 03:27:16.814 --> 03:27:24.164 Projects, yeah, that additional scheduling of a task may not outweigh the benefit overall. 744 03:27:25.154 --> 03:27:37.844 Good point I just wanted to mention that, and the other thing that may also may be lost in this discussion is that the creation of the [...] was actually intended to sort of be a replacement of a relay for some. 745 03:27:37.939 --> 03:27:38.594 Projects, right? 746 03:27:38.594 --> 03:27:39.584 So, yeah. 747 03:27:42.824 --> 03:27:46.154 For small projects, not for necessarily for larger projects. 748 03:27:46.994 --> 03:27:47.504 Agreed. 749 03:27:52.484 --> 03:27:58.244 Okay, thank you. Any last questions for this segment of the presentation. 750 03:28:02.744 --> 03:28:21.644 So just to be clear, Jose, it's not necessarily looking for your interpretation, but the interpretation of the group, it sounds like based on what you've read from the resolution that a relay and our tech device would be a pathway that could be pursued even though it's. 751 03:28:22.064 --> 03:28:26.894 You know, might not be falling under a specific certification. Is that correct. 752 03:28:32.775 --> 03:28:45.405 And I bring that up just because it seems to be, that is a common solution and, you know, one other place in the country where schedules are happening in Massachusetts, that seems to be the common solution for these large projects. 753 03:28:50.534 --> 03:29:09.464 I don't know if that was a question for everybody. You said the group or, but yeah, I mean the utility resolution is clear that there are other options before the PCS standard is approved and the utilities do need. 754 03:29:09.615 --> 03:29:14.445 To articulate that and how that process would work. 755 03:29:19.934 --> 03:29:32.924 And Brian, if you have more literature on, you'd mentioned Massachusetts, fees feel free to shoot me an email with links or a report or whatever information you have. 756 03:29:35.025 --> 03:29:36.885 I don't have much more information other than. 757 03:29:40.035 --> 03:29:47.295 They have a, they have a simplistic, well, fairly simple schedule. I think it's a value schedule. 758 03:29:47.415 --> 03:29:47.775 Oh. 759 03:29:48.435 --> 03:30:00.345 For four seasons with two different hour blocks per season, basically, but it is something that can provide apparent. 760 03:30:00.464 --> 03:30:21.494 That's what the developers are proposing to use out there and then, and it seems to be feasible for the utilities to accept that, so, you know, it might be something we could pursue is even if even if it was came down to a single device, that was, that could be kind of. 761 03:30:21.524 --> 03:30:35.624 [...] or is already evaluated for use for other reasons, either utilities, whether it's Schweitzer or whatever else maybe that maybe we could come up with a specific combo that would work for each of the three areas. 762 03:30:40.004 --> 03:30:46.244 Alright, thank you, Brian. Alright, any other questions for comments? 763 03:30:51.104 --> 03:30:56.024 Okay, hearing none. I think it's a good time to break for lunch. 764 03:31:01.634 --> 03:31:13.364 So we'll resume after lunch with topic [...] and due to timing, let's make it a forty- five minute lunch. So let's be back at twelve forty- five. Please. 765 03:31:18.494 --> 03:31:25.664 So Francisco, if you could break it, Yeah, thank you next slide on that lunch break. 766 03:31:31.215 --> 03:31:33.735 Yeah, noon to two hundred and forty- five. 767 04:30:59.354 --> 04:31:03.254 So, um, who are the utilities back on the call? 768 04:31:13.664 --> 04:31:18.674 This is Alex from PG. e. I'll be beginning the presentation and afternoon. 769 04:31:19.244 --> 04:31:23.354 Okay, Alex, are you covering this entire section me too. 770 04:31:25.424 --> 04:31:29.474 Uh, yeah, the whole section and then some of the next section. 771 04:31:30.584 --> 04:31:31.724 Okay, all right, I. 772 04:31:31.755 --> 04:31:37.725 Just wanted to make sure we can start or if we had to wait for someone else. Alright, alright, so. 773 04:31:39.104 --> 04:31:47.684 Oh, sorry, this is guy. Wondering if I could jump in just a bit before we move on to the next topic with a kind of a circle back question on the last topic. 774 04:31:52.214 --> 04:31:52.904 Go ahead Scott. 775 04:31:53.804 --> 04:32:03.464 So Brian and I had a chance to talk briefly after we broke for lunch and I wanted to kind of just put a, put a. 776 04:32:05.835 --> 04:32:26.685 formally address what I think we need to do next or what we'd like to see next, which is an exploration of the relay, our tech solution potentially and what it would take the utilities to get comfortable around that and Brian and I were discussing that Brian might be. 777 04:32:26.744 --> 04:32:47.864 Well, to write up a couple of questions that maybe we could get to the utilities for them to present on at the next next workshop or I'm open to other pathways, but it does seem like that's a potential pathway that could address the issues that address the gap. We're trying to fill in. 778 04:32:47.924 --> 04:32:57.614 Julie, and so I'd like us to have a concerted effort to following that are popping up on that essentially, that was a long way of saying. 779 04:33:00.524 --> 04:33:04.184 Alright, Scott, when could you get us those questions? 780 04:33:05.475 --> 04:33:06.164 Brian. 781 04:33:10.273 --> 04:33:20.084 Well, I think I could probably get them to you today actually today tomorrow. 782 04:33:21.135 --> 04:33:30.164 Okay, yeah, sometime this week is preferable cause, uh, the next, uh, workshop is scheduled for March fourteen th. 783 04:33:30.314 --> 04:33:38.324 And I know that seems three weeks away, but we all know time flies and everyone's busy. 784 04:33:40.725 --> 04:33:41.773 Great, thank you. 785 04:33:42.734 --> 04:33:47.773 Okay, perfect, so we'll cue that up for workshop number three, then. 786 04:33:49.123 --> 04:33:49.424 Thanks. 787 04:33:50.113 --> 04:33:51.674 Alright, thank you. Scott. Thank you, Brian. 788 04:33:57.555 --> 04:34:02.504 All right, so I think now we can start with a topic [...]. 789 04:34:04.154 --> 04:34:04.725 Alex. 790 04:34:09.164 --> 04:34:27.045 Okay, good afternoon everyone. hopefully everybody had a good lunch. All right, so for the covering part of, uh, all of [...] and then part of the next section, and so what's being displayed right now on the screen is just from. 791 04:34:28.244 --> 04:34:36.914 Fifty- two, thirty. So I'm not going to read the whole thing. I think most of us have seen this a couple of times already. So I believe we can go on to the next slide. 792 04:34:40.365 --> 04:34:59.654 So this is a proposed [...] implementation process flow, if you will, that you shared before I believe we shared it during a [...] meeting, sometime in March of two thousand and twenty- one and also included the general. 793 04:35:00.795 --> 04:35:21.555 In our advice, latest file around the same time as well. So most of these, it's broken up into three main sections, right? So the customer prep phase where they get the information and then prepare the [...] and then the interconnection study phase and then the [...]. 794 04:35:21.559 --> 04:35:38.773 [...] phase. Most of these are going to be covered in subsequent slides. So I'm not going to go through this specific slide in detail because we're going to include each of the steps in response to the fifty- to thirty questions later on. So next slide, please. 795 04:35:45.734 --> 04:36:06.555 So we were asked to go through a screening process or at least discuss the screening process that we would follow in relation to [...]. So this next few slides I'll be going over the initial review screening process and how we, we feel, you know, the [...] or the. 796 04:36:06.680 --> 04:36:27.674 [...] values would apply to each of those screens. So beginning with screen air in initial review rule, twenty- one initial review, this screen looks for the question is asking whether the project is being proposed or will be connected in a network secondary system. So this screen has nothing to do with the project name. 797 04:36:28.965 --> 04:36:32.145 Oh, the [...] value. So, um. 798 04:36:33.975 --> 04:36:35.023 Nothing changes here. 799 04:36:36.734 --> 04:36:57.135 A screen B is asking whether the equipment is satisfied. Uh, this is mostly related to seven hundred and forty- one certification, uh, mainly having to do with [...] certification. So again, this has nothing to do with the project, uh, nameplate all GP, so nothing will change for. 800 04:36:57.439 --> 04:37:15.854 Be a screen. See he's asking for voltage fluctuation that has to do with project, uh, starting a project, usually invite as a non- applicable for this screening because they don't really start it. 801 04:37:20.295 --> 04:37:39.734 Right, it's in such, but, uh, this screen will not change you that little screen just the same way we've done. So before what screen D screen D is looking at whether the transformer service transformer or secondary will be overloaded. So the previous screening process. 802 04:37:39.740 --> 04:38:00.795 Is using the template, but we recognize that L- g. P could be something lower than the template because it's looking at the export value at the PCCC screen D screening purposes. We'll be looking at the maximum [...] value so maximum export, which would be. 803 04:38:01.033 --> 04:38:04.424 What's, uh, what's screened against the transfer time or capability? 804 04:38:10.094 --> 04:38:10.693 What's the question? 805 04:38:14.984 --> 04:38:27.014 Screen II will not change you though. Uh, has to do with the single face balancing across the transformers. So again, this is not going to be impacted by project being an LGB project or not. 806 04:38:29.533 --> 04:38:31.934 I'll pause here. Let's see if there's any questions on this slide. 807 04:38:32.924 --> 04:38:47.475 So, Alex, just to confirm what you said for a screen deal is that I think I understood that you're going to review it based upon the export, the MAX export capacity is that correct? 808 04:38:48.074 --> 04:38:49.725 Yes, maximum export capacity. 809 04:38:58.814 --> 04:38:59.775 Any other questions? 810 04:39:03.434 --> 04:39:20.805 Yeah, this is John burden on the phone. Um, on the maximum export capacity, is that based on the, uh, some of the nameplate power ratings of all the inverters at the site for. 811 04:39:22.064 --> 04:39:22.363 Me. 812 04:39:27.254 --> 04:39:27.975 I think it's. 813 04:39:28.004 --> 04:39:28.484 Fine you hear me. 814 04:39:30.254 --> 04:39:30.645 Yeah. 815 04:39:33.824 --> 04:39:52.454 So, um, for the, uh, transformer is the, um, is the overload condition is that based on the, some of the name play doctor power ratings of all the inverters at the site. In other words, PV plus [...], for example. 816 04:39:54.374 --> 04:39:56.504 Oh, no, so for l- g. p. o- l. 817 04:39:56.510 --> 04:40:10.244 [...] projects will be based on the profile and the maximum expected export, but for non [...] projects, it would be, usually we would sum the nameplate of the projects being connected. 818 04:40:11.866 --> 04:40:16.876 So would that, would that then consider a power control system. 819 04:40:17.924 --> 04:40:19.154 Limit setting or no. 820 04:40:19.424 --> 04:40:28.994 Yes, for [...] would consider the, the amount of maximum possible export which would be, you know, controlled export, right? 821 04:40:30.284 --> 04:40:33.164 Correct, yeah, that's kind of what it was going through. Thank you. 822 04:40:35.564 --> 04:40:53.954 Alex question or no for Brian here at every see on screen. see because it's fluctuation oriented too. It's a fast measurement related to the control speed of the PCS, which might be seconds or whatever the requirement is. 823 04:40:55.904 --> 04:41:01.186 Is the relevant figure there. The full size of the resources behind it. 824 04:41:02.780 --> 04:41:05.774 The controller or just the setting of the schedule. 825 04:41:10.244 --> 04:41:12.554 So can you repeat your question again Brian, I'm sorry. 826 04:41:12.586 --> 04:41:22.814 Yeah, the screen C is looking at the deviation, right? The fluctuation, but we know the export limit. 827 04:41:26.384 --> 04:41:28.094 I think it might be yours, Alex. 828 04:41:28.124 --> 04:41:31.154 Okay, okay, alright. 829 04:41:32.804 --> 04:41:36.794 Quick question is what, what do you use for the screen? See? 830 04:41:38.054 --> 04:41:38.444 So. 831 04:41:38.834 --> 04:41:42.614 Is it the rating of the resources or the setting of the export on it? 832 04:41:43.064 --> 04:41:53.534 So for [...], if, for a project that, that screen is applicable to, we would use the [...]. So if we're looking at the potential [...]. 833 04:41:53.540 --> 04:42:14.324 To generate a static and we would use the nameplate and then translate that to the [...], for example, and then the elsewhere we would use to figure out what the potential voltage drop or flicker would be, but, uh, invited based projects don't do that. So this screen is not applicable to invite based projects. 834 04:42:17.324 --> 04:42:17.534 Oh. 835 04:42:18.734 --> 04:42:18.974 Yeah. 836 04:42:23.534 --> 04:42:26.054 Is my audio coming in. Okay, can you guys hear me? Hello? 837 04:42:28.214 --> 04:42:28.544 Alex. 838 04:42:28.786 --> 04:42:30.974 It's Frank, I, I hear you pretty well. 839 04:42:31.154 --> 04:42:32.536 Okay, thank you. 840 04:42:35.144 --> 04:42:36.464 Are there any other questions? 841 04:42:43.214 --> 04:42:45.674 Okay, if not, we can move on to the next, uh. 842 04:43:02.744 --> 04:43:18.134 So I believe we included somewhat screen d- again. Yeah, because the question here was, which screens will use template and which screens, well, not, so specifically this was trying to address screens D- [...]. 843 04:43:18.944 --> 04:43:39.284 I've already covered screens D- um, so full screen I, because the, we were not really asked to change. Oh, sorry, screen, I was just looking at whether the project is exporting or not exporting, so we, we feel like we may have to create another option for. 844 04:43:39.374 --> 04:43:47.984 Non- export screening right now, all their [...] twenty ones have eleven options. So. 845 04:43:52.786 --> 04:44:08.234 Cost option or we may just make changes to one of the existing eleven options to reflect what would happen, if we get an [...] project, but leaning more towards creating a cost option, that's specifically applicable to [...] projects. 846 04:44:11.954 --> 04:44:31.454 A full screen Jay. The screen Jay is just looking at whether the project is, you know, above thirty [...] gross nameplate. So there were no changes recommended as part of what's what's going on with working group two and three. So no changes will be made to screen J. and the same. 847 04:44:31.484 --> 04:44:32.804 applies to screen K. 848 04:44:37.994 --> 04:44:40.484 Any questions on this slide? 849 04:44:42.766 --> 04:44:44.956 Alex, this is Skype. Um. 850 04:44:47.384 --> 04:45:08.114 I think I figured this out last year, but I need a reminder. So screen J is, is the gross rating of the generating facility eleven or thirty KPI, and then in the, in sections, M. m- et cetera. So, for example, section m- m- two. 851 04:45:08.144 --> 04:45:29.264 Which is using a PCS, um, that is, has a response time in two seconds or less et cetera. Um, in that section, we had provided that you would use the export capacity for screen J- is that, that's my understanding. Is that your. 852 04:45:30.734 --> 04:45:32.204 Yes, I believe so. Yes. 853 04:45:32.654 --> 04:45:50.144 So are you saying here that you think for again, we have to sort out the actual device. That's what we spent. The last two hours, right? That's going to do that. Do the scheduling function and export control function here, right? 854 04:45:52.484 --> 04:45:56.594 I guess I'm trying to grapple with what does it mean if a project is. 855 04:46:00.856 --> 04:46:01.756 Hello. 856 04:46:03.134 --> 04:46:12.164 It has an extra only has an expert capacity below thirty [...] or how you went about a nameplate above that. 857 04:46:13.876 --> 04:46:20.206 So screen J will be screened as, you know, as written in the Terry for is it above thirty, but. 858 04:46:21.464 --> 04:46:25.544 Screen J- usually doesn't in itself, determine what the project. 859 04:46:25.544 --> 04:46:25.664 Is. 860 04:46:25.664 --> 04:46:42.554 Going to pass or fail, but you're correct once if the project is in [...] project? Well, let's use examples that are already in the terrace today. We would still go back to that section. one, two, three or four and use the expected export to. 861 04:46:42.764 --> 04:47:02.384 At this screen, but screenshot by itself the language you're still gonna see a thirty [...]. It's just when we get to that section, we'll apply whatever's applicable because screenshot applies to export projects, exporting projects, we just analyze it based on the language and the specific non- export Yes. 862 04:47:03.314 --> 04:47:03.704 Okay. 863 04:47:04.036 --> 04:47:24.884 What I'm guessing? I don't think screen J is going to matter too much for the projects that we're talking about here, but what I'm trying to understand is what distinction you're making between how you'd apply screen D in Spring J- so screen D- similarly doesn't terrorists, but it does. 864 04:47:25.154 --> 04:47:45.974 Specify that either the application of screen D to just export capacity kind of comes through those [...] options, right? Are you, and I'm not, I would be supportive obviously. I'm not what makes sense here. So if you're using, but using it, but like, say we go with a relay option that we don't have that. 865 04:47:46.040 --> 04:48:02.504 [...] in the room right now. Um, there's no sort of equivalent explanation of what relay, if a project's using a relay, how it would be screened. Um, and it seems like you're making that you're saying you would do that anyways under screen the, um. 866 04:48:04.274 --> 04:48:20.264 That's the part I'm trying to clarify and I realize this is confusing if people need me to repeat, but the, the distinction is essentially that screen d- doesn't say as worded one way or the other named pipe or expert capacity, just like screen J- um. 867 04:48:21.794 --> 04:48:39.944 It comes through currently comes through the specific export control option being utilized and we don't have anything for relays or other anything other than essentially the PCs that address the use of export capacity for that screen. 868 04:48:41.714 --> 04:48:42.344 Yeah, so. 869 04:48:42.644 --> 04:49:00.824 The way I think this is probably going to work sky's when we develop language for the Terrier, we'll probably specify an option that applies to [...]. I mean, in that option, we'll specify the same similar things that we specified for the other [...], for example, the project. 870 04:49:02.864 --> 04:49:23.324 Control system, you know, and if we, if we okay proceeding with a really article option, then we'd have to specify that or something equivalent to it, right? I mean, in that, in that section, you would say for the purposes of Spring D project, we'll use the maximum expected export and then full screen J- A. K. we would use. 871 04:49:24.254 --> 04:49:27.914 Whatever the, whatever the agreed upon value would be. 872 04:49:29.774 --> 04:49:30.074 Yeah. 873 04:49:33.404 --> 04:49:43.064 I would just note, I think for the limited export, um, I believe [...]. 874 04:49:43.846 --> 04:49:48.586 Utilizing the limited limited value, Not the nameplate. 875 04:49:49.994 --> 04:49:51.884 Yeah, that's what I was saying Brian. 876 04:49:55.874 --> 04:49:57.314 In this case, yeah. 877 04:49:58.578 --> 04:50:09.704 Yeah, it would probably be the same Brian, but in this case, for [...] we have many many values, right? It's not one single limited value, so. 878 04:50:17.894 --> 04:50:19.004 Are there any other questions? 879 04:50:22.544 --> 04:50:23.954 Skype to address your question. 880 04:50:26.774 --> 04:50:46.094 Yeah, I think so. I think the, essentially we need to decide if another, if the way we're doing, this is, I think you've captured essentially, what needs to happen in screen is essentially we need to decide if it's going to be incorporated the [...] are gonna be incorporated through some of the existing. 881 04:50:46.874 --> 04:50:59.594 Export control options is how I've been thinking about it, but I think you guys are saying you'd rather create another [...], you know, if it has some [...] or whatever for this specific LDP option, but it's probably going to have to be. 882 04:51:00.794 --> 04:51:21.044 Well, it may have to be, depending on how there's the reason I'm trying to struggle with that. Is that each one of those is specific to a particular control type. Yep, we are talking about, so we just went through three potential options this morning, and then we're talking about the fourth, the relay, our tech option with each one of those need a whole nother [...]. 883 04:51:22.544 --> 04:51:30.314 Or if we can, maybe we can build those into one option for limit generation profiles, so that each of those screens is applied consistently. That would be ideal. 884 04:51:31.638 --> 04:51:52.484 Um, and, and, but it also emphasized going back to how, how complicated this all becomes in the, in the reading of the tariff where the screens don't actually you have to piece a lot of things together to understand how your projects that's where we are. Anyway you answered my question. Thank you Alex. 885 04:51:52.814 --> 04:52:13.934 Okay, sure, so just for my, for your information, my opinion would be that we create a separate section, so we don't, we don't confuse issues or options and then, you know, the use of something other than a [...] would still have to accomplish the same thing that [...] is accomplishing. So I don't think we'd have to split have options for the different equipment that's being used by. 886 04:52:14.024 --> 04:52:15.314 They have to accomplish the same thing. 887 04:52:16.814 --> 04:52:37.876 Yeah, I get that. I get that. Um, the irony is that like, I really, I believe can accomplish what they PCS is intended to accomplish in the role right now. We just never specified the screen clarification for the relay. Oh, I guess that's a separate issue. Um, and we'll move ahead with doing a section for a limited. 888 04:52:37.908 --> 04:52:49.334 [...] profiles. It would just be funny to allow the rely for their limited generation profile, but not for the basic applications of the screens, not using a profile. 889 04:52:50.174 --> 04:52:59.024 Yeah, point taken. I think we may have to revisit that. Yeah, I mean we, we used to allow, we already allowing relays to do the same thing at PCS. 890 04:52:59.084 --> 04:53:04.214 It's just not covered in the carrier, but we do allow limited export using a relay today. 891 04:53:04.904 --> 04:53:07.244 Yeah, you just don't screen it differently. 892 04:53:07.574 --> 04:53:07.844 Yeah. 893 04:53:07.934 --> 04:53:20.204 Which is the problem Now it's not a big deal for cause most small projects aren't using using you're going to use a reliable. I think what I'm generally saying, and this is sort of towards the [...] staff is. 894 04:53:20.234 --> 04:53:41.054 That we can keep making the tariff really complicated by doing it this way, or, or we could actually do this in a lot simpler way, which is following the actual batteries approach, which would be to modify the language of the screens to specify whether they're using nameplate or limited or that limited export amount. 895 04:53:41.474 --> 04:54:00.586 And then have a section that just references what the acceptable means are versus the inverse of what we're doing and that creates a lot more layers to it. Um, overall I feel concerned with the difficulty of understanding just the current tariff, let alone adding in a whole nother layer to that. 896 04:54:10.544 --> 04:54:14.234 Just do it okay. We can move on to the next slide if there are no more questions. 897 04:54:18.464 --> 04:54:37.664 All right, so for this slide, we'll be discussing whether this, the following screens will be using nameplate or not. So a screen F- on screen [...] are related to fall current contribution. So when you're doing that kind of calculation, you have to use an input with the. 898 04:54:37.786 --> 04:54:58.814 [...], because most systems are not limited by the amount of export, um, they are limited by the amount of [...] rating. So, um, for these two screens and template will be used for the purposes of screen F and screen F. One evaluation the same is. 899 04:54:59.294 --> 04:55:19.754 A true for screen G screen G is looking at impacts due to increased, uh, for current contribution from all sources, so, you know, because it's a false contribution calculation, you still have to use an input [...] a full screen. 