4 min read

CalCCA's 2028 Resource Adequacy Proposal

The California Community Choice Association (CalCCA) is asking the CPUC to set monthly planning reserve margins (PRMs) for 2028, with a higher margin in May and lower margins from July through September than under the annual and two-season methods Energy Division has used in its studies.

In a Nov. 2 filing, CalCCA estimated that its proposal could cut resource adequacy (RA) procurement costs by 4.0% to 5.7% relative to those methods while meeting the CPUC’s reliability standard of 0.1 expected shortfall events per year.

In August, CRI reported that neither Energy Division nor SCE found shortfalls in its projected 2028 baseline. Both had to stress their models to estimate the reserve margin.

CALCCA’S PROPOSAL

CalCCA proposes to set the margins using CAISO’s target monthly distribution of shortfall risk and Energy Division’s proposed import assumptions for 2028. The resulting reserve margins would be 16.9% in April, 27.4% in May and 10.7% to 14.6% from July through September.

CalCCA calculated a margin of 17.4% in each of those three summer months when it applied either of the methods used by staff to the same modeling case. Even with the lower margins, July through September would each require more than 52 GW of capacity because of higher peak demand. April and May would each require less than 44 GW.

CalCCA's proposed 2028 reserve margins
Higher in May, lower in July–September, with 80% of expected shortfall events in those three months
CalCCA recommended 2028 planning reserve margins by month Monthly RA requirement split into 1-in-2 peak demand and reserve capacity, with the reserve margin percentage labeled; below, each month's share of annual expected shortfall events. May has the highest margin at 27.4%; July through September range from 10.7% to 14.6% and hold 80% of expected shortfall events. 1-in-2 peak demand Reserve capacity (labels = PRM) 0 GW 20 GW 40 GW 60 GW Jan: requirement 32,809 MW; peak demand 30,749 MW; PRM 6.7% 6.7% Jan Feb: requirement 33,587 MW; peak demand 30,204 MW; PRM 11.2% 11.2% Feb Mar: requirement 34,879 MW; peak demand 30,866 MW; PRM 13.0% 13.0% Mar Apr: requirement 39,203 MW; peak demand 33,536 MW; PRM 16.9% 16.9% Apr May: requirement 42,640 MW; peak demand 33,469 MW; PRM 27.4% 27.4% May Jun: requirement 47,214 MW; peak demand 42,080 MW; PRM 12.2% 12.2% Jun Jul: requirement 52,616 MW; peak demand 46,728 MW; PRM 12.6% 12.6% Jul Aug: requirement 52,961 MW; peak demand 46,214 MW; PRM 14.6% 14.6% Aug Sep: requirement 54,162 MW; peak demand 48,927 MW; PRM 10.7% 10.7% Sep Oct: requirement 44,096 MW; peak demand 40,051 MW; PRM 10.1% 10.1% Oct Nov: requirement 36,257 MW; peak demand 33,571 MW; PRM 8.0% 8.0% Nov Dec: requirement 32,800 MW; peak demand 31,448 MW; PRM 4.3% 4.3% Dec Share of annual expected shortfall events Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun: 0.012 expected events (12% of annual) 12% Jun Jul: 0.016 expected events (16% of annual) 16% Jul Aug: 0.016 expected events (16% of annual) 16% Aug Sep: 0.048 expected events (48% of annual) 48% Sep Oct: 0.008 expected events (8% of annual) 8% Oct Nov Dec
Source: CalCCA, Final 2028 PRM Study (Nov. 2, 2026, R.25-10-003), Attachment A, Tables 5, 7 and 8. CAISOTargetLOLE criteria, Case B. Peak demand derived from requirement and PRM.

This post is for paying subscribers only