ex99.htm

The Utility’s Role in
Implementing Clean
Technology

Fong Wan
Senior Vice President, Energy Procurement
Pacific Gas and Electric Company

March 17, 2009

This presentation is not complete without the accompanying oral statements made on March 17, 2009. A replay is available at
www.pgecorp.com. For more information about PG&E Corporation and its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and a
discussion of risks and uncertainties facing the companies, see the reports filed or furnished by the companies to the Securities
and Exchange Commission, including the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. These reports are
available at www.pgecorp.com and www.pge.com.

Agenda

• California’s Clean Energy History

• The Importance of Demand-Side Emerging Technologies

• Renewable Energy Requirements

• Benefits and Challenges of Utility-scale vs. Distributed Solar

• PG&E's Portfolio Approach

• Comparison of PV vs. Concentrating Solar Thermal

• PG&E’s Proposed New Photovoltaic Program

• Integration of Intermittent Renewables

• Enabling Technologies

ü Energy Storage

ü SmartGrid

What Makes California Different?

• Long-standing State policies lower carbon footprint.

• 30+ years of energy efficiency programs facilitated by
“decoupling” of rates.

• California Energy Action Plan preferred loading order:

• Customer Energy Efficiency

• Demand Response/Dynamic Pricing

• Renewables

• Distributed Generation

• Clean gas-fired plants

Over the past 30 years, California per capita electricity use has remained
relatively flat compared to the 50% increase in U.S. per capita electricity use.

Source: California Energy Commission

History of Energy Efficiency Key to California Success

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Western Europe

2005

Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

14,000

Appliance Standards

Building Standards

Utility Efficiency

Programs at a cost of

~1% of electric bill

Utility Programs and State Standards

Utility tests
technologies that
deliver above-code
savings

California Energy
Commission raises
building and
appliance codes
and standards

Utility Rebate
Programs provide
incentives for
tested technologies
leading to mass-
market adoption

Source: California Energy Commission

California Has the Most Aggressive
Renewable Portfolio Standard

State Goal

☼ PA: 18%** by 2020

☼ NJ: 22.5% by 2021

CT: 23% by 2020

WI: requirement varies by
utility; 10% by 2015 goal

IA: 105 MW

MN: 25% by 2025

(Xcel: 30% by 2020)

TX: 5,880 MW by 2015

☼ AZ: 15% by 2025

CA: 20% by 2010

☼ *NV: 20% by 2015

ME: 30% by 2000

10% by 2017 - new RE

State RPS

HI: 20% by 2020

RI: 16% by 2020

☼ CO: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)

*10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)

☼ DC: 20% by 2020

DSIRE: www.dsireusa.org March 2009

☼ NY: 24% by 2013

MT: 15% by 2015

IL: 25% by 2025

VT: (1) RE meets any increase
in retail sales by 2012;
(2) 20% RE & CHP by 2017

☼ MD: 20% by 2022

☼ NH: 23.8% in 2025

OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilities)

5% - 10% by 2025 (smaller utilities)

*VA: 12% by 2022

☼ *DE: 20% by 2019

☼ NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)

10% by 2020 (co-ops)

☼ NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IOUs)

10% by 2018 (co-ops & munis)

ND: 10% by 2015

SD: 10% by 2015

*UT: 20% by 2025

☼ OH: 25%** by 2025

*MI: 10% + 1,100 MW
by 2015

☼ MA: 15% by 2020
+ 1% annual increase
(Class I Renewables)

☼ MO: 15% by 2021

*WA: 15% by 2020

28 states have
an RPS;

5 states have an
RE goal

proposed:
33% by 2020

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Annual

Cumulative

# of Contracts

Aggressive Contracting for
Diverse Renewable Resources

Geothermal

493

Wind

778

Bioenergy

129

Solar Thermal

1,230

3,515

Solar PV

777

MWh

Solar/Biomass

107

Small Hydro

Distributed vs. Utility Scale Solar

Pros:

• Speed to market

• Not transmission dependent

• Not dependent on water

Cons:

• Higher deployment costs

• Slower scale penetration

Utility Scale

Pros:

• Economies of scale

• Efficiencies

• Compatible with emerging
storage technologies

Cons:

• Transmission dependent

• Land & water requirements

• Not for all locations

Distributed

PG&E Takes a Diversified Portfolio Approach

A Portfolio of Diverse Central-Station and
Dispersed Utility-Scale Solar Technologies

500-MW Power Tower

550-MW Cd Te PV

210-MW c-Si Tracking PV

250-MW Dispersed PV

(1-20 MW ea) (PPA)

Illustrative

553-MW Parabolic Trough

250-MW Dispersed PV

(1-20 MW ea) (owned)

Illustrative

Why the Trend to Photovoltaics?

• Proven, commercially ready technology

• Costs are decreasing

• Many Northern California locations suitable for PV
deployment

• Modular / rapid deployment capabilities

• Project size facilitates expedited interconnection

• Project size avoids transmission upgrades

• Dispersed implementation reduces environmental
impacts

• More peak coincident than other renewables

• Utilities now eligible for ITC

Levelized Cost of Energy1 Has Decreased

Solar Energy Cost Trends

Source: NREL Energy Analysis Office (www.nrel.gov/analysis/docs/cost_curves_2005.ppt)

1These graphs are reflections of historical cost trends NOT precise annual historical data.

125 -

100 -

75 -

50 -

25 -

Photovoltaics

PG&E’s Proposed New “Hybrid” PV Program

• Requested California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) approval in February 2009

• 5-Year Program targeted to begin in January 2010

• 500 MW(AC): 1 to 20 MW installations composed of

• 250 MW (305 MW(DC)) utility-owned generation (UOG) at an
estimated capital cost of $1.45 billion (~$4.25 per Watt(DC))

• 250 MW of PPAs

• PG&E-owned projects projected to be primarily
ground-mounted

• Targeting utility-owned land with grid connection capability

PG&E’s Proposed New “Hybrid” PV Program

• PG&E would seek to finance projects as any rate-
base investment

• The terms and pricing of the PPAs would be subject
to pre-approval by the CPUC

• Proposed 2 MW pilot UOG PV project targeted to
start in 2009, to speed deployment of the larger PV
Program if approved by the CPUC

Integrating Intermittent Renewables

• Solar and wind are both intermittent resources

• Very few renewable resources are dispatchable

• Today, integrating renewable resources requires
more fast-response natural gas power plants

• New technologies will provide other options in the
future

Wind Generation Varies Widely

The average is smooth, but day-to-day variability is great

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Hour

Average

Each Day is a different color.

-Day 29

-Day 5

-Day 26

-Day 9

Source: CAISO

CCGT Power Plant

Renewable Resource Integration

Today:

• Clean, flexible, natural gas-fueled resources are currently necessary to
back up intermittent resources

• Significantly improved air emissions profile compared to retiring plants,
but still fossil-fueled

Renewable Resource Integration

Local Storage

Rooftop PV

Centralized Storage

Tomorrow:

• Utility scale distributed storage to back up intermittent resources and
timeshift resource availability to be coincident with demand

• Distributed generation and distributed storage to apply similar principles
at the customer premise

• Demand response programs used to integrate intermittent renewables

California’s State Flower

• The commute to the
average office building in
CA uses 57% more
energy than the building
uses.

• Transportation will be the
next big use of clean
electricity.

• The SmartGrid will
enable the electrification
of transportation without
requiring additional fossil
-fueled generation.

Source: California Energy Commission