Operator: Welcome to the California Public
Utilities Commission meeting on this day,
January 14th, 2021, President Batjer, you may begin.
-: Thank you operator and good morning.
We need to establish a quorum so in the agenda,
please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Present.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves
-: Present.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: I'm here.
Clerk: President Batjer -: Here, thank you.
And a quorum has been established.
Welcome to the California Public Utilities Commission.
I am calling this meeting of January 14th, 2021,
public agenda number 3478 to order.
Through the coronavirus pandemic
and the shelter in place order
we are conducting today's business meeting online
and by remote participation.
The meeting is live-streamed on the CPUC's website.
You can view the meeting
at ww.dotadminmonitor.com/ca/sspuc.
Admin monitor is one word.
Public engagement is critical to the CPUC process.
If you wish to make a public comment, dial into 800-857-1917
and enter pass code 9899501 and press star one.
You will be placed into a queue and the operator
will take your name and information.
You will be called upon to speak
when we get to the public comment period in today's agenda.
If you encountered difficulty calling
into the public telephone line,
please email voting meeting help at cpuc.ca.gov,
voting meeting health, all together.
Before we commence with the public comment
I would like to share my gratitude and excitement
to start this new term as a CPUC president.
First, I would like to thank Governor Newsome
for his continued support and confidence.
My fellow Commissioners, I would like to say
that I'm inspired to know, I will continue to work with you
and count on our camaraderie and with your wisdom.
And to staff, I want you to know I'm reinvigorated
at with the fact that I will continue to lead
and work with some of the smartest
and hardest working public servants in state government.
When I took on this role nearly a year and a half ago,
I knew we would initiate important efforts
that would require more than 15 months of which
to make meaningful progress.
I am reassured and more determined
to know this new term gives us the time
to see through the critical work we have started.
And anyway, you look at it,
we have been through a very tumultuous and challenging year.
And when we think about the possibilities of the year ahead,
we should expect it to be difficult
but not less challenging, but no less challenging.
The people we serve have endured unfashionable disruption
and loss in recent months.
More than ever Californians seek from us
and those reregulate to live up to our duties
and commitments to predictably provide high quality services
to their lives can, excuse me,
high quality service their lives can depend on.
They want certainty from us in these moments
when so much appears uncertain.
The astronomic damage caused by COVID-19 pandemic
and the social inequities it has highlighted for example,
called upon us to maintain an increased access to services
that'd become more essential as individuals
and families move to shelter work and learn from home.
We also see these threats to certainty,
California seek as we better prepare for climate change
and extreme weather events, like those that contributed
to the power outages last August.
The acceleration of climate change demands,
we enhance our planning efforts and regulatory requirements
and with broader anticipation for what is possible.
It is my top priority this year to ensure we have demand
and supply side resources needed
to maintain reliability this summer and beyond,
and to continue to decarbonize the grid.
We are living through a critical moment in history
when our open and democratic institutions at all levels
are being called upon to step up
and demonstrate they can deliver
on their respective missions, the CPUC is amongst them.
So I call upon all of us at the CPUC
to consciously fulfill this duty by doing our part
in ensuring the wellbeing of all Californians
and by so doing restoring California's faith
in the institution that give all of them an equal voice
in meeting their mission.
You can count on my devotion and leadership
in this important effort.
Now, before we move on to public comment,
there is an important item I would like to report on.
Pursuant to government code one, one, one, two, six, a one.
The Commission took action at it's December 28th, 2020,
a continuation meeting
of its December 17th, 2020 closed session
and voted to appoint a new executive director
by a roll call vote and are reporting today
that Rachel Peterson was appointed as executive director
by the following roll call vote.
Genevieve Shiroma, yes.
Martha Guzman Aceves, yes.
Clifford Rechtschaffen, yes.
Leanne Randolph, yes.
Marybel Batjer, yes.
Executive director Peterson was most recently
the CPUC's acting executive director.
She has worked at the CPUC's since 2011
in several leadership positions including chief of staff
and advisor to Commissioners.
Acting director of the safety policy division
and deputy executive director
for safety enforcement and policy.
She has experienced in numerous areas
of the CPUCs utility regulation, including electricity,
natural gas and safety and transportation,
and has led initiatives to bring greater transparency
to the CPUC's processes, she is an attorney
and a former non-profit executive director.
My fellow Commissioners and I look forward
to working very much with Rachel.
Please join us in welcoming executive director,
Peterson in her new role.
Okay, I'm gonna turn to Rachel,
would you like to say a few words?
Welcome executive director Peterson.
-: Thank you very much, President Batjer,
and thank you to all the Commissioners
including now chair Randalls of the Air Resources Board.
I am very deeply honored to have been appointed
as the new executive director of the CPUC.
We are a remarkable agency with a significant role to play
in California since we regulate essential utility services.
I want to emphasize again the extraordinary work
that everyone has done at this agency to serve the public
during this COVID-19 pandemic.
As you just said, President Batjer we stepped up
and delivered in many, many ways.
We're also already acting on behalf of Californians
in numerous ways as the state pushes to turn the corner
and emerge from the pandemic.
And I just wanna note that as you set out
your top priorities for 2021, mine are very similar to yours
and hopefully compliment them.
I wanted to just name the six that I've identified
for myself in this new role in 2021.
First progress on our diversity, equity, inclusion,
staff morale and upward mobility efforts.
Second, ensuring that our core operations teams are partners
with all staff and provide that excellent customer service.
Third, reconceptualizing and planning
our returns office space work.
Forth, implementing the new enforcement policy
that you adopted last year, which will definitely draw
on nearly all of our regulatory divisions.
Fifth, regulatory work that contemplates a drier future
in California, as you just noted the experiences
that we had in 2020 will very likely become more frequent.
And this is going to draw on our wildfire work,
our energy work, our water division, our environmental
and social justice work just in so many ways we are going
to be impacted and will need to continue our regulations
in that dryer future.
And then six, then last I'm really excited about planning
and actions that will move us
toward a more innovative future.
And this is about initiatives and ideas
that have flowed from you as Commissioners
but also from our staff efforts, like brought them for all,
our engagement with California's tribes,
remote access to our proceedings consumer protection
as the industries that we regulate evolve,
autonomous vehicles and ride sharing access for all,
the future of natural gas, climate change adaptation,
and you can just see the range of efforts
that we already have going on that are going
to help move California towards that more innovative future.
So thank you again, President Batjer and Commissioners
for the support and confidence that you have placed in me
to lead this remarkable organization, thank you.
-: Thank you very much, Rachel.
And again, congratulations to you,
we're just so privileged and honored to have you.
We will now turn to the public comment period in our agenda.
If you wish to make a public comment,
and you have already dialed
into the public comment telephone line,
please press star one to get into the public comment two.
CPUC rules, do not allow for parties in proceeding
to speak about open proceeding.
The public can make comments,
addressing items on the consent and regular agenda
and including items not on the agenda today.
Please note that there will not be public comment
on items 9, 44 and all on the closed session agenda.
You will have two minutes to speak.
Let me repeat, you will have two minutes to speak.
You'll hear a bell sound when your time is up,
please be mindful of other speakers in the queue
and keep to your allotted time.
With that guidance in mind, I welcome today's speakers.
I will now turn to the operator
to open the public comment telephone line, operator.
Operator: That public comment line is now open.
Our first speaker is Barbara Stebbins,
please state your organization, your line is open.
Barbara: My name is Barbara Stebbins.
I am with the Local Clean Energy Alliance.
We're calling in supportive of the letter is submitted
by Reclaim Our Power, regarding the proposed decision
on track two of the microgrid proceedings.
We urge the Commission
to reject the current proposed decision
and to include the voices of black indigenous
and people of color in making revisions
to the proposed decisions that will include control
and ownership in development
of these resources in those communities.
The current proposed decision gives almost complete control
over microgrid development to the investor on utilities
which is completely contrary to the intent of SB 1339
which gave rise to these proceedings
and was intended to open up the distribution grid
for microgrid development by community
and other organizations.
Frontline communities are most at risk from failures
of the current energy system and their voices are critical
to developing resilient alternatives
including making decisions such as which facilities
are truly critical for these communities
during climate derived or other kinds of catastrophes.
We urge you to include the voices of these people
in making decisions around something so important
as microgrid development which will be the future
of a reorganized energy grid in California, thank you.
-: Eminis Devons, operator the next call, please.
Operator: The next caller is Lincoln Oliver O'Neill,
please state your organization, your line is open.
Mr. O'Neil, please check your mute button.
-: Okay, sorry about that.
Thank you for your recognition operator,
good morning Commissioners.
My name is Lincoln Oliver O'Neill and I organized
with the Sunrise movement Bay Area Chapter.
I'm calling today to say that we stand
with Reclaim Our Power to transform our energy system
to meet our community needs and endorsed the letter
that they delivered to you on Monday.
I myself have grown up in a time
where the centralized corporate controlled entities
like PG&E have proven to be lethal time and again.
Young people in sunrise are inheriting the climate crisis
but we refuse to inherit the systems
that have brought us here.
Today we urge you to include frontline community priorities
on the track to microgrid proceeding, proposed decision
and call for the CQC to allow community members
not private utilities, to define which facilities
to protect against power shutoffs.
To allow an organization who has caused so much damage
to make life or death decisions related
to energy prioritization,
reinforces a paternalistic narrative that draws its strength
from the white supremacist roots of this country
that we have already seen surging around the America.
That white people with the deepest pockets
know what's best for everyone.
This is a deadly delusion that we must let go of
if we are to adapt our energy system
and survive the climate crisis.
I call upon the CPUC to host community workshops
to hear what the people of California value,
not the utilities that have endangered our lives.
Thank you and have a great rest of your day.
-: Thank you, Mr. O'Neill operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Miriam Aye.
Please state your name and organization, your line is open.
Miriam: Hello, my name is Miriam and I am
with Sunrise Bay Area and I stand
with the Reclaim Our Power campaign
to transform our energy system to meet community needs
and endorse the letter they delivered to you on Monday.
We need energy that is affordable, safe, and resilient,
and utilities that are community and worker controlled.
For me, this means being able to see my community members
and myself, having a part in the energy that we use.
As we've seen time and time again,
there's little or no control over whether
or not our electricity is shut off, turned on,
or how it is produced, which has a direct impact
on my future and the future of those around me.
We urge you to include frontline community priorities today
on the track you might preferred proceeding,
proposed decision and call for the CPUC to not only ensure
that microgrid and the grid itself
is owned by the community,
but also to ensure that it is clean.
At the moment, the CPUC has assured us that diesel
is a short-term solution that will be followed
by a transition to clean energy generation.
And we demand that this happens as soon as possible
and that we can move to the energy generation
that will support our future.
In addition, rather than simply staying
at community controlled, this energy system
must be community owned, ensuring the most simple
and direct control of the community
rather than keeping the complex model
that has not worked in the past, thank you.
-: Thank you very much, operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Rachel Cohen.
Please state your name and organization, your line is open.
Cohen: Good morning and thank you for taking time
to hear my comment, my name is Rachel Cohen
and I am a 23 year old resident of San Francisco
and a member of Sunrise Movement Bay Area.
As a young person who understands the gravity of the effects
of climate change and as a recent graduate whose employment
and finances have been largely impacted by the pandemic,
I'm calling to say that I stand
with the Reclaim Our Power campaign
to transform our energy system, to meet community needs.
I also endorsed the letter that Reclaim Our Power delivered
to the California Public Utilities Commission on Monday.
We need energy that is affordable, safe and resilient,
and we need to have community and work
in control of utilities as soon as possible.
Microgrid must be controlled by our communities
because investor owned utilities
have continually endangered our lives in California.
They're for profit and not for people.
Please help to empower communities to invest
in their own energy futures.
Additionally, I urge you to please
include frontline community priorities today
on the track to microgrid proceedings.
And I call for the California Public Utilities Commission
to ensure that the $200 million in microgrid incentives
actually makes it to disadvantage communities
and even prioritizes these disadvantaged communities
over affluent communities
and the dispersal of these incentives.
These are the kinds of changes that I feel we need
for an equitable energy model in California
and that will support everyone's future, thank you.
-: Thank you, Ms. Cohen, operator, the next caller please.
Operator: The next caller is Mary Rose,
please state your name and organization, your line is open.
Rose: Good morning Commissioners, this is Mary Rose.
I'm the coordinator of the Reclaim Our Power campaign,
which is a campaign of thousands of black indigenous people
of color communities fighting
for local clean energy solutions in the face of an assault
by the PG&E and IOUs by fire by shut off by pollution.
So we authored the letter that was delivered to you
on Monday, supported by many, many community
and clean energy organizations
for how this microgrid program can work for our communities
and serve the needs of frontline so that we can be resilient
through fire shutoff and the climate crisis.
So after reviewing the final decision for track two,
we still see glaring inadequacies of the program.
So for instance, the 200 million microgrid incentive
program is a good start, but if we can't get the facilities
that are essential to our communities,
then it doesn't actually help us.
So I'm actually an accidental energy justice advocate,
I grew up in the central Valley as the daughter
of farm workers and I appeal especially
to Commissioner Shiroma and Commissioner Guzman Aceves
who has done long standing work
with farm worker communities.
So if we look at these communities and what facilities
are needed for resilient power,
we need then the community resource centers
during shutoff to have microgrid power,
we need cooling centers, food banks, health clinics,
childcare centers, and currently the definition
that we're seeing in the decision does not include
or lift up those communities
to have these microgrid systems.
And so we need the definitions of critical facilities
to include these types of buildings.
Especially lift up the comments
of the California Environmental Justice Alliance
federal definition of critical facilities.
There's more in our letter and it will be echoed
by other speakers that support
the Reclaim Our Power company, thank you.
-: Thank you, operator the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Gabriel Gossner.
Please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Gabriel: Hello, can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Gabriel: This is Gabe Gossner,
I'm a member of DSA; Democratic Socialists of America
San Francisco Chapter and Eco-socialists Committee.
And also I am calling to stand
with the Reclaim Our Power campaign
and their letter that they live with you on Monday.
We need energy that is affordable, safe and resilient,
and, you know, influenced and controlled by the community
and workers specifically the microgrids
should be clean, not dirty.
The CPUC assure that Giza would be a short term solution
before transition to clean generation already,
it's quite possible to have a backup power
that is not diesel, and we also need an opportunity
for community ownership,
especially now when we face rolling blackouts,
communities that own my kids can you know,
avoid those things, and there's no reason
it's these canoes, you know,
want to invest in them they can't.
