January 11, Energy Division Attention: Tariff Unit California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

Transcription

1 Erik Jacobson Director Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale St., Mail Code B13U P.O. Box San Francisco, CA Fax: January 11, 2019 Energy Division Attention: Tariff Unit California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA Re: Comments of Joint IOUs on Pursuant to Rule 14.5 of the California Public Utilities Commission s ( Commission ) Rules of Practice and Procedure and the instructions in the letter served by Energy Division on Rulemaking ( R. ) on December 21, 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric Company ( PG&E ), Southern California Edison Company ( SCE ), and San Diego Gas & Electric Company ( SDG&E ) (collectively, the Joint IOUs ) hereby submit these opening comments on ( Draft Resolution ), which would implement portions of Senate Bill ( SB ) 901 (2018) and would require the Joint IOUs to amend the terms of certain biomass contracts related to compliance, reporting, payment, terms of default, feedstock requirements, contract term length, and contract form. In these comments, the Joint IOUs ask the Commission to provide additional clarity regarding the implementation of SB 901 by modifying the Draft Resolution in the following ways: 1. Remove inflation adjustments to the reasonableness benchmark for contract extensions to protect customers from unnecessarily high procurement costs. 2. Change the deemed reasonable benchmark for the price of contract extensions to be at or below existing final-year contract pricing terms to avoid giving counterparties leverage to negotiate higher than necessary prices. 3. Require new provisions in the contracts requiring sellers to attest that their biomass facilities are physically capable of using the designated forest fuels and have the permits to do so. 4. Give effect to the annual fuel use requirement in statute by requiring Sellers to comply on an annual basis for those months in which they do not opt out. 5. Require opt-out decisions to be communicated by a date certain each month and allow modification of time of delivery factors in the contracts to prevent gaming.

2 - 2 - January 11, Change the Seller s requirement to provide monthly attestations to make these due in the month following deliveries, rather than in the delivery month, to ensure they are complete and accurate. 7. Remove the requirement to verify Tier 1 versus Tier 2 High Hazard Zone ( HHZ ) fuels because the statute does not distinguish between these for compliance purposes and because it unnecessarily increases transaction and customer costs. 8. Align the Seller s obligation to notify the Buyer of its annual or monthly reporting preference with the Buyer s requirement to notify the Commission of the election because the Draft Resolution currently allows the Seller to notify an investor-owned utility ( IOU ) after an IOU is required to give notice. 9. Remove the quarterly audit requirement to reflect the annual compliance requirement for non-opt-out months in statute, and clarify an explanation of current audit practices in the BioRAM 1 program. 10. Direct the IOUs to offer 5-year extensions to non-bioram contracts only if they are willing to adhere to the annual feedstock requirements set forth in Section (b), to accept an Event of Default if they are not able to achieve these feedstock requirements, and confirm that any amendment to extend an eligible non-bioram contract pursuant to Section 8388 need not contain monthly opt-out options as provided in Section (d) for BioRAM contracts. 11. Require the IOUs to amend existing contracts whose costs will be allocated under the recently-adopted Tree Mortality Non-Bypassable Charge ( TM NBC ) to require regular reporting to the IOUs of air quality standards violations and to clarify when such violations can result in termination of the contract, consistent with the Commission s orders in Decision ( D. ) Allow the IOUs to update their respective Renewables Portfolio Standard ( RPS ) Procurement Plans as part of the regular annual revisions and related Renewable Net Short ( RNS ) calculations as part of the regular annual and quarterly revisions, rather than requiring administratively burdensome special updates. 13. Include in the final Resolution specific lists of each eligible seller pursuant to Section 8388 and a summary description of each term in the existing contracts that must be amended. 1 References in these comments to BioRAM refer to contracts executed pursuant to the authority granted to the Joint IOUs in Resolutions E-4770 and E-4805, which implemented Section of the California Public Utilities Code. These Resolutions were intended to help address California s tree mortality emergency due to drought and bark beetle infestations. 2 This and other references to codified sections in these comments are to the California Public Utilities Code, unless otherwise specified.

