Puget Sound Energy (PSE) 6.12.2024 Resource Planning Advisory Group (RPAG) Meeting

and live stream started great thank you so much Emily hello everyone it's your June 12th resource planning Advisory Group meeting we'll get started in about four or five minutes e e welcome Joel how are you I'm doing well Sophie how are you doing I'm good have you enjoyed what I'm now considering the start of summer uh yeah so far so good enjoying the nice weather for sure yeah I always find it very confusing that Solstice is the start of summer because to me I'm like you're already like cooking by the time it's June 21st or whatever it is but I suppose I'll follow the laws of our our atmosphere or whatever okay waiting for some other arpeg members to trickle in we know that um Alisa and Dan can't be here but I haven't heard about anyone else being unavailable so we should have a nice group welcome welcome everyone to anyone who's uh streaming on YouTube we'll get started in a few minutes hi there Fred good morning so we have Joel with the UTC Fred with enck and others will surely trickle in welcome everyone to the rpeg meeting we're going to let uh rpeg members have a few more minutes to join good morning Katie how are you morning how are you doing I'm good good hi there Kate looks like Jim is slowly connecting to audio there good morning Jim how are you well how are you thy good has it started getting into the 90s yet in Colorado or have you maintained some semblance of cool we had some heat last week but it's cooled off a bit this week good at least when it's night in Colorado it's always cool you know it's rarely at least when I lived there did I feel like the nights maintain that sort of stickiness who knows Let's see we have stefen here welcome stefen good to see you hey there and sopie too just updating your names all right well let's see who we have here so far we have Joel with the UTC Fred with Enick Katie with renewable Northwest Kate with renewable Northwest Jim with the Sierra Club Stephen with public Council that's six um pretty close to having we don't have a quorum but I like you know over half of people being here before starting updating a few more names all right well I declare is close enough to get going and as other members join um I'll just welcome them and make sure people who are who are attending online can see this so welcome everyone uh to the resource planning Advisory Group members to also members of the public who are observing online thank you for being here I see you and to uh PS staff this is your June 12th resource planning Advisory Group meeting and this is the meeting that's really focused on equity in the integrated resource plan go to the next slide please will so in terms of webinar features you know as panalysts and resource planning Advisory Group members you can use the chat um raise your hand and all that good stuff um the oh you know this isn't the webinar we're not going to use the Q&A during this and um for members of the public um you can make a verbal comment at the end okay next slide please my request as always be constructive courteous all that good stuff um because this is live streaming just kind of break down those acronyms if we can't get to everything or if you have a brilliant idea tomorrow at noon you can use that feedback uh feedback form so Emily can you just drop the feedback form link into the chat please and we're going to try to focus on the webinar to it there's really a lot to cover it's equity and resource planning is a really rich topic so let's kind of stay in that realm um and public comment will happen at the end next slide please so our safety moment apparently June is national Safety month and here are some office safety tips which apply and maybe don't apply if you work from home it's always good to be need and organized make sure you good exit routes notify others of Hazards I should notify my 5-year-olds whose room I'm in that there's too many Legos on the floor um and then keep computer and electrical cords managed or hidden next slide so our speakers today it's all PSC staff this is the team that's making this happen so you know philli popop who's the director of resource planning and analytics Troy Hudson who I believe you've met who's the director of energy Equity uh Brian Tyson who's the manage manager of clean energy planning and implementation Alexander kpop is the energy resource planning analyst Tyler Tobin is the senior energy resource planning analyst Hannah wall is an associate with the uh energy resource planning analyst and KRON Olsen is an associate as well and welcome Ezra good to see you here um we're just getting going so you haven't missed anything too exciting thanks yeah next slide so here's the agenda and if I could ask Emily just to put in the chat the um slide deck and the agenda from the website so that folks have that to to follow on home if they want um Philip as always we'll recap what what kind of feedback is is happening out in the world and from our Peg members Troy will talk about the energy Equity program that psse has at large Brian will dial in a little bit more and talk about how that Equity is reflected in the integrated resource plan and then we're going to get even more specific Alex will talk about the benefits and burdens generic electric resources katron will follow up with the benefits and burdens example I know many of you including myself it helps to just really see how something is applied we'll take a break Tyler will continue with kind of the electric portfolio benefits analysis improvements the maximum customer benefit scenario and then Hannah um will will shift and talk about the gas portfolio so what's happening on the gas side as always we'll end with public comment so that uh observers can have a chance to share some of their thoughts and really if if observers or some of the arpeg members if you've been at other recent meetings as part of this kind of equity series what you'll notice today that is different is the level of detail PSC was really intentional about trying to scale the content to the group so if you guys like the weeds you're going to get in the weeds today for sure um so with that in mind before we launch into all this great content I do want to turn to Cara for just some quick updates so go ahead Cara thanks Sophie good morning uh so yes just a quick update and then we'll move along with the agenda I wanted to let you all know that uh we did move forward last week um with a filing at the utilities and Transportation Commission um asking to transition our current 2025 IRP process towards preparing for the new integrated system plan or ISP approach under house bill 1589 I think I mentioned this to you all um sometime in one of our May meetings that it was a possibility we did make that filing last week um we are excited to get started on the new ISP and we know that we need sufficient time to develop it um time for Meaningful engagement with um the public with our customers and with our advisor groups like The arpeg and so um in the filing we did ask the commission to make a decision on our petition um by July 1 um and part of that was so we would know somewhat soon whether to Pivot our um next arpeg meeting in mid July which is slated to be on the gas scenarios whether we would pivot that to begin planning for the ISP or if we're likely staying the course on the 2025 IRP um so all that said it is up to the commission to determine what the timeline will be for considering our requests and so we will keep you posted as we learn more and how that could um impact our arpeg schedule um and I guess I one other thing to add is just today's discussion is important and relevant to our work either way whether we um proceed with the 202 IRP we'll incorporate into our plans or if our filing is approved it will be a part of the 2027 ISB so this is time well spent either way and um Sophie with that I'll turn it back to you thanks thanks so much Cara I'll pause there before you go off camera any questions for Cara about this filing not seeing any okay well will you can go to the next slide all right so this this meeting um many portions of this meeting are going to kind of move into that involved level in this uh International Association of public participation Spectrum um and just kind of one way we really kind of want your active involved participation is that after kind of explaining the general Equity program at psse we're going to share a mural board with the uh arpeg members here and there's going to just kind of be ability for you to take notes while we're doing all these presentations and it's just one more place that you know PSC can see in writing some of your comments um and so something a little bit more interactive I know that many of you um you know need to type or write to think and so we're hoping that that will be a platform for some of you to really dive in so we're looking forward to today next slide please all right philli you want to come on camera you're going to connect the dot between the public track and the rpag track for us please go ahead great okay good morning everybody um let's go ahead and go to the the next slide um so uh you know we we uh definitely heard quite a bit uh in our last last uh uh meeting about uh the uh delivery planning especially a lot about transmission um so just real quick just to make sure it's clear what we're looking at in this IRP um we're really looking at for transmission Solutions we're we're looking at Cross Cascades transmission Solutions we're looking at going to Montana Idaho Wyoming um other parts of Washington Oregon uh even up to BC uh with transmission on the Northern inner TI and uh uh transmission that would be related to Offshore wind so all of those would be transmission uh solutions that would be part of the the the IRP that we're that we're examining um the you know we we are starting to look more and more into reconductoring transmission lines um it's not that simple um like anything transmission related you know even if you want to say well we could just Rec conductor the line or BPA could just Rec conductor the line from from here all the way to Montana um you might be able to do that but uh it will have a lot of impacts on the whole transmission system right so this is something that needs to really be studied in the in the whole Regional transmission sort of uh process really uh because it affects transmission across the whole region so um as those kinds of those kinds of Alternatives will get more and more incorporated into those Regional transmission studies and it's the same thing for our system our local transmission um reconductoring a line right that the electric system isn't as simple as there's a lake and a pipe and a faucet right it's more complicated than that um so uh you know it's it making the wire bigger versus a new wire versus a different kind of wire can all have different kinds of effects that we just need to make sure we're all fully studied uh and so uh that that that's the kind of work that we need to do can't can't do that real quick but that's starting to get incorporated into the studies uh then there was a question about you know are we going to consider biodiesel uh for a peaking energy resource um you know we've we are really kind of transitioning away from biodiesel looking like it's terribly feasible just because the shelf life isn't that long uh and it's uh uh and it's uh even more expensive than uh renewable diesel um Without Really any difference in in the status of of being renewable um so uh we're not I don't believe we're really looking at biodiesel there's a difference between r99 right versus biodiesel for for peaking uh as the backup fuel for a peak for a peer uh so that's kind of where we're where we we're at with that we did a lot of investigating into biodiesel and challenge with that is should shelf life is really short and this is not something you expect to burn very much right so you don't want it sitting around for that long so yeah that's that's my report out on the feedback thanks Phillip I appreciate that so I see um Fred in the chat says it would be useful to have a walkthrough from the transmission planners about how psse is going to assess reconductoring and other potential methods for expanding existing transmission capacity um um yeah interesting thought Philip any reactions to that I I think that's a fantastic uh thing to to include in the uh in the IRP or in the ISP right which which whichever direction that we go but I think absolutely laying out what are we doing and how are we doing it I think it's a great idea great thanks Philip and I just want to welcome John Alis to the group hi John good to see you today any other thoughts from philli about what psse has been hearing from the public I remember last time with the arpeg reconductoring came out and I was busy Googling that on the side so thanks for teaching me something new all right Phillip thank you so much you can go to the next slide please will thank you all right let's bring on Troy take it away Troy uh thanks Sophie uh so um Troy Hudson uh director of energy Equity here at pan energy um first uh thank you for the opportunity to update you on our efforts uh looking at energy Equity over the past 18 months um next slide so we're focused on three uh key uh goals um making sure that we are meeting the regulatory requirements uh which include the uh broader requirements in the Cascade order order and then specific requirements in the last GRC and uh other regulatory um proceedings uh as along with that we're also paying attention to uh some guiding principles that were developed in uh collaboration with our Equity Advisory Group so those are accountability uh Simplicity uh and transparency are things that we uh consider as we're thinking about uh the work that we're doing here um uh along with the goals uh we have uh second goal is operationalizing equity and that's focused on how do we make sure that we are um making this uh easy for our staff to uh incorporate into the work that they're doing uh and then uh strengthening uh Partnerships and enhancing engagement so we recognize that that uh procedural Justice uh and our engagement is sort of a key uh and challenging part of uh Equity uh and so that's something that we are uh continuing to focus on uh as a priority going forward and these conversations with the arpeg and the other advisory groups is a key part of that uh next slide uh so the you you know this is a reminder that Equity is not an outcome uh instead it's a process uh and the process is really important um I try to tell folks not to get too caught up in trying to uh remember the names and and sort of uh you know what they mean and become sort of fluent in that uh the way I try to simplify it uh for our internally and other conversations we're having um is to think about these recognition is really about identifying priority populations uh and that's the term we're using to be inclusive of named communities and others but uh who are the priority populations that we need to make sure um we are we are focusing as we do our Equity work uh the second is procedural Justice is really about how do we engage with those populations how do we meet them where they are and make sure that the uh our engagement is centered on on on on them uh either the individuals or the communities uh that they're a part of uh and then next is uh distributional justice and that's really all about um what benefits do we provide uh to those communities and what burdens do we reduce and increasingly in the different uh requirements there are percentages attached to that so the Federal justice 40 uh and then we have 30% 35% based on different requirements within uh the state of Washington uh and then finally restorative uh uh justice and this is all about sort of looking at the structural changes that we need to make um uh so that they can be sustained uh going forward and that's a key part of sort of how we think about this um but you'll hearing more about that and how this is applied uh in the upcoming uh presentations next slide uh so um we're trying to make sure that we are being coordinated uh and aligned um with the work we do across our our engagements with uh customers uh and and communities uh and so we have a number of different relationships we we think about uh the and specific programs uh starting with looking at um our customer uh engagements looking at our billing um billing relief uh and then programs to reduce Energy savings uh a key part of how we think about this is the energy burden for those customers and that's uh uh a factor of looking at how much they're paying and then um how much they're using next slide and then finally um you know this is about you know how are we looking at the different programs so I wanted you to uh as you listen to the conversation