24NC0330_RFP_Secondary_Solicitation.pdf

California Public Utilities Commission RFP Number 24NC0330

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Request for Proposal (RFP) – Secondary Number 24NC0330

For:

Integrated Resource Planning Technical Services

January 31, 2025

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) invites you to review and respond to this Solicitation. In submitting your response, you must comply with the instructions found herein.

This is an open solicitation for all private entities, universities or governmental agencies.

CPUC is seeking to hire a technical consultant to conduct modeling and to assist Energy Division staff with other resource planning tasks as described herein.

Before submitting a response to this solicitation, interested parties should read and review the entire solicitation including any attachments, all referenced web addresses, and any regulations, orders, and statutes cited.

Note that all agreements entered into with the State of California will include by reference General Terms and Conditions (GTC 4/2017) and Contractor Certification Clauses (CCC 4/2017) that may be viewed and downloaded at the following internet site:

https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/Page-Content/Office-of-Legal-Services-Resources-List- Folder/Standard-Contract-Language.

If you do not have Internet access, a hard copy can be provided by contacting the point of contact listed below. By submitting a proposal your firm agrees to the terms and conditions stated in this RFP and the proposed contract.

Any questions regarding the solicitation or terms and conditions of the proposed contract must be submitted by the deadline listed in the key action dates. Terms and conditions will not be negotiated after contract award.

Responses are due March 3, 2025 by 10:00AM Pacific Time.

CPUC Point of Contact:

Michelle Thibeaux-Smith michelle.thibeaux-smith@cpuc.ca.gov https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/Page-Content/Office-of-Legal-Services-Resources-List-Folder/Standard-Contract-Language https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/Page-Content/Office-of-Legal-Services-Resources-List-Folder/Standard-Contract-Language mailto:michelle.thibeaux-smith@cpuc.ca.gov

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SCOPE OF WORK AND CONTRACT TERMS

BACKGROUND

Figure 1: IRP Cycle

CPUC Responsibilities

EXHIBIT A — SCOPE OF WORK

STATEMENT OF WORK

Prime Contractor Responsibilities

TASKS AND DELIVERABLES

Deliverables

Deliverable 01: Work Plans

Deliverable 02: Progress Reports and Updates

Deliverable 03: Kickoff Meeting

Deliverable 04: CPUC Meetings

Deliverable 05: Stakeholder Workshops & Webinars

Deliverable 06: Updated Capacity Expansion Model and Inputs & Assumptions

Deliverable 07: Resource Potential, Land-Use, Transmission, and Busbar Mapping

Deliverable 08: IRP Scenarios and Other Analysis Design Frameworks

Deliverable 09: State and Commission Priority Analyses

Deliverable 10: Technical, Policy, and Program Research and Evaluations

Deliverable 11: Capacity Expansion Model Runs, Results Reports, and Preferred System Plan, Transmission Planning Process Modeling Support

Deliverable 12: Supporting Transmission and Interconnection Planning

Deliverable 13: Proposer-Defined Studies

Deliverable 14: Support Integrated Resource Planning Policies, Practices & Regulatory Oversight

Deliverable 15: Analytical and technical support for developing and/or refining RCPPP and IRP

Procurement Program implementation tools and programmatic process improvement

Deliverable 16: Unanticipated Tasks

Deliverable 17: Contract Closeout

Contract Term

Location

II. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

III. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

IV. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

V. PREFERENCE AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

VI. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROCESS

VII. AWARD AND CONTRACT EXECUTION

VIII. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 – SOLICITATION CHECKLIST

ATTACHMENT 2 – CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

ATTACHMENT 3 – REFERENCES SHEET

ATTACHMENT 4 – PAYEE DATA RECORD

ATTACHMENT 5 – PAYEE DATA RECORD SUPPLEMENT

ATTACHMENT 6 – CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION CLAUSES

ATTACHMENT 7 – DARFUR CONTRACTING ACT FORM

ATTACHMENT 8 – BIDDER DECLARATION FORM

ATTACHMENT 9 – DVBE DECLARATION FORM

ATTACHMENT 10 – COMMERCIALLY USEFUL FUNCTION CERTIFICATION

ATTACHMENT 11 – IRAN CONTRACTING ACT FORM

ATTACHMENT 12 – CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW CERTIFICATION

ATTACHMENT 13 – GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE REPORTING ... 92

ATTACHMENT 14 – COST SHEET

ATTACHMENT 15 – SAMPLE STANDARD AGREEMENT

ATTACHMENT 16 – EVALUATION & SCORING CRITERIA

ATTACHMENT 17 – TRANSITION MEMO

ATTACHMENT 18 – GLOSSARY OF TERMS

I. SCOPE OF WORK AND CONTRACT TERMS

BACKGROUND

In this Request for Proposal (RFP) - Secondary, the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC or Commission) staff solicits competitive bids for qualified bidders for a six-year contract to assist staff to implement and improve the Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process so that it can effectively contribute to the achievement of the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. A designated staff member from Energy Division will manage the Scope of Work and act as the CPUC Project Manager.

