SUBJECT: Submission of Contract for Procurement of Renewable Energy from SCE's 2013 Renewables Portfolio Standard Solicitation

Transcription

1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA March 19, 2015 Advice Letters: 3124-E Russell G. Worden Director, State Regulatory Operations Southern California Edison Company 8631 Rush Street Rosemead, California SUBJECT: Submission of Contract for Procurement of Renewable Energy from SCE's 2013 Renewables Portfolio Standard Solicitation Dear Ms. Scott-Kakures: Advice Letter 3124-E is effective as of March 12, 2015, per Resolution E-4704 Ordering Paragraphs. Sincerely, Edward Randolph, Director Energy Division

2 ADVICE LETTER (AL) SUSPENSION NOTICE ENERGY DIVISION Utility Name: Southern California Edison Utility Number/Type: U 338-E Advice Letter Number(s) 3124-E Date AL(s) Filed) : 10/29//2014 Utility Contact Person: Darrah Morgan Utility Phone No.: (626) Date Utility Notified: 11/13/14 [ ] ed to: AdviceTariffManager@sce.com ED Staff Contact: Megha Lakhchaura ED Staff mla@cpuc.ca.gov ED Staff Phone No.: [X] INITIAL SUSPENSION (up to 120 DAYS from the expiration of the initial review period) This is to notify that the above-indicated AL is suspended for up to 120 days beginning 10/29//2014 for the following reason(s) below. If the AL requires a Commission resolution and the Commission s deliberation on the resolution prepared by Energy Division extends beyond the expiration of the initial suspension period, the advice letter will be automatically suspended for up to 180 days beyond the initial suspension period. [ ] A Commission Resolution is Required to Dispose of the Advice Letter [ ] Advice Letter Requests a Commission Order [X] Advice Letter Requires Staff Review The expected duration of initial suspension period is 120 days [X ] FURTHER SUSPENSION (up to 180 DAYS beyond initial suspension period) The AL requires a Commission resolution and the Commission s deliberation on the resolution prepared by Energy Division has extended beyond the expiration of the initial suspension period. The advice letter is suspended for up to 180 days beyond the initial suspension period. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Megha Lakhchaura at <mla@cpuc.ca.gov.> cc: EDTariffUnit * Note: reference Decision D , dated February 21, 2002, and Rule 7.5 in appendix A of D.O

3 Megan Scott-Kakures Vice President, Regulatory Operations ` October 29, 2014 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY DIVISION SUBJECT: Submission of Contract for Procurement of Renewable Energy From SCE s 2013 Renewables Portfolio Standard Solicitation I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Advice Letter Southern California Edison Company ( SCE ) submits this Advice Letter pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section et seq. (the RPS Legislation ) seeking approval of a Renewables Portfolio Standard ( RPS ) power purchase agreement (the Copper Mountain Contract ) between SCE and Copper Mountain Solar 4, LLC ( Seller or Copper Mountain ). The following table summarizes the Copper Mountain Contract: Seller Copper Mountain Solar 4, LLC Generation Type Solar Tracking Photovoltaic ( PV ) Size (MW) Estimated Average Energy (GWh/yr) Forecasted Commercial Operation Date Term of Agreement (Years) January 1, SCE requests that the California Public Utilities Commission ( Commission or CPUC ) issue a resolution containing findings in the form requested in this Advice Letter within six months (April 29, 2015). P.O. Box Rush Street Rosemead, California (626) Fax (626)

4 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 In accordance with General Order ( GO ) 96-B, the confidentiality of information included in this Advice Letter is described below. This Advice Letter contains both confidential and public appendices as listed below. Confidential Appendix A: Confidential Appendix B: Consistency with Commission Decisions and Rules and Project Development Status 2013 Solicitation Overview Confidential/Public Appendix C: Independent Evaluator Report Confidential Appendix D: Confidential Appendix E: Confidential Appendix F: Contract Summary Comparison of the Copper Mountain Contract with SCE s 2013 Pro Forma Renewable Power Purchase and Sale Agreement Copper Mountain Contract Confidential/Public Appendix G: Renewable Net Short Calculations Appendix H: Appendix I: Confidentiality Declaration Proposed Protective Order B. Subject of the Advice Letter The project that is contemplated by the Copper Mountain Contract (the Copper Mountain Project ) is a proposed 93.6 MW solar tracking PV facility. The project is to be located at Eldorado Valley Drive, Boulder City, Nevada (the Site ), and will interconnect at Merchant Substation, which is jointly owned by San Diego Gas & Electric Company ( SDG&E ) and NV Energy Company. The Merchant Substation is part of the California Independent System Operator ( CAISO ) Balancing Authority Area. The Seller under the Copper Mountain Contract is Copper Mountain, a Delaware limited liability company that is wholly owned by Sempra U.S. Gas & Power, LLC ( Sempra U.S. Gas & Power ). The Copper Mountain Contract is a new contract that originated from SCE s 2013 RPS solicitation.

