[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6231047,"mediaKeyId","3440492-a5a4534fc31035b21a1bd593323d7fbe","parentId",3440492,"title","CPUC staff proposes two reliability procurement paths: marginal ELCC framework and a new‑resources-only approach","audioSeconds",2962,"startMs",1437000,"endMs",4399000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3440492-a5a4534fc31035b21a1bd593323d7fbe&start=1437&end=4399","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3440492-a5a4534fc31035b21a1bd593323d7fbe/thumbnail_1437000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6231047/California/CPUC-staff-proposes-two-reliability-procurement-paths-marginal-ELCC-framework-and-a-newresources-only-approach","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6231047-7fc3c5c0bca8e396ec1a313e8a7aa9dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1774812701&Signature=gWa3r~Y-EWe3YbiTc17ueYwh6xSM3Vw7CT6GQMvF5tdRNv7Dmdhzx6D7YNmhEu6fUW8Ra5RGrRzp1rYU4HIvvXb2~9pR2cM~5nu8d2s627sVWrab9wAsatvIbrSGgGHwdYYfyQWvYYtcFpYnUMStpSmoEQjvezUMA37A0FFxe9UD0DI~kRPVwGX88AqOfqG24m9PUZdYEyd~6oeoq3uHjWuIbhXDeBlfDoCQeT~yu0eq-osG5ukkmRmUOhqRP1QUYRo2D2li-YAitzLnSDRcKGKUv7HapvzYjeqDqU80it5KnZztQc20vtl7FwXQUyS7L4c8wa9aCd9QmggzH8gKTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California Public Utilities Commission","date","2025-05-22T05:21:07.937Z","article","California Public Utilities Commission staff presented two alternative reliability procurement designs at an IRP workshop, centered on marginal ELCC accreditation and a complementary ‘‘slice‑of‑day’’ alignment with the RA program.

“A marginal ELCC methodology is a way to put all resources on a level playing field,” consultant Aaron Burdick of E3 said. “No resource can provide perfect availability all of the time, and the ELCC methodology is a way to put all resources on a level playing field, measured relative to a perfect capacity generator, that accounts for all of their potential availability limitations.”

Staff described a four‑step ‘‘critical periods’’ framework: (1) use SERVM/Resolve to determine the system reliability need aligned to a 0.1‑days‑per‑year LOLE standard; (2) calculate marginal ELCCs for each resource type from a system portfolio; (3) sum marginal ELCC megawatts to establish the reliability procurement need; and (4) allocate that need to each LSE based on the LSE’s share of load during the identified critical hours.

Option 1 (scope: new and existing resources): staff would calculate a system Reliability Procurement Need (RPN) using marginal ELCCs and add a 2.5% buffer “to mitigate development risk,” staff said. Staff would release a 10‑year RPN in February (t through t+9) and provide binding allocations for the nearer term years (the first five years of the 10‑year horizon, with the first three years highlighted as obligation years in the proposal). Staff proposes a collective capacity reserve procured by investor‑owned utilities as a central procurement entity; staff proposed a minimum reserve of 1.5% and a maximum of 3.5% of the initial RPN to act as system insurance.

Option 2 (scope: new resources only): staff would define ‘‘new vintage’’ resources as those that will have come online no more than 10 years before the compliance year and would allocate the total new need to each LSE. Option 2 also envisions an expanded multiyear RA program covering additional years and overlaps with RCPP obligations; under this option, staff expects allocations for years t+0 through t+4 to be binding.

Compliance cadence: staff proposed two compliance filings each RCPP year: a December preliminary (nonbinding) showing and a June final (binding) showing. Staff emphasized the administrative distinction: December filings would be nonbinding but subject to administrative penalties for timeliness/accuracy; June filings would be final, binding and subject to both administrative and deficiency penalties.

Enforcement and penalty design: staff proposed a deficiency penalty tied to the net cost of new entry (Net CONE). “For deficient contracting sufficiency… we’ve calculated that as half of the net cost of new entry,” staff said; staff gave an example: “if we assume net cost of new entry of $15 per kilowatt month, for example, half of that would be $7.50.” Option 2 also contemplates an online sufficiency penalty equal to 1× Net CONE for deficient online sufficiency, which can be waived if an LSE cures the deficiency within 30 days of notification. Because RCPP is a new program, staff proposed a phased penalty rollout: early test years would be subject to administrative penalties only and deficiency penalties would phase in over time.

