Simplifying Policy Management

CalCCA announced at the June 2 hearing it would seek admission after receiving discovery responses, and SCE confirmed it would not oppose admission. No other party objected.

Exhibit List Updates

CalCCA served a master exhibit list on June 2, 2026. The ALJ attached an updated exhibit list reflecting: (1) CCA-11 and CCA-11C are sponsored by witness Erin Pulgar; and (2) inclusion of JIOU-09 as an exhibit that had been marked and identified per the June 1, 2026 ruling but not yet admitted.

Procedural Instructions and Contacts

Parties with questions about the updated exhibit list must respond to Administrative Law Judge Eileen Odell and cc the service list (Eileen.Odell@cpuc.ca.gov). The ruling was served to the R.25-02-005 service list and contains the usual confidentiality/privilege notice.

Scoping Ruling of December 1, 2023 to identify DER data access issues and recommend rules on data access, forecasting, ESJ community considerations, inter-proceeding alignment, privacy, standardization, data models, reporting tools, and redundancy reduction.

Facilitation, Membership, and Timeline

UCLA CCSC, with LARC, facilitated the process; UCLA produced a draft DWG report on April 15, 2026. Membership included state agencies (including CEC), local and tribal governments, implementers, IOUs, CBOs, RENs, non-profits, academics, CAISO, and DER providers. Key meeting dates included:

• Aug. 26, 2024
• Sep. 30, 2024
• Oct. 21, 2024
• Nov. 18, 2024
• Dec. 16, 2024
• Jan. 27, 2025
• Feb. 24, 2025
• Mar. 24, 2025
• May 28, 2025
• May 7, 2026

Focus Areas and Priority Use Cases

DWG concentrated on public data products and tools, standardized data collection, and refinement of sharing mechanisms. Priority Use Cases included customer decision-making on DERs and programs; state, local, and tribal planning; and improving demand forecasting accuracy.

Requested Inputs (Section 2 Highlights)

Parties must review Attachment 1 and respond to questions on the following topics:

• Factual corrections
• Chapter 7 recommendations
• Criteria for selecting Priority Use Cases
• CPUC-CEC coordination
• Aggregation and anonymization thresholds, and geographic units
• Potential statewide DER registry and public data platform, including purpose, scope, governance, and costs
• EDRP Terms of Service and recommended modifications
• Data access for local and tribal governments
• Cost allocation for IOU implementation
• Other implementation issues or rule updates

Signed June 12, 2026 by ALJ Hazlyn C. Fortune.

single document.

Workshop and Guidehouse Report

Energy Division will host an Energization workshop on June 18, 2026 focused on IOU reports submitted in March, 2026 and the IOUs’ analysis methodology. The circulated Guidehouse report is an evaluation of IOU data through September 2025 and is referenced as an October 2025 deliverable.

Governing Decisions and Requested Issues

Parties should assess IOU reports against D.24-09-020 and D.26-02-025. The ruling invites responses to three specific questions:

• Do IOU energization reports meet requirements of D.24-09-020 and D.26-02-025, and what changes or implementation dates are needed?
• Should the Commission adopt data sufficiency metrics and/or an analysis framework similar to Guidehouse’s Data Sufficiency Thresholds?
• Any other issues germane to the June 18 workshop or the Guidehouse report?

Procedural Notes and Contacts

Workshop comments are authorized but not required; consolidated filings are required if commenting on both topics. The ruling was circulated to the R.24-01-018 service list and copied to ALJ Docket Office, ALJ Process, and ALJ Support ID. ALJ contact: Andrew Dugowson (adw@cpuc.ca.gov).

Last Week's New Comment +1

Procedural Context and Deadlines

NRDC files Reply Comments under Rule 14.3 on the Assigned Commissioner’s Amended Phase 2 Scoping Memo issued March 19, 2026, with comment deadlines extended by Email Ruling April 10, 2026 (Opening Comments due April 30, 2026; Reply Comments due May 28, 2026). Parties broadly agree timely energization is critical to transportation/building electrification and California decarbonization, but Phase 1 alone won’t ensure timeliness without further reforms.

Key Focus Areas

NRDC concentrates on: clear, enforceable remedial-action thresholds; process standardization and operational reforms to reduce utility-caused delays; and meaningful accountability mechanisms to convert timelines into measurable reductions in customer energization delays.

