The feed for this streaming event brought to you by
AdminMonitor.com
will begin momentarily. Thank you for your patience.
You may begin. Thank you, Good morning everyone. We
need to start by establishing a quorum. Agenda Clerk,
could you please call the roll. Commissioner John Reynolds?
Present. Commissioner Houck? Here. Commissioner Shiroma?
Commissioner Rechtschaffen? Here. President Alice Reynolds?
Here.
We have a quorum. Welcome everyone to the California
Public Utilities Commission. I'm calling this meeting
of November 17, 2022, Public Agenda number 3518, to
order. Today we are meeting virtually. This meeting is
also being live streamed on the CPUC's website. You
can view the meeting at www.adminmonitor.com/
CA/CPUC. Closed captioning is available
in English and Spanish through the webcast. To view
the closed captioning, click on the green button beneath
the webcast video player, and follow the instructions
that appear on screen. Spanish interpretation is also
available during the public comment portion of today's
meeting. For Spanish interpretation, dial 800-857-1917,
passcode 3799627#, and follow the instructions
to be connected to the Spanish line. I ask that my
colleagues and today speakers remain mindful, and speak
clearly and slowly to allow for interpretation. Public
engagement is critical to the CPUC process. And at today's
meeting, the public will have the opportunity to make
public comments by telephone. If you wish to make a
public comment by telephone. Please dial into 800-857-1917,
and enter passcode 9899501# and press * 1. You
will be placed into a queue, and the operator will take
your name and information. You will then be called
upon to speak when we get to the public comment period
in today's agenda. Please note that if there are a
large number of callers, the wait to speak may be long.
If you encounter difficulty calling into the public
telephone line, please email votingmeetinghelp@
cpuc.ca.gov. For those of you who are
not able to provide oral public comments at today's
public voting meeting or otherwise wish to provide
more lengthy comments than allowed at our voting meeting.
I want to remind you of the option to submit written
comments. Written comments can be sent to us in two
ways. One you can submit comments via an online form
found on each proceedings online docket card. Or two
you can send the comment to our Public Advisor's Office
at public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov. More
information can be found on our website or you can
email our Public Advisor's Office at again, the email
is public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov. Or
you may call 1-866-849-8390. We will now turn to public
comment. If you wish to make a public comment by telephone,
and you have already dialed into the public comment
telephone line. Please press *1 and unmute your
phone to enter 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. All speakers will have one
minute to speak. You will hear a bell sound when your
time is up. Please be mindful of other speakers in
the queue and keep to your allotted time. As a reminder,
please speak clearly and slowly to accommodate Spanish
interpreters. With that guidance in mind, I welcome
today's speakers and will ask the operator to open
the public comment telephone line.
Thank you the public comment telephone line is now
open. For those on the phone, if you wish to speak during
the public comment period. Please unmute your phone,
press *1 and clearly record your First and Last
Name when prompted. Our first caller is Dennis Delfar. You
may go ahead. Thank you. Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Dennis Delfas, and I live in Cypress, California,
along with my wife. And we are solar system owners.
I must convey to you that your mindset of still lowering
the solar production credits by 75% for the new NEM
3.0 solar system owners. Is too extreme for
California. By allowing the Utility Companies to lower
to solar credits. It will make new solar systems installed
in California more expensive for everyone, including
low income homeowners. And in doing so will drastically
cut are desperately needed California rooftop solar
industry in half or more. Studies have shown that California
ratepayers can save greater than $120 billion
by 2050, by just maintaining the current solar growth.
So for the good of all Californians, please no lowering
of the solar credits for new solar system owners. Thank
you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is Judith Anderson. You may go ahead.
Um, hi. Uh, there have been thousands of people, as in
the public. Telling you the best course of action on
rooftop solar. And yet you persist in doing the Utility's
bidding. You have the unique, absolutely once
in a lifetime opportunity to change the trajectory
of the climate catastrophe. But it looks like you are
not going to take that opportunity. Just know that
your grandchildren will despise you, for your cowardice
in challenging the Utility's greed.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Patricia Blevins. You may go
ahead. Hello, my name is Patricia Blevins. I live in
San Jose and I'm a retired Nurse Practitioner. I object
to the current CPUC proposal that will reduce by 75%
on average. The credit that new solar users receive
for sharing their extra energy with the grid. This
proposal would put solar out of reach for working and middle
class families. Over 170,000 Californians, have
already submitted public comments to the CPUC, in favor
of making rooftop solar more affordable, not less.
More people have commented on this issue than any other
in CPUC history. The State's Energy Commission reports
that California needs to triple the amount of solar
currently on the grid, in order to meet it's clean energy
goals. And yet here we are, with the proposal from
the CPUC that will destroy any financial incentives
for California residents to install rooftop solar.
I am asking that you vote against this proposal. Thank
you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is Allen Marling. You may go ahead.
I'm a Tri-Valley resident. President and Commissioners,
your solar proposal is a betrayal. It will kill the
rooftop solar industry, mid-climate crisis. And should
you pass it, once people figure out what you've done
we will demand your resignations. Better to resign now
than pass a proposal, that will slow Green Energy when
we need it most. This proposal will set California
on fire with corporate greed. Because it's clear that
you're passing it at request of PG&E. Which is
a criminal company guilty of manslaughter. It would
gladly burn California to the ground for one more great
quarterly earnings. There's one industry that should
go extinct in this climate crisis, it's not rooftop
solar. Its for-profit utility companies. This proposal
is so shameful, Gavin Newsom delayed it until after
the election. The Governor appoints CPUC Commissioners,
and is ultimately responsible for this travesty. He
has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes,
of campaign funds from PG&E. And has helped draft Legislation,
to let them get away with murder.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Tim McKeever from Rockland.
You may go ahead.
Yeah, I'm Tim McKeever. Thank you, Commissioners. I am both
a rooftop solar owner and an employee in the solar
industry. Uh, the newly released net billing plan has
many severe flaws. Number one, it adds so much complexity
to net metering. That homeowners will barely be able
to understand how their systems would reward them.
Uh, number two, it doesn't take into account any of
the demands charged commercial rate plans. So the avoided
cost calculator basically annoy, ignores the whole commercial
market. And it seems crazy to change net metering rules,
when it hasn't even been studied. Uh, excluding market
rate multifamily properties from any opportunity for
virtual net metering, will further alienate non-wealthy
customers. And the same for meter aggregation will
take the opportunity of adding solar to our Central
Valley farmers , who uh, need that help to remain profitable.
Uh, it also doesn't seem to take into account financing
at all. Basically assuming that everybody's paying
cash for these systems. And uh, the return on investment
of nine years is ludicrous. Thank you. Thank you. Operator,
next caller please.
Our next caller is Ravena (inaudible). You may go ahead.
Good morning. Good morning, I live in the foothills
of the San Gabriel Valley, in the City of Sierra Madre.
And in the last month it has rained three times. And
all three times we've lost power for five hours. Uh,
there's 2200 of us that are losing power, due to the
sensors on the utility poles. We have complained and
Southern California Edison crews tell us to complain
to you. Because they're mandated to put the sensors
due to fires. I understand having those for fires,
but every time it rains, we cannot lose power for five
hours, and we can't resort to generators. It's we all
need house generators. There's businesses run out of
our homes. You know, we have tankless water heaters.
And they're quoting us 15 to $20,000 for these whole
house generators. So we are not a third world country.
We should not lose power for five hours, 2200 of us.
Every time we lose, every time it rains. Just a couple
drops of rain and the power goes out. So hopefully,
you guys can find a solution. If you can't recalibrate
the sensors, please have Southern California Edison
expedite. Turn on the power. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is David Reinerson. You may
go ahead. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David Reinerson,
from Huntington Beach. My question to you is this, what
are your objectives in revising the NEM agreement?
Are you trying to reduce greenhouse gases and slow
climate change? Are you trying to make electricity
more affordable and more resilient for all Californians?
Are you trying to reduce catastrophic wildfires sparked
by transmission lines? Are you trying to protect environmentally
sensitive lands and wildlife? If those are your objectives,
then the NEM revisions you propose should support
those objectives. Is that what you're NEM 3
proposal does? Most emphatically, it does not. It makes
solar and storage more expensive, not less. And doubles
the investment payback time. It flies in opposition
to California stated objectives to reduce greenhouse
emissions. It encourages development of solar farms
with attendant damage to the environment. It encourages
more transmission lines because solar farms need connectivity
to consumers. It is too extreme and it is a glide path
into a brick wall. In short, it fails to support any
of the goals of California and its citizens. Go back
to the drawing board and craft a proposal that does.
Thank you. Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And (inaudible), you may go ahead.
Commissioners, once again I find myself chasing windmills.
Today, I will try to persuade you to see the error
of your ways. And stop trying to cut net energy credits
by 75% aka NEM 3. Which supports the greed
of Public Utilities. It was just last Summer that California
was having a record triple digit heat wave. Thanks
to homeowners who risk their own money to invest in
solar and battery storage. The power grid was able
to survive rolling blackouts and keep the power outages
to a minimum. The world has changed since you first
proposed updating NEM guidelines. Russia started a
war with Ukraine. OPEC is cutting oil production.
A worldwide pandemic has created massive shortages
of many commodities. And inflation is now so bad it
could have determined the outcome of the past election.
Please do everything in control to keep solar adoption
affordable for many working Californians, who are already
stretched so thin by rising costs. As the effects of
climate change become more severe, we will need all
power solutions to help keep the lights on for everyone.
Reject the latest NEM proposal and embrace rooftops
solar and battery storage, as the best solution for
California and the planet. Thanks. Thank you. Operator,
our next caller please.
And our next caller is Rob Hawley. You may go ahead. Hi, this
is Rob Hawley from San Jose. The proposal will certainly
kill the solar-only market. But what I found more alarming
was the attitude. When I got my system in 2018, I did
it with the belief, that a bright blue California. What
I was doing was encouraged by the State and understood
that any benefit to me was years in the future. That
was before I learned how hostile the Legislature, the
Governor and the regulators have become too independent
energy generation. Your version of reality relies on
customers shelling out huge sums and not caring if
they ever see their money again. The proposal also
makes it clear that no investment is safe. One of the
cost drivers you failed to mention is the guaranteed
profit. Utilities have a disincentive to become more
efficient. To paraphrase Mayor Liccardo, you've chosen
to prop up an expensive 19th century model, more appropriate
in the coal age. Instead of promoting the distributed
model solar favors. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Maggie Alma. You may go ahead.
Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, great. Good morning,
my name is Maggie Alma. I live in Santa Cruz. Your new
NEM 3 proposal is as untenable for most working class
families, as your most recent NEM 3 proposal. This
new NEM 3 proposal is too extreme. There is no way
that California can meet the Governor's goals to triple
solar installations by 2035. This plan will cut new
solar installations in half. It is way too expensive
and I repeat way too extreme. You are proposing a 75%
cut in net metering credit. This is the most extreme
cut in the whole country. Everywhere net metering has
been cut, solar adoptions have dropped by more than
half. I repeat by more than half. We need to speed
up solar, not slow it down. Please vote against this
proposal. Rooftop solar is essential, for the State
of California to be able to reduce the impact of climate
change. Thank you. Thank you. Operator, next caller
please.
Our next caller is Jenn Gagnon. You may go ahead.
Good morning, my name is Jim Gagnon. I'm the co-chair
of the Country Broadband Committee. And speaking today,
to urge the Commission to approve AT&T Advice
Letter 491088 to bring fiber broadband service to (inaudible).
The country cause and advice letter represents several
years of hard work of our Committee. While many of,
many are supportive of the finds AT&T has incured.
Our aging copper network's slow, unreliable and a hazard
to our community. Every day it stays in place, is another
day (inaudible) falls behind the modern world. They're currently
suspended vice weather provides a path for (inaudible) to replace
our copper network. With a modern safe and reliable
fiber network. I strongly urge the Commission to grant
AT&T's request to bring essential fiber broadband
services, for all (inaudible) residents, as soon as possible. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Susan Dubowski. You may go ahead.