today and you engage recognize that the integrated resource planning process is just one use case um among many uh so um we're looking at resource acquisition uh delivery system planning uh facility design sighting and construction the customer programs I mentioned and then the clean energy uh implementation plan programs going forward uh and so there's some key things we're focused on to make sure that uh the way we show up to communities and the way we approach this work um is aligned and consistent across uh everything that we do uh so with that that's my sort of highlevel overview of everything that we're doing and trying to keep all of this flowing in a way that makes sense uh to everyone involved uh both our staff and the folks we engage with uh so with that I will stop um I think I'm at the end there uh and then but before I pass it off happy to take questions and it looks like Joel has a question Joel yeah I do yeah thanks Troy appreciate this uh high level uh overview of how PSC is approaching Equity um in the integrated resource plan section of this slide I was I was just curious I know that um you know in the IRP process there's this public webinar track for customers to engage the customer engagement bullet there under this IRP section what is there are there other things that PSC is doing to engage customers in the planning process Beyond just those public webinars or is that really what that this bullet is is alluding to uh this bullet is focused on uh it's highlighting the fact that uh customer engagement public engagement is a key aspect right uh under procedural justice so that's a key part of this and that's what that's uh highlighting uh so we have engagements with the rpag with the eag the equity Advisory Group uh as sort of the advisory groups portion of this um but then uh there is the public uh webinar uh to make sure we're engaging with the public uh and then there's a broader you you'll hear more about that as part of the upcoming presentations a broader effort to make sure that we are engaging with uh customers and Community thanks Troy does that help Joel great I think so yeah I think what I'm hearing is mostly the at least the sort of on the customer side it is the the public webinars but I hear that there are other forums for for input from other parties yeah and Joel I'll let you uh engage with the material and if at the end um you don't feel like uh it's addressed that completely uh happy to come back on and um and go a little deeper thanks for the question Joel it also really looked like you were on a fery with the window so if you are actually sailing somewhere interesting we will all be jealous of you um other questions for tro about kind of psc's energy Equity program and and I think Troy in the beginning you said 18 months so this is a large body of work in the last year and a half other thoughts for Troy all right well thank you so much Troy we can go to the next slide please will okay next we're going to turn to Brian as we kind of move down the funnel and think about IRP and Equity planning so uh take us away Brian okay thank you Sophie thanks everyone good to be here to talk a little more like Sophie said a bit of a deep dive on how we're considering equity in this resource planning process so Troy's set the stage for PSC and equity and the approach overall now we're going to drill down talk more about what we're doing in the resource planning process so really teeing up the conversation that uh Alexander and Tyler and Hannah and KRON will have later on but first if we can go to the next slide got to start high level just talking about and I think you all are well well aware of this just that we have both the electric side and the gas side of our utility and so we have to consider both both aspects as we get down into the weeds of the analysis that you'll see here today as I mentioned uh Alex and Tyler and katron are going to focus on the electric and then Hannah will focus on the gas side uh here in this in this presentation we can go to the next slide so we have a bit of different layers of how we approach resource planning this layer we're really focus on the 20-year process so thinking about long-term needs long-term resources and this is really key as we talk about uh what we're doing in terms of our approach later on in this presentation so we're not drilling down into the 10year and four-year where we really understand the specific action that we may be taking or a specific program we may be utilizing uh this 20-year approach again I think you all are familiar with this is really focused on generic resources and so just keeping that in mind as we talk through some of the approaches as it relates to equity uh moving forward here now some of you may be familiar we do think about Equity as we think about the 10year approach to ceap and of course the fouryear the CIP as well and so that again it we drill down deeper because we have that information as relates to who is being impacted or what the particular program or product is as we move forward for in those for your chunks for your increments here okay can we get to the next slide please again this is just a overview of that resource planning process so that first step we're Gathering all the data which which resources we use um what resources can can be used to serve customers what type of resources uh going back to your conversation we just had about engaging with a number of the parties and customers um just trying to get feedback that's essentially what we're doing here right is trying to understand uh what resources we should use and and the impacts and building all this these inputs so that we can run the model uh so then once the model is run in previous years what was done was called a portfolio benefit analysis um and that was a process by which we use we looked at the portfolios the different sensitivities that were run and then we try to measure some degree of how customers May benefit from a particular portfolio and again this was all using generic resources so we had to make some assumptions about the magnitude or the amount of benefits or who may or may not receive benefits and then we did that as it relates to costs as well so that was our initial approach that we did last year and Alex is going to talk Alex and Tyler are going to talk later about how that approach has evolved and what we're looking to do for the 2025 uh IRP um I should also mention that in that portfolio benefit analysis we use what we called customer benefit indicators a lot of that work came from the CIP back in 2021 um and so we'll continue to use some of those that we believe are more attributable to this portfolio level generic resource level um process and we can tease those out um later on as well okay let's go to the next slide so we've had a lot of feedback since we use that approach back in 2021 and for the electric progress report um we've done a lot of Engagement as Troy mentioned with the eag and other external parties for the IRP or public webinars or or this group as well um we did use that portfolio benefit analysis for the electric progress report but again today we're thinking of how we can transition or move that piece into a different different direction and then we've also taken some uh initial steps and conversations about how we use it in the gas section as well there's a couple pieces we heard in the last iteration which is really trying to understand a cost benefit analysis so understanding what are some of those tradeoffs and what are some of those quantitative dollars aspect of a particular benefit that we could potentially use in a model um so we'll talk a little bit about where we're at in that process I think the other thing is the importance of understanding burdens and benefits so understanding if you have a generic wind solar geothermal resource whatever it may be understanding well what are some of the inherent benefits or burdens of that resource and then how may that understanding help us decide or move in a direction on a particular portfolio based on the mix of resources within it that's really a key part of the discussion that Alex is going to have today is how do we understand some of those benefits and burdens of some of those generic resources initially so that it may help inform uh a portfolio sort of at the end there was also an interest in adding I mentioned customer benefit indicators there was also an interest in adding a climate change resilience indicator that's something the team is Contin to consider and work on um back behind the scenes internally okay let's go to the next slide all right so uh Joel I think you and Troy just had a discussion on this and thinking about how we are talking about Equity uh for various groups Advisory Group so we have gone to the equity Advisory Group as Troy mentioned to talk about the electric piece we did that back in May we will go to the electric electric Equity Advisory Group in June uh next week to talk about the gas piece and then we've talked to the public we had a public webinar last week to talk about both Gas and Electric um and then for this group focus on a little bit of gas and electric today and we'll move to do more on the gas part in the future as well so again just laying out all the different uh groups all the different touch points and engagement that we're doing uh as it relates to this approach to equity in the resource planning process okay let's jump to what I believe is my last slide now Troy had talked about these energy Justice core tenants um and really trying to map out and illustrate what each tenant is and what is the definition behind it so what we want to do here is just tie the tenets recognition procedural distribution or Resto and tie it to the work that's being done for this resource planning process so here you'll see all the different work streams that are going on as it relates to each tenant and I'll highlight the ones that are in bold here so when we think about recognition understanding The Who and understanding who may be burdened or who may receive benefits um we really think about starting at that recognition justice peace and that's that first topic that Alex is going to talk about today understanding what those benefits and burdens are and understanding who may be impacted by those burdens and benefits part of that recognition uh tenant there then later on we'll talk about the portfolio benefit analysis how we're going to carry that forward from what we did previously and thinking about maximizing a maximum customer benefit sensitivity so both of these analysis really get to the distributional piece because we're thinking about not just the who but the magnitude and the quantity or quality of benefits or burdens that may be distributed uh based on a particular portfolio itself so th those are really the two tenants that we'll focus on in the conversation today um just thinking about recognition and distributional okay so before I turn it over um Alex later on is going to talk about burdens benefits and and generic resources as well as portfolio benefit analysis and I think Tyler is going to jump in and help out with that as well and also talk about the maximum customer benefit sensitivity scenario and then Hannah is going to come later on and talk about on the gas perspective and think and talk about our approach in the gas um IRP as it relates to equity thank you Brian there thanks Sophie yeah any questions for Brian now that we're drilling down to to your world of resource [Music] planning right now hearing any before we get into the details I'm going to kind of um introduce some of the more interactive parts of this meeting so will I'm gonna steal your screen sharing for a moment Emily in the panelist uh chat can you put the mural link please so um maybe just show up hands have any of you used mural before the online whiteboard maybe I got see a little hand there okay okay the most oh look at look at all these techsavvy people the most important thing is that you need to click view as a visitor so you're going to click the link in the um chat as soon as there we go Emily has it there it'll pull something up it won't exactly look like this but click view as a visitor and then it'll give you a fun name i' like to see you know wandering octopuses or whatever you all are going to be yes I'm seeing a visiting spider um visiting sea turtle etc etc so many of you are pro visitor link choose a name you'll pop in here and for those of you who are new to this platform these are all sticky notes and you can just zoom in and write your comments here this is for comments and reactions if you have a question um please put it in the zoom chat or raise your hand and make it all like a normal meeting we just want to kind of collect your live feedback as PSC walks through these kind of four major themes here so kind of a live way to to share some thoughts um and with that in mind being kind of more on this involv interactive uh portion of our meeting if you're comfortable putting your camera on I think that just really enhances our ability to have that dialogue I know many of you join the arpeg for that kind of two-way flow of information so if you're eating lunch don't worry about it keep it off but yeah if we can see each other all the better um so with that in mind I'm going to ask Will to uh share the regular deck and it's fun seeing all these visiting goats and visiting hippopotamuses and all the rest and I look forward to seeing your chatter as you come up with um different kind of reactions or thoughts and and welcome Megan I just saw that you joined as well you're joining at the perfect time we're just diving into kind of the more technical aspects of um uh equity and resource planning so next slide will oh I guess this is me I guess I did that okay next slide so the feedback questions that are on that mural and maybe um Emily just drop the mural link one more time I wasn't sure when Megan joined and if if um she was able to see that but in this mural link and or just with your voice PSC wants to hear what do you think about these proposed approaches both new approaches about kind of generic resources benefits and burdens and also an evolution of what they did last time when it comes to kind of um the the portfolio benefit analysis are there other considerations you want to see you know let let psse know your thoughts on kind of these two questions so next slide please all right Alex please share kind of the new work PSC is doing this cycle around benefits and burdens yeah hello everyone um my name is Alex and I use she her pronouns I am an analyst on the electric um IRP team at PSC so um I'm going to discuss this new approach that we are proposing to take uh in this um IRP cycle to uh I think further our understanding of the energy burdens and benefits um within the framework of the IRP so uh just to note that um as mentioned before we have presented this approach already to our Equity advisor Committee in May and then last week during our public webinar so um the content that I'm going to present today is similar to what um what I have presented in those last couple meetings but um KRON after I'm done sort of going over the approach is going to go a little bit more into detail and apply give sort of an example of how we might apply this approach um so next slide please so um again uh building on what Brian mentioned one of the things that we heard from interested parties during um our 2023 progress report is that uh it really is important for us to really better understand um the energy burdens and benefits in the IRP resulting from um you know a preferred portfolio selection so we used the portfolio benefit analysis in our last cycle um which was a really uh based in um really quantitative data and Tyler will talk a little bit further on the the updates that we've made to this approach but um what I'm going to approach right now is how we are sort of uh looking at building upon this Equity approach in um in this cycle and that that really has started with this question of how do we deepen our understanding of equity um in the IRP and we have had a lot of conversations and a lot of guidance um from tro Troy's team um from Brian's team um and what we have come up with is um this approach to look at the burdens and benefits that might be inherent within the generic resources that we're using in the IRP um um so one of the things that we think that we can uh address with this approach that we weren't able to address with our prior Equity analysis um is that we can really take a look into some qualitative considerations um and also you know like thinking about like who is impacted um in you know by sort of our resource planning um um process is a really hard thing to do with generic resources but we can with this approach address sort of a broad generalized