5 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 C. General Project Description Project Name Copper Mountain Solar 4 Technology Solar Tracking PV Capacity (MW) Capacity Factor (Term Year 1) 33.7% Expected Generation (GWh/Year) Initial Commercial Operation Date January 1, 2020 Date Contract Delivery Term Begins January 1, 2020 Delivery Term (Years) 20 Vintage (New / Existing / Repower) Location (City and State) Control Area (e.g., CAISO, BPA) Nearest Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) as identified by the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) Type of Cooling, if Applicable New Boulder City, Nevada CAISO CREZ 40 Mountain Pass N/A D. Project Location The Site is located in Clark County, Nevada, approximately 7.5 miles southwest of Boulder City and within Boulder City s Solar Enterprise Zone, which was created to promote the development of utility scale solar projects. The land is not currently utilized or developed. The solar field will be adjacent to two existing solar PV facilities (east of Copper Mountain Solar 1 and west of Copper Mountain Solar 2), and to an existing solar thermal facility (Nevada Solar One). Refer to Exhibit B of the Copper Mountain Contract (attached as Appendix F) for a map of the generation facility s location. 1 See Appendix D, Section D under Capacity for further details on the Copper Mountain Project s capacity. 2 This expected generation represents the annual average of degraded generation that SCE expects to make payments on over the contract term.

6 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 E. General Deal Structure The Copper Mountain Contract is based on SCE s 2013 Pro Forma Renewable Power Purchase and Sale Agreement, which was accepted by the Commission in Decision ( D. ) on November 14, SCE is purchasing all electric energy produced by the Copper Mountain Project throughout the contract term, net of station use (if any), and all green attributes, capacity attributes, and Resource Adequacy benefits generated by, associated with, or attributable to the Copper Mountain Project. The delivery point is at the Merchant Substation, which is jointly owned by SDG&E and NV Energy Company. The Copper Mountain Project met all of the eligibility requirements and preferred project characteristics for SCE s 2013 Request for Proposals ( RFP ), which are described in further detail in Sections II.A.2 and II.A.3. The Copper Mountain Project is expected to deliver a portfolio content category 1 ( Category 1 ) 4 product, and has a first point of interconnection within a California Balancing Authority. Additional information regarding the deal structure of the Copper Mountain Contract is provided in Appendix D. F. RPS Statutory Goals and Requirements By providing renewable energy from an eligible renewable energy resource ( ERR ) as defined in the RPS Legislation, the Copper Mountain Contract is consistent with, and contributes to, the RPS program s statutory goals. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section (b), the Legislature determined that procurement of electricity products from ERRs, such as the Copper Mountain Project, provides unique benefits to California, including among other things, displacing fossil fuel consumption within the state, reducing air pollution in the state, meeting the state s climate change goals by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases associated with electrical generation, and meeting the state s need for a diversified and balanced energy generation portfolio. Based on SCE s analysis of its renewable net short ( RNS ) position, SCE projects a long-term renewable procurement need in the third compliance period and beyond. Consistent with this need, the Copper Mountain Contract is expected to provide long-term RPS and Category 1-eligible energy over a 20- year term starting in SCE s RNS calculations are included in Appendix G. G. Confidentiality 3 D at 69 (Ordering Paragraph 1). 4 As defined in Public Utilities Code Section (b)(1) and D

7 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 SCE is requesting confidential treatment of Appendices A, B, D through F, and the confidential versions of Appendices C and G of this Advice Letter. The information for which SCE is seeking confidential treatment is identified in the Confidentiality Declaration attached as Appendix H. The confidential version of this Advice Letter will be made available to appropriate parties (in accordance with SCE s Proposed Protective Order, as discussed below) upon execution of the required non-disclosure agreement. Parties wishing to obtain access to the confidential version of this Advice Letter may contact Cathy Karlstad in SCE s Law Department at Cathy.Karlstad@sce.com or (626) to obtain a non-disclosure agreement. In accordance with GO 96-B, a copy of SCE s Proposed Protective Order is attached as Appendix I. It is appropriate to accord confidential treatment to the information for which SCE requests confidential treatment in the first instance in the advice letter process because such information is entitled to confidentiality protection pursuant to D , 5 and is required to be filed by advice letter as part of the process for obtaining Commission approval of RPS power purchase and sale agreements. SCE would object if the information were disclosed in an aggregated format. The information in this Advice Letter for which SCE requests confidential treatment, the pages on which the information appears, and the length of time for which the information should remain confidential, are provided in Appendix H. This information is entitled to confidentiality protection pursuant to D (as provided in the Investor-Owned Utility ( IOU ) Matrix). 6 The specific provisions of the IOU Matrix that apply to the confidential information in this Advice Letter are identified in Appendix H. II. CONSISTENCY WITH COMMISSION DECISIONS A. SCE s 2013 RPS Procurement Plan 1. SCE s 2013 RPS Procurement Plan Was Approved by the Commission and SCE Adhered to Commission Guidelines for Filing and Revisions SCE filed its 2013 RPS Procurement Plan on June 28, On August 28, 2013, SCE filed a motion to amend its 2013 RPS Procurement Plan, which included an amended 2013 RPS Procurement Plan as an attachment. In D , the Commission conditionally accepted SCE s 2013 RPS Procurement Plan, including the solicitation materials for SCE s 2013 RPS solicitation. 7 The Commission also ordered SCE to make certain changes to its 2013 RPS Procurement Plan and to file a final plan by December 4, On 5 D at 80 (Ordering Paragraphs 1 and 2). 6 Id., Appendix 1. 7 D at 69 (Ordering Paragraph 1).