900 04:55:20.058 --> 04:55:20.360 Well. 901 04:55:21.644 --> 04:55:35.564 Um, and then screen screen Edge is, is kinda looking at the potential for, um, ah, quality issues. specifically have having to do with [...]. 902 04:55:35.866 --> 04:55:56.116 So looking at where you have a scenario where you have a line to ground floor in your system is not effectively grounded. Are you causing the unfolded phase voltages to go outside the threshold. Um, so this is also sort of related to a nameplate, but it's not just, it's not a. 903 04:55:56.774 --> 04:56:17.864 A specific calculation that has to do with for clients, so it's not using nameplate or using a, actually I take that back, we, we will do, so the screen age is looking for whether there is a certain amount of [...] connected generation in relation to the minimum loading on the system because. 904 04:56:17.894 --> 04:56:39.014 If you have a fault and one phase goes to ground, the other phase is potentially get elevated because the system is, uh, is not effectively grounded by depending on your generation ratios these integrations at which they are issues in certain where they're not, there are no issues. so we'll screen age will be. 905 04:56:39.044 --> 04:56:42.584 comparing the load on a [...] basis. 906 04:56:46.454 --> 04:56:50.234 Any questions about the, especially for screen page, if I confused anyone. 907 04:56:58.004 --> 04:56:58.304 Okay. 908 04:57:00.914 --> 04:57:17.956 First screen, it just doesn't look at. It's looking at the configuration. It's not looking at whether it's named by or export capacity one way or the other, right? Except for that, it allows projects with the gross rating of below thirty [...] to pass the screen. Is that correct? 909 04:57:18.644 --> 04:57:19.214 So. 910 04:57:20.054 --> 04:57:34.754 Um, screen it, actually, if you look at, ah, four systems that are three phase four wires. I think there is language in the chart that says the nameplate capacity has to be less than. 911 04:57:37.544 --> 04:57:56.714 So if our system is effectively grounded or if it's three phase and, you know, looking at it, but if your, if your system is not effectively grounded and your generation to load ratio is not above the threshold, then you could say that there's no. 912 04:57:57.980 --> 04:58:07.214 impacts, right, but if your system is not effective grounded and you have generation to load ratio that exceeds the threshold, then they could be impacted. 913 04:58:09.404 --> 04:58:15.464 Finding this in that section for screening to believe it references a nameplate rating. 914 04:58:19.394 --> 04:58:20.264 Yeah, it does. 915 04:58:28.754 --> 04:58:31.304 If there are no other questions, we can move on to the next slide. 916 04:58:40.004 --> 04:58:40.634 So. 917 04:58:41.690 --> 04:59:02.774 [...] is part of the statement review, still part of a fast track process and we did discuss this before, and we believe that screen P- is sort of related to, it's a false studies as well. So it should be applicable to the screen. 918 04:59:02.864 --> 04:59:03.314 P. 919 04:59:05.144 --> 04:59:06.314 One. 920 04:59:06.374 --> 04:59:07.244 G- n- h. 921 04:59:10.214 --> 04:59:17.954 But only for the aspects of screen P- that we'll use for calculations or are you saying. 922 04:59:17.954 --> 04:59:27.464 Correct, correct, yes. Yes, thanks for the clarification. Yep, so [...] would use the template for those aspects that are applicable to, for analysis. 923 04:59:39.224 --> 04:59:40.154 Any other questions? 924 04:59:46.456 --> 04:59:52.786 So this is the last slide for section [...]. No other questions we can move on to the next section. 925 04:59:57.016 --> 05:00:16.154 This is Skye. So Alex, so I think we're, I think I'm in agreement with what you guys just laid out and I appreciate you taking the time to do that, but it, it seems like we've left the, the elephant is what's that additional section, right? Um, in, for, under. 926 05:00:16.158 --> 05:00:37.304 Screen I, or, um, and maybe this is a question for Jose as well. Um, which is how I know we're still trying to figure out from our earlier conversation today, what the actual control eligible control types would be your scheduling device. 927 05:00:37.394 --> 05:00:58.454 That will do scheduling. Um, how are we going to get that actually writing that critical section and clarifying the tariff language? It seems to me like that's gonna be a particularly important and yet, quite challenging thing to draft. Um, but I think we are in agreed. 928 05:00:58.484 --> 05:01:03.344 conceptually on how the screen should apply to whatever is incorporated. 929 05:01:04.694 --> 05:01:19.244 Alright, thank you for bringing that up. So, okay, so, uh, I was actually gonna make this point, uh, before you jumped in. Alright, so then it looks like that is the only issue then remaining that. 930 05:01:19.664 --> 05:01:40.756 Whether it gets incorporated into the other [...] screens or whether a twelve option is written for [...], specifically. So everybody's, uh, I guess everybody agrees on that. Everything else is clear, and that's the old. 931 05:01:40.846 --> 05:01:44.414 Thing that is right now that we still need to figure out. 932 05:01:47.174 --> 05:01:59.354 I think that's right. Except for that, how clear it is, once we write that section is that's kinda what I'm highlighting is that it's hard to really be clear until we write it. Um. 933 05:02:00.164 --> 05:02:05.024 Oh, no, I mean all the screens are clear. How have you all the screens are being approach. 934 05:02:06.914 --> 05:02:07.544 Yeah, I think we. 935 05:02:07.574 --> 05:02:17.264 Conceptual agreement on how the screens will be approached and we need to weave it into actual real language, if we're going to do that through an option twelve, yes. 936 05:02:18.194 --> 05:02:28.694 Yes, okay, I guess following that, my question I think is do we need to have that, which way the way I agree, we should have that sort of a agreed upon. 937 05:02:28.700 --> 05:02:49.756 On prior to the advice letter or because we will know that if we put some, I'm going to call it a general language. We know that, you know, the different folks have different interpretations, so we go to work that out, but the problem I think is that timing is problematic because we don't, we haven't even. 938 05:02:49.876 --> 05:03:10.484 skus have an idea of what technology could be used. What certification is needed, what testing is needed. So there's a lot of work in my opinion to develop an option twelve without knowing a lot of the specifics and it's just the timing, I think to do the adviser is what, what's. 939 05:03:12.044 --> 05:03:32.144 Yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at Roger, which is, I think we absolutely need to based on our past past experience, right? The real language for the advice letters and not otherwise we're going to be back here again, but how we get whether, you know, whether and how we get there from today, end of February to the beginning of May. I think we're. 940 05:03:32.174 --> 05:03:53.294 Gonna have to get real focused if we're going to do that. Um, and I don't know if it's not possible or not. I don't understand the technologies issues as much. I'll leave that to you engineers. Um, but I don't think it makes any sense for us to write advice letters for you guys to be fair for the works on your shoulders here to write those. 941 05:03:53.324 --> 05:04:11.834 Advice letters without real language, like we, we just know what ends up happening there. So, um, I think, yeah, Jose, what I'm really trying to highlight is, is like if we're trying to meet that deadline, um, we're going to have to put a real focus on what needs to go in that section and what do we need to do to get there? 942 05:04:13.094 --> 05:04:27.854 Kind of, it's the same point I made earlier about branch refining the Artech relay options. I don't know what the other options, One hundred and three. Those are all going to take their own attention as well, to be really specific on what's required. 943 05:04:30.434 --> 05:04:30.824 Okay. 944 05:04:34.574 --> 05:04:53.926 Our team will be entirely on that the moment. I'm not sure what the best outcome would be. Um, I was gonna say, you know, any draft language could be, um, proposed through an email thread and not take. 945 05:04:53.954 --> 05:05:00.974 Up any workshop time until the final draft is ready. Um. 946 05:05:03.044 --> 05:05:23.534 Uh, I guess I would need more information. Not from utilities. Has Roger just said, you know, why he doesn't know the exact technology out there. So, uh, I think we need to discuss that internally on the best approach to get that finished to the finish. 947 05:05:23.564 --> 05:05:23.954 Line. 948 05:05:36.764 --> 05:05:40.244 Alright, thanks for that. Jose, can we move on to the next slide? 949 05:05:42.494 --> 05:05:44.804 Uh, yeah, go ahead. 950 05:05:45.374 --> 05:06:02.894 Okay, thanks, so the, this next section is going to go over, uh, so we will ask a series of questions or we tried to address, um, the first one had to do with export power. 951 05:06:03.044 --> 05:06:24.134 Is out, and so what I was wanting to do is clarify that [...] option is intended to manage the amount of export power to the grid at the point of common complaint. We also wanted to mention that as was discussed earlier by Raja and Christian, that the control. 952 05:06:24.170 --> 05:06:45.074 And actually be set at the time he knows we're being Barbara because if you limit it, if you limit the export at the Inviter, Tammy knows the [...] would be more conservatively be less than, than that because some of the pie is going to be used on site and if you have a full fully exporting project, then it will be the same minus some losses, right? So. 953 05:06:45.706 --> 05:07:06.464 That is an option for customers, think Roger covered it and the topic EA and the other thing that we wanted to go over here is the question that we asked in consideration of the significant time that has passed since the filing of the advice letters I use shall discuss any updates to the proposals that the subsequent experiences indicate, maybe you are. 954 05:07:06.524 --> 05:07:27.434 Okay, so I wanted to point out that we haven't really had any experience we haven't interconnected any [...] projects. So our experience is very limited. Um, we have used [...] to control based on a single either export or input values, or we have PCs that are using input only. 955 05:07:27.674 --> 05:07:48.644 Uh, non- export or export only. So they don't import any power we have experiences using those pieces of equipment, but we have not used [...] that utilize a scheduled output. The item had to do tweed addressing stakeholder questions. 956 05:07:48.974 --> 05:07:49.456 Um. 957 05:07:52.604 --> 05:08:12.674 Appropriate, sorry, elle logos or director to go over the proposal to address any questions. Stakeholders may have and determine whether each step is appropriate or complete. I think we're going to go over these in detail in the next few slides. Um, so we have a framework that I showed in the beginning of my presentation in the previous section to kind of. 958 05:08:12.766 --> 05:08:13.696 Goes over the. 959 05:08:19.154 --> 05:08:29.024 Projects, and then we're going to do is break those into different sections and respond to questions that are applicable to each of those different steps. 960 05:08:31.846 --> 05:08:32.804 Next slide, please. 961 05:08:41.144 --> 05:09:00.526 So if this looks familiar, it is because, uh, this is the slide that I showed in the beginning of the previous discussion. Um, again, this is the framework that we're proposing, he has three phases to it. The first phase is a customer preparation phase, and then we have the interconnection study process or phase, and then we have the. 962 05:09:05.264 --> 05:09:21.824 If you'd seen this before is right in the middle of the interconnection steady process, this section that talks about submit to review and detailed studies, um, before I think there was an hour that went into supplemental review just for. 963 05:09:21.854 --> 05:09:42.944 Or a specific one of these options, but what we're doing here is we're clarifying that we will still review all the other screens and even though the project may be below the [...] profile, if there's any other screen that fails, that would normally push the project into supplementary, that would still be. 964 05:09:43.006 --> 05:09:57.106 Case, so just the fact that the project goes over and passes based on the [...] profile on the [...] profile. Does it mean that it's, there's no opportunity or there's no chance of that project going into supplemental review. 965 05:09:59.266 --> 05:10:18.494 So a decision decision [...] zero, nine zero or three, five fifteen required that I was discussed this week. The implementation of the [...] I use, I use counter outline rulemaking seventeen zero seven, zero, zero seven. So we did present this, uh, this week. 966 05:10:19.904 --> 05:10:25.574 Twenty- one, two thousand and twenty- one and February eighteen th- two thousand and twenty- one. 967 05:10:26.714 --> 05:10:47.834 And like I mentioned before we actually included the general processing now advise later filings, so we'll go over the next slides, There'll be specific sections of this overall framework that will go into more details uncovered based on the questions that we received. So if there are no questions on this slide, we can move. 968 05:10:47.840 --> 05:10:48.494 On to the next one. 969 05:10:54.854 --> 05:11:11.802 Okay, so this first slide is based on the customer preparation phase, specifically one A, which is download [...] profiles where [...] values are valuable and the question was to. 970 05:11:11.834 --> 05:11:32.834 Discuss, uh, clarifying what is meant by the time three phase electrical nodes and the applicability of the three phase electrical node and the meaning of monthly. So the question that was presented in the resolution is how you used referred to three phase electrical. 971 05:11:33.014 --> 05:11:38.564 It's for transparency and for those not familiar with the [...], the large [...]. 972 05:11:38.866 --> 05:11:59.744 Clarify the use of three phase electrical nodes and any plan to changes to the [...] that may may expand the Icaay to single for his nodes. So the [...] response is the decision I use currently perform [...] and published ICM results where the distribution system is composed of. 973 05:11:59.894 --> 05:12:09.614 Refresh conductors, there is no plan changes to expand the [...] to single phase notes at this time. Uh, in the [...]. 974 05:12:09.620 --> 05:12:30.764 [...] maps the line segments inherit the ICL results of the associated three phase electrical node. Um, so what customers will do is they will identify the section that they are proposing to interconnect their projects, um, on the [...] and then when they click on that section, there would be pre. 975 05:12:30.770 --> 05:12:51.914 [...] with the hosting capacity, uh, applicable to interconnect in that line section, uh, the three phase electrical nodes, uh, local points in the grid use to connecting three phase electrical services for load or generation. This could be commercial industrial or large generating facilities, typically large. 976 05:12:51.974 --> 05:12:56.954 Than fifty [...] residential services are mostly connected at a single phase nodes. 977 05:12:59.144 --> 05:13:19.874 Yeah, so just wanted to clarify, um, cause I have not kept up with the [...] or the previous [...], uh, rulemaking and, but I do recall that in one of the, uh, reports there was talk of, but I think possibly expanding it. So, uh. 978 05:13:20.294 --> 05:13:27.284 I just wanted a clarification. The commission did not rule on that or that hasn't been ruled upon yet. 979 05:13:33.494 --> 05:13:35.654 I don't believe so, but. 980 05:13:35.864 --> 05:13:36.074 I. 981 05:13:36.074 --> 05:13:40.694 Will call on the ICF experts if any is on the line to comment on that. 982 05:13:46.934 --> 05:14:03.524 This is guy. I can, if that's helpful. I think that this isn't, it's in that, that idea was in the long term refinements report which the commission never issued a ruling on. So there's no, there's no nothing down. No, essentially on that at this point. That's my understanding. 983 05:14:04.154 --> 05:14:15.914 Okay, thank you guys. Yeah, so that's the, I think that's the information that, um, you know, uh, we're looking for to complete that record. 984 05:14:25.544 --> 05:14:29.206 So I'll hand it over to, I think John Sante. 985 05:14:31.366 --> 05:14:44.686 Yeah, um, yeah, Alex, I just wanted to know when you're talking about single face loads. is that purely, um, on a modern behavior or, um. 986 05:14:45.164 --> 05:15:05.864 What I'm specifically thinking about is minimum load, so we're not really looking at single phase D or single phase loads, but in aggregate, um, they would impact, um, in particular, I'm thinking about a minimum low. so is the minimum load based on. 987 05:15:05.894 --> 05:15:10.034 modeled or is it based on actual feature load? 988 05:15:13.154 --> 05:15:26.684 [...], yeah, it's a single phase loads would be included. It's just, we don't, we don't provide Icaay values on single phase the nodes, a single phase contractors, but the loading will be aggregated up. Yes. 989 05:15:27.674 --> 05:15:31.364 Okay, yeah, cause uh, my point is that. 990 05:15:32.742 --> 05:15:39.492 widespread production in single phase loads and aggregate would reduce the minimum load on the filter. 991 05:15:42.644 --> 05:15:48.286 Oh, you mean you do you mean, uh, single face generation would reduce the, uh, aggregate loading. 992 05:15:50.686 --> 05:16:03.494 Correct, well, single phase, um, generation is not included in an ICAAY in the model, but in aggregate on a feeder, it would. 993 05:16:03.944 --> 05:16:07.124 Uh, tend to reduce the actual loading on the theater. 994 05:16:08.174 --> 05:16:09.044 So. 995 05:16:10.304 --> 05:16:19.364 If I see it's based on actual loading, then single phase loads would have a single page to your word, having effect. 996 05:16:20.534 --> 05:16:24.194 Yeah, so a single phase generation. 997 05:16:25.364 --> 05:16:45.854 So the, the loading at single phase service points rolls up to, you know, included in the overall feeder loading. It's just when [...] is being calculated, there is no analysis performed on the single face sections to figure out what the hosting capacity is on those sections, but the loading is still considered on the actual system. 998 05:16:50.384 --> 05:16:53.054 Yeah, that's what I just was looking for clarification only. 999 05:16:53.054 --> 05:16:53.144 Yeah. 1000 05:16:53.176 --> 05:16:53.564 Thank you. 1001 05:16:53.564 --> 05:16:54.286 Yes, sure. 1002 05:16:56.026 --> 05:17:02.116 And I welcome the other I used to take a comment on this topic if sorry. 1003 05:17:06.674 --> 05:17:24.824 Alright, so there are no other. So, so section one, B- uh, we can carry on so section one B- the, like I used to clarify the monthly and specify the schedule upon which an [...] profile must be updated. So our response is. 1004 05:17:25.664 --> 05:17:37.634 We are clarifying that we, we, we did clarify the use of time monthly in [...] workshop number one, which was defined as a profile containing twenty- four values per month where all. 1005 05:17:41.144 --> 05:18:00.344 The twelve months. Um, so basically the total will be the two thousand and twenty- four times twelve, which is two thousand and eight data points, and then we did have a slide that I talked about. This was a reference titled required for much for L. G. P. And also you sent me information is contained in. 1006 05:18:00.944 --> 05:18:10.424 Um, are you a joint advice letter? I think the forty- nine, forty- one dash e- number is based on the SC advice letter. Um. 1007 05:18:13.006 --> 05:18:14.984 Any question on this. 1008 05:18:15.554 --> 05:18:16.214 One, no, I just want. 1009 05:18:16.334 --> 05:18:20.804 To add that of course is subject to change based on what is decided. 1010 05:18:22.244 --> 05:18:23.204 Absolutely, yes. 1011 05:18:32.776 --> 05:18:36.436 Alright, alright, next section, please. 1012 05:18:38.804 --> 05:18:59.926 So we're still in phase one, uh, customer preparation phase. So this next set of, uh, uh, bullet points related to section one B, slash C- so section one, sorry and one D as well. So won't be once the one D section one BNC how. 1013 05:18:59.930 --> 05:19:11.204 To do with determining the generation facility, operating profile to fit below ninety percent of the [...] value for each month lowest our, in the [...]. 1014 05:19:11.834 --> 05:19:32.324 Five seventy- six profile where I see is valuable and the way we envision this process working out is a customer would download the [...] profile, It will examine and confirm the downloaded data to inform the minimum. L- g. P- monthly values, and then as they're coming up with your profile that will make sure that. 1015 05:19:32.836 --> 05:19:48.256 The [...] is article below Ninety percent of the [...] for each hour, and then they will provide the [...] as part of the application using an agreed upon template, the [...], um. 1016 05:19:49.304 --> 05:19:51.616 So that would be included in the first section. 1017 05:19:56.384 --> 05:20:03.374 Selection of a certified control system that will support scheduling as well as [...]. 1018 05:20:03.464 --> 05:20:24.524 G. p- A adhering to [...] with the ten percent buffer. So for this section, um, we envisioned the customer picking a PCs that's approved and satisfied, of course, this is also subject to change, depending on what else is, uh, acceptable for us, and then, um, we wanted. 1019 05:20:24.554 --> 05:20:45.676 Point out that I use are currently investigating with industry members. The vulnerability of technology to support [...]. Um, so one of them will be [...] with scheduling functionality, which is being developed, but it's not yet available and then potentially would be a valuable [...] of two thousand and twenty- three, and then the second. 1020 05:20:45.704 --> 05:21:05.144 And bullet point is covering what Raja window in great detail as part of this discussion section. So, any other pieces of equipment that's available today. That may be used. This is still being discussed and will require further investigation. 1021 05:21:06.884 --> 05:21:27.854 And this last point is sort of related to that template that we proposed with the, I use proposed, so customers will capture the name of the distribution feeder name. The three phase electric [...] identify a PG E- call zip lines PSV line section. I believe [...] engineer, referred to it as a node ID. uh, the. 1022 05:21:28.936 --> 05:21:37.394 Of when the data extraction took place, the information will be needed when the customer submits the interconnection request. Any questions on this section? 1023 05:21:45.464 --> 05:22:00.944 This is Christian from, from you. So just to make sure this slide before or you were talking about convening twenty- four values per month for all Ali values. So for a given month or the same. So this means. 1024 05:22:04.606 --> 05:22:12.464 You're using two hundred and eighty- eight data points, but only twenty- four different or do they understand this wrong? No. 1025 05:22:13.006 --> 05:22:22.964 So the, so the idea is that we're going to allow a two hundred and eight profile. So there'll be two hundred and eighty- eight values, but at this. 1026 05:22:22.994 --> 05:22:37.574 Time our understanding is that there will be, uh, the monthly values, uh, twenty- four values will be the same, so it translates to a monthly profile with two hundred and eighty- eight values. 1027 05:22:39.974 --> 05:22:42.524 What you mean? Is that what PG e- prefers. 