New IRP Proposed Decision Allocates 6 GW Across California Load-Serving Entities
Administrative Law Judge Fitch issued a proposed decision that, if adopted, would require California load-serving entities to procure additional clean reliability resources to address forecasted system needs in the 2029–2032 period.
The PD orders 2,000 MW of net qualifying capacity online by June 1, 2030, and an additional 4,000 MW by June 1, 2032, with no more than half of each tranche met by storage. The PD also transmits updated base and sensitivity portfolios to the CAISO for use in its 2026–2027 Transmission Planning Process.
The procurement finding is based on updated Integrated Energy Policy Report load forecasts, reliability modeling using SERVM, and the risk of delayed long-lead-time resources. Eligible resources must follow the Mid-Term Reliability framework and be new, zero-emitting and/or RPS-eligible, with limited credit for repowering only to the extent of incremental capacity added.
The PD does not impose a separate energy-procurement mandate, relying instead on ELCC-based capacity requirements and existing RPS and Resource Adequacy programs.
- An accompanying attachment allocates the 6,000 MW NQC obligation across investor-owned utilities, Community Choice Aggregators, and aggregated Electric Service Providers based on adjusted 2026 load shares (see table below).
- The largest shares fall on PG&E and SCE bundled service, followed by major CCAs such as Clean Power Alliance, East Bay Community Energy, and San Diego Community Power. ESP obligations are shown only in aggregate and will be conveyed confidentially to individual providers.
Comments are due February 3. The earliest the CPUC will consider this item is February 26.
| Load Serving Entity | Type | 2026 Load (GWh) |
Adj. Share | 2030 (MW NQC) |
2032 (MW NQC) |
Total (MW NQC) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pacific Gas and Electric (bundled) | IOU | 5,144 | 17.3% | 347 | 694 | 1,041 |
| PG&E Direct Access (aggregated)* | ESP | 11,393 | 4.1% | 82 | 164 | 245 |
| Clean Power San Francisco | CCA | 3,394 | 1.7% | 34 | 68 | 103 |
| East Bay Community Energy | CCA | 9,432 | 4.7% | 95 | 190 | 285 |
| King City Community Power | CCA | 36 | 0.0% | 0.4 | 1 | 1 |
| Marin Clean Energy | CCA | 5,966 | 3.0% | 60 | 120 | 180 |
| Central Coast Community Energy | CCA | 5,791 | 2.9% | 58 | 117 | 175 |
| Peninsula Clean Energy Authority | CCA | 3,831 | 1.9% | 39 | 77 | 116 |
| Pioneer Community Energy | CCA | 1,793 | 0.9% | 18 | 36 | 54 |
| Redwood Coast Energy Authority | CCA | 634 | 0.3% | 6 | 13 | 19 |
| San Jose Clean Energy | CCA | 4,543 | 2.3% | 46 | 91 | 137 |
| Silicon Valley Clean Energy | CCA | 4,132 | 2.1% | 42 | 83 | 125 |
| Sonoma Clean Power Authority | CCA | 2,236 | 1.1% | 23 | 45 | 68 |
| Valley Clean Energy Alliance | CCA | 724 | 0.4% | 7 | 15 | 22 |
| Southern California Edison (bundled) | IOU | 51,858 | 35.8% | 716 | 1,431 | 2,147 |
| SCE Direct Access (aggregated)* | ESP | 12,003 | 4.3% | 86 | 172 | 259 |
| Apple Valley Choice Energy | CCA | 250 | 0.1% | 3 | 5 | 8 |
| City of Pomona | CCA | 431 | 0.2% | 4 | 9 | 13 |
| Clean Power Alliance of Southern California | CCA | 11,166 | 5.6% | 112 | 225 | 337 |
| Desert Community Energy | CCA | 369 | 0.2% | 4 | 7 | 11 |
| Lancaster Clean Energy | CCA | 618 | 0.3% | 6 | 12 | 19 |
| Orange County Power Authority | CCA | 2,275 | 1.1% | 23 | 46 | 69 |
| Energy for Palmdale's Independent Choice | CCA | 497 | 0.3% | 5 | 10 | 15 |
| Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy | CCA | 218 | 0.1% | 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Rancho Mirage Energy Authority | CCA | 286 | 0.1% | 3 | 6 | 9 |
| San Jacinto Power | CCA | 172 | 0.1% | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Santa Barbara Clean Energy | CCA | 347 | 0.2% | 3 | 7 | 10 |
| San Diego Gas & Electric (bundled) | IOU | 2,658 | 1.8% | 37 | 73 | 110 |
| SDG&E Direct Access (aggregated)* | ESP | 3,942 | 1.4% | 28 | 57 | 85 |
| Clean Energy Alliance | CCA | 2,492 | 1.3% | 25 | 50 | 75 |
| San Diego Community Power | CCA | 8,340 | 4.2% | 84 | 168 | 252 |
| TOTAL | 176,972 | 100% | 2,000 | 4,000 | 6,000 |
INSTANT ANALYSIS: On resource eligibility, the PD excludes fossil resources, limits repowering to incremental capacity only, and permits energy-only resources solely when co-located with fully deliverable storage. The 50% storage cap is the central policy choice: it constrains over-reliance on storage and indirectly drives additional energy procurement without reopening the Renewables Portfolio Standard or imposing a separate energy mandate.
Why the PD matters for CRI readers: it establishes the next reliability obligation after Mid-Term Reliability, shapes procurement behavior through 2032, and feeds directly into the CAISO's transmission approvals with cost-recovery implications. The PD also creates a narrow window for projects to secure remaining federal incentives, increasing near-term procurement pressure even as the Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program remains under development.