8 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 December 4, 2013, SCE filed and served its final 2013 RPS Procurement Plan to make some minor corrections. On December 13, 2013, SCE re-filed and served its final 2013 RPS Procurement Plan to make some minor corrections. Consistent with the schedule set forth in D , SCE issued its 2013 RFP on January 6, Summary of SCE s Assessment of Portfolio Needs and Preferred Project Characteristics As explained in SCE s 2013 RPS Procurement Plan and shown in SCE s RNS calculations, SCE has a long-term need for renewable energy in the third compliance period and beyond. In the 2013 RPS Procurement Plan, SCE received approval to conduct a targeted solicitation to meet SCE s need for renewable resources. In its 2013 RPS RFP, SCE accepted proposals for projects with commercial operation dates of January 1, 2016 or later, and limited its procurement to Category 1 products. SCE also required that projects have either a Phase II Interconnection Study or an equivalent or better process or exemption in order to submit a proposal. Projects with a contract capacity of 1.5 MW or greater were eligible to participate in SCE s 2013 RPS RFP. However, SCE indicated a strong preference for projects with contract capacities: (1) greater than 20 MW for projects located within the service territories of SCE, Pacific Gas and Electric Company ( PG&E ), and SDG&E and directly interconnected to the CAISO or the distribution systems of SCE, PG&E, or SDG&E; (2) 3 MW or greater for projects located outside the service territories of SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E and directly interconnected to the transmission or distribution system of a California Balancing Authority; or (3) 1.5 MW or greater - for projects located within the Western Los Angeles sub-area of the Los Angeles basin local reliability area, or in the Moorpark sub-area of the Big Creek/Ventura local reliability area. Additionally, for in-state generating facilities that are, or will be, interconnected to the CAISO, SCE required that the delivery point be point where the generating facility connects to the CAISO controlled grid. For in-state generating facilities that are, or will be interconnected to a California Balancing Authority other than the CAISO, SCE required the delivery point to be the intertie point where the seller s transmission provider ties to the CAISO. SCE decided on the total projected contract energy it signed based on several factors laid out in the 2013 RPS Procurement Plan, including projected long- and short-term needs, the impact of reducing federal tax credits, and expected contract success rates. 3. The Copper Mountain Contract Is Consistent With SCE s 2013 RPS Procurement Plan, SCE s Portfolio Needs, and Preferred Project Characteristics

9 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 The Copper Mountain Contract aligns with the portfolio needs identified in SCE s 2013 RPS Procurement Plan. Specifically, the Copper Mountain Contract will provide renewable energy from a new 93.6 MW solar tracking PV facility starting in 2020 for a 20-year term, consistent with SCE s long-term renewable procurement need in the third compliance period and beyond. The Copper Mountain Project also met all of the eligibility requirements and preferred project characteristics for SCE s 2013 RFP. The Copper Mountain Project s first point of interconnection will be with the CAISO, and thus the Copper Mountain Contract is expected to provide a Category 1 product. Additionally, the Copper Mountain Project s 93.6 MW contract capacity is consistent with SCE s preference for projects with contract capacities of 3 MW or greater for projects located outside the service territories of SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E and directly interconnected to the transmission or distribution system of a California Balancing Authority. The Copper Mountain Project will also satisfy the delivery requirements for SCE s 2013 RFP because the project s delivery point will be the point where the project connects to the CAISO-controlled grid. 4. The Copper Mountain Contract is Consistent with SCE s Portfolio Optimization Strategy As described in detail in SCE s 2013 RPS Procurement Plan, 8 the objective of SCE s renewables portfolio optimization strategy is to minimize costs to its customers while ensuring that RPS procurement goals are met or exceeded. SCE determines the procurement target for each RPS solicitation based, in part, on its assessment of SCE s renewable procurement position and need, i.e., SCE s RNS. This includes a calculation of SCE s net short or long renewables position and SCE s bank. SCE carefully evaluates its renewable procurement need by assessing bundled retail sales, the performance and variability of existing generation, the likelihood of new generation achieving commercial operation, expected commercial on-line dates, technology mix, expected curtailment, and the impact of pre-approved procurement programs, among other factors. The Copper Mountain Contract meets the primary objectives of SCE s portfolio optimization strategy. The Copper Mountain Contract is expected to start deliveries in January 2020, which will help meet SCE s renewable procurement need in the third compliance period and beyond. Additional information is included in Appendix A, Section I.A.7. 8 See Southern California Edison Company s (U 338-E) Final 2013 Renewables Portfolio Standard Procurement Plan, December 4, 2013 ( Final 2013 RPS Plan ), at

10 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 B. Least-Cost/Best-Fit ( LCBF ) Methodology and Evaluation SCE evaluates and ranks proposals based on LCBF principles that comply with criteria set forth by the Commission in D and D (the LCBF Decisions ). 9 The goal of SCE s evaluation and selection criteria and processes is to provide decision metrics so that SCE can procure renewable energy economically, while providing the most value to its customers. The LCBF analysis evaluates both quantitative and qualitative aspects of each proposal to estimate its value to SCE s customers and its relative value in comparison to other proposals. Although assumptions and methodologies have evolved slightly over time, the basic components of SCE s evaluation and selection criteria and process for RPS contracts were established by the Commission s LCBF Decisions. Consistent with those LCBF Decisions, the three main steps undertaken by SCE in its evaluation and selection process were: (i) initial data gathering and validation; (ii) a quantitative assessment of proposals; and (iii) adjustments to selections based on proposals qualitative attributes. SCE applied these criteria to the proposals received in its 2013 RPS RFP in order to establish a short list of proposals from sellers with whom SCE would engage in a final round of contract discussions. Prior to receiving proposals, SCE finalized the short list selection criteria with the Independent Evaluator ( IE ). SCE then finalized the major assumptions and methodologies that underlie SCE s valuation, including power and gas price forecasts, existing and forecast resource portfolio, and firm capacity value forecast. SCE also finalized and published congestion adders for sellers to use in preparing their proposals. Once proposals were received, SCE began an initial review of proposals for completeness and conformity with the solicitation protocol. The review included an initial screen for required submission criteria such as a conforming delivery point, commercial on-line date in 2016 or later, a valid interconnection study, minimum project size, and the submission of particular proposal package elements. Sellers lacking any of these items were allowed a reasonable cure period to remedy any deficiencies. Following this check for conformity, SCE conducted an additional review to determine the reasonableness of proposal parameters such as generation profiles and capacity factors. SCE worked directly with sellers to resolve any issues and ensure the data was ready for evaluation. After these reviews, SCE performed a quantitative assessment of each proposal individually and subsequently ranked them based on the proposal s benefit and 9 The Commission has also made rulings on various evaluation criteria in its decisions on the IOUs RPS procurement plans.

