Puget Sound Energy (PSE) 7.17.2024 Resource Planning Advisory Group (RPAG) Meeting

um so if you can go to the next slide um and I see the webinar box pop up on my screen now too so that's great so um last week we got a we got a decision from the commission they approved our petition granting the waiver for both of those 2025 filings they did make a finding that we demonstrated reasonable progress um towards our clean energy and Equity goals as was required under the law and then I just want to note separately um but Rel very related to the ISP effort the commission has also begun a rulemaking process for this new ISP that will run through about July of next year and so um they kicked that off with the workshop I believe it was near the end of June and then are planning another Workshop conversation likely for sometime this fall um if you could go to the next slide please yep so now what happens now so we are rapidly pivoting towards this ISP approach um really building off the past year of effort on the 2025 IRP um and I just want to note that as we move towards an ISP this means involvement and engagement from not just the resource planning team Philips team and my team on the clean energy side but multiple departments at PSC will be even more engaged in resource planning than maybe um they have been previously so system planning customer Energy Management transmission and others and um some of those leaders are here with us today um to hear this kickoff convers ation which is great so in the near term we'll be engaging with each of our advisory groups um really to just to be asking questions about what what we have planned so far and trying to get and looking to get feedback on what topics um we should really focus on in this ISP we had an initial conversation um last night with our Equity advisor group um around the ISP and um we will come back to them in September same thing for the resource planning advisor group we'd like to start this conversation today really get some feedback from you on the direction we're headed in and hopefully have a an even more detailed conversation in September and and all of this feedback as well as feedback from our conservation resource Advisory Group too will help us help inform the development of an ISP engagement work plan and that was um one of the commitments we made was we would file one by the end of October so you can think of this as being a a similar kind of thing as what we have done previously for an IRP where we pulled together work plan of here are the here is when we think we're likely to meet and the topics we plan to engage on so um like I said we'll have more information at our next meeting with you in September to really talk through more potential topics and just really look forward to continuing to work with you closely as we pivot towards this 27 uh ISP if you can go next slide Yeah question break in and welcome there's about 12 of you who are watching on uh the live stream I know we started the live stream about 10es minutes late Cara was the first presenter and you only missed about one or two slides that um we can catch you up on later so apologies for that lag and carry on Cara awesome okay if we could go to the next slide yes and happy to cover ground if we need to um again um so one question may come to mind um as we make this pivot to an ISP which is whether um we're planning to make any changes to the arpeg um and as of right now we're we're not really planning any specific changes um but we're but at the same time we're working and learning as we go um for the resource planning Advisory Group the charter was ridden with some flexibility in mind um so we don't at this time expect it will need major changes but um it may need a few adjustments so we can certainly um bring those back to you to talk about more as we go um I will note that you know we originally envisioned working with all of you through the spring of 2025 and now with this ISP development our timeline has shifted out a little bit so we are sincerely hoping that um you will all stick with us through the development of this ISP um so that we can get to that first filing at the beginning of January in 2027 um we really hope hope that this will be continue to be a valuable use of your time and I just also want to note that your participation engagement to date has been really valuable to us and that work is still still valuable as we pivot to an ISP we're not we're not starting from Scratch by any any means the work that we've we're building Upon A lot of the work that we did in the 25 IRP so the things you've shared with us will really inform us um in where we go next so um it has been I hope it has been time well spent and it certainly has been helpful to us so um Sophie I might pause before I go to the feedback slide because it feels like a different different thing totally agree so let's hear from rpeg Members any reactions or questions from kind of the the stage that Cara just set you're welcome to come on camera and share your thoughts let's do Joel and then Lauren go ahead Joel sure thanks Sophie and Cara um I just I guess kind of to the to the point you were just on Cara about um you know building off of the feedback you've heard in the engagement so far with this group I was wondering if PSC is looking back at comments that may have sort of resulted in a response something like you know that portion of the 2025 IRP has already been finished so we will look at this in future planning Cycles if you're looking back at those kind of comments and um and reevaluating whether you can incorporate those in the 27 now with a little longer Runway before the filing yeah Joel thanks for that I think that's a very reasonable I'll call it a suggestion um from you or at least a question of whether we're looking at those I think that um there were some things right that were that felt like they were a little bit beyond the 25 timeline and it definitely behooves us to revisit those and see if some of them are things that we can either do in this ISP or we can at least make a little progress towards and then have teed up for the next ISP because we think this is where we're going to be um now as our planning framework going forward so um the short answer is yes we'll revisit those comments of where we've said not quite yet and see if if we're at a better place with this ISP or not and we'll s happy to talk about those more um as we get going thanks thanks Joel for that let's go to Lauren um I've been trying to think about how to phrase this question I think it's sort of two parts um you know one is that we have the UTC undertaking a rule making at the same time that psse is starting its ISP process and so I'm curious Cara if you could speak a little bit to um how you plan to navigate that given that you know we're not working with like a final set of rules and we're unlikely to have a final set of rules um uh within the timeline that you guys need in order to make some decisions about this plan I'll just say it that way um so I'm I'm hoping I'm hoping you can shed some light on um how Puget plans to tackle that and then secondarily um there is an initiative on the ballot or that is likely to qualify for the ballot um to repeal uh 1589 um and do some other things that I think would be really detrimental to um decarbonization and electrification efforts in Washington state um I'm curious if uh you could talk a little bit about what assumptions you know you guys are thinking about using when it relates to as it relates to decarbonization and electrification in the 2029 or sorry in the 2027 ISP um there was some discussion in the development of um that legislation about you know whether or not the assumptions in the decarbonization study should be the ones that we're using going forward or whether or not there's more room for Puget um to sort of start you know from updated assumptions and I guess given this uh broader uncertainty that's out there um and you might not be able to answer this right now Cara but I if you could just speak a little bit as to how you guys are moving forward given some of that uncertainty yes those are both great questions Lauren um we are navigating a bit of uncertainty and so as we let me take your first question first um in terms of thinking about the Dynamics with the rul making um you know we've been in this spot before um on our journey with CEDA in terms of a rules that were being developed on it that informed the IRP that we were working on at the time um as part of the Ceda rulemaking that was then the foundation for the the CIP to follow um so I think we do have some lessons learned there in terms of really thinking about um you know what uncertainty is ahead for us and trying to to move forward the analysis that needs to happen earlier with an eye towards well what could change or what what rules could throw a wrench in this analysis and that would be problematic to the timeline or the scope or that that piece of analysis um but there's a lot we don't know yet and the rule making is so early there's just not a real a lot of comfort or a lot of um I can't give you a great answer right now except that we're spending a lot of time thinking about where could the rule making go and what pieces are we kind of ready or know more about now versus others and it's very top of mind for us but it's also um really hard when the when we've just only had an initial Workshop conversation so far so um I think we're going to have to continue to re-evaluate where we are with the rul making as we head into the fall um because um we are going to reach points in the timeline where we're going to have to make some assumptions as you noted and that gets harder to then um adjust if the rules go in a different direction so we're very mindful that we're going to have to manage that risk as best we can but there's a lot of un certainty um and I guess I almost have a similar answer to your second question which is um we just it's still fairly early and we're really thinking about what the ballot initiative and other things might mean for the assumptions we make about various portfolios um and it maybe that that Philip or Wendy want to make a finer point on this than I can right now but um we're also mindful that that depending on the outcome of that we could have a different we could be in a different place than where we are right now and so that needs to factor into our um thinking but there's an awful lot of uncertainty of what that looks like right now so Philip you want to chime in on on the uncertainty you'll you're navigating it's like a common theme between us these days yeah well well yeah I think on the repeal thing you know what you're going to see in the in the presentation the discussion today is um what we're really focusing on is kind of how to reprocess and and or how to how to re structure the the the planning processes to make the ISP work so it it's not so much about a lot of the details um so and and the the 1589 repal is not like the uh it's not like the whole uh it's not like the whole law goes out the window if it gets repealed it's really line item strikeouts on on electrif ification and and whether whether uh PSC is able to uh incentivize electrification and and so even if that repeal is successful um we still have to do the ISP process and and there's a lot of things that don't get touched I mean I understand from the you know 50,000 foot policy level it has a massive impact on the the carbon emissions and and and uh and what we would do to achieve those emissions