Hi, Good morning. My name is Susan Dubowski. I live in the
San Gabriel Valley. In following the U.N. Climate Summit's
conclusion, that we aren't where we must be to address
our grave climate crisis. I'm wondering how this latest
proposal, this proposed decision, will help California
to achieve its clean energy goals. When we need 3 to
4 times the current clean renewable resources. I'm
wondering about the effects of the proposed decision's rate,
for rooftop solar credit. For energy sent to the grid
being reduced by 75%. And a more reasonable rate has
been a key incentive for Californians to install solar.
I'm wondering about the effects of the very steep five
year step. And if homes, businesses, church, schools,
will be incentivized to install rooftop solar when the time
to recoup their investment is so long. I'm wondering
about the effects of the very low rates of the adder
to the avoided cost calculator. And that businesses,
churches, small commercial do not get the adder. Nothing
for non-residential rooftop solar. I'm wondering about
the effect of remote solar versus rooftop solar. In
terms of resilience, particularly regarding public
safety power shutoffs. I'm wondering about the effects
of California (inaudible).
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is John Knox. You may go ahead. Yes
Good morning, Commissioners. John Knox from Chula Vista.
The NEM 3 proposal made a year ago, at the end
of 2021, featuring a monthly solar tax. Was designed
to kill rooftop solar as quickly as possible. The latest
NEM 3 proposal made last week, featuring the
slashing of solar credits. Is designed to wound and
weaken rooftop solar with 1000 cuts. Causing it to
limp along for a time. Diminished before dying a slow
death. This proposal like the last one is unacceptable.
Under it, the utilities would pay about 75% less for
the energy they take from rooftop solar. To then sell
to others at premium rates. A nice windfall making
the State's rich utilities, richer. But an unfair deal
breaker, for most would be solar homeowners. Almost doubling
the payback period for a system to over 10 years. That's
too long. This proposal is too extreme and you still
have work to do. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Sue Saunders. You may go ahead.
Good after, morning. Uh, CPUC. This proposal will
put an end to the growth of rooftop solar and battery
storage. Which has severe consequences, not only for
the growth of renewable energy, but for the greater
goal of decarbonization. Electrified transportation
and buildings provide no benefit if they are not powered
with clean energy. Furthermore, during the September
heatwave, a virtual power plant of rooftop solar and
batteries, kept everyone's air conditioning on. Its ability
to add to the clean power supply for everyone will
expand exponentially. When electric vehicle batteries
can be used to backup solar. There is simply no good
reason to slam the brakes on rooftop solar. And with
the 75% reduction in payment for solar sent to the
grid. It is too important to all of California's goals
to reduce emissions driving the climate crisis. It
means (inaudible) for our children and grandchildren. Who's future you
are stealing, if you implement this current proposal.
I cannot believe anyone with good intentions would
vote for this. And I implore you to vote no. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Katie Marconi. You may go ahead.
Good morning, this is Katie Marconi. I'm calling
in regards to what was previously item 10 on the agenda,
but has been held. Um, this is Resolution M-4864, which
would remove PG&E from the enhanced oversight and
enforcement process. That it has been in related to
vegetation management. Um, this is the first use of
the enhanced oversight enforcement tool adopted in
the PG&E bankruptcy. And given that fact, and that
PG&E's history of safety failures. Um, I believe that
the decision to remove PG&E from the EOE
needs a public discussion, and also a recorded vote
from the Commissioners. I urge you to include this
Resolution on the regular agenda, when it is considered
by the Commission. Thank you. Thank you. Operator, next
caller please.
Our next caller is Johnna and Christopher Tribiyanda.
You may go ahead.
And again, Johnna and Christopher Tribiyanda, we're not able to hear
you. Please check your mute button. Hi, can you hear
me? Yes.
Can you hear me? Thank you. Um yes, Johnna and Christopher
Tribiyanda, homeowners in Burbank, California. We believe
the CPUC latest rooftop solar proposal is too extreme
and expensive. And only benefits utility companies,
not the public. Which is counterintuitive to rooftop
solar advancement. The latest proposal is just more
of the same. You gain, we lose. Cutting the solar credit
by 75% is not a pathway, but a dead end for all
consumers. We know this hasn't worked in other states.
The key is to give consumers affordable ways to add
solar to rooftops, not take it away. What's being proposed
doesn't make sense. Try to stop the most effective
way to contribute to this global cause should be viewed
as criminal. Please listen to the public, not the utilities.
You've heard from hundreds of nonprofit groups and
schools, businesses, cities, more than countless individuals.
And everyone is asking you to step up and do the right
thing, reject this proposal. California requires new
homes to have solar panels, but then you're gonna turn
around and tax them. Thank you. Thank you. Operator,
next caller please.
Our next caller is Sharon Grant. You may go ahead.
Hi, sorry. I expected another three hour wait, as has
been true in the past times I've called in. But I agree
with what everyone has said. Uh, this is a terrible
terrible um, proposal. And it's I don't know, the 5th-
6th time, that the utility companies have tried to pass
Legislation that's detrimental to solar. And it's been
pointed out, the 75% decrease in net metering um, return.
Is going to get the solar industry by at least half
as other states and California counties have shown.
Uh, we need more solar, not less. If we're to meet
Governors, Governor Newsom's, um, clean energy goal.
Um, we need to step up solar energy, not gut it. It's
an appalling. Um, it's an appalling proposal. And I
urge the CPUC, to do the right thing and vote it
down. And hopefully, thank you. Thank you. Operator, next
caller please.
Our next caller is Larry Justino. You may go ahead.
Yeah, this is Larry Justino. I'm in Berkeley, California.
Um, I've been involved in California solar since 1965,
57 years ago. My brothers were top weather physicists
for NASA and the Navy. Both discussed the melting of
the polar ice caps 50 years ago, more than 50 years
ago. We're now seeing methane collapse, sublimating
bubbling up at accelerating rates. We're toast. This
is right on schedule. We must immediately implement
all sources of renewables now, especially including
rooftop solar. Don't, don't trash our future. Please
think of your kids. Your grandkids, you know, this
is real. Get on board. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Audrey Itchinosi. You may go ahead.
Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Great. Um,
my name is Audrey Itchinosi. I live in Cal Berkeley in the Bay Area. Like
the previous proposal, this new NEM proposal severely
reduces the incentive to require solar and storage.
Um, and actually, I wanted to point out how it undermines
some basic, uh, programs that the State has advised on.
Where average homeowners who own a tiny 1.7 kilowatt
solar array, without batteries. And we hoped to add a
few more panels, as well as battery storage in order
to prepare for the EV ownership. This proposal would severely
undercut easy adoption by residents. It would also
undermine the adoption of residential solar, by lowering
income ratepayers. So please, uh, this proposal is
as bad as the last one. Thank you very much. Thank
you. Operator, the next caller please.
Your next caller is Tom Perez. You may go ahead.
Good morning. My name is Tom Perez and I live in San
Diego. You're just released rooftop solar proposal
is too extreme. Cutting the solar credit by 75% overnight
is a recipe for disaster. We know this because other
states have tried this before. Every time it happens,
solar adoptions dropped by half or more. Please listen
to everyday Californians, not the big three utilities.
You've already heard from over 150,000 people.
Um, schools, cities, businesses were all asking you to make
solar more affordable, not less. This very minute leaders
from around the world are meeting to discuss ways in
which to address this climate emergency. Here in
California, your NEM 3 proposal actually undermines
our State clean energy goals. California Energy Commission
says we need to triple the amount of solar to get off
fossil fuels, both large scale and rooftop solar. We
can't do that with large scale renewables alone. We
need to speed up rooftop solar, not slow it down. Once
again, you need to go back to the drawing board and
revise them to ensure all Californians are able to afford rooftop
solar. Thank you. Thank you. Operator, next caller
please.
And our next caller is David Hoyer. You may go ahead.
Thank you. Um, wondering how many of you would raise
your hands if you're taking notes. And I know there's
a delay. Um, I don't like the new NEM proposal it's too extreme.
Um, I think everybody's forgetting the $10 monthly
charge that PG&E is getting for, oh, say a million
rooftop owners. That's $10 million income. 75% I think is even
higher reduction from 30 cents to 5 cents. If my
credit is halved in my return on investment to pay
off, my system is doubled. I believe that quadrupling
or higher. The time for return on investment puts the
time to pay off, past the time of the lifetime expectancy
of the of equipment. That means my equipment would
remain perpetually totally, uh, non-functioning. And
by the time I pay it off. This I believe is the
taking of property. Um, taking a property is a violation
of the 5th Amendment.
And I propose that you seek your lawyers, because I
will be seeking mine. Thank you. Thank you. Operator,
next caller please.
Our next caller is Dempsey Nelson. You may go ahead.
Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. Dempsey Nelson, Hermosa
Beach, California. I'm calling in today to say that
the CPUC latest rooftop proposal is still too extreme.
And I'm calling in as an early adopter, having first
put rooftop solar on my Hermosa Beach home in 1999.
The first to do so in Hermosa Beach. I'm Southern California
Edison NEM customer number 33. My rooftop solar and
my battery storage, are grandfathered now under the
NEM 2, with this latest proposal. But it's not about
me, as it wasn't about me in 1999. When I didn't expect
the return of investment for several years. It was
and is about the State of California, the Nation, and
the Planet and the million rooftops campaign to get
every rooftop covered with solar. But I know from all
of my advocacy for over 20 years, for most Californians
adopting rooftop solar will still be about return of
investment. That's what I'm always told and cutting
the solar credit by 75% will stop this important
piece of the renewable energy puzzle, dead on arrival.
We need to be fully incentive (inaudible) not cutting back.
There are so many things for which we don't have a
cure. We have the cure for this cancer. We need the
political will to implement it. Thank you so much for
your time. Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is Jennifer Tanner. You may go ahead
Oh my God, I'm driving. And I um, let me just pull over give
me one second. I didn't know you were going to call on me. Pulling over right now.
Thank you. Uh, Jennifer Tanner, Indivisible, California
Green Team. Number one, we ask Resolution M-4864
be removed from the consent agenda. Do not
let PG&E exit step one of enhanced oversight. That's
dangerous. And now to change the subject to rooftop
solar. Over the last year, we've heard from 170,000
people, including 600 nonprofits all over California.
The messages to keep growing, not shrinking. More people
delivered this message to you than on any other issue
in CPUC history. Yet you still bow to PG&E, rather
than the public. You know, we know this new proposal
will absolutely cause rooftop solar to shrink. Because
this is exactly what happened when their ideas were
implemented in other states. This is a cliff for rooftop
solar, even though the Governor has said he wants more
rooftop solar, than less. People are suffering from fires
and blackouts caused by PG&E (inaudible).
You approved. This is a real cost and the stain is on
your hands. You want to reward PG&E for burning down
California. We're in a climate emergency, shame on you.
Thank you. Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Christopher Hamilton. You may
go ahead.
And I'm Christopher Hamilton, we're not able to hear you.
Please check your mute button.
And he's disconnected. Our next caller is Holly Esterbrook.
You may go ahead.
Good morning. My name is Pauli Esterbrook. Can you
hear me?
Yes, we can. Yes?
Can you hear me? Yes we can hear you. Okay. I live in Los Angeles. I have
been following the Prop 27 proceedings as well. And realize
how important it is that each of us do our part. Meaning
our states and our countries do our part. In California,
we have tremendous goals for cutting our greenhouse
gases. By moving to 100% renewable power and promoting
EV ownership. As many studies have shown and is known
throughout, local solar energy generation is key to
meeting these goals as in a rapid and cost effective
manner. The new NEM 3.0 proposal will destroy the
incentive for businesses, public institutions and households,
to install these local solar systems. The proposal
caters only to the for-profit utilities. And does not
meet our state and world goals. Please reject this
proposal. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Joan Taylor. You may go ahead.
And again, Joan Taylor we're not able to hear you. Please
check your mute button.
Joan Taylor here.
I'm just another voice objecting to the NEM proposal. Because
it just doesn't strike that balance. Um for one thing
the major cost shift has to do with decreased income,
on the part of the utilities. And that, that just needs
to be adjusted. Um, so whatever you do, I really urge
you to reevaluate within a year. Because this truly
could cut the legs off the industry. Thank you for
your consideration.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is Linda Marin. You may go ahead. Um,
Good morning, Commissioners. Um, Linda Marin from Santa
Cruz and also representing Citizens Climate Lobby
Santa Cruz Chapter. Right now, when both the Federal
and State governments are mandating emissions reductions
meet the Paris agreement. We need rooftop solar more
than ever, to be easily accessible and proliferating.