3 - 3 - January 11, Clarify in the body of the Draft Resolution that the Joint IOUs may amend their BioRAM 1 contracts in conformance with SB 901 and BioRAM 2 feedstock requirements, consistent with Finding 7 of the Draft Resolution. The following sections describe the specifics of each of these requests for clarification and the justification for the requests in more detail. I. The Commission s Review of Reasonableness of SB 901 Contract Extensions Should Not Include Inflation. The Draft Resolution requires that contract prices for new or amended BioRAM contracts executed pursuant to Section 8388 be no higher than current contract prices plus inflation. 3 While the precise increase in customer costs due to this escalation is unknown, it is likely that adding inflation to existing prices will increase customer costs by several million dollars over the fiveyear extension term. The minimum total extension cost, not including escalation, can be estimated by multiplying $89.23/megawatt-hour ( MWh ), which is the price received under Resolution E and SB 901 for contracts that opt out of High-Hazard Zone ( HHZ ) fuel requirements, by the total expected output from all BioRAM facilities (153 MW) 4 based on an assumed 80% capacity factor. The estimated minimum total extension cost based on this formula is approximately $479 million. 5 Increasing this unescalated extension cost by an assumed additional 2% per year inflator would result in an additional $10 million burden to the Joint IOUs customers. There is no legal or factual basis to require IOU customers to incur these additional costs. The generator facilities with BioRAM contracts have existed for several decades. It has not been clearly demonstrated that they require significant capital investments over the course of the extended BioRAM contracts. Additionally, the price for forest fuel does not necessarily increase with general economic inflation. Accordingly, the Draft Resolution should be modified to reduce total customer costs as follows: Contract prices for new or amended BioRAM or non-bioram biomass contracts executed pursuant to this Resolution should be no higher than current contract prices plus inflation. 6 II. The Commission Should Not Incentivize Non-BioRAM Contracts to Negotiate Significantly Higher Payments by Creating a $119/MWh Reasonableness Benchmark. Nothing in SB 901 supports offering non-bioram contracts payment terms higher than the prices in existing contracts. Rather, the plain language of SB 901 simply requires that the Joint IOUs offer to extend these contracts so long as the counterparties are willing and able to meet the fuel use requirements of Section (b). 7 Nothing in the statute references or requires 3 Draft Resolution, pp. 12, 20 (Ordering Paragraph OP 4). 4 Draft Resolution, p The calculation is as follows: *153* 8760*0.80*5=479,000, Draft Resolution, pp. 12, 18 (Finding 17). Conforming edits should be made to Ordering Paragraph 4. 7 Section 8388, as added by SB 901, provides in full: An electrical corporation, local publicly owned electric utility, or community choice aggregator with a contract to procure electricity generated from biomass pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section , commission Resolution E-4770 (March 17, 2016), or commission Resolution

