Announcer: Admin monitor.com.
Britney: Welcome to the California
Public Utilities Commission, Public Voting Meeting
on this day, Thursday, June 24th, 2021.
Today's call is being recorded
if you have any objections,
you may disconnect at this time.
President Batjer, you may proceed.
-: Thank you very much.
Good morning, everyone.
We need to establish a quorum.
So will the agenda clerk
please call the role. -: Hi, can you hear me?
I'm testing this is Britney.
-: Will the agenda clerk,
please call the roll so we can establish a quorum.
Britney: Can you hear me? This is Britney.
Holly, I think you need to....
Excuse me for one second.
I think you need to go and mute, Holly.
Operator, I think you need to go on mute.
Operator: I'm muted Commissioner.
-: Somebody else needs to go on mute, please.
Thank you.
Okay, now we call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Here.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Present.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
Alison: Apologies for interrupting President Batjer,
this is Alison Brown, the Public Advisor.
I believe Holly, our Spanish
and English signs may be merged.
We may need to separate that out
because we're hearing the Spanish on the English line.
-: Okay, and we're getting background noise too.
So let's pause for a second.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Robert, are you on the line?
Robert: Yes, President Batjer,
I'm instructing operator and everyone
to please have them all muted.
-: And what about the line that Allison just mentioned?
Robert: I've directed the operator.
Okay, they're all muted now President Batjer.
Sorry for the interruption.
-: Okay, let's start over with the roll call, please,
so we can hear everyone and know that they are present.
Thank you.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Here.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Present.
-: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Here.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves?
-: Here.
Clerk: President Batjer?
-: Here.
We have established a quorum, thank you.
So I'd like to welcome everyone
to the California Public Utilities Commission.
I'm calling this meeting of June 24th, 2021,
public agenda number 3488 to order.
Due to the corona virus 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 website.
You can view the meeting at www.adminmonitor,
one word .com /CA/CPUC.
Closed captioning is available in English and Spanish
through the webcast.
You can click on the green button
to select your language of choice.
Public engagement is critical to the PUC process.
If you wish to make a public comment, please dial,
800-857-1917
and enter pass code 9899501
and press *1.
You will be placed into a queue
and the operator will take your name
and information if appropriate.
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,
votingmeetinghelp@cupc.ca.gov.
votingmeetinghealth is all one word.
I will be speaking today slowly
and I will pause occasionally
as we are being translated live into Spanish today
and I will ask that the speakers do the same.
Last week before the official start of summer,
we experienced a heat wave
that not only impacted California,
but several states across the west.
This heat event
required the California Independent System Operator
to call the first Flex Alert of the summer.
Asking Californians to voluntarily reduce their energy use
during critical moments of the afternoon and evening.
Californians always respond
and they did respond this year
and they made a difference.
Given how early in the summer this heat event occurred
as well as our experience with weather variability
in recent years,
we must be prepared for similar events later this summer.
To do that, I'm encouraging Californians to sign up.
Please sign up now for Flex Alerts
to receive information about best practices
and to get the word when it's time for you to act
and lessen your energy use.
Practices such as pre-cooling your home
prior to critical hours
and setting your thermostat to 78 degrees
during the heat event can make considerable contributions
to maintaining stable grid conditions.
To sign up and for more information,
please visit www.flexalert,
all one word.org.
www.flexalert.org.
It's very important.
I encourage everyone to sign up for Flex Alert.
Thank you.
We will now turn to the public comment part of our agenda.
If you wish to make a public comment
and you have already dialed
into the public comment telephone line,
please press *1
to get into the public comment queue.
CPUC rules do not allow for parties in proceedings
to speak about open proceedings.
The public can make comments addressing items on the consent
and regular agenda as well as items not on the agenda.
Please note that there will not be public comment
on all items on the closed session agenda.
You will have one minute to speak.
Let me repeat that.
You will have one minute to speak.
You will hear a bell sound when your time is up,
so please listen for the bell.
Please be mindful of other speakers in the queue
and keep to your allotted time.
We believe we'll have quite a few public commenters today.
So please, I ask everyone to be mindful
that there are other people,
and yourself who wish to speak,
and we wish very much to hear everyone.
So with that guidance in mind,
I welcome today's speakers
and we'll now turn to the operator
to open the public comment telephone line.
Operator?
Operator: Thank you.
The public comment telephone line is now open.
If you wish to speak,
please press *1, unmute your phone
and record your name when prompted so I may introduce you.
Our first caller is Tim Emes.
You may go ahead.
Tim: Hello, my name is Tim Emes
and I'm speaking on the integrated resource plan proceeding.
I'm calling because I want to thank you
for ordering 11,500 megawatts zero emitting resources.
I believe California is a leader on solving climate change
with legislation to move us away from fossil fuels
and that we can not afford the unhealthy pollution
from gas plants.
So I urge the Commissioners to stay strong
on rejecting anymore wasted money on fossil fuels,
both in this decision and future decisions.
Our frontline communities
that are living with the effects of air pollution
are being most effected,
and we wanna see new investment in renewables,
especially in these disadvantaged communities
that are suffering the most from unhealthy air.
Additionally, in the future,
I'd like to ask that the Commission chooses
a 38 million metric ton greenhouse gas target
and that's my... (bell rings)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
The next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mayik Badwell.
You may go ahead.
Mayik: Hello, my name is Mayik Badwell
and I'm 18 years old.
I'm a rising freshman in college
and I represent New Voices Are Rising
and I stand with the Reclaim Our Power campaign.
I'm calling to advocate
for COVID-19 utility debt forgiveness
and say that we need forgiveness because people of color
and low income communities are struggling
and being left in the dark.
Many lost their jobs
and are unemployed trying to make ends meet
and pay their bills.
Since the pandemic, people have been stuck at home,
which means their utility usage has increased
and they are more in debt.
With the moratorium canceled
and the rise to the new to year plan that include interests,
these struggling communities will only meet more struggles,
such as more debt and also damages to their credit score,
which in return will affect their ability
to take out loans for a house or cars,
furthering their hardship.
So we demand that the CPUC extends the shut off moratorium
because energy runs almost everything
and should be affordable and accessible to everyone.
We also demand that you ensure that repairs are not forced
to cover the cost of mitigating customer's pandemic bills.
Alongside this, we need to make policy incentives
for local solar storage and energy efficiency stronger.
The CPUC should think of ways
to bring local clean... (bell rings)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jesse Parks.
You may go ahead.
Jesse: Hello.
-: Hello, go ahead.
Jesse: Hi, my name is Jesse Park
and I'm speaking on the IRP proceeding.
I'm calling because I'm a 19 year old college student
here in California, Southern California,
in Riverside to be specific.
But yeah, as we all know,
clean air is kind of vital to our environment
and our lives as humans,
and it's important that we keep it clean for our community.
And honestly, I wanna thank you guys
for the work you've done, but it's still not enough.
Our air here is toxic and it's killing us
and people are dying and developing cancer.
So the time to step up
and continue a movement towards clean air
and dedicating our lives to our community is now.
So thank you guys,
but please continue to reject gas plants in this decision
and keep up for the future
and just really act with thought.
And I want to thank you guys again
because I know this work is tiring,
but it's still needed.
So thank you guys
and please continue to dismiss the gas industry.
They're not here to support any community members.
They're here just to take... (bell rings)
So, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Elliot Gonzalez.
You may go ahead.
Elliot: Hello, can you all hear me?
-: Yes, we can.
Elliot: Okay, great.
Good evening Commissioners.
I just wanted to encourage
a high greenhouse gas reduction emission goal
by implementing a 38 megawatt mandate
for our energy procurement.
As you can all tell we're living in the past,
we're in 2021, I live in Long Beach.
All over California, Arizona, all over the west,
I don't see that many solar panels,
especially in low income communities.
We need to be procuring clean energy
as if the world is on fire, as if we're in a major drought
and we don't know when it's gonna end,
as if the future is on the line.
So I ask that you all demonstrate courage
to stand up for the youth
and for the young people.
Begin the process of getting us off of so Cal Edison
and whatever three monopolies control the state's energy,
so that we can all begin procuring
locally sourced clean energy that encourages
a clean energy economy locally
and gets us off of being dependent
on fossil fuel production, natural gas production.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Francis Yang.
You may go ahead.
Francis: Morning, my name is Francis,
calling from Los Angeles,
also speaking on the midterm IRP proceeding.
And like the other speakers,
I really wanna thank you for listening
to the community's demands for clean energy
and just as importantly
the need to stop investing in fossil fuels.
I mean, 11,500 megawatts is huge
and it's honestly been such a great surprise
to see the PUC moves so quickly
to make the midterm procurement right.
Secondly, I think it's still incredibly important
that we prioritize building that procured clean energy
in the same frontline communities that are suffering
and have suffered the consequences
of a status quo energy infrastructure.
I mean, this rule is great
and really need y'all to continue to take it home.
Which brings me to my last point,
which is obviously we can't afford to waste any money
on gas and to fossil fuels.
So please make sure that we continue to phase out
the gas plants
by regulating a 38 million metric greenhouse target now,
and hopefully we can adopt
a 30 million metric ton grant target greenhouse gas target,
next cycle.
And again, thank you so, so much
for taking the right stance today.
We're excited to see what you do in the future.
-: Thank you.
Next caller, please operator.
Operator: Our next caller is Voya Allen.
You may go ahead.
Voya: Hi, my name is Voya Allen,
I'm 16 years old and arising senior in high school.
I represent New Voices Are Rising
and stand with Reclaim Our Power campaign
to transform our energy system to meet community needs.
I'm calling in to voice my opinion and say
that we need forgiveness for COVID-19 cuts.
We need to end power shut off
for all the community struggling in the dark.
COVID-19 has impacted low income
and communities of color
and most with jobs being limited
and people being let go,
community are struggling to pay the utility bills
and are surrounded by debt.
The California Public Utilities Commission
through your panel that includes interest
is a harmful stand,
and does not have other people in mind, but the money.
The CPUC should be thinking of ways to help communities,
instead of implementing a plan
that further causes people to struggle.
If people are unable to pay,
their credit scores are affected
which puts them at an even bigger disadvantage.
And it is a corrupt and cruel cycle
that will continue to put down low income communities
and communities of color.
Affordable and clean energy, they're human rights
that we all deserve to have.
We demand that you, the CPUC extend the moratorium
beyond June 30th, as it is a least damaging plan
to communities that are struggling.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Phil Evans.
You may go ahead.
And our next caller, if you're able to mute your computer
and your line is open, so you may speak.
Mr. Evans?
-: Mr. Evans, we can't hear you.
I think you're gonna need to mute your laptop
or your computer, if you can do that.
Okay, I'm sorry, Mr. Evans,
we're gonna have to go onto the next caller.
Why don't you try again calling in, I apologize.
Operate in the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jessica Polvar.
You may go ahead.
Jessica: Hello, this is Jessica Polvar,
East Bay clean power lands Local Clean Energy Alliance.
And I'm calling in because I want to encourage you
to extend the moratorium
and we need to find a path to forgiving the debt
that has been accumulated since March of 2020,
because of the pandemic
and no fault at all of these struggling communities
and small businesses throughout California.
In addition to that,
I also want to highlight that we also need to
in addition to forgiving the debt,
we want to strengthen policies
that incentivize our local solar, storage
and energy efficiency,
because we need clean energy jobs
and we need an end to power shut off
that are leaving communities in the dark.
As someone who my personal experience
has been having utilities cutoff,
I have been traumatized by having to take cold showers
as a child.
I really encourage
that we don't shut off people's utilities, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Our next caller is Jose Torre-Bueno.
You may go ahead.
Jose: I'm Jose Torre-Bueno,
speaking for the Center of Community Energy.
I wish to comment on updates to the Avoided Cost Calculator.
The basic principles of sensitivity analysis tell us
that any change to a model that causes profound changes
to the output cannot be minor.
This is especially true
when the outputs directly contradict other studies
modeling the same problem.
It would be criminal neglect of its responsibilities
for the PUC to make decisions
that had multi-billion dollar consequences for rate payers
without allowing a full examination
of the new version of the Avoided Cost Calculator
by all interested parties.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rob Holly.
You may go ahead.
Rob: Hi, I'm Rob Holly from San Jose
and I also oppose the new ACC.
I have solar, a battery and an electric car.
Thanks for the car, I buy lots of power.
I just don't do it when PG&E wants me to.
Any power I do buy is subject to NBC,
so I contribute to those programs.
On EV too my new power
can be sold to my neighbors at a profit, no subsidy there.
When I'm running on battery,
I'm not competing with my neighbors
for the long distance power lines,
yet like everyone else, I'm subject to the minimum bill.
I have zeroed my evening usage,
which exceeds what the state sponsored at TV ads ask.
Why are you proposing to add monthly fees
for doing what you are asking me to do?
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tom Braz.
You may go ahead.
Tom: Hi, my name is Tom
and I live in North San Diego County.
I'm addressing you today to tell you the CPUC,
to table resolution 5150,
which effectively will remove bias that undercounts
the value of distributed rooftop solar
through the so-called Avoided Cost Calculator or ACC.
The ACC makes assumptions about megawatt solar centers
that do not now exist.
This absurd assumption will crowd out rooftop solar
and push the value down.
Make the call for ACC open source
so that mathematicians petitions
and engineers can examine other assumptions
baked into the ACC tool.
For the record, I also wanna make you aware
that at least 6,000 individuals admitted a public comment
to the public advisor's email address
on resolution 5150,
and those comments do not appear to be published
on the record.
Those individual comments must be on the record
and I request
this be taken care of immediately.
Is full-hearted to use a brand new model set policy
without thoroughly vetting it with wide range
of stakeholders, including rooftop solar companies,
providing thousands of jobs to Californians,
environmental organizations fighting against climate change
and rooftop solar owners who have only contributed
to using the power of the sun
to generate electricity for our great state.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Margie Lewis.
You may go ahead.
Margie: Good morning, my name is Margie Lewis
and I work with Communities for a Better Environment.
In eight days, the moratorium
that has protected Californians
from having their power shut off is scheduled to end,
leaving millions of families at risk
of being left in the dark, in the heat or dead.
The CPUC hasn't taken meaningful action yet.
You need to respond
to this devastating pandemic appropriately
because our time is running out.
You have to extend the shut off moratorium beyond June 30th
and ensure that you will not raise rates or fees
on residential Californians to cover customer debt.
Extending the moratorium is much simpler
than your plans to automatically enroll people
unable to pay in two year payments plans with interest.
It is a less damaging solution that allows California
to keep their power on without going deeper into debt.
We know how PG&E spends the funds
that rate payers give them.
You must hold PG&E accountable for causing fires,
reckless shut offs and raising rates
to fund the doubling of their executive salaries.
Don't let them start to shut people off again,
just to serve these terrible spending priorities.
I stand with the Reclaim Our Power Campaign
to transfer energy system.
Thank you.
-: Thank you. -: President Batjer?
-: Yes.
-: Sorry to interrupt.
I thought it might be good to clarify
for just the public's greater awareness
that we will be voting on an extension
on the moratorium later today, IM27,
to extend the moratorium until September 30th.
I just wanna make sure that is aware for the public
since we're getting quite a few comments on that.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
I hope that those are on the line heard you,
but thank you.
Okay, operator next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Brianna Hernandez.
You may go ahead.
Brianna: Hello, my name is Brianna Hernandez
and I am speaking
on the integrated resource plan proceeding.
I'm calling because hotter climates
make grass plants pollute more.
The IRP cannot allow more than 30 million metric tons
of greenhouse gases, increasing the admissions
is another excuse erasing the progress
we were promised in this state.
That's why I'm asking the CPUC to reject plans
to waste any more money on gas plants.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Mike Turgeon.
You may go ahead.
Mike: Hi Mike Turgeon speaking on my own behalf.
Yeah, my concern is that the process
approving this new Avoided Cost Calculators
it's really in direct opposition
to the PUC's on priorities and procedures.
So updating this calculator should go to
the designated review process that's already in place.
Public's gonna need to have more time to weigh in.
So I would request that you please pull the resolution 5150.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Next caller, please.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is from Brett Garrett.
You may go ahead.
Brett: Good morning, this is Brett Garrett
with the Santa Cruz Climate Action Network.
I oppose item three resolution E5150,
updates to the Avoided Cost Calculator.
This proposal is misidentified as a minor change
when it actually has enormous ramifications,
dramatically reducing the value of rooftop solar
and energy efficiency.
E5150 should require a robust public process.
It ignores the equity benefits of rooftop solar,
including air quality, resiliency,
and potential to reduce transmission costs.
The California Energy Commission announced the build rates
for wind and solar need to triple in the next 10 years
to meet California climate goals,
and resolution E5150 would prevent this from happening.
The CPUC must provide a fair treatment
of much needed local solar
and all small scale distributed energy resources.
Again, I oppose item three, resolution E5150
regarding the avoided cost calculator.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Cassandra Diaz.
You may go ahead.
Cassandra: Hi, my name is Cassandra Diaz
and I'm speaking on the integrated resource plan proceeding.
I'm calling on behalf of communities
who live with the effects of air pollution
and climate change every day
as gas pollutes the air.
And we are pleased to see the new IRP decision
to move off fossil fuels for procurement.
And I'd like to ask the CPUC to continue rejecting plans
and to continue rejecting gas plans in this decision
and to thank you for prioritizing community
and to keep up this work.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Next caller, please operator.
Next caller please.
Operator? -: Our next caller...
-: Yeah, thank you.
Operator: Is Loreen von Clan.
You may go ahead.
Loreen: Hello, my name is Loreen von Clan.
I'm from Santa Monica.
I'm calling to ask you to resolution 5150.
It is biased against distributed local solar
and favors the utilities.
On behalf of many people
who are concerned about climate
and who wants to see change,
I urge you to shift your perspective and policy
to make local generation and storage
to be most cost effective and easiest adaptation
that people can take to address the climate crisis
while meeting their energy needs.
This will allow more people middle
and lower class especially,
more control over their financial future.
It will leverage the energy and finances of the community.
It will support environmental equity and local resilience.
It helps keep Wildlands wild
and it will add to the large-scale development
of other renewable energy resources.
Please table resolution 5150
and help us establish a new energy future.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Alice Sung.
You may go ahead.
Alice: Yes, thank you.
Can you hear me?
-: Yes, we can hear you fine.
Alice: Thank you.
Alice Sung, Principal of Greenbank Associates
here in the state.
I am calling as a citizen advocate once again
on behalf of the 6.3 million public school students
and their families in 10,000 schools sites
over the state of California.
We're here to reject
and ask you to reject resoundly resolution E5150.
The Avoided Cost Calculator update is major, not minor
and approving this calculator is also a violation
of the due process for the public
and the Commission's own procedures.
The calculator has many assumptions manipulated
by the IOU in their favor
that are both unrealistic and embedded by stakeholders.
And in particular, the cost of transmission is not included
nor are the cost of wildfires and outages
that happen because of long distance wire.
Furthermore, on the other side,
the proposed changes would continue to erode
and falsely and wrongly erode the calculated value
of small distributed rooftop and community solar systems,
which are a critical part of speeding the transition
to 100% clean, resilient, safe grid.
Avoiding affordable energy
and allowing schools to serve as community resilience hubs.
So thank you for rejecting resolution E5150.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Igor Tregub.
You may go ahead.
Igor: Good morning, chair and Commissioners.
This is Igor Tregub, Chair
of the California Democratic Party Environmental Caucus.
First of all, I would like to thank,
Commissioner Guzman Aceves,
for proposing an extension on moratorium on shutoff.
As a former elected and current appointed city official,
I frequently check in with my neighbors
and I know that the recovery
has not embraced everyone yet,
and many of my constituents
and community members continue to hurt.
I also wish to speak to resolution E5150
and respectfully ask that it be tabled.