The current proposal would decrease solar adoptions
by more than half. Like we've already seen happen in
Nevada and Florida and Hawaii. Let's not join those
States. Please vote against this proposal. And create
a policy that participates in a solution for the climate
emergency that we are in. Thank you. Thank you. Operator,
next caller please.
Our next caller is Howdy Gowdy. You may go ahead.
Thank you. My name is Howdy Gowdy. I live in El Cerrito and I
wanna add my voice to all those criticizing the new
proposed decision. Um, it really needs to offer a more
moderated gradual transition for solar only. And a much
more aggressive incentive for solar plus storage. Because
that offers the best uh, services to the grid. Um, it's
really irresponsible to focus on um, only large industrial
scale solar right now. Behind the meter solar is, you
know, half of the installed capacity in the State.
It's a huge contribution. It's the most responsible
place to put a new solar on the built environment instead
of uh, contributing to environmental degradation elsewhere.
And this is a climate emergency. You need to act to
support the important goals of the State. To reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. And rooftop solar behind
the meter is an incredibly (inaudible) Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is Mike Beggs. You may go ahead.
Yes. Hi, this is Mike Beggs um, in San Jose. The CPUC
latest rooftop solar proposal is not acceptable. And
that it cuts the solar credit, which makes rooftop
solar less affordable. As you've heard, other states
have tried this and it has reduced rooftop solar. We
need more affordable rooftop solar, not less. This
proposal would almost double the payback period, which
would de-incentivize people to get rooftop solar. Please
reject this proposal and create one that is less extreme, and
less cumbersome for regular customers. It's not true
that rooftop solar owners have shifted costs and non
rooftop solar owners. Rather rooftop solar hurts the
PG&E profits. And I ask you to focus on the
regular customer and not on the utilities. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Tom Benton. You may go ahead.
Yes, thanks so much. Tom Benton in Glen Ellen, California.
PG&E me burned down my house in 2017. And the rebuilding,
I installed solar panels. I'm calling to agree with everybody.
Who has come out in favor of rooftop solar. I just
want to say that the proposal fails, because its intent
is to kill the growth of rooftop solar in California.
And um, that's what the proposal is trying to do. That's
what the utilities are trying to do. I'm asking you
to reject that. It will not only harm climate, as everybody
said, it will also harm the economic viability and
competitive, competitiveness of our State. If you actually
want to lower costs on rooftop solar, drive its expansion
as fast as you possibly can, which will lower costs
on a learning curve. What you're trying to do right
now, is kill it instead. And that's unacceptable.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Jeff Russo. You may go ahead.
Jeffrey Russo, (inaudible) California here. It's clear to me that your
latest NEM 3 proposals, based on strategies concocted
by the private utilities. Eliminating a solar tax and
grandfathering existing solar users, under NEM 2.
They're red herrings, false compromises. What's
actually at stake here. Is the right of the public to
generate their own electricity, and receive fair market
value for overproduction versus the private utilities
attempt to undermine rooftop solar. Which is the kryptonite
for their profits. The question becomes, do you act
as the California Public Utilities Commissioners? Or
the California Private Utilities Commissioners? Your
answer will determine that.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Next caller is Eileen Metro. You may go ahead. Good
morning, Commissioners. State planners say we need to
triple both large scale and rooftop solar by 2035, to
meet the State's energy goals. Your proposal to cut
net metering credits by 75% for new solar adopters
effectively ruins future rooftop solar. That happened
in Nevada, Hawaii, Arizona and also in Turlock, Modesto,
and Coachella Valley. 80% of the state population, strongly
supports net metering, as it is now. 71% want more solar.
Your mission is to serve the public interest by protecting
consumers. The public interest is to promote solar.
This proposal kills solar and definitely doesn't align
with your commitment to environmental enhancement and
a healthy California economy. Please vote against this
proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Operator, next caller
please.
And our next caller is Yvette DeCarlo. You may go ahead.
Hi, my name is Yvette DeCarlo. I live and own solar
panels in PG&E territory and I'm committed to fighting
the NEM 3 proposal, because it remains reckless. Other
local and state agencies, they've been enacting policies
to problem solve climate change um, and incentivize
solar energy. But NEM 3 is unnecessarily. It's
an unnecessary problem, seeking justification. And I
think it's rather bold for PG&E to lobby the CPUC.
To aid in the theft of a public good, at the expense
of solar ratepayers. Consider what would happen if the
CPUC does not approve this proposal. One, PG&E continues
getting risk free electricity generated by rooftop
solar for a pittance. Two, PG&E minimizes costly contracts
to build new solar farms. Avoiding sequel and costly
legal fees. When long distance power lines inevitably
caused devastating wildfires. Three, you help incentivize
rooftop solar in the built environment. While the IOUs
can use existing profits from NEM 1 and 2
schemes, to increase battery storage close to where
the power is generated and used. And four, California
prisoners coveted open space for a higher use. Please
don't harm ratepayers. Instead be the leaders we need
to advance smart, rational and fair policies that advance
climate change schools. Not slimy them. Thank you very
much. Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is Kathleen Testino. You may go ahead.
Yes. Good morning, my name is Kathleen Testino. I live
in Berkeley. And I have solar on my house, my husband
and I self installed in 2005. And have continued supporting
solar by becoming a solar installation company. The
NEM 3 has written, would obviate anybody's contribution.
Everyone's individual choice to fight global warming
by installing solar on the roof. Using PG&E data, to form
your plans. Is like having the fox plan, the plan for you. So
I totally think that the NEM 3 as written should
be trashed. And that individual contribution to the
grid should be treasured. My name is Kathleen Testino.
I truly believe that you're making a mistake with
NEM 3. Thank you. Thank you. Operator, next caller
please.
Go ahead shoot me. And our next caller is Vivian. You may go
ahead.
Vivian, we're not able to hear you. Please check your
mute button.
And should we go to the next caller?
Yes, thank you. Our next caller is Jim Cramer. You
may go ahead.
My name is Glenn Kramer and I live in Auburn, California.
The CPUC sees latest rooftop solar proposal remains
too extreme. And will end up disincentive the
move toward rooftop solar and battery storage. This
has been shown when similar energy industry-backed
proposals have been enacted in other states. Cutting
the solar credit from 30% to 5% is not a glide path
or a soft landing. It is a drastic cut. It will double
the time it takes for a homeowner to recover their
investment. Listen to the public, not the utility companies.
Who are the only ones who stand to profit from this
proposal. Continuing the current NEM 2 structure,
and providing new incentives to rebates is the only
way to meet California stated climate goals. Thank
you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is James Pearson. You may
go ahead. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is James
Pearson. Uh, I live in Gilroy, California. I'm an early
adopter of solar and I just finished adding new panels
to my installation. So I won't be bothered much by the
NEM 3. But the reason I put solar up first, was that I
believe in solar. Rooftop solar takes up built space.
We need three times the amount of solar on the roofs
that we have now, according to the State. We actually
need about double that. So this latest proposal is
one in a long line of utility crafted proposals. That
are designed to kill rooftop solar. Because they don't
make any money at it. So I would hope that the Commission
would get an independent evaluation of our entire grid
system. Thank you very much, Commissioners. Have a great
day. Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is Richard Dawson. You may go ahead.
My name is Richard Dawson. I live in Los Angeles and
I'm basically echoing what has gone before. I totally
disapprove of this Commission's latest proposal. It's
it's radical, the extreme. And it will, it will deter
people from getting solar on their rooftops. Which
is something that we all the State of California and
the people of California need. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Barry Coe. You may go ahead.
Yes, this is Barry calling from Davis, California. I
don't know what justification Commission used to justify
the proposal. That is drastically cutting the solar credit
by 75%. But you must have copied the whole thing from
the five utilities plan, because it does not make any
sense. With that people cuts, no one the right mind would
want to install solar. Since it makes the return investment
way too long. And with less installation, the price will
go up. Making matters even worse. This proposal would
actually hurt the lower income household, the most. Furthermore,
the proposal allows private utilities to buy our solar
energy for 8 cents and sell to my neighbor for 30 cents
for substantial profit. I don't see the Commission
requires utility lower their rates or refund rate players
in the proposal. In other words, the regular rate players
receive no benefit from this all profit goes to private
utility. If he Commission passes this proposal, the Commission
might as well change his name from Public Utility Commission
to Privatize Commission. Because that's exactly
what protecting the private utility problems. Please
stand with the people of California, vote no on the
proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Operator, next caller
please.
Our next caller is Wendy Gardocki. You may go ahead.
Okay. Yeah, I agree with everybody that's already spoken.
I'm in the process of having solar panels put on right
now. But I don't understand how this is going to help
us. We need solar panels everywhere. On Home Depot,
in parking lots, everywhere. And I don't see how this
is gonna help at all. We're in a climate crisis and
in 10 years it's gonna be too late. Think about your
grandchildren, think about your children who will only
be 60 years old. Or your grandchildren who will be starving
because we can't have food to feed our children. We're
already suffering from this. We need to increase it.
What was your plan? How are you increasing all this
solar? Anyway, thank you very much and please vote against
this. This is insane.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please. Your next caller
is Michael Langton. You may go ahead. Yes, uh. March
2022, PG&E raised my electrical rates by 20%. August
of 22, President Biden, increased the support to the
solar system. And December 15th, the CPUC will make
it harder to get solar rooftops solar. Second, PG&E makes
more money, more profits from transporting electricity
than they do from generating electricity. And yet when
I receive solar power from my neighbors, I never see
a reduction in the transmission or distribution fees.
And last, the U.S. Census states that people move every
seven years. That's all I have.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Thank you. Our next caller is (inaudible) on Greece. You may
go ahead.
Hello. It's actually Steve Ongerth. Can you
hear me? Yes, we can. I am Steve Ongerth. I live in
Richmond, California. I am a union member of the ILWU.
Which is going to be involved in the building
of offshore wind off the coast of California, in the
upcoming years. I want to add my voice to every other
caller that's opposing this proposal. Even with rooftop
solar and distributed generation, they're still gonna
be a need for interconnection. So rooftop solar will
not cost people their jobs. And I want to address the
cost shifting argument, which is bogus. The real cost
shifting is the money that's being funneled into PG&E
shareholders. In the inefficient profiteering
of private investor owned utilities. If the Public
Utilities Commission is really concerned about cost
shifting. They would explore the possibility of nationalizing
PG&E, having it be operated by PG&E workers.
Run by the State and having that money be used for
productive purposes. So I oppose this decision or this
proposal that the Public Utilities Commission is making.
And urge you to vote no on it. Thank you. Thank you.
Operator, next caller please. Our next caller is Greg Ferry. You may go ahead.
Yeah. 48 years ago I was an engineer at SCG&E.
During my tenure there, I was witness to three momentous
decisions. The denial of the nuclear power plant permit.
The building of the Encino uh, stack single, stack
that put pollution further out. More importantly though,
I was an intendant at a meeting for the program to
buy alternate energy companies and dismantle them, with
details. This is the opening salvo by SCG&E, to
to fight against, rather than embrace powerful disruptive
technologies. Yet another bad decision. SDG&E can
still impress rooftop solar. For example, it can lease
roof space, uh, that is already in use. In doing so
it would obviate the need for more transmission lines.
While making the grid more robust. It can change its
straight structure with more encouragement.
One where the fixed fee was for the grid at a time
of use, (inaudible) for energy. Uh, it's in a monopoly.
Waiting fine, thank you. Thank you. Operator, next caller
please.
And before we go to the next caller, if you would like
to make a comment. Please unmute your phone, press *1
and record your First and Last Name slowly and
clearly when prompted. Our next caller is Mark L. Fields.
You may go ahead. Um, my name is Mark L. Fields from
Berkeley, California. Uh, this proposal is (inaudible)
proposal is terrible. The CPUC should be doing everything
they can to increase incentives. For solar, for people
to get solar. Any model that shows that um, solar is
unfair is obviously wrong. Obviously bought by the
Public Utilities to misinform. Solar is free energy
from the sun. And it is much more efficient to, to provide
excess solar, excess electricity to the nearby neighborhood.
As opposed to pumping it through long distance power line. The
most uh, salient point was made by, of the many salient
points. The most important one I thought was shame
on. Shame on you for endangering our (inaudible).