Public Utilities Code Sections 454.51 and 454.52, enacted as part of Senate Bill (SB) 350 (2015, DeLeón), as well as modifications to those sections added by SB 338 (2016, Skinner), Assembly Bill (AB) 759 (2017, Dahle), SB 846 (2022, Dodd), SB 1174 (2022, Hertzberg), and AB 1373 (2023, Garcia), direct the Commission to adopt a process, beginning in 2017, for each load-serving entity (LSE), as defined in Section 380, to file an integrated resource plan and a schedule for periodic updates to the plan.

In response to SB 350, the CPUC initiated its Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) Proceeding (R.16- 02-007) on February 11, 2016, to adopt an IRP process that meets the statutory requirements of SB

350. It then initiated an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) on May 7, 2020, as a continuation of that rulemaking, with R.20-20-003. The CPUC’s IRP process is designed to ensure that the electric sector is on track to help the State achieve its statewide 2050 GHG reduction target, at the least cost, while maintaining electric service reliability and meeting other State goals.

The CPUC’s IRP process is unique. IRP is typically the domain of a single, vertically integrated utility, but the CPUC’s IRP process covers multiple types of LSEs, large and small, with different service territories, resource portfolios, and planning and procurement practices. Energy resource planning in California also involves multiple state agencies—CPUC, California Energy Commission (CEC), and California Air Resources Board (CARB)—and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), each of which has distinct authority and/or tools at its disposal to influence regulatory policy and/or decision making. The state also uses a combination of markets and mandates to achieve its policy goals, meaning that the CPUC’s IRP process must balance the need to ensure regulated entities meet program requirements, while providing the LSEs sufficient flexibility to take advantage of low-cost solutions provided by the market but not identified in the IRP process.

With these unique circumstances in mind, the Commission adopted an iterative, multi-year IRP process in Decision (D.)18-02-018 that:

• divides responsibility between the CPUC and the entities it regulates;

• highlights the cost impacts of actions that address different state policies and goals; and

• facilitates a two-way information exchange with other planning activities at CARB, CEC, and the CAISO.

The high-level steps of the 2022-2023 IRP process are summarized below to provide bidders with important context into the full IRP process. Since its inception, the IRP process has changed and could continue to evolve in coming years. The IRP process may not always neatly fit within calendar or fiscal years. However, the overarching steps and objectives will likely remain largely the same.

Figure 1: IRP Cycle

CARB Establishes GHG Planning Targets: CARB, in coordination with the CPUC and CEC, establishes 2045 GHG emission reduction targets for the electric sector, and each LSE and publicly owned utility (IOU), for use in IRP. The planning targets may be revisited in subsequent cycles of

IRP.

CPUC Issues LSE Filing Requirements: CPUC develops and vets the assumptions to be used in IRP modeling; conducts modeling to identify optimal combinations of resources that achieve a specified GHG reduction target while maintaining reliability under different assumptions about the future;

identifies an optimal portfolio of resources, and issues Filing Requirements based on that analysis to encourage LSEs to procure towards that future.

LSEs Develop Plans: LSEs develop and file their own LSE Plans, which include each LSE’s preferred portfolio and recommended set of short-term actions, including any requested procurement authorizations. LSEs may be required to submit more than one portfolio to meet different requirements based on Commission direction.

CPUC Reviews LSE Plans: CPUC reviews all LSE Plans individually and then aggregates the LSE-preferred portfolios into a single system-wide portfolio of resources for evaluation for consistency with state goals, including GHG emissions reduction and reliability. If the aggregate portfolio and corresponding short-term actions demonstrate they are planning to meet their proportional share of the GHG targets as defined by CARB, are meeting their reliability standards, and have Narrative Templates that achieve at least adequate on the key section, the CPUC approves, or “certifies” in the case of community choice aggregators (CCAs),1 the individual LSE Plans.

1 According to Public Utilities Code Section 454.52(b)(3), a CCA’s plan shall be submitted to its governing board for approval and provided to the Commission for “certification.”

CPUC Adopts a “Preferred System Plan” (PSP): After aggregating all individual LSE integrated resource plans, the Commission does additional capacity expansion modeling to identify what additional resources the State should plan for to meet future GHG reduction goals while maintaining reliability. The Commission votes on the aggregate portfolio and corresponding short-term actions to serve as the “Preferred System Plan.” The Preferred System Plan could include a set of actions and activities necessary to implement the Preferred System Portfolio. The Preferred System Portfolio is also expected to serve as either the reliability base case portfolio or policy-driven portfolio in the CAISO Transmission Planning Process (TPP) if a resource or infrastructure need is identified.

Procurement and Policy Implementation: The CPUC determines whether to authorize new procurement, program funding, or tariff changes to meet the requirements of the Preferred System Plan. The CPUC’s IRP Proceeding is currently developing for Commission adoption a “Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program2” (RCPPP) proposal that would establish a consistent and forward-looking procurement program for all jurisdictional LSEs. The CPUC conducts in-house modeling, including production cost modeling using Strategic Energy Risk Valuation Model (SERVM) modeling platform, to validate the resource planning results.

The IRP process is designed to achieve the following objectives:

Helps the state minimize the cost of achieving SB 350 goals. The Preferred System represents a least-cost, optimal statewide solution to meet the state’s GHG reduction goals, satisfy reliability requirements, and achieve other state policy goals.