location associated with uh the generic resources and yeah so finally we think that like by by doing this approach we can really address that recognition Justice tenant um and get a better sense of equity in the IRP so let's go to the next slide so this um slide was really developed I think uh for for um folks who uh might need reminding of what a generic resource is but I think um so in this group here I think the key takeaways that I just want to um focus on is that generic resources are really placeholders in our IRP so we are going to look at the the sort of into the equity associated with those resources but um it doesn't mean that those are actually resources that we're going to go out and acquire that is a process that will happen in um the RFP process um which is outside of the IRP so uh but we do use these generic resources um to really help us um optimize the sizing of the different kinds of generating or storage resources and um optimize the scheduling over our planning period um so yeah um I think that yeah also it's really hard to address Equity um in terms of who is going to be impacted when we are using the generic resource uh because there isn't actually a specific site or a specific community that is going to be impacted so if we can go to the next slide so what we did to to develop this um generic resource burdens and benefits assessment is uh we really turn to the literature that is out there already that is looking into the equity associated with building um actual real world resources in real communities and um some of our sources uh a lot of our sources really include white papers uh published by National Laboratories including pnnl um enell uh the Berkeley National Laboratory um and we also consulted and were able to find some academic Publications um so you know we have a pretty broad search here um and what we saw in this literature was a set of recurring elements associated with more Equitable outcomes in um these projects and so what we propose to do in our assessment is to use the set of recurring elements as metrics to guide a qualitative and research-based Analysis um of the impacts of each of our generic resources so we also found that as we dug into um these metrics they they seem to really divide into three different scales of impact um so we see uh metrics addressing a global impact we see metrics addressing um the impact to utility customers and then we also see um the impact on communities and land that are either either adjacent to or um potentially within the footprint of a new generic resource and uh it's entirely possible just to throw it out there that a a particular resource might have um elements that sort of fall into multiple of these categories but we still found it sort of helpful to use this lens um and so what I'm going to do in the next couple slides is just go through the metrics that we identif at each of these scales of of impact but I'm also happy to pause here for any questions if that is helpful questions for Alex and kind of the setup of all this all right Alex carry on all right so in the next slide um starting with the uh global scale of impacts um we have two metrics we were able to identify here um the first being greenhouse gas emissions um and then the other one is end of life effects and um when we're looking at end of life effects we're really looking at um what happens to this resource after the commercial life is over so uh can it be repowered repurposed uh reused recycled in any way um or does it end up in a landfill if we go to the next slide we have five different metrics um looking at the customer scale of impact and um so these are really the metrics that impact the end users of the energy that will be produced by a generic resource um and these might look really familiar because they're essentially recycled um customer benefit indicator metrics so they include participation in clean energy programs um Home Comfort uh frequency and duration of outages access to clean and reliable energy and also any energy cost burdens all right next slide so then we have 10 metrics that we're looking at um on the resource footprint scale of impact um and it's really starting at the top there with the disproportionately um impact impacted communities and we're trying to we think that we might be able to look at um and answer that question to an extent even though that we don't have um citing information explicitly um we can sort of infer some things about specific generic resources like for example we know that a wind farm is um more than probably 100% likely to be cited in a rural community it's not likely to be cited in say downtown Seattle so we can say that we know it's going to be somewhere uh it located in a rural community and that could overlap with a disproportionately impacted community and um and uh next um we another metric that we are looking at is um will local Energy Service be provided and again using the example of wind um any wind that we might invest in or use is likely to be uh located east of the Cascades and therefore we'll need to be um transmitted over the Cascades into PSC service territory and therefore um any community that is within the footprint of this wind resource will actually not directly benefit by being able to use that that energy um so those are sort of those first two metrics that we're looking at um and then the other ones I feel like are are pretty uh self-explanatory there's there's change in land use uh potential view viewshed changes um will the resource uh produce noise that will um affect the community uh how will Community safety be impacted um and then what about outd air quality community health will this resource create jobs uh if they create jobs what will be the quality of the job um will they be full-time or part-time jobs will they be unionized um we're also looking at decommissioning effects and this is a little bit different than that end of life effect on the global global impact um scale so this decommissioning effect is really meant to look at what are the impacts um on the community from um taking down that resource will there be job loss uh will will the land be usable uh for something else within that Community um or will it need to go through some sort of remediation process and finally what are sort of the environmental impacts so what are the impacts on wildlife and uh plant communities and um yeah so next slide please so to reiterate our plan is really to use these metrics um to guide a qualitative Equity assessment um and we essentially plan to include this uh assessment as a narrative in our IRP documents or our planning documents um we have a section uh typically in an appendix where we describe uh the in detail our assumptions around our generic resource technology so it's a section that includes um you know a a review of our cost assumptions our operating assumptions um Market availability of the technology and now the section will also include this potential burdens and benefits as part of that um technology description um we also see this analysis as really being able to uh inform our portfolio benefit analysis which is more of um it's the equity assessment that we used last year it's a more of a quantitative assessment but um we think we can roll over sort of some of this information and help inform um how we're performing that analysis um and Tyler will discuss that imminently here um and then ultimately again we just see this as a way to better understand which portfolios might um contain the most Equity enabling characteristics and um hopefully help us select um a good preferred portfolio so yeah I think to summarize we think that strategy really broadens our Equity assessment and able enables us um to look more comprehensively at uh all the different Equity components that might be contained in our portfolios and so this really wraps up my portion um so I can either again pause for questions or comments um or I can turn it over to KRON who will go through a couple of uh examples of what this assessment oh yeah there's some questions there's some questions Brewing um encouraging people to ask the questions in our Zoom en not the mural board the mural is kind of for comments but I see your gears are turning so I welcome um perfect I see a hand from you Kate please I wrote mine on the mural board but I can just ask it live um thanks so much Alexandra I was curious if some of those on the last slide like I saw decommissioning and recycling as an example if they will take into account existing Washington state law that requires for instance like all solar panels to be recycled beginning in July of 202 five um like Curious how that type of assessment plays into end of life considerations I um I think that that is great feedback we have been looking at sort of um the the literature that's already published and I think in some cases like in noise we've turned to what um uh local jurisdictions like guidance has on on like noise effects so um we certainly can we definitely consider what laws are in place um because that's directly applicable yeah yeah yeah I guess I would just recommend doing that because like the end of life of a of a solar panel in maybe a different state would look a lot different than the end of life solar panel in Washington where it's required to be decommissioned in a way that's environmentally friendly Etc ET yeah yeah absolutely I think that's a great consideration yeah thanks for that Kate I see a hand from Megan hi thanks Alexandra and I also put this in the mural board but I'll ask it um on the zoom I was wondering if you could clarify the ways that some of these benefits and burdens will assist in the preferred portfolio selection is there any sort of um quantitative way that some of these will be um what will assist in that selection or is it all um just how how PSC sees like is is there any standard way that they're going to be uh incorporated into the selection yeah the great question and the reason I didn't um go further into detail is actually uh Tyler is going to sort of um describe how we have reconfigured our portfolio benefit analysis which is sort of what it's our tool that is going to take our portfolios and evaluate them um for different Equity enabling components and um we are we've developed an approach where we're essentially feeding this assessment into how we're um scoring different elements um and different metrics in that portfolio benefit analysis so Tyler will address that in a lot more detail coming up here thank you yeah any other questions or comments for now all right let's let Hannah run through an actual example and then we're going to pull back and we're going to ask what do you think about this proposed approach what other considerations such as the ones we just heard um from Kate and others should should psse keep in mind so let's go to the next slide will take it away KRON hi um I'm kaon Olson II her pronouns and I'm one of the analysts on the IRP team and I've been working with Alex on the burdens and benefits assessment of our generic resources and I'm going to present two examples uh landbased wind and lithium ion batteries today uh next slide please landbase wind is a renewable energy source that produces no emissions and contributes to ca it is also a variable resource that can contribute to base load landbased wind is typically located in rural areas which could potentially be disadvantaged communities next slide please um here we are looking at the different scales and metrics that Alex previously presented for metrics relevant to wind uh under Global impact landbased wind is a renewable resource that does not emit greenhouse gas and the life effects and waste produced by landbased wind uh so a large amount of the mass of of wind turbines is recyclable but the blades are normally not recycled and put into a landfill overall even with Manufacturing construction end of life emissions wind turbin still produce significantly less emissions over their lifetime than natural gas and coal for the PSC customer scale wind energy is a low cost and clean energy for PSC customers the other metrics that we are looking at on the PSC customer scale are really served by distributed resources demand response and conservation however wind is one of the most costeffective resources and a clean resource uh moving on to project Footprints impacts uh there are land view changes this typically has low impact on the landscape due to the rural location of most wind farms but some residents living nearby may be irritated by the wind turban presence this could be in relation to their attitude towards wind turbines as well as their view of the Aesthetics of wind turbines however over time there may be some self- selection where people who have positive attitudes about wind turbines or like the way wind turbin look end up moving and living near them there is some noise which can cause annoyance for some residents living nearby there's debate in the research if noise and noise annoyance from the noise uh directly or indirectly leads to health effects this is linked to many different factors such as attitude Place identity economic participation and perceived industrialization of local Landscapes many Studies have linked noise from wind turbin to annoyance and they're just needs to be more research done to determine if noise annoyance has effects on sleep and health um however Winters do have to be a certain distance from residential buildings um in Washington that is mostly left up to counties uh so for example in Garfield County where psc's low lower Snake River Wind Farm is located the required distance is a minimum of 400 m or four times the total extended height of the wind energy Tower whichever is greater at 300 M away uh the average wind turban noise is between 35 to 45 DB which is below the minimum noise regulations in Washington of 60 DB during the day and 50 at night for impact on Wildlife Wildlife does tend to leave Wind Farm areas it's unclear if this is due to construction or the noise from wind turbines has an effect on the animals there needs to be more research done to figure out what the landbased wind effect has on Wildlife under the job metric there seems to be a disconnect on where people are located geographically and where jobs in the wind industry are located the decommissioning effects from wind May economically impact the community due to loss of jobs and there also are some environmental impacts with noise and ground disturbance uh that covers our lamp based wi assessment moving on to batteries next SL please patrion let's just pause for a half second I think there's a siren going by where you are yeah sorry you don't need to apologize for Sirens I just want to give that a moment to to clear talk about noise it's very actually relevant look at that okay I I hear it's quieter and you're in carry on all right next slide please thank you um so batteries can increase renewable energy available to the grid and help meet Peak demands they can also reduce the need for new transmission or distribution infrastructure some possible locations for Batteries could be collocated with wind or solar your existing substation uh with the possibility of batteries being located in the name Community next slide please thank you uh for Global impact batteries um are a non-emitting resource and batteries actually have about 14th of the lifetime of CO2 equivalent emissions of a cold fir plant um end of life for Batteries can be costly and recycling batteries is expensive currently is the there is research being done on improving the process of recycling batteries for customer impact batteries can be turned on when variable resources are not generating and contributes to energy reliability and keeping the life bond without using admitting energy sources batteries are approving technology and coste effective dispatchable energy within our 2025 IRP resources for project Footprints there are some safety risks with these batteries um this is due to fire there are several notable fires that happened in California and Arizona which resulted in shelter and place advisories or two we evacuations if there is a five in this battery there are several toxic flammable gases that are released into the air impacting neighboring communities biohazard is resulting from the battery shorting and the Next Generation batteries will have improved design to help reduce this risk um there's also a possibility of increased noise with these batteries the operation of those theum batteries generates noise noise however if located more than a th000 ft from Project site this noise is below most nighttime residential thresholds of 45 debl noise can be mitigated using sound barrier walls as well lithium batteries create minimal operation and M maintenance jobs around 5 to 10 jobs created um the operation of the system will likely