4 - 4 - January 11, 2019 changes in the price terms of these existing contracts during an extension period. The State s retail customers should not be required to pay above-market prices for these contract extensions when nothing in the statute requires such terms. Accordingly, the Draft Resolution s proposal to set a per se reasonableness benchmark of $119/MWh plus inflation for the extension terms of these non- BioRAM contracts harms retail customers by giving the generators the leverage to insist on that benchmark price in negotiations, even if the current contract price, and the price necessary to economically operate the generator while meeting the new fuel use requirements, is significantly lower. In lieu of the weighted average price, PG&E recommends that the Commission deem any price equal to or less than the final year pricing terms of the existing BioRAM or non-bioram contract as reasonable. 8 The subjective nature of this standard also suggests the use of an Independent Evaluator ( IE ) to participate in negotiations and provide an opinion of reasonableness would be beneficial. Finally, in order to carry out the clear intent of SB 901, which seeks to incentivize the use of HHZ and sustainable forest management ( SFM ) fuels for electricity generation, PG&E asks the Commission to modify the Draft Resolution to require new provisions in the contracts requiring sellers to attest that their biomass facilities are physically capable of using HHZ and SFM fuel and have the permits to do so. Without this provision, it appears that the purpose of SB 901 could be circumvented by a facility, particularly a non-bioram facility, executing a contract extension and then simply opting out of the fuel requirements in all months. III. The Commission Should Give Effect to the Annual Fuel Use Requirement in Statute by Requiring Sellers to Comply on an Annual Basis for Those Months in Which They Do Not Opt Out. In the Draft Resolution, the Commission interprets Section (d) as requiring the Commission to establish a new monthly compliance option. The Draft Resolution describes this new compliance option as follows: SB 901 gives sellers the right to choose whether compliance with their contract fuel minimums, and thus the price that the buyer pays for their energy, will be determined on a monthly or an annual basis. If the seller chooses monthly compliance, the monthly fuel minimum will be set at the annual fuel minimum rate that would have otherwise existed in that calendar year. That is, for any month in 2019, the monthly requirement for sellers with monthly compliance will be 80% HHZ fuel for BioRAM 1 Contracts and 60% HHZ and 80% Sustainable Forest E-4805 (October 13, 2016), or with a contract that is operative at any time in 2018, and expires or expired on or before December 31, 2023, shall seek to amend the contract to include, or seek approval for a new contract that includes, an expiration date five years later than the expiration date in the contract that was operative in 2018, so long as the contract extension follows the feedstock requirement of subdivision (b) of Section This section shall not apply to facilities located in federal severe or extreme nonattainment areas for particulate matter or ozone. 8 PG&E is the only one of the Joint IOUs which has non-bioram contracts subject to contract extension pursuant to SB 901.

5 - 5 - January 11, 2019 Management fuel for BioRAM 2 contracts, which are the annual fuel requirements for The Draft Resolution incorrectly interprets the statute by adopting this approach because it modifies the statutory annual fuel requirement into a monthly fuel requirement, in conflict with Section (b). That Section, which the Legislature could have amended when enacting SB 901 but did not, provides: At least 80 percent of the feedstock of an eligible facility, on an annual basis, shall be a byproduct of sustainable forestry management, which includes removal of dead and dying trees from Tier 1 and Tier 2 high hazard zones and is not that from lands that have been clear cut. At least 60 percent of this feedstock shall be from Tier 1 and Tier 2 high hazard zones. When read in harmony, pre-existing Section (b) and the new Section (d) require only monthly reporting and opt-out provisions. To the extent a generator does not opt out of the fuel requirements in certain months pursuant to Section (d), then the facility must still meet the annual requirement left untouched by the Legislature in Section (b) on an annual basis for all months in which the facility did not opt out. The fuel use in the months in which a generator opted out would not be used to calculate whether it met its annual fuel use requirements, consistent with Section (d). Not only is this interpretation of the statute the only one that properly harmonizes the existing provisions with those added by SB 901, it also is necessary in order to avoid making the opt-out provision added by the Legislature meaningless. Under the Draft Resolution s interpretation, a generator would have no incentive to opt out in any month since it would receive the same lower price for that month if it failed to meet the fuel use requirements in that month. Under the Joint IOUs interpretation, in contrast, the opt-out has a true purpose and consequence: If the facility does not opt out in a given month, then that month is used to determine whether the facility has met its annual fuel use requirement under Section (b). Should the facility meet its annual fuel use requirements in all such months, then it receives the higher price in all those months, even if it would have failed to meet the use requirements in any particular non-optout month. Conversely, if the generator failed to meet its annual use requirements for all months in which it did not opt out, then it would get the lower alternative price for all such months, even if it would have achieved the fuel use requirements in particular non-opt-out months. This reading properly harmonizes the subdivisions of the statute and avoids creating an absurd result in which the opt-out created by the Legislature has no actual consequence. Another practical consequence of the interpretation adopted by the Draft Resolution is that the third-party fuel verifier would have a much larger scope of work, as the IOU quarterly audits will likely need to include third-party verification of monthly mandated fuel and feedstock usage levels. 10 This higher level of verification will increase costs with no clear benefit. Quarterly audits that require monthly verification increase the burden to all parties (i.e., likelihood of invoice disputes, increase scope of work for third-party fuel verifier to provide audit assistance, contract administration, seller responsibility for reporting, IOU s schedule for audits to be produced). This higher level of verification is not required under the Joint IOUs proposed interpretation. 9 Draft Resolution, pp Draft Resolution, p. 10 (requiring quarterly audits to verify monthly compliance).