You have already heard testimony on it's trial backs
and how it's offered looks significant societal benefits,
but I can just tell you from my perspective,
our city and cities just like it
are striving to engage in local and regional resiliency,
rooftop solar and other distributed generation
are a key strategy to that.
This resolution, if it moves forward
will squelch our efforts to electrify
and provide an affordable access to energy for all.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Alex Kronauer.
You may go ahead.
Alex: Oh, good morning.
My name is Alex Kronauer and I'm a Senior Manager
on the energy services team at Walmart.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
I would like to again, urge the CPUC
to reconsider it's proposed decision on Senate Bill 237,
which recommends not expanding direct access.
The reason stated in the PD for not expanding direct access
is that reliability will be impaired
simply due to more customers being served
by non utility LSE's.
If this is the case,
then why do you not have the same concern
about this far larger growth
in community choice aggregation?
Put simply your logic and rationale
for denying a direct access expansion is flawed
as both direct access and CCA expansion
can occur within the rules that you have established
to maintain reliability.
And additionally,
the PD also ignores this express directive
in Senate Bill 237,
that the CPUC must provide a pathway
for direct access expansion.
Thank you for your consideration.
-: Thank you for your call.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is David McCord.
You may go ahead.
David: This is David McCord, I live in El Cerrito.
Please move proposed resolution E5150
on the Avoided Cost Calculator.
The resolution would undervalue rooftop solar
too much.
There are much more broad-based
and granular modeling tools out there.
Staff should use these to get more accurate
and valid values for avoided costs.
Local rooftop solar and storage on the distribution grid
take strain off of the grid as a whole,
increases it's resiliency and reduces giant loss
from long distance transmission.
As such, it has much more value to overall grid resources,
consumers and state climate goals
than the proposed resolution gives us credit for.
Strongly, incentivize the installation
of additional rooftop solar and storage,
and all of your relevant proceedings.
Thank you.
-: Thank you Mr. McCord.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Margo Davis.
You may go ahead.
Margo: Hello, Margo Davis from Ventura.
I'm calling regarding
the Southern California gas compressor station.
And I would like to ask you
to please consider putting this item on your agenda now,
and to revisit the PUC 2019 approval
of this expansion project
and to consider requiring an EIR for my community.
This compressor is located where it should not be,
directly in the middle of a residential community
across the street from an elementary school.
You are aware of this fact.
The gas company applied to the PUC
to permit this new fossil fuel infrastructure.
And this body in 2019 gave rubber stamp approval,
apparently with no consideration
of the inappropriate location,
the school, the community, or the increased danger.
This PUC approval was an error.
It was a mistake.
A court will find it negligent.
You can correct the mistake.
You can save the state
and the taxpayers a lot of legal fees.
The PUC has jurisdiction to correct it's own errors.
Please consider putting this on your agenda
and revisiting the 2019 approval
and requiring an EIR for my community
in the west side of Ventura.
Thank you. -: Well over time.
Okay, thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Rebecca Baxter.
You may go ahead.
Rebecca: Good morning, my name is Rebecca Terrazas-Baxter
and I am the Intergovernmental Relations Director
for the County of Imperial.
And I'm speaking in regards to item 26
on your regular agenda.
On behalf of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors,
I'd like to express our strong support
of ALJ features proposal
to procure at least 1000 megawatts
of geothermal resources by 2025.
We are in favor of specific technology mandates
such as geothermal in the proceeding,
as opposed to specifying the attributes
of the types of resources needed.
Our concern is that without specifying the technology,
there is a potential
to completely eliminate geothermal resources
from playing a role in the state's program
to advance renewable energy.
The procurement of additional geothermal resources
is necessary to promote resource diversity,
help to ensure that sufficient electric capacity exists
to meet demand
and enhances the overall reliability of the electrical grid.
Additionally,
the procurement of additional geothermal resources
would provide much needed jobs and economic activity
to disadvantaged areas in California
that were even more impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic,
such as Imperial County.
For these reasons,
the county is eager to work with you and your staff
to make geothermal procurement a reality,
and we urge your strong consideration of maintaining
the specific technology mandate
of 1000 megawatts of geothermal.
Thank you very much for your time.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Valerie Martinez.
Rebecca: Concern is that
without specifying the technology-
Valarie: Hi, can you hear me?
Can you hear me?
-: We can hear you but we're having some background noise.
Valarie: I'm sorry, can you hear me now?
-: We can hear you okay, just something else is interfering.
Hang on. Robert: There's commenter
is playing the webcast.
Valarie: Is that better?
Did that take care of the problem?
-: Yes, that did.
-: All right, thank you. -: Thank you.
Valarie: May I begin?
-: Yes, you may.
Valarie: Okay, thank you.
So my name is Valerie Martinez.
I'm the Executive Director
of Redwood Community Action Agency
and the current President of Access,
a Statewide low-income energy program advocate.
We wanna go on record on fully supporting agenda item 27
and its proposed outcomes,
which we firmly believe will safeguard
the low-income households affected by their arrearages
that are covered under the current moratorium.
We strongly support the extension of the moratorium
to the end of September
and thank Commissioner Guzman Aceves
for her leadership on this issue.
Before the recommended the proposed decision,
building flexibilities to help create new opportunities
to better serve low-income consumers
affected by the arrearages.
Such as re-examining the rules governing
the AMP program
through discussions with the Commission
and along a recent meeting we had.
There are many other opportunities
that can be brought to bear on this.
We fully support the decisions,
proposed decisions extension, as I said previously,
and at this time (bell rings)
it's wise thing to do.
Again, I catch the end of this,
so thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Angie Baldarez.
You may go ahead.
Angie: Yes, hello, my name is Angi Baldarez
and I am calling
regarding the IRP proceedings.
I like to keep encouraging the Commissioners
to continue to stand strong
in helping in California to solve climate change
and move us away from fossil fuels.
We cannot afford pollution from gas plants
that attack our lungs.
I urge the Commissioners to stay strong
on rejecting the continuous waste of money on fossil fuels.
They're are continuing to harm our frontline communities.
Let's make sure we have strong plans for renewable energy
and prioritize communities like mine here in the IE
who are most impacted by the worst air quality.
We cannot afford to keep putting our residents in harm
of toxic air.
Thank you for the work you are doing and continue to do,
but this is just the step in the right direction.
We have a long way to go
in order to protect and keep our community safe
and breathing clean air.
Remember when voting
and when (bell rings)
keep close to your heart community
and their wellbeing and their health
and not the corporate's dollars.
Whenever you make your vote, stand by community always.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Malia Coranaga.
You may go ahead.
Malia: Hi, my name Malia Coranaga
and I'm commenting on the integrated resource plan.
I'm very happy
that the new IRP removed all fossil fuel procurement
by eliminating glass gas plants,
and I urge you to retain this position on this
and future decisions.
In addition to eliminating fossil fuel use,
I'd also like to see more investment in renewable energy,
especially in disadvantaged communities
that are currently suffering the negative effects
of fossil fuel extraction and use.
Thank you for your leadership.
I'm done.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Audrey Ichinose.
You may go ahead.
Audrey: Thank you.
-: I'm Adrrey Ichinose,
from East Bay Clean Power Alliance.
I urge the Commission to do two things.
The moratorium on utility shutoffs needs to be extended
and further since the Governor is on the verge of announcing
a major debt relief program for renters,
the CPUC should support this effort
by also canceling their utility debt.
My second concern is resolution 5150,
a major change that needs careful scrutiny
and thorough public debate.
The Avoided Cost Calculator
is presently applied one sidedly to benefit the IOUs
and because of its far reaching importance
on so many issues,
please reschedule any consideration of the ACC.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller, Joan Taylor.
You may go ahead.
Joan: Hello, I'm calling from Palm Springs,
and oppose 5150 for all the reasons stated.
In addition, it fails to look the cost of transmission.
Essentially, if we get rid of rooftop solar
and lower the value of energy efficiency,
we're just gonna keep the goalposts moving.
If we wanna reach the state decarbonization goals,
we have to have very strong energy efficiency
and rooftop solar.
So please pull 5150.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Harry Lumba.
You may go ahead.
Harry: Hi, this is Dr. Harry Lumba
from (inaudible)
I have proposed a global energy climate
and core system plan,
but I also have proposed on detail time for California.
Regardless of that,
I'm asking the dear Commissioners
to please reject resolution 5150.
I've had a long association with the local energy.
The two challenges that you face are one,
how to meet the climate and energy goals for 2030 and 2050.
Commissioners your second one
is how to have the benefits of all of this
to be more distributed.
To have solar energy benefits more distributed,
you need more rooftop solar as it provides greater value,
reduces transmission costs
and also increases resiliency,
and you need lots of consumers
as well as solar contractors
benefiting from this process.
So I ask you to reject resolution 5150,
thank you very much. (bell rings)
-: Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Keith Wywoody.
You may go ahead.
Keith: Hi, this is Keith WyWoody
with the Reclaim Our Power Utility Justice Campaign.
We represent over 75 organizations
from environmental justice and low-income communities
and bio-tech survivor and disability communities
across the state.
Calling to encourage you all to vote
with Commissioner Guzman Acevez.
Incredibly grateful for you Commissioner Guzman Acevez
for putting forward a extension to the moratorium,
and that's a great first step.
So we get three more months
where people do not go into further debt
and get their credit knocked
for not being the ability to pay.
Meanwhile, PG&E is raising their executive salaries,
paying lawyers to avoid the regulations
that you all have put in place
around their fire mitigation
and the fires and the deaths that they've caused
and doing everything that they can to hold on to power.
So that's a great first step.
Now let's work on making sure that first of all,
the rest of the Commissioners vote for the extension
and work on making sure that rate payers
and tax payers don't bear the burden
that this corporate entity has to pick up the tab
for the damage that has been caused
and also encourage accountability
in every step of this process.
Thank you for your time.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Leslie Tran.
You may go ahead.
Leslie: Hi, I'm Leslie Tran from the Uni Bay Area
and I stand with the Reclaim Our Power Campaign,
and I thank you for extending
or considering extending the shutoff moratorium
into September.
But I also wanna call to ensure
that you not raise rates or fees on residential Californians
to cover consumer debt.
Waiting for the state and federal government
to transfer taxpayer money to utilities
while potentially subjecting people to shut off
incurring deeper debt and damaging credit
is the wrong solution.
Once again, the CPUC is shifting the burden away
from the Wall Street investors and onto the people.
Just like you've allowed with PG&E raising rates
for our failed wildfire plans.
It has to stop now.
So we demand that you hold PG&E accountable
for causing fires, reckless shutoff and raising rates
to fund the doubling of their executive salaries.
I'm also a rooftop solar owner,
and I also ask that you table 5150 resolution
in order to promote democratic ownership of electricity
and to create a more resilient grid power system.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Gabriela Mendez.
You may go ahead.
Gabriela: Hello.
-: Hello, please go ahead, we can hear you.
Gabriela: Oh, thank you.
Good morning, I am Gabriela Mendez,
a community member in Riverside County.
I am calling in today to congratulate you
for all your hard work on the most recent proposed rule.
I'm looking forward to having more renewable energy
in our communities.
I specifically want to thank you
for ordering 11,500 megawatts, zero emitting resources,
and also ask that you choose
a 38 million metric tons MMT greenhouse gas target now,
and it's also a lower 30 MMT target in the next RFP cycle.
We need to continue to support our frontline communities
and adopting this rule will be a great
and necessary next step.
Thank you so much.
-: Thank you.
Next caller please.
Operator: And our next caller is Wendy Miranda.
You may go ahead.
Wendy: Hi, can you hear me?
Hello? -: Yes we can, please go ahead.
We can hear you. -: Yeah, okay.
So I'm speaking on the IRP proceeding.
So hi, my name is Wendy.
I'm a resident of Wilmington
here in the city of Los Angeles,
and I support the Commission's plans
to order over 10,000 megawatts to zero emitting resources.
This is a major investment in renewable energy
and the right level of new bills
that we need to meet our climate goals.
And I wanna thank you for recognizing
the urgent need for this.
However, the Commission does need to reject plans
to waste any more money on gas plants
and it's upcoming IRP decision.
The Commission needs to stop wasting rate payer money
on fossil fuels.
Gas plants pollute our communities,
destroy our climate and hurt the bottom line
for clean energy and green jobs
and frontline communities deserve
focus clean energy investment rather than fossil fuels.
The Commission should prioritize disadvantaged communities
for clean energy deployment,
especially disadvantaged communities
that suffer from poor air quality.
So I'm urging the Commission to adopt
a 38 million metric tons of greenhouse gas target now
and adopt a lower 30 million metric tons target
in the next IRP cycle, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is from Dr. Patrick Kern.
You may go ahead.
Patrick: Good morning Madam President and Commissioners.
My name is Dr. Patrick Kern,
I'm a rate payer in the South Bay.
I want to thank you the Commission
for your efforts to reinforce the safety net
for those impacted by the pandemic through illness,
unemployment, loss of business
and communities on the wrong side of the financial chasm.
This rate payer would like to acknowledge
the ongoing efforts of the Commission
in dealing with rate payers view of affordability,
using a cumulative view of utility balances,
the illusionary disjointed tactic using piecemeal requests
for deceptively small revenue changes
that the sum is overwhelming to the disadvantaged.
I would especially acknowledge Commissioner Aceves'
timely proposed decision in the OIR,
assessing affordability of utility services
and the Governor's executive order on the moratorium.
I would like to reclaim my yielded time
from the 6, June
if the Commissioner would be so kind.
Per president's opening comment,
we agree that citizens participation is critical.
We want to make the Commission aware that their programs
intended to assist low and fixed income citizens
are being misinterpreted
and potentially corrupted by utilities inadvertently
and their subcontractors.
The CARE program and now San Jose water companies rap
have broadened qualifying period
without apparent authorization
to include customers. -: Sir, I'm sorry,
your time is up
and we need to move on to the next caller.
We appreciate your comments, thank you.
Patrick: Thank you.
-: Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Joseph Ruiz.
You may go ahead.
Joseph: Hello, my name is Joseph Ruiz.
I wanted to speak on item number 26.
I'm in support of the Commission's plan
to order over 10,000 megawatts zero in emitting resources,
but we also need it.
We need you guys to reject the plans
to waste more money on gas plants in the upcoming decision
and to prioritize frontline communities
like mine in Wilmington.
Frontline communities like Wilmington
deserve focused clean energy investments
rather than dirty fossil fuels, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Korina Gonzalez.
You may go ahead.
Korina: Good morning, President Batjer
and Commissioners.
My name is Korina Gonzalez
and I'm a rate payer in SPG New Territory.
I'm calling in today to respectfully urge you
to not approve updates to the Avoided Cost Calculator
until the new methodology is thoroughly vetted
with a wide range of stakeholders
and put through a public process.
The proposed changes in the calculator are not minor
and undercut the value of solar.
Given that the calculator is going to be used
to evaluate the proposals in the NEM-3 proceeding,
it would be nearly impossible for the Commission
to establish a strong NEM-3.
You have the power to vote on the future
of rooftop solar in California,
the nation's top solar state.
And I ask that you allow rooftop solar
to continue to grow sustainably as directed by law.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller please.
Operator: Our next caller is Ryan Pickering.
You may go ahead.
Ryan: Hello, my name is Ryan Pickering
from Berkeley, California.
I am calling to seek a hold on resolution 5150.
My feeling is that multiple studies have concluded
that residential and commercial solar power
are a net benefit to American utilities.
Furthermore studies show that distributed generation
like solar enables more utility scale renewables,
again, showing a net profit and net benefit
for California utilities.
While the Avoided Cost Calculator
should be an evolving tool,
this new effort to modify the ACC to devalue rooftop solar
is not evidence-based.
Furthermore, any action to devalue residential solar
will curtail low and medium income homeowner's ability
to gain the benefits of renewable energy.
It feels disingenuous
to use our fellow lower income community members
as a strong man to further utility interests.
The distributed generation movement can
and will work with utilities to ensure more reliability,
more affordability and deliverable future
in California. (bell rings)
-: Thank you.
Operator, you're next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jay Ansul.
You may go ahead.
Joe: Hello, this is Joe Ansul.
I'm calling to ask that you make no changes
to the Avoided Cost Calculator.
And as it as outlined in draft resolution 5150,
it's clear that these changes are a devious
and malevolent attack on rooftop solar,
they undervalue it.
I'd also point out something that few people note
that homeowners who put in rooftop solar
are paying all the capital costs,
the maintenance costs, the financing costs
for production essentially.
I would urge you not to undercut net metering.
This is obviously a step to attack rooftop solar,
and to ensure that the IOUs, Investor Owned Utilities
can charge a fixed fee
for the privilege of receiving essentially low cost power
that then they can sell and then markup.
So those are my comments.
Please make no changes to the AAC, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tracy Rosenberg.
You may go ahead.
Tracy: Yes, thank you.
Good morning, my name is Tracy Rosenberg.
I am calling on behalf of the organization
that I direct, Media Alliance
and our members throughout the nine county Bay Area.
And I am asking you both
to support Commissioner Guzman Aceves proposal
for ongoing utility debt relief
and also to consider making it stronger.
People are in difficult positions
through no fault of their own.
And if we could extend the moratorium
rather than continuing to pile debt onto people,
I think that we can minimize
what are really the cascading problems
that come out of utility shutoffs
and ongoing continuing debt that you can never pay off,
which include problems with children going to school.
It includes job displacement.
It includes health cuts (bell rings)
And things are serious
and we honestly need to help people out here, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller please.
Operator: And our next call is from Lylia.
You may go ahead.
Again, Lylia, your line is open.
You may go ahead.
-: Lydia, are you there?
Hello?
Lydia, I'm sorry, we're gonna have to move on
to the next caller, please.
Please call back in, thank you.
Operator go onto the next call please.
Operator: Our next caller is from Mary Kay Benson.
You may go ahead.
Mary: Hello, at 350 Butte County,
we stand with Reclaim Our Power
in demanding utility justice
and that you cancel utility debt
and that you ensure the shareholders pay to cover the debt
and not low income Californians.
I live in a seniors mobile home park with 309 homes.
It gets hot here in Chico.
It will be 108 to 109 degrees Fahrenheit all next week.
Twice this month, our power has been shut off.
All the heat here was in the high 90s.
We received two Flex Alerts just last week.
We live under this domestic terrorist threat
that every time it gets really hot
or the winds blow hard, our power gets cut.
We are low income and many are disabled.
Only a few have generators
to keep their medical life-saving equipment going
during these shutoffs.
I mentioned my senior mobile home park
because the serial killers as we call PG&E here,
ever since the 2018 campfires
where PG&E later pled guilty
to 84 counts of manslaughter, then the Bear Fire
and North Complex Fire took 16 more.
-: Okay, thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Stephanie Brown.
You may go ahead.
Stephanie: Thank you very much.
My name is Stephanie Brown,
I live in San Jose, California.
I represent Together We Will / Indivisible Los Gatos
and I am calling today
to encourage you to reject resolution 5150
for the reasons stated by previous callers
and also this over 7,000 statements/letters
that you've received to reject this resolution.
I also urge you to really dig deep in your work
to make solar a populous solution
for Californians.
Just when we are about
to see solar become accessible to people,
we really need even more support of it.
So I urge you to endorse calculations
and policies that make this a popular solution
and save money for the citizens.
Thank you very much for your good work
and we'll be listening.
Take care.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Nick Piltch.
You may go ahead.
Nick: Thank you, thank you, chair and Commissioners,
and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I'm speaking about draft resolution 5150.
I want to support all the other callers
who've spoken against this draft resolution
and to ask for much more public scrutiny on this decision
Save rooftop solar.
AB 1139 went down because the people are responding.
Now, the CPUC's considering the substance of this bill
which seem to drastically reduce the compensation
to rooftop solar customers and punish them with fees.
If you do not table this and once again,
the CPUC is poised to favor the wealthy,
profit-driven utilities over the people.
Please table resolution 5150 and remove the bias
that undercounts the value of rooftop solar.