Facilitates LSE Plan preparation. LSE Filing Requirements are built with public data to the extent feasible and provides valuable information to the LSEs about the relative cost-effectiveness of resource additions and potential retirements across the state.

Provides information for future policy and planning decisions. The IRP Filing Requirements provide a guide for what LSEs need to demonstrate when they submit their individual integrated resource plans. These plans, and the CPUC’s Filing Requirements that guide these plans, can allow both the CPUC and LSEs to identify system-wide opportunities for joint investments needed to achieve SB 350 and SB 100 goals, such as for capital intensive, long-lead-time resources. It also allows for the results of choices made by individual LSEs to inform and potentially influence the Commission’s adopted PSP.

Directs LSEs toward the optimal resource mix without being overly prescriptive. The proposed process allows different LSEs across the state to choose from a common reference point the elements that best fit their load and resource portfolio. Rather than depending on specific procurement direction from the CPUC, LSEs have the flexibility to use their own models and prepare their own Plans accounting for their specific resource and program costs.

Creates a level playing field for all CPUC-jurisdictional LSEs. The process as implemented ensures that each entity can meet IRP requirements under a common set of guidelines but also acknowledges that different LSE types have different needs and requirements to fulfill.

2 The RCPPP Staff Options Paper that the CPUC released in September 2022 is available here: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/integrated-resource-plan-and-long-term-procurement-plan-irp-ltpp/procurement-program-staff-options-paper_09122022.pdf https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/integrated-resource-plan-and-long-term-procurement-plan-irp-ltpp/procurement-program-staff-options-paper_09122022.pdf https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/integrated-resource-plan-and-long-term-procurement-plan-irp-ltpp/procurement-program-staff-options-paper_09122022.pdf

On February 8, 2018, through D.18-02-018, the Commission adopted a two-year planning cycle for the Commission to conduct modeling and analysis, set greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets, and consider IRP filings from all LSEs. That Decision required that the filings by each LSE would be required to include at least one scenario that conforms to the Commission’s planning direction, while also presenting any LSE-preferred scenarios that may deviate from the Commission’s planning standards with appropriate justification. The Commission later amended the requirements for that cycle on February 10, 2020, through D.22-02-004, which changed some of the structure of the IRP cycle. Lastly, the Scoping Memo that came out in the IRP Proceeding (R.20-05-003) in April 2023 expanded the cycle to be completed in three years.

Beyond the commitments that D.18-02-018 made on an IRP cycle, that Decision further endorsed the need for technical consultants to support staff in the modeling and analytical work required in the IRP process. Specifically, meeting the state’s future GHG reduction goals while maintaining reliability and minimizing impacts on ratepayers will require further development and refinement of the analytical framework and tools that are being used for the IRP process. Subsequently, D.24-02- 047 affirmed the need for continued support by authorizing additional funds for future IRP cycles.

D.18-02-018 identified specific contracting activities to be undertaken by the Commission to provide technical support and consulting. The scope considered there is used as a foundation for the development of this RFP.

This RFP invites submittal of innovative proposals that will provide robust input to the CPUC IRP process.

CPUC Responsibilities

Provide access to business and technical documents as necessary for the Prime Contractor to complete the tasks identified in this Contract.

Contract Manager (CM) must:

• Solely approve all deliverables according to the following acceptance criteria;

• Provide a signed acceptance document for each CM approved deliverable to enable invoices to be processed for payment.

• Provide the rationale in writing within ten (10) business days of receipt of the deliverable, if a deliverable is not accepted, the CM shall

• Provide contact information for staff in all areas of CPUC involved in this project.

EXHIBIT A — SCOPE OF WORK

Statement of Work

Prime Contractor Responsibilities

The Prime Contractor will support administrative and technical execution of the research directed in the Statement of Work section. The Prime Contractor’s central responsibility will be running, updating, and maintaining the capacity expansion model needed to support the core functions of the

3 ALJ Scoping Ruling is available here: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M529/K525/529525977.PDF http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M209/K771/209771632.PDF https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M529/K525/529525977.PDF

IRP proceeding. Prime Contractor is expected to run either its own capacity expansion model or can operate, update, and maintain a capacity expansion model with internal staff. Proposer’s subcontracting capacity expansion modeling expertise to other vendors will not be considered.

Contractors with their own capacity expansion model will get a bonus in scoring. Prime Contractor will also be responsible for working in close coordination with the CPUC’s Energy Resource Modeling (ERM) team that runs the production cost model used to support IRP decision making, SERVM. Specifically, the Prime Contractor will be responsible for ensuring that their capacity expansion model can interface with SERVM.

The Prime Contractor’s team will primarily be focused on integrated resource planning related market research, evaluation, and infrastructure planning activities. The Prime Contractor will develop Research and Evaluation Plans for each area as described in the Scope of Work, including developing tools and methods necessary to carry out the work.

In addition, the Prime Contractor will serve as the primary point of contact to coordinate with each Prime Contractor for other Energy Division research, infrastructure planning activities, and utility led evaluation and other research and engage with stakeholders in public meetings and workshops to effectively communicate both the content and impacts of the work outlined in this Contract.