Please vote against this.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is Julie Rosen. You may go ahead.
And Julie Rosen we're not able to hear you. Please check
your mute button.
All right, sorry. Yes, um. Added to what everyone has
said. Uh, they're over 600 groups that have come out
against this Proposal. And over a 170,000
spoken to CPUC. In one of these meetings, emailed
or called the Governor. Um, gone in person to protest
rallies, etc. This is a grassroots movement.
Everybody is outraged at the continued reproposals
by the utility companies to try to gut solar. We could
save $120 billion by 2050. If we backed the rooftop solar,
instead of trying to destroy it. Please Members of
the PUC. Close your eyes and think, do you honestly
that this proposal is for the good of the State and
the people? Thank you. Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Vivian. You may go ahead.
Hi, my name is Vivian. I'm calling in from San Jose. I just
wanted to really basically echo everything people
have said. I'm a relatively new homeowner and I haven't
installed my own solar panels yet. But proposals like
this will really make it more difficult for homeowners
and
Really, I think young homeowners who is trying to start
families, to actually get on board with this. Um, I
understand that, you know, this is one of many different
ways to tackle the climate crisis. But we need to do
everything we can and all aspects of life, governance,
and public life. To make that move, so that we don't
trash our own future. So I strongly urge you and all
the other 20-30 callers who dialed in today, maybe 40.
Um, to vote no on this. I think, I know where you
should know where your consciousness lies. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Patrick Kearns. You may go ahead.
I have my mute off and I'm assuming I can be heard,
Commissioners? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Um
uh, I have spoken before about water issues. And I was
just listening in today. I certainly um, ratify and
amplify everything that is being said about this, um
vote. It is unreasonable and the Commission is led
by what is reasonable. It is anathema to the public
interest, and you are hearing the public interest. And
the public interest is not the 30% increase in the
stock price of PG&E over the last period. The interest
is in the Region, the State and the global climate
crisis. This is I believe, under the term arbitrage,
which PG&E is buying the energy and filming it.
Uh and it's, it's cold (inaudible).
You can't convict them of this, but arbitrage is illegal.
They should pay what they get for what they are dealing
with. Thank you. Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And before we go to the next caller, again if you would
like to make a comment, please unmute your phone. Press
*1 and slowly and clearly record your First and
Last Name. Our next caller is Jennifer Nemorial with
Hillsborough. You may go ahead.
Jennifer, we're not able to hear you. Please check
your mute button. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay
great, thank you. Um, yes, I'm calling into echo the
voices that are, that are speaking out against the proposed
changes through rooftop solar. I would also like to comment
on resolution M-4864. It must be removed from
the consent agenda. And PG&E, cannot be allowed to
exit step one of the enhanced oversight and enforcement
process. PG&E's program to clear thousands of acres
of trees, in the name of wildfire risk reduction is
reckless, costly and detrimental. It actually worsens
the chances of wildfire, due to miles of highly flammable
(inaudible) and the subsequent growth of flammable grasses.
It sends carbon into the atmosphere, removes the shade
and heats the land. PG&E should not only remain on level
one, it should be advanced to level two. For basing
its wildfire mitigation, on the myth that the trees
are the problem. It's a waste of consumer dollars. Fails
to provide safe dependable power. Increases wildfire
risk and accelerate the climate change. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
Our next caller is Jackie Garcia. You may go ahead.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Yes, I like most of the callers calling
in. Um, I'm hoping that this proposal will be voted
down. Matter of fact, I think it should not even be
voted on in. In light of PG&E corporate profits.
Uh, we should not be looking to increase the company's
profits. We should be looking to protect homeowners
access to solar and make it affordable. So, please
um, change this proposal. It's too extreme. Thank you.
Thank you. Operator, next caller please.
And our next caller is Don Eichelberger. You may go
ahead. Hi, I appreciate the chance to let my, add my
voice to the list of opponents to this. Solar is land intensive.
And to be able to get access to, there's millions of
acres of solar rooftops. That have access to them in
the United States, we could use those. We should not
be um, penalizing people who try to unplug. We should
be lowering the price of solar. Um, and allow so that
it allows people to um, in install it that aren't rich.
You know, we need people um, to be able, we need rental
places to be able to. I would love my apartment building
to be able to install solar. Have some incentive for
the landlady to, you know, put on solar for us. And
allow, you know, small, you know, grid interlocking
rings with, with you know, micro um rinks. You
know to (inaudible).
So yeah, oppose this effort to tax. Thank you. Thank
you. Operator, next caller please.
We have no additional callers on the public comment
telephone line at this time. But again, if you would
like to make a comment, please unmute your phone. Press
*1 and record your First and Last Name slowly
and clearly when prompted.
Thank you. We'll pause for a moment and let anyone
else, who's on the line join the queue.
And President Reynolds, there are no more participants
on the public comment telephone line. Okay, thank you
very much Operator. With no more callers on the line,
the public comment period is now closed.
I will now turn to the public agenda, and I'll start
with the following changes to today's agenda. Items
2, 3, 9, 10 and 13 are held until December 1, 2022. Item
7 is held until January 12, 2023. Item 8 has
been moved to the regular agenda. We will now take
up the consent items. Is there a motion on the consent
items? So moved. Motion by Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
Do we have a second?
Second. Second by Commissioner Reynolds. With a motion
and a second for the consent agenda items. Agenda Clerk,
could you please call the roll. Commissioner John Reynolds?
Yes. Commissioner Houck?
Yes. Commissioner Shiroma? Yes. Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
Yes. President Alice Reynolds? Yes. The vote is 5-0. The
consent items have been approved. Uh, Commissioner Rechtschaffen, I understand
that you would like to make a brief comment, before
we move to the next item. Yes, thank you. This is about
item 6, the where we approved an electrification
rate for (inaudible) and Electric. I supported this
decision. I think having the right rate, are an essential
part of our electrification and decarbonization efforts.
I just want to make one brief comment on a narrow aspect
of the decision. And in particular, I would have liked
to see us establish a lower cost midday, off-peak
time. That's the time of the day when our grid has
the lowest DHG Emissions. Uh, some people have
called this an EV happy hour. Um, but the basic
concept is having a midday off-peak like this. Can be
a useful way to get our electric vehicle customers
charging in the middle of the day. Right now, we have
excess solar energy that we're curtailing. A happy hour
midday, happy hour could encourage EV owners to use
electricity at that time. I think this would have been
a good vehicle, and a good decision to create that opportunity.
But going forward, I think we really should look at
that, as we have more and more EVs on the road. We
want to send the right signals for owners of EVs,
to charge at the best time of the day for the
grid. Thank you.
Thank you. And I did want to make a note on item
three on today's meeting agenda. Item 3 was subject
to a rate setting deliberative meeting. And has been
held to December 1, 2022. Um, I want to inform everyone.
As a result, this item will be subject to a default
ex parte quiet period. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code
1701.3, paragraph 8, sub-paragraph 6. This item
may be subject to additional quiet time, if the Commission
chooses to extend the default quiet time for the December
1st meeting. So the default quiet, for the default quiet
period. No oral or written ex parte communications
will be allowed from November 28, 2022 until the end
of December 1st, the December 1, 2022 voting meeting.
If the quiet time period changes, the parties will
be notified. If this item is held again, the Commission
will continue to have the ability to establish further
ex parte quiet period. I will now move to item 8,
on the regular agenda. Item 8 is R20-08-021.
It is a proposed decision in a rulemaking, regarding
revisions to the California Advanced Services Fund.
Which proposes to modify program rules for the broadband
infrastructure grants account. Commissioner Houck, would you like
to open this item? Thank you, President Reynolds. This
decision um, if adopted today in our uh, CSF rulemaking.
Is one more step in the CPUCs implementation
of SB156 and Governor Newsom's historic broadband
investment package. The decision makes changes to the
broadband infrastructure grant program guidelines. Significantly
this decision updates the speed requirements for completed
projects. Requiring grantees to deliver speeds of at
least 100 megabytes per second, upload and 20 megabytes
per second download. This update ensures that public
funds support projects that deliver the speed necessary
for video, conferencing, streaming and supporting multiple
users in a household. The decision also updates the
definition of an unserved location. Identifying locations
as unserved if they lack access to speeds of at least
25 megabits per second download and three megabits
per second upload. This change allows for more locations
to be eligible for funding for the speed upgrades, noted
um previously. And the decision increases the budget
limit. Under which proposed projects must fall in order,
to be processed ministerially from $10 million to $25
million. This will allow more projects to be reviewed
ministerially, potentially speeding up the approval
process. The decision also requires all grantees to
offer a low-income broadband service plan and incentivizes,
incentivizes the offer of a low-income plan that costs
no more than $15. And participation in the Affordable
Connectivity Program. Finally, the decision requires
grantees to maintain the rates proposed in their applications,
for five years following project completion. With the
option to request modifications due, to changes in the
gross domestic product price index. These changes ensure
Californians benefit from the significant public funding
invested in broadband infrastructure. And receive the
digital services necessary for full participation in
civic life. While also using administrative burdens
and increasing the rate at which projects are reviewed.
I'd like to thank um, Judge Gao, for her continued hard
work in this proceeding. And particularly on this proposed
decision. I'd like to thank my Advisor Eileen Odell,
and our Communications Division Staff, including Selina
Wang, Lou Fisher, Phil Ines, Vincent Copy, Attorney Enrique
Gallardo. Um, for all of their work on this proposed
decision. And I also would like to thank my baggly
partner President Alice Reynolds and her advisor, Michael
Mulaney. For all of their support in moving this decision
forward. And with that, um I ask for your support in
approving this proposed decision and conclude my comments.
Thank you, Commissioner Houck. Um, I wanted to start by
thanking you for your leadership in this proceeding.
I will be supporting the proposed decision. Um, I also
wanted to note, that the infrastructure grant account
is the Commission's longest standing broadband grant
program since 2008. The program has awarded 108 last
mile and middle mile broadband infrastructure grants,
totaling about 350 million. And we estimate that these
grants have helped, to provide vital infrastructure
to approximately 328,000 Californians. So it's a very
important program. This decision is a great step forward.
Um, and it implements the renewal that was adopted last
year as part of the State's historic broadband package,
enacted by Governor Newsom and the State Legislature.
And with the changes that are being made, the program
will continue to fund broadband infrastructure for
an additional 10 years. And will receive a substantial
increase in revenue. This is vital to achieving the
State's broadband objective. And uh, and will continue
to provide a funds, networks that provide broadband service
that meets today's needs in the most underserved communities.
Um, I wanted to thank Commissioner Houck again, and again
note that I'll be supporting this item. I'll now turn
to other Commissioners for comments.
Commissioner Shiroma? Thank you, President Reynolds. I am in support
of this proposed decision. I also want to thank Commissioner
Houck. Uh, for your work to improve the broadband infrastructure
grant account. And with this proposed decision, our
Staff, prioritized review of projects based on service
areas with low speeds uh, and projects in low-income
communities. I strongly support the requirement for participating
carriers, providing low-income programs such as California
Lifeline or the Affordable Connectivity Program. And
this will ensure that low-income customers in these
service areas have affordable plans. With that I am
in support of the decision. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma.
Commissioner Reynolds?
Thank you, President Reynolds. And I would like to thank
Commissioner Houck, for your leadership in this proceeding.
And also thanks to Judge Gao. I'm excited to see such
a thoughtful proposed decision on modifications to
the CASS infrastructure grant account. This decision
is an important and necessary step to providing funding
for infrastructure projects. Capable of providing broadband
access to unserved areas or unserved households throughout
California. There's, there are a lot of great elements
of the (inaudible), and a couple of elements I'd like to
highlight really. Are the better accounting for geographic
differences in cost of living across the State. I agree
with the proposed decisions modification of the low-
income criteria. To refer to the Department of Housing
and Community Development bench mark for defining low-
income. Which um, will really help the funds reach more
uncertain communities. Um, I also really appreciated
the proposed decisions commitment, to optimizing the
use of the State's middle mile network. Including feasible
and cost effective interconnection with infrastructure
projects. Recognizing that where such interconnection
is not reasonable or reasonable. Our applicants will
be able, will be required to provide a verifiable statement
explaining why that interconnection is not feasible
or reasonable. Um ultimately, I think the review process
embedded in this proposed decision, will really streamline
the review for applications. Um, really prioritizing
projects in areas where service is currently below
10-1 speeds. And then following, following those areas
with low-income areas, really in order from lowest to
highest income as we're reviewing projects. And I think
it's, it's great to put that prioritization in place.