6 - 6 - January 11, 2019 For both these legal and policy reasons, the Draft Resolution should be modified to recognize that existing Section (b) establishes annual fuel use requirements for months in which a generator does not opt out under Section (d). Further, the Draft Resolution should be modified, consistent with the statute, to require that Sellers be provided the option of monthly or annual feedstock reporting, which is different from creating options for monthly or annual compliance with annual fuel requirements. 11 In the annual reporting option, the facility can indicate it has no intention of opting out monthly and will continue to operate as it currently does with respect to feedstock requirements. In the monthly reporting option, the facility will only be required to comply with feedstock requirements if the seller does not opt out. This interpretation is consistent with both the intent of SB 901 (flexibility for biomass facilities) and SB 859 (instituting meaningful annual feedstock requirements). IV. The Commission Should Require Opt-Out Decisions to be Communicated by a Date Certain and Should Allow Modification of Time of Delivery ( TOD ) Factors to Prevent Gaming. The Joint IOUs request two clarifying changes to the Draft Resolution to ensure that SB 901 s changes are consistent with good public policy and can be reasonably administered. First, the Draft Resolution requires that "[t]he Seller shall have the right to opt out of its monthly mandated fuel or feedstock usage levels in any month if it provides written notice to the electrical corporation in the month of operation. 12 The Commission should establish a reasonable timeframe (for example, by the 10 th day of each month) in the Draft Resolution by which time the Seller should be required to indicate whether the Seller wishes to opt out of a month. This timeframe is needed to allow sufficient time for monthly invoice processing. Second, the Commission should modify the Draft Resolution to allow the IOUs to modify the TOD factors in existing and extended eligible contracts for all months to 1 to ensure that the monthly opt-out option granted by Section (d) is not gamed to maximize revenues. V. Reporting Should Be Consistent with Practices that Promote Accuracy and Efficiency. The Joint IOUs recommend several changes to the reporting requirements contained in the Draft Resolution to ensure that the reporting is both accurate and useful. First, the Draft Resolution requires that [t]he Seller shall submit monthly attestations to the IOU during the delivery month, specifying, among other things, whether the mandated fuel or feedstock usage levels were met. 13 The language requiring reporting during the delivery month is inconsistent with accurate reporting, and the Joint IOUs therefore recommend that the 11 Cal. Pub. Util. Code (d) ( The commission shall require an electrical corporation that has entered into a contract pursuant to subdivision (b), commission Resolution E-4770 (March 17, 2016), or commission Resolution E-4805 (October 13, 2016) to allow fuel or feedstock reporting requirements to be based on a monthly or annual basis.... ) (emphasis added). 12 Draft Resolution, p Draft Resolution, p. 9.