Furthermore, the process, behind the proposed decision
was rushed a pig and locked out of community voices,
and it really didn't comply with the mandate of SB 1339,
it was issued just before the holidays
with a very quick turnaround time and no real lounge
of community engagement, and that's not really a way
for us to build our future entity system
especially as we face these rolling blackouts
and where they need to decentralize our grid
and have an amazing opportunity to centralize our grid
with the growth of distributed resources, such as solar,
SPG 39 was passed to give communities more control
over the microgrid development process,
not relegated to PG&E and other investment
on utilities and PG&E do this, thank you.
-: Thank you, operator the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Jessica Tillbar,
please state your name and organization, your line is open.
Jessica: Hi, Jessica Tillbar,
I'm with the East Bay Clean Power Alliance
in support of Reclaim Our Power utility justice.
And I just wanna echo what was said.
We have an opportunity here to provide resilience
and clean energy for the communities that need it the most.
We have been living in the shadows of dirty energy
for way too long and demanding that we get off
of fossil fuels and implement clean energy solutions
in our communities to serve us, to protect us,
and so that our families can thrive.
You have an opportunity today to do better
for our communities and actually bail out our communities
with resilience, with health, with clean air.
This is the time to do it.
To move forward with a diesel generated microgrid
is blatant disregard of environmental justice communities
throughout the state of California.
We know what we need to do, and we need to be empowered,
we need to have ownership,
we are living in a global pandemic
with no end in sight at this point.
We have people around us who are dying,
dying from pollution, dying from this virus
that is circulating in our communities.
We need to be able to survive this crisis
and the money crisis is that we are facing in our community.
We demand that you do the right thing,
implement clean energy microgrid in our community
-: So that we can move forward in a healthy way.
It's time that the CPUC step up
and actively listened to our demands.
We can't be living in this mess that we've been living in,
you can no longer move forward and ignore our demands.
We need to do this now, clean power to the people.
-: Thank you very much, next caller, please.
Operator: The next color is Lee Miller.
Please state your name and organization, your line is open.
Lee: Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Lee Miller, I live in Sacramento
and I'm on the Board of Directors for Solar Rights Alliance.
Solar Rights Alliance is a nonprofit association
of California solar users.
I am speaking on behalf of Solar Rights Alliance today.
We oppose the current proposed decision on microgrids
and ask that you make changes outlined to you
by the Reclaim Our Power coalition.
Californians desperately need more choices
to protect themselves from power outages,
and outrageously high electricity bills.
Microgrid power by local solar and storage
are a key solution, but the solution only works
if we empowered communities to establish microgrids
in a way that they seek that and do not allow the utilities
to use their monopoly power
to undercut community-based microgrids.
The proposed decision gives the utilities way too much power
over microgrid development,
which is ironic given the utilities caused the problem
that microgrids will solve.
Vote, no thank you for listening to our input.
Have a nice day.
-: Thank you, Ms. Miller, operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Al Wineruff.
Please state your name and organization, your line is open.
Mr. Al, please check your mute button.
-: I'm sorry, caller, we do not hear you.
I think you have your mute button on.
Operator: The next caller is Erica Morgan.
Please state your name and organization,
your line is now open.
Erica: Thank you, good morning, chair Batjer
and Commission, my name is Erica Morgan,
I'm a resident of San Diego
and an independent clean energy consultant working
to advance climate safe alternatives in neighborhoods
and local communities, I am also on the committee
of the California Alliance for Community Energy.
And as such and for many reasons,
I am a supporter of community choice
as the most innovative alternative we have
to help reshape this centuries old electricity system
is that is causing so much difficulty at the moment
into one that utilizes climate safe technologies
to benefit all of our community.
I thank you for the opportunity to come in today
and have two things I want to say first,
I want to urge the Commission
to support the alternative proposed decision
under item 37 and 37a, as one of many here in San Diego
who've been supporting the formation of community choice
for over eight years, it would be travesty
against the loaders will to undermine the launch
of San Diego community power by allowing the utility
to artificially lower its competitive rates.
It is that's just an unbelievable scenario.
I wanna thank Commissioner Guzman Aceves for her leadership
and her effort in crafting the alternative decision
which should be adopted.
My second comment is to echo a lot
of what you've heard here already and urge the Commission
to reject, rewrite and reissue the proposed decision
in the track to group proceeding.
The proposed decision as it is failed to consider,
the voices, not only of the communities as spelled out
in Reclaim Our Powers letter, but also the voices
of a great many of the parties who commented on the function
that this proposed decision should play
in enabling community operation of these facilities.
So the extensive of record needs to be reconsidered,
and I thank you for the opportunity
to say that, take care, bye-bye.
-: Thank you very much, operator the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Beverley Dayshow.
Your line is now open, please state your name
as well as your organization.
Beverly: Morning Commissioners.
My name is Beverly Dayshow I'm the president
of the Electric Auto Association
which has over 100 chapters across the United States.
And we are looking at the future
of our whole economy becoming electrified.
And as such, if we have a power outage, everything goes
you know, our heating, our transportation, everything.
So I am in support of locally owned
and controlled microgrids and of your helping us
to be able to facilitate that by actually SB 1339,
as we have seen with the CCAs,
the TPC has been favoring policies of the IOU
that are not conducive to the success of CCAs,
and I would like to see that the CCAs are successful
as well as locally owned and operated microgrids.
And especially this is an opportunity
to repair some inequities by giving special consideration
to disadvantaged communities,
those are communities know what we need
what our critical facilities are, and we should be able
to make those choices rather than that the IOUs do,
and that we do not have those choices locally.
So I encourage you to help us with local resilience
by supporting locally owned
and controlled microgrids, thank you.
-: Thank you, operator, the next caller please.
Operator: The next caller is Gregg Morris,
please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Greg: Hello, this is Greg Morris
at the Green Power Institute.
And I would like to talk to you today
about the intervener compensation program.
The intervener compensation program
has various deadlines written into statute,
including for interveners a 30 day deadline
from a pre hearing conference to file a notice of intent,
a 60 day window to file a intervener comp claim
after a decision is rendered.
If we fail to meet those deadlines, we're basically out,
and we recognize that as part of the program
and we accept that, but the Commission has an obligation
to settle filed claims within 75 days of their filing.
I look at the latest data that is on the Commission website
and I find that, and that date is dated 12/11.
So therefore everything before 9/28
should already be settled.
There are 137 claims that are already overdue
as of December 11th on that website.
In fact of the claims that are still legally eligible
on that website, there are 22 and not a single one
has even been assigned to staff.
And of course, assigning the staff is only the first step,
it's still takes sometimes quite awhile
beyond that before there's a settlement.
My estimate based on the data that's on your website
is that there must be something like 150.
Let me just, if that's my time say
that you really need to be settling three
or more claims per week, just to keep up
with the inventory coming in
and that doesn't even include the backlog.
My institute has eight claims pending right now,
seven of them are overdue.
We make a great, I think great contribution
to the Commission, we need to have our claims acted on
on time, it makes it very hard
to run a small public interest organization,
thank you very much.
-: Thank you for your information, Mr. Morris.
The next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Matthew Vasilakis.
Please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Matthew: Thank you and good morning chair
and Commissioners, my name is Matthew Vasilakis co-director
of Policy at Climate Action Campaign.
Dialing in to support
the revised alternate proposed decision
by Commissioner Guzman Aceves under items 37 and 37a.
For nearly a decade a constellation
of grassroots community organizations and leaders
have thought to bring energy, democracy and fair competition
to San Diego, families and businesses.
After a long and arduous battle, we are thrilled
to be on the cusp of launching community choice
in our region, however, SDGs proposal
to artificially decrease its system average bundle rates
for 2021, as a clear attempt to undermine
and kill community twice in San Diego,
before he even launches and causes distress and volatility
on bundled customers rates.
We appreciate Commissioner Guzman as says leadership
in protecting choice competition and fair rates
for San Diegans, we recommend approval of the revised APD
and support doing so with the revision that directs SDG
to apply the system average percent change method
to protect all customer restaurant uneven rate spikes.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, operator, the next caller please?
Operator: The next caller is David McCord.
Please state your name and your organization,
your line is open.
-: This is Dave McCord and I'm a rate payer and El Sabido.
And I'm speaking on today's proposed decision
on microgrids in the rule-making 1909009.
I'm requesting that you modify today's proposed decision
to allow communities or third parties to define, install
and run their own microgrids independently
of the investor owned utilities.
Microgrids should not be controlled only by the IOUs.
If you cannot modify this proposed decision,
please take this up in a new decision.
On net energy metering, the proposed decision
was published January five on guiding principles.
Those of encouraging they'll help us move
in the right direction.
In order to help the state to meet its climate goals,
incentives should be high
to encourage additional net energy metering participation.
Caps on participant energy, production
and storage need to be raised
and better participate in these goals.
The more energy that can produce
for the grid the better, I'm done.
-: Thank you, Mr. McCord, I mean operator,
the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Eric Brooks.
Please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Eric: Yeah, I am Eric Brooks actually.
And I'm the coordinator of Californians for Energy Choice
which is a Statewide coalition that's been in existence
for 12 years to work to support
and expand community-based clean energy programs.
I'm calling to support the Reclaim Our Power letter
and oppose the proposed decision for microgrids.
You know, the investor owned utilities, their entire,
the core of their business model, especially PG&E
is to build large capital projects
especially long range transmission networks and charge us
to use those long range transmission networks
which cause fire danger and cause land loss
that loses us electricity.
The fact that that's the main source
of their bread and butter, makes it ridiculous quite frankly
to put them in charge of microgrids which are designed
to take away, take communities away
from those long range transmission lines to make them safer
and more resilient from power shut offs
and to promote local community-based
to clean energy adoption.
So what we need is a proposed decision
that will empower communities to build their own microgrids
and residents and businesses in those communities
to build their own microgrids so that they're resilient
and help diminish the use of these long range power lines,
this does exactly the opposite.
The reality is the investor on utilities
have an inherent conflict of interest
and shouldn't own any microgrids at all.
They should all be community-based,
they should all be publicly owned
and publicly planned and publicly run.
That's the way this needs to be done,
and especially because we need to empower local communities
and local businesses and local residents
to create their own microgrids in a way that allows them
to produce excess renewable energy to put out onto the grid.
There's no way that the investor owned utilities
are gonna go along with that,
because it's exactly the opposite of their business model.
So please reject this proposed decision
and come up with something that empowers local communities
and provides jobs in local communities
for building their own microgrids that they control.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, operator, our next caller, please.
-: The next caller is Dr. James Stewart,
please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Jim: Hi, this is Dr. Jim Stewart,
independent energy consultant.
And I certainly agree with the previous speakers
you must allow commercial third parties and communities
to install and run their own microgrids.
Having the IOUs run them all is ridiculous
and certainly inequitable as all the previous speakers
have demonstrated.
In addition, I want to say that the proposed decision
on net energy metering principle eight is way too narrow.
You need to have the whole net metering approach to embrace
and include the societal and health benefits.
And that needs to be
a complete societal total resources test
that will actually value the generation
of local rooftop, solar power, right?
I mean, that's the whole point of us getting
to the elimination of fossil fuels so that we can clean up
and move to solve the global warming issue is we need
to value the great benefits that happened to society as well
as to the customers and the entire grid
by eliminating so much need
for transmission et cetera, et cetera.
And so that knit must be included.
And then finally, this latest report on Tyso blackout
is indicating that the IOUs do not give
this TCA's real time data from smart meters.
And the result is that the CCAs were not able
to increase their day ahead orders
and Cal ISO was way under forecasting.
And I hope you can fix it
with just a simple administrative order, thank you.
-: Thank you, Mr. Stewart, next caller, please operator.
Operator: The next caller, Collin Miller,
please state your name and organization, your line is open.
Colin: Staff and California community members,
my name is Colin Miller and I'm calling
with Environmental Justice Solutions.
I reside in Humboldt County and occupied we yacht homelands,
and I'm calling today with Reclaim Our Power campaign
to transform our energy system, to meet community needs
and to endorse the letter that they delivered
to you on Monday, we need energy that is affordable,
that is safe and resilient and utilities that are community
and worker controlled and microgrids controlled
by our communities are especially important
because for California to be safe and healthy
we need to be resilient all the time.
We deserve the power and the right
to community owned microgrids
which can provide our communities
with clean affordable power before,
during and after power shutoff to ensure that hospitals,
food, banks, schools, and people with disabilities
and medical issues who are dependent on that power
to live can access it, so we urge you
to include frontline community priorities today
on the track to microgrid proceeding proposed decision
and call for the CPUC to increase investment
in black indigenous and people of color communities,
to allow community members, not private utilities,
to define which facilities to protect
against power shutoffs.
We encourage you to host community workshops facilitated
by a community-driven climate resilience planner
to hear what frontline and most impacted people
of California value not the utilities
that have endangered our lives
and killed hundreds of California.
And the process behind this proposed decision was rushed
with opaque and locked out community voices did not comply
with the mandate of legislation SB 1339.
That legislation was passed
to give communities more control, not relegated to PG&E
and other corporate IOUs.
Community owned microgrids are a critical solution
that can meet our community's needs
especially with this COVID-19 pandemic
and in LA one person dying of COVID every six minutes.
We need this to be community owned now, thank you.
-: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Jennifer Tanner.
Please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Tanner: Jennifer Tanner,
Indivisible California Green team.
Thank you very much for the open hearing
and the opportunity to speak.
The CPUC has had an opportunity to commercialize microgrids
with the directors clearly laid out in SB 1339.
To provide immediate resiliency solutions
for our communities with the creation
of robust microgrid tariffs.
Instead, the CPUC is approving wants to approve
an expensive rate payer funded utility control program
that will not result in the development
of any microgrid for several years.
This program does nothing for our immediate need
for resiliency today, or even this year aspire seasons.
Microgrids are not a new technology and there's nothing
in the record to demonstrate they're not say.
In fact it's the IOUs who are the ones
who do not have safe infrastructure
causing massive wildfires and endless blackouts
due to their shoddy infrastructure and greedy shareholders.
The IOUs are the ones, price gouging us,
not developers of microgrids.
Please stop making bogus claims that you're worried
about price gouging, if you wanted to avoid that
you would allow more competition
to give customers more choices
for their power needs, not less.
You have not met the commercialization mandate
called for by SB 1339.
You ignored letters from the legislator,
including from the Bill's author
and 16 legislators in December calling
for a microgrid tariff.
I urge you to focus on creating a robust, micro good tariff
and track too, so that all customers and all communities
can make their own investments in microgrids.