The Prime Contractor must demonstrate competence in the project management and technical aspects of integrated resource planning related research outlined in the Statement of Work.

Throughout the contract term, the Prime Contractor must maintain a team that has adequate time available and the necessary expertise to adequately cover all tasks outlined in this Scope of Work and meet the expectations set by staff.

The Prime Contractor shall assign a Project Manager to act as the point of contact for this contract who will oversee Prime Contractor’s team and ensure execution of the tasks and deliverables according to schedule. The Prime Contractor’s team must include one experienced senior project manager and at least one manager for each sector under this contract. The Prime Contractor’s Project Manager will be responsible for ensuring that the contract and related work are adequately staffed with a flexible bench of technical experts. The project team may propose a subcontractor for the Project Manager if subcontractor services are necessary to perform the Project Manager functions described in this Statement of Work.

The activities involved in implementing the tasks include, but are not limited to:

1. Entering into contractual agreements with subcontractors, as needed, to perform all or part of the work described in each task;

2. Acquiring data needed to perform the task from program administrators, implementers, and/or other sources, including coordinating with subcontractors using the same data or sample or producing the data as an interim output;

3. Coordinating and managing each project team, including:

a. Assigning activities to subcontractors and internal staff;

b. Establishing and monitoring project schedules collaboratively with staff and ensuring assigned work is being completed as expected;

c. In the event assigned work is not completed as expected, or the assigned work is no longer relevant, it is your responsibility to communicate with staff. The Prime Contractor shall ensure that any unit based work or other partially completed tasks are accounted for and are billed at the hourly rates as outlined in this RFP.

4. Reviewing the work product of internal staff and subcontractors to ensure conformance with the task and deliverable specifications;

5. Reviewing all subcontractor invoices to ensure that they are accurate and reasonable and preparing aggregated invoices for the CM;

6. Maintaining lines of communication with the CPUC Project Managers throughout the course of the implementation in accordance with the standards specified by the CPUC Project Managers;

7. Finalizing work products in accordance with the work plan and to the satisfaction of the EDPM including:

a. Fulfilling all internal and external vetting and review processes;

b. Preparing interim or final written reports and summaries;

c. Responding to comments and corrections for the final product;

d. Submitting data sets as prescribed by staff; and

e. Presenting findings as needed.

8. Interfacing with other agencies

9. (example below) – you may have no interfacing agency restrictions.

To support the deadlines established for the Funding Cycles, other CPUC-led processes, and California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) led processes that depend on the work products of this contract, the Prime Contractor must complete work products to meet CPUC, CARB and CEC-set deadlines. This will require integrated project management and coordination between the various CPUC-led work products and CEC-led work products. Work products and due dates for certain deliverables are to be determined (TBD) and will be confirmed as agreed upon over the course of the contract.

Deliverables must be in the format specified in the Scope of Work.

No work will be performed under the Prime Contract without prior approval by the EDPM. Due dates may be changed at the discretion of the EDPM. This Contract will be initiated with the completion of Deliverable 01: Work Plans, which will guide the on-going administrative requirements of the contract.

The Prime Contractor will be responsible for the execution of staff-led research outlined in the IRP Technical Services contract.

The main activities required under this RFP to meet contract objectives include the following:

• Capacity Expansion Modeling,

• Research Planning,

• Stakeholder Engagement,

• Program Reporting,

• Integrated Resource Planning,

• Program Evaluation, and

• Project Management

The Contract Representatives during the term of this Agreement:

State Agency: Public Utilities Commission Prime Contractor:

Section/Unit:

Energy Division/Integrated Resource Planning

Name: Aime Ryals Name:

Phone: (415) 703-2253 (ext. 5-2253) Phone:

Email: aime.ryals@cpuc.ca.gov Email:

Direct all Administrative inquiries to:

State Agency: Public Utilities Commission Prime Contractor:

Section/Unit:

Energy Division/Integrated Resource Planning

Attention: Christina Pelliccio Name:

Phone: (415)703-1900 (ext. 5-1900) Phone:

Email: christina.pelliccio@cpuc.ca.gov Email:

The Prime Contractor shall notify the CM or his/her designee(s) within five (5) working days of a change in the Prime Contractor’s Project Manager. The role of the Project Manager is to manage all contractual obligations associated with this Agreement. The Project Manager also acts as the single point of contact and is responsible for resource coordination, issues resolution and issues escalation.

The Prime Contractor will perform the tasks under the following deliverables as determined to be necessary by staff and the EDPM:

Tasks and Deliverables

Deliverables The Proposer shall develop for proposal submission a comprehensive Proposal Work Plan that includes a work plan for each deliverable and describes key milestones and step-by-step account to meet the requirements of each and every deliverable. In addition, the Proposer’s Work Plan timeline shall be based on the estimated due date provided for each deliverable. Note that the deliverable due dates in this RFP are not final and are subject to change upon contract award by mutual written agreement between the Commission and the Prime Contractor.

The Proposer is responsible for defining the specific details and explaining how they would uniquely fulfill each deliverable which requires a narrative, as indicated in the deliverable descriptions.