be remote with staff visiting the site one time per week um and if the batter is collocated with a renewable resource like wind or solar in Eastern Washington or elsewhere it is not likely to serve the local community however a utility scale battery could be located within PSC service territory if so it would serve the local community this draft up this section I'm going to turn it over to Sophie for a discussion section for our approach thank you so much KRON I appreciate you walking through that I see all of the visiting animals in this mural board have a lot to say on this topic we have 15 minutes now just kind of for that dialogue so our Peg members tell us what do you think about this proposed approach what other considerations so let's see some hands and get a conversation going great Joel please yeah thanks uh kaiton I I guess one question I had or something I noticed at least was that you know non-emitting resources at the global scale talking about greenhouse gas emissions there there's already a requirement for PSC to meet CA standards and so I'm wondering for that and then also on this slide contributes to reliability PSC already in their IRP process has resource adequacy analysis that ensures that future portfolio or that their preferred portfolio will meet certain resource adequacy requirements um what benefit I guess is there in including that in this in these generic resources in this way um that that doesn't already exist and just you know having the model be bound by CA standards in 2030 in 2045 and also have it Bound by the resource adequacy standard that psse has for its portfolio I guess what what additional benefit is there in including that here or in and does that kind of represent a double counting of those benefits if if it's included in both uh parts of the analysis thanks Joel question about potential double counting I don't know Alex do you want to give this one a go or turn to a colleague yeah I can give it a go um feel free anybody else to jump in too um I think I think that that's really good point um Joel I I I think that uh there yeah the double counting situation I think is like we are in the process of you know refining what metrics that we're looking at for this analysis and um you know that that paper um just I was just reviewing that paper um by the Berkeley lab sorry it's the one on the distributional like de um my gosh I have a here somewhere um I will put that in the chat at some point but um it it had some guidance on making sure like how to like how to select resources or I mean metrics that don't overlap um and don't double count and so I was like oh we should probably go through this and refine some of that so I think that that's a that's a good um I I think next step for sort of refining this tool um in terms of think like the re liability and the um like the non-emitting or the the greenhouse gas uh metric I think that yes like all of the portfolios uh will meet our reliability uh you know and meet our needs um so we will be comparing between um between different uh portfolios that all essentially you know meet our customer needs um and meet these standards but I think that uh it gives a little bit more Nuance into you know some sometimes that that reliability is also linked to um like um distributed batteries and like we've gotten a lot of feedback that you know distributed resources can sort of on a micro scale help uh increase reliability within smaller communities or you know say an un Pur building um so I you know I feel like there are some Equity considerations that we can measure with this metric um just looking sort of between portfolios but I'm also I think that we're entirely open to your thoughts and um and if it does seem like a double counting like you know we can reconfigure how we're which metrics that we're looking at um we're pretty open to all the feedback and and making adjustments um Greenhouse gas emissions different different resources are going to in their you know sort of Lifetime um manufacturing to decommissioning are going to have different um greenhouse gas emissions associated with them and so it seems to us at this point that that's still um not double counting again within that there's going to be a different level of impact uh for different resources that we're considering but yeah um again open to feedback thanks Alex I appreciate that and if any of your colleagues have anything to add perhaps this could go into the feedback report but I think that that addressed it um other questions or comments I do see something in the mural board having to do with the waiting of different uh of these impacts does someone want to speak to that so we could have a live conversation okay maybe sorry I was I wasn't sure if you meant someone from PSC or the person who left that comment yes was if that was you Megan please expand on that question and then we'll have the conversation yeah yeah I was just looking through these different benefits and burdens and they do have different amounts of impact um to my knowledge on on people and their health impacts I know outdoor air quality is a a big concern for adverse Health impacts and so um if you could just talk a bit about those are weighted that would be amazing yeah Alex can I turn to you for that one again or is that okay go ahead sorry was trying to find my unmute button um yeah yes I think that currently we are not looking at um so in in the in this burdens and benefits assessment this is a real qualitative um and Narrative Approach to sort of trying to take a look at all the different um impacts that uh sort of on a high level but a broad level take a look at those impacts um that generic resources might have um in terms of how they filter into um I think how we evaluate each of the different uh portfolios again I think that that's um I'm going to putt that for further down to um Tyler's section where he's going to talk about how we're evaluating uh yeah each of the portfolios in our portfolio benefit analysis does that answer yeah okay yeah great thanks for the question Megan any other um either questions or just feedback for psse on this generic resources benefits and burdens concept that they're um using for the first time okay well we're ahead of schedule what a lovely feeling that is um let's take a slightly earlier break because our next segment is a long one so let's all come back at 1120 that's just about um at Le 11:20 Pacific time uh it's about nine or so minutes so thanks everyone we'll see you in nine minutes e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e all right if everyone can reather hello Ezra's back Jim is back let's see Frey welcome Frey you joined just as we were taking our little early Break um but it's great to see you Katie's back stepan's [Music] back let's see Megan's back Joel is back I think that is our critical mass so wonderful see you all um let's get the slide deck going again will so this was hinted out earlier when there was a question about you know the qualitative versus quantitative approaches and I think Tyler for all you people who crave the quantitative are going to give you some information that you're craving to see and so Emily can you repaste the mural board Link in the chat for Frey and others and um um for this topic uh let me just get myself in order Frey make sure you click enter as a visitor as just kind of the the first note there so if you enter as a visitor Frey we're using this mural board to take notes um as kind of a group as we work through all the slide decks here so the portfolio benefit analysis improvements that's the purple area the purple sticky notes and so as Tyler is walking through all of this um just add your add your thoughts and response to the questions of how the proposed approach is working from your standpoint uh let's do questions live you know hand raising that sort of stuff because um we want to just make sure that members of the public or others can really benefit from your questions as well so with that in mind Tyler please jump in thanks Sophie thanks everyone for joining us today I'm Tyler Tobin an energy uh energy planning analyst um on the IRP team work mostly on the electric portfolio uh we going to talk about our portfolio benefit analysis tool and some improvements we've made um feel free to stop me along the way with questions I think we've got plenty of time and a small enough group so happy to engage uh next slide please will all right so um we developed this uh portfolio benefit analysis tool in the 20 for the 2023 electric progress report um and the objective of the tool tool is to allow us to see which portfolios developed as part of our IRP modeling process uh provide the most Equity Equity enabling benefits um so this is our kind of quantitative objective way to look at all of our portfolios and provide some sort of measure on portfolios that we feel provide more Equity versus less and then we can use that information to make some decisions as we um move toward developing a preferred portfolio um so this year uh so from the 23 progress report we made a number of improvements um and we're kind of adapting what we're calling a scorecard methodology um which moves away from uh kind of this relative uh kind automated process that we had uh in the 23 progress report and some of the drivers for these questions were stakeholder feedback um and then internally you know our Equity energy Equity process at BC has really developed over the last 18 months as Troy has mentioned uh so we feel like this new methodology aligns better with other aspects of psse um our distribution system planning department has a you know similar related methodology and we're able to pass this kind of new process on to the the gas IRP and you he from hear from Hannah later on in this presentation um and then yeah we feel like this is a little more transparent and easy to understand we're not doing any complicated math on the background that you need to understand um and some of our improvements allow us to compare portfolios across different time scales so if you remember back to Brian's slide where we've got the IRP looking at 20 plus years all the way down to our clean energy implementation plan that looks at just four years um our previous methodology didn't allow comparing those two time scales um but with some of improvements were made in this this cycle we feel we can compare portfolios across those different time Horizons uh so next slide please uh this is a diagram that that illustrates kind of where our Equity analysis this portfolio benefit analysis happens in our IRP portfolio modeling process uh so all the way on the left we've got some some gray circles that are supposed to represent all of our generic resources uh and then attached to each of those generic resources we're going to have burdens and benefits um and that really comes directly from the presentations that Alex and kitr just provided on the burdens and benefits analysis those uh qualitative measures will be translated into quantitative scores of zero and one and those scores get attached to each of our resource options um and then we go through our Aurora long-term capacity expansion modeling to develop all sorts of different portfolios um to look at different sensitivities and eventually develop our preferred portfolio um after that Aurora modeling process where we've got a bunch of different portfolios that are composed of different resource mixes uh and then those resour those portfolios are passed into our Equity analysis and that's our portfolio benefit analysis so that green down arrow is really like illustrating that that's the tool that gets used to work to assign that Equity analysis um we can look at all the different portfolios with composed of different resources which all have different scores uh and average all those scores for all those different resources to assign an equity enabling score for each of the portfolios and we can look at those portfolios the equity score versus the cost for those portfolio fos and learn a lot about which types of resources and programs and resource mixes allow for the most Equity enabling portfolio at at the best cost uh so we can use all that information to either go back and build some more portfolios with that Aurora long-term capacity expansion tool and kind of create a little feedback loop where we learn a little bit do some more quantitative modeling and then look at the results and eventually we can uh use all that information to evaluate and choose a preferred portfolio for the IRP process all right I don't see any question oh I see one hand go ahead Joel thanks Tyler uh appreciate this graphic and the sort of uh you know next iteration on what PSC approached in the 23 progress report I something I I like about this personally is that now you're including some of these potential Equity benefits kind of upfront as opposed to just doing it after the fact once the model has run um but I am curious to know uh what what does Aurora do with these Equity scores that are assigned to generic resources is that a language that Aurora speaks I kind of understood it to more speak in the language of the characteristics of the resources in energy terms and the cost of those resources so can you explain how if I think there's enough modeling nerds on this call that this will be worthwhile question what what does it do with an equity score yeah thanks Joel uh so maybe this diagram is a little misfeeding uh Aurora doesn't look at those Equity scores I think we put them at the front of the process to illustrate that we assigned those scores before we do any sort of modeling work in Aurora um you know it's a a priority score so we we've assigned it before we do any work uh so there's no sort of bias in selecting resources or other it doesn't impact any of the other inputs um and you know this process is happening concurrently to uh the burdens and benefits analysis that that Alex described so I think it was put in the the front of the process to illustrate that it happens kind of separate as part of our input development process but Aurora doesn't look at those Equity scores at all um our portfolio benefit analysis is where our Equity analysis happens and Aurora is where our least cost resource selection happens thanks that was a good clarifying question there Joel Ezra I see your hand yeah um on a similar measure I mean you have uh in this graphic at least you know sort of a binary one Z1 which was kind of our discussion earlier so is that basically the level of um discrimination that is being used in this analysis and you know I understand what you're saying that now Aurora does not use that like it's part of its optimization program or anything that but when it comes out you it seems like you could pretty easily either before or after Aurora assign to the ENT there is some scoring um I guess this is really two questions one is about whether that's just the level of of discrimination either it has an impact or it doesn't and two are you then going to say okay these are the portfolios we considered an aurora here's the cost here's the equity implications because obviously that's just you know what resources were picked times their whatever their scores are different Equity metrics that was not a very clear question but see what you can do with it right thanks Ezra um yeah so I'll I'll give you a simple answer now and I think as my presentation progresses hopefully I get at some of the Nuance of your of your question um but the the level of resolution that we decided to apply to our scoring is a zero or a one either it provides some benefit or it does not confer some burden uh to each of those metrics uh and we chose that to to you know keep it simple keep it transparent and this also aligns with some other work in our distribution system planning they use a binary 01 scoring as well um and you know we're we're hitting the ground running this is kind of a new methodology uh simple seemed better um so we're open to other ideas but uh this is where we got started and you'll kind of see where this takes us and happy to receive some feedback if uh we want to take a deeper dive into score yeah no I'm not saying that I don't think it makes sense especially as we are looking at generic resources the question is is this an impact that we need to even consider for this resource so it seems to me that zero or one probably is about as uh as deep as you can go for a generic resource so I appreciate that clarification yeah thanks and just noting that Megan was saying this ton of links to the question that she had earlier about waiting so it's it's all looping back together yeah I think we'll get there great well Tyler let's uh have you carry on and rpeg members those purple sticky notes are looking a little lonely so any thoughts you have as we continue to get deeper and deeper