And I urge you to begin this work immediately.
In summary I agree with all the people
who have spoken today very, very clearly.
And I am disappointed because after all this time
and comments and hearings and years
with bailing out the utilities, nothing's has being done.
I hope this year will be different, thank you.
-: Thank you, operator, next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Laura Rosenberger-Hyder,
please state your as well as our organization,
your line is open.
Lauren: Yes, this is Lauren repair
and well UC Davis pipeline studies shows pipeline leakage,
negates climate benefits of renewable natural gas.
Also another article.
Alright, this is UC Davis ITS research report 1620.
The feasibility of renewable natural gas
as large scale low carbon substitutes.
Well, that was the name of the article.
It shows pipeline costs are estimated at 1 million per mile
based on updating the EPA region nine natural upgrading
the EPA region nine natural gas pipeline.
They also found 0.39% leakage of methane for each 680 miles
of pipeline leads and venting
and they can't really stop the venting.
And also there was some study referenced
by the concerned health professionals of New York
and in their compendium
concerned healthy newyork.org/companion
on the higher leakage rate found in recent studies
than previously estimated
for the natural gas infrastructure,
which was the social intended to be plans to be used.
I mean, the article I was quoting from UC Davis
was by the author.
No, I didn't actually write that down, thanks.
Amy Myers was the author, it's June, 2016 study, right?
-: Thank you, operator the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Tara Hammond,
please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Tara: Good morning, President Batjer and Commissioners.
My name is Tara Hammond and I'm a San Diego resident.
I helped advocate for Community Choice Energy
in San Diego for over nine years.
In regard to item number 37 on today's agenda,
I am deeply concerned about SDG news proposal
in this proceeding which could kill
our community choice energy program as it launches.
Knowing SDG and his track record of attacking clean
and competition, it's hard to think
that this isn't intentional
SDG&E is introducing a substantial
and artificial rate decrease
in its system average bundled rates this year.
The ridiculously low rates
would have immediate negative consequences
on new CCE programs launching in 2021,
including San Diego community power and an eventual true-up
is not the solution,
I wanna thank Commissioner Guzman Aceves for her leadership
with the revised alternative proposed decision
that properly rejects this approach which fails to conform
to basic rainmaking principles.
Not only does SDG&E proposal stifled choice
and competition that we fought for 10 years for,
it also causes the stress through volatility
on bundled customers rates.
This is unreasonable to put on families and businesses
in the middle of a pandemic and an economic recession.
I'd love for you to adopt
the revised alternate proposed decision
with the recent revision that directs SDG&E
to apply the system average percent change method
to protect all customer classes
from an uneven spiking rates.
This would help protect San Diego families and businesses,
while supporting choice competition, affordable rates
and a more sustainable future.
Also, I echo the comments today that support rejecting
and rewriting the microgrid PD
to better support communities of concern,
thank you very much.
-: Thank you Ms. Hammond, the next caller please, operator.
Operator: The next caller is Jill,
please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Jill, please check your mute button.
Jill: Hello, can you hear me now?
-: Yes, we can please continue.
-: I'm Jill for peace, I endorsed the letter submitted
by Reclaim Our Power campaign to transform our energy system
to meet community needs.
We seek an affordable, safe and resilient energy structure
which is community and worker controlled.
We seek opportunities for community ownership in order
to empower these communities
to invest in their own energy needs, desires, and futures.
We seek assurance that microgrids
utilize clean sustainable energy sources,
and we seek increased investment
in disadvantaged communities, thank you.
-: Thank you, operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Shayla Od.
Please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Shayla: Hi, good morning CPUC president
and Commissioners, my name is Shayla Od
am with Hammond climate solutions
and am a San Diego resident.
I'm calling in regarding agenda items, 37 and 37a
to recommend adoption
of the revise alternate proposed decision
that rejects SDGs absurd and artificially decreased rates.
The proposed rates would immediately negatively
impact new community choice energy programs
that to launch in 2021 including San Diego community power,
restraining choice and competition that we fought for
and causing unnecessary anguish through volatility
on bundled customers rate.
I recommend adopting the revised APD
including the recent revision that directs SDG&E
to apply the system average percent change method,
to protect all customer classes
from an uneven spiking rates.
Thank you to Commissioner Guzman Aceves and her office
for protecting San Diego families and businesses
by rejecting SDG&E proposition.
I also wanted to reiterate what folks have said
in their comments today that support a rejection of,
and a rewrite of the microgrid proposed decision
to ensure communities of concern are sufficiently supported
and included in these significant decisions.
Thank you so much.
-: Thank you, operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Alice Sang,
please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Alice: Thank you, Alice Sand=g principal
of Greenbank Associates.
I'm an independent school's architect
and sustainability professional.
Today I speak as a climate advocate
for zero carbon public school districts
and the cities within that support over,
I'm speaking on behalf of over 10,000 school sites
in 1000 school districts and 6 million school students.
We stand with the Reclaim Our Power campaign
to transform our energy system to meet community needs,
including those of public school districts,
community college districts
and the cities that they're within.
We endorse the letter that they deliver to you on Monday.
We believe that we need energy that's affordable, safe,
and resilient and utilities that are community
and public school district
and community college district owned.
We urge you to include the frontline community priorities
which also includes public school districts and the concerns
of over 6 million school-aged children.
Over half of which are title one eligible, frontline
disadvantaged community, students, and families.
So in speaking, we urge you to rewrite track
to microgrid proceeding proposed decision,
but before doing so come to the communities
for community workshops and speak to public school districts
and public community colleges and cities together
to create a true a plan that meets the intent of SB 1339.
And I just wanna reiterate three or four points from that.
We would like to request
that you allow community members school districts,
and community colleges and cities, not private utilities
to define which facilities to protect against power shutoff,
schools and community facilities need this ability
within their own communities.
And to ensure that zero-carbon school districts
as we move forward are not clean and not dirty,
and we support community ownership as well
as self-determination by public school districts.
Thank you so much.
-: Thank you, Miss Sang, operator the next caller please.
Operator: The next caller is Erica Alderson,
please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
-: Hi, my name is Eric Edelson, I live in Mendocino County
and I am a customer of Sonoma Clean Power.
My area has frequent power outages,
sometimes they last as long as a week,
one I think the longest was 12 days
and these blackouts usually occur in the summer
when it's often over a hundred degrees up here
and to go that long without electricity or refrigeration
is truly life-threatening.
My family spent $4,000 installing a backup generator
but I know most people can't afford that
and I'm very worried about their wellbeing.
I think that Reclaim Our Power has very solid ideas
about what a community driven energy resilience program
should ideally look like.
And I urge the Commission to revise its proposed decision
to include their suggestions, thank you.
-: Thank you, Ms. Ellison, the next caller, please operator.
Operator: The next caller is Pete Y. Wedi.
Please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Pete: Good morning Commissioners,
thank you for the time here.
I'd like to reference what many have said
about Reclaim Our Power letter.
I represent Reclaim Our Power which is an organization
of thousands of people of color, low income people
and rate payers across California.
And we want my comments to reflect the letter
that we put in on Monday.
I'd also like to speak about the certainty of what you spoke
of President Batjer at the opening of the meeting,
you know, currently the only certainty that we've got
when we stay inside of PG&E structures is there certainty
of pursuing a profit motive and not caring about the lives
and livelihoods and the lungs and the land of Californians.
And so when we saw this Commission,
the decision come out and we made furious quick efforts
over a short timeframe and an opaque process
to put our comments in and recognize that most
of what the decision does just keeps power
in the hands of PG&E as opposed to putting it truly
in the hands of those most effected by their failures
and the changing energy system, we were frustrated.
And so we want the significant change both
to redefine the language of the proposed decision
to reflect expanding who defines,
what facilities are critical including health, hospitals,
food banks, et cetera but really putting it in the hands
of the people recognizing
that you all made some slight adjustments
to the proposed decision that you're voting on today,
to add some workshops in some time,
but then to explicitly say in those workshops
these should not change settled issues
in the proposed decision, that's frustrating on top
of a disappointment of really not representing the community
and what our communities need.
I'd also like to add, then we are now in a process
and should be in a public visible process.
That's easy being held accountable for their failure
to chop down the appropriate trees.
They're a failure to prevent the Zog fire there,
that consistent shutoffs
that have harmed disabled communities,
people of color, et cetera.
We want all of that to be taken into consideration,
when we think about what makes a good process.
So please follow the reclaiming of power letter,
bring community truly into the process
of bringing micro goods into our energies.
-: Thank you, operator, next caller please.
Operator: The next caller is Gabby Lichtenstein,
please state your name as well as your organization,
your line is open.
Gabby: Thank you, and good morning.
My name is Gabby Lichtenstein and I'm a graduate student
and recent Berkeley resident.
I am calling today in support
of the Reclaim Our Power utility justice campaign flutter
regarding track two of the microgrid proceeding.
And I'm calling on you all to implement the demands outlined
within it like many others today.
Microgrids must be community-led and owned,
Clean and not diesel and do much more to environmental
and economic violence, that's perpetuated
by the utilities you regulate,
the a far more substantial resources allocated directly
to black indigenous people of color
and frontline communities.
As Californians continued
to suffer through deadly utility cause wildfires
and power shut off to millions,
it's really vital that you take power away
from these institutions that are killing people.
Like so many others today, I'm calling on you to follow
and invest in community power for resilience and justice.
Thank you.
-: Thank you very much, operator, are there any other callers
on the line?
Operator: Yeah, no more speakers
on the public comment telephone line.
-: Okay, thank you operator.
We will now with no more callers on the line,
the public comment period is now closed.
Thank you all for participating this morning with us.
This is a following moving on our agenda.
These are the following changes to today's agenda.
The item number four will be held until the February, 11
2021 Commission meeting.
Item six will also be held to February 11th, 21.
Item eight will be held to February, 11/21.
Item nine has been withdrawn.
Item 15 will be held until February, 11/21.
Item 22 will be held until February, 11/21.
Item 35 will be held until February, 11/21.
Item 39 will be held until February, 11/21
and item 42 has been withdrawn.
So before we move on to the consent item on today's agenda
we will take up item 46, which is the management report
and administrative activities.
He'd Scala, the director of efficiency, electrification
and procurement in the energy division
will make a today's presentation
on the final root cause analysis
of the August electric outages.
And we also have Ed Randolph, the deputy executive director
or energy climate and policy available to join Pete,
if there are any questions after Pete's presentation.
So Pete?
-: Hello, everyone.
I'm executive professor, can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can hear you fine please, okay.
-: So waiting for the slide deck to come up.
I think, I guess there it ends up
in one of the screens here,
I'm not sure if others can see it.
-: It's in the small screen, there you go.
Okay, now we're good.
-: Great, so first off, I'll say that there
are no major changes in the analysis findings
or recommendations in the final document relative
to the preliminary report issued in October
that I presented to you on in an October meeting.
The updates in the final report are primarily driven
by the availability of settlement quality meter data,
it was not available in October, next slide please.
So the final report affirms the finding
in the preliminary analysis that there
were three overarching root causes of the outages.
The first is that climate change induced heat wave
across the West exceeded our resource adequacy
and planning targets and related to this finding,
the final report updates, some of the weather analysis
by the CEC which modifies the description
of the August event to be 1:30 August weather event
for California, and also identifies the labor day heat wave
as a one in 70 or September weather event.
Second, our planning targets
have not added sufficient resources to meet the man
in the early evening hours of extremely hot days.
And finally several practices
in the energy markets exacerbated these supply challenges.
Next slide please, so the most noteworthy updates
in the front of report include additional data
and discussion related to the labor day weekend.
More information about the performance of resources
during the extreme heat wave and in particular
an updated analysis of the performance of demand response
based on settlement quality meter data.
A more granular analysis of the under scheduling
of load in the day ahead market,
references to the department of market monitoring report
on August outages it was issued subsequent
to the preliminary root cause analysis.
And also updated recommendations that reflect the status
of work to prevent future outages,
but it's already underway at the PUCC and CAISO,
next slide, please.
So I'll start with the most important part of this effort,
the actions we are taking in response to what was learned
through the root cause analysis,
several of which were updated in final report.
Starting with actions that have already been initiated,
we continue to track progress on generation
and battery storage projects
that are currently under construction
to ensure that there are no PUC related regulatory barriers
that would prevent them from being completed
by their targeted online date.
To that end there's a resolution approving several projects
supporting San Diego Gas & Electric,
ERP procurement requirements on today's Consent Agenda.
Similarly, the CAISO is continuing to work with developers
to address the interconnection issues as they arise.
And as you know, we have opened an expedited reliability
of rulemaking to procure, additional resources
for summer 2021 that is looking at a broad range
of both supply and demand side resource.
The CAISO was also expediting a stakeholder process
to consider a market rule
and practice improvements for this summit.
This initiative will consider changes
in incentivize more accurate scheduling of load
in the day ahead market appropriate participation of exports
and an evaluation of performance incentives and penalties
for already resource.
Through separate initiatives,
the CAISO will also be pursuing changes
to its planned outage rules, and we'll also work
with stakeholders to ensure the efficient
and reliable operation of battery storage,
given the significant amount of new stores
that it's being brought online this summer and beyond.
The CEC is also conducting probabilistic studies
that evaluate the lots of load expectation
on the California system, and in addition,
preparations are underway to improve coordination
in the event of stress grid conditions in the future,
including communication protocols and the development
of a contingency plan drawing
from actions taken this past summer.
Additional actions for summer 2021 identified in the report
include an effort by the CAISO and CEC
to work with non PUC jurisdictional entities
to encourage additional necessary procurements.
And enhancements to flex alerts,
to maximize consumer conservation
and other demand side efforts during extreme heat events.
For the CEC part this work is scoped
into the expedited procurement proceeding
and parties have been encouraged
to submit proposals addressing this number.
The mid and long-term recommendations provided
in the preliminary report remain largely haven't changed.
Next slide please.
So while there were minor updates to the analysis
of how other types of resources performed during
the August heat wave, the most notable updates
in the final report are related to demand response.
This table from the final report summarizes the performance
of DRV sources on August 14th and 15th
based on the awards they received in the real-time market.
The table divides the main response
into three different categories, reliability,
demand response, which is primarily made up
of the base interruptible program.
And two categories of economic demand response.
Proxy Dr, that is procured through IOU programs,
usually on behalf of all customers
and their service territories and proxy Dr
that is purchased directly from DR Providers
by individual load serving.
The rows and the columns provide results for each category.
First for the Friday the 14th and second
for the 15th Saturday.