1028 05:22:42.944 --> 05:22:45.734 That's what they, I used the proposal. Yeah. 1029 05:22:49.184 --> 05:23:07.364 So I think we're still, we're still discussing whether we should go to two hundred and eight versus twelve. I don't think that determination has been made. Um, but what I used did agree on is having an ability to provide a two hundred and eight profile. 1030 05:23:08.114 --> 05:23:29.234 So this is, you know, in case we move, when we move to the two area different values, we'll already have a methodology of accepting to eighty eight values, but at this time I don't believe that we've made a determination whether there will be two hundred and eight different ali values, or there will be essentially a monthly pro. 1031 05:23:29.266 --> 05:23:35.686 File with twenty- four values for each month being the same. I know it's a long winded answer, but yeah. 1032 05:23:37.426 --> 05:23:50.324 Um, my opinion to, this would be, you know, the difference between what we discussed before and what we're doing now or I think if we make this. 1033 05:23:50.414 --> 05:24:11.534 Kind of file formats, different requirements, different manufacturer would have to do the same work twice, and the other thing is, so a solution would be already, uh, [...] for this just for smaller inverters or smaller [...]. So what we have this. 1034 05:24:11.564 --> 05:24:15.644 Cost before get some food or something. 1035 05:24:19.424 --> 05:24:38.084 So Christine, if I understand your question, the reason why we're allowing to eighty eight, um, even though it's essentially representing twelve different values is to address the point you just made a little time if we are required to allow to eighty different values. 1036 05:24:39.944 --> 05:24:46.934 We wouldn't have to change the file format. You could use the same same file format to provide the two eight different values that you're using. 1037 05:24:57.404 --> 05:25:00.044 Alex, this is Roger. I'm not sure if you broke up there or. 1038 05:25:00.344 --> 05:25:01.844 Sorry, cause Jeremy. 1039 05:25:02.894 --> 05:25:04.934 No, you broke up there. Quite a bit. 1040 05:25:05.864 --> 05:25:07.904 Oh, sorry, how about now? Is it? Okay, now. 1041 05:25:08.264 --> 05:25:09.734 Okay, yeah, I can hear you now. 1042 05:25:10.094 --> 05:25:10.544 So. 1043 05:25:11.444 --> 05:25:13.064 Maybe last last ten seconds or so. 1044 05:25:13.694 --> 05:25:14.984 Okay, so Christian, I think. 1045 05:25:15.016 --> 05:25:35.624 What I was saying is that, you know, our proposal addresses, the issue that you're raising, right? If we allow two eighty- eight values today, even though the only twelve different values, if at a later date, we're required to accept or allow twenty to eighty a different values, then we would use the same file format. We don't have to change it. 1046 05:25:40.304 --> 05:25:57.284 Okay, I think we have to discuss this during the, uh, TCS, uh, meeting because at the moment, the file format will support, uh, schedules, uh, twelve values, twenty- four values or up to. 1047 05:25:57.734 --> 05:26:07.784 [...] values, but there will be a, at the end. No difference between a schedule server. I have twelve values in there. 1048 05:26:10.244 --> 05:26:13.786 Or, or two hundred and eighty s- but both would be allowed. 1049 05:26:16.784 --> 05:26:17.024 Yeah. 1050 05:26:18.614 --> 05:26:19.364 Sorry, go ahead. Roger. 1051 05:26:19.634 --> 05:26:31.334 Yeah, let me, I think this is an area that needs some more clarification. So, for instance, I think you're saying, you know, it's basically twenty- four values for each day of the month. 1052 05:26:32.564 --> 05:26:53.594 there'll be a twenty- four value said that will be applied to every day of the month, you know, every day of the week, right? So, so, so, so it is unclear phrases how that would be done in the technology side. For instance, it could be that the control system just cost a, a. 1053 05:26:54.314 --> 05:27:14.804 Wait to say every day of this month, repeat this twenty- four hours every day of the month, um, or you could say, well, I'm going to translate this twenty- four hours into the number of hours, so dumb month, and so that's the earlier discussion about potentially translating the two hundred and eight. 1054 05:27:14.840 --> 05:27:32.714 Two hundred and seventy- sixty or potentially could be that every, every day of the month. The control is that someone will repeat these twenty- four hours every day of this month until I jump into the next month, and I think that's some of the area that still needs to be a better understood. 1055 05:27:41.446 --> 05:27:42.164 Thanks Raja. 1056 05:27:45.256 --> 05:27:46.336 Any other questions? 1057 05:27:56.086 --> 05:27:58.124 Okay, if not, we can move on to the next slide. 1058 05:28:13.276 --> 05:28:31.544 So this slide transitions over to the interconnection request phase. So we'll be covering a, to a, to B to C- from the initial process flow that I shared earlier. So for [...], the resolution question that's related to this is. 1059 05:28:32.744 --> 05:28:53.504 I use use the terminology limited generation values. We ask the large I use for consistency and clarity to use the time limited generation profile values are the agreed upon Tom, so the, I use have agreed to make the terminology change to limited generation profile values. So I believe this. 1060 05:28:53.564 --> 05:29:14.564 Address that, that issue for to be, uh, which is one be the large I used to clarify if a common scheduling format may be used to supply these information, if not specify the reasons why, um, so I use agreed to use the common scheduling format proposed by the I. 1061 05:29:15.464 --> 05:29:35.144 An initial proposal for a common scheduling format. It was presented at the [...] workshop one against the slide titled required format for L. G. P. A. we do want to point out that the specific terminology me Barry across I use the template or format will be the same. 1062 05:29:35.954 --> 05:29:47.924 Like a pointed out in the previous slide, for example, PGA uses a PSP line section and [...] use node ID. So those are going to be the differences by everything should be the same. 1063 05:30:00.300 --> 05:30:15.414 That people would manually input the values in the portals. So now it's going to be something that they can auto generate and then submit that correct. 1064 05:30:16.376 --> 05:30:20.964 So they would still have to enter the values in the template. 1065 05:30:21.834 --> 05:30:42.594 So we would provide an ability for them to download the [...] values and then based on those [...] values customers would have to come up with their own [...] profiles. So they'll have to enter that in a file. In this case, it will be the template and then that template then will be uploaded into the application portal, so they wouldn't have to re- enter the values manually. 1066 05:30:44.904 --> 05:30:57.804 We were thinking about creating a form on the application portal for them for customers to do that, but then that was under the assumption that will be twelve values, but if we're going to go to, to eighty eight, it's not practical for somebody to type all those in there. 1067 05:30:58.134 --> 05:31:01.434 Right, right, correct, correct. Okay, all right, thank you. 1068 05:31:01.914 --> 05:31:02.244 Sure. 1069 05:31:02.304 --> 05:31:03.744 This is Christian, again. 1070 05:31:03.864 --> 05:31:06.204 I hope you can hear me better now. 1071 05:31:06.744 --> 05:31:07.134 Yes. 1072 05:31:08.664 --> 05:31:18.624 And this file format is to somehow aligned with what will be proposed in supplement, CEO seventeen forty- one. 1073 05:31:21.984 --> 05:31:37.764 I don't believe so, but I'm not familiar with what the format's going to be, maybe others can chime in, We're proposing a customer using a [...] file, um, template that they will populate with the [...] profile and then upload that to. 1074 05:31:44.484 --> 05:31:51.744 But this would also mean that the customer has to enter two hundred eighty values or even more correct. 1075 05:31:57.204 --> 05:31:58.764 I didn't catch the whole question. Christian. 1076 05:32:00.474 --> 05:32:05.664 But this would also mean that the customer has to enter on the [...] values. 1077 05:32:06.294 --> 05:32:14.244 Yeah, yes, yeah, they would somehow, they would have to enter the profile values. 1078 05:32:14.814 --> 05:32:16.314 In the [...] file, yes. 1079 05:32:18.834 --> 05:32:37.584 Just a recommendation and so I think it would totally makes sense to align this to four minutes, which are proposed in seventy- forty one and uh, oh, here, uh, because this would be already a format will, uh, which will be tested. 1080 05:32:44.036 --> 05:32:58.494 Yeah, I think it makes sense to explore that. Christian and I think at this time we're proposing this common [...] file format, but we can, once you find out more information about the new format, we can discuss and see if it's something we can align with. 1081 05:33:03.414 --> 05:33:21.534 It seems like this guy, I guess what that makes sense to me with the note though that as we just talked about, we may be using more than one method, so it'll be something that can be doable for any of the available options for scheduling. If the, for example. 1082 05:33:21.984 --> 05:33:29.064 Technically, it's not fair, but I don't see why that wouldn't be workable, but I'm not technology that familiar with that. 1083 05:33:37.434 --> 05:33:49.224 Yeah, so, uh, Christina, we could probably discuss more during the, uh, PCS working group meetings and learn more about what your proposal is or suggestion. 1084 05:33:57.414 --> 05:34:18.294 This next section was asking the, I used to clarify what is meant by alternative method. So, um [...] clarifies that if the [...] interconnection portals and not capable of accepting a [...] file, um, at the time. 1085 05:34:18.384 --> 05:34:39.474 [...] begins implementation [...]. May need to rely on customers emailing the CSP files to [...] as part of the interconnection request. So [...] will inform its stakeholders once interconnection portals have been upgraded to accept the files and PG e- case, we are currently updating the interconnection portal. 1086 05:34:39.504 --> 05:35:00.594 To allow [...] application submittals. Uh, these updates, I intended to allow international customers to upload the [...] in an [...] acceptable format. In this case, we're proposing the [...] file if this app gets allowing file uploads are not completed when the [...] projects begin [...] will also accept an email to [...]. 1087 05:35:00.654 --> 05:35:07.914 Profile and [...] currently plans to accept a [...] file uploaded by its interconnection portal. 1088 05:35:12.024 --> 05:35:12.954 Any questions. 1089 05:35:23.394 --> 05:35:24.924 Okay, we can move on to the next slide. 1090 05:35:27.744 --> 05:35:47.154 So it's still in the interconnection request phase section to see provide information on certified control systems to be used to control the output requested levels. Uh, the discussion below covers clarification of selection of equipment for. 1091 05:35:47.158 --> 05:36:08.274 [...] applications. I use are currently investigating with industry members, The availability of technology to support [...]. So fast is the use of [...] PCS with scheduling functionality that is not available as of today. Uh, we're expecting this to be available by [...] of two thousand and twenty. 1092 05:36:08.336 --> 05:36:28.706 Three and then the alternate methods that were already covered as part of the discussion earlier by Raja. So for the first question from the resolution, more clarity is needed with regards to the statement provided by [...] that additional requirements for control information. 1093 05:36:29.460 --> 05:36:32.276 Be determined and provided [...]. 1094 05:36:32.280 --> 05:36:53.426 [...] initial to clarify whether this information is part of the technical specifications discussed in issue five should PG also adopt this or similar language PG e- shall meet these requirements. The large I use shall provide this information via revisions to rule twenty- one within the advice letters, which are required to be filed. 1095 05:36:53.454 --> 05:37:13.164 Sixty days following the publication of a satisfied skim [...], fifteen of the twenty- dash zero nine, zero, five, zero, three, five, so [...]. This is the [...] response [...], align with PG, E- methodology of listing satisfied [...]. 1096 05:37:13.674 --> 05:37:34.314 That customers can select during the application process, alternatively joint I use can leverage CC listing when available based on experience interconnecting customers using [...] certified PCS devices, [...] view that there is no need to add additional technical requirements beyond listing of. 1097 05:37:34.344 --> 05:37:55.434 You are satisfied power control systems. I always believe these are not part of the technical requirements requested by Eric as discussed in issue five. Eric suggested that. I use published technical requirements. Eric should discuss what additional technical requirements may be needed. Beyond listing of you are satisfied power control, sir. 1098 05:37:55.468 --> 05:38:12.144 [...], and then that point is just pointing out that certification requirements for your PCS is using a scheduled output. Have not yet been published. So I'll stop here to see if there's any, any questions on this first section. 1099 05:38:15.294 --> 05:38:36.324 Hey Alex, um, this is sort of ironic, but I think the, the question you're asking us is the question we're asking you, which is what additional technical requirements do you want to specify Robert, but Brian just appeared on the screen, probably the better. 1100 05:38:36.384 --> 05:38:37.344 To speak to that, but. 1101 05:38:40.946 --> 05:38:55.314 So before Brian goes, I think this, this was mainly at rest or [...] believe those language in the advice letters that sort of say there might be some additional technical requirements and they're pointing out that, you know, that's not the case anymore. So. 1102 05:38:55.946 --> 05:39:00.324 Yeah, let me, let me clarify that at that point, our view was that. 1103 05:39:00.354 --> 05:39:21.444 We are still going with your BCS standard equipment and so our responses if, if that's the case, then there's nothing else to list because the certification, uh, no requirement and the listing is a requirement now now that the, the [...] records bringing up like. 1104 05:39:21.478 --> 05:39:42.624 Well, what if it's something else, then I think that definitely needs to be discussed, uh, in, in the domain first, whether or not that's acceptable, and if that's acceptable, then what are the technical requirements to make it acceptable, And so, so that's the reason why we respond to this way because the, the idea here is we are using the [...]. 1105 05:39:42.654 --> 05:39:44.154 Yes, control device. 1106 05:39:50.874 --> 05:39:52.884 Steve formula or from Esame. 1107 05:39:54.174 --> 05:39:54.954 Technical. 1108 05:39:55.524 --> 05:40:08.004 Questions be the server and the interaction of the server who whose server is it, where is it located? How does the schedule? 1109 05:40:08.034 --> 05:40:09.264 We'll get into the server. 1110 05:40:12.686 --> 05:40:31.914 Yes, I think there's, if we go beyond the PCS listing, there's going to be further technical considerations that need to be listed, but even if it were only just the power control system that we're focused on, you know, there's, there's a whole list of things in the section. 1111 05:40:33.684 --> 05:40:54.534 Could be construed as technical requirements, like what does the PCS need to provide it needs to provide export control and it needs to provide that it meets the steady state response requirements and the time response requirements of each one of those sections. So that's what those were the types of things that I was thinking of and relate. 1112 05:40:54.564 --> 05:41:15.684 And to their needs, there needs to be some specification of what the system needs to be able to do in order to, to meet what the [...] would consider as an [...] qualified piece of equipment. Um, any old certified power control system can't necessarily do what needs to be done for the. 1113 05:41:15.954 --> 05:41:36.504 Limited generation profile and, you know, it needs to be able to support whatever the correct number of minimally for the scheduling aspect of it. What are the, what's the minimum number of scheduling values that it needs to be able to provide in order to propose a schedule with that number of values. So that seems like. 1114 05:41:36.954 --> 05:41:57.924 A really base minimum technical requirements one, just being that it'd be certified to, you know, the specifics scheduling requirements, the PCS standard, but also, you know, what type of scheduled must've support and then what's the time response and do you have similar steady state response requirements? 1115 05:41:58.376 --> 05:42:08.876 And it would be really hard, I think for someone to specify something ahead of knowing what type of equipment they need to support that requirement. 1116 05:42:16.586 --> 05:42:37.464 So if you're, if you're, if you're, if you're referencing, why do we need to put in there in, in, in whatever it's a new option, then I agree with that. I think what we're maybe getting confused on is whether or not we needed to publish those, those set of criteria somewhere else. Uh, so that's what you were referring to like, yeah, we. 1117 05:42:37.468 --> 05:42:53.994 We need to specify what those technical requirements are going to be that are going to be a going, say any new option, twelve they agree that those, those would be specify in that section, but we wouldn't have, for instance, be publishing something else, somewhere else. 1118 05:42:56.904 --> 05:43:12.804 Yeah, I mean it really just boils down to what is the language that goes in row. Twenty one supporting this, and my expectation is that it would have those technical requirements in there and just wanted to make sure that that's, you know, you all agree that, that doesn't somehow glazed over. 1119 05:43:14.994 --> 05:43:16.734 No, I agree. That, that's, that's. 1120 05:43:17.064 --> 05:43:28.224 The next challenge, you know, figuring out how to do that other section and you'll see, um, you know, how much time we have to be able to make that happen to get to that level of specificity. 1121 05:43:39.776 --> 05:43:41.664 Thanks Roger, any other questions? 1122 05:43:47.184 --> 05:44:04.794 Okay, so for these are the two points that are pretty simple. Um, they, there was an issue with, uh [...] definition of PCS. I think they were defining it as power control settings and the resolution asked him to clarify. 1123 05:44:04.888 --> 05:44:24.384 And s- s- t. Genie confirmed that they will define [...] control systems to align. Um, and then the last point, um, it is unclear if these requirements are part of this is related to the point above. Sorry, the response would be the same as the response in the first section. 1124 05:44:26.124 --> 05:44:27.174 This is Roger, I guess. 1125 05:44:27.204 --> 05:44:27.354 Yeah. 1126 05:44:27.624 --> 05:44:46.284 Just to make sure that we're very clear, What I understood from Brian is that the point where they requested that I use published technical requirements. You know what I understood? We're buying it by please correct me if I'm wrong. Is that your request? is that when we update rule twenty- one. 1127 05:44:47.276 --> 05:45:01.914 So one of the new options or whichever way we want to implement [...] that we update rule twenty- one, but most requirements and that's what you are referring to, you know, quote unquote publish technical requirements, is that correct? 1128 05:45:03.714 --> 05:45:04.676 Yeah, correct. 1129 05:45:06.294 --> 05:45:06.686 Thank thanks. 1130 05:45:07.946 --> 05:45:08.336 Thanks for. 1131 05:45:08.574 --> 05:45:29.484 So Christian, again, just a question to the sixty days in a step to [...]. Um, does this mean, or it would be a required sixty days of the publication of a document, a URL document or. 1132 05:45:29.514 --> 05:45:35.724 Would be there a transition period or a later point when it will be required. 1133 05:45:41.034 --> 05:45:59.064 Yeah, like second answer that. I mean, I, I think our interpretation is that once the, the certification for [...] is publish, then at that point we have sixty- business days or sixty days to a firewall rule. Twenty- one or. 1134 05:45:59.124 --> 05:46:02.036 [...] zero zero twenty one. That's our interpretation at least. 1135 05:46:03.536 --> 05:46:03.804 Yeah. 1136 05:46:03.804 --> 05:46:06.234 And I think Christian, if I understand the question. 1137 05:46:07.584 --> 05:46:21.654 So that isn't going to be required for anybody to do this except for if they, they opt into doing an [...]. So this should be just the point in which they could utilize the [...] using that certified device. 1138 05:46:25.224 --> 05:46:25.584 Yeah. 1139 05:46:25.974 --> 05:46:30.444 No device would be available. Sixty days of the filing. 1140 05:46:33.686 --> 05:46:54.086 And I think we'll go back to normally a slide where I presented my slides, which talks about you for a little off the road. Twenty- one to be able to apply some type of LGB with technology, but there's still a gap between the time you are able to one until we. 1141 05:46:54.114 --> 05:47:02.814 Actually started using it, so hopefully that will allow industry time to sort of develop these, uh, uh, these control systems. 1142 05:47:04.194 --> 05:47:05.244 Yeah, believe it was slide. 1143 05:47:05.244 --> 05:47:06.234 Number last Roger. 1144 05:47:06.714 --> 05:47:07.014 Right? 1145 05:47:08.426 --> 05:47:09.744 Er, er, Alex. 1146 05:47:13.164 --> 05:47:13.554 Go ahead. 1147 05:47:22.494 --> 05:47:23.784 Was there a question Frank. 1148 05:47:32.994 --> 05:47:33.954 Sorry about that for me. 1149 05:47:34.884 --> 05:47:37.374 No, I thought that the Frank was talking. I thought he had a question. 1150 05:47:37.824 --> 05:47:38.334 Oh. 1151 05:47:42.086 --> 05:47:50.876 I guess not. Okay, so this concludes my section. My portion of the presentation, I'm gonna hand this over to my [...]. 1152 05:47:55.376 --> 05:48:14.426 Thank you Alex. All right, so we'll continue on here with phase three technical evaluation phase. We're looking on this slide at steps three [...] and [...] and the corresponding questions in the resolution if you're curious, um, these are within section C- of the resolution. 1153 05:48:14.484 --> 05:48:35.304 This is what the number of items in the second column are referring to, if you'd like to follow along. So the first question we have on step three is the larger use propose to apply all the initial review screens. Eight REL- based on nameplate capacity that shall be clarified and updated as applicable, the large [...] shall abide by the requirements set for set forth in this resolution. 1154 05:48:35.844 --> 05:48:56.754 So we saw earlier today if you were present for that portion of the workshop in topic [...], [...] response here is also exciting this morning, we're working group topic [...], but this is actually covered, uh, earlier in the workshop before lunch today as well, but in those slides we covered in detail, which screens would be using nameplate and which would be using. 1155 05:48:56.784 --> 05:48:57.864 The export value. 1156 05:49:01.524 --> 05:49:22.134 For step three, be a resolution question to a more clarity. Shall be provided with regards to what this implies for the interconnection queue and specific details on how it would function. The steps shall be updated based on results of workshop discussions as directed in resolving issue to the large [...]. Also discuss exceptions need to be made. 1157 05:49:22.164 --> 05:49:42.834 And for certain studies, so the [...] response on this is that the interconnection queue as published will only contain the nameplate for limited generation profile projects projects that request interconnection after an [...] project will be evaluated using the updated [...] values that include the [...] project. 1158 05:49:43.374 --> 05:50:00.174 And it's indicated above and then earlier in the presentation power flow impacts including voltage and thermal criteria will be based on the limited generation profile in the inner connection request while other aspects such as short circuit, [...] will be based on the nuclei capacity of the project. 