So, that we are getting projects to communities that
need the most first. Um,
with that, I will be supporting this proposed decision.
And thanks again to Commissioner Houck, for your leadership.
Thank you to Judge Gao and to Communications Division,
for all of the work. In ensuring that California is
on track to support infrastructure funds and projects
of the new year. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner
Reynolds. Commissioner Rechtschaffen? I want to briefly, excuse
me. I want to briefly express my support for this decision.
My thanks to Commissioner Houck, Judge Gao, and Communications
Division for their work on this. We've done a lot over
the past several years to try to close the digital
divide. And this is one of many very important efforts.
I agree with what my colleague said, highlighting the
importance of the affordable broadband plan. That's
been provided the change in the definition of what
constitutes a low-income customer. Also, the requirements
that funding application, funding applicants, include
a plan for engaging and marketing to environmental
and social justice communities. So that they can benefit
from the broadband that's going to become available
in their area. I would close by making one point. Which
I think everyone knows, that it's worth of all keeping
in mind going forward. Uh, affordability continues to
be a major issue for many Californians. So infrastructure
is very important. It's critical but affordability
remains an important barrier to access for many of
our fellow residents. And we need to continue to work
on, on that issue at the Commission, as this decision
does. And there's other decisions too. But we can't
lose sight. It's not just access, it's also affordability.
With that, I'm strongly supportive of this decision.
Thank you. That concludes Commissioner remarks. Um
would, I welcome now a motion on item 8?
So moved. Motion by Commissioner Rechtschaffen. Is
there a second? I see Commissioner Shiroma with a
second. I second. Thank you. With a motion and a
second on item 8, Agenda Clerk, would you please
call the roll. Commissioner John Reynolds? Yes. Commissioner
Houck? Yes. Commissioner Shiroma? Yes. Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
President Alice Reynolds? Yes. The vote is 5-0. The item
passes. We'll now move to item 31. Item 31 is the initiation
of an order instituting rulemaking, to develop policy
and create a consistent regulatory framework. For distributed
energy resource customer programs. Uh, this rulemaking
continues and expands our previous efforts around cost
effectiveness of distributed energy resources. In order
to ensure that we are accurately and consistently valuing
these resources, in terms of benefits to the grid and
rate pairs. The rulemaking also initiates a new focus
on improving distributed energy resources customer
programs in two ways. By improving the collection and
usage of distributed energy resources data. And by considering
how we can improve equipment and performance standards
for distributed energy resource customer programs.
Taking together the three tracks, that are created are
intended to support the distributed energy resource
customer experience. Particular for customers living
in environmental injustice, social communities and
to further the CPUC's DER Action Plan
goal. To enable customers to effectively manage their
energy use in a manner that ensures equitable participation
and distribution of benefits. I mean they briefly described
the three components of the rule making and more detail.
And then turned to my fellow Commissioners, starting
with Commissioner Houck. Who led the predecessor proceeding
to this OIR. Uh, the rulemaking primarily continues
and expands the work previously conducted in the integrated
distributed energy resources proceeding. The continuation
of that work involves the following, continued bi-annual
updates of the avoided cost calculator, determining
whether and how to adopt a societal cost test for DERs,
and determining how to best apply air quality
resource, research results.
Additionally, the third element is improving coordination
with other proceedings. Particularly the integrated
resource planning or IRP proceeding. In order to
ensure that DER costs and implementation are consistent
across resources. Rulemaking will also focus on improving
the reporting availability, and privacy protections,
and use of data from smart meter devices.
And finally, in the second phase of the proceeding.
The CPUC will turn its attention to considering whether
equipment performance standards, can support the development
and deployment of technologies. In ways that ensure
they meet grid deeds. I'm really looking forward to
seeing this work unfold. And I also um, before turning
to other Commissioners. Wanted to give a huge thanks
to Energy Division Staff. Who have worked very hard
on this OIR including, specifically Joy Morgenstern,
Dan Bush and (inaudible). Additionally, I'd like
to thank Judge Fogel, the Assigned Administrative Law
Judge, and my staff Carrie Fleischer and Ana (inaudible).
Um with, that um, I would will now turn to Commissioner
Houck. And I'd like to thank her, for her work in preparing
this OIR. Um and let her provide additional comments.
Commissioner Houck.
Thank you, President Reynolds. The customer programs
proceeding um, will continue the work of the cost effectiveness
track of the previous IDER proceeding. As well
as take on new work consistent with the DER action
plan. I agree with President Reynolds comment that
um, this is a much needed proceeding. And I will be excited
to follow um, it as it moves forward, to address the
goals that were set out in the DER action plan 2.0
Through this rulemaking, we're going to continue
our efforts to correctly value the contribution of
distributed energy resources to the grid. This is essential
for determining DER cost effectiveness. These efforts
are also essential to our work and planning the reliable
resilience and clean grid of the future. That um,
to be needed to meet our climate goals. On the resource
evaluation and planning side, the OIR invites interested
parties to provide comment on several questions. Such
as how to procurement and cost effectiveness analysis
changes, as we incorporate air quality adders or use a
societal cost test. Um, and how can we advance our understanding
of DER contribution to the grid. On the consumer
side, smart meters and network DERs, allow unprecedented
opportunities to maximize benefits for individuals
and rate payers as a whole. We will explore new opportunities
for data sharing. As well as the possibility of providing
real time prices to customer devices. All while maintaining
customer privacy. Finally, the phase two of the proceeding
will consider equipment standards, to ensure that we
maximize benefits for ratepayer funded DER programs.
As President Reynolds mentioned, I was the assigned
Commissioner for the predecessor IDER rulemaking.
And my office worked closely with Staff um, as this
OIR was developed. And I also want to recognize
and thank the many Staff who worked on this matter.
And you know, made the heavy lift to bring this proposal
before us. Um, a special thanks to recognize all of the
work of Joy Morganstein, um Dan Bush, (inaudible), um
ALJ Kathie Vogel, and ALJ Elaine Lau. Um and again, just
really want to um, acknowledge all of the hard work
that Joy Morgenstein has put into this. Over um, not
just um, the last couple of months, but really the last
couple of years. Both in the development of the DER
action plan as well as um, the OIR. And also
recognize all of the work of Simon Baker, (inaudible).
And um thank you to my former Advisor, Kathleen
(inaudible), for her work on this. And Adam, my current Advisor,
who also um, jumped in to provide feedback and comment.
And then just the dozens of other Energy Division Staff.
That read and made comments to the OIR. Um, it was
truly a team effort. Given um, the number of areas that
will be touched on by this OIR. So again, I
just wanted to thank Energy Division for the outstanding
an excellent job in preparing this. And um, I will be
supporting the OIR.
Thank you. Comments from other Commissioners?
Commissioner Shiroma?
Thank you, President Reynolds. Uh, I'm in support of this
order. Instituting rulemaking for distributed energy
resource customer programs. I really like how it will
push for consistency of cost effectiveness. Improve
the data collection and use. And eventually consider
equipment performance standards across the various
DER related proceedings. And really interested
in the focus on improving and supporting the customer
experience. Especially for customers living in environmental
and social justice communities. And of course, advancing
California's climate goals, for ease of access for low-
income Californians. Uh and environmental and social
justice communities. Also appreciate that this proceeding
will not limit the ability of any resource proceeding.
To determine the policies or procedures needed to achieve
preceding goals. And rather this proceeding will look
to smooth out coordination and hopefully find synergies.
Critical for informing program development and rate
design. Uh, I'm keen to see how these efforts will support
vehicle to grid integration, in addition (inaudible) in
the near term decarbonization efforts and grid reliability.
I appreciate all the work that has gone into this OIR.
I want to thank Energy Division, and the (inaudible)
division for briefing me in advance on this effort.
And I do want to particularly note Joy Morgenstern,
for her keen attention to this effort, long time effort.
Uh and with, that I'll be in support of this new
OIR. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma. Commissioner
Reynolds?
Thank you, President Reynolds. I will reiterate my colleague's
thanks to Energy Division and the enormous teams that
contributed to the development of this rulemaking. And
to the DER Action plan overall, as well. We and we
cannot fail to acknowledge, the one person who's been
recognized a few times already. In particular, who was,
with it at the start, Joy Morganstern.
Whose commitment to improve cost effectiveness and
the equity of CBC programs, (inaudible) to them.
Overall, I appreciate how the OIR is actionable.
With each track broken down into parts. Making, making
all of our programs um, more consistent and coordinated
across multiple proceeding, is a really complicated
endeavor. But with such discrete tasks outlined already,
it becomes more manageable. In spite of the fact that
it does become more manageable. Um, I recognize that
this proceeding is a big, complex undertaking. And we
will have to think carefully about what we can do here.
And, and how we can do that versus what remains in individual
resource proceedings. I look forward to coordinating
particularly on demand response issues. Which are assigned
to my office. I am eager to see where this proceeding
goes, as the scoping develops. And with this kind of
overarching focus, that touches on many issue areas.
And that many DERs have their own proceedings. It may
make sense to incorporate some regular updates. That
are directed to all of the offices, on the other service
lists or via other means. So that um, we all can coordinate
the work in our own individual proceedings. And with
that, I will be supporting this item and, and look forward
to working of this proceeding.
Thank you, Commissioner Reynolds.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen? I'm also very supportive of this
proceeding. We know that in order to meet our decarbonization,
decarbonization goals. We, we need to encourage and
optimize the deployment of distributed energy resources
in California. And this decision is one of many that
we've undertaken to make that happen. The two issues
that are going to be addressed right at the outset
that I think are really important. One is whether to
adopt a societal cost test. We've been thinking about
that and discussing that for some time, and I'm glad
that the OIR is taking that on. Uh, if it's
adopted, it will have a very significant impact on
our uh, the overall cost effects of this framework for
distributed energy resources. That's very important.
The second is something others have mentioned. How
do we make the best use of data that we get from
customers about their energy consumption? There's enormous
potential to use that data to help increase customer
awareness. Increase adoption of distributed energy
resources. We know that there's been longtime barriers
to getting, using that data effectively. I'm very happy
that, that is one of the issues that will be addressed
very early on in this OIR. I would feel very badly
if my East Coast buddy, Joy Morgenstern did not get
a thanks and shoutout for me too. So I echo everybody's
endorsement. And Commissioner Shiroma, she's been working
on this for years, more than two years, three years.
She's been working this for close to a decade, probably.
And I greatly appreciate her incredible knowledge and
expertise on this issue.
Thank you, Commissioner Rechtschaffen. Uh, that concludes
Commissioner comments. Um, do we have a motion on item
31?
I'll be pleased to make the motion.
Wonderful. Motion by Commissioner Shiroma. And who would
like to second? Commissioner Houck, I see your hand.
Second by Commissioner Houck. With a motion and a second,
on item 31. Agenda Clerk, could you please call the
roll. Commissioner John Reynolds? Yes. Commissioner
Houck? Yes. Commissionership Shiroma? Yes. Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
President Alice Reynolds? Yes. The vote is 5-0. The
item passes. We'll now move to item 32. Item 32 is a
proposed decision in a rulemaking, to continue the development
of rates and infrastructure for vehicle electrification.
It is R18-12-006. And um, let's see. I understand
that Commissioner Reynolds will be recusing himself.
Yes. Thank you, President Reynolds. Due to my prior employment,
I will be recusing myself on this item.
Okay. Um, we're now ready to move to opening comments.
Commissioner Rechtschaffen? Thank you, President Reynolds.
This decision marks what I think, is an important milestone
in our role in promoting transportation electrification.
And achieving the State's very ambitious climate goals.
Transportation emissions, as we often hear, are the
State's largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. They are
also the largest, responsible for the largest share
of harmful air pollutants. Such as NOX, which causes
ozone and particulate matter, which has very harmful
health effects. I want to take a step back and just
situate this decision. In light of everything that's
gone on, and everything that we've done over the years.