We must not punish those who have already done their part
for resiliency by putting solar on their roofs.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Laura Dehen.
The line is open, please go ahead.
Laura: Hello, this is Laura Dehen.
I'm the State Director at Environment California.
I'm also calling in about item number three,
resolution 5150,
to oppose adoption of the proposed changes
to the Avoided Cost Calculator today.
I'm very concerned about a number of the changes
that are being described as minor
and that in fact they are significant
and would have quite significant consequences
in particular on our ability
to get to 100% renewable energy future as fast as we must.
Just one example is that
the new model significantly overestimate
how quickly large scale renewable projects can be built,
anticipate 20 gigawatts of large-scale solar
in just five years.
And our research shows that
on average, these projects takes far longer,
just six years for one project.
And if we want to get to 100% renewable energy future
as fast as possible,
we have to make sure we're looking at the real benefits
and the real opportunity with rooftop solar
and also energy efficiency, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Don Wood.
Please go ahead, your line is open.
Don: Hello, my name is Don Wood
representing the Pacific Energy Policy Center,
which is an informal coalition of older energy policy makers
retired from the state energy regulatory agencies
and the utilities.
Please table resolution E5150 in direct staff
to remove the anti-solar bias.
Obviously in the initial details
so the proposed major changes
to your traditional Avoided Cost Calculator.
Those changes ignore transmission costs
and most benefits of rooftop solar.
It's outrageous that your staff would try
to have you adopt these changes
without a full public vetting
of the new Avoided Cost Calculations,
especially since they are radical changes,
clearly biased against rooftop solar.
Changes being proposed would make rooftop solar
much less accessible to low-income utility customers
and disadvantaged communities.
The Commission should also order the utilities
to increase the budgets
of their low-income customer rooftop solar
incentive programs,
expand those programs by making rooftop solar
a standard measure
under your energy savings assistance programs.
The ACEP program has weatherized
millions of homes in California
and the same or agencies that do install those measures
could go back to those homes and install rooftop solar.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Jennifer Tanner.
Please go ahead, your line is open.
Jennifer: Yes, Jennifer Tanner of Green Team.
Good morning chairman and Commission members.
Thank you for hearing our comments.
We're asking you to reject resolution 5150,
which over 7,000 people have submitted comments
to the CPUC and the Governor to...
The calculator updates will have huge consequences
that will impact the future of solar adoption in California,
and should not be approved
without a robust public stakeholder review process,
which should take place in 2022.
If you approve it now,
it is a violation of due process
and Commission of your own procedures.
The Avoided Cost Calculator update is major, not minor.
And the calculator has many assumptions
that are both unrealistic and unvetted by stakeholders.
In particular, the assumptions
about utility scale solar timelines and costs
are not based on the realities
of developing those large scale projects.
The cost of transmission is not included
nor are the costs of wildfires
and outages that happened because of long distance wires.
We joined the many, many groups
and rate payers all over California
asking you to pull resolution 5150.
Thank you so much for your time.
-: Thank you.
-: Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Melissa.
Your line is please, go ahead.
Melisa: Hi, good morning, my name is Melissa
and I'm speaking on the IRP proceeding.
I'm calling because on our board,
California is the leader on following climate change,
with the description to move us away from fossil fuels.
We cannot afford the unhealthy pollution from gas plants.
I urge the Commissioners to stay strong
on accepting anymore wasted money on fossil fuels
because in this decision and in future decisions.
I would like to thank the CPUC
for rejecting gas plans in this decisions,
and keep you out of future decisions
and ask that we don't waste any more money on gas plants.
Thank you.
-: Okay, thank you.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller comes from Jane Cleveland.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Please check your mute button, your line is open.
Jane: Hi, my name is Jane Cleveland.
I'm calling from Oakland, California.
Hello to everybody.
I agree with everything that the commenters have said.
And I would just like to add that
in 2013, I installed a solar collector on my roof
and I bought an electric car, a Nissan LEAF,
and I'm very proud to be reducing my carbon footprint
and helping the grid.
And every day I look at my solar collectors
and I feel happy,
and everyday I think about PG&E and I feel frumpy,
to say the least.
They have increased my fees
and the rate at which my contribution
to the grid is assessed from the beginning.
And the first year I had this collector
at the true-up time at the end of the year,
I got a check for $25
because I scrupulously observed the rate periods.
Only use my appliances at night and stuff like that.
And now I owe quite a bit at the end of the year,
even though I'm producing the same amount of electricity.
(bell rings)
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Renee Wine.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Renee: Yes, hi, my name is Renee Wine.
I live in Fremont and I have solar panels on my house.
I'm personally asking the CPUC
to reject resolution E5150.
Climate change is real.
California forest fires are getting worse every year.
We need to do all we can as a state
to stop burning fossil fuels,
and reach California climate goals
to reduce carbon emissions.
Distributed solar powered generators like myself,
allows me to stand up to climate change
and make a difference.
Please don't gut
rooftop solar power generation conversation,
and allow the big utilities to change the rules
of how we individual homeowners are compensating.
The County Assembly just voted down to 70 bill 1130,
which was a well-funded and Powerpack effort
by the big investor owned utilities
to change the rules in their favor.
That defeat should make it clear
that people like me wanting to see the continued growth
of individually owned rooftop solar
and expects an open and fair process
at the CPUC on this matter.
Again, I'm personally asking you CPUC
to reject resolution E5150,
(bell rings)
and remove the bias that undercounts
the value of distributed solar.
Thank you for listening, take care, bye.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Chris Thomas.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Chris: Good morning, my name is Chris Thomas.
I'm a retired member, a solar roof owner
in Fairfield, California.
The elephant in the room here
is the profit for the power companies.
I urge the CPUC to move towards the idea
that energy is a necessity
and therefore should provide provided at a cost
and not a profit.
PG&E and other fuel business models cost us lives,
fires, gas, explosions, and our money.
Again, I am retired on a fixed income.
I don't wish to provide for their return
on investment programs.
The failure Bay Bill 1139 should tell the CPU a lot.
I'm not sure if the P in CPUC stands for power company
or for the public.
If water were a source of energy,
I'm sure that power companies would create legislation
to own all of it.
Please act on our behalf and not theirs.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
-: Thank you for your call.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Nancy Titus Espinosa.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Nancy: Good morning, madam chair and Commissioners.
Nancy Titus Espinosa
on behalf of the School Energy Coalition.
We also ask that you remove item three
from the consent calendar and table resolution E 5150,
the updates on the Avoided Cost Calculator.
It appears to have significant impact
on the viability of solar energy project
in California schools,
and we need more time for those participating
as members of the public to review the proposal.
We also need access to the data that serve as the basis
for the assumptions that the proposal changes, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Stacy Colstrom.
Your line is open, please, go ahead.
Stacy: Good morning and thank you
for allowing me this chance to ask you
to please table resolution E5150.
My name is Stacy Colstrom,
my husband and I reside in Sacramento.
And in 1999, with the assistance of SMAD,
we added rooftop solar to our home.
We've since updated our system and always thought
and been proud of the fact that we were part of the solution
to energy needs.
Now it seems that utility companies
think we're part of the energy problem,
and they want to charge us or fine us
for the privilege of sending electricity to the grid.
We want the Commission to keep rooftop solar
and battery storage growing in California,
and also make it financially possible
for more people, working class people
to add solar to their homes.
Rooftop solar does not create a cost to utility companies,
reduces costs across the board.
There are many arguments
for encouraging rooftop solar systems
to allow utilities to charge consumers for rooftop.
Solar has the effect of disincentivizing consumers
from making the significant investment
of adding solar to their home.
This is about climate change at this point,
our state is having unprecedented fire seasons.
We're on fire(bell rings).
I thank you for your time and for this opportunity.
-: Thank you for your call.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller comes from Baraz Brisby.
Your line is open, please, go ahead.
Baraz: Hello, can you hear me?
Operator: Yes, we can hear you, please go ahead.
Baraz: Hi, my name is Baraz Brisby
and I'm here located in Riverside County.
And I'm calling because I wanted to congratulate the board
or the Commission for the revised changes
during the midterm procurement,
the 11,500 megawatts of clean zero emission energy
is a big step forward.
And it's one of the major decisive changes
that we really need to tackle the climate crisis.
And I hope we can continue to make bold
and decisive changes together.
So thank you for listening to our communities
and uplifting our voices.
And of course there's still a lot more work to be done.
This is just a step in the right direction,
and we wanna make sure that over time
we still adopt a 30 MMT
on the greenhouse gas target
and that we're making sure
that we're building renewable energy infrastructure
in environmental justice communities
and not just in the nicer richer areas
that extreme heat that we're facing,
especially here in Southern California
and really all over is a big change, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Kim McKeever.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Kim: Yes, my name is Kim McKeever. I live in Rocklin.
Please do not make any policy changes
that would prevent or even slow the adoption
of rooftop solar power and distributed energy storage.
The case in front of you today,
the change in the calculation that values rooftop solar
is deeply flawed and comes from a source
that runs the same playbook over and over.
They're a highly paid consulting firm
that takes utility money
to give them the answer they're looking for.
They ignore all of the benefits
that distributed generation provides
and make wild assumptions about the utilities adoption
of renewables that have just not born out by history.
We need all possible sources
of renewable power and energy storage brought online
as fast as possible.
It is clear this distributed solar saves us all money
by minimizing new spending on transmission,
and new fossil infrastructure.
If you accept the utilities argument today,
you are directly crippling the solar industry in the state.
There are tens of thousands of jobs that will be eliminated
mostly from small businesses in every district.
It would also disrupt new
and successful solar equity programs
like the Mandate of Solar on New Construction
and the Solar on Multi-family Affordable Housing Programs.
Utilities have had years to embrace zero carbon generation
and has failed.
Instead, they have chosen profits and dividends
over maintenance to safety and life.
Do not reward them for those disastrous decisions.
Also notice that 6,000 comments have been sent
to the Commission supporting rooftop solar, just this week.
-: Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: Next caller comes from Jennifer Cardenas.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Jennifer: Thank you.
Good morning Public Utilities Commission.
My name is Jennifer Cardenas.
I'm a recent graduate of Columbia University
from Fontana, California.
Thank you for your newly revised proposal decision
that includes no new fuel,
no new fossil fuel procurement.
Please continue to prioritize clean energy
and frontline communities
when it comes to clean energy transformation.
Clean air should not be just for those who can afford
to live away from gas lines
or cities where their city council like Fontana
are starting to talk to warehouses.
Thank you for your time.
-: Thank you.
Operator to the next color, please.
Operator: The next caller is Sheila Auer.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Shayla: Good morning, President Batjer
and Commissioners.
My name is Sheila Auer
and I'm with the San Diego Green New Deal Alliance
and a rate payer in the same SDG&E territory.
I'm calling in today to urge you to reject the updates
to the Avoided Cost Calculator.
The proposed changes in the calculator
use an entirely new and untested model,
and we cannot start using it without thoroughly vetting it
with a wide range of stakeholders.
The proposed changes also devalue solar by two thirds
compared to the 2020 version of the calculator.
So if approved, it would make it impossible
for a strong NEM 3.0 to be implemented.
The future of rooftop solar is at stake in California,
which has been the country's leader in solar
and I respectfully urge you to not approve the updates
to the Avoided Cost Calculator,
so solar can continue to grow as directed by law, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is Allen Marlene.
Your line is open, go ahead.
Allen: Hello, I'm a California resident
and I call on the Commission to reject resolution 5150.
It will kill rooftop solar, and as we enter the...
That's the last thing we need
as we enter the dangers of another fire season made worse
by the ever rising temperatures of the climate crisis.
We must not discourage local solar energy,
doing so would have no benefit
except to the bottom line of corporate energy companies.
Tabling resolution 5150 today
will affirm the Commissioners are not corrupt
and in the pocket of big energy, thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Tara Hammonds.
Your line is open, go ahead.
Tara: Good morning, President Batjer and Commissioners.
My name is Tara Hammond,
I'm the founder of Hammond Climate Solutions
and we're actively working to end climate injustices
and stop the climate crisis.
Please reject this void calculator
that would devalue rooftop solar,
and give the investor and utilities another win
during a time when we should be stopping fracking
and oil refineries in California
and creating a fossil fuel free resilient grid
with local clean energy
that isn't going to burn down our state,
which rate payers have to pay for.
We are in a climate emergency
and should be protecting rooftop solar
and making solar and storage more assessable,
especially in communities of concern,
not making it less attractive
for the sake of utility shareholder profits.
Please do not jeopardize a just livable future
by making them pre-attractive financially.
Please reject this flawed ACC.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Next caller, please operator.
Operator: Yes, if you wish to speak
during the public comment period, press *1,
unmute your phone
and clearly record your name when prompted.
Our next caller is Barbara Stevan.
Your line is open, go ahead please.
My name is Barbara Stevan.
I'm with Local Clean Energy Alliance
and I am commenting on two items
that are critical to equitable energy access.
The first is to urge the Commission
to approve the extension of the utility debt moratorium.
It is essential that we keep the lights on
until the Governor's promise of paying off utility debt
can actually be accomplished.
The second is to be reject resolution 5150
decreasing the Avoided Cost Calculator.
Is clearly an IOU profit grab
designed to wipe out rooftop solar.
The equity issue is that all programs
that could increase frontline community control
of the energy resources and energy resilience
are based on generation by local rooftop solar,
which would no longer be available or accessible.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller is William Vasquez.
Your line is open, go ahead please.
William: Hello, my name is William Vasquez
and I am speaking on the IRP proceeding.
So I'm here today because our state and cities need to move
from unhealthy pollution from fossil fuels
that significantly affect our communities
and our air quality.
So with this next IRP decision
we need to make it right
by advancing renewable energy to help our communities
and public health.
Oh, sorry, excuse me, public health.
So by choosing the next step that we need to do
is to choose a lower 30 MMT target in the next IRP cycle.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Have a nice day.
-: Thank you for your call.
Operator, the next caller, please.
Operator: The next caller, Arlene Glendale.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Arlene Glendale, you may wanna check your mute button.
Arlene: Hi, my name is Arlene Glendale.
I am part of the leadership team
at the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water.
We are a nonprofit organization
that advocates for environmental justice.
We serve low income immigrant or communities of color.
Every community we work with
has similar environmental challenges,
that is that those communities have been treated
like dumping grounds for industrial emissions and waste.
Fortunately,
with the affordable green energy technologies
such as rooftop solar energy,
we're beginning to break the cycle
of environmental injustice on our communities.
We strongly believe that clean energy technologies
such as rooftop solar serve as a safety net
to mitigate the stress that occurs on the grid
during hot summer months.
That stress forces the California ISO
to employ poorly regulated peaker plants
to avoid blackouts on the grid.
These plants emit unacceptable amounts of NOx SOx
in particular.
This is a threat to their respiratory health
of the people in the communities we serve.
A grid with substantial rooftop solar generation
will serve to lessen the public health consequences
of running these dirty peaker plants.
We strongly urge all PUC Commissioners
to vote against resolution 5150.
The resolution is a deceptive means
of undervaluing the tremendous public health benefits
of rooftop solar.
We are also concerned that the report being used
to justify resolution 5150
was generated by a consulting firm
that lists the 32 investor owned utilities as their clients.
Since that list includes PG&E, San Diego Gas and Electric
and Southern California Edison.
We find the underlying creation of resolution 5150
to be significant conflict of interest.
These IOUs have been openly antagonistic
with the market based growth rooftop solar energy.
To give all people the hope of clean air future
please vote no on resolution 5150.
-: Can you please bring your comments to a closure
you're over the limited time.
I'm very sorry.
Arlene: Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator could you please bring on the next caller.
Operator: The next caller is Sabiha Hannan.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Sabiha: Hi, yes, my name is Sabiha Hannan.
I've lived in California all my life.
I grew up in Los Angeles in the San Fernando Valley,
and I now live in San Francisco on Ohlone Land.
And I opposed the resolution
because it nearly serves as a deterrent in our efforts
to bring clean energy to California.
I believe that as California residents we're unique
in having such community and individual support
for solar and clean energy,
and we're well positioned to lead other states
in our initiatives.
It's far more efficient, accessible,
and effective to allow small and home grid,
instead of having a large scale company owned grid.
I worked on solar engineering in other countries,
including Costa Rica and in very remote areas
that aren't even on the map.
I've seen communities who own their solar grids,
and I've seen homes where every single home had a grid.
They were able to power even their cell phones completely
off of solar.
And I imagine that California residents
would be able to do the same
if only we put the power in their hands, pun intended.
I've also volunteered with going some service workers
in east Oakland and other places in the Bay Area,
and just seeing the conditions in terms of utility ownership
and access to electricity is far worse
than what I saw in Costa Rica.
So I urge you to oppose the resolution.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, operator the next caller please.
Operator: The next caller is Kathy Nicholson.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Kathy: Yes, hello, my name is Kathy Nicholson.
I'm an independent energy consultant in distributed solar
and storage system designer in San Diego.
I have over 30 years of experience as an energy engineer
in clean energy and energy efficiency.
Please table resolution E5150.
The Avoided Cost Calculator uses a new and untested model
for predicting how wholesale energy pricing
will behave in the future.
And we cannot start using it to set rates,
including net energy metering rates
without thoroughly vetting it
with a wide range of stakeholders.
This calculator is the basis for valuing solar energy
in the state and should go through a public process
with plenty of stakeholder input
before using them in practice.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Cheryl Auger.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Cheryl: Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Cheryl Auger
and I'm a long-term resident of Pasadena and a solar owner.
I'm calling to ask you to reject resolution 5150.
We need green energy like solar.
Solar's contribution is evident
with each brownout and outage,
plus fossil fuel energy uses up to 85% more water.
We need to mitigate the climate crisis
and the looming drought.
Large-scale projects are more environmentally damaging
than rooftop solar, we need to support rooftop solar.
Also as a former SEE employee,
I remember when the rate model
for deregulation was not checked
and we were paying $1000 per megawatt
because of false assumptions.
So I urge you to reject resolution 5150.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator, next caller, please.
Operator: Okay and if you wish to speak
during the public comment period,
please press *1, unmute your phone
and clearly record your name when prompted.
Our next caller is Emanuel Martinez.
Your line is open, please go ahead.
Emmanuel: Good morning Commissioners.
Emmanuel Martinez Governor of first specialist
with the Imperial Irrigation District.
We're a public utility in Southern California
and Pearl Valley and Eastern Riverside County,
calling regarding item 26
regarding the procurement to address midterm reliability.
The ID strongly supports the midterm reliability goal
to procure a thousand megawatts of geothermal energy.
In addition to providing clean power
to increase grid reliability
and helping them meet the RPS goals.
This that target will provide ancillary benefits
to the Imperial Valley and Riverside county,
including geothermal and lithium production, related jobs,
as well as with the assisting
with Salton Sea Environmental mitigation efforts.
Our service area is largely comprised
of low-income communities
facing significant environmental burdens
as identified in the CalEnviroScreen Raslouw,
home to AB 617 communities.
So we believe that procuring geothermal
from the Salt and Sea geothermal area
will provide economic positive benefits
to the region and the state.
This could also facilitate
as mentioned co-production of lithium.
The Lithium Valley Commission is working on the report
to the legislature on challenges and opportunities
and given all the multi benefits
to clean air electric vehicles,
renewable energy and economic development,
we strongly support this goal.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please.
Operator: Our next caller is Janet.
Your line is open, please, go ahead.
Janet: Thank you, hi, good morning.
My name is Janet Bernabe,
I am the Organizing Director
for the Center for Community Action
and Environmental Justice, also known as CCAEJ,
and I'm calling in to comment on number R-20-05003.
And I am calling to urge the Commission
not to vote on spending any more money
on fossil fuels as we can meet a major investment
in renewable clean energy in our community.
Specifically in our communities of color,
as we have seen in the work that we do in the field
in the Inland Empire which oversees both counties,
Riverside and San Bernardino.