reductions but you know at a real high level what we're talking about here is how do we slide these big planning processes around and and reposition them in order to make this all work and um so like things like for example we we still have to uh you know it doesn't change the conservation uh approach uh for on the electric side you know it's still we have to we have to the IP has to look at the the 2% of of load well that doesn't get changed in the repeal um you know the 10% demand response flexibility uh you know again if those are commercially feasible that's doesn't change as a result you know so um a lot of this in fact like I said even the ISP itself we have to shift over to an ISP even if this even if this succeeds the the ballot initiative passes so um you know it just changes what the details are and that's kind of where we're at at this point is is looking at it at that level so uh and and I I think that even I think this is necessary even if that that repeal uh is is successful because there's an enormous amount of changes that are going on in the industry uh even just with Theta you know just with the CCA and suppose even if the CCA doesn't doesn't you know even if that that gets repealed um there's still going to be the local government action on the gas side that are going to be issues so you know I think that uh the big changes that are happening in the industry they very different than what the last the past has been right the the IRP world was was good for when you're adding incremental resources to to to the mix um the Ceda as well as you know the house bill 1589 those are big big big changes and that's why it's it's important I think to re structure the planning process uh because because the requirements have changed so much it's just gotten such such a much bigger issue to deal with than it used to be so um even if it does get repealed all this work is still going to be is still G to be necessary by law not even just because we think it's important so thanks philli I know that summer and others had a little trouble hearing um you so I'll work with you offline on on maybe sorting that out I see Lauren's hand um is it okay to go back to Lauren and then Cara we can wrap with you great Lauren go ahead um yeah and I'm saying this more I think some of the Puget folks have already heard me say this so this is more for others that might be listening um you know I do think that one of the main purposes of doing an ISP was to try to get at the intersection the the intersectional issues around electrification and how does the gas how do the does the gas system and the Electric System respond to one another um given the need to decarbonize in the most cost-effective way and how do we treat electrification as a solution for decarbonization and I guess just so folks know what you're going to hear from us is that that obligation exists regardless of what happens with the initiative um it doesn't it the initiative does not repeal electrification as a thing that the that like the company should be considering it repeals specific language around how to do that in this bill um but it doesn't like remove electrification as a thing that you need to be thinking about or looking at or planning for so I just want to be really clear that um that is is going to be I think continue to be a a top priority for Advocates who are participating in this conversation um regardless of what happens with the initiative so no thank thank you for your comments Lauren um that's great feedback and just know that you know we we're also looking at this as a holistic decarbonization plan across Gas and Electric and that remains regardless of what the outcome is of the ballot so um that's where we're headed with this ISP and we'll be able to get into more details I think about assumptions as we get into future conversations this fall um but we will we'll do the best we can to manage through all this uncertainty um and work with you all on that great thank you thanks for the questions and the kind of the heads up from you Lauren about what where your thinkings at and for care taking those questions I'm going to recommend that we um shift now to thinking about the feedback that P has PSC has received and then we'll have plenty of time for more ISP conversations so go ahead sounds great um if we can go to the next slide so this is really just to recap what we've um been hearing as we Sophie I think you called it our road show that we um have been doing with the with the public with our um Equity Advisory Group and this Advisory Group um really looking for feedback on our um approach to equity analysis in the context of our resource planning um we'll be revisiting this and and Diving deeper into some of this feedback um as we work on ISP but we just wanted to recap what we heard during that series um of conversations so um we heard a lot of themes and it was really great to get such robust robust feedback um from feedback from this Advisory Group and our Equity Advisory Group seemed to generally be supportive of the updates um we were proposing and just as a reminder that included you know introducing a more qualitative assessment into looking at potential burdens and benefits when we um examine generic electric resources that was one part and then also we were looking at updating the scoring methodology in our um portfolio Equity assessment and so again it felt like we heard some some general support in the direction we were headed we also heard concerns and the main concerns we heard were um some concerns around the metrics we were using and how they might differ in their relative impacts um and we heard from several parties some interest in um a more nuanced approach um beyond the bind Ary scoring method so we heard um feedback suggesting waiting the metrics we also heard feedback potentially using a more granular scoring scale than the 01 um and we also heard concerns regarding the metrics and not necessarily the feedback wasn't necessarily consistent across different um uh different folks so some folks said that the um metrics we had might be too correlated we could be measuring the same thing multiple times and then some said we should have you know additional metrics to measure and others were saying well maybe you should scale back the number of metrics you have to really just focus on those customer benefit indicators um that we had been using so we'll be taking all that under advisement and like I said um revisiting that as we work on the ISP and then on the gas utility side um as a reminder this was we were a little we were starting this conversation a bit earlier for the gas utility um we proposed a new Equity assessment that was at least modeled after how we had done it on the electric side and then similar to the feedback we heard on the electric IRP we were encouraged to reconsider how we score different gas resources and then encouraged to ensure that there's uniqueness in our metrics so that we would reduce that risk of double counting um and then we we heard interest in aligning the metrics we're using on the electric side with with the ones we use on the gas side um so I mean I think I've already covered this well but we'll be revisiting um this this strategy but and really thinking more about this feedback um that we received so it was a valuable conversation um but now as we pivot towards an ISP we'll certainly be unpacking a lot of these themes more and and thinking about where we go from here so thank you for all this great feedback it's been really helpful great thanks so much Cara any any reactions to the equity analysis approach and what PSC has been hearing okay not seeing or hearing any oh Kate please hey there thank you um I was curious if there's a feedback report available yet on kind of seeing what the differ responses were in a little bit more detail on the equity analysis I know renewable Northwest and climate Solutions put together some pretty detailed comments on this and we're just kind of curious to hear where other people are Landing yeah that's a great question Kate I know we have been working on one and I'm I'm I'm pausing to see if one of my colleagues knows what what the status of that feedback report whether whether it's out or whether um it's almost out so I stay tuned we'll let you know because I know we have been working on on our side I can't recall whether it's been out and published so we'll get back to you shortly if that's okay great it looks like Katie may have found it so maybe it is out okay I I thought we had put it out but sometimes I've seen it and it hasn't been published yet so awesome it is out I my teams confirmed that so um great excellent glad that was able to be sorted out so uh Phillip is uh left the meeting and rejoined to see if that will potentially help on this side so we're going to give him a few minutes for the dot dot dots to clear a few moments I think um and then we can probably turn it over to Phillip but while that's happening were there any other reac CS or thoughts about uh feedback on the equity analysis not hearing any will you can very slowly move to the next slide as Philip tries to call in with his phone so the next piece is uh Phil is going to talk about the ISP strategy at a slightly more um detailed level and you can go now to the next slide as well and this is where we will just pause there we go so in the chat earlier on I pasted the link to HB 1589 kind of the the text so for those of you who um you know get your kicks reading uh actual legislation you can do that there but in a moment once Philip is connected he's going to talk about those requirements also in the chat you'll see are the feedback reports that Kate was asking about both the 612 feedback report and the 66 feedback report and it looks like Philip you're connected let's you can press star six on your phone to come off a mute see if that works or I might be all powerful and allow you to be able to do that star say yeah let's you look good okay does that work are you hear any better I think so let's check in with you summer summer you were having the issues Philip can you just say a few words sing a few bars bars I don't know if I can sing a few bars but I'll make believe I sang a few bars that work that sounds good uh how's that sounding to you Summer that's better thank you very good all right Phillip I I did your intro slide take it away okay so um uh really kind of high level you know going through here what are the what are the uh the the objectives uh obviously we we have to comply with the law uh about integrated system plans um we have to be looking at scenarios that achieve the the gas and electric utility emission reductions that are equal to our the to to psc's proportional share of the emission reductions under the the Statewide reduction limits um and then I already mentioned earlier that uh there's the uh achiev the 2% uh electric load uh conservation targets uh that's unless the commission finds a high Target is cost effective uh or if uh if it is not commercially or technically feasible um the low income programs again I already did mention the uh the uh the demand response that's about 10% that's 10% unless it's uh unless more is cost effective or it's not commercially feasible uh and then there's also it it needs to include the the 10-year clean energy action plan so why don't we go to the next slide and uh so the way that we're looking at the the the overall objective here for the ISP it really is to develop consistent Equitable and actionable plans across customer strategies