Remedial-Action Framework and Enforcement

NRDC urges a Section 934(d) framework with objective triggers for remedial review where utilities repeatedly or materially exceed adopted energization timelines. EDF, CALSTART, IREC, CUE, and PACT cite systemic utility-controlled bottlenecks—staffing, sequencing, upstream coordination—as causes. NRDC insists the Commission implement enforcement consistent with SB 254 and Sections 934(d)/(g), distinguishing utility-controlled delays from customer/permit/external causes and requiring corrective action plans and possible further intervention.

Operational Reforms and Transparency

NRDC supports CALSTART/PACT/IREC recommendations: standardized sub-steps and sequencing, parallelizing utility activities, improved upstream coordination, and granular phase-level reporting. CUE emphasizes workforce planning disclosures under Section 935. NRDC opposes deferring reforms until internal tracking systems fully mature and seeks immediate transparency, staffing reporting, and targeted corrective measures so Phase 1 timelines yield real deployment improvements.

operative action ordered is attachment of the Energy Division’s Revised Inputs & Assumptions Report as Appendix A to the June 10, 2026 ALJ ruling. Appendix A is designated as the operative set of inputs and assumptions for the 2028 LOLE Study under the revised schedule.

Content and Guidance

Appendix A (issued to the service list on June 5, 2026) contains study guidelines, modeling inputs, assumptions, and explicit questions for parties to address in this phase of the proceeding. Parties are instructed to review Appendix A for the specific guidelines and questions that will frame submissions on the 2028 LOLE Study.

Key Dates and Next Steps

• March 30, 2026: ALJ ruling modifying the 2028 LOLE Study schedule.
• June 5, 2026: Energy Division circulated Revised Inputs & Assumptions.
• June 10, 2026: ALJ ruling filed; Appendix A attached.

Parties must consult Appendix A and follow any procedural or comment deadlines specified there or in prior ALJ rulings.

Last Week's New Comments +3

Overview

This is a sampling of parties’ positions on the new filings in CPUC proceeding R25-10-003. The comments generally address how the 2028 RA LOLE study should be modeled, including the treatment of imports, load forecast error, and the process for translating LOLE results into resource adequacy procurement requirements.

Study inputs and purpose

• SCE says its alternative inputs and assumptions are intended to keep the 2028 LOLE study aligned with realistic system operations and market behavior, consistent with related planning proceedings, and free of assumptions that could bias PRM calibration.
• ACP-California supports the overall modeling effort but says the assumptions should better reflect changing Western reliability conditions, especially around external resources and imports.

Simultaneous import constraint and import assumptions

• SCE objects to applying a 4,000 MW simultaneous import constraint year-round and argues it should be used only during summer peak reliability periods, consistent with historical practice and observed seasonal import capability.
• SCE also says the 4,000 MW constraint should remain fixed during PRM calibration, rather than being reduced simply to induce LOLE events.
• ACP-California argues the study relies too heavily on uncontracted external resources and “phantom imports,” and recommends either modeling CAISO as an islanded system with only contracted imports or substantially updating external-region datasets.
• ACP-California further recommends removing resources from the CAISO baseline if they are committed as non-RA exports to other balancing authorities.
• ACP-California says the fixed Pacific Northwest hydro remote-generator allocation should be eliminated unless supported by affirmative forward contracts.

Load forecast error assumptions

• SCE says the draft SERVM load forecast error distribution overstates reliability risk by using assumptions that are not California-specific and by applying large upward load shocks that are not well suited to a near-term study.
• SCE proposes using the load forecast error treatment from MISO’s recent LOLE study as a more reasonable near-term approach.
• CalCCA also questions the draft load forecast error source and says the Commission should use more recent U.S.-focused studies for near-term assumptions, while working with the CEC over the longer term to develop California-specific load error inputs.
• ACP-California does not focus on load forecast error methodology in the same way, but its filing broadly argues for updated assumptions that better reflect current regional resource conditions.

How LOLE results should translate into PRMs

• CalCCA says the Draft I&A should clearly explain how LOLE results will be converted into final PRMs, because the prior process created confusion and disagreement among stakeholders.
• CalCCA recommends a constrained optimization framework that sets monthly PRMs to meet the 0.1 LOLE standard at least cost.
• CalCCA also says the Commission should provide more structured opportunities for parties to review methodology and interim results before Energy Division completes its study.
• SCE does not propose a PRM optimization framework, but says calibration should avoid arbitrary import constraints and should instead use proportionate alternatives if initial LOLE results are below target.