So turning to the columns on the table,
the first gray shaded column labeled metered load drop,
provides the settled blood drop at the customer meter
which is determined by subtracting the customer's load
from a baseline estimate of what the customer's load
would have been and
are not been participating in a DR program.
So the right of this gray shaded column are four boxes,
to calculate the performance of each type of program
by dividing that metered load drop value
into different values of expected load drop
depending on which lens the box is looking.
The first box, for instance provides performance results
based on the amount of DR that was awarded bids
in the real-time market, or for the case of reliability DVR,
which doesn't participate in the market,
the amount the kites have dispatched.
So this box answers the question how did the DR perform
at the customer meter based on how much load drop
the CAISO was expecting in real time.
The second box provides performance results based
on the amount of load drop expected
at the customer meter for the DR Capacity shown
are credited in the RA program.
So this box answered the question, how did DR Perform
at the customer meter based on how much load drop
was expected from those various categories of DR programs.
The third and fourth boxes provide results after factoring
in avoided line losses
and avoided planning reserve margin procurements
that the PUC credits DR programs with to reflect the fact
that DR is a behind the meter resource
as these associated benefits.
Turning to the results of the table,
at a high level you can see from the percentages
that in general and especially for the proxy DR categories,
DR did not perform as well as expected.
But as I walked through the results, it is important
to remember that while this is true,
we did get more than a thousand megawatts of load drop
from DR and some key hours during the event.
And it's also important to note
that the approach we currently take to estimate the amount
of load drop from demand response is based
on typical summer demand and given extreme nature
of the heat wave, the customer load
that would have occurred may have been higher in aggregate
in the baseline to use which would increase
these percentages, DR providers are communicating
that they strongly believe that this was the case
during these extreme heat weather.
Also worth noting is that some of the DR programs
only operate on weekdays.
So it's generally weekend demand is significantly higher
than weekend demand, and this explains,
or at least contributed to the worst results
on Saturdays 15th then on Friday the 14th.
Another important consideration for the two categories
of proximity DR on this table
is that they reflect performance compared with awarded bid,
which does not reflect DR that was offered but not awarded
and put the day ahead and real time market.
This impact will be illustrated in the following two slides.
And one final caveat is that the report does not develop
an analysis of why the results are what they are,
simply reports these results,
the work of answering that question
and determining what changes are needed
to improve the program performance with these resources
is still in front of us.
So now turning to the results, as I said earlier
the percentages in the second box are the best reflection
of the performance of DR for resource adequacy,
since they compare actual results to the amount
of load drops expected for the program.
So I'll focus on those values.
And reliability DR programs achieve 84 and 80%
of expected customer load drop on the 14th
and 15th perspective.
Moving down the credit of productivity our programs,
achieved 24% and 1% of the expected customer load drops
on the 14th and 15th.
And finally, the proxy DR that is shown
on load serving supply LLC supply plan achieved 33% and 13%
of the expected customer load drop on Friday and Saturday.
Again, expected through the lens of the value
at the RA program is providing these resources
in terms of customer load drops.
So next slide please.
So this figure illustrates what happened
in the day ahead market specifically for that third category
in the table, the are resources shown on LSD supply plan.
I'm using this category of proxy der programs in this
and the following slide to illustrate some points
that also apply to the second category in the table
the credit proxy DR programs the RDR does don't participate
in the day ahead markets while we're
in the markets in general.
In this figure the purple line represents the amount
of these resources that are shown on LSC supply plan.
The yellow dots represent the amount of the resources bid
into the CAISOs day ahead market,
and the blue triangles represent the amount of those bids
that were awarded.
As illustrated in the figure and aggregate
these resources bit near or above the amount
of resources shown on supply plan and a number
of hours in August, and then all these cases far less
of the DR proceeds award than was bit.
Now, when I introduced the previous slide,
I caveated that the report doesn't attempt to explain why
these results are what they are and it doesn't,
but I think it's safe to say that the primary reason
that this would occur because they had market
was clearing at prices below, the prices at which much
of the DR was being good.
It's surprising to me that so many of these resources
did not receive awards in the day ahead market
is by the high day had demand forecasts on these days.
Another important takeaway from this figure
is the lower day ahead DR bids
on labor day weekend to the far right.
As you will see in the following slide,
the performance of these resources, well,
as you saw it in the table,
the performance of these resources in August suggested
that one or more PR providers were overestimating the amount
of low drop that could be expected from their customers,
and that they had bid since September suggested
some adjustments were made to address it.
(clears throat)
Next slide, please.
This move for that same category
of a proximity art show, not an LSE supplied span
this moves to the real-time market.
And again, the purple line represents the amount shown
on the five plans, the yellow dots are the amounts of bid
and the real-time market, and the hard to see blue triangles
represent the amounts awarded.
But now we have an additional depiction in here
which is the blue bars
that represent actual performance on these hours.
As illustrated in the figure actual performance
was well below the awarded DR, the blue triangle,
consistent with the results in the table.
But one thing that posted this
and the previous slide illustrate we should table did not
cause the amount of bid DR that was not awarded contracts
in the day ahead in realtime markets on these days
of high data they had forecast high real time demand,
and tight supply markets within the CAISO,
and at least in August during the West wide heat wave
outside the CAISO as well.
Next slide, please.
Anyone else seeing the next slide?
I think you're going the wrong way, there we go.
So this slide shows the load scheduling
and there's a similar slide
that I shared in the previous presentation
that was just one line because in the preliminary report
all we had was the aggregated total scheduling
by all LSEs in the CAISO balancing authority area.
So this actually breaks down in the final report
to the different types of LSE,
so the blue lines represent IOUs,
the orange line represents CCAs
and the dotted line, gray line represent ESPs.
See this finger also similar to several other, you know,
figures throughout the report.
Now add the September labor day weekend data
because we have it, you know one thing that kind of stands
out in general, again, you can see the zero bar
and the under scheduling of load is in the red below it.
There's general trend towards under scheduling of load
throughout this period by essentially
all the different categories of LSEs.
But one thing that's noteworthy
is that over the labor day weekend, the trend reverses
for IOUs which collectively over-scheduled load
during a number of the peak and that peak hour.
Some of this outcome is likely to be due
to the large amounts of conservation that was occurring
and would have sort of masked from the day ahead
what the actual amount of scheduling wasn't scheduling
at the time was on par with what was forecast or above it.
And, but to the extent this was the case,
so if in the day it had, you know,
if the conservation resulted in this shifting up
then relative, what was visible in the day it had forecast
and that suggested all three categories
were bidding a load even below what's shown here
in the day market.
CAISO also one final point
of the crisis surveyed scheduling coordinators
I represent 75% of the peak load
to better understand the drivers
behind the sender scheduling.
And they reported that their primary goal was
to develop the most accurate forecast possible to bid
into the day at market on these days.
So not making an attempt to sort of arbitrage day had
versus realtime prices.
However, they reported several challenges
in meeting the school,
including data quality and availability,
these extreme weather conditions, COVID-19 and shelter
in place impacts, and also changes
in the entity serving load within the footprint.
Next slide, please.
That concludes my presentation
on the final root cause analysis and I would be happy
to take any questions.
-: Thank you so much and I wanna thank you, Dorothy Duda,
Michelle Kito, your entire team, and also of course,
Ed Randall for the tireless work
that you all have done literally since August 14th.
And I'm particularly thankful for the collaboration
that your team has had and will continue to have
with the team at Cal ISO
and at the California Energy Commission.
This has been quite an amazing effort, very important effort
that we will all be working hard on to get it right
for the summer of 2021 and indeed going forward,
so thank you very much, I'll turn to my fellow Commissioners
to ask if any of you all have any questions
of Pete I believe Ed is on the line as well
and maybe Dorsey as well.
I think Mr. Rick Chavez, you have a question?
-: Yes, I have one factual question, which I'll ask first
and then two questions to ask you
for a little bit more detailed
about steps we're taking, going forward.
Do you have any sense or opinion
about why the market didn't reach $11,000 level?
You said the DR, wasn't just a lot of DR wasn't dispatched
because they'd get over that price but do you have any sense
of why the market price has been co-opted that level,
even though it was obviously a very, very tight market.
-: So in the dead, we understand that that was largely
or a big factor is the under scheduling of load.
I don't have a sense of why in the real-time markets,
it wasn't sort of pin for pretty significant periods of time
at the cab, it's a reasonable question.
And I don't have a sense of this, I mean,
it's ultimately, you know,
they are CAISO markets are being optimized in the 15
and the five minute time markets and these are the keynote,
the paired bid and supply bed just clear at those prices.
-: Okay, then the one question sort of a follow-up,
which is if you could talk in any more detail
about what things what steps were considering
to address the under scheduling by a load serving entities,
that's one question and then the second question,
you mentioned both in the report and briefly
in the presentation that the CAISO is undertaking
an examination of its rules and I'm wondering
if any have already been changed and how broad
that those changes or if there's any more detail
you could provide with us at this point.
So yeah, both of those fall pretty squarely at this time,
under the CAISOs tariffs and particularly at this point,
we don't have any role in communicating expectations
to scheduling coordinators or LSDs
who hire those scheduling coordinators.
And, you know, I know pretty, as I noted in the list
of next steps, for the case of squarely that's squarely
on their agenda for this summer
and they're actively engaging on that.
And similarly, they held two days of workshops
on issues related to the proper, you know,
privatization of exports, so they're actively working
on those things and they certainly took some steps
in response to some of the issues they identified
in their markets, in the rock market that have, you know,
indirect impacts on amounts of exports that get cleared.
But I think they are hard at work, and looking at,
and engaging with the other balancing area authorities
to look at how they prioritize exports to endeavor
to be kind of set up similar systems
and equal bi-directional rules on these.
So I don't have a lot of the details,
they're all quite live at this point.
-: Thank you Pete.
-: Is there any other questions,
yes Commissioner Guzman Aceves
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
And thank you again, Pete for your work
and all the teams work on this.
It has been really a privilege to see how we're looking
at all elements that drove to this these unfortunate days
and as we get to, as you said trying
to prevent this moving forward.
We just want to follow up on a question
that Commissioner Rechtschaffen had and then I have a few
on the demand response in particular,
and maybe this is more of a comment for all of us
to consider where we're going to look at some
of these improvements on performance
be the actual performance of the generators
or really our role in ensuring the LSDs are holding
their generators and their contracts
to what they are with their pain
and ultimately what repairs are paying for
in those capacity contracts and the energy contracts.
And are we going to examine our role in penalizing
the LSDs for not scheduling properly?
And maybe this is again a question for ourselves,
but any high-level thoughts on that, Pete
I'm just concerned that we often think our processes takes
a long time but the ISO process also takes
a really long time and is
a really distinct stakeholder engagement process from Mars.
But I have some concern that we rely solely on that process,
of course, working collaboratively,
we don't wanna have a scenario where we're penalizing
the same LCDs for the same action but are we going
to ensure the LSDs are properly scheduling?
And what is our role in that ourselves
and ensuring that they're doing their job?
-: I guess my thoughts are we certainly should engage
and we'll engage with the CAISO process
as they undertake that effort,
as far as whether it would make sense for the PUC
that pick up a parallel effort.
You know, obviously we wanna make sure we weren't
just duplicating efforts and we also have to be mindful
of something that one of the commoners public comment
or pointed out this morning and that is the LSDs other
than the utilities don't necessarily have quick access
to meter data for their customers.
So I think a place for us to probably start it look at
how to, you know, how do utilities, you know,
could improve and expedite that transfer
which involves probably some IT solutions.
So that's certainly a role that we could be playing
to help support that effort whether we wanted
to separately take up, you know, setting expectations
and developing, you know, penalties for under scheduling,
that's something you all may wanna consider
and we can certainly engage in and explore with the CAISO
what all they have in mind and what, you know,
whether there are natural holes that we could fill
as the entities that are regulating.
Is there any, you know, regulating these LCDs
somewhat directly so.
-: Directly spell off I could add on to that a little bit
to Commissioner gets messed up, that's a great question.
What I would suggest to her, by the way this is on Randolph
deputy executive director, what I've been looking at
and what I would suggest the entities do one,
this is actually look at the financial incentives
from an end-to-end of the process and where we may want
to look at assessing penalties is further down
in the process and the performance of specific resources
that have obligations if they're underperforming.
You know, what we are seeing
with that under scheduling issue is
in the preliminary root cause analysis.
I think the assumption of the three entities with some
of the load serving entities were under scheduling
as part of an economic arbitrage that, you know,
because they don't know exactly
what their day ahead load is.
They may under schedule a little bit knowing
that they're gonna have to buy on a realtime market
but the prices in the real-time market
may be a little bit lower than the prices
from the day had market but it is director scholar mentioned
the conversations that have been had
with each of the load serving entities
is they were trying to correctly schedule and due
to forecasting issues because of the heat,
but I think also very importantly, because of COVID
and that some of these event days were on weekends,
which while we had some good understanding
of what COVID was doing for demand on weekdays, weekends
were very different and holidays were very different.
It's not clear that anybody, you know, it's not clear
that anybody acted anything short of the best of intentions
to comply with their obligations.
-: Yes, thank you, that's really helpful.
And I'm not suggesting that I'm suggesting
that perhaps we need a buffer in it
to kind of counteract the hedging.
And so when they're making their calculations
they can have that as another constraint to their hedging,
but I'm glad that's something that we can be exploring,
and I appreciate the way that you framed
that we should be looking at the whole spectrum
because the other question I had was
on our current penalties for these, not just the DR
but all generators and that are not performing
at what they supposed to be
in what was included in the RA filings.
And so my other question is, are we looking at penalties
for lack of performance for all RA generators in particular?
-: Right, so currently the RA program penalizes court
not reaching the you know, having contracts
that meet the RA system, local flex RA requirements.
It does not have a separate set of penalties for,
how did these resources perform?
And, you know, as we saw in the, you know,
the mark that really that effort moves
to the real-time market and the rules that, you know,
in the coastal processes and the must offer obligations,
and as you can see, it gets tricky
because I know these can make a bid,
they can bid but then not be awarded.
So it's, you know, there are a set of penalties that apply
in the CAISO both for not offering what you've committed
to offer and then not performing then, you know,
you need to make up the difference in price
between those different periods.
But at this point we don't have a separate process
that looks at the LLCs that contracted with those entities
and see whether it's a, you know, in general,
they're contracting with entities that are, you know,
are consistently for instance, not meeting their obligations
or even at the more discrete level that, you know,
we would certainly nothing that looks at how each one
of those contracts is performing and aim something
at the LSDs for their counterparty, not producing.