energy Supply and energy delivery uh to achieve the clean energy targets and the targeted uh greenhouse gas emission reductions while maintaining a reliable and affordable Energy System that's kind of the overall goal right there a little different I have next slide we'll talk about compare contrast uh with the IRP uh a little bit but but high level what's really different about the ISP is that we're we're using these processes to look at what's the best way to reduce emissions and we're also looking at it consistently um between uh you know we have to have consistency between delivery planning and energy Supply planning kind of pulling all those pieces together looking at it at the at the same time or the same set of assumptions Philip I see Ezra's hand Ezra do you want to come off a mute yeah Phil I we're gotten through a lot of stuff here can we look at the previous slide again for one second so you said in in the um second bullet there uh includes scenarios that achieve gas utility electric reductions equal to the proportional so I guess that's not saying that there's a specific statutory requirement that gas and electric do a proportionate share of reductions right it just is a planning requirement can you explain that a little bit yeah I mean for especially for the ISP you know we we will be looking at uh at at scenarios that can achieve though the that the pratus share of of our emission reductions right so is the Comm I'm not exactly sure if you're if you're asking is like is that what we are required to do or is this what we're required to plan for that's the question yes yeah I I'm you know I'm not 100% sure because I have to do all this analysis and whether we execute what exactly we execute I think the commission has uh has discretion over what they're going to approve uh for us to do so if the commission were to look at that Pro you know hitting the the pro share if they were to find that that was uh going to be unreasonably costly or or or something um that they they they they can approve they can uh they can accept our plan as it's filed or order us to change it you know so um I don't know if that's if that helps you Ezra well it's just a strange requirement which is why it like took me a little while of heads scratching for example if you have electrification as part of your strategy you're not going to get PR a share of reductions from Electric and Gas I just don't understand if that's a statutory requirement if it's a statutory requirement to include this scenario or I don't you know what that bullet is trying to um trying to express perhaps Cara has some thoughts about the requirement aspect Cara yeah I mean Ezra these are great questions I mean we really are reading it as a planning requirement but I think there's still more to come on how we navigate all the details in the bill as we develop this ISP so I mean I do read this language maybe um putting my lawyerly hat on for a second um as a planning requirement but I think we've got a lot of details to sort out within how we navigate this ISP so we'll be talking more about all of this I believe in the weeks to come all right should be interesting thank you very much definitely not boring no no no one has a boring job at psse right now um Ezra you're you're right there is a lot of text on the side there's a lot there is there anything else you want to unpack or anything else our Peg members want to unpack here you okay I mean we didn't see these slides um I don't think we got them did we get them in Advance gosh I hope so I sent them out on Friday um I hope that you got them Ezra um as part of my email so I hope others did I missed it thank you it still was quick turnaround because the decision was only on Thursday and we just we wanted to repurpose the time because um well January 27 will be here before we know it terrifying um thanks great so Lauren I see your hand now too um I'll be brief um I I just wanted to pause it I think that the language around the proportional share of emissions reductions is really getting at um the the need for both the gas system and the Electric System to um reduce it's reduce their emissions consistent with the Statewide ghg limits so it's a pretty steep reduction uh particularly on the gas system that's different than what we've seen in previous um irps so I hope that is helpful no I I understand I mean it's just that that is a that is a very very strict constraint and and honestly to my view with regarding efficient reduction in emissions it makes no sense to put that Me Maybe as a as a scenario for you know you know illustrative purposes it would be useful but it it sure does uh put a straight jacket on what the utilities can cons if you actually had to have proportional emissions reductions that would be a problem I in my mind yeah thanks thanks for that comment Ezra I do want to make sure we we have time for Jen to to give her piece so let's philli let's go back to you and let's stick on the the objective slide here um so take it away Phillip yeah okay well I you know I I kind of mention this one already so uh unless there's any questions we can go to the next slide um and as we transition to that slide you know I think that the dialogue that that we just had was great because uh y all are are are hitting on exactly the same questions that we have um and uh uh thinking about you know what scenarios have to look like what do they need to look like you know what does proportional share mean and and you know what what's achievable all of those kinds of things are all things that that we'll have to deal with um and and I kind of think of those as sort of almost assumptions or or objectives right we have to build what we're going to really kind of talk about today is how to build the planning process to be able to answer those questions right so independent of what the emission reduction Target is is we have to realign our planning functions in order to answer those kinds of questions right so I can look at different different emission reduction objectives in order to do that I have to realign all of the different these different planning processes and um uh what's what's we started I'll just give you a little bit of background we really started this uh in Earnest uh a year ago um because as I mentioned you know we see the the the future is looking much more complicated than the past a lot bigger sets of changes coming on and just what we you the way this used to work the way our process used to work is the the IRP then the the conservation planning and the uh delivery planning were all in in they're kind of in that order I just laid them out you kind of do the IRP it would it would give you kind of tell you what the conservation targets ought to be as an put of the optimization model um it's not the only way to do it it it is the way that we've done it in order to ensure that the purpose of the IRP was to make sure that we're looking at demand side resources and supply side resources on an equal footing that was the purpose of the IRP world right and that was a great world uh at least Elizabeth and I maybe a few others we rode the whole journey we we went from lease cost plan through IRP and we've done our last IR P right so we we we we W the whole complete cycle life cycle of an of the IRP policy we wrote it um but the with the new process yeah with the with the new process um it really requires us to have the discussion about the the the customer strategy pieces much more upfront be because what we used to do was you know the IR the IRP would you get the conservation targets then delivery planning would do would do their planning and then we would pick up whatever the impacts from delivery planning would go into the next IRP cycle so it was kind of you know kind of just linear in that way um but was so much needing to change these processes that the delivery especially the delivery and the energy Supply planning I have to happen concurrently or as concurrently as possible and and as we've been as we struggled through this for the last year to try and figure out how to realign the planning processes we had a few different Consultants come in um help us out uh we were kind of uh I sorting it out figuring it out um you know I don't know if you're you're aware but uh the Salt River Project they've actually done an ISP and they're they're an electric only uh Co-op um but uh they were the first ones to to to really do a full ISP I think they've done some stuff in Hawaii as well um but uh we kind of developed the what Jen will walk you through um and now then finally SRP got to a point where we can engage with them and get a lot more detailed discussion uh I went to a conference uh and uh presented on a panel with with the folks from SRP we've had some follow-up discussions with them and they've kind of realigned their processes very similarly similar to the way we're doing it except the difference is you layer in the gas utility we have to make that consistent too and what's what I've found really exciting about it is um what it really requires us to do is that that customer strategy piece much more upfront so rather than having go like the old school I have a conservation or a load forecast before conservation then the optimization model tells you how much conservation to do it doesn't work anymore because it it that won't work because the delivery planning and resource planning need to happen at the same time what's really great about moving the the customer strategy planning piece before those two is it then allows us to have a lot more detailed and focused Focus Frankie a lot of more focus on those developing alternative customer strategies and and we can get into those things a lot deeper because those pieces are are where there's a lot of equity implications to the customer strategy stuff and if we can get focus on that up front that can be a lot more solid that we develop some alternative customer strategies and then bring them into the other two planning functions with with energy Supply and delivery we can analyze those together so that we're we're we're really kind of starting with I think of it as a customer it's really a customer focused planning process where we're focusing on on what how the customer energy usage the demand side resources will change and then how to wrap planning around achieving those those customer outcomes so uh that that it because of needing to make those changes you know this CH this big process changes that gener kind of walk us through so um uh and then it it has to include the ISB has to include specific actions like a CIP um and uh now the commission has to approve the ISP uh in the IRP you know they they don't um and in fact they they didn't you know now it doesn't matter what they did or didn't do it doesn't matter at least for us um uh maybe the other utilities it does but uh but for us that that's very different but you know I just that's really what I think for me is is the key takeaway is as we look at you know different carbon reduction scenarios you're you're realigning all these different planning processes and something I think that's going to be important to a couple things important to recognize one I think this first ISP is going to be really good it is not g to be perfect right as Lauren we don't even have rules and the ru making isn't even going to be done on a timeline that will be will allow us to do a whole lot of changes on the back end um so uh and I think the commission understands that and and and will'll kind of have some flexibility in terms of