The burden of pollution
and the cost always tends to come
to the community of the color.
Just to emphasize, the work that I do
and also as part of the community,
I live in the City of Paris
and been resident for the City of Paris for over 25 years
and time and time again (bell rings).
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Operator the next caller, please
Operator: Our next caller is Jackie Barshaq.
Your line is open, go ahead please.
Jackie: So, I'm calling from Ohlone Land
and I am a rate payer.
And I want you to really urge the rest of the Commissioners
to vote in favor of a moratorium,
extending the moratorium.
And not only extending the moratorium,
which is canceling the utility bill completely.
Also take control of PG&E
'cause this is so irritating
that you keep allowing PG&E to be unaccountable
for really creating a genocide on Californians.
I mean,
I ask for accountability to rate payers
and don't raise rates
on rate payers
just to cover our debts.
And then finally, the payments plans with interests,
that is so counter.
I can't wait until you are paid
by the state and federal government,
and meantime you're threatening me with shut off
and damaging my credit.
So you need to shift the burden away
from your Wall Street investors
and shift your attention on people like me.
Just like you've done with PG&E allowing them to raise rates
to burning our homes down, unacceptable.
I am tired of PG&E using my money to double-
-: Jackie, you're over your time.
We appreciate very much your call
but you're over your time, thank you.
Operator. -: President Batjer,
there are no more participants
on the public comment telephone line at this time.
-: Okay.
Well with no more callers on the line,
the public comment period
of this agenda is now closed.
Thank you all for calling in.
And I appreciate very much
as do my fellow Commissioners your comments today.
With that we are going to take a 15 minute break,
so we will be back
at 10 of 12.
Okay, thank you all.
Announcer: The feed for this streaming event.
Operator: And thank you all for standing by.
Today's conference has resumed.
President Batjer, you may proceed.
-: Thank you very much Operator.
I would like to establish the quorum.
So could you the agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Here
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Present.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Here.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Acevez?
-: Here.
Clerk: President Batjer?
-: Here.
We have now established a forum, thank you.
I want to remind everybody before we begin
along the other items on our agenda,
that we will have Spanish translators
and we need to speak slowly and occasionally pause.
I will remind you along the way as well.
Okay, we have some changes to the agenda.
These are the following changes.
Items three will be taken up with the regular agenda.
Item 14 will be held to
the 7, 15, 2021 Commission meeting.
Item 24 will also be held
until the 7, 15, 2021 hearing.
Commission meeting, excuse me.
Item 26A has been withdrawn.
Item 29 will be taken up with a Consent Agenda.
Item 35 will be taken up with the Consent Agenda today.
And item 36 will also be taken up
with the Consent Agenda today.
Okay, we will now take up the consent items.
Do I have a motion?
-: So moved.
-: Second. -: Second.
-: It's been moved and seconded.
Will the agenda clerk please call the roll on consent items.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Acevez?
-: Aye.
Clerk: President Batjer?
-: Yes.
The consent items have been passed unanimously.
Thank you all.
Okay, we will now turn to the regular agenda items.
Item number three will be presented
by Director Simon Baker,
and I believe he has Joy Morganstern with him.
So if we have additional questions, we can ask Joy as well.
So we will take a vote after this presentation,
just as a reminder.
So I'll now turn to Director Simon Baker.
Good morning.
Simon: Good morning, well, now afternoon.
We're right on the cusp here.
Can you hear me?
Batjer: Yes, we can hear you perfectly Simon.
Thank you.
Simon: Thank you and are the slides
being pulled up as well?
Batjer: They are now, yes.
Simon: Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon, President Batjer, Commissioners
and the public.
I'm here to present the draft resolution
to update the Avoided Cost Calculator for 2021.
And as you heard from public comment
there's great interest in this resolution,
and we take this opportunity to explain
what the resolution does and to highlight
the diverse perspectives heard in opposition
and in support of the resolution,
and hopefully to clarify some misconceptions.
Next slide, please.
Now first, it's helpful to provide a broad overview
of what the Avoided Cost Calculator calculates,
and it has several different components
which are illustrated on this slide here.
First is the value of electric generation capacity,
basically the ability to meet peak demand on the system.
And secondly, it calculates what the value of the energy
of electric generation is.
It also calculates the value of avoided investments
in transmission and distribution infrastructure.
It calculates the value of ancillary services
which are provided onto the grid to ensure reliability.
It also calculates the avoided cost value.
Batjer: Simon, we've lost you.
Something happened with your audio.
We were hearing you clearly but.
Simon: Can you hear me now?
Batjer: Yes, now we can.
Simon: Okay, thank you.
(clears throat)
And something that was introduced in the previous update
was to incorporate a value
of avoided high global warming potential gases,
such as methane and refrigerant.
Next slide please.
So by way of background,
the Avoid Cost Calculator is one of the tools
that the Commission uses
to accurately determine the value
of distributed energy resources, such as rooftop solar,
energy efficiency and electric vehicles.
And in 2020 major changes were made to the calculators
through decision 20-04-010,
and this was done to closely align it
to grid planning efforts
in the integrated resource planning proceeding
and the distributed resource plan proceedings.
And we did this to ensure
that they pair expenditure decisions on customer programs
aligned with the most current planning settings,
and this provides greater coherence
across planning and procurement.
Now the Avoided Cost Calculator
uses both input and output data
from something called the reference system plan
in the integrated resource plan,
which is the Commission's adopted long-term plan
for achieving greenhouse gas goals
while maintaining safe, reliable, affordable service,
and meeting other statutory requirements.
And the IRP proceeding produces this plan
using a capacity expansion model
or a resource build-out model called resolve,
which optimizes the build out
of new electric generation resources.
The inputs and assumptions used to determine
the reference system plan
are also used to determine an alternative scenario called
the 'No New DER' case,
which is used in the Avoided Cost Calculator
to determine what the state would hypothetically build
in the absence of any further repair investments
in distributed energy resource programs.
As per a 2019 decision 19-05-019,
annual Avoided Cost Calculator updates alternate
between major changes done in even years
and minor changes done in odd years,
and this is a minor change year.
Major changes require a decision,
minor changes go through a staff initiated resolution.
Now, the reason for controversy in this proposed update
is that the 2021 Avoided Cost Calculator forecast
indicates lower avoided costs,
particularly for midday hours
as compared with the 2020 calculator.
Next slide, please.
The methodological details of the Avoided Cost Calculator
are complex and they can be arcane to the lay person.
I'll try to explain the main technical reasons
for why the proposed updates have lower value
than the current calculator.
First, the resource build out
or capacity expansion modeling in the IRP process
produce a lower greenhouse gas value
due primarily to lower costs for utility scale solar
and energy storage.
The 2030 greenhouse gas value computed through this process
decline from $202 per ton to $118 per ton.
Now this 2030 greenhouse gas value
is the primary data input used to determine
the annual greenhouse gas adder,
which is used to estimate the value per ton
of avoided GHD emissions.
And once that value per ton is determined,
then another model called the production cost model and IRP
is used to determine the forecasted amount of GHG emitted
by the generation fleet.
The updated IRP modeling found that the generation fleet
is expected to become more efficient or in technical jargon,
the fleet has lower marginal heat rates.
The average annual implied marginal heat rates for 2030
were 8,203 BTU per kilowatt hour
in the 2020 calculator
versus the new computed values of 5,788 BTU.
These fleet efficiency or heat rates
are used to estimate hourly grid GHG emissions,
which are then multiplied by the GHG adder
to determine the GHG cost.
Secondly, the same....
Thirdly, the same IRP modeling
to update the forecasted production costs
found significantly lower energy prices
due to corrections to the model used
in this model that's called SERVM.
And also because the model simulations were benchmarked
to historical CAISO market prices
as a way of ground-truthing them to empirical data.
And the result of this was that
the average annual energy value in 2030 declined
from $62 a megawatt hour to 44.
And now for the hour of noon to 1:00 PM in the mid day,
the average annual energy value declined from $46 to $16.
So we can see that there was a much bigger decline
for those midday hours.
This is more in line with lower daytime prices
observed in recent years in the CAISO markets
due to abundance utility scale solar generation.
Finally, the resource buildup model in IRP updated estimates
of the value of the avoided generation capacity.
This is due to lower energy storage costs.
In the previous Avoided Cost Calculator update
the Commission changed its longstanding methodology,
which had assumed that a gas fired generation plant
would be the resource on the margin.
In other words, the resource that would otherwise be built
to meet demand in peak periods.
The currently adopted method assumes that storage
is the resource that would be built on the margin.
And due to policies to promote storage investment,
the cost of storage is going down.
So these updated assumptions
reflect this more positive outlook for storage costs.
In addition, the cost of new capacity was lowered
due to updated forecast of increased market revenues
these resources would earn
to offset the net capacity cost
that rate payers would bear.
And the results in the current Avoided Cost Calculator,
the fixed costs for a standalone four hour battery
was $228 per kilowatt year,
and the new figure computed is $186 per kilowatt year
for the 2021 calculator.
Next slide, please.
It is illustrative and informative to see how
the proposed updates affect
different distributed energy resources differently.
The updates would lower the values for some resources
and raise them for others.
All of the resources highlighted in this table contribute
to achieving our climate goals,
including the heat pump and electric vehicle technologies,
which would see increases in benefits.
The table shows the benefits calculated
for these technologies in 2019, 2020,
and for the proposed 2020 calculator.
And we can see in the final column,
the percent change from the 2020 calculator
that's proposed here.
Where as we've been hearing from solar parties,
there is a significant drop of 74%
and efficiency technologies
such as residential cooling also would drop here by 43%,
but we see that residential heat pumps would increase
by 145%,
and electric vehicles would increase by 31%.
Next slide, please.
It's also illuminating to see the trend
in avoided cost values
since the original 2004 Avoided Cost Calculator
and in updates to the calculator
that have occurred since 2011.
And we can see that the current 2020 Avoided Cost Calculator
represents an outlier relative to the trend,
and that the proposed update is in line
with previous versions of the calculator.
It's important to note that these data
which were filed in the joint utilities comments
were also verified by staff consultants.
Next slide, please.
Eight parties opposed the proposed updates.
These parties largely represents solar storage
and energy efficiency advocates.
We heard objections from solar energy industries association
and Vote Solar, CALSSA,
AEE, CCSA,
CEDMC, CESA, Clean Coalition and 350 Bay Area.
And apologies for not reading out
all of the full names of those.
It's worth noting that staff took reply comments
on this resolution,
something that's not normally done on resolutions.
And we did that because we wanted to provide an opportunity
for counterpoint
and to provide a more robust written record.
Some of the main points raised in protests
were that the changes are major in scope and impact.
And they alleged that this is contrary
to a Commission decision guidance on this process.
They contend that the changes to other models
such as the IRP models used as inputs
to the Avoided Cost Calculator were in fact major,
that they were not given enough time or information
to analyze those changes
and that the model results are inaccurate.
They believe that it's improper to use IRP modeling results
that have not been formally adopted
by Commission decision in the IRP proceeding.
These parties also dispute the validity
of several inputs and outputs of the IRP modeling
used for the calculator updates,
which they also say is unvetted.
And they contend that there were procedural errors
that didn't allow parties opportunity to provide input.
Each of these points are addressed at length
in the revised resolution before the Commission,
and I will highlight a few points.
With regard to concerns about the validity of the IRP inputs
to the Avoided Cost Calculator,
solar energy industries association
and both solar contend that updated IRP modeling assumptions
to remove the two gigawatt hour per year tab
on the solar build-out
results in an unrealistic build-out
of 18 gigawatts of solar
and 10 gigawatts of storage by 2025.
And the natural resources defense council replied
in comments that quotes
'SIA and both solar misunderstand
how the GHD adder is estimated
and incorrectly assert that solar and storage builds
in 2024 to 2026 impact the GHG adder.
The GHG adder is impacted
by the marginal resource build in 2030,
and the discount rate applied to develop the GHG adder.'
We also heard from some public commentors
a claim being made by solar parties
which is that a new and untested model would use
for predicting how wholesale energy pricing
will behave in the future.
We wanna clarify that it's the same model
as previously used,
but the methods have been updated to improve accuracy.
The pricing model forecast low prices
when the solar is generating due to surplus energy,
but the price forecasted they go up
when the sun goes down
and this is consistent with today's pricing patterns.
Next slide, please.
A diverse group of parties support the resolution.
They include California Advocates,
the Utility Reform Network,
the Natural Resources Defense Council,
the Joint Utilities and the Utility Employee Group, CUE.
In summary, these parties maintain that
the changes are minor in scope,
as regards to modeling methods and input assumptions,
even though the impact was large.
They also contend that changes to other models,
such as IRP models are minor.
They believe that the proposed 2021 update
makes necessary corrections of errors
found in the 2020 calculator.
These parties also contend that it's not necessary
to use only Commission adopted IRP modeling results.
They state that prior Commission decisions
do not require this detail.
And they contend that all IRP modeling was publicly vetted,
contrary to protest and contention.
In response to claims that the documentation
of proposed changes was inadequate, these parties maintain
that all changes were documented sufficiently
by energy division staff.
And they also believe that parties had ample time
and opportunity to comment.
We've heard claims from solar advocates
and other protestants that this resolution
is the result of backchannel lobbying by the utilities,
and this is untrue.
Environmental groups
and consumer groups support this resolution
and agree that there was a process for all parties
to vet the inputs to this proposal.
For example, TAN stated,
'There appears to be little dispute
that these changed outputs are more consistent with reality
than the results of the 2020 voting cost calculator.
And thus the Commission should ensure that critical planning
and valuation decisions impacting long-term deployment
of DER programs and incentives be guided
by the revised 2021 calculator.'
And NRDC states,
'The main drivers have changed between 2020
and 2021 are more accurate energy prices,
updated GHT prices and improved emissions forecast.
And the 2021 calculator correctly updates GHG prices
and overestimates of midday thermal generation
in the 2020 calculator,
bringing the calculator in line with market conditions
and recent market trends.
Finally, we've heard from solar advocates
that this proposal will hurt solar customers taking service
under the NEM 1.0
and 2.0 tariffs.
The NEM grandfathering rules to these customers still apply.
The PUC has a strong record
of not making retroactive changes
to customer facing programs.
So any claims that the PUC is intending to change
the current structure
for current solar customers are misleading.
Finally, we heard from some public commenters
that avoided transmission value
is not included in the Avoided Cost Calculator,
and this is inaccurate.
The calculator does include this value
though it may be lower than advocate groups contend.
And that concludes my presentation.
-: Thank you very much Simon.
Before I make any comments,
I want to first turn to the Commissioners
and ask if they have any questions or thoughts
that they need to ask you or Joy.
Joy is on the line, I believe.
Is that correct Simon?
Yeah.
Joy: Yes, I'm here.
-: Oh, good, thank you, Joy.
I just can't see everybody, thanks.
So yes,
Commissioner Guzman Aceves has a question.
-: Thank you, President Batjer
and thank you Simon for such a thorough explanation.
I think just writing down some of the public comments,
I think you addressed all of them, except one,
which hopefully is an easier answer.
But it was concerning when we heard
from one of the representatives from the school districts
that they did not have access to the data
that was used to update the ACC.
And I wonder if there's somewhere we can point them to
or any response to that point.
-: Thank you.
I'm gonna turn to Joy to respond to that question.
Joy please.
Joy: Yeah, we released quite a bit of data
when we released the draft resolution on May 3rd.
We posted quite a bit of data
related to the output of the production cost modeling.
We asked the IRP team to also post output data
from various IRP resolve modeling results.
That's the capacity expansion model.
After we released the draft resolution,
we received an email
from the solar energy industries association
asking for more data.
We released many, many files of data.
We released all the output data that they asked for.
We released quite a bit of detailed information from...
We asked the IRP team to post more information
about the results coming from their resolve
and server models.
That has all been posted on our website.
It is on the I-D-E-R cost effectiveness page,
which you can search for on the CPUC website
and the IRP data
is on the integrated resource planning page of our website.
There are data sets after datasets that are...
And we have no problem with releasing data
from our modeling.
And additionally Avoided Cost Calculator itself
is a spreadsheet model.
It's completely transparent.
Anybody can download the spreadsheet
and look at it.
-: Thank you, Joy.
-: President Batjer, I have a question
for Simon or Joy.
One of the recurring issues
and the concern raised by the parties is
what's the line between major and minor changes
to the Avoided Cost Calculator,
given that the level of review is different?
And I'm wondering if you could elaborate on
what we're gonna do going forward in updates to make clear
how we distinguish between the two
and the different process for the two.
-: Yeah, we recognize that
there maybe some additional clarity
that the Commission could provide
as regards what the Commission intends to say
when it says that minor changes are acceptable
during the minor updates cycle.
The question kind of hinges around
as we saw illustrated in the parties comments
that advocates that are contrary,
that oppose the updates,
they perforate that language to mean that
if there are significant changes in the results
that come out of those updates,
that it is therefore by definition, a major update.
And then the other parties contend that,
no, you could have minor changes that result in...
Minor updates that results in major impact.
An example given there might be, for example,
the minor updates allow for updates to input assumptions
like gas prices for example.
Imagine a scenario in which there were major changes
in the natural gas industry that resulted
in spikes and gas price forecast.
The current Commission rules allow for input
to be updated in a minor update cycle.
And that could result in major changes in the results
or the outcomes of the model,
and yet it was only an update to an input assumption.
So process wise,
staff recognized that there's an opportunity
to provide further clarity
with regard to the scope of changes
in a minor update cycle.
We're going into now a major update cycle going into 2022,
and we are recommending putting before the parties
this issue to seek greater clarity from the Commission
and a forthcoming decision on this matter.
-: Thank you, I think clarifying the line would be helpful
as you suggest.
-: Yes, I agree with that comment Clifford
and I think it seems like it's tied to the year
as opposed to, as you just described Simon
to whether it's actually having an impact
that's major or minor.
So I definitely think it's very much worthy
of some clarification.
I think Commissioner Shiroma had her hand up too.
You might be muted.
-: I am, thank you.
Thank you President Batjer.
So thank you Simon for the presentation,
the answers to the questions.
I'm very keenly aware that
you have the model itself,
you've got the spreadsheets, the algorithms,
the calculations,
and these models, whether it's resolve
or the reference system plan and resolved.
And it's been around for a long time,
has been vetted, reviewed, assessed, third party,
and so forth.
Here the inputs to the model
have caused great consternation.
Now, as I look at the spreadsheet,
looking at the comparison of benefits,
the 2020 dollar amounts
were based on substantially the RF
at integrated resource plan resource adequacy roadmap
that we had anticipated
in that 2019, 2020 timeframe.
But then we updated that more recently
and especially with solar for...
I mean, I'm recalling in the previous decision that we...
In terms of the data input into this assessment,
I think I heard you say that one of the key things was
we added a large amount of industrial size solar
for that 2030 timeframe.
Certainly not to be in lieu
of additional rooftop solar,
whether it residential or commercial,
but that is a key reason why
as we update the calculation
that that benefit level then goes from $80
to $139 to $58.
Am I describing this properly, Simon
in terms of what are the key factors at play here?
Is the addition of where we specified
large megawatts anticipation
of utility scale solar.
-: Okay, yeah.
The key factors that explain
the lower avoided cost values are explained
on slide four.
And it's a combination of some updates
and input assumptions with regard to
the assumed cost of utility scale
and energy storage resources,
which are the primary new resources,
which are assumed to be built
in the capacity expansion modeling in IRP.
And so it's a bit of a success story actually
that we're forecasting lower prices
for those clean energy resources,
but then that is having this feedback effect
because then the avoided cost benefits
of rooftop solar and other DER's
are therefore then not assumed to be as high,
because the resource build out is expected to be less costly
than we had previously assumed.
So that's one.
And then the other is
how that increase in the amount of solar
on the fleet then feeds into the energy prices
that are forecasted onto the grid
by having more and more surplus solar
during the mid day time periods.