We don't do that now in the RA program and I don't know
at this time that it has been suggested that it gets scoped
into the proceedings, but you know,
it's an interesting question and I guess, you know,
maybe this thought that I just threw out there, you know,
if there were patterns that may make some sense
because one would hope that if that LC was contracting
with Trinity that was consistently
not meeting its obligations that they would kind
of pivot away from that, but at this point
there isn't any reason for them to consider that.
-: Yes, exactly, unfortunately, there's kind of no penalty
to the LSD for that accountability, other than of course
their customers having this horrendous situation.
So maybe present bachelor is something for you,
more of a comment for you to consider scoping
that into the next RA proceeding
which is really having some accountability
on these generators that are not performing in addition
to potentially looking at what they're actually bidding.
Of course, my preference would be that we won't have to bid
in least cost, but putting that aside,
how we deal with this twofold issue,
one is in some instances some of these generators
are bidding and not being awarded,
and in some instances it is because they're too high
but in the bigger problem for me is once they're awarded
and these numbers for the DR, but also another categories
of generation that they're not performing and somebody needs
to hold these generators accountable.
And so I hope we can look at that in the RA proceeding
because, you know...
Anyhow and so as a follow-up to that, I did wanna ask
about a demand response that,
and in this situation the one thing that I wanted
to just point out in some of my previous briefings,
I'm sure many of, you know but maybe more so for the public
is that there was a great variance in performance with some
of the demand response companies that were performing here.
So I, once again, I feel that I know that we all want
to see these types of resources grow and we need
to have a greater accountability of performance
in order to do that allow for the growth of those
that are actually performing.
And again, this is where I see a penalty mechanism
is putting that a constraint into these programs
so that we actually have growth where we see it.
Obviously, a penalty for performance
is not gonna affect somebody who's performing
and really allowing some of the folks
that are wind falling off of these programs
to be held accountable.
And this is something I think we need to prioritize
so that we can continue to grow DR,
and not just be somewhat stuck.
I think we need to act quickly
and incorporating these penalties for these programs,
I mean, I think across the board.
And so that's why, of course, it's more heightened here
with these DR resources, but I want to see them grow
but I also want to see them grow
in a way that's accountable.
And I know that there are providers
that are reaching those goals.
So I hope that we can act quickly and incorporate structures
so we can have accountable DR programs grow, thank you.
-: Thank you, Martha, those are important comments
and I have well noted them.
Yes, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, thank you, I just have one question.
First of all, many of us live through the energy crisis
of the early 2000s, I did CUNY as a new elected
on the smart board, and my question was this as the CAISO
is assessing what happened and what changes need to be made
for the day ahead and so forth.
Is there an assessment looking at who financially benefited
from what happened this summer?
If we don't know that that's okay.
Well, I am certainly across my mind.
-: Yeah, if you're asking sort of indirectly whether there
was any potential market manipulation
that would have resulted in, you know,
seminaries benefiting the CAISO, you know,
that the report we've not found any indication of that.
And we do cite in the report that the department
of market monitoring separate analysis
and independent analysis came to that same conclusion
that there was no evidence that there
was market manipulation on the part of Sandy any generators
of marketers to benefit them, you know, and, you know,
interestingly as it was pointed out that the prices
were highly variable across this period.
-: Okay, thank you, Andy and Pete, thank you to you
and your team for all of the indice work.
And of course the continued work to get us
through 2021 and beyond, thank you.
-: Thank you.
-: The other questions of Pete?
Okay, seeing none, thank you.
Again, feed great report and again,
thank you for all the hard work in the last six months
or however long that...
-: Thank you, thank you all.
-: Thanks, Pete.
Okay, we have now we'll take up the consent items
on our agenda, is there a motion?
-: So moved. -: Second.
-: It's been moved in second.
Can I please ask the agenda clerk, please take the role.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
-: Yes, thank you the vote is unanimous on the consent items.
I'm going to turn first to Commissioner Guzman
and then second to Commissioner Shiroma.
I believe Commissioner Guzman Aceves you would like
to make remarks on item two of the Consent Agenda.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
I also would just make some brief remarks on CSS as well.
Item 16.
President: Okay. -: Thank you.
-: And first off, start off with the item two
which is the resolution adopting our guidelines
for the Commission's tribal land transfer policy
which we adopted December of 2019.
And I wanna thank first of all all the folks
who have worked tremendously on this resolution
of start houses the former Commissioner, Leon Randolph
and all of her great staff, Christine Paul, Jason Cato
in particular who helped us along in the drafting
of both the policy and the guidelines.
Of course, most importantly,
it has been the energy division team
who has taken a leadership role here even though
there's policy applies obviously Commission wide.
In particular, I wanna thank Mike Rozier who's been the lead
on the drafting of this and has been tremendously involved
in many of the details and his colleagues, Mary Jo, Barack
and Molly Sterkel and Simon Baker who have all been involved
in the reviewing and most importantly, she led to Lottie
who is part of the energy divisions tariff unit
who has done the processing of this resolution.
And of course, many of the other folks,
our legal division Jason Rieger and Jeff Mulligan
have done a lot of work on this resolution
in the policy itself and ALJ division, Anthony Colbert
has also been involved even though this is
in the resolution arena.
And then of course all the people who brought us here,
if you just indulge me there's been a lot of people
on our teams, Stephanie Green and Ken Holbrook,
our tribal liaison, my traveler advisor
and of all the folks before I want you, you know, so many,
I'll just wanna highlight
what this resolution actually does.
So I really apologize for not recognizing everybody else
who's worked on this for so long.
But really we had a set of robust comments,
many new tribal governments commented which was exciting
to see, of course the IOUs continued to comment
and not sort of constructive feedback.
We had new stakeholders including the Builders Association
who offered again very constructive feedback.
And ultimately what we're talking about
is how to implement the tribal land policy and the focus
of the policy is that when a utility is choosing to dispose
of a real property it needs to identify
the original California tribe or tribes reach out
and really engage in good faith negotiations with them.
And the resolution really does give all the detail
on how to do that.
In addition, we are committing in the resolution
to hold a workshop for all stakeholders
on really delving deeper into some of the dynamics,
particularly the dynamic of what to do when there's more
than one tribal government in the area.
And that of course will be something that we'll continue
to dialogue around, and also the resolution does point out
that within two years there will be an OIR
and the order instituting rulemaking to do a full review
of the program and to really learn from what has been,
what has been experienced within those two years.
So really it is a tremendous progress that we have adopted
these guidelines and I truly look forward
to their implementation.
Okay, and switching now to item 16 which is having to deal
with our broadband program here, I just wanted to highlight
that one of the consent items at 16 was dealing
with federal funding,
the federal did rural digital opportunity fund.
As you know, President Batjer,
you had attempted to reach out to then chairman pied to say,
let's partner, he rejected that not just to California
but many other states, so for months we've been trying
to figure out how best to fulfill the legislative mandate
they will receive which was to try to leverage these funds.
And we did succeed in that with this resolution
and really focusing our state matching on making
these projects more expansive and making sure
that these projects will have key policies
priorities for greater infrastructure in the future
such as open access.
So, unfortunately, you know, what's come down in the awards
for the auction we've already talked about
in previous meetings, but we really wanna focus in
on those that really will establish sustainability
which include those projects
with fiber and hybrid fiber coaxial networks.
So I look forward to that.
And just as a final note, we did approve two more projects
from our CSF existing applicants and so as a result,
over 1,477 sort of households will be served in the counties
of humble Plasser and Sutter counties.
And thank you so much for the team, the CSF team led
by Selena Wong, Louis Fischer, James Tang
and the leadership of and our judge Joanna government.
And of course my VK partner, President Batjer
and your advisor, Michael Malaney.
And VK guy out of well from legal and my advisors,
Sarah Sharpen my former advisor, Stephanie who put
in a lot of work to these policies and projects.
Thank you very much for of me to be so long.
-: Thanks, Martha, very helpful.
Moving on now to Commissioner Shiroma,
I believe you wish to speak on item two and item 19.
-: Yes, thank you, President Batjer.
On item two for all the reasons
that Commissioner Guzman Aceves, you know privileged
to vote out this resolution I simply wanted
to add that release through our travel advisor can Holbrook
and through the low-income oversight board
which convened an expert panel discussion
on what constitutes meaningful consultation with tribes.
I really appreciate the significance of that.
The concerns expressed by tribal governments
regarding the consultation process
and that this resolution folds in the importance definition
that has been used by other government entities
and as Commissioner does not as others indicated
the workshop that is Jamie follow our adoption
of these guidelines.
So I do want to thank the Commissioner Guzman Aceves
and her team who really been instrumental in working keenly
with the division and the team
that has brought this to success.
So thank you on item two.
Item 19 if this is the directions for implementation
of the school energy efficiency stimulus program,
and I wanna thank the Commissioners
for voting this decision out
it effectuates assembly bill 841,
the school energy largest described with what it is.
It is designed to prepare schools throughout the state
for reopening during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The California Energy Commission will administer the program
to provide school districts
with functional ventilation systems a new plumbing, fixtures
and appliances that meet water efficiency standards
to protect the children, the students, the instructors,
all of the folks who are working and teaching and learning
at schools again, to prevent the spread of COVID-19
in the four investor owned utility service territories.
That bill was signed into law only this last September.
And it is a up to $600 million budget,
these are from our energy efficiency,
they're not yet collected in terms of the customers,
but it just over what we had envisioned
in the energy efficiency program to the energy Commission
to start this year through the, into 2023,
it does authorize utilities
for all of the accounting reporting,
it requires the utilities are our decision voting out
requires utilities to submit a joint advice letter
by February 1, right around the corner here we are working
in a fast paced make sure that this requirement is completed
for the COVID environment,
it's a direct step 25% of the projects funded must be
in underserved communities.
And on January 22nd, next week, the California incubation
will host a public workshop online
to discuss the implementation of the program I plan
to attend that workshop and that workshop information
is on the Commission's website.
I do wanna thank Commissioner then Randolph
who worked on this decision.
You know, it's an 11 and a half 11, three quarter are
you know, helped to bring it over the finish line.
Chris, we know Leann is chair of the air resources board now
I wanna thank her chief of staff, Christine Hall,
advisor Jason and the energy division staff, Jen, George
and Payne gone.
Ms. how, and from my office, my visor show when my chief
of staff warm is fine for bringing this forward, thank you.
Thank you, President Batjer.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Is there any other comments about the Consent Agenda?
Okay, seeing none, we will move on.
However, we are gonna take a brief 15 minute break
before we take up the regular agenda items for today.
So 15 minute break we'll call it 12.
So at 12:15, 12:20 ish, since we're a little beyond 12,
well, let's get back to the agenda, which we will resume
the regular agendas that time.
Okay, thank you. (upbeat music)
Oh, we are going to resume our agenda at first.
We need to make sure that we have a quorum.
So will the agenda clerk please call the role
to establish quorum.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Present.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Present.
Clerk: President Batjer. -: I am here.
So we have established quorum, thank you very much.
We will now take up the regular agenda items
and we will start with item number 37
which is Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
This item is having to do with the San Diego Gas
& Electric application
for approving it's forecasted energy procurement costs
of 2021, which is commonly referred to
as the energy resource and recovery account or ERRA.
In the annual era forecast proceedings what we do
is we approve the cost that's going to go into race
for the fuel and purchase energy costs for the customer base
which is obviously a component
of the overall revenue requirement that utility needs
to collect for the year.
And in addition, the ERRA is also looking at determining
how those costs are not determining
but deriving those into rates.
And so it is largely an accounting function.
Now I wanna talk a little bit about the difference
between the APD, the alternate and the PD, and the alternate
that I proposed directing SDG&E
to use the updated sales forecast for deriving the rates.
The updated forecast in the APD reflects the fact
that we're going to see low departure this year of more
than 30% of the utilities glowed to the CCAs.
Mainly the San Diego Community Power
and Clean Energy Alliance
where the PD does not reflect a slow departure
in its forecast to determine rates it.
And what that means is we would inevitably be seen
and under collection this year and the estimate is varied
between 115 million and one of the parties CCS suggested
it'd be closer to 215 million.
So we know it would it be large in either case.
So rates as was mentioned by some of the comments
would be artificially low right now in the PD.
And then they would inevitably go up by a bit in later
after the under collection was addressed.
So given that we certainly see additional increases outside
of this in the future.
I think putting off this increase now
which would obviously not reflect the true costs,
would be irresponsible for the bundled customers.
I know this morning, we heard a lot from the non bundled
or the future to the unbundled customers but really this
is not necessarily a good thing for the bundle customers.
So finally, a revision that we took place in the APB came
at the request of comments from many parties
that we apply the system average percent change methodology
to ensure that each class will see a same percent increase
in their rates is just something
to smooth over the rate impact.
And finally, I just wanna note that these transitions
of CCA customers is certainly not something new particularly
in PG&E and SCE territories but it is something
that this particular territory hadn't faced for this degree,
there is CCA is already, but this is a significant shift
in the load for the generation needs.
Yeah, my, I want to just urge and continue that the CCAs
and the utilities were collaboratively more collaboratively
in the future because ultimately their relationship
is what's gonna benefit their joint customers.
So I hope that this situation that we're faced here with
which led to a delay in getting to a place
where we could even vote on an era
is it mitigated in the future.
Okay, and finally, I do wanna thank all the staff work
over the holidays and many nights and weekends
on analyzing these different rate impacts and scenarios
and impacts to both bundled and unbundled
and who want to start with Emily Green Ginsburg,
Dina Makin, French Chiang, Jonathan Wardrobe, Paul Phillips,
my super day, and Dorothy Duda, the ALJs including some
from the GRC proceeding, Jean McKinney and Susan Leads
who really helped educate us
on the relationship between the two,
and of course President Batjer my retail partner
and her advisor, Josh Honeycutt,
who agonized over this as well.
And most of all, to the assigned judge, judge Brzezinski
who did most of the heavy lifting
of course wrote also the APD for for my office
and finally to my adviser Maria Sotera for all the work
in coordinating this.
So with that description, I asked for your support
for the alternate 37a.
-: Okay, thank you, Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
As you're being a partner on this, I wanna thank you
and all of your hard work and that of your staff,
I will be supporting the revised alternate
proposed decision today as well,
I want to start by thinking of course you
and your staff again, and for all your hard work
and your persistence efforts,
I also want to recognize the work of the judges,
legal and energy division staff that have truly been
on 24/7 standby on for analysis and revision
in the previous weeks.