you know we'll get a really good ISP out it won't be perfect the next one will be even better um you know and then I I think the other thing to to keep in mind is uh you we would still be doing the some of the types of traditional sensitivity type work because there's things in energy Supply that really might not have much impact on delivery like so if I do you know solar in Eastern Washington or I do wind in Eastern Washington that doesn't really have a big impact on our distribution system right so there's there's sensitivities we can be looking at in the individual like customer strategy planning energy Supply planning and delivery planning we can be looking at at different sensitivities within those each of those three big planning functions if you want to start doing big scenarios that that impact all of those things this an ISP does not make the planning process more Nimble it does not it makes it bigger and more encompassing that's not fast and Nimble right so um it it really requires us to have a lot more thought on on the front end of of of how much can we bite off given that we're now doing this sort of consistent planning between these three big planning functions so that's just something to keep in mind as we as we go into the process uh uh but but I think a lot of the things that we're going to be doing as you all mentioned we're doing a Ru making while we're trying to build build this new framework and trying to build a framework big enough and and and adequate to be able to capture the whatever it is we need it to do and my guess is as we have conversations with y'all and and and the other advisory groups um and and we're going through the ru making you know we're all going to be kind of going through this journey together and learning and refining and things of that nature so yeah uh okay so yeah thank you Phillip yeah so here's your cheat sheet here are the five major differences between an integrated system plan and what the world of irps and cips look like any reactions or questions at this juncture all right well thank you Phillip this actually was very useful for me as I'm wrapping my head around this alongside you all um you can go to the next slide please will and so I know in the past um our Peg members and just as an aside welcome John um thanks for joining us here that you all we we've used these you know online whiteboards as a way for you to start taking notes so that when we move into the discussion in a little bit you can have some thoughts written down on Virtual paper so Kim can I ask you to put them uh mural board to hosts and panelists and so while Jen is speaking there's a section about you know the different topics that you all as arpeg members are most interested in and there's some instruction there as well as there's um some sticky notes having to do with opportunities and challenges Jen will talk to all of those things and when Jen is done we'll open that mural board and you'll have the chance to add to it and and make some decisions so with that Preamble aside Jen do you want to take us away yeah sounds good okay um so good afternoon Jen Coulson next slide okay so I think Karen Phillip started us off really well Regarding why we're doing the ISP and where we see it going and just to kind of reiterate a few things that they brought up as I try to walk you through um the process that we think would unfold here is we are incorporating a lot of lessons learned um not only just uh just from our past engagements on integrated resource planning but also in most recent the changes in the engagement process have been incredibly helpful in understanding what's really important to people and this customer strategy idea that Philip mentioned I'll walk through in a bit more detail for you but has really it just become more and more important as we've dived into this and we really should be planning the utility around all these customer programs and not that we don't plan around the customer programs and and uses but really um make that more clear and articulate that better across externally and internally as we go through this together um as Philip mentioned we've discussed the ISP framework with Salt River Project uh and really dove into what were your lessons we learned things that didn't work out well how can we take what you've learned and iterate on that for us and so that's what we're really doing and how we set this up uh and we're also using obviously the hp1 1589 um language and the rules as we've mentioned a number of times the timing isn't ideal um from the rul making process and this fact that we have to start an analysis before that's complete but as Philip and Karen mentioned you know we're going to do our best to mitigate those um potential changes and rules to ensure that whatever we're setting up in this ISP is going to be you know good enough to meet this 27 filing but we're going to have that future iterations and Lessons Learned so on the next slide kind of just articulates that so you know today we're in this separate resource planning processes we're moving rather quickly towards this 27 ISP and it's going to be like Philip said it's going to be really good it's going to be exciting um but it's not going to be perfect and we recognize that and we're going to work towards that for a future ISP plans next slide you're probably tired of us mentioning the timeline without showing you the timeline so here's a timeline um at a really high level and across the top you can see the different Milestones that we've identified so the bill HP 1589 calls out the January 1st 27 filing date which is on the far right of the screen uh we put a a tentative like draft filing of ISP in September to show you and a draft preferred portfolio on the screen just articulate where those results would have to be completed to start um discussing with this forum and other external Forums on the results of the ISP in itself you can see the interested parties and customer engagement along the entire time frame and what's I think find interesting about this timeline is that about 3 years if we start today a typical IRP we're working on for about two years and I don't know about you guys but it feels quick it's a lot to cover so um we're adding a lot more scope in about a year time frame frame um so it's a lot more ground to cover as Philip was mentioning and in the purple bar you can see the commission rul making for the ISP is highlighted there and the importance of that is as you go down you can see that the analysis modeling is actually already starting so that's why we're saying if we don't start then we can't hit the draft results and then the final filing so it's important that we get going um it's not ideal but we'll work through it together and um get a good answer at the end and file that ISP in January of 27 any questions on the timeline before I go to the next one let's pause here for a moment because there's a lot of good information yeah questions about what Jen described about what needs to start happening now regardless and What needs to essentially be wrapped up by fall of 2026 okay we're definitely going to get some more details so yeah it doesn't look like people have questions you can carry on okay so um go to the next one so I'm gonna attempt to walk you through essentially three different process flows of how we're thinking about approaching this ISP so hopefully by the third one um it starts clicking and that's where we're really interested in your thoughts and feedback on what we've laid out today and then we have some other um prompting questions for discussion as well so um but as Philip mentioned like this is considering those Lessons Learned I discussed earlier and that interaction with Salt River Project so we feel pretty good about what we have on the screen uh but we're we're still interested in feedback in your input so on the when we think about an ISP we're going to start on the far left and we really want to set this up aligning on goals and objectives across the ISP so it's all marching the in the same direction right and we want to consider the clean energy transformation act requirements we want to look at our decarbonization goals and we really want to do this together from the customer and psc's clean energy goals um and priorities and come at from front and then we move into the ISP itself which is that Center Circle and you can see in the very center is the customer program needs and we think this is really important so we're going to really focus on what are the customer end uses and where do we see customers evolving over time and what do they want to be able to use and how can we build our utility around that so you can see in the white around that is our planning cycle so how do we build our clean energy needs our psse system like the pipes and the wires our regional transmission Investments and our gas and electric demands to meet what the customer program needs are we'll be doing all of this collectively with engagement with our advisory boards and interested parties and the public the arpeg being a very key part of that process as well as considering Equity across all of those different functions and really incorporating the four tenants the output of the ISP is a system plan so it's an integrated customer strategy we're going to ensure has equitable distribution of benefits and reduction of burdens and specific actions to achieve those clean energy goals and targets I'm okay yeah let's pause here again there's a lot on this one and as a visual person I appreciate seeing how um it all is laid out Ezra go ahead um it's really kind of a comment I mean Phil and and then you have discussed uh the pro customer needs um which is kind of an interesting concept um because customer needs are for Energy Services I just think it's really important that we keep that in mind and maybe even keep that as part of the documentation that it's Energy Services and not specific uh forms of energy um is that is that what you have in mind when you're talking about customer needs or is there an assumption their actual needs for specific forms of energy are fixed I think it no that's a good it's a good call out it's a good point um I think it goes beyond that a little bit too just as we think about the new technology and the ability to go back and forth on a grid so how do we set up the distribution system to accommodate you know batteries at home so it can feed the feed the home and come back on the system um in a timely manner and the system set up that way we're not it's not a burden later for that to come in we've planned it out right like that's a specific easy example what kind of what we were thinking so it's anticipating in the world you know working toward what the energy needs and technolog is going to be to make sure that it's sort of um it fits within the plan without multiple without you know major retooling essentially yeah kind of future Pro within reason right um but yeah with future proofing the system a bit better and painting that picture of where so we're all aware where we want to go um and we can outline the plans and determine the best path to get there thank you yeah thanks for the question and Jen thanks for introducing me to the term future proofing it's a good one um anything else anything else in the ISP inputs and outputs for now NOP all right next slide Jen okay so this is going to take us a little deeper and then the next slide is even deeper so if you have questions the next slide might answer it or it might make you more confused I guess