1159 05:50:02.276 --> 05:50:22.676 And then per decision two thousand and nine, six hundred and seventeen no projects will, would be allowed to move ahead of other projects in the interconnection queue. However, in some cases where we would need to obtain it where we would need to obtain an updated limited generation profile that's described in section [...]. Roman numeral three and appendix. 1160 05:50:22.794 --> 05:50:26.124 A- the timing of subsequent projects may be affected. 1161 05:50:30.744 --> 05:50:49.554 Step three be again, a question to be a [...] and San Diego gas and electric state that the nameplate capacity will be used as a baseline for subsequent impact studies, monthly IC updates and other studies, the steps shall be updated based on results of workshop discussion as directed in resolving issue to the [...]. 1162 05:50:49.560 --> 05:51:01.404 [...] should also discuss with exception, CV made for certain studies. So I'll use we'll update the stuff as needed based on discussions related to resolving issue to use of gross nameplate reading. 1163 05:51:04.464 --> 05:51:06.174 Any questions before we move forward? 1164 05:51:10.524 --> 05:51:11.154 Uh. 1165 05:51:15.474 --> 05:51:24.654 Sorry, yeah, Michael, it's Frank McColgan. Um, how does this work, if you have a. 1166 05:51:26.304 --> 05:51:47.274 A solar project and you apply screens et cetera, nameplate ratings, so forth, but then there's also a battery project, uh, that, that could operate at night. Uh, is it, is it going to be, um, boxed out of being, uh, being. 1167 05:51:47.634 --> 05:51:48.894 Allowed to interconnect. 1168 05:51:51.624 --> 05:52:09.174 Yeah, that's a complex question. I would think that, and I think it may, we may want to hear from each of you on, on how we approach this, but I think we would want to use the coincident output of the earlier acute project when evaluating the project that's currently under review. 1169 05:52:13.044 --> 05:52:23.336 Yeah, I can see that being a, uh, an issue in some cases, if they, if the two projects did actually operate coincidentally. 1170 05:52:27.206 --> 05:52:28.106 But if they didn't. 1171 05:52:31.104 --> 05:52:51.054 Is there a mechanism to allow these projects to operate at different times, you know, to not let that coincident, um, nature of them being located together. Um. 1172 05:52:52.284 --> 05:53:06.144 Not to have that be the dominant factor, uh, you know, the ability to operate the batteries at night when the solar is not operating, is there a way to accommodate that. 1173 05:53:07.464 --> 05:53:13.374 Yeah, I mean my initial reaction to this and I would, I would defer the official answer to someone who's closer to how these projects. 1174 05:53:13.404 --> 05:53:34.494 Are being evaluated today, but I would think that if a generating facility had a time based characteristic as in like an energy storage project that only charges during certain hours or for certain amounts during certain hours and only produces certain amounts during certain hours, then to the extent possible that shouldn't be taken into account in the. 1175 05:53:34.530 --> 05:53:38.364 [...] of projects that are queued after it, but. 1176 05:53:40.344 --> 05:53:44.184 Even others from [...] if you have better information on that, please chime in. 1177 05:53:44.814 --> 05:54:01.314 Yeah, Michael at this point, really, there's no way other than what we're working here in [...]. There's really no way to put restrictions and at least charge in the storage system. So once [...] profile is applied ended up when you can apply the live. 1178 05:54:01.320 --> 05:54:21.836 [...] on the storage system. But at this point there isn't, so our assumption is that it could happen at any time, including the night time study as a nameplate systems, their, their applied, their, their study based on a typical PB profile, which, which has indicated, um, um, Frank. 1179 05:54:22.884 --> 05:54:25.314 Those who will not have an impact during the night. 1180 05:54:27.084 --> 05:54:47.664 Yeah, this is Alex from PG E. So I agree with Michael and Roger, but I think what needs to happen is we need to define the projects. I need, we need more information to know exactly, you know, my may have missed the initial part of your question, but these projects located a different, you know. 1181 05:54:48.084 --> 05:54:49.554 Is it the same location? 1182 05:54:50.694 --> 05:55:11.784 The storage is the storage and the PV DC coupled AC- coupled, um, like Raja pointed out, there's no, uh, acceptable methodology to limit output on an hourly basis. We do have an export or import limitation. I could be, you know, can't charge at all. 1183 05:55:12.054 --> 05:55:32.964 [...] at a limited level, but there's no way to limit charging to specific levels, specific hours or times of the day. So today based on what's available, you can limit storage ability to discharge or charge to a certain level, but there's no way to limit it to different. 1184 05:55:32.994 --> 05:55:54.024 bowls for different times of the day, for example, so if you could, if you wanted to set a profile, you could set the protocol for the whole facility and that would limit export, regardless of which resource was producing at any time. It would just be limited based on a profile once the [...] allowed to be used. 1185 05:55:56.964 --> 05:55:57.234 Huh. 1186 05:56:02.184 --> 05:56:06.564 Okay, for now I gotta, I gotta think on this. 1187 05:56:07.464 --> 05:56:19.494 This, this guy just for his question. Maybe you realize I may not understand what you guys are saying here either, so I understand the part that right now nobody can essentially propose a time depends. 1188 05:56:19.524 --> 05:56:40.374 And profile of any sort that they can propose a limited limited export value and are you saying that when you're, when you're building in the cube projects, you're just assuming the nameplate is export it, regardless of whether it is a limited export project. 1189 05:56:42.144 --> 05:56:46.676 Or a non- export project in terms of what's queued ahead. 1190 05:56:54.294 --> 05:56:54.654 Okay. 1191 05:56:54.748 --> 05:57:07.914 Sorry, I'm having trouble muting here while that's a good question for us. I mean, we would need to explore, so I don't want to give an answer, yes or no, but I would hope that for those limited x- four. 1192 05:57:07.914 --> 05:57:09.024 Projects. 1193 05:57:10.104 --> 05:57:14.664 Are, are, are how we, um. 1194 05:57:16.074 --> 05:57:27.234 Would be what export it net export or for things like thermal and thermal in bulk, but obviously something related to short circuit. 1195 05:57:29.186 --> 05:57:37.044 Right, so you have each of the different criteria you have essentially protection, and then you have the, add all the other criteria. 1196 05:57:37.074 --> 05:57:45.654 Would be appropriate to evaluate the limited generation limited export them out and then production might take into account just the nameplate. 1197 05:57:45.984 --> 05:57:50.034 unemployed, the good thing is, I don't think we received, so many of those or. 1198 05:57:50.694 --> 05:57:51.204 Not yet. 1199 05:57:52.616 --> 05:57:53.276 Relatively. 1200 05:57:55.464 --> 05:58:07.314 But we need to, we may need to, we may need to update a little bit about our with it. I'll get rhythm on the [...], but it doesn't create much impact because there's not, I don't, I don't, I can't think of any projects that are using none of these. 1201 05:58:07.704 --> 05:58:16.524 Well, we do, I've been looking at you guys queues and, um, I mean, relative to the overall number of standard now, but in significant. 1202 05:58:16.554 --> 05:58:37.434 But that there are quite a few of non- exporting projects in there and some of them are even fairly large. Um, so they're on a fee to write theater based on the system wide basis. They may not make a total, a big difference, but only for each feeder, it could be quite a significant difference if you're assuming it does not exporting projects are export. 1203 05:58:38.694 --> 05:58:39.174 Right? 1204 05:58:40.044 --> 05:58:44.964 Yeah, I don't, I don't think I don't, I don't think if there are no next Brown thing we are assuming that there are, um. 1205 05:58:46.104 --> 05:58:50.064 Okay, I'm working with early days of people proposing limited. 1206 05:58:50.154 --> 05:58:58.344 These are limited, right? The limited ones, right? Well you may have a three megawatt system, but only exporting. 1207 05:58:58.974 --> 05:58:59.456 True. 1208 05:58:59.634 --> 05:58:59.936 Right? 1209 05:59:00.356 --> 05:59:04.256 We don't have that many, not if not export. Yeah, let me know. Those are what I was learning. 1210 05:59:05.994 --> 05:59:15.176 Yeah, okay, so it sounds like you might want to circle back or you guys should circle back on what you're doing now and whether that needs to be taken into account somehow. 1211 05:59:15.446 --> 05:59:15.686 Yup. 1212 05:59:16.074 --> 05:59:16.464 Right? 1213 05:59:17.394 --> 05:59:17.936 That is correct. 1214 05:59:25.224 --> 05:59:39.684 Okay, I see, um, what I'm interpreting as a couple of comments in the chat. I don't, I don't see questions there, but if I'm missing anything, please raise your hand and chime in if you have questions. Otherwise, let's go ahead and move on. 1215 05:59:40.524 --> 05:59:41.124 Actually. 1216 05:59:41.184 --> 06:00:02.274 One why this is stuff in Barson from burden. Um, Jason pointed out one of our jobs is looking at improving the [...] maps, um, under the [...] I'm proceeding one question I have that. I think I, for the answer to from utilities, but I'm sort of listing for. 1217 06:00:02.304 --> 06:00:13.824 Back on, well, mainly front of utilities right now. Uh, what if any changes are needed, [...] to support limited generation profiles. 1218 06:00:16.434 --> 06:00:25.614 And are those captured under your current plans or do those need to be captured under additional, you know, under basically the proceeding we're working on. 1219 06:00:26.514 --> 06:00:26.994 So. 1220 06:00:27.054 --> 06:00:27.534 Yes. 1221 06:00:28.104 --> 06:00:29.004 Sorry, let me go. 1222 06:00:29.514 --> 06:00:37.434 Yeah, I can speak per SE. So one of the, one of the key items that comes to mind is improvements to IC regarding regarding. 1223 06:00:37.794 --> 06:00:58.584 Improvements to [...] that are needed to accommodate [...] is once you have a limited generation profile project, enter the interconnection queue by submitting an interconnection request, the corresponding limited generation profile values that, that customer has submitted once that application is deemed complete need to be made available to the. 1224 06:00:58.944 --> 06:01:19.494 Power flow analysis software that is responsible for performing [...] and read that in at the coincident at every coincident hour. So when it's, when it's simulating January at one, in the morning, it's going to pull in the corresponding value from the customer's submitted [...] and take that into account on an hour by hour basis. 1225 06:01:19.856 --> 06:01:40.946 And reflect that in the resulting updated [...] results in terms of the maps themselves. I don't see that as that in and of itself as requiring really any specific functionality change because either before [...] or after [...] customers will still be accessing the maps to download two hundred and eighty- eight [...] static grid. 1226 06:01:41.004 --> 06:01:45.444 Hello and then basing their proposed [...] values off of those. So that's kind of off the. 1227 06:01:45.444 --> 06:01:45.804 Top of my. 1228 06:01:45.804 --> 06:01:48.774 Head, but Alex yeah, go ahead. 1229 06:01:49.374 --> 06:02:01.824 And related, I think this is part of a longer discussion. I just want to tee up right now, um, and get your initial thoughts, but when somebody downloads the [...] profile. 1230 06:02:02.154 --> 06:02:11.334 Does that, and I really should know the answer to this, but does that include the ten percent buffer? I just want to make sure we're not double counting. 1231 06:02:11.754 --> 06:02:16.434 No, it does not, it does not, and that's okay. There's plenty of questions. I should know the answer to, as well. 1232 06:02:20.574 --> 06:02:24.294 Alex, I heard you start to chime in earlier. Was there anything you wanted to add. 1233 06:02:25.764 --> 06:02:38.784 Nope, I wanted to say exactly the same thing you said, but just maybe with a caution that this additional change, it may seem simple, but I think it's going to be a big undertaking. 1234 06:02:38.814 --> 06:02:55.914 Because depending on how these values are consumed by the [...] analysis tools, you know, using a single value for the queued projects versus, you know, profile value. I know I'm not an IC expert, but I think it's going to be significant undertaking. 1235 06:02:56.754 --> 06:02:59.934 Alex to get a little bit fine. 1236 06:02:59.964 --> 06:03:19.044 Around that, and that basically being that for an LTD project, you would have a profile in some ways similar to a PV generation profile that in theory the [...] calculations would need to reflect and account for. 1237 06:03:19.884 --> 06:03:20.606 Exactly. 1238 06:03:21.116 --> 06:03:21.596 So it would. 1239 06:03:21.596 --> 06:03:21.956 Need to. 1240 06:03:21.956 --> 06:03:22.314 Know. 1241 06:03:22.676 --> 06:03:23.606 Nice bunker. 1242 06:03:23.814 --> 06:03:42.026 Exactly it would need to know, you know, the user profile for Paul flow username plate for the screens, like, for example, for the protection screening, you would have to use a nameplate, right? And then for the other screens, probably use their profile value. So, uh, you know, it could be done. anything can be done. 1243 06:03:42.594 --> 06:03:48.384 I guess questioning that this is not as simple as just kinda, you know, making a quick. 1244 06:03:48.414 --> 06:03:55.764 Change, that's one asking the question now, so we can start thinking about the applications. Um, so thank you. 1245 06:03:55.824 --> 06:03:56.544 And. 1246 06:03:56.634 --> 06:04:03.354 As we're going through this, um, as either utilities or other parties have thoughts on that, um, please feel free to. 1247 06:04:03.564 --> 06:04:07.434 Those are, you can just shoot me an email very much appreciated. 1248 06:04:09.834 --> 06:04:11.664 Thank you, Stephan, Justin. 1249 06:04:16.524 --> 06:04:35.304 I was just going to raise some of the same points that Stephanie did. Well, Alex's caution is, is he didn't heard, um, just that we're already mapping a two hundred and eight profile to the [...] output, but it just has to do with the PV output. So. 1250 06:04:35.846 --> 06:04:56.936 Many of those values are [...], um, that get dumped off from Alex because it's night time when there's no Sun, but the, the process of mapping an array array subtracting the two out is mathematically the same, then I'm sorry if I got touched on it had to step out for a second, but I was wondering. 1251 06:04:56.968 --> 06:05:09.924 About why the interconnection queue is only going to contain the nameplate for [...] projects. I would think that if I were looking to develop in a particular spot, I would, um. 1252 06:05:11.574 --> 06:05:30.686 Want to, if not have the two hundred and eighty- eight profile to download that's being proposed, so I can plan around that at least know that the project ahead of me in the queue was an [...] projects. I could compute that. They're probably going to take some of the capacity I'd hoped to. 1253 06:05:32.784 --> 06:05:53.364 Yeah, uh, initial thought on that is the, if I recall the joint [...] discussion on this one that led to only publishing the nameplate bio for [...]. I think that was primarily a discussion of the format of the interconnection queue. I believe there is a row for each project that is in the queue and a corresponding column that. 1254 06:05:53.394 --> 06:06:14.244 Contains the generating capacity. So the concept of how do we include two hundred and eighty- eight values in what's currently included in a single column? Um, I'll use correct me if I'm off on that, but before chiming in regarding kind of the scenario that you detected Justin, I would recommend that. 1255 06:06:14.934 --> 06:06:32.154 The updated [...] values that reflect the L. g. P would maybe be a better place to start in terms of determining the potential or proposed [...] profile for a later [...] project. 1256 06:06:35.604 --> 06:06:54.774 Now that you mentioned that don't disagree, are there any plans to, when we're incorporating the input of the two hundred and eighty- eight values to earlier, it was discussed that the [...] may automatically. I'll put the two hundred and eighty- eight profile to the interconnection application portal. 1257 06:06:55.854 --> 06:07:06.204 Um, I don't know if that's still on the table and if it is, if there might just be like an asterisk on there saying there's a project being considered for this profile. 1258 06:07:07.854 --> 06:07:16.554 Yeah, so I think, I think I heard two things in what you're asking. The, I will say at [...], the Prime. 1259 06:07:16.586 --> 06:07:37.706 Pre- focus functionality that we currently have or is making it into our development. Road maps is the ability to incorporate that limited generation profile for projects that have it and make sure that it's considered appropriately in the calculation of the [...] results. I think the second thing you touched on was an integration between. 1260 06:07:37.734 --> 06:07:58.854 And the published Icaay values and the [...] interconnection portals. I don't, I don't have a sense of the timing on that if that's been a defined function that we're working towards, and if so what that timing would be for that, but I do agree that, that would definitely drive some efficiency and hopefully alleviate some potential opportunities for error by making that. 1261 06:07:58.884 --> 06:08:01.284 Automatically available within the interconnection portal. 1262 06:08:07.284 --> 06:08:24.054 Michael, I want to confirm that I think I heard that [...] is working on a project to basically allow integration of the [...] profile for calculate using calculations in [...], right? Correct. 1263 06:08:24.084 --> 06:08:25.644 Yeah, let me just, let me just repeat it. 1264 06:08:25.676 --> 06:08:46.794 My own words to make sure, so there is defined functionality that I'm discussing with the [...] team itself at [...] That includes the ability to flag a project when it comes in our interconnection portal as this is an [...] project and then be able to make corresponding assumptions around the, the output. 1265 06:08:46.914 --> 06:08:52.314 Of that project as an input to the generation [...]. 1266 06:08:54.384 --> 06:08:56.154 Did I answer the question? You were asking. 1267 06:08:58.376 --> 06:09:12.564 Yes, and I guess the follow on is, you know, by defining functionality, does that mean it's, you know, like on your roadmap or is it like on your wishlist or I realize you might not have the answer for that. 1268 06:09:13.164 --> 06:09:19.196 Yeah, so I just had a chat with some of the folks involved in this last week, so it is, it's going through the. 1269 06:09:19.228 --> 06:09:35.934 Process of prioritization right now, or when it will be kind of implemented, but my impression from that conversation is that it's in, it's in one of the, one of the immediate releases, but I should not try to convey that I have a sense of the timing on that, but I can certainly follow up on it. 1270 06:09:37.946 --> 06:09:53.724 Great, um, and I guess my question would be, or the other two utilities is, I guess do you have a similar plan in place or is that still to be determined? 1271 06:10:06.174 --> 06:10:20.664 Yeah, so this is Alex from PG e- my recollection, um, from talking to the [...] group. Is that the plans are similar to what a microphone Casey just detailed. I don't have the timing, but it sounds like we're on the same roadmap. 1272 06:10:24.804 --> 06:10:27.864 This is Manpower. I'd have to circle with our [...] team. 1273 06:10:28.404 --> 06:10:40.074 Yeah, if you could, um, just circle and, um, I'll follow up with an email, um, I just want to make sure we're framing things properly as we're looking at ICM improvements. 1274 06:10:40.584 --> 06:10:40.974 You bet. 1275 06:10:41.634 --> 06:10:42.084 Thanks. 1276 06:10:44.964 --> 06:10:51.596 Thank you, Stefan. I don't see any other hands up and I think I'm caught up on the chat, so let's go ahead and move to thirty- eight. 1277 06:10:51.866 --> 06:11:04.974 Hey Michael, before we move on there, I want to make sure that we address that Justin's coming. Well, I think we're okay, but, but I think Justin was talking about why not [...] on. 1278 06:11:04.978 --> 06:11:22.764 The, the queue, but I wasn't sure whether we was comfortable later on to say, yeah, just choose the nameplate so Justin, I'm not sure that you want to follow that discussion when you're comfortable with the proposal here to just, uh, how the nameplate, uh, published. 1279 06:11:24.084 --> 06:11:26.124 I mean, there was a little. 1280 06:11:26.154 --> 06:11:34.974 Answer the literal question, which is because two hundred and eighty- eight values don't fill into one box, but I would, you know. 1281 06:11:37.254 --> 06:11:44.184 Sales and spreadsheets are pretty cheap these days, right? It's not, we're not paying by the word, um. 1282 06:11:45.504 --> 06:11:56.994 Maybe the other thing to consider, um, and I'm not sure it's a problem is the privacy section. We're publishing exactly how the customer's operating. 1283 06:11:57.534 --> 06:11:59.574 So something else to consider, um. 1284 06:12:00.534 --> 06:12:03.084 Does the list include the customer name. 1285 06:12:06.114 --> 06:12:09.864 No, it just has the w- the number if this in the circle, if I remember correctly. 1286 06:12:12.954 --> 06:12:14.694 This is Scott. I'm not sure how. 1287 06:12:17.454 --> 06:12:38.034 We're just talking about what's published in the utility skews correct. Not, we've already talked about how it gets integrated into [...]. I think I'm not sure how useful it would be for customer to know what the cue to head customers are [...]. Profile is versus looking at the [...], which is, I think what Michael had said, but you could a simpler comp. 1288 06:12:38.040 --> 06:12:59.124 [...] in between those two and this is something we've been looking for in general that the key was needed for a bit of work to provide much useful information already, but one thing is making sure that it is clear for each project, whether it's an exporting project, a limited exporting project or a non- exporting project, and then you could have. 1289 06:12:59.214 --> 06:13:20.336 The of the distinguish, the nameplate versus the MAX export as a compromise, but I think ultimately I get a lot of questions from clients around what people in the, I think the developers often misunderstand what they can derive from queued head capacity and I keep telling them to look at the [...]. 1290 06:13:20.340 --> 06:13:41.456 [...] for that understanding. However, we're finding issue with the ICF, so there's a, but ultimately I guess I'm kind of supporting utilities perspective that giving a full [...] profile for [...] project in the queue may not be the highest priority, but making sure at least it's clear from the queue whether a project is exporting is full X. 1291 06:13:41.488 --> 06:13:48.084 Fort or it's full nameplate or not. It would at least be construct more instructive information. 1292 06:13:57.354 --> 06:13:58.734 Thank you for that feedback. Scott. 1293 06:14:01.764 --> 06:14:04.884 Any other lingering thoughts on this slide before we move forward. 1294 06:14:12.744 --> 06:14:13.944 All right, next slide. Please. 1295 06:14:17.064 --> 06:14:36.446 Thank you, so we're still in tactical valuation phase on this slide. You'll see, I mean, we're not using the table format here, and that's because the items that we're addressing some kind of header mission they're not in a numbered list, if you're following along in the resolution, we're on page twenty- six hundred and fifty- seven here at the startup phase three tech. 1296 06:14:36.504 --> 06:14:57.594 [...] and the resolution states at the large [...] shall discuss the associated timing to conduct the technical evaluation to avoid conflict with the updates to the [...] values. The next sentence, I'll wait on that because it's actually corresponding to the section below. So the [...] response to this is given that the [...] values are updated on a monthly basis. Tech. 1297 06:14:57.630 --> 06:15:18.776 [...] evaluation will be based on the most updated [...] values. In some cases, the published IC values may be outdated due to a change in the grid [...]