SCE-03 Rebuttal Testimony

1 Application No.: Exhibit No.: SCE-03 Witnesses: B. Anderson R. Behlihomji R. Garwacki K. Kan R. Thomas (U 338-E) Rebuttal Testimony OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Rosemead, CaliforniaJune 9, 2017 SCE-03 : Rebuttal Testimony of Southern California Edison Company Table Of Contents Section PageWitness -i- I.

2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ..1 R. Garwarcki II. Rebuttal TO ALTERNATE TOU PEAK PERIOD PROPOSALS ..3 A. Average Cost in Boundary Hours ..4 B. Net Load Curve Analysis ..6 C. Dead Band Tolerance Range Cost and Frequency D. TOU Period Stability ..9 E. Conclusions ..10 III. Rebuttal TO SEIA S TOU PERIOD Testimony ..12 A. Transmission System Marginal Costs ..12 R. Behlihomji 1. Failure to Bifurcate Peak versus Grid Costs ..13 2. Erroneous Use of Total Transmission Revenue Requirements ..15 3. Failure to Consider Established FERC 12-CP Precedent and Diversity ..19 4. Failure to Include the Impacts of Distributed Generation (DG) and Diversity.

3 20 5. Conclusion ..22 B. Seasonal Definitions ..26 K. Kan 1. Marginal Cost Analysis ..27 2. Use of Actual Load Data as Opposed to Maximum Daily Temperature Proxy ..28 C. Determination of Peak-Related Marginal Distribution Costs (PLRF Methodology) ..30 R. Behlihomji 1. Issue 1 Siting of DG ..30 SCE-03 : Rebuttal Testimony of Southern California Edison Company Table Of Contents (Continued) Section Page Witness -ii- 2.

4 Issue 2 Impacts of Load Reduction from Other DERs ..33 3. Issue 3 Hourly Allocation ..34 4. Issue 4 Use of 2024 PLRFs ..37 D. Marginal Generation Flex Capacity Costs Ramp Allocation ..38 E. Comparison of 2021 and 2024 Cost Profiles ..42 F. Elimination of the Proposed Super-Off-Peak Period ..44 K. Kan G. Discussion of SEIA s Other TOU Period 1. SEIA s Aggregation of Weekdays and Weekends Is Inappropriate ..44 2. SEIA s Proposed Summer Mid-Peak Periods Are Not Cost-Based and Fail to Consider Customer Understanding and Acceptance ..47 IV. Rebuttal TO ORA S TOU PERIOD R. Thomas A. Customer Bill Impacts.

5 48 V. Rebuttal TO AECA S AND CFBF S TOU PERIOD Testimony ..50 A. A&P Customer Responsiveness to TOU Periods ..50 B. Updated TOU Periods Must Be Mandatory ..52 VI. Rebuttal TO SBUA S TOU PERIOD Testimony ..54 A. Combination of the Summer On- and Mid-Peak K. Kan B. ME&O Efforts for Small Business Customers ..55 B. Anderson 1. SCE Already Utilizes Outside Agencies for Its ME&O SCE-03 : Rebuttal Testimony of Southern California Edison Company Table Of Contents (Continued) Section Page Witness -iii- 2.

6 Shadow Bills Have Limited Benefits Compared to the Costs ..56 3. Mandating Ongoing ME&O Efforts Based on Actual Small Business Customer Usage Changes is Not Reasonable ..57 C. SBUA s Other Clean Energy Proposals ..58 R. Thomas VII. Rebuttal TO PARTIES TOU PERIOD MITIGATION REQUESTS ..59 A. Extended Grandfathering on Legacy TOU Periods Should Be Rejected ..59 B. Indifference Payments to Mitigate the Risks Associated with Third-Party PPAs Should be VIII. RESPONSE TO CLECA/CMTA S TOU PERIOD AND DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM ALIGNMENT CONCERN ..62 IX. Rebuttal TO CALSEIA S AND SEIA S OPTION R CAP Testimony ..64 A.

7 Previous Option R Studies Did Indicate Cost-Shifting ..65 B. Updated Option R Cost-Shift Analysis Has Not Been Performed ..66 C. The Option R Cap is Unlikely to be Reached Prior to the Implementation of SCE s 2018 GRC Phase 2 ..67 D. Any Potential Modifications to the Option R Cap Should Be Litigated in SCE s 2018 GRC Phase 2 X. RESPONSE TO PARTIES Testimony REQUESTING THE CONSOLIDATION OF SCE s 2016 RDW AND 2018 GRC PHASE 2 PROCEEDINGS ..70 A. SCE s Updated Proposed Implementation Approach ..71 SCE-03 : Rebuttal Testimony of Southern California Edison Company Table Of Contents (Continued) Section Page Witness -iv- B.

8 Customer Service Re-Platform (CSRP) Impacts ..71 SCE-03 : Rebuttal Testimony of Southern California Edison Company List Of Tables Table Page -v- Table II-1 SCE Average Cost Summary of TOU Period Peak Proposal Boundary Hours ..5 Table II-2 Analysis of Top 20 and Top 100 Highest Cost Hours Under Various Peak Period Table III-3 Analysis of Monthly CPs from 2001 to 2015 ..14 Table III-4 Relative Proportion of FERC-Jurisdictional Capital Expenditure by Program (%)..16 Table III-5 Average Marginal Costs for HE17 HE21 ($/kWh) ..27 Table III-6 Distribution of CAISO and SCE Top 100 Annual Load Peak Days for Table III-7 DG Circuit Penetration by Planning Region (%).

9 31 Table III-8 PLRF Weighted Allocation Example ..36 Table III-9 Average Day Type Hourly Cost Comparison ($/MWh) ..45 Table V-10 Percentage of A&P Customers Annual Usage Served on TOU and Non-TOU Rates ..51 SCE-03 : Rebuttal Testimony of Southern California Edison Company List Of Figures Figure Page -vi- Figure II-1 TOU Period Proposal ..3 Figure II-2 Analysis of Alternate TOU Peak Period Proposals and 2024 Net Load Curve ..6 Figure III-3 Bifurcation of Transmission System Marginal Costs Between Grid and Peak Based on Monthly Peak Load ..15 Figure III-4 Forecast of Transmission System Capital Expenditure ($-Millions) by Program and SCE System Peak Load (MW).

10 17 Figure III-5 Historical Trend of Transmission Revenue Requirement ($-Millions), SCE RPS (%) and SCE System Peak Load (MW) ..18 Figure III-6 2024 Transmission System Costs Based on 12-CP ($/kW-hr) ..20 Figure III-7 Average Load (MW) by Hour for Vincent Substation AA Bank ..22 Figure III-8 Average Load (MW) by Hour for Windhub Substation AA Bank ..22 Figure III-9 2024 Average Total Marginal Cost including Transmission ($/kWh-hr) Summer Weekday ..24 Figure III-10 2024 Average Total Marginal Cost including Transmission ($/kWh-hr) Winter Weekday ..24 Figure III-11 2024 Average Total Marginal Cost including Transmission ($/kWh-hr) Summer Weekend.