A2405020

Key events and submissions in the Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc. (BVES) solar and battery project proceeding (A.24-05-020) include:

- May 17, 2024: BVES filed the application for approval of the solar and battery projects. The application was noticed on the Daily Calendar the same day 1, 2.
- June 20, 2024: The CPUC issued Resolution ALJ 176-3547, preliminarily categorizing the proceeding as ratesetting 3.
- June 21 and June 28, 2024: Protest deadlines (originally June 21, then June 28 per proposed schedule) 1.
- July 1 and July 8, 2024: Response to protest deadlines (originally July 1, then July 8 per proposed schedule) 1.
- November 14, 2024: A virtual prehearing conference was held to discuss issues of scope, schedule, need for hearing, and other procedural matters 4, 4.
- February 24, 2025: The assigned commissioner issued a Scoping Memo and Ruling setting forth the proceeding’s scope, schedule, and confirming the need for possible evidentiary hearing 2, 2.
- April/May 2025: Opening briefs are scheduled to be filed 2.
- June 2025: Reply briefs are scheduled to be filed 2.
- No later than 90 days after submission: A proposed decision is expected 2.
- No earlier than 30 days after mailing of the proposed decision: A final Commission decision is expected 2.

If evidentiary hearings are required, further deadlines will be set after the close of hearings. The proceeding is required to be resolved within 18 months as per Public Utilities Code Section 1701.5 2.

This docket concerns the application by Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc. (BVES) to acquire, own, and operate the Bear Valley Solar Energy and Battery Storage Projects in San Bernardino County, California. BVES seeks a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) and authorization for ratemaking to recover the capital investment and operating expenses associated with these projects 1, 2.

Key project details:
- The solar project is a standalone 5 MW AC / 6.10 MW DC solar photovoltaic facility using bifacial modules, single-axis tracking, and Chint Power Systems inverters. It will be developed by EDF Renewables and sited at 2151 Erwin Ranch Road, Big Bear City, on approximately 21 acres 1.
- The battery project is intended to provide energy storage to complement the solar facility, with goals including reliability enhancement, peak load management, and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction 3.

Major issues addressed:
- BVES claims the projects will provide energy cost savings by reducing reliance on energy purchases (forgoing 14,044 MWh), improve system reliability, and help meet state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) obligations through the generation of PCC1 renewable energy certificates (RECs) 2, 1.
- The Public Advocates Office (Cal Advocates) questions the accuracy of BVES’s reliability and GHG benefit estimates, recommending that approval only be granted for the combined solar and battery projects if certain cost caps and conditions are imposed to protect ratepayers 3.
- The proceeding is categorized as ratesetting and includes affordability metrics to assess bill impacts on BVES customers under current and proposed rates for 2025–2027 1, 4.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is evaluating the necessity, benefits, costs, and rate impacts of the proposed projects, as well as appropriate conditions for approval.

The main stakeholders in this docket are:

- Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc. (BVES): The applicant seeking approval to acquire, own, and operate the Bear Valley solar energy and battery storage projects, and to authorize ratemaking for associated capital investment and operating expenses. BVES is in favor of its own proposals 1, 2.

- California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC): The regulatory body that will review and decide on the application. The CPUC acts as the decision-maker and does not take a position for or against the proposals in the excerpts provided.

- Cal Advocates (Public Advocates Office): An independent office within the CPUC that represents ratepayer interests. Cal Advocates is actively participating in the review, is not opposed to the inclusion of additional issues in the scope, and recommends a thorough evaluation of whether the projects satisfy all requirements under Public Utilities Code Section 399.14. Cal Advocates expresses preliminary concerns about the eligibility of the battery project for RPS certification, implying potential opposition or at least a need for clarification and further review before supporting the battery project proposal 3, 3.

- Intervening parties (not specifically named in the excerpts): These may include other stakeholders such as ratepayer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, or industry participants who are entitled to participate, submit comments, or request evidentiary hearings. No specific positions are detailed for any such parties in the provided excerpts.

Summary of positions:
- BVES: In favor of both the solar and battery storage project approvals.
- Cal Advocates: Supports a comprehensive review; preliminarily questions whether the battery project meets RPS eligibility, but has not taken a final position against the proposals and is still reviewing them.
- CPUC: Neutral, as it is the adjudicating entity.
- Other possible intervenors: Not specified in the provided excerpts 3, 3.