we'll find out so um this is the process flow and how we envision stepping through this together so on the far left we're looking at aligning the planning assumptions and scenarios like Philip said because this is such a robust process it'll it be really important to be mindful and really thoughtful about how we set these up because the scenarios will have to go across all the different areas whereas there could be sensitivities within each one of these that don't necessarily impact one another if that makes sense so we're going to start by aligning those assumptions developing the scenarios and then the next column the second column identify customer strategies and load forecast that's that customer strategy development work we're going to look at conservation and other um customer end uses and develop what are those strategies within the scenarios that we developed that make sense and are economical and technically feasible then we're going to apply that to the load forecast UPF front so this is probably more specific to conservation so like Philip mentioned traditionally as you know through our process conservation is an output of the resource plan this is having it be more of an input so we would take that conservation off of that system level load forast and then if there's customer programs where they're generating loads so like net metering or something that would be an input to the resource plan um as a generator right but that would all be up front so that allows that third column the develop distribution transmission and resource plans to all run together and that saves a significant amount of time and ensures we're all aligned across the board on our scenarios and assumptions so we would run that load forecast with those customer strategies included for the different scenarios for gas transmission and distribution Investments electric distribution Investments electric transmission Investments both within PSC service area and regionally um if that is something that you know we need to invest in and then uh gas and electric energy supply all of those different models will create costs right for each scenario so we'll have a total cost across all those different planning Frameworks and what's really important we think as we focus on this customer end use is not only considering where customers may be going but ensuring we understand what it means for a customer from a customer Bill impact perspective so we would take all that work and then look at it from a customer bill perspective we have to identify some risks for each of these scenarios and how we be mitigating those in some form of decision framework because the ISP is creating actions um so we'd file the ISP and then the post ISP column is really looking at executing on those customer programs that we determine within the plan Acquisitions um if we have need for generation or other um you know things we need to acquire and then tracking we have to show progress of how we're meeting those actions that we identified and all of this would be you know communicated and discussed with you guys in Greater detail across the interestes parties and public engagement um today we just really have the high Lev process flow as you guys have alluded to there's a lot of details to work out but this is the highle flow and then my next slide is very similar it just has bit more detail in context that may be helpful so I don't know if you want to yeah let's pause I see yeah summer has a question summer asked is the intent of looking at customer bill estimates to look at all customer classes thoughts Jen um you know that's a good question so something we've worked through so in the decarbonization studies that we've created uh we have looked at different classes of customers it is challenging when you get into cni um you know uh commercial and Industrial customers just because of how variable those impacts are depending on the type of customer so I think the intention would be that we would we' try and show some level of residential and cni customer um but it would just be um illustrative really right because it all depends on the type of customer and their usage and all those sorts of things summer yeah carry on summer yeah I just wanted to pop in really fast I mean I don't have a solution for this at this point but I think you know thinking back to the decarbonization study that was you know appreciate the work that that PSC did to try to get that information appreciate that it's complicated um but I also think that it's this is more important than ever to really understand those impacts and so I'm hoping we can just continue the conversation and try to brainstorm and work collaboratively on the art of possible here because I mean I do think it's problematic to have a plan and then say well we understand what this means for residential customers but we really don't know what it means for commercial and Industrial and I I know it's a harder question but I don't think it's a less important question so I just want to put a pin in really wanting to continue the conversation and work through those issues thanks for that yeah any any reactions Jen no I appreciate that it's a good point and like you said we will definitely investigate that as we pull together this IP in more detail yeah Joel please thanks yeah hi Jen Jennifer um I I had a question I guess on this slide it seems like we're progressively kind of diving a little bit deeper and a little bit deeper into what PSC is expecting to do for the development of the ISP um and I just wanted to note that sort of Disconnect I think between the last slide and this one the last one had sort of this overarching um you know energy Justice equ Equity recognition procedural distributive and restorative um and I didn't see quite how that translated into the next slide and where Equity comes into the picture in the various steps that you're laying out uh on SL 25 so hope or sorry 24 yeah we're here now um so I was hoping you could expand a little more on what you're expecting to do along this understanding that the you know public engagement and interested party engagement is part of that but not necess L um the whole picture when it comes to insuring Equitable outcomes yeah definitely um thanks for pointing that out you know the draft for a reason we'll make edits uh that's not meant to be exclusive so Equity is bedded in Al a lot of these steps along the way so we'll have I think actually probably considerations across the board especially within all the different planning functions themselves so customer strategy will have a full Equity analysis on their piece gas T um distribution planning you know electric distribution electric transmission Gas and Electric Supply um they'll all have equity and then together in that decision framework we need to find a way uh to look at things from the Equitable benefits as well so that'll all be in there inclusively I it's not like you mentioned that's a good point it's not called out on this specific diagram and I'm not sure if it's on the next one either I guess we'll see but that's it touches on it on the next one slightly so I think yeah you can call it out I'm Tex great maybe yeah let's transition here and and and just for the folks that have the mural link you'll see it's just a copy of this image so as Jen is talking through these different topics connected to the ISP if you're like oh yes I would love to have a meeting that focuses on that just drag a little purple thumbs up next to the bullet point you can zoom in with your with your um wheel and if Jen is touching on a point that just doesn't feel appropriate or applicable to you all as arpeg members there's like the thinky face and you can drag that next to that item as well so Jen talk us through these yeah so this is just another level deeper as Joel mentioned um and so I'll just kind of talk through it again and hopefully it starts making sense so on the far left again we're really with those goals the assumptions the targets and to be more specific like these are some things that we're thinking of when we talk about those constraints we're thinking of the clean energy targets customer Partnerships and opportunities compliance obligation reliability and safety goals and requirements um and then we're pull together these scenarios and when we think of the scenarios because they are um going to impact more areas and they have to be more robust we need to consider economic factors potential policies and things that could be changing like we talked about the repeal like all those different things um any other risks that we see with the plans that we have pulled together and the demand forecast for those potential variations all of that information would feed into this customer strategy box and which is a pretty hefty box um we're looking we're talking about the conservation potential assessment and bringing that assessment down to even more granularity um geographical to really help with that targeted electrification conversation um we're looking at distributed energy resources demand response targeted electrification electric vehicles um conser and conservation here uh Equity would be considered across all of those programs as they develop that strategy if to be more specific for you um and then all of that would feed into the demand forecast this is gas and electric by the way the whole thing is gas and electric so then we got these demand forecast and like I mentioned conservation would come off of those forecasts at the beginning whereas um you know net metering would be a generator that we would used as an input in the planning model on the right so when we get to the third column all of those planning functions are running at the same time and that'll really help with the timeline that we showed on the prior slide and each of these are really looking at 10year investment needs um the Electric System is looking at non-wire Alternatives and specifically on the electric distribution system we're really diving into that distributed energy resources with the heat map of where's the most benefit to the system and where should we try and locate those things for that action plan and then when you get to gas system Integrity they're also looking at 10-year Investments and we're considering non- pipe Alternatives one of those being targeted electrification um and that geographical level of analysis will really help inform maybe where there's Target electrification opportunities for them we have the transmission planning and strategy development again 10-year Investments non-wire Alternatives all the things um and then the electric and gas resource planning which is typically been the focus of this group right for the arpeg um and that's still all going to be the same material so we're still doing resource adequacy we're still doing all the things that are required to develop a real robust utility scale uh plan and that'll incorporate those customer strategies and then when you move to the fourth column the preferred alternative selection framework this is looking across all of those different planning Frameworks trying to figure out the best way to optimize and we need to considered equitably distribut distributation of benefits and reduction of burdens I can't talk um the clean energy goals and targets are gas greenhouse gas emission reductions right again diving deeper into the geographic targeted items for Gas and Electric System planning on the de opportunities and locations as well as the targeted electrification opportunities and