The Proposer must submit a detailed narrative of the Deliverables 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 to demonstrate the Proposer’s understanding of and ability to meet the Commission’s needs as specified in this solicitation. Note that a simple reiteration of the description contained within this solicitation will not be considered. Points will be awarded per the guidelines provided herein and in Attachment: Evaluation and Scoring Criteria. These narratives may be further developed by the selected Proposer to produce Deliverable 01: Work Plans.

The narrative for each deliverable shall include:

• A high-level summary of the goals and objectives that the deliverable will accomplish;

• A detailed description of the approach to completing the deliverable, including the scope of the deliverable with a clear connection to the goal, the strategy as to how to complete the deliverable with outlined and tangible tasks and activities, specific mailto:aime.ryals@cpuc.ca.gov mailto:christina.pelliccio@cpuc.ca.gov components/events included in the deliverable along with a corresponding schedule, and benchmarks and standards for evaluation; and

• An assessment of key risks, challenges, or barriers to completion of proposed deliverable, especially regarding adapting to California policy and the changing regulatory environment.

All deliverables will be subject to review and approval by staff.

Through both the deliverables narrative and Proposal Workplan, the Proposer’s overall approach for all deliverables shall reflect the following:

• An approach to execute project oversight and the plan to coordinate with subcontractors (if applicable) to ensure success of all deliverables. The approach should include how the risk of scope changes would be managed.

• Identification of specific interdependency and interaction points with the Commission and between deliverables. It is not sufficient to simply acknowledge the interaction points. The proposer must clearly articulate how the interaction points will be managed and must address how risks for meeting Commission specific deadlines and Commission needs will be mitigated. The proposer should address and incorporate interdependencies with other sections in the CPUC Energy Division, as well as other planning organizations (CEC, CARB, CAISO), specifying how the integration of planning data will be completed in an accurate and efficient manner.

• An approach to addressing all identified deliverable submission requirements for all deliverables under this RFP, such as its readability to a non-technical audience, copy-editing needs, and peer review incorporation; and how the reports will be produced in a format easily accessible to the public, including models utilized in all tasks.

• Demonstration of knowledge of Commission processes and proceedings as well as an understanding of energy resource planning and procurement topics and issues, including those related to renewable resources, thermal energy resources, electricity demand and load modifiers, grid integration issues, distributed energy resources (DERs), transmission and distribution, and system and local reliability.

• Demonstration in the Proposer’s narrative of the Proposer’s approach for managing evolving research needs such as new state policy objectives, changes in Commission directions in IRP or other proceedings including but not limited to Resource Adequacy (RA); Electrification; Distributed Energy Resources (DERs), such as Energy Efficiency (EE), Demand Response (DR), Distributed Generation (DG);

Energy Storage distribution planning, resource retention and retirement; and any alignment between planning and procurement processes.

Integrated Resource Planning Cycle Schedule Each Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) cycle takes about three years to complete from start to finish. For the remainder of this document, we refer to four distinct phases of each IRP cycle, referred to as Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Phase 1 is a preparatory phase that allows staff to prepare the modeling work needed for the subsequent phases. Phase 2 is for LSE Plan Development & Review. Phase 3 constitutes Preferred System Plan (PSP) and Transmission Planning Process (TPP) Portfolio Development. Lastly, Phase 4 is the Procurement, Policy Implementation, and Evaluation Phase. Procurement allocated to jurisdictional LSEs through the Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program (RCPPP) would likely occur in this phase. The main thrust of an IRP cycle is to develop and adopt a Preferred System Plan (PSP), and these Phases are intended to encompass the suite of actions that are needed to deliver a PSP work product.

However, the Commission also develops and transmits TPP portfolios to the CAISO annually and may also engage in parallel work to make need determinations for procurement of various types.

2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031

2025-26

TPP

P1 &

P3 TPP

only

TPP

Delivered to

CAISO

2024-26

IRP

Cycle P1& P2 P3 P4

2026-27

TPP

P1 & P3 TPP only

TPP

Delivered

2027-28

P1 &

P3 TPP

only

TPP

Delivered

2027-28

Cycle P1 & P2 P3 P4

2028-29 only

TPP

Delivered

2029-30 only

TPP

Delivered

2029-30

Cycle P1 & P2 P3 P4

Phase 1: Preparatory Work Set scenarios to be studied in PSP and/or TPP cycle

• For a PSP cycle: Conduct modeling to determine reliability, GHG – in line with CARB Scoping Plan - and other filing requirements (FRs) that LSE will need to demonstrate they have met when they file individual integrated resource plans as a part of a PSP cycle. For a PSP cycle, develop integrated resource plan filing template(s) and materials for LSEs

• Develop Inputs & Assumptions and solicit stakeholder feedback

• Issue FR guidance on narrative calculator templates, resource data template (RDT), and Clean System Power (CSP) tool

Phase 2: LSE Plan Development & Review

Corresponds with the first year of the IRP cycle. Exact timing will vary and may not align with the calendar year or the fiscal year but rather with the proceeding timeline. Typically, Phase 2 will include the following activities:

• Evaluate integrated resource plan filings by individual LSEs

• Review and aggregate LSE Plans

• Analyze effectiveness and compliance of LSE plans

Phase 3: PSP + TPP Portfolio Development Exact timing will vary and may not align with the calendar year or the fiscal year but rather with the proceeding timeline. Typically, Phase 3 will include the following activities:

• Develop PSP and TPP portfolio(s)

• Conduct sensitivity analyses on different portfolios

Phase 4: Procurement, Policy Implementation, and Evaluation This stage of the PSP cycling includes a look back at previously adopted PSP portfolios and could include ordering procurement based on procurement need identified through the PSP development process. Activities could include:

• Additional modeling analysis work for potential procurement action, especially in support of the implementation of the RCPPP that the Commission is seeking to adopt

• Ground-truthing modeled emissions and generation results (previously adopted portfolio)

• Benchmarking progress toward achieving adopted portfolio (previously adopted portfolio)

Deliverable 01: Work Plans

Duration: 1 Month Work Products: Work Plans

Repetition: Annual & Before each project kick-off

Due Date: TBD

Narrative: Not Required

The Prime Contractor must develop a detailed Work Plan for each deliverable and must additionally develop a narrative for Deliverables 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 describing the innovative approach the Prime Contractor will take to complete those seven specific deliverables.

Each Work Plan under Deliverable 01 must include:

• A statement of the problem and key issues that each deliverable will address;

• A detailed description of the Prime Contractor’s approach and methodology for each specific deliverable;

• A list of major activities, tasks and sub-tasks, and milestones for each deliverable

• A timeline for completion of each task and a schedule for both one-time and recurring activities;

• A list of resources and personnel necessary for each deliverable;

• A description of how communications regarding the work will occur and who will be included;

• The relevant skills needed to perform the work, and the skills and experience of key personnel who will work on each deliverable; and

• A detailed budget for each deliverable with estimates broken down by task and activity.

Work Plans may include additional related activities and information upon request of staff.

Work Plans should support the Prime Contractor to manage the project and communications with staff. To be successful Work Plans will likely need to state how the Prime Contractor will work with staff to describe potential barriers and opportunities to providing scheduled results.

The Prime Contractor must submit each of the final drafts of the Work Plans requested to staff as directed by the Contract Manager or his/her designee(s). All Work Plans should be reviewed with staff annually and updated to reflect evolving circumstances. If an EDPM determines that any Work Plans need to be updated in the interim, the Prime Contractor must work with staff to update the Work Plans accordingly.

Deliverable 02: Progress Reports and Updates

Duration: Length of Contract Work Products: Various

Repetition: Yes Due Date: Ongoing

The Prime Contractor will be responsible for interim progress updates and reporting milestones as negotiated with the appropriate EDPM. Required Progress Reports and updates will include the following:

Monthly Invoicing and Payments The Prime Contractor will abide by all Commission-required policies and procedures related to invoicing and payment. See Exhibit B for Budget Detail and Payment Provisions. The Prime Contractor will coordinate with the EPDM to establish an appropriate deliverable and budget tracking system.

Subcontractor Records and Other Government Reporting Requirements The Prime Contractor will be responsible for collecting and retaining all subcontractor records associated with the scope of work and government reporting requirements including but not limited to Small Business and DVBE reports, progress reports, all subcontractor work products, and presentations.

Progress Reports The Prime Contractor will provide monthly progress reports to staff and/or other groups at the discretion of the EDPM, that may entail work activities, progress, work product deliverables, budget tracking, or other information upon request. The Prime Contractor will coordinate with the EPDM to establish an appropriate format for these reports.

Quarterly Project Disclosure Report The Prime Contractor will provide quarterly project disclosure reports to the EDPM covering any current or potential projects to manage and prevent conflicts of interest. These reports should include the client title, period of performance, estimated budget bracket, and a brief description of the work. The Prime Contractor will coordinate with the EPDM to establish an appropriate format for this report.

List of Expected Deliverables:

• Monthly invoices,

• Monthly Progress Reports

• Subcontractor Records and other Government Reporting Requirements, o Ad Hoc Reports: Providing ad hoc or regularly scheduled contract and sub-task level management and budgetary reports and data to staff as requested by the appropriate EDPMs and utilizing tracking systems.

The Prime Contractor will coordinate with the EPDM to establish an appropriate format for these deliverables.

Deliverable 03: Kickoff Meeting

Duration: 1 Day Work Products: Presentation

Repetition: None Due Date: TBD

Upon execution of the contract, a kickoff meeting will be convened for staff and the Prime Contractor’s project management team. The purpose of the kickoff meeting is to orient the Prime Contractor’s project management team to the administrative and technical expectations of the EDPM, and initiate discussion of prioritization of tasks.

This includes:

• Meeting with the EDPM and other staff to affirm administrative and technical expectations, communication protocols, objectives for the contract, and initiate discussion of prioritization of tasks, and;

• Preparing and sharing a slide deck in advance of the kickoff meeting and presenting an overview of the Proposal Work Plan to staff.