into this modeling land uh feel free to share so go ahead Tyler all right yeah I think uh yeah let's move on to the next slide please all right so the last slide was kind of where our portfolio benefit analysis lands in our overall portfolio development this is kind of the steps of our portfolio benefit analysis so getting into uh you know the mechanics of our Tool uh so step one here is to score generic resources um for each of the equity metrics um as I mentioned previously this is you know an extension of the burdens and benefits analysis that that Alex and katron discussed earlier and as we just discussed we're using a binary scoring uh system so zero or one whether uh that resource confers some sort of benefit or does not result in a burden for each of those specific metrics once all those resources have been scored uh we're going to extract some results from our Aurora analysis so Aurora will uh provide us a list of different resources that were added um to a portfolio uh we take that information uh and uh aggregate it all for all the different portfolios we've run and we also extract the total portfolio cost for each of those portfolios so that's kind of the information coming from our Aurora long-term capacity expansion modeling uh and then once all that data has been extracted we want to aggregate all of the metrics together um on a portfolio basis because we're not scoring individual resources we want to know what that mix of resources that total portfolio results in uh in terms of its Equity enabling characteristics um so all those individual generic resource scores um are multiplied by the percentage they compose of the portfolio so you know you've got a mix of wind and solar and batteries um based on that mix we can multiply the metrics by the composition of the portfolio to get an overall portfolio score um and maybe just a head off Megan's question uh each of our metrics are weighted equally right now you know uh we've got a lot of different metrics they all you know confer different burdens and benefits and those burdens and benefits can differ depending on who you ask so we thought a really great starting place was all of these are going to be weighted equally uh we can look at the results understand them um as our process continues to evolve we can consider adding some weights into specific metrics that may be more important to the majority of our customers um but we need to have a long dialogue if we're going to start to assign any sort of waiting uh so after all those are aggregated then we uh want to go through and review the results and and learn from this analysis um so when we review results we plot the aggregated equity score against cost for all those different portfolios and we get a nice scatter plot of Where portfolios provide most Equity will be far to the right and low cost will be near the bottom of the the y axis so we can get a good visual representation of the relative uh Equity benefit and cost burden of each of the portfolios and use that to uh decide which types of resources mix it which types of resource mixes provide the best Equity enabling characteristics at at the lowest cost give that a pause for a second not seeing any hands or questions maybe something will come up when people see it actually plotted out yeah we'll get there in a couple of slides uh the next slide so this is kind of broadly how our process operated in the 23 progress report and how it will operate in the 25 IRP uh this slide that that you're viewing now uh gets into some of the major differences and improvements we've made from our 23 progress report uh into this new 25 IRP planning cycle um so I've organized this slide to look like of transpose the steps from going across the screen horizontally to vertically so step one here is where we uh score those generic resources um in the 23 progress report um if you remember and uh maybe we could get a link put into the chat um there is we did release our portfolio benefit analysis in appendix I of the 23 progress report um if you'd like a refresher that's available to you um anyway uh so in the 23 progress report uh we used some uh some metrics extracted directly from our Aurora modeling uh output uh to represent various metrics uh within our portfolio benefit analysis tool so for example uh greenhouse gas emissions we could extract the uh we had a metric a customer indicator that was linked to greenhouse gas emissions so we could get the tons of greenhouse gas emissions for each of our portfolios and extract that directly from Aurora um that was great because it was very quantitative um we thought that would be a good path forward but uh we realized that many of these burdens and benefits don't have a direct link to uh an output that we could extract from Aurora um which is what led us to uh scoring our resources individually on a a qualitative basis so that zero or one scoring that we've discussed uh that allows us to incorporate qualitative metrics and uh provide scores for many different types of metrics that may not be directly linked to Aurora uh in step two where we extract results um so things in bold on this slide I should note are things that changed and things in normal font are things that have kind of remained the same so in the 23 progress report um you know we extracted some information from Aurora U the portfolio resource selections and the portfolio cost that's remain the same into the 25 IRP um however the the data to to confer burdens or benefits on each of these resources um has changed so uh a link to in the 23 progress report we go back to step one where we get that data um directly out of our Aurora models kind of a poster so you know we've observed a result of our model and taken some data um whereas in the 25 IRP those metrics are scored a priority so we give them the score before any sort of modeling happens uh in step three so that's where we do our aggregation um the in the 23 progress report all of our aggregation was performed on a relative basis um so how we developed we developed an index um that was based uh at zero for our reference portfolio so our lowest cost portfolio and then we use standard deviations to measure how far away each those metrics were um so whenever we added a new portfolio to our mix of different portfolios all the scores would change because all the standard deviation information would change um and we felt like that maybe wasn't the most transparent way to do our analysis because if you added or subtracted any portfolios your answer would change uh so we moved to a absolute scoring basis where uh we can cross multiply to get an average Equity enabling score for each portfolio based solely on the the zero and one scores for each of the metrics for each of the resources uh this allows us to add or subtract portfolios and each portfolio will stay fixed uh regardless of addition or subtraction of portfolios to the analysis and then finally uh when we compare uh review results where we compare the equity score to the portfolio cost um in the 23 progress report we used the total portfolio cost um so you'll see a a big old price tag and you know many billions of dollars for our you know 20 plus year modeling Horizon uh and then 25 IRP we altered that slightly so we have normalized the portfolio cost based on the uh Peak demand for that year that we're modeling uh so this allows us to look at portfolio costs for different time Horizons um so for example we're looking at an IRP process where we look out to 2045 we're going to have many more resources added so portfolio cost will be much higher but also our Peak demand is much higher as we get out to 2045 if we wanted to compare that to uh you know our next four or five years in a in a CIP planning period uh we need to add much fewer resources over the next four or five years uh driven by a much lower Peak demand uh so our normalization Factor allows us to compare those two different time scales simultaneously on the same plot and that was a lot of information so I'll yeah take a little pause yep take a sip of water questions on this kind of comparison of 2023 versus 2025 also noting that Ry put in the chat the 2023 uh information that Tyler referred to earlier questions or comments it was a lot of information but it was clear so I'm not seeing anything for the moment so please carry on Tyler right uh next slide please will all right so I I promise we're going to get to some results but uh a few more like input changes and uh kind of framing for our model uh before we get there um but I think this may be a good discussion topic as well um so I mentioned uh we've got a number of different metrics and we want to score those on a zero or one basis um this slide is our initial thoughts on how we want to score each of our resource categories uh so on the the second column here is a description of our metrics and you'll notice that these metrics align with the the global psse customer scale and project footprint scales that Alex described uh in her portion of the presentation and each of the metrics underneath those categories should align with the metrics on her slides uh so we take those metrics and we need translate them into a zero or a one uh what we're calling a criteria score uh or criteria to score a one or criteria to score a zero um and we've given some broad definitions to help us make those decisions and I think we'll have we plan to to build this up uh with a much more formal uh process but these are initial thoughts and we'd welcome any feedback and I can run through our thoughts really quickly if that would be helpful I I think yeah go ahead go ahead Joel sorry I I have some thoughts and questions on this slide but if you're not finished running through I I you might answer some of them if you're not done this one maybe I'll take a quick pass and then we can come back for a discussion great cool all right so under the global scale we've got reduced greenhouse gas emissions um our general thoughts are if if you're a net zero resource you'll receive a one for that you get a benefit but if youit greenhouse gases uh you won't get a you'll get a zero um end of life impacts uh right now were our thoughts are if if you have physical structures then you won't receive a benefit there'll be some sort of processing uh that need to happen at the end of that project's life cycle whereas demand response programs and energy efficiency um they provide energy benefits uh without needing physical infrastructure moving on to the PC customer scale um an increase in participation in clean energy programs uh so these are anything that uh provides customer programs directly so um that encompasses our Energy Efficiency demand response and specific distributed energy resources whereas larger utility scale resources uh don't provide customers the ability to interact with those Energy Products directly uh improved Home Comfort uh you'll receive credit for that if you are Energy Efficiency uh whereas most of the other resources we're considering are uh just provide energy um and they all provide kind of the same value in the form of electricity uh decreas decrease in frequency and duration of outages uh we provided uh you know storage demand response thermal and nuclear resources these are our dispatchable resources variable energy resources like wind and solar would not receive credit uh improved access to Reliable clean energy uh these are again targeted at this is derived from a customer benefit indicator which really uh targets those customer programs so just distributed storage is is what's been defined through our clean energy implementation processes contributing as a specific action for that customer benefit indicator so we're retaining that and other resources would not uh reduce energy cost burdens so we try to think about resources that are lower cost or provide some sort of monetary benefit to customers so that's our large utility scale resources Energy Efficiency which can reduce customer bills and demand response which can provide a a cash benefit to customers who participate uh and more expensive resources such as emerging Technologies and distributed resources would not give credit to uh reducing energy cost burdens uh sighting um so we're still thinking about this one um I will direct any questions to Alex she may she's Mastermind um so if you have any feedback on how we want to score sighting particularly for disadvantaged communities please let us know uh local Energy Service provided so this assumes you get credit if you're within PSC service territory um whereas if you're outside of psc's service area you will not receive credit uh increase the quality and quantity of jobs uh so the are Energy Efficiency and demand response uh and other resources will not receive credit and again this is a uh customer benefit indicator uh so those specific actions are are linked to our criteria scores from the 23 banal update uh change uh number 11 here change in land use and view shed uh so those big utility scale wind and solar resources um are the ones that impact your view sheds most dramatically so they do not receive credit uh increase in norise exposure um we wanted to think about uh you know many of these exposure type metrics can be mitigated through engineering Solutions or uh zoning type things so um we're really thinking about mitigation measures here so if if they're mitigating measures available such as uh zoning around wind farms or battery storage facilities uh you'll you'll receive credit whereas uh if those measures are not available yet um uh you will not receive credit uh Community safety so uh these resources are ones that uh May contribute to uh Poe outcomes if there are failures at the site so we're thinking lithiumion batteries have the potential to cause uh toxic toxic exhaust from fires you know nuclear impacts through long uh half lives and thermal resources through uh leaks and Emissions at the stack uh we not receive credit and other resources that that don't have those uh land use impacts soil impacts water impacts uh will receive credit uh improve outdoor air quality so nonemitting resources will receive credit whereas those that emit uh any sort of less than desirable gases uh will not receive credit uh improve Community Health uh so these are you know Sly linked to uh metrics 13 14 uh if you're not emitting non-toxic you'll receive credit whereas uh if development of those resources does increase emissions or has potentially toxic impacts uh you will not receive credit uh decommissioning benefits we again this is another one we're we're still thinking about turning the wheels so if you have have feedback happy to hear it and then potential Wildlife Community impacts um again where you know all of these resources have the potential to cause impacts to Wildlife and plant communities um if there's mitigating measures available uh we'll we'll give you credit but uh if not um you'll not receive credit all right that was a lot uh but hopefully that clears up some of uh our discussion uh some of our thoughts on on how we're scoring these resources yeah I think walking it through at least help help my brain um we know Joel had a question um Joel was your comment or question addressed or should we have a conversation um I had a lot of questions and comments um so probably some of them were addressed but um I still have more and happy to share some thoughts that I at least looking looking over this for the first time I think some of them tie back the things I mentioned earlier uh the kind of the the double counting potentially with different things reliability um greenhouse gas emissions in which appear in other parts of the planning analysis overarching analysis um not sure if there's a need to address those again within this um but I'm certainly interested in hearing other folks thoughts um I um that also could be the case for for cost considerations though I don't want to anyone to quote me is suggesting that I'm not concerned with the cost of these portfolios and resources but that's like the key thing that the Aurora model is doing is optimizing for cost right so including that here again seems um like it could be a double counting issue and again open to other other folks thoughts on any of that [Music] um the um there were a couple of the the resources that are on the one or the zero side of the score that in different criteria that um seemed a little bit odd to me um you know for example uh in uh let's see what it in reliability um oh sorry uh no in the physical structure decommissioning uh where is that number two here minimal end of life effects um so I guess I just wanted to point out here I guess that that there are pretty different end of life impacts of of different kinds of structures um I think notably like lumping the end of life impacts of a nuclear facility is pretty different than