then we're looking at utility scale generation so how do we align with rfps um how are we doing to meet resource adequacy and other Long Haul transmission um needs or Investments That PSC needs to make and the output the fifth column is that that customer plan um it could be a certificate of necessity it could be um it's going to have the clean energy action plan for both Gas and Electric so this isn't just electric focused anymore and those clean energy actions are going to consider Equity um going to have the I piece the middle and then as part of those different scenarios and outputs would be the customer bill impacts that we talked about nice work yeah talking through all that and I'm seeing some of you as visitors and correct choose visitors when you enter the mural starting to drag some of the thumbs up around topics we're going to have a whole discussion about it but now is your chance to ask Jen some clarifying questions about what you're seeing on the screen here questions concerns comments on on these specific topics the I'll do the teacher thing of just saying questions Kate Lauren Katie summer Jim Frey Stefan Ezra Joel or John anyone have there we go I knew that would Lauren go ahead thanks Sophie um Jennifer I really appreciate this over overview this uh sounds you know incredibly ambitious but I think also I'm just excited to see the way that Puget is thinking about this I think you guys touched on all of the pieces that um I was hoping to see here so uh just really appreciate it and I feel like um I don't have any specific input on this today but might take a little bit more time and get you some feedback before you finalize this draft and thanks Jennifer appreciate the overview thanks for weighing in Lauren so for Jeff's last oh summer please go ahead yeah sorry um well I guess are we continuing the arpeg tradition of allowing for comments after this meeting I do think it would be helpful absolutely particularly digest this slide and really compare it to yeah what's in the bill um so yeah I just want to make sure that we have that opportunity and that uh my silence here is not interpreted in any particular way okay great no summer the the feedback Forum will close on July 24th so you all will have about a week or so to to gather your thoughts and if you wouldn't mind I Kim just repasting that feedback form link into the chat so people have it handy so Jen just in your last five or so minutes here if you want to go to the opportunities and challenges section and this might spark some of you in um that mural board over to the right after you're done playing with those thumbs up signs they see there's a question here about what other opportunities and challenges do you see with the ISP as Jen is talking if something's coming to mind just click on one of the sticky notes and add your thoughts and we'll come back to it later so next slide will and go ahead Jen yeah so that was um yeah thanks for your guys' thoughts and input that's really helpful and where you're sitting it's definitely something to consider summer so the bill has a there's a lot in there and so this is pretty high level like processyoutube and challenges as we mentioned um and something that I think Sophie is trying to push us towards is you know the engagement opportunities they're they're extensive but they're time constrained so as I showed you this is really expanding the scope of what the arpeg initially was looking at and so how would we what are the topics you want to dive into deeper what are the topics you're okay at a higher level because I just think realistically we're not going to have time we'll be together way too much for you your liking probably to dive into all these Det details so we'll have to pick and choose a little bit here um but ensuring that you know you have the granularity you need to feel confident with what we've pulled together the timeline's aggressive uh but it's necessary to hit that 27 filing date and I think it's good you know filing something that's good and on the right path and direction is better than trying to perfect it um I think we we never file it if that was the goal um for that first one so I think that's a good start for us and it's our first ISP and we'll have examples and Lessons Learned like just said and we'll continue to iterate and make progress um making room for that Ru making and ensuring that we can be um flexible and a little bit more um future looking and figing out where those rules may go so that we can ensure to adopt those in the analysis to the best of our ability so that's really all I have on the plan at this point yeah Lauren please sorry um I did just take a bite then raise my hand um so um one thing just going back real quick Jen on process um the one thing I didn't notice in there and I know this came up a little bit in the ru making Workshop um is uh pipeline replacement plans and I know you know it's actually been a while since Puget has done a pipeline replacement plan um since you guys don't use you know you haven't been using the CRM for that um I'm just curious if you like to me this just raises questions about what types of Investments do we categorize as safety related on the gas system versus growth related or other related um and you know I can understand if you're not prepared to answer this question today but I I do think that that will be something that we need to kind of work through in this process is what does that mean uh if we're carving out safety related investments from the ISP so I don't know if there's anything you can speak to or maybe Phillip or somebody that's no yeah good question I'm gonna punt it to Wendy that's why she's here everybody can hear me okay sound check yeah yep sounds good um so Lauren thanks for that question um we are actually currently in the process of preparing uh a letter to that we will file to the ru making docket to respond to some of the questions that were raised during the ru making on this issue so I expect um you know within the next week or so we'll be filing that I think the intention is not to carve out everything but there are some discreet um purposes for the safety plans that we that um motivate us to want to keep those safety plans in place um and so hopefully our comments in the docket will provide some further clarification on what we're seeking to do by maintaining those separate plans um but also make sure that the information that's needed for the ISP is Incorporated in the ISP thanks for chiming in Wendy and I hope that helps Lauren good it does thank you Wendy yeah Joel let's hear from you hi thanks um yeah I just wanted to looking at the mural I appreciate the you know having the ability to weigh in now and and you know feedback form uh on what is of interest to the rpag on kind of an individual topic basis um but one thing that I think I'm interested in having a better understanding of is what the like overall kind of modeling approach is you know where the inputs for one or the outputs from one model might lead into the inputs of another model what order things are happening in is there iteration going on um the sort of uh yeah devils in the details kind of look at like how does one process lead into another and um uh and and even you know what modeling tools are being used and what kind of goals are built into those modeling tools and objective functions go uh are are driving the outputs of those tools um so that's not maybe a specific topic like the ones in these bubbles show but um it sounds like a lot of work is going into the front end as Philip mentioned you know this ISP is not a Nimble thing but um you know it requires a lot to have to happen at the front end and I just want to make sure that like we we have a view especially in this more technical group of um you know the the the process and some of the details around it that that some folks here who are um you know who work in models uh might have uh might bring some value to the process um yeah thanks Joel any responses Jen um yeah I can answer a little bit more high level probably than you care for at the moment but uh it's a good it's a good question and call out so based on the timeline we're not proposing any software changes across planning at this point because we just wouldn't hit that uh January 1 filing date but that's why there's such an importance and emphasis on that upfront work because if we align our inputs and assumptions upfront all of the models for the different teams are you know built to answer the questions of which they need to for their specific planning functions and the like for example electric tnd is really built to ensure it's reliable and safe and going to meet the various F compliance requirements and so if we all assume the same things input the same load forecast Etc then in theory the outputs should all be aligned because we're all marching towards the same um assumptions and then our plans would be consistent at the end but they wouldn't be one Collective model um because we're solving for different things for different reasons and we have different requirements for each area but I anticipate that that those details that you're asking for Joel will definitely come in time as we start diving into these different topics within the arpeg framework so I don't have specifics for you today but hopefully that kind of helps where we're going at this point Thanks Jen was there anything else you wanted to share before we you know fully focus on the discussion with rpeg numbers no that's it for me okay well stay close I'm sure there'll be questions so will if I could ask you to switch to uh the mural board rather than the deck thank you and if you could zoom in on the um topics section so the leftand section of the board there we go and probably getting pretty close there I wanted to start reading where I'm seeing some enthusiasm come from you all about what topics to focus on I think you you've gotten the sense that this is you know the kitchen sink but you have to kind of pick and choose if you don't want to just spend all day every day with me in these meetings so the things that are coming to the surface now are um under constraints and targets compliance obligations under alternate uh customer strategies the conservation potential assessment that CPA Target electrification uh under demand forecast for each customer strategy support for just kind of the system and geographical look at Electric and Gas under the gas system Integrity the non-pipelined with the distributed energy resources and the demand response opportunities and alignment with targeted electrification opportunities there's also just support around the utility scale generation Investments so that's what we've seen so far um but please you know come on camera come off of mute you can either I see some that I missed down there uh there's a lot of support around uh resource adequacy um the utility scale resources and maybe even perhaps some interest around customer strategy scenarios um then so now how about come on camera come off a mute and you can either speak to the topics that you've indicated some interest around or suggest some new ones y'all are a real positive bunch I haven't seen anyone Express like a why is this on the screen why would I care Emoji so who would like to speak to what they've added or what they plan on adding Kate anyone I'm just picking on you because it came on camera first but you don't have to see yeah hi Sophie I have a comment and I'm not sure if folks will agree with this I guess I'm just folling so for