11 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 cost relationship. Specifically, the total benefits and total costs were used to calculate the net levelized cost or renewable premium per each complete and conforming proposal. Benefits were comprised of separate capacity, energy and congestion components, while costs included the contract payments, debt equivalence, congestion cost, and transmission cost. SCE discounted the monthly benefit and cost streams to a common base date. The result of the quantitative analysis was a merit-order ranking of all complete and conforming proposals renewable premiums that helped define the preliminary short list. In parallel with the quantitative analysis, SCE conducted an in-depth assessment of the qualitative attributes of the top proposals with a competitive renewable premium. This analysis utilized the Project Viability Calculator to assess certain factors, including the company/development team, technology, and development milestones. Additional attributes such as transmission area, facility interconnection process progress, portfolio fit of commercial operation date, resource diversity, and counterparty concentration were also considered in the qualitative analysis. These qualitative attributes were then considered to either eliminate non-viable proposals or add projects with high viability or other beneficial qualitative attributes to the final short list of proposals, or to break ties, if any. Following both its quantitative and qualitative analyses, SCE consulted with its Procurement Review Group ( PRG ) regarding the final short list and specific evaluation criteria. SCE then negotiated with the shortlisted sellers for a 90 day period. At the end of the contract negotiation period, all sellers that completed negotiations had a one-time opportunity to submit new pricing. SCE then made final selections based on the new pricing and consulted with its IE and the PRG prior to the execution of the successfully negotiated contracts. SCE s 2013 RPS Short List Report was submitted to the Commission on April 21, 2014 in Advice 3029-E. SCE filed a supplement to Advice 3029-E to identify two projects that withdrew from the short list on June 26, The Energy Division approved SCE s 2013 RPS Short List Report effective as of July 8, Using SCE s LCBF methodology, the Copper Mountain Project compared favorably to other proposals received in the 2013 RPS RFP, as well as other procurement options available to SCE.

12 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 C. Compliance With Standard Terms and Conditions In D , the Commission established a number of modifiable and nonmodifiable standard terms and conditions to be used by retail sellers when contracting for RPS-eligible resources. 10 In D , the Commission reduced the number of non-modifiable terms to the following four terms: (1) CPUC Approval; (2) RECs and Green Attributes; 11 (3) Eligibility; and (4) Applicable Law. 12 The remaining non-modifiable terms were converted to modifiable terms. 13 In D , as modified by D , the Commission added two new non-modifiable standard terms and conditions for both bundled contracts and contracts for renewable energy credits ( RECs ) only: (1) Transfer of Renewable Energy Credits; and (2) Tracking of RECs in WREGIS. 14 The Commission also added a new version of the non-modifiable CPUC Approval standard term and condition for REC-only contracts, and held that the non-modifiable Applicable Law standard term and condition also applies to REC-only contracts. 15 In D , the Commission updated the non-modifiable RECs and Green Attributes term to a modifiable Bioenergy Transactions term. 16 The Copper Mountain Contract includes all non-modifiable standard terms and conditions for bundled contracts without change as indicated in the table below. NON-MODIFIABLE TERM STC 1: CPUC Approval CONTRACT SECTION NUMBER Exhibit A, #57 (See also 2.01(a)) CONTRACT PAGE NUMBER 5 of Exhibit A (Section 2.01(a) is on page 9) STC 6: Eligibility 10.02(b) 61 STC 17: Applicable Law STC REC 1: Transfer of RECs 10.02(c) D at 20 (Ordering Paragraph 1) and Appendix A. 11 In D , Appendix B, the Commission revised the non-modifiable RECs and Green Attributes standard term and condition. 12 D at 33 (Ordering Paragraph 1.a). 13 Id. at 34 (Ordering Paragraph 1.b). Subsequently, in D , the Commission compiled the standard terms and conditions in one document and deleted the modifiable standard term and condition on supplemental energy payments. 14 D at 46 (Ordering Paragraph 3.P). 15 Id. at (Ordering Paragraph 3.Q). 16 D at 24-25, 70 (Ordering Paragraph 6).