. There's actually seventeen different parameters that could trigger a refresh of the [...] values, but some examples are new generation edition of new generation, additional new low. 1298 06:15:18.894 --> 06:15:39.894 Or removal load a change to the circuit configuration. Again, those are just some examples that would trigger a refresh of the [...], the timing of the fast track initial review would be per established requirements fifteen business days from the application being deemed complete changes to this timing for a limited generation profile projects, which. 1299 06:15:39.930 --> 06:15:47.184 Do not meet the ninety percent of [...] for each hour that topic is discussed in slides that followed here. 1300 06:15:49.614 --> 06:16:09.504 And then piecing together the lessons from the top here. Sorry about that. But we remind the larger how to use that per ordering paragraph for the two thousand and nine nine hundred and thirty- five, the large [...] track when the integration capacity analysis outdated values lead to the interconnection requests, failing the initial review and shall also track the costs. 1301 06:16:09.540 --> 06:16:30.684 [...] with the updates, necessitated by the outdated values and provide the data in a reporting document or report. So per ordering paragraph to the [...], we'll utilize the updated IC values when the Icaay values are found to not be up to date and we will comply with the decision requirements related to outdated values the cost tracking for updating. 1302 06:16:31.044 --> 06:16:34.856 Outdated IC values and the reporting requirements that were just quoted. 1303 06:16:39.414 --> 06:16:40.344 Any questions. 1304 06:16:44.364 --> 06:16:57.354 So Michael, this is Alex, I did want to, I don't know if it's on this slide or the next slide, but I do want to clarify something that we discussed, but doesn't seem like it made it too. 1305 06:16:58.944 --> 06:17:00.894 These slides, let's see. 1306 06:17:05.394 --> 06:17:08.124 Yeah, Alex, I think there's a subsequent slide that. 1307 06:17:08.154 --> 06:17:09.536 Okay, nevermind done. Okay. 1308 06:17:09.804 --> 06:17:21.474 But maybe we'll just come back to this slide for, I don't think complex, but we just may want to reference back to, you know, couple of these bullet points as we get to that later. 1309 06:17:22.106 --> 06:17:24.266 Okay, carry on thanks. 1310 06:17:27.444 --> 06:17:30.444 Alright, let's go ahead and move on to the next slide. Please. 1311 06:17:41.426 --> 06:17:59.276 Thank you, alright, so now we're discussing step three D. Roman numeral one and three D. roman numeral two for [...] one resolution question. Three, the larger use date that if the export requests for each of the twelve months is at, or below the ninety. 1312 06:17:59.694 --> 06:18:20.664 Of each month, minimum Icaay, static grid value in the project can continue with its evaluation. This step shall be updated as needed based on discussions related to resolving issue two. So the [...] response on this is we will compare each hour of the customer's proposed limited generation profile values with ninety percent of the [...]. 1313 06:18:20.670 --> 06:18:25.824 [...] static grid profile. Yeah, I use, we'll update this step as needed based on discussions. 1314 06:18:29.936 --> 06:18:50.276 Step three, d. roman numeral two question four from the resolution, the larger use date if all initial review screens [...] are met, including three d, roman numeral one. All requested values are below ninety- percent of each each month, [...] values, then the project will pass the rule. Twenty- one fast track screens. 1315 06:18:50.664 --> 06:18:59.034 Again, this stuff should all be updated as needed based on discussions for resolving issue too. So the [...] will update this step again, based on the discussions. 1316 06:19:03.384 --> 06:19:22.706 So Michael, I think this is, this is the, uh, I think this is a slide where we kind of made some, we had had some discussions and we had to do with what happens if we do not receive, uh, uh, if the customer does not resolve, right, If they don't. 1317 06:19:22.824 --> 06:19:42.684 If they don't resolve this issue of not being below ninety percent of [...], because we give him Dave, we give the customers five days to fix it, right? And then if they don't, then we run the project through using cross template, but what happens if they come back and want to use [...]? 1318 06:19:43.860 --> 06:20:05.004 [...] again, right? So I think what we're proposing and we may have to add it to either this slide or subsequent slides or another slide during the next workshop, is that there's already a section in the carrier that allows customers to make changes that, you know, obviously a need for a supplemental review and we're proposing following that. 1319 06:20:05.034 --> 06:20:26.004 Same section after the initial review is completed and we provide results to our customer base, a certain number of days that they allow to provide information that would remove the need to go to submit to review and the proposal is not to treat [...] customers different from any other customers to have these kind of customers have this allowance and then. 1320 06:20:26.364 --> 06:20:37.614 Kind of follow the same section and not making any changes. So I just want to bring that up, but we may have to present that at the next workshop as far as like the exact steps that we're proposing to be followed. 1321 06:20:40.464 --> 06:20:41.184 So you have lined up. 1322 06:20:41.934 --> 06:21:01.404 Yeah, I just wanted to, this is, I think I understand what we're talking about here. So we're, we're seeing that when a project proposal submits their CSP file and you guys are checking to make sure that they are below ninety percent of the needs are the hours of the profile, right? And then if they're not, then you're going to. 1323 06:21:01.434 --> 06:21:08.394 notify them and they're going to get five days to update the project. Am I am I right? so far. 1324 06:21:10.914 --> 06:21:12.984 Looking for nodding, anyway. 1325 06:21:13.016 --> 06:21:30.894 So that was, that was the, that was the original proposal. So the change that we're making is initially we thought that that would be appropriate to do, right? So customers sent me a profile. We look at it says not below ninety percent of [...]. We would send it back to them. 1326 06:21:31.104 --> 06:21:52.134 Makes it back to them and say, can you propose another profile and then they'd have five business days to respond, if we don't receive a response within five business days that we would proceed to analyzing the project using the project name plate, but this poses some issues for [...], right? Depending on when someone. 1327 06:21:52.194 --> 06:22:13.284 Gets to this project. We may not have five days to complete the project within the timelines allowed within the carrier and subsequent to, you know, after creating the slides, we did find the section section to be the carrier and it's a section that talks about where the key. 1328 06:22:13.320 --> 06:22:34.224 Is that allowed to provide information during the optional results meeting, that would obviate the need for supplemental review. So we feel like we should be able to treat every all the customers the same, so we just want to leverage that section. So there will be no opportunity to fix the [...] profile if the profile is not below ninety. 1329 06:22:34.468 --> 06:22:49.374 Of the [...] profile, the project will fail screen name during the optional results meeting. The customer can say, No, no, no, I am going to fix my profile. Here's a new profile, and at that time we won't be able to reschedule the project based in if to be of the tariff. 1330 06:22:51.414 --> 06:22:53.006 Okay, um. 1331 06:22:55.074 --> 06:23:15.294 The digest that I think that, that does sound like it makes sense to me what I was gonna say was kind of maybe maybe your solution is actually better. I was saying gonna say that I don't, I don't know if it makes sense to me though, like, if they're not below that profile to study them at nameplate because that may not be at all what they're planning on. 1332 06:23:15.836 --> 06:23:31.644 Um, if they find out that they're not below the profile, but if you're basically offering them, you're going to study them, their app name or screen them at nameplate and then add supplemental review again, go back and offer them the opportunity to change. 1333 06:23:34.164 --> 06:23:34.884 I guess. 1334 06:23:35.876 --> 06:23:36.176 Yeah. 1335 06:23:36.324 --> 06:23:54.654 I don't know if it makes sense to screen them and we don't have a lot of like actual project developers on the call right now. I agree for you guys as purposes and also for the customers purposes that one five days is pretty short period of time, and then two, but like, what is. 1336 06:23:55.014 --> 06:24:13.374 Setting them at the names aren't really going to tell them and so are you saying ends up first of all, they'd have to go to supplemental review that under that theory as opposed to avoiding that process, but then you'd give them an opportunity to conform to the [...] profile. 1337 06:24:14.484 --> 06:24:15.984 Yeah, that's why that may. 1338 06:24:16.134 --> 06:24:36.654 Is actually more complicated. I think this is a more cleaner way to do it. The project is being proposed in [...] using a profile, the requirement to pass screen M- is that all hours of the profile be below ninety percent of [...]. So that's a clean parcel fail. So we would stick to that criteria and failed a project if it wasn't. 1339 06:24:37.224 --> 06:24:48.384 Below the [...] and then customers would either go to supplemental review using an [...] or they'd have an opportunity to fix their profile within initial review and resolve that issue. 1340 06:24:48.714 --> 06:24:49.196 Okay. 1341 06:24:49.644 --> 06:24:58.164 Yeah, let me, let me clarify that a little bit here. So I'm not sure if this is what you're thinking. So we will fill. 1342 06:24:58.494 --> 06:25:07.524 The project we will, we will fill the project because one or more hours did not meet in person. 1343 06:25:08.574 --> 06:25:29.304 Prior to going to supplemental review, we have an opportunity for a results meeting kind of a thing at that point, we inform the customer. Hey, you did not meet, uh, the, you know, the sellers, w- what do you want to do? They have the opportunity to say, No, I'm going to give you a new profile here's your new profile and of course we agree on a time. Yeah, we'll give, you know, providing a. 1344 06:25:29.334 --> 06:25:50.184 Couple of days or whatever, once we have the new check, Danny, now that we're in it now, if, for some reason they do not want to maybe the, the, maybe it's too restrictive or whatever they may say, No, you know what I don't want to. I don't want to do an [...] or I mean, I don't want to stay within the limits, send me the supplement review. 1345 06:25:50.514 --> 06:25:59.394 Or that I am pointed The customer decides that they want to grow supplement review. It would be, you know, where the [...] value now without [...]. 1346 06:26:00.714 --> 06:26:03.594 Unless the customer said, I just want to use a limited generation. 1347 06:26:04.104 --> 06:26:05.004 Yeah, exactly. 1348 06:26:05.514 --> 06:26:06.624 Value, yeah. 1349 06:26:10.704 --> 06:26:27.894 We don't even go to a supplementary view, right? Which is customers and gives them an opportunity to update their profile. Customer, gives them to us. We don't need to go to supplemental review for that, right? It's only if they decide that no, nevermind that the [...] is telling me as deeply they end up, we will have to go to the supplemental review. 1350 06:26:30.474 --> 06:26:41.244 Great, so you're essentially offering the customer a time to revise the profile after initial review, um, without re- submitting a new application. 1351 06:26:41.336 --> 06:26:41.696 Right? 1352 06:26:42.054 --> 06:26:44.036 That's pretty cool. Thank you, yeah. 1353 06:26:44.426 --> 06:26:51.086 I mean, I think, I think that's a proposal because, you know, typically customers, I mean, I just. 1354 06:26:51.090 --> 06:27:05.364 Want to make sure that we're being fair too, if we're, if we're going to allow this for [...] projects, which would allow for all other projects, so I think subject to tariff interpretation is a proposal, but I'm not sure that it's actually like, I'm ready to sign. 1355 06:27:06.804 --> 06:27:09.324 Yeah, we need to see you guys have something that's acceptable, we didn't. 1356 06:27:09.324 --> 06:27:09.624 Know. 1357 06:27:10.584 --> 06:27:26.544 We'd have to be something that also can be provided to other customers that they can change their application type with an inflight project as you. I mean, I'm sure everybody understands, we don't want to make a change for this type of projects or not for another project. So. 1358 06:27:28.404 --> 06:27:48.866 So what I proposed before is in the tariff today, right? The language and the tariff and [...] allows that to happen customers can propose a modification to their project and it has to be agreed upon by the utility and the customer, if everybody's on the same page, we can essentially restart the initial review. 1359 06:27:49.584 --> 06:28:00.414 Roger's proposing is essentially changing a study type. I'm not saying it's not allowed, but we just need to verify with our [...] guy that this is something that's okay to do, and if so then, yeah, that would be okay. 1360 06:28:02.034 --> 06:28:18.744 Yeah, and I think we allow, like, you know, redaction or custom or up about twenty percent if I remember correctly, right? So the inner connection faster with one customer can reduce the Apple by twenty percent. So I think it's pretty consistent with that customers as well. 1361 06:28:19.164 --> 06:28:22.404 In this case, it will be an increase because the. 1362 06:28:22.884 --> 06:28:29.634 Would be above the profile, right? And we don't know what the proposal template was It could be an increase of thirty percent forty- percent. 1363 06:28:29.634 --> 06:28:29.934 So. 1364 06:28:30.474 --> 06:28:31.254 That's the difference. 1365 06:28:31.464 --> 06:28:31.704 Yeah. 1366 06:28:33.354 --> 06:28:35.424 So can we get a confirmation on. 1367 06:28:35.424 --> 06:28:35.964 This. 1368 06:28:36.714 --> 06:28:38.904 Uh, then the next workshop. 1369 06:28:42.776 --> 06:28:46.526 Appropriate to update this in the next workshop. Yeah. 1370 06:28:46.946 --> 06:29:02.214 So I just don't unclear this Biggie. I'm not sure if I quite followed the part about. So under the material modifications rules, you're only allowed to reduce by a certain amount, right? And are you saying that, that would be the limitation, but that's kind of. 1371 06:29:02.244 --> 06:29:23.334 Requires that you go through the material [...] process versus what we're fitting in here. All I want to say, I think you guys are heading in the right direction here. This is actually something that's in our batteries report. I think it'd be great if we can accommodate this within the process. Um, but it sounds like we need to confirm a little bit of the details. 1372 06:29:23.394 --> 06:29:44.514 On exactly how it works and I agree that we should offer it to whatever project again, the whole idea of this is that we avoid additional review that's not necessary and we avoid, and we allow projects to take advantage of whatever available capacity there is. So if I'm understanding it, I think you guys are heading in the right direction and I'm happy to talk further if you think that there's. 1373 06:29:44.754 --> 06:29:47.964 Things you want to refine, obviously everybody else. 1374 06:29:49.764 --> 06:30:05.544 I mean, I think that there was between these other projects. there's other projects that are, it'd be good to plan for the maximum output nameplate. Um, and so they already submitted all that, all the information for the project where these LGB projects. 1375 06:30:06.384 --> 06:30:12.564 They're staying with the same nameplate what we've seen is that you can use a little bit more than nameplate, right? Um, so. 1376 06:30:12.564 --> 06:30:16.524 More or less limit your export more. 1377 06:30:17.184 --> 06:30:17.394 Right? 1378 06:30:17.934 --> 06:30:20.154 Yeah, that's good. 1379 06:30:20.694 --> 06:30:26.784 We'll have an update then the next one I think the reason why we brought that up. I think this task quite a bit a significant. 1380 06:30:27.474 --> 06:30:46.644 Change from water. original proposal was, which was, let's give five days for them to update it, and then there's a lot of questions that came in the resolution with us. So when sort of throw that idea, that's probably best to address it this way as opposed to what we already have. We had originally proposed. 1381 06:30:47.006 --> 06:30:47.936 Right, in theory. 1382 06:30:47.994 --> 06:30:58.344 You might have also identified that they failed. One of the other screens. So you'd be giving them all that information, not just that the [...] profile doesn't match if you complete the process, right? 1383 06:31:04.074 --> 06:31:21.804 So if I'm understanding this, right, the proposal on the table is to, rather than use the material modifications process to use the, the meeting to review the initial screen analysis to determine what the modifications, if any may permit to generate. 1384 06:31:21.834 --> 06:31:42.744 Facility to be connected safely and reliable without supplemental review, not meeting in that discussion as an option for all interconnection customers, The difference being what we've contemplated earlier by, right, I believe the fraud recollection is correct and that sounds right to me, but it's been awhile as the, the. 1385 06:31:42.984 --> 06:32:04.104 Connection customer would have by, right? Um, the ability to reduce their, uh, output by a certain amount, um, just trying to look ahead on what issues may pop up in terms of folks potentially abusing the. 1386 06:32:05.936 --> 06:32:25.164 What I think is a good offer from the [...] to allow for rejiggering a limited generation profile within that meeting because maybe to provide some kind of a guidance as to what would be an acceptable range of modification to be considered within the. 1387 06:32:25.284 --> 06:32:46.404 Meeting because we've got language that allows kind of reasonable changes by ride through the material modification process. We don't have language and kind of establishes what a reasonable change might be unlimited generation profile and that affects folks downstream, so it probably makes sense to, to harmonize on. 1388 06:32:47.244 --> 06:32:51.504 Um, kind of what the range of things would be willing to talk about in that meeting would be. 1389 06:32:53.454 --> 06:33:07.554 If you guys want, we can send you what link would we have in, in the batteries, the batteries proposal is essentially to build in a process where a project can make a change is, and not have to be considered sort of separate from a material model. 1390 06:33:07.558 --> 06:33:28.674 [...] make a change directly in response to screen results. So if you say we're just talking about our old old school one hundred a minimum load screen, if you said you guys get good results, you say how much somebody is above the, whatever the test result is they would say, Oh, I'll just drop that by one hundred kilowatts so that I'm within that. 1391 06:33:28.764 --> 06:33:49.854 It's the idea and we have language that may fit here or not, but it's worth worth looking at. That's why I like this idea is that it's kind of saying separate promo material modification, which is proposed for other reasons, customer reasons or whatever our customers, if customer can make a change in a reasonable time within the process, that's responsive to the results, then we have a more into. 1392 06:33:49.884 --> 06:33:56.336 Active process that enables projects to be optimizing based upon available capacity. 1393 06:34:00.684 --> 06:34:00.834 Okay. 1394 06:34:03.264 --> 06:34:16.944 alrighty, thanks for all the feedback on this one. I just wanted to check before we move on Justin, if your question at two hundred and fifty- four zero PM was fully addressed about five business days or five days for any response. 1395 06:34:20.454 --> 06:34:21.174 Um. 1396 06:34:25.164 --> 06:34:28.014 I think so. I think the language and to be. 1397 06:34:37.404 --> 06:34:56.094 Actually, I don't know. Let's just ask directly, um, Alex and Company if the interconnection customer calls back after four days and says, yes, I want to change my profile, but I'm not sure to what yet Would you go ahead and read. 1398 06:34:56.154 --> 06:34:58.404 Them at nameplate or would you put a pause on that? 1399 06:34:58.676 --> 06:35:04.586 So the proposal. So this section this whole response to [...]. 1400 06:35:04.704 --> 06:35:25.734 Is the discussion that Roger and I had been having, so our proposal is not to provide this five business days as, as before and leveraging [...]. So the project if he does not pass or the [...] is not below ninety percent of the [...] profile, it would fit. 1401 06:35:25.764 --> 06:35:41.964 I'll screen EM then there will be an optional results meeting, which the customer can propose changes to the [...] profile and I use can then restart this screen m- so the five days is off the table to say. 1402 06:35:42.324 --> 06:35:46.884 Hey Alexa, but they're saying, I don't remember the exact details, right? But. 1403 06:35:47.456 --> 06:35:59.904 I believe that once we have the results review meeting, there's a timeline as to, when a customer has to provide changes if any, is that correct? I don't remember whether it's five days or. 1404 06:35:59.904 --> 06:36:02.186 Fifteen days five days five days, sorry. 1405 06:36:02.544 --> 06:36:08.036 So then, so, so going back to those days, but I think the, the, the. 1406 06:36:08.274 --> 06:36:11.064 Going through these, these, these option is better. 1407 06:36:12.414 --> 06:36:19.644 To interrupt you. I stand corrected. It's not five days. The five days is for the customer to request the meeting. So within five days. 1408 06:36:23.094 --> 06:36:26.574 So we'll research it. I think college, but. 1409 06:36:26.784 --> 06:36:26.874 I. 1410 06:36:26.874 --> 06:36:41.724 Don't think I imagine, I imagine that there has to be a timeline from the time that we do the meeting to the timeline where the customer has to make a change if any, if the customer doesn't make the change during the timeline. 1411 06:36:41.994 --> 06:36:55.134 Then we study them a nameplate. They provide a change by the time, and then we take their change now for the updated analysis, I will clarify that. well, in the, in the next next meeting. 1412 06:36:55.856 --> 06:36:59.456 Yeah, I think it says mutually agreed upon timeline, so. 1413 06:37:07.764 --> 06:37:28.314 Okay, so I'm going to propose that we move to slide forty here. I believe that we continue talking about elements of what we just discussed in the subsequent slides. So if you could ask the [...] to keep a keen ear to this and flag, if anything that we had previously developed in these responses is now inconsistent with. 1414 06:37:28.434 --> 06:37:49.374 We just discussed, but in any case, uh, still in phase three on slide forty here we're now on step three D, Roman numeral three resolution question, five, the larger I use proposed to inform the customer if the export requests for one or more of the twelve months of LTP is not at, or below the ninety percent [...] limit. 1415 06:37:49.674 --> 06:38:10.674 The larger you shall clarify how this will be communicated within what timeline, in the review process, it will be communicated and agree on a format for communicating, the appropriate values to be utilized in order to expedite the response from the customer and streamline interconnection process. The larger you shall discuss the significance to the Q position and if the customer will preserve their cube. 1416 06:38:10.708 --> 06:38:31.854 [...] under these circumstances, the larger you shall also clarify how future grid conditions that weren't a change to the GP will be communicated to the customer and the time required to change the LTP. The step should also be updated as needed based on workshop discussions. So the response at least at the time that these slides were created, I think it's consistent with what. 1417 06:38:31.884 --> 06:38:52.974 It was discussed on the last slide, is that the, I use identification of section [...] of the TERRA allows the modifications that obviate the need for supplemental review in order to be fair to all of the rule, Twenty- one projects including those currently using [...], I use proposed bailing screen an initial review whenever the [...] does not comply with ninety. 