The CPUC actually opened up our first transportation
electrification rulemaking in 2009. Which was way ahead
of almost anybody. Uh, we've probably issued over a
dozen decisions promoting electrification, since then.
In 2015, the Legislature passed SB350, and that enhanced
our role. Uh, that Bill directed utilities to file
applications with us, for programs to support widespread
transportation electrification. And that's been the
framework we've been operating under, since then. In
the meantime, are the states EV goals have gone, have
grown very dramatically. In 2012, Governor Jerry Brown,
established a goal to have 1.5 million zero emission
vehicles on the road by 2025. He later upped that to 5
million by 2030. And at that time in 2012, there maybe,
there were maybe two or three models of electric vehicles
being sold. Uh, you jump forward, fast forward to this
year. Earlier this year, the Air Resources Board mandated
that by 2035, all new light duty vehicles sold in California
has to be electric vehicles or zero emission vehicles.
The Air Board has also established rules for heavy duty
vehicles. Those are the flow of time, time frame, but
all by 2045, 100% have to be zero emission, zero emission
vehicles. 55% by 2035. We have a zero emission bus
rules. So all busses in the state have to be electric
by 2040. The good news is the EV sector is growing
rapidly in California. We have over 1.3 million EVs
on the road in California. There are now over 115
models of EVs for sale. EV sales are 17%
of new California sales, in California. A, a very significant
potential tipping point. And by the way, ZEVs are one
of California's leading exports. So, that's the background.
Now today's decision, is part of a much larger set of
regs and policies that have been moving transportation
electrification forward at the State. There other State
agencies, many others that have a suite of complementary
policies. That have been addressing barriers, barriers
to the adoption and easy deployment. Our sister agency
the Energy Commission, they have been given the lead
under State Law, under AB2127. For developing a comprehensive
roadmap for the State's infrastructure needs. One that
we've relied on a great deal in this decision. And in
our other transportation electrification work. So right
at the start, I wanna just express my very deep gratitude.
To my colleagues at the Energy Commission, the Resources
Board, the California Transportation Agency, and the
Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development.
Which has a ZEV coordinating, ZEV Coordinator and has
played a great role in helping to collaborate uh, across
agencies. But all of those uh, agencies for their collaboration
and for making California the place to be. For forward
looking EV policy and transportation electrification
development. The decision today uh, results from over
three years of hard work by Staff and very engaged
stakeholders. So as I mentioned briefly in the past
up till now, our electrification funding decisions came
as a result of individual and really ADHOC applications,
for programs by each of the utilities. These programs
weren't especially well coordinated. They typically
been slow to approve. Uh, it's a full application process
typically necessitating evidentiary hearings, and the
long decision making process that we're we, we do often
find ourselves subject to. In any case, we've approved
close to $2 billion, 1.8 billion dollars for a whole
number, a whole host of utility programs. Light duty
and medium duty uh, market segments, workplaces, forklift,
school buses and many more. But as we gained more
and more experience in this space. We thought it better
to replace this ADHOC approach. With something that's
more uniform, more streamlined and hopefully faster.
And, and that's what is, that's what's been developed
here. Staff was working hard on alternatives to that
uncoordinated approach. Initially, Staff proposed requiring
utilities to prepare transportation electrification
investment plans. Those would be comparable to electric,
electricity procurement plans, like our RRP plan. But steps
up, that after getting a lot of unfavorable stakeholder
comments. Uh, (inaudible) the markets too young to need
such a thorough study. And, and this would really
harm things, would slow down the planning process too
much. But to their credit Staff pivoted and moved away
from that formula. Then very significantly in 2021,
the Legislature enacted AB841. And 841, sets up
a new paradigm for distribution side upgrades for
EVs. It said those don't have to be approved any longer,
in individual utility applications. Rather utilities
can get those costs approved along with other distribution
upgrade costs in their GRC. So that's taken that
out of the role of these individual proceedings. That
proceed that, that statute also makes clear. By the
way, that any distribution upgrade and the cost of any
upgrades triggered by new EV load ,are paid for by rate
payers as a whole. Those are socialized costs. So
this decision replaces those multiple applications.
And establishes, would establish a single Statewide
program. For utility transportation electrification
investments starting in 2025, and lasting through the
end of the decade. It will consist of rebates. Rebates
for customer side, behind the meter infrastructure. And
this includes, the so called make ready conduit and
other electricity infrastructure needed. As well as,
for the actual charges. And it's, it includes both light
duty and medium and heavy duty charging. The utilities
will not be permitted to own any of this infrastructure.
And the rationale for that, is that will mean lower
costs for ratepayers. These charges and the other equipment
will not be in utility rate base. Also while there's
been an argument for utility ownership in a nascent
market. Where customers need more hand holding. Given
the advancing state of the market. By mid decade, utility
ownership should really not be necessary, even to reach
difficult to access segments. Uh, so. Uh, that's
the rationale for that. We think the program moves
in the direction of right sizing the role of utility,
in the EV infrastructure. And will allow the utilities
to focus more on the areas within their core competencies.
And that includes distribution side upgrades. Interconnecting
new EV charging loads. Providing the clean electricity
to customers, rate design, technical assistance, and
so forth. Uh, this program complements some of our existing
utility programs. As well as, other EV infrastructure
programs, that other state agencies are administering.
So I want to note just again that the rebate program
and the marketing, education and outreach will be run
by a third party administrator. And that again frees
up utility resources for those other functions, that
I mentioned. The decision does direct utilities to
focus on technical assistance to help customers uh,
go through the energization process. Figure out the
right rates, the right technology for them. That's a
really important role for the utilities and when we
want them to focus on.
The budget for the, for the investment program is $1
billion dollars over this 5 year period. Uh, that
of course is a substantial amount. But I think it's
an appropriate amount. We know from uh, the Energy Commission.
Their estimate of how much infrastructure we need to
get to the Governor's goals. Uh, we'll need about 1.1
million public or share chargers at workplaces or
homes. Plus um, fast charges. Thousands more fast chargers.
Right now in California, we probably have about 200,000
that are either installed or planned. Probably more
planned, than installed. We probably have close to 80,000
that are actually installed. We'll need very considerable
amounts of additional investment, to reach our infrastructure
goals. Especially in underserved communities, where
infrastructure has not been built yet. We coordinated
very closely with our sister agencies and considered
other funding sources in arriving at this proposed
budget. Also, I think one way to think about this is.
This is not in addition to existing programs, but it's
replacing programs of this size or even greater. That
the utilities would likely be proposing over this period
of time. In the absence of a consolidated program like
this. And then finally, to help ensure that we keep
cost discipline. The decision provides that halfway
through the funding cycle. There'll be a mid cycle
review. Uh, to account for any new sources of funding
that may come along. Or any other issues that might
lead us to question whether or not, after the first 600
million has been spent. We want to continue with the
funding. Few more, few more things about the decision.
70% of the money is dedicated to medium and heavy duty,
the medium and heavy duty sector. Emissions are the
highest there. There's a pressing need for infrastructure
there, to meet the State's medium and heavy duty goals.
We've heard that very loud and clear from our colleagues
at the Air Resources Board. The decision has a very strong
focus on equity and prioritizing underserved communities.
65% of the funds are reserved for underserved communities.
There's also a specific set aside for tribes, exact
amount will be determined in the next, after the proceeding.
Their higher rebates for low-income, multi-family, and
medium, and heavy duty vehicles, and disadvantaged
communities. These are the sectors again, that need
the most investment. They also offer the greatest air
quality benefits. Were proving a separate pilot focused
on equity. That will allow community choice aggregators
or nonprofits to propose innovative ideas for pilots.
They would administer, a thought and hope would be,
we could use the lessons from those programs to inform
the rest of the rebate programs. There are strong workforce
development measures. Um, eligible contractors have
to meet prevailing wage standards, workforce training
and hiring diversity measures. And they cannot have
safety or labor violations. I mentioned there'll be
a mid-cycle review. That will not, that will not just
budget. But also other program changes, that might be
appropriate. We direct annual round tables to provide
parties, with the opportunity to take a look at how
the program is doing. Importantly, this does not preclude
new utility applications. Even in this period of time
2026. 2025 to 2029.
Utilities can still propose new pilots and programs.
So long as they're not duplicative of the existing
program, and they show that they're the best suited
to fill the role. And existing RIU programs will continue
as authorized. The proposed decision was revised to
make it clear that the programs, existing programs,
can accept customer applications until the end of 2026.
And in other words, they don't need to finish dispersing the funds by
then, by then. They just need to have accepted all customer
applications by then. Uh, there's a very big focus emphasis
on vehicle to grid integration, in this decision. It
lays out a comprehensive strategy for addressing vehicle
grid integration. We plan to hold annual forums on
that topic. Utilities can propose changes based on
that. Um, we've heard from stakeholders of frustration.
That there aren't enough vehicle to grid pilots up
and running. The utilities can use the pathway. I've
identified the proposed new pilots and programs, if
they'd like to. We also lay out the possibility for
a higher rebate for customers. That choose to invest
in something known as automated load management technology.
And that's a very interesting technology. Could be
hardware, software, a combination. But basically it's
an energy management system, that if used can reduce
the charging load. And very importantly, that can minimize
impacts on the grid. Eliminate the need for capacity
upgrades. It's very promising. We're going to conduct
a study to assess ALM strategies, and offerings. And
then, decide if higher rebate for, for customers who
use this is appropriate. So one last thing, while I
have the floor. I want to highlight what's a crucial
issue in transportation electrification right now.
It's somewhat separate from the particulars of this
immediate decision, but not entirely. And it's certainly
relevant to this, the overall drive proceeding. The overall
transportation electrification proceedings in which
this uh, decisions part of. And that's how quickly, new
transportation electrification load is being energized.
How quickly customers are getting to interconnect to
the grid. And we've heard a lot of serious concerns
about this. Especially from medium and heavy duty fleet
owners. They need to quickly electrify under carb rules.
They say utilities have been slow or too slow to connect
their charges to the grid. So this is a real problem
for us. Meeting our transportation and climate goals.
We have a draft resolution that we're gonna vote on
in two meetings. That begins to adjust this issue. Uh,
it will set timelines and transparency requirements.
For how quickly utilities need to energize loads connecting
to the grid. But there's more to be done. Um as I
said, part of the reason we went with the 3rd party
administrator. It helps utilities to focus on this
crucial work. They don't have to worry about administering
the rebate program. I also recommend that after this
decision, and after the energization decision. This
proceeding should consider next steps. Such as whether
or not to make the energization timeline, not just
mandatory, but enforceable with appropriate consequences.
And what else we can do to make sure the utilities
are appropriately planning, and building distribution
in anticipation of the new load. We've got to make
sure that we're, we're meeting. That the utilities are
addressing all of the needs of new EV (inaudible). In a
timely way or else we'll fall behind our ambitious
goals. I want to thank many people here. Uh, the Energy
Division, contributed enormously to this decision. I'm
very grateful to the whole team from top to bottom.
Dan Caliphate, Paula Grumbling, Audrey Newman, Michael
Truax, Josh Honeycutt, Palica Chalopaiya, Paul Hernandez, (inaudible ), Paul
Douglas. Also past Supervisor Sara Kamin, our previous
Lead Analyst Carrie Sisto, Tony Manzo, and Teresa Buckley.
From Legal ALJ's (inaudible), ALJ Goldberg
now um, stolen by Commissioner Reynolds. ALJ Doherty,
currently serving as an Assistant Chief ALJ, my bagly
keen partner President Reynolds, and her Advisers
Rosie O'Hara, Arnan Survasula. And then finally, I
want to express great thanks to Julia Schmidt. She's
been my longtime Adviser, longtime thought Partner, thought leader on
these issues. I want to thank my Chief of Staff Sean
Simon. And then a shout out to Karen Sung. Who uh, for
a short period of time, that she worked in my office.
While Julia was on leave, helped enormously as well,
on this decision. With that I ask for your support.
Thank you, Commissioner electrification. Um, and I wanted
to start by first of all, thanking you for your long
term leadership on this issue. This um, decision has
so much to like, as you've described. And I agree that
it's really important for us to create a unified streamline
approach. For utility investments in transportation
electrification. And that this is critical, as we move
towards widespread transportation electrification. And
really as that being a cornerstone of our climate goals.
