Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ipr Selection Timeline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Joint California utilities submit 2025–26 demand‑selection letter; Energy Division decision expected Aug. 1
Summary
The three investor‑owned utilities submitted a joint demand‑selection letter on May 9, 2025, proposing which CEC IPR scenario components to use for the 2025–26 distribution planning cycle. Stakeholder comments are due June 19; Energy Division expects a decision Aug. 1 and the utilities expect the 2025 GNA/Jupyter deliverable Aug. 15.
The three investor‑owned utilities (PG&E, SCE and SDG&E) told attendees at the Distribution Forecasting Working Group workshop on May 22 that they submitted a joint demand‑selection letter to Energy Division on May 9, 2025 proposing the IPR (Integrated Planning Report) scenario components to use for the 2025–26 distribution planning cycle.
Why it matters: Energy Division’s decision on the utilities’ forecasting proposal will set the IPR components the companies must follow for distribution forecasting and downstream planning products. The chosen scenario affects load allocation, DER disaggregation and the “GNA/duper” (GNA duper / GNA DOPR references in the workshop) deliverables that feed resource and distribution planning.
The utilities laid out the schedule: stakeholder comments on the demand‑selection letter were due June 19, 2025; Energy Division’s decision was expected Aug. 1, 2025; and the utilities said the joint GNA/Jupyter (2025 GNA and related report) work is due Aug. 15, 2025. SDG&E’s Yi Li summarized the background of the forecasting‑working‑group process and the timeline, linking the current forecasting cycle to prior IPR / DPP activity that began with the TRAX‑three decision in the DRP proceeding.
What the utilities proposed: Each utility said it would start from the CEC IPR local reliability scenario and then apply the utilities’ chosen IPR “vintages” and subcomponents (for example, the AAT, AFS and AAE scenario choices). At the workshop SDG&E said it had proposed the 2024 IPR local reliability scenario with AFS‑3 for its local reliability selection (a point SDG&E explained in response to stakeholder questions about differences between AFS‑3 and AFS‑4).
Stakeholder review and next steps: Workshop participants were told the demand‑selection pathway includes the written comment period and the Aug. 1 Energy Division determination. The utilities said they will incorporate Energy Division guidance into the final materials that feed the August GNA deliverables. Stakeholders at the workshop were invited to comment on the demand‑selection letter during the June 19 window.
Context and caveats: Workshop presenters stressed that some aspects of the IPR and the CEC’s scenario modeling are not fully visible in the public datasets and that the utilities had asked the CEC for clarifications (for example, SDG&E reported the CEC explained a difference between AFS‑3 and AFS‑4 as related to electric‑resistance water‑heater assumptions). The Energy Division will resolve the final selection and any procedural questions in its August decision.