Regional resource adequacy and external system changes

• ACP-California says recent regional studies and policy developments show that assumptions about available external capacity may be outdated, pointing to growing load, tighter regional balances, and programs such as WRAP, ROWE RA, and EDAM that could change import availability.
• ACP-California argues these developments justify a more conservative treatment of unspecified imports and external hydro in the modeling baseline.
• CalCCA and SCE do not focus on the same external-region planning issues, instead emphasizing study-process clarity and specific modeling inputs.

the OIR PDF: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M606/K216/606216455.PDF). Respondents who have not yet done so must file by close of business (5:00 p.m. PT), June 11, 2026.

Respondents Required to Answer

The ruling reproduces ordering paragraph 6 and identifies these entities as respondents required to answer:

• Alpine Natural Gas Operating Company No. 1, LLC
• Bear Valley Electric Service
• Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric), Inc.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company
• PacifiCorp d.b.a. Pacific Power
• San Diego Gas & Electric Company
• Southern California Edison Company
• Southern California Gas Company
• Southwest Gas Corporation
• West Coast Gas Company, Inc.

Filing Rules and Questions

The ruling reiterates ordering paragraph 7: respondents shall (and any other person may) file comments within 30 days of the OIR issuance; any person may file reply comments within 40 days. Parties must answer the specific Appendix A questions or flag clarifications needing Commission guidance when filing by June 11, 2026.

Administrative Details

Ruling signed June 9, 2026, in San Francisco by Sarah R. Thomas (sr@cpuc.ca.gov; 415-703-2310). The Commission’s Docket Office will formally file the ruling.

Last Week's New Comments +17

Overview

This set of June 2026 comments in R.26-04-016 shows broad agreement that the proceeding should address risk tolerance, BCR methodology, RAMP timing, and SMJU reporting, but parties differ sharply on how prescriptive the Commission should be and whether affordability should be built into the framework. This is a sampling of parties’ positions.

Proceeding scope, sequencing, and process

• CAL ADVOCATES/EINHORN/CPUC supports a phased rulemaking, with Phase I focused on Risk Tolerance, BCR modifications, RAMP schedule/process, and SMJU reporting, and later phases addressing additional topics such as transmission wildfire risk and time value of risk.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company supports a bifurcated approach, with hearings on Risk Tolerance but workshop-based treatment of BCR methodology and SMJU reporting.
• Southern California Edison Company supports workshops if BCR or risk-tolerance changes are pursued, and favors sequencing the proceeding so BCR methodology is clarified before final risk-tolerance determinations.
• SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY supports workshops at a minimum on technical issues, especially Risk Tolerance and BCR methodology, and says the Commission should account for overlap with the 2028 GRC.
• The Utility Reform Network supports a Commission-led process and prefers affordability-centered proposals over an abstract risk-tolerance exercise; it does not see a need for evidentiary hearings.
• Energy Producers and Users Coalition supports workshops for technical issues and a separate evidentiary track for Risk Tolerance.
• Mussey Grade Road Alliance supports workshops on Risk Tolerance and potentially BCR modifications, while leaving evidentiary hearings for later if needed.

Risk Tolerance and affordability

• CAL ADVOCATES/EINHORN/CPUC argues the definition of Risk Tolerance should reflect affordability and ratepayer tolerance for bill impacts, and should be linked to portfolio optimization under budget scenarios.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company supports adoption of a Risk Tolerance standard, and says the issue warrants a full evidentiary record because it affects safety and customer rates.
• Southern California Edison Company opposes revising the definition to explicitly incorporate affordability now, arguing affordability is better handled in rate proceedings and that the Commission should first establish a workable framework.
• SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY opposes incorporating affordability into the definition of Risk Tolerance, saying affordability is an important but separate CPUC consideration.
• The Utility Reform Network is skeptical of an abstract Risk Tolerance standard unless it is anchored in affordability for vulnerable customers, and prefers affordability-based constraints on spending.
• Energy Producers and Users Coalition urges the Commission to make affordability central, and recommends a flexible risk-tolerance framework based on utility-specific execution history rather than a statewide one-size-fits-all standard.
• Mussey Grade Road Alliance recommends updating the definition to explicitly include affordability and the ability of ratepayers to bear mitigation costs, and supports a Commission-led standard or framework.

