Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stakeholder Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stakeholders urge more workshops and clearer timelines after CPUC RCPP presentation
Summary
Stakeholders at the CPUC RCPP workshop sought more time, extra workshops and clearer sequencing between RCPP design, RA obligations and CAISO interconnection timelines.
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).