7 - 7 - January 11, 2019 attestations should be made after the end of the delivery month, by the 10th day of the subsequent month, so that the attestations can be fully accurate for the entire month. Second, the level of detail required in Fuel Attestations in the Draft Resolution are higher than currently required and are unnecessary to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements. Reporting of fuel use by category sub-type (i.e., Tier 1 vs. Tier 2 HHZ fuels) should be informational and not a requirement. The Draft Resolution states that [i]t is reasonable, to assist with program oversight and fuel use tracking, for the IOUs to collect fuel attestations from BioRAM sellers that delineate how much fuel comes from Tier 1 HHZs and Tier 2 HHZs, as currently defined by CALFIRE, and biomass fuels removed from fuel reduction operations exempt from timber harvesting plan requirements pursuant to subdivisions (a), (f), (j), and (k) of section 5485 of the Public Resources Code. 14 The Commission should allow the IOUs to request from Sellers this information but not require third-party verification of this new information. It is administratively burdensome to require sellers to collect and report this information, while the existing contract allows IOUs to request this information. There is no additional benefit to the generators or customers to this new requirement since pricing is not based on the category but whether HHZ (whether Tier 1 or 2) fuel is used. If verification is required, costs are likely to increase due to the need for a larger scope of work for third-party fuel verifier. Third, the Draft Resolution requires the IOUs to inform the Director of Energy Division by December 15 of each year by compliance letter which reporting option, monthly or annual, will be used by the IOU s contracted sellers for as long as those contracts remain operative. 15 This requirement is inconsistent with separate language in the Draft Resolution that [p]rior to the end of the calendar year, the seller must decide if it will stay on monthly reporting during the next calendar year, or switch to annual compliance and reporting. 16 The IOUs cannot inform Energy Division by December 15 of each year which reporting option will be used by the IOU s contracted sellers in the next calendar year if the contracted sellers do not have an obligation to report to the IOU on which option it will choose until the end of the calendar year. For this reason, the Joint IOUs recommend that the Commission change the date of the compliance letter that the IOUs must submit to January 15 of each year so that they will have information from the contracted sellers prior to the due date of the compliance letter. VI. Standards for IOU Verification of Feedstock Usage Reporting Should Be Reasonable and Well Defined by the Commission in the Draft Resolution. The Draft Resolution requires the IOUs to produce quarterly audits to verify that the contracting facilities on monthly compliance terms are meeting their monthly mandated fuel or feedstock usage levels and to provide information about their verification processes and findings to the Director of the Energy Division on request. 17 As explained above, the Joint IOUs disagree with the fundamental premise that SB 901 requires a monthly compliance option. Rather, to the extent a generator does not opt out of fuel use requirements in given months, it retains an annual compliance requirement pursuant to Section (b). Consistent with that understanding, IOU 14 Draft Resolution, p. 17 (Finding 4). 15 Draft Resolution, p Draft Resolution, p Draft Resolution, p. 10, 18.

8 - 8 - January 11, 2019 verification of monthly feedstock usage would be both administratively burdensome and would fail to provide customers value since compliance should be based on annual calculations. The Draft Resolution should be modified to remove the quarterly audit requirement. The Draft Resolution also states: [T]he IOUs are required to perform an annual audit to verify the amount of HHZ fuel that BioRAM facilities utilized during the calendar year. 18 This is an incorrect statement of current practices under the existing BioRAM program and contracts. While the IOUs generally have audit rights under their contracts, and they provide information to Energy Division pursuant to data requests on the fuel use at BioRAM facilities, the Joint IOUs are under no regulatory or contractual requirement to perform an independent, third-party audit to verify BioRAM generators reported use of fuels. Rather, the IOUs may accept a Seller s fuel use reports without an audit if doing so is prudent and reasonable under the circumstances. The Draft Resolution should be modified to correct its description of current practice. VII. The Revised Resolution Should Recognize that SB 901 Treats Non-BioRAM Contracts Differently from BioRAM Contracts. Section (d), added by SB 901, exclusively references existing BioRAM 1 and BioRAM 2 contracts. The Commission should recognize that the monthly opt-out provision applies solely to these BioRAM contracts. 19 The Commission should direct the IOUs to offer 5- year extensions to non-bioram contracts only if they are willing to adhere to the annual feedstock requirements set forth in Section (b), to accept an Event of Default if they are not able to achieve these feedstock requirements, and should confirm that these non-bioram extensions need not contain monthly opt-out options as provided in Section (d) for BioRAM contracts. VIII. The Commission Should Require the IOUs to Amend the BioRAM Contracts Consistent with the Recent TM NBC Decision to Require Semi-Annual Reporting on Compliance with Air Quality Requirements. The Commission recently made clear its intention that the Joint IOUs request and provide information to the Commission on air quality compliance at the BioRAM facilities. 20 In its Decision adopting cost allocation for BioRAM contracts, the Commission stated that it may not be reasonable to require ratepayers to pay for the [BioRAM] procurement if a [BioRAM] facility s operator fails to comply with contractual requirement, or obligations imposed by law or the Commission on IOUs to protect the public s safety and health, and the IOU counterparty is aware or should have been aware of that failure. 21 The Decision went on to specifically order the IOUs to collect information on whether or not a BioRAM facility operator complies with the facility s air pollution control requirements and to report that information to the Commission every six 18 Draft Resolution, p See Cal. Pub. Util. Code (d) ( The commission shall require an electrical corporation that has entered into a contract pursuant to subdivision (b), commission Resolution E-4770 (March 17, 2016), or commission Resolution E-4805 (October 13, 2016) to allow fuel or feedstock reporting requirements to be based on a monthly or annual basis.... ) (emphasis added). 20 D , pp (Ops 6-8). 21 Id., p. 19.