Um, you did an excellent job articulating all of the
components of the decision. And why there's such a valuable
piece of the overall proposed decision. I did wanna
um, highlight the fact that the decision um, enables
us to reach um, really difficult market segments. Um,
and really important ones. And in particular the heavy
duty components um, medium and heavy duty vehicles
and dax. And, and of course these vehicles are responsible
for a disproportionate share of greenhouse gas emissions,
and other pollutants. The light duty charging near
multi-unit dwellings. And the significant percentage
of um, of an emphasis and funding on projects and underserved
disadvantage and tribal communities. All of those things
are very important. As well as the other elements that
you outlined. I very much appreciate um the work on
this proceeding. To ensure that the framework is not
duplicative of other state investments and incentives
in the transportation sector. And also the emphasis
on cost effectiveness as you've, you've outlined. It's
going to be really important, as we continue to implement
this proposed decision to recognize those goals. Um
throughout the implementation of the framework.
Um, thank you again. And I will be supporting this item.
Comments from other Commissioners?
Commissioner Houck?
Thank you, President Reynolds. Um, I also want to
thank Commissioner Rechtschaffen, and for your leadership.
This is a tremendous um, decision. And um, it is very
important for us in meeting our clean energy goals.
So just thank you for all of the work, that you've done
on this. Um, this decision is intended to assist with
achieving our climate goals. Um, according to the Air
Resources Board, transportation is the leading cause
of greenhouse gas emissions. As of 2022, transportation
is 38% of carbon emissions, with the second closest
emitter being industrial (inaudible) 20%. The decision, um as was
noted by both Commissioner Rechtschaffen and then President
Reynolds. Is intended to meet our environmental, social
and social justice action plan goals. Which include
high jobs, high road jobs with prevailing wage requirements.
and affirmative steps to serve and invest in underserved
communities. Other agencies such as the California
Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission.
Are working in parallel to reduce emissions from transportation.
And we see this
the statewide interagency effort to promote EVs. While
we support the advanced clean cars to, an advanced clean
trucks program at CARB and the CEC funded program
California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project.
This decision also addresses much needed and important
energy storage solutions, that can mitigate grid stresses.
By creating a framework for vehicle to grid integration
or VGI. And vehicle to everything V2X. And
this is extremely important, especially given um, the
comments that Commissioner Rechtschaffen had been mentioned,
regarding the distribution grid. And given the rapid
increase in EVs um use. And um, again the concerns
that Commissioner Rechtschaffen mentioned, regarding the
grid. I also want us to be mindful of those challenges.
That we need to meet as we approve and invest in these
programs. And expand our charging infrastructure and
use of electric vehicles. Um, exponentially we need
to be paying equal attention to investing and updating
our distribution grid. Um, much of this planning and
a big focus of our DER proceeding. Is specifically
looking at how we're going to accommodate the huge
influx of electric vehicles um, on the grid. And hopefully
the work in that proceeding will be complimenting. And
helping us prepare to make sure we're ready to meet
um, the needs of the electric vehicle transportation
sector. That we're, we're um, need to encourage and promote
in order to meet our climate goals. And so again, this
is a tremendous program. That is the result of an equally
tremendous effort from the assigned Commissioner's
office, Energy Division Staff, the parties, and the coordination
with our sister agencies. And so, I also would like
to thank um, are excellent, excellent Energy Division
team for all of their work. And um, the Administrative
Law Judges, and again Commissioner Rechtschaffen, and his
Adviser, Julia Schmidt and Chief of Staff Sean Simon.
As well as my Advisor um, Karen Song. And um, for all
of their work and getting us to this decision. Which
I will be supporting. So with that, will conclude my
comments. Thank you, Commissioner Houck.
Commissioner Shiroma. Thank you, President Reynolds.
I'm also pleased to support this proposed decision.
A thoughtful and expensive effort. Uh, Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
I want to express my appreciation to you. The Energy
Division, Administrative Law Judges, Legal uh, just
in total. Um, through your leadership has ensured that
equity is woven into the fabric of this proposed decision.
I'm happy to see that it fills in the gap for medium
and heavy duty infrastructure. While also uh, supporting
multi-unit dwellings. All of these that have lagged
behind light duty infrastructure for charging. Uh, I
mentioned before the vehicle to grid integration, is
an issue of high importance. And the PD requires
annual round tables, which will be an important forum.
To evaluate progress uh, and evaluate whether EVs
can provide cost effective energy, at times of peak
demand. Through this investment in the infrastructure.
I appreciate the comments garnered on affordability
for this effort. I think the mid program evaluation
that the decision proposes. Uh, will provide an important
opportunity to evaluate and pivot, if necessary. I also
appreciate the uh, focus on workforce providing wage
requirements, compliance of labor standards. It really
shows a lot of leadership for other proceedings. And
overall again, thank you Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
for your leadership. In this transportation electrification
space. Over the years, you've mentioned the multiple
decisions, we have voted out. I think that um, your
wisdom and advising us going forward. On interconnection,
the energization of the grid, the distribution. And
these uh, for the future are important for us to pay
attention to. Overall, I think this PD is a fitting
capstone to your leadership, over the years on transportation
electrification. Thank you. I'm in support.
Thank you, Commissioner Shiroma. Um, with that I will
now ask for a motion on item 32.
Motion by Commissioner. Sorry, let me, let you go ahead.
I moved to approve item 32. Excellent. Okay, motion
by Commissioner Houck. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Shiroma.
Agenda Clerk, could you please call the roll. Commissioner
Houck? Yes. Commissioner Shiroma? Yes. Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
Yes. President Alice Reynolds? Yes. The vote
is 4-0. Item 32 passes. I am going to move to item
33, but I will give Commissioner Reynolds a moment to
rejoin us, and there he is. Good timing. Um, item 33
is management report on administrative actions and
consumer protection safety activities. There are no
reports today for item 33. So I am moving now to item
34. Item 34 is the new appointment to the Disadvantaged
Communities Advisory Group, and I'm turning to Commissioner
Houck to present this item.
Thank you, President Reynolds. So I am pleased to introduce
the nominee for our Disadvantaged Communities Advisory
Group Member. Um, the date tag was established under Senate
Bill 350, and is comprised of 11 members. Serving staggered
two year terms. The PUC and the CEC
Staff solicited applications for membership, to fill
a recently vacated seat. And reached consensus to advance
today's nominee. Um, the nominee we introduce today
is Sahara Lozano. And Sahara Lozano is based in Indio.
She is the Director of Programs for Alianza Coachella
Valley. A sustainability organization which focuses
on pollution, infrastructure, health care and youth
outreach. She has worked for Alianza since 2014,
when she graduated with Honors from UC-Santa Cruz.
Earning a degree in Environmental Studies. She is the
community appointed Co-chair of the California Natural
Resource Agency Salton Sea Management Program Community
Engagement Committee. And has previously served as a
Governor appointed board member of the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board. The City Council appointed
plan, she was a City council appointed Planning Commissioner,
for City of Coachella. An appointed member of the California
South Coast Air Quality Management District Environmental
Justice Advisory Group. Sahara's broad experience
will be an excellent addition to the day tag. And I
hope you will join me in supporting her nomination.
Thank you, Commissioner Houck. Would any Commissioners
like to make comments on this appointment?
Okay, I will move to a motion. Um and ask for a
motion on item 34. So moved. Motion by Commissioner Rechtschaffen.
Do we have a second?
I'm pleased to second, thank you. Second by Commissioner
Shiroma. Agenda Clerk, could you please call the roll.
Commissioner John Reynolds? Yes. Commissioner Houck?
Yes. Commissioner Shiroma? Yes. Commissioner Rechtschaffen? Yes.
President Alice Reynolds? Yes. The vote is 5-0. Item 34
passes. Now moving to Commissioner report. Um, the Commissioner
reports of uh, (inaudible) next. Who would like to go first with
their
Commissioner Shiroma?
Okay, thank you. I have several reports. Uh, first of
all, a report that I attended the recent symposium.
It was held in Sacramento, on November 9th and 10th.
The California ISO is charged with ensuring faith and
reliable transportation, electricity and the power
grid. They are a (inaudible) agency. The symposium brought together
uh, I think the prediction was 800 or the 800 people,
attending the symposium. It was really impressive.
Uh, this being their first, since the stay at home and
pandemic requirements. Uh, it brought together Energy
Professional, Leaders, Policy makers in the Western States,
that come across the US. Speakers included Jennifer
Graham, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy. (inaudible)
was Elliot Mainzer, President and CEO of the California ISO.
Uh, did quite a bit of moderating. There was a really
about really particularly excellent panel of CEO, uh
CEOs, in a roundtable of leadership across the Western
States. It's very insightful to hear the discussion
of the ISO extended day ahead market proposal, known
as EDAM. And hear perspectives on regional coordination
collaboration governance. You know, all geared towards
maximizing cost savings for electricity customers.
You also would like to share that, uh there was a recent
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
annual meeting. Uh, and at those meetings, there are
regional meetings of various conferences. Uh, I happen
to be President of the new Western Conference
of Public Service Commissioners. It's comprised of the
11 Western states. I'm pleased to report that the Western
Conference regional meeting adopted a first time charter.
For the Committee on Regional Electric Power Corporation,
or CREPC. CREPC was formed more than 20 years ago,
as a joint committee of the Western Conference Commissioners.
And the Western Interstate Energy Board or WIEB. WIEB
is made up of Representatives from State Energy uh,
and Governor's offices, such as the Energy Commission.
Prep C was formed as a collaboration between Western
regulators and energy office officials. The charter
advances regulatory collaboration needed across the
west. Address electric power systems challenges and
opportunities. And I want to thank Commissioner Houck for representing
California at the meeting. Uh and then next week, not
next week. The week after that, that's what Thanksgiving. That
we um, will have a workshop on November 29. On the uh,
water acquisitions and consolidations we're making.
It will be hosted by the Water Division. Uh, it'll go
from 9 am to 4pm. It's the first workshop
of several for this proceeding. Uh and it is in line
with goal three of our environmental, social justice
action plan. To improve access to high quality water
service for ESJ communities. This workshop will
focus on inadequately operated and maintained water
systems throughout California. Uh, looking at, are there
some opportunities for the publicly owned utilities.
To be consolidated with our regulated utilities. We
hope to gain some insight on uh, efforts in disadvantaged
communities. Whether additional or alternative incentives
are needed to support acquisition, living systems. And
how can we expedite such acquisitions. Information on
the workshop will be in the daily calendar. And then
finally, uh our Low-Income Oversight Board, will be hosting
the subcommittee on low-income energy assistance programs.
On November 30, that will be from 10 to 12 pm. The
investor owned utilities will share information, respond
to inquiries, regarding the upcoming 2023 Energy Savings
Assistance Program. And that is the weatherization program,
which is free of charge to the qualified homeowners.
All are welcome to attend. There'll be more details.
But also to share that, (inaudible) oversight board
receives quarterly reports from the IOUs. On the
low-income discount preference for energy bills, the
program on weatherization, um, and also on the medical
baseline program. And today, we voted out a decision
uses reenrollment for medical baseline customers.
The low-income oversight board will receive updates going
forward. On how that new effort uh, will be working.
Thank you. And back to you, President Reynolds. Thank
you, Commissioner Shiroma. Commissioner Reynolds?
Thank you, President Reynolds. I have a couple of reports
today. First, I want to highlight item 5, from our
content agenda today. Which is a decision approving
the final step, in the long process to enable the voluntary
allocation market offer, known as VAMO. Which will share out the value
from the investor owned utilities renewable portfolios.
With other load serving entities like CCAs.
This is an important decision and process that was
really hot potatoed into the (inaudible) proceeding. And then
Commissioner Rechtschaffen's final year no less. And
the whole team seems to really effortlessly expand. To make
this happen, along with everything else they've had
going on in the docket. Which, which I understand is
a lot. Um, as the assigned Commissioner for the
PCIA proceeding and for the utility power costs
proceedings, also the era proceedings. Which linked
to the VAMO (inaudible) outcomes. I really appreciate the
timely efforts to deliver this decision. So I really
want to offer my kudos to ALJ Locken Paul, Cheryl Lee, Brandon
Gerstel, Dina Machan, and Nick Dahlberg. Teresa Buckley
and the Legal Division. And so many others, who have
supported all these efforts to make VAMO possible.