13 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 STC REC 2: Tracking of RECs in WREGIS 10.02(e) 61 A comparison of the Copper Mountain Contract against SCE s 2013 Pro Forma Renewable Power Purchase and Sale Agreement is included as Appendix E. D. Portfolio Content Category Claim and Upfront Showing In D , the Commission found that [a] retail seller claiming that procurement for compliance with the California renewables portfolio standard from a procurement contract or ownership agreement signed... on or after June 1, 2010 counts in the portfolio content category described in Pub. Util. Code (b)(1), must provide information to the Director of Energy Division sufficient to demonstrate that the generation facility from which the electricity is procured is certified as eligible for the California renewables portfolio standard. 17 Additionally, retail sellers claiming procurement counts as a Category 1 product must provide information to the Energy Division Director sufficient to demonstrate that the generating facility from which the electricity is procured meets the statutory definition of Category 1 products set forth in Public Utilities Code Section (b)(1). 18 One way to make this demonstration is to show that the facility has its first point of interconnection to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council transmission grid within the metered boundaries of a California balancing authority area. 19 The retail seller must also demonstrate that the renewable energy credits originally associated with the electricity have not been unbundled and transferred to another owner, and that all other requirements for procurement for compliance with the California renewables portfolio standard are met by the procurement. 20 Furthermore, D provides that the utilities, in seeking approval of contracts for procurement, should enable the Commission to evaluate the following: the claimed portfolio content category of the proposed procurement; the risks that the procurement will not ultimately be classified in the claimed portfolio content category; the value to ratepayers of the procurement as proposed and the value to ratepayers if the procurement is not ultimately classified in the claimed portfolio content category. 21 Pursuant to the provisions of the Copper Mountain Contract, SCE will procure energy, capacity and associated renewable energy attributes generated from a eligible renewable resource with a first point of interconnection within the CAISO. 17 D at (Ordering Paragraph 1). 18 See id. 19 Id. 20 Id. at 76 (Ordering Paragraph 1). 21 Id. at 80 (Ordering Paragraph 9).

14 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 In addition, per the contract, the Copper Mountain Project must obtain and keep current California Energy Commission ( CEC ) certification as an ERR, 22 as well as perform all actions necessary to effectuate the transfer of RECs to SCE in the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System ( WREGIS ). The RECs associated with the electricity from the Copper Mountain Project are yet to be delivered and therefore have not been unbundled or transferred to another owner. Such RECs will be transferred to SCE pursuant to the terms of the Copper Mountain Contract. Accordingly, this is a Category 1 transaction pursuant to the Public Utilities Code Section (b)(1) and D SCE has not identified a risk that the Copper Mountain Project will fail to deliver Category 1 RECs. Forecast of Portfolio Balance Requirements 24 Compliance Period 2 ( ) GWh Portfolio Content Category ( PCC ) 1 Balance Requirement CP 2 = 65% of RECs applied to procurement quantity requirement CP 3 = 75% of RECs applied to procurement quantity requirement Quantity of PCC 1 RECs 25 Compliance Period 3 ( ) GWh (under contract, not including proposed contract) 8,622 34,948 Quantity of PCC 1 RECs from proposed contract Quantity of PCC 2 RECs (under contract, not including proposed contract) 0 0 Quantity of PCC 2 RECs from proposed contract The project must qualify and be certified by the CEC as an ERR as such term is defined in Public Utilities Code Section (e). 23 D at (Ordering Paragraph 1). 24 SCE s forecast assumes a 100% success rate for projects in development, that are not yet online. 25 The Quantity of PCC 1 RECs (under contract, not including proposed contract) represents the total forecasted energy deliveries for all executed RPS eligible contracts, including the 2013 RPS RFP contracts, minus the forecasted energy deliveries from the Copper Mountain Contract.

15 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 PCC 3 Balance Limitation CP 2 = 15% of RECs applied to procurement quantity requirement CP 3 = 10% of RECs applied to procurement quantity requirement Quantity of PCC 3 RECs (under contract, not including proposed contract) 0 0 Quantity of PCC 3 RECs from proposed contract 0 0 E. Long-Term Contracting Requirement In D , the Commission held that, [i]n order to count procurement from contracts of less than 10 years duration signed after June 1, 2010 for compliance with the California renewables portfolio standard in a compliance period, a retail seller... must sign in the compliance period in which the short term contract is signed, contracts of at least 10 years in duration with expected generation equal to at least 0.25 percent of its retail sales for the immediately prior compliance period. 26 Since there was not a compliance period prior to the compliance period, the requirement is 0.25 percent of 2010 retail sales for that compliance period. 27 The Copper Mountain Contract is a 20-year contract. Therefore, the long term contracting requirement does not apply. F. Interim Emissions Performance Standard The California Legislature passed Senate Bill ( SB ) 1368 on August 31, 2006, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law on September 29, Section 2 of SB 1368 adds Public Utilities Code Section 8341(a), which provides, No load-serving entity or local publicly owned electric utility may enter into a long-term financial commitment unless any baseload generation supplied under the long-term financial commitment complies with the greenhouse gases emission performance standard established by the commission, pursuant to subdivision (d), for a load-serving entity In order to institute the provisions of SB 1368, the Commission instituted Rulemaking That proceeding resulted in the establishment of a 26 D at 98 (Ordering Paragraph 15). 27 See id. at 98 (Ordering Paragraph 16). 28 Cal. Pub. Util. Code 8341(a).