1418 06:38:53.334 --> 06:39:02.994 [...] profiles. So I think I perceive this as an inconsistency, but what we just discussed or a change, but [...], please chime in here. 1419 06:39:04.734 --> 06:39:17.454 This is, this is exactly what we're talking about. I think this was the difference between this and the previous slide. I didn't realize we already made this change on the slides, but this is the proposed change from the five business days that we had before. 1420 06:39:23.934 --> 06:39:40.944 Okay, so, so if I'm getting all this correct, we're failing screen em if they're not less than ninety percent of [...] at every hour in their initial proposal, and then we're going to meet with them and inform them of where they were in error and then give them an opportunity to. 1421 06:39:40.974 --> 06:39:50.094 Update that consistent with section [...] and then reevaluate under initial review based on the revised profile. Is that the correct characterization. 1422 06:39:51.174 --> 06:39:51.654 Yes. 1423 06:39:52.614 --> 06:39:52.974 Okay. 1424 06:39:55.254 --> 06:40:08.664 Thanks for that. Alex, the last kind of note on this, uh, resolution question is that the joint [...] advice letters referenced on the third bullet discuss the needed updates based on future grid conditions. 1425 06:40:12.084 --> 06:40:16.854 Did I reopen any questions or any additional clarification needed on this slide? 1426 06:40:19.914 --> 06:40:33.204 So I saw Alex put in the, the chat the timeline. I think that there will maybe need to be a little clarification of this section. It sounds like the timeline here is that the applicant. 1427 06:40:35.004 --> 06:40:55.674 That the utility if they agree on modifications, the distribution provider will provide the applicant within an [...] within fifteen business days. I guess the question that we might need to specify how the applicant and when the applicant actually ask to provide the new profile, maybe you guys just agree on it in the meeting, but there may need to be some time this because. 1428 06:40:55.704 --> 06:41:16.674 The timeline here it seems to there doesn't seem to be an exact timeline for the customer. So that's Alex. Thanks for clarifying that, and I think it'd be great to figure out what's a reasonable timeline for our customer. I don't know what that is, but I do think we want to have a timeline in there and I do think it needs to be both. 1429 06:41:16.830 --> 06:41:22.706 [...] over the customer, but not too long because later Q projects are waiting and we don't want to drum up the works here. 1430 06:41:26.756 --> 06:41:27.356 Thank you, Scott. 1431 06:41:32.454 --> 06:41:35.124 Alright, if no other questions. Let's move to the next slide. Please. 1432 06:41:39.116 --> 06:41:57.686 Okay, so still in technical evaluation phase, the first one here is step three, D, Roman numeral three resolution question. Six, this was directed at sending you a gas and electric [...] shall correct its language to reflect at or below ninety percent instead of only below ninety percent SDG. 1433 06:41:57.718 --> 06:42:01.944 Confirms that they will make this change [...]. 1434 06:42:01.974 --> 06:42:23.064 For question seven, I think this one is again, a consistency check with what we've been discussing here, but the large [...] state that if the customer does not respond within five business days of the notification to update the [...], so that all values are at or below ninety percent [...] profile values. The project will be evaluated using full name play capacity. 1435 06:42:23.124 --> 06:42:44.184 That monthly limits we interpret this step to mean that unless a new limited generation profile is proposed by the customer upon notification by the large I used to stay within the [...] values, the application will default to a non- [...] option application and the studies will be conducted as a regular interconnection request without. 1436 06:42:44.366 --> 06:43:05.394 JP and the customer will be responsible for any electric grid upgrades if they proceed with the application, the large you shall clarify this in the workshop discussions and include this clarification in the subsequent advice letters. So at the time this slides were drafted, the [...] started that the statement was correct and committed to discussing it this workshop and clarifying the outcome. 1437 06:43:05.424 --> 06:43:06.384 Any advice letters. 1438 06:43:14.814 --> 06:43:30.776 So I'm trying to put the pieces together here and I think what we just discussed was that we would fail them, but we would, again, we would discuss this and inform them during the review meeting with the customer and then present the options for them to either update the limit. 1439 06:43:30.804 --> 06:43:39.474 Generation profile to be consistent at, or below ninety percent of the [...] profile values or determine otherwise the next steps that they'd like to proceed with. 1440 06:43:47.784 --> 06:44:08.814 Okay, three, d- four question, seven continued the large [...] shall also clarify any additional changes required for this step based on the outcome of discussions towards resolving issue to, and abide by previous direction regarding material modifications [...] responses that no additional changes required in reference. 1441 06:44:08.850 --> 06:44:19.014 To issue to the applicability of gross nameplate reading for certain role, twenty- one screens and that material modification allowances per rule. Twenty one are not being proposed to be changed. 1442 06:44:26.124 --> 06:44:28.044 Questions or comments on this slide. 1443 06:44:33.894 --> 06:44:52.464 Microsoft, so I think only comment is that we'll probably need to make changes to this slide as well, right? Um, five days, and then we also need to address what Roger brought up is even once we offer this opportunity for customers to change the profile, if they. 1444 06:44:52.584 --> 06:45:03.354 Aren't update your profile and we do go to submit for review then, you know, the issue of studying the music template has to be documented somewhere. I believe. 1445 06:45:05.544 --> 06:45:11.036 Yeah, so I think, I think we go into that on the next slide, Alex, but check if I'm misinterpreting. 1446 06:45:11.724 --> 06:45:12.116 Okay. 1447 06:45:15.596 --> 06:45:17.574 Alright, let's go and move to the next slide. Please. 1448 06:45:32.366 --> 06:45:37.644 Thank you, alright, hoops should be on. 1449 06:45:39.090 --> 06:45:40.016 Forty- two, I believe. 1450 06:45:42.654 --> 06:45:44.124 We could back up one slide. Please. 1451 06:45:51.474 --> 06:46:07.284 Thank you, alright, so still in technical evaluation phase here, step three, D, Roman, numeral four. Uh, this is again a question seven continued additionally, the larger you shall discuss the timeline for review of the screens and consequences that the customer does not respond to. No. 1452 06:46:07.314 --> 06:46:28.404 Thus within the time allowed among the topics to be discussed with the customer, lose the Q position, if customers still requested [...] treatment, does this timeline allow the developer to reasonably be able to contact equipment manufacturers and get clarity on technical questions around inverter capabilities, the large you shall justify the need for such a short risk. 1453 06:46:28.464 --> 06:46:49.554 Created and how it aligns with other role. twenty- one timeline requirements. So the ID responses, no changes are proposed to the timeline to review the interconnection screens. Uh, one, one notification will be provided the customer must respond within five business days of being notified the customer's queue position will not be impacted when the customer is requested to. 1454 06:46:49.590 --> 06:47:10.734 Update their profile and the customer responds within five business days, if customer does not respond within the five business days and subsequently still request [...], the customer must submit a new interconnection request and its queue will be based on the timing of the new interconnection request, allowing more days for customers for the customer to respond can, cause, can impact subsequent process. 1455 06:47:10.738 --> 06:47:31.884 Is in the queue, which may be waiting to be studied developers should, as should be well versed on the capabilities of their system and should not need to contact manufacturer for capabilities of equipment and the justification component of this is five business days is used for other parts of the rule. Twenty- one where customer where the customer is required to provide additional information. 1456 06:47:31.914 --> 06:47:37.254 An example provided this section, E- five, B, Roman numeral two. 1457 06:47:41.634 --> 06:48:01.434 Yeah, Mike, just, just, just as I mean, this will change once we up in the next, when we come back next time, uh, to how we would address a change or if a customer doesn't follow the ninety- th- percentile. So I would say, I don't think we need a lot of discussion here because this is probably. 1458 06:48:01.526 --> 06:48:02.544 We change it the next version. 1459 06:48:04.884 --> 06:48:05.904 Thanks for that. Roger. 1460 06:48:09.474 --> 06:48:29.574 Okay, three, d- five question, eight. This was for PG E PG e- shall provide clarity on whether the tools are PG E tools or the customer's tools and justify such needs should San Diego gas and electric and [...] adopt this statement. This requirement will also apply. so new tools will have to be developed. 1461 06:48:29.724 --> 06:48:50.844 Surely evaluate limited generation profile projects. These tools are necessary to efficiently extract the most updated [...]. static grid profile import. The customer provided [...] profile compare each hour of the profiles and determine if the project needs the criteria at each hour. Additional enhancements to planning tools and [...] processes may be needed to enable efficient and automate. 1462 06:48:50.874 --> 06:49:11.934 Integration of [...] into the interconnection process. In addition, distribution modeling, enhancement would be necessary to reflect the [...] projects and I think these comments here related to the discussion we had earlier with Stephan once the [...] project connects a unique output profile must be stored maintain and reference in system. 1463 06:49:12.000 --> 06:49:16.706 Planning interconnection and [...] studies, and I heard someone chime in there. 1464 06:49:17.006 --> 06:49:25.824 Oh yeah, I was gonna say, is this just PG e- uh, speaking or is this, uh, all the utilities that it will need all this. 1465 06:49:27.744 --> 06:49:34.614 Yeah, so the response here looks consistent for [...]. I believe this applies for us as well. 1466 06:49:39.684 --> 06:49:40.494 San Diego. 1467 06:49:43.914 --> 06:49:45.054 Yeah, yeah. 1468 06:49:46.196 --> 06:49:57.654 Yeah, I believe we are aligned as well. Um, based off the, the joint deck, so unless something's changed, um, which I do not believe that it has, so I believe we're all aligned. 1469 06:49:59.964 --> 06:50:02.634 Thank you, thanks for that clarifying question Jose. 1470 06:50:08.664 --> 06:50:12.384 I don't see any other hands- up. Let's go ahead and move forward. 1471 06:50:23.364 --> 06:50:40.824 Thank you, alright, so now we're moving into phase four, the interconnection agreement permission to operate phase so step four, a Roman numeral two resolution question, one, a large value shall provide clarity regarding how this may affect future interconnection. 1472 06:50:40.856 --> 06:51:01.974 Applications by the same customer, including whether the customer would be allowed after termination of the agreement to interconnect again, under the [...] option, and if so any additional requirements imposed due to not having followed operating specifications before the large [...] shall provide clarity on the details of the process and. 1473 06:51:02.004 --> 06:51:23.124 Timing to rebuild the PTO and how disconnection of the noncompliance system will occur. So I think the context here is that an [...] project has interconnected and has exceeded the limited generation profile values in the interconnection or referenced by the interconnection agreement. So the [...] response here is for conditions, which, you know. 1474 06:51:23.154 --> 06:51:43.766 Immediately causes safety and, or reliability concern, the customer would be notified by the utility they would be required. Customer would be required to make the correction within fifteen business days of that notification. If the corrections are not made within fifteen business days from being notified the permission to operate would be remote [...] reserve the right to confirm the generator has not reconnected. 1475 06:51:46.104 --> 06:52:05.424 For conditions, which do impose an immediate safety and reliability risks that [...] will take immediate action to disconnect the project from the grid until the correction has been made, if corrections are not made within fifteen business days from being notified or being disconnected the PTO will be remote and again, I'll use reserve. 1476 06:52:05.454 --> 06:52:20.664 The right to confirm the generator has not reconnected and then the last part here is the [...] We're not intending to impose additional requirements for customers who had a remote [...], the customer can request interconnection under any [...] approved procedures. 1477 06:52:26.184 --> 06:52:44.874 Okay, step for a Roman numeral two resolution question. One B- the larger you shall detail the terminology that will be used to clarify that the utility may take actions. Detail should include what actions will be taken. The timeline for such action and relevant rules such as role two that are applicable. 1478 06:52:44.908 --> 06:53:06.024 In such a situation [...] response to the revocation of PTO will be based on the executed interconnection agreement specifying and approved limited generation profile if such [...] is not followed even after being notified, then I use have the right under the interconnection agreement to revoke [...] and terminate the agreement. I'll use will update the interconnection agreement. 1479 06:53:06.084 --> 06:53:15.984 Parameters from response above question. One eight, any questions or clarifications on this slide Skype? 1480 06:53:17.034 --> 06:53:27.204 Yeah, just to clarify. Um, so hopefully one right now has the section. I think it's d- nine or [...] connection, which does. 1481 06:53:27.234 --> 06:53:48.356 Have any of these timelines or are you suggesting that the timelines would be put into the [...] or would this language go the language in for eight to one day. Go into row. twenty- one under that section. 1482 06:53:48.360 --> 06:53:53.186 In, on curtailment and disconnection or would it go into the [...]? 1483 06:53:55.764 --> 06:53:59.994 Yeah, I don't, I don't know if the I used to discuss that, but if anyone has thoughts please chime in. 1484 06:54:02.814 --> 06:54:23.544 Yeah, I agree with you, Mike. I don't think that we have discussed that. So I'm not sure, I mean they can opinion from you as to what's the best weather update the rule or just specify that in the inner connection. I think we're open to [...]. Doesn't make the room more complicated. 1485 06:54:24.176 --> 06:54:33.744 And, uh, and, but the same thing we didn't have the ability to exercise these capabilities we needed to. I don't expect, but if we need to do that. 1486 06:54:34.734 --> 06:54:44.756 Yeah, I don't initially have any strong preference one way or the other other than we, in the previous advice letter you guys propose. 1487 06:54:44.784 --> 06:55:05.904 The language for that for that D- nine for disconnection [...], and maybe it fits within there to be updated, I agree with you. The main thing is that it needs to be clear somewhere and my initial thought on this is that, that's the proposal itself is reasonable. 1488 06:55:06.054 --> 06:55:25.554 Um, so I think we just need to, it seems like if we're adding a section on, for timeline, disconnection about GP anyways in row, twenty- one, maybe that's the place for it. Wow, so that it's all transparent, but as long as it's clearly articulated and put in the advice letter so that we can see the exact language, initially have a strong preference. 1489 06:55:27.384 --> 06:55:47.874 This is Gary opinion on that as well. Mainly, because when you have operational issues, they're more likely to be in the interconnection agreement and that's probably the right place for them, or maybe, maybe it would be best from both places, but for sure. 1490 06:55:48.926 --> 06:56:01.106 Um, you know, there are operational requirements in the [...] in the, in the pro Forma. I that I probably need to be looked at, in relation to [...]. 1491 06:56:11.336 --> 06:56:19.134 Alright, thank you for the questions and comments on that one. I don't see another hands up. So let's go ahead and move forward to the next slide. Please. 1492 06:56:26.634 --> 06:56:41.784 Okay, so a step for a Roman numeral two resolution question one C. P. G- uses the term if multiple instances, PG e- shall clarify this term, including how the term multiple is defined and the timeframe of the reoccurrence [...]. 1493 06:56:42.054 --> 06:57:02.934 Also adopt this type of language and aligning the language of the processes they shot by this requirement. So PG e- clarifies that the [...] customer would be required to make the correction within fifteen business days of being notified of an issue. If corrections are not made within fifteen business days from being notified the [...] will be revoke. 1494 06:57:03.414 --> 06:57:06.714 I use reserve the right to confirm the generator has not reconnected. 1495 06:57:12.804 --> 06:57:31.134 Step for a Roman numeral three resolution question to the large [...] required. Customers provide quarterly reporting data, the larger you shall update the step based on outcome of the discussions set forth in this resolution [...] responses that says already been addressed where I'll use, we'll use [...] data. 1496 06:57:31.164 --> 06:57:38.184 And telemetry, uh, telemetry for projects greater than, or equal to one megawatt to verify the [...] performance requirements. 1497 06:57:41.094 --> 06:57:42.744 Questions or clarifications here. 1498 06:57:51.684 --> 06:58:00.354 So for, for eighty two, it sounds like what you're saying is that if multiple instances is going to go away. 1499 06:58:02.214 --> 06:58:05.334 Yeah, that's my interpretation, but ask PG e to clarify. 1500 06:58:08.364 --> 06:58:09.384 Alex, I'm asking you. 1501 06:58:13.194 --> 06:58:16.104 So I think what we're saying is that if we. 1502 06:58:17.874 --> 06:58:38.784 If a customer violates the export, right, then we would give them a chance to fix it and if they don't fix it, then we'll revoke PTR. So I think the question before was like, what does multiple instances mean and the clarification was that it doesn't mean that they export violated more than one. 1503 06:58:38.876 --> 06:58:48.866 It just means that we determined that there was a violation at some point so that, then we notify the customer to fix the issue and allow them fifteen businesses to do. So. 1504 06:58:55.134 --> 06:59:05.124 We're going to clarify this discussion. This language was saying, this, this language is the same language. We're talking about as to whether it goes in the [...] or the extra room and, or as a separate, sorry, following up. 1505 06:59:05.154 --> 06:59:05.874 It's the same thing. 1506 06:59:05.904 --> 06:59:06.114 Okay. 1507 06:59:06.114 --> 06:59:06.714 So same thing. 1508 06:59:06.834 --> 06:59:10.974 So we'll clarify and you guys are all going to use consistent language, whatever we get to. 1509 06:59:11.634 --> 06:59:12.024 Right? 1510 06:59:12.324 --> 06:59:13.194 That's correct. Yeah. 1511 06:59:19.464 --> 06:59:22.584 Alright, thank you. Let's go ahead and move on to the next slide. Please. 1512 06:59:26.036 --> 06:59:44.964 Alright, so now we are talking about step four B and the interconnection agreement PTO phase resolution question, three states, the large [...] shall clarify the purpose and need for field performance verification and commissioning testing and the difference between the testing performed by the large I'll use as opposed to that required by. 1513 06:59:45.324 --> 07:00:06.206 Certification to a standard and how it fits into current role. Twenty- one requirements, this requirement shall be applied to any step where mention of such verification or testing is needed by the large. I'll use the larger. You should also discuss other possible methods to verify this, including using a remote inspection and using [...] two thousand and thirty point. 1514 07:00:06.238 --> 07:00:27.354 Five to verify performance, [...] responses. I'll use field performance verification commissioning tests verified operational performance for ensuring that the installed equipment has been set up to meet the intended need [...] field performance verification commissioning tests differ from certification to differ. Sorry from certification testing in. 1515 07:00:27.414 --> 07:00:47.994 But these are operational tests for equipment that has been installed in the field as opposed to lab tests used by and, and RTLS to verify that the equipment being tested meets the requirements of the standard, such as [...] one hundred and forty- seven dash one dot one dash, two thousand and twenty or [...] seven hundred and forty- one SSP. 1516 07:00:49.224 --> 07:01:09.684 Well, I use reserve the right to verify performance on any project prior to issuing [...] in practice, I use will only perform field verification on projects that are using new methods or new equipment. Once I use become familiar with the methods and the equipment I use may no longer require to be the witness of the operational performance and commissioning [...]. 1517 07:01:09.714 --> 07:01:16.074 Yes, and we understand that these tests should always be performed whether or not the [...] are present and to witness the tests. 1518 07:01:20.904 --> 07:01:25.134 So, is this different from what you'd be doing for any other project? 1519 07:01:28.584 --> 07:01:37.074 Are you proposing language? That's specific to l. G. P here with verification and commissioning testing. 1520 07:01:37.944 --> 07:01:39.684 No, it's simply what we do today, right? 1521 07:01:40.884 --> 07:01:55.706 Any other project. So this may be a little bit, you know, the testing itself, maybe a little bit different, but we will be doing the same commissioning the field verification as other projects. 1522 07:02:03.594 --> 07:02:04.824 Justin, I see your hand up. 1523 07:02:09.264 --> 07:02:11.814 Yeah, I think this is a bit of a difficult one. 1524 07:02:21.294 --> 07:02:22.824 I may have lost your audio Justin. 1525 07:02:22.856 --> 07:02:24.414 Yeah, Justin, we lost your audio. 1526 07:02:46.794 --> 07:02:47.154 Hm. 1527 07:02:50.784 --> 07:02:55.614 Apologies, I'm on the North Coast and power this window. Um, can you hear me now? 1528 07:02:56.394 --> 07:02:56.934 Yes. 1529 07:02:59.784 --> 07:03:00.864 Turn on my speakers. 1530 07:03:07.434 --> 07:03:22.644 So I think this is a, particularly difficult one because the [...] do reserve the right to perform commissioning test to verify operational performance on really any equipment to ensure that it was suitable for purpose and safe and reliable. 1531 07:03:25.224 --> 07:03:39.144 The difficulty comes in when I use require a greater degree of conditioning test for any particular technology and whether that degree of permissioning tests is. 1532 07:03:42.054 --> 07:03:56.154 Appropriate to the level of risk. I remember my conversation, Roger and I had on the updates to grid interactive Inverters, they inspected every single one of them and had zero defects. 