Staff cautioned that where RCPP overlaps with RA (slice‑of‑day) the two approaches are not automatically antagonistic; staff said the proposal uses marginal ELCCs for system‑level need determination, while slice‑of‑day rules would remain in effect where RA retains slice‑of‑day obligations. Neil Raffin, supervisor for IRP transmission and interconnection, noted the practical approach: “We’ve got an opportunity now to have both frameworks work, operating and working in parallel and learn from those.”

Staff asked stakeholders to comment on technical details, allocation mechanics and the interplay with the RA program in written comments and signaled further workshops or stakeholder sessions to work through open questions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","RCPPP Workshop 20250516 1603 1","oneSentenceSummary","CPUC staff presented two alternative reliability procurement designs for the RCPP: a marginal ELCC–based approach covering new and existing resources with a 2.5% buffer and IOU central procurement reserve, and a new‑resources‑only option tied to an expanded multiyear RA program.","taxTitle","California Public Utilities Commission, Boards and Commissions, Executive, California","taxId",77657,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6231041,"Stakeholders urge more workshops and clearer timelines after CPUC RCPP presentation",3640,7806000,11446000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3440492-a5a4534fc31035b21a1bd593323d7fbe&start=7806&end=11446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3440492-a5a4534fc31035b21a1bd593323d7fbe/thumbnail_7806000.jpg","/articles/6231041/California/Stakeholders-urge-more-workshops-and-clearer-timelines-after-CPUC-RCPP-presentation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6231041-f9dc30e6221a58996686a6bc147e4ca7/orig.mp4?Expires=1774812701&Signature=OhBgf~D6AvX3M5CS-bj8XgFf~YclOg032V0nUBlYAGtF5SVuhCMJFtV4IcxNk-C6nUw4P9EMvpuI5j1Dq1bqXDUqr83YcG2GmVe5VF6eK2IlgOyGPxdWh9hjzkRozf5FqE8msSgaoOBz5umDxtGfTGRlik8E6Fn12s0bEG9So2qW6zHKx3BHxblJdRu9WPUGyEe2621rVOAAqmYBnxwxdpbCZad~V018EPqxdD~Jxy8q2loYYXU4iqoBwDgRQlGNyJxsF744pkQdvZl4Ue9Me7wvDyyRhIge9Qto7ZxqqLVsXS0b4gm2pWt4ZPZFdpY5BFLQLC96hR-AMC49U9f7rg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Stakeholders at the CPUC workshop responded to the RCPP staff proposal with repeated calls for additional stakeholder engagement, clearer timelines and better alignment with CAISO interconnection and RA processes.

“Workshops allow for more back and forth and questions in real time, and I think ultimately are gonna be more efficient,” said Julia Levin of the Bioenergy Association of California, urging more detailed discussion of GHG crediting and lifecycle definitions.

Multiple speakers asked staff to convene one or more focused workshops — several suggested in‑person sessions — where parties could present concrete counterproposals and work through contentious details such as how CES instruments should be defined and tracked, how RCPP obligations would interact with CAISO deliverability and cluster study timelines, and whether an ELCC‑based program or an expanded multiyear RA approach is the faster path to give the market certainty needed for post‑MTR development.

“Cluster 14 is threatened by lack of LSE contracting post 2028 because projects that received deliverability in 2024 have an August 2025 deadline per the CAISO tariff,” said Simon Baker of NextEra, asking staff to acknowledge interconnection timing risks that could frustrate near‑term procurement. Several developer and utility speakers echoed the need for timely procurement signals because of project lead times.

Staff acknowledged the timing pressures and said it would attempt to balance thorough design work with the urgency of market lead time. Molly Circle, Acting Director, Office of Electric Supply, Planning and Costs, said staff’s aim was to reach consensus on moving forward to a programmatic approach while recognizing that many implementation details will need iterative work. Nathan Barsick told participants staff will “be sending something out to the relevant service lists regarding guidance for future process in the next week or two.”