Deliverable 04: CPUC Meetings

Duration: Length of Contract Work Products: Meeting

Repetition: Variable Due Date: Ongoing

The Contractor will coordinate and attend project coordination group meetings with Commission staff and other parties on an ad hoc basis or regular schedule:

• Weekly or Bi-Weekly IRP/Consultant contract check-in calls to discuss work in progress and upcoming work, will be conducted at thirty (30) minutes each, not to exceed twenty-six (26) trackable call hours annually and;

• Regular check-ins and ad hoc calls and meetings to discuss specific projects and deliverables for modeling, I&A, and reliability will not exceed a total of fifty-two (52) trackable hours annually. All other calls and meetings covering other areas not outlined above will not exceed twenty-six (26) trackable hours annually.

Since many calls/meetings are likely to require the attendance of multiple contractor staff, the above-mentioned hourly amounts are not person-hours, but rather meeting hours. Each Contractor should cost out each meeting appropriately to cover the cost of the necessary attendees.

The purpose of these meetings is to provide a venue to discuss the status of sub-tasks across the various work tracks with Commission staff and stakeholders; discuss and vet methodological or data issues; strategize for coordination between agencies; and resolve administrative, invoicing, and reporting matters concerning the contract.

Deliverable 04 pertains only to meetings at which CPUC staff are present, some of which may also include participation from stakeholders. Specifically, it applies to all meetings that are required for the completion of Deliverables 06 through 17. However, Deliverable 04 does not include the stakeholder workshops and webinars described in Deliverable 05, nor does it cover any calls or meetings held between the Prime Contractor, subcontractors, and other individuals or organizations, without CPUC staff present. Those meetings should be included under the work for Deliverables 06 through 17.

Finally, the Contractor may need to support staff on internal briefings to decision-makers at key stages of the IRP process and to present results.

Deliverable 05: Stakeholder Workshops & Webinars

Duration: Length of Contract Work Products: Presentation

Repetition: Variable Due Date: Ongoing

The Contractor will participate in a maximum of 4 public stakeholder engagement activities each year, during which they must be able to explain their methods, approaches, and results to an audience of both technical and non-technical individuals. These meetings serve as an opportunity to solicit formal or informal comments from stakeholders. Public engagements vary in length and complexity and may include day long in-person all party meetings or workshops, two-hour webinars, conference calls, or in-person meetings of various durations. CPUC Staff shall determine the nature and duration of the public engagement, as well as the agenda. Bidders should expect four (4) half- or day-long in-person or virtual workshops annually covering specific projects and deliverables such as I&A, PSP and TPP portfolios, RCPPP, and/or busbar mapping. The Proposer shall provide pricing for various types of engagements. Responsibilities will include:

• Presenting at public meetings and workshops either at the CPUC San Francisco offices or virtually; including periodic Modeling Advisory Group (MAG) webinars and in-person workshops associated with Inputs and Assumptions, the Proposed System Plan, the Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program, or other topics as CPUC staff discretion;

• Addressing issues that members of the public raise at the stakeholder workshops with specific documentation of how stakeholder comments have been considered or addressed;

• Managing written and oral communication, including public briefing materials, summarizing work products to decision-makers and stakeholders, as requested by Commission staff;

• Explaining ongoing studies and upcoming reports, as well as results and findings upon study completion.

Background: The Commission values transparency and stakeholder input and has regularly provided opportunities for stakeholder participation throughout the IRP process (e.g., workshops all-party meetings, and MAG webinars). For reference purposes, Proposers can visit the IRP Events and Materials page4 to see materials developed for past stakeholder engagements, including workshops and webinars. MAG Webinars serve as an important platform for stakeholders to provide input on modeling methodology utilized in the IRP process, resulting in continuous improvement of the IRP modeling. IRP Staff plan to continue to host regular MAG webinars in future IRP cycles during which important modeling and other technical issues will be discussed with stakeholders.

Deliverable 06: Updated Capacity Expansion Model and Inputs & Assumptions

Duration: Length of contract Work Products: Data, Model, I&A Documents, and Report

Repetition: Phases 1-4 Due Date: Various throughout IRP cycle Narrative: Required

The role of the Prime Contractor will be to maintain, update, use, and/or replace the capacity expansion model used in the IRP proceeding. This includes a comprehensive update in Phase 1 of an IRP cycle and needed for Phase 2 of an IRP cycle, and other updates necessary during Phase 2 (LSE plan development & review) development and Phase 3 (portfolio development for PSP and TPP). Bidders should take into consideration the IRP cycle when completing the cost sheet and should also consider other analysis or modeling that may be needed outside of the regular cadence of an IRP cycle, such as procurement need determinations. The capacity expansion model must be publicly available at no cost, have a readily accessible user-interface, and be consistent with public code requirements for any modeling tools used by the Commission. Currently, Integrated Resource Planning uses the Renewable Integration Solutions model (RESOLVE) as its capacity expansion model. The Prime Contractor will need to be able to work with RESOLVE unless and until the CPUC chooses to and is able to transition to a new model, following standard procedures, taking into consideration the IRP cycle. The RESOLVE User Interface and codebase are both publicly available and the Prime Contractor will have access to both. The work to update the capacity expansion model inputs and assumptions and to improve the functionality of the model can begin a year in advance of the formal start of an IRP cycle and continues throughout the cycle as needed.