The updated modeling then reflect lower energy prices
than was previously assumed.
-: Okay, thank you. -: Did that answer
your question?
-: Okay. -: Yes, indeed you did.
We approve and anticipate a large amount of storage,
which we absolutely need
for that next peak pricing period of time.
Whether it's five to eight or four to nine
and it's the boon and the bane, as far as...
By anticipating any of those resources,
it then brings down the prices overall.
At this point, President Batjer,
I was gonna also make comments.
Should I wait until your questions are-
-: Let me see if Commissioner Houck has any questions
and then sure, okay?
-: Commissioner Houck? -: Thank you, yeah.
-: I just wanted to comment that I agree
with both Commissioner Rechtschaffen
and you President Batjer regarding
in this next cycle for the major update,
there is significant public process built there,
and we should address this issue of the distinction between
the major and minor process and how we can ensure input
during those minor years,
given there could be significant outcomes,
even though the process is considered a minor process.
-: Thank you, Commissioner.
I just wanna note that there's actually language
in the resolution itself that calls for clarification
on this major versus minor change issue
for that to be updated
in this forthcoming 2022 update cycle.
-: Thank you, I appreciate that.
-: Yeah, thank you.
I do have one follow-up question
and then I'll turn to Commissioner Shiroma
to have her remarks.
One of the callers commented today, this morning on
that there was an outside consultant
that had a conflict of interest
that helped with the development of the modeling.
Could you clarify that?
Not so much about the conflict,
but what consultant were they referring to?
-: I'm imagining that they were referring to Stan Consultant
which is the firm E3.
And we have a robust
conflict of interest policy
and procedure for continuously reviewing
the other contracts that E3 has,
to ensure that any new new contracts
or changes in contracts
that they may be considering are properly reviewed
and conflicts are avoided.
And we've had instances actually through this process
where we've basically had to tell E3 that
we thought that a potential contract
that they might enter into is improper
and they've gone ahead and not entered into that contract.
So we take that issue very seriously.
-: Thank you for that clarification, Simon.
I think that's helpful.
I hope the call is still on the line.
Okay, I will turn to the Commissioners now
for their comments about item number three.
Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Yes, thank you President.
First I want to thank everyone who called in
to provide public comments and express their perspective,
their passion for solar,
their commitment to solar clearly comes through.
I've spent many a decade on energy matters,
and during my time at SMUD,
another colleague and I, we became the champion of solar
at that time to say,
hey, we've gotta be a leader in solar.
We've got to invest in solar,
and doll forward to today
and it has been a highly successful program.
I do certainly as a human being,
I'm concerned that anything I say
will be viewed and scanned
because I am going to be voting
in support of this resolution but here goes.
In assessing our grid,
our essential utility service
that must provide reliability and quality of life,
affordable rate
have all started with
what is the foundational tool?
What are the foundational tools
that we use to assess the facts
of what are happening on our electricity grid?
And that's where this revolution
has used more time model resolve and so forth.
E3 is a very credible consultant
and where these models are tested and tested and tested.
And in this mid-year assessment,
the south is not making large changes
to the calculations, algorithms so forth.
But what we have here are what are the data inputs
into this model that send results in
what we foresee for 2030?
And surely that results will incur
policy decisions on our parts
as far as what does the model tell us
in terms of the anticipated cost, drivers and so forth.
Then as we approach what is the future
of rooftop solar and so forth?
I very much appreciated that
Director Baker said that
we have had a long standing policy perspective
in terms of distinct customers
and what they can rely on
for their rates going forward.
There have been an aspect of grandfathering in rates,
and then looking forward to the future
as to how do we problem solve together
in building solar with storage,
solar with storage,
and what do those future rates look like
as we true up...
What is there in terms of the cost
and then what do we want to do from a policy perspective
towards supporting programs like this rooftop solar
and their role in meeting our 2030, 2045 goals?
So here we are assessing the tool
and what it is predicting for us.
And then in our proceedings that are still open,
I feel that we will be assessing,
well what overall is our policy and commitments to customers
who are investing
in these very important, essential
distributing energy resources.
So thank you for the opportunity
to give my perspective,
back to your President Batjer.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Who would like to make any further comments
on item number three?
-: Yes, Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
-: Thank you President Batjer.
Really just to reiterate Commissioner Shiroma point
which is certainly as we look at each individual programs
and proceeding, this cost effectiveness test
is just one of many things that we look at.
And so, as we heard very much today,
the focus of much common is a concern on the future
of the net energy metering program.
And I just wanna reiterate
that we'll be looking at many different sets of values
of the programs, sets of benefits.
We heard many of them today in the call,
resiliency benefits, air quality benefits,
things that are not currently captured
in this cost effectiveness test.
So this is a very foundational piece of information,
but it is not the only element.
So thank you very much.
-: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Thank you for those comments Commissioners Shiroma
and Commissioner Guzman Aceves.
I think the last point you made is really, really critical.
And while this is a difficult decision
and obviously controversial,
and one which commentators express a lot of concern,
it is very important
that we have the most up-to-date numbers
in informing our policy.
I wanna reiterate two points that Director baker said,
one is that, in some ways, this is really a success story.
The reason the avoided costs numbers are dropping
for distributed resources like rooftop solar
is because we've been so successful
in our other policies and the cost of utility scale solar
and storage resources have dramatically declined.
Second while rooftop solar,
and some other distributed resources
show lower avoided costs,
it's really important that other demand side resources
that will be equally critical to our decarbonization goals,
such as heat pumps and electric vehicles
show higher avoided costs,
and we shouldn't lose sight of that.
So I will be supporting the resolution.
Thank you for your detailed presentation.
-: Any other comments?
Okay.
I just want to add my thanks to Director Baker
and to Ms. Morganstern and to the whole team.
This is been a great deal of work,
and I greatly appreciate it.
It's certainly understand the importance
of the cost effectiveness results
for all the distributed energy resources
and that many of the resources
can have a strong influence on their viabilities.
So I also believe it's important that we use data
that is most current and accurate
and an accurate reflection on our current reality.
I think that's been well spoken about in the presentation.
And I appreciate that there are those
who questioned the changes to the certain inputs.
However, there are also those
as was mentioned by Director Baker,
they're all also those like the consumer advocates
and the environmental groups like NRDC and others
who argue that these updates
are very important and appropriate.
So given the importance of the Avoided Cost Calculator
for evaluating all distributed energy resources
as both Commissioner Shiroma
and Commissioner Guzman have well said,
I think the resolution ended up
is in the appropriate place,
and I will be indeed supporting it.
So again, I thank the division staff,
the energy division staff,
for all their hard work.
And again, thank you very much for this presentation.
-: Any other comments or concerns?
Okay, seeing none,
will the agenda clerk, please call the roll on item three.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves?
-: Aye.
Clerk: President Batjer?
-: Aye.
The item three passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
Moving now on to item 23,
that is Commissioner Guzman Aceves' item.
Just another little reminder about slow presentation
and pause occasionally.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner, that wasn't pointed directly at you,
by the way Martha.
That was a general statement to everybody.
-: Okay, thank you.
-: Okay, thank you, President Batjer.
This PD closes out our direct access proceeding,
which was opened up a few years back
to implement Senate Bill 237 by Senator Hertzberg.
And as you all know,
direct access is the ability for certain customers
to purchase their own power
through a non utility service provider.
In our previous decision under this proceeding in 2019,
we did vote to increase the cap on direct access.
That was an element required in that statute as well.
This particular decision addresses another main requirement
which asks us as a Commission to provide a recommendation
to the legislature about a schedule
for reopening further direct access
to all remaining non-residential customers.
It's very important to note a couple of elements
of the statute that were required for us to consider
in our recommendation.
And these were the four findings that we were asked to make.
First, we had to find that the opening would be consistent
with our greenhouse gas goals.
Second, that it did not increase criteria pollutants
or toxic air contaminants.
Third, that we must ensure electric reliability
and forth, that it does not cause an undue cost shift
on direct access and bundled customers, either one.
Energy division had prepared a staff report
on all of these issues,
and it was commented on by many parties and revised again.
I mean there has been a lot of iteration on this.
But ultimately what we found and what is in the PD
is the recommendation against reopening direct access
at this time.
And foundational because we could not make all the findings
that were required of us.
Most importantly, the big one was we could not ensure
that there was going to be certainly reliability
with opening this up.
Can the Commission ensure that with this reopening
of low migration, there would be that continued reliability.
And not to say this is not something that cannot continue
to be explored, but with the information before us,
with the status of where we are with our grid,
we can make the finding today.
As we all know,
we have an unprecedented level of procurement
that is needed for both the near term
that has been recently approved
and then midterm that we're looking at today.
Increasing and making greater predictability with shifts
and load really does undermine this reliability concern
that we face today, and particularly for those
that require a long-term contract.
I wanna just thank all the staff that's been working on this
and all of the interpretive process
and dialogue that they undertook
to come to this difficult decision.
And most notably, I wanna thank Dina Mackin and her team,
Sasha Cole and Kathleen Blake.
Our folks from legal Mitchell Shapson in particular,
my verdict partner, President Batjer
and her advisor, Anand Durvasula,
and of course my advisors, Maria Sotero
and Kerry Fleisher.
But most of all, I wanna thank
the Administrative Law Judge Jeanne McKinney,
for her commitment on many of these issues
and the difficult findings that we had to make.
With that, I ask for your support.
-: Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Are there any questions or thoughts or comments
that you wish to make at this time, Commissioners
on item number 23?
Okay, seeing none I just want to add my thanks to-
-: President Batjer? -: Yes.
-: I think Commissioner Houck wanted to say something.
-: Oh, I'm sorry, I could not see your hands.
Please, Commissioner Houck.
-: Just briefly, I wanted to thank Commissioner Guzman Aceves
and Judge McKinney for all their work
on this matter, embracing my office.
I do understand the complexities of this
and having to look at the situation as a whole
with all of the ESPN.
I do think this issue at some point
is gonna be back before us again.
And I would just ask that we consider looking at
whether there's a way to separate out
some of the energy service providers, such as UC and CSU
that do have aggressive greenhouse gas
emission reduction goals
to try and reach 100% zero emissions by 2025.
To see if there are certain providers
that could meet those four criteria
as we go forward and continue to look at this issue.
So with that, I will be supporting the decision.
-: Thank you, excellent point.
Thank you for making that point.
Again, I wanna thank Commissioner Guzman Aceves
and her terrific staff for working so hard on this,
and as has been mentioned,
ALJ McKinney and Mitchell Shapson
of the legal division,
and of course the fantastic energy division teams
of Kathleen Blake, Sasha Cole, Dina Mackin.
And, as you had said, Martha,
my own wonderful, superb,,
unbelievable adviser, Anand Durvasula.
So thank you.
A lot of hard work and I appreciate it very much,
and so thank you all.
Okay, any other comments or thoughts?
Seeing none, will the agenda clerk,
please call the roll on item 23.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves?
-: Aye.
Clerk: President Batjer?
-: Aye.
The item number 23 passes unanimously.
Thank you all very much.
I will be introducing item 25.
While I will keep my comments brief,
this item is nevertheless very important.
This proposed decision adopts additional guidance
for the investor owned utilities
aimed to improve their planning and execution
of their public safety power shut off events.
A loss of power means loss of income,
loss of a day or more of learning and fear and uncertainty
for those who rely on power
to sustain life supporting medical devices,
thus the decision by a utility to initiate a PSPS event
must always be a measure of last resort.
With that understanding, these adjustments to the guidelines
are focused on ensuring
that the utilities provide proper advanced notice
of DSPS events and mitigate impacts
to the greatest extent possible
if, and when they determine they must indeed call an event.
There are numerous specific adjustments we have made
to the guidelines,
but overall, they are focused on improvement in two areas,
ensuring utilities are continually improving planning,
preparation, and access to resources during PSPS events
and requiring utilities to better notify access
and functional leads customers and vulnerable populations,
and minimize the impacts of PSPS events on them.
With that, I would like to thank the many stakeholders
and impacted communities for their feedback,
which informed many of the adjustments this year.
And of course I wan to thank the Administrative Law Judges
who work so quickly and thoroughly, thoroughly
on these guidelines,
Valerie Kao and Regina DeAngelis
worked so very hard
and compiled a proposed decision
of many, many pages as you all know.
I would also like to thank Shelby Chaste and Antony Knowles
in the Safety and Enforcement Division.
And Kim Chin Jim Chu, David van Dyken
in the Safety Policy Division,
Nathan Pun and Kevin Miller
in the Wildfire Safety Division.
Matt Yugavicic in legal,
and Marianne Davina and Julie Lang
in our ALJ unit for their support.
I especially want to thank
my unbelievable Begley King partner
on this proceeding, Commissioner Rechtschaffen
and his staff Shawn Simon for their collaboration
and always great insights.
And finally,
and most sincerely,
I would like to thank my advisor, Nora Hawkins
and my unbelievable Chief of Staff, Shannon O'Rourke
for their hard work.
And with that, I ask my fellow Commissioners
for your support.
Thank you.
-: Are there any...
Yes, Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: I wanna add my thanks to the judges in our team
working so hard on these issues
and to you President Batjer for your leadership,
as well as the work of Nora Hawkins
and Shannon O'Rourke you're terrific advisers.
I really think that you, along with the Safety
and Enforcement Division, Wildfire Safety Division
and Executive Director Peterson
has kept a laser light focus on this issue
and on what the IOUs are doing.
And I think as a result of that intense focus and scrutiny,
we've significantly improved their PSPS practices.
Even as there's considerable room for improvement,
quite considerable room,
I think the focus has really resulted in better results.
As you noted, there are important things
that they need to continue to do
as they harden their systems,
as they reduce the need for PSPS
and as we hold them accountable
to reaching those lower PSPS targets,
they need to continue to effectively communicate
with their customers,
especially the most vulnerable ones.
Provide them with accurate information, backup batteries,
community resource centers,
and also effectively communicate with their local state
and tribal partners.
Those are ongoing needs, they're critical,
no matter what level of PSPS events we see.
I take this excellent decision reinforces those principles
with the very clear guidelines that you outlined,
and I will be supporting this decision.
-: Thank you very much Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
Is there any other comments or questions on item 25?
Yes, Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Thank you, President Batjer for your leadership on this
and for the team at the CPUC
that have worked very hard and very excellently.
We Commissioners, we're provided,
any number of opportunities
to participate in a public workshop
on this topic of public safety power shut off.
Where the utilities were brought in to talk about
what they had done, what lessons were learned,
what else did they need to do?
What are the best practices?
And this proposal today reflects all of that good work.
Because as we said, it is a tool of last resort,
it has a very big impact on the customers of California,
even as it is a tool towards preventing wildfires,
it has a tremendous impact on people's quality of life.
And we learned, especially through the 2019 season
the lack of resources for those who were without power.
The best practices, the engagement
of local and tribal governments
and community based organizations,
all of that should provide for a much better tool in place
for the feature for customers to know what to expect
and ultimately to really look after
our most vulnerable customers in California,
including the medical baseline customers.
So thank you for the work
and I will be supporting this proposal, thank you.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Commissioner Houck.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
I want to thank your office and ALJs Kao and DeAngelis
for the excellent job on this decision.
It was a lot of work.
It's a very important decision.
And I concur with all of the statements
of my fellow Commissioners
and I support the PD.
Particularly its intent to facilitate compliance
by our Safety and Enforcement division
as the next step in the proceeding.
And I would just encourage our Safety
and Enforcement divisions
to work with our executive director
to assess and make any recommendations
as to whether there are portions of these guidelines
that could be conducive to either our citation program
or could be enforced through our existing citation program,
given the importance of the need for notification
in local communities.
And again, will be supporting this decision
and thank you for the great work on it.
-: Sorry I was on mute.
Thank you, seeing no other comments
will the agenda clerk please call the roll on item 25 .
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Acevez?
-: Aye.
Clerk: President Batjer.
-: You're muted President Batjer.
-: Thank you.
(chuckles)
Okay, the vote on item 25 is unanimous.
Thank you all.
Now, moving on to item 26,
which will be presented by Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
Item 26 is a mid-term energy procurement decision
that comes out
of our integrated resource planning proceeding.
We heard a number of public comment there was about it,
and Commissioner Guzman Acevez referenced it
just a moment ago.
I'm supporting this decision.
And as I'll explain, given the revisions
that have been made, I've withdrawn the alternate decision
that I had circulated earlier this month.
This is the result of a tremendous amount of staff work
as well as a lot of inter-agency coordination
with our sister agencies,
the Energy Commission and the Air Resources Board,
there's been a tremendous amount of party interest.
In this case, we had over 50 parties, filing comments.
We had over 40 parties participating
in the all party meeting we had last week.
I wanna especially thank the people who called in today
and who've been calling in steadily
over the past few meetings.
This is a land mark decision.
I don't think it's hyperbole to describe it as such.
We are directing the various load serving entities
to procure what is an unprecedented amount
of new clean energy resources, 11,000 megawatts.
These will come online in the middle of the decade,
that's why we're turning it a midterm decision
between 2023 and 2026.
Just to give you a sense of the scale.
This is enough to power
about two and a half million households in the state.
And all of it will be coming from renewable
or zero emitting resources.
These resources, we need them to respond
to the change in climate and to more extreme weather events,
such as the one we saw last summer,
and we're gonna continue to see.
We needed to respond to the changing grid.
There are multiple gas plants that are retiring
for environmental and other reasons.
PG&E, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant,
a very large plant and a large source of energy capacity
is also retiring as a result of PG&E's voluntary decision
not to seek a new order that it's licensed to operate.
I wanna highlight a few key changes
from what was originally proposed
in the propose decision and the alternate.
Those decisions had mandated a limited amount
ranging from 500 to 1500 megawatts
from efficiency improvements and upgrades
at existing gas plants.
None of that was from any new gas plants,
but there was an authorization
or a mandate at existing plants.
There were limits and restrictions
and disadvantaged communities
and an encouragement for innovative technology,
such as green hydrogen to replace
the existing source of gas
in some of these gas plants.
As you've heard, we received a lot of critical comments
arguing that we hadn't demonstrated
the need for the gas procurement to ensure liability.
Others said we hadn't documented
the specific amounts of megawatts
that were needed to provide that margin of safety.
The revised PD that we're voting on today
removes the requirement to procure any fossil resources.
And instead, our staff
will work with the Energy Commission staff
to conduct additional analysis over the next few months
about the need for fossil resources
for reliability purposes.
What do we need, what amounts do we need,
what's a more granular analysis of this question?
And the results of this analysis from our staff
and the energy Commission
will help inform our next procurement decision,
which we will debate about later this year.
So we will have another procurement decision
later this year,
we will also be addressing the preferred system portfolio
that we'll be ordering
based on individual integrated resource plans
that all of the load serving entities
will file this September.
So again, that's our plan for later this year
in other decision
that we'll deal with these procurement issues.
And that's why I'm withdrawing my alternate.
Because we're not ordering any fossil resources at all,
we are likewise differing issues
that have come up and a lot of parties commented about
what the proper definition
of eligible green hydrogen resources should be.
Again, those issues will be addressed
in a subsequent decision.
Then finally,
the revised decision provides and I'm gonna quote here
that in our planning track,
we have a planning track of the proceeding.
We're gonna explore and continue to explore
coordinated planning for resource build out
and resource retirement
to inform an orderly and equitable path to SB 100 goals,
which of course SBE 100 requires 100% clean electricity
by 2045.
So we had a plan for an orderly and equitable path
to get to those goals,
optimizing for greenhouse gas reductions,
reliability, and costs.
So we're committed to this process going forward
in this order.
Also in response to comments from a number of parties,
we revised the timing of some of the procurements.
Some of it's been moved from 2023 to 2024
that we'll still meet our reliability needs,
but it will do so in a way
that should not cause unnecessary costs
and is a little bit, perhaps a little bit more realistic
to what can come on in that earlier timeframe.