Workshop participants proposed several process formulations: (a) parties co‑author and circulate focused proposals on discrete topics, (b) staff‑facilitated written responses to major comment topics, and (c) one or more combined workshops (remote or in‑person) that sequence issue‑specific panels and allow parties to present tradeoffs. Staff asked parties to nominate representatives to help scope any additional workshops and to file written comments by July 15 (replies Aug. 5).","Stakeholders at the CPUC RCPP workshop sought more time, extra workshops and clearer sequencing between RCPP design, RA obligations and CAISO interconnection timelines.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6231044,"CPUC staff proposes Clean Energy Standard option to align procurement with IRP greenhouse‑gas targets",953,6212000,7165000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3440492-a5a4534fc31035b21a1bd593323d7fbe&start=6212&end=7165","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3440492-a5a4534fc31035b21a1bd593323d7fbe/thumbnail_6212000.jpg","/articles/6231044/California/CPUC-staff-proposes-Clean-Energy-Standard-option-to-align-procurement-with-IRP-greenhousegas-targets","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6231044-38d980affbf699e191f50eadf548116d/orig.mp4?Expires=1774812701&Signature=mjRoQZTvnoMQO5Zy9JMJIlQK03ISeWSQbFcnMIi~4603BXkH7MTjR8NcBPjLNFYzcq5oSAQWhxhwe0MM9ajffXRbLNOT-xE512wrAF1hW0LFgCA0tMzbM2~G2FPnT5f9lJp7aWyrzogDRFrbXlPyPNP0kVf70A1V7AYMIybPsAHImuMTF9Ic8gG2-dFVR8mKh-jyf~wq-AIQKWEl-MTADT1JHEwc4qGhCsEY8DJNYL-QM8mmYX5VYDw06-2JzBokcxa5xsbCoKOo6vQ8yMJpvUjNMmL8I9fDuSiFM~AWpkBAIqFnCuD3poJLn0GYJjY7IiCUhh0OqJomdTMkWlwrVw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CPUC staff proposed a Clean Energy Standard (CES) as the greenhouse‑gas procurement component of the RCPP staff proposal. The CES is modeled on the existing RPS structure and would set annual targets (percentage of retail sales) that LSEs must meet over multi‑year compliance periods.

“The CS option would build on the proven success of the renewable portfolio standards program,” said Sierra Withers, a Utilities Engineer on IRP staff who presented the GHG portion of the proposal.

Staff said the CES percentage would be derived from Resolve modeling run with binding electric‑sector greenhouse‑gas targets and then allocated to LSEs proportionally by retail sales. Staff emphasized the approach is intended to be scalable, use standardized, trackable compliance instruments and avoid overlap with California Air Resources Board (CARB) mass‑based regulation.

Staff proposed that compliance be measured on multi‑year compliance periods aligned to the RPS schedule (three‑year compliance periods). Staff proposed that compliance be enforced on a backward‑looking basis at the end of each compliance period, with penalties set at $50 per megawatt‑hour for each megawatt‑hour of deficiency. Staff also proposed leveraging the existing REC registry and verification processes to track eligible clean energy generation and any new ‘‘zero‑emission’’ instrument definitions needed to implement the CES.

Staff framed the CES as a mechanism to close the gap between existing policy constraints and the higher GHG reductions modeled in Resolve. Sierra Withers said the CES is intended “to send signals for procurement of additional clean energy beyond requirements in order to achieve California’s greenhouse‑gas reduction goals.”

Staff asked parties whether other mechanisms could achieve the same result, and invited detailed comment on instrument design, eligibility rules, and how to coordinate CES accounting with RPS and with CARB programs.