1533 07:03:58.888 --> 07:04:20.004 So I'm a little concerned that, leaving this super squishy. I know that we did provide language believers, resolution, five thousand and fifty- thirty six that gave a good discussion of the level of testing that was. 1534 07:04:22.254 --> 07:04:41.184 Required and permissible and adjustification for it for different functions on this one, but I would imagine that, that framework is one that they are used good review and either confirm that they are going to be within or give. 1535 07:04:41.336 --> 07:04:43.196 rationale for exceeding. 1536 07:04:48.774 --> 07:04:51.054 Little blind here, because I'm sure. 1537 07:05:00.084 --> 07:05:05.394 Thank you for that. Justin, I'm, I'm personally not familiar with that framework, but that's something we can definitely take a look at. 1538 07:05:10.766 --> 07:05:15.206 Any other comments on Justin's question or comment there. 1539 07:05:19.224 --> 07:05:37.286 Just a clarification question on Justin's remarks, is he suggesting that we may need to revise the verification commissioning test process for all interjecting generators or creating a separate process for LTP. 1540 07:05:38.036 --> 07:05:39.234 It's not quite clear where he's going. 1541 07:05:39.294 --> 07:05:58.734 Oh, sorry, sorry for the discombobulated than the answer. The, what I'm looking to understand is whether the [...] are going to commit to the same sort of framework for when commissioning tests are required as they were doing. 1542 07:05:58.764 --> 07:06:04.734 Acted too, I believe it was five thousand or fifteen thirty- six and you can find the language and we can bring it up next time. 1543 07:06:07.704 --> 07:06:26.484 It's at the end of the day. The user responsible for maintaining a safe reliable distribution grid and getting quite a bit of latitude in that regard, um, being prescriptive in terms of limiting our usability to perform commissioning tests. 1544 07:06:27.596 --> 07:06:47.876 Um, outside of what the permissions already approved, this is from because, you know, you don't want to have responsibility for something you have no control over, so I'm just trying to get on record the framework under which we're doing commissioning. 1545 07:06:48.294 --> 07:07:06.654 Because these do take time and effort in significant investment by the interconnection customer and ultimately repair funds to perform on your side of it. I just want to make sure that we're all in agreement on what. 1546 07:07:08.124 --> 07:07:14.304 What kind of field verification and commissioning testing will be contemplated here. 1547 07:07:16.674 --> 07:07:37.434 Yeah, Justin, I mean we can make that more clear, but essentially it's verifying that the system is performing as intended. So if, you know, in, in, in [...] talks about [...] or one of these talks about how we work with the. 1548 07:07:37.464 --> 07:07:51.116 Applicant to the [...] testing plan. Uh, and really, we're only looking to making sure that the system up race operates as the, as the way they were intended to, um. 1549 07:07:51.834 --> 07:08:12.684 You know, another area to consider and I was trying to find it here, but I know that the commission did order some guidance in the, in the Microsoft proceeding as to which projects require commissioning test or not. I have to find it, but talks about like when there's control systems or when there's relaying anytime when you have. 1550 07:08:12.714 --> 07:08:22.554 Uh, equipment like that, then we have the ability to go in and do a commission test as opposed to like, just the [...] being certified in [...]. 1551 07:08:22.614 --> 07:08:28.254 Is there any, is there any em? No control systems on nothing, then there's very little there to verify. 1552 07:08:31.020 --> 07:08:50.874 Yeah, that's the purpose certification. I think for the time being, maybe we both got homework, Raj is going to take a look at the language and microgrids and see if it's something that folks can be comfortable with or socialize to at least [...], so we can get it into the next set of presentations. The framework around. 1553 07:08:53.154 --> 07:08:57.174 The framework that was given earlier, it was, it was well written and approved by the commission. 1554 07:08:59.964 --> 07:09:01.854 Yeah, cause they are your response. 1555 07:09:06.774 --> 07:09:12.984 This is true, but doesn't serve to give us any idea of how much commissioning to expect. 1556 07:09:17.274 --> 07:09:26.214 Because we don't commission every project. Now we'll make sure it meets the things that the certification says it will do. 1557 07:09:27.804 --> 07:09:31.944 So maybe we can just get those resources together and circle back. 1558 07:09:33.474 --> 07:09:34.014 Sounds good. 1559 07:09:34.524 --> 07:09:36.114 Understood, thank you Jocelyn. 1560 07:09:38.904 --> 07:09:59.064 Alright, I'll go ahead and move on to step four. See this is resolution question for the large [...] clarify if the step will ensure that during the field performance verification commissioning testing phase the generating facility complies with the [...] requirements, they should also specify whether this will make the proposed quarterly reporting unnecessary. 1561 07:09:59.934 --> 07:10:18.474 I responses that field performance verification commissioning tests will ensure that the project is set up to comply with the [...] requirements. The issue of quarterly reporting has been addressed. Yeah, I use, we'll use [...] data and telemetry for projects greater than one megawatt to verify [...]. Performance requirements. 1562 07:10:25.674 --> 07:10:42.144 For step four, the Roman numeral two resolution question, five PG e- states that it will review discuss and agree on the verification procedures more clarity as needed whether this is solely at PG needs discretion or if it involves the customer should [...]. 1563 07:10:42.204 --> 07:11:02.604 Also adapt or adopt similar language when aligning the process language, they shall also applied by this requirement, [...] responses per rule. Twenty- one section [...], I use May require a written commissioning test procedure to be provided by the interconnection customer, ten days in advance of the commissioning tests. 1564 07:11:03.564 --> 07:11:09.144 I use we'll coordinate with the customer on the, on the development of the commissioning test procedure. 1565 07:11:14.154 --> 07:11:16.494 Any questions or clarifications on this one? 1566 07:11:23.814 --> 07:11:39.654 Okay, thank you for advancing this slide. So now our phase, five operation performance phase, this topic is, is no longer necessary, but the steps and the resolution questions that we're addressing here are step five. A question one. 1567 07:11:39.984 --> 07:11:43.134 And step five be a resolution question to. 1568 07:11:44.304 --> 07:11:53.096 You know, the, the reason this is no longer necessary is because the [...] is agreed to use the [...] data in combination with telemetry has mentioned previously to verify the performance. 1569 07:12:01.284 --> 07:12:21.054 So I think actually this might be the last content slide the next one is, yeah, just to prompt for questions, so any questions on, on anything that we covered here in section C- if not maybe I'll pass it back to Jose if we're going to do a Q and A on the workshop as a whole. 1570 07:12:29.994 --> 07:12:33.774 Thank you, Michael. So apparently no questions. 1571 07:12:34.950 --> 07:12:37.164 On the presentation. 1572 07:12:39.654 --> 07:12:41.514 A section see I should say. 1573 07:12:43.734 --> 07:13:04.554 So I wanted to thank the utilities for the nice detail here, and this is exactly what I was looking for when I, when we brought the resolution details, like this explain a lot and filling the gaps. So I wanted to express my, thank you everybody. 1574 07:13:05.214 --> 07:13:08.424 From the utilities that worked on this. 1575 07:13:11.276 --> 07:13:31.164 And sky from the chat says, yes, thank you today. I use for the super detailed presentation. So all right, so let's just open it up to a general Q and A, in case there are any other, uh, if anybody. 1576 07:13:31.494 --> 07:13:37.344 Wants to go back to any of the other sections. 1577 07:13:40.974 --> 07:13:46.074 We got about a little bit over fifteen minutes to go. So. 1578 07:13:46.674 --> 07:14:00.954 Yeah, very quickly. I would say on the, on the inspections section eighteen here at the current stay consistent, what other [...] rulings? it's a decision twenty slash zero- six zero seventeen [...]. 1579 07:14:00.960 --> 07:14:17.846 To that talks about when feel inspections are required for grid safety and reliability. So, so that's kind of consistent with what we, I think what we were discussing earlier work with, um, with Justin. 1580 07:14:20.994 --> 07:14:23.696 And that's in the back where it says proceeding correct. 1581 07:14:27.116 --> 07:14:36.144 Alright, here it's as part of the Microgrid proceeding decision twenty slash zero- six hundred and seventeen [...]. 1582 07:14:36.564 --> 07:14:37.884 Okay, thank you, Roger. 1583 07:14:47.964 --> 07:14:50.574 Alright, so any else guy, go ahead. 1584 07:14:51.774 --> 07:15:12.384 So I guess sort of circling back on next steps. One of the, so we spent the morning really sweating through the various different ways of thinking about the twenty- four hour versus twelve month profile, but I'm not sure if we really identified where we go from here. 1585 07:15:12.870 --> 07:15:34.014 In terms of at least some collaborative dialogue on that. I can't remember if it's been many hours and that was an extremely detailed presentation. My brain is definitely scrambled, but what do we do we come out with like, next steps on that? I know we did had some with the actual scheduling technologies discussion. 1586 07:15:34.374 --> 07:15:45.684 But maybe not, I'm not sure where we left the twenty- four hour versus promo profile discussion. Jose, did you take down any next steps on that? 1587 07:15:47.936 --> 07:16:07.376 I'm going to say, No, because I was going to review the discussion here, um, like you said, Scott, it was very detailed. Um, I do recall that this was the first presentation that we had, and I do recall that, uh, some people, um. 1588 07:16:09.116 --> 07:16:27.414 I don't know who mentioned that in one of the presentation. So we're just a few hours where it exceeded the value and I do also recall someone mentioning that, um. 1589 07:16:29.244 --> 07:16:36.234 You know, you're looking at net load in the graphs instead of the. I see a value of this. 1590 07:16:37.614 --> 07:16:50.904 But I do not recall next steps at the moment. I know internally in energy Division, we were going to eventually speak on next steps for that discussion. 1591 07:16:53.904 --> 07:17:14.124 Yeah, um, I guess from my [...] perspective, like we, by picking through the three different feeders that were used as examples, we were able to identify like a variety of things that may or may not have been considered, but ultimately we're just looking at three VTRS and I don't know what we really. 1592 07:17:14.154 --> 07:17:35.274 Get from that, but I also really appreciate that he was really well what to do a much bigger analysis would be very time consuming and data intensive. Um, although we really decided what I think the question is, is further, I think my main question is, is further analysis going to get the parties collectively to. 1593 07:17:35.280 --> 07:17:39.054 [...] to a place of knowing how to move ahead, um. 1594 07:17:39.564 --> 07:18:00.654 And that's where I'm, I'm unclear on what the different options are. I'd be curious to hear what it means thinking on this as well. I would like a better understanding ultimately of particularly the actual system impacts that could result versus just theoretical differences in the. 1595 07:18:00.714 --> 07:18:18.324 [...] from one year to the next. We know that, that exists that exists today without the [...], but I'm not sure how we actually get to that understanding, um, to the extent the commission is helping the way pros and cons are costs of benefits. 1596 07:18:20.398 --> 07:18:26.934 Sky, before I left just an answer. Uh, I do recall. I think it was Amin and, uh. 1597 07:18:28.914 --> 07:18:32.276 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think [...] mentioned, um. 1598 07:18:33.324 --> 07:18:37.856 What would make the utilities, um. 1599 07:18:40.138 --> 07:19:01.254 [...] from twelve dollars to two hundred and eighty- eight values. You know, there's such a gap there on the information that you're comfortable with twelve. How are you comfortable with two hundred and eighty eight and what is necessary there to fill in that? 1600 07:19:01.290 --> 07:19:04.434 Cap incorrectly if I'm wrong. 1601 07:19:06.144 --> 07:19:08.514 Or misinterpreted what you said. 1602 07:19:09.864 --> 07:19:11.694 Defer to amino interpreting. I mean. 1603 07:19:22.344 --> 07:19:24.564 While we wait for me and Justin go ahead. 1604 07:19:30.506 --> 07:19:38.606 Yeah, so just getting back to first principles, we need a record upon which to move forward with, right? 1605 07:19:39.866 --> 07:20:00.474 And we have on record a significant benefit that would accrue to two hundred and eighty- eight profile and statements by both developer and advocacy groups that the twelve S- inherent issues that would make it difficult to solve projects and actually read the benefit of a limited generation. 1606 07:20:00.510 --> 07:20:20.694 Profile, we have illustrative data from the IO use articulating concerns that they have, which is a market improvement very much appreciate it. I'm not trying to discount the, the time and effort to put that together. 1607 07:20:21.864 --> 07:20:42.174 What we don't have is a plan for moving forward to probabilistic framework, so understanding the probability or increased probability of adverse outcomes based on different scenarios. There were some interesting discussions in the chat around. 1608 07:20:44.094 --> 07:21:03.834 Actually taking a look at the variability of data without actually looking at the exact data on the feeders. Um, I think that, that would require some parameters [...] of the, the variance within feeders, but it might be a less heavy. 1609 07:21:04.914 --> 07:21:18.596 Then a full construction of a valid sample set and then running the balances on that sample. So, but one way or another, we do need to get to some kind of abounding of the risk. 1610 07:21:24.924 --> 07:21:41.994 I mean, we kind of like, I guess it depends on how we think about this is this kind of relates back to what Eric and Kyle advocates et cetera as proposal in the last round of the advice letters is, which is the utilities have said they don't really have the. 1611 07:21:42.054 --> 07:22:03.144 outta to do their analysis. Um, and I, you know, I'm starting to feel like we, the proposal we put together there, which was derived around this question of whether the customer or ratepayer or some combination is responsible for any upgrades, but it's still like doing it and collecting data. 1612 07:22:03.204 --> 07:22:12.894 And putting a cap on Ratepayer costs to now allow us to test that out. It's still kind of leads in this direction for me. Um. 1613 07:22:13.224 --> 07:22:33.804 Because because of all the unknowns that we're talking about, I think that the proposal that we had put together still is designed to cap the risk to some extent and to offer an opportunity to return for a more specific discussion. Whereas the utilities proposal. 1614 07:22:34.256 --> 07:22:54.654 Is, has the drawback that no, but nothing may be built so that the data won't be collected. So again, I'm open to like, variations on that, but that's kind of where what I'm thinking is, is that based on the last round we were basically told there's no way for us to figure out what this would actually cost or what the impacts would be, and we're kind of still in that same boat. 1615 07:22:56.034 --> 07:23:07.884 So that's, again, my sharing sort of where I'm what I'm still going around is like, has anything actually changed and I'm not sure it has in terms of the best way to move forward. 1616 07:23:11.096 --> 07:23:28.946 To be clear what I meant just now is that we need to get some kind of abounding of the risk for the aisle used to establish the [...] has any higher risk than twelve that just hasn't been established. Um, there are at least two, my. 1617 07:23:30.600 --> 07:23:42.894 My understanding and we'll have the recordings to go back on the data that were demonstrated are indicative, but I think we're, we're pretty clear that it doesn't. 1618 07:23:45.206 --> 07:23:52.074 Doesn't show that there is an elevated risk. There's no, there's not enough information there to come to that conclusion. 1619 07:23:54.594 --> 07:24:05.724 Change, but not that there's actually like actual risk where we still have a lot of questions at least about what that translates into, into, in terms of real estate reliability risk is that what you're saying Justin. 1620 07:24:08.814 --> 07:24:09.084 Yeah. 1621 07:24:09.714 --> 07:24:25.944 I'm trying to, this is Gary Rusty, Jeanie, trying to be respectful here. Well, we have to have both ways if you're saying that there's no evidence that supports or claim. there's also no evidence that does not support their claim. 1622 07:24:30.894 --> 07:24:33.354 I'll leave it at that, but I think, you know what I'm saying. 1623 07:24:35.904 --> 07:24:36.086 Yeah. 1624 07:24:36.116 --> 07:24:55.856 I think that's right. Gary, there's, it's, it all comes down to the developers, not having the ability or the third party. He's not having the ability to run data, but we're trying to get that something that we're, I think agree, there is a theoretical theoretical benefit for, so it will be up to the commission to decide. 1625 07:24:56.724 --> 07:24:59.756 Whether it can proceed and a risk managed way. 1626 07:25:00.866 --> 07:25:17.756 Yes, I agree. The whole point is theoretical until we actually have projects and we actually see how they perform and we track them and we do all the stuff we're saying we're willing to do that. It's, it's trying to determine. 1627 07:25:18.264 --> 07:25:20.094 You know, what might happen. 1628 07:25:21.054 --> 07:25:21.474 Yeah. 1629 07:25:21.684 --> 07:25:38.304 That's a very different animal for us. Typically, I mean our engineers are really good at, uh, you know, the standard way of I just go back to the standard way of studying these projects standard way of studying projects is. 1630 07:25:39.114 --> 07:25:59.334 You look at worst case and we've known over years, the worst case works and there's no, no worry about probabilities when, in relation to worst case because they have twenty years of doing it a certain way and engineering judgment on that. Oh, when you, when you change the paradigm. 1631 07:26:00.144 --> 07:26:03.144 Right, and then you're trying to. 1632 07:26:04.374 --> 07:26:17.994 You know, Justin rightfully gave us a lot of grief or not grief critiqued our analysis because we're trying to draw inferences. 1633 07:26:18.024 --> 07:26:18.744 From. 1634 07:26:18.774 --> 07:26:21.804 Patterns or probabilities. 1635 07:26:22.524 --> 07:26:22.734 We. 1636 07:26:22.734 --> 07:26:25.434 Really don't know yet, and so. 1637 07:26:25.584 --> 07:26:34.734 We're doing the best educated guess work we can, but we really don't know, and I don't think anyone really knows that's the challenge we have to go off. 1638 07:26:34.734 --> 07:26:34.854 The. 1639 07:26:36.684 --> 07:26:45.234 Engineering judgment or statistical analysis. So we can come up with, but at the end of the day, reality is going to be very different and we all know that. 1640 07:26:46.706 --> 07:26:52.856 And where that leads for me is that we should make make a program that we're projects. 1641 07:26:53.154 --> 07:26:53.484 Yeah. 1642 07:26:54.026 --> 07:27:07.706 It's possible to try and I think that's where the tension is, and especially coming out of that non- export pilot, I think that, that whole experience is really informative. It's still like if we put too many constraints on this, we may not learn anything and I think we need. 1643 07:27:07.764 --> 07:27:08.214 Find out. 1644 07:27:10.614 --> 07:27:11.604 Up there for a while. 1645 07:27:11.784 --> 07:27:31.704 Yeah, I would just say, you know, and I'll, I'll say this from my, uh, personal comment license engineering, California, that it makes me extremely nervous when we're saying what are the probabilities of all [...]. 1646 07:27:31.734 --> 07:27:52.856 A risk that, that just personally makes me cringe kind of like, while we're putting a safety, we put in a probability that a save the occurs may or may not occur, you know, whatever whatever decision is made. I'm saying like me at my personal level as an engineer. It makes me very. 1647 07:27:52.884 --> 07:28:13.914 Nervous and so if we wanted to evaluate that, regardless of how I feel, I think it's just, there's need there needs to be time to do an, you know, to do an analysis to sort of if we wanted to know what the risk was regardless regardless as to how I take that risk to be. 1648 07:28:14.514 --> 07:28:34.014 We need time to perform significant analysis for us. would be, you know, say, take five percent of the nodes random notes throughout the system and do a, you know, an [...] from two thousand and twenty- one and a nice April two thousand and twenty- two and compare the difference that's just going to take time. 1649 07:28:35.214 --> 07:28:50.604 And if you want to make a decision based on our risk. So, again I go back to my personal feeling about that. Um, I did want to make a decision, which is the time to get all that information or do all those calculations and all that, all the statistical analysis. 1650 07:28:51.714 --> 07:28:52.074 When you. 1651 07:28:52.074 --> 07:28:52.314 Say. 1652 07:28:54.324 --> 07:29:14.634 Yeah, so Roger, I agree one hundred percent that risk is a risky thing to address or try to address and I keep wondering that really one of the things to do when dealing with risk is to identify ways to mitigate that risk. 1653 07:29:15.894 --> 07:29:35.784 So I'm wondering if there are ways, regardless of whether it turns out to be twelve or two hundred and eighty- eight values to try to see how to mitigate the risk, regardless of what the [...] values are. So I come back to two. 1654 07:29:35.964 --> 07:29:55.134 What I said earlier, I think, you know, adding in communication requirements for L. G. P sites could make a huge difference and, you know, that would be an example. I'm not saying to do it, but, but that's an example of a mitigation of risk. 1655 07:29:55.914 --> 07:29:56.784 We've already. 1656 07:29:57.204 --> 07:30:18.084 I don't think we're going to do communications. That's a whole nother thing to do, but we've already talked about, but I wanted Robert to say, like, we just went through that, the utilities have the ability to curtail in case of emergencies and what is the risk that you're really concerned that you don't have the capability to manage, if an actual scenario around. 1657 07:30:18.206 --> 07:30:20.124 Where there was a saved liability issue. 1658 07:30:20.904 --> 07:30:39.054 In many cases we may not know, right? Because this could be localized areas that we don't know, right? We don't, we don't have students in equipment through our, these two issues. Peter, we have sent an equipment and the beginning of the Peter we may have this in equipment in a couple of places along the theater, but we don't have assessing equipment all over the field. 1659 07:30:40.134 --> 07:30:44.454 And so we, in many cases we may, we may not even know that we all a problem with that. 1660 07:30:44.484 --> 07:30:47.064 Right, which is the same as what you'd have today under. 1661 07:30:48.564 --> 07:31:00.384 Again, the only difference is that today we are, we are dealing with the, kind of the worst case condition, but again, the closer you get to the profile line the more and more. 1662 07:31:00.414 --> 07:31:13.314 Unique closer to dealing with one of those and the question we're asking is what are the probability that now you're going as you get closer and closer to the line, you know, you have a more probable situation like that. 1663 07:31:13.944 --> 07:31:21.534 Roger, let me, let me kind of reorient a little bit when you make definitive statements like that without any. 1664 07:31:22.464 --> 07:31:39.474 Analysis behind them. I think is when we run into trouble and if you're going to be leaning on engineering judgment as evidenced by your degree or your, your license that they're their obligations there as well. 1665 07:31:40.794 --> 07:31:40.824 I. 1666 07:31:40.824 --> 07:31:42.624 Understand, that's what you're feeling, but. 1667 07:31:42.690 --> 07:31:50.154 I'm going to ask you to preface the things that you're feeling versus the things that are your engineering judgment, so we can understand, which is which. 