This was a team effort and the spirit of flexibility
and collaboration of all exemplifies
the dedication professionalism I witnessed day in
and day out here at the Commission,
so thank you all very much.
This was not an easy decision to come by,
but I do support Commissioner Guzman and his conclusions.
In my mind, this outcome best accounts
for the shifting reality is as Martha's
just recently spoke up in the San Diego area
while minimizing the impact on rate payer
admits difficult financial time,
something which weighed heavily on me
as I deliberated this item.
Again, thank you all who contributed
to the alternate proposed decision, I will be supporting it.
Thank you, and I will turn to my fellow Commissioners
for their comments, I think I saw Commissioner...
Yes, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, thank you, Present Batjer.
And thank you Commissioner Guzman Aceves,
I will be supporting your alternative proposed decisions.
37a, as you described, it is essential
that customer commodity rates be as accurate
as we can possibly get them to avoid under collections.
And under collections can lead to subsequent rate spikes,
and we do wanna provide for fairness level playing field
for the GCA, the community choice aggregators in the end
we want to be accurate and avoid other collections.
And the alternate decision does achieve that,
I appreciate that it was revised to use the system
average percent change method, which provides
for a more evenly sprinting of the customer
on the customer classes so that
no one customer class experiences
the increase disproportionately.
So thank you, Commissioner Guzman Aceves,
your advisor raised the taro, the judge Burzynski
and the energy division ERRA team
and then support of 37a, thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Now Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: I suppose I also support the alternate for the reasons
that Commissioner Guzman Aceves and Commissioner Shiroma
Commissioner Batjer have articulated,
it void under collections that will create bill volatility
because we're creating artificially low rates that's
in nobody's interest and it also
could set these rates artificially low at a time
that customers are choosing between staying you get
an electric or migrating to the SCCA and we want them
to have accurate bill information.
And I appreciate the revision
to use the system average percent change methodology,
we've got some of those impacts and avoid disparate impacts
on certain customer classes,
I will be supporting the alternate.
-: Okay, thank you, are there any further comments?
I believe now I'm gonna ask Anne Simon a question.
Can we take up 37a, given the comments of the Commissioners
or do we have to pick up both and vote on both,
Ann Simon, could you please advise me
Ann: Prison Batjer, you can start with 37A.
-: Okay, thank you, Anne.
I was on mute, I'm sorry.
We're going to be taking up 37a
and the agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Clerk: For 37a Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
-: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
President Batjer
-: Sorry, I keep muting myself accidentally,
that we have just voted unanimously for item 37a.
And that negates the purpose or the reason
to take up items 37.
-: President Batjer, we didn't hear your vote
-: Oh, you didn't, okay.
I'm sorry, I voted yes for items 37a.
Thank you Sir, for telling me that.
So the vote was unanimous, for 37a.
Okay, we're now moving on to item 38,
and that is Commissioner Shiroma's item.
-: Yes, thank you, President Batjer.
Well, good afternoon, everybody.
I'm pleased to introduce item 38,
the attracts to decision adopting, lack of rates and tariffs
for the industry own utilities and authorizing procurement
of substation backup power.
In 2018 the California Senate passed SB 1339
carried Advicent or stern, any section 8371
to our public utilities code directing us
to take a number of actions, did all policies related
to microgrids, it required us to develop standards,
sort of standards necessary to meet state
and local program requirements without shifting costs
between rate payers developed methods to reduce barriers
for microgrid development, develop guidelines
that determine what impact studies are required
for microgrids to connect
to the electrical corporation grid
develop separate large electrical corporation,
ration cars as necessary to support microgrids
while ensuring the system public and worker safety
are given the highest priority for me working group
to codify standards and protocols needed
to meet California electrical corporation
and CAISO microbial requirements and develop a standard
for direct metering and electric rule 21
to streamline the interconnection process.
Laura interconnection process,
a cost for direct current moderate applications.
So a little over a year ago around this time we worked
with stakeholders on track one decision.
She voted out last June that was well in advance,
that was December 1st, 2020 separatory deadline
outlined SBA search 39.
And that decision sounds like many
of the meals requirements by implementing a requirement
we've acquired the development
that a template based application process
or specific behind the meter projects
to prioritize streamline and expedite applications
and approvals or keywords in it and C projects.
We require the addition of dedicated staff
to the utilities distribution planning team especially
in resiliency project development for local jurisdictions
allowed energy storage systems in advance
of public safety power shut off an import
but not export to the grid in support of preparedness
and advance of a grid outage removed the storage size
and limits for large net energy metering, paired storage
and maintained existing metering requirements
required the development of a separate access,
restricted portal for local jurisdictions,
I give information to support
local community resiliency projects.
We approved PG&E's community enablement program
which provides prioritized basis
for community requested grid for PSPS mitigation purposes.
We approved page needs make ready program
for the period 2020, 2022,
which enabled prioritized substations to operate
in an island and mode also
approve PG&E temporary generation program
which involves leasing mobile generators for temporary use
during the 2020 wildfire season, we approved PG&E's,
excuse me saying, hey, we got an electrics request
to procure a local area distribution controller
and we removed the storage size limitations
for largely impaired storage
that maintained the existing media requirements
and filing the approved San Diego Gas Electric
requested bruxer and local area distribution controller.
Now we've already seen the positive results of that decision
through decreased impact of the PSPS events this past fall.
Now on the heels of that June decision,
we kicked off track two of three, okay, this is track two,
there'll be a third track,
we're not closing on this proceeding.
We issued two stock proposals one in July
and one in September.
We also conducted two workshops
including the August 25th workshop where you all join me
on the desk to explore alternative
to diesel fuel backup generation for use
to safely energized substations during PSPS events.
Staff use the workshop to develop the staff proposal
on interim approaches for minimizing emissions
from generation and we have a proposal for that,
for 2021 and going forward.
So this decision adopts both of the staff proposals
of modification, and this was based on the broad
and diverse set of comments and apply at comments received.
This decision first would order Southern California Edison
to revise its rule two, to permit the installation
of microgrids as added or special facilities
bringing their role into harmony with PG&E
and San Diego Gas & Electric.
If I just say these changes will reduce barriers
to mockery commercialization.
Second, the decision direct the three IOUs,
the essence, as the gas, I'm not sure at the San Diego Gas
& Electric through revise their respective rule 18 or 19
to allow microgrids to serve critical customers
on a Jason's parcel.
All of these criteria are geared towards providing
for safety and for sustainability resiliency
because the grid is a very complicated infrastructure.
Critical customers are defined by the PSPS,
the energization decision.
When I'm going to shortness this a little bit
as you might imagine, to have a long detail rule 18 and 19
that it would allow local government microgrids
to service critical customers on adjacent parcel.
It also provides relief for local governments
which include public schools.
By the way, we heard about public schools this morning
from a commenter and tribal governments
and provide greater flexibility for these entities
under rule 18 and 19, we also we direct the IOUs to develop
with tariff schedule or fully renewable microbions deploying
to generators and loads as a single account,
and this is an also directs the working group
of travel speak to when more detail later to consider
whether to rely compensation to energy exports
from non-renewable resources in the microgrid
under this new tariff rubric.
The decision also a direct the IOUs to develop jointly
in microgrid incentive program,
we heard quite a few comments
on this grid incentive program.
The IOUs are to develop it together and submit it
for CPU's approval, this program would mitigate some
of the financial barriers by finding clean,
decision requires clean energy community and microgrids
with a $200 million to support the needs of low-income
and vulnerable populations, which includes access
and functional needs customers on medical baseline
or electricity dependent, Medicare patients.
Those are included in the vulnerable populations.
These populations that are most likely to be impacted
by grid outages, there has to be a convening
of a stakeholder working group, and that is where
and he's like Reclaim Our Power sunrise books we heard
from today can participate in shaping this plan based
on that feedback from stakeholders routes.
And by the way, that's a stakeholder group,
it's the coordinated with the energy vision.
You know, our PD RPV refers to placing guard rails,
and what that means is is that what it doesn't mean
is that somehow somebody is left out or cannot weigh
but rather it means it's 20 IOUs that this program
is to be a viable program, okay?
Don't change it where we are talking about low-income clean,
those are the guardrails.
And that stakeholder input
is to be significant and meaningful.
So and furthermore, we'll utilities in this plan,
and they need to include descriptions
of the funding allocation, the accounting,
and a resiliency and equity scoring system, okay?
A resiliency and equity scoring system,
and all of that needs to be submitted to the energy division
in advance of launching.
Then we also directly IOUs on evaluating isolation methods
and DC metering, we direct the IOUs develop pathways
for evaluation and approval of low cost,
reliable electrical isolation methods,
we know this is critical to provide safely providing
for power during a grid outage, you know, let's just be,
I'm not electrical engineer, I'm a materials engineer,
but the electrical engineers on the team
and the teams that the IOUs have really emphasized.
The grid is the very essential.
And also electricity is dangerous
if you have to get this right.
But anyway, we are directing that they do,
the guidelines do provide those pathways
and minimize the risks of any kind
of backfeeding of electricity and to provide
for diverse technologies to be a part
of this electrical islanding right.
Also directs Edison to be lead on the villains
of DC metering because DC metering direct current teetering
versus a true to current meeting, you can lower the cost,
the internet connection process costs and we knew that some
of this work is already underway,
for both residents, residential
and small commercial customers.
And overall the per the approved statutes,
there has to be a neutral third-party contractor engaged
through our division energy division to review
and evaluate the technician.
Well, all of these changes that we give the track one
and now here at track two to assure the competitiveness
and rate para interests.
Now for the backup generation at substations,
again, this is at substations,
we had launched a one-year program in 2020
and here we would adopt an interim approach
because it's the interim, because we were looking
at that there are many efforts underway
to reduce public safety, power shut off the hardware
of the grid as Jason managed, hosted with things, right.
But meanwhile was included that for the...
Well, in the 2020 season to target and deploy
and as much as possible use hydrogenated vegetable oil
which has a whole different impact that diesel.
So in this decision we would extend
the temporary generation fleet for 2021
for all three industrial utilities and establish a framework
to transition, to clean temporary regeneration in 2022
if the IOU's looking to need temporary generation in 2022
and beyond, there is a framework which includes submitting
the advice letters to our energy division.
This approach includes a requirement
to have ongoing consultation
with the local air quality agencies, I sit on the letter
to all the IOUs about that to have it deployment complies
with the apical irregulations again,
towards minimizing emissions and criteria pollutants.
Also, if the IOUs are going to anticipate meeting
in this kind of backup generation in 2022
we are requiring that the generators be 90% cleaner
by 2022 than today.
And also that there are senior technologies
as a tier two type of diesel engine, which is for cleaner.
So we had those requirements also in this DV.
And then finally the resiliency and Michael working group,
which is required by the statute, there is a next phase.
While we have checked all the boxes to the statute,
of course, there was more, you know, more what to do
to continue to refine and to assure that we have provided
for the commercialization.
And so there will be a next phase,
this is led by our energy vision, working group is open
to anyone who wants to participate.
There was an initial kickoff meeting back in October,
many of the parties, many stakeholders participated
there are some subgroups.
So the working group will help parties
and staff identify concrete after what proposals
all towards contain to reduce barriers
to criminals commercialization they will cover topics
such as valuing resiliency,
multi-property microgrid terrace continuing
to look at the interconnection gaps
and build on the customer facing tariff.
So the staff have been working on the schedule
and flying its focus, my baggy keen partner President Batjer
is going to speak a little more to this.
And so in closing through the diligent work of our team
diverse input from stakeholders
we are taking another big step in ensuring resiliency
of the grid reducing barriers, they've come a long way,
but there's more, there's a track three ahead
had a successful vote out of this decision.
I'd like to close by thanking the microbiota teams
includes Administrative Law Judge Colin Rizzo,
energy vision program and project advisor
at Forest Kaeser utilities engineers,
joist lined us Julian, Ennis contraception and Daniel Tut
and analysts Jessica teas, and move in a racavich.
Program manager, Molly Circle, director Simon Baker,
deputy executive director, Ed Randolph
and our advisory attorney, it was the, again,
my benefit key partner, President Batjer and her advisor,
Josh Honeycutt, chief of staff option over.
And from my office, my analyst, Christina Rivera,
my advisor, Christina Tan, and like chief of staff,
(indistinct) with that I asked for your, I vote, thank you.
-: Thank you Commissioner Shiroma, as your BK partner,
I will speak to item 38 as well, I will be voting in support
of this proposed decision item 38,
this decision as a chiming nation of a whirlwind year
which you spoke of earlier Commissioner Shiroma
or microgrids and the resiliency team.
I just want to remind people, you mentioned it,
I wanna underscore, we have two proposed decisions
that have been produced in just one year when often is,
as the public really knows and our parties know
often it takes us 18 months, this has been nothing short
of a whole lot of hard work done very quickly.
And I really want to offer my gratitude to them
for their tireless efforts.
So thanks very much to you Commissioner Shiroma.
And of course, to judge Rizzo who was one
of our hardest working colleagues at the CPUC,
I wanna thank him for his leadership
and the energy division teams, diligence and expertise.
I would like to specifically
thank Commissioner Shiroma's chief of staff who I'm testify
and of course, Ed Randolph and the incredible microgrid
and resilience team that I just mentioned who worked report
to Ed and that's Forest Kaeser,
incredible team, incredible group of our colleagues
have been brought together and work so diligently
on microgrids and resiliency.
This PD represents a significant step forward
in the commercialization of microgrids.
In addition to the new microgrid tariffs
and the micro good incentives program
will provide resiliency boost to vulnerable communities
and will provide us with critical insights
in the coming years as we're well-drawn
by Commissioner Shiroma, these important investments
there remains work to do to further explore
and understand the benefits and the costs
of the microgrids specifically additional work is needed
to consider what adjustments to the microgrid tariff.
Microgrids tariff may be needed
to reflect any potential value that technologies
such as fuel cells can provide regardless
of their fuel source.
In this vein, I have requested in consultation
with Commissioner Shiroma
that the energy division accelerate its work
in the next track of this proceeding to examine this issue
and to ensure that any value is adequately reflected
under the microgrids tariff,
at work will be done immediately, will be done immediately.
And I trust that the team will approach this next track,
track three, with the same urgency
that they have approached the two decisions
they have supported this past year.
In closing, I want to express my thanks once again
for the tremendous effort and I look forward
to ongoing exploration of this topic.
This team has worked at lightening pace as I've said
and I know that they will continue to do so
with great expertise, thank you very much,
and I will turn now to my other fellow Commissioners
for any comments that they would like to make or questions
that they have on item 38.
