A scoping memo has been issued by assigned Commissioner Peterman for the March 30 SCE application A.17-03-020 that sought approval from the Commission to recover the costs associated with the solicitation, site assessment, and construction of four SCE-owned energy storage projects. SCE procured two projects from Tesla Motors, Inc. through its Aliso Canyon Energy Storage (“ACES”) RFP. The utility conducted bilateral negotiations with General Electric-Current to procure the other two projects. All of the Projects became operational on December 30, 2016. As background, Resolution E-4971 further authorized SCE to seek approval and obtain cost recovery treatment, Energy Storage credit, and LCR credit for any contracts resulting from the ACES RFP. The Resolution also found that, because any procurement to alleviate reliability risks associated with the shutdown of Aliso Canyon will benefit all customers connected to the grid, all customers must then bear the costs of the contracts. Intervenor Testimony is due August 15.
Reasonableness of Costs
1. Are the costs associated with the Tesla and GE projects reasonable?
a. Should the Commission approve costs incurred in the development of viable sites for location utility-owned storage, including unsuccessful site labor costs?
Adherence to Mandates, Decisions and Statues
2. Are the Tesla and GE projects consistent with the parameters and conditions of Resolution E-4791, including the fact that the projects were procured as a result of the Aliso Canyon well failure?
3. Are the Tesla and GE projects consistent with the statutory requirements set forth in P.U. Code § 2385 et seq. and the Energy Storage Framework adopted in D.13-10-040?
a. Do the projects count towards the outstanding portion of SCE’s energy storage targets?
4. Are the Tesla and GE projects consistent with D.13-02-015 and D.14-03-003, and if so, should these projects qualify for LCR credits?
Cost Allocation and Ratemaking
5. Should the projects be approved using the Cost Allocation
a. Are the Tesla projects consistent with the parameters of the CAM established in D.15-11-041?
b. Should the Commission approve SCE’s proposed alternate CAM recovery methodology for CAM-eligible costs associated with the GE project?
6. Is SCE’s proposed ratemaking methodology reasonable?
7. Has SCE taken the appropriate measures to comply with all safety regulations and provision to ensure safe operation of the Tesla and GE projects?