The docket identifies two main areas of growth: the Bear Valley Solar Project and the Bear Valley Battery Storage Project. The key considerations for each are summarized below.

Bear Valley Solar Project:
- Growth Area: Development and operation of a local solar energy generation facility at 2151 Erwin Ranch Road, Big Bear City, on a 21-acre site 1.
- Key Considerations:
- Cost-Effectiveness: The project is expected to be cost-competitive, avoiding transmission expansion and offering price stability through fixed capital costs and predictable O&M expenses 2, 1.
- Regulatory Compliance: The project supports Bear Valley Electric Service’s (BVES) obligations under California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), helping to meet the 60% renewable target by 2030 and providing critical RPS-eligible renewable energy 2.
- Reliability and Resilience: By generating local renewable power, the project reduces reliance on imported power, mitigating risks from transmission outages or Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events 1, 1.
- Evaluation Criteria: BVES used a least-cost best-fit methodology considering technology track record, bidder experience, capacity, equipment, interconnection feasibility, financial viability, and cost 1.

Bear Valley Battery Storage Project:
- Growth Area: Acquisition, ownership, and operation of a utility-scale battery energy storage system to provide local grid support and capacity.
- Key Considerations:
- Cost-Competitiveness: The battery project was selected through a competitive RFP as the least-cost, best-fit option, with costs $100–$200 per kWh lower than alternatives. It leverages a 30% Investment Tax Credit to further reduce capital costs 2.
- Grid Benefits: The battery enhances reliability by providing local capacity to reduce outage risks, defer investments in transmission, and mitigate high-load scenario deficiencies 2, 3.
- Regulatory and Environmental: The project’s compliance with Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) and RPS plans is established, with regulatory review focusing on cost-effectiveness, just and reasonable costs, public interest, and potential CEQA exemptions 4, 1.
- Customer Protection: Performance guarantees ensure the project only proceeds if minimum standards are met, protecting customers from development risks 1.

In summary, both growth areas—solar generation and battery storage—are evaluated primarily on cost-effectiveness, compliance with state renewable and reliability mandates, customer protection, and their ability to enhance local grid resilience while mitigating risks from external power supply disruptions.

The docket identifies several financial and timeline risks and concerns related to Bear Valley Electric Service's (BVES) solar and battery projects:

Financial Risks and Concerns:
- Cost estimates for both solar and battery projects are affected by assumptions made at the time of calculation and are subject to change due to inflation in materials and labor, as well as recent and forthcoming changes in federal renewable energy policies and tax benefits. BVES proposes to update cost estimates as these factors evolve 1.
- BVES’s approach is to wrap the operating expenses of the projects into its overall operations and maintenance costs, rather than capping them at forecasted amounts. The utility argues that separating these expenses would be administratively burdensome and inconsistent with how the Commission treats other operating expenses. Cal Advocates, however, recommends a cap on operating expenses for cost containment, citing concerns about long-term affordability and ratepayer impacts 2.
- The affordability metrics report discusses the socioeconomic vulnerability index, hours at minimum wage needed to pay for essential service, and affordability ratio, indicating a focus on rate impacts and affordability for customers 3.

Timeline Risks and Concerns:
- Project schedules for both the battery and solar projects include multiple phases such as permitting, studies, interconnection, procurement, design review meetings, construction, installation, commissioning, and final acceptance. Delays could result from any of these stages, particularly with long lead items, import/customs issues, and contract execution for key components 3, 3, 3.
- The risk of supply chain disruptions (including long lead equipment and import/customs delays), construction feasibility challenges (such as site access, environmental restrictions, weather, and geotechnical conditions), and project management issues are highlighted as concerns that could affect project timelines and costs 3.
- The selection process for both projects emphasized contractor demonstration of the ability to complete on time, with evaluation criteria including risk mitigation, site security, required insurance, and construction feasibility 3.

In summary, the primary financial risks are related to cost uncertainties and potential operating expense overruns, while timeline risks center on permitting, procurement, supply chain, and construction challenges that could delay project completion and increase costs.