decommissioning a solar farm so I think that just seems like a bit of a weakness in the binary scale here uh another thing I wanted to point out was the do we want to just actually pause I want to make sure that Tyler can get to these this is is a good stack here so Tyler um maybe just Joel jogger memory what was the first one about well so the double counting issue which I've already talked about so we don't need to linger on that I think that's why I wanted to plow forward but if there if you Tyler if you have other considerations that Alexander didn't address earlier feel free yeah any go ahead yeah so in in terms of double counting um you know I think we hear you um it's something to consider um but you know resources can contribute to Resource adequacy Ceda non energy uh non-energy benefits flexibility benefits uh you know a lot of those things already overlap within the Aurora model so since we've got a separate Equity analysis we thought it valuable to at least consider them um but if we feel like double counting um may be a potential concern in the transparency validity of this assessment uh happy to continue to talk about it um love to hear you know if you want to take this list back and provide some thoughts like this might be a double count for this reason um I'd love to see that in the feedback report or we we can have a conversation time depending um but yeah I think that's where we're sitting for right now thanks Tyler and kind of the second bucket Joel you you were asking about are all things equal you know in terms of physical structures um and and is the zero and one a little too coarse for that Tyler any thoughts or reaction to that one yeah I think at this juncture all I can do is reiterate that you know zero one is simple transparent um it may not provide the quantization that you know a nuclear facility certainly has higher decommissioning impacts than than something else um and you know something we can consider um uh yeah yeah not sure I've got anything more to add at this moment yeah Joel perhaps if if now we're in the feedback report if you've seen other utilities um have something more granular than a zero and one for generic resources um perhaps just add that to a feedback report or an email or a link if you have it now um Joel let's come back to you I want to balance between people a little bit we'll come back to your your other groups of questions let's go to Jim for a moment though thanks yeah um mine is correct and don't mean to interrupt your flow Joel um really appreciate you teeing up the discussion my just brief comment I think relates to the two first items you flagged actually um so the the First on double counting um I guess it's a variation of Joel's point it it seems like there's some potential for double counting sort of within the metrics and criteria that you've laid out here so you know just like as as an example um metric 3 and Metric six uh you know I understand those are customer benefit indicators that you know are sort of related to one another and there's nothing wrong with having sort of related indicators but I think when when they're parsed at that very coarse kind of binary level I think you can end up in a situation where perhaps you're you're picking up many of the same attributes um by scoring something as a one in those two and not maybe capturing some of the Nuance that might sort of be intended and breaking those out as separate indicators um and so that's you know I understand you're kind of you got to start somewhere and you're sort of working through the process but I think perhaps it it it might be worth bearing in mind kind of the combination of that that course grain approach with the potential overlap between different categories thanks yeah thanks J yeah response from you Tyler yeah thanks I I think that's a really well taken Point um there's certainly indicators that are related on this list um and we wanted to start with all of those metrics that we were seeing in our literature reviews and try to Encompass as many of our customer benefit indicators as possible um you know it's really you know this is a starting point so if there are specific metrics that you feel are closely related and may be able to be scored as a a single line on this chart um we'd be happy to hear that information in a feedback report or you know in dialogue you know we've already highlighted the the relation between three and and six but if there's others happy to hear that and we can definitely consider consolidating those metrics together uh into a single single score thanks Tyler um before we turning to Joel I just I've been hearing kind of around the the kind of course nature of zero and one um understanding that psse you know this is just kind of a transparency and and something that's possible at a generic scale and I've hearing some thoughts of is there double counting between other aspects of the modeling program or maybe double counting within this itself wanting just to give other arpeg members I'm seeing Frey and Megan and Ezra and Katie and Stefan if anyone else has thought and kind of those two themes that have emerged we'd love to hear from you as well no pressure okay I justra yeah I opened the door I mean look this is a tough problem and that's why I haven't really been chiming in because you know it's very easy to um to pick at it and very difficult to come up with a good solution but I mean there's no question that just adding up zeros and ones for all these impacts which is you know I know you guys thought a lot about what's the set of impacts but it's still by it's going to be kind of an arbitrary list and I think you know the you Jim raised that some of these things might be double counted internally obviously some of them are covered in other parts of the analysis it's it's going to come up with a very muddled picture or a picture that in many ways reflects what happened in in the room when you were sitting there deciding which of these things are we going to look at which are we not and and we're not going to weigh them I mean the point that in nuclear plant decommissioning is very different from solar wind decommissioning like obviously that is you know almost goes without saying so I I guess I would say it's just very important to keep that in mind as you move forward that the result here is going to be um indicative uh somewhat Illuminating but very very affected by those decisions I mean unweighted is waiting okay that that is something that people kind of forget that like if you just count everything as one that's a waiting and in general it's a wrong waiting um and so you do it and you just have to to keep track of the fact that we are not giving the whole picture here and I have no doubt that down the road there will be know a more detailed look at the specific impact but again you I mean these are generic resources there are no specific impacts so I appreciate all the work you're doing this isn't a criticism but I do think it's very important to carry that all forward um throughout the process and remember this this score is is only an indicative um first step thanks Ezra um noting that uh we have about 20 more minutes here Joel did you want to wrap with any of your other questions on this slide um I saw Kate came on camera and I don't want to monopolize the um the conversation here so if she has something to add feel free no I'm just coming back I had to leave for another meeting so hi I'm back P attention to it Joel didn't mean to put you on the spot there sorry um no it's great to see you back yeah another question from you Joel sure I mean I I I like Ezra's point I think is well taken that you know it's easy to pick something apart it's harder to build something so appreciate that being part of this conversation and maybe in that Spirit um one of the uh I mean I couldn't help going through this thinking about what PSC has done in in their conservation potential assessment in some cases um I think in the last one there was um some differentiation um between different conservation measures in the CPA and the way they're valued that included sort of a bonus for measures that were installed in named communities um that might help inform some of this I also think the conservation potential assessment is a good place to look for use of non-energy impacts which sort of I mean for for a lot of these metrics that's maybe an uncomfortable place to go assigning a dollar value to it but that is a way to get these metrics to speak the language that Aurora can can use to like to really optimize these as opposed to sort of doing this backend analysis um so I just wanted to bring those up as areas where PSC is addressing some of these problems on the conservation side where they there might be insights into how it could potentially be done again in a way that Aurora would understand um on the planning side too Tyler any responses before you move along uh no thank thanks for the feedback Joel and uh to both Joel and Ezra like thank you guys for providing feedback like we opened up the floor you know we we'd love for you guys to pick this apart and give your thoughts and um yeah we're we're we've made an offering please let us know how we can improve it you know this is supposed to be an evolution you we made some changes from our last planning cycle I'm certain that we'll make some changes into the next and hopefully we'll arrive at at something that that we can make meaningful decisions with yeah I do want to call on Megan just to make sure we hear from her before we move along Megan go ahead thanks um yeah and thanks Tyler I was just curious about the next steps in the process I know you mentioned that this is kind of the first step of waiting everything as a zero or a one and that dependent on um feedback that that might change um could you just clarify what that next step is in the process thanks yeah thanks Megan so um I think as part of any of our public feedback Cycles you know this is the first step Gathering all this information we'll take it back digest it see what we can Implement um when we can make those implementations possible whether it's a 25 IRP or ISP in 20127 um and uh we'll let you know what we've changed and if we uh you know definitely in a feedback report um or consultation update um or in future communications we let you know I don't think we have a specific timeline in mind for this um this was a a big feedback cycle starting way back the beginning of May with some e presentations so we've got a lot to sit on and thatjust over the next couple of months thanks thanks for the process question Megan Tyler I'm going to encourage you to keep going so we can get to the gas side yeah I think I've got a good bit so yeah all right next slide please um maybe I'll just flash this up for a brief moment um So based on those criteria that I shared on the previous slide um these are all you know kind of broad categories of the generic resources for my 2023 electric progress report and we applied those scores as if those criteria were set up for those so we've taken some old data and applied that new scoring criteria and these are the relative scores for all the different generic resources uh so I just wanted to provide some context on how those scores uh impact the generic resources you can see demand response Energy Efficiency uh de resources storage and solar score quite High um emitting resources nuclear uh offshore wind score lower in those utility scale when Sol resources are and storage are somewhere in the middle give you a a broad um a broad perspective on on how those scores how those scoring criteria impact each of the generic resources um I think we can move on all right so I promis some some results um so all these changes uh we wanted to show how that would change our analysis um so in the next few slides I'm going to present uh kind of our uh when we go and review those results of I've mentioned that we put equity on an x-axis and then uh portfolio cost on a y AIS and we want to try to observe where portfolios fall relative to one another and we based on the compositions of those portfolios we can get an understanding about which resources are important what resource mixes are important and uh be able to select portfolios that that enable more Equitable outcomes uh at a reasonable cost um so this slide and the next couple will have the 23 optic progress report results on the left and these are lifted directly from the progress report with the methodology that was used in the progress report and then the 25 IRP on the right is using all of the data the portfolios from that 23 electric progress report but updated the portfolio benefit analysis with a new methodology that we've been discussing today so using those ones and zeros for the neric resources uh normalization for the portfolio cost and uh absolute scores as opposed to relative scores um so this is a lot to look at so let's move to the next slide and we'll look at a few specific portfolios so you can get a sense for what's changing um all right so circled uh one which is our reference portfolio uh this is the least cost portfolio so we enter in we provide Aurora with our sparest set of uh constraints so we haven't done any tinkering to the model we we let Aurora solve the least cost solution for us and that uh dictates our reference portfolio it tends to be the least cost should be the leaste cost and uh in the previous methodology I'd like to highlight that it also set the reference for our relative scoring so you'll see it lands right on zero on the x-axis so it's got an equity score of zero and all the portfolios are relative to that reference portfolio uh in the new scoring meth methology in the 25 approach on the right uh you'll see that that one is still like in the middle of the group um but it now is off of that zero line and uh has a score of its own so all the portfolios will score uh their own unique absolute score based on this new uh generic Resource One Zer binary scoring Tyler just a clarifying question Ezra thinks that the most design desirable would be lower left did I get your question right versus lower right Tyler can you just justify the lower right being the desirable yeah so uh if we've provided a score either one or zero one if it provides a benefit so the more ones that that portfolio has based on the resource mix the higher the equity score will be so we want the equity score to move right with increasing values uh and portfolio cost you know generally lower is better so we want the portfolio cost to be lower so that's uh toward the bottom of the plot so our most desirable portfolios will land in the lower right hand corner oh sorry good you know it's impacts versus benefits is a confus thank you for the clarification yeah you bet thanks all right Tyler please continue great um and then one other note that I wanted to highlight while we're looking at the reference portfolio um I mentioned that we're using a normalized portfolio cost so you can see I've got in the right hand uh plot dollars per megawatt so that's dollars per Peak megawatt uh and the cost is quite a bit lower than on the plot on the left we're looking at 20 to 26 billion dollar and here we're looking at 2.5 to 3.2 million doll um dollars per megawatt so uh that's a change but I think the relative information on the locations of those resour of the portfolios uh is the most important bit of information and if you look really closely you'll see that um since all of the portfolios listed in this 23 priers report had the same uh Peak uh Peak resour uh Peak capacity need uh in 2045 uh all the relative positions on the Y AIS so the vertical axis will will be the same uh transposed from the plot on the left they may have moved left and right along the x-axis but um you get the same general information but using this normalized methodology allows us to add a an electrification portfolio that may need to add a lot more resources and will therefore have a lot well it has a lot higher Peak need so it adds a lot more resources and it'll come at a lot higher cost uh but we can still get at the same Equity benefit it'll be in the same context as all the other portfolios I think Tyler we're gonna uh keep us moving so I want to make sure you have time to talk about the maximum customer benefits so keep keep all right let's uh move on to the next slide then uh here I wanted to highlight our preferred portfolio and I'll keep my comments brief on this one um I think the key takeaway here is that it's in about the same position it was last time you know it's it's at somewhat of an increased cost to the the reference portfolio um but still provides uh a lot of equity enabling benefits it's still far out to the right uh we have to spend a little more to get out there um but we think that even under this new methodology the preferred portfolio from