9 - 9 - January 11, 2019 months. 22 Finally, the Decision required the IOU to explain how any violations of air quality requirements were being resolved. 23 In order to conform the existing BioRAM contracts and any extensions to biomass contracts pursuant to Section 8388 to the Commission s concerns over air quality violations by BioRAM facilities articulated in the recent Commission Decision, the Draft Resolution should be modified to require the Joint IOUs to make the following modifications to the BioRAM contracts that will facilitate compliance with the reporting requirements placed on the IOUs and the termination of BioRAM contracts for air quality violations when it is reasonable to do so: Seller shall provide the IOUs with semi-annual reports in January and July providing evidence that the project is in compliance with all applicable air pollution and control requirements for the preceding 6 months. Seller shall notify Buyer of any air quality violation within 5 days of the issue date of the notification that a violation has occurred. If Seller is unable to cure within 60 days of an air quality violation, the IOUs have the right to terminate the contract. However, even if a counterparty cures within 60 days, if the counterparty has more than 3 air quality violations (even if they are cured) during the term of the PPA, the IOUs have the right to terminate the contract. If Seller violates air quality requirements and such violation is incapable of being cured and such violation is continuing, the IOUs have the right to terminate the contract. Adding these requirements to the biomass contracts at issue in the Draft Resolution will further the IOU s ability to manage their portfolios to protect the public s safety and health, consistent with D IX. The Draft Resolution Should Not Require the Joint IOUs to Update Their Most Recently Approved RPS Procurement Plans to Reflect Procurement Pursuant to SB The Draft Resolution requires each of the Joint IOUs to update its most recently approved RPS Procurement Plan to reflect procurement pursuant to SB 901 within 60 days of the Resolution. This requirement should be modified because it is administratively burdensome and is unnecessary. Historical practice has been that the IOUs file draft RPS Procurement Plans in the middle of the year and update their RNS positions quarterly. Given the relatively small volumes at issue with the BioRAM contracts and extensions, which are very unlikely to materially change any of the IOUs overall RNS, the Commission should allow the IOUs to modify their RPS Plans in the normal annual cycle and to incorporate the additional RPS credits into their RNS when producing the next quarterly update to that table. Requiring a special update to the RPS Plans for these small volumes places an undue burden on the IOUs and is unlikely to provide significantly changed or material new information to parties or the Commission. 22 Id., p Ibid. 24 Draft Resolution, p. 20.