renewable Northwest there are a lot of things on here that are not relevant to us that we do not have expertise in um electric vehicles is one of them major things about the gas system is another one we special in the electric grid I'm wondering if PSC is continuing a model of expecting that you know the rpeg we all come to every meeting about every topic and that's what we have attempted to do so far but if the scope of this is this broad is there kind of a consideration that um you know more relevant topics certain arpeg members would attend and others would not um not this isn't me trying to get out of meetings so much as like with the massive scope of information here I'm just trying to how we can make it feasible for everyone involved yeah Cara any reactions I don't know if I have a definitive answer for you Kate but I think it's a really great um suggestion sort of embedded in your question as we broaden this scope how can we um do this in a way that makes sense so we'll we'll think about that some more as we continue to gather feedback from this conversation and others on what's the what are the range of topics and and where do our different arpeg members fall in terms of expertise and try to think bring forward some ideas and what might make sense so thank you for bringing that up and I see uh Lauren appreciates that question in the chat yeah Lauren please um and I'm gonna sort of also State like the flip side of Kate's uh question which is you know given the broaden scope there might also be folks who for example are more interested in transportation electrification than they would be in like a broader ISP process or the IRP Etc who wouldn't otherwise participate on the rpeg but uh definitely want to have you know input into anything having to do with Transportation electrification so I you know all of this is to say I think it it it does point to the need to kind of think through the rpeg structure a little bit more how do we make sure that the folks who want to engage on all of these topics have the opportunity to do so in a constructive way um and you know I think uh it's just it's a double it's like a double-edged sword a little bit I mean on the one hand you're you're trying to streamline the process by expanding the scope but on the other hand um you know we don't want to leave folks out of the conversation on any of these topics so um just want to express that view thank you I can tell the engagement team at psse their ears are perking up because they they're going to be the ones working on that engagement strategy I think due in October or this fall some somewhere there so y thank thanks for that and I think I would add um you know this is complicated stuff and there's lots of interactions that we don't anticipate I think for everybody including myself that'll be parts of the discussion that you know feel unfamiliar but I I would encourage everybody to try and come to all the meetings and remain engaged certainly renewable Northwest because the interactions about among these things are kind of that's what's new here and I think it's great opportunity to look at the whole system in a more holistic way and to think about Creative Solutions and um you know it's going to be very difficult it's going to be very complicated but um I think we'll all learn a lot and I think it's you know I hope it'll be a national model for how to uh to solve some of these problems um that are inherently interrelated yeah well said Jim go ahead thanks um yeah I guess just sort of while we're discussing you know potential tweaks to the to the procedure for arpeg meetings and sort of ways to make sure that all the interested folks are able to uh you know share their thoughts one of the topics um you know been discussed with this arpeg process is opportunities for more robust public participation in rpeg meetings and you know folks that uh were not able to join the formal group but that uh remain interested and so I think as B is considering potential tweaks to the process being attentive to you know those opportunities the center public participation would be valuable thanks thanks for the comment Jim so shifting our Focus um to these topics does anyone want to talk a little bit about why they put a thumbs up next to one of these yeah Frey please oh hi hi everyone um it is my understanding and sort of my sort of my feeling and from our discussion and from what I understand about the uh research planning from the IRP process that a big part of the decision on investing on something or you know where where do we head is in do we are we going to meet uh resource adequacy are we going to have enough capacity are we going to you know are going to are we going to be reliable in the future now with the sort of I mean imagine in this system as like merging of these two pipelines of gas and electric and I imagine and and from our discussion I think our last discussion we had a conversation about different definitions for what reliability mean for the gas and for the Electric System I think that that those conversations about resource adequacy and reliability might be pretty interesting and uh that's why I put those kind of kind of uh thumbs up in those areas mostly on the middle um column of the electricity system planning um because hosting capacity nonwire Alternatives which may be batteries or other things and then at the bottom as well um resource adequacy maybe might be a little bit extra complicated with uh if you're taking like a more holistic view which I completely support I'm just kind of want to voice uh support from what other folks have been saying as well um this is really excited but I'm definitely interested interested in how that will change I feel like you have two different teams in the past you know doing Gas and Electric relability um how is that gonna merge um I I don't know I'm I'm very interested in this and I think it will deserve a good amount of um focus I think you're you're asking all the questions that P might be asking themselves too thank you for talking through your interest in that middle column there anybody else want to speak up and talk about what their they would like to focus on why you selected what you selected I know a number of you want a moment and to spend time with the feedback report to put more thoughts into this um but if you know any of the visiting Elephants or goats or bees would like to speak up now before turning our thoughts to challenges and opportunities okay um I will admit that I put a thumbs up uh next to targeted one of the places where that mentions targeted electrification some in the other area just because I think it is so incredibly important and complicated and I think it's you know it's one of those areas where um as We Know there's going to be um there's going to be push back it has to be done and discussed very carefully uh I think Equity is complicated um in that area and so I um but I I sure hope it's part of the planning process because it's necessary to meet the aggressive climate goals thanks Ezra for unpacking that feel like complicated and important or two themes we're hearing over and over okay well continue adding your um your thumbs or your confused faces um but uh we're going to transfer over to the right hand side of the board so will if you want to shift um and will if I could ask you just to be a live scribe as well you know the invitation to build upon what Jen had previously talked about in terms of the opportunities and those challenges and maybe I'll I'll make it easy on you let me put I'll just put in that a screenshot what she already talked about um did anyone else have any big picture opportunities or challenges that you haven't spoken to already well if I can just summarize a little bit of what I heard maybe a challenge here is how to focus our Peg members attention around their expertise that was something that came up in the beginning the flip side of that is the opportunities side which is how can our Peg members expertise intersect in this intersectional document you know that piece those are some things I've heard from you this afternoon so far anybody want want to put voice to some I think I heard three or four of you use the word excited that kind of lies in the opportunity side but I also heard you know a sense of being daunted as well anyone else want to chime in here how about there's a challenge that we remarkably haven't really been talking about at all which is maintaining affordability for customers as we address all of these many goals um and Mak sure that that's fundamental remains it used to be the number one part of the planning process requirements at uh at lowest recent lowest cost that's great and I see that summer you you second that so I'm gon to add a little plus sign there in your honor right there I saw that someone wrote bandwidth and time constraints of arpeg members if meetings are in incased I think that is something that PC is thinking about the word bandwidth coming up again um oh will I'm sorry I'm just reading a lot what's just to the left of where you're typing so I'm sorry to confuse you um someone's typing about streamlining processes can it looks like it's a visiting goat there does someone want to talk a little bit more about that yeah um this is Freud the visiting go um the yeah I think that it is an opportunity to to combine uh adjacent or you know parallel processes across these two different SE parts of the business you know the gas and electric uh parts and we ask similar questions uh twice or we have asked and answer similar questions twice in previous arpac meetings that obviously have a slightly different uh answers because the two different systems are operated and and and planned differently but I think that now we have potentially the opportunity to ask it once um and I think this is opportunity maybe yeah it will maybe be more difficult uh but maybe also this time I don't know I that that that it's that's a littleit hard to imagine but yeah yeah thanks for sharing that I think that was well put so staying on the kind of opportunity side um serving a national model of integrated climate directed planning I think I saw an elephant over there anyone want to share put put a few more words to that one I guess I'm the elephant you're the elephant in the room elant in the zoom as they say yeah I just I just think that that that is what we're doing here and this isn't just about Washington this is about um this is this is innovative and uh and important and I I obviously um if Washington is a leader in doing this right and making it know affordable and effective then that is uh is incredibly important nationally so just so we all know what we're doing here yeah Ezra we might have to pull up that sticky note when things get really tricky down the road is remembering the why they will yeah so I'm also seeing opportunities for non arpeg member input on topics of expertise this is similar to what Jim was saying before I think Jim was that you or is that someone else uh that was that was not me oh okay so someone else is echoing you does someone want to speak to what they had in mind around non arpeg member input all right if you're feeling shy this afternoon we can move around the board here so someone else talked about unifying psc's Equity approach companywide so the approach for R rfps can be really different would someone want to speak to that a little bit more oh that's also me nice Kate I think I I think renewable Nest mentioned this in our feedback on um the equity approach so I was just putting it