We may clear in the decision that demand side
or distributed energy resources can count toward
the procurement requirements in the decision,
so long as they're incremental,
so long as they're new resources.
Demand side resources, distributed energy resources,
absolutely can count.
Just summarizing the other key elements of the decision.
As I mentioned it, the overall orders 11,500 megawatts.
That is at the upper end
of what our modeling showed was the potential need
in this midterm period.
But we wanted to build in a buffer for uncertainty,
and that's why we chose the higher level.
This is consistent with the recommendation
of independent system operator, CALISO.
It also allows for things like 800 megawatts
of unanticipated retirements
that builds in that uncertainty factor.
The procurement is allocated equitably
to various load serving entities
based on the customer's electricity demand,
basically on the load of those load serving entities.
And we think this is the best solution
for promoting both accountability and procurement autonomy.
The decision orders that at least 2,500 megawatts
of zero emitting resources be procured specifically
to replace the generation from the Diablo Canyon
that we're losing.
And just to be precise,
these resources must be online by 2025
and they must include generation.
It could be generation paired with storage
or demand response resources,
but it has to be able to deliver continuously
during the evening ramp period when solar goes online.
So that's directly replacing what we lost with Diablo.
We also direct procurement of 2000 megawatts
of clean resources with specific operational capabilities
that give us important reliability attributes.
We refer to them in the decision
as long lead time resources.
Is it been somewhat elusive in past procurement efforts
that we tried to make more explicit what we're looking for.
The first is 1000 megawatts
of long duration storage resources
that can generate at maximum capacity
for at least eight hours from a single resource.
And the second is 1000 megawatts
of renewable energy generation resources
that has at least an 80% capacity factor.
And what that means is that these generating resources
can produce electricity about at least 80% of the hours
throughout the year.
And they are available continuously
during our evening peak period.
Again, that's the key reliability period for us.
The most likely resources that will be eligible
as the decision indicates
to satisfy this 1000 megawatt bucket,
are geothermal resources and bio resources,
biomass resources.
And then two other things,
the decision has reporting and enforcement provisions,
and it establishes the process
for so-called backstop procurement by the investor
on utilities for any community choice aggregation district
or energy service provider that has...
Electricity service provider, excuse me,
that has not moved ahead with its allocated
amount of procurement in a timely manner.
Finally, the decision allows
utility owned resources to qualify
if the utility can demonstrate reasonableness
compared to independent project developers.
Those projects will have to come before us
via an application.
That's the gist of the decision.
In thinking about this just like all of our decisions
that we vote on,
there's a very strong expert team of judges and staff
that put this together.
This decision is absolutely no exception.
I wanna thank everybody who's been involved in this.
I want to start with our superstar Judge, Julie Fitch,
amazingly efficient and productive, Nathan Barsick,
who supervises our really talented IRP team,
that includes Neil Rouson,
Lauren Riza, James McGarry, Caroline Mislanka,
Ali Ashari, Ash Roggie,
Jared Ferguson and David Withrow.
We also benefited from technical rigor and analysis
from Donald Brooks, Michelle Ketone,
Dina Mackin, Sasha Cola, and Travis Alycia.
Energy Division Management guidance
from Molly Sterkel, Simon Baker, Pete Skala,
and Ed Randolph.
I want to express a huge thanks
to my Begley King partner, President Batjer
and our Chief of Staff, Shannon O'Rourke
and her advisor Anand Durvasula.
I greatly benefited from the partnership.
President Batjer made this decision stronger,
and more rigorous and more thorough.
I very much appreciate our partnership.
And I wanna thank my three advisors
who worked on this Yuliya Schmidt, Sandy Goldberg,
and Sean Simon.
So with that, I ask for your support.
-: Thank you for that very thorough and helpful
and comprehensive review of the proposed decision.
And I want to thank you Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
for your tremendous leadership
and incredible hard work on this extremely important
and as you, well-stated landmark decision and proceeding.
You've worked very, very hard over the last few months,
and I know you've had some sleepless nights,
as you and I have shared those stories.
At the outset I want to recognize
how significant indeed the procurement order
in this decision is.
We are ordering as you have well-stated 11,500 megawatts
of new electricity resources
structured coming from the preferred resources,
such as pivoted energy resources,
renewables, and zero emitting resources
or sources as you had well outlined.
The decision votes moves us closer
to meeting the state goal of 100% clean energy by 2045
and responds to our reliability concerns between 23 and 26.
As we seek to replace to capacity retiring
from Diablo Canyon
as well as several thermal power plants,
compliance, excuse me,
the once through cooling regulations of the water board.
In terms of reliability,
I see this decision as a starting point,
as we consider what resources we need
to ensure that all load serving entities
in our jurisdiction are featuring sufficient new resources
to meet increased demand resulting from extreme heat events
caused by climate change and the increased electrification
of our transportation and building sectors.
To that end, I am very happy
that our staff will be coordinating with, excuse me,
with the CEC staff over the next few weeks
on further modeling and studies
to try and answer the question
of the need for fossil fuel based resources in the midterm.
As the decision notes and you have well-stated
with respect to the fossil fuel resources,
there is a likelihood that the best case scenario for us
in terms of reliability
is that we may need these types of resources
for capacity purposes and to remain on standby.
But if we have enough renewable
and zero emissions generation in the system,
the fossil fuel resources ideally will not have to run
and just serve as only an insurance policy.
And I too take the many comments
that we received this morning to heart
and with great respect and consideration.
We will see a proposed decision
on the preferred system portfolio by the end of this year.
The decision will be informed by the analysis
that our staff and the CEC undertake
over the next few weeks.
With that, an inordinate amount of thanks
for everyone for their work in this challenging
and historic decision.
First and foremost to you Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
a great deal of thanks my BK partner,
and to his Chief of Staff, Sean Simon,
and advisors Yuliya, and Sandy Goldberg.
Yuliya Schmidt, excuse me,
and Sandy Goldberg, are incredibly brilliant
and talented, and dedicated ALJ,
the incomparable Julie Fitch.
Our fantastic IRD team in the energy division
supervised by Nathan Barcic,
with Neil Raffin, Lauren Riser, James McGarry,
Carlina Maslanka
and Ali Nashkari,
David Withrow and Jared Ferguson.
Folks from the energy division management
who helped me understand many, many, many times
various complicated facets of this decision,
such as Michele Kito, Donald Brooks,
Molly Sterkel and Pete Skala,.
And of course my Chief of Staff,
the incomparable Shannon O'Rourke,
and the unbelievably brilliant Anand Durvasula.
So thank you all very much.
And I will be supporting this item.
Other questions and comments?
-: Okay, oh, you guys are late to their hands up.
Okay, I think it was first Commissioner Guzman Acevez.
-: Okay, hank you very much.
I didn't wanna be late
because I'm actually extremely excited
and just really grateful
to see this proposal finally before us.
We certainly could always have gotten her sooner,
but this is just in time for avoiding
what we can see into the future and this midterm
as Commissioner Rechtschaffen says mid decade procurement.
I think it is our core function here
to really do this type of Statewide system analysis
and derive down the obligations
of each of the load serving entities
to ensure that we're on track,
to meeting not just our clean energy goals,
but to meeting them in a way
that maybe fixes some of the errors
of our past of just anything green.
In particular I wanna call out
as I am currently missing
the Lithium Valley Commission,
just wanna acknowledge
that we are making a tremendous acknowledgement
of the role the geothermal has in our future
and the role it needs to have immediately
in this decade.
I also want to really thank the staff
for hitting the pause button
on this more difficult questions during our transition
and the need to really ensure reliability
as we transition our resources.
And what I'm hoping we can look at in coordination
with the Aliso proceeding in this next stage
of the IRP procurement.
The dynamics between the efforts in the closure of Aliso
that has very quick timelines.
There's two scenarios there 2027 and 2045 that we've studied
and it's assuming last gas generation in the basin.
And so that,
it's something that I really want us to look at intently
in the next six months and have an open discussion
with the public on that
for both their ideas and their concerns.
But overall I'm very excited for this procurement
and I won't iterate everybody's names,
but I do wanna think all the staff in the Energy Division
and the Administrative Law Judge divisions,
especially Judge Fitch.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you, Commissioner Guzman Acevez.
Commissioner Houck.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
And I will not repeat all of the comments
that have been said,
but I too, I'm happy to see this decision
and we'll be supporting it.
I wanna thank Commissioner Rechtschaffen and his office
for all of their work.
And President Batjer, your office,
and all of the work
that both of you have put into this cutting edge decision.
I also want to recognize and thank the 37 parties
who appeared before us
during the IRP all-party meeting last Thursday,
as well as the public that commented earlier today.
I appreciated the opportunity to hear directly
from the parties and the public comments.
I want to also thank
and recognize the exceptional work of Judge Julie Fitch
on the decision as well as the team in Energy Division
for all of their tremendous work on this
and the briefings that they provided my office.
So I will be supporting the decision today
with the revisions and look forward to seeing
and following the next steps in the proceedings.
So with that, I'll conclude my remarks.
-: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Thank you President Batjer.
This decision takes an approach that is not only bold,
it's dynamic, pragmatic with the two stages
of additional procurement.
Utilities and load serving entities
are economic engines for development
and our vote today will task them
to invest in clean generation necessary
to address climate change and with accountability.
So it's a tremendous amount of work, my appreciation,
and I'll be voting in support, thank you.
-: Thank you.
With that, seeing no other comments,
will the agenda clerk please call the roll on item 26?
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
-: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Aye.
-: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
-: Commissioner Guzman Acevez?
-: Aye.
-: President Batjer.
-: Aye.
Item 26 has been passed unanimously.
Thank you all.
Moving now onto item 27,
Commissioner Guzman Acevez will present.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
This was the item I referenced during public comments today.
As you know over a year ago now,
or nearly a year ago I should say,
we opened this proceeding to look at the COVID relief
that might be needed for additional measures of protection
for our customers.
And just a little over a week ago, on June 11th,
the Governor issued an extension
of many of his executive orders.
There was a series of extensions on moratoriums,
including rental evictions
and drinking water service disconnection.
And those were extended until September 30th of this year.
And this PD aligns with that timeline.
The extension of disconnection applies to residential
and small business electric and gas customers.
The additional time we'll do a couple of things,
obviously provide the additional protection,
but it also will provide time for the utilities
to get their customer what was calling
the default payment plans in place.
And that is one or two major protections in the PD.
This is a default 24 month payment plan as a large IOU
and a 12 month payment plan as a small IOU.
So most notably will provide us
with just a little bit of time
to try to really draw down that federal and state money
and get the arrears forgiven as soon as possible
without impacting customers from disconnecting them.
This is the other major component of this proposed decision.
And of course we've clarified that nothing in this decision
prevents the ongoing strategies that have been successful,
like the participation in arrear management plan
or any efforts to provide accelerated payments
or payments of relief and other local programs
that have come into support customers.
Okay and then one final thing
that this PD does incorporate
that we will be keeping the proceeding open
to continue to monitor the situation of course,
when the things are...
As we all continue to recover from the pandemic,
hopefully this actually provides
the largest bill protection.
But what are the other elements?
As I said, low-income oversight board
really called upon us to do is to have utilities
really have a more cooperative relationship
to the local community-based organizations.
Although we know they currently work with
but many times to convene a very non-structured manner
or depending on an event or so forth.
So we're asking them to really give us
a better understanding
of what their current relationship
with the community based organization networks is,
including what their compensation structure with them may be
and how it benefits the communities,
in particular disadvantaged communities.
This will help us have a greater baseline of information
as we continue to move forward in the proceeding
and really take into consideration
what the LLB has been recommending.
Okay.
So with that,
I wanna thank all of the adaptive management
that's been used with this proceeding
as many other proceedings,
but this one has really been trying to be responsive
to this really dynamic situation that we're in,
in recovering from the pandemic.
I wanna start
by thanking our amazing Judge, Camille Watts-Zagha,
who has been the lead Commissioner
and also on the water recovery efforts.
And it's been a benefit to have her on both,
and we've kind of been able to learn
cross industries best practices.
And many times we did just that.
We called upon the sister utilities
to follow the best practices of the others.
I also wanna thank Judge Colbert for his involvement
through this whole process and the team from Legal,
especially Christopher Chow and Sarah Thomas
and Energy Division's team Paul Philips, Ben Menzies
and Julie Lang as well from ALJ vision.
And of course I wanna thank really
both my BK partner Commissioner Houck
and my previous partner
on all these issues, Commissioner Shiroma
as we navigated through what measures to take up.
MC Brown, who has also crossed offices and Kathleen Yip
and of course to my advisor, Justin Fong.
So thank you very much.
And please I ask for your support
in this continued protection for customers.
-: Thank you Commissioner Guzman Acevez.
And I especially wanna thank you
for your very strong, passionate advocacy
for this very important protection
for people in California.
Your leadership has been immense,
and this has been yet another one of these decisions
that there's been a lot of hard work
and very fast moving proceeding,
which it was open just four short months ago.
So we do move things quickly.
We do respond quickly underscore
and we do it often.
So thank you again for your incredible leadership
on this subject.
And I will turn to,
and I of course will be supporting that.
I will turn to the other Commissioners for their comments.
Yes, Commissioner Houck.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
I'd like to thank my BK partner, Commissioner Guzman Acevez
for all of her amazing work and dedication
to getting this through so quickly.
And then the team at her office,
as well as all of the other folks on the team,
Ben Menzies, Sarah Thomas, Judge Camille Watts-Zagha
for all of their work on this important PD.
This proposed decision is going to provide additional relief
for customers working to recover
from the devastating impacts of the COVID crisis.
And it will limit disconnections,
no matter how much the customer debt has been accumulated.
The relief payment plans do not interfere
with existing assistance
and the relief that's already available.
So I'm looking forward to continuing to work
with Commissioner Guzman Acevez on the next phase
of the proceeding
that will be looking at debt forgiveness
for small businesses and I'm pleased to see
that we were able to get the moratorium extended.
And again, commend Commissioner Guzman Acevez
for all of her great work on this proceeding.
I will be supporting this decision.
Thank you and that concludes my comments.
-: Yes, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Yes, thank you
for the tremendous work Commissioner Guzman Acevez
and for folding in the input
from the low-income oversight board.
With this decision the CPUC continues to support customers
in addressing the consequences of a pandemic
by offering these additional payments plans
and created a latitude to avoid disconnections.
Thank you to the team, thank you all, I'm in support.
-: Thank you.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
-: Well, President Batjer,
I think we should have a new name for the PUC
to be nimbleness or us.
What do you think?
-: I think lickidislip?
-: Well, I do think it is important to highlight as you noted
that we have responded very quickly
and I think powerfully to the crisis posed by COVID.
And this is the latest example of that
where core consumer protections are at stake.
I think we could feel good about that
the contribution that we've made.
I do, I just wanna echo my thanks
to Commissioner Guzman Acevez,
for her leadership on this,
and also Judge Watts-Zagha, really tremendous work on this.
We know that the impacts of COVID
are still very much front and center for many consumers.
So it's very important that we extend the moratorium,
give people more time,
let other efforts catch up to where people are.
I'm very appreciative that is not just the protection
that the decision provides,
which are important as my colleagues noted,
but that these are complimentary
to the previous protections we put in place.
We will be monitoring very closely to the extent
to which state and federal funding efforts
address the debt that consumers face
and phase two provides an opportunity for further action.
So with that, I'll be supporting this decision.
-: Okay, thank you.
Seeing no further comments or questions,
will the agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Acevez?
-: Aye.
Clerk: President Batjer?
-: Aye.
Item number 27
passes unanimously.
Thank you all very much.
Okay, moving on now to item 28
and that is going to be presented by Commissioner Houck.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
I'm very excited to introduce this new order
instituting rulemaking to modernize the electric grid
for a high distributed energy resource or DE for future.
I will provide a brief overview
of the new rulemaking in a moment,
but first I do wanna take a minute
because I think it's important to take a step back
and place the rulemaking in context
of the larger effort underway at the Commission
to begin thinking about the next wave
of DER policy development.
So in 2016, the Commission endorsed the DER action plan
to align the organization's vision and actions
in shaping California's DER future for 2016 to 2020,
and to serve as a roadmap in coordinating activities
across multiple proceedings.
We've made progress on many elements of the plan,
including providing incentives to jumpstart industry,
reforming utility, distribution, planning,
and interconnections to leverage the benefits of DER's
and facilitating DER integration into wholesale markets.
While work on these topics is still underway,
many of the Commission's proceedings on these issues
are in their later stages.
And five years on we're facing a host
of new policy challenges and opportunities.
DER growth is expected to escalate in the coming years
and response to state electrification and climate policies,
changing grid and resiliency needs and declining costs.
Many of these new DER's will be capable of shifting load,
including electric vehicles behind the meter storage
and space and water heating systems
to dispatch can be scheduled or controlled remotely.
California's climate goals are expected to result
in millions of new EVs by 2030 and executive order N7920.
That's the target for all new cars and passenger truck sales
to be zero emission by 2035.
The new wave of DER is led by millions
of new electric vehicles and all electric buildings
will pose new challenges for distribution planning
and demand management, but also new opportunities
for making customer load more flexible,
addressing the duct curve,
increasing customer resiliency and promoting equity.
Given the shifting landscape,
the time is right to update the DER action plan
to ensure we have a cohesive vision
and roadmap for leveraging the DER growth
to achieve our clean energy goals.
I'm excited to announce
that we're updating the DER action plan
and we'll issue a first draft in early June.
We've used stakeholder feedback as a crucial step
in updating the plan,
and we'll solicit a written comments
and hold a public workshop
that's anticipated to be held on July 20th.
And I strongly encourage those interested to attend
and provide comments.
I'm also excited to announce
that the Commission anticipate launching
at least three new rulemakings this year
under the umbrella of the DER Action Plan 2.0.
The first is the OYR on the agenda today,
which focuses on distribution, planning
and grid modernization to accommodate high levels of DER's.
The second OYR will serve as the successor
to the IDER are proceeding
and will focus on updating avoided cost calculator,
improving overall DER program coordination.
And we anticipate launching that later this summer.
The third OIR will focus on strategies
to make customer demands more flexible.
A need underscored by the rolling blackouts last August
and the energy division hosted
an excellent workshop last month,
and we expect to issue a staff proposal later this summer,
and hopefully a rulemaking in the fall.
Before I provide more detail about the OIR
on today's agenda.
I want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work
that our outstanding internal team has done
on the DER action plan update.
Most notably Kesha Austin, Gabe Catlin, Joy Morganstin,
Paul Phillips, Flores Kaiser, Aloke Gupta,
Josh Honeycutt, Simon Baker.
And I wanna particularly thank my advisor MC Brown,
who has worked diligently
and has just been extremely active and amazing on this OIR.
So now I wanna introduce the OIR on today's agenda.
The purpose of this proceeding will,
which we're calling the high DER rulemaking
is to consider revisions to distribution, planning,
and operations, to accommodate a high number of DER's,
especially electric vehicles
and to address outstanding issues
from the DRP and IDER proceedings.
The proposed scope of the OIR is organized
into three tracks.
The first track is a blue sky consultant supported exercise
to study alternative distribution system operator
or DSL models.
The second track focuses on reforming distribution planning
to accommodate electrification of the transportation
and building sectors,
as well as facilitating local community input
into distribution planning.
The third track centers on leveraging
the advanced functionality of smart inverters
and updating the grid modernization framework
adopted in the DRP proceeding.
Where the prior DRP and IDR proceedings focused on
the distribution deferral value of DER,
this proceeding is intended to explore
more wide ranging questions
related to distribution planning.
This naturally leads to a bit of an unwieldy scope,
and we are there for we'll be relying heavily
on parties over the next couple of months
to help us identify a set of clearly defined scoping issues
and a realistic procedural path
to achieving them within this scoping memo.