And of course, to Commissioner Rechtschaffen, and his
team, for taking this on and delivering. Um, as a second
report, I would also like to share a Staffing update.
I'm excited to share that, starting next week,
Jake McDermott, will be joining my office as an Advisor.
He comes to my office from the Public Advocate's Office.
Where he spent a few years working on a variety of
topics, including rate design, DER markets and policy,
offshore wind, and climate policy. Prior to joining
the Commission, Jake worked at a variety of energy
related organizations, including a Boston based consultancy,
an energy efficiency nonprofit, and an EV charging
provider. Jake holds Graduate degrees in Public Policy
and Engineering from the University of California, and
an Undergraduate degree in Political Science from the
University of Massachusetts. I also want to offer my
thanks to Public Advisers, Public Advocates Director
Matt Baker and Supervisor Karen Haida, for their collaboration
to support Jake joining my office. That ends my report
for this week. Thank you, President Reynolds. Thank you,
Commissioner Reynolds.
Commissioner Houck.
Uh thank you, President Reynolds. Um for my report, I
want to note that I also attended that Cal ISO symposium.
And I thought the Cal ISO did an excellent job. There was
tremendous turnout folks from all over the West. It
was a great opportunity to meet and um, engage with
our fellow Commissioners from other States. As well
as, Commissioner Shiroma mentioned industry folks. Um, there
was a great PUC presence there. Many of our Staff were
there and I think they benefited from the great lineup
that, that was provided at the symposium. So um, wanted
to acknowledge that event. And um, I also attended my
first uh, for (inaudible) Task Force, as a Task Force member. Um,
September, I stepped into the role that former, the
role that Commissioner Rechtschaffen, had formerly had. And
um, this was a great experience. It was a great discussion.
Um, I got to engage with um, 9 of our other um,
fellow Commissioners from across the country. That um,
sit on the NARUC representation for the N10, and the
5 FERC Commissioners. The topic for the task force um,
event was addressing regulatory gaps and challenges,
and oversight of transmission development. Because
we're all really aware, that the increasing cost of
transmission. Has um, seriously impacted affordability.
And it's an issue, that I think all of the Commissions
across the country are grappling with. And at the meeting,
we discussed um, what gaps and challenges there are.
And oversight and um, cost containment issues. We talked
about potential solutions. Um, one of which is the potential
for looking at independent transmission monitors. And
what the scope roles and responsibilities of that independent
transmission monitor, maybe. There was a wide range
of topics, positions. On um one whether um, an independent
transmission monitor was needed or not? What kind of
flexibility there would need to be across either um,
RTOs, ISOs, or individual states? Um,
it was a robust discussion, a lot of information exchanged.
We also talked about FERC formula rates, and um prudence
review for those formula rates. Uh, Commissioner Christie
um, referenced several times. Um, he put out there to
the Commissioners. Um, whether FERC should consider
having some sort of a process. Where States have to
basically verify or validate, that there is a robust
review at the State level. Um for these local life projects,
before FERC would apply formula rates. So that was
a very interesting discussion. That, that we're gonna
be continuing. And one that um that, you know, I wanted
to take back to all of you. As something that was put
on the table that, that's being looked at. And um, can
address and have further information about that. We
um, also talked about other potential options. In regards
to some of these lower risk projects or self approved
projects. That um, one of the proposals was um, looking
at a possible lower ROE, for some of these lower
risk projects, and how that might work. So again, it
was a robust discussion. Um, a lot of information exchanged,
and I look forward to continuing to participate on
the task force. And um, continuing with those discussions.
Um, I also wanted to note, we had our loan loss reserve
workshop on November 8th. And there was some good turnout.
Um, and we're hoping to receive um, comments on that.
So if anyone wants to provide uh, public comments or
comments on the proposal that's out there, please do.
We look forward to having those comments. And then
yesterday um, I presented at um, a School to Home event.
That was sponsored by the California Emerging Technology
Fund. To highlight the work that we have been doing
here at the Commission. On broadband and to talk to
some of our, our local partners that have been working
with us. On hoping to eliminate the digital divide.
There was a good turn out there. And um, they seem very
appreciative of all the work that the Commission is
doing. Um and I think that is the last item, that I
have um, for my report. Great. Thank you, Commissioner
Houck. Commissioner Rechtschaffen?
First I wanna, I wanna say to Commissioner Reynolds.
Thank you very much for your kind words, about the VAMO
decision. It is a very important decision. And it's
I thought it was significant, and necessary for us to
try to get that out sooner, rather than later. Uh, I
appreciate you thanking everybody. Which I didn't get
a chance to do. Judge Lockenhop, did heroic work to
get it done. And I also want to thank my longtime Adviser,
Sandy Goldberg, who worked on this most of the year.
And then in particular Sean Simon, my Chief of Staff.
Who pulled a rabbit from a hat to get this through
on today's agenda. Actually, this is going to be a
theme the next couple, few meetings. About Sean pulling
a rabbit out of the hat. He pulled, he had many, he
has many hands. He's been pulling rabbits out of hats,
all the past few weeks and months. Uh, I wanted to talk
about uh, last week I had the great privilege to be
part of the California Delegation to the Conference
of Parties, the International Climate Conference in
Egypt. Along with President Reynolds and Energy Director.
(inaudible) and also my uh, Sean Simon was able to come as
well. We also had other Representatives from the Administration,
including Commissioner Gunda from the Energy Commission.
Folks from the California Transportation Agency, the
Air Resources Board, and the Department of Food and
Agriculture. The fact that we had a broad delegation,
is reflective of how important California is, at these
events. And how much of a climate leader we are. It
was a very exciting event. Many interesting and worthwhile
panels and talks. We got to hear President Biden speak.
I'm very grateful for that. He was able to proudly
proclaim that the U.S. is honoring its commitment to
the 2015 Paris accord. And that because of the Inflation
Reduction Act, we're on track to meet those uh, commitments.
There was a very strong focus and it's still going
on as the conference is still going on, right now. On
loss and damage. And the concept here, is developed nations
have cosmos of the climate change. But developed the,
developing world is going to bear the brunt of the
consequences. And uh, they had very little role in causing
this damage. What is the appropriate role for developing
countries like the US? To provide compensation, for those
other nations? It was introduced for the first time
on the formal agenda at this meeting. There's a lot
of details about what it means in practice. I don't
think there any agreements reached yet, about how
much compensation to provide. But that's a critical
theme. I think it's going to continue to be a critical
theme. California received a lot of, and I think it's
well deserved love and attention, for leading climate
policies. I was on various panels talking about our
decarbonization policies. We also met with other sub
national entities, leading sub national entities from
around the world. Who want a greater voice for us, provinces
states, cities in the climate negotiations process,
if possible. Um, and we met with other people, who were
very interested in California's policy. Such as offshore
wind developers from other countries, who wanted to
tell us about um, their experiences and learn of, of
of what we're doing here in California. And expressed
their interest in that, in that with some California
stakeholders. There was a delegation from the Yurok
Tribe, that we had an excellent meeting with. So it's
a very valuable experience. And I again, I'm very grateful
that I was able to be part of that. That's it for
me.
Thank you, Commissioner Rechtschaffen. And um, I have a couple
of things to report um. First, just to add to your comments.
On um, the trip to the 27th Conference of the Parties.
Um, I really share your thoughts on the Conference, Commissioner
Rechtschaffen and it was a privilege and honor to interact
with climate leaders from all over the world. And as
you noted. Um, it was really clear that the World looks
to California, for our experiences, and our implementation
and determination, to achieve climate goals. And there
was um, in addition to the emphasis that, that Commissioner
Rechtschaffen noted. There was also an emphasis on
this um, in this conference on implementation. Really
moving beyond goals. And ambition to action and thinking
about implementation and achieving goals. Um, it was
notable, that we had 3 members of the 5 member
California delegation from energy agencies. Which I
think reflects the importance of the energy transition.
And our electrification efforts, as well as, the progress
we have made in the energy sector and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. Um, I was able to share lessons learned
in California, and plans for the future. Um, through participation
and panels, some of the ones that Commissioner Rechtschaffen,
often mentioned, and others. And I really, you know,
found a chance to bring home from the conference, a
lot of that energy that was there. And a lot of excitement
and resolve to do more here at the Commission, and in
California. Um a couple of other updates. I am really
excited to report two new Advisors, that I have. Uh, Drew
Hodel and Jamie Gannon are joining my office. Um, a
little bit about their background. Jamie has been with
the CPUC since 2009. Spending a majority of her time
as a Senior Policy Analyst in the Resource Adequacy
and Procurement Oversight Section of the Energy Division.
Since joining the Commission, she worked on uh, she
has worked on a broad range of policy issues related
to electric reliability, cost allocation, energy market
products and mechanisms, compliance and procurement.
Um, Jamie holds a B.A in International Business and
she earned a Master's degree in Economics, from San
Francisco State University. She also enjoys spending
time with her family, hiking, birding, traveling and
going on adventures. I also wanted to report that Drew
Hodel is joining my office as an advisor. He comes
from the Advocacy Section of the Legal Division. Where
he represents the Public Advocate's Office, and the
Consumer protection and Enforcement Division, focusing
on energy issues. He graduated from New York University
School of Law in 2012 and obtained a Master's in Environmental
Policy in 2017. Uh, Drew is a second generation Californian.
And he was drawn to the challenging issues faced by
the CPUC from childhood backpacking trips in the Sierra.
And observing the impacts of climate change firsthand.
He lives with his wife and 1 year old daughter in San Francisco.
And finally, I would like to take a moment to recognize
the retirement of Felix Robles. Who will be retiring after
more than 20 years of service at the CPUC.
And I think Felix is joining us here. Uh Felix, I see
you. Oh there you are, welcome. Thank you for joining
us. Um Felix, began his State career with the PUC, as
Public Utilities Regulatory Analyst III uh, in the
Energy Division handling Department of Water resources
energy contracts, general rate cases, and cost of capital
proceedings. In 2018, he moved to the Communications
Division becoming APARA 5, and working on critical
infrastructure issues, including the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act Project, and the uniform regulatory
framework. He led the Commission's work on communications.
General rate cases for small independent telephone
corporations. Operating in rural and high cost areas
of the State. Oversaw the Commission's administration
of high cost fund A and B programs, and led the Commission's
efforts in overseeing the reporting and Remittance
of user surcharges. Throughout his career, Felix distinguished
himself through his professional demeanor and thoroughness.
Earning the respect of those he worked with, via
CPUC Staff, consumer groups or utility staff. Felix
has been an invaluable asset to the Commission and
will be missed by those who worked with him. And I am
noting that Felix, it appears that you did pretty much
everything at the PUC, in various roles that you held. While
you were here. Um, Felix's plans for retirement
include spending more time with his family, carrying
on his favorite baseball and football teams and traveling.
Um, Felix, we do have a certificate for you. Um, I
believe that I don't know Christy (inaudible), is available to
show it virtually. If we were in person, we would present
it to you. Um, but we will be sending that to you
in the mail. So you'll be receiving that from us. Congratulations
on your retirement. We wish you all the best. Um, and
really appreciate all of your years of service, at the
PUC. Um, Felix if you, well first I'll turn to my
colleagues. And see if anyone wants to make remarks,
and then I'll give you a moment Felix. Commissioner
Houck? Just briefly, I just wanted to thank you Felix.
Like for all of his work and support on the first Telco
rate case I worked on. He really helped um, provide
support and um, just really enjoyed being able to work
with you. And appreciated um, your dedication and knowledge
in all areas that you've worked on. So thank you. Thank
you. And Commissioner Reynolds?
Thank you, President Reynolds. Felix, I've had a chance to work
with you. In a couple of different capacities over the
years. And I've always appreciated um, both your, your
depth of knowledge. And you're really wonderful, the
wonderful and collaborative demeanor. In working through
difficult issues and trying to reach the right the
right decisions and outcomes for the people of California.
Um, congratulations on your retirement. And um, I will
be sad not to have you continuing to work, on the
telephone company GRCs, but I do wish you the best.
Wonderful. Well, thank you for joining us, Felix. And
really our hearty congratulations on your retirement.
Thank you.
And um, that concludes my report. Um, and with that
that's the last item on our agenda. So this public
meeting is now adjourned. Thank you everyone.