Risk tolerance proposals, benchmarks, and framework design

• CAL ADVOCATES/EINHORN/CPUC wants a unified framework for risk scaling and risk aversion, with consistent standards developed by the Commission.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company says party proposals should be developed through testimony and discovery if Risk Tolerance is addressed in a hearing track, rather than through workshops alone.
• Southern California Edison Company supports Staff first developing foundational framework elements before parties submit proposals, and says proposals should clearly identify whose risk tolerance is being measured.
• SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY also wants foundational questions answered first, including whose risk tolerance is at issue, before any benchmark or standard is finalized.
• The Utility Reform Network argues utilities should not set the starting point for budget constraints and says any risk-tolerance effort should be grounded in affordability, not abstract benchmarks.
• Energy Producers and Users Coalition recommends utility-specific accountability using RSAR and RMAR history, with unscaled risk-neutral BCRs and a flexible framework that can reflect poor execution history.
• Mussey Grade Road Alliance proposes that risk tolerance must include cost impacts on ratepayers, distinguish risk tolerance from risk attitude, and reflect different stakeholder/ratepayer categories.

RAMP schedule and review process

• CAL ADVOCATES/EINHORN/CPUC says current schedules are too compressed and recommends later due dates and more time for informal comment, especially given future alignment with WMP review.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company opposes changing the adopted schedule broadly, but says extensions can be granted case-by-case for good cause; it also prefers formal on-the-record comments over informal comments.
• Southern California Edison Company is open to schedule adjustments, but warns that late changes can disrupt utility GRC planning and cause rework.
• SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY supports discussing schedule changes and says the formal process should explicitly account for optional informal comments.
• The Utility Reform Network supports maintaining informal intervenor comments and says schedule flexibility is important to accommodate limited party resources.
• Energy Producers and Users Coalition wants longer review time and a revised timeline that gives Staff and intervenors sufficient time to review RAMP filings.
• Mussey Grade Road Alliance supports restoring a more workable RAMP schedule and allowing time for informal comments to be reviewed and incorporated.

BCR methodology, O&M treatment, and PVRR

• CAL ADVOCATES/EINHORN/CPUC recommends a standardized, economic-theory-based BCR methodology, including a PVRR-based cost measure at the most granular level feasible.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company supports retaining a stable methodology that includes avoided O&M as part of the denominator and opposes moving O&M savings into the numerator.
• Southern California Edison Company supports a standardized treatment of net O&M costs in BCRs, but opposes mandatory PVRR in RDF calculations because it would raise ratemaking issues and reduce comparability unless uniformly standardized.
• SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY opposes adopting a standard PVRR metric in this proceeding and says PVRR issues belong in rate-setting processes rather than the RDF rulemaking.
• The Utility Reform Network supports standardizing O&M treatment and using PVRR in the BCR denominator because it better reflects utility costs over an asset’s life.
• Energy Producers and Users Coalition wants standardized BCRs, unscaled risk-neutral BCRs, and a standard PVRR multiplier based on WACC, after-tax treatment, a 20-year default recovery period, and Year Zero as the in-service date.
• Mussey Grade Road Alliance supports examining how O&M has been treated historically and favors a standardized PVRR approach that better reflects lifetime costs.

SMJU and small utility reporting

• CAL ADVOCATES/EINHORN/CPUC supports extending RSAR reporting to Alpine and West Coast Gas, with a reasonable transition period.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company takes no position on extending RSAR to Alpine and West Coast Gas.
• Southern California Edison Company takes no position on extending RSAR to Alpine and West Coast Gas.
• SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY takes no position on extending RSAR to Alpine and West Coast Gas.
• Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc. supports removing SMJUs as respondents, or at minimum addressing SMJU issues in a separate later phase.
• West Coast Gas Company, Inc. opposes extending RSAR requirements to it, arguing the burden is disproportionate for its very small customer base and existing transparency is sufficient.
• Alpine Natural Gas Operating Company No. 1, LLC opposes extending RSAR requirements to it, arguing RSAR is not suited to its ratemaking structure or small system.
• Energy Producers and Users Coalition takes no position on SMJU reporting in the summary provided.
• Mussey Grade Road Alliance did not address SMJU reporting in the summary provided.