Additionally, the Prime Contractor will need to work with the Commission’s production cost model, SERVM, to align inputs and assumptions and differences between the two models.

RESOLVE can optimize for one forcing function, cost minimization, while meeting a set GHG emissions target and reliability standards over a long-term planning horizon. Any capacity expansion models used for IRP in the future will require similar optimization capabilities. Staff need to ensure that the data that drives the IRP resource selection optimization is regularly refreshed and is aligned with the Commission’s production cost modeling model, SERVM. The Prime Contractor must have a comprehensive understanding of the capacity expansion model currently utilized in the IRP proceeding as well as the skillset to improve the capacity expansion model functionality to accurately reflect evolving policies and markets.

4 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=6442451195

This deliverable will require the Prime Contractor to produce the final work products:

• Review and update data used in capacity expansion model and document those updates via a PowerPoint slide deck summary

• Improve capacity expansion model functionality and document those updates via a PowerPoint slide deck summary

• Develop an Inputs & Assumptions (I&A) Package in the forms of a written Word document and PowerPoint slides for stakeholder workshops

• Produce training materials in the form of PowerPoint slides for internal and external stakeholders on capacity expansion modeling and IRP--Planning Track concepts

These work products and associated tasks are further described below. The Proposer must propose a logical and effective approach for producing each of the three items.

I. Review and update data used in the capacity expansion model

The Prime Contractor will be responsible for:

• Enhancing data quality and granularity where appropriate to allow for the exploration of analytical enhancements not included in prior IRP cycles;

• Development of publicly available models that produce inputs necessary for the capacity expansion model;

o For example, the Pro Forma Financial Model5 is a discounted cash flow model used to calculate the levelized cost of different candidate resources modeled in

RESOLVE.

• This could also include, but not be limited to, modeling updates needed for resource accreditation, which could be marginal or average effective load carrying capabilities (ELCCs), or other.

• Inputs for nascent and emerging technologies may also be needed, including for hydrogen and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) resources.

• Reconciliation of modeling baselines used between models used in the IRP process.

Currently, this is the modeling baseline used in RESOLVE and the one used in SERVM.

Prime Contractor will be responsible for working with CPUC’s ERM team.

• Coordination with external agencies and other organizations including CEC, CAISO, CARB, and others to coordinate on inputs needed for IRP modeling. This work will include, but is not limited to the following:

o Coordinate with the CEC on incorporating data from the Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR),6 which provides electric demand and fuel price forecasts, into the IRP capacity expansion model.

o Coordinate with CARB and CEC staff regarding updates to GHG planning targets/ranges for the electric sector and for CPUC-jurisdictional LSEs, as well as related issues such as improving alignment between various GHG accounting methodologies used by the agencies and within the IRP process.

5 Please refer to the 2023 Final Inputs & Assumptions for more information on the Pro Forma Financial Model that produces LCOE values then used by RESOLVE in the IRP proceeding. Available at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/integrated-resource-plan-and-long-term-procurement-plan-irp-ltpp/2023-irp-cycle-events-and-materials/inputs-assumptions-2022-2023_final_document_10052023.pdf 6 Most recent version available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2024-integrated-energy-policy-report-update https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/integrated-resource-plan-and-long-term-procurement-plan-irp-ltpp/2023-irp-cycle-events-and-materials/inputs-assumptions-2022-2023_final_document_10052023.pdf https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/integrated-resource-plan-and-long-term-procurement-plan-irp-ltpp/2023-irp-cycle-events-and-materials/inputs-assumptions-2022-2023_final_document_10052023.pdf https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2024-integrated-energy-policy-report-update o Coordinate with CAISO on incorporating transmission planning datasets, including those that lay out the generating facilities and transmission topology as well as CAISO Local Capacity Requirements (LCR) results, into the IRP capacity expansion model.

o Coordinate with CAISO and CPUC staff on developing any IRP data portfolios properly formatted for the CAISO planning processes, including the Transmission Planning Process (TPP).

• Assist with the Energy Divisions participation in the CAISO’s Transmission Planning Process, and review and incorporate data from that process as needed. This could also require that the Prime Contractor understand and potentially evaluate CAISO power flow analyses. The Prime Contractor will be responsible for assisting staff in evaluating the following: These data could include:

o CAISO Transmission Planning Process Study Plan;

o CAISO Transmission Planning Process Reliability Results;

o CAISO Transmission Planning Process Policy and Economic Assessment;

o CAISO Transmission Planning Process Draft Plan

• Provide technical assistance to staff in support of CPUC participation in interregional transmission coordination events. This includes review of power point presentations prior to meetings, identification of key issues relevant to IRP, and coordination on any materials submitted by the CPUC as a stakeholder of the interregional transmission coordination process.

• Coordinate with organizations and agencies in neighboring states to research and assist in the translation or production of forecasts of regional electricity systems energy resources and analyze their interaction with and impact on California resource planning.

• Coordinate under CPUC direction with CEC, CARB, and other relevant organizations and stakeholders on issues related to electricity planning, transportation, and building electrification.

• Coordinate under CPUC direction with CEC, CARB, and other relevant organizations on statewide reports, input and assumptions evaluation, results analysis, and others.