-: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Thank you, President Batjer,
thank you Commissioner Shiroma for all of the work on this,
I know this TD is as we heard from the public this morning
as being pulled in so many directions
to deal with the PSPS shut off to meet the needs of folks
who wanna expand this market and commercialize microgrids
to the community needs who want to become more independent
of the current IOUs that serve them.
And so many other directions that I know you're trying
to respond to, you're in one comprehensive PD.
Personally I am very weary of the,
let's say free market commercialization of microgrids,
and particularly if there's any continued a rate payer
across subsidy in many ways if we leave it to be purely
on the market, it will probably have the similar outcome
that the NEM tariff has today,
which is it certainly benefits the customers who have it
and not so much those who do not.
And so I appreciate the caution that's taken in looking
at how these rule changes and potential tariff changes
will impact the entire rate base
and so I actually appreciate the incentive program approach
in order to guard from leaving really the customers behind
who probably need it the most certainly
in this scenario, but PSPS events.
So just so we all heard today that it turns
with the incentive program.
I think some of those concerns are merited in the sense
that there is so much more knowledge
on what communities need, as was mentioned in terms
of location of cooling centers and food banks, many things
that we have all of them pushing the utility
so identifying their PSPS events for backup generation.
So they're certainly not unknown to them
but I certainly hope that there is, I appreciate there
is a next step, but I hope it could be more robust
and certainly call on the CCA to really step up
in their engagement here as local governments
who know what the communities
that they deal with are facing.
But I do wanna express some weariness in that so many
of these details are yet to be answered.
And so I do hope to be more engaged
in the implementation plan that will be forthcoming to us.
And just as a small note, I know that the cost recovery
has been slightly pushed off and there's a note
that the memo count will be tracked
in the annual electric true-up.
But I do believe in addition to that,
we need to have a reasonable review and that minimum,
I would just offer this the ERRA can still that,
it's not a future GRC that the ADT alone isn't sufficient.
And again I hope those are things that we can incorporate
into the implementation plan.
And then coming to the area
which is both the most concerning but has the most potential
is the clean air and energy at the substations.
Of course, it's something that we never really
thought we would need because we didn't appreciate
these prevalence of PSPS' is but for many other reasons,
it may be something that PSPS is a side,
localized, clean energy maybe something
that we should be pursuing in any case
and connected to substations from my perspective
is the most beneficial to the most customers.
Now, however, I think the question of ownership as soon
as the question of profit off of that generation
is a separate question, but in terms of being able
to capture the all the customers so that no one set,
you know, so we don't keep Google on, but you know,
affordable housing is shut off.
That's the benefit of generation at the substation.
Now we haven't pushed them very hard on that
on the Queens generation at the substation.
And I certainly know that there are physical limitations,
geographic limitations to having clean energy tomorrow
at many of these substations, but again, think that this
is an area that the TCAs have a role
to partner with the IOUs in particular amongst many others
to really see a development of just kind
of facing the reality that this is certainly being led
by the IOUs and of course, many of the limitations
of connecting to the substations are with the IOUs,
but there's much more here of an opportunity for us
to figure out how we serve all customers
that are currently served by a substation that
is the energized and figuring out how to switch that
to an entirely served set and whether it's
at the physical substation which seems the most logical
or elsewhere, but, well, we can only get better from here,
I suppose, and so with that I just say
that I think I recognize the many disparate directions
that you're being pulled, I think you've made a lot
of progress in the decisions and I really do hope
that we can hone in on some of what we've heard this morning
but also my particular interest in seeing greater progress
in cleaner generation being tied to substations.
So thank you for letting me share my thoughts
as you move forward and seeing these implementation plans
and certainly in track three, thank you very much.
-: Thank you Commissioner Guzman Aceves,
yes, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
I have a few selected comments I'd like to offer
in addition to whatever everyone else has said so far.
And I want to start out by saying
how much I appreciate the leadership
of Commissioner Shiroma, judge Rizzo
and the microgrid team on this,
it's really been extraordinary.
And now I understand you're supposed to act twice
as fast and the next six months a year or so,
I don't know how that's gonna happen
but I very much appreciate that the assignment
that you've just accepted.
We know and the decision emphasizes that microgrids
are a Cuban resiliency strategy.
But we've learned, I've certainly learned,
I think we've all learned how much complexity there is
in their deployment, what I appreciate about this decision
and the phase one decision beforehand
is that we have been marching systematically through trying
to address these challenges, and this decision
to adopt a number of measures
to streamline the regulatory process and rules changes
provide incentives to promote microgrid installation
and it addresses quite a number of these barriers
but clearly there are a lot more that need to be addressed.
The parties have raised, and we've recognized
that the decision sets up a process for getting input
and trying to work through these barriers.
I'm very supportive of the incentive program
for queen microgrids and in particular
the very strong direction that the decision provides
for focusing on vulnerable communities.
Commissioners Shiroma mentioned that there will be
a resiliency and equity scoring methodology developed.
My personal view, and I don't know if this is in exactly
in the decision, I don't think it is
because that's still needs to be developed
but given the limited number of projects
I think the scoring criteria should ensure
that all of the funds go to applications for projects
that benefit the most vulnerable communities and projects
that do not primarily benefit these vulnerable communities
should not receive funding at all, that would be my hope.
I think that is broadly consistent with the framework
you've set forth in the decision.
I strongly support the direction for the IOU
to evaluate technological low cost fixes
for isolating from the grid and I encouraged the IOUs
to move as quickly as possible in this area,
as Commissioners from the notes,
this could substantially reduce the cost of microgrids
and the cost of installing behind the veto backups storage
for the PG&E, clean microgrids program at substations
that Commissioner was talking about.
Again, my main comment here
is that we wanna move forward quickly and I encourage PG&E
to move forward very, very quickly with its solicitations
for this program so that we can get, we have ample time
for clean generation to come online in the next two years.
Not so that we don't have to wait three, four
five years do it now through the solicitation see what comes
in so that we can have those projects up
and running sooner rather than later.
Finally, I wanna mention one area where I think we have
an opportunity to make some changes moving forward.
As part of our decision, we authorize microgrids
for Jason facilities owned by the same agency
as part of that, we limited the access
that the adjacent facilities could have
to the surplus capacity to only grid outage events
not during other times of the year.
And I think I understand that maybe reasons
for starting out this way but I think
if we continue this way, we are foregoing both financial
and grid benefits that could accrue.
If the adjacent facilities are allowed
to share electricity at other times.
There may be low peak load reduction benefits
other grid benefits and it may make microgrids
much more financially viable if we can offset some
of the high costs of installing excess capacity
that's only deployed during a grid outage event.
So I'm hoping that that's something that we can continue
to look at as this is part of the decision is developed.
I know that we'll be reevaluating this after
a few pilot projects to develop and I look forward
to that reevaluation with that.
I will be strongly supporting the decision tonight.
Thanks again, everyone
for their extremely hard work on this ruin.
(computer chiming)
-: Thank you, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
Any other comments or questions on item 38, seeing none,
will the agenda clerk please call the roll?
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
-: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Hi.
-: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
-: President Batjer.
Yes, the item 38 is passed unanimously, thank you all.
Moving now on to item 40, that is assigned to me this order.
This is an order extending statutory deadline,
it is for application 19 dash zero seven dash zero two one
Southern California, Edison 2017
and 2018 catastrophic events memo account proceeding.
It's proceeding that I recently inherited
from Commissioner Randolph.
In this application Southern California Edison
requests authorization to recover costs recorded
and its catastrophic event at memorandum accounts associated
with the following five and catastrophic events.
The 2017/18 throughout the 2017 pure firestorm,
the 2017 Canyon one and Canyon two firestorms,
the 2017 Thomas firestorm, and the 2017 Creek
and ride firestorms, briefs and reply briefs
were recently filed in December
and administrative judge Garrett Toy
is currently drafting the proposed decision.
An extension of the statutory deadlines of July 29
2021 is necessary to allow enough time
to issue a proposed decision for public review and comments
and to allow the Commission enough time
to deliberate an issue, its final decision.
I request your support.
Okay, any comments or questions on item number 40?
Seeing none will the agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
-: Yes, item number 40th passed unanimously.
Thank you, moving to item 41, which is a real safety issue
is proceeding as an application of the Metro Gold Line
Foothill Extension Construction Authority
for an ordering authorizing construction
of one light rail track.
The proposed decision would extend the statutory deadline
from February 3rd, 2021 to August 3rd, 2021
for the proceeding.
This proceeding was unable to be completed
under Commissioner Randolph's tenure.
The six months extension would allow me sufficient time
to get up to speed on the proceeding
and have the proposed decisions finalized.
But we do not anticipate requiring until using the time
required until August 3rd, 2021 for final disposition
of this proceeding, the additional time ensures
that the Administrative Law Judge
will be afforded the necessary time
to prepare the proposed decision and the Commissioner
will have afforded the time to deliberate
and adopt a final decision.
I'm hoping it will be done before August 3rd, 2021.
With that I asked for your support
for this item extending statutory deadlines.
Are there any questions or comments on item 41?
If see none will the agenda clerk please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
-: President Batjer
-: Yes, item 41 has passed unanimously moving on now
to item 43, Commissioner Rechtschaffen, that's your item.
-: This order extends the statutory deadline
for the proceeding that is overseeing PG&E development
of a mobile app that we ordered as part of our response
to the fires investigation involving PG&E.
And that will allow field inspectors and members
of the public to identify potential safety concerns
with PG&E infrastructure in high fire threat areas.
We're sending the proceedings for approximately three years.
And the reason we were doing that is we need
to take into account the time it will take for PG&E
to both design and implement the program and for them
to evaluate the safety benefits and costs of the program.
I asked for your support of this extension order.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
are there any questions or comments?
Seeing none will the agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
-: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
-: Yes, item 43 is passed unanimously moving now to item 44.
Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Thank you, President Batjer,
This is order extending does mine
for our consumer complaints.
It's on a service upgrade, a billing dispute with PG&E
in loss also that arose from the resolution
of the previous complaint.
And there was a PHT held in October of last year
and the parties did express interest
in the alternative dispute resolution process.
So we would like to give them some time to see
if that yields a good result, so I will be asking
to extend this timeline is proceeding
until August of this year, thank you.
-: Okay, are there any questions or comments.
Seeing none will be the agenda clerk,
please call the roll on item 44.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Yes.
Clerk: President Batjer.
-: Yes, item 44 has passed unanimously.
Thank you all removed now from the regular agenda
to our management reports,
we are going to first bring up item 45,
which is report and discussion on recent consumer protection
and safety activities management reports.
We have Nika Gingerly forum,
the safety enforcement decision division with us
to make a presentation, the electric safety
and reliability branches investigation
into the August power outages and we have Lee Palmer
director of safety enforcement division
who will take this off and then turn it over
to Nika Gingerly, Lee, I believe you're with us.
-: Yes, thank you.
Thank you President Batjer, can you hear me okay?
-: Yes we can.
-: Excellent, thank you.
Good afternoon, President Batjer, Commissioners,
and executive director Peterson.
I thank you again for the invitation and the opportunity
to speak with you today with regards
to the August, 2020 outage investigations.
Following on President and widespread seeds storm
which forced electrode demand,
I took seed available resources,
the electric state team reliability branch within the safety
and enforcement division conducted a thorough investigation.
And why would GO one 67?
The investigation involved issuing a bad request
to over 130 generating asset owners in person inspections
to select owners and in some cases tabletop exercises
to validate information provided.
At this time I will now hand over the presentation
to Nico is the program manager for the electric safety
and reliability branch and took lead
in developing this report,
so Nika the floor's yours.
Nika: Thank you, can everyone hear me?
Yes, I can hear you fine.
Okay, great, I don't know where,
the only thing I can't see is, I can't see the presentation.
President: That's not good. -: Oh there.
Nika: Okay, I see it now and I'm not sure why my video
is not working, that's only...
Anyway I'll go ahead and get started,
I'm sorry that you can't see me,
if somebody says something in the chat
I can try and get that, but thank you Commissioner Batjer
and President Batjer and Commissioners
and executive director Peterson for taking the time
to for us to go over this presentation with you
and kind of highlight some of the response
that the electric safety and reliability branch did
regarding the August, 2020 outage investigation.
If you could move to the next slide, here we go.
Thank you, one second, start my video.
Okay, there we go.
Okay, so a little bit of background in mid August of 2020
as you all are aware, we had an experience
of unprecedented and widespread heat storm that forced
or electrical demand to exceed our available resources.
This resulted of course, in these stage three power alerts
and culminated as a rolling blackouts
and across the CAISO control areas specifically
on August 14th and 15th.
And that resulted in a loss of more than 2,700 directs
had electric generating facility.
So we were focused ESRB and looking at generating when
we were investigating the outages that occurred
on August 14th and 15th.
In response to this situation ESRB initiated investigation,
we wanted to look at that tactical causes of these outages
at these generating facilities.
So that was kind of the purpose of our study
and of our investigation.
If you can move to the next slide, please.
So what ESRB did in response was we issued data requests
do the 130 generating asset owners or GOs,
well electric GOs that are in California
within CAISOS control area,
we requested a response we've looked at,
we've pressed the response for any outage
that was two hours or longer in duration and resulted
in 50 megawatts or greater in race.
And we looked at a two week period instead of just focusing
on the 14th of the 15th, the reason we wanted to look
at an expanded period of time isn't as we'll see
a little bit later, there were some outages,
there were some issues that happened a little bit before
that it kind of culminated up to what happened
on the 14th and 15th and there were also some plants
that experienced problems that were prolonged
and extend beyond the 15th.
And that kind of contributed to the problems
that we experienced over that time period.
And it kind of exacerbated the issues that we saw
around surrounding the weather conditions.
From the responses that we've received from the GOs,
we noticed that 23 plants responded
that they experienced outages for outages
that met our criteria and we also calculated
as the total number of electric generating outages resulted
in a combined loss over that two week period
of over 8,300 megawatts, next slide please.
So this is just a snapshot as we mentioned
of the electric generating facilities
that meant the defined criteria that experienced outages
and that we followed up with an investigation into.
As you can see from the slide,
we conducted six in-person inspections at various plants
throughout Northern and Southern California.
We conducted four tabletop exercises
and then we issued two additional data requests to plant.
So in addition to that initial data requests,
followup data requests to two of the facilities
that met those guidelines.