Questions from stakeholders at the workshop ranged from instrument definitions (how to treat non‑RPS zero‑carbon resources) to timing and the administrative burden of registering and verifying new credit instruments. Staff asked parties to file written comments by July 15 and suggested additional stakeholder engagement to resolve detailed implementation questions.","Staff proposed a Clean Energy Standard (CES) modeled after RPS compliance, using a percentage‑of‑sales target derived from IRP modeling to close the gap between existing programs and electric‑sector GHG targets. The proposal would use REC‑style instruments (tracked in the registry) and a $50/MWh penalty for multi‑year compliance shortfalls.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":81,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6231048,"CPUC staff lays out programmatic Reliable and Clean Power Procurement proposal for LSEs",11440,6000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3440492-a5a4534fc31035b21a1bd593323d7fbe&start=6&end=11446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3440492-a5a4534fc31035b21a1bd593323d7fbe/thumbnail_6000.jpg","/articles/6231048/California/CPUC-staff-lays-out-programmatic-Reliable-and-Clean-Power-Procurement-proposal-for-LSEs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6231048-80ec4c3538dd682aea1c097d43b4ffd6/orig.mp4?Expires=1774812701&Signature=ejmj~x7E0iz4jFXsAuGTCWYoc8Crqry29QUKng1m5vutMSLuIpsfNYsFQJZqnRpjsTHbGpt5SVIlKFZtls34nnUfVchxmCmhqcjXOpMjSzUk1ae8fJlVC2T5-DHTQqyG1gnRdYN4L~iWWT6iBG2~~3TxxztbQ~u-eCNhn~6BEDO2cjzJD3rz1CkPb22wgeJZTNcR74fQzPvdWG09zExICH6NuQ0VJaohH4TQagvM~tlLQOkHoVs~06eLmFLa2PLaUCxQvGlPAOGGoPjwV2rRH1N01p6DIeYcxH6nccJPABwX8sKlb4b3y4mESSS2B-AimjnGKfxbdEm4yjFx4AiYFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","California Public Utilities Commission staff on April 29 convened an Integrated Resource Planning workshop to present a staff proposal for a Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program intended to give load‑serving entities (LSEs) a predictable, programmatic pathway to procure resources that meet both reliability and greenhouse‑gas (GHG) requirements.

“Today we’re going to spend some time… talking about 1 of the, in my opinion, biggest proposals that has come out of IRP,” said Nathan Barsick, Acting Program Manager, Electricity Planning and Market Design Branch, CPUC Energy Division, opening the workshop.

Staff said the RCPP proposal is intended to complement existing programs — resource adequacy (RA), the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and the IRP planning track — and to address challenges with the commission’s recent ‘‘order‑by‑order’’ procurement decisions. Sina Sufiani, project manager for the staff proposal, summarized the aim: the proposal “wants to create a procurement framework that, when combined with the RA and RPS programs, it basically gives LSEs a tool to procure their share of reliability resources and GHG reduction resources at least cost.”

The staff package released on April 29 includes a ruling, Attachment A (the staff proposal), Attachment B (a technical slide summary) and Attachment C (a summary of comments from the 2022 options paper). Administrative Law Judge Julie Fitch granted a short extension for comments: written comments are due July 15 and replies are due August 5, staff said. Barsick also reminded participants that the workshop is being recorded and that the Webex Q&A transcript and written Q&A will be posted on the proceeding web page; staff cautioned that the Q&A is not a formal record for the proceeding.

The staff package contains two broad parts: a reliability procurement component (with two alternative options) and a greenhouse‑gas reduction component (a single proposed Clean Energy Standard option modeled on RPS processes). Staff said the two parts are intended to operate together as complementary tools to achieve both reliability and emissions objectives.

Staff invited stakeholders to submit clarifying questions during the workshop Q&A and signaled additional stakeholder engagement to follow. “We will be sending something out to the relevant service lists regarding guidance for future process in the next week or two,” Barsick told participants at the close of the workshop.

The proposal and related materials are available on the CPUC IRP docket page. The staff package includes many technical design items (need determination, allocation, compliance cadence, enforcement and interconnection and implementation details) that staff said would be refined through stakeholder comment and subsequent proceedings.","Commission staff presented a staff proposal to create a program that integrates reliability procurement and greenhouse‑gas reduction procurement for load‑serving entities (LSEs), replacing the prior ‘‘order‑by‑order’’ approach with a multi‑year, programmatic framework. Staff asked stakeholders for clarifying questions and opened a comment period.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

CPUC staff proposes two reliability procurement paths: marginal ELCC framework and a new‑resources-only approach

Stakeholders urge more workshops and clearer timelines after CPUC RCPP presentation

CPUC staff proposes Clean Energy Standard option to align procurement with IRP greenhouse‑gas targets

CPUC staff lays out programmatic Reliable and Clean Power Procurement proposal for LSEs