16 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions performance standard ( EPS ) for carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ). In D , the Commission noted, SB 1368 establishes a minimum performance requirement for any long-term financial commitment for baseload generation that will be supplying power to California ratepayers. The new law establishes that the GHG emissions rates for these facilities must be no higher than the GHG emissions rate of a combined-cycle gas turbine ( CCGT ) powerplant. 29 The decision further explains: SB 1368 describes what types of generation and financial commitments will be subject to the EPS ( covered procurements ). Under SB 1368, the EPS applies to baseload generation, but the requirement to comply with it is triggered only if there is a longterm financial commitment by an LSE. The statute defines baseload generation as electricity generation from a powerplant that is designed and intended to provide electricity at an annualized plant capacity factor of at least 60%.... For baseload generation procured under contract, there is a long-term commitment when the LSE enters into a new or renewed contract with a term of five or more years. 30 The Copper Mountain Contract is exempt from EPS regulations because it has an expected annualized capacity factor well below the threshold baseload capacity factor of 60%, above which the EPS rules would apply. 31 G. PRG Participation SCE s PRG was formed on or around September 10, Participants include representatives from various divisions within the Commission, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, The Utility Reform Network, California Utility Employees, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the California Department of Water Resources. SCE consulted with its PRG during each milestone of the 2013 RPS solicitation process. Among other things, SCE informed the PRG of the initial results of its RFP, explained the evaluation process, and updated the PRG periodically concerning the status of contract formation. On March 19, 2014, SCE advised the PRG of its proposed short list of bids for its 2013 RPS solicitation. On July 16, 2014, SCE briefed the PRG on the proposed execution of the Copper Mountain Contract. 29 D at Id. at See id., Attachment 7 at 1.

17 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 H. IE The IE for the 2013 RPS solicitation was Merrimack Energy Group, Inc. The IE joined and contributed to a number of conference calls and negotiation sessions. In addition, the IE reviewed traffic, the Copper Mountain Contract, and other documents exchanged by the parties. The IE also participated in the PRG review. The IE Report is included as Appendix C. III. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STATUS 32 A. Company/Development Team The Copper Mountain Project is expected to be designed, permitted, constructed, operated, and maintained by Sempra U.S. Gas & Power and/or its designated contractors and affiliates. Sempra U.S. Gas & Power has successfully developed a number of power plants throughout the United States. Sempra U.S. Gas & Power is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sempra Energy. Sempra Energy is based in San Diego, California and has 17,000 employees worldwide. The Sempra Energy companies develop energy infrastructure, operate utilities, and provide related products and services to more than 31 million consumers around the globe. Sempra employs an experienced, mature team of professionals with decades of experience in the power plant industry. The operations and maintenance team has successfully operated and maintained multiple power plants with one of the best availability records in the industry. Additional information regarding the company/development team is included in Appendix A. B. Technology 1. Technology Type and Level of Technology Maturity The Copper Mountain Project will use mature and proven solar PV technology from financeable panel, inverter, and racking system manufacturers with proven deployment on utility-scale generation projects. The project will not deploy early stage or unproven technologies. All technologies will be designed for utility-scale operation with significant operating history. 32 Some of the information in this section was provided by Copper Mountain and not independently verified by SCE.

18 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, Quality of Renewable Resource SCE believes that the Copper Mountain Contract will be able to meet the terms of the contract given the quality of the renewable resource, which is substantiated by the project s location. The Site is adjacent to two operating solar PV facilities and an existing solar thermal facility. 3. Other Resources Required No additional fuel supply is required for the Copper Mountain Project. The water supply is anticipated to be sufficient to cover the project s expected need. C. Development Milestones 1. Site Control The Copper Mountain Project will be located in Clark County, Nevada, approximately 7.5 miles southwest of the Boulder City and within Boulder City s Solar Enterprise Zone. Copper Mountain has secured site control to support the Copper Mountain Project. Additional information regarding site control is included in Appendix A. 2. Equipment Procurement As of the filing date of this Advice Letter, Copper Mountain has not identified any equipment procurement issues that will affect the project s ability to meet the commercial operation date. Additional information is included in Appendix A. 3. Permitting/Certifications Status Information regarding permitting/certifications status is included in Appendix A. 4. Production Tax Credits/Investment Tax Credits Information regarding production tax credits and investment tax credits is provided in Appendix A. 5. Transmission Information regarding transmission is provided in Appendix A. D. Financing Plan Information regarding financing is provided in Appendix A.

19 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 IV. CONTINGENCIES AND MILESTONES The Copper Mountain Project is expected to begin operation under the Copper Mountain Contract on January 1, Specific information regarding performance criteria and guaranteed milestones is provided in Appendices D through F. V. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS SCE is strongly committed to safety in all aspects of its business. Renewable sellers are responsible for the safe construction and operation of their generating facilities and compliance with all applicable safety regulations. SCE has taken several steps to address those issues over which it has the most visibility and control the delivery of renewable electricity products to SCE in a reliable, safe, and operationally sound manner. SCE s 2013 Pro Forma Renewable Power Purchase and Sale Agreement already provided that the seller must operate the generating facility in accordance with Prudent Electrical Practices. 33 Consistent with SCE s focus on safety, SCE added a provision to its 2013 Pro Forma Renewable Power Purchase and Sale Agreement providing that, prior to commencement of any construction activities on the project site, the seller must provide to SCE a report from an independent engineer certifying that the seller has a written plan for the safe construction and operation of the generating facility in accordance with Prudent Electrical Practices. 34 See Appendix D for more details. 33 See Final 2013 RPS Plan, Appendix G.1 at Section 3.12(a), Exhibit A, #215. Prudent Electrical Practices means those practices, methods and acts that would be implemented and followed by prudent operators of electric generating facilities in the Western United States, similar to the Generating Facility, during the relevant time period, which practices, methods and acts, in the exercise of prudent and responsible professional judgment in the light of the facts known at the time a decision was made, could reasonably have been expected to accomplish the desired result consistent with good business practices, reliability and safety. Prudent Electrical Practices includes, at a minimum, those professionally responsible practices, methods and acts described in the preceding sentence that comply with the manufacturer s warranties, restrictions in this Agreement, and the requirement of Governmental Authorities, WECC standards, the CAISO and Applicable Laws See id., Appendix G.1, Section 3.11(e).