the 23 progress report still confers a lot of Equity enabling benefits so there is some some consistency or a good deal of consistency between the old methodology and and the new methodology and can we move on to the next slide please and then the last one I wanted to talk about was portfolio 4 as just an example of a portfolio that moved a lot um so in the 23 progress report you could see portfolio four is right around the reference portfolio so you know pretty average in its Equity enabling benefits um but it moved way out to the right um using this new scoring methodology and uh uh portfolio 4 for those of you who don't remember all the way back to the 23 progress report was one of our experimental portfolios where we added in additional distributed solar resources above the economic suggestion from Aurora so that increased the amount of distributed solar in the portfolio and that was the only change we made everything else was optimized around that kind of forced in decision um and some of the drivers that that moved that to the right are as a a result of some of the new metrics that we started looking at um with this expanded list of metrics that it also scored high and because we added those distributed sources uh namely the uh local energy and Community safety and Community Health in addition to those customer participation metrics of uh distributed uh distributed energy resources Megan please yeah and maybe this will be answered later or there's a better time to ask this question but um as you've been talking about these different benefits I have been curious about the definitions um for instance how are you defining Community Heth um is that something that the arpc has the ability to weigh in on or see the definition I would be really curious to learn more about that and again if there was a better time to answer this um that's fine yeah I I don't think I've got a great answer for you right off the bat Megan so maybe we could follow up in the feedback report and I think we're definitely looking for feedback so if uh you've got some insights on a few specific metrics that you'd like to provide definitions for we'd love to hear that information thanks Megan all right Tyler yeah all right um yeah so I think we'll move on to the if there's no more questions let's move on to the sorry conversation questions and I think you've all been busy on the mural so well quiet on the mural but very talkative and I think you all asked a lot of questions before you saw it mapped on and so if I'm going to be mean and strict here um Can let's move to the maximum customer benefit and if there was something else you wanted to talk about with the portfolio benefit analysis um I request that you use the feedback report so we have a few minutes for live discussion here if you're loving the uh the the sticky note world this is now the yellow section on maximum customer benefit and so you can provide some reactions there so carry us forward Tyler great um I'll try to be Breezy I I covered this exact so in our public participation so if you feel like I'm a little too light uh there's some good conversation there as well um but let's Dive Right In next slide please all right so the regulatory framework for what the maximum customer benefit sensitivity is um it's set out in the the whack that we must run at least one sensitivity in our IRP that looks at maximum customer benefit um and then those benefits are defined in the RCW which I've highlighted in Orange here um so we're trying to measure the Equitable transition to clean energy um through the distribution of energy and non-energy benefits reduction of burdens to vulnerable populations and highly impact communities long-term and short-term public health and environmental benefits and reduction of costs and risks and energy security and resiliency uh so that's the framework if you're interested in diving deep into to what what uh set off the need for this conversation uh next slide please all right so when we started thinking about what a maximum customer benefit sensitivity would look like uh we started with the categories that were listed in the RCW so I tried to extract some of the uh key phrases from that Orange Box including energy benefits non-energy benefits public public health environmental benefits cost and risk reduction and energy security and resiliency uh so with those categories in mind that those were the things that we needed to maximize uh I looked at the list of metrics that we've just been pouring over and Tred to figure out which metrics uh spoke to those specific categories um so I I don't know that I need to read all of these These are largely in line with the um the metrics that we've been discussing already uh but this is not a an all-encompassing list some of the metrics were left off because they don't really align with some of these categories that were specifically listed in the maximum customer benefit uh regulation um so after we took a look at the metrics we're like which kinds of resources uh provide value to those metrics um and uh after thinking about all those resources um we found that three resource types uh exhibited a lot of these characteristics provided these types of benefits those being conservation demand response and distributed solar and storage um so I've gone through and added a little icon for each uh along each metric where we believe those resource types contribute or provide that kind of benefit uh and you can see uh using these three resource types uh we can cover all these benefits uh all these metrics with a benefit uh and this is not to say that utility scale resources don't provide these benefits or storage resources don't provide these benefits but we felt like these uh after looking at all of them are representative of uh three resource types that provide the most benefits for for these specific metrics so next slide please uh so that leads us to our our recommended sensitivity um and we're suggesting that we maximize the distributed energy resources demand response and conservation in the portfolio and then we can use our portfolio benefit assessment tool to see how well that portfolio scores um and how we landed on maximum imizing distributed energy resources demand response and conservation uh is uh you know we we've reviewed customer surveys that suggest interest in local distributed resources um our portfolio benefit analysis tool has scored those resources High uh we feel like they tick a lot of the boxes uh in terms of the specific categories benefit categories listed in the RCW um so we wanted to present this as our our maximum customer benefit sensitivity and speaking to What specifically is maximized what does maximized mean um in terms of distributed energy resources uh we're in the process of running a uh the national renewable energy Laboratories distributed generation market demand model the dgen model uh and that will give us a list of the available generic resources the the technical economic and market potential um for those types of resources in The puug Sound area and we're going to maximize that economic potential uh in terms of demand response we're going to select all the demand response programs identified in the CPA and similarly for uh conservation we're going to select the highest conservation bundle uh from the 25 IRP CPA and uh I think my next slide is just the uh discussing questions so perfect just where we want to be so um if folks if if you're not eating a giant Philly cheese steak if if you wouldn't mind coming on camera for these last few minutes of conversation here we're talking about the maximum customer benefit feedback for psse about uh what do you think about this approach and if there was something you wanted to talk about about the portfolio benefits analysis I'm sure you can squeeze that in so feedback for psse to consider well I'll jump in since you can always count on me I think it you know it looks interesting it's a it's an end member um it's an extreme case I think that it it risks um you know when you push it as far as you can in each of those you might lose some of the economic benefits you get from you know from optimizing the economic level of those resources but I think I think that you'll learn a lot and how much it costs will also be um will be very uh Illuminating so I think it makes sense to run that case and as I always say just remember what you're modeling when you interpret the results thanks zra I think you hit the nail on the head it is an extreme case and we've kind of thrown cost out the window so hopefully we'll learn a lot about what makes uh how to maximize these benefits and what impacts that has on the rest of the portfol yeah thank you Ezra for chiming in anybody else here looking at the mural board not seeing uh a lot of thoughts or questions there quick question sorry I'm hopping right in um good Tyler uh could you just explain a little bit more what you said about throwing cost out the window considering reduced energy cost burden is one of the key maximum customer benefit sensitivities uh yeah I think that's a good point Kate um we you know it's one of several of those metrics that um were listed as a maximization criteria um something to consider we do have a reference portfolio which is the least cost portfolio according to our capacity expansion modeling so we'll have that as another book end as the lowest cost solution and we can definitely look at these two uh together and make some assumptions and some learnings on to which types of resources contribute to those different cases uh you know they don't neither of these is likely to become the preferred portfolio which is our ultimate resource selection um you know it's all about learning from uh these different sensitivity cases thanks hey well if anything comes up uh you know how to reach the feedback report um we're running a little bit over on the gas side so I think maybe we'll switch in that direction Tyler thank you for these back-to-back presentations thank you our Peg members for for all of the excellent questions um I can't look at all the PSC staff but like I can tell they're lighting up this is what they really wanted to get out of this conversation yeah great discussion thank you yeah great discussion everyone so we can go to the next slide and let's bring Hannah on up all right and again if if you want to have fun with this the mural board we're in the orange section right great hi everyone uh my name is Hannah wall and I'm an analyst in the resource planning group at PSD uh today I'll be presenting on our Equity approach in the 2025 gas IRP uh we're looking for feedback on our approach because this is the first time we're incorporating equity in the gasp um just kind of throwing back to Brian's section we have presented this approach in the public webinar on the 6th and we're going to present this approach again in the June 18th eag meeting looking for additional feedback um but the specific questions we're kind of asking is does this represent a reasonable step forward in our efforts to better integrate equity in our planning and if there are any other steps you'd like to see take in the future um we just ask that you keep this in mind and um if we have time I'll R revisit them at the end of the presentation um we can go to the next slide all right just want to give a brief overview of the scope of the IRP um the gas IRP is a planning document that evaluates the least cost approach for delivering gas and meeting our customer use needs um the IRP performs an analysis of regional pipelines and availability of fuels the pipelines evaluated here are not PSC owned rather we have a contract with these Regional pipelines to supply into The psse City Gate anything that is considered Downstream of the citygate is included in the delivery system planning analysis um which occurs in a separate part at PSC um but in terms of equity we are working closely together with that group to align as a company um but just for this presentation I'll be covering the Midstream gas IRP scope uh dsb did give a public webinar um on equity in the delivery system and um there's a link there maybe we can attach that in the chat if you're interested in more information you can go to the next slide awesome okay so as I said the gasp is looking at ways to meet our customers needs while we're also incorporating cost effective decarbonization um I'm going to go through kind of the four levers that are evaluated within the gas IRP the first resource type we consider is Energy Efficiency which are programs that reduce customer usage by energy efficient appliances and home upgrades we evaluate volume of conservation and that framework allows us to evaluate an equity potential um while the actual Equity application is developed within the Energy Efficiency team program process so for example we identify the volume of Energy Efficiency in our model at the system level whereas the Energy Efficiency team is looking at how much should be applied to lwi income Community customers and other real life applications the second resource type is targeted electrification this is specifically targeted programs occurring through our customer program our customer programs um currently we have a lowincome focus electrification pilot going on and you know PSC plans to take lessons learned from these programs and incorporate broader Equity considerations if we're able to expand these programs in the future I will say that for both Energy Efficiency and targeted electrification programs the IRP takes costeffective fixed volumes that's what we Dro in the model um they're fixed volume selected each year the third bucket evaluated is alternative fuels these are cleaner fuel alternatives to natural gas that may use existing infrastructure in the IRP we evaluate renewable natural gas and green hydrogen and the last resource type we're going to evaluate is natural gas we assess current and potential future pipeline contracts to meet uh customer demand we can move forward the next slide thank you okay so this slide is meant to Showcase how we include equity in our decision framework when we're evaluating candidate portfolios we include um laws and codes and standards cost impacts and gas decarbonization in our base capacity expansion model in order to include equity in our analysis we run each portfolio through our gas Equity scorecard analysis uh which is an outside the model process and we assign each portfolio a score this Equity score with the addition of the other gas IRP can considerations helps us to make an informed decision when we're selecting a preferred portfolio we can move forward slide cool okay um so the gas Equity scorecard assessment will help us predict how well a certain portfolio will enable distributions of burdens and benefits uh we are using the same methodology so to answer your question yes we are using the same methodology as the electric portfolio benefit analysis with the difference being the customer benefit indicators that we're evaluating and the bucket of resources that we're evaluating um we have also aligned to a similar scorecard method as delivery system planning in order to ensure that all the planning groups have similar Equity assessment measurements and evaluation um this proposed method is trackable across feature irps as each portfolio will receive an equity score and each IRP we will be able to see how the score changes over the course of time I'm going to go through the four steps again but I'm going to keep it brief um it's the same methodology really um so Step One is resource scoring here we have a resource specific scorecard and that's the foundation of this tool um each resource assessed in the IRP capacity expansion model will have a unique scorecard describing its ability to contribute to more equitable outcomes the resources included are the ones I've listed above so we have Energy Efficiency Target electrification natural gas and alternative fuels are going to be broken out into their individual parts so renewable natural gas and green hydrogen for a total of five resource types evaluated uh scorecards for these resources are going to be developed before portfolio uh development begins and we're presenting them here uh in a few moments um and as Tyler went into great detail the resources are scored on a binary so um either the resource will contribute positively to a given criteria and assign to scor one or it will not contribute and or contributes negatively um which will be assigned to score of zero so I think the key there is that we're scoring directionally rather than with magnitude um the scoring criteria we're using is actually made up of customer benefit indicators I will discuss those great detail in the next slide and while each resource receives a specific scorecard the gas Equity scorecard analysis um aims to measure the