For us a tabletop exercise or the definition
of a tabletop exercise is one that can include everything
but an actual site visit to the facility,
so in many instances for the particular tabletop exercises
we've requested additional photos, we've requested,
you know, backlogs and historic records on certain equipment
in from the plant that really gave us a holistic picture
of what had happened there and was just as good,
but not quite as, you know, clearly we weren't able
to make it to these facilities but we were still able
to conduct a thorough and get destination
by doing the tabletop exercise, next slide please.
Okay, thank you.
So this is important to note, the slide is really critical
to assessing ESRB's ability
to regulate these generating facilities,
and also to understand our limitations
in regulating these generating facilities.
GO 167 this is what guides our building, our assessment
of generating facilities throughout California.
And we use it to implement and enforce the standards
that focus on safety, operational practices
and preventative maintenance to ensure reliability
at the facilities and availability of generating.
While we enforce GO 167, we do lack the citation authority
to find GOs for violations of non-compliance with this GO,
we can issue NOV or issue of corrective action,
but we do not have the ability
to actually penalize them financially
for any violation of GO 167.
The most we could do at this point right now
is to recommend a formal investigation for non-compliance.
So ESRB is currently exploring options available
that would enable us to have citation authority
for GO 167 when we are auditing
and inspecting generating facility.
Move to the next slide, please.
So for the 12 investigations that we did do
at these generating facilities as a followup
to the outages in August, we did and this slide actually
it's one page outdated, we did issue
and take corrective action.
Again, this says the sites three
but it's actually four facilities.
So center energy center, sunrise energy center
mountain view generating station and then the fourth one
that I'd like to add is the Oakland Power Station.
If she says you can see from this it was a combination
of notices of violations in NOV and corrective actions
against these facilities.
For the Oakland Power Station we will plan,
or we will be issuing an NOV to that facility as well
for various violations.
And I didn't write down the actual violations here
but I did include that backup slides.
Next slide, please.
So these are our action items based
on our investigations are action items
and recommendations for moving forward.
Especially as we go into summer 2021,
we're gonna continue as part of our statutory requirements
to continue to monitor electric generating outages,
we mostly do this through the power plant outage reports.
These are called the PPRS that we receive on a daily basis
and be flagged any forced or planned outages
with similar criteria to the ones that we use
in our data requests that went out
to all generating facilities.
So we've look at outages that occur at these plants
that are 50 megawatts of greater
and our durations of 24 hours in those in the PPORs
are longer, but what we plan to do is just flag those
and, you know follow up as necessary that could be, you know
requesting an onsite inspection,
conducting some sort of asking or requesting
for a tabletop exercise, but that's a big step,
and getting ahead of the curve is just to continue
to monitor generating facility via these reports
and then also through our annual preemptive,
the audits that we regularly schedule.
Start early preparation for summer of 2021,
this is also critical, we don't wanna find ourselves
where we were this year in June or July,
we wanna get ahead of the curve again.
And so our plan is to issue a data request
to these electric generators before the summer months
and instruct them to submit de-rating outages
for the summer months to us that meet our defined criteria
that is the two hours or longer, 50 megawatts or greater
in D right and submit that to us so we can get a preview
of what we will be expecting
and some take actions beforehand.
The last bullet I have is to strengthen
our inter-agency coordination,
that's between the CAISO and the GOs
as well as you know Pete scrawling gave
a wonderful presentation this morning
and we are currently working with energy division
in our own capacity to strengthen our exchange
of information and also to better prepare again
for the summer through sharing of information
and kind of working together
to tackle these problems head on.
I think the next slide is, it's probably just the backup,
these are some backups I can walk through them
or briefly did, just next slide, please.
This has kind of shows some of the outage information
that we've provided as you can kind of see
or maybe not from this, but there was a variety
of technical problems that we found at these facilities
that we visited anything from like boiler tube leaks
to gasket leak a few of the plants
that went offline experienced turbine trip.
And then there were also just some management they've,
you know what we've we found what we signed them for us
like incorrect calls on how to manage
their procedures leading up to the outage.
So those are things that we decided to form as correct
and things that they need to correct going forward.
And then next slide, and then the next slide.
So this just kind of lays out the actual GO violations,
do you know, 167 violations
that were found at each of these.
That concludes my presentation, I would be happy
to answer any questions that anyone has.
-: Thank you Nika, this is a very, very important,
very timely of course, I have a quick question
and that is going to be requesting the information
from the generators because I'm really concerned
that by June they've got to have any kind of maintenance
or D rate that they needed to be done under well under hand
because we're obviously extremely concerned
of losing any Watts in the summer of 2021.
Those particularly of course, July, August, and September.
And I would dare say into early October as well.
-: Yeah, that's a great question President Batjer.
First of all, for some of the plants that experienced
that we did do onsite inspections of this
for last last year related to the August 2020 outages,
we actually have this teed up to do our rate as part
of our regular audit schedule.
So we're following up with some of those and then
for the others for all of the generating facilities,
the 130 that I listed, we are ready to send that out
we'll probably do some minor tweaks with the data requests
that we're planning to send, but we could send that out
as release spring, and it gives them
about a month turnaround around time or so to get that.
But clearly wouldn't want to do that well
before the summer months,
so get responses probably in early May
and for data that would be provided on June, July, August
and then September as well.
-: You're on mute President Batjer.
-: I don't know what's wrong with me today.
Nika, I would say is, I really appreciate your comments
about coordinating more closely with CAISO.
And I'm concerned or wondering if the information
that you so well briefed us on just now,
is that then shared with the appropriate people at CAISO?
Are they aware?
-: We haven't yet, one of the things that kind of,
I guess, one of the issues that we encountered
that we're now currently working on was getting access
to some of high CAISOs databases like the OMS,
the operation maintenance schedule database,
which what we kind of eventually were able to use
to provide us with information on the plants
and the outages that experienced
but we had some issues getting into that.
So we're currently working on that and once we get the,
once we, I guess get lack of a better word,
like a sorority to access it
and kind of rekindle our ties with CAISO we would be happy
to share that information with them,
our information with them.
-: Thanks, Nika and you and Lee, please keep me well-informed
about that coordination effort and the share
'cause it's really critical to me.
So thank you, appreciate that.
Any other questions from the committee?
Mrs. Shiroma?
-: Yes, thank you, two comments.
Well, first to Lee, I know Lee that you are active
with the National Guard
and as the events unfolded last week, and this week
in our Capitol, I thought of you and your colleagues.
We see the images of many of your colleagues sleeping
in the hallways of the Capitol
as they are ending their shift.
And then the next shift to goes on
and they are going through a rotation
especially like the photos through your colleagues
at those apart on statue.
Anyways, I know that many of us are really thinking
about you and your colleagues, just top of mind.
I think it was immense things of appreciation
for this smooth transition,
as it's supposed to be in our democracy,
so thank you so much.
My second home is to Nika and I mentioned this
it's your slide five do with general order 167
does not provide for citation authority
and Commissioner Guzman Aceves mentioned this
in the presentation from Pete on the root cause
about penalty authority when have you here?
I mean, I know that there's the barrier of what is
within the CPUC authority and jurisdiction
and we have a level of authority and to of course
for the IOUs on the resource adequacy for LLCs, sorry
folks viewing audience while the acronyms, sorry.
But here I think if there is something that can be done
it may require legislation, but it just seems to me
that there needs to be teeth in what you all do.
So it's really a comment on my part in that
if we're the Commissioners to follow up on what options
are there here for us?
It was a simple revision to deal with it
or do we, cause he's on the line on statutes
or is there something else you've got to do?
I think it's important, so thank you.
-: Is that a question or just a statement?
-: This is a statement.
-: Okay, thank you, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Well, just to follow up on, on that
I agree with you Commissioner Shiroma
I don't think we need a statute,
I think we need a decision authorizing citation program
and I had already talked to be unique about doing that
and they're working on hard about that
because they want that tool
in their enforcement toolbox as well.
I think it's very consistent with enforcement policy.
We just approved last year and something
that would be very helpful for their efforts.
-: We agree that would make our jobs a little bit easier
and more impactful, so, yep.
-: President Batjer that's all I was gonna add
and reiterate to think Nika for presentation and reiterate
that I think it's important for us to attend it,
to get even if it's an interim citation program
in place for the summer would be ideal.
So I hope that that is something we can incorporate
into the work plan.
-: I would think we need to look at that very closely.
Yes, okay.
Anything else for Nika or Lee?
Okay, thank you so much, very helpful presentation
-: And thank you very much.
-: Thank you, Nika. -: Thank you.
-: Okay, we're now moving on to Commissioner reports.
So bear with me, I know it's late in the day,
bear with all of us, it's late in the day.
So let me get underway right away.
I have a few staffing updates to provide today.
First I want to share is this will be my energy advisor,
Josh Honeycutt whose name
has been mentioned many times today.
This is his last Commission meeting with our office.
Josh has a great opportunity to return
to the energy division, to work on a subject
that he is passionate about, and that will be critical
to the state's greenhouse gas emissions volts.
And that is transportation electrification.
I wanna thank Josh for his service he is a pleasure
to work with and I will dearly miss him.
And I'm very happy that we will all continue to benefit
from his talents in the energy division,
so where was she in Josh?
The best, thank you, thank you.
On a related note, I'm very pleased to announce that Ana
and the Russo is joining our office as an interim legal
and energy advisor on an joined the Commission in 2014,
and most recently served as an advisor
to Commissioner Randolph.
In that role, he focused on federal energy litigation,
administrative law and state policy
involving energy procurement and markets
and energy infrastructure, safety and reliability,
on an also previously served as a staff counsel
at the Commission representing the advocacy division
in energy, water and safety litigation,
and served as an energy analyst
in the utilities enforcement branch
and the office of rate payer advocates.
Before joining the Commissioner who works in an attorney
and as a law clerk and holds a bachelor's degree
in economics from Carnegie Mellon University
and a JD from Santa Clara University
on an is a Bay Area native and currently resides in Oakland.
And so pleased to have the benefits on depth
and breadth of background here at the Commission.
And I'm looking forward to having him on our team.
So welcome on it.
Last staffing announcement I'd like to make
is not related to my office but someone who has played
an incredibly important role here at the Commission
and someone who I will sincerely miss working with
on a daily basis, I would like to take this time
to publicly announced that our fantastic director
of governmental affairs Hazel Miranda has moved on
and started in her new role as deputy legislative secretary
to Governor Newsome.
For the last five years, Hazel built strong relationships
between the legislature and the CPU for ability
to translate complicated CPUC speak
and our mission and priorities
to the legislature is unmatched.
She is a well-respected colleague, a master of her craft
and always able to make a room smile.
Also her poop has saw that it wrong,
Making skills are unmatched as we all witnessed
during our Hispanic month recognition month
she should go on TV.
I tell ya, Hazel will be greatly missed
but we are fortunate in that she will continue
to work closely with us
on energy telecommunications utilities
and environmental matters, for intimate knowledge
of the CPUC will greatly benefit California
and we are also very proud of her.
With her departure Grant Mack will be serving
as acting director of the office of governmental affairs.
Grant currently serves
as the senior legislative consultant
for electricity and gas policy matters at the CPUC
and prior to joining the CPUC
he served as an energy policy advisor
and then she policy advisor to chair Robert B. Weisenmiller
of the California Energy Commission.
We have been doubly blessed to have both Hazel and Grant
in leadership roles at the OGA.
And I'm very happy to have Grant in the acting role.
It is going to be in a very busy legislative session.
So we're fortunate.
Finally, I want to briefly highlight an upcoming event
and encourage the public to attend and participate.
On Wednesday, every third and Thursday, February 4th
the Commission will be hosting a workshop
about its environmental and social justice action plan.
This CSJ action plan serves as a roadmap for the CPUC
to further equity and inclusion of environmental
and social justice populations in policy and programs.
This workshop we'll consider some interactive discussions
to brainstorm opportunities and potential action items
or update to the ESG action plan a full agenda
and webinar information will be available
on the CPUCUs website next week.
Again, the workshop is for every third and fourth
we hope to see virtually all of you that finishes
or methods in my lengthy Commissioned report.
I will now turn to my fellow Commissioners who
would like to go next?
If we have any reports, I guess Commissioner Shiroma,
that's up for hand, so there you go.
-: Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, President Batjer.
I have two quick items to report on.
We have a clean energy financing workshop coming up
on January 28th and 29th.
We'll be hosting
our first clean energy financing workshop explore
why didn't you get options to assist in those electricity
and natural gas customers with investments in clean energy.
We opened up this OIR back in August and it is
to investigate financing offices to support microgrids
and deficiency, demand response, building decarbonization,
distributed solar and other self-generation technology
and alternative fuels both electric and gas vehicles
and related infrastructure located on customer sites.
These of course will be very important, are very important
as we continue to pursue our ambitious climate goals.
It will involve all sectors, residential, commercial,
industrial agriculture, living in urban,
rural disadvantaged communities,
low to moderate income customers and renters,
so our online workshop will feature a very diverse panel
of experts from banks, credit unions, community development
financial institutions, non-profit organizations
energy lenders, state agencies, and utilities.
And we will hear about lessons learned
from successful clean energy financing programs
not only in California, but across the US,
we'll talk about the priorities
and objectives for this clean energy financing OER
and the guiding principles that we should use
on energy financing, so it starts at 9:00 am.
It's a day and a half, everyone is invited.
The information is posted on our CPUC website
on the Commission's daily calendar,
we expect participation from the treasurer's office,
from the areas, we've got the church's office,
we've got go biz sloughed and in many owners
who are participating in this workshop.
So I wanna thank the energy vision, Peter Francaise,
Kevin Flies, the Rory Cox, you Patel, how Kane,
Jen Caliphate administrative lodges is really pitch
into our own system and from my office advisor, Sharon wins
and I'm a chief of staff for pine workshops.
So all are welcome, it's January 28th and 29th.
And then the Commission is going
to conduct an a rates on long.
It will be an all day energy rates and costs
on bog attended by a prison Batjer
and all of us Commissioners it's on February 24th.
The purpose is to host a critical dialogue
on the energy cost and rates outlook for the next 10 years
and how that may impact our climate
and electrification goals
while maintaining affordable service,
a CPUC author white paper on electric
and gas cost and rate trends that was a lot
of the next two years, it is scheduled to be released
in early February, our ongoing discussion
will center around this paper
and we anticipate attendees will include academics,
researchers, utilities, consumer advocates, with slate
of staff and other energy stakeholders
to discuss this very important topic.
So again, it will be on February 24th.
Look for the white paper
and the event details will be forthcoming
on the service list and also on our calendar website.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma,
are there any other Commissioner reports?
Okay, seeing none that will end,
that will conclude the public meeting
and we are now adjourned.