1668 07:31:51.204 --> 07:32:03.834 I agree with that. What I'm saying is that if we want to have all the level of information we need time to get it, right? Because I think the time is the issue in essence here, and so. 1669 07:32:04.106 --> 07:32:18.234 I mean, if we have time to run again, the AC calculations for a whole bunch of percentage of notes randomly just call it five percent of random nodes. we've had that time to do that. They will have a pretty good set of data, but we just don't have the time. 1670 07:32:20.154 --> 07:32:21.954 And I think that's. 1671 07:32:24.294 --> 07:32:33.836 That's what we don't understand is what kind of time you're talking about and what kind of analysis you would propose to balance the risk. I would. 1672 07:32:35.006 --> 07:32:39.324 Everybody knows that this is a decision that came out in two thousand and twenty. 1673 07:32:40.524 --> 07:32:41.124 That's. 1674 07:32:47.394 --> 07:32:51.084 Difficult to be in this timeframe and then talk about more time. 1675 07:32:55.044 --> 07:32:55.284 Yeah. 1676 07:32:56.514 --> 07:33:14.064 I guess I get notification from PG E for instance, virtually that my power is out, which it is right now, so I know power out from the [...] system is different from, you know, an [...]. 1677 07:33:17.936 --> 07:33:35.456 PCC, but I would think that there could be some mitigation process so that you could get some kind of information from the [...] sites as you see. 1678 07:33:35.514 --> 07:33:43.284 Are to put them in, you know, knock out every site where, but just a few l- g. P- sites. 1679 07:33:52.434 --> 07:34:12.144 If I can chime in, so you're right. Francis, we do have an ability to notify customers when they are fall apart and this issue that's being talked about, you know, we may have visibility from the [...] project, but I think what Raja was pointing out, we may not have visibility on other locations in the [...]. 1680 07:34:12.174 --> 07:34:32.664 Team where we may be having issues, so there's a, an issue that happens where these voltage concern, some power quality issue, or a tunnel overload. We may not have a way to tell that that issue is actually occurring until it's too late and even something as simple as just, you know. 1681 07:34:33.324 --> 07:34:54.144 Power quality so that this relates to customer experience. So if we don't have that information coming back in real time, we may be notified with a customer that's having issues maybe after the fact and even though we may have an ability to control that [...] customer, you may already be too late because whatever's going on may have already been experienced, but that customer customers. 1682 07:34:56.336 --> 07:35:15.026 Yeah, I recognize, it's different from outage information, but I'm just thinking that it may be a methodology, a risk mitigation methodology to at least start in that direction for L. g. P. O- customers. 1683 07:35:15.924 --> 07:35:31.404 As they start to come in, I mean, you say that there are no [...] customers yet, obviously, but as they start to develop, at least zoning on those areas to bring back the key information. 1684 07:35:31.734 --> 07:35:36.414 Yeah, the other challenge too is that we just went over. 1685 07:35:36.834 --> 07:35:57.804 Some previous slides, the ability for us to monitor [...] projects using [...], so [...] is a solution that's okay to be looking at historical information, but it's not a real time solution, so, and it's also not a way that we can tell customers or disconnect customers. So most of these projects are customers will. 1686 07:35:57.898 --> 07:36:16.884 Have loads and generation and we do not want to be disconnecting their power and causing them now to have to have a blackout because we're having issues with the system. So not all systems will have this remote capability for disconnection of [...] on site. 1687 07:36:18.144 --> 07:36:19.044 But most of the things. 1688 07:36:19.224 --> 07:36:21.264 Be above one Megawatt, we think, right? 1689 07:36:23.064 --> 07:36:40.194 Potentially, yeah, and even for, for one mega projects, for example, for PG, e- has these, uh, customer or customer want to limit three. It's supposed to be a cheaper option two, are we used to install before, and at this time we don't have an ability to control. 1690 07:36:40.224 --> 07:36:52.016 Oh, we have an ability to get visibility, but we cannot send a signal on open or disconnected generation. So could it happen in the future, potentially, but it's not something that's available today. 1691 07:36:54.504 --> 07:37:15.414 Justin or Jose, this is Dave, just a question really for Justin, um, in terms of next steps here and additional analysis, I think, um, you know, the, the resolution required us used to perform analysis. I'm not going to directly quoted. 1692 07:37:15.450 --> 07:37:36.596 But to provide additional analysis and participate in these workshops regarding among other things at two hundred and eight versus twelve. Um, I know there were suggestions today in chat about potential ways of performing either further analysis beyond what was presented today. I know Rogers and others have raised [...]. 1693 07:37:36.600 --> 07:37:57.744 [...] about the time that would take just trying to get a sense on the spectrum here. Are we at a point where we provided our user provided sufficient analysis for the resolution and, you know, if ultimately a decision that analysis has looked at and decision and says, well, it didn't. 1694 07:37:58.104 --> 07:38:17.274 Wasn't convincing and compelling, but it was sufficient to meet the requirement, The resolution, you know, so be it kind of on the [...] if you will or just kind of get a sense of, we crossed that threshold yet, or is there additional work to do to make sure we're being in compliance with the resolution. 1695 07:38:20.694 --> 07:38:32.004 That is a valid and sensible question, particularly from your perspective. I don't know that I would be able to say right now whether you have or not. I think that's something we're going to have to loop back and consider. 1696 07:38:32.784 --> 07:38:33.264 Okay. 1697 07:38:34.524 --> 07:38:36.294 No, thank you. I appreciate that. 1698 07:38:39.144 --> 07:38:40.884 I do have a question just for the group. 1699 07:38:42.870 --> 07:38:55.104 I know we're talking about twelve values and two idiot values, is there an in between? Is there a number that is not twelve and is not to eighty- eight would satisfy stakeholders. 1700 07:38:55.614 --> 07:39:03.894 Alex, thank you for pointing that out because I was going to ask that, you know, uh, and I'm, I'm. 1701 07:39:04.614 --> 07:39:05.634 Basically in. 1702 07:39:05.634 --> 07:39:05.754 My. 1703 07:39:05.754 --> 07:39:20.814 Mind, I've seen, I mean, presentation where I think he had one value for today and then another value for the afternoon, so that would be, you know, if there are four weeks on a month, I would be like. 1704 07:39:20.904 --> 07:39:21.144 Hey. 1705 07:39:21.174 --> 07:39:21.894 Values. 1706 07:39:22.884 --> 07:39:23.244 Yeah. 1707 07:39:23.904 --> 07:39:24.234 What else. 1708 07:39:25.706 --> 07:39:25.974 Yeah. 1709 07:39:26.096 --> 07:39:44.814 Yeah, that's what I was going to ask that, you know, how, you know, what people feel about that because then we're actually progressing, maybe not the two hundred and eighty- eight value, but we are progressing and getting better utilization of the grid capacity. 1710 07:39:45.894 --> 07:39:46.224 Yeah. 1711 07:39:46.644 --> 07:39:49.374 I guess, so. Sorry, go ahead. No. 1712 07:39:50.184 --> 07:40:07.464 No, I just wanted to add to what was they said in the presentation that I made made indeed he was pointing out, mostly peak hours, right? I think that was the time that he was sort of focusing on is the presentation, So I just want to see. 1713 07:40:07.494 --> 07:40:22.464 Is that something that is consistent across the stakeholders that they focus the additional power export? It should be focused around those hours or is it, are we mainly just loading on having to eighty eight different values. 1714 07:40:24.084 --> 07:40:28.584 So if you, if you slice and dice the day, you. 1715 07:40:28.644 --> 07:40:29.364 Have a. 1716 07:40:31.614 --> 07:40:52.584 The things that are even divisors of twenty- four, right? So every one hour every two hours every three hours every four hours every six hours every eight hours every twelve hours. Those are the legal equal divisions of the twenty- four hour day. I think the question, if we're, we're going to look to an in between. 1717 07:40:52.644 --> 07:41:13.734 Solution is whether those where they're doing an in between solution is actually something that developers feel that they can monetize and capture the value on and where, where do we think as a group? The balance lies between maximizing the theoretical value. 1718 07:41:14.784 --> 07:41:33.954 maximizing the reduction of risk, Um, and just my very brief looking at the ACC values, it looks like the high value hours are clustered in two and three hour chunks, so it may be something where something along those lines is. 1719 07:41:37.524 --> 07:41:41.544 Is kind of in the group that said I look good. I think. 1720 07:41:41.544 --> 07:41:41.634 That. 1721 07:41:41.844 --> 07:41:55.974 rez, no, so I am now guilty of what I'm accusing of others using end of one to draw conclusions, but I think the question is a valid one, which is what's the right? If we're not going to go to twelve. 1722 07:41:56.064 --> 07:42:06.504 We're not going to go into two eighty eight, what's the right kind of division that maximizes both benefits reduction. 1723 07:42:09.506 --> 07:42:29.876 I think for Iraq, you know, we're open to compromises of all sorts in here, Alex and I appreciate, um, those questions being asked like, that's what I'm pushing on here is to find ways that we can meet in the middle if that is and get everybody a little more comfortable. I think the. 1724 07:42:29.904 --> 07:42:50.364 Way to think about the, whether it's twenty- four or some more limited increments is obviously every feeder is different and we'd be losing some, um, some of the value by doing set increments or something, but I think the best way to think about in terms of whether that makes sense and how to, I'm going to call piloting it again. 1725 07:42:51.324 --> 07:43:12.054 Is to understand what projects are in the category that are most likely to use the [...] and what price signals they're responding to. Um, I don't know enough to, about all of that to be able to say, but I think we want to look to the projects, the name projects above one Megawatt and likely the community solar projects and what they're responding to my understanding. 1726 07:43:12.204 --> 07:43:33.294 Is that the community? solar program is tied to a more dynamic pricing. Is that right? For based on other's understanding of what the actual pricing mechanism is for those, we know that for now, under the new program, it would still be a, based on, I think like, a fixed time of use rate, so that's. 1727 07:43:33.356 --> 07:43:37.554 Scheduled they're going to be operating under, from a value standpoint. 1728 07:43:39.024 --> 07:43:43.344 But I don't know exactly how that works for the community solar projects. 1729 07:44:15.054 --> 07:44:15.084 I. 1730 07:44:15.084 --> 07:44:17.874 Don't know if the I used to have a hell of a response though. 1731 07:44:22.224 --> 07:44:39.954 So, since I posed the question, I think it's good to hear that these are probably room for doing something other than two hundred and eight. so as we're thinking, as I was thinking about this and potentially preparing for workshop number three, we'll take that into consideration. 1732 07:44:41.514 --> 07:44:42.264 That would be great. 1733 07:44:42.686 --> 07:44:58.224 Cause then we'd have something to work in and I know, uh, you know, definitely not one way or the other, you know, there are so big room for middle ground there, we just gotta find it. 1734 07:45:04.164 --> 07:45:12.654 So, all right, so if, uh, are there any other, uh, general questions about any sections or comments? 1735 07:45:20.004 --> 07:45:33.954 I guess the, the one thing circling back Jose, just on the other part, so Brian, I think sent you some questions for the relay, our tech thing and then I guess for the [...] we had talked about the complexity of developing that twelve, th. 1736 07:45:36.324 --> 07:45:57.144 Section, I guess, I'm not sure what are we doing to get to that. Um, obviously we still have questions about, we've talked about the three different proposals already. Could you, are you guys in a position where you can start thinking about what language would be required for those for those three technologies, And then we may need to add, I'm hoping we can add some. 1737 07:45:57.174 --> 07:46:10.194 Thing on a relay or tech combination or what, what does it take to get from, from this conceptual framework from the three possible solutions to what the rule would say about them. 1738 07:46:18.444 --> 07:46:37.284 And maybe you don't answer that right now, but that seems to me like as a, like, as everyone's talking about writing the rule language is the hardest part. So the sooner we get to putting it the better suited We're going to be because it'll help us understand what we don't, what we haven't thought through yet, especially which we've all learned often happens once we get into the language. 1739 07:46:39.684 --> 07:46:56.184 Yeah, I don't know. Much about the relay [...] certification. Um, and how the certification might meet the options. Identified under twenty- one. 1740 07:46:56.634 --> 07:46:59.184 Yeah, I don't think it's a realized or certified. 1741 07:46:59.664 --> 07:47:08.874 They're used in April twenty- one anyway that's been in the way for years, but I don't think we're going to have a certification for them. 1742 07:47:09.954 --> 07:47:20.304 That may mean that it's not really in this discussion, but we would have to look at it more closely to be sure that we have used blocking. 1743 07:47:22.196 --> 07:47:28.256 To ensure non- export for a long time, there's a list of them and the transmission of your connection handbooks. 1744 07:47:30.026 --> 07:47:41.484 So the language you're thinking about the language in the, um, roll that out that required the utilities to look at other options only exist until the [...] is optional. 1745 07:47:41.514 --> 07:47:47.994 Available, even if we decide that that option is that viable for a big chunk of projects. 1746 07:47:53.574 --> 07:47:57.116 Can you repeat that question again? Sorry, I got a little lost. 1747 07:47:58.464 --> 07:48:11.064 Okay, I'm a little lost too. I guess I'm trying to understand what, but we have some constraints within what the decisions and the resolutions I said that there was, I haven't looked at the language again today, but there was a direction. 1748 07:48:11.124 --> 07:48:31.854 The utilities to evaluate other options while we're waiting for the [...] certification, at least, and my sense there is, again, does that mean that once the PCs, all those other options are off the table or does that fall within that middle ground and, you know, and I don't know where the, what the utilities are thinking about. They, I think they have to. 1749 07:48:32.634 --> 07:48:33.294 More, but. 1750 07:48:34.044 --> 07:48:40.884 You know, the resolution did not specify that they would fall off the table. 1751 07:48:42.776 --> 07:49:02.724 So the root resolution just required the utilities to identify other solutions other than the [...] certification and to develop a methodology to implement those options. 1752 07:49:03.504 --> 07:49:22.644 So basically the options that were presented today, but it did not say that one certification was approved or once a PTF certification was standard was approved that it would, you know, those options would be needed. 1753 07:49:24.446 --> 07:49:44.964 But, you know, seeing the discussion today that, you know, some option, you know, the PTS certification would be more costly in some instances for larger projects, you know, it looks like those options, those alternate options and I'll call them alternate for lack of a better word now, but, um. 1754 07:49:45.924 --> 07:49:51.054 Would probably have to be considered going forward too. 1755 07:49:52.044 --> 07:50:05.634 Yeah, and my understanding, w- we've been circling around is not just that it's more expensive, but it just may not be feasible because of the way all the equipment pieces have to come together, like obviously anything with enough money is, it's easily. 1756 07:50:06.804 --> 07:50:27.864 But I, I haven't spent a lot of time with Brian really just trying to make sure I understand what the challenges, but Justin to your point, like that's what I was thinking why I was thinking we could explore that option and again, I think it's a worthy option because there's a gap that we pretty significant number of projects that we want to want to be able to utilize or fill and we do know that this is being. 1757 07:50:27.894 --> 07:50:48.596 Used right now in one of your state that's looking at it at the utilities that has there. So I think it, it seems like something that's worth exploring. These are technologies that utilities go a little bit or maybe even a lot of experience with already compared to a PCs, even though they don't go through a certification process. 1758 07:50:48.654 --> 07:50:48.956 Right? 1759 07:50:49.464 --> 07:50:53.574 Skype, I remember correctly. Uh, there is, um. 1760 07:50:55.134 --> 07:51:13.944 A section in the resolution that says that, you know, uh, even though the system is not certified and technically, it's, you know, the discussion is out of scope, it's not impede the utilities to utilize that process. 1761 07:51:16.224 --> 07:51:36.954 And at the moment, I, I did not have that resolution in front of me, but I believe it is in the section that speaks about certified devices and I think there is a caveat there that specifically says that it does not impede the utilities from Europe from utilize. 1762 07:51:36.984 --> 07:51:40.134 Thing, you know, non- certified devices. 1763 07:51:43.974 --> 07:51:57.114 Okay, well I think we should probably get back to the source language before we get too far afield. Um, well what does it say said is true. My recollection is that it was kind of in the context of the. 1764 07:51:59.604 --> 07:52:13.164 By mutual agreements, sort of thing. Whereas what we're describing or what we're discussing within the limited generation profile framework because there's an option that would be allowed by, right? So I want to make sure that we're, we're. 1765 07:52:16.674 --> 07:52:36.144 I'm trying to hope hope for Brian is that we could align with the utilities here, essentially on mutually agree upon a solution that would be viable. That would be my optimal and I view this, the utilities are, are staying quiet here, but I appreciate that, that would be certainly what we'd, we'd be aiming for one way or the other, essentially. 1766 07:52:37.824 --> 07:52:41.544 For the record, can you tell us what utility is doing this? 1767 07:52:41.664 --> 07:52:58.436 So national grid in Massachusetts, I believe the other two utilities are as well, but essentially what w- what's happening in Massachusetts is for standalone storage projects, particular market that we don't have here for those and they are. 1768 07:52:58.764 --> 07:53:19.494 Firing all of those projects perform according to his schedule that they've designated and they, and that's the, the, the technical solution, which hasn't been fully documented again, cause we've been confused by why the utilities they are as engaged in this specific documentation compared to the way they are here, but the. 1769 07:53:19.914 --> 07:53:35.484 Anyways national Grid is our understanding is that they are requiring a relay or tag combination for projects that are going to utilize that program and Brian's participating in those discussions in Massachusetts as part of their technical working group. 1770 07:53:39.564 --> 07:53:59.364 And well Justin, we can also, yeah, we can obviously connect people that goes on. We're also working with every, on a project around the scheduling thing and we'll try to circle back with them and see if they have other examples of that use. They indicated that they think our tax were used quite a bit in different contexts and so we, maybe could find some more examples. 1771 07:53:59.394 --> 07:54:02.846 Of that, and these are, these may know themselves. I don't know. 1772 07:54:08.094 --> 07:54:17.572 We can certainly do all of those things and I realize we're coming up on time here. Um, we have to build a lot of different things. One of them. 1773 07:54:19.586 --> 07:54:38.394 Quite significant is ensuring that we're staying within the scope of the delegated authority, given to us by the commission under this resolution process, I would want to be to be very sure that we've got authorizing language before going too far down the path. We can all review and take a look. 1774 07:54:39.536 --> 07:54:40.164 Sounds good. 1775 07:54:41.212 --> 07:54:50.454 Justin, just to be clear. I'm not able to extend the scope by there, but I also wanted to make sure those projects that can actually take advantage of all the work we're doing. So that's why we're, we're exploring that. 1776 07:54:52.254 --> 07:54:54.204 No, I understood. Yeah. 1777 07:54:55.854 --> 07:55:01.014 unofficially discussed challenges for certifying very large systems. Um. 1778 07:55:05.094 --> 07:55:05.334 Good. 1779 07:55:07.224 --> 07:55:27.774 All right, uh, we got five minutes to go, uh, in our officially scheduled time time fine, even though I had hoped we would finish by four, but it's, all right, that's why we over schedule the extra half hour. So. 1780 07:55:28.256 --> 07:55:49.314 Unless there's anything else I just wanted to say, again, my appreciation for the utilities for putting all the hard work in this presentation, it is very appreciate it, and it tells you a lot of the gaps I wanted to also appreciate everybody else who contributed to the presentation. Everybody that is. 1781 07:55:49.374 --> 07:56:02.274 Cost with the utilities, The different options on how a GP can be implemented before, um, the [...] certification, um. 1782 07:56:06.116 --> 07:56:24.564 And I just wanted to reiterate if there are any topics to email me and also please CC Justin, um, you know, in any discussions and this will. 1783 07:56:24.624 --> 07:56:45.594 Posted probably within one or two days in the [...] website for people to review energy division will be reviewing the, uh, uh, you know, the, uh, workshop again and, uh, writing down next steps for either the Smart Working Group for. 1784 07:56:45.748 --> 07:57:06.894 For workshop number three, I think at this moment, we have made a lot of progress. I think we have clarified a lot of things right now just speaking at the top of my head. Um, and again, subject to check, I think topic asks still needs discussion. 1785 07:57:07.914 --> 07:57:13.854 And the twelve, th- option for our GP, um. 1786 07:57:15.596 --> 07:57:36.474 For screen and then also needs discussion, but I think everything else and of course, you know, clarification and take them to a topic see based on today's discussion and all the other topics we'll need to. 1787 07:57:36.534 --> 07:57:55.764 clarified and amended, but I think we have made good progress. So again, thank you everybody, and for the last three minutes, I'll leave it up for anybody else just to speak up. 1788 07:58:07.344 --> 07:58:24.354 All right, well thank you everybody again, for participating in today's discussion, I will be circulating once we have written down next steps, I'll be circulating them to the distribution list from today's. 1789 07:58:24.450 --> 07:58:35.756 Workshop and we'll go from there so stay tuned and again, feel free to contact me and CC Justin with any topics or questions. 1790 07:58:43.464 --> 07:58:47.874 Alright, thank you. Everybody have a good rest of the afternoon.