Written comments on the OIR are due in 45 days
and Energy Division will host a half day scoping workshop
in September to hear directly from stakeholders
on scope and schedule.
To help us achieve the ambitious goals of this proceeding,
the Commission is seeking
to leverage two external resources.
First we plan to bring on a consultant
to provide technical support on the proceeding.
We've posted a request for proposals to the CAL E procure
with responses due on July 30th.
And additionally,
we will be working closely with our sister agency,
the California Energy Commission
to leverage their analytical work on the value
and scope of grid services
that DER's can provide to address reliability
and Senate bill 100 goals.
I'd like to conclude my remarks
by thanking the large dedicated CPUC team
that has made this OIR possible.
Rob Peterson, Gabe Petlin, Josh Honeycutt
Ed Pike, Simon Baker, Molly Sterkel,
Forest Kaser, Nusim Golstani,
Keisha Austin, Ed Randolph,
ALJs Judge Mason and Judge Himes.
And again, I want to
particularly thank my advisor MC Brown
for all of her work on this important OIR.
The amount of research and visionary thinking
that went into this document is truly impressive.
I look forward to following the advances
this proceeding will make to integrate high levels of DER
into our distribution system planning and operations
over the next few years.
I hope you will join me in supporting the adoption
of this course important to OIR today.
Thank you and that concludes my remarks.
-: Thank you very much Commissioner Houck.
Are there any questions or thoughts or comments?
Yes, Commissioner Guzman Acevez.
-: Thank you President Batjer
and thank you Commissioner Houck.
I know the scope is so wide as you said,
and one just constant opportunity
that I think is this out there with DER
is that we really haven't quite captured is
what their value is in the local reliability space.
And that know that we have traditionally seen that
as something that is focused on reducing load
and reducing need.
So I think there's an opportunity now
to kind of evolve to a place
where these local clean resources
can really play to the supply side,
and recognizing that
as we just discussed in the IRP decision
that there's a large number of megawatts
that are used locally for reliability needs.
And these DERS could a provide a real opportunity
if we really take the challenge
in these geographic locations
that are difficult to build in.
But that really underscores the importance
of having community involvement
and local government involvement
to figure out how these difficult geographic areas
like the LA basin to really be a focus for growth for DER.
And so I'm hoping that this is something
that could be really taken on in this proceeding
to find those optimizations in the distribution plans
to take into account the opportunity
to really fill that local reliability supply side resource.
I'm also very thankful to see
the OIR acknowledges the environmental
and social justice action plan goals.
And again, reiterating the importance
to work with local government and tribal governments
and communities to figure out
how best to build these resources in communities
to get out that localized benefits
and to finally really be the driver
to the displacement of fossil.
So thank you for taking this on,
and I'm very excited for the prospects
and you narrow the scope.
Good luck, thank you.
-: Yeah, I liked that last phrase.
Good luck.
And thank you.
Yes, Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Thank you.
I just wanna say that the electric grid is evolving
as more distributed energy resources are anticipated.
The electric grid is a very precious resource,
I mentioned that in previous comment.
And this OIR will really look to protect it, amplify it,
modernize it with innovation and new ideas
and all towards becoming an even greater resource
that it is now and really prepare us for
that new future for the 2030 future, for 2045 future
of a zero greenhouse gas footprint.
Thank you, look forward to the effort.
-: Thank you, any other comments?
Okay, seeing none we'll...
Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Houck.
-: I apologize.
I just would be remissed
without recognizing President Batjer
that you are my BK partner
on this very important proceeding.
And you started and did the majority of the work
getting up to where we are in February.
So I just want to recognize the work that Nora
and your office has done in assisting us.
And I'm looking forward to working with you on-
-: I would certainly pat Nora on the back
and I think that some of the folks in the Energy Division,
such as my former advisor, Josh Huneycutt
would probably say, no, she didn't do anything on that.
Are you kidding me?
She was waiting for you to come.
(laughs)
So anyway, I'm excited that you're excited
about this proceeding
'cause it needs that kind of wonderful stewardship.
So thank you.
Okay, seeing no other comments,
will the agenda clerk please call the roll?
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Acevez?
-: Aye.
Clerk: President Batjer?
-: Aye.
Thank you.
The item number 28 passes unanimously.
Now moving on
to item number 30,
this is an order extending statutory deadline
that I will present.
It is for the wildfire mitigation plan proceeding,
an extension of the statutory deadline from June 30th, 2021
to December 31st, 2021.
Will support a smooth transition
of the Commission's wildfire safety division
to the department of natural resources,
or excuse me,
the natural resources agency.
As we will discuss later in this meeting,
the new office of energy infrastructure
will commence oversight
of the utilities wildfire mitigation activities on July one.
Keeping this proceeding open to the end of the year
will enable a smooth transition of this important work
and support the collaboration between our two agencies.
That will continue even after the proceeding closes.
So with that, I request your support.
Any questions or thoughts?
Okay, seeing none,
will the agenda clerk, please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma.
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Acevez?
-: Aye.
Clerk: President Batjer?
-: Aye, thank you all.
The item Number 30 passes unanimously,
I'm moving to item 31.
This is related to item 23 on the regular agenda,
and it will be withdrawn
as item 23 was voted unanimously a few minutes ago.
then moving on to item 32 and it will be withdrawn
because it is related to item 16, which was voted on,
on the Consent Agenda earlier this morning.
So now moving on to item 33,
that is to be presented by Commissioner Houck.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
This is an order extending the statutory deadline
of rule making R14-08-013,
the distribution resource plans rule making
and related utility applications.
The extension is for four months to November 8th, 2021.
As I announced earlier today,
the Commission is in the process
of closing these proceedings
and voted open as successor proceeding
just a few moments ago.
So a short extension here is needed
in order to provide adequate time for the Commission
to issue and consider a decision closing
these older proceedings out.
And with that,
I ask for your support on the extension
for the statutory deadline in this proceeding.
-: Okay, thank you.
Are there any questions or comments?
Okay, seeing none,
will the agenda clerk please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Aceves?
-: Aye.
Clerk: President Batjer?
-: Aye.
Item number 33 passes unanimously, thank you all.
Now moving on to item 34,
which will be presented by Commissioner Guzman Acevez.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
This item is extending the deadline
for the managing meter proceedings 2.0 and not 3.0
as referred to it and that's rule making 14-07-02.
And this will give us some time to consider
depending proposed decision
regarding the solar consumer assistance fund
until October of this year.
And really we're just waiting to see the outcome
of this year's budget to see if this PD still necessary.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Any questions
on Commissioner Guzman Acevez?
Seeing none, will the agenda clerk please call the roll
on item 34.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
-: Aye.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Yes.
[Clerk] Commissioner Guzman Aceves?
-: Aye.
Clerk: And President Batjer?
Aye.
Item 34 passes unanimously.
Thank you all very much.
That finalizes the regular agenda items.
Given the hour,
we are going to take a shorter break than normally.
We're gonna take a 30 minute break.
So let's be back at 2:20.
Okay, thank you all very much.
Short break.
Shiroma is on the telephone.
Are you all hooked up?
Genevieve?
Shiroma: Yes, thank you President Batjer.
-: Okay, great.
-: Operator?
Are you ready to go?
Operator: Yes ma'am.
We're live.
-: So I can tell by your voice you're not Holly.
Operator: No, ma'am, my name's Calvin.
-: Okay.
All right, well, the Commissioners are already,
so I think we can begin....
Hang on a second.
You said we are already live, so we're good to go?
Operator: Yes, ma'am we are already live.
-: Okay, thank you.
So I will ask the agenda clerk to please call the roll
as we reconvene the Commission meeting today
and commence with our agenda items.
Would you please call the roll.
Clerk: Commissioner Houck?
-: Here.
Clerk: Commissioner Shiroma?
Commissioner Shiroma?
-: I will send her a note.
Okay, let's go ahead and continue the role
because we can establish a quorum.
I just sent her a note, but let's go ahead.
Clerk: Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
-: Present.
Clerk: Commissioner Guzman Acevez?
-: Here.
Clerk: President Batjer?
-: Here.
So we have established a quorum
with Commissioner Rechtschaffen and Commissioner Houck,
Commissioner Guzman Acevez and myself.
Commissioner Shiroma is on the phone.
and she may be having some difficulties.
We will now turn to the next item on our agenda
and that's management reports.
There is no report for item 37
manager afforded discussion
on recent consumer protection and safety activities.
Moving now to item 38, management report and discussion
on administrative activities.
We do have a report
on the Wildfire Safety Division transition to the office
of Energy Infrastructure Safety
at the California Resource Agency.
I will now turn
to Executive Director Rachel Peterson
to introduce Director Caroline Thomas Jacobs.
Rachel are you on?
Shiroma: President Batjer sorry to interrupt.
This is Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma,
I'm back online, thank you.
-: Okay. -: Thank you.
-: All right, very well, so noted.
Okay, thank you.
Now over to Rachel Peterson.
Rachel: Good afternoon.
Thank you President Batjer and Commissioners.
I'm actually gonna give a short slide first.
If you could go to the next slide, please Robert.
And actually this following.
Yes, thank you.
We are one week away from a very important transition.
As you noted, the Wildfire Safety Division
will be come a new state agency on July 1st.
Those Wildfire Safety Advisory board
will also transition to the new agency.
I'm going to give a few remarks about the CPUC's role
leading up to this transition
and then Director Caroline Thomas Jacobs
will present about the office
of Energy, Infrastructure Safety,
which will stand up on July 1st, one week from today.
We are working collectively under the mandate of AB 1054
and AB 111, which set the scope of responsibility
for the wildfire safety decision,
and also ordered this transition to take place.
I am hearing a little bit of feedback
or is it just me?
Batjer: No, I am too.
I'm hearing.
I don't know if everyone's muted, perhaps not.
Let's try that first.
Please mute your phones if you're not speaking,
and Rachel is the only one currently that's speaking.
So everybody else please mute your phones.
Rachel: Right, thank you.
So on this slide, I wanted to show the activities
that we have done at the CPUC from 2019,
up until this point of transition
and then touch on a little bit of what my expectations
and hopes are for after the transition.
So from 2019, until today,
the CPUC started up the welfare safety division
with its focus on one of our top safety priorities,
which is to reduce the risk of wildfires ignited
by electric utility equipment.
From across the Commission
this was really a collective effort.
Teams of employees worked to set up the first tools
and processes to meet the mandates of AB 1054.
Just a few examples are the six revolutions each year,
evaluating each electric utilities
wildfire mitigation plans,
the framework for the safety culture assessment process
that will address wildfire
and a push to improve the utilities execution
of public safety power shut off.
The CPUC also supported the standup
of the wildfire safety advisory board,
including legal process and analytical support
to ensure that the board members
can meet their own responsibilities and mandate.
Importantly, we helped the board pivot
to virtual meetings in March, 2020
when the emergency stay at home orders went into effect
because of COVID-19.
Now shifting to the much more recent past
in these last few months and weeks and days,
the CPUC's internal operations teams
have played a large role in setting the stage
for the transition.
Our IT, human resources, fiscal facilities,
and other core teams have been preparing all of the myriad
and complicated items and protocols
that will happen on July 1st to transition the division.
And now just to touch on
a little bit of after July one,
Director Thomas Jacobs and I, along with many other people
have also been working on a memorandum of understanding
for our continued collaboration.
The reality is that the CPUC
and the office of Energy Infrastructure Safety
have very closely aligned missions.
And so we all understand the need
to continue that collaboration.
From my perspective, it's particularly important
in two areas.
First understanding the cost of wildfire mitigation plans
and the impact of those costs on customer rates.
Second collaborating closely on matters of enforcement.
Those go to the heart of the CPUCs
and the new OEIS shared mission
of reducing utility ignited wildfire risk in California.
I just wanna add a personal and professional note
about Director Thomas Jacobs.
I have worked closely with her in the past two years,
and I can attest directly to her drive
toward a safer California.
She sets very high expectations for herself,
and she sets the same high expectations
for utilities as well.
I worked closely with her to oversee PG&E's progress
towards improvements
in how they execute public safety power shut off.
And quite honestly I learned a lot
from her emergency response expertise
that she brought to the table,
but also saw how she directly engaged
and pressed PG&E into improving their execution.
And it's that kind of impact that I fully know
that Director Thomas Jacobs will continue to have
at the new office of Energy Infrastructure Safety.
I feel lucky, honestly, as a Californian
to have her as a leader in our states.
And as pass the mic to her,
I am proud of the CPUCs contribution in the last two years
to the standup of a successful new division.
I am sad to see the division depart,
but I'm also proud
of what I know will be a highly successful new agency
under Director Thomas Jacobs' leadership.
Caroline, over to you.
Caroline: Thank you, Executive Director Peterson.
I really appreciate those kind words.
So thank you.
Good afternoon President Batjer and Commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today
on the transition of the Wildfire Safety Division.
I'll provide a high-level update
on the status of our transition,
our plan for the ongoing coordination with the Commission
and of course to answer any questions you may have.
As we are all quite aware at this point,
next Thursday, July one,
the division is set to transfer
over to the Natural Resources Agency
and become a new department called
the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety,
what we have begun to refer to as OEIS,
or Energy Safety for short.
For the sake of brevity during my remarks today,
I'll refer to it as Energy Safety.
I'm not gonna go into all the details
of what it took to get to a us to this point,
suffice it to say it took a small village to get us here.
Since the establishment of the division
back in January, 2020,
we've been thinking about and planning for this transition.
At the time I focused our efforts on building our team,
establishing our procedures and procuring all the tools,
equipment, and systems we needed to do our job.
Within each of these areas, people, procedures, systems,
we prioritized building the division
with ideally the ability to take it with us.
Second,
the ability to transfer into an other existing process
over at natural resources
or lastly with the knowledge
that we might need to redo or rebuild some capabilities
over at resources.
This approach has meant that we have been planning for
and executing our transition right from the start
to ensure that we have a smooth and successful transition.
At this point, we are in the very final stages
of executing our transition plan.
The transfer of our people, specifically our positions
and our budget is on track to transfer effective July, one
with the new fiscal year.
We've prepared agreements as a Director Peterson mentioned
to facilitate our transfer and maintain active coordination
in collaboration with both the Commission and CAL Fire.
Specifically, we have a memorandum of understanding
or an MOU
that we're gonna have with both departments
and are executing inter-agency agreements
for HR services and remaining transition items
between the Commission and energy safety.
We have also had ongoing communication since March
directly with our state partners,
the utilities and public stakeholders about the transition,
including hosting a public meeting last week
to answer any remaining questions.
Next slide, please.
A few comments about the structure of Energy Safety,
We will be headquartered
in the new natural resources building
at 715 P street in Sacramento.
Sacramento based staff will move into the new building
at the end of July.
We will also have two regional offices, one in the Bay Area,
and one down in Los Angeles later this year.
Specific regional locations
will be determined after the transition,
since we're currently operating in a remote environment.
Staff email addresses will change on July one.
So if folks email our old addresses,
you'll receive a bounce back to our old addresses,
but it will provide you our new email address.
And our new email addresses for all staff
will use the standard domain state format
of first name.last name at our new domain,
which is energysafety.ca.gov.
This will also be our new website address
energysafety.ca.gov.
All of this information is currently
on our current wildfire safety division webpage,
and we'll stay up there for a period of time
to ensure that all stakeholders can find us
and our relevant documents
like the wildfire mitigation plans.
Next slide please.
From day one we've had three key priorities
in our transition.
First and foremost,
we wanted to successfully transition all of our people,
procedures and systems
while maintaining continuity of operations.
We are actively in the middle
of several important work streams
per our statutory responsibilities.
Specifically, we will not skip a beat in our evaluation
of the 2021 wildfire mitigation plans,
nor will we delay or interrupt
our executive compensation structure reviews,
independent evaluator report submissions,
or finalizing the 2021 safety certification guidance.
Lastly, we understand and value the relationships
we have built within the Commission
on the various subject areas,
in which we have a shared mission
to drive oversight and safety.
Through the formal agreements
and our established working relationships,
we look forward to continuing
to strengthen our coordination
and collaboration with the Commission
by maintaining regular and ongoing communication
on a number of items.
On behalf of the Wildfire Safety Division staff and myself,
I would like to close with a heartfelt thank you.
It has been truly an honor and pleasure
to work with the Commission, staff and leadership
over the past 18 months.
We deeply value and appreciate the engagement
and support from across the Commission.
There are too many people to call out specific names,
but that support came from across all divisions
within the Commission.
From my team who supported us from day one
to get up and running as a division,
and then played a huge role in helping us transfer
over to resources,
to HR, helping us hire our division staff
all within the last year under COVID conditions
and is continuing to play an important role
in helping energy safety get up and running,
and legal who has helped us
through all of the complex legal questions
and analysis in this new regulatory space.
And that's not even to mention all the support
and collaboration we've had with safety policy,
safety enforcement, energy division,
communications, finance, admin,
and the Executive Director's Office as well.
And of course, all of you Commissioners
and President Batjer.
Truly, truly appreciate the time we've had here.
We're looking forward to re-engaging in our new roles,
but it has been a true pleasure to work with all of you
under the division and within the Commission.
Thank you for your support and I truly look forward
to continuing our close relationship going forward.
With that, I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
-: Before we get to questions.
If I may just jump in and say,
Caroline, I'm almost tearful right now.
But as you know, for the last year,
you and I have frequently talked about this
and you've planned so beautifully as has your team.
There's been, I mean, having reorganized the departments
and stood departments up,
I know what a Herculean effort it takes to do it well,
and you have done it well, very well
under some really difficult circumstances.
And I just wanna make sure
that the team knows you and I plan,
we've agreed we will continue having our check-ins
because there will be so many things
that we have to continue to collaborate on.
Caroline knows that I'm concerned
that there's some built-in tension in the bill,
how the bill was written and unintended I'm sure.
But still we're gonna do our mighty best
to make sure that none of that comes to fruition,
that we have a smooth sailing
for both the CPUC and the OEIS.
So thank you so much, Caroline.
And we're not saying goodbye.
I'll just gonna say that.
So now I'm gonna turn to the Commissioners
and see if there are any questions for you.
Commissioner Houck.
-: I just wanna echo President Batjer's comments
and just have been very impressed with
how everybody has come together
in the work you've been doing on the transition
and feel that we've been very lucky to have you
as part of the CPUC.
And I look forward to continuing to work with you
in your new role.
So thank you for this presentation and all of your work.
-: Well, you may not know this Caroline,
but I was in court earlier this morning,
filing an injunction to keep you from moving
the resources later.
We'll know the outcome of that litigation this afternoon.
You don't mind, do you?
-: No, sir.
-: Well, that just shows you how much we're gonna miss you
and how valuable you've been.
I think you came to the Commission at a critical time
when the risks of wildfire,
utility costs wildfires were at perhaps their height,
confidence in the utility's ability to deal with them
at a low point.
And we were really challenged as the PUC to step up our game
and to address the challenges that we needed to,
to really take wildfire safety and wildfire risk management
to a much higher, more professional, more systematic level.
It came upon us in a rush the past few years
because of the intensity of the wildfires,
the frequency with which they were happening,
the scale on the devastation.
And we're doing more than any utility Commission
in the country on this
but still it was novel for us.
So your professionalism,
your incredible organization, your calmness, your diligence,
your collaboration,
just your uber competence was exactly what we needed
to get our stuff together
and to push the utilities to keep doing more,
to adopt very sophisticated,
much more sophisticated approaches to wildfire safety,
including maturity matrix model,
and a whole host of other efforts
that really are not in day from where they were
two or three or four years ago.
So we're very, very grateful to you
and look forward to continuing to collaborate
with you going forward.
-: And I think I see Martha.
Commissioner Guzman Acevez, yes please.
-: Well Commissioner Rechtschaffen said it so well too,
but just the organizational management
that you brought to this issue
and really you're not only helping us
in our accountability metrics,
but you're showing the utilities how to organize
and prioritize to be a risk-based organization.