10 January 11, 2019 X. To Prevent Confusion, the Commission Should Clarify the Eligible Sellers and Contract Terms in the Resolution. For purposes of clarity and to ensure that the resulting contracts can be approved by the Energy Division in a ministerial manner, the Joint IOUs recommend that the final Resolution adopted by the Commission contain attachments that list each of the eligible sellers that must be offered contract extensions pursuant to Section 8388 and that summarize each of the changes that must be made to the existing contracts (separating out those terms that must be changed only if an extension is executed pursuant to Section 8388). To aid in this effort, each of the IOUs is attaching to these comments a list of the contracts in its portfolio that it believes meets the eligibility requirement set forth in Section Likewise, while Finding of Fact No. 7, on p. 17 of the Draft Resolution is very clear as to changes to be to the BioRAM contracts, some language on p.11 requires clarification as to the form of contract to be used for the amendments to implement SB 901. Finding of Fact No.7, on p. 17, states: New or amended contracts executed pursuant to this Resolution that extend the contract term length must follow the feedstock requirements of BioRAM 2. However, the Draft Resolution, on p. 11, states that: In order to comply with this section, the IOUs must offer fiveyear contract extensions or new contract to eligible sellers that include the terms and conditions of BioRAM 2. SCE and SDG&E do not have Commission-adopted BioRAM 2 contracts and seeking review and approval of new BioRAM 2 contracts would unnecessarily extend the implementation of SB 901. As a result, the Joint IOUs request that the Commission clarify the p.11 sentence to conform it with Finding of Fact No. 7, as follows: In order to comply with this section, the IOUs must offer five-year contract extensions or new contracts to eligible sellers that include the terms and conditions of BioRAM 2 regarding feedstock requirements. This allows any IOU to modify Commission-adopted BioRAM 1 contracts to incorporate BioRAM 2 terms and conditions regarding feedstock requirements. Sincerely, /S/ Erik B. Jacobson Director Regulatory Relations Cc: Edward Randolph, Director, Energy Division Cheryl Lee, Energy Division James McGarry, Energy Division Parties to the Service List for R (RPS Implementation)

11 January 11, 2019 Attachment A: PG&E s Proposed List of Eligible Sellers Under Section 8388** Facility Name Counterparty City County Contract Capacity (MW) Expected Expiration Date Wadham Wadham Energy Limited Partnership Williams Colusa /31/2018* Woodland Biomass Woodland Biomass Power, LTD Woodland Yolo 25 2/29/2020 Burney Forest Products Burney Forest Products, A Joint Venture Burney Shasta 29 10/31/2022 Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Co, Inc Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Company Inc. Anderson Shasta 34 12/1/2022 * The date reflects the actual expiration date for the contract ** Thermal Energy Development Partnership, with a contract capacity of 21 MW, is not eligible for a contract extension per section 8388 but is eligible to receive amended contract language to comply with SB 901 for the remainder of the existing contract.

12 January 11, 2019 Attachment B: SCE s Proposed List of Eligible Sellers Under Section 8388* Contract Capacity (MW) Expected Expiration Date Facility Name Counterparty City County Pacific Ultrapower Pacific Ultrapower Chinese Station Chinese Station Jamestown Tuolumne 18 3/31/2022 Rio Bravo Rocklin Rio Bravo Rocklin Lincoln Placer /30/2022 * Rio Bravo Fresno, with a contract capacity of 24.3 MW, is not eligible for a contract extension per section 8388 but will require amended contract language to comply with SB 901 for the remainder of the existing contract

13 January 11, 2019 Attachment C: SDG&E s Proposed List of Eligible Sellers Under Section 8388 Facility Name Counterparty City County Contract Capacity (MW) Expected Expiration Date Honey Lake Power HL Power Company, LP Wendel Lassen 24 1/31/2022

14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have by mail, , or hand delivery this day served a true copy of Joint Utilities comments on on: 1) Edward Randolph, Director, Energy Division 2) Energy Division Tariff Unit 3) Cheryl Lee, Energy Division 4) James McGarry, Energy Division 5) Service Lists R /S/ Annie Ho Annie Ho PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Date: January 11, 2019