By Robert Mullin
SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Ed Randolph, energy division director at the California Public Utilities Commission, does not care if his state meets its 50% renewable mandate by 2030.
That statement, delivered at the Infocast California Energy Summit last week, came with an important qualifier: “Let me be clear — we will meet the 50% RPS.”
The more pressing concern for the PUC, Randolph said, is reforming the agency’s long-term planning process (LTPP) to ensure California will meet its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2050. In 2005, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an executive order establishing the state’s objective to reduce 2050 GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. Gov. Jerry Brown reinforced that measure through a 2015 order creating an interim target of a 40% reduction by 2030. [Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly reported that the 80% cut was the product of state legislation.]
The State Senate last year passed legislation to codify both standards, but the bill stalled in the State Assembly. Still, the state Air Resources Board intends to include both targets in an updated version of its GHG scoping plan, which defines the state’s climate change goals and lays the groundwork for achieving them.
The state’s load-serving entities — which include the three investor-owned utilities, electric service providers and community-choice aggregators — will play a key role in the effort.
The problem: The current LTPP, which emphasizes reliability, does not provide a blueprint for achieving GHG reductions.
Other state objectives further muddle the planning picture. Randolph pointed out that efforts aimed at improving energy efficiency and increasing the use of demand response rely on their own cost methodologies.
“I really don’t think we’re doing integrated resource planning yet,” said Randolph.
That will change in 2017 when the commission adopts a process requiring each of California’s LSEs to file an IRP that prioritizes emission reductions alongside other — more standard — requirements, such as resource diversity, reliability and cost-effectiveness.
Among the most fundamental steps to getting there: “We need to determine what the GHG metrics are going to be,” said Randolph, referring to the need to determine each LSE’s share of emissions reductions. “What’s the savings target?
“We know what it is for the economy,” he added, referring to the 80% target. “We need to know what it is for the energy sector.”
The IRP process will also require that the PUC produce its own long-term load forecasts, a capability the agency needs to develop. Randolph said the PUC has requested additional funding from the legislature to create an in-house modeling unit.
IRP implementation could follow one of a few approaches, according to Randolph.
Under a “CPUC-centric” IRP, the commission would set GHG targets for each of the LSEs and determine the resource portfolios that would meet them.
An “LSE-centric” approach would have the PUC establish reliability needs and GHG targets for the LSEs, while allowing them to develop their own resource mixes.
A third choice: a hybrid of the two.
With those options now on the table for next year, Randolph reminded attendees that — for now — it is still business as usual at his agency.
“Anyone who’s a fan of the CPUC’s current proceedings, they’re not going away quite yet,” he said.
