California Energy Commission
2004 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update
Upgrading California's Electric Transmission System:
Issues and Actions for 2004 and Beyond Draft Staff White Paper
2004-2005 IEPR Committee Workshop
Draft Agenda
MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2004
Beginning at 9:00 a.m.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUILDING
1001 I Street
Second Floor, Coastal Room
Sacramento, California
- Opening Remarks
- Commissioner John Geesman, Presiding Member, 2004-2005 IEPR Committee
- Commissioner James Boyd, Associate Member, 2004-2005 IEPR Committee
- Sandra Fromm, Assistant Project Manager, 2004-2005 IEPR Committee
- Overview Presentation: Transmission Update Draft Staff White Paper
- Staff presentation, Energy Commission Transmission Evaluation Program
- Formal Response to Attached Workshop Questions (see below)
Invited Speakers:
League of Women Voters, California Independent System Operator, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, Pacific Gas & Electric, Save Southwest Riverside County, Pechanga Tribe of Luise–o Indians, Imperial Irrigation District, California Public Utilities Commission, Mammoth Pacific, Communities for a Better Environment, Oak Creek Energy Systems, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Parks and Recreation, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and Western Area Power Administration - Comments by Other Interested Workshop Attendees
- Next Steps/Closing Remarks
- Commissioner John Geesman, Presiding Member 2004-2005 IEPR Committee
Questions for Discussion on the
Upgrading California's Electric Transmission System:
Issues and Actions for 2004 and Beyond Draft Staff White Paper
IEPR Committee Workshop on 2004 Transmission Update August 23, 2004
1. General questions
a. Did the Commission staff accurately capture parties' input in this proceeding?
b. Are there other relevant points to be included?
c. Did the staff draw appropriate conclusions from the record to date?
d. Did the staff identify the appropriate next steps and future actions?
e. How should the state implement its recommended next steps?
2. With respect to Chapter 2 "Strategic Benefits and Long-term Transmission Planning," the IEPR Committee seeks input on the following specific questions:
a. What steps are necessary to engage in long-term transmission planning in the 2005 Energy Report process?
b. Is the use of a social discount rate when evaluating transmission system additions an appropriate method to reflect the long useful life (30 to 50 years) and public goods nature of transmission investments?
i. If so, under what conditions?
ii. If so, what is the appropriate percentage rate to use?
3. With respect to Chapter 3 "Transmission Corridor Planning and Development," the IEPR Committee seeks input on the following specific questions:
a. Do you agree with the Commission staff's recommendation #1 on page 39 to conduct corridor or right-of-way studies on selected projects, including the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area? Why or why not?
b. How should the Energy Commission work with the appropriate state and federal agencies to develop a policy for designating utility corridors across state- or federally-owned land?
c. With respect to property held by investor-owned utilities in their rate bases for future use, is the current time limit of five years appropriate? Why or why not? Should the staff investigate the consequences of California Public Utilities Commission Decision 87-12-066 and assertions that this Decision prevents utilities from including property in their rate bases indefinitely?
d. How can the concepts of "site/land/right-of-way banking," "state adoption of corridors," and program environmental impact reports help foster better regional and local transmission planning and development? What other concepts should the Energy Commission investigate? How can the state begin facilitating the incorporation of state, local, and regional electricity infrastructure planning?
e. How should corridor planning be incorporated into the California Independent System Operator grid planning process?
f. Is it appropriate for the Energy Commission to address the issue of multi-use corridor planning that considers other forms of public infrastructure (e.g., natural gas pipelines, telecommunications, and transportation)?
4. With respect to Chapter 4 "Alternatives to Transmission," the IEPR Committee seeks input on the following specific question:
a. What specific mechanisms should the Energy Commission use to ensure early and well-publicized stakeholder meetings in the project area?
5. With respect to Chapter 5 "Physical System Needs," the IEPR Committee seeks input on the following specific questions:
a. Should a study group be formed to develop a transmission plan for the Salton Sea Geothermal Resource Area?
i. If so, who should be included?
ii. If so, what should the group's objectives (including timing) be?
b. With respect to the operational issues associated with integrating a large number of renewables into California's transmission system, what are some of the experiences and best practices of others that the Energy Commission should consider, and how do those "lessons learned" apply to California?
6. Specific questions for stakeholders on the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area
a. Does SCE see any barriers to submitting its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity filing by December 2004? If so, what can be done to address the barriers?
b. In support of the goal of 20 percent renewable energy by 2010, when would an analysis to determine whether adding a fourth circuit to Path 26 need to be completed to determine whether the additional circuit could provide an outlet for wind sales to PG&E? Is PG&E planning to pursue this option? Why or why not?
c. How is the possible development or purchase of wind from the Tehachapi area to meet LADWP's Renewable Portfolio Standard being incorporated in transmission planning for the Tehachapi area?