And you have made us all safer.
Calling out just the level of detail all the way up
to kind of a systems approach
and looking at investments in a more holistic way,
It's not anything we're gonna lose as Marybel said,
we're gonna have it, it's going to continue.
But personally it will be sad to miss,
to finally we're gonna finally get to see each other
in the office each day.
I just so appreciate who you are and what you bring
and the perspective that you've brought to all of this.
And amidst all the covered conductors
you bought so much humanity to it,
and always just so centered in your work.
So thank you for doing this,
as President Batjer says for all California.
I hope Wayne gives you a good window
'cause I don't think you're getting off soon.
(laughing)
Shiroma: President Batjer?
-: Yes, yes.
And I think Commissioner Shiroma
would like to say something.
Shiroma: Yes, thank you.
I'm not sure how many folks are aware of the values.
It's on our website at the CPUC,
but essentially what we work to accomplish
is of course, accountability, excellence, integrity,
very good communications, stewardship,
and Caroline, you and your team
have exemplified these core values
and to the viewing audience,
the sophistication, the kinds of tools,
the best state of the art types of efforts
that involve people, power, software tools,
hardware, knowledge.
I mean, all of these things that go into the safety
of our infrastructure and the safety system,
these are all things that Caroline
and her team have embraced and are experts on.
So I know that we are in good hands, Caroline,
with you going over to the resources agency,
and I'm very appreciative that the good communication
will continue not only with the CPUC, but with the public.
Thank you and back you President Batjer.
-: Okay, great, thank you.
Caroline, I think you had something else you wanted to say.
-: Yeah, I just wanted to respond.
One, just want to really appreciate the kind words.
I will be sure to pass it onto the full team
'cause I wanted to say I have a great, amazing team with me
that's doing the work.
Actually, many of them today
are probably not even able to watch this
'cause they're literally handing in their computers
to get them re-imaging over the weekend to become OEIS,
so they can't even see this right now.
but I do wanna say it's been an amazing team.
The folks that they there's a level of passion
and focus on safety
and truly driving it with all the mechanisms that we have.
And I've been extremely impressed with the sheer quantity,
but more importantly the quality of the work
that they've been able to produce
over the course of the last year.
While most of them,
literally, I think six seventh of the team
were hired remotely all under COVID conditions.
We shipped them a computer and a phone
and said welcome to the team.
And yet they were able to produce and collaborate
and coordinate and really do some deep thinking
on these issues.
So just wanna acknowledge all the work that they've done.
It's been a true honor to get to work with them
and definitely looking forward to continuing
to work with all of you on a regular basis
in this shared mission to drive a reduction
in the risk of catastrophic utility related wildfire.
So really appreciate the collaboration and support.
Thank you.
-: Thanks again, Caroline.
Rachel I think you're still on.
Did you have some something else you wanted to say?
Rachel: No, that was terrific.
Thank you all for your comments.
And I share all the sentiments about Caroline
and the division.
Thank you, President Batjer.
-: Yes, thank you.
And do Caroline, please pass along
all of our heartfelt appreciation and respect to your team.
Incredible.
I mean, just one,
P&GE's two volumes of wildfire mitigation
is a ways, 120 pounds.
It's unbelievable.
I said to Caroline, did you read all this?
(laughs)
It's overwhelming to me.
And not only did you read it all and analyze it all
and your team did,
but just analyze it to the matrix
and unbelievable, unbelievable amount of work.
And to think that you did this
in such a short amount of time
in terms of establishing the office
and assuring us of such important safety.
So with that, my dear friend,
we'll be together tomorrow morning actually.
-: We will.
Thank you for a great presentation.
Thank you, Rachel.
So with that,
we will be moving on in the agenda to Commissioner reports.
So who would like to go first today?
Shiroma: President Batjer?
-: Yes, of course.
Shiroma: Yes, do you mind if I go first?
-: No, please do.
I know you have a time situation.
Shiroma: Thank you, thank you.
So for my report today,
I would like to introduce our summer intern
to team Shiroma.
His name is Carlos Siezar Real.
Carlos comes to the CPUC this summer
from the Schultz Energy Fellowship Program at Stanford.
Carlos is a recent Master's graduate student
from the Atmosphere Energy Program
within the Stanford Civil
and Environmental Engineering Department.
He also graduated in 2020 from Stanford
with a bachelor of science
in environmental assistance engineering.
His an undergraduate honors thesis
focused on statistical simulations
of the revenue potential for tidal and wave energy projects
in California's wholesale market.
Carlos has also assisted in research
with the Stanford Graduate School of Business
in 2019 to 2021.
The research project model
is the life cycle costs of clean energy vehicles
like battery, electric transit buses.
And during the summer of 2018,
Carlos was a Schultz Energy Fellow at the California ISO,
where he studied the efficiency
of the ancillary services market.
So Carlos will will be working with us on energy issues,
including the customer financing
and micro goods proceedings.
Welcome Carlos.
Back to you President Batjer, thank you.
-: Thank you so much and welcome, Carlos.
I've made a mistake.
I skipped over an agenda item.
So can we hold for the rest of the Commissioner reports?
I'm so sorry.
We need to go back to item 39,
and that would be the update
on the Western clean energy situation at the CCA
that is currently filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
So we have deputy Executive Director Ed Randolph,
I believe is on the line and Dina Mackin as well.
Ed may have had to step out to a FERC meeting.
Ed are you on or is Dina on?
Is Dina on?
Dina: I'm on, President Batjer.
Batjer: Okay, great.
It would be terrific if you could go ahead please
with that update.
Dina: Sure, thank you.
And good afternoon Commissioners.
I'm here to present on Western Community Energy,
which is a community choice aggregation entity
in Southern California.
As a way of background about...
Next slide, please.
As a way of background, Western Community Energy, WCE
that launched in April of 2020
and served customers in six Western Riverside county cities,
Eastvale, Hemet, Jurupa Valley,
Norco, Perris, and Wildomar.
WCE served roughly 113,000 customers
and around 40% of those customers are on CARE rates.
WCE load peaked last year at 485 megawatts,
which is roughly 2% of STEs load.
So to give you a timeline of the key events.
Next slide.
To give you a timeline of the key events,
WCE filed for Chapter nine bankruptcy protection
on May 24th, 2021
with the intent to restructure and to continue service.
In the meantime, in the subsequent week,
the procurement contracts that WCE had entered into
were terminated by the other parties.
And as a result,
WCE found themselves in a position with cashflow issues
and inability to meet their load through the end of June.
And so on June 9th, 2021,
WCE's board voted to do register as a CCA.
WCE notified CPUC of its decision to deregister on June 10th
and served it's notice on multiple service lists.
On June 11 SCE began to transfer the customer back
into bundled service in batches.
On June 15th, SCE took over this role
of scheduling coordinator
for all of WCEs customers in the CAISO markets.
And by June 25th, which is tomorrow
expects to complete the transfer, of WCE customers
back into their system.
At that time as SCE plans to file its proposed reentry fees
for WCE to the Commission,
which will be due by July 12th, 2021.
So to give you context,
there were several causes to WCE's financial crisis,
and it became a series of cascading financial problems.
To begin with, COVID-19 stay at home orders
caused residential energy use to spike,
and the pandemic led to $6 million in unpaid bills,
which the COVID relief program
under which the CCAs were not disconnecting customers.
Meanwhile, instability in the power market last summer
created significant cost increases.
The power supply was constrained,
which meant that WCE could not always buy power
when it was needed.
It was also determined that WCE was insufficiently hedged
to meet it's 2021 needs.
So the high spot market in the heat wave
resulted in an additional $12 million in costs
that WCE was not anticipating.
At this time, WCE made the intent of raising their rates
in order to recover the revenue that had been lost.
And while they increased the rate multiple times over 2021,
they were still had unpaid liabilities
and they were seeking bridge loans and federal funds
in order to cover these liabilities,
but these loans did not come through.
And so at the point that they filed bankruptcy
at that point most of the WCE's contracts
had been counseled for nonpayment.
This accelerated its failure.
WCE relied on increasingly on the stock market
and was only able to pay certain creditors
as a result of the bankruptcy court orders.
And at that point their cashflow became such
that they were not gonna be able
to cover their costs through the month of June.
I will also note that WCE had originally pegged their rates
at 2% below SCE.
And these were found not to cover their costs,
partly because of the fact of COVID-19.
And so while they changed their rates in 2021,
these were not enough to prevent insolvencies through June.
When it was determined
that they would need to return customers of energy division,
Edison and WCE and CAISO met over throughout May and June
to ensure a coordinated response.
Minimizing customer impact was our primary goal.
WCE initiated their deregistration on June 10th,
which triggered the involuntary return of customers
to bundled SCE service.
SCE is treating the customer returns after May 24th,
all as involuntary.
Even if the customers requested a return to Edison.
This will provide these customers with protection
because voluntary return to Edison service
places them on the transitional bundled rate,
which passes through real time CAISO prices.
SCE will be filing the advice letter
for the proposed reentry fees
within 30 days of deregistration,
and this will cover the administrative and procurement costs
that are necessary to serve returning WCE customers.
And this also avoids cost shifting
to bundle customers.
WCE will be contributing to these fees
through its financial security requirements
that are paid upfront
and is seeking other funding sources.
Any remaining costs will be backstopped
by returning WCE customers.
I'm sorry, I did not request moving forward of the slides.
There we go, causes of the financial crisis.
Okay, next slide is coordinated response.
And now the final slide is,
impacts on WCE customers.
SCE has taken over scheduling energy for WCE customers
in the CAISO market and there will be no service impacts.
WCE should continue to receive their bills as normal.
Since the transfer may occur
in the middle of the bill cycle,
the first bill after the transfer, maybe smaller,
larger or smaller than usual.
SCEs costs to handle returning WCE customers
are still being calculated
and are expected to be filed by July 12th.
And so we're not counting any of the potential reentry fees
since they are not known at this time.
Returning customers should see decreases in their rates
since WCE has implemented significant rate increases
since 2021 to cover their under collections.
So as we see WCE's rates have increased
to about 12 cents per kilowatt hour,
while SCEs residential rate is 9 cents per kilowatt hour,
and residential care rate is 6.80 cents per kilowatt hour.
So the customer impact is going to be
a significant reduction in their rates
from what it would be
if they were to be remaining on WCE service.
-: Just a question on that point.
That's without counting the reentry fees?
-: That is without counting the reentry fee?
Well, the reentry fees,
we don't have an actual number at this time.
We know that in terms of its scale
it's significantly smaller than this rate decrease.
So in total the customer impact
will be that they will actually see a decrease
in their bills relative to what if they had stayed on WCE.
In addition, WCE is making all efforts
to find the funds available
to cover the reentry fees on their own
so that they are not actually impacting WCE customers.
Next slide, please.
We have found several different implications for the market.
At this time, energy division is not aware
of any other CCAs who are in
or near a situation like WCE
but we'll be continuing to monitor development.
COVID effected all load serving entities
and was not predictable.
And meanwhile, the extreme heat event are hard to predict,
but are increasingly expected.
This situation underscores the importance
of forward procurement hedging, realistic rate development,
and advanced notice of problems.
Outside of energy compliance programs,
such as resource adequacy
and or renewables portfolio standard,
the Commission has limited jurisdiction over CCA activities
and no authority to review feasibility plans and finance.
However these will all be issues that we will be considering
in the provider of last resort proceeding polar
pursuant to SB 56520.
-: Were you done Dina?
I was gonna ask another question.
Okay, thank you. -: Yeah, I'm done, thank.
-: Okay, thank you.
Do you have a,
I know you're talking about the impacted customers here
and their bill impacts,
is there any impact to the existing bundled customers?
-: No.
That is the purpose.
Well, let me just clarify.
That is the purpose of the reentry fees
as any incremental procurement costs
that are necessary to cover the cost
of those returning customers are captured
by the reentry fees.
The one caveat I would say
is that those are forward estimated procurement costs
and not the actual real time CAISO market costs
that will occur at the time that Edison needs
to do the procurement.
So there is a possibility
that there could be some difference
between those two type of cost.
-: And this is still what you're saying,
is still within the margin of a net decrease?
-: So there's a net decrease to the WCE customers
because WCE had to increase its rates so significantly
in order to recover its liabilities and unmet cost.
-: Okay, so I think I must have been...
I don't know why I was thinking
there was gonna be an impact of bundled customers,
but I'm glad to hear that there's not.
-: Dina, would they hypothetically been able
to weather these impacts
if they'd gotten relief from COVID underpayment sooner?
You said it was $6 million impact.
-: Their unpaid liabilities were around $40 million.
So $6 million would not have met their liabilities.
-: Got it.
-: Are there any other questions of Dina?
Okay, Dina that was a superb presentation.
You answered a lot of my questions, thank you.
I mean, before I even had to ask them, obviously.
So well done, I appreciate it.
And I don't think Commissioner Shiroma is still on.
Okay, well, thank you very much, very much appreciated
and we will keep in touch on this.
And I misspoke when I said they filed Chapter 11.
Thank you for pointing out.
They actually had filed Chapter nine, so thank you.
-: Great, thanks.
-: Bye bye.
Okay, now Commissioners,
we will get back to the next item on the agenda,
which is Commissioning report
and Commissioner Shiroma gave her report.
Does anybody else have a report they would like to give?
-: Yes, Commissioner Guzman Acevez.
-: Thank you, President Batjer,
I too would like to welcome a new intern
to our office, Madalsa Singh.
Madalsa is a PhD student in energy resources engineering
at Stanford university.
Her main research focus is on equitable energy transmission
in transportation and electricity sectors.
She uses engineering as statistical techniques
to evaluate impacts on air quality,
climate change and environmental justice
from carbon constraints, transport and electricity systems.
She holds a Master's in energy science
and mechanical engineering from Carnegie Mellon
and a degree in material science from IIT Bombay in India.
She will be doing focus projects this summer
to help us with a net energy metering successor proceeding.
Please help me welcome Madalsa.
-: That is marvelous.
What an incredible academic background.
-: Yeah. -: Huge.
We're so fortunate to have her as an intern.
Let's just pave the way they have her as a new employee.
-: That's always the plan.
-: You've got to give them the public.
We got to give them the public service bug, Martha.
-: Yeah, we're batting 50 50 right now with our interns.
Half of them are staying.
I have two other short announcements.
One is I would like to invite you to a broadband joint
utility pilot proposals workshop,
which is at the end of the month on June 30th
from 9:30 to 11:30.
Where the electric IOUs will be presenting
on their pilot proposals
for how to leverage their infrastructure
for deployment of broadband in unserved areas.
And you can find all the details on the Daily Calendar.
And finally, on July 23rd,
I also like to invite you all
to the Interagency Solar Task Force meeting.
We divided it into two sessions.
The morning session will be a confidential session
amongst the agencies and the afternoon one will be public,
which is what we've done
with most of these quarterly check-ins.
And really it's an opportunity to update everyone.
All agencies update each other
on what we've been working on.
And we talk about next steps
as we continue to work together to eliminate fraud
in the residential net energy metering space.
And as you all know,
the joint task force is made up of us,
contractors state licensing board,
and the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation.
It will be a virtual meeting,
so it will be easy to participate in.
Thank you.
-: Okay, any other reports?
Yes, Commissioner Houck.
-: Thank you, President Batjer.
I have recently got my staff in place
and I just wanted to make an announcement
and I wanted to thank my interim Chief of Staff,
Christine Powell, for all of her work
and my former in term legal advisor, Sarah Thomas,
for all of her work.
She has gone back to legal division
to work on wildfire safety issues among other matters.
I appreciate both Sarah and Christine's willingness
to take the time to help me get my office up and running.
They both contributed so much to the team
and I'm very grateful for all of the work that they've done.
I also want to welcome my Chief of Staff
and Legal Advisor, Pouneh Ghaffarian.
She most formerly served in the legal office.
She joined the Commission in 2007
and was working in the federal section
of the PUC's legal division,
where she represented the PUC
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
As a staff counsel, she's advised on energy, privacy,
governance, contracts, and employment matters.
Pouneh previously served as an interim legal advisor
to Commissioner Cliff Rechtschaffen.
She holds a BA in literature
from the University of California at Santa Cruz,
an MS in Administrative Studies from Boston University
and a JD from Golden Gate University School of Law.
And I wanna welcome Pouneh to my staff.
She's only been on for about five days now
and she sort of, it was trial by fire here,
'cause it was right in the middle
of my confirmation hearing.
So I want to just extend a great thanks to her
for just jumping right in.
I want to also announce that my rotational advisors,
I wanna welcome Candace Choe,
who serves as my communications,
water, safety and legal policy advisor.
Candace joined the PUC in 2012
and most recently worked as an attorney
with the Commission's legal division,
representing advocacy divisions and safety communications,
water and energy matters.
Candace also has worked as an analyst at the Commission
within the communications division
and the Public Advocate's Office.
Prior to joining the Commission,
she worked for a nonprofit protecting water resources
and a transportation planner.
Candace holds a BA in Urban Planning
from the University of California, San Diego, and a JV
from the University of California Hastings School of Law.
I also wanna welcome Kathleen Yip,
who will serve as my energy transportation
and tribal policy advisor.
Kathleen joined the PUC in late 2019,
and most recently worked on energy equity issues
in the CPUC energy division.
Before coming to the PUC, she worked at a nonprofit
working to link clean transportation options
with affordable housing.
Other previous work includes zero emission vehicle
and bus planning as a consultant,
implementing clean mobility programs
in low-income communities as a graduate student,
and advancing policies that speed commercialization
of clean vehicles and fuels through grants.
Kathleen has a BA in science and technology studies
and an MS in transportation technology and policy
from the University of California, Davis.
I'm also happy to announce that Mary Claire Brown
and Suzanne Casazza, whose bios I've read previously
are staying on in my office
and Eileen Odell will be staying on also
for a limited amount of time.
And I also wanna welcome Anna-Marie Madrigal
who's joined my office as an AGPA.
Anna-Marie's been with the Commission for 15 years
and has worked for Commissioner Guzman Acevez
and former Commissioner Sandoval
as well as three former Executive Directors.
Most recently, she has been working as a contact tracer
and vaccine coordinator for LA county
and her most recent previous role
was in the consumer affairs branch
where she served three years.
and I am very happy
to have all of these great, wonderful people on my staff.
I am very lucky
and they have all helped me get through the last week
and I could not have done it without them or without grant.
So thank you to everybody.
And please join me in welcoming my new team.
-: Thank you so much, Commissioner Houck.
You have put together a marvelous, impressive team.
And I want to give my thanks to them
and to you for such a marvelous job that you did yesterday
before Senate Rules Committee on your confirmation.
You were voted out unanimously,
and now we wait for the vote on the floor
that which will also be unanimous, I am sure.
So congratulations to you and your team
Really, really well done.
You did us all proud, very proud of you.
So I think Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
did you have anything you wanted to report on?
-: No, I just wanted to congratulate Commissioner Houck,
but you stole my thunder.
(laughs)
-: Well, congratulations from all of us.
Okay, I will only report on one item.
Seeing the clock is ticking and this has been long day
for all of us.
My only item to report
is that I presented before the Assembly Utilities
and Energy Committee last Wednesday
as part of the annual CPUC oversight hearing.
Along with me from the CPUC
were Executive Director Peterson
and Deputy-Executive Director, Ed Randolph
and Director Caroline Thomas Jacobs.
The issues we discussed range broadly.
It was I think an important opportunity
for me to highlight the critical body of work conducted
by my fellow Commissioners
and all of our wonderful staff this last year,
and I was proud to represent you all.
I have already had one followup meeting
with chairman, Holden,
and I plan to meet individually
with a couple of the other members
who had some particular questions
that I want to follow up and answer.
So thank you all very much.
If there are no other comments or questions
on Commissioner reports, and looks like it.
So that finishes out the Commissioner's report
and the public meeting is now adjourned.
Thank you all very much.