in here as well that um the company uses a different scoring model and um for their RFP selection which we totally understand the differences but as we look towards looking at the gas system looking at the Electric System integrating these just trying to find ways to sync up how the company is scoring Equity across its entire processes um rather than siloing it um if that's possible yeah thanks for that uh I saw that the uh visiting owl talked about meeting the 2030 standards somebody else already liked that anyone want to elaborate on that one well that was Lauren um I'm the visiting owl um I think yeah I mean there's a long way to go to meet the 2030 standards and um you know I think we just got to get every like have all of us I'm not just pointing I'm not just talking about psse here everybody focused on how are we going to actually achieve those goals um and you know planning is important and it you know I I think planning is sort of a first step and a very critical step but we are also in the process of implementing um these laws in order to to meet those 2030 targets and so uh I think we want to make sure that um uh the focus remains on on meeting the targets even while we're also doing all of this other long-term planning work yeah thanks for that and while you have the mic I see that you're you're writing out a thought about the integration between long-term planning and psc's financial dot dot dot on the challenge side you yeah do you want to talk more about that one yeah sure uh I think what I'm trying to get at here is you know I feel like an ISP presents a great opportunity to just be a lot more relevant than the sort of um siloed planning processes that maybe don't rise you know necessarily to the level of um like fitting within the company's long-term strategic vision and strategic plan and so I think um what I was trying to get at here is you know um I I think an ISP has the ability to Encompass uh a lot more of the company's um goals as it pertains to staying you know financially viable and uh sort of what it wants to be you know in 10 years 20 years um just given that we're sort of starting with a blank slate here uh I would like to you know make sure that we're working towards a plan that that is relevant to the board and is you know um uh demonstrative of of where psse is headed as a company yeah thanks Lauren so we have a little under five minutes left just to flesh out these opportunities and challenges so I'll just open the the door to anyone who maybe hasn't spoken yet today if you want to just talk about what's on your mind how are you daunted how are you excited okay all right I'm not seeing any new I think we've touched on most of if not all of the sticky notes here I'm just kind of looking around the room um I see someone's writing a little bit about putting customers at the center of planning I think that was Lauren with her owl Alias um that's an opportunity there thanks for that all right opening up to everyone whether you've talked or haven't talked yet today any final words before we move into wrap up mode well thank you all um sometimes I mean I'm a person in word kind of gal and so having these kind of big picture opportunities and challenges um in that theoretical sense is really um interesting and intriguing to me so thanks for spelling all that out well if you could uh go back to the slide deck now just so that people can see the next steps visually so as he is doing that we're going to be on slide 30 yeah there we go so I think that there was an issue around the feedback form that there isn't a July 17 dropdown sorry about that so just note that you can select kind of General feedback from the drop down menu it all goes to the same people it all goes to the same place but apologies for that confusion so just choose General feedback and get your thoughts in by July 24th um you all can take a breather in August you won't have to hear my voice for a whole month but you'll get back together in September we are not sure of the date at this moment um it was originally slated for September 11th and then thought you know people might have different different ways of commemorating that day can we find a different date so Kim can I ask you in the chat um to hosts and panelists to drop the doodle link in there I know everyone loves a good doodle pole if I could ask you to fill it out now on the spot so I don't need to have to call you later let us know which of those dates in early September works best for you for another r P meeting and my understanding is that meeting gissy will know a little bit more at that time there'll be more information and this can all start feeling a little bit more real um and then just a note um October 31st PSC will file their engagement plan and I know the engagement team is took good notes today about what you were saying about focusing people's time so with that I think we're just on time for public comments so Kim can I ask you to allow the hand raising feature to come on for participants um there's about 11 attendees who are interested in speaking fantastic we see Jim atock Don Marsh let's see if there's a third so I can balance a Time Thomas Kramer very good um I will turn it over and allow let me actually it's my turn to share my screen with our timer give me a moment here Jim are you able to to um uh talk let's see if we can hear you can I do you hear me we sure can yeah you're two minute starts now thank you the dog ate my homework again I expressing concerns about what by now has become a pattern of delays in Pug's efforts to meet CA requirements which initially is to actually be 80% clean 80% renewable renewable energy delivered to customer load by 2030 where Puget start an our IRP process but then cancels it and this happens over and over again and by sea law only the remaining 20% made net near Zero by some other form of alternate compliance I am concerned that pet is not planning to do this to actually be 80% clean delivered to customer load by 2030 and P throws away the time and effort of everybody bu who has been involved involved in the IRP and rpeg process over and over again our Peg is a sad joke when even those which pet handpick to represent the public which of course they do not but then even the those people do not actually show up at the arpeg meetings leave leaving the public represented by exactly nobody I will note pet started back in 2020 by foot draing on acquiring new additional Renewables claiming that these Technologies would become cheaper later in time but now when instead Renewables have become more expensive now puic claims they cannot implent new Renewables because they are too expensive and then puic claims that BPA needs to build new power lines won't which won't happen until after 2030 too late when pett knew about this problem was developing a dozen years ago and could have asked pet BPA for transmission lines back then and pet has good solar and wind resources in their own territory no BPA required but now p is stuck in the mud predicting they will make no prog progress for for several years in summary I can't imagine any other outcome than Puget will hit the 2030 wall without actually meeting the Ceda 80% requirements please note my concerns what is happening is not right and is in no way just unreasonable thank you thanks for your comments Jim appreciate that uh next we have Don let's make sure Don's able to talk can you hear me we sure can Don your two minutes start now yeah I want to uh I want to uh um support uh Lord McCoy's uh comment about getting customers involved in the planning process so as you know uh uh many many of us have have stuck through this sort of dry spell of not being able to really engage in uh in these rpeg meetings uh but we still have a lot of enthusiasm we think this is very important work and now with ISP even more important and it's also a really great opportunity for psse to look at public engagement public participation and really um really Embrace uh you know a broader Vision we've got a broader scope now we need broader participation to make sure this really works psse and its customers have to work together to make this work and if you're not allowing customers to really participate there may be holes in the project in the plan or there might be insights that you that you missed so um one thing is I think in the past uh maybe there was some nervousness about uh people abusing the process or hijacking meetings or stuff but now we've had four years of experience with zoom and and remote meetings I really do think that uh with Reas reasonable uh moderation policies that you know if somebody is abusing you can say okay that's that's not really helping and you can yeah you can uh unmute that person if necessary but there are voices out in the community that you do not want to mute you do not want to miss the opportunities the wisdom that that's embodied in this community so I do hope that we will we will see opportunities for us to participate more than just two minutes at the very end of the meeting with no possible Q&A possible thank you yeah thanks so much for your your comments Don so I'm looking at the the list here uh it seems like the hand was removed from someone else who maybe wanted to speak oh there it comes back again Thomas Kramer please can we hear you yes can you hear me sure can you're two minutes start now okay uh Tom Kramer with third act Washington here uh psc's planning transition work plan and the slides today suggest that the primary goal of utility integration is to make the resource planning process more efficient and I'm encouraged by psc's verbal commitments today more toward decarbonization and customer needs however the first listed purpose of the decarbonization act as stated in the first sentence of legislative intent in section5 is quote to transition customers off of the direct use of fossil fuels close quote the only direct use of fossil fuels offered by the utility is gas transitioning off gas is the primary goal reducing gas is not enough psse is required to transition off of it proportional emission reduction in 2050 will be Net Zero for everybody so there needs to be a progressive reduction that at over time that at least approaches proportional along the way including Progressive decommissioning of gas plant through geographically targeted electrification and now on slide 16 as noted on the slide there are other specific requirements for HB 1589 than the six quoted there in fact there are over 20 additional specific requirements for the ISP I'd like to emphasize to the rpeg that several of the requirements include detailed assessments of various renewable Alternatives conservation and efficiency resources supply side resources deers and other resources that may be available these assessments are more granular than the usual resource assessments made at the planning level and should result in fewer assumptions in developing scenarios thank you thank you so much for those comments as well very good I'm not seeing any more raised hands from the public but thank you to The Observers for taking in the meeting and watching PSC and rpeg members evolve as they respond to new legislation here um so we're just about at 3 o'clock so um I'll just wrap by saying thank you than you so much to the arpeg members who gave a lot of their thoughts and ideas during this meeting and to psse for putting together materials to help get the ball rolling so I hope everyone enjoys uh the Breather in August and we look forward to seeing you in September take care everyone