20 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 VI. REQUEST FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL The terms of the Copper Mountain Contract are conditioned on the occurrence of final CPUC Approval, as it is described in the Copper Mountain Contract. In order to satisfy that condition with respect to the Copper Mountain Contract, SCE requests that the Commission issue a resolution no later than April 29, 2015 containing: 1. Approval of the Copper Mountain Contract in its entirety; 2. A finding that the Copper Mountain Contract is consistent with SCE s 2013 RPS Procurement Plan; 3. A finding that the Copper Mountain Contract is compliant with the Emissions Performance Standard; 4. A finding that any procurement pursuant to the Copper Mountain Contract is procurement from an eligible renewable energy resource for purposes of determining SCE s compliance with any obligation that it may have to procure eligible renewable energy resources pursuant to the California Renewables Portfolio Standard (Public Utilities Code Section et seq.), Decision , or other applicable law; 5. A finding that the Copper Mountain Contract, and SCE s entry into it, is reasonable and prudent for all purposes, including, but not limited to, recovery in rates of payments made pursuant to the Copper Mountain Contract and administrative costs associated with the Copper Mountain Contract, subject only to further review with respect to the reasonableness of SCE s administration of Copper Mountain Contract; and 6. Any other and further relief as the Commission finds just and reasonable. VII. TIER DESIGNATION Pursuant to GO 96-B, Energy Industry Rule 5.3, SCE submits this Advice Letter with a Tier 3 designation (effective after Commission approval). VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE This Advice Letter will become effective upon Commission approval. IX. NOTICE Anyone wishing to protest this advice letter may do so by letter via U.S. Mail, facsimile, or electronically, any of which must be received by the Energy Division

21 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 and SCE no later than 20 days after the date of this advice letter. Protests should be mailed to: CPUC, Energy Division Attention: Tariff Unit 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California EDTariffUnit@cpuc.ca.gov Copies should also be mailed to the attention of the Director, Energy Division, Room 4004 (same address as above). In addition, protests and other correspondence regarding this advice letter should also be sent by letter and transmitted via facsimile or electronically to the attention of: Megan Scott-Kakures Vice President, Regulatory Operations Southern California Edison Company 8631 Rush Street Rosemead, California Facsimile: (626) AdviceTariffManager@sce.com Michael R. Hoover Director, State Regulatory Affairs Southern California Edison Company c/o Karyn Gansecki 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2030 San Francisco, California Facsimile: (415) Karyn.Gansecki@sce.com With a copy to: Cathy Karlstad Attorney Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, 3 rd Floor Rosemead, CA Facsimile: (626) Cathy.Karlstad@sce.com

22 ADVICE 3124-E (U 338-E) October 29, 2014 There are no restrictions on who may file a protest, but the protest shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which it is based and shall be submitted expeditiously. In accordance with General Rule 4 of GO 96-B, SCE is furnishing copies of this Advice Letter to the interested parties shown on the attached R and GO 96-B service lists. Address change requests to the GO 96-B service list should be directed to AdviceTariffManager@sce.com or (626) For changes to any other service list, please contact the Commission s Process Office at (415) or Process_Office@cpuc.ca.gov. Further, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 491, notice to the public is hereby given by filing and keeping the Advice Letter at SCE s corporate headquarters. To view other SCE advice letters filed with the Commission, log on to SCE s web site at All questions concerning this Advice Letter should be directed to Katie Sloan at (626) or by electronic mail at Katie.Sloan@sce.com. Southern California Edison Company MSK:ks:jm Enclosures /s/ Megan Scott-Kakures Megan Scott-Kakures

23 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ADVICE LETTER FILING SUMMARY ENERGY UTILITY MUST BE COMPLETED BY UTILITY (Attach additional pages as needed) Company name/cpuc Utility No.: Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) Utility type: Contact Person: Darrah Morgan ELC GAS Phone #: (626) PLC HEAT WATER Disposition Notice to: EXPLANATION OF UTILITY TYPE ELC = Electric GAS = Gas PLC = Pipeline HEAT = Heat WATER = Water (Date Filed/ Received Stamp by CPUC) Advice Letter (AL) #: 3124-E Tier Designation: 3 Subject of AL: Submission of Contract for Procurement of Renewable Energy From SCE s 2013 Renewables Portfolio Standard Solicitation Keywords (choose from CPUC listing): Agreement, Procurement AL filing type: Monthly Quarterly Annual One-Time Other If AL filed in compliance with a Commission order, indicate relevant Decision/Resolution #: Does AL replace a withdrawn or rejected AL? If so, identify the prior AL: Summarize differences between the AL and the prior withdrawn or rejected AL: Confidential treatment requested? Yes No If yes, specification of confidential information: See Appendix H. Confidential information will be made available to appropriate parties who execute a nondisclosure agreement. Name and contact information to request nondisclosure agreement/access to confidential information: Cathy Karlstad, Law Department, (626) or Cathy.Karlstad@sce.com Resolution Required? Yes No Requested effective date: 4/29/15 No. of tariff sheets: -0- Estimated system annual revenue effect: (%): Estimated system average rate effect (%): When rates are affected by AL, include attachment in AL showing average rate effects on customer classes (residential, small commercial, large C/I, agricultural, lighting). Tariff schedules affected: None Service affected and changes proposed 1 : Pending advice letters that revise the same tariff sheets: N/A 1 Discuss in AL if more space is needed.

24 Protests and all other correspondence regarding this AL are due no later than 20 days after the date of this filing, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, and shall be sent to: CPUC, Energy Division Attention: Tariff Unit 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California Megan Scott-Kakures Vice President, Regulatory Operations Southern California Edison Company 8631 Rush Street Rosemead, California Facsimile: (626) Michael R. Hoover Director, State Regulatory Affairs c/o Karyn Gansecki Southern California Edison Company 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2030 San Francisco, California Facsimile: (415) With a copy to: Cathy Karlstad Attorney 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, 3 rd Floor Rosemead, California Facsimile: (626) Cathy.Karlstad@sce.com

25 Confidential Appendix A Consistency with Commission Decisions and Rules and Project Development Status

26 Confidential Appendix B 2013 Solicitation Overview

27 Confidential Appendix C Independent Evaluator Report

28 Public Appendix C Independent Evaluator Report

29 Southern California Edison Company 2013 Renewable Resource Solicitation Report of the Independent Evaluator Final Selection Process and Review of Power Purchase Agreement with Copper Mountain Solar 4, LLC October 2014 Prepared by Merrimack Energy Group, Inc. Merrimack M Energy and New Energy Opportunities, Inc.

30 Table of Contents Executive Summary.. 2 I Renewable RFP Overview... 8 II. Role of the Independent Evaluator III. Adequacy of Outreach to Potential Sellers IV. Fairness and Appropriateness of RPS Bid Evaluation and Selection Methodology.24 V. Administration of the Bid Evaluation Process 38 VI. Shortlist and Final Evaluation and Selection. 54 VII. The Copper Mountain PPA and the Fairness of Project-Specific Negotiations..57 VIII. Does the Contract Merit Commission Approval?...66 Appendix A: SCE s Least Cost Best Fit Evaluation Methodology Appendix B: SCE 2013 RPS RFP Proposal List and Summary Appendix C: SCE Shortlisted Proposals 2013 RPS RFP Appendix D: Indicative and Final Pricing 2013 RPS RFP Appendix E: SCE Final Evaluation Results Merrimack Energy Group, Inc. 1

31 Executive Summary Effective July 31, 2014, Southern California Edison Company ( SCE ) executed a power purchase agreement ( PPA ) with Copper Mountain Solar 4, LLC ( Copper Mountain ) for the purchase of all the electric energy, capacity, Resource Adequacy ( RA ) benefits, and Green Attributes produced by a proposed 93.6 MW (AC) solar photovoltaic ( PV ) generating facility to be constructed in Boulder City, Nevada, with the Delivery Point at the interconnection with the California Independent System Operator ( CAISO )- controlled grid at the Merchant Substation pursuant to SCE s 2013 Request for Proposals from Eligible Renewable Energy Resource Suppliers for Renewable Products ( 2013 Renewable RFP ). SCE launched the 2013 Renewable RFP on January 6, 2014, received indicative bids on January 31, 2014, and received final offers on June 25, On July 29, 2014 and July 31, 2014, SCE signed a total of eight power purchase agreements for capacity, energy and other products from eight different projects representing a total of approximately 1,550 MW, including 93.6 MW of energy, capacity and Green Attributes purchased under the PPA with Copper Mountain ( Copper Mountain PPA ). 1 Through the 2013 Renewable RFP solicitation, SCE sought Proposals for products qualifying as Portfolio Content Category 1 2 which includes all electric energy produced by an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource ( ERR or ERR Generating Facility ) as well as all attributes, including all Green Attributes, all Capacity Attributes, and all Resource Adequacy Benefits generated by, associated with or attributable to the output of the ERR Generating Facility. Pursuant to the 2013 Renewable RFP, SCE received a large number of proposals from renewable energy developers, reviewed and evaluated the proposals relative to the eligibility and conformance requirements listed in the Protocol Document, evaluated and ranked the proposals, and determined which of those offers to include on a short list for potential negotiations and contracting. 3 In March 2014, SCE selected, including three geothermal projects selected out of economic rank order, the 1,600 GWh/year target for this solicitation. 1 Capitalized terms when used with reference to the Copper Mountain PPA and not otherwise defined herein are as defined in the Copper Mountain PPA. 2 The first portfolio content category ( Category 1 ) is delineated in the California Public Utilities Commission s Decision Implementing Portfolio Content Categories for the Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, D (2011). It consists of products from renewable energy generators: with a first point of interconnection to the Western Electric Coordinating Council transmission system within the boundaries of a California Balancing Authority Area ( CBA ); or with a first point of interconnection with an electricity distribution system used to serve end users within the boundaries of a CBA; or where the renewable generation is scheduled into a CBA without substituting electricity from another source; or where the generation from the renewable facility is dynamically transferred to a CBA. 3 SCE implemented a two-step evaluation process for this solicitation. The shortlist selection was the first step in the process. After shortlist selection, SCE initiated contract negotiations with shortlisted projects. At the end of the negotiation period, Sellers who had reached agreement with SCE on the terms of a PPA have a one-time opportunity to submit a final revised price. SCE made final selections and entered into final PPAs based on the revised pricing and a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the project proposals. Merrimack Energy Group, Inc. 2