5. Resource Counting and Deliverability Conventions

As discussed above, the Commission has not ruled on the Resource Adequacy Requirements Workshop issues. The conventions discussed below are not meant to prejudge the Commission's eventual conclusions, but rather provide a set of reasonable assumptions under which utilities may confidently file long-term Plans.

Resource Counting Conventions. The utilities should use the following guidelines in determining the credit that various types of resources should be given toward a forward commitment obligation as part of resource plans:

· For utility-owned thermal resources, historical dependable capacity available at the time of the peak. Deductions should be made for known (planned maintenance), but not for possible unplanned (forced) outages.

· For utility-owned hydro resources, the estimated hourly energy that can be provided for four hours for three consecutive days under specified hydrology conditions. For scenarios that consider adverse conditions, include an estimate of the probability of such conditions occurring (e.g., 1-in-10 years).

· For QF resources, historical average purchases during summer peak hours for the portfolio of resources under contract. If the methodology for computing this value differs by technology type, a description of the methodology used for each resource.

· For RPS contracts, expected delivered energy over a four-hour peak period, based on historical generation or best available projections.

· For existing bilateral contracts for energy and/or capacity, indicate MW entitlement during the peak hour. Include the following information, where applicable regarding the firmness/deliverability of the (associated) energy

¬ Delivery point (if other than NP15 or SP15)

¬ Unit contingent (yes/no)

¬ Whether seller has demonstrated ownership or control of physical resource or is known to have same

¬ Conditions for interruption, other than force majeure

¬ Liquidated damage provisions (yes/no)

Deliverability Conventions. We require three scenarios. In keeping with past Commission decisions, IOUs should assume that DWR contracts allocated to the utilities are deliverable for purposes of the Long-Term Plans. IOUs should also assume that deliverability to the LSE service area is sufficient without specific requirements for resource adequacy for each load pocket. Next, the IOUs should prepare an alternate scenario based on the IOU's assessment of actual deliverability of the DWR contracts allocated to it. Finally, assume that in addition to a general service area-wide requirement, LSEs must satisfy a resource adequacy requirement for any load pockets in their service areas. In preparing and documenting both the input assumptions (e.g., definition of load pockets, load forecasts for such load pockets, resources tabulated by load pocket, etc.) and results (e.g., additional resources required, costs of these additional resources, reduction in RMR costs, etc.) of these two alternative possibilities for the deliverability issue, the differences between these two variants of each Resource Plan should be thoroughly explained.