Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ica Alignment Tracking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stakeholders press utilities on ICA ‘alignment’ with interconnection outcomes; utilities propose tracking and tool changes
Summary
Stakeholders at the CPUC workshop said ICA results are often misaligned with the formal generation interconnection and load energization outcomes and asked utilities to track discrepancies. Utilities said ICA is accurate to the CPUC methodology but not yet aligned for some use cases and proposed tracking and tool development to close the gap.
Stakeholders at a California Public Utilities Commission workshop pressed Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric to measure how well Integrated Capacity Analysis results align with results from formal interconnection and energization studies.
Multiple commenters — including representatives identified in the transcript as “Skye,” “Anthony” and Brian Lydic — described cases where published ICA zero‑capacity results did not match the outcome of engineering studies or interconnection filings. “How do you expect someone to use the ICA if it is meant to be used alongside traditional methods?” a stakeholder asked SCE, pressing the company for guidance about practical use by developers.
Utilities responded with a common theme: the utilities said ICA results are “accurate” in the sense that they reflect the CPUC‑adopted methodology and best available inputs, but outcomes can be misaligned with interconnection or energization outcomes because of differences in scope, assumptions or forward‑looking data. SCE and PG&E presenters explained that generation ICA was originally developed to align with Rule 21 generation interconnection screening, while load ICA has historically been more “as‑is” and therefore less aligned with future‑oriented energization studies. Dave Castle of SCE summarized that distinction as “accuracy versus alignment” and said the commission‑mandated load ICA refinements slated for 2026 are designed to narrow the gap.
Stakeholders proposed a concrete response: track the relationship between ICA values at the time of an interconnection or energization application and the eventual engineering outcome (a “true‑up” or alignment metric). Several attendees — including representatives of IREC and the Public Advocate’s Office — said such tracking would create an evidence base for whether further methodology changes are needed. PG&E said it is building an “Automatic Capacity Evaluator” (ACE) to integrate ICA with the application pipeline; ACE will automatically calculate standardized loads, prescreen applications against ICA, and capture application IDs and outcomes so the utility can compare ICA screening to engineering results at scale. PG&E exec Gabriel (presenter) said the ACE project was proposed in a January advice filing and that the company intends to use the ACE data to report alignment metrics when the system is implemented.
PG&E, SCE and SDG&E told the workshop they will investigate options to report alignment. PG&E said the automated approach will provide system‑level metrics once implemented. SCE suggested more detailed portal messages and a tiered treatment of zeros (for example, indicating whether a zero is driven by a thermal fuse, voltage setting, or longer‑term issue) so customers better understand the probable effort required to resolve a blocked site.
Why it matters: Developers and local planners rely on ICA as a free, public sighting tool; persistent misalignment with formal engineering results undermines the utility of the portal and raises costs because applicants must pursue paid engineering studies to resolve uncertainty. The utilities’ stated path forward — forward‑looking load ICA refinements, ACE‑style automation and improved portal messaging — would make ICA more actionable for customers if implemented with timely reporting back to the commission.
Open questions: Stakeholders urged utilities to begin alignment tracking now; utilities urged patience until major tool changes are deployed. Several attendees requested identifiable, per‑circuit metrics showing when a circuit’s data were triggered/changed and when it was actually updated on the portal; utilities agreed to add trigger‑date tracking so future audits can verify whether circuits are refreshed promptly.
Speakers referenced in this article include SCE’s Dave Castle and Carly Gomez; PG&E presenters Gabriel and Ravi; SDG&E principal Mary Sweeney; and stakeholder questioners identified in the transcript as Skye, Anthony and Brian Lydic.