holistic impacts of a given mix of resources and so the resource scores are going to be aggregated and applied to the portfolio level I'm going to now move to step two where we're extracting portfolio results from plexos plexos is the capacity expansion model we're using on the gas IRP this informs the composition of each portfolio in quantity of each resource in metric tons per year moving to step three this involves taking the resource stack in terms of metric tons associated with each of the resources that some up to the gross demand so that resource St up to the gross demands and then those uh resources are normalized to 100% so we can get a percent composition of the portfolio the normalization tactic allows for a comparison of portfolios across timel uh time scales demand condition and other factors between portfolios that make it difficult to compare them directly um that that portfolio composition is then multiplied by the equity score from the customer benefit indicators for each of those resources to obtain one portfolio Equity score at this time as Tyler mentioned earlier each metric is weighted equally but it's possible um that the metrics can be weighted differently based on feedback finally I'm moving to step four where we're going to include the total portfolio cost in our analysis um we normalize the total portfolio cost to the gross demand of the portfolio so we can compare across different conditions and then at this point in the process we're going to take a view that looks at the normalized cost against the portfolio Equity score and the portfolios with the lowest cost and highest Equity scores are considered the most desirable portfolios it's a lot of information but I think I mostly just Recaps what Tyler said there I can move to the next slide okay so per the clean energy transformation act the electric IRP adopted the cbis as an approach to ensuring Equity is taken into consideration they included their first Equity analysis and the 2023 electric progress report um whereas the 2023 gas IRP did not include an electric analysis and so therefore this is our first look at incorporating equity in the gas IRP we're following their steps um but we're slightly behind their process as the primary difference is we do not include a generic resource um assessment to assess the burdens and benefits the 2025 gas IRP will be incorporating some CBI categories excluding those metrics that we feel are a electric specific I'm now going to walk through each of these categories and how we're scoring so CBI one evaluates participation in clean energy programs we will be targeting Energy Efficiency targeted electrification and re renewable natural gas programs CBI 2 evaluates increases in clean energy jobs and we will be targeting Energy Efficiency targeted electrification and Clean Energy Fuels so both renewable natural gas and green hydrogen CBI 3 evaluates Home Comfort this CBI will Target Energy Efficiency and targeted electrification programs CBI 4 evaluates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the resources scoring in this CBI are any resource that has a net zero contribution to greenhouse gas emissions as measured by the climate commitment Act and so those resources are Energy Efficiency targeted electrification renewable natural gas and green hydrogen CBI 5 is measured by a decrease in frequency and duration of outages here we are evaluating um total system reliability and so any resource that contributes to system reliability will get a score of one specifically these resources are natural gas renewable natural gas green hydrogen and Energy Efficiency we decide to score the this CBI in this way because we're looking at the total reliability of the overall gas system the gas system is built for more resilience for major events such as very cold days and therefore any resource that is within the gas system will receive a positive score and the last CBI we're looking at evaluates improved access to clean and reliable energy and therefore we're targeting clean alternative fuels um assuming a perfect perfect future technology capability for both green hydrogen and renewable natural gas I think I'll move to the next slide and then pause for any questions okay so this slide just reiterates what I just walked through on the previous slide which is how we're scoring each of these individual resources I can give you a second to look at it um and then the graph on the right shows the Total Resource scores across all the CBI so um at this point RNG and Energy Efficiency are scoring the highest at a of five and national gas is scoring the lowest at the score of one um uh for the next couple slides I'll be walking through some results so are there any questions about methodology yeah Jim please thanks Hannah um so I guess similar to the point I made on the electric side I think there's some over between some of these categories um and I think it for me presents more of a double counting concern here than on the electric side I think that might be because some of these metrics maybe sort of started as electric metrics and got adapted a little bit um you know particular I think like the last one on your list improved access to clean reliable energy that that seems to really just capture things that are already captur Ed by metrics further up like the um the reliability one uh which I confess you're going kind of fast I'm not sure the extent to which that's um focused on gas system versus Electric System reliability and why targeted electrification lands where it does but setting that aside um I wanted to add um just a couple other points of feedback uh outdoor quality is a factor on the electric side and I think it makes imminent sense for it also to be a factor on the gas side um and I think under that you know you would see uh conservation and electrification as being the ones that capture that benefit particularly at the low resolution of zeros and ones it seems very easy to reflect that and um I think that some of the metrics used to capture some of the um indicators so you know uh improved Home Comfort kind of as as maybe being one don't fully seem to kind of track from the you know original category through the indicator and Metric in a way that totally makes sense to me so I wanted to flag that thanks thank you for those comments appreciate it anyone else have questions about methodology Okay carry on Hannah awesome thanks you go to the next slide okay so here we have taken each portfolio from the 2023 gas IRP and gone through the four steps of the gas Equity scorecard assessment um the scores here on the bottom left are the average portfolio Equity score the portfolios scoring the highest are the electrification scenarios um the graph to the right shows the preferred portfolio and the electrification portfolio average Equity score broken down by the contributing cbis um so I just want to walk through how all these cbis are contributing to that scoring um the CBI that contributes the heaviest to the preferred portfolio is CBI 5 that's resilience this is because the resources that get a score of one for the CBI are Energy Efficiency alternative fuels and natural gas and together these resources make up 100% of the composition of this portfolio and therefore getting an average score of one for the CBI and that's really driving that score of that portfolio on the other hand the electrification uh portfolio gets a higher score for CBI one through four these cbis all score positively for electrification targeted electrification which makes up 66% of the the electrification portfolio this would drive the portfolio score higher for each of these cbis which drives the average Equity score higher for the electrification portfolio while this is a really helpful view to see how each resource impacts the cbis and therefore impacts the portfolio average score it does not take cost of portfolio into account so the next slide will show a plot that compares normaliz portfolio cost against the average CBI score for each portfolio Han before you move on yeah please Megan weighin hi um and thank you for the presentation so far Hannah I had a question um actually on the previous slide I was surprised to see that targeted electrification was not included in the improved access to clean reliable energy um just given that most of our electric grid is clean energy and so I would think that um a Target electrification program would improve that access to clean energy um could you explain why that is not included as a criteria 4 one under um the six indicator thanks yeah that's a good question I think that also ties into our decision to not score targeted electrification in CBI 5 which is the resilience one the reason we decided um to exclude targeted electrification even though it is clean um is because the gas system is designed for a higher standard of reliability at 2% L as opposed to 5% LP for the electric grid um and so we felt that we should leave out the electrification as we're just transferring the load to a um quote unquote less reliable System since this is the gas perspective um so that's kind of the reasoning why we decided to um leave that one out however I will say um these are all not set in stone we're not concrete on these so you know we're happy to take feedback on if you think that should change we're happy to listen and your reasoning thanks for the question Megan and thanks for the response Hannah how about you go to the next slide Hannah slide after that yeah okay um so this plot helps gives perspective on which portfolios are cost effective while also having higher Equity scores um leveraging this Ang we could see what the equity analysis could look like for future future planning Cycles um ideally the lower right quadrant is where we want to see our portfolios land um as we can see the electrification scenari all in the upper right quadrant which is high Equity score at high cost um so I'll let you simmer on this um and then we can move to the next slide great um here's our discussion we're gonna unfortunately truncate it a little bit uh just reading in the chat here Jim's saying that Megan's good point aligns with his question earlier it seems Target electrification was ruled out of indicators five and six for the same reason which seems like the a double counting issue but Joel I saw your hand earlier any thoughts sure yeah I um I was just typing it in the chat but I I can uh verbalize it too the um I I had a similar question to what Megan uh brought up just a moment ago with Target electrification having a zero in the improved access to clean reliable energy and it seems like if I'm understanding right the the respones that that that you're leaning into the reliable part of that indicator as opposed to the clean energ part of that um and the resource adequacy requirement is more stringent the gas side than the electric and I yeah I note that Jim's I think response in the in the chat is that that might be another double counting issue with the decreased frequency and duration of outages which would tend to cover reliability also thanks Joel yeah Hannah any response responses or any responses from Hannah's colleagues here um no I think these are all really good points and we'll definitely take this back internally and um you know think about some of the double counting yeah very good well I I want to respect uh the members of the public um who have been waiting to give their public comment that we we give them their time so um just any last thoughts or pieces of feedback for PS at this moment Frey please just on the previous slide when you're comparing this normalized cost this is normalized per metric ton of gas uh in the system or like gas capacity um in the in the electricity it was about Peak capacity how about what is the normalization uh against in the gas scenario or the gas oh sorry sorry no you're good we're looking at the metric ton um up to the gross demand so we're normalizing against the gross demand all right thanks for the question Frey does that help yeah so if just uh if in an efficiency or in electrification scenario both have reduced demand you are still dividing by a smaller in both of them you are dividing by a smaller de gross demand or are you converting the demand from gas to electric and still counting it um we're just comparing to the gross demand of gas okay very good all right well I'm gonna slowly transition us so thank you so much Hannah I'm noticing that some of you are having kind of marinating on the maximum customer benefit piece that Tyler shared that there were some questions and comments in the mural board um will PSC will address those in the feedback report because we don't have time to come back to them but thank you for for weighing in there um yeah and thank you Hannah for touching on all things gas and Equity so will take us to our next slide keep on going okay so the feedback form closes on June 19th so some of you had specific thoughts whether it was around definitions or community health or um you know waiting and anything like that please you know in writing by the 19th um July 17th is your next meeting so after a lot of pip backtack arpeg meetings every couple weeks you get to Exhale for a month and on that note I just really wanted to thank all the arpeg members who have been um in kind of these long and and tightly spaced meetings I just know how much PSC values your input so thank you for those uh you can go to the next slide please beautiful that takes us to our public comment just pretty much on time Emily if you can enable the hand raising feature that will allow us to hear um that will allow us to hear from members of the public and I will share my timer screen okay we have a hand from Don Marsh let me just get all my pieces here set up very good okay Don can we hear you I hope so we sure can all right please your time starts now okay Don Marsh from the Washington clean energy Coalition many good aspirations were expressed in the presentation today and we appreciate some of the improvements over the 2023 electric progress report I'm personally interested in the maximum customer benefit sensitivity in general we would like to believe that psse is sincere and its desire to promote equity and fully engage its customers in the clean energy transition however psc's credibility is severely diminished by its obvious attempt to limit public participation in the IRP process there are many people who would like to engage with the company but we are not allowed to participate in the discussion or ask questions during these rpeg meetings we can't see the rpeg chat we can't see the mural board that was used today and our comments are limited to 2 minutes after a three-hour meeting this prevents us from engaging with psse and our Peg members this curtailment of public participation in detailed IRP planning will produce a less Equitable Less customer focused plan it's certainly not what legislator what legislators envisioned when they determined that public participation is an essential part of the IRP process my organization will make suggestions for improvement of public participation in the ISP docket and I hope PSC and the UTC will take our feedback seriously thank you very much thank you so much Don appreciate those thoughts make sure I'm going to the right screen here okay any other thoughts okay Don just I know typically we don't respond I did um I am going to share the link to this board the mural board um now that it's it's um has all the comments from the members so Emily if you could just share the link again in the chat um that shows what the the member said so uh public members of the public can see at least those components looking around the room let me check my [Music] um participant list I'm not seeing any other hands Emily are you seeing any other hands I'm not and just a confirm you want me to put the mural board link into the chat for everyone yes please got it y they'll be able to view it now okay well with that um we have just a few more moments um I just want to thank everyone so much for for joining today um really really good conversations from our Peg members um PSC do you want to close us out with just uh a final word Philip you want to say anything would you like to well I just like to thank you all uh thank you all for joining us um and I don't recall if uh uh no that's okay I was gonna say we we got that all covered so uh thank you all very much for joining us this was a great conversation uh you know this uh how to how to how to incorpor equity incorporate equity and our continual process of improving that is is it just really is ongoing so really really appreciate all the feedback thank you great well I hope everyone enjoys the next month of of nice warm weather and we'll see everyone in